2018-04-03 City Council - Full Agenda-2088Agenda
Edmonds City Council
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
APRIL 3, 2018, 7:00 PM
Edmonds City Council Agenda
April 3, 2018
Page 1
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
4. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of March 27, 2018
2. Approval of claim checks.
5. PRESENTATIONS
1. Cemetery Board Annual Report (10 min)
2. Update of Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Project (45 min)
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3-MINUTE LIMIT PER PERSON) - REGARDING MATTERS NOT LISTED ON
THE AGENDA AS CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OR AS PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. PUBLIC HEARING
1. Public Hearing on Planning Board recommendation to amend ECDC 23.40.220(C)(8): Allowed
Activities (20 min)
8. STUDY ITEMS
1. Presentation of Five Corners Update Feasibility and Planning Board Recommendation (20 min)
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
11. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW
42.30.110(1)(I).
12. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE
SESSION.
ADJOURN
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/3/2018
Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of March 27, 2018
Staff Lead: Scott Passey
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
N/A
Attachments:
03-27-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes
4.1
Packet Pg. 2
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 27, 2018
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
March 27, 2018
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Michael Nelson, Council President
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember *
* participated by phone
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Noal Leonetti, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Scott James, Finance Director
Mary Ann Hardie, HR Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of
Councilmember Mesaros. (Councilmember Fraley-Monillas participated by phone.)
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. PRESENTATIONS
1. ANNUAL REPORT - SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY FIRE AND RESCUE
Fire Chief Bruce Stedman referred to the annual report that was distributed to Councilmember, commenting
Edmonds was the first to see the new South Snohomish County Fire EMS emblem. He reviewed:
2017: A year of change
o Regional fire authority
Established October 1, 2017 after being approved in August by voters in Lynnwood and
Fire District 1.
Combines Fire District 1 and the Lynnwood Fire Department.
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 3 Attachment: 03-27-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 27, 2018
Page 2
City of Edmonds contract with Fire District 1 automatically transferred to the regional fire
authority.
Creates a brand new fire department to serve all of southwest Snohomish
o Map of South County Fire areas (Brier Mountlake Terrace Edmonds Lynnwood and
unincorporated areas)
Regional fire and EMS delivery system
Builds on a legacy of automatic aid and fire service partnerships
o Leadership
New Fire Chief started October 1, 2017, the first day of the regional fire authority.
Board of Fire Commissioners:
- Five elected Fire District 1 Commissioners
- Two appointed Commissioners from the Lynnwood City Council
o Priority One: Defining our culture
Enhance the lives of the community
- Core values
Integrity
Humility
Compassion
Family
Trust
o Edmonds contract changes
New deployment implemented February 2017
- All 3 stations staffed by a crew of 3 firefighters including at least 1 paramedic to cross-
staff fire apparatus and medic unit.
- Changed staffing level at Station 17:
2016: 1 dedicated medic unit with 2 firefighter/paramedics; engine and aid car
cross-staffed by 3 firefighter/EMTs
2017: engine and medic unit cross-staffed by 1 captain, 1 firefighter/EMT and 1
firefighter/paramedic
New contract compliance measures
Chief Stedman continued his presentation:
Emergency Medical Services
o 85 percent of calls are dispatched as EMS
o All firefighters are emergency medical technicians or paramedics
o Nationally recognized for excellence and innovation
Community paramedic services
o Verdant grant funding
o Health & social care early warning system
Edmonds is the highest utilizer with 108 in the program
o Breakdown barriers and create access to care
Visits, emails, calls, texts = 518
o Indicators: Reduced 911 and hospital use
For Edmonds citizens in the program:
- 40% reduction in 911 calls
- 40% reduction in emergency department visits
o Who is served:
Senior citizens
Mental health
Disabled citizens
Homeless
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 4 Attachment: 03-27-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 27, 2018
Page 3
Veterans
Reinventing first aid
o Time to ACT: Aligning first aid with threats to today’s citizens
o Antidote:
Administer opiate antidote every 45 hours (16 in Edmonds)
Lead the fire/EMS County Opiate Task Force
Opiate follow-up specialist
Surveillance trigger
o CPR
Every second counts, every person counts
Heart of Edmonds 500 Challenge
o Tourniquet
Scenes of violence
Active shooter event
Disaster preparedness
o ReadyFest Open House at Station 17 attended by more than 100 people
o Neighborhood Ambassador workshops: 120 people trained
o Community Emergency Response Team
o ReadyTogether online videos and weekly tips
Fire Prevention: incidents and investigations
o 8 incidents in Edmonds
Total loss 2017: $1,775,000
Total loss 2016: $462,500
o Inspections
New Business: 234
Re-inspections: 223
Annual Inspections: 1,206
o Permits
Residential fire sprinklers: 43
Special Events, tank removal and operational permits: 90
Construction permit inspection: 565
o Major Projects: 305 hours of construction plan review
Building 10
Magic Toyota
Lynnwood Mazda
Westgate Multi-use
Madrona Elementary
R2 Fire Alarm Project
Prevention Education
o Smoke alarm assistance
Installed more than 125 smoke alarms in Edmonds in 2017
Smoke Alarm Saturday in partnership with Red Cross at Richmar Condos
o Child car seat checks
o Bike helmets at all fire stations
o Falls prevention education
o School programs and station tours
Community involvement
o Easter egg hunt
o Edmonds Waterfront Festival
o 4th of July Parade
o Waterball
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: 03-27-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 27, 2018
Page 4
o Taste of Edmonds
o Night Out with Edmonds Police Department
o Tree lighting and Santa delivery
o Edmonds 500 Challenge
o EMS Week open house and Teddy Bear Clinic at Station 17
o Neighborhood Night Open House at Station 17 – April 12
Regional Training
o Working with other county departments to regionalize training
o Two major initiatives:
Recruit Training Academy – Started March 19.
Snohomish County Training Consortium
o Sharing instructors and expertise
o Reduce duplicated efforts
o Breaking down borders with neighboring fire agencies will allow us to work together more
effectively on mutual aid incidents
Assistant Chief of Operations Doug Dahl presented emergency response in Edmonds, 2017 by the numbers
(contract required metrics):
How many calls?
Year 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Total incidents in Edmonds 4,804 4,718 5,291 5,294 5,213
What type of calls
o 85% of calls are dispatched as emergency medical aid
ALS: 28.51%
BLS: 57.01%
o Structure Fire: 0.59%
o Fire Other: 10.63%
o Other: 3.2%
Where are the calls?
o Map of Edmonds and Esperance
Hot spots - high concentration of calls near hospital and downtown
Response Times
o Looks at 8 minutes response time in four categories
o Measures from time of 911 call to arrival
o Comparison of data for 2016 and 2017
o Response times are getting longer
o Percentage of calls with a response time of 8 minutes or less
Year Total Response
Time BLS ALS Fire
2016 82.14% 81.25% 88.18% 65.34%
2017 7.99% 79.78% 86.13% 63.27%
o Response time achieved on 90% of calls by category
Year Total Response
Time BLS ALS Fire
2016 08:53 09:01 08:14 09:57
2017 09:13 09:11 08:26 10:25
o Response times: first paramedic arrival (2 paramedics in 2016 and 1 paramedic in 2017)
Percentage of calls within 8 minutes or less
2016: 54.46%
2017: 81.56%
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: 03-27-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 27, 2018
Page 5
Response time on 90 percent of calls in this category
2016: 13:19
2017: 09:14
This is a predictable outcome of deploying one paramedic at each Edmonds fire station
Turnout time
o Measures the time from when 911 call is dispatched to the time the apparatus leaves the station
o Standard in the contract is different from the standard in the 1756 compliance report: 2:15 vs.
2:45
o Turnout time percentage at 2:15
2016: 80.86%
2017: 76.20%
o 90% turnout time
2016: 02:36
2017: 02:46
o First watch: Live response time compliance
New program that provides real time, live data and notifies admin if turnout time is not
achieved
Neighboring Unit Utilization Factor
o What it evaluates: Response of units across jurisdictional boundaries.
o What the numbers mean:
100% = an equal balance of cross-jurisdictional response.
Contract considers 90%-110% to be within balance range.
Over 100% = units from neighboring jurisdictions are responding into Edmonds more than
Edmonds units are responding outside the city.
o Why does this matter?
We have a regional emergency delivery system.
This evaluates if level of service decisions in one jurisdiction negatively impact a
neighboring jurisdiction.
o Mountlake Terrace:
2016: 147.2%
2017: 135.3%
Fire and medic units from Mountlake Terrace Fire Station 19 were responding into
Edmonds 35% more than Edmonds station units are responding into Mountlake Terrace
o Lynnwood
2016: 199.2%
2017: 148.3%
Fire and medic units from Lynnwood fire stations were responding into Edmonds 48%
more than Edmonds station units are responding into Lynnwood.
Unit Hour Utilization Factor
o What it evaluates: Percentage of time a fire unit is on a call.
o What the numbers mean: The higher the number, the busier the unit is.
Unit Hour Utilization Factor is up for Edmonds stations, but within compliance with
contract standards.
This number is up at all Edmonds fire stations.
20% is the trigger to start looking at deployment options and additional resources
o Unit Hour Utilization
Year Station 16 Station 17 Station 20
2016 9.90% 13.20% 13.50%
2017 15.10% 14.60% 16.30%
Transport balancing factor
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: 03-27-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 27, 2018
Page 6
Q2 Q3 Q4
Edmonds transports not in the city 52 63 112
District transports in the city 41 33 91
TBF 0.79 0.52 0.81
o These numbers show Edmonds units are doing more out-of-city transports than out-of-city units
are doing in Edmonds.
o A factor of 1.0 means = in balance.
o The difference is not large: 11 patients in Q2, 31 in Q3 and 20 in Q4.
o Note: The regional fire authority was formed Oct. 1, 2017, so Q4 includes the City of
Lynnwood and responding units from Lynnwood fire stations.
Other required metrics
o Transport fees billed and collected in Edmonds and Esperance
Transport Fees Edmonds 2016 2017
Billed $1,980,534.48 $2,095,695.08
Collected $862,360.15 $781,506.06
Transports Fees Esperance 2016 2017
Billed $109,901.20 $100.893.80
Collected $48,5987.37 $44,978.25
o Edmonds units into Woodway (measured in seconds)
2016: 2,220
2017: 9,738
Standards of Cover Compliance (SB 1756 report)
Standard 2016 2017
Turnout time in standards of cover 2:45 2:36 2:46
Turnout time in contract 2:15 2:36 2:46
First arriving engine company to a fire 6:30 6:17 7:19
Full fire alarm assignment at residential fire 7:45 8:43 18:06
Full first alarm assignment at commercial fire 9:00 11:24 11:55
BLS response 5:15 5:57 6:13
ALS (2 paramedic) response 6:45 7:11 7:51
Council President Nelson referred to the first paramedic arrival response time, clarifying this compares a
two paramedic response time in 2016 to a one paramedic response time in 2017. Chief Stedman agreed.
Council President Nelson asked if any other fire department used one paramedic response as a standard for
ALS response. Chief Stedman answered not that he was aware of. Council President Nelson noted there
was no comparison to a two paramedic response time.
Council President Nelson pointed out all medical and fire response times were longer in 2017 compared to
2017. He referred to a March 30, 2018 Fire Commission meeting that he watched where Assistant Chief
Dahl indicated in October 2017 it was apparent Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood BLS units were
responding to Edmonds more than Edmonds units were responding to those cities which was impacting the
neighboring unit utilization number in Edmonds’ contract. To help address that, a deal was struck, not in
the contract or written down anywhere, whereby an Edmonds unit would respond before another Mountlake
Terrace or Lynnwood unit.
Assistant Chief Dahl explained the contract states if responses are out outside the parameters, consideration
will be given to remedial ways to fix it. At the time, the City’s team including Acting Fire Chief Reading
decided to adjust BLS only calls, back when there was a Station 16 and Station 17 jurisdictional boundary,
if a BLS was within Station 16 jurisdictional boundary, it would send a Station 16 unit if it was available
regardless if a neighboring agency was closer. That was done during a trial period and this week returned
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: 03-27-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 27, 2018
Page 7
to dispatching the closest unit at Chief Stedman’s direction who was unaware of the trail until recently.
There was some improvement in the numbers as a result of that trial but SSCFR wants to continue working
with the Edmonds team. Council President Nelson clarified if his neighbor’s son his broke arm, an Edmonds
unit that was further away would be dispatched even if a Mountlake Terrace was closer and available.
Assistant Chief Dahl agreed that was done during the trial period.
Councilmember Teitzel commented Edmonds will soon have taller building including an approximately
50-foot tall building at 100th & SR 104 near Bartell Drugs and the plans to reinvigorate Highway 99 may
result in buildings up to 70 feet tall. He asked if the three stations in Edmonds have fire apparatus to reach
those heights. Chief Stedman answered not in the three Edmonds stations; however, SSCFR is aware of the
vertical growth in its response area and is looking at different standard operating procedures to reach a fire
in high rise and mid-rise buildings.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas requested a hard copy of the PowerPoint presentation via email and the
turnout times for the last five years. Assistant Chief Dahl agreed to provide both. Councilmember Fraley-
Monillas relayed her intent to do a comparison, as there could be some anomalies in prior years.
Councilmember Tibbott commented he and ten other Edmonds citizens that he invited completed the CERT
training this year. The training was a great experience and he encouraged others to take it. Chief Stedman
advised the ACT Now first aid training is being added to CERT. Councilmember Tibbott said he was
intrigued with the map of calls and the hot spots on Highway 99 near the hospital and downtown. Observing
Edmonds’ stations are not the closest to the hospital, he asked how often Mountlake Terrace or Lynnwood
are dispatched to the hot spots on Highway 99. Chief Stedman said that information could be provided.
Councilmember Tibbott expressed interest in capital improvements to aid response times such station
locations and/or types of aid vehicles. Chief Stedman responded there have been discussions about
deploying a peak activity unit near the hospital and ways to fund it such as via a partnership. A consultant
is current looking at all the stations in their response area to determine if they are in the right locations. To
the earlier question regarding high rises, studies indicate getting EMS to a victim on the 15 floor of a high
rise adds 3 minutes to the response time. He noted response times are impacted by population growth,
traffic, etc.
Councilmember Tibbott commented twice this week he has seen an EMS unit headed down the hill from
Station 16 to downtown. He asked how many paramedics are needed for an adequate response noting with
all three units cross-trained, all have more than one paramedic on a truck. Assistant Chief Dahl clarified
each Edmonds station has one paramedic in addition to EMTs. Councilmember Tibbott concluded an EMT
was not the same level of response as a paramedic. He asked what type of incident required two paramedics.
Assistant Chief Dahl answered any serious event, cardiac, ALS care, etc. is dictated to have two paramedics.
He said the reason the unit is coming down the hill is to provide a second medic. Councilmember Tibbott
summarized he was very interested in capital improvements.
Councilmember Johnson commented after listening to numerous presentations over the years, there seems
to be a struggle with turnout time. Having had recent experience with both the fire department and
paramedics, she asked if gearing up was a significant factor in turnout time. Chief Stedman answered
gearing up delays response time somewhat. He was not comfortable with a 2:45 turnout time and assured
that would be fixed. The First Watch program will help with that. He anticipated the turnout time would be
2:30 depending on the station and if a unit exceeds that time, admin will be notified immediately, and the
battalion chief can talk to the crew to find out why.
Assistant Chief Dahl said a consultant visited each station to evaluate the location of doors, etc.; a firefighter
was assigned to work with the consultant for a week and an extensive study was done based on where
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: 03-27-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 27, 2018
Page 8
personnel were in the station when a call was received. Different stations have different layouts including
one 2-story station which takes personnel longer at night. That study showed 2:35 was what the standard
should be. Councilmember Johnson commented it would be badge of honor to meet that turnout time.
Councilmember Johnson observed Snohomish County is working on the opioid crisis at a county level; the
City plans to study it at the city level and she would welcome any insights they could share. Chief Stedman
said he was not prepared to provide any insights tonight; EMS Chief Maxwell participates on the county
board. He anticipated the opioid crisis will continue to hit the county harder and harder, agencies must be
prepared for it to get worse before gets better. Councilmember Johnson agreed there was a lot to learn.
Council President Nelson asked if a peak activity unit would have two paramedics. Chief Stedman answered
it was typically two EMTs that do BLS transports; at times the unit does have one paramedic.
Mayor Earling referred to the map illustrating the location of calls and the hot spots and asked for
clarification of what constituted a call. Assistant Chief Dahl answered it was a call that personnel were
dispatched to.
Chief Stedman invited Councilmembers to visit their headquarters and he would provide a personal tour of
the facility and the training center. He concluded they are Edmonds’ fire department and they would like
to have all the elected see what they are investing in.
Fire Commission Chair Jim Kenny and Deputy Chief Robert Eastman were also present.
2. ANNUAL REPORT FROM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Economic Development/Community Services Director Patrick Doherty introduced this item, recalling it
has been two years since the Council implemented the new Economic Development Commission (EDC).
The new EDC held their first meeting on March 30, 2016. The code requires the EDC provide an annual
report during the first quarter.
EDC Chair Jamie Reece provided a summary of the 2018 EDC Annual Report. In the past year, the EDC
built on the first year of the renewed commission where they considered the most beneficial elements of a
new Civic Field for downtown vitality, downtown parking, the Highway 99 Corridor Subarea Plan, and
downtown pedestrian signage. In the 2017-18 cycle the EDC continued to monitor these issues, while
focusing on 6 other key initiatives:
Development Feasibility - considering various obstacles to effective development throughout
Edmonds which could bring more diverse and vibrant shopping, working and living opportunities.
This includes the EDC’s brief memo supporting the discussion and consideration of a revision of
the requirement for a minimum 15’ first floor height in the BD1 zone. After considerable research,
input and discussion, the EDC found the current code may be stalling continued enhancement of,
and in-fill development in, our otherwise vibrant downtown. The EDC also recommended engaging
consultants to study the redevelopment feasibility of the Five Corners commercial district, which
has been completed and the resulting report is working its way to City Council at this time.
Highway 99 Redevelopment - continued support for significant redevelopment of the Highway
99 and adjacent zones through public forums and gatherings, as well as letters of support for various
initiatives being undertaken by the city. The Commission is hopeful the new policies and changes
will spark interest in a significant project in the near future which will kick off a wave of
redevelopment throughout the corridor which will bring housing, shopping and work opportunities
with excellent access to transit as well as the parks, beaches and cultural opportunities throughout
our town. The EDC cohosted a Highway 99 Corridor Redevelopment Forum last Fall after Council
approval of the Subarea Plan.
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: 03-27-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 27, 2018
Page 9
Civic Facilities – the Commission’s discussions of Highway 99 spurred conversation about the
potential benefits of potentially locating some city facilities along the Highway 99 corridor. We
believe this would show support for renewal of this area, while providing easier access to services
for many citizens, and greater access to transit city staff in addition to many other benefits for the
economics and operations of our city government.
Arts & Culture - arts and culture are a major economic driver for our city attracting tourists,
citizens and companies, and we are working to support the further development of our arts
community. We are working to provide support for Edmonds becoming one of Washington’s first
Creative Districts, and are a considering the initial recommendations stemming from the Economic
Impact Study of Arts & Culture.
Affordable Housing - affordable housing is an economic development issue, and we support the
city’s initiatives to explore and implement solutions to provide more diverse housing opportunities
for our citizens. We believe this makes for a better community with greater social and economic
diversity, as well as a community which will attract great companies and organizations who wish
for their partners to live near work and connect with their local community. We are working the
Mayor’s housing task force on this initiative and look forward to supporting implementation of
recommendations of the task force when released later this year.
Technology & Participation in Government - during the course of this year, we tackled a unique
challenge of how to accommodate EDC members wishing to strike a balance between their vibrant
careers demanding frequent travel and their desire to contribute to their community through local
government. A recommendation for a code amendment to allow “remote” participation within
necessary parameters was submitted to the Council and later approved for not only for the EDC but
for all City Boards and Commissions.
Chair Reece identified issues the EDC plans to discuss over the coming year:
Highway 99
Development Feasibility Issues
Civic Facilities
Five Corners Redevelopment
Arts & Culture
Tourism
Any other issues which may arise in the community or at the suggestion of consideration by the
Council or Mayor’s office.
He acknowledged the following:
Commissioners who have served during the past two years:
o Aseem Prakash
o Nicole Hughes
o Matthew Waldron
o Darrol Haug
o Mike Schindler
o Mary Monroe, Vice Chair
Commissioners leaving after the conclusion of their 2-year terms:
o George Bennett
o Stephen Clifton
Ex-officio liaison members and their occasional stand-ins during the year:
o Neil Tibbott & Adrienne Fraley-Monillas - Edmonds City Council
o Nathan Monroe & Phil Lovell - Planning Board
o Bruce Faires & Bob McChesney - Port of Edmonds
o Greg Urban - Edmonds Chamber of Commerce
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: 03-27-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 27, 2018
Page 10
Staff:
o Cindi Cruz
o Patrick Doherty
Chair Reece commented with the departure of George and Stephen, the coming year will bring fresh
perspectives to our Commission. It was his understanding numerous applications have been received and
the EDC looks forward to the Council’s appointments.
Councilmember Teitzel referred to the EDC’s recommendation to consider revising the 15-foot building
height in BD1 and asked if input had been solicited from building and/or business owners in the BD1 about
their preferences. Mr. Doherty answered during the background work the EDC did to prepare the memo,
the EDC and he have heard from property owners, developers and others. No additional work has been
done awaiting a decision by the Council whether to take up the issue. If the Council decides to take up the
issue, a great deal more lot more work will be done including gathering information from building and
business owners.
With regard to affordable housing, Councilmember Teitzel asked if the EDC had an opinion regarding the
need to revise the City’s accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or detached ADU policy. Chair Reece answered
the EDC’s initial memo regarding affordable housing reflected their support for making ADU and DADUs
more accessible to property owners.
Councilmember Tibbott inquired about the formation of a creative district, recalling the economic impact
of the arts study indicate arts are very important to the community and Edmonds is becoming known as an
arts destination. He asked what it meant to be a creative district and how that might impact economic
development. Chair Reece said there will be a limited number of creative districts in Washington. The initial
requirements have been increased and resources are being gathered to address them. Mr. Doherty explained
when the idea of a creative district was hatched in the legislature last year, many thought of course Edmonds
is a creative district due to its resources, walkability, etc. When the actual program was launched, the
requirements included a 5-year plan, a steering committee, staff, etc. He and Cultural & Culture Manager
Frances Chapin are developing a steering committee with diverse representation and hope to have 2-3
meetings by this summer to develop a 5-year plan and meet other requirements. If the City is granted that
designation, the immediate result is only bragging rights but there may be grants in the future grants or
grants may inquire whether there is a creative district. The goal is to complete the work by this summer
Councilmember Tibbott asked if there were any other benefits to that designation other than potential for
grants. Mr. Doherty answered bragging rights could include a sign on the highway saying drivers are
entering a Washington State designated creative district.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the EDC’s discussion of potentially moving City Hall to
Highway 99 and agreed that may be beneficial. She referred to the comment in the report that new members
will bring fresh perspective and asked if the EDC has found bringing in new members generated new ideas
and thought processes. Chair Reece answered he was one of a few members that were on the sunsetted
EDC. The new EDC included many new voices and energy; like all changes, some are positive and some
are not. For example, the smaller group does not provide as much diversity as the larger group, but the
smaller group is more productive. He likes fresh perspectives that challenge the status quo. Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas commented it was important to have new views and opinions as well as members who live
in different areas of the City.
Mr. Doherty said applications for the vacancies on the EDC are being accepted through the end of the week.
Mayor Earling and Council President Nelson have appointment authority for those two positions.
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: 03-27-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 27, 2018
Page 11
Councilmember Johnson commented there are two vacancies as well as three positions up for
reappointment. She asked if the Council would have an opportunity to consider whether they wanted to
reappoint those members. Mr. Doherty advised the EDC is comprised of direct appointees from each
Councilmember and two from the Mayor. Reappointments of the three members are at the pleasure of each
appointing authority and no Council confirmation is required.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked how reappointments are handled. Mr. Doherty answered three
commissioners whose first terms are ending have asked to be reappointed. The reappointment request will
be sent to the three appointing authorities; if they do not wish to reappoint the commissioner, it would
become an opening.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Darrol Haug, Edmonds, commented among other things, the Council’s job is to provide the best possible
service, at the lowest possible cost, consistent with sound financial management. Having served on several
boards and commissions, the most interesting the Levy Committee where he, along with Councilmember
Buckshnis, learned about the complex issues of city finances. Recent property tax bills are causing citizens
to question whether they are getting the most from our taxes. The City is not enjoying the same revenue
increases as other taxing entities and it is apparent Edmonds taxpayers are supporting many services outside
the City. He most often hears are we paying more than our fair share due to our higher property values and
how can we reduce costs? The City’s tax base has grown by 50% since 2014 from $6.1B to $9.1B. Those
on fixed income have not enjoyed similar increases in disposable income. Creating a sustainable budget
was identified as a very high priority by our citizens in the Strategic Action Plan. Council has done several
things that have helped with stainability. Fire services initially saved $2M by subcontracting to FD1.
Neighboring communities are considering a $1.50/thousand rate for fire services; for Edmonds that rate
would create a property tax of $13.7M for fire while the current contract is under $10M.
Mr. Haug relayed another upcoming cost is the SERS 911 radio system, the countywide cost is estimated
at $75M. If the City’s share is funded via property tax base the cost would be $6M but on a household basis
the cost would be $4M, leaving $2M savings for streets or other unfunded services. Library services are
another example of Edmonds taxpayers subsidizing others in Snohomish and Island counties. Edmonds
represents 5.8% of the population in the library district but pays 8.1% of the current tax, about $1.3M more
than our fair share. He urged the City to consider contracting for library services with Sno-Isle or another
library system to enjoy savings as Fire and SERS.
Ed Peterson, Edmonds, concurred with Mr. Haug’s comments. He commented this was the Council’s
chance to put a legacy on the City for a long time. He recommended establishing a standard policy on
county share of services with regard to how they do business with the City and deviating from that policy
requires submittal of a deviation request. The property tax Edmonds residents pay is not the fair share.
Peter Gibson, Edmonds, recalled speaking to the Council in December 2016 before the elimination of a
2-man unit Medic 17 was approved and using the Fitch & Associates Study, the elimination of multiple
resources. He does not represent South Snohomish County Fire & Rescue but works for a neighboring Fire
Department. He referred to Councilmember Tibbott’s question about the difference between an EMT and
a paramedic, commenting that should have been researched before eliminating Medic 17, a vital resource
to advanced life support. The elimination of that unit has resulted in a spiral in response times. The standard
in their study states the turnout times for a first alarm fire of 90% or more should be 2:45; the national
standard is 80 seconds. For BLS and ALS calls, the standard is 60 seconds. The response times reported
tonight are terrible; Edmonds citizens are paying a lot more and getting less. Not only was Medic 17
eliminated, a battalion chief and the ladder truck were also removed. None of the City’s resources can
currently reach a 3-story building; a 35-foot ladder does not go 35 feet into the air due to the requirement
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: 03-27-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 27, 2018
Page 12
for a safe climbing angle. He questioned how often Shoreline Fire responds to Edmonds. He urged the
Council to research this because lives are at stake. He questioned the practice of dispatching an Edmonds
unit even if a unit in another city is closer particularly for events such as a cardiac arrest.
6. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items
approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 20, 2018
2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 20, 2018
3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND
WIRE PAYMENTS.
4. EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES GRANT ANTICIPATION LOAN/BRIDGE LOAN
7. ACTION ITEMS
1. MARSH STUDY BUDGET VOTE
Council President Nelson relayed the consultant requested Tasks 2, 3 and 4 be included, tasks the Council
has discussed on numerous occasions but were not included in the first vote. There were also minor changes
made to the language in the agreement.
Councilmember Buckshnis advised the Council did not previously approve the scope or the budget,
recalling the Council had extended the timeline from 14 to 16 months.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON,
TO APPROVE THE AMENDED AGREEMENT WITH WINDWARD ENVIRONMENTAL.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A FUND FOR HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE
Council President Nelson relayed Finance Director Scott James’ request to establish a new fund, known as
the Edmonds Homelessness Response Fund, before any funds are allocated.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO
ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 1404, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE EDMONDS CITY CODE TO CREATE A NEW
HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE FUND AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL
BECOME EFFECTIVE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
3. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A FUND FOR OPIOID RESPONSE
Council President Nelson advised the reasoning was same as the above fund, however, creating a fund
known as the Edmonds Opioid Response Fund.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 1405, TO AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE EDMONDS CITY CODE TO CREATE A NEW
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: 03-27-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 27, 2018
Page 13
OPIOID RESPONSE FUND AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
4. APPROVAL OF OFFER LETTERS TO FILL VACANCIES IN TWO STAFF POSITIONS
Human Resources Director Mary Ann Hardie commented the current low unemployment rate has created
a very competitive hiring environment. The two vacancies are the Environmental Program Manager and
the Senior Construction Inspector. The two top candidates and finalists for those positions are previous City
employees. Ms. Rackleff was previously the Senior Construction Inspector and Mr. Lien was previously a
Senior Planner and now will be hired as the Environmental Program Manager.
She explained the Mayor has the authority to provide the offer which is within the pay grade of both
positions. Contingent offers have been made to the candidates; the only item in the offer that requires
Council approval is the vacation accrual. Per the competitive hiring process, the Mayor has the authority to
offer vacation comparable to their previous level, 21 days for Mr. Lien as a manager and Ms. Rackleff
would not accrue any additional days of vacation leave at this time. In addition, waive the requirement for
each candidate to wait until they have successfully completed their probation period to use and accrue
vacation leave. For Mr. Lien, this would be an additional 5 days of vacation due to his 9 years of service,
and as per the rate of accrual in the contract for Ms. Rackleff.
Councilmember Johnson requested Mr. Taraday clarify why the City Council was involved. Mr. Taraday
explained ECC Chapter 2.35.090.B, states in order to attract experienced personnel, the mayor may deviate
from the typical vacation accrual schedule or other benefits in the chapter and may communicate those
higher level of benefits in an offer level but when he does so, he must obtain ratification from the City
Council. He quoted from the code, “Such employment offers shall be ratified by the city council. In the
event such ratification is not granted, the individual shall retain those benefits only for the budget year in
which they are offered.” He summarized the Council’s role was to determine via ratification that those
benefits would continue throughout the term of employment. If the Council did not ratify, the vacation
accrual would only continue through the end of 2018 and in 2019 would revert to the accrual rate
commensurate with the amount of time the person has been employed.
Councilmember Johnson Lien commented in Mr. Lien’s case, by being promoted to a manager, he has an
increase in vacation leave. Mr. Taraday answered two different factors determine vacation accrual rates, 1)
the position, and 2) length of employment. One of the actions Mayor Earling took in the offer letter for the
purpose of years of service calculation was to essentially treat Mr. Lien as if he not left the City; he would
accrue vacation at the same rate as if he been employed the entire time. Mr. Lien was previously employed
for 9½ years; he would return accruing vacation at the rate of an 9½ year employee, not a brand-new
employee.
Councilmember Johnson reiterated Mr. Lien will have more vacation as manager than as a senior planner.
Mr. Taraday referred to Chapter 2.35.030.A which states, “Regular employees shall accrue the following
amount of vacation leave with pay based on the length of continuous service,” pointing out what was
affected was the length of continuous service. Per Section 2.35.030.A.3, if Mr. Lien was hired without the
alteration by the Mayor in the offer letter, after the first six months of continuous employment, he would
accrue 8 days of vacation. If his 9½ years of previous service are included, he would accrue 21 days of
vacation per year.
