agenda edmonds city council regular meeting - …

Agenda

Edmonds City Council REGULAR MEETING - VIRTUAL/ONLINE

VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING

EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WEB PAGE, HTTP://EDMONDSWA.IQM2.COM/CITIZENS/DEFAULT.ASPX, EDMONDS, WA

98020

FEBRUARY 9, 2021, 7:00 PM

Edmonds City Council Agenda February 9, 2021

DUE TO THE CORONAVIRUS, MEETINGS ARE HELD VIRTUALLY USING THE ZOOM MEETING PLATFORM. TO JOIN, COMMENT, VIEW, OR LISTEN TO THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING IN ITS ENTIRETY, PASTE THE FOLLOWING INTO A WEB BROWSER USING A COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE:

HTTPS://ZOOM.US/J/95798484261

OR JOIN BY PHONE: US: +1 253 215 8782 WEBINAR ID: 957 9848 4261

PERSONS WISHING TO PROVIDE AUDIENCE COMMENTS USING A COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE ARE INSTRUCTED TO RAISE A VIRTUAL HAND TO BE RECOGNIZED. PERSONS WISHING TO PROVIDE AUDIENCE COMMENTS BY DIAL-UP PHONE ARE INSTRUCTED TO PRESS *9 TO RAISE A HAND. WHEN PROMPTED, PRESS *6 TO UNMUTE.

IN ADDITION TO ZOOM, REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS BEGINNING AT 7:00 PM ARE STREAMED LIVE ON THE COUNCIL MEETING WEBPAGE, COMCAST CHANNEL 21, AND ZIPLY CHANNEL 39.

"WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE ORIGINAL INHABITANTS OF THIS PLACE, THE SDOHOBSH (SNOHOMISH) PEOPLE AND THEIR SUCCESSORS THE TULALIP TRIBES, WHO SINCE TIME IMMEMORIAL HAVE HUNTED, FISHED, GATHERED, AND TAKEN CARE OF THESE LANDS. WE RESPECT THEIR SOVEREIGNTY, THEIR RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION, AND WE HONOR THEIR SACRED SPIRITUAL CONNECTION WITH THE LAND AND WATER. - CITY COUNCIL LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT

1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE

2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

3. ROLL CALL

4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

5. PRESENTATION

1. Snohomish Health District Update (20 min)

6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS

7. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA

Edmonds City Council Agenda February 9, 2021

1. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of February 2, 2021 2. Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.

8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

1. Ordinance amending the Edmonds Community Development Code to add “Hotel” as a Permitted Use in the CW Zone (20 min)

9. NEW BUSINESS

1. Overview of WCIA Annual Audit (15 min)

10. EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(I).

11. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS

13. COUNCIL COMMENTS

ADJOURN

City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/9/2021 Snohomish Health District Update Staff Lead: Council Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History Pursuant to the interlocal agreement with the Snohomish Health District, the District is required to provide a quarterly update report to the City Council. Staff Recommendation No action required. For information only. Narrative N/A Attachments: Edmonds_SHD Update

5.1

Packet Pg. 3

City of Edmonds PresentationKatie Curtis, Prevention Services Director

Snohomish Health District

February 9, 2021

Resiliency & Recovery for a Healthy, Thriving Community

5.1.a

Packet Pg. 4

Att

ach

men

t: E

dm

on

ds_

SH

D U

pd

ate

(S

no

ho

mis

h H

ealt

h D

istr

ict

Up

dat

e)

2020 inREVIEW (NON-COVID)

5.1.a

Packet Pg. 5

Att

ach

men

t: E

dm

on

ds_

SH

D U

pd

ate

(S

no

ho

mis

h H

ealt

h D

istr

ict

Up

dat

e)

Rebuilding the Agency

Online service delivery

IT infrastructure

Rucker Building improvements

Transparency and accountability

Snohomish Health District 3

5.1.a

Packet Pg. 6

Att

ach

men

t: E

dm

on

ds_

SH

D U

pd

ate

(S

no

ho

mis

h H

ealt

h D

istr

ict

Up

dat

e)


Public Health Activities Continue

4,500+Inspections on

restaurants, grocery stores,

espresso stands, caterers and mobile food

vehicles

1,000+Complaints

addressed (food, pools, septic and

solid waste)

~500Permits for pools and spas that we routinely inspect

200+Public and

private schools with kitchen permits and

required safety inspections

5.1.a

Packet Pg. 7

Att

ach

men

t: E

dm

on

ds_

SH

D U

pd

ate

(S

no

ho

mis

h H

ealt

h D

istr

ict

Up

dat

e)

In Your Community Partnered with City on suicide prevention policy and events

237 annual food establishment permits, 6 field consultation, 26 pre-opening inspection and 14 change of ownership reviews

56 child care providers received consultations through Child Care Health Outreach program, and 114 continuing education courses completed by providers

16 children served through Children with Special Health Care Needs program

24 COVID case investigations in school and/or child care settings


5.1.a

Packet Pg. 8

Att

ach

men

t: E

dm

on

ds_

SH

D U

pd

ate

(S

no

ho

mis

h H

ealt

h D

istr

ict

Up

dat

e)

COVID-19RESPONSE

5.1.a

Packet Pg. 9

Att

ach

men

t: E

dm

on

ds_

SH

D U

pd

ate

(S

no

ho

mis

h H

ealt

h D

istr

ict

Up

dat

e)


Web Resources (www.snohd.org/covid)

5.1.a

Packet Pg. 10

Att

ach

men

t: E

dm

on

ds_

SH

D U

pd

ate

(S

no

ho

mis

h H

ealt

h D

istr

ict

Up

dat

e)


COVID-19 Heat Map--Cumulative

Through January 23, 2021

5.1.a

Packet Pg. 11

Att

ach

men

t: E

dm

on

ds_

SH

D U

pd

ate

(S

no

ho

mis

h H

ealt

h D

istr

ict

Up

dat

e)


Rate by Zip Code (Jan. 10-23)

Through January 23, 2021

5.1.a

Packet Pg. 12

Att

ach

men

t: E

dm

on

ds_

SH

D U

pd

ate

(S

no

ho

mis

h H

ealt

h D

istr

ict

Up

dat

e)

• Healthcare System– Continue work with hospitals, LTCFs, DSHS, and other resources to

improve flow through the discharge system

• Disease Prevention & Containment– Continue testing, case, contact and outbreak investigations– Support schools in implementing statewide guidance

• Vaccine– Work with Vaccine Taskforce to increase supply to meet capacity– Develop reporting information on demographics, etc.– Collaborate with partners to increase access for underserved– Continue to follow prioritization in vaccination phases

10

COVID-19 Looking Ahead5.1.a

Packet Pg. 13

Att

ach

men

t: E

dm

on

ds_

SH

D U

pd

ate

(S

no

ho

mis

h H

ealt

h D

istr

ict

Up

dat

e)

MovingFORWARD

5.1.a

Packet Pg. 14

Att

ach

men

t: E

dm

on

ds_

SH

D U

pd

ate

(S

no

ho

mis

h H

ealt

h D

istr

ict

Up

dat

e)

Implementing Our Strategic Plan


• Reduce the rate of communicable disease and other notifiable conditions

• Prevent or reduce chronic diseases and injuries

• Provide high-quality environmental health services

• Improve maternal, child, and family health outcomes

• Provide legally required vital records

• Address ongoing, critical public health issues

• Support increased access to medical, oral, and mental health care

• Build a more sustainable organization

5.1.a

Packet Pg. 15

Att

ach

men

t: E

dm

on

ds_

SH

D U

pd

ate

(S

no

ho

mis

h H

ealt

h D

istr

ict

Up

dat

e)

Projected Revenues


2017 Actual 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Amended Budget

2021 Proposed Budget

Licenses & Permits 3,860,426 4,008,199 3,787,452 3,577,892 4,314,297 Intergovernmental Revenue 10,147,984 11,046,367 9,913,452 22,383,413 9,260,321 Charges for Goods & Services 2,140,985 1,838,729 2,578,610 2,449,479 2,239,463 Miscellaneous Revenues 298,909 580,829 401,213 257,818 114,557

16,448,304 17,474,124 16,680,727 28,668,602 15,928,387

5.1.a

Packet Pg. 16

Att

ach

men

t: E

dm

on

ds_

SH

D U

pd

ate

(S

no

ho

mis

h H

ealt

h D

istr

ict

Up

dat

e)


Updated Six-Year Forecast5.1.a

Packet Pg. 17

Att

ach

men

t: E

dm

on

ds_

SH

D U

pd

ate

(S

no

ho

mis

h H

ealt

h D

istr

ict

Up

dat

e)

COVID Funding - continue engaging with federal delegation and local partners to ensure extended & expanded

Sustainable Funding - while 2021-2025 are fairly stable, current trends would leave the District with an inadequate total fund balance to cover reserves starting in 2026.

Increased Revenue – finalizing renovations to lease out space in Rucker Building, as well as Sound Foundation for Public Health getting up and running.


Looking Ahead5.1.a

Packet Pg. 18

Att

ach

men

t: E

dm

on

ds_

SH

D U

pd

ate

(S

no

ho

mis

h H

ealt

h D

istr

ict

Up

dat

e)

Sound Foundation for Public Health

• New Foundation board members selected

• Anticipate filing paperwork Q1

• Finalizing MOU between Foundation and Health District


Purpose: To provide support for priorities identified in community health assessments, community health improvement plans, and/or emerging

public health issues in Snohomish County.

5.1.a

Packet Pg. 19

Att

ach

men

t: E

dm

on

ds_

SH

D U

pd

ate

(S

no

ho

mis

h H

ealt

h D

istr

ict

Up

dat

e)


Stay in touchBlog & Newsletters

Social Media

Sign up for our blog, newsletters, alerts and more at www.snohd.org/NotifyMe

Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram

5.1.a

Packet Pg. 20

Att

ach

men

t: E

dm

on

ds_

SH

D U

pd

ate

(S

no

ho

mis

h H

ealt

h D

istr

ict

Up

dat

e)

18

contact informationFor more info, please contact:

Shawn Frederick, MBAAdministrative [email protected]

Katie CurtisPrevention Services [email protected]

Thank you

5.1.a

Packet Pg. 21

Att

ach

men

t: E

dm

on

ds_

SH

D U

pd

ate

(S

no

ho

mis

h H

ealt

h D

istr

ict

Up

dat

e)

City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/9/2021 Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of February 2, 2021 Staff Lead: Scott Passey Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda. Narrative N/A Attachments: 02-02-2021 Draft Council Meeting Minutes

7.1

Packet Pg. 22

Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes

February 2, 2021 Page 1

EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL

VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING

DRAFT MINUTES

February 2, 2021

ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT

Mike Nelson, Mayor

Susan Paine, Council President

Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember

Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember

Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember

Vivian Olson, Councilmember Laura Johnson, Councilmember

ALSO PRESENT

Brook Roberts, Student Representative

STAFF PRESENT

Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.

Shane Hope, Development Services Director

Rob Chave, Planning Manager Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Mgr.

Jeff Taraday, City Attorney

Scott Passey, City Clerk

Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst

1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE

The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The

meeting was opened with the flag salute.

2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Councilmember Olson read the City Council Land Acknowledgement Statement: “We acknowledge the

original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We

respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection

with the land and water.”

3. ROLL CALL

City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating remotely.

4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-

MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED

UNANIMOUSLY.

5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 23

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments.

George Bennett, Edmonds, thanked Mayor Nelson and My Edmonds News for an in-depth and candid

interview with the Mayor, commenting that understanding the approach and the context of city leaders is

very important. With regard to the equity and justice task force report, reading the experiences in the report were heartbreaking. He cited positives in the report: 1) 752 of the 5,992 police shootings in the

U.S. had body cameras, a program the City of Edmonds plans to implement. 2) Additional training is

always good; defunding the police as stated in the equity handbook is somewhat loaded and is a misnomer; shifting or increasing funding including special task forces, domestic violence task forces,

community involvement resources or other needs is a good idea. 3) Community outreach, educational

sessions in schools, devoted time for community concerns in an open forum would hopefully create more dialogue and interactive feedback; however, the police cannot force the public to attend. He cited things

he found disheartening about the report and the approach: 1) not sure the task force was ever presented

with any statistics, training, commendations or history of the effectiveness and equity within the Edmonds

Police Department. 2) Lived experiences and perceived biases are inherent in each of us; lived experience should never be discounted. However, this report, guided by a professional versed and trained equity

consultant weighted perception more than data. Taken to together, data and perception lead to actual and

measurable solutions. 3) The report did not mention the systemic failures within the policing policies leading to racism and inequity in our local police force. This report was based on assumptions and steered

by a consultant with a somewhat negative and false narrative. He thanked the task force for bravely

sharing their experiences with the community to bridge the racial divide, but he faulted the process and the basis. Since commenting in the local press, he has been labeled a misogynist, a racist, a fat rich white

person and ironically a potential Council candidate. Those labels do not change his ask of the Mayor,

Police and Council to put a plan together and agree to pay for, measure and move forward with. Perhaps a

shift of funds from equity consultants to training consultants may have been a better move. He thanked the task force for their report and real thoughts about the City.

Maxine Mitchell, Edmonds, commented on the tree-related regulations. She and her husband have lived in Edmonds for the past 10 years; one of the main things that attracted them to Edmonds was the beautiful

views of Puget Sound and Olympic Mountain range. She concurred with Anna Forslund West’s

comments to the City Council dated 11/20/20 which were posted in the public comment section on the

City’s website that suggested protection of water views be inserted into the intents and purposes section of the proposed tree code. Trees have the potential to block water views and can adversely affect property

values. Having this very salient point omitted shows a complete disregard for homeowners’ vested

interests. Real estate agents know how valuable property with a view of Puget Sound and the Olympic Mountains, adding substantial value to the price tag. The City has maximum height guidelines for

buildings and fences, but no one seems to care when planting trees how tall the tree will eventually grow.

The 2019 Urban Forest Management Plan addresses this issue via an entire section on trees and views, stating when views become obstructed, enjoyment of one’s property as well as property values may be

impacted. The UFMP goes on to state, when considering planting trees in the bowl and other view areas,

lower growing trees will help preserve the views of neighboring properties. In other words, when a

developer plans a site, he/she should take into consideration the height of the new trees chosen for the site and how their eventual height could adversely affect neighbors’ views. That should be included in the tree

code, not just penalties for cutting down trees. Just as there are building codes that establish a maximum

height on new construction, the tree code should address mature tree heights and how that affects property owners’ views. She implored the Council to add a clause in the intent and purposes section of the

proposed tree code that refers to protecting water views for homeowners and selecting lower growing

trees when land is being developed. Choosing the right tree for the right place is a mantra of the UFMP and should be incorporated into the tree code.

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 24

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



Councilmember K. Johnson pointed out there was a public hearing later on the agenda. Mayor Nelson requested the public hold their comments regarding the tree code until that agenda item. This agenda item

is for public comments regarding any topic other than the tree code.

Nicole Hughes, Edmonds, chair of the Citizens Economic Development Commission, spoke in support of the agenda item to consider a zone amendment to add hotels to the list of permitted primary uses in the

Commercial Waterfront zone. This issue was in front of the Council for consideration in February 2020.

At that time, the Council heard from the EDC in the form of a memo in support of the zone update. She renewed that support and refreshed the reasoning through the lens of the impact that COVID has had on

Edmonds businesses and property owners. In considering the post-COVID emergence of the City and

businesses, this zone update will provide even greater flexibility for some properties in the CW district and possibly provide the City the potential to have one of the only boutique beachfront hotels in the

greater Seattle area. The zone amendment applies only to development that would occur as a reuse of

current buildings, only three exist in the zone, and will not change the character or view corridors on the

waterfront. The benefit of a boutique hotel on the waterfront could amplify the success of the Waterfront Center as well as business activity in the waterfront area and the downtown core. When the EDC studied

this opportunity, they learned overnight guests spend 2-3 times more in the local economy than day-

trippers. This change also gives existing property owners the ability to pivot or repurpose a property into a new use like a boutique hotel. Having that ability to adjust a business strategy with an expanded list of

use options gives property owners the greatest flexibility possible to emerge in the post-COVID economy.