Mayor Earling pointed out the City Council previously approved this position and approved it as a manager.
Mr. Lien applied for the position and was selected.
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: 03-27-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 27, 2018
Page 14
Councilmember Teitzel was pleased with both candidates, finding them both highly qualified. He asked if
at any time in the past an employee had left and returned shortly with a promotion and was treated in this
manner with regard to vacation. Mr. Hardie answered not during her tenure at the Council but there have
been deviations in the policy proposed in the past so it is not unusual to offer a different accrual rate.
Councilmember Buckshnis said this had never been done in the nine years she has been on the Council;
either those deviations did not come to Council or it was before she was on Council. Ms. Hardie answered
she would need to research when it occurred but recalled there have been competitive positions under
different mayors and before she was a manager or director so the process may have been different. She
assured this has occurred in past.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she was trying not to personalize the position. She asked if the Council
would be setting a precedence by approving this and potentially some liability. She recalled a candidate
from another city who wanted to have the vacation accrual from a different city and that was declined. With
regard to the general question about precedent, Mr. Taraday said each situation is handled on a case-by-
case basis. The Council has the legislative discretion to ratify or not ratify in each situation so from that
perspective there is no legal precedent being set. These two candidates were not only past employees but
highly regarded past employees, so the Mayor used his authority, granted to him under the code, to extend
the offer letters. It is up to the Council to decide whether to ratify that decision. With regard to transferring
vacation from another city, his understanding is neither of these employees will begin with bank of vacation,
they will begin service at a higher accrual rate than they otherwise would be able to accrue but both will
start at zero days of vacation.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out when the employees left, they were paid out for their vacation, sick
leave, etc. The proposal is to deviate from the normal probationary accrual and fast track it. Mr. Taraday
assured there is no double dipping; the proposal was not to deposit vacation for which the employee was
paid when they left. Ms. Hardie said when the employees left, sick leave is paid out at a percentage; any
vacation they were paid for was vacation they had earned and not used.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she had strong feelings regarding this. One of reasons these
rules are in place was to prevent to employees from leaving to take another job, disliking that job and
returning to the City. She understood the employees not having a probationary period but giving the earlier
opportunity to accrue vacation at a higher rate is a benefit. While she was sorry the employees quit, decided
they didn’t like their new job and now want to return, that was not City’s problem. She felt this smacked of
unfair and inequitable treatment for any other employee who may terminate and want to return. She asked
the timeframe for an employee to return and keep their benefits. Ms. Hardie clarified both positions will
have a six-month probationary period.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how long these employees were gone. Ms. Hardie answered 90-120
days total. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the reason they were not returning at the same vacation
accrual rate was because the policy did not allow that. Ms. Hardie answered the code allows the Mayor to
offer a higher vacation accrual rate, but it is subject to Council approval. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas
observed this had never done before in Ms. Hardie’s awareness. She agreed with Councilmember
Buckshnis, other than the instance in Public Works, she never remembered doing this. She understood the
employees did not want to lose their vacation accrual rate, but they made that decision when they left. She
recalled at least one of them took a long time before deciding to leave including being offered another job
and an increase in salary. Now the person wants to return and one of their demands is to accrue vacation at
the previous rate. She pointed out vacation equals money.
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO
APPROVE THE OFFER LETTERS WITH THE TERMS SPECIFIED.
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: 03-27-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 27, 2018
Page 15
Councilmember Tibbott understood Councilmember Fraley-Monillas’ comments regarding equity to other
employees, but was willing to consider it on a case-by-case basis. In this instance, the positions are difficult
to fill and the proposal is to hire two people who know the jobs well. It is a tremendous benefit to the City
have both employees back, bringing their institutional knowledge, experience and previously established
relationships. One of the ways to honor their past and expected future contributions is to bring them back
with their previous vacation accrual rate.
Councilmember Johnson said she would be willing to support the offer within the City’s established rules
and regulations but did not support the motion because it seeks to work outside the City’s policies and
would have a demoralizing effect on current employees. If there was interest in changing the policy, she
preferred to look at it holistically. She did not support making a change on a case-by-case basis. She assured
it was not reflection on the individuals.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed it was not about the people, both do good work; it was about code.
If the intent was not to apply the code across the board, she questioned why have a code. The City has a
code for a reason, to protect against abuse. Working as a governmental employee for over 30 years, she
was aware of the importance of codes. She agreed with Councilmember Johnson if there was a desire to
change the code, that could be considered.
Council President Nelson asked whether the code provides the Council the ability to ratify the Mayor’s
offer. Mr. Taraday assured everything that is being proposed is consistent with the City code which
specifically authorizes the Mayor to make these types of offer letters that are outside the norm and the
purpose of this authorization is to permit the City to attract persons with experience at comparable public
agencies when the Mayor in his discretion believes it is necessary to attract such individuals to the City,
benefits may be authorized which place an individual at a higher level of benefits such as vacation accrual
than their hire date would otherwise indicate. He summarized this exact situation was contemplated by the
City code. That does not mean the Council has to ratify the decision but nothing in this proposal is contrary
to the City code.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION TIED (3-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON AND
COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL AND TIBBOTT VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS
JOHNSON, FRALEY-MONILLAS AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO.
Mr. Taraday advised this is not an ordinance or a resolution for the payment of money; therefore, Mayor
Earling can vote to break the tie.
MAYOR EARLING VOTED YES, AND THE MOTION CARRIED (4-3).
8. STUDY ITEMS
1. REVIEW OF PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION ON AMENDMENTS TO ECDC
23.40.220(C)(8): ALLOWED ACTIVITIES
Planning Manager Rob Chave relayed this is a recommendation from the Planning Board on an item
referred to them by Council committee in October 2017 for discussion and recommendation. A concern
arose with the cumulative 3-year threshold of 1500 square feet in the code for removing invasive species
without doing a critical area study. The concern was this could create barriers for non-profits and
community groups with limited funds who are providing a service. The Planning Board considered several
options that are described in the staff memo and developed the language in Section 23.40.220.C.8 for two
types of critical areas, wetlands and wildlife habitat conservation areas (steams). The new language is as
follows:
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: 03-27-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 27, 2018
Page 16
“For activities intended to protect or restore habitat in wetlands or fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas, vegetation removal under this section may exceed the 1,500 square foot limitation
if:
i. The activity is proposed and managed by a non-profit or other organization, approved by the
City, that has demonstrated expertise and experience in the restoration or invasive removal
activity; and,
ii. The project sponsor provides a specific proposal identifying the scope and location of the
project, provides for project supervision, and includes a monitoring and inspection schedule
acceptable to the City and approved by the appropriate City department.”
Mr. Chave summarized the intent was to ensure the restoration/protection activity was done properly and
make it as easy as possible for a group to do it. Basically, a group would need to show they have done this
type of project before, they have the experience, demonstrate how they will do it and identify the area. This
would apply not only to non-profits and community groups but also to the Parks Department such as for
marsh restoration. It does not apply in landslide hazard areas where there may be life safety issues. The
intent was to develop something specific but and make it easier do bonafide restoration activities. A public
hearing is scheduled on April 3, 2018.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented the 1500 square feet was arbitrarily decided. The vegetation
removal is for the purpose of habitat restoration. She recalled WRIA 8 vegetation removal on the Cedar
River and Snohomish River is much greater than 1500 square feet because it includes removal and
restoration. She recommended including language regarding the purpose of habitat restoration. Mr. Chave
said the section regarding allowed activities in the code requires it be done according to Best Management
Practices which typically require restoration. In some cases, restoration may not be required; for example,
if weeds are removed and sufficient natural vegetation remains. Councilmember Buckshnis said Earth Corp
reviewed this and suggested some of the language.
(Councilmember Fraley-Monillas discontinued participation by phone at 8:59 p.m.)
Councilmember Johnson was aware of two situations where this had been an issue in Edmonds, 1) removal
of Purple Loosestrife in the Marsh that cannot be removed quickly enough to halt infestation, and 2)
vegetation removal and replanting on the Holy Rosary site in the Shell Creek area. Mr. Chave said the 1500
square foot threshold in the existing code does not mean vegetation removal cannot be done, it just triggers
an additional level of study. In both situations Councilmember Johnson mentioned, under the proposed
amendments, as long as an agency demonstrates their experience, etc., it can approve without an additional
level of study.
Councilmember Teitzel asked whether staff’s decision would be affected if the area greater than 1500
square feet included both a wetland and a steep slope. Mr. Chave said under the proposed amendment,
removal could be granted for the portion outside the steep slope. A geotech report would be required for
removal on a steep slope.
9. REPORTS ON OUTSIDE BOARD & COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Councilmember Buckshnis reported WRIA 8 is working on their budget, legislative priorities, and a success
story on the Cedar River. She was hopeful WRIA 8 would make a presentation to Council.
Councilmember Tibbott reported the Economic Development Commission is studying whether there could
be higher/better use for existing civic facilities and potential for relocating some along Highway 99. They
do not have a specific recommendation yet. The Port of Edmonds is running well. Their water treatment
system that uses oyster shells is able to treat water flows at a very high level that exceeds what some other
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: 03-27-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 27, 2018
Page 17
marinas doing with more elaborate systems which speaks well for the system and the Port’s commitment
to environmental purity.
Councilmember Tibbott reported an AWC wellness seminar that he and approximately 350 others attended
at the Lynnwood Convention where they learned about practices that cities can put in place to benefit
employee wellness.
Council President Nelson reported he attended a SERS meeting; their leadership continues to meet with
City Councils as well as a subcommittee of the Snohomish County Council seeking approval of resolutions
in support of a new radio system. The Lodging Tax Advisory Committee met to review updates/changes to
the VisitEdmonds.com website. The Snohomish County Tourism Bureau changed their slogan to, “Come
visit Seattle’s back country” which the LTAC did not feel was appropriate and they plan to contact the
Bureau about it. Mayor Earl agreed, advising the City had contacted the Bureau about that slogan.
Councilmember Teitzel reported:
Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) Transit Oriented Development meeting
o Population in the Puget Sound region is expected to grow by 1.8 million, from 4.0 million to
5.8 million by 2050
o The PSRC area is 6,300 square miles
Urban growth area (UGA) is 1,000 square mile
o Working on Vision 2050 to replace Vision 2040, adoption target is 2020
o Policy focus is to absorb growth in the UGAs and along transit corridors, maintain open space
and reduce sprawl to the extent possible
o Goal to create enough housing near transit stations to absorb 25% of 1.8 million growth and
minimize parking to encourage transit
o Development along transit corridors would be mixed use with a spectrum of housing including
affordable housing
o Sound Transit does not think Trump administration will pull funding from ST3
Snohomish County Tomorrow
o Providing input to PSRC regarding Vision 2050 representing Snohomish County’s interest
o Focusing on regional centers. For example, the Arlington/Marysville area will be defined as a
manufacturing industrial center focused on attracting more manufacturing/aerospace
businesses due to available land
Economic Alliance of Snohomish County
o Snohomish County continues to be one of the fastest growing counties in the country
o Sound Transit reported they have allocated $40 million to enhance transit parking in Mukilteo
and Edmonds, primarily Sounder parking, by 2024
Affordable Housing Alliance
o Will make present to Council on April 18
o Trends very alarming. For example, the percentage of cost burdened families continues to
increase rapidly, faster than housing availability is increasing
o Focus on Housing Trust Fund as a way to create housing.
o Snohomish County allocated $1 million in REET, $500,000 of that is allocated to the Housing
Trust Fund
o Appeal made to cities to contribute to Trust Fund
o Interested in funds Edmonds allocated to affordable housing. He assured them the City is
studying the issue and has no plans to allocate the fund to the Trust Fund at this time
Disability Board meets quarterly to discuss the claims of 26 LEOFF 1 employees who retired 20
years ago and are typically 70-80 years old
o When they retired, the City agreed to pay for any medically necessary products/services that
insurance did not cover.
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: 03-27-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 27, 2018
Page 18
o Cost are increasing because two require special care, one in-home and one in assisted living
o Costs will continue in 2018 and potentially grow due to the elderly population
o For the member in assisted living, the City contracted with a patient advocate (no cost) to
identify a lower cost facility
Councilmember Johnson thanked Councilmember Teitzel for attending Sound Transit and PSRC TOD
meetings she has been unable to attend.
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling reported the federal government passed a budget which is critically important for several
projects in Washington; the largest was Sound Transit full funding grant agreement which had not been
finalized
Mayor Earling reported on Saturday nine people will be going go to Hekinan, Japan to celebrate the 30th
anniversary of Edmonds’ sister city relationship with Hekinan and to celebrate Hekinan’s 70th birthday.
Hekinan was originally three smaller communities that joined 70 years ago.
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Johnson reported Student Representative Noal Leonetti is very involved in Taming
Bigfoot. She was troubled Sound Transit would not reach Everett until 2037-2040. With the statistics
regarding population growth and funds going into transit station development, she said Snohomish County
was losing out. She wished Mayor Earling a wonderful time in Japan.
Councilmember Teitzel said he was always impressed by the willingness of volunteers to help those less
fortunate. This weekend he participated in a food packing event at the Methodist Church that included 50-
60 volunteers from the Edmonds Daybreaker Rotary as well as the Noon Rotary Clubs who packed over
3,000 lunches for McKinney-Vento students who are driven to Edmonds Schools from locations as far as
50 miles away and may need additional nutrition.
Council President Nelson wished his mother a Happy Birthday.
Councilmember Tibbott wished everyone a Happy Easter season. While attending the Edmonds School
District Foundation event earlier this month, the Council was invited to pack food for Nourishing Network.
He was unable to secure a day this year so will schedule one in the fall. Nourishing Network serves families
throughout the Edmonds School District.
Councilmember Buckshnis wished the Hekinan delegation a happy Hekinan experience. She reported the
Tree Board will have a presentation from the consultant preparing the Urban Forestry Management Plan on
April 5 at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers. Audience comments are accepted.
12. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
This item was not needed.
13. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
This item was not needed.
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: 03-27-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
March 27, 2018
Page 19
14. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:21 p.m.
4.1.a
Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: 03-27-2018 Draft Council Meeting Minutes (Approval of Council Meeting Minutes)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/3/2018
Approval of claim checks.
Staff Lead: Scott James
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Nori Jacobson
Background/History
Approval of claim checks #230429 through #230531 dated March 29, 2018 for $874,819.35.
Staff Recommendation
Approval of claim checks.
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance
#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or
non-approval of expenditures.
Attachments:
claim cks 03-29-18
FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 03-29-18
4.2
Packet Pg. 22
03/29/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds1 7:08:46AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount230429 3/29/2018076040 911 SUPPLY INC IN-11805INV#IN-11805 - EDMONDS PD - YAMANESEW EMBLEMS ON SHIRTS001.000.41.521.22.24.00 12.00SEW SOFT BADGE ON SHIRTS001.000.41.521.22.24.00 6.00NAME TAGS FOR SHIRTS001.000.41.521.22.24.00 16.00SEW NAME TAGS ON SHIRTS001.000.41.521.22.24.00 6.0010.0% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.22.24.00 4.00INV#IN-11807 - EDMONDS PD - VARIOUSIN-11807OUTER VEST CARRIER - BRUGGMAN001.000.41.521.22.24.00 200.00OUTER VEST CARRIER - COMPTON001.000.41.521.22.24.00 200.00OUTER VEST CARRIER - HARDWICK001.000.41.521.22.24.00 200.00OUTER VEST CARRIER - STANLEY001.000.41.521.22.24.00 200.00OUTER VEST CARRIER - PECK001.000.41.521.22.24.00 200.00OUTER VEST CARRIER - HWANG001.000.41.521.22.24.00 200.00OUTER VEST CARRIER - SHIER001.000.41.521.22.24.00 200.00OUTER VEST CARRIER - SAUNDERS001.000.41.521.22.24.00 200.00OUTER VEST CARRIER - JOHNSEN001.000.41.521.22.24.00 200.00VELCRO PANELS ON 9 CARRIERS001.000.41.521.22.24.00 45.00CUSTOM HEAT PRESS POLICE001.000.41.521.22.24.00 135.001Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 23Attachment: claim cks 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
03/29/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds2 7:08:46AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount230429 3/29/2018(Continued)076040 911 SUPPLY INCPOLICE ON CARRIERS001.000.41.521.22.24.00 72.00VELCRO FOR POLICE001.000.41.521.22.24.00 45.00NAME TAGS ON CARRIERS001.000.41.521.22.24.00 72.00VELCO FOR NAME TAGS001.000.41.521.22.24.00 45.00BIANCHI BATON HOLDER POUCHES001.000.41.521.22.24.00 50.00BIANCHI #7300 HANDCUFF POUCHES001.000.41.521.22.24.00 114.00BIANCHI #7307 OC/MACE POUCHES001.000.41.521.22.24.00 200.25BIANCHI #24739 DOUBLE CUFF POUCHES001.000.41.521.22.24.00 170.00TOURNIQUET POUCHES001.000.41.521.22.24.00 119.9610.0% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.22.24.00 286.82Total :3,199.03230430 3/29/2018061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 318101P&R LEAGUE SHIRTSP&R LEAGUE SHIRTS001.000.64.571.25.31.00 42.9010.4% Sales Tax001.000.64.571.25.31.00 4.46Total :47.36230431 3/29/2018 063863 ADVANCED TRAFFIC PRODUCTS 0000020524TRAFFIC - GREEN LED LIGHTSTraffic - Green LED Lights111.000.68.542.64.31.00 153.6010.3% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.64.31.00 15.822Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 24Attachment: claim cks 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
03/29/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds3 7:08:46AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :169.42230431 3/29/2018 063863 063863 ADVANCED TRAFFIC PRODUCTS230432 3/29/2018 069667 AMERICAN MARKETING 23815FP PLAQUEFP PLAQUE127.200.64.573.20.49.00 139.9710.3% Sales Tax127.200.64.573.20.49.00 14.42Total :154.39230433 3/29/2018074306 AMWINS GROUP BENEFITS INC 5248687RETIREE PREMIUMS - APRIL 2018RETIREE PREMIUMS - FIRE617.000.51.517.20.23.10 1,161.12RETIREE PREMIUMS - LEOFF009.000.39.517.20.23.10 8,160.69Total :9,321.81230434 3/29/2018069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1990621345FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMSFACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS001.000.66.518.30.24.00 32.5710.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.24.00 3.35PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1990625235PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.61PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS111.000.68.542.90.41.00 6.11PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS421.000.74.534.80.41.00 6.11PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS423.000.75.535.80.41.00 6.11PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS511.000.77.548.68.41.00 6.0810.3% Sales Tax001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.1710.3% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.633Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 25Attachment: claim cks 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
03/29/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds4 7:08:46AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount230434 3/29/2018(Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES10.3% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.6310.3% Sales Tax422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.6310.3% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.6310.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.62PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS422.000.72.531.90.41.00 6.11FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS1990625236FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS511.000.77.548.68.24.00 5.68FLEET DIVISION MATS511.000.77.548.68.41.00 18.4010.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.5910.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1.89WWTP: UNIFORMS,TOWELS+MATS1990631640Mats/Towels423.000.76.535.80.41.00 106.38Uniforms423.000.76.535.80.24.00 3.5010.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.41.00 10.9610.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.36PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE1990631641PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE001.000.64.576.80.24.00 56.86FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS1990631642FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS001.000.66.518.30.24.00 32.574Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 26Attachment: claim cks 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
03/29/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds5 7:08:46AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount230434 3/29/2018(Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES10.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.24.00 3.35PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1990635535PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.61PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS111.000.68.542.90.41.00 6.11PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS421.000.74.534.80.41.00 6.11PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS422.000.72.531.90.41.00 6.11PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS423.000.75.535.80.41.00 6.11PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS511.000.77.548.68.41.00 6.0810.3% Sales Tax001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.1710.3% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.6310.3% Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.6310.3% Sales Tax422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.6310.3% Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.6310.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.62FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS1990635536FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS511.000.77.548.68.24.00 5.68FLEET DIVISION MATS511.000.77.548.68.41.00 18.4010.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.595Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 27Attachment: claim cks 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
03/29/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds6 7:08:46AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount230434 3/29/2018(Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES10.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1.89Total :373.90230435 3/29/2018076507 ARTIST TRUST 3/24 WORSHOP 3/24 WORSHOP3/24 WORSHOP117.100.64.573.20.41.00 200.00Total :200.00230436 3/29/2018070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 99834OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLSUB Outsourcing area #500 Printing422.000.72.531.90.49.00 37.54UB Outsourcing area #500 Printing421.000.74.534.80.49.00 37.54UB Outsourcing area #500 Printing423.000.75.535.80.49.00 38.68UB Outsourcing area #500 Postage421.000.74.534.80.42.00 136.42UB Outsourcing area #500 Postage423.000.75.535.80.42.00 136.4210.1 % Sales Tax422.000.72.531.90.49.00 3.7910.1 % Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.49.00 3.7910.1 % Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.49.00 3.91OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS99986UB Outsourcing area #600 Printing422.000.72.531.90.49.00 34.67UB Outsourcing area #600 Printing421.000.74.534.80.49.00 34.67UB Outsourcing area #600 Printing423.000.75.535.80.49.00 35.73UB Outsourcing area #600 Postage421.000.74.534.80.42.00 131.006Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 28Attachment: claim cks 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
03/29/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds7 7:08:46AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount230436 3/29/2018(Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFERUB Outsourcing area #600 Postage423.000.75.535.80.42.00 130.9910.1 % Sales Tax422.000.72.531.90.49.00 3.5010.1 % Sales Tax421.000.74.534.80.49.00 3.5010.1 % Sales Tax423.000.75.535.80.49.00 3.61Total :775.76230437 3/29/2018001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO 53637ROUGH BOX - GJERSETROUGH BOX - GJERSET130.000.64.536.20.34.00 871.00Total :871.00230438 3/29/2018001835 AWARDS SERVICE INC 14572ART PLAQUEART PLAQUE117.200.64.575.50.49.00 17.8010.4% Sales Tax117.200.64.575.50.49.00 1.86Total :19.66230439 3/29/2018076510 BARN PROS INC SO-00768 DownSHED REPLACEMENT DOWN PAYMENTShed Replacement Down Payment125.000.64.594.76.65.00 5,000.00Total :5,000.00230440 3/29/2018075217 BASLER, ANTHONY 25788SPANISH INTERPRETER COURT/ PROBATIONSPANISH INTERPRETER COURT/ PROBATION001.000.23.523.30.41.01 106.10SPANISH INTERPRETER COURT 03/21/201827372SPANISH INTERPRETER COURT 03/21/2018001.000.23.512.50.41.01 106.10Total :212.207Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 29Attachment: claim cks 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
03/29/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds8 7:08:46AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount230441 3/29/2018002258 BENS EVER READY 15464FLEET - ANNUAL TESTS AND SERVICEFleet - Annual Tests and Service511.000.77.548.68.48.00 263.0010.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.48.00 27.09Total :290.09230442 3/29/2018074307 BLUE STAR GAS 6980FLEET AUTO PROPANE 563.4 GALFleet Auto Propane 563.4 Gal511.000.77.548.68.34.12 788.25FLEET AUTO PROPANE 551.1 GAL7004Fleet Auto Propane 551.1 Gal511.000.77.548.68.34.12 786.65Total :1,574.90230443 3/29/2018072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY 6311 6314 6317 63226311 6314 6317 6322 YOGA PILATES INSTRUC6311 YOGA INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.27.41.00 798.916314 YOGA INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.27.41.00 627.596317 YOGA INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.27.41.00 503.246322 PILATES INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.27.41.00 404.52Total :2,334.26230444 3/29/2018072177 BROOKS PRODUCTS & SERVICE 1453INV#1453 - CLERKS - EDMONDS PDS/S POLO SHIRTS - DOMICO001.000.41.521.11.24.00 40.443/4 SLEEVE SHIRT - DOMICO001.000.41.521.11.24.00 19.78S/S POLO SHIRT - HENDERSON001.000.41.521.11.24.00 13.48S/S SHIRT - SCHEELE001.000.41.521.11.24.00 13.483/4 SLEEVED SHIRT-BROMAN8Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 30Attachment: claim cks 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
03/29/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds9 7:08:46AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount230444 3/29/2018(Continued)072177 BROOKS PRODUCTS & SERVICE001.000.41.521.11.24.00 25.183/4 SLEEVED SHIRT-COLLINS001.000.41.521.11.24.00 19.783/4 SLEEVED SHIRT-MANDEVILLE001.000.41.521.80.24.00 25.183/4 SLEEVED SHIRT - SCHICK001.000.41.521.10.24.00 19.78EMBROIDER NAMES ON SHIRTS001.000.41.521.11.24.00 64.00EMBROIDER NAME ON SHIRT001.000.41.521.80.24.00 8.00EMBROIDER NAME ON SHIRT001.000.41.521.10.24.00 8.00EMBROIDER EMBLEM ON SHIRTS001.000.41.521.11.24.00 96.00EMBROIDER EMBLEM ON SHIRT001.000.41.521.80.24.00 12.00EMBROIDER EMBLEM ON SHIRT001.000.41.521.10.24.00 12.0010.3% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.11.24.00 30.0910.3% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.80.24.00 4.6510.3% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.10.24.00 4.10INV#1462 - DIEHL - EDMONDS PD14623/4 SLEEVE POLO SHIRT001.000.41.521.11.24.00 19.78EMBROIDER NAME ON SHIRT001.000.41.521.11.24.00 8.00EMBROIDER EMBLEM ON SHIRT001.000.41.521.11.24.00 12.0010.3% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.11.24.00 4.109Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 31Attachment: claim cks 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
03/29/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds10 7:08:46AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :459.82230444 3/29/2018 072177 072177 BROOKS PRODUCTS & SERVICE230445 3/29/2018 072571 BUILDERS EXCHANGE 1057921PUBLISH PROJECTS ONLINEE6DA.Publish Project Online112.000.68.595.33.65.41 2.84E6DA.Publish Project Online126.000.68.595.61.65.41 0.14E6DA.Publish Project Online422.000.72.594.31.65.41 0.27E5KA.Publish Project Online421.000.74.594.34.65.41 14.25E6JC.Publish Project Online421.000.74.594.34.65.41 64.85E6FA.Publish Project Online422.000.72.594.31.65.41 0.15Total :82.50230446 3/29/2018 076240 CADMAN MATERIALS INC 5499854ROADWAY - ASPHALTRoadway - Asphalt111.000.68.542.31.31.00 262.0710.0% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.31.31.00 26.21ROADWAY - ASPHALT5500544Roadway - Asphalt111.000.68.542.31.31.00 881.8410.0% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.31.31.00 88.18STORM DUMP FEES5501252Storm Dump Fees422.000.72.531.10.49.00 512.50STORM DUMP FEES5501578Storm Dump Fees422.000.72.531.10.49.00 224.75ROADWAY - ASPHALT5501579Roadway - Asphalt111.000.68.542.31.31.00 335.5710Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 32Attachment: claim cks 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
03/29/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds11 7:08:46AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount230446 3/29/2018(Continued)076240 CADMAN MATERIALS INC10.0% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.31.31.00 33.56Total :2,364.68230447 3/29/2018073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 18422009CITY CLERKS COPIER LEASE 03/01/2018 - 03CITY CLERKS COPIER LEASE 03/01/2018 -001.000.25.514.30.45.00 633.9410.3% Sales Tax001.000.25.514.30.45.00 65.29PARKS & REC C5250 COPIER CONTRACT 001-0518422010PARKS & REC C5250 COPIER CONTRACT001.000.64.571.21.45.00 387.34P&R PRINTER IRC250IF CONTRACT 001-05721018422016P&R PRINTER IRC250IF CONTRACT001.000.64.571.21.45.00 111.96PARKS IRC250IF COPIER CONTRACT 001-0572118422017PARKS IRC250IF COPIER CONTRACT001.000.64.576.80.45.00 68.03RECEPTION DESK CITY CLERKS COPIER LEASE18422019RECEPTION CITY CLERKS COPIER LEASE001.000.25.514.30.45.00 32.1410.3% Sales Tax001.000.25.514.30.45.00 3.32CANON COPIER MONTHLY LEASE18422020Contract charge 3/1-3/31/18001.000.11.511.60.45.00 26.44Black/white meter usage001.000.11.511.60.45.00 6.92Color meter usage001.000.11.511.60.45.00 16.7310.3% Sales Tax001.000.11.511.60.45.00 5.16Total :1,357.27230448 3/29/2018075023 CAROLYN DOUGLAS COMMUNICATIONS76COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANT AN11Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 33Attachment: claim cks 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
03/29/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds12 7:08:46AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount230448 3/29/2018(Continued)075023 CAROLYN DOUGLAS COMMUNICATIONSConsulting: Communications and001.000.61.557.20.41.00 2,500.00Total :2,500.00230449 3/29/2018075849 CARTER, JEANNE MARCH 2018DIVERSITY ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES FOR MADiversity commission administrative001.000.61.557.20.41.00 500.00Total :500.00230450 3/29/2018073430 CHUPRINA, LARISSA 6144 EGG DECORATING6144 UKRANIAN EGG DECORATING INSTRUCTION6144 UKRANIAN EGG DECORATING INSTRUCTION001.000.64.571.22.41.00 154.00Total :154.00230451 3/29/2018019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 14013WWTP: FEB 2018 M/O+SEWERFEB 2018 M/O+SEWER423.000.75.535.80.47.20 27,602.00WWTP: MAR 2018 M/O+SEWER14014MAR 2018 M/O+SEWER423.000.75.535.80.47.20 27,602.00INV#14020 CUST#200966 - EDMONDS PD14020PRISONER R&B JANUARY 2018001.000.39.523.60.51.00 73.00Total :55,277.00230452 3/29/2018035160 CITY OF SEATTLE 9056920000WWTP: 1-10- 3-9-18 FLOWMETER 879026: 2201-10- 3-9-18 FLOW METER #879026 @423.000.76.535.80.47.62 18.56Total :18.56230453 3/29/2018064369 CODE PUBLISHING CO 59519EDMONDS CITY CODE WEB UPDATE 4096 - 4098EDMONDS CITY CODE WEB UPDATE 4096 - 4098001.000.25.514.30.41.00 217.80Total :217.80230454 3/29/2018071417 CORE & MAIN LP I564713STORM - FERNCOS12Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 34Attachment: claim cks 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
03/29/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds13 7:08:46AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount230454 3/29/2018(Continued)071417 CORE & MAIN LPStorm - Ferncos422.000.72.531.40.31.00 704.3610.3% Sales Tax422.000.72.531.40.31.00 72.54Total :776.90230455 3/29/2018075042 COVERALL OF WASHINGTON 7100176989WWTP: MAR 2018 JANITORIAL SERVICEMarch 2018 JANITORIAL SERVICE423.000.76.535.80.41.00 514.00Total :514.00230456 3/29/2018 075648 COVICH-WILLIAMS CO INC 0303201-INUNIT 66 - PARTS10.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 17.04Unit 66 - Parts511.000.77.548.68.31.10 165.41Total :182.45230457 3/29/2018068190 DATEC INC 33536PANASONIC CF-31 TOUGHBOOKS FOR PDPanasonic CF-31 Toughbook GPS 4G LTE512.100.31.518.88.35.00 20,874.6010.3% Sales Tax512.100.31.518.88.35.00 2,150.08Total :23,024.68230458 3/29/2018061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 03 458344INV#458344 - EDMONDS PDCALIBRATE #FH10284001.000.41.521.22.48.00 70.00CALIBRATE #GHD-14989001.000.41.521.22.48.00 70.00CALIBRATE #GHD-15003001.000.41.521.22.48.00 70.00CALIBRATE #PL22598001.000.41.521.22.48.00 70.0010.3% Sales Tax13Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 35Attachment: claim cks 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
03/29/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds14 7:08:46AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount230458 3/29/2018(Continued)061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 03001.000.41.521.22.48.00 29.87FUEL SURCHARGE001.000.41.521.22.48.00 10.00Total :319.87230459 3/29/2018061860 DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRIES 295509CITY BUILDINGS - ANNUAL INSPECTIONSCity Buildings - Annual Inspections001.000.66.518.30.48.00 372.80CITY BUILDINGS - ANNUAL INSPECTIONS295544City Buildings - Annual Inspections001.000.66.518.30.48.00 699.00Total :1,071.80230460 3/29/2018064531 DINES, JEANNIE 18-383603/13/18 CITY COUNCIL & COMMITTEE 03/20/03/13/2018 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES &001.000.25.514.30.41.00 421.60Total :421.60230461 3/29/2018076172 DK SYSTEMS 20603FAC - BOILER REPAIRSFAC - Boiler Repairs001.000.66.518.30.48.00 770.00Affidavit001.000.66.518.30.48.00 40.0010.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.48.00 79.31FAC - BOILER SVC20614FAC - Boiler Svc001.000.66.518.30.48.00 210.0010.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.48.00 21.63PARKS BLDG - BOILER REPLACEMENT8994Parks Bldg - Boiler Replacement001.000.66.518.30.48.00 8,570.0010.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.48.00 882.7114Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 36Attachment: claim cks 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
03/29/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds15 7:08:46AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :10,573.65230461 3/29/2018 076172 076172 DK SYSTEMS230462 3/29/2018 064640 DMCMA03282018DMCMA ANNUAL CONFERENCE REGISTRATIONDMCMA ANNUAL CONFERENCE REGISTRATION001.000.23.512.50.49.00 150.00Total :150.00230463 3/29/2018074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC 1011FAC MAINT - SUPPLIESFac Maint - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 67.4810.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 6.95Total :74.43230464 3/29/2018069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP 6192 RALPH6192 RYOMA RALPH YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP6192 RYOMA RALPH YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP122.000.64.571.20.49.00 75.006196 MANA RALPH YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP6196 RALPH6196 MANA RALPH YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP122.000.64.571.20.49.00 75.00Total :150.00230465 3/29/2018008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 3-01808LIFT STATION #11 6807 157TH PL SW / METELIFT STATION #11 6807 157TH PL SW /423.000.75.535.80.47.10 47.59CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD / METER 73-03575CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD / METER001.000.66.518.30.47.00 367.97HAINES WHARF PARK DRINKING FOUNTAIN3-07490HAINES WHARF PARK DRINKING FOUNTAIN001.000.64.576.80.47.00 96.88LIFT STATION #12 16100 75TH AVE W / METE3-07525LIFT STATION #12 16100 75TH AVE W /423.000.75.535.80.47.10 51.69LIFT STATION #15 7701 168TH ST SW / METE3-07709LIFT STATION #15 7701 168TH ST SW /15Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 37Attachment: claim cks 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
03/29/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds16 7:08:46AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount230465 3/29/2018(Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION423.000.75.535.80.47.10 47.59LIFT STATION #4 8313 TALBOT RD / METER 23-09350LIFT STATION #4 8313 TALBOT RD / METER423.000.75.535.80.47.10 96.88LIFT STATION #10 17612 TALBOT RD / METER3-09800LIFT STATION #10 17612 TALBOT RD /423.000.75.535.80.47.10 47.59LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR / METER 63-29875LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR / METER423.000.75.535.80.47.10 51.69SPRINKLER FOR RHODIES 18410 92ND AVE W3-38565SPRINKLER FOR RHODIES 18410 92ND AVE W001.000.64.576.80.47.00 47.59Total :855.47230466 3/29/2018 075200 EDUARDO ZALDIBAR 26725SPANISH INTERPRETER COURT 03/21/2018SPANISH INTERPRETER COURT 03/21/2018001.000.23.512.50.41.01 108.17Total :108.17230467 3/29/2018008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR96891ACCT#MK5648 CONTRACT 2600-02 PRINTER MAIMaintenance for printers 03/21/18 -512.000.31.518.88.48.00 307.2010.3% Sales Tax512.000.31.518.88.48.00 31.64Total :338.84230468 3/29/2018067945 EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPT 18-011200-RDU-T5INV#18-011200-RDU-T5 - EDMONDS PDREPORT - SHEARER, AARON001.000.41.521.11.41.00 7.50Total :7.50230469 3/29/2018076219 ENDRESS + HAUSER INC 6001952801WWTP: MICROPILOT FMR20MICROPILOT FMR20423.000.76.535.80.48.00 1,205.6016Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 38Attachment: claim cks 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
03/29/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds17 7:08:46AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount230469 3/29/2018(Continued)076219 ENDRESS + HAUSER INCFreight423.000.76.535.80.48.00 14.5210.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.48.00 125.67Total :1,345.79230470 3/29/2018009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH799443CITY ORDINANCES 4099, 4100CITY ORDINANCES 4099, 4100001.000.25.514.30.41.40 39.56CITY ORDINANCE 4101EDH800462CITY ORDINANCE 4101001.000.25.514.30.41.40 25.80CITY NOTICES PH CRITICAL AREASEDH800704CITY NOTICES - ALLOWED ACTIVITIES001.000.25.514.30.41.40 44.72Total :110.08230471 3/29/2018066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU48332 SHOP - RATCHET TOOLShop - Ratchet Tool511.000.77.548.68.35.00 81.8310.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.35.00 8.43SHOP SUPPLIESWAMOU48371Shop Supplies511.000.77.548.68.31.20 7.5210.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.20 0.77Total :98.55230472 3/29/2018076508 FISERV/CHECKFREE Returning fundsRETURNING FUNDS FOR PAYMENT RECEIVED INReturning funds received in error001.000.369.80.000.00 23.65Total :23.65230473 3/29/2018011900 FRONTIER 253-007-4989SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE17Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 39Attachment: claim cks 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
03/29/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds18 7:08:46AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount230473 3/29/2018(Continued)011900 FRONTIERSEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETRY CIRCUIT421.000.74.534.80.42.00 31.09TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES253-012-9166TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES421.000.74.534.80.42.00 162.50TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES423.000.75.535.80.42.00 301.79TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE253-014-8062TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE421.000.74.534.80.42.00 19.85TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE423.000.75.535.80.42.00 36.86TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE253-017-4360TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE421.000.74.534.80.42.00 46.98TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE423.000.75.535.80.42.00 87.24CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE LINE425-712-8347CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE LINE 250001.000.66.518.30.42.00 70.30MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL425-745-3335MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL INTERNET001.000.64.571.29.42.00 71.98FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FAX LINES425-771-0158FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FAX LINES001.000.66.518.30.42.00 133.97FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER ALARM LINE425-776-3896FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIRE AND001.000.66.518.30.42.00 133.36LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINE509-022-0049LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINE423.000.75.535.80.42.00 26.40Total :1,122.32230474 3/29/2018068617 GLEISNER, BARBARA 6397 BETTER BALANCE6397 MOVING FOR BETTER BALANCE18Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 40Attachment: claim cks 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
03/29/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds19 7:08:46AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount230474 3/29/2018(Continued)068617 GLEISNER, BARBARA6397 MOVING FOR BETTER BALANCE001.000.64.571.27.41.00 126.00Total :126.00230475 3/29/2018063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 143853UNIT 27 - 4 TIRESUnit 27 - 4 Tires511.000.77.548.68.34.30 293.36State Tire Fee511.000.77.548.68.34.30 4.0010.4% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.34.30 30.51Total :327.87230476 3/29/2018012199 GRAINGER 9723064557FAC MAINT - SUPPLIESFac Maint - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 164.0710.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 16.90LIBRARY - BELTS9723453990Library - Belts001.000.66.518.30.31.00 160.7210.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 16.56WWTP: GARBAGE BAGS9730423150Garbage Bags423.000.76.535.80.48.00 41.1610.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.48.00 4.25Total :403.66230477 3/29/2018067615 GTS INTERIOR SUPPLY 40040912-00 PS - SUPPLIESPS - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 392.969.7% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 38.1119Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 41Attachment: claim cks 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
03/29/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds20 7:08:46AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :431.07230477 3/29/2018 067615 067615 GTS INTERIOR SUPPLY230478 3/29/2018 074804 HARLES, JANINE 527262PHOTOGRAPHY - MARCH 2018Photography for March 2018001.000.61.558.70.41.00 200.00Total :200.00230479 3/29/2018012900 HARRIS FORD INC 178096UNIT 454 - ACTUATORUnit 454 - Actuator511.000.77.548.68.31.10 47.7610.4% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.97Total :52.73230480 3/29/2018074966 HIATT CONSULTING LLC 2018-66TOURISM PROMOTION AND MARKETING, WEBSITETourism promotion and marketing for120.000.31.575.42.41.00 1,666.00Tourism website maintenance120.000.31.575.42.41.00 200.00Total :1,866.00230481 3/29/2018067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1010030PM: OXY CLEANER, ADHESIVE, BRSH,PM: OXY CLEANER, ADHESIVE, BRSH,001.000.64.576.80.31.00 70.0610.0% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 7.01PM: BUCKET, TOWELS, FILTER, GLASSES1065957PM: BUCKET, TOWELS, FILTER, GLASSES001.000.64.576.80.31.00 88.0910.0% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 8.81PM: STOPS RUST2052093PM: STOPS RUST001.000.64.576.80.31.00 7.9610.0% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.8020Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 42Attachment: claim cks 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
03/29/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds21 7:08:46AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount230481 3/29/2018(Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICESPM: 60 W GLASS LED2592125PM: 60 W GLASS LED001.000.64.576.80.31.00 7.9710.0% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.80PM: TRAY LINER, ROLLERS, ROLLER FRAME,3030252PM: TRAY LINER, ROLLERS, ROLLER FRAME,001.000.64.576.80.31.00 64.6410.0% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6.46PM: SOCKET, MAXFIT, DIABLO3083636PM: SOCKET, MAXFIT, DIABLO001.000.64.576.80.31.00 62.2610.0% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6.23PM: STOPS RUST, PAINTERS TOUCH3094568PM: STOPS RUST, PAINTERS TOUCH001.000.64.576.80.31.00 7.9610.0% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.80PM: PRUNING BLADES, NOZZLE4014826PM: PRUNING BLADES, NOZZLE001.000.64.576.80.31.00 82.8510.0% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 8.29PM: SPADE5013382PM: SPADE001.000.64.576.80.31.00 58.9710.0% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 5.90PML HEM FIR5013410PMl HEM FIR001.000.64.576.80.31.00 131.2010.0% Sales Tax21Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 43Attachment: claim cks 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
03/29/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds22 7:08:46AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount230481 3/29/2018(Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES001.000.64.576.80.31.00 13.12PM: PEBBLES, PEST MOSS71344PM: PEBBLES, PEST MOSS001.000.64.576.80.31.00 85.2410.0% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 8.52PM: WALLBASE, ADHESIVE, WOOD, CAULK8014326PM: WALLBASE, ADHESIVE, WOOD, CAULK001.000.64.576.80.31.00 189.5310.0% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 18.95PM: WALLBASE ADHESIVE, PLYWOOD, HAMMER8053275PM: WALLBASE ADHESIVE, PLYWOOD, HAMMER001.000.64.576.80.31.00 73.1410.0% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 7.31PM: CARTRIDGES, PAILS, MOP, BUCKET,9070677PM: CARTRIDGES, PAILS, MOP, BUCKET,001.000.64.576.80.31.00 120.4810.0% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 12.05Total :1,155.40230482 3/29/2018075966 HULBERT, CARRIE BID-3947BID/ED! REIMBURSEMENT OF PREPAID POSTAGEBID/Ed! reimbursement for prepayment of140.000.61.558.70.49.00 101.14Total :101.14230483 3/29/2018066256 IMSA NW CERTIFICATION 51739STREET STORM - 2018 MEMBERSHIP RENEWALSStreet Storm - 2018 Membership Renewals111.000.68.542.90.49.00 340.00Total :340.00230484 3/29/2018073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 3066504CITY CLERKS OFFICE - PAPERASTROBRITES CARD PAPER22Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 44Attachment: claim cks 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
03/29/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds23 7:08:46AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount230484 3/29/2018(Continued)073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED001.000.25.514.30.31.00 56.5410.3% Sales Tax001.000.25.514.30.31.00 5.83WWTP: PAPER TOWELS+BINDER CLIPS3084063PAPER TOWELS+BINDER CLIPS423.000.76.535.80.31.00 60.1110.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.31.00 6.18Total :128.66230485 3/29/2018061546 INDUSTRIAL CONTROLS SUPPLY 985174PW - RELAY POLESPW - Relay Poles001.000.66.518.30.31.00 36.20Freight001.000.66.518.30.31.00 36.9210.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.53Total :80.65230486 3/29/2018014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 300-10036903TRAFFIC - BATTERY TENDER FOR SIGNALTraffic - Battery Tender for Signal111.000.68.542.64.31.00 159.9510.3% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.64.31.00 16.47TRAFFIC - TERMINAL CONNECTORS FOR300-10037133Traffic - Terminal Connectors for111.000.68.542.64.31.00 15.9010.3% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.64.31.00 1.64Total :193.96230487 3/29/2018075356 JENNIFER ZIEGLER PUBLIC 033STATE LOBBYIST FOR MARCH 2018State lobbyist for March 2018001.000.61.511.70.41.00 3,358.0023Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 45Attachment: claim cks 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
03/29/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds24 7:08:46AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :3,358.00230487 3/29/2018 075356 075356 JENNIFER ZIEGLER PUBLIC230488 3/29/2018 073950 KUBWATER RESOURCES 07476WWTP: POLYMERPOLYMER423.000.76.535.80.31.51 2,843.0710.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.31.51 292.84Total :3,135.91230489 3/29/2018017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 03142018-01INV#03142018-01 - EDMONDS PD - FEB 201822 CAR WASHES @ $5.06 (INC TX)001.000.41.521.22.48.00 111.32Total :111.32230490 3/29/2018065680 LIFE ASSIST INC 847011INV#847011 CUST #98020PD - EDMONDS PDLARGE NITRILE GLOVES001.000.41.521.22.31.00 308.40MEDIUM NITRILE GLOVES001.000.41.521.22.31.00 308.40EXTRA LARGE NITRILE GLOVES001.000.41.521.22.31.00 308.4010.3% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.22.31.00 95.30Total :1,020.50230491 3/29/2018075159 LIFE INSURANCE CO OF NO AMER April 2018APRIL 2018 CIGNA PREMIUMSApril 2018 insurance premiums811.000.231.550 11,930.28Total :11,930.28230492 3/29/2018 073226 LIFE LINE SCREENING 3/20 REFUND 3/20 REFUND3/20 REFUND001.000.239.200 200.00Total :200.00230493 3/29/2018001780 MAGIC TOYOTA SCION 643796 TORUNIT 27 - VALVE ASSEMBLYUnit 27 - Valve Assembly24Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 46Attachment: claim cks 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
03/29/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds25 7:08:46AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount230493 3/29/2018(Continued)001780 MAGIC TOYOTA SCION511.000.77.548.68.31.10 63.5610.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.55Total :70.11230494 3/29/2018068443 MAIL N' STUFF SERVICES BID-3947BID/ED! PRINTING AND MAILING POSTCARDS FBID/Ed! printing and mailing postcards140.000.61.558.70.49.00 250.20Total :250.20230495 3/29/2018 074099 MARTIN, GARY 3/15 YOGA SUB 3/15 YOGA SUBSTITUTE3/15 YOGA SUBSTITUTE001.000.64.571.27.41.00 75.00Total :75.00230496 3/29/2018020495 MIDWAY PLYWOOD INC C 68428FAC MAINT SHOP SUPPLIESFac Maint Shop Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 80.7010.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 8.31Total :89.01230497 3/29/2018072223 MILLER, DOUG 3/7 - 3/21 GYM MONIT3/7 - 3/21/18 BASKETBALL GYM MONITOR3/7 - 3/21/18 BASKETBALL GYM MONITOR001.000.64.571.25.41.00 120.75Total :120.75230498 3/29/2018069923 MOTION INDUSTRIES INC WA33-751764WWTP: BORE SET SCREW LOCKINGBORE SET SCREW LOCKING423.000.76.535.80.48.00 365.60Freight423.000.76.535.80.48.00 21.3210.3% Sales Tax423.000.76.535.80.48.00 39.86Total :426.7825Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 47Attachment: claim cks 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
03/29/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds26 7:08:46AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount230499 3/29/2018064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0498586-INUNITS E151RE, E154SO - SUPPLIESUnits E151RE, E154SO - Supplies511.100.77.594.48.64.00 233.4010.3% Sales Tax511.100.77.594.48.64.00 24.04STORM - SAFETY HARNESS0499978-INStorm - Safety Harness422.000.72.531.90.24.00 234.3010.3% Sales Tax422.000.72.531.90.24.00 24.13Total :515.87230500 3/29/2018024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0651715-INFLEET FILTER INVENTORYFleet FIlter Inventory511.000.77.548.68.34.40 26.5610.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.34.40 2.74Total :29.30230501 3/29/2018076205 NET TRANSCRIPTS INC 0017501-ININV#0017501-IN - EDMONDS PDTRANSCRIPTION CASE #17-15711001.000.41.521.21.41.00 457.75Total :457.75230502 3/29/2018075542 NORTHWEST LANDSCAPE SUPPLY 2353PM: SOIL FOR FAC INFIELD REPAIRPM: SOIL FOR FAC INFIELD REPAIR125.000.64.576.80.31.00 80.0010.3% Sales Tax125.000.64.576.80.31.00 8.24Total :88.24230503 3/29/2018073896 OLYMPIC BRAKE SUPPLY 2-426310UNIT 122 - BRAKE SUPPLIESUnit 122 - Brake Supplies511.000.77.548.68.31.10 227.4610.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 23.4326Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 48Attachment: claim cks 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
03/29/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds27 7:08:46AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount230503 3/29/2018(Continued)073896 OLYMPIC BRAKE SUPPLYUNIT 122 - BRAKE PADS2-426315Unit 122 - Brake Pads511.000.77.548.68.31.10 38.9910.3% Sales Tax511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.02Total :293.90230504 3/29/2018 072539 OTAK INC-WASHINGTON 21800241E6DA.SERVICES THRU 2/2/18E6DA.Services thru 2/2/18112.000.68.595.33.65.41 3,497.45E6DA.Services thru 2/2/18126.000.68.595.61.65.41 167.88E6DA.Services thru 2/2/18422.000.72.594.31.65.41 331.76Total :3,997.09230505 3/29/2018 027155 PARK SEED WHOLESALE CI18110540FLOWER PROGRAM: PANSY SEEDSFLOWER PROGRAM: PANSY SEEDS001.000.64.576.81.31.00 17.61Total :17.61230506 3/29/2018028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY P865664CITY HALL - PARTSCity Hall - Parts001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.3810.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.97TRAFFIC - STREET SIGNALS SUPPLIESP964179Traffic - Street Signals Supplies111.000.68.542.64.31.00 276.4310.3% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.64.31.00 28.47TRAFFIC - STREET SIGNALS SUPPLIESP967572Traffic - Street Signals Supplies111.000.68.542.64.31.00 35.7510.3% Sales Tax27Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 49Attachment: claim cks 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
03/29/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds28 7:08:46AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount230506 3/29/2018(Continued)028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY111.000.68.542.64.31.00 3.68LIBRARY - SUPPLIESP991288Library - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.8010.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.01LIBRARY - SUPPLIESP995443Library - Supplies001.000.66.518.30.31.00 17.2910.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.78Total :384.56230507 3/29/2018064088 PROTECTION ONE 1988948ALARM MONITORING ANDERSON CENTERALARM MONITORING FRANCES ANDERSON001.000.66.518.30.42.00 295.11ALARM MONITORING - PARKS MAINT./FS #16291104ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS MAINTENANCE001.000.66.518.30.42.00 22.22ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS MAINTENANCE001.000.64.576.80.42.00 22.20Total :339.53230508 3/29/2018030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 00000181893PICKUP AND INSTALLATION OF VETERANS MONUPICKUP AND INSTALLATION OF VETERANS125.000.64.576.80.41.00 2,400.00Total :2,400.00230509 3/29/2018075288 RODARTE CONSTRUCTION INC E7AC.Pmt 17 FINAL E7AC.PMT 17 FINAL THRU 1/31/18E7AC.Pmt 17 Final thru 1/31/18112.000.68.595.33.65.00 11,314.81Total :11,314.81230510 3/29/2018033550 SALMON BAY SAND & GRAVEL 2426914ROADWAY - ASPHALTRoadway - Asphalt28Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 50Attachment: claim cks 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
03/29/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds29 7:08:46AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount230510 3/29/2018(Continued)033550 SALMON BAY SAND & GRAVEL111.000.68.542.31.31.00 2,089.2010.3% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.31.31.00 215.19Total :2,304.39230511 3/29/2018067802 SAN DIEGO POLICE EQUIP CO 631733INV#631733 CUST#1733 - EDMONDS PDFEDERAL .223 55GR FMJ-BT001.000.41.521.40.31.00 9,418.8010.3% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.40.31.00 970.13Total :10,388.93230512 3/29/2018036955 SKY NURSERY T-1085130PM: FERTIL MULCHPM: FERTIL MULCH001.000.64.576.80.31.00 608.0010.3% Sales Tax001.000.64.576.80.31.00 62.62Total :670.62230513 3/29/2018076511 SMITH, ALICEN 3/21 REFUND 3/21 REFUND3/21 REFUND001.000.239.200 10.83Total :10.83230514 3/29/2018066754 SNO CO PUBLIC WORKS I000465407E8CB/E8CD/E8CE.SERVICES THRU 1/31/18E8CB.Services thru 1/31/18112.000.68.542.30.41.00 1,607.77E8CB.Services thru 1/31/18125.000.68.542.30.41.00 2,937.93E8CB.Services thru 1/31/18126.000.68.542.30.41.00 5,864.30E8CD.Services thru 1/31/18421.000.74.542.30.41.00 2,082.00E8CE.Services thru 1/31/18423.200.75.542.30.41.00 1,388.0029Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 51Attachment: claim cks 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
03/29/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds30 7:08:46AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :13,880.00230514 3/29/2018 066754 066754 SNO CO PUBLIC WORKS230515 3/29/2018 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-0254-7PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95TH AVE W /PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95TH AVE W /111.000.68.542.64.47.00 18.32YOST POOL2002-6027-1YOST POOL001.000.64.576.80.47.00 756.92TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W / METER 12003-4823-3TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W / METER111.000.68.542.64.47.00 44.87FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW / METE2003-9895-6FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW /001.000.66.518.30.47.00 894.13LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD / METER 12004-6859-3LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD / METER423.000.75.535.80.47.10 304.53MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION METER2004-9314-6MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION METER001.000.64.576.80.47.00 18.32LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE W / METER2006-1131-7LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE W /423.000.75.535.80.47.10 170.66OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER 12006-3860-9OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER421.000.74.534.80.47.00 403.51SEAVIEW PARK2007-1403-8SEAVIEW PARK001.000.64.576.80.47.00 21.38SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH AVE W / MET2007-3984-5SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH AVE W /421.000.74.534.80.47.00 21.19LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTREAM LN / ME2008-6520-2LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTREAM LN /423.000.75.535.80.47.10 73.49SEAVIEW PARK2011-9708-430Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 52Attachment: claim cks 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
03/29/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds31 7:08:46AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount230515 3/29/2018(Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1SEAVIEW PARK001.000.64.576.80.47.00 90.95FISHING PIER RESTROOMS2012-3682-5FISHING PIER RESTROOMS001.000.64.576.80.47.00 153.89PINE ST PARK2013-2711-1PINE ST PARK001.000.64.576.80.47.00 17.74SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 1002015-5174-4SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,475.59TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / METER 10002015-7289-8TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / METER111.000.68.542.64.47.00 47.91TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW / METER 12017-5147-6TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW / METER111.000.68.542.64.47.00 61.61TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / METER 10002017-8264-6TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / METER111.000.68.542.64.47.00 17.17PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / METE2019-4248-9PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /001.000.65.518.20.47.00 101.78PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /111.000.68.542.90.47.00 386.76PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /421.000.74.534.80.47.00 386.76PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /423.000.75.535.80.47.10 386.76PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /511.000.77.548.68.47.00 386.76PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /422.000.72.531.90.47.00 386.759TH/CASPER LANDSCAPED BED2022-5062-731Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 53Attachment: claim cks 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
03/29/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds32 7:08:46AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount230515 3/29/2018(Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 19TH/CASPER LANDSCAPED BED001.000.64.576.80.47.00 18.89TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / METER 100042022-8912-0TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / METER111.000.68.542.64.47.00 54.69CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #17 250 5TH2022-9166-2CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #17 250 5TH001.000.66.518.30.47.00 5,428.93STREET LIGHT 7601 RIDGE WAY / NOT METERE2023-8937-5STREET LIGHT 7601 RIDGE WAY / NOT111.000.68.542.63.47.00 9.16CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER 100012612024-3924-6CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER001.000.66.518.30.47.00 3,926.13MATHAY BALLINGER PARK IRRIGATION & SUMP2026-2041-5MATHAY BALLINGER PARK IRRIGATION & SUMP001.000.64.576.80.47.00 18.89TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW (FS #16)2028-0763-2TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW (FIRE001.000.66.518.30.47.00 20.32WWTP: 2/15-3/16/18 METER 1000135381: 2002030-9778-72/15-3/16/18 200 2ND AVE S / METER423.000.76.535.80.47.61 22,215.07FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 8519 BOWDOIN WAY2036-5215-1FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 8519 BOWDOIN WAY421.000.74.534.80.47.00 373.24PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 8410 MAIN ST /2202-1638-6PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 8410 MAIN ST /111.000.68.542.64.47.00 89.41Total :39,782.48230516 3/29/2018006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 72193PARKS MAINT 5005 DUMP FEESPARKS MAINT DUMP FEES001.000.64.576.80.47.00 412.0032Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 54Attachment: claim cks 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
03/29/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds33 7:08:46AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount(Continued)Total :412.00230516 3/29/2018 006630 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY230517 3/29/2018 037303 SO SNOHOMISH CO FIRE & RESCUE EDMS 2018-4APR-2018 FIRE SERVICES CONTRACTApr-2018 Fire Services Contract Payment001.000.39.522.20.51.00 614,893.17Total :614,893.17230518 3/29/2018074990 STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES 1330050PLAN REVIEW SERVICES 3/2/18Plan Review Services thru 3/2/18001.000.67.518.21.41.00 1,399.68Plan Review Services thru 3/2/18421.000.74.534.80.41.00 699.84Plan Review Services thru 3/2/18422.000.72.531.90.41.00 699.84Plan Review Services thru 3/2/18423.000.75.535.80.41.00 699.85Total :3,499.21230519 3/29/2018071585 STERICYCLE INC 3004199826INV#3004199826 CUST#6076358 - EDMONDS PDMEDIUM BOX DISPOSAL001.000.41.521.80.41.00 52.67Total :52.67230520 3/29/2018068360 SUMMIT LAW GROUP 90946UNION NEGOTIATIONSNEGOTIATIONS001.000.64.571.21.41.00 37.80NEGOTIATIONS421.000.74.534.80.41.00 43.05NEGOTIATIONS423.000.75.535.80.41.00 43.05NEGOTIATIONS422.000.72.531.90.41.00 43.05NEGOTIATIONS111.000.68.542.31.41.00 43.05Total :210.0033Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 55Attachment: claim cks 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
03/29/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds34 7:08:46AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount230521 3/29/2018074797 SUPER CHARGE MARKETING LLC 3543-05SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES FOR MARCH 2018Social media services for March 2018001.000.61.557.20.41.00 300.00Total :300.00230522 3/29/2018076324 SUPERION LLC 204915TRAKIT SYSTEM TRAININGTrakit System Training001.000.62.524.10.41.00 7,171.91Total :7,171.91230523 3/29/2018027269 THE PART WORKS INC INV23804CITY HALL - TOILET PARTSCity Hall - Toilet Parts001.000.66.518.30.31.00 96.96Freight001.000.66.518.30.31.00 8.0710.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.82Total :115.85230524 3/29/2018072649 THE WIDE FORMAT COMPANY 106594MAINTENANCE FOR HP PAGEWIDE LX4000Mar-18 Maintenance on HP Pagewide512.000.31.518.88.48.00 175.0010.3% Sales Tax512.000.31.518.88.48.00 18.03Total :193.03230525 3/29/2018070744 TIGER OAK MEDIA 2018-195434BUSINESS RECRUITMENT ADVERTISING SEATTLEBusiness recruitment advertising in001.000.61.558.70.41.40 3,500.00Total :3,500.00230526 3/29/2018068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WA0772470-WA DOT TESTINGDOT TESTING - STREET111.000.68.542.90.41.00 99.00DOT TESTING - STORM422.000.72.531.90.41.00 99.0034Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 56Attachment: claim cks 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
03/29/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds35 7:08:46AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount230526 3/29/2018(Continued)068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WADOT TESTING - SEWER423.000.75.535.80.41.00 99.00Total :297.00230527 3/29/2018067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC 59817INV#59817 - EDMONDS PDTOW 1988 TOYOTA #BFZ0503001.000.41.521.22.41.00 164.0010.4% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.22.41.00 17.06INV#59928 - EDMONDS PD59928TOW 2017 FORD #C84084J001.000.41.521.22.41.00 205.0010.4% Sales Tax001.000.41.521.22.41.00 21.32Total :407.38230528 3/29/2018 075283 WAVE8136 50 211 00055035FIBER HIGH SPEED INTERNET SERVICEHigh Speed Internet service 04/01/18 -512.000.31.518.87.42.00 816.00Total :816.00230529 3/29/2018075635 WCP SOLUTIONS 10561264FAC MAINT - TOWEL DISPENSERFac Maint - Towel Dispenser001.000.66.518.30.31.00 106.0210.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.92FAC MAINT - GLASS CLOTHS10563491Fac Maint - Glass Cloths001.000.66.518.30.31.00 69.6010.3% Sales Tax001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.17PM: FRESH WAVE SURFACE SPRAY10567836PM: FRESH WAVE SURFACE SPRAY001.000.64.576.80.31.00 104.2010.3% Sales Tax35Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 57Attachment: claim cks 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
03/29/2018Voucher ListCity of Edmonds36 7:08:46AMPage:vchlistBank code :usbankVoucherDateVendorInvoicePO #Description/AccountAmount230529 3/29/2018(Continued)075635 WCP SOLUTIONS001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.73Total :308.64230530 3/29/2018076325 WOOTEN, COURTNEY 2018Div Grant WootenDIVERSITY COMMISSION GRANT BRER RABBIT &Diversity Commission Grant awarded to001.000.61.557.20.41.00 500.00Total :500.00230531 3/29/2018051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC 21521TRAFFIC - SIGNS MOUNTING CLIPS FOR MASTTraffic - Signs Mounting Clips for Mast111.000.68.542.64.31.00 70.00Freight111.000.68.542.64.31.00 9.0310.3% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.64.31.00 8.14TRAFFIC - 54X24 BLANKS21600Traffic - 54x24 Blanks111.000.68.542.64.31.00 190.00Freight111.000.68.542.64.31.00 26.9110.3% Sales Tax111.000.68.542.64.31.00 22.34Total :326.42Bank total : 874,819.35103 Vouchers for bank code :usbank874,819.35Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report10336Page:4.2.aPacket Pg. 58Attachment: claim cks 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STM 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements c484 E5FE
STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)c424 E3DC
STM 183rd Pl SW Storm Repairs c491 E6FE
SWR 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB
SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA
STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB
STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA
STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA
WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC
STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 E5FA
STR 2015 Overlay Program c463 E5CA
SWR 2015 Sewerline Overlays i007 E5CC
SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA
STR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 E5AB
WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 E5CB
WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB
STR 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades i016 E6DC
STR 2016 Overlay Program i008 E6CA
SWR 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 E5GA
SWR 2016 Sewerline Overlays i010 E6CC
WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC
WTR 2016 Waterline Overlays i009 E6CB
WTR 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 E5JA
STR 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades i022 E7DA
STR 2017 Minor Sidewalk Program i023 E7DB
STR 2017 Overlay Program i018 E7CA
SWR 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project i013 E6GA
SWR 2017 Sewerline Overlays i020 E7CC
STR 2017 Traffic Calming i021 E7AA
WTR 2017 Waterline Overlays i019 E7CB
WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects i014 E6JB
STR 2018 Minor Sidewalk Project i032 E8DA
STR 2018 Overlay Program i030 E8CB
SWR 2018 Sewerline Overlays i035 E8CE
STR 2018 Traffic Calming i027 E8AA
WTR 2018 Waterline Overlays i034 E8CD
WTR 2018 Waterline Replacement Project c493 E6JC
SWR 2018/19 Sewerline Replacement Project c492 E6GC
WTR 2019 Waterline Replacement c498 E7JA
Revised 3/28/2018
4.2.b
Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STR 220th Adaptive i028 E8AB
STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD
STM 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements c486 E6FB
WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB
STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC
STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)c425 E3DD
STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)c423 E3DB
STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)c485 E6DA
STM 3rd Ave Rain Gardens i012 E6FC
STR 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements i029 E8CA
STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA
STR 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th i031 E8CC
STR 89th Pl W Retaining Wall i025 E7CD
STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB
FAC A/V Upgrades - Council Chambers c476 E5LA
STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE
STR ADA Curb Ramps i033 E8DB
STR ADA Transition Plan s016 E6DB
STR Audible Pedestrian Signals i024 E7AB
STR Bikelink Project c474 E5DA
PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA
SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB
SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB
STR Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements i026 E7DC
STR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion i015 E6AB
WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)c482 E5JB
STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM
PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA
STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)c472 E5FC
STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE
FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB
STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC
General Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis c478 E5DB
FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB
PRK FAC Band Shell Replacement c477 E6MB
WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating c473 E5KA
STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA
PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA
STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD
Revised 3/28/2018
4.2.b
Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STR Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization s014 E6AA
STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD
SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s011 E5GB
STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB
SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC
STR Minor Sidewalk Program i017 E6DD
STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA
STM Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive i011 E6FA
STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE
STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)m013 E7FG
STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 E7FA
STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN
STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC
FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E4LA
STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 E5FD
WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA
STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB
STR SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing c454 E4DB
UTILITIES Standard Details Updates s010 E5NA
STM Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW c495 E7FB
STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG
STM Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 E6FD
STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA
STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB
STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH
STR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA
STR Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA
STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA
STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 E5FB
UTILITIES Utility Rate Update s013 E6JA
PRK Veteran's Plaza c480 E6MA
STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF
PRK Waterfront Restoration m103 E7MA
STM Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC
WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 E5HA
PRK Yost Park Spa c494 E6MC
Revised 3/28/2018
4.2.b
Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements
STM E1FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
STM E1FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update
STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project
STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System
STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
SWR E2GB c390 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation
STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study
STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
STR E3DC c424 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)
STR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)
STR E3DE c426 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S
STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study
STM E3FE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive
STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th
STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements
SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
WTR E3JB c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)
FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project
STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program