From an economic standpoint, the expansion of permitted uses to include a hotel could have significant economic impact and potentially accelerate post-COVID recovery for the City. She thanked the Council

for putting this back on the agenda and considering this zone amendment.

Beth Fleming, Edmonds, a 12-year resident, spoke about the recent happenings regarding the Police Chief hiring. Although that may seem like dragging it through the mud again, as a citizen she has been

following a lot of what transpired although she was not looped in on the candidates before the Council’s

vote. When she missed the Council’s vote, believing it would occur on December 15th but was moved to the 8th, she began to educated herself on what was going on. She expressed disappointment with Mayor

Nelson’s lack of transparency. She was hopeful the recent MEN interview would contain more

information to clarify what went wrong in process, but was disappointed once again when even though

Mayor Nelson admitted he was human and all humans make mistakes, he made the choice to once again blame people who were asking for answers, something she found surprising because the community looks

to him as their leader, mayor and elected official. She thanked Councilmember Olson for showing great

integrity and character in the process and making sure the information was thorough and shared with the Council before the vote. Unfortunately that was not taken under serious consideration. She read an

October 24, 2019 quote from Mayor Nelson when he was running for mayor in response to the Edmonds

Beacon asking what role the mayor provides in the community, “As a public servant it is vital that the mayor listen to the community that they represent. We have seen what happens in Edmonds when elected

officials move forward without listening to our citizens first. While listening and learning are important,

actions speak louder than words. To be an effective leader, the mayor must also act on what they hear and

learn from our citizens.” She respectfully asked Mayor Nelson to listen to the community and to be a good leader.

Finis Tupper, Edmonds, referred to an email sent by Council President Paine to the Edmonds Beacon stating the City’s Comprehensive Emergency Plan was optional. He pointed out emergency planning is a

federal mandate that started after Katrina. The federal government provides funds to the state which are

distributed to cities. One only needs to look at the interlocal agreement to determine that the City of Edmonds needs a functional, current, updated Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. That City

response was totally misstated with regard to what the City’s duties are. He asked who wrote that

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 25

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



response stating the City’s position that the CEMP was optional and not to supplant and augment the county plan. He requested Council President Paine answer that during Council comments.

(Written comments submitted to [email protected] are attached.)

6. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS

COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT

PAINE, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.

COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO

AMEND THE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE JANUARY 26, 2021 MEETING MINUTES AS

AMENDED BY THE CITY CLERK ON MONDAY. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as

follows:

1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 26, 2021

2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS

3. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM KATHLEEN

BARRETT AND RAPHAEL & MARIEKA MILLER

7. PUBLIC HEARING

1. PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT TREE REGULATIONS AND SUBDIVISION CODE

AMENDMENT

Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien reviewed:

• Urban Forest Management Plan

o 2014/2015 Tree Code Update (abandoned) o 2019 Urban Forest Management Plan

• Tree Regulations Update Goals

o Improve tree retention with new development on private property

o Implement low impact development principles

o Establish a Tree Fund o Other updates

▪ Definitions

▪ Existing permitting process ▪ Penalties

• Related UFMP Goals

o Goal 1 –Maintain or enhance citywide canopy coverage

A. Update tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development impacts on the urban

forest and to consider changes to tree replacement requirements and penalties for code violations

B. Adopt policy goal of no net loss to overall tree canopy and continue to enhance canopy in

parks according to the PROS plan. These tree regulations in and of themselves will not meet the no net loss policy.

C. Ensure protection of tree resources in environmentally critical areas

F. Establish a tree bank or fund to which donations can be made for tree planting and other tree programs

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 26

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



i. Use any penalty fees from tree cutting violations to fund tree programs o Goal 3 - Incentivize planting trees on private property

A. Have a program of giving away trees and/or tree vouchers for use in Edmonds

• Draft Tree Regulations

o New Chapter 23.10 ECDC

▪ Exemptions, permit process, definitions, tree retention, tree protection, tree replacement, violations

o New Section 20.75.XXX Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility

o New Chapter 3.95 ECC Tree Fund

• ECDC 23.10.020 - Definitions o Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) - Diameter of tree measured 4.5 feet from the ground

o Significant tree – A tree with at least 6-inch DBH

o Protected tree – A tree identified for retention and protection, or a replacement tree required during development of a site

• ECDC 23.10.060 - Tree Retention Associated with Development

o Short Subdivision (up to four lots)

o Subdivision (five or more lots)

o New multi-family development o New single-family development on a vacant lot or demolition and replacement of a single-

family house

o Tree removal on developed site not exempted by ECDC 23.10.040

• ECDC 23.10.040 - Exemptions o Removal of trees on an improved single-family lot without critical areas

o Removal of non-significant trees not protected by other means

o Removal of trees for utility maintenance o Removal and maintenance of trees in City parks by the Park’s Department

o Routine landscaping and maintenance

o Exemption with supporting documentation

▪ Hazard Tree Removal ▪ Nuisance Tree Removal

• ECDC 23.10.050 – Tree Removal Prohibited

o Removal of protected trees unless trees are determined to be hazard or nuisance trees

o Removal of trees from vacant lots prior to development unless trees are determined to be hazard or nuisance trees

o During permitted demolition of structures except as reasonably necessary to conduct

demolition activity o Trees in critical area and critical area buffers except as allowed in Chapters 23.40 – 23.90

ECDC

• Trees and Development

o First retain existing trees

o Second replace trees that are removed o Third pay for trees removed but not replaced

• ECDC 23.10.060.C – Tree Retention Requirements

o ECDC 23.10.060.C Tree Retention for Proposed Development

Development Retention Requirement

New single family, short subdivision, or subdivision

30% of all significant trees in the developable site

Multi-family development, unit lot short

subdivision, or unit lot subdivision

25% of all significant trees in the developable

site

o Retention Priority

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 27

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



▪ Priority 1 –Specimen trees, trees which form a continuous canopy, trees on slopes and critical areas, trees over 60 feet in height or 18 inches DBH

▪ Priority 2 –Tree groupings, trees within setbacks or around perimeter, trees performing a

screen function, other significant native and nonnative trees

▪ Priority 3 –Alders and cottonwoods

• ECDC 23.10.080 – Tree Replacement o Replacement required for each significant tree removed

o Number of required replacement based diameter of trees removed:

▪ 6 inches to 10 inches DBH –1 replacement tree required ▪ 10.1 inches to 14 inches DBH –2 replacement trees required

▪ Above 14 inches –3 replacement trees required

• ECDC 23.10.080.E – Tree Replacement Fee-in-lieu

o A fee-in-lieu may by allowed after consideration of all other options o $1,000 multiplied by the number of trees required to satisfy the replacement requirement but

not planted

o Paid into the City’s Tree Fund

• ECDC 23.10.085 – Protected Trees Notice on Title

o The owner of any property that included a tree(s) identified for retention and protection on an approved tree retention plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently

protected by easement, tract, or covenant restriction shall, as a condition of permit issuance,

record a notice on title of the existence of such protected trees against the property with the Snohomish County auditor’s office.

• ECDC 20.75.XXX – Conservation Subdivision Design

o Provide flexibility during subdivision design to aid in tree retention

o Setbacks ▪ No street setback less than 15 feet

▪ No rear setback less than 10 feet

▪ No side setback less than 5 feet

o Lot size may be reduced to allow clustering while not increasing the overall density allowed by the zone

o Coverage on individual lots may be increased as long as the overall coverage allowed by the

zone is not exceeded o Allow variations in access widths

• Chapter 3.95 ECC – Tree Fund

o Funding Sources

▪ Revenue from Chapter 23.10 ECDC: fee-in-lieu or civil fines ▪ Civil penalties from critical area violations

▪ Donations or grants for tree purposes

▪ Other monies allocated by the City Council

o Funding Purposes ▪ Tree vouchers for planting trees in the City of Edmonds

▪ Paying for services provided by a qualified tree professional

▪ Paying for services that support urban forest management and health ▪ Acquiring, maintaining, and preserving wooded areas within the City

▪ Purchasing supplies for Arbor Day and other education purposes

o Funds from fee-in-lieu program must be used to purchase trees for planting (added by

Planning Board prior to examples, could be significant amounts paid into fee-in-lieu program, may not be enough places to plant trees in city, Council consider other uses)

• ECDC 23.10.030 - Permits

o Tree removal not specifically exempted in section 23.10.040 processed as Type I permit

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 28

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



o Procedural exemption. Tree removal associated with building permit, subdivision or other land use approval will be reviewed with the associated project and will not require a separate

tree removal permit.

• ECDC 23.10.100 – Violation, Enforcement and Penalties

o Civil Penalties

▪ Economic benefit derived from violation ▪ Appraisal for trees 12 inches DBH or larger

▪ $1,500 for trees less than 12 inches DBH

o Aiding and Abetting: Tree cutter equally liable as property owner

• Development Examples o Next five slide are examples of implementing the draft regulations

o Compare the fee-in-lieu tree fund payments with other development fees

o City Impact Fees ▪ Traffic - new single family residence $6,249.14

▪ Parks - new single family residence = $2,734.05

o Utility Charges

▪ Water – ¾” meter = $5,050 ▪ Sewer – new single family +$4,417

o Credit is given for existing development

1. New Single-Family Development o 15 Trees Predevelopment

o 30% Retention – 5 Trees

o Tree Retained – 6 Trees o Assume Plant 3 Replacement Trees

o Required replacement trees not planted 22

o Tree Fund Payment $22,000

o Retain one additional tree and plant three more ▪ $16,000 Tree Fund Payment

o Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water -$18,450

2. Short Subdivision – Four Lots o 41 Trees Predevelopment


o Trees Retained – 13 Trees

o Assume 3 Trees/lot – 12 Trees o Required replacement trees not planted – 58 Trees

o Tree Fund Payment - $58,000

o Retain 8 additional trees ▪ $37,000 Tree Fund Payment

o Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water - $55,351

3. Subdivision –Ten Lots o 90 Trees Predevelopment


o Trees Retained – 20

o Assume 3 Tree/lot – 30 o Required replacement trees not planted – 98


o Retain 1 additional tree and plant 4 per lot ▪ $85,000 Tree Fund Payment


4A. Conservation Subdivision Design (Standard development) o 153 Trees Predevelopment

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 29

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



o 30% Retention – 46 Trees o Trees Retained – 15 Trees

o Assume 3 Tree/Lot – 12 Trees

o Required Replacement trees not planted – 315

o Tree Fund Payment - $315,000 o Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water - $70,801

4B.Conservaton Subdivision Design (Flexible development)

o 153 Trees Predevelopment o 30% Retention – 46 Trees

o Trees Retained – 62 Trees

o Assume 3 Tree/Lot – 12 Trees o Required Replacement trees not planted – 202)



5. Multi-Family Development –10 Unit Apartment o 8 Trees Predevelopment

o 25% Retention –2 Trees

o Trees Retained – 0 Trees o Required Replacement Trees –18 Trees

o Tree Planted – 36 Trees

o Tree Fund Payment - $0 o Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water - $38,595

Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing.

Larry Temple, Edmonds, said he and his wife moved here 18 years ago and live a block north of City

Hall on 5th Avenue north in a condo with a view of Puget Sound, mountains and ferry. A lot of work and

planning has gone into the tree code, but it is little more than protection of trees. Although he understood the ecological need for trees, particularly with global warming, but the code needs to include something

about controlling tree heights. They have watched their view diminish over the 18 years. He referred to an

article in the Edmonds Beacon on May 30, 2013 written by Vivian Olson, relaying that she chose to move

to Edmonds in part due to the great water and mountain views. Many others would agree that was why they came to Edmonds, for the unique views. The article included Ms. Olson recalling when she lived in

the Seaview neighborhood and the splendid view of the Puget Sound and mountains that disappeared as

the trees took over. Water views are an asset unique to Edmonds that does not exist in Mill Creek; in Mill Creek the view is the trees. Edmonds has something that needs to be protected in addition to the trees and

kept as a focal point which requires managing the trees. He recalled meeting with Parks Maintenance

Manager Rich Lindsay in November and explaining that the trees on 3rd Avenue were growing into the view and his response that the City has nothing to do with maintaining trees for views. He was hopeful

some protection for the views that residents paid a lot for could be included in the tree code.

Marjie Fields, Edmonds, acknowledged she is a tree hugger. At the last city council meeting, it sounded like the city was acknowledging problems with the scope and effectiveness of the tree code, but was

proposing passage of a partial code, with a promise of more to come. However the timeline and coverage

for additions to the code were not addressed. Without that information, it is difficult to know whether to support the proposal or not. There are so many questions, such as will additions address more of the

Urban Forest Management Plan that was supposed to be the basis of the tree code? Will additions be

based on science, with data to back up regulations regarding various tree species and various locations of trees? For instance, will trees essential to managing stormwater runoff be prioritized for retention? Will

additions be specific about what constitutes a nuisance tree?? Will experts be involved in determining

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 30

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



what trees are not protected? Testimony from fellow citizens adds to the list of unanswered questions. She summarized she was worried about the great hopes for a meaningful tree code.

Bill Phipps, Edmonds, a Tree Board member, but not speaking for the Tree Board, referred to a letter he

submitted on January 26, 2021 that reflects his current thoughts on the tree code. The tree code is a good start and he encouraged the Council to finish it and not kick it down the road. However, a tree code

should address all the trees in a city, not just a few. He encouraged the City to, 1) set up a tree bank where

replacement trees could be planted, 2) set up a tree loss notification where tree loss on private developed lots could be tracked so all the tree lost in Edmonds could be accounted for, 3) plant multiple of kind

replacement trees for every significant tree lost any place at any time for any reason, and 4) and ensure

the tree code addresses all the trees in the City. He also suggested the City assure residents with water views that the aim of the tree code is not to plant large confer trees in the bowl area. The City needs to set

up a tree bank or tree preserve or join a group that already has a preserve and plant replacement trees

there where they will not block anyone’s water views.

Lora Hein, Edmonds, applauded the City Council, Tree Board and Planning Board for all the hours

spent meeting and deliberating on the tree code. However, after reading through detailed numbers and

pages of exemptions, these regulations are not enough to serve the stated purpose, to protect, enhance and preserve significant trees. Protecting, enhancing and preserving a viable tree canopy will require tougher

restrictions on removing trees on any property. Replacement of trees will not be served unless trees that

are removed are replaced with trees at minimum equivalent to or in excess of the volume of the tree canopy removed. Without such stringent regulations, the City will continue to lose these living, breathing

protectors of clean air, climate, and quality of all life including native wildlife. She relayed hearing that

up to 90% of residential properties in Edmonds are already developed and exempt from any regulations to

protect, enhance and preserve the remaining canopy. Thus all but 10% of the residential area of Edmonds is subject to removal of any or all remaining trees. She read in City of Kirkland materials regarding

revision of its tree code that shoppers spend 9-12% more in areas with high quality tree canopy. She

found the streets adjacent to retail in Edmonds contain only a smattering of trees. Her favorite places to stroll, linger and look at shops are those with the dappled proximity of a street tree. In her personal

experience walking to and from downtown on summer day on streets named after trees, few trees shade

those streets, requiring her to weave from one side of the street to the other to find a place to pause and

appreciate the cooling relief of a tree. As long as most of Edmonds is exempt from tree removal and the small area addressed in the tree code is subject to additional exemptions and administrative override, the

intent of enhancing the Edmonds quality of life with all that trees provide will be for naught. As she has

stated in previous remarks regarding these regulations, what is needed is a complete moratorium on any tree removal until the Planning Board returns with a stronger, more effective tree code that meets the

stated purpose of protecting, enhancing and preserving significant trees. Such code should be based on

best available science, support the known benefits of trees and puts clear and management rules in place to serve the future wellbeing of all City residents rather than allow the continuation of business as usual

while quality of life erodes away.