STR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals
WTR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays
STR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project
STR E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept
STR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing
STM E4FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements
STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin
STM E4FC c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
STM E4FD c436 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines
SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project
SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I
SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
Revised 3/28/2018
4.2.b
Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
WTR E4JB c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program
WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update
FAC E4LA c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades
PRK E4MA c417 City Spray Park
FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
STR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System
STR E5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming
STR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program
WTR E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays
SWR E5CC i007 2015 Sewerline Overlays
STR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project
General E5DB c478 Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis
STM E5FA c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects
STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects
STM E5FC c472 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)
STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
STM E5FE c484 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements
SWR E5GA c469 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
SWR E5GB s011 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
WTR E5JA c468 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects
WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating
FAC E5LA c476 A/V Upgrades - Council Chambers
UTILITIES E5NA s010 Standard Details Updates
STR E6AA s014 Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
STR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
STR E6CA i008 2016 Overlay Program
WTR E6CB i009 2016 Waterline Overlays
SWR E6CC i010 2016 Sewerline Overlays
STR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
STR E6DB s016 ADA Transition Plan
STR E6DC i016 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades
STR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program
STM E6FA i011 Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive
STM E6FB c486 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements
STM E6FC i012 3rd Ave Rain Gardens
STM E6FD s017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update
Revised 3/28/2018
4.2.b
Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
STM E6FE c491 183rd Pl SW Storm Repairs
SWR E6GA i013 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project
SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
SWR E6GC c492 2018/19 Sewerline Replacement Project
UTILITIES E6JA s013 Utility Rate Update
WTR E6JB i014 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects
WTR E6JC c493 2018 Waterline Replacement Project
PRK E6MA c480 Veteran's Plaza
PRK E6MB c477 FAC Band Shell Replacement
PRK E6MC c494 Yost Park Spa
STR E7AA i021 2017 Traffic Calming
STR E7AB i024 Audible Pedestrian Signals
STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STR E7CA i018 2017 Overlay Program
WTR E7CB i019 2017 Waterline Overlays
SWR E7CC i020 2017 Sewerline Overlays
STR E7CD i025 89th Pl W Retaining Wall
STR E7DA i022 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades
STR E7DB i023 2017 Minor Sidewalk Program
STR E7DC i026 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
STM E7FA m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
STM E7FB c495 Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
WTR E7JA c498 2019 Waterline Replacement
PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza
PRK E7MA m103 Waterfront Restoration
STR E8AA i027 2018 Traffic Calming
STR E8AB i028 220th Adaptive
STR E8CA i029 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
STR E8CB i030 2018 Overlay Program
STR E8CC i031 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
WTR E8CD i034 2018 Waterline Overlays
SWR E8CE i035 2018 Sewerline Overlays
STR E8DA i032 2018 Minor Sidewalk Project
STR E8DB i033 ADA Curb Ramps
PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
Revised 3/28/2018
4.2.b
Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza
PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements
STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
STM E1FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
STM E1FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System
STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
SWR E2GB c390 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation
STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update
STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project
SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study
STM E3FE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive
PRK E4MA c417 City Spray Park
WTR E3JB c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)
FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project
STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
STR E3DC c424 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)
STR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)
STR E3DE c426 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S
STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study
STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th
STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements
STM E4FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements
STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin
STM E4FC c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
STM E4FD c436 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program
WTR E4JB c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program
SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project
FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
FAC E4LA c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades
WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
STR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals
WTR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays
Revised 3/28/2018
4.2.b
Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
STR E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept
STR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing
STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I
STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines
WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update
SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
STR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project
STR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program
STM E5FA c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects
STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects
WTR E5JA c468 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects
SWR E5GA c469 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
STR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System
STR E5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming
STM E5FC c472 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)
WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating
STR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project
WTR E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays
FAC E5LA c476 A/V Upgrades - Council Chambers
PRK E6MB c477 FAC Band Shell Replacement
General E5DB c478 Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis
STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
PRK E6MA c480 Veteran's Plaza
WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
STM E5FE c484 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements
STR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
STM E6FB c486 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements
SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
STM E6FE c491 183rd Pl SW Storm Repairs
SWR E6GC c492 2018/19 Sewerline Replacement Project
WTR E6JC c493 2018 Waterline Replacement Project
PRK E6MC c494 Yost Park Spa
STM E7FB c495 Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
WTR E7JA c498 2019 Waterline Replacement
STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
SWR E5CC i007 2015 Sewerline Overlays
STR E6CA i008 2016 Overlay Program
Revised 3/28/2018
4.2.b
Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
WTR E6CB i009 2016 Waterline Overlays
SWR E6CC i010 2016 Sewerline Overlays
STM E6FA i011 Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive
STM E6FC i012 3rd Ave Rain Gardens
SWR E6GA i013 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project
WTR E6JB i014 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects
STR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
STR E6DC i016 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades
STR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program
STR E7CA i018 2017 Overlay Program
WTR E7CB i019 2017 Waterline Overlays
SWR E7CC i020 2017 Sewerline Overlays
STR E7AA i021 2017 Traffic Calming
STR E7DA i022 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades
STR E7DB i023 2017 Minor Sidewalk Program
STR E7AB i024 Audible Pedestrian Signals
STR E7CD i025 89th Pl W Retaining Wall
STR E7DC i026 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
STR E8AA i027 2018 Traffic Calming
STR E8AB i028 220th Adaptive
STR E8CA i029 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
STR E8CB i030 2018 Overlay Program
STR E8CC i031 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
STR E8DA i032 2018 Minor Sidewalk Project
STR E8DB i033 ADA Curb Ramps
WTR E8CD i034 2018 Waterline Overlays
SWR E8CE i035 2018 Sewerline Overlays
STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
PRK E7MA m103 Waterfront Restoration
STM E7FA m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
UTILITIES E5NA s010 Standard Details Updates
SWR E5GB s011 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
UTILITIES E6JA s013 Utility Rate Update
STR E6AA s014 Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
STR E6DB s016 ADA Transition Plan
STM E6FD s017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update
Revised 3/28/2018
4.2.b
Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
FAC A/V Upgrades - Council Chambers c476 E5LA
FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB
FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB
FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E4LA
General Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis c478 E5DB
PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA
PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA
PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA
PRK FAC Band Shell Replacement c477 E6MB
PRK Veteran's Plaza c480 E6MA
PRK Waterfront Restoration m103 E7MA
PRK Yost Park Spa c494 E6MC
STM 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements c484 E5FE
STM 183rd Pl SW Storm Repairs c491 E6FE
STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA
STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 E5FA
STM 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements c486 E6FB
STM 3rd Ave Rain Gardens i012 E6FC
STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM
STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)c472 E5FC
STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE
STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC
STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD
STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB
STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA
STM Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive i011 E6FA
STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE
STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)m013 E7FG
STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 E7FA
STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN
STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC
STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 E5FD
STM Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW c495 E7FB
STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG
STM Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 E6FD
STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB
STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH
STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 E5FB
Revised 3/28/2018
4.2.b
Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF
STM Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC
STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)c424 E3DC
STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB
STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA
STR 2015 Overlay Program c463 E5CA
STR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 E5AB
STR 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades i016 E6DC
STR 2016 Overlay Program i008 E6CA
STR 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades i022 E7DA
STR 2017 Minor Sidewalk Program i023 E7DB
STR 2017 Overlay Program i018 E7CA
STR 2017 Traffic Calming i021 E7AA
STR 2018 Minor Sidewalk Project i032 E8DA
STR 2018 Overlay Program i030 E8CB
STR 2018 Traffic Calming i027 E8AA
STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD
STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC
STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)c425 E3DD
STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)c423 E3DB
STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)c485 E6DA
STR 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements i029 E8CA
STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA
STR 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th i031 E8CC
STR 89th Pl W Retaining Wall i025 E7CD
STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB
STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE
STR ADA Curb Ramps i033 E8DB
STR ADA Transition Plan s016 E6DB
STR Audible Pedestrian Signals i024 E7AB
STR Bikelink Project c474 E5DA
STR Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements i026 E7DC
STR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion i015 E6AB
STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA
STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD
STR Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization s014 E6AA
STR Minor Sidewalk Program i017 E6DD
STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB
STR SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing c454 E4DB
Revised 3/28/2018
4.2.b
Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA
STR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA
STR Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA
STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA
STR 220th Adaptive i028 E8AB
SWR 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB
SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA
SWR 2015 Sewerline Overlays i007 E5CC
SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA
SWR 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 E5GA
SWR 2016 Sewerline Overlays i010 E6CC
SWR 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project i013 E6GA
SWR 2017 Sewerline Overlays i020 E7CC
SWR 2018 Sewerline Overlays i035 E8CE
SWR 2018/19 Sewerline Replacement Project c492 E6GC
SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB
SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB
SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s011 E5GB
SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC
UTILITIES Standard Details Updates s010 E5NA
UTILITIES Utility Rate Update s013 E6JA
WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC
WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 E5CB
WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB
WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC
WTR 2016 Waterline Overlays i009 E6CB
WTR 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 E5JA
WTR 2017 Waterline Overlays i019 E7CB
WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects i014 E6JB
WTR 2018 Waterline Overlays i034 E8CD
WTR 2018 Waterline Replacement Project c493 E6JC
WTR 2019 Waterline Replacement c498 E7JA
WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB
WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)c482 E5JB
WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating c473 E5KA
WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA
WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 E5HA
Revised 3/28/2018
4.2.b
Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 03-29-18 (Approval of claim checks.)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/3/2018
Cemetery Board Annual Report
Staff Lead: Carrie Hite
Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
Each year the chair of the Cemetery Board makes an annual presentation to the Council to update the
Council on the business of the Cemetery.
Staff Recommendation
Be briefed on the annual business of the Cemetery.
Narrative
Jerry Janacek, the chair of the Cemetery Board, will be making the presentation.
5.1
Packet Pg. 71
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/3/2018
Update of Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Project
Staff Lead: Rob English
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Megan Luttrell
Background/History
On December 5, 2017, Council authorized a Professional Services Agreement with Parametrix to
complete environmental documents and preliminary design.
On November 15, 2016, Council unanimously moved to add the Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
Project (the Connector) to the CIP.
On October 20, 2015, Council unanimously authorized a Professional Services Agreement with Tetra Tech
for the Edmonds Waterfront Analysis Project, the precursor to the Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
Project.
On July 28, 2015, Council unanimously moves to emphasize and prioritize near term solutions for
waterfront access.
Staff Recommendation
For information only.
Narrative
This is the first of two updates to City Council as part of the options evaluations for the Edmonds Street
Waterfront Connector Project. The purpose of this presentation is to provide:
· a review of project purpose and need;
· project background;
· a status briefing on project progress, including:
· a review of the six bridge options under evaluation;
· a summary of the current public outreach efforts;
· project funding outlook.
Attachments:
Presentation
Public Outreach Summary
5.2
Packet Pg. 72
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
Council Briefing April 3, 2018
•Review project purpose & need
•Background
•Design development process
•Where we are now
•Project funding outlook
•Questions
5.2.a
Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Presentation [Revision 1] (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
Purpose & Need
5.2.a
Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Presentation [Revision 1] (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
Purpose & Need
•Provide reliable and efficient access to the waterfront for emergency responders
•Create a continuous pedestrian walkway along the waterfront
•Help pedestrians, bicycle riders and
emergency responders avoid street-level conflicts with BNSF rail lines
•Be designed using community input and inspiration
5.2.a
Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Presentation [Revision 1] (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
•Access
issues are
a critical
element
for the
Edmonds
Street
Waterfront
Connector
Purpose & Need
5.2.a
Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Presentation [Revision 1] (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
5.2.a
Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Presentation [Revision 1] (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
Edmonds Waterfront At-Grade Crossings Analysis
5.2.a
Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Presentation [Revision 1] (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
Alternatives Evaluation Summary
5.2.a
Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Presentation [Revision 1] (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
How we will evaluate alternatives
5.2.a
Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Presentation [Revision 1] (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
Project Schedule
5.2.a
Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Presentation [Revision 1] (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
BRIDGE EXPERIENTIAL ELEMENTS
Entrance
•Sense of arrival
•Fitting the neighborhood scale
•Safe intersection and circulation
Spanning Structure
•Character of Structural System
•Integration of the throw barrier within rail corridor
•Alignment and overlooks
Landing Area
•Activities and Events
•Seating terraces
•Extents of MSE structure
5.2.a
Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Presentation [Revision 1] (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
CONCEPT 01 – Sculptural Column Bridge
•Integration of natural form – Connections to the
Sound
•Girder Structure below deck
•Distinct overlooks
5.2.a
Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Presentation [Revision 1] (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
CONCEPT 01 – Sculptural Column Bridge
5.2.a
Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Presentation [Revision 1] (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
CONCEPT 02 – Driftwood Bridge
•Re-creation of the Edmonds bluff – Spirit of Place
•Form is driven by key views of the water and
mountains
•Low to moderate expense girder structure
5.2.a
Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Presentation [Revision 1] (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
CONCEPT 02 – Driftwood Bridge
5.2.a
Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Presentation [Revision 1] (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
CONCEPT 03 – Kelp Ribbon Bridge
•Form inspired by kelp beds & sea grass
•Girder (large beam structure) with
sinuous alignment
•More frequent columns, thinner
structural depth
5.2.a
Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: Presentation [Revision 1] (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
CONCEPT 03 – Kelp Ribbon Bridge
•Short spanning capacity – good structural
economy
•Serpentine promenade- no distinct
overlooks
5.2.a
Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Presentation [Revision 1] (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
CONCEPT 04 – Intersecting Wave Bridge
•Form Derived from waves
•Steel through girder – structure
above walkway
5.2.a
Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Presentation [Revision 1] (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
CONCEPT 04 – Intersecting Wave Bridge
5.2.a
Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Presentation [Revision 1] (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
CONCEPT 05 – Boats in the Harbor Bridge
•Plays off marina forms & traditional fishing structures
•Truss – Long span steel structure –
moderate economy
5.2.a
Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Presentation [Revision 1] (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
CONCEPT 05 – Boats in the Harbor Bridge
5.2.a
Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Presentation [Revision 1] (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
CONCEPT 06 – Cast Net Bridge
Singular Element
•Form inspired by fishing net
hoops
•Steel arch – long main span –
moderate expense
5.2.a
Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Presentation [Revision 1] (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
CONCEPT 06 – Cast Net Bridge
5.2.a
Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Presentation [Revision 1] (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
How we will evaluate alternatives
5.2.a
Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Presentation [Revision 1] (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
Funding Outlook
Overall Project Cost Estimate: $29,885,000
Current Commitments
•Washington State $ 7,200,000
•City, BNSF, Sound Transit, Port of
Edmonds, Community Transit $ 290,000
Outstanding Funding Applications
•INFRA Grant $ 16,926,000
•FMSIB Grant $ 3,000,000
Funding Gap $ 2,469,000
5.2.a
Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Presentation [Revision 1] (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
Questions?
5.2.a
Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Presentation [Revision 1] (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
Early Design Concepts Outreach Summary
Community Meeting: February 28, 2018, 6 – 8 p.m.
Online: February 28 – March 16, 2018
Drop-in Sessions: March 14 and March 15
Updated 3/27/2018
Overview
The City of Edmonds is working with the community and key stakeholders to design and construct the
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector. The Waterfront Connector will be a one-lane emergency vehicle
and pedestrian overpass that will connect Edmonds Street to the Brackett’s Landing North parking lot.
The Waterfront Connector will be a long-term solution to street-level railroad crossing conflicts, allowing
pedestrians and emergency vehicles safe and direct access to the waterfront.
The team hosted the project’s first public meeting to share information and gather feedback on
February 28. An online open house, available from February 28 through March 16, provided an
opportunity for community members to share their feedback if they were unable to attend the
community meeting. On March 14 and 15, the project team hosted neighborhood drop-in sessions to
provide property owners along Sunset Avenue and Edmonds Street to speak directly with the project
team in a small group setting.
At all meetings and online, the community was able to learn about the project, hear about the progress
made since completing the Waterfront At-Grade Crossings Alternative Analysis in 2016 and provide
feedback on bridge components and early design concepts. The project team will use feedback gathered
from the community to further refine the evaluation criteria and help narrow down the design concepts
into two alternative designs.
Attendance
Through the community meeting, online open house, and neighborhood drop-in sessions the project
team was able to reach around 400 community members.
• Community Meeting: The project team estimated that over 70 members of the public attended
the workshop, with 62 attendees signed-in at the welcome station. Attendees at the in-person
meetings were primarily those who live along Sunset Avenue and adjacent neighborhoods,
some attendees lived further away from the project area but are users of the waterfront.
• Online Open House: Between February 28 and March 16, there were 388 sessions on the
website, with 311 unique visitors. The majority of the visitors to the online open house came
from Edmonds.
• Neighborhood Drop-in Sessions: Ten community members attended the first drop-in session on
March 14. On March 15, another ten community members were in attendance. Two community
members from the March 14 session attended the March 15 session with some follow-up items.
Notifications
Public nofications included the following:
• Print display ads in the Edmonds Beacon on February 22, 2018.
• Stakeholder emails, which provided an opportunity to share a project update and invite
interested parties from the Edmonds At-Grade Crossings Alternatives Analysis community
meetings and an adjacent City of Edmonds project.
5.2.b
Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
Page 2
• Announcements on the City website.
• Social media posts on Facebook promoting the community workshop and online open house.
• Posters distributed to 30 locations throughout the community. See Appendix A for a list of
locations.
• Letters sent to 96 property owners and businesses near the project corridor.
Examples of the notifications can be found in Appendix B.
Key themes
The following key themes emerged from the feedback received in-person and online:
• Design a subtle bridge with a lower profile to maintain views from Sunset Avenue
• Create a bridge that enhances and blends into the natural elements along the waterfront
• Include viewing areas throughout the bridge, highlighting all views (mountains, ferries,
waterfront, etc.)
• Integrate low-level lighting in the curbs of the bridge to reduce impacts to evening views and the
night sky
• Minimize impacts and if possible, enhance the beach and surrounding park amenities (e.g.
restrooms, outdoor showers)
• Think about ways to address and/or minimize parking and traffic impacts along Sunset Avenue
and in Brackett’s Landing North
• At future meetings, share information about design costs, construction costs, and funding
• Ensure bridge has safe space for all users including pedestrians, bicycle riders, and emergency
vehicles
Community Meeting
The Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector team held a community meeting on Wednesday, February
28, 2018 from 6 to 8 p.m. at the Edmonds Library.
Staff
Staff from the City of Edmonds and the consultant teams (Tetra Tech, Parametrix, EnviroIssues, and VIA)
attended the meeting to help answer the community’s questions, facilitate the Q&A session, and
document attendee feedback.
City of Edmonds
• Rob English
• Ed Sibrel
• Phil Williams
• Patrick Doherty
Parametrix
• Sandy Glover
VIA
• Eric Birkhauser
• Emily Perchlik
Tetra Tech
• Rick Schaefer
EnviroIssues
• Kerri Franklin
• Allan Vann
Format
The first half of the meeting was a presentation, followed by a facilitated question-and-answer session.
The presentation covered the following topics:
• Welcome
• Project overview
o History: Waterfront At-Grade Crossings Alternative Analysis process and outcome
o Community engagement and feedback received
5.2.b
Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
Page 3
o Project map, schedule, and decision-making process
o Evaluation criteria
• Current design concepts
o Experiential elements
o Design components
o Bridge design options
The question-and-answer session was facilitated by Kerri Franklin. Questions were answered by Rick
Schaefer, Eric Birkhauser, and Phil Williams.
The second half of the meeting was an open house where attendees could look at project information
boards, speak with project staff and ask questions, and share feedback.
Online Open House
The online open house was available from February 28 through March 16. The majority of visitors
accessed the website directly, followed by linking to it from the City of Edmonds website, and Facebook.
The most visited pages were the Welcome page and the Pick a Concept page. See Appendix C for
additional visitor data.
Format
Users of the online open house were able to learn about the project and provide feedback on several
different design components and concepts. The pages in the online open house included:
• Welcome (feedback question)
• Connector 101
• Evaluation Criteria
• Bridge Components (feedback question)
• Pick a Concept (feedback question)
• General Comments (feedback question)
• Library
Neighborhood Drop-in Sessions
The project team hosted neighborhood drop-in sessions for property owners along Sunset Avenue and
Edmonds Street on March 14 from 6 to 8 p.m. and March 15 from 12:30 to 2:30 p.m. at the North Sound
Center.
Staff
City of Edmonds
• Ed Sibrel
• Phil Williams
Tetra Tech
• Rick Schaefer
EnviroIssues
• Allan Vann
Format
The neighborhood drop-in sessions were formatted to meet the needs of the community members that
attended each session. Project staff had small group conversations and answered questions about the
project purpose and need, the At-Grade Crossings Alternatives Analysis, and the early design concepts.
Project staff recorded the questions asked and attendees had the opportunity to provide comments
both verbally and using comment cards.
5.2.b
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
Page 4
A complete list of questions and comments heard at the drop-in sessions can be found in Appendix E.
Feedback
Both in-person and online, the community was asked to share their thoughts on certain design
components and early design concepts. People shared their feedback verbally and through boards/dots,
comment cards, sticky notes, an online survey, and online comment form. Below are key themes of the
feedback received and the survey results. Images of the boards, online survey results and all comments
received can be found in the appendix.
Survey Results
Participants at the community meeting and the online open house were asked a series of questions to
gather feedback on the Waterfront Connector. Below are a sample of comments from the open-ended
questions and the survey results. For each survey question, the community was asked to provide
additional context. A sample of comments from each survey question are also included below. For links
to the online survey information and full comments, see Appendix F. For images of the boards with
votes/dots, see Appendix G.
1. What do you want your Waterfront Connector to be?
In-person
Online
TOTAL
TOTAL 8 22 30
“A safe, subtle, pedestrian and ER only overpass blending with the horizon.”
“A place to watch the sound and a place to watch BNSF and Amtrak!”
“A nice fit with the landscape and place to view nature.”
“Keep it simple, clean (low height) and low cost!”
“Please do not impede on brackets landing park”
2. Do you want the connector to be distinctive or subtle? Votes
In-person
Votes
Online
TOTAL
A. Distinctive 2 8 10
“You can be distinct and less intrusive - it should have an iconic look”
“Would prefer something distinctive yet subtle, is that possible. Something that jives with nature
and is beautiful and artistic would be nice.”
B. Subtle 21 30 51
“Blend with the scenery, not become the scenery.”
“It shouldn't detract from the beauty of the area”
“The view is the distinctive aspect - let's not try and compete with it.”
TOTAL 23 38 61
3. Bridge Shape and Experience: Alignment Votes
In-person
Votes
Online
TOTAL
A. Straight across 4 6 10
“Keeping the design simple and clean yet functional is appealing to me.”
“Simplicity and no switchbacks would be better.”
5.2.b
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
Page 5
B. Kinked alignment 0 6 6
“I prefer the radial alignment, but think this may be a compromise, as to keep costs lower. I don’t
want more higher taxes.”
C. Radial alignment 11 27 38
“I would prefer less impact at landing, but I also think excellent sightlines and avoiding structural
supports in high tide area are important considerations.”
“More visually pleasing, more aligned with natural surrounding landscape (bluff and landing
areas).”
“The lines of the waterfront are organic. Too many straight lines will conflict with the natural
beauty.”
TOTAL 15 39 54
4. What do you want from the viewing area? Votes
In-person
Votes
Online
TOTAL
A. Expansive promenade 13 23 36
“More room to stop and look without everyone being crowded into one area.”
“This is an extension of Sunset Ave.”
“More opportunities for individuals to stand with less crowding.”
B. Distinct overlook 0 16 16
“Helps separate the viewers from walking/biking traffic.”
TOTAL 13 39 52
5. What do you want the lighting to look like? Votes
In-person
Votes
Online
TOTAL
A. At curbs 17 30 47
“Appears to have the least interference with evening views and less invasive for night time skies
for neighbors in the area.”
“This should interfere less with the sunsets.”
“[Subtle] but adequate”
B. In posts 0 7 7
“A soft lighting approach but still seems more ADA friendly than the curb lighting.”
C. In handrail 6 3 9
“Less impact to skyline and people living near there”
TOTAL 23 40 63
6. Which bridge concepts do you prefer (pick two) and why? Votes
In-person
Votes
Online
TOTAL
1: Sculptural Columns 4 19 23
“Naturalistic timber supports, viewing areas.”
“Like overlooks, sustainable materials/timber used, and columns seem like they would blend in
well to nature based on rendering.”
5.2.b
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
Page 6
2: Driftwood Bridge 9 30 39
“Best part about this design is seems least impact to natural beach processes (at least as natural
as we can try to recreate in an urban waterfront). I love the planted RR overpass section.”
“My #1 choice – most natural and in harmony with the surrounding environment and maintains
the parklike setting.”
“Simplicity and keeping with the Edmonds vibe.”
3: Kelp Ribbon Bridge 7 6 13
“I like the thinner structural depth to reduce visual impact.”
4: Intersecting Waves - Fluid Form 0 5 5
“Very simple.”
5: Boats in the Harbor 1 8 9
“Visually impressive.”
6: Cast Net - Singular Element 8 13 21
“Nice shape. Also seems to have little impact at the beach. Would be unique.”
“This is also a nice scheme as it doesn't add many columns to the ground. However, the arch might
be too gigantic for this low-rise context.”
TOTAL 29 81 110
5.2.b
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
Appendix
Page 7
Appendix A: Poster Locations
Business Address
Downtown/Edmonds Bowl
1 Edmonds City Hall 121 5th Ave N, Edmonds, WA 98020
2 Edmonds Realty 111 Main St #101, Edmonds, WA 98020
3 Walnut Street Coffee 410 Walnut St, Edmonds, WA 98020
4 The Edmonds Theater 415 Main St, Edmonds, WA 98020
5 Café Louvre 210 5th Ave S, Edmonds, WA 98020
6 Starbucks 502 Main Street, Edmonds, WA 98020
7 Edmonds Bookshop 111 5th Ave S, Edmonds, WA 98020
8 Edward Jones 201 5th Ave S Suite 104, Edmonds, WA 98020
9 Ace Hardware 550 5th Ave S, Edmonds, WA 98020
10 Pancake Haus Next to Ace Hardware
11 Transit Stop (near library) N/A
12 Edmonds Library 650 Main St, Edmonds, WA 98020
13 Frances Anderson Center 700 Main St, Edmonds, WA 98020
Westgate/Sherwood Forest
14 PCC Market 9803 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, WA 98020
15 QFC 22828 100th Ave W, Edmonds, WA 98020
16 Starbucks 9801 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, WA 98020
Firdale/Ballenger
17 Safeway 23632 WA-99, Edmonds, WA 98026
18 Firdale Market (or window/business inside
the shopping area)
Perrinville/Seaview/Meadowdale
19 Perrinville Market 7533 Olympic View Dr # A, Edmonds, WA 98026
5.2.b
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
Appendix
Page 8
20 Other businesses that allow posters, check
in at The Hook, Bistro 76, Mel and Mia’s
5 Corners/Medical District/99
21 Edmonds Community College (Bookstore) 20000 68th Ave W, Lynnwood, WA 98036
22 5 Corners Grocery 8406 Bowdoin Way, Edmonds, WA 98026
23 Café Ladro 8403 Main St, Edmonds, WA 98026
Waterfront
24 Waterfront Coffee Company 101 Main St, Edmonds, WA 98020
25 Amtrak Station 211 Railroad Ave, Edmonds, WA 98020
26 Ferry terminal
27 Edmonds Senior Center 220 Railroad Ave, Edmonds, WA 98020
28 Marina Beach Off-Leash Area (bulletin
board)
470 Admiral Way, Edmonds, WA 98020
29 Brackett’s Landing North Sandwich boards in parking lot; signage by shower
stations and restrooms
30 Sunset Ave pedestrian walkway Sandwich boards along path
5.2.b
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
Appendix
Page 9
Appendix B: Notification Materials
Poster
5.2.b
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
Appendix
Page 10
Display Ad
Social Media
5.2.b
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
Appendix
Page 11
Letter
5.2.b
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
Appendix
Page 12
Appendix C: Online Open House Attendance Summary
5.2.b
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
Appendix
Page 13
Appendix D: Transcribed community meeting comments
Board Comment
Project Area • Is it true that all will be above high tide line?
• Where are they going to park when there are few spaces now
on Sunset?
• Please improve pedestrian safety for those crossing Sunset
(especially from Bell St)
• 2nd Ave N is wonderfully FULL of walkers. Please keep this in
mind.
• Where ppl using the bridge going to park?
What do you want the
Waterfront Connector to
be?
• A safe, subtle, pedestrian and ER only overpass blending with
the horizon.
• The cheapest way to improve emergency response for W of
BSNF.
• A place to watch the sound and a place to watch BNSF and
Amtrak!
• An iconic piece of architecture that will be distinctive for
Edmonds
• Non-existent
• Low impact to beach use, neighborhood
• A route for walkers to come up/go down to beach
• An emergency access to waterfront first, low-profile, no distinct
viewing, southern sweeping, guardrails see-through rails. This
bridge should not be a gather place, but used for transportation
– bikes, etc.
Evaluation Criteria What about neighborhood impacts?
Do you want the Connector
to be distinctive or subtle?
Subtle
• Maintain the character of the waterfront
• Southern sweeping span, low profile, low guardrails
• More natural, non-intrusive
• We don’t go to waterfront to see a bridge, we want to see
nature
• Low profile, doesn’t lock view for those on Sunset or Edmonds
St
What do you want from
the view area?
Expansive
• For an evolving view along the route
• No – the natural water views from Sunset Blvd offer a view of
the sound – we do not need an expansive cement structure.
Distinct
• No viewing area
• No – this bridge does not need distinct viewing
What do you want the
lighting to look like?
Lighting at curbs
• Avoid tripping
• Less light pollution (x 6)
• Natural, non-intrusive
5.2.b
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
Appendix
Page 14
Lighting in handrail
• Subtle low-profile
• Don’t put lights in the way of the view
Bridge Concept Comment
02: Driftwood Bridge #2 - Please to the eye, non-intrusive; natural driftwood
04: Intersecting Waves -
Fluid Form
#4 obstructs view too much
05: Stepped Peaks • No, very intruding on views of Sunset tax payers
• This one is too visually distracting. We don't want the bridge to
be the focus of attention. Plus, it's kinda ugly.
• Most intrusive above + below
• #5 is very bad from view obstruction
• I am not interested in any structure that interferes with the
view out of the water.
• Keep the profile low. NOT this.
06: Cast Net - Singular
Element
• Keep the profile LOW.
• No, very intruding on views of Sunset tax payers
• I like the openness and relatively low visual impact of [illegible]
zone, as well as [the] sweeping curve
• #6 obstructs view too much!
Comment Cards
I thought the Edmonds Crossing effort was a real plan. What is the value if Edmonds Crossing does
happen?
Camping under the bridge will be an issue since there will be cover for hobo's. Any consideration for the
camping under it?
Traffic and parking in the Brackett's Landing Park is already an issue and adding lost traffic would be an
issue.
Having gates to restrict traffic until there is a real need seems to be missing as of now. Having [illegible]
can not using it would be nice.
Lighting - if the structure is for traffic offloading, then cars/trucks making their way is whole different
lighting than anything described.
Visual options 1, 2, + 3 are much better than the others. They have the least impact on overall view. The
smallest bridge would be the best.
Rainwater on bridge needs to be addressed as the stormwater from the parking lot in the park just
heads to the sound with no/limited treatment.
I don't see alignment between the walkway and the beach use with unloading a ferry with all the trucks
and load carried by the ferry. What happen to the city's view/value in the Edmonds Crossing solution to
the waterfront?
5.2.b
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
Appendix
Page 15
Seems the needs for emergency vehicles and ferry unload conflict with existing bath house. I don't see
that included in the plan.
Storm conditions on the beach as well as the bridge connection in the parking lot is going to be a
surprise if the Dec 1984 snow storm that caused the marine failure are not considered.
#5 - Boats in harbor - seems return to the sea of old telephone pole set up which were removed at great
cost in the 1980s
#6 the overhead detail blocks view to some people
All the postings for the 6 alternatives omit cost info. Is this not a criteria?
I feel that the gist of this project is excessive relative to the projected gains. I'm concerned about the
additional traffic and pedestrian traffic which this project will generate. I also do not like the idea of a
bridge being built on a beautiful beach. I am NOT in favor of this project.
I do not want to see more congestion on Sunset. How do you plan to handle the parking?
A straight shot after a curve - simple, less expensive. A lookout at the end or viewing "bump outs" along
the way are a stupid waste of money; after all, the entire length is a viewing "alley" since no vehicular
traffic is anticipated under normal conditions.
The fancy designs portrayed aren't practical - just build a low level bridge with glass railings and curb
lighting for low impact is best - property owners on other side are less affected.
Cost - unbelievable!
Residents like us on 2nd and Edmonds totally impacted negatively!
View for all of us obstructed
Edmonds beaches ruined with bridge
How about a simple bridge over to Arnie's on curves!
Is the Edmonds Art Commission involved with design with overpass cage or walls?
The focus on bridge designs is irrelevant. We don't need a fancy bridge, jus the basic to meet the needs.
The main thing for me is to keep the beach natural. It is a small slice of nature so necessary in our urban
environments.
Design #3 is the best because it is thing, the guardrails do not block views from Sunset, and although
there is a "kink" it will not block the views from Sunset. It is VERY important not to see a cement
structure blocking views from the perspective of sunset.
I think this connector should be as inconspicuous as possible. Why detract from natural perfection? I
don't think this is a good location for a connector, nor do I think the price tag is reasonable.
Great presentation. Please - Brackett's Landing and the shoreline is uniquely beautiful as it is. Try to
keep it that way.
Why are we talking about this option and not about the mid-block pedestrian bridge?! I have seen NO
assessment of benefits to the city in terms of improved emergency response in the two options.
Without this information, it is impossible to determine if paying $30 million is warranted as opposed to
paying $6 million. Also, as a resident, I am NOT concerned about DOT or port problem, but only about
emergency response for he west side of the train tracks. This is irresponsible spending of public funds!
I'm concerned about the project's impact on 2nd Ave N. Our street is used by hundreds of walkers and
children everyday. Do not ignore this.
This is a lot of money to spend for the rare occurrence of blocked access and emergency routes. This is
not worth the monetary and environmental costs.
Radial alignment impacts less beach.
5.2.b
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
Appendix
Page 16
How to deal with skateboarders? Will be a magnet for South County skateboarders!!!
1. Parking at beach landing will be lost - where to park up and down.
2. Concepts
- No superstructure that blocks the view
- 5% grade is just "too much" bridge
- Fewest number of support columns to disturb the water table environment
- Ruins the beach area access
- Not worth $30 million today's - translates into $60 million in 10 years
- Still not convincing funding
- Seems like a "mayoral monument." Let's just do a statue.
- Do NOT allow bikes. No other vehicles. Don't do bikes. It will become a hazard.
No distinct viewing
Low profile
No kinks. This is so views from Sunset are NOT blocked.
Landing area: Open space so not to block exits; no look and feel to landing
Experience: 5% gradient consistent throughout
Scale: low profile, must not interfere with views
Entry point: no kinds, no fly expansion, southern angle
Guard rail must be transparent, no solid walls
Bridge type:
- Do not like Option 1, do not like overlooks - not necessary. Ridiculous to spend money.
- Do not like the overlook at all on underside of bridge.
- Option 3: I like the shape and form with thin sections, southern sweeping pathway, short spanning
capacity
- No distinct overlooks
- Rails are not solid, low profile
1. Without knowing cost on each option, it is not possible to vote.
2. Bringing any additional traffic to sunset is a bad idea. The Sunset project was never finished and it was
a minimal cost compared to this project. The new Sunset pathway has brought too much additional
traffic. there are still dangerous situations because "they" allow people to park solid on Sunset. The city
says that cannot enforce the parking because it is not marked properly and because they have limited
enforcement because of budget, so it is VERY difficult to support this project when the city has not
completed the sunset project. No to this project!
5.2.b
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
Appendix
Page 17
Appendix E: Drop-in Session Recorded Questions and Comments
Questions
• Why are we not considering options near the marsh or further south along the waterfront,
like Main or Dayton?
• Why is the City not considering the pedestrian walkway? Why does this need to incorporate
vehicle access?
• Why is this needed? In what instances?
• How will emergency vehicles and bridge users interact in the case of emergency?
• How will you prevent debris being thrown off of the bridge?
• How high will the bridge need to be to allow a train to pass underneath?
• Where will people park?
• Cars will overflow into side streets and residents will not be able to park
• There is no way to add parking onto Sunset
• Why does this need to be built now and not when the ferry dock gets relocated?
• Are there any plans to reconfigure or improve the park?
• Who will maintain the bridge and surrounding vegetation?
• Will the Connector be used for ferry offloading?
• How is the Connector going to be funded?
• Will the Connector be able to accommodate if BNSF wants to expand to two tracks?
• What will the total height of the bridge be, including the throw barrier?
• What is the schedule/timeline of the project?
• How many alternatives were considered in the initial At-Grade Crossings Alternatives
analysis?
• How did we get to these 6 design concepts?
• How will the Waterfront Connector accommodate potential increased ferry traffic?
• How often does the City anticipate the Connector to be used by emergency vehicles?
• When is the expected completion date?
• The taxpayers do not feel heard. What kind of action can we take?
• How often will the Connector be used for ferry offloading? Where will the cars be
redirected?
• Where will the Connector land in Brackett’s Landing?
• How high will the Connector be?
• What will happen to the bathrooms at Brackett’s Landing?
• How will the businesses on the Waterfront be affected?
• How does the Edmonds Street Waterfront Project fit into the plans for the Sunset Avenue
project?
• How does the City anticipate preventing other vehicles or motorcycles to access the bridge?
• What will the throw barrier look like?
• Do you anticipate excavating artifacts?
• Are there plans for infill at the Edmonds beach?
• Has the project team considered rising water levels when designing the bridge columns?
• Will the project team install additional emergency signals along Edmonds Street (specially,
at 3rd Avenue)?
• Will the project team consider additional vehicle and pedestrian safety designs along
Edmonds Street or Sunset Avenue?
5.2.b
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
Appendix
Page 18
• What type of notifications/warnings will be built into the Connector to notify users of
emergencies?
• What type of impacts can residents expect along Edmonds Street?
Comments
• Scenario 2 with vegetation, how do you promise that will be maintained? Concerned it will
grow (like Edmonds Beach) taller and block view even more
• Concerned about view, paying taxes (high!) for view to [be obstructed]
• Terrible idea. But of 6 concepts – least obstructive is best. So, 5 and 6 are horrible. 2 and 3
seem least awful.
• Staffing an EMT on waterside seems a far preferable option. LEAST INTRUSION.
• I really like #1 and #2 concepts and look forward to the next update.
• Don’t build it. The City needs to reevaluate the other alternatives with more community
input.
• The project team hasn’t clearly articulated or justified the need for the project.
o The scenario in which the waterfront is completely inaccessible happens very rarely
o The project team has not clarified if the Connector will be used in every emergency
response situation or only if the Waterfront is inaccessible through other
connections.
• Views from taxpaying property owners will be affected.
• Parking is already a major issue. Traffic on Sunset will increase by creating an
easier/alternative connection to the Waterfront.
• Mixing emergency vehicles and users of the Connector creates potential for conflicts and
safety concerns
• There were not enough opportunities for project area residents to provide their input
• The property owners that are in the project area (i.e. taxpayers) do not feel heard.
• Concerns about safety and crime due to increased foot traffic
• Concerns about the status of the Sunset Avenue project
• Push to reconsider other alternatives
o Remote station
o Pedestrian overpass on Dayton or Main
o Bridge over Dayton
• There’s a need for traffic calming measures along Sunset Avenue
o Drivers are confused by or ignore the switch to one-way traffic
• Traffic along Sunset Avenue will increase regardless where the bridge will be built
• Parking needs to be enforced throughout the city, especially along Sunset
o Handicap spots are being used illegally
• The project may inspire the design/construction of a separate “connector” for ferry
offloading
• Pedestrian/parks grants should be considered by the team
• Concerns about increased parking problems and blocked driveways
5.2.b
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
Appendix
Page 19
Appendix F: Online Open House Survey Comments
1. Do you want the connector to be distinctive or subtle?
A. Distinctive
• I like the idea of it being a place to be proud of. Maybe not anything too big or flashy,
but unique to Edmonds. So, distinctive, yet subtle if possible.
• Would prefer something distinctive yet subtle, is that possible. Something that jives with
nature and is beautiful and artistic would be nice.
• Given the two word choices, distinctive vs. Subtle, [I] choose distinctive, because the
examples show bridges that do not try to hide their structural components. Many
modern bridges around the world proudly feature design elements that are beautiful
because of their structure.
• Because why not? A little flare never hurt anyone
• You can be distinct and less intrusive - it should have an iconic look
• It's going to be a [center point] of the waterfront regardless, might as well have it stand
out.
• Adds beauty to a practical ramp
• It should be a [highlight] of the waterfront and stand out to visitors (photo ops) and let
people know they are in Edmonds
B. Subtle
• Preserve the views and unobtrusive
• Blend with the scenery, not become the scenery
• Integrates into the surrounding natural environment (bluff, dune grass, driftwood) better
• Please, please use a subtle design. This area is such a beautiful area of Edmonds. The
bridge should not be the focal point here. The natural beauty of the
outdoors/mountains/waterfront should be showcased and I believe a subtle design will
allow this to happen.
• The waterfront is beautiful as is and I'd hate to distract from that.
• Because I don 't want to take views away and make the bridge a focal point.
• The view is so gorgeous, I don 't want a bridge to stand out, I want it to disappear
• We are constructing an ememgency access/pedestrian walkway, not the Sydney opera
house
• Minimal impact on the natural beauty of the area and simpler design/construction cost.
• In this location the natural beauty and views are the distinctive features. As much as
possible, the new bridge should be designed and constructed to blend in and disappear
so as not to detract from the natural beauty.
• To reduce effect on view shed of visitors and home owners in sunset avenue. This will
impede a section of the view. Let's minimize the impact as much as possible. A low
profile would help do this.
• The view is the distinctive aspect - let 's not try and compete with it.
• More attractive with the natural surroundings. Also prefer natural materials/look
• I don 't want girders or support wires sticking up high and detracting from the view of
the water, mountains, ferries, etc.
• It looks like it will be in a place that is not in a high traffic/visibility area - better to keep a
lower profile/integrated with area
• Nothing can match the beauty of Puget Sound and the olympic mts. To attempt to do so
5.2.b
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
Appendix
Page 20
will come off as ostentatious and overbearing
• It shouldn't detract from the beauty of the area
• To not become outdated and hideous
• The connector is a bridge that will be visible in the foreground of almost every sound-
facing view. The sunset drive view is famous for it 's unobstructed views. The bridge
should be as subtle as possible such that it minimizes visual impact on the views.
Residents and visitors come to the walking lane on sunset to view the natural beauty of
the bluff. They won 't come to see an obtrusive ( "distinctive ") bridge that obstructs the
view. Keep it simple and out of the sight lines.
• The beauty and simplicity of Edmonds is distinctive all on its own and to have a
distrinctive structure would distract from the natual beauty of the area.
• Don 't do it at all. Don 't trash the beach right next to a protected area. It 's going to ruin
the entire beach!
• The focus of the area is the beach and the views. Anything that interrupts the view will
be a distraction.
• A low profile will not interfere as much with the natural view of the water and
mountains from sunset ave.
• Edmonds is a quiet town, subtle will blend in with the town 's image and feel.
• It's bad enough that we have to put a man-made structure on a beautiful natural site.
Please don 't make it tacky on top of it.
• I have a view home on sunset. Would prefer the connector not obscure my view.
• We 're moving to Edmonds because it is so quaint and "subtle ". Edmonds is unique and
I like the simplicity of it.
• I think the distinctive simple arch of the 'cast net ' style if minimalist would be both and
make a bit of a statement to echo the spectacular view.
• People come for the view of the water - the more natural and unobtrusive the connector
the better
• To blend with the beauty of the shoreline
2. Which alignment do you prefer?
A. Straight Across
• Avoid large impacts at beach.
• cost and ease of construction
• Less impact on view and the beach.
• The beach is already tiny. Don 't clog it up with the unnecessary bridge!
• Simplicity and no switchbacks would be better.
• Keeping the design simple and clean yet functional is appealing to me.
B. Kinked Alignment
• Moderate cost, but more beautiful
• The Radial Alignment looks nicest visually from the top, but that's not where we will be
viewing it from so maybe the Kinked would be best in order to save a little money and
for more moderate impact at landing. It's hard to choose without seeing which bridge
design is chosen. I probably prefer Radial, but I 'll take them middle ground.
• good sightline, cost, easier to permit
• I prefer the radial alignment, but think this may be a compromise, as to keep costs lower.
5.2.b
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
Appendix
Page 21
I don 't want more higher taxes.
• Appeal I think the distinctive simple arch of the 'cast net ' style if minimalist would be
both and make a bit of a statement to echo the spectacular view.
• People come for the view of the water - the more natural and unobtrusive the connector
the better
• To blend with the beauty of the shoreline
C. Radial Alignment
• Again esthetics is important and the waterfront is a long-term investment for Edmonds
• More visually pleasing, more aligned with natural surrounding landscape (bluff and
landing areas)
• Seems to fit in with area best, good sightlines and easier for emergency vehicles to
navigate...expecting an ambulance or especially a fire truck to make a true 90 degree
turn seems hard if not impossible
• seems the best of bad choices
• Less obstruction of view
• more graceful, fits in with environment
• It flows with the surrounding environment more so than the other two designs
• Seems to respond best to the existing features and topography. Concerned, however,
with how much larger the structure will need to be due to the longer span. Kinked
alignment would be my 2nd choice.
• Avoidance of structural supports in high tide area.
• This is an opportunity for beauty.
• I would prefer less impact at landing, but I also think excellent sightlines and avoiding
structural supports in high tide area are important considerations.
• Graceful path
• The lines of the waterfront are organic. Too many straight lines will conflict with the
natural beauty
• Looks the coolest
• The increased cost for this design will result in a more enjoyable viewing experience for
residents and visitors. This radial design will result in higher visitation and increase
revenue for local businesses while reducing visual impact. The higher cost will be made
up by revenue generated from increased visitation. The greater the visual impact, the
fewer visits. This bridge should integrate with its environment, not compete with it.
• First, I don 't believe a bridge is necessary but, to comment, the bridge should blend in
with the natural landscape and not have it be distinctive or stand out -- less visual of the
bridge and more of the pure beauty of Puget Sound
• Matches curve of beach
• more aesthetically pleasing
• Don 't want it too steep. I have a bad back. Gentle curve would be more aesthetic.
• Might be safer for emergency use vehicles.
• No sharp turns which is always good. Less work may need to be done in future. Seems
better for emergency vehicles.
• more pleasing
• The description says it all - most graceful, excellent sightlines and no structural supports
in high tide area
• best sightlines
5.2.b
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
Appendix
Page 22
3. What do you want from the viewing area?
A. Expansive promenade
• For all to enjoy and use. Promote foot traffic for residents
• the whole walkway will be a lookout
• More room to stop and look without everyone being crowded into one area. I like to
watch sea birds, as do others, so more places to stop for a look would be better.
• View can be shared by more people as long as expansive promenade doesn 't block view
of water from other areas
• More opportunity to find a view angle with many people present
• views all along, buldge unattractive
• There may be many different angles people would want to view from, and the Expansive
Promenade seems to provide that best.
• Looks like access for more people
• This will likely be heavily utilized by pedestrians so best to keep them moving rather than
congregating in one area.
• No need to condense the viewing area into one specific area.
• Prefer a broader area where more people can enjoy the view. Please make sure there is
an area where someone in a wheelchair can also enjoy the view. Not like at the Edmonds
marshlands where the fencing and railing block the view for one in a wheelchair.
• Not limited
• More graceful and gives more room for different viewing angles.
• This is an extension of Sunset Ave.
• people stop wherever they want, this will keep enough space for people at all times
• As Edmonds grows the expansive promenade offers more viewing areas
• seems to be more user friendly and offers more expansive views and resting spots
• Looks like this is what the radial alignment would provide anyway
• more opportunities for individuals to stand with less crowding
B. Distinct Overlook
• Can we have both ideas? A distinct, flat spot might be nice to watch the sunset, but the
whole view is wonderful.
• Seems like a smaller footprint, thought hard to tell at this point
• less dominate bridge
• More vista opportunites for more users
• If this is just for emergency vehicles, no promenade needed.
• Less impact on area.
• looks sturdier. especially given our earthquake area.
• Helps separate the viewers from walking/biking traffic
• Keep it minimal. No one comes to Sunset Ave. to see other people. We walk along the
waterfront to see the unobstructed views. Keep this bridge minimal.
• simplicity -- less is best
• We need to be as focused as possible on the environmental impact of this project.
Where are the environmental impact statements?
5.2.b
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
Appendix
Page 23
• Having the least impact on the existing beach is important to me.
• I am concerned that without a distinct overlook that bikers may stop and block paths for
others. That being said I prefer expansive otherwise for better viewing pleasure.
Combine the two?
• people should be transported over the railroad to the beach. Shouldn 't encourage
loitering
• keeping stationary folks sequestered so strollers might experience moments of feeling
alone soaring with views.
4. What do you want the lighting to look like?
A. At Curbs
• Low lighting better
• The image used above is most pleasing to me, seems least light impact while providing
effective lighting. I 'm also partial to the use of wood and other more natural looking
construction materials in the example image used.
• Most visually pleasing
• Low impact on night views, and surrounding houses
• looks prettiest and maybe least hassle to build and maintain.
• it just seems to be the nicest option - again, being mindful that this is still a residential
area and not a high traffic area.
• No lights! Close it at night. You are going to ruin the view.
• less lighting -- again anything added to compete with the already beautiful view is
unacceptable. lighting will take away from viewing the stars over Puget Sound
• Keep the lights at curb level so They do not stick up and intefere with night time viewing
of boats and Puget Sound.
• Most subtle and nonobtrusive
• lowest light possible at night so it doesn't obscure view of existing homes
• subtle, can show off decking structure, not detract from sunrise, sunset light
B. Handrail
• less impact to skyline and people living near there
C. Posts
• Again, you need to be extremely mindful about how this will effect wildlife in the area.
We already have huge die-offs from birds, who get thrown off course from all the light
pollution in urban areas. We need to be considering how this light would affect animals
that live on and near the beach
5. Pick a Concept
A. Sculptural Columns
• I like the distinct viewpoints, and interesting shape of columns as viewed from beach-
level. However, seems like a larger footprint and shading from underneath than I would
desire for- may be more impact on natural beach processes than another design option.
• The celling formation below where touchs the beach is talking to the environment in a
respectful way
• Nice organic form provides both separation of the tracks from the beach while standing
5.2.b
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
Appendix
Page 24
in harmony with the beach through the appearance of weathered sandstone arches.
Very nice.
• Love the distinct overlooks, like the sustainable loo
• Like overlooks, sustainable materials/timber used, and columns seem.like they would
blend in well to nature based on rendering.
• appears to have the least obstruction to views from Sunset Ave
• Clean, how can the structure visually integrate into the beach environment from below
• I prefer any of the bridges that keep support visually low. Hate the Boats in Harbor
design
• love the overlooks
• Keep it small and ecofriendly
• This i
• Verticle structure could mimic the large basalt rocks that the railroad already uses to
keep the tracks from washing out.
• This is my first choice due to the look of simplicity, the low profile from Sunset Ave., and
the possibility of using sustainable timber.
• like the overlooks. Minimal view disruption from Sunset.
• naturalistic timber supports, viewing areas
B. Driftwood Bridge
• View point, blending with landscape, seems like least impact to the beach experience.
• Best part about this design is seems least impact to natural beach processes (at least as
natural as we can try to recreate in an urban waterfront). I love the planted RR overpass
section.
• This is a nice concept as the bridge is doing more than just crossing over the rails (it has
an added program: promanade for the view). It would be nice to see that one column
with a more articulated form (maybe the corners are rounded). One question to consider
(or maybe it has been considered already): Do the overpass and the drift part have two
different languages and are distint objects? Or is there going to be a soft and seamless
transition from one to the other? It seems like the former has been the intention. If so, it
would be nice to make the drift part more special through articulation of material and
details.
• Jim Dasher
• The vista point is nice. The separation of the material gives a good sense of zoning
between urban and nature. May be understood as a statement of a vibe change.
• I love the natural look of this. It fits with the area and I 'm a big fan of incorporating
nature into design.
• looks more authentic to Edmonds
• More compatible with surroundings
• Low profile and blends in not attracting attention to itself.
• Most expensive? Like the visual appeal at least from above
• Single support farthest from water is very appealing in terms of reducing the impact on
the area.
• This appears to be the most natural when you are on the structure. It is what it is, but
this may create more of a planned feel as opposed to an emergency access feel.
• Just seems to fit in the best to the environment
• I like the idea of a park-like setting. Would prefer better sightlines for emergency
5.2.b
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
Appendix
Page 25
vehicles---not such an abrupt turn.
• More attractive
• simplicity and keeping with the Edmonds vibe
• It needs to be as natural as possible and take up as little space as possible. Why do you
think this is a good idea to put a giant bridge on a tiny, crounded beach? You are going to
ruin the beach!
• My top choice due to the look of simplicity and the lower impact to the top of the beach.
The low profile is appealing, along with benches for pedestrians. If plantings are used,
they should be small. The beach and the view of water and mountains are the highlight
of the area.
• This is more appealing than having structure above the pedestrians.
• The low profile is appealing. I do question the likelihood of a large storm washing away
the driftwood logs though.
• Is this the design that has the least impacts on the nearshore marine environment and
public access?
• low visual impact
• the side comments capture my thoughts
• view point is great. Minimal view disruption.
• My #1 choice - most natural and in harmony with the surrounding environment and
maintains the parklike setting
C. Kelp Ribbon
• Really like the fluidity of the alignment. The short column spacing keeps things light. The
gentle rise of the throw barrier over the railway makes this a well integrated form.
• Low profile and blends in not attracting attention to itself.
• I like the thinner structural depth to reduce visual impact. Handrails need to be low--not
like the sketch that shows them twice the height of the people walking.
• the side comments capture my thoughts
D. Intersecting Waves
• very simple
• low visual impact
• My #2 choice for its smooth flowing lines and looks like it follows the natural landscape
the closest after the Driftwood option with fewer pillars than the Kelp Ribbon design
E. Boats in the Harbor
• Favorite - really unique and scenic
• visually impressive
F. Cast Net
• Nice shape. Also seems to have little impact at the beach. Would be unique.
• This is also a nice scheme as it doesn't add many columns to the ground. However, the
arch might be too gigantic for this low rise context.
• Very appealing visually.
• simple, beautiful, least impact on beach
• simplistic and modern, doesnt look too intrusive on beach level
• single, minimalist arch distinctive and match soaring view
6. What do you want your Connector to be?
5.2.b
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
Appendix
Page 26
• Railroad Ave or Dayton. ABSOLUTELY NOT at Edmonds & Sunset through Bracketts
Landing!!!!!! I will be out there vigorously protesting should thatcome to pass.
• I hope that the connector design will include design elements that minimize the
perceived walking distance of the incline. Pedestrian-scale detailing and rhythm in the
pavement and railing should break up the long expanse of ramp. Hanging flower baskets
would be nice. The overall design should be subtle and unobtrusive. I prefer that the
from the east, the connector have minimal visual impact. Corbitt Loch
• At Dayton, NOT at North Brackett's Landing. What foolishness, just NO.
• Something that doesn't touch our very valuable and loved and admired North Bracketts
Landing Park, at all.
• beautiful and useful
• A nice fit with the landscape and place to view nature.
• Not at brackets landing
• A continuation of a nice walkway at sunset that doesn't interfere with the areas beautiful
views and scenery
• Please do not it impede on brackets landing park
• Good solid simple design, side fencing to feature safety
• I live nearby and I want the waterfront connector to be safe for bicyclists, pets and
pedestrians. In a confined space like the connector, I'm concerned about people walking
their dogs on retractable leashes. They are the cause of many bike accidents because a
pet will dart out unexpectedly on a long leash that serves as a trip wire for the cyclist.
Please give this issue your attention to proactively prevent accidents. Thanks.
• Unobtrusive, blending into the protected area.
• 1. Simple, economic design with minimum vertical profile in material and composition. 2.
Use 8% grade with landings and built-up/bermed base with switchbacks in order to
accommodate bottom section-- avoid necessity of demolishing the existing restroom--
let P&R take care of that if they so choose. 3. Study reconfiguration of Brackett's Landing
parking lot AND instituting a paid parking lot condition for those who use this lot-- for
both divers, visitors/lookers, and 'walkers'!!
• Keep it simple, clean (low height) and low cost!
• Boardwalk for pedestrian traffic, benches, small vendors allowed, and pets on leashes
allowed.public restrooms and lockers for visitors.
• simple, modern, non-intrusive, lasting design
• Invisible to the eye as to not take away from the natural beauty and gorgeous views of
Edmonds.
• No waterfront connector is necessary, this project is not worth the money it will cost and
it destroys the beautiful waterfront!
• I do not want or support this waterfront connector project. It is too expensive and there
are better, more affordable alternatives that do not harm our shoreline. We need to
protect our shoreline not decimate it.
• Non existent! I was out this last sunny weekend watching all the walkers taking pictures
from Edmonds Street and Sunset of the low tide sandy beach. It makes me sad that this
is trying to be pushed through with out public support. No one I have asked wants this
concrete monster to replace the shore views. Especially for $30 million.
5.2.b
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
Appendix
Page 27
7. General Comments
• I was not at the public open house, but I saw the My Edmonds News article that
mentioned a community member expressed his opinion that City should only have to
pay for what benefits the City (safe pedestrian overpass and improved emergency
response on west side of tracks) and not what benefits WSDOT (ferry traffic
loading/unloading). My question is will WSDOT be helping to pay for construction and
maintenance of any final preferred alternative?
• I've mostly heard and seen negative comments about this bridge, but I think it's a great
idea. I think it could be really beautiful with a proper design, and enable more traffic
free strolling and viewing along the waterfront.
• Sorry, I just submitted a comment in favor of the bridge, but I'm only in favor if it will be
for pedestrian and emergency vehicle traffic only (no regular traffic). Thank you.
• Love the Kelp Ribbon Bridge design.
• I am confused. I thought this project was for emergency vehicles only. Here I see bike
lanes and pedestrian walkways. Pretty, but pretty expensive, too. Questions: 1) Will
parking decrease at Brackett's Landing? It's insufficient now. 2) Why a walkway and
bike area? Let's just use it for emergency services. 3) I am in favor of lower cost and
minimal environmental impact. Let's keep our beautiful waterfront as natural as
possible.
• From a pedestrian standpoint, while this provides another point of access to the
waterfront all it will do is highlight the lack of ANY pedestrian considerations getting
across the ferry lane separating Bracketts Landing North and South: Not enough room
for peds to stage waiting to cross. Little to no signage or street markings. All rely on 1
WSP employee who is usually having a conversation over their radio.
•
• There's really no good place for this overpass structure, but I understand the perceived
need. The selected location, though technically feasible, is particularly bad in terms of its
proximity to the beach. But I get that there are no other real options. My priority, if it
needs to be built, is for it to be as small as possible so as to limit the impact on the
waterfront and the beach. I look at what Sound Transit has been constructing for the
light rail above grade and cringe. I understand this one will need to be designed for
lighter loads so it will be smaller, but I'm very nervous about how it will look in this very
sensitive location. Hoping a way can be found to get it off the beach and keep it small!