Maxine Mitchell, Edmonds, said she and her husband have lived in Edmonds for 10 years; one of the main attractions is the views of Puget Sound and the Olympic Mountain range. She concurred with the

comments expressed by Anna Forslund West to the City Council in November in which suggested

protection of water views be inserted into the intents and purposes section of the proposed tree code. Real estate agents know how valuable property with a view of Puget Sound and the mountains is, adding

substantial value to the price tag. Edmonds is a very special place to live and to buy a house. When trees

are planted without regard to their mature height, they could destroy a resident’s view. The Urban Forest Management Plan has an entire section on trees and views, stating when considering planting trees in the

bowl and other view areas, lower growing trees will help preserve the views of neighboring properties. In

other words, when a developer plans a site, he/she should take into consideration the height of the new

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 31

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



trees chosen for the site and how their eventual height could adversely affect neighbors’ views. That should be included in the tree code, not just penalties for cutting down trees. Just as there are building

codes that establish a maximum height on new construction, the tree code should address mature tree

heights and how that affects views for property owners. She implored the Council to add a clause in the

intent and purposes section of the tree code that refers to protecting water views for homeowners and selecting lower growing trees when land is being developed. Choosing the right tree for the right place is

a mantra of the UFMP and should be incorporated into the tree code.

Nicholas Kathis, Edmonds, said in consultation with his neighbors in the Pine Ridge area, they plan to

draft a letter to the Council outlining their concerns, too numerous for a three minute comment. He was

hopeful the letter would reach the Council in the time required to consider their concerns. He summarized not only does there need to be a code that considers all trees, but a code that responds to all people.

Susie Schaefer, Edmonds, said she sent the Council a letter this morning. She has a sign in her house

that says I live in the Pacific Northwest and trees are the view. She noted we all live in the Pacific Northwest.

Joe Scordino, Edmonds, said he sent in written comments last week and today regarding the draft tree code. The draft tree code needs substantive changes and he questioned why the City would go through the

long process of developing an Urban Forest Management Plan that was supposed to set the way for the

tree code and then not implement the goals and objectives of that plan. He was not an expert on trees so could comment on the specifics, but he did not see the science in many of the metrics such as the 3:1

replacement. He recommended the Council turn to the Tree Board which includes a number of tree

experts and get their recommendations on what the metrics should be. He cited his background in

regulations, 30 years with federal government primarily writing and implementing federal regulations; he sees a lot of loopholes in these regulations that need to be closed. He questioned the City would draft

regulations with so many loopholes for developers to work around. His written comments address how to

close those loopholes, streamline the tree code, and make it effective while acknowledging some of the public’s concerns.

Gary Nelson, Edmonds, said he grew up on a horticulture farm before urbanizing and moving to

Edmonds 58 years ago. The Tree Board and the City Council have ignored several goals in the GMA in RCW 36.70 via this tree code. In the first goal, cities are encouraged to have growth in urban areas, and

the fourth goal is to encourage the availability of affordable housing. One of the top five reasons that

affordable housing is lacking in Edmonds and throughout the Puget Sound area is over government regulation. The sixth goal of the GMA is to protect private property owners so they are not affected by

arbitrary actions. The Comprehensive Plan requires sufficient capacity of land for development of

housing. The tree code hampers the use of available land. Fees are a barricade to development, not just developers, but regular people who have a lot next to the home they currently live in. If there is serious

thought to preserving more trees on private land in Edmonds, the City should purchase the property with

the trees to be retained instead of punishing property owners with overreaching laws.

Hearing no further comment, Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing.

Council President Paine announced that Councilmember Fraley-Monillas had been feeling ill and had left the meeting.

Council President Paine asked how tree canopy changes would be measured over time. Mr. Lien answered the UFMP did a canopy coverage analysis based on a 2015 aerial photo. One of goals in the

UFMP is to update that canopy coverage periodically. There is nothing currently scheduled but a periodic

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 32

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



review is stated in the UFMP. Council President Paine observed it had not been decided what periodically entails. Mr. Lien recalled it was 5-10 years. Ms. Hope said that could be budgeted in the near future.

Councilmember Buckshnis said she was going to propose including it in the 2021 budget, but envisioned

including it in the 2022 budget. With her knowledge of development that has occurred, there has been significant tree loss since 2015. She recommended remanding the tree code to the Planning Board as she

did not like having the Council attempt to approve a half completed code. She did not recall the Council

telling the Planning Board to develop half a code. There are a number of issues with the tree code as emails from citizens have pointed out. The code needs to address incentives, no new loss, and a tree

notification system that does not penalize people for removing trees but keeps track of trees. She

recommended discussing net ecological gain and offered to send Mr. Lien a letter from Puget Sound Partnership whose issue is the current no net loss model is a misnomer, an approach that turns a blind eye

to centuries of devastating habitat loss. Edmonds is not the only city with a tree code; Mr. Phipps has

looked at the tree codes in all the local cities. All cities have GMA issues to deal with. She recommended

the Council discuss what needs to be added to the tree code and send it back to the Planning Board because there is time and she believed it was inadequate.

Councilmember Distelhorst asked Ms. Hope to comment on an email she sent today about the escalation pricing around DBH versus the same cost or fee for every tree. Development Services Director Shane

Hope said it was related to instead of the way the in-lieu-fee program is currently proposed and focusing

on tree retention, focusing on trees proposed to be cut and to higher fees for larger trees to provide motivation to retain them. Mr. Lien said that idea comes from Medina’s tree code where the $200/inch fee

is based on diameter of the trees that are cut. For example, the fee for removal of a 10 inch diameter tree

would be $2,000 and $4,000 for removal of a 20” diameter tree.

Councilmember Distelhorst referred to the low impact development conservation subdivision example

and asked staff to explain whether the area on one side where the trees are retained would be owned by an

HOA or how ownership of that area was accomplished. Mr. Lien displayed the conservation subdivision design and referred to the diagram on the right (clustered houses), explaining that area could be set aside

as a conservation easement where the responsibility for the property is spread between the property

owners. Typically 4-lot subdivisions do not establish an HOA, but it could be set aside as an easement or

a separate tract, or a number of other ways.

Councilmember Olson wanted to address how the Council will move forward. She agree if the Council

was able to stay focused on the narrow scope of this tree code, they were more likely to reach agreement and have something move forward in the next 1-2 weeks. She personally felt some pressure to move the

tree code forward based on the fact that there is a moratorium in place. She supported the moratorium but

felt it was a significant move for a city to take because it was not good for business. The part of the tree code that was most relevant to the moratorium was new development such as new subdivisions which as

proposed the tree code did address.

Councilmember Olson agreed that the proposed tree code did not get the City to the UFMP goals which she fully supported and wanted to know the timeline for addressing trees on other property that need to be

protected. She was interested in getting information from the Administration this week so the Council

knew what it was working toward. The tree code as proposed does not contain the foundation for that aspect and she was concerned if the Council tried to address that within the window necessary from the

standpoint of the moratorium, it would end up not being great policy. Ms. Hope answered there have

discussions at the Administrative level regarding what could be done to address the expected timeline; what could be accomplished now to address the first level of problems and what things can be done to

address the second and third levels. She and Lien have discussed that and have heard from

Councilmembers and the public. She offered to return with that next week for Council review and input.

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 33

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



Councilmember L. Johnson echoed some of the previous comments, pointing out as stated in the

presentation, the proposed tree code does not meet the no net loss requirement nor was it intended to.

However, by calling it the tree code, she was concerned it gives the impression that it is the code that will

offer that protection. It is a start but it needs to be expanded to a code that will get the City toward no net loss or better yet, the net ecological gain that has been mentioned. She was interested in code that would

look at single family lots and whether the timeline could be reasonably met. The UFMP stated the canopy

analysis would be updated periodically; she recalled the Council approved an interlocal agreement with Snohomish County for GIS data a couple weeks ago, data that would be available to the City. She asked if

that data would allow the City to compare today’s canopy to 2015 to determine tree loss that has occurred

during those 6 years. Ms. Hope said it would be necessary to determine whether the methodology Snohomish County used was the same as was used for the 2015 inventory. If it is, that makes it very easy,

if the methodology is different, it may not provide credible, science based information. Staff will look

into that.

Councilmember K. Johnson referred to Section 23.10.040 which indicates there are exemptions for the

removal of trees on private property. She cited two aspects of that, first, property rights, what people can

do on their own property which must be balanced with the significant removal of old growth, mature trees that people want to remove for no particular reason. She often hears chainsaws in her neighborhood; it

used to be heavily treed and now it is much less so. She questioned how to balance those two

perspectives, the desire to protect private property rights versus the desire to maintain tree coverage. Mr. Lien agreed that was a difficult question, it is a balancing act when preparing the code. One of the reasons

for focusing on development with this code update is clearcutting during development is the most

frequent complaint. The previous tree code update looked at tree removal on all property throughout the

City; private property concerns was one of the reasons so many people came out against that tree code. The focus of this tree code is on development; the exemption is for single family properties without

critical areas. Critical area regulations still apply; if there are streams, wetlands, steep slopes, etc. the

property would not be exempt from tree cutting requirements. However, a flat, developed single family lot falls under the exemption. He agreed private property rights was a tough balancing act when

developing any code.

Councilmember K. Johnson suggested focusing on significant trees or protected trees on private property to maintain older forest trees. Ms. Hope said one of things that has been discussed is some kind of a

heritage tree program that would identify special trees, either particular species, size or some other aspect

as another way to address tree retention not part of development. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if that would be on a voluntary basis. Ms. Hope answered there are two types of programs, one is voluntary and

the other is mandatory. Staff could explore that and give Council options.

Councilmember K. Johnson asked if staff anticipated being able to do that during this code update. Ms.

Hope expected to be able to do it this year but not in two months to provide a good product. Mr. Lien

commented meeting the 30% canopy coverage requirement will require more than code. There could be a

voluntary heritage tree program and consideration could also be given to incentives. This code provides for tree vouchers and a tree fund. There have also been discussions about possible financial benefits for

property owners who retain trees such as property tax breaks, breaks in the stormwater utility fees, etc. to

encourage people to retain trees on their property. There is also an education element to inform people about the importance of retaining trees on their property. He summarized it will take more than code to

meet the 30% requirement; it will require a more holistic approach that includes education, incentives,

etc.

Councilmember K. Johnson referred to the replacement program, if one tree is cut, three are supposed to

be planted. She asked if that could specify that the same species of tree be planted so that a Douglas fir is

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 34

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



not replaced with three Japanese maple that do not provide the same tree coverage. Mr. Lien said that gets to the right tree right place. There have been comments tonight about views in the bowl; if a Douglas fir is

cut down, replanting another Douglas fir might not be the right tree in the right place, a Douglas fir is not

really an urban tree. Different tree species have different canopy coverage; the code prefers native trees

for replacement, but requiring the exact same species will not result in the right tree in the right place most of the time. For example if someone cuts down an apple tree, should they be required to replant

apple trees? Ms. Hope said that is the reason for prioritization of trees so that higher priority trees are

preferred. She agreed it depends on the circumstances and is another example of private property rights and interests; some people want orchard trees, some do not and often the particular site determines what

makes the most sense.

Council President Paine raised the issue of tracking, permitting and how to keep track of what is going

on. Some cities have free or low cost tree permits for pruning or tree removal on single family private

property. That way if it is a protected tree or has other qualities that the city wants to preserve, there is an

opportunity for education. She asked if there were ways to incentivize the permitting process for low impact development such as fast tracking for good tree retention, good stormwater infiltration, etc. That

would allow combining good practices with strong tree retention. She cited the importance of tracking

which trees are being removed, and questioned why there was hesitancy to have tree removal permits or tree pruning permits to assist with tracking larger canopy trees.

Ms. Hope answered if a city wants a have permit system, it is important to determine whether the permit system is intended to say no or to say yes. A permit system only tracks what happens to come to the

City’s attention, there are plenty of other things that happen that the City does not know about, raising the

question of how valid the information is. It is also important to recognize that if the City Council wants

everybody to get a permit for pruning and cutting, it will require quite a lot more staffing. There are millions of trees in the City and it would take a much greater financial commitment to make that happen

unless the intent was to pass something there was no intent to enforce. Council President Paine said there

is often a missed opportunity for education. At some point the City needs to track what is happening with larger stands of trees or larger specimen trees that the City wants to retain.

Councilmember Olson referred to points made in citizen letters such as rhododendrons and laurels which

are bushes, but over time develop quite substantial trunks that would exceed the significant tree specifications. She asked if those would be included in number of trees on a site and used to determine

fees and replacement requirements, commenting sometimes those bushes are more like landscape clean

up during a construction project. Mr. Lien read the definition of tree, a self-supporting, woody plant characterized by one main trunk for certain species or multi-trunks that is recognized as a tree in the

nursery and arboricultural industries. He concluded rhododendrons and laurels probably would not meet

that definition.

Councilmember Olson referred to replacement trees and the 30% retention rate, pointing out someone

would still be responsible for zero net loss on that lot. If someone purchased and developed a site with a

lot of trees, the financial impact could be very significant because the requirement is not just to replace the trees that existed. She acknowledged the reason a higher in-lieu-fee was recommended was to retain

trees, but in fact it is impossible to keep all the trees in order to construct a building or buildings on a site.

It ends up being punitive to charge more than the cost to replace the trees. She was not comfortable with the $1,000 amount when last week’s minutes state Parks indicated the cost to replant a tree was $300. She

questioned why the higher amount was proposed as it would penalize the developer.

Mr. Lien responded that dollar value was discussed a lot during the Planning Board’s review. One way it

was looked at was if the amount was lower, a developer would not make as great an effort to retain more

trees and the higher amount would result in a greater effort to retain trees on the site, basically a reverse

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 35

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



incentive. Developers who want to save money would retain more trees so the fee-in-lieu payment would be less. With regard to no net loss in UFMP, the intent is to replace trees cut with development. Having

the fee-in-lieu program could fund tree planting throughout the City via tree vouchers in parks and if the

tree code is revised slightly, could also be used to preserve wooded lots. Consideration was given to ways

of potentially lowering the fee-in-lieu of amount but the Planning Board was adamant it should be that higher amount.

Councilmember Olson said the math and the examples provided illustrate it is not even an option to keep the number of trees that the developer would be responsible for funding. In light of that, the trees should

be funded at the true price, not an amount almost three times higher. Mr. Lien said the fee-in-lieu in some

other jurisdictions in the cost of the tree replacement; often a fee is not stated, it is just the fair market value of replacing the tree. Councilmember Olson said she was making the point in the context of the

developer, but it ends up getting passed onto the consumer and has a direct impact on the bottom line cost

of the house.

Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Ms. Hope’s comment about completing the tree code in two

months, commenting it sounds like the Administration is expecting to have the tree code completed in

two months. Ms. Hope answered that was this part of the tree code that is related to development only; it would be good to have that finished within two months and then pursue the other parts if there was

agreement on key points. The City has a moratorium related to development; therefore, finishing the

development portion first as has been presented and returning on other issues would allow the development part to exist while the rest of the work is done over the next 2-6 months or whatever it takes.

Councilmember Buckshnis said her concern with the development aspect of the tree code was staff used

the current development code and examples that relate to million dollar houses when a housing code was coming up that she hoped would deal with low impact housing that would preserve trees. She was

concerned with piecemealing the code when it was a very important topic. She offered to provide

examples of what was missing. With regard to exemptions and allowing the director to waive requirements such as replacement trees, that was not something not many cities have in their codes. Mr.

Lien answered a lot of other codes have that flexibility. One of the areas where the director can allow a

difference is in the size of the replacement trees. He has heard over the years on critical areas and also in

tree planting that planting a smaller tree is actually better than planting a larger tree. Planting a small tree where the ratio of the tree to the root ball is lower, the tree gets established faster and grows better.

Planting a larger tree takes longer for the tree to get established and begin growing again. That is one of

the flexibility in this code. Apart from that, there is not much flexibility from the requirements in the code. He summarized that language is in a lot of codes not only in Edmonds but in other cities.

Councilmember Buckshnis said she was not interested in planting Doug firs in the bowl. She recalled that was addressed in the UFMP and an exhibit that illustrated planting Doug firs in the bowl was removed.

She referred to the Right Tree, Right Place and Before You Grab the Chainsaw brochures developed by

the Tree Board. She agreed there was an educational aspect. The proposed tree code is addressing

development, but it is hoped development changes will impact the retention of trees, yet the examples still utilize the current codes. She suggested developing a list of things and remand back it back to Planning

Board and develop a comprehensive tree code in 2-4 months. During that time the Council will also be

vetting the Housing Commission’s recommendations. She was leery because there were so many important things coming forward and it may be better to step back and get it them all in place.

Council President Paine said her biggest concern was there was not enough focus on canopy retention and including understory which will impact the quality of the remaining trees. She wanted to focus on groves

which impact spaces much larger than are currently being considered. It is unfortunate this is not a

comprehensive tree code, but there are enough pieces to get something in place before the moratorium

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 36

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



expires. She was not ready to make amendments tonight and suggested the Council discuss it again next week.

Observing that was the consensus of the Council, Mayor Nelson advised the tree code would be returned

to Council at the next meeting. 8. NEW BUSINESS

1. RECOGNITION OF HOUSING COMMISSION'S WORK

Development Services Director Shane Hope explained the Citizens’ Housing Commission (CHC),

appointed by the City Council has completed its work. The Council agenda memo outlines some of the

process. She reviewed:

• Council appointed the Citizens’ Housing Commission in 2019 after a citywide application process

o Postcards mailed city wide

o Numerous applications received o 15 commissioners and 8 alternates appointed by Council and Mayor

• CHC began holding public meetings in September 2019 (video recorded and livestreamed)

• Open house at Edmonds-Woodway High School

• Following COVID shutdowns, CHC began holding online meetings

• 80 people attended the in person open house

• 3,700 people participated in the three online open houses

• Information shared with the public via a City webpage

• Information sent to 600-700 local residents and emails to community groups to remind them of

the process and invite them to participate in the survey

• Council set timeline of end of January 2021 for the CHC to provide their recommendation

• After 23 meetings, the CHC has provided 15 recommendations for further consideration and

public input o CHC recommendations are not the subject of tonight’s agenda item

o Staff will present recommendations to Council, starting with those with the most interest and

opportunity

• CHC was a diverse group with different opinions/ideas

• Two Council liaisons attended CHC meetings and shared information when needed

• Staff provided information and acted as resource, but allowed CHC to do its work and develop

recommendations

Ms. Hope recognized the great job done by the volunteers on the CHC of meeting their deadline, focusing

on their mission and providing recommendations to the Council. Now that the CHC’s work is done, the next phase will be for staff to bring their recommendations to Council in the near future.

Councilmember Buckshnis thanked the commission, staff, consultants and Council liaisons Distelhorst and Olson. She asked if the Council was provided the CHC’s recommendations. Ms. Hope advised she

emailed Council the 15 recommendations and 7 proposals that may not fit mission were but worthy of

consideration on January 29th following the CHC’s January 28th meeting. Staff made a few corrections

and resent it yesterday. The CHC’s recommendations have also been posted on the City’s website as well as a press release to inform the public.

Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the CHC automatically sunsets. Ms. Hope said the resolution states the CHC ends on February 1st. This agenda item is to recognize that the CHC’s work is done and there is

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 37

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



work ahead. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed there were a variety of different opinions on the commission She asked how the recommendations would be presented to Council, whether 1-2

recommendations would be highlighted. Ms. Hope said that would likely be the best way. There are

complex issues, some more than others, and it would be easier to focus on 1-2 at a time. Councilmember

Buckshnis said she was excited to move forward.

Councilmember L. Johnson recognized the CHC for having 23 meetings which represents an enormous

amount of work on the part of many individuals including two Councilmembers. She expressed her appreciation to the CHC for their time and dedication on a very important issue, commenting it was now

time for Council to get to work on the same issues.

Councilmember K. Johnson asked Ms. Hope to explain how the Planning Board would be involved in the

process moving forward. Ms. Hope answered some of the recommendations are not related to zoning. For

example, some are related to partnerships with organizations, etc. which are not Planning Board issues. If

the Council wants to pursue something the CHC recommended that is zoning related, she envisioned the Council would refer that to the Planning Board with direction, it would then go through the regular public

process which may takes months and then would come back to the City Council for a final decision.

Other recommendations may be budgetary issues such as how to spend sales tax revenue dedicated to low income housing. She summarized any of the recommendations related to zoning that the Council wanted

to have explored further would involve the Planning Board.

Councilmember K. Johnson thanked Ms. Hope for her efforts, commenting there was a lot of staff

involved in this effort as well as a lot of dedicated community involvement. She applauded Ms. Hope and

the CHC for meeting their goal by the end of January, commenting Zoom meetings brought everyone

together.

2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO

ADD “HOTEL” AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE CW ZONE

Economic Development/Community Services Director Patrick Doherty commented it has been a year since the Council last considered this topic. He explained hotels are an allowed use in the Downtown

Business (BD) zoning districts. However, in the waterfront district of Downtown Edmonds - the

Commercial Waterfront (CW) zone district - hotels are not included on its list of “permitted primary uses.” The CW zone encompasses all of the properties waterward of the BNSF railroad south of

Brackett’s Landing South park to the City’s southern limits. That being said, only limited opportunities

may exist for hotel uses to be developed in the CW zone, given that there are few, if any, viable, vacant properties. If a property owner or investors were to respond to market demand for hotel rooms, it would

likely be in the form of re-use of an existing commercial building.

A review of the history of several of the extant commercial buildings along the waterfront indicates that they have housed a succession of different uses over the decades, including such marked changes in use

as apartments to offices, offices to restaurants and back again, retail to office, etc. These changes have

occurred in response to changes in market demand over the decades and in response to changing economic conditions. The one, otherwise standard, commercial use that has not been available in this

zone is lodging.

The Economic Development Commission (EDC) considered this issue over the past two to three years,

spurred by their interest in potentially capturing more economic impact from the thousands of visitors

who come to Edmonds. While day-trippers spend on average from $44 to $85 per person, per day

(depending on their activities) in our local economy, overnighters in Snohomish County spend up to $179

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 38

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



per person, per night, a substantial increase in local economic impact (Dean Runyon Associates, May 2019).

What’s more, in proposing this potential code amendment, the EDC believed that additional lodging

opportunities in and around greater Downtown Edmonds would also serve as a welcome complement to the important arts, culture, entertainment and culinary scene. For these reasons, the EDC proposed

consideration of adding “hotel” to the listed of “primary permitted uses” in the CW zone. The Planning

Board considered this recommendation and concurred with adding hotels to the list of permitted uses.

It should be noted that since this matter was first considered, the COVID-19 crisis has up-ended the local,

national and global economies and substantially impacted the financial viability of traditional mainstays of the local economy, including retail, office-based and other establishments. Many business and property

owners are facing an uncertain future with their traditional business models. Office-building owners have

been left wondering if pre-existing and/or traditional tenants will return once the pandemic has receded,

given the current work-at-home environment. It is quite possible that previously well-occupied office buildings may see long-lasting vacancies. Such property owners may start to seek and consider any

possible alternative uses that could be more financially viable. Re-use of such buildings for lodging

should be an available option.

For these reasons, and in an effort to expand the opportunities for developing potential lodging

establishments in and around Downtown Edmonds, the Administration accepts and forwards the EDC proposal to consider adding “hotel” to the listed of “primary permitted uses” in the CW zone.

The current version of the CW zone is attached to the packet. Generally, the City’s zoning code provides

for hotels in commercial zones, and includes this definition: 21.40.060 Hotel.

Hotel means any building containing five or more separately occupied rooms that are rented out

for sleeping purposes. A central kitchen and dining room and interior accessory shops and services catering to the general public can be provided. Not included are institutions housing

persons under legal restraint or requiring medical attention or care. (See also, Motel.)

The current proposal can be accomplished by adding hotels to the list of Permitted Primary Uses in Chapter 16.55.010 (CW zone). Staff does not recommend adding 'motel' as a permitted use since the

purposes of the CW zone are focused on public access and pedestrian use in the waterfront area, and the

definition of a motel is more focused on supporting vehicle use and access.

This potential amendment is consistent with the Shoreline Master Program (SMP), which allows this type

of use in the Urban Mixed Use shoreline environments. In fact it is arguable that reuse of an existing building that may be office now as a hotel could potentially better meet the SMP than office use. One of

the primary objectives of the State SMP is to encourage use or enjoyment of the shorelines of the state.

Use of and enjoyment incudes visual access, passive access and active access. Most office building are

fairly closed environments whereas a hotel tends to have more public.

The City Council had some discussion regarding parking during its review on February 4th. Briefly, the

standard for all commercial uses in the downtown area is as follows: “All new buildings or additions in the downtown business area shall provide parking at a flat rate

of one parking stall for every 500 sq. ft. of gross floor area of building. If it is a mixed use or

residential building, the portions of the building used exclusively for residential uses shall only be required to provide parking at one stall per dwelling unit. For purposes of this chapter,

“residential uses” shall refer to lobbies, stairwells, elevators, storage areas and other similar

features.” [ECDC 17.50.010.C]

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 39

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



If the Council is concerned that the normal downtown commercial parking rate is insufficient for hotels,

the Council could instead specify that hotels use the residential parking rate of “one stall per {dwelling}

unit”. This could be accomplished by amending the proposed ordinance to permit hotels as:

“Hotels that include parking at one stall for every unit”

During the previous presentation, questions were raised whether a hotel would have great parking needs

than the existing office uses. The availability of adequate parking to meet demand will be very important to a hotel developer. The existing parking will be a critical path in determining the number of hotel room

that could be provided on a site.

In summary, the Administration believes it is incumbent upon the City to provide a fertile platform for

robust economic opportunity within our local business community - such as opportunities to pivot from

traditional business models to keep businesses and property owners viable in the new economic realities

we will be facing. The potential of a mostly vacant office building at the Waterfront does not serve our community’s nor nearby businesses’ best interests. If market conditions warranted re-use of such a

building as a hotel, the Administration believes such an opportunity should be available, as it is elsewhere

in Downtown Edmonds.

Exhibit 1 includes a draft ordinance that would implement the Planning Board’s recommendation to add

“Hotels” to the permitted uses in the CW zone.

Council President Paine recalled Mr. Doherty’s response to an email indicating that there would be a

possibility of 40-60 hotel rooms. Mr. Doherty clarified the most that would be seen in the largest building

was 30-40. Council President Paine asked in addition to one parking space per hotel room, how much employee parking would be required. She observed the standard for all commercial uses in the downtown

area was one parking stall for every 500 square feet of gross floor area of building. She suggested crafting

language such as whichever is most beneficial to keep cars on the property. Mr. Doherty explained every potential proposal to reuse a building will be different, one may be large luxurious rooms with a small bar

or café so the 1:500 parking ratio may better capture the parking demand, whereas another proposal may

be smaller rooms with a larger common area and amenities where one space per room would better

capture the parking demand. He emphasized there is no vacant land on the waterfront other than one small parcel with two small homes that is not big enough for a hotel. The only chance that this would occur

would be reuse of an existing building. Those existing buildings currently have a parking impact so it

would not be an entirely new net impact.

Mr. Doherty explained for example an office building may a spillover peak parking impact of 10 spaces

who park on the street; a hotel may have 15 spaces of spillover peak parking impact or it could be the converse. When creating code, it is impossible to know in advance all the possible future development

proposals. The parking impact does not start from zero, it is trading uses. For example, restaurants are

currently allowed in the CW; the top floor of one of the office buildings could revert to a restaurant as it

has been in the past which would have a much greater parking impact. Planning Manager Rob Chave said the City moved away from specified parking ratios for individual uses because it began to be separated

from reality. A lot of the ratios were rooted in studies done 20-40 years ago and business models and how

parking is provided changes. Staff found using individual parking ratios that were out of date tended to restrict the flow of businesses. For example, if one business closed and another moved in that had a

different parking ratio, it hindered businesses occupying spaces and continuing to provide a lively

commercial area.

Councilmember Buckshnis said it was her understanding there was only one building as the rest were on

Port property. Mr. Doherty answered there are two office buildings and one residential building. It is very

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 40

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



unlikely that the residential building would change to a hotel. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the residential building was the Ebb Tide. Mr. Doherty answered there was another residential building. The

proposed change would impact a maximum of 2-3 buildings. The current vacancy rate is somewhat

immaterial because he has heard from some office buildings who are worried about tenants not renewing

leases in the next few months due to people working from home, being nervous about COVID, etc. It may be 2022 until high vacancy rates are seen in office buildings. He pointed out this is just an idea, like any

zoning ordinance, the list of possible uses are identified but it may take decades for the uses to be acted

upon. Councilmember Buckshnis commented there is an apartment building next to the EbbTide and the property with two little houses. Mr. Doherty said the property containing the two little houses was

underdeveloped under the zoning but it was a very small site that could not accommodate a hotel

building.

Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Harbor Inn across the street and asked if there was a need for

another hotel and whether they or the Port has voiced any concern about this proposal. Mr. Doherty

recalled there was a comment from Port Commissioner Preston last year that there was a downtown hotel in Harbor Square. Mr. Doherty pointed out the City did not insert itself into the market dynamics of

competition. For example, if a grocery store was allowed in a business commercial zone, there was no

restriction on other grocery stores. Likewise, the City does not decide there are too many auto dealerships, grocery stores, bookstores, etc. The City provides the platform of zoning that allows a rich array of

commercial and lets investors, the market, developers and banks determine whether there is enough

demand. A hotel demand consultant the City hired a couple years ago advised that before a hotel is financed, the bank requires the hotel developer do a hotel demand study. A bank will not finance a hotel if

the demand and the supply do not warrant a new hotel. The study done two years ago determined there

was a deficit in supply based on demand of about a 75 room hotel within downtown and about the same

in the Highway 99 area. At that time, the study determined the market in Edmonds was not meeting the inherent demand. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled as a regulator, she looked for that information with

regard to hotels.

Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out there were funds in the budget for a comprehensive planning

review of the entire waterfront area. She personally believed that should look at the entire waterfront,

parking, transit hub, the Port, the marsh, open space, public beaches, etc. She asked if this change should

be delayed until after that comprehensive review was completed which will give the Council a good understanding of the CW zone as well as the numerous other zones within the waterfront. Mr. Doherty

answered there is an urgency to ensure commercial properties and business owners have a wide-open

platform to respond to these changing economic times. That comprehensive study will take 1-2 years. Ms. Hope said the Comprehensive Plan process and looking at that area holistically will take quite a lot of

time and steps need to be followed. The proposal is not to change the zoning, it is simply to add a

particular commercial use in existing buildings. She summarized if that was something the Council wanted to allow the market to consider, it would not hurt the bigger project.

Councilmember Olson said the Comprehensive Plan changes may/may not be consistent with the current

allowable uses. She pointed out the 2019 Planning Board minutes reflect that the consultant study said there was demand but due to building heights, the supply could only be met via boutique type enterprises.

With regard to competition, the Harbor Inn and a boutique hotel have different market niches. She

suggested googling the Lido House in California to get a better idea of a boutique hotel, noting the target market is wholly different. For example, families would be more of the Harbor Inn’s target versus a

person attending a wedding at the Waterfront Center or a show at Edmonds Center for the Arts. As

someone who has spent a lot of time around local business owners, she assured they are a very enterprising group and she fully expected and trusted that anyone interested in taking on that mission

would ensure they had sufficient parking to support their operation or come up with ways such as

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 41

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



providing a shuttle to the hotel from the ferry or train. She was confident they would deal with that as part of their business model and the Council did not need to micromanage the parking for this possibility.

Councilmember Distelhorst appreciated the creativity with the potential for an adaptive reuse of a

building. He would be much more comfortable having it conform to current parking guidelines and not encourage more driving which would be contrary to the City’s climate goals. He was comfortable having

this on the Consent Agenda next week if other Councilmembers were also comfortable with that.

Councilmember K. Johnson said before moving forward, the Council should have a better idea of whether

or not this development is feasible under the code. She cited ECDC 23.80.040 which identifies this as a

geological hazard area which excludes residential or use for places for employment or public access. She requested a determination whether it was feasible to have hotel under the existing code. With regard to

parking, it was stated that the parking requirement was one space per 500 square feet in downtown;

however, these sites are more confined with less sharing and less street parking. She suggested counting

the number of parking spaces per site to determine the number of parking spaces available for the adaptive uses. That preliminary information would be very helpful before moving forward and until those

questions were answered, she could not support this zoning change.

Mr. Doherty explained the issue of a geological hazard area is regarding development. The proposal is

related to the potential for adaptive reuse of existing buildings. If the land were vacant and a new building

were proposed, there may be a different approach to the first floor height as was done with the Waterfront Center. This is related to reuse of an existing building and the feasibility of that is high because there are

already systems, parking, etc. in place. With regard to parking, a developer would count the parking

spaces, and using the current parking requirement of one space per 500 square feet would determine the

amount of hotel space, literally right-sizing a hotel to the parking supply. Regardless of the parking requirement, the existing supply will determine the number of room and size of the hotel. That does not

need to be done in advance because it is self-regulating.