• Please consider wheelchair views when selecting the bridge design---placement of
handrails, fencing, etc. Please make sure there is an area where someone in a wheelchair
can also enjoy the view. Not like at the Edmonds marshlands where the fencing and
railing block the view for anyone in a wheelchair. I was so disappointed when I took my
mother there. Thank you.
• the design should have distinction and a lasting look that we dont regret later. i think the
view from below looking back at it should be considered as well, not just as you are
walking on it. think simple and modern and unintrusive. *a side note - you have the "N"
direction wrong on your map. also, the renderings dont do enough to give a good idea
on the concepts. you need a better drawings for each
• Greetings: Sorry to have missed the open house, but I have one strong suggestion no
matter what design is chosen. While photographers have welcomed bridges as
opportunities for new angles, so many overpasses today are caged in chicken wire type
5.2.b
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
Appendix
Page 28
enclosures for unfortunately obvious reasons. Increasingly, these fences over railroads
are being equipped with camera ports, just large enough for a camera lens. Although
the city seems unaware, Edmonds has been an international destination for railroad
photographers, with Sunset Avenue gracing the cover of a book on the best places for
rail photography in North America. Since the "makeover" of Sunset with markedly
reduced parking spots and restricted times, not to mention thorny bushes which tear
pants and limit access, the attraction has diminished considerably. Adding camera
portholes or any other plan to allow using the structure for train pictures would be
greatly appreciated, a draw for tourists to the city, and a restoration of faith and sanity
after the Sunset Avenue changes. Thank you for your consideration.
• I have given my thoughts, but I prefer not to have a bridge. But if the process does move
forward -- keep it simple as the town is. Taking away the views with a structure and
obstacle I do not believe resonates with the values of the residents of Edmonds. Money
could be used in other more useful ways.
• Don't block the view, and don't create a hill climb for disabled people. Don't choose a
structure that inherently has a lot of maintainance involved down the road. The
structure should open access to what is already there, not be the focus.
• Constructing the connector with the supporting structure below is important to not
interfere with the present view. The designs which try to stick up are not necessary. This
structure should blend into the view, not interfere with it. Materials for the structure
should be chosen with maintainence costs in this marine, salt water climate in mind.
• I feel that none of the park space should be used for vehicular traffic. The bridge, if built
should have a low profile. The bridge should not be a City project but a Washington State
Ferries project connecting the terminal to the east side of the tracks.
• I attended the presentation which focused on bridge design,. The meeting though failed
to address some important aspects on the impacts of the bridge on the environment and
whether each bridge design may have different impacts on the nearshore marine
environment. The following information needs to be made available to the public ASAP
(e.g., through this webpage or another public meeting). 1. What is to happen to the
Bracket's Landing Park? a. Will parking be eliminated, reduced or moved? b.
Will the bathroom/shower be rebuilt - if so where, and are the costs within the
project cost? c. How will public access to the park and the beach north of the park
be affected? Will beach access be limited to low tide periods only? 2. What are the
impacts on the marine sanctuary established in City Code? a. Do the different
bridge designs have different impacts on the beach (this should be a critical
aspect in selection of bridge design)? 3. What are the nearshore impacts of the bridge
alternatives to vegetation (e.g., eelgrass) and distribution of beach sediment/sand and
gravel during differing wind and wave patterns? a. Were the bridge designs
developed to minimize impacts? b. Which bridge designs have greatest/least
impacts on nearshore ecology? 4. How will the migratory birds (e.g., Brant geese) that
routinely utilize the beach area north of Bracket's Landing every winter/spring be
impacted, and are there design components to minimize those impacts? a. Will
train noise (that scares birds away from nearshore) be amplified by the bridge
structure over the tracks and do any of the bridge designs address this? I
understand that an environmental assessment will be prepared to address these issues,
but without having that information, how can the public provide constructive comments
on the different bridge designs? Minimizing nearshore and wildlife impacts should be an
5.2.b
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
Appendix
Page 29
integral part of bridge design and the public needs to see how that information is being
considered at the "front end" of the project plans and bridge designs.
• While I understand the desire for a visually impressive structure, this connector will
increase traffic in front of my home. I think that's a fair trade-off for safety. But I hope
we can avoid building a structure that blocks my current (property taxed) view. Thank
you
• Having a bridge with viewpoints for pedestrians while minimizing the blockage of view
from Sunset would be wonderful. I think having a bridge with a low -profile so people
can enjoy the view without looking through trees, "sails" or any other tall view
obstruction on the bridge. I feel the bridge is necessary but I hate to see it happen!
5.2.b
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
Appendix
Page 30
Appendix G: Feedback – Board Images
5.2.b
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
Appendix
Page 31
5.2.b
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
Appendix
Page 32
5.2.b
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
Appendix
Page 33
5.2.b
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
Appendix
Page 34
5.2.b
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
Appendix
Page 35
5.2.b
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
Appendix
Page 36
5.2.b
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
Appendix
Page 37
5.2.b
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector Update)
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/3/2018
Public Hearing on Planning Board recommendation to amend ECDC 23.40.220(C)(8): Allowed Activities
Staff Lead: Rob Chave
Department: Planning Division
Preparer: Rob Chave
Background/History
The City Council Planning, Parks & Public Works Committee discussed this subject on October 10, 2017
and the full Council forwarded the issue to the Planning Board on October 17, 2017. An introductory
presentation was given to the Planning Board on January 10, 2018, with a follow-up discussion on
February 28, 2018. The Board held a public hearing and made its recommendation on March 14, 2018.
The Council previewed the recommendation on March 27, 2018.
Staff Recommendation
Direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance for adoption on the next available consent agenda.
Narrative
The Planning Board held a public hearing on this subject on March 14, 2018, and recommended that the
City Council amend the Critical Areas portion of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) to
provide for more flexibility in approving select vegetation removal with specified critical areas.
Please see the attached memo from staff discussing this subject. The Planning Board's proposed
amendment language is included on the last page of the attached staff memo.
Exhibits:
1. Staff Memo
2. Planning Board minutes.
3. City Council agenda item and minutes
4. Comment letters
Attachments:
Exhibit 1: Staff Memo on CAO Allowed Activities - Select Vegetation Removal
Exhibit 2: Planning Board Minutes
Exhibit 3: Council Committee 2017-10-10 agenda item + minutes
Exhibit 4: Critical Area Comment Letters
7.1
Packet Pg. 135
Date: March 9, 2018
To: Edmonds Planning Board
From: Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Subject: Public Hearing:
Proposed Amendment to Critical Area Allowed Activities – ECDC
23.40.220(C)(8) Select Vegetation Removal Activities
_____________________________________________________________________________
Introduction
Section 23.40.220 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) is the allowed activities
section of the City’s critical area regulations. This section identifies certain activities within a critical area
and/or critical area buffer that may occur without the preparation of a critical areas report. The allowed
activities section applies to all critical areas and their associated buffers including landslide hazard areas,
erosions hazard areas, streams, and wetlands.
ECDC 23.40.220(C)(8) allows for select vegetation removal activities including the removal of invasive
species and hazardous trees. During the 2015-2016 Critical Area Ordinance update, the GAP Analysis
prepared by the City’s consultant, ESA, identified this section for a potential amendment noting the
following:
Also add a square foot threshold for limiting invasive vegetation removal activities. Language will be
developed during code revision stage, but suggest something similar to City of Seattle
Environmentally Critical Areas Code (SMC 25.09.320), which permits restoring or improving
vegetation and trees through invasive plant removal (by hand) to “promote maintenance or creation
of a naturally functioning condition that prevents erosion, protects water quality, or provides diverse
habitat… when the area of work is under one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet in area
calculated cumulatively over three (3) years…”
Following this recommendation, the 1,500 square foot limit was incorporated into ECDC
23.40.220(C)(8)(a) which states:
The removal of the following vegetation with hand labor and hand-held equipment when the area of
work is under 1,500 square feet in area as calculated cumulatively over three years:
The threshold was intended to ensure that removal of vegetation from large areas was first reviewed for
consistency with the City’s critical area regulations and with best management practices by a qualified
professional appropriate for the type of critical area.
MEMORANDUM
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Staff Memo on CAO Allowed Activities - Select Vegetation Removal (Public Hearing on Planning Board recommendation
During a meeting of the City Council when a report on critical area regulations was being presented, a
citizen commented that the select vegetation removal section of the City's critical area regulations was a
concern. The citizen noted that the 1,500 sq. ft. limitation could act as a deterrent for some restoration
projects because the development of critical area reports adds time and costs that may be excessive for
the size and intent of the project, particularly when the project is being done by a non-profit or citizen
group with limited resources. The City Council referred this issue to the Planning Board for
consideration and recommendation.
Potential Alternatives
Three potential amendments where identified by Councilmember Buckshnis in her memo to the
Planning, Parks and Public Works committee for their October 10, 2017 meeting (see Attachment 3).
1. The first potential amendment was proposed by Joe Scordino who recommended adding the
following language to ECDC 23.40.200(C)(8)(a) in an email:
"The restriction on the area of work does not apply to bona fide habitat restoration projects
with restoration work conducted by a qualified organization and/or individuals experienced in
habitat restoration techniques."
This language was more recently updated to be proposed as:
“The restriction on the area of work does not apply to habitat restoration projects conducted by
qualified organizations and/or individuals experienced in habitat restoration techniques to
remove invasive or non-native species in order to plant or maintain native shrubs and trees."
The critical areas ordinance generally envisions habitat restoration projects to be consistent with
ECDC 23.40.005, which defines restoration as:
“Restoration” means the actions necessary to return a stream, wetland or other critical area to a
state in which its stability, functions and values approach its unaltered state as closely as
possible. For wetlands, restoration as compensatory mitigation may include reestablishment or
rehabilitation.”
The general concern is that the City will need to have confidence that restoration project actions
will be moving in the direction of returning the critical area or its buffer functions and values to its
unaltered state. “Allowed activities” are provided for in ECDC 23.40.220 if the activity has been
“reviewed and permitted or approved by the City of Edmonds…” and if the activity uses “best
management practices.” The main problem with the above language is that there is very little
guidance as to what a “qualified organization and/or individual” is.
2. The concept in potential amendment 1 above was expanded upon in an email from Mariska Kecskes
of Earthcorps who noted:
…the language proposed for future restoration projects needs a more institutional integration
beyond a line in the critical area regulations. So instead of just "these restrictions don't apply to
bona fide restoration projects," more deliberate language could be: "these restrictions don't
apply to habitat restoration projects that: A) are managed by an organization or individual who
has a standing agreement with the City; or B) have been approved by the appropriate city
department," or something along those lines. This would offer some direction to individuals
interested in projects. It would give folks the option of partnering with previously approved
qualified organizations while also allowing projects to be judged on a case by case basis, and it
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Staff Memo on CAO Allowed Activities - Select Vegetation Removal (Public Hearing on Planning Board recommendation
would ensure that projects and those proposing them have City oversight before being
implemented. Of course, criteria would still need to be developed, and all this would totally
depend on capacity within the appropriate city department to evaluate the credentials of those
proposing projects and create formal agreements for participating organizations.
In this case, the City of Edmonds could identify some preapproved organizations that property
owners could work with on restoration projects and not be subject to the 1,500 square foot limit.
The idea is that these organizations would have experience with restoration projects and have
qualified professionals on staff or available to oversee the restoration projects. Organizations that
wanted to be on the City’s list of approved organizations would submit their credentials to the City
for review and then the City would need to maintain a list of qualified organizations. This is not
unlike a qualified professionals list. It could be updated annually or bi-annually to verify the
qualifications or add new organizations, as appropriate.
There would have to be some administration of a program like this; it is ultimately a policy call as to
whether this cost should be subsidized by the City (in the interest of encouraging restoration
projects) or some proportion charged to the restoration project proponent.
3. A third option is to use a different threshold (i.e. something greater than 1,500 square feet) before
requiring a detailed critical area review. At some point, a restoration project of a certain size may
be large enough that it should be designed and reviewed by a qualified professional to ensure the
removal of vegetation is conducted in accordance with the critical area regulations and best
management practices and to ensure any proposed replanting provides the functions and values
intended to protect the critical area. As noted in the introduction, the 1,500 square foot threshold
was lifted from Seattle’s critical area ordinance. Perhaps that is not the appropriate threshold or
maybe there are different thresholds that should apply to different critical areas (removing
vegetation in a landslide hazard area has different impacts than removing invasive species in a
wetland buffer). Because steep slopes have potential direct effects on life/safety, keeping a
relatively low threshold for that type of critical area may be appropriate. A different level could be
set for wetlands and streams, or the threshold could be applied to one year rather than the current
three-year cumulative total.
One of the goals of the Critical Areas ordinance is to encourage protection and restoration of critical
areas. Encouraging small-scale restoration projects by non-profits and citizen groups is a worthy goal.
However, not having some criteria for who is qualified to do the work, as well as identifying a limitation
on the amount of vegetation that may be removed before requiring a critical areas report, could lead to
unintended consequences that could negatively impact critical areas.
Taking the above discussion in mind, the Planning Board reviewed the issue at its February 28, 2018,
meeting and proposed the following changes to the critical areas provisions. Note that the draft
language only changes how projects in wetlands and streams are handled. Other critical areas, such as
landslide hazard areas; have potential life/safety issues that are of more concern.
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Staff Memo on CAO Allowed Activities - Select Vegetation Removal (Public Hearing on Planning Board recommendation
23.40.220 Allowed activities.
A. Critical Area Report. Activities allowed under this title shall have been reviewed and permitted or approved by the city of Edmonds or other agency with jurisdiction, but do not require submittal of a critical area report, unless
such submittal was required previously for the underlying permit. The director may apply conditions to the underlying permit or approval to ensure that the allowed activity is consistent with the provisions of this title to
protect critical areas.
B. Required Use of Best Management Practices. All allowed activities shall be conducted using the best
management practices that result in the least amount of impact to the critical areas. Best management practices shall be used for tree and vegetation protection, construction management, erosion and sedimentation control, water
quality protection, and regulation of chemical applications. The city may observe or require independent inspection of the use of best management practices to ensure that the activity does not result in degradation to the critical area.
Any incidental damage to, or alteration of, a critical area shall be restored, rehabilitated, or replaced at the responsible party’s expense.
C. Allowed Activities. The following activities are allowed:
…
…
8. Select Vegetation Removal Activities. The following vegetation removal activities:
a. The removal of the following vegetation with hand labor and hand-held equipment when the area of
work is under 1,500 square feet in area as calculated cumulatively over three years:
i. Invasive and noxious weeds;
ii. English ivy (Hedera helix);
iii. Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor, R. procerus);
iv. Evergreen blackberry (Rubus laciniatus);
v. Scot’s broom (Cytisus scoparius); and
vi. Hedge and field bindweed (Convolvulus sepium and C. arvensis);
For activities intended to protect or restore habitat in wetlands or fish and wildlife habitat conservation
areas, vegetation removal under this section may exceed the 1,500 square foot limitation if:
i. The activity is proposed and managed by a non-profit or other organization, approved by the City,
that has demonstrated expertise and experience in the restoration or invasive removal activity; and,
ii. The project sponsor provides a specific proposal identifying the scope and location of the project,
provides for project supervision, and includes a monitoring and inspection schedule acceptable to the City and approved by the appropriate City department.
Removal of these invasive and noxious plant species shall be restricted to hand removal unless permits or approval from the appropriate regulatory agencies have been obtained for approved biological or chemical
treatments or other removal techniques. All removed plant material shall be taken away from the site and appropriately disposed of. Plants that appear on the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board list of
noxious weeds must be handled and disposed of according to a noxious weed control plan appropriate to
that species;
7.1.a
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Exhibit 1: Staff Memo on CAO Allowed Activities - Select Vegetation Removal (Public Hearing on Planning Board recommendation
DRAFT Planning Board Minutes March 14, 2018 Page 2
PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENTS TO THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE (CAO) ALLOWED ACTIVITIES/SELECT VEGETATION REMOVAL Mr. Chave recalled that the Board discussed this item at their February 28th meeting. He explained that, during a meeting with the City Council when a report on the CAO was being presented, a citizen raised a concern about the “Select Vegetation Removal” provision (ECDC 23.40.220.C.8). The citizen noted that the 1,500 square foot limitation could act as a deterrent for some restoration projects because the development of a Critical Area Report adds time and costs that may be excessive for the size and intent of the project, particularly when the project is being done by a non-profit or citizen group with limited resources. The City Council referred the issue to the Planning Board for consideration and a recommendation. They asked the Board to review the provision and see if some adjustments could be made so that restoration activities would not be hampered by the provision. Mr. Chave advised that ECDC 23.40.220.C.8 outlines the provisions for select vegetation removal activities and primarily governs situations where someone is attempting to remove and/or control invasive species. It applies to all critical areas, including wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat corridors and steep slopes. These activities can be performed as part of development, by a property owner, by a non-profit or other organization, by the City as part of parks maintenance activities, and with habitat restoration projects via partnerships between the City and local organizations. Mr. Chave explained that, as per the current code, restoration and/or vegetation removal projects over 1,500 square feet in area over a cumulative 3-year period require a Critical Area Report. Concern was raised that this might discourage some on-going restoration and/or vegetation removal activities. Non-profits have limited resources, and the provision could make it difficult for them to allocate resources to the actual activities if they are required to hire a consultant to prepare a report and supervise the activity. Mr. Chave reviewed that, at their last meeting, the Commission considered a number of options and agreed with the language contained in the draft amendment currently before the Board. He referred to the draft language included in the Staff Report. He advised that, as per the proposed amendment, the restriction on the area of work would not apply to habitat restoration projects conducted by qualified organizations and/or individuals who have experience in habitat restoration techniques to remove invasive or non-native species in order to plant or maintain native shrubs and trees. He emphasized that the amendment
would only change how projects in wetlands and streams are handled. Other critical areas, such as landslide hazard areas, have potential life/safety issues that are of more concern. For example, on steep slopes, it is important to make sure the slope remains stable and is not undercut in any way. He noted that even invasive species can help stabilize a slope, and it is important to make sure that removal activities to not create hazardous situation that result in erosion or slides. As currently proposed, Mr. Chave advised that for activities intended to protect or restore habitat in wetlands or fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, vegetation removal may exceed the 1,500-foot limitation if: 1. The activity is proposed and managed by a non-profit or other organization, approved by the City, that has demonstrated expertise and experience in the restoration or invasive removal activity, and 2. The project sponsor provides a specific proposal identifying the scope and location of the project, provides the project supervision, and includes a monitoring and inspection schedule acceptable to the City and approved by the appropriate City department. Mr. Chave said the general concern is that the City will need to have confidence that restoration project actions will be moving in the direction of returning the critical area or its buffer functions and values to its unaltered state. To do this, the City will need assurance that the organization or individual is qualified to do the project and provide the proper supervision. The proposed amendment provides clear guidance for staff to review and approve projects. Joe Scordino, Edmonds, said he is a retired fisheries biologist. For the past three years, he has been working with the Edmonds Woodway High School student group, Students Saving Salmon, which is interested in improving habitat for salmon. He said he has participated in multiple restoration projects in cooperation with EarthCorp and Sound Salmon Solutions, so he is very familiar with restoration efforts. He said he approached the City Council with a request that the provision be changed because it was impeding new restoration projects. He said he worked with the students last fall to do a parcel on private property at
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Exhibit 2: Planning Board Minutes (Public Hearing on Planning Board recommendation to amend ECDC 23.40.220(C)(8): Allowed
DRAFT Planning Board Minutes March 14, 2018 Page 3
Holy Rosary Church but found that the 1,500 square foot limit was too restrictive. He commented that the restriction complicates projects and puts unnecessary burdens on groups or individuals who are trying to do something that benefits habitat. He pointed out that, currently, the provision only deals with removal of vegetation or invasive species and says nothing about replanting. That means that someone could remove vegetation from up to 1,500 square feet of area without replanting. This could be a problem on steep slopes in landslide hazard areas. He suggested that the provision was not well thought out from the beginning. Mr. Scordino said he supports the proposed amendment, which would no longer restrict habitat restoration projects in streams and wetlands without a consultant’s report. However, he suggested that the amendment should not apply to geographically unstable areas. These areas should require a consultant review to ensure that slope stability is maintained. Mr. Scordino advised that coordinating habitat restoration projects on private property using volunteers is not an easy task. For the project last fall, they started planning in April. He cautioned against having restrictions that confound and stifle the effort. He said he understands the City’s concern that the work should be planned and managed by qualified people, However, since the exception only applies to wetlands and streams, he suggested that the threshold be raised to 2,000 square feet annually as long as the projects include replanting of native species. He agreed that large projects should require additional professional assistance, but a 2,000 square foot area is not that large when you are talking about restoration where there is a lot of invasive species. You need to work large enough areas to make sure the invasive plants to not regenerate. He asked the Board to move its recommendation to the City Council now so that groups can begin planning restoration projects for this fall. THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Board Member Robles recalled that at their last meeting, the Board discussed provisions for a larger area because of the repopulation problem associated with invasive species. However, he said he does not recall discussing a replanting requirement, which sounds like a good idea. He asked if additional language needs to be added to the draft amendment to address a replanting requirement. Board Member Lovell said he was not at the February 28th meeting, but he reviewed the minutes, specifically noting the comment made by Board Member Cloutier that since a review is required for anything over 1,500 square feet, it does not do any good to include a limit of 2,500 square feet as originally proposed. By the same token, he asked if it is inherently understood that replacement would be required for any project, regardless of size. He also asked if staff would do a more thorough, high-level review of very large projects or if the review criteria would be the same. Mr. Chave referred to the introductory language in ECDC 23.40.220, which states that activities allowed under the provision must be reviewed and approved by the City and may or may not require a Critical Area Report. It allows the Director to apply conditions to the approval, and the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) is required. BMPs would not allow someone to remove a bunch of vegetation along a stream bank and then leave it bare for an extended period of time. Staff would not approve this type of project. However, there may be situations where ivy is removed so that the underlying vegetation can grow and take over. As proposed, staff could actually work with proponents to determine if replanting is needed and what types of plants should be used. However, there needs to be a threshold in place. A 1,500 square foot threshold makes some sense because many of the streams are on downtown lots that are relatively small. A 1,500 square foot project on a 6,000 square foot lot is substantial. For project that go above the threshold, the City wants to see what is proposed to make sure some level of expertise is involved. However, a Critical Area
Report would not be required. Mr. Chave observed that people are looking out more and more for the streams and critical areas in their neighborhoods. When they see clearing activities, they often contact the City to find out what is going on. If they raise the threshold too high, the City will not know what is going on. He suggested that is it part of a good stewardship program to actually require people who want to do larger areas to coordinate with the City so everyone knows what is going on. He said he views this approach as a partnership rather than a regulation. Board Member Robles asked why it takes six months for an organization to go through the process to obtain City approval for a project. Mr. Chave clarified that Mr. Scordino was speaking to the coordination needed on behalf of the organization. It does not take the City six months to review a proposed project. Mr. Scordino’s point was it takes the organizations a long time to put projects together. Having regulations that require them to hire a consultant can add to the difficulty of putting a project
together. The proposed amendment would not require an elaborate consultant study. They just need to put down on paper
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Exhibit 2: Planning Board Minutes (Public Hearing on Planning Board recommendation to amend ECDC 23.40.220(C)(8): Allowed
DRAFT Planning Board Minutes March 14, 2018 Page 4
what the project will be, how it will be managed, who will supervise, and who will do the work. It is a matter of submitting enough information for the City to be assured the project will be done correctly. Regarding the proposed 1,500 square foot threshold, Mr. Chave said it makes sense to have a limit. However, they can talk about what a reasonable threshold would be. He cautioned that he becomes more uncomfortable the higher the threshold is set. The City does not want to be enforcers when someone clears out vegetation without replanting and the streambank begins to erode. The work may be done by an innocent person who simply does not know that something needs to be done to stabilize the bank. Board Member Robles commented that it is great to see the community pull together to do projects like this. The last thing the City wants to do is put up roadblocks to this sort of environment. He would like to see the process streamlined as much as possible. Mr. Chave agreed and felt the proposed amendment would do just that. Chair Monroe observed that any project that requires the community to work together will likely be greater than 1,500 square feet. Mr. Chave agreed and reminded the Board that there would be no square foot limitation as long as the organization or individual submits a plan that is approved by the City. A Critical Area Report would not be required. For example, an organization could submit a plan to control vegetation in an area over the next three years. This enables the City to approve the entire project and the applicant would not have to submit an application each year. Chair Monroe expressed his belief that the two requirements would not be onerous. They are simply a check-in to make sure they are taking care of their critical area. Mr. Chave said organizations that do this work on a regular basis would not have difficulty providing the information required by the City. Chair Monroe asked if the City has received any feedback from the industry regarding the proposed amendments. Mr. Chave answered no but he does not believe they would be onerous or difficult to meet. Board Member Rubenkonig said she supports the proposed amendments, which are consistent with the direction recommended by City Council Member Buckshnis. The intent was that the provisions be supportive of responsible restoration and reduce the roadblocks that are in currently in place for good community organizations. However, there are a few issues she would like
staff to respond to.
• As to technique, when invasive species are removed according to BMPs, the area will immediately be planted with native plants. However, that is not specifically called out in the code language. She asked if replanting would be addressed in the plan submitted to the City for projects greater than 1,500 square feet. Mr. Chave said that is correct.
• What happens if a project stops and does not progress. Mr. Chave responded that these situations would be handled administratively by staff, and there are mechanisms in place to try to make sure that does not happen.
• As far as errors of omission, what happens to developers who post bonds that say the project will be completed or the bond will be forfeited. Mr. Chave said these concerns are typically associated with development projects, and most of the restoration projects that take place in the City are non-project situations. These issues would be handled administratively by staff and would not need to be addressed in the proposed amendment.
• Are there guaranteed results that the City would expect from a project over 1,500 square feet? If so, would this be part of the plan that is submitted to the City? Mr. Chave said the plan would describe the scope of the project, what they intend to do, how they will do it, and what the ultimate result will be. It may require more than a year to get a project done, so the City could inspect at the end of each phase. However, the Board is not being asked to become involved in that level of detail. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that the proposed amendment could be applicable in the following situations:
• A private land owner can decide to allow a volunteer group to come onto his/her property to do a restoration project.
• A private citizen can reach out to the City for direction on improving the habitat on the stream that crosses his/her property, and the City already serves in this capacity.
• The Parks Department has already received approval of a work plan that was prepared by a consultant to do restoration work around the Edmonds Marsh. Mr. Chave said the Parks Department would oversee and coordinate all of the activities that occur at the marsh consistent with the approved plan
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Exhibit 2: Planning Board Minutes (Public Hearing on Planning Board recommendation to amend ECDC 23.40.220(C)(8): Allowed
DRAFT Planning Board Minutes March 14, 2018 Page 5
• A developer could request a non-profit group to be part of a restoration project on private property, and the proposed amendment would not preclude this. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if amending the CAO as proposed by staff would be consistent and compatible with a future potential amendment to the Shoreline Master Program. Mr. Chave answered that the amendment could be applied in the shoreline jurisdiction, but it would require a separate process. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the 1,500 square foot cumulative threshold would still apply. Mr. Chave said it would remain in the provision for steep slope situations, etc. It would also apply to activities along streams and in wetlands that do not meet the two criteria. Chair Monroe added that you could also submit a Critical Area Report for a larger project. Board Member Rubenkonig referred to Mr. Scordino’s request that the threshold be set at 2,000 square feet per year rather than a cumulative 1,500 square feet over a 3-year period. She noted that staff has recommended that the 3-year cumulative threshold remain as currently written. Mr. Chave said that, as currently written, the 1,500 square foot cumulative threshold would apply to steep slopes and would also be the default for any activity that does not meet the two criteria. However, there would be two other avenues to exceed the limit: hire a professional consultant to prepare a Critical Area Report or partner with an organization that can show it has expertise in these types of projects and submit a written plan. Chair Monroe reviewed that Mr. Scordino requested a larger threshold. It is really a question of whether the City wants to error on the side of being conservative or allow people to do whatever they want under 2,000 square each year. He pointed out that a 2,000 square foot per year threshold would equate to a total of 6,000 square feet over a 3-year period. This is a substantial change over the current restriction. Increasing the threshold would mean that anyone could do the work without requiring assistance from a professional consultant or qualified organization. Vice Chair Cheung voiced concern about raising the threshold, which would open it up for anyone to do the work, including those without expertise. Mr. Chave said the intent is to have the discussion up front, and point people doing larger projects to the right resources, etc. It is a lot easier to do this than having to deal with situations later on. They tried to make the provision the least difficult and onerous as possible. Board Member Robles said he would like to see an advantage given to professionals who want to work with the community, and it seems the proposed language would accomplish this goal. The limitations would not apply to projects that meet certain provisions. BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE BOARD ACCEPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE (CAO) AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND THAT IT BE NOTED THAT NO CHANGES WERE MADE TO THE LANGAUGE PRESENTED. VICE CHAIR CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Monroe briefly reviewed the extended agenda, noting that a pre-presentation on the Housing Strategy would be provided on March 28th, along with a review and discussion of the Urban Forest Management Plan. This will give the Board an opportunity to provide feedback on the Housing Strategy before it is written in draft form for the public hearing. Board Member Rubenkonig asked when the Five Corners Subarea Plan would next appear on the Board’s agenda. Mr. Chave answered that the City Council still has to discuss the Board’s recommendation relative to the feasibility study and decide what action they want to have take place. All of this must occur before the issue comes back to the Board for further work. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Monroe did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Lovell reported on his attendance at the February 21st Economic Development Commission meeting, where most of the discussion centered around two specific items the Commission has been dealing with. They made a
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Exhibit 2: Planning Board Minutes (Public Hearing on Planning Board recommendation to amend ECDC 23.40.220(C)(8): Allowed
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes February 28, 2018 Page 6
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE BOARD ACCEPT THE STAFF’S ANALYSIS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CRITERIA AS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE TEN SUBJECT PROPERTIES FROM EDMONDS WAY CORRIDOR TO HIGHWAY 99 CORRIDOR. VICE CHAIR CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. DISCUSSION ON CRITICAL AREAS ALLOWED ACTIVITIES/SELECT VEGETATION REMOVAL Mr. Chave advised that this is a follow up to a previous Planning Board discussion about potential amendments to the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO). A concern was brought to the City Council’s attention that the 1,500 square foot limitation could act as a deterrent for some restoration projects within critical areas or their buffers. As currently written, restoration work greater than 1,500 square feet over a three-year period requires a critical area report. It was pointed out that development of these reports adds time and cost that may be excessive for the size and intent of a project. This is particularly true with projects done by non-profit or citizen groups who have limited resources. The City has had good experiences working with citizen groups to remove invasive species and do appropriate planting and restoration efforts. The City Council forwarded the issue to the Planning Board to consider, and several options were provided. Staff is in favor of amending the CAO as appropriate to encourage restoration projects and has prepared draft language for the Board’s consideration. A public hearing has been tentatively scheduled for March 14th. He referred to Page 73 of the Staff Report, which outlines the proposed amendment, which would add the following language to Section 23.40.220(C)(8)(a): “For activities intended to protect or restore habitat in wetlands or fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas,
vegetation removed under this section may exceed the 1,500 square foot limitations up to a maximum of 2,500 square feet annually, if i. The activity is proposed and managed by a non-profit or other organization approved by the City that
has demonstrated expertise and experience in the restoration or invasive removal activity.
ii. Provides a specific proposal identifying the scope ad location of the project, provides for project supervision, and a monitoring and inspection schedule acceptable to the City and approved by the
appropriate City department.” Mr. Chave noted that the new language would only apply to wetlands and streams and their buffers and not to steep slopes, where life safety issues must be considered. In these situations, it is critical to have a consultant report attached to each project to ensure that the work is done appropriately and safely. Mr. Chave explained that the intent is to have some limitations in place so you cannot do wholesale clearing of a large property, but the proposed new language would raise the limits fairly significantly. It also includes criteria for determining whether a project is good or not. The notion is that staff would review the qualifications and experience of the organization or group who is proposing the project, as well as the proposed plan and schedule to make sure what is being proposed is appropriate and that there will be appropriate supervision. Mr. Chave said the current language was crafted using the City of Seattle’s code as a reference. Since that time, the City of Seattle has eliminated the square foot limitation entirely. Staff is not entirely sure that the square footage limitation is necessary, but it was included for discussion purposes. Board Member Robles said that, as discussed previously, it would be helpful to have an inventory showing how much land in Edmonds has been designated as critical areas. This would give the Board a better idea of how broad the proposed change would apply throughout the City. The Board also indicated it would be appropriate to define the consultant qualifications and how staff assesses their credentials. Board Member Robles commented that some invasive species can represent a danger, and it might be appropriate to require a consultant to have “error and omission” insurance for these situations. However, he would not want this requirement to apply to all restoration projects. He commented that it would make sense to remove all of an invasive species as part of the same
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Exhibit 2: Planning Board Minutes (Public Hearing on Planning Board recommendation to amend ECDC 23.40.220(C)(8): Allowed
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes February 28, 2018 Page 7
project regardless of the number of square feet. Otherwise, it will quickly grow back. He suggested a better approach would be to have a 2,500 square foot limitation for citizen or non-profit groups, but no limit for projects that are done by consultants who have error and omission insurance. He said that, overall, he supports the proposed amendments and staff’s efforts to seek a solution. Board Member Rosen recalled that, at the Board’s last discussion, concern was raised about how to make sure those doing restoration work are qualified and that they do what they say they are going to do. The Board also discussed the importance of having someone approve the process and plan. He appreciates that the proposed language addresses all of these issues. Chair Monroe suggested that Items i and ii seem redundant. Mr. Chave explained that individuals or organizations who clear invasive species from critical areas have to have some knowledge to make sure the project is done right. In some cases, replanting might be necessary, and there are experts and organizations who have done this type of work for a long time. They can train others on how to do it properly. While restoration projects are not usually difficult, it is important to know what you are doing. For example, there have been situations where people have removed invasive species without planting, and erosion has occurred. There can be negative impacts if projects are not done right. Mr. Chave said the City does not necessarily want to be in the business of cleaning and restoring critical areas, but they need to make sure, at the outset, that people know what they are doing. The proposed amendment will streamline the process and avoid enforcement issues later on. Enforcement issues are much more difficult to resolve than having some assurance that projects will be done right in the first place. Chair Monroe suggested that Item ii would provide that assurance, and perhaps Item i is unnecessary. Mr. Chave responded that Item ii does not identify who will do the work. It simply talks about what will be done. The City needs to make sure there is some training and level of understanding about what is involved in the project. Chair Monroe voiced concern that the term “demonstrate experience and expertise” is not well defined and can be subjective. Mr. Chave expressed his belief that staff would be able to apply the language as currently proposed. He agreed it may limit some types of people who can do the work without supervision, but it only applies to projects that exceed the threshold. It will not prohibit a property owner from cleaning up invasive species along his/her section of a stream. Board Member Robles pointed out that the Edmonds Marsh is extremely large. If the intent is to construct walking paths through it, it is likely that the amount of invasive species will increase. It will be important for the City to have the ability to eradicate these species on a large scale. He asked if there is a mechanism by which a project can exceed 2,500 square feet. Mr. Chave answered that larger-scale projects would require a critical area report. He noted that City recently approved the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department’s program for a series of activities that will take place around the marsh. The program was prepared by a consultant and identifies how the activities will be done and who will supervise. Board Member Cloutier pointed out that the 1,500 threshold would trigger additional review so the 2,500 threshold could actually be eliminated. Any work over 1,500 square feet will be reviewed by staff, and staff will determine if it is too little or too much. The remainder of the Board concurred. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Monroe reviewed that the March 14th agenda will include a public hearing on proposed amendments to the Critical Areas
Ordinance addressing select vegetation removal as an allowed activity. It will also include a review and discussion about the Urban Forest Management Plan. The March 28th meeting will include a presentation and discussion about the draft Housing Strategy. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Monroe did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS None of the Board Member provided comments during this portion of the meeting.