Councilmember K. Johnson commented if there were only 12 spaces, that would not accommodate a

boutique hotel but 60 space would. She asked if there was a sense of the amount of parking available. Mr.

Doherty said he did not know the exact number of parking spaces the largest building has, but it is around

30 which would be adequate for a boutique hotel. Councilmember K. Johnson said that may not be sufficient for a boutique hotel plus a restaurant which would require more parking and parking on the

waterfront is insufficient overall. She agreed looking at the waterfront overall as Councilmember

Buckshnis suggested would take more time but needed to be done regardless of what the Council did regarding a waterfront hotel.

Council President Paine suggested the Council continue this conversation next week. She recalled during the last presentation, there was abundant discussion about the definition of “hotel.” Mr. Doherty sent her

several definitions and she preferred Kirkland’s definition. She requested staff provide that definition next

week for Council consideration. Mr. Doherty agreed, recalling some people raised questions about the

validity of the existing definition of hotel in the City’s code. Staff does not have a problem with the definition as nothing else meets that definition because, as arcane as the definition may be, it does not

mean an apartment, a boarding house, a drug rehab center, etc. It basically means an establishment that

provides rooms available for sleeping. He said the reason sleeping is included is dwelling unit is a unit of building area for housekeeping. Housekeeping means living in a unit versus just sleeping. He said if the

preference is to have a more modern definition, Issaquah’s definition states a building with rooms for rent

on a weekly or monthly basis.

Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the City would have any liability if a building were retrofitted for a

hotel and a catastrophic event occurred with railroad or an earthquake. She viewed an office building as

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 42

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



having little traffic and a hotel having more traffic and events. The new Waterfront Center is built very well and can withstand an earthquake versus a retrofitted building that would not be built to the new

standards. She request staff address the liability aspect, if any, during next week’s discussion.

Councilmember K. Johnson recalled asking Mr. Doherty about the seismic hazard, and he said it would not apply because this was an adaptive reuse. It was her understanding a hotel could not be built in that

area if it were bare ground due to the seismic geological hazard. Mr. Doherty answered if someone did a

substantial enough rehab such as gutting a building, they could trigger current standards related to fire, life safety, seismic, etc. A lesser building rehab with minor tenant improvements may not trigger the

threshold and they may not have to bring it up to the current codes. He noted some thresholds, especially

related to fire, are very low.

Councilmember K. Johnson said her question was not related to the building code but codes related to

critical areas that state residential should not be built in seismic hazardous areas. If a hotel could not be

built there because the bare land is seismically hazardous, she asked why a hotel would be allowed just because it was a retrofit. Mr. Chave said the codes do not say a hotel cannot be built. The seismic

requirements trigger more stringent building code requirements. With a conversion from one use to

another under the building code, a lot of different building considerations are applicable particularly when the use is changing from an office into a place with sleeping quarters, there are more exiting and access

requirements, window openings, structural, etc. It doesn’t mean it cannot be done, it is just potentially

more expensive and a lot more attention needs to be paid to what is being done.

Mr. Doherty said what Councilmember K. Johnson was referring to was exactly what the Waterfront

Center found when they realized they needed to raise the first floor due to sea level rise. A new building

would have a much higher burden to achieve than reusing an existing building. He noted a hotel is not residential, it is commercial. The current code would allow any of the office building to be reused for a

restaurant and a couple of the buildings had restaurants in the past. Those uses, which are quite active and

would attract a lot of people, are currently allowed. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS

Mayor Nelson said the COVID news is encouraging; the two week rolling average in Snohomish County is down to 184/100,000, a 50% drop since the height this winter. People are making a big different by

continuing to physically distance, wear masks and avoid large gatherings. Those things still need to be

done to stay safe and beat the virus especially as Snohomish County moves into Phase 2 which provides

more options.

Mayor Nelson announced with sadness the passing of Bill Anderson, a local nature photographer. Many

people are familiar with his work, but may not have seen Bill. He displayed a photograph of Bill and a quote from another photographer, “you don’t shoot things, you capture them. Photograph means painting

with light. You paint a picture only by adding light to things you see.” Mayor Nelson said Bill added light

to the marsh, to the bird, to all the wildlife in Edmonds, all the natural wonders that people miss every day. He extended his condolences to Bill’s wife Pauline and son Daren. He thanked the Parks Department

for posting several of the photographs Bill took for the Arts Commission, BirdFest, and the Discovery

Program on the Edmonds Parks Facebook page.

10. COUNCIL COMMENTS

Councilmember K. Johnson offered her condolences to Mr. Anderson’s family, relaying the community

has enjoyed his educational and illuminating wildlife pictures.

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 43

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



Councilmember Buckshnis commented Bill Anderson was a wonderful man and she learned a lot from him. She was honored to have had him in her life; he was a nice, kind, intelligent man who knew

everything about the wildlife in the marsh. She was greatly saddened by his passing but relieved he was

no longer in pain.

Councilmember L. Johnson said it was exciting and comforting to hear that first responders, medical

professionals and mature individuals including her own parents who have been able to get COVID

vaccinations. However, one educational piece that is missing; people still need to take precautions after being vaccinated. The vaccination works by reducing or preventing the individual from getting sick with

COVID; however it does not prevent the individual from spreading the virus, asymptomatic infection

despite immunization. She congratulated those who have been vaccinated and urged them to continue taking precautions and keep in mind those who are still waiting to get vaccinated. Regardless of their

vaccination status, she urged everyone to keep interactions to a minimum, wear a mask and socially

distance.

Councilmember L. Johnson said Bill Anderson’s work has touched her, she has long appreciated his

photograph. His work will be appreciated for years to come. She offered her sympathies to his family and

may his memory be a blessing.

Councilmember Olson commented it was fitting that the Council was talking about the tree code and

climate issues today as they remember Bill Anderson because he helped the community appreciate the wildlife in Edmonds and made a big difference to the community. She was thinking of him and his

family.

Councilmember Olson expressed her shared value of the views in Edmonds. Most of the comments today were from the standpoint of homeowners, but views are something that all residents and visitors enjoy.

The letter to the editor she wrote in the past was not the view from her home, but the view she enjoyed

leaving a neighborhood. She acknowledged we can’t have it all and the environment is of the utmost importance, but to the extent that those can be valued and balanced when possible, that is good policy for

a town like Edmonds and goes a long way toward making tree lovers out of everybody. She hoped

Councilmembers would keep that perspective in mind as they move forward on this important support of

climate goals that she supported as well as the UFMP which is the basis for the tree code.

Councilmember Distelhorst expressed his sincere condolences to the Anderson family and friends. He

reported February is Black History Month and expressed his appreciation to Sno-Isle Libraries for developing a reading list from very young children through adults on many topics related to Black

history. Sno-Isle also has a list of local organization and local Snohomish County Black owned business

that the community can support. The Edmonds School District also has lunchtime readings.

Councilmember Distelhorst highlighted the equity tool kit developed by the Diversity Commission

available on the Chamber of Commerce website. It includes a pledge that businesses can take to create

and strengthen an equitable and welcoming culture for each and every neighbor and visitor. It includes the pledge, tools, educational resources, podcasts, websites and local leaders and trainers. Tomorrow night

the Diversity Commission will talk about how they plan to roll that out to the community. He urged the

public to continue to stay safe, stay home if they can, mask up and take care of the community.

Council President Paine announced she will be reappointing Kevin Harris to the Economic Development

Commission. She expressed her appreciation to the Citizens’ Housing Commission, the Councilmembers who devoted a lot of time, and the staff team that kept the CHC together for a year. Edmonds gets a lot of

mileage from its citizen volunteers who commit their time to making Edmonds a better place.

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 44

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



Council President Paine said she will miss Bill Anderson. He was a great observer of the natural environment as well as a caretaker of the Edmonds Marsh who highlighted the Edmonds Marsh in

abundance through his photograph. His photography was admired across the country and he would send

links to his fan club. She was sorry he was gone, but glad he was no longer in pain. She expressed her

sincerest condolences to his family and friends, everyone will miss him and the impact he made on the community. She urged everyone to mask up and stay safe.

Student Representative Roberts expressed condolences to Bill Anderson’s family, commenting he just discovered his work this morning and was amazed by his contributions and thankful for the impact he left

for his and future generations of Edmonds.

As we approach nearly a year spent in quarantine, Student Representative Roberts reminded of the

importance of taking care of all aspect of your health, but especially your mental health. Over the past few

months he has seen an unfortunate number of suicides among youth, and is heartbroken for each one.

Those lost are children, brothers, sons, sisters, daughters, coworkers, students, and friends and he wondered what could have prevented their suicides. While the COVID-19 situation cannot be changed,

we can change our attitude toward others; we can choose to be respectful and positive toward one another,

choose to reach out to our friends to check in or get help, and have the difficult and emotional discussions. He urged everyone to check in with friends and family about mental health and take it

seriously; no one has a reason to pretend they are having issues with their mental health. For anyone

struggling, he assured there is always help available and urged them to reach out. He encouraged everyone to wear a mask and make safe choices. In addition to preventing as many illnesses and deaths

from this virus as possible, there are so many other things on the line; businesses, the mental health of

those feeling alone and afraid, and families depend on your choices, please make the right one.

11. ADJOURN

With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:56 p.m.

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 45

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



Public Comment for 2/2/21 Council Meeting:

From: Marjie Fields

Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 10:48 AM

To: Council <[email protected]>

Subject: written version of tree code comment.

Thank you for all your hard work for our city.

Just in case you didn’t memorize every word I said at the meeting last night, I’m sending you a

written version:

At the last city council meeting, it sounded like the city was acknowledging problems with the

scope and effectiveness of the tree code, but was proposing passage of a partial code, with a

promise of more to come.

However the timeline and coverage for additions to the code were not addressed. Without that

information, it is difficult to know whether to support the proposal or not. There are so many

questions: such as

Will additions address more of the Urban Forest Management Plan that was supposed to be

the basis of the Tree Code?

Will additions be based on science, with data to back up regulations regarding various tree

species and various locations of trees? For instance, will trees essential to managing

stormwater runoff be prioritized for retention?

Will additions be specific about what constitutes a Nuisance tree?? Will experts be involved in

determining what trees are not protected?

Testimony from my fellow citizens adds to the list of unanswered questions.

I am worried about our great hopes for a meaningful tree code.

Marjie Fields

From: Lora M. Hein

Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2021 8:21 PM

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 46

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



To: Council <[email protected]>

Subject: Tree Code

Dear City Council and Mayor Nelson,

Thank you for the chance to speak at the hearing this evening. I am sending these remarks I

made with a couple of additional notes.

I applaud all of you as well as the Tree Board and Planning Board members for the numbers of

hours spent meeting and deliberating over the tree code. However, after wading through

detailed numbers and pages of exemptions, these regulations are not enough to serve the

stated purpose to “protect, enhance, and preserve, significant trees”

To “protect, enhance, and preserve” a viable tree canopy for the city, we need tougher

restrictions on removing trees on any property. Another part of the purpose, replacement of

trees, will not be served unless trees removed are replaced with trees at minimum equivalent

to or in excess of the volume of the tree canopy removed. Without such stringent regulations,

we will continue to lose these living and breathing protectors of clean air, climate and quality of

all life, including native wildlife.

I have heard that up to 90 % of residential properties in Edmonds are already developed and

exempt from any regulation to “protect, enhance, and preserve” what canopy is left. Thus all

but 10 per cent of the residential area of Edmonds is subject to removal of any or all remaining

trees.

I read recently in Kirkland City materials regarding revision of its tree code that shoppers spend

9-12 % more in areas with high quality tree canopy. I checked our streets adjacent to retail and

found only a smattering of trees. My favorite places to stroll and linger to look at shops are

those with the dappled proximity of a street tree.

From personal experience walking to and from downtown on a summer day, on streets named

Maple, Fir, Pine and Cedar, few trees shade those streets. I have to weave from one side to the

other to find any place to pause and appreciate the cooling relief of a tree.

As long as most of Edmonds is exempt from tree removal, and the small area addressed in this

code is subject to additional exemptions and administrative override, the intention of

enhancing the Edmonds quality of life with all trees provide will be for naught.

As I have stated in previous remarks regarding these regulations, what is needed is a complete

moratorium on any tree removal until the Planning Board returns with a stronger, more

effective tree code that meets the stated purpose of protecting, enhancing, and preserving,

significant trees. Such code must be based on best available science. It must support the known

benefits of trees and needs to put clear and manageable rules in place to serve the future well-

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 47

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



being of all city residents rather than allow the continuation of business as usual, while our

quality of life erodes away.

I also would like to mention the sacred spiritual connection of the original inhabitants of this

land who are acknowledged at the beginning of every meeting who have taken care of this

land, including far more trees than are present today.

I also would like to reiterate what someone who followed me referred to. In the Pacific

Northwest trees ARE the view. If people want to have unobstructed water views they might

want to consider moving to Southern California. A significant part of the view across the water

is of the forested slopes of the Olympic Peninsula.

In addition, in response to the person who claimed that trees degrade property values, the city

of Portland found the presence of trees adds an average of $9000 to a house’s selling price, the

equivalent of an added 129 square feet of finished area to a house.

Conservation Subdivisions Design is another issue that could be woven into the Housing code

considerations. I am curious what the number of lots are that actually would be able to make

use of these regulation changes.

The tree code needs to address a total tree program.

Many other cities have tree codes that require permits for tree removal from any property.

Many of those permits have regulations in place with the intention of maintaining the benefits

of caring for our tree neighbors. Rather than punitive fines, property owners are allowed up to

a certain number of trees to be removed and provide for replacement of excessive tree loss.

Thank you for considering a more thorough approach to the need for improving urban tree

retention and well being. Until a working tree code is approved it is essential to maintain a

moratorium on removing trees that cannot be replaced until and unless this code requires clear

and adequate maintenance and improvement of our existing environment.

Thank you very much for your attention to this critical matter.

Lora Hein

Submitted by Val Stewart:

February 2, 2021

Dear Mayor Nelson and esteemed City Council members

My name is Val Stewart. I lived in Edmonds for over 30 years. I know most of you through my

City involvement for many years including Planning Board where I served alongside Mayor

Nelson and councilmember Kristiana Johnson. I chaired the Climate Protection committee for

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 48

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



two years and started Students Saving Salmon, a student led group that restores salmon habitat

and educates the public and decision makers about how they can be better stewards of their

watershed. I appreciate all the hard work you are doing during these unprecedented times.

This is when citizens really need you to represent them.

Tree code is near and dear to my heart. I happened to chair the meeting back when the tree

code first came to Planning Board. There were 100 people who wanted to comment. It was a

long night. That was when we all learned the hot button items. It became clear that an Urban

Forest Management Plan needed to be developed to guide tree code updates. That finally got

done and now here we are looking at the latest proposed updates passed on by Planning Board.

I think the proposed tree code should focus more on undeveloped land and how to protect

environmental assets on a tract that could be developed. LID is a step in the right direction.

Assessment of existing ecosystems and species of wildlife they support should be imperative.

One aspect of the proposed tree code provides for the option of using flexibility measures to try

and arrange the building sites in a way so more trees are preserved. Using such measures

would require the developer and the city planner to reach a common agreement on a modified

plan. I hope that means that building footprints can be moved to where they would not impact

an already established ecosystem of trees. Townhomes and cluster housing could allow for

common areas with nature to be retained and appreciated by residents. This could also

contribute to affordable housing with increased density requirements with code adjustments.

What I don’t see in this draft is enough attention paid to wildlife habitat. Edmonds is a NWF

certified Community Backyard Wildlife Habitat. We need to revive that and continue to educate

citizens on how they can certify their properties. They would need to provide food, water,

shelter, and a place to raise young for wildlife. The emphasis is on native plants where possible.

When older trees are cut down, we set ourselves back generations and destroy a complex

ecosystem that has been evolving often a hundred years or more. I believe in the UFMP it

states : “Tree physiology for most trees in Western Washington can take up to 7 years to

establish after planting, and another 10 years before they reach functional maturity. Trees

provide the majority of their ecosystem services when they reach

functional maturity.” That’s 17 years. So when you take down a hundred year old tree and

everything under it, ask yourself how many human generations it will take to replace that

complex ecosystem it supported. it’s not just the tree you removed, but the whole network of

life under the tree, the roots, understory shrubs and the complex network in the soils that have

been developing and nurturing diverse life for decades. Planting a few trees with a much

smaller diameter and not replacing the ecosystem that has been destroyed falls way short.

The UFMP asks the City to provide a report which documents Ecosystem Services provided by

Public Trees. I think it should include private property trees as well. I am not in favor of a fee in

lieu program since I see it as giving developers permission to take down trees indiscriminately

and assuage guilt by paying what amounts to not much money to them in a tree bank.

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 49

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



With regard to views, trees can be windowed to reveal some view. We did that on our property

and got the benefit of beautiful trees along with a water view through them and alongside.

That was until a developer took all the trees down on a neighboring lot when it was

redeveloped. Look up “Not a Tree Left Standing” in the Beacon archives. I wrote that at the

time. A 4 ft diameter Big leaf Maple along with at least 10 other significant native trees and

understory shrubs went down. We never did see the diversity of wildlife we enjoyed ever

return.

Seaview woods is a precious and fragile ecosystem since it encompasses a portion of Perrinville

Creek drainage basin. This area has been under a microscope for years by neighbors who want

to protect it. Development would not be a good idea on that 5 acre tract. Citizen Duane

Farmen said recently in an editorial “ Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan recommends new

open space acquisitions to preserve environmentally sensitive land, particularly land that is

adjacent to an existing park or open space. The Seaview Woods is exactly what those

recommendations call for.” I propose that citizens and the City come up with a plan to

purchase the land from the developer who bought it. That should have happened years ago.

It’s not too late.

There’s a lot of talk about property rights. But what about the rights of trees. After living for so

long and contributing to cleaning our air and water, controlling erosion, providing shade and

coolness, and providing critical habitat for wildlife, we are jeopardizing our own sustainability if

we don’t protect them. I’d like to end with a quote from the Rights of Nature by David Boyd,

2017. “Who Speaks for Trees? And now I ask all of you Will you speak for the trees?”

Thank you for your consideration and service to our community.

Kind regards,

Val Stewart

From: Richard Senderoff


To: Council <[email protected]>; Public Comment (Council)

<[email protected]>

Cc: Lien, Kernen <[email protected]>; Hope, Shane

<[email protected]>; Nelson, Michael <[email protected]>

Subject: Public Comment- Perspectives on Draft Tree Code

Dear Councilmembers,

I’m writing to address some overall perspectives regarding the draft tree code and then further

elaborate on the relationship between development, storm water, and trees. First, some

overall draft tree code perspectives:

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 50

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



• There are way too many exemptions! The KISS (Keep It Simple Silly) principle needs to

be followed. The exemptions are subjective and will be subject to “interpretation” by

the Planning Department and, subsequently, the Hearing Examiner/Superior

Court. Exemptions should be few and far between, not the rule. Developers will look

for “loopholes” in the code, which will lead to “band-aids” and a messy code. Keep It

Simple!

• The requirements to replace significant trees or charge developers per tree removed is

much too lenient! The number of replacement trees should be doubled if not

tripled. And the charges per tree removed should be at least 2-3 times (if not up to 5-10

times) higher. Developers will just see these “costs” as the price of doing business.

o There should also be requirements for replacement based on the number of

trees removed per sq. ft. regardless of size/type; trees removed beyond a

specified number per sq.ft. need to be replaced or the developer charged. This

is the only way to protect pocket forests and to dissuade developers from their

current practice of essentially clearcutting prior to construction.

• The Tree Fund needs to be better described in terms of how it will be managed and this

should include tree vouchers provided for free on a first come basis to citizens who

want to plant trees on their properties (as per Lynnwood).

• More than three (3) tree code violations should result in a developer/contractor being

banned from working in Edmonds, as should have happened during Point Edwards

construction years ago. Developers/contractors need to understand the City is

serious. Again, developers will just view charges for violations as the price of doing

business. Carrots won’t work for tree preservation; sticks are required!

• It’s insufficient to focus on code ONLY pertaining to new development. We need a

comprehensive tree code and this includes currently developed property, etc.

o If we approve only a tree code pertaining to new development, Council will

simply believe they have “checked the box” and move on, without completing a

more comprehensive code. And the tree code will be left unfinished for a long

time (if not forever).

o I don’t believe current developed property owners should be charged for

permits. But they should be required to obtain a free permit, allowing the City

to document the number of allowable trees being removed for tracking

purposes. And at this time, they could also be encouraged to donate to the tree

fund based on the cost of a tree voucher/removed tree that could be provided to

other citizens (as described above). Developers should also need to document

the number of trees being removed during construction.

Finally, we can’t make decisions regarding tree preservation in a vacuum that doesn’t consider

the impact on the environment and utility/stormwater requirements. I shouldn’t need to

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 51

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



remind you of the importance of trees regarding stormwater handling, purifying water draining

into our salmon streams, and cleansing the air (in addition to providing wildlife habitat).

I previously was a Steering Committee member on the Edmonds Backyard Wildlife Project. The

objective of this project was to enhance the wildlife corridors within neighborhoods that

connect to pocket forests, parks, and other open spaces. The speed at which we achieved

Community Wildlife Habitat designation for Edmonds from the National Wildlife Federation is a

testament to the concern and interest that Edmonds citizens have for maintaining and

enhancing our environment. In fact, we were achieving the specified requirements so quickly

(e.g., record time) that the National Wildlife Federation seemed to keep changing the rules in

terms of how they calculated “points” which extended the time for us to achieve the

designation. My point being that the Edmonds community has much interest and concern

regarding our natural areas and tree canopy.

As such, the environment, including tree canopy preservation must be seriously considered

when adopting any development proposals. And the impact of tree removal and development

on our existing stormwater issues MUST be given serious consideration; flooding that results

increases both the City’s liability and disrupts the lives of families.

For instance, ALL of our current storm water systems throughout the City failed during recent

rain events, especially in the Perrinville watershed. This included issues on my street in the

Seaview neighborhood, in which stormwater ultimately drains into the Perrinville watershed.

In trying to address these issues with both the Snohomish Conservation District and Public

Works it was stated clearly to me that the Perrinville watershed is the most challenging

stormwater handling area in the City and the current system is insufficient. Yet, the Planning

Department continues to advocate for zoning changes to allow development in Perrinville

Woods. It’s as if the Planning Department and Public Works aren’t working in a coordinated

manner. In other words, the Planning Department works on behalf of developers to facilitate

development proposals and leaves it up to Public Works stormwater engineers to deal with the

consequences, with a stormwater handling system that currently is insufficient! Don’t get me

wrong. As a scientist, I have great respect for engineers. But frankly, they are not always right

and there are many examples of this. And when stormwater systems do not adequately keep

pace with development, solutions become even more challenging and expensive.

Yes, I’m aware of the “excuse” that this was a historic storm. But to offer this excuse is to deny

that climate change (and global warming) is real and the frequency and extent of these events

won't continue to increase. Remember, it’s not about temperature. Rather, it’s about

energy. And when more energy (e.g., heat) is put into a system the frequency and extent of the

subsequent reaction is increased.

We MUST keep these factors in mind when considering development projects; otherwise,

current and future taxpaying residents will suffer the consequences. There should be NO more

development within the Perrinville watershed, especially Perrinville Woods, until the current

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 52

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



stormwater issues there are sufficiently addressed. To allow otherwise, is legislative

malpractice!

Respectfully,

Rich

From: joe scordino



<[email protected]>

Cc: Lien, Kernen <[email protected]>; Hope, Shane

<[email protected]>; Nelson, Michael <[email protected]>

Subject: Public Comment for Public Hearing on Tree Code

Council Members; The draft Tree Code needs substantive revisions!!!! The draft Tree Code does NOT even come close to achieving the goals and objectives of the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) of 2019. Why did the City go through the whole process of developing and the Council approving a UFMP, if it only results in an ineffective Tree Code? There is no apparent scientific basis for what appears to be arbitrary numbers, percentages, and provisions in the draft. Further, the draft lacks acknowledgment of the functions and ecological values of different species of trees and the conditions of the watersheds that these trees occur in. The Council NEEDS TO REQUEST the City’s Tree Board, which consists of citizens knowledgeable on trees, to provide recommendations based on the “best available science” on each of the metrics (diameters, numbers, percentages, etc.) in the draft Tree Code. As a starting point to fixing the draft code, attached (and below) are suggested changes to definitions, exemptions, permit requirements, and other sections that need to be made to the draft Tree Code to start making it more consistent with the UFMP. Council Members; Below are suggested changes to only some of the sections of the draft Tree Code necessary to start making it more consistent with the UFMP.

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 53

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



Section 23.10.020 Definitions

Change definition of part F. Hazard tree to read as follows:

“A significant tree that is dead, dying, diseased, damaged, structurally defective as determined by a qualified tree professional, or causing significant physical damage to a private or public structure, sidewalk, curb, road, water or sewer or stormwater utilities, driveway, or parking lot.”

Delete F. Nuisance Tree and change all references of Nuisance tree to “Hazard tree”.

(see revised definition of Hazard tree above. There is no reason to separately distinguish trees that are causing significant damage to property - they are a “hazard”)

Delete K. Protected Tree and change all references of Protected Tree to “Significant Tree”.

(This makes it clear that primary purpose of this code is to protect and retain trees with 6" or more diameter)

Section 23.10.030 Permits

Change A. Applicability: to read as follows:

“No person shall remove, excessively prune, or top any significant tree without a permit except for removal of trees, with notification to the Planning Department, by the Public Works Department, Parks Department, Fire Department and or franchised utilities for one of the following purposes:

1. Installation and maintenance of public utilities.

2. In response to situations involving public safety, substantial fire hazards,

or interruption of services provided by a utility.”

Delete part B. (Not needed with above change to part A)

Add new part B.

“B. Fees. Permit application fees will be assessed for each significant tree proposed to be removed, except no fees will be charged for permits solely for removal of trees on an improved single-family lot that is not suitable for subdivision.”

Section 23.10.040 Exemptions

Delete entire Section 23.10.040 Exemptions.

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 54

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



(Exemptions should only apply in specific and necessary situations such as permit requirements and fees, and be noted in the applicable sections of the code)

Section 23.10.050 Tree Removal Prohibited

Change/simplify this section to read as follows:

“Removal or alteration of a significant tree is prohibited except as provided in a permit issued by the City of Edmonds.”

Section 23.10.080 Tree Replacement

Change/simplify this section to read as follows:

“Every significant tree removed or altered must be replaced with “an ecologically equivalent number of same species trees (taking into account the growth and survival of replacement trees) in the parcel where removed, or in another parcel or park in the same watershed.”

Subsequent Sections

Revise subsequent sections of the draft tree code to be consistent with the changes noted above.

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 55

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



From: Ken Reidy

Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2021 6:01 AM

To: Public Comment (Council) <[email protected]>; Public Comment (Council)

<[email protected]>

Cc: Council <[email protected]>; Judge, Maureen <[email protected]>;

Nelson, Michael <[email protected]>; Passey, Scott

<[email protected]>; Taraday, Jeff <[email protected]>

Subject: Public Comments for the February 2, 2021 City Council Meeting

At the end of the May 5, 2020 City Council discussion of City Code Chapter 6.60, Councilmember Susan Paine said August would be an opportune time if it is available to “meet” the new CEMP as the Emergency Management Policy. Her comments, however, were not included in the May 5, 2020 Approved City Council Meeting Minutes. Council Discussion of City Code Chapter 6.60 finally showed up on the September 15, 2020 Agenda. The new CEMP was NOT included in the Agenda Packet, however. There was no new CEMP to “meet”! What was included in the Agenda Packet was of such POOR QUALITY that it was immediately voted off Council’s Agenda. Despite months of time to get ready, it was not ready. It contained errors as I pointed out in my September 13, 2020 email to City Council.

It is now February 2, 2021 and citizens have no way on knowing when City Code Chapter 6.60 will be fixed or when the new CEMP will be presented to Council for approval. Council President Susan Paine has chosen to not respond to my emails asking her about City Code Chapter 6.60 and the new CEMP. I believe her conduct is contrary to the City’s Code of Ethics which clearly states that it is mandatory to keep the community informed on municipal affairs and encourage communications between the citizens and all municipal officers. I encourage all to watch the video of the May 5, 2020 City Council discussion of City Code Chapter 6.60. That discussion included Mayor Nelson’s representation that the disaster coordinator is busy coordinating a disaster, implying he was too busy to attend a Council meeting.

I have attached that portion of the minutes. I have highlighted some of the more important points. Please also see my documentation of the major error in the May 5th minutes. I encourage Council to correct that error as soon as possible.

The City of Edmonds knows that WAC 118-30-060 (7) requires the CEMP to be reviewed AND updated at least once every two calendar years. WAC 118-30-060 (9) requires revised and updated portions of the plan to be submitted to the director within ninety calendar days of

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 56

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



revision. City of Edmonds Resolution 1386 provides clear evidence that the City of Edmonds has known for years that Washington State law requires the CEMP to be reviewed and updated at least once every two calendar years. The CEMP attached to Resolution 1386 is dated January 2017 on each page of the CEMP document. That CEMP had to be reviewed AND updated by December 31, 2018. Per Statute, the revised and updated portions of the CEMP had to be submitted to the director within ninety calendar days of revision. Please notify all parties, including all citizens of Edmonds, of the City’s failure to review AND update the City’s CEMP as required by statute. Thank you. Attachment: From the May 5, 2020 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes: 3. COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF CITY CODE CHAPTER 6.60

Councilmember Paine said this is continued discussion from the March 24th meeting. This is

not meant to be a comprehensive change to the code but for the code to more closely match

the RCW and WAC. There were no changes to the emergency powers section other than

minor tweaks. She suggested

returning this to Council on August 18th to include a review of Comprehensive Emergency Management

Plan (CEMP) if it is ready for review and to make other changes based on the

administration’s needs. The administration has not had the opportunity or bandwidth to

make changes to this code and they really do need to have an opportunity to weigh in on

the operational structure and how things work.

This is the year when the CEMP gets updated.

Councilmember Buckshnis said she sent some amendment/ideas about Section 6.60.090

because Items C and D are duplicative. She asked what Councilmember Paine wanted from

the Council tonight. Councilmember Paine said she was interested in a review and a full bodied discussion and she will bring

it back next week or the following week to enact those changes so the code reflects the requirements in

the RCW and the WAC.

Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Section 6.60.080 Proclamation of emergency, Item 3,

which states, “The proclamations of emergency do not need to be ratified by the city

council,” and pointed out the CEMP requires ratification. Councilmember Paine said her

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 57

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



understanding of the CEMP was the City did not have a safety and disaster coordinator position in place so it was a limited update and that may

be a relic. The CEMP was the operational manual and if the code was changed, the CEMP instead of the

code would be out of line.

Councilmember Buckshnis said she personally believed the City Council needed to ratify the

proclamation or make a declaration via a resolution of emergency because she believed the

City Council should be involved with approving/supporting the Mayor’s proclamation. She

recommended the statement she cited be removed from 6.60.080.3. City Attorney Jeff

Taraday said he was trying not to build a lot of process into this for the sake of process.

Subsections 3 and 4 need to be read together; subsection 4 states, “If in the case that city

council disagrees with the proclamation of emergency or believes that the emergency is no

longer pending, city council may nullify the proclamation of emergency through resolution.”

He explained the intent was not to take any power away from the City Council but to put the

power in a place where the Council has the option to do things versus creating process where

the administration has to jump through a bunch of hoops. In the midst of emergency,

checking every last box set forth in the code may not be on everyone’s mind. For example, if

there was a

9.0 earthquake, procedural things like getting the Council to ratify a proclamation may not be front of mind. While leaving the power with the City Council to take away emergency powers, he did not want to create a lot of unnecessary process.