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Exhibit 2: Planning Board Minutes (Public Hearing on Planning Board recommendation to amend ECDC 23.40.220(C)(8): Allowed
APPROVED FEBRUARY 14TH
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
January 10, 2018
Vice Chair Cheung called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Matthew Cheung, Vice Chair Todd Cloutier Phil Lovell Daniel Robles Mike Rosen Carreen Rubenkonig Megan Livingston, Student Representative BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Nathan Monroe, Chair (excused) Alicia Crank (excused)
STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder
Board Member Lovell welcomed Megan Livingston, a student at Edmonds-Woodway High School, as the new Student Representative serving on the Board. READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES Board Member Rubenkonig commented regarding the minutes, noting that many of the points brought up explained clearly the Architectural Design Board’s concerns and will serve the Board well in the future. Mr. Chave’s comments at the meeting were very pertinent relative to the challenges they will face when amending the Design Guidelines. BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13, 2017 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mariam Gold, Students Saving Salmon, said she was present to talk about potential amendments to the Critical Areas
Ordinance (CAO) relative to the removal of vegetation. She explained that last fall, Students Saving Salmon did a project at Shell Creek, near the Holy Rosary Church, where they removed invasive species and planted native species. This was done in conjunction with monthly water tests they do with Sound Salmon Solutions. She emphasized that habitat restoration is critical to protecting the salmon and natural environment. She said their project was going well until they ran into problems with code limitations. As per the current CAO, you can only remove invasive species from 1,500 square feet of property.
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Exhibit 2: Planning Board Minutes (Public Hearing on Planning Board recommendation to amend ECDC 23.40.220(C)(8): Allowed
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes January 10, 2018 Page 2
The limit is intended to prevent soil erosion in the event that someone does not replace the invasive species with native plants. However, in their case, the project was restoring the habitat with natural species. The code limitation hampered their ability to do more to create a healthy environment for salmon, as well as other species that live in the streams. She asked that the Board recommend approval of an amendment that changes the limitation to exempt special habitat restoration projects. The change will allow them to make more of an impact on the environment without the negative consequences that the current limitation was created to protect against. Joe Scordino, Edmonds, said he is retired fishery biologist and a 38-year resident of Edmonds. He currently serves as a volunteer adult advisor for the Edmonds/Woodway High School Students Saving Salmon Club. He said he was also present to talk about proposed amendments to the CAO. He recalled that when the CAO was last updated, he made a specific request to the City Council that they reconsider the area limit and time frame because they would restrict habitat restoration. He recognized that the intent is to protect against potential erosion, but in the case of habitat restoration projects, native species are also planted as part of the work. The purpose of restoration projects is to improve habitat and make the streams healthy for salmon. The students’ work was well supervised by Sound Salmon Solutions and coordinated with the Edmonds Tree Board, City staff, and the Holy Rosary Church. Sound Salmon Solutions provided the native plantings, as well as the habitat technicians to ensure that the work was done properly. Mr. Scordino said he has worked with Sound Salmon Solutions, EarthCorps and others on habitat restoration projects. These expert groups know what needs to be done. He suggested that the ordinance should be changed to acknowledge that the restrictions are unnecessary for projects that are overseen by qualified habitat restoration experts. He asked that the Board consider a simple fix to the ordinance that does not add complexity or increase lead time and volunteer effort for getting habitat restoration work done. He said it is hard enough to coordinate getting funds for native plants, availability of habitat expertise, property owner involvement and approval and volunteers. It would not be appropriate to require them to go through additional “hoops” in order to complete a project that benefits the environment. He suggested the following amendment to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.40.220(C)(8)(a): “The restriction on the area of work does not apply to habitat restoration projects conducted by qualified organizations and/or individuals experienced in habitat restoration techniques to remove invasive or non-native species in order to plant or maintain native shrubs and trees.” Dawna Lahti, Edmonds, said she has been a resident of Edmonds for 35 years and is connected with the Students Saving Salmon project because she belongs to the Care of Creation group at Holy Rosary Church where the stream is located. She was able to observe the project as it progressed. She said she understands that human alteration of the environment can go awry; and unfortunately, that is what has happened in the past along the stream. They are learning more all the time as to how to repair these situations. She voiced concern that if the restoration project takes too long to complete because of the code limitations, students currently in the program will graduate and move on and the next students many not care as much. She summarized that they have a golden opportunity to do the right thing to repair the damage that was done before by well intentioned people who planted what they wanted without regard to what a stream requires. She agreed with Mr. Scordino that the solution should be simple so that the projects can go forward while there is the impetus and will to do them. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD There was no Development Services Director Report. PLANNING BOARD PRESENTATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL Board Member Rubenkonig announced that she and Chair Monroe would present the Planning Board’s report to the City Council on January 16th. HOUSING STRATEGIES UPDATE Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the Comprehensive Plan requires that the City develop a Housing Strategy by the end of 2019, and a Task Force has been appointed by Mayor Earling to move the project forward. The Task Force’s next meeting is scheduled for January 25th at 8:30 a.m. in the Brackett Meeting Room of City Hall. At the meeting, the consultant and City
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Exhibit 2: Planning Board Minutes (Public Hearing on Planning Board recommendation to amend ECDC 23.40.220(C)(8): Allowed
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes January 10, 2018 Page 3
staff will bring forward a draft list of potential resources and tools to increase the supply of affordable housing and meet diverse needs. The discussion will be geared towards different types of housing, different income levels, opportunities for partnerships, etc. The public is invited to attend and the Board Members will receive an update following the meeting. Mr. Chave advised that a public open house would be scheduled a few months after the Housing Strategy Task Force Meeting to solicit public input on the tools being considered. Following the open house, the consultant will prepare a draft Housing Strategy for the Planning Board’s review in early spring. He noted that a special webpage has been created to provide information: https://www.edmondshousingstrategy.org/. Staff will notify the Board Members when new items are added to the site. Another update will also be provided to the Board in advance of the consultant’s presentation of the formal report. CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE (CAO) AMENDMENT – SELECT VEGETATION REMOVAL Mr. Chave referred to ECDC 23.40.220(C)(8), which is the allowed activities section of the City’s critical areas regulations. The section identifies certain activities within a critical area and/or critical area buffer that may occur without the preparation of a critical area report. The restriction in area that can be eligible for vegetation removal without a report from a qualified professional is a new provision added in the last major update of the CAO. Since the CAO was last updated, concern has been raised that this limitation (1,500 square feet over 3 years) is too restrictive and/or costly in some circumstances. The City Council has asked the Planning Board to review the limitation and forward a recommendation to them. Mr. Chave explained that the consultant who assisted the City with the last CAO update recommended the 1,500-square-foot limitation, which is consistent with the City of Seattle’s ordinance. As currently written, clearing of more than 1,500 square feet is allowed, but a critical area report from a qualified professional is required. He further explained that the intent of the restriction is to avoid situations of potential erosion when invasive species are removed from slopes or stream banks. It was felt that invasive species could be removed from small areas without disturbing much of the intact buffer, but there was concern about making sure people know what they are doing and have proper guidance when doing larger projects. He noted that the Staff Report outlines several options the Board could consider. However, it is important to make sure that larger projects have proper guidance. Describing the qualifications of the professional or organization will be very important. Staff intends to further refine the options based on feedback from the Board and present them for further discussion at the Board’s January 24th meeting. Board Member Lovell recalled that the Planning Board had numerous discussions relative to the CAO as part of its work on the Shoreline Master Program. One particular item of discussion at that time was that alder trees that are 2-inch caliper or smaller should be considered noxious plants. He asked if this was incorporated into the CAO. Mr. Chave answered that is it likely found in the definition section rather than the section currently under discussion. He agreed to find the reference and report back. Board Member Lovell summarized that the language change the Board is being asked to consider makes sense on the surface. However, if they want to allow clearing and replanting (restoration) within a critical area larger than 1,500 square feet, it should be done under the auspice of a qualified and experienced individual or organization. He asked if is possible for the City assemble a list of qualified individuals and organizations. Mr. Chave said the City could create a list of individuals and organizations that have worked with the City before, but they are not going to know all that may qualify. Therefore, there must be some sort of a process for determining whether or not a person or organization is qualified to oversee the work. It does not have to be an onerous process, but there needs to be some measure to provide assurance that the work will be overseen by qualified people. This could be as simple as requiring a resume or description of the organization or person that outlines their experience. Board Member Lovell agreed that a simple process should be incorporated to avoid situations of “weekend environmental warriors.” Board Member Lovel asked if there has been any discussion in house with respect to the City’s responsibility to supervise and inspect the projects. Mr. Chave agreed that supervision and inspection should be part of the equation. For example, the City could ask for a simple restoration plan to ensure that the plantings and species are appropriate. After a project is finished, City staff could inspect to make sure it was done according to the plan.
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Exhibit 2: Planning Board Minutes (Public Hearing on Planning Board recommendation to amend ECDC 23.40.220(C)(8): Allowed
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes January 10, 2018 Page 4
Board Member Rubenkonig asked Mr. Chave to provide more information about how restoration work is done in the City. She noted that there are many different levels of restoration projects, ranging from small to large, on both private and public lands. Some are required as part of a development proposal and others are done by the Parks Department. However, many are done by individuals and groups, as well. Mr. Chave said the Parks Department does work in and around the Edmonds Marsh each year, which can be substantial. Students Saving Salmon have done a number of projects, as well. In addition, individual property owners have done work on their own stream frontages. Usually, they check with the City to find out what is required and if there are any restrictions, but sometimes people clear things away from stream banks without realizing that they need to plant something else so the stream bank does not erode. There are varying levels of projects, as well as expertise and knowledge. Many people are watching over the streams now, so it is not unusual for the City to hear about projects. This allows them to check in to make sure they are doing things right. Board Member Rubenkonig asked how the proposed amendment would impact work done by the Parks Department. Mr. Chave advised that the Parks Department is currently in the process of preparing a critical area report to identify all of the projects it expects to undertake over the next year. The report will be reviewed by the Planning Department to make sure it is consistent with the CAO before issuing approval for the range of projects. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the Parks Department is also subject to the 1,500-square-foot limitation. Mr. Chave answered affirmatively and said that is why they are doing a critical area report. Mr. Chave advised that, oftentimes, restoration work is required as part of a private development permit. In these cases, the developer must submit a critical area report. He cautioned that the proposed amendment must be crafted carefully so that these types of projects do not fall under the exemption, as well. However, he can see situations where a development has a lot of invasive species near a stream, and it may be appropriate for them to partner with a non-profit organization to accomplish the restoration work. But most of the time, developers will be wanting to clear a site for development, and a critical area report will be required to show how the restoration work will be accomplished. Board Member Rosen agreed with the concerns and suggestions raised by Board Member Lovell. He suggested that the draft amendment provided by staff should include the following elements: how the City will determine if an individual or organization is qualified, how the City recommends that supervision take place, and how the City will validate that a group or individual has kept its promises. Board Member Robles voiced concern that the City is being asked to allocate resources without having an accurate inventory. He asked what could be done to incentivize the collection of these resources. Board Member Lovell commented that the proposed amendment would only apply to areas within the City that have been categorized as critical area. Mr. Chave added that they usually fall on slopes or near streams. Board Member Rubenkonig referred to the Staff Report, which appears to identify the following five options for addressing the problems:
• Eliminate the area limitation for bona fide habitat restoration projects with restoration work conducted by a qualified organization and/or individual.
• Eliminate the area limitation for habitat restoration projects that are managed by an organization or individual who has a standing agreement with the City.
• Revise the area limit threshold number.
• Revise the area limit threshold limit when a restoration method is proposed.
• Retain the existing code language.
Board Member Robles felt that the code should provide sufficient flexibility to allow for vegetation removal to extend beyond 1,500 square feet. Vice Chair Cheung asked where the 1,500-foot limitation came from, and Mr. Chave answered that it was a standard from Seattle’s ordinance and was recommended by the consultant as a reasonable number. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the process for amending the CAO is a bit different than the process used for most development code amendments. Following a public hearing before the Planning Board, the proposed amendment must be forwarded to the State Department of Ecology for review and approval before being presented to the City Council for final
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Exhibit 2: Planning Board Minutes (Public Hearing on Planning Board recommendation to amend ECDC 23.40.220(C)(8): Allowed
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes January 10, 2018 Page 5
approval. The proposed amendment should also be considered as a potential amendment to the Shoreline Master Program (SMP), which triggers an entirely different process. He explained that the CAO applies to critical areas throughout the City, and the SMP applies to properties with the shoreline jurisdiction only. At this point, staff is only proposing an amendment to the CAO. Depending on how that goes, they could follow up with an amendment to the SMP when it is updated again in 2019. Board Member Rubenkonig summarized that the Board is looking at the concept of increasing the size of the threshold. In conjunction with this, they should consider the best way to make sure the City is comfortable with the process for vetting individuals and organizations identified to supervise a project. The Board could also consider additional criteria that removal of invasive species would be exempt from the area limitation as long as native species are planted to restore the area appropriately. Mr. Chave agreed to prepare draft language for the Board’s review at their next meeting based on the feedback provided. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Vice Chair Cheung reviewed that the January 24th agenda will include a final report on the Five Corners Development Feasibility Analysis and a study session on draft language to amend the Critical Areas Ordinance pertaining to select vegetation removal. The February 14th agenda will include a review and discussion of the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) and a tentative public hearing on a draft amendment to the Critical Areas Ordinance pertaining to select vegetation removal. The February 28th meeting will include a public hearing on the UFMP and a discussion on code updates to permit decision making (ECDC 20.01.003(A). Board Member Rosen recalled that, at the last meeting, he inquired about when the Board would receive a report on the Economic Impact of Arts and Culture Study. He asked that staff work to add this to the extended agenda, noting that the consultant likely provided a timeline as part of the contract. Board Member Lovell asked if the Five Corners Development Feasibility Analysis would be presented by the consultant or staff. Mr. Chave answered that the work is being done by the consultant, but he does know if the consultant will make the actual presentation to the Board. Board Member Lovell also asked if the consultant would present the UFMP to the Board, and Mr. Chave said he was not sure if it would be presented by the consultant or staff. Board Member Lovell asked if the Tree Board would be represented at the February 14th and February 28th meetings at which the UFMP will be discussed. Board Member Robles said he knows that the Tree Board plans to be active in future discussions, and representatives from the Tree Board will be present at the Planning Board meetings when the topic is discussed. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Vice Chair Cheung did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Lovell advised that he would take over the responsibility of being the liaison to the Citizens Economic Development Commission. Board Member Robles reported that he has met twice with the sign committee reviewing the gateway entry sign near Westgate where the road splits to the ferry and downtown. It is an interesting group of people and the artist is brilliant. The artist has come up with three or four designs, one of which was “out of the park.” He hasn’t seen the updated rendition, but the ideas thus far as very nice. The intent is for the sign design to reflect how the road splits in this location. Board Member Rubenkonig once again referred to the minutes from the joint Planning Board/ADB Meeting on December 13th. They contained excellent information that will be helpful for the Board when they move to the next part of the process. It was very interesting to review what was said that evening.
7.1.b
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Exhibit 2: Planning Board Minutes (Public Hearing on Planning Board recommendation to amend ECDC 23.40.220(C)(8): Allowed
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/10/2017
Critical Area Ordinance Section 23.40.220(c)(7)(a) (15 min.)
Staff Lead: Councilmember Diane Buckshnis
Department: City Council
Preparer: Sandy Chase
Background/History
Council approved the Critical Area Ordinance
Staff Recommendation
None
Narrative
Current restoration project section 23.40.220(c)(7)(a) specifies only a length of 1,500 square feet can be
restored over a three year time frame. The reason for the restriction was to help ensure that large areas
or phases of restoration projects would have some governmental oversight and be reviewed for
consistency with best management practices. However, the limitation also means that some larger
restoration projects cannot proceed without special studies, which adds to the schedule and costs for
restoration.
Some language suggestions have been: "The restriction on the area of work does not apply to bona fide
habitat restoration projects with restoration work conducted by a qualified organization and/or
individuals experienced in habitat restoration techniques." Removing the limit and/or time frame allows
for the removing of invasive or non-native species in order to plant or maintain native shrubs and trees.
The suggested new language could help fix the CAO problem of limiting invasive plant removal beyond
1500 square feet during habitat restoration projects. Of note, is that plant removal in critical areas
needs to be restricted due to erosion and soil damage, but that concern is not necessarily reasonable for
habitat restoration projects where the invasive plants are being REPLACED with native plants. It is
believed that putting unnecessary restrictions on this type of habitat restoration projects is counter to
the CAO and SMP stated goal to encourage habitat restoration. Voluntary restoration work will not
occur if it requires people to go thru the CAO critical area permitting process, and that is to the
detriment of enhancing our critical areas in Edmonds.
Another suggestion is that the language proposed for future restoration projects, (especially by
individuals who maybe don't quite fit into the EarthCorps model of working with the City), is something
that needs a more institutional integration beyond a line in the CAO. So instead of just "these
restrictions don't apply to bona fide restoration projects," more deliberate language could be: "these
restrictions don't apply to habitat restoration projects that: A) are managed by an organization or
individual who has a standing agreement with the City; or B) have been approved by the appropriate
7.6
Packet Pg. 189
7.1.c
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Exhibit 3: Council Committee 2017-10-10 agenda item + minutes (Public Hearing on Planning Board recommendation to amend
city department," or something along those lines. This would offer some direction to individuals
interested in projects. It would give folks the option of partnering with previously approved qualified
organizations while also allowing projects to be judged on a case by case basis, and it would ensure that
projects and those proposing them have City oversight before being implemented. Of course a criteria
would still need to be developed, and all this would totally depend on capacity within the appropriate
city department (whether it be Parks or Planning) to evaluate the credentials of those proposing
projects and create formal agreements for participating organizations.
Another option is to use a different threshold, such as 3000 square feet instead of 1500 before requiring
a detailed critical area review.
Any updates to the critical area regulations must first go through a public process that includes a public
hearing and recommendation by the Planning Board, as well as submittal of a draft proposal to the state
for amending the regulations.
At this time, the PPP Committee may ask the Planning Board to consider the PPP Committee's
suggestion and bring back a recommendation to the full City Council. Alternatively, the PPP Committee
could choose to recommend that the full City Council formally ask the Planning Board to consider this
issue and provide a recommendation.
7.6
Packet Pg. 190
7.1.c
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Exhibit 3: Council Committee 2017-10-10 agenda item + minutes (Public Hearing on Planning Board recommendation to amend
10/10/17 PPP Committee Minutes, Page 2
development, Architectural Design Board review, lack of bicycle lanes on SR-104, and including graphics of the development in the Development Services Update (February 2018).
Action: Councilmember Johnson supported forwarding to full Council so the public could see the
materials; Councilmember Tibbott preferred the Consent Agenda. If on Consent Agenda, include the materials staff distributed in the packet.
4. Professional Services Agreement with MIG for the ADA Transition Plan
Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss reviewed the American’s with Disabilities Act; requirements
of the ADA Transition Plan; curb ramp evaluation; priority chart; and maps of high, medium and low
curb ramp and sidewalk and traffic signal barrier removal projects. He reviewed the total cost of upgrades ($151,500,000) and current annual budget ($220,000). The goal of the Plan is to identify a
strategy to remove barriers and establish a schedule and funding strategy. He reviewed a 15-year schedule for the projects by category, highlighted elements of the funding strategy and described public outreach.
Discussion included examples of sidewalk barriers, modifying priorities based on citizen requests, grant funds secured to improve pedestrian crossings including upgrading curb ramps, ADA plan for
City buildings and upcoming ADA plan for Parks, cost of this Plan, how priorities are determined, cost to have ADA ramps constructed by a contractor versus inhouse, additional staff required to do inhouse, and prioritizing short walkways.
Action: Schedule for full Council
5. Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project
Mr. English recalled the center joint repair did not meet strength testing at the end of project in 2016.
The contractor remobilized in July 2017 including conducting bond strength tests. In mid-September the contractor stated they would remedy the deficient repairs; the City’s consultant is evaluating their
proposed method. The request is an increase in budget authority of $75,000 for inspection, testing, etc.
Discussion followed regarding concern the proposed remedy will not meet testing standards, who
pays to remedy the deficient repair, and legal advice that the City give the contractor an opportunity to make the repair. Ms. Hite clarified the deficient repair affects the longevity of the fishing pier; it is not
in danger of being closed.
Action: Schedule for full Council next week
6. Critical Area Ordinance Section 23.40.220(c)(7)(a)
Mr. Lien explained there were public comments regarding this section (allowed activities) at the time of the CAO update. Allowed activities which include select vegetation removal such as hazard trees
and invasive species are not required to have a full critical areas report. Prior to the CAO update,
there was no limit on the amount of area that could be cleared. With the CAO update, a limit of 1500 within a 3-year cumulative period was established without a critical areas report. Removal of more
than 1500 requires a critical area report prepared by a qualified professional.
Revisions suggested in the agenda memo (prepared by Councilmember Buckshnis) included, 1)
adding “bona fide restoration projects,” 2) establishing a different threshold, 3) City select non-profit
organizations that do restoration projects and if a group works with them, a critical area report is not required. The origin of the1500 square foot limit was Seattle’s CAO. He suggested the PPP
committee request the Planning Board consider this issue and provide a recommendation.
7.1.c
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Exhibit 3: Council Committee 2017-10-10 agenda item + minutes (Public Hearing on Planning Board recommendation to amend
10/10/17 PPP Committee Minutes, Page 3
Mr. Lien relayed the agenda memo refers to the SMP and CAO. The SMP adopted a specific version of the CAO; changing the allowed activity provision in the COA does not change how the provision is
implemented in shoreline jurisdiction (which includes the Edmonds Marsh). He did not recommend amending the SMP until the 2019 update.
Discussion followed regarding the process for review and public hearing by the Planning Board and Council and review by the State, the recent critical areas report prepared and approved for removal of
invasive species in the Edmonds Marsh, and definition of a qualified professional in the CAO.
Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda to refer to Planning Board
The meeting was adjourned at 9:06 p.m.
7.1.c
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Exhibit 3: Council Committee 2017-10-10 agenda item + minutes (Public Hearing on Planning Board recommendation to amend
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 17, 2017
Page 8
PUD is a public utility, different from PSE which owned by the Macquarie consortium, a large Australian
for-profit financial instruction. PSE continues to push natural gas, which is not natural; it is basically
methane which is 86 times worse than CO2 with regard to greenhouse gas. Taking into account methane
releases and leaks from the point of extraction, transportation and combustion, it is as bad or worse than
coal. Two-thirds of natural gas is fraked in the United States. He suggested Edmonds think about using less
natural gas and avoid getting electricity from gas powered plants. His house has a natural gas furnace and
he cannot afford to replace it with a more energy efficient system. Other cities including Vancouver BC
prohibit gas appliances in new residential and commercial buildings. He concluded “don’t by the Kool-Aid
from PSE.”
6. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items
approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10, 2017
2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10, 2017
3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENT
4. ACKNOWLEDGE THE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM JENNY
MURPHY (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), DELORES BJORBACK (AMOUNT
UNDETERMINED), BURGER KING (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), AND RAMON
RAMOS TINOCO ($150,000.00)
5. AUGUST 2017 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT
6. PERMIT SOFTWARE SYSTEM PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (PSA) AND
BUDGET APPROVAL
7. CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE SECTION 23.40.220(C)(8)(A) - SELECT VEGETATION
REMOVAL
8. SR-524 SPEED REDUCTION
9. UTILITY EASEMENTS FOR EXISTING UTILITIES WITHIN THE
PROVIDENCE/VERDANT HEALTH & SWEDISH/STEVENS CAMPUS
10. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO APPROVE RECORDING OF A PUBLIC
PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT ALONG EDMONDS WAY ADJACENT TO 10032 EDMONDS
WAY
11. AUTHORIZE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT TO DISPOSE OF SURPLUS
EQUIPMENT
7. PUBLIC HEARING
1. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION'S
RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE GERDON HOUSE
LOCATED AT 209 CASPERS STREET FOR LISTING ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER
OF HISTORIC PLACES
7.1.c
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Exhibit 3: Council Committee 2017-10-10 agenda item + minutes (Public Hearing on Planning Board recommendation to amend
Comment on Agenda Item 8.B “Critical Area - Selective Vegetation Removal”
Planning Board Members, I am a retired fishery biologist and 38 year resident of Edmonds serving as a volunteer adult advisor to the Edmonds-Woodway High School ‘Students Saving Salmon’ club with whom I’ve
worked for almost 3 years on monitoring stream water quality in Edmonds and projects to restore
salmon and their habitat. I am the “citizen” referred to in the first paragraph of your Attachment 1 to Agenda Item 8.B who advised the Council “that the select vegetation removal section of the City's critical area regulations (ECDC 23.40.220(C)(8)) was a concern.”
I asked the Council to consider amending ECDC 23.40.220 (C)(8) because the ordinance does
not acknowledge that habitat restoration projects do need to occur over larger areas every year in order to be effective in restoring stream habitat for salmon. The restriction was added during the 2015/16 CAO update apparently over concerns about erosion from vegetation removal, but such concern should not apply to restoration projects whose objective is to replace invasive and non-
native plants with native vegetation. This restriction placed on habitat restoration work by
23.40.220(C)(8) is counter to CAO and SMP goals to encourage habitat restoration. ECDC 23.40.220 (C) (8) only allows “the removal of [invasive and non-native] vegetation with hand labor and hand-held equipment when the area of work is under 1,500 square feet in area as
calculated cumulatively over three years.” An amendment that removes the area limit and time
frame will allow bona fide habitat restoration projects to proceed to remove invasive or non-native species in order to plant or maintain native shrubs and trees. Such change is essential for habitat restoration work in Edmonds. Students Saving Salmon had to cease plans to restore to habitat to benefit juvenile salmon in an area of Shell Creek on Holy Rosary Church property.
Please consider a simple fix to the Ordinance that doesn’t add complexity or increase lead time and volunteer effort for getting habitat restoration work done. It is hard enough to coordinate getting funds for native plants, availability of habitat expertise (such as Sound Salmon Solutions or EarthCorps), property owner involvement and approval, and volunteer (students, in my case)
logistics coordinated without having to also go through additional ‘hoops’ in the Critical Area
Ordinance. Students Saving Salmon coordinated their last habitat restoration project with the Edmonds Tree Board, Sound Salmon Solutions, City staff, high school administrators and Holy Rosary Church, and it was a great success!
After talking to many about this CAO problem, I recommend the following sentence be added to
ECDC 23.40.220(C)(8)(a) so that habitat restoration projects are not unnecessarily restricted.
"The restriction on the area of work does not apply to habitat restoration projects conducted by qualified organizations and/or individuals experienced in habitat restoration techniques to remove
invasive or non-native species in order to plant or maintain native shrubs and trees." Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Joe Scordino
7.1.d
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Exhibit 4: Critical Area Comment Letters (Public Hearing on Planning Board recommendation to amend ECDC 23.40.220(C)(8):
January 8, 2018 Comment by Val Stewart
Dear esteemed Planning Board members,
I am aware that the January 10th Planning Board meeting has a
scheduled item for discussion regarding allowed activities in the CAO;
23.40.220.C.8.a. Having spent nearly a decade working on restoration
projects in Discovery Park for the City of Seattle and also with
Students Saving Salmon along with Sound Salmon Solutions, I wanted
to offer my perspective on criteria for invasive plant removal.