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 58

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



Councilmember Buckshnis said she and Mr. Taraday may need to agree to disagree; she did

not view as it as an unnecessary administrative thing, basically all the Council would be doing

was affirming the Mayor’s proclamation. She recalled Mayor Nelson had called her to say he

was declaring an emergency as outlined in subsection 2. Regardless of whether there was an

earthquake, when an emergency was declared, the Council should in open session ratify the

proclamation so the citizens could see what happened. She viewed it as communication,

transparency and acceptance of the emergency. She questioned how the Council could

remove it if it were not in place. Councilmember Distelhorst said he had a similar question to

Councilmember Buckshnis’ question regarding 080. He asked what the Mayor can include in

a proclamation of emergency and whether it was simply this is an emergency full stop or

could there be other items that are considered under the order that require Council

ratification. Mr.

Taraday said any order, even if bundled with the proclamation, still needs to be ratified by the

City Council.

Councilmember Distelhorst clarified there could not be a proclamation that includes an item

covered by the order that does not need Council ratification. Mr. Taraday said the Council

would not be able to avoid what was otherwise be a ratification-requiring order by just including it in the initial proclamation.

-MISTAKE – MR. TARADAY WAS REFERRING TO THE MAYOR NOT COUNCIL. Anything that looked like

an order would still have to be ratified. The proclamation simply states there is an emergency.

Councilmember K. Johnson explained the CEMP is coordinated at a state and county level. In

the last iteration, there were only minor changes made. That does not make it a relic; it is a

living document that

needs to be updated every two years. She agreed the City did not have an emergency

management coordinator when the CEMP was last updated; then-Police Chief Compaan was

the director responsible for updating the CEMP and it had been reviewed and adopted by

Council.

Councilmember Olson referred to Section 6.60.090 and suggested removing Subsections C, D

and E and renumbering the remaining subsections. Anything that gets done under these

emergency orders are things the actual emergency necessitates. Being specific about what

might happen during an emergency isn’t helpful, may cause someone concern, and those

issues will not come into play unless required by the emergency. Subsection B is broad and

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 59

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



includes the specifics cited in Subsections C, D and E. She referred to 6.60.065 Continuity of

government, stating she felt strongly that the experience of whoever was stepping up was of

the utmost value in an emergency situation versus spending time figuring out who the players

were. The people who have been around the longest are the most likely to know how to act.

She recommended deleting Subsection B so that remaining city councilmembers in order of

continuous seniority would follow the council president. The council president is guaranteed

some seniority because they were likely pro tem before becoming council president.

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 60

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



Council President Fraley-Monillas asked whether the subsections in Section 6.60.090 already

existed. Councilmember Paine said they were the result of discussion over the last six weeks.

Mr. Taraday clarified the entire section was added in March, but nothing has been added

since the Council last amended it. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked where that

language came from. Mr. Taraday answered Section 6.60.090 was a conglomeration of

Seattle and Everett primarily; several other cities have similar provisions.

Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested in the future identifying it as new language so it

was easier to understand. Mr. Taraday clarified it was not new language. They had only

highlighted changes that had been made since the last time the Council saw this. Mayor

Nelson clarified Mr. Taraday’s definition of “new” and Council President Fraley-Monillas’

definition were different.

Council President Fraley-Monillas observed that language was not in the policy before the

pandemic and before the Council began working on this. Mr. Taraday agreed. Council

President Fraley-Monillas said it would be clearer and easier to understand, especially in a

document of this size, if that was indicated.

She found it difficult to track because it was so large and some sections seem duplicative. Mr.

Taraday said it would be helpful for future packet preparation to know which version the

Council wanted the document redlined against. His custom was to only show the most recent

changes. Council President FraleyMonillas said normally the most recent was fine, but

because this was a new section, it would be easier to understand if what was added in

previous months was highlighted. One of the issues is this is a large policy to comprehend.

Councilmember Buckshnis said the original is attached to Ordinance 4177. She agreed there

were a lot of new sections. She recommended Mr. Taraday use Marysville instead of Seattle

or Everett. She concurred with Councilmember Olson’s suggestion to remove Subsections C,

D and E because they were redundant and already addressed in B. She has received a lot of

comments about Subsections C, D and

E. The issue with C is closing bars, taverns and liquor stores. One person expressed concern

that the Mayor can decide whether those businesses remain open or not. Marysville’s code

does not even address that issue nor does it address guns which was in the former

Subsection G. She suggested attaching Ordinance 4177 which shows the new language.

Councilmember K. Johnson said she also received emails from citizens about the policy and

they are generally confused. She suggested it would be helpful for Council and citizens to put

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 61

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



everything in context in the narrative. Some people are under the mistaken impression that

the City is still under ESCA

when in fact the City is now under Snohomish County emergency management. It would also

be helpful to describe the new 911 coordination because that has also changed.

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 62

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



Councilmember Paine said much of the language in the changes proposed today are from

Lake Stevens and Lynnwood; Lake Stevens updated their code in 2019 and Lynnwood updated

their code in 2018. She thought they were good sources of information because they are both

local and part of Snohomish County Department of Emergency Management.

Council President Fraley-Monillas said she understood the desire to potentially take out

Subsection C, but she was likely the only Councilmember who has been through a Category 5

hurricane in a third world country where one of the first thing they did was shut off all the

alcohol. There may need to be other changes made such as an order requiring the closure of

any businesses that the Mayor deems. The Council will likely need to discuss this policy

amendment-by-amendment because everyone will have their own opinions.

For Councilmember Buckshnis, Councilmember Paine confirmed the verbiage in pink is from

Lake Stevens and Lynnwood. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Council President Fraley-

Monillas that some of the sections are new so they need to be differentiated. She still has

concerns with Section

6.60.090 but not as many concerns as when the subsection regarding guns was included. She

reiterated the Council should ratify the proclamation.

Council President Fraley-Monillas thanked Councilmember Paine for the unbelievable

amount of time she has spent creating a good valid policy. She also thanked Mr. Taraday for

his work.

Councilmember Paine asked the Council’s preference whether to bring this back next week or in two

weeks. The majority of the Council preferred to have it come back in two weeks.

Councilmember K. Johnson suggested now that the City has an emergency management coordinator, it

would be nice to have him be part of the presentation so the Council can meet him, understand his role

and get his input on the policy, because once the policy is established, he will be implementing it. Mayor

Nelson said the disaster coordinator is busy coordinating a disaster and will be coordinating it until there

is no longer a disaster. At that point, he would be happy to make the disaster coordinator

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 63

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



available to

talk about policies like this. Councilmember Buckshnis questioned why the policy would come back in two weeks, recalling

Councilmember Paine suggested August 18th in the memo. Councilmember Paine said she

would like to bring the policy back in August because the administration has not had an

opportunity to review the policy because they have been busy coordinating an emergency and

she did not envision that slowing down until probably August. She wanted to bring the policy

back in two weeks to get it closer to compliance with the RCW and WAC. The WAC has a long

list of requirements for the CEMP. One that is not required in the WAC and likely does not

need to be detailed in the code is placing notices on all

school doors. When the Council next reviews the policy, she planned to request that be removed. The

City will be better served by having the emergency coordinator do this work in August and August will

also provide an opportunity for the public to provide input. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the Council may make an amendment and find

out the administration wants something different. She acknowledged the policy would

still be in limbo until

August. From: Clara Cleve Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2021 9:43 AM To: Council <[email protected]> Subject: Tree Code Dear Edmonds City Council, I would like to add to my message from yesterday. We have a Climate Crisis. Our Edmonds Tree Canopy are our lungs for our community. To increase our tree Canopy maybe we need to give an incentive to our community to help increase the planting of trees. And an incentive not to cut them down, for instance in our own back yards. Thank you for all your work helping us to become a better community. Sincerely, Clara Cleve

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 64

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



Edmonds, WA 98020

From: Clara Cleve

Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 3:42 PM

To: Public Comment (Council) <[email protected]>

Subject: Tree Code

Dear Edmonds City Council,

I am a residence here in Edmonds. I am alarmed at the fact that we allow building lots to be

completely stripped of any trees especially old growth trees. It will take years to replace the

carbon reducing element of those trees. The sheer beauty of our tree canopy needs to be

maintained and enlarged. We need to preserve our existing tree canopy and make it better,

plant more trees and stop cutting down trees.

We need to have a Tree Code that does not allow builders to strip lots of trees! The Tree Code

needs to only allow trees to be cut down that are in the way of the Actual Building! The Code

needs to not allow exceptions, period! “No net loss” is a weak policy. We need to have a

strong tree replacement within the Code.

There were two other areas that makes this version of the tree code rather ineffective. There

are too many exemptions in the code that circumvent a good tree retention plan and too many

situations included where administrative decisions can be made to accommodate the

landowner.

I would like to see the council send the Tree Code update back to the Planning Board to come

up with a strong and more effective tree code. You need to rid some of the exceptions and

administrative accommodating sections of the code and strengthen the no net loss policy.

Thank you for the work you are doing to improve our community.

Sincerely,

Clara Cleve Edmonds, WA

From: K Keefe Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 7:42 AM To: Council <[email protected]> Subject: Public Comment- Draft Tree Regulations

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 65

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)

x-apple-data-detectors://0/1



Dear Edmonds City Council Members, First of all, thank you for the work you do on behalf of our city. Second, please consider my comments regarding the draft tree regulations, I cannot make the public hearing meeting due to conflicting medical appointments, but I sincerely hope that you will read this and consider it before the hearing. Allow me to relay a great example as to why tree regulations are important in our city: Tomorrow, Tuesday (ironically the same day you will be holding a public hearing on tree regulations), my neighbor is being forced to cut down two of her beautiful, tall cedar trees because her next door neighbor does not like them. He finds them to be “too messy,” which is silly as cedars loose very little foliage or branches. He has bullied her for nearly two years about this, and as a single, disabled, older woman, she has very little recourse to stand up against him. Why should SHE be forced to remove HER trees on HER property because he simply does not like them? This has devastated her and caused her chronic health condition to flare. This a situation where a strong tree regulation code could help save trees. Further, the removal of her trees will have a domino effect on my trees which benefit from southern wind block from her trees. Their removal could potentially cause more damage to my trees. Will my trees be damaged and need to be removed? If that is the case, the initial removal of two trees will become the loss of thirteen trees. Because of one neighbor who “doesn’t like” trees, we all loose out as a community who enjoys clean air and wildlife. This is allowable in our city because there are no regulations preventing senseless acts of tree removal such as in the example I just gave. Situations such as this CAN be prevented and CAN be prevented by elected officials such as yourself. I implore you to pass the tree code as it is for now, because something is better than nothing, however please don’t stop here! Move towards strengthening regulations on private property (where the majority of Edmonds tree canopy exists) before it is too late! Our native tree canopy is a gem and is part of what makes Edmonds, Edmonds. Let’s not loose something that we cannot get back. With thanks, Killy Keefe Edmonds

From: Gayla Shoemake <[email protected]>

Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2021 10:36 PM

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 66

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)




<[email protected]>

Subject: Tree Code Public Hearing

Dear City Council,

In this time when the world, the US, the state, and Edmonds City are all taking climate change

and saving the planet, exceedingly seriously, and because our time is down to 9 years before it

is too late, it is critical for us to look at every possible way to reduce our carbon and increase

our carbon sequestration. As I understand, the Mayor's Climate Protection Committee is in the

process of preparing the framework for a new Climate Action Plan for the City of Edmonds, and

one of the items to be included will be increasing the number of trees in our home town to

assist with carbon sequestration. Clearly, not only are trees essential for our canopy to protect

us from the increased heat of the sun, but they sequester carbon in miraculous ways, over 48

pounds per tree per year; that's over 1 ton during a 40 year lifetime times the number of trees.

Once a tree is lost or gained, the impact on our communitiy is immense. While Edmonds is

looking for ways to sequester the carbon we keep generating, one fairly easy way to sequester

a lot of that carbon is to increase the number of trees in the city, by 1) Maintaining the ones we

have and 2) Planting more.

The current TreeCode being presented simply does NOT do either to a sufficient

extent. Changes are needed: First, there must be attention paid to current, healthy trees on

private property since MOST of the trees in Edmonds are on private propery. Those healthy

trees must remain on that private land, and incentives devised to make it easy for property

owners to keep the trees. Various incentives have been suggested and they should be

enacted. Second change, additional trees on private land must be encouraged, and on public

land and new to-be-devoped land must be required. Again, incentives for private land,

requirements for public land, and increased requirements for land to be developed.

These changes are not difficult, and they can be a win-win for everyone, especially our children,

grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. We are the adults who can make a difference now,

please take action now to save and increase the trees in Edmonds, which can help save our city

and planet.

Sincerely,

Gayla Shoemake

From: Finis Tupper Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2021 11:37 AM To: Paine, Susan <[email protected]> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <[email protected]> Subject: CEMP City Response

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 67

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



Good morning Susan Who authored the City response that you provided to the Edmonds Beacon? As you should be now well aware the response contained misinformation which needs to be admitted to by the City and corrected. Or does the City really think the CEMP is optional? Is it your decision to not respond to a citizens request for information? Or have you been advise not to respond because it’s hard to admit you misspoke for the City? Let’s clear this matter up and create a functional CEMP for the purpose of providing Public Safety and Welfare to the Citizens of Edmonds. Also let’s do an accountability audit of the Disaster & Safety Manager including an evaluation of tasks and accomplishments since his date of hire. Finis Tupper

From: Joan Bloom

Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2021 3:05 PM

To: Paine, Susan <[email protected]>; Council <[email protected]>;

Taraday, Jeff <[email protected]>; Public Comment (Council)

<[email protected]>

Cc: Ken Reidy <[email protected]>; Lora Petso <[email protected]>

Subject: Fwd: Ordinance amending the Edmonds Community Development Code to add “Hotel”

as a Permitted Use in the CW zone

Council,

Here is an additional email, sent on February 4, related to the previous discussion of adding

“Hotel” as a permitted use.

For Council President Paine’s reference, the email I forwarded earlier was dated February 18,

2020.

Joan Bloom

From: Joan Bloom

Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2021 10:08 AM

To: Council <[email protected]>; Nelson, Michael <[email protected]>;

Taraday, Jeff <[email protected]>; Public Comment (Council)

<[email protected]>; Paine, Susan <[email protected]>

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 68

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



Cc: Ken Reidy <[email protected]>; Lora Petso <[email protected]>

Subject: Conditional hotel use at waterfront

Council,

Ken Reidy alerted me that Council will again be discussing the issue of “Conditional hotel use at

the waterfront.” He also noted that my email, below, is not in your packet for this Tuesday’s

meeting, so I am re-sending the email.

Council President Paine,

I request that in the future, the Council President makes sure that previous public comments

received on issues be included in your packets for review. This simple task could be delegated

to Council assistant, Maureen Judge. Valuing citizen input in this manner would demonstrate

respect for citizens and for their time spent following Council agenda and providing input for

your consideration.