As you know, under the current CAO only 1,500 square feet of
vegetation (including invasive species) may be removed in a
cumulative three year period before a critical area report is required.
Both the size of the area and the 3 year period are extremely limiting
given the extent of restoration work that needs to be done in the City.
Planting of native species also needs to occur in a timely manner after
invasives removal. Having to go through the process of getting a
critical area report along with added expense will likely discourage
many projects from getting underway or continuing.
I agree with the proposed language: "these restrictions don't apply
to habitat restoration projects that: A) are managed by an
organization or individual who has a standing agreement with the City;
or B) have been approved by the appropriate city department”.
Restoration work should be conducted by a qualified organization
and/or individuals experienced in habitat restoration techniques. This
has certainly been the case with Earthcorps for instance, and Students
Saving Salmon in conjunction with Sound Salmon Solutions. Allowing
projects to be judged on a case by case basis would ensure that
projects and those leading them would have the necessary City
oversight. It is indeed important that the volunteers and supervisors
be trained in appropriate removal techniques, especially on slopes so
as not to destabilize them. Training in identification of invasives as
well as guidance in appropriate native species choices for replanting in
specific areas is also very important.
My hope is that you will take this under consideration and forward a
recommendation to City Council expeditiously. Thank you.
7.1.d
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Exhibit 4: Critical Area Comment Letters (Public Hearing on Planning Board recommendation to amend ECDC 23.40.220(C)(8):
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/3/2018
Presentation of Five Corners Update Feasibility and Planning Board Recommendation
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Planning Division
Preparer: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
In 2007, the City Council had determined that an initiative to plan for and revise development
regulations for both the Westgate area and the Five Corners area should be handled in a phased manner
and that the Westgate area should be first. In part, the Westgate area was chosen to go first because
the Five Corners area was being planned for a traffic roundabout and new development regulations
should wait until the round-about project was complete.
Since then, the Westgate planning and zoning changes have been completed. The Five Corners
roundabout project has been built. Based on this information, one of the City Council members
(Kristiana Johnson) requested during a public meeting that the Five Corners Initiative be taken up again.
A summary of the key provisions of the Five Corners Initiative has been developed (see attachment 2).
Because some key properties in the Five Corners area had been sold since the Initiative was tabled and
the area’s opportunities for redevelopment may have changed, Director Hope suggested that a
feasibility analysis be done. Even though significant work had been done on the Five Corners Initiative,
hundreds of hours of staff time, as well as Planning Board and City Council time, would still be needed to
complete the project. A feasibility analysis could help determine whether this substantial extra work was
appropriate in the near future.
On February 14, 2018, the Planning Board received a presentation from a consultant, Heartland, on the
feasibility analysis. The Board then recommended to the City Council that they authorize the Board to
move the Five Corners plan forward (see Attachment 1).
Staff Recommendation
Direct that the Planning Board continue with the Five Corners planning and implementation initiative
within the next year, as resources allow.
Narrative
A consultant team, Heartland, was contracted to provide the feasibility analysis. The team was to review
a few key properties near the round-about and determine whether the changes previously proposed for
the draft Five Corners area would be likely to result in redevelopment of any of the key properties. In
case redevelopment seemed unlikely under the proposed changes, the team was also asked to examine
whether it would make a difference to consider additional flexibility in the proposed regulations.
8.1
Packet Pg. 158
The feasibility analysis has been completed and it shows that at least some key properties would be
likely to redevelop over the long term if the proposed regulations were implemented. If additional
flexibility was built in to the same regulations, some redevelopment may happen sooner. Of course, the
property is all privately owned, so it is solely up to the property owner to determine whether or when to
redevelop.
The results of the analysis are summarized in the presentation (see Attachment 3).
The Planning Board received Heartland’s presentation and analysis at its February 14, 2018, meeting,
and recommended that the City Council direct the Planning Board to take up the Five Corners Initiative
again and do more work to prepare it for further consideration under a full public process. The
additional work would probably take a number of months; actual timing depends partly on staff
resources to do it. NOTE: Whether to recommend a final product for adoption is a separate matter that
would not be considered until a final draft set of regulations for the Five Corners area is ready.
The Economic Development Commission has also provided input on the Five Corners initiative; see
Attachment 4.
Attachments:
Att. 1: PB Minutes and Recommendation 2.14.18
Att. 2: ReVisioning 5 Corners Fact Sheet
Att. 3: EDC Memo on Five Corners - Mar 2018
8.1
Packet Pg. 159
APPROVED FEBRUARY 28TH
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
February 14, 2018
Chair Monroe called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Nathan Monroe, Chair Matthew Cheung, Vice Chair Todd Cloutier Phil Lovell Daniel Robles Mike Rosen Carreen Rubenkonig Megan Livingston, Student Representative BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Alicia Crank (excused)
STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Brad Shipley, Planner Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 10, 2018 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER ROSEN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS No one in the audience indicated a desire to comment during this portion of the meeting. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD There was no Development Services Director Report. RECOMMENDATION ON REVISITING FIVE CORNERS PLAN AND ZONING INITIATIVE Mr. Chave reviewed that in 2007 the City worked with the University of Washington and the Green Future’s Lab to come up with some plans and ideas for how focused development could be accomplished in Westgate and Five Corners. Although the two plans were completed at the same time, quite a bit of work still needed to be done to translate them into implementable codes. The City Council decided to move ahead with formalizing the Westgate Plan first, and postponed work on the Five Corners plan until after the anticipated roundabout project had been completed. Since the Westgate Plan has been completed, and the Five Corners Roundabout has been built, the City Council has expressed interest in taking up the Five Corners Initiative
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Att. 1: PB Minutes and Recommendation 2.14.18 (Presentation of Five Corners Update Feasibility and Planning Board
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes February 14, 2018 Page 2
again. Because some key properties in the area have been sold since the initiative was tabled, there was concern that the area’s opportunities for redevelopment may have changed. Director Hope suggested that a feasibility analysis be done to determine whether the changes previously proposed for Five Corners would likely result in redevelopment of any key properties. He noted that, although significant work has already been done on the Five Corners Initiative, significant staff time, as well as Planning Board and City Council time, would still be needed to complete the project. The intent of the feasibility analysis is to determine whether this substantial extra work is appropriate in the near future. Mr. Chave advised that the City hired a consultant team, Heartland, to provide the analysis. The team is now ready to present its findings to the Planning Board. Following the presentation, the Board will be asked to make a recommendation to the City Council about whether to take up the Five Corners Initiative again and do more work to prepare it for further consideration under a full public process. Board Member Lovell observed that the analysis appears to focus on future redevelopment opportunities and does not really address the viability of the existing development. He noted that this is the first time the Board has received a presentation from a fully economic standpoint. Chris Fiori, Principal and Project Director, Heartland, advised that Heartland is a real estate advisory, investment and brokerage firm. Since he joined the firm 15 years ago, his work has focused on advising public agencies and municipalities on public assets and public policy. Much of this work involves bringing real estate lands through the planning process to help inform the creation of policies and plans. The consulting team was hired by the City to evaluate the feasibility of redevelopment in the Five Corners area under the form-based code concept outlined in the Five Corners Initiative that was done by the University of Washington in 2007. Amy Hartman, Project Manager, Heartland, advised that the feasibility analysis studied four sites within the Five Corners subarea using different scenarios: existing site value, site value under the proposed form-based code, and site value under the proposed form-based code with greater flexibility. The concept was that the Five Corners area has the potential to add increased density and housing stock to the Edmonds area. For the analysis, they looked at the feasibility of redevelopment from a developer’s perspective. Developers make decisions based on the amount of return they will get from a project. She explained that residual land value is a method used to determine the value and potential profitability of a piece of property minus any expenses related to the land. Residual land value is the value of the land that remains after all deductions associated with its development have been made. It basically represents what a developer can afford to pay for the land. Any additional cost added to a project will push down the residual land value and additional entitlements can increase it. Redevelopment occurs when residual land value is higher than the value of the site’s current use. The analysis assumes the developer would maximize the allowable square footage on a property. Board Member Lovell summarized that, according to the analysis, unless changes are made to the code to introduce more flexibility in terms of density, height, parking ratios, land uses, etc., the properties do not appear to be desirable for redevelopment. Ms. Hartman reviewed that the existing buildings in the four test sites are currently 100% occupied with relatively high market rents, and the current zoning prohibits multi-family or buildings with heights over 25 feet. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the sites will be redeveloped under the current zoning. The draft form-based code would increase development capacity enough to make redevelopment financially feasible, but additional enhancements to the code would increase redevelopment value even further. For example, for medium-sized and large sites, decreasing the required parking minimums would provide the highest lift to land value. For small sites, allowing an extra floor of building height would provide the most additional value. Mr. Fiori explained that because the subarea is fairly small, they could analyze the individual properties in four of the five corners. The analysis looks at the economics of the existing uses and identifies land values for the existing development as income properties. He summarized that there is more uniformity in the propensity for redevelopment of the four properties than they thought there would be going into the analysis. This may aid policy making because there will not be the disparate impact that is often present in subareas. Board Member Robles questioned why only four of the five properties at Five Corners were analyzed. Mr. Shipley explained that the 5th property was not included in the scope of work because it is small. The intent was to study the four larger properties that had the most potential for redevelopment. Board Member Cloutier added that the analysis focused on commercial areas
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Att. 1: PB Minutes and Recommendation 2.14.18 (Presentation of Five Corners Update Feasibility and Planning Board
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes February 14, 2018 Page 3
and did not include properties in the residential zones. Ms. Hartman pointed out that the analysis focused on the properties that front the roundabout. While the four larger properties could accommodate up to five stories, the smaller property would be limited to a maximum of four. Mr. Fiori advised that the same methodology was applied to all four of the parcels that were studied as part of the analysis. Vice Chair Cheung asked why the value of the flexible parking option is so much lower for the Edmonds Veterinary site (Site 2). Ms. Hartman explained that it has to do with the size of the site. The smaller sites require more underground parking to meet the parking requirement so meeting the minimum parking requirement is costlier. Having a flexible parking requirement is less important on larger sites where there is more space for surface parking. Ms. Hartman explained that, in the analysis of each of the four properties, the current land value is based on existing rentable space and market rates as well as the market cap rate (what someone would be willing to pay the owner for the income stream coming from the building). In order for redevelopment to be feasible, the land value based on the various scenarios would have to be greater than the existing land value. She reviewed the specific findings for the four areas as follows:
• Site 1 – BARC. This property’s land value based on its current use under the existing code is $65/square foot (SF). Under the draft form-based code, the land value would be $95/SF, which is $30/SF greater than the hurdle value
(existing land value). The form-based code would allow about 265 units and 30,000 square feet of retail space, with about 325 parking spaces. Based on the cost of construction for the ground floor podium and the upper floors of wood and based on the rent you could get for multi-family and new retail, the analysis found that the property value was about $25,000 per unit or $95 per square foot. The land value would increase to $120/SF with flexible height, as the total number of residential units would increase to 361. With the flexible parking scenario, the land value would be $172/SF. The number of required stalls would decrease from 324 to 192. Using a combination of flexible parking
and increased height, the land value would jump to $219/SF or more than double the hurdle value. Development under this scenario would accommodate 341 residential units, 230 parking stalls and 30,000 square feet of retail space.
Board Member Lovell reiterated that the numbers provided in the analysis are based on the assumption that 75% of
the site is buildable. The numbers reflect demolition and removal of the existing development. Ms Hartman agreed that the analysis assumes that the sites would be cleared and that 75% of the land would be developable. The average
unit size would be 600 square feet. Board Member Lovell pointed out that the BARC property was recently redeveloped into a veterinarian hospital, and it is not likely that the use will be demolished to accommodate redevelopment any time soon. Mr. Fiori explained that
in some situations his firm is hired to work on assets and policies together. In these cases, they work through all of the encumbrances and existing issues that might affect redevelopment beyond the basic economics. If the intent was
to encourage near-term redevelopment, it is likely the consultant team would recommend a different set of next steps. However, this type of implementation piece goes beyond the scope of the current analysis.
Board Member Lovell asked if an owner could hire Heartland to study options for further development or
redevelopment of his/her property. Mr. Fiori answered affirmatively. There are logistics involved with retail development and the sensitivities around parking. As the BARC building is currently laid out, it is not likely that
vertical development will be an option. Additional development would likely have to occur in the area currently used for parking. It would be up to whoever controls the property to pursue redevelopment options.
Board Member Cloutier recalled that when the Westgate Plan was in progress, some property owners were concerned
that it would mandate redevelopment of their properties. It was emphasized that the site could be redeveloped at some point in the future, but property owners would not be forced to redevelop. The plan simply identifies what the future
envelope could be, but it does not require that any changes occur. Ms. Hartman agreed that the property owner would have control over what happens to the site in the future. When subarea plans are created and properties are rezoned,
it generally takes years for redevelopment to happen.
• Site 2: Edmonds Veterinary. The value of this site’s current use is $52/SF. Based on the draft form-based code, the land value would be $110/SF. This scenario would allow up to 124 residential units and about 30,000 square feet of retail space. With the flexible height scenario, the land value would increase to $137/SF, and the number of
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Att. 1: PB Minutes and Recommendation 2.14.18 (Presentation of Five Corners Update Feasibility and Planning Board
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes February 14, 2018 Page 4
residential units would increase to 166. The land value for the flexible parking scenario would be $125/SF, and a combined flexible scenario would result in a land value of $226/SF. Because this site is smaller, development would be limited to a smaller number of units, which means fewer parking spaces would have to be provided.
• Site 3: Calvary Chapel. This site was sold in 2012, so the sale value was used to calculate a land value in today’s dollars of $63/SF. Under the draft form-based code, the land value would be $109/SF. With the flexible height scenario, the land value would increase to $134/SF, and the number of units would increase from 140 to 186 units.
The land value of the flexible parking scenario would be $177/SF, and a combined flexible scenario would result in a land value of $225/SF.
• Site 4: Five Corners Plaza. The current land value of this site is $74/SF. Under the draft form-based code, the land value would increase to $110/SF. This scenario would increase the number of residential units from 113 to 151. The land value for the flexible parking scenario would be $135/SF, and a combined flexible scenario would result in a land value of $223/SF. Board Member Lovell asked if the numbers presented for cost metrics for each of the scenarios represent project costs. Ms. Hartman answered that the numbers identify construction costs with sales tax. They obtained the figures from another similar project being done in the area. Board Member Rubenkonig said she understands that the analysis is an economic approach, but the consultants now understand Five Corners quite well. She asked them to share their thoughts on the redevelopment potential of the four properties that were studied. Mr. Fiori answered that the level of attractiveness is expressed in the numbers displayed in the analysis. He explained that redevelopment potential is the highest where the spread is greatest between the existing circumstance and either of the scenarios. All four properties have a relatively similar land use value now, and there is a significant spread between the existing hurdle rate and what they think is possible in the market based upon changes in zoning. Changing to a form-based code will have significant impacts over time. Another thing to consider is how likely the current uses are to redevelop. For example, although the Calvary Church has only been in its current location for five years, as the land value increases, they may consider moving somewhere else. The length of current leases could also be a component. Properties with shorter timelines are more desirable. Most developers will seek to find property owners who are inclined to allow them to get into their process of entitlement as soon as possible. Aside from economic returns, Board Member Rubenkonig asked what other returns the City would receive from changes in zoning. Mr. Fiori said one major return could be an increased tax base. However, if the properties are developed primarily as residential and the existing ground floor retail is simply replaced, tax revenue would not increase significantly. But zoning changes would likely alter who lives in the City and how the City thinks about affordable housing. He said his company has been involved in a number of affordable housing discussions, including subsidized housing. There is a strong argument that bringing on more low-cost units (smaller in size and typically wood framed) is the best a jurisdiction can do without capital subsidies. Many jurisdictions do not have places for the next generation to live, and the idea is to allow people to age in place and stay in their communities. While a lot of areas place multi-family zoning in unattractive areas along high-traffic arterials, the Five Corners intersection has a great sense of place and low traffic. It is quite attractive and has good infrastructure to accommodate residential uses. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that it is important to the Mayor and others that the City has a good image. Increasing the visibility and sense of place at Five Corners will also increase the desirability of Edmonds for people to live and visit. Board Member Rubenkonig said she looked at what the rents would be based on each of the scenarios, recognizing that 15% of the residential units would have to be provided at 80% AMI. The market value of a 600 SF unit would be $1,400, and the affordability requirement would reduce the rate to $1,152. A larger 900 SF unit would have a market value of $2,160, and the affordability requirement would reduce the rate to $1,728. This is not taking into account working with non-profits and other groups to subsidize the units. This is another option the Housing Task Force is currently working to address. She voiced concern that that units that are “affordable” would still be quite costly. Board Member Robles pointed out that a 600 SF unit is quite small and clearly not large enough for a family. He expressed his belief that family-sized units would be the most desirable application at Five Corners, yet the rate for each unit would be
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Att. 1: PB Minutes and Recommendation 2.14.18 (Presentation of Five Corners Update Feasibility and Planning Board
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes February 14, 2018 Page 5
significant. He asked if the analysis considered the view amenity. The properties are located on a ridge, and their may be a view of either the mountains or the Sound from the upper units. Mr. Fiori said view was not connected to the estimated rents identified in the analysis. Board Member Robles felt this should be a component of the discussion, since view is one of the motivators for this exceptionally beautifully area. Board Member Robles asked how the surrounding residential properties would be impacted by the proposed changes in zoning that would allow taller buildings, etc. Mr. Fiori said the analysis did not study this issue. However, impacts to surrounding properties would be considered as part of any State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. Board Member Robles recommended that some extended studies be done relative to impacts to surrounding properties. Board Member Robles said he appreciates seeing the report in terms of economics through the developer’s eyes. Although it is not the Board’s job to optimize a developer’s return, the information can be used to help identify the current demand for property. Mr. Fiori explained that the concept of identifying excess profit from which public benefits can be leveraged can be contentious. The issue becomes how finely the City wants to fine tune the delta between redevelopment value and hurdle value. The more public benefit you try to squeeze out of developers, the more you risk not getting enough delta to trigger redevelopment. Conversely, the more you give extra stories of height to trigger redevelopment, the more you risk other impacts like light, view and air. Public entities should be careful when thinking about how much to squeeze the capital. The market for larger mixed-use projects is robust and attracts national capital. The returns will likely meet or exceed the numbers provided in the analysis, but it is also competitive. Board Member Robles commented that the City needs to have tools in place to attract amazing and great projects. Given the City’s proximity to Amazon, Paine Field, etc., they have some leverage. They are far enough away that they are not influenced by them, but they are close enough to them to be accessible via various modes of transportation. The City has a lot going for it. Board Member Rubenkonig asked the consultants to comment on how the 4 and 5-story height limits might constrain prospective developers from obtaining the needed capital to move forward with a project at Five Corners. Mr. Fiori clarified that obtaining capital is less about the number of stories and more about the scale of a project. The national players who build large projects have been flooding into the Seattle area for a number of years. They are looking for 200 to 300-unit projects. Projects of this scale and type would tend to be attractive to a range of capital sources that are stable and relatively low cost. Board Member Cloutier said he flinched every time the consultant mentioned flexible parking because he keeps thinking about what has happened in Ballard. He asked the consultant what the parking ratio is in Ballard. Mr. Fiori said the parking ratio for multi-family development is around .6 or .7 spaces/unit. He acknowledged that a .5 parking ratio would be quite aggressive for Five Corners. Typically, the .4 and .5 parking ratios are found in very strong transit locations. While Five Corners has good transit service, it would not qualify as a strong transit location. Board Member Cloutier summarized that a .5 parking ratio is not really an option for Five Corners. Mr. Shipley reminded the Board that the intent is to create a plan for Five Corners that looks to the future. He suggested that ten years from now the situation could be much different than it is today as far as how people get around. Mr. Fiori said his company is currently doing work with King County Metro’s Transit Demand Group. This group has done a robust study of parking for multi-family projects, and they have a great repository of information the City could draw from. Their study tracked not only what has been built, but what is being utilized. Generally speaking, despite some people’s perception, there is a lot of underutilized parking, even in newer buildings. There is some rationale to address current realities and the future by coming up with a way to do a combination of surface and garage parking. Surface parking can be eliminated if it isn’t needed; but once a garage has been built, it becomes permanent. Chair Monroe asked how much retail space is currently located on the parcels. Ms. Hartman noted that this information is contained in the tables that were provided as part of the presentation. The tables also identify the maximum square footage at build out for each of the scenarios. Chair Monroe noted if the proposed zoning changes are adopted, the City could expect some increase in the amount of retail space, as well as an increase in residential units of between 670 and 864 at total build out. This equates to roughly 1,500 to 2,000 more people. Board Member Lovell observed that the Board’s responsibility is to make a recommendation to the City Council as to how to proceed with the Five Corners Initiative. However, cautioned that there are many more aspects of the Five Corners Initiative that still need to be studied before the Board can make a recommendation. For example, it has been suggested that the study
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Att. 1: PB Minutes and Recommendation 2.14.18 (Presentation of Five Corners Update Feasibility and Planning Board
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes February 14, 2018 Page 6
area should be increased, and the public has provided significant input relative to multi-family housing adjacent to single-family housing. There will also be issues relative to building heights and property uses. He recalled that the Westgate Plan required a significant amount of work, and a lot of different aspects, provisions and attributes of the sites in that area were looked at in conjunction with the Board’s study and ultimate recommendation for a modified form-based zoning approach. A lot more work is needed to get the Five Corners Plan to that point. Mr. Chave said the Five Corners area is currently zoned as Neighborhood Business with a 25-foot height limit, and one dwelling unit per lot is allowed. Retail space is required on the ground floor. He clarified that the Board is not being asked to make a specific recommendation now. The study is intended to be a check off point to determine whether the plan outlined by the University of Washington is still feasible. He recognized that a lot of issues need to be hammered out, but the Board could report back to the City Council that the plan appears to be feasible. They could also ask the City Council to identify priorities for when the project should move forward. Board Member Lovell commented that the planning effort must move forward with the parameter that zoning must change in some way in order for redevelopment to be feasible. Mr. Chave agreed and pointed out that there are Comprehensive Plan policies already in place for Five Corners that call for up to four stories of development. It’s not like the Board would be starting with a blank slate. Some Comprehensive Plan work has already been done, and the University of Washington Plan took it a step further by looking conceptually at how different arrangements of uses could happen. Board Member Rubenkonig said she understands that the Board is being asked to make a recommendation based on the information presented by the consultant. However, she recalled that the Board also received a request from the Economic Development Commission (EDC) to meet jointly with them to discuss the Five Corners Plan. The Board had postponed the joint meeting until after the consultants had completed their work on the feasibility analysis. She said she is hesitant to move forward with a recommendation to the City Council without first obtaining input from the EDC. Board Member Lovell asked if the EDC has access to the study results, and Mr. Chave answered affirmatively. However, he noted that the scope of work did not include a presentation by the consultant to the EDC. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that the Board postpone its recommendation to the City Council until the next meeting so that Board Member Lovell, liaison to the EDC, can solicit their input. Chair Monroe pointed out that the EDC only meets once a month, and they will not have time to review the report thoroughly and provide feedback before the Board’s next meeting. He commented that there will be plenty of opportunities for the EDC to weigh in on the project as it moves forward. Mr. Chave concurred. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that the Board’s recommendation to the City Council should also include a suggestion that they study whether the boundaries of the plan should be expanded to include the multi-family zones. Chair Monroe suggested that the Board take action now and forward their recommendation on to the City Council. Mr. Chave commented that once the City Council authorizes the Board and staff to proceed with the plan, they can determine the appropriate steps, and issues such as study area boundaries and input from the EDC can be addressed. The Board’s recommendation at this time would simply ask the City Council for permission to move the plan forward and invite them to provide input as to priorities and an appropriate timeline. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY AUTHORIZE THE BOARD TO MOVE THE FIVE CORNERS PLAN FORWARD. VICE CHAIR CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Board Member Lovell asked if the review and discussion on the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) would include a presentation by the consultant. Mr. Chave said he is not sure if the consultant will be present at the meeting or not. Board Member Lovell said that some members of the Tree Board have requested a joint meeting with the Planning Board to talk about the UFMP plan. Rather than a special joint meeting, Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that the Board extend a special invitation to the Tree Board, asking them to attend the February 28th meeting. The Board could then discuss the option of having a special joint meeting at some point in the future. The Board concurred and asked staff to extend the invitation to the Tree Board.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Att. 1: PB Minutes and Recommendation 2.14.18 (Presentation of Five Corners Update Feasibility and Planning Board
APPROVED Planning Board Minutes February 14, 2018 Page 7
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Monroe did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Lovell announced that he would attend the February 21st Economic Development Commission meeting ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
8.1.a
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Att. 1: PB Minutes and Recommendation 2.14.18 (Presentation of Five Corners Update Feasibility and Planning Board
ReVisioningFIVE CORNERS
Edmonds Five Corners October 2017 // City of Edmonds
Fact Sheet / “ReVisioning Five Corners: A Special District Form-Based Code”
CURRENT TENANTS
• Calvary Chapel Edmonds
• Café Ladro
• Casa Oaxaca
• A Brewed Awakening
• Bar Dojo
• Shooby Doo Catering
• Noodle Hut
• 5 Corners Teriyaki
• Frankie’s Barber Shop
• Magic Nails
EXISTING USES SQUARE FOOTAGE
General Retail 36,694
Church 12,192
General Office 6,870
Multi-Family 3,780
Single-Family 3,670
TOTAL 63,206
QUICK FACTS
Approximately 12,000 people
live within one mile of the
study area.
Median age of the population
is 46.6-years-old.
Homeownership rate is
about 72.7-percent.
Average household income
is around $102,500 (2015
dollars).
Source: 2011-2015 ACS 5-year sample,
census block level data STUDY AREA: 9.6 sq. acres
CORE CONCEPTS
The intent for Five Corners is to create a vibrant mixed-use activity center that
enhances economic development, provides housing, and retail/office uses that
support the surrounding neighborhood. Core concepts include:
Emphasis on creating a lively pedestrian environment
with wide sidewalks and buildings placed close to the street.
A requirement for 15% landscaped open space. All units shall
meet a minimum Green Factor score of .30. Green Factor is a
score-based code requirement developed by the City of Seattle to
improve the quality of landscaping in new development.
Retain and infiltrate stormwater on private property through use
of low-impact development techniques.
Increase affordable housing and housing options. Require 10%
of new housing units to be made affordable to low- to moderate-
income households and require a mix in housing unit size —
ranging from 900- to 1,600-sf.
Provide options for active transportation by installing new bike
lanes and enlarging sidewalks.
• City Dry Cleaners
• Namaste Salon
• Farmers Insurance
• State Farm Insurance
• My Sister’s Place (art classes)
• Bridge Animal Referral Center
• Edmonds Veterinary Clinic
• Edmonds Foot & Ankle Clinic
• College Place Optical
EXISTING CONDITIONS
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Att. 2: ReVisioning 5 Corners Fact Sheet (Presentation of Five Corners Update Feasibility
Edmonds Five Corners City of Edmonds
RowhouseCourtyard Stacked DwellingLive-Work Loft Mixed-Use Side Court Commercial Block
Mixed-Use
Building Placement
Required Building Line (Distance from Property Line)
Street 5’5’5’5’5’5’5’
Roundabout 20’ min., 40’ max.—20’ min., 40’ max.20’ min., 40’ max.20’ min., 40’ max.——
Building Form
Stories
All Properties
Roundabout
2
3
Frontage Types (See fig. 3.3-1)
Gallery, Shopfront, Terrace
Parking
Spaces Residential: 1 space per unit Other Uses: 1 space per 500 SF
———
2 2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3
Miscellaneous
One bonus story is permittted for any property meeting the height bonus criteria (see section 6.5.3).
Forecourt, Stoop, Terrace Any Frontage Type Gallery, Shopfront, Terrace Stoop, Terrace Gallery, Shopfront, Terrace Any Frontage Type
Miscellaneous
A minimum of 60% of the primary façade shall be built to the Required Building Line.
Any section of along the required building line that is not defined by a building must be defined by amenity or green space except for the minimum necessary opening for vehicular access.
Awnings, bay windows, or other building design features may encroach over the Required Building Line, but not the Property Line.
Loading docks or other service entries are prohibited on street facing façades.
Façades on retail frontages shall be glazed with clear glass no less than 70% of the sidewalk-level story.
Any building façade facing a public street shall include changes in buiulding form, modulation, archways, entrances, porches, or stoops for every 12’ of frontage.
Access through the building to rear parkign or amenity space is required at intervals no less than every 150’ of the façade facing the street.
Miscellaneous
8.1.b
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Att. 2: ReVisioning 5 Corners Fact Sheet (Presentation of Five Corners Update Feasibility
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: MAYOR EARLING AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: JAMIE REECE, CHAIR, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATIONS ON FIVE CORNERS PLANNING
DATE: March 28, 2018
_____________________________________________________________________________________
As you know, in February 2017 we transmitted a memo that contained four central recommendations:
• We encourage the Council to direct staff to conduct a detailed feasibility study for development
options within the Five Corners area.
• We encourage the Council to move quickly on the study.
• We encourage Council and staff to explore and develop incentives for desired development.
• The Committee believes that the City’s implementation of the Roundabout a catalyst project that will
help spur the redevelopment of the Five Corners Area ; however, certain code restrictions may be
hampering development.
Subsequently, we were very happy to learn late last year that City staff were in the process of engaging the Heartland
group to conduct such a feasibility study. At its most recent meeting of March 21, 2017, the Commission was
presented a summary of the Heartland feasibility study, which was very interesting and raised only a couple of key
recommendations from the Commission:
1. Revisit the UW Green Futures Lab “ReVisioning” study and draft plan. As the City Council considers
moving forward with potential planning and zoning changes for the Five Corners area, we encourage the
Council and City staff to revisit the UW Green Futures Lab “ReVisioning” study and draft plan that included
the Five Corners area. While years have gone by and the Westgate plan and zoning have been
implemented as an outgrowth of that plan, we believe the original work done by the UW still has applicability
to a certain degree and should be reconsulted to help forge the path forward.
2. Plan for redevelopment. The key take-away from the Heartland feasibility study among the Economic
Development Commissioners was the need to base whatever planning and zoning process City Council may
wish to undertake on the development feasibility factors presented in their most recent study. It’s clear that
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Att. 3: EDC Memo on Five Corners - Mar 2018 (Presentation of Five Corners Update Feasibility and Planning Board
EDC Memo to Council
Five Corners – March 2018
Page 2 of 2
redevelopment in Five Corners will only occur if the redevelopment potential provided by the ultimate zoning
parameters would provide greater value than the existing improvements. At times communities have been
known to implement plans and zoning that may reflect a desired outcome, yet are inconsistent with market
dynamics. We encourage Council and City staff to remain mindful of the development feasibility factors
Heartland has presented when working on any plan and zoning provisions for Five Corners. We all want to
see a vibrant, mixed-use, walkable and transit-supportive Five Corners community in the future, which will
only develop if the zoning provisions make redevelopment financially feasible.
Lastly, recognizing that any renewed planning work for Five Corners will involve many parties, especially including
public input, the Economic Development Commission would also like to play a collaborative role in that process and
looks forward to our continued involvement.
Thank you again for having the Heartland study conducted, which we believe will aid greatly in providing real-life
parameters to the planning and zoning work that lies ahead, and for your consideration of our input.
8.1.c
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Att. 3: EDC Memo on Five Corners - Mar 2018 (Presentation of Five Corners Update Feasibility and Planning Board