Joan Bloom

Council member Olson, Council, and Mayor Nelson, Thank you, Council member Olson, for your response to my email regarding hotel use at the waterfront. I appreciate the time you took to respond to my concerns. As you suggested, I listened to the council discussion on February 4, and continue to urge every Council member to vote AGAINST adding conditional hotel use at the waterfront. The following points were not satisfactorily addressed by staff: (1) Council member Buckshnis raised concerns regarding parking. The pending waterfront multi-generational center will bring added burden to parking at the waterfront. (2) Council member Buckshnis asked for data on whether or not Edmonds Harbor Inn is consistently full throughout the year. The EDC should have been provided with that information in advance of making a recommendation to Council, yet staff was unable to provide that information to Council at your meeting. (3) Mr. Doherty presented nothing to support his “argument” that a hotel would be more accessible to the public. A “boutique hotel” would cater to wealthy tourists. The Edmonds public would not be welcome inside to enjoy the facilities, ambience, or views, unless they were paying customers. My major concern, however, remains the fact that our staff continues to ignore a critical element of our environmental code related to seismic hazard areas, in which the entire

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 69

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



waterfront is located. To refresh Council members’ memories, the code I refer to is the following: “which are not residential structures or used as places of employment or public assembly;” https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/#!/Edmonds23/Edmonds2380.html#23.80.060 “ECDC 23.80.040 Geologically Hazardous areas B. Seismic Hazard Areas. The following activities are allowed within seismic hazard areas: 1. Construction of new buildings with less than 2,500 square feet of floor area or roof area, whichever is greater, and which are not residential structures or used as places of employment or public assembly; 2. Additions to existing single-story residences that are 250 square feet or less; and 3. Installation of fences. [Ord. 4026 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].” Under our former administration, staff presented the Harbor Square Master plan for Council review. The entire plan is in direct violation of ECDC 23.80.040, above. And to state the obvious, the new multi-generational center is also in direct violation of ECDC 23.80.040. Why does the COE administration and staff continue to ignore this code, and continue to bring uses for approval to Council that violate this code? My trust level of our city government is so low that every time I look it up, I expect the code to have disappeared. Please consider future environmental challenges when making any decisions about changes to code at our waterfront. Please vote against adding a conditional hotel use at our waterfront. I have copied Ken Reidy because he has brought many violations of our code to Council’s attention. I have copied Lora Petso because she was referenced in Council member Olson’s response to me. Regards, Joan

From: Katy Levenhagen

Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 11:28 AM


<[email protected]>

Subject: Perrinville Trees

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 70

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)

https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/#!/Edmonds23/Edmonds2380.html%2323.80.060

https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/#!/Edmonds23/Edmonds2380.html%2323.80.060



Hello,

I understand that the Edmonds City Council is meeting tonite to review the Tree Code update

about the trees remaining in the Seaview/Perinnville woods. As an Edmonds resident living very

close to the woods and what would be the new proposed development I would like to weigh in

on the tree code proposal. I advocate that as many trees as possible be left standing to ensure

the integrity of the tree corridor between Seaview Park and South County Park on both sides of

Olympic View Drive. I understand some development is important for the city's revenue. That

should never supersede the natural habitat that makes Edmonds the very appealing livable

place that it is. Removing large swaths of those trees would decrease the livability of the area

for the wildlife, increase noise levels, and possibly impact run-off and remove the natural

progression of trees and shrubs for a 1 mile area.

Please be very thoughtful about your choices to greatly change this area of the

Seaview/Perrinville woods.

Sincerely,

Katy Levenhagen

Edmonds, WA 98026

Thank you.

Public Comment submitted in writing by Dawna Lahti 1/30/21

Dear Revered Councilmembers:

Please allow me to join the conversation again.

--Perrinville Woods contains irreplaceable canopy of mature trees with all of the ecological

benefits that entails; I urge you to make every effort to preserve it intact as a city park and

habitat-rich greenspace. In the world of wildlife corridors, canopy and naturally sculpted earth,

the whole is truly greater than the sum of its parts. There are ways to extend city dollars

through grants such that the cost becomes nominal. But the will to do it must be shown now

while the acreage and its biodiversity remain a unit.

--As a person enthralled by the beauty and benefits of trees, I ask you as city leaders to take a

favorable stance on the proposed Tree Code. I would, however, ask you to broaden the stated

uses of the “fee in lieu” kitty. As currently understood this fund would be restricted to tree

purchase. In fact, this would buy more trees than Edmonds has space to plant them—probably

in the first year. Manpower must be diverted to the task and saplings must have protection and

maintenance. Broaden the language to include the cost of anything required to have a healthy

urban forest. I thank you for the gracious, tree-rich city you will bequeath us.

Respectfully,

Dawna L. Lahti

Mrs. Lahti asked that the following excerpt be placed in the public record as well:

7.1.a

Packet Pg. 71

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)



7.1.a

Packet Pg. 72

Att

ach

men

t: 0

2-02

-202

1 D

raft

Co

un

cil M

eeti

ng

Min

ute

s (

Ap

pro

val o

f C

ou

nci

l Mee

tin

g M

inu

tes)

City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/9/2021 Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. Staff Lead: Dave Turley Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Nori Jacobson Background/History Approval of claim checks #246015 through #246086 dated February 4, 2021 for $220,084.69 (re-issued check #246039 $191.57). Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #64600 through #64602 for $637,557.57, benefit checks #64603 through #64608 and wire payments of $649,272.64 for the pay period January 16, 2021 through January 31, 2021. Staff Recommendation Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.

Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance

#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or

non-approval of expenditures.

Attachments: claims 02-04-21 FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 02-04-21 Payroll Summary 02-05-21 Payroll Benefits 02-05-21

7.2

Packet Pg. 73

02/03/2021

Voucher List

City of Edmonds

1

2:27:28PM

Page:vchlist

Bank code : usbank

Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount

246015 2/4/2021 076040 911 SUPPLY INC INV-2-7951 INV-2-7951 - EDMONDS PD - LOCKE

EXTERNAL CARRIER

001.000.41.521.22.24.00 200.002 NAME TAPES

001.000.41.521.22.24.00 16.002 VELCRO

001.000.41.521.22.24.00 10.00SAFARILAND ID PANEL

001.000.41.521.22.24.00 10.00HEAT PRESS - EDMONDS PD

001.000.41.521.22.24.00 10.00RADIO CASE

001.000.41.521.22.24.00 35.25TOURNIQUET POUCH

001.000.41.521.22.24.00 36.0010.1 % Sales Tax

001.000.41.521.22.24.00 32.04

Total : 349.29

246016 2/4/2021 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 41388 MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTROL CUST 1-23276

MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTROL CUST 1-23276

001.000.64.576.80.41.00 90.0010.4% Sales Tax

001.000.64.576.80.41.00 9.36

Total : 99.36

246017 2/4/2021 065568 ALLWATER INC 012921002 FINANCE DEPT WATER

Finance dept water

001.000.31.514.23.31.00 27.8010.4% Sales Tax

001.000.31.514.23.31.00 2.89WWTP: 1/29/21 ACCT: COEWASTE: DRINK WAT012921004Acct COEWaste:~

423.000.76.535.80.31.00 20.8510.4% Sales Tax

1Page:

7.2.a

Packet Pg. 74

Att

ach

men

t: c

laim

s 02

-04-

21 (

Ap

pro

val o

f cl

aim

, pay

roll

and

ben

efit

ch

ecks

, dir

ect

dep

osi

t an

d w

ire

02/03/2021

Voucher List

City of Edmonds

2

2:27:28PM

Page:vchlist

Bank code : usbank


246017 2/4/2021 (Continued)065568 ALLWATER INC

423.000.76.535.80.31.00 2.17

Total : 53.71

246018 2/4/2021 077968 ANIMAL MEDICAL CTR OF SEATTLE 580963 INV 580963 - EDMONDS PD - ACE

CLINDAMYCIN CAPSULES - ACE

001.000.41.521.26.41.00 40.28CARPROFEN - ACE

001.000.41.521.26.41.00 44.87

Total : 85.15

246019 2/4/2021 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1992083791 WWTP: 1/20/21 UNIFORMS,TOWELS+MATS

Mats/Towels

423.000.76.535.80.41.00 51.48Uniforms: Jeanne - 3 Lab Coats $0.17

423.000.76.535.80.24.00 1.4110.4% Sales Tax

423.000.76.535.80.41.00 5.3510.4% Sales Tax

423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.15FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS1992083793FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS

001.000.66.518.30.24.00 29.5610.4% Sales Tax

001.000.66.518.30.24.00 3.07WWTP: 1/27/20 UNIFORMS,TOWELS+MATS1992092971Mats/Towels

423.000.76.535.80.41.00 51.48Uniforms: Jeanne - 3 Lab Coats $0.17

423.000.76.535.80.24.00 1.4110.4% Sales Tax

423.000.76.535.80.41.00 5.3510.4% Sales Tax

423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.15PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE1992092972PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE

2Page:

7.2.a

Packet Pg. 75

Att

ach

men

t: c

laim

s 02

-04-

21 (

Ap

pro

val o

f cl

aim

, pay

roll

and

ben

efit

ch

ecks

, dir

ect

dep

osi

t an

d w

ire

02/03/2021

Voucher List

City of Edmonds

3

2:27:28PM

Page:vchlist

Bank code : usbank


246019 2/4/2021 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES

001.000.64.576.80.24.00 61.1610.4% Sales Tax

001.000.64.576.80.24.00 6.36FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS1992092973FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS

001.000.66.518.30.24.00 29.5610.4% Sales Tax

001.000.66.518.30.24.00 3.07PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1992098071PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS

001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.61PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS





511.000.77.548.68.41.00 6.0810.4% Sales Tax

001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.1710.4% Sales Tax

111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.6410.4% Sales Tax

421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.6410.4% Sales Tax

423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.6410.4% Sales Tax

511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.6110.4% Sales Tax

422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.64FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS1992098072

3Page:

7.2.a

Packet Pg. 76

Att

ach

men

t: c

laim

s 02

-04-

21 (

Ap

pro

val o

f cl

aim

, pay

roll

and

ben

efit

ch

ecks

, dir

ect

dep

osi

t an

d w

ire

02/03/2021

Voucher List

City of Edmonds

4

2:27:28PM

Page:vchlist

Bank code : usbank


246019 2/4/2021 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES

FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS

511.000.77.548.68.24.00 9.29FLEET DIVISION MATS

511.000.77.548.68.41.00 19.1010.4% Sales Tax

511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.9710.4% Sales Tax

511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1.98

Total : 316.37

246020 2/4/2021 064452 ARMSTRONG SERVICES 4262 WWTP: 1.2021 JANITORIAL & COVID DISINFEC

1/2021 JANITORIAL SERVICE

423.000.76.535.80.41.00 880.001/2021 COVID DISINFECTANT SERVICES @

423.000.76.535.80.41.00 520.00

Total : 1,400.00

246021 2/4/2021 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0290639-IN WWTP: 1/19/21 DIESEL FUEL

ULSD #2 DYED - BULK fuel (includes

423.000.76.535.80.32.00 4,415.3810.4% Sales Tax

423.000.76.535.80.32.00 459.21

Total : 4,874.59

246022 2/4/2021 064807 ATS AUTOMATION INC S118761 alerton system-PW

alerton system-PW

001.000.66.518.30.41.00 3,555.0010.4% Sales Tax

001.000.66.518.30.41.00 369.72

Total : 3,924.72

246023 2/4/2021 001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO 70068 ROUGH BOX - EGHAREVBA

ROUGH BOX - EGHAREVBA

130.000.64.536.20.34.00 627.00

4Page:

7.2.a

Packet Pg. 77

Att

ach

men

t: c

laim

s 02

-04-

21 (

Ap

pro

val o

f cl

aim

, pay

roll

and

ben

efit

ch

ecks

, dir

ect

dep

osi

t an

d w

ire

02/03/2021

Voucher List

City of Edmonds

5

2:27:28PM

Page:vchlist

Bank code : usbank


(Continued) Total : 627.00246023 2/4/2021 001801 001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO

246024 2/4/2021 001527 AWWA 7001880968 PW: KRIS KUHNHAUSEN MEMBERSHIP DUES

PW: KRIS KUHNHAUSEN MEMBERSHIP DUES

421.000.74.534.80.49.00 86.00

Total : 86.00

246025 2/4/2021 076240 CADMAN MATERIALS INC 5736256 ROADWAY - ASPHALT

ROADWAY - ASPHALT

111.000.68.542.31.31.00 501.7510.0% Sales Tax

111.000.68.542.31.31.00 50.18ROADWAY - ASPHALT5736555ROADWAY - ASPHALT

111.000.68.542.31.31.00 199.3910.0% Sales Tax


111.000.68.542.31.31.00 390.1510.0% Sales Tax


111.000.68.542.31.31.00 240.2110.0% Sales Tax


111.000.68.542.31.31.00 160.1410.0% Sales Tax

111.000.68.542.31.31.00 16.01

Total : 1,640.81

246026 2/4/2021 018495 CALPORTLAND COMPANY 94891119 STREET - 5.5 SK 3/8 AEA, DARASET

STREET - 5.5 SK 3/8 AEA, DARASET

5Page:

7.2.a

Packet Pg. 78

Att

ach

men

t: c

laim

s 02

-04-

21 (

Ap

pro

val o

f cl

aim

, pay

roll

and

ben

efit

ch

ecks

, dir

ect

dep

osi

t an

d w

ire

02/03/2021

Voucher List

City of Edmonds

6

2:27:28PM

Page:vchlist

Bank code : usbank


246026 2/4/2021 (Continued)018495 CALPORTLAND COMPANY

111.000.68.542.61.31.00 372.2310.1 % Sales Tax

111.000.68.542.61.31.00 37.59

Total : 409.82

246027 2/4/2021 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 26024247 INV 26024247 - EDMONDS PD

12/20 BW USAGE - C5550I

001.000.41.521.10.45.00 20.2012/20 CLR USAGE - C5550I

001.000.41.521.10.45.00 69.201/21 CONTRACT - C5550I

001.000.41.521.10.45.00 185.7410.4% Sales Tax

001.000.41.521.10.45.00 28.62INV 26024250 - EDMONDS PD260242501/21 CONTRACT - FAXBOARD

001.000.41.521.10.45.00 36.0210.4% Sales Tax

001.000.41.521.10.45.00 3.75INV 26024253 - EDMONDS PD260242531/21 CONTRACT - 3BB01296

001.000.41.521.10.45.00 53.141/21 CONTRACT - 2WU12307

001.000.41.521.10.45.00 53.141/21 CONTRACT - 2WU09103

001.000.41.521.10.45.00 53.141/21 CONTRACT - 3CE00901

001.000.41.521.10.45.00 53.1410.4% Sales Tax

001.000.41.521.10.45.00 22.11INV 26024254 - EDMONDS PD260242541/21 CONTRACT- 3AP01257

001.000.41.521.10.45.00 175.951/21 CONTRACT - 3AP01257

001.000.41.521.10.45.00 175.96

6Page:

7.2.a

Packet Pg. 79

Att

ach

men

t: c

laim

s 02

-04-

21 (

Ap

pro

val o

f cl

aim

, pay

roll

and

ben

efit

ch

ecks

, dir

ect

dep

osi

t an

d w

ire

02/03/2021

Voucher List

City of Edmonds

7

2:27:28PM

Page:vchlist

Bank code : usbank


246027 2/4/2021 (Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES

10.4% Sales Tax

001.000.41.521.10.45.00 36.60

Total : 966.71

246028 2/4/2021 075728 CARDINAL HEATING & A/C BLD2020-1345 REFUND-PERMIT FEES

BLD2020-1345~

001.000.257.620 80.00

Total : 80.00

246029 2/4/2021 064369 CODE PUBLISHING CO 683357 CITY & COMM. DEV CODE & ORDINANCES NOV 2

city and dev services code updates nov

001.000.25.514.30.41.00 817.5010.4% Sales Tax

001.000.25.514.30.41.00 77.22CODE PUBLISHING PRINT SUPPLEMENT68500code publishing print supplement

001.000.25.514.30.41.00 382.5010.4% Sales Tax

001.000.25.514.30.41.00 39.78

Total : 1,317.00

246030 2/4/2021 070323 COMCAST BUSINESS 8498310300732547 PUBLIC WRKS - DIGITAL CABLE

Public Works - 7110 210th S SW

001.000.65.518.20.42.00 2.30Public Works - 7110 210th S SW




511.000.77.548.68.42.00 10.64

Total : 46.18

246031 2/4/2021 063519 CUZ CONCRETE PRODUCTS INC 275859 STORM - CATCH BASIN

7Page:

7.2.a

Packet Pg. 80

Att

ach

men

t: c

laim

s 02

-04-

21 (

Ap

pro

val o

f cl

aim

, pay

roll

and

ben

efit

ch

ecks

, dir

ect

dep

osi

t an

d w

ire

02/03/2021

Voucher List

City of Edmonds

8

2:27:28PM

Page:vchlist

Bank code : usbank


246031 2/4/2021 (Continued)063519 CUZ CONCRETE PRODUCTS INC

STORM - CATCH BASIN

422.000.72.531.40.31.00 2,397.0010.4% Sales Tax

422.000.72.531.40.31.00 249.29

Total : 2,646.29

246032 2/4/2021 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 03 INV 663193 INV 663193 - EDMONDS PD

CALIBRATE GHD-20547

001.000.41.521.22.48.00 70.00CALIBRATE SHD-04163

001.000.41.521.22.48.00 70.00CALIBRATE GHD-03890

001.000.41.521.22.48.00 70.00CALIBRATE GHD-12646

001.000.41.521.22.48.00 70.00CALIBRATE GHD-14955

001.000.41.521.22.48.00 70.00CALIBRATE GHD-15003

001.000.41.521.22.48.00 70.00CALIBRATE GHD-20076

001.000.41.521.22.48.00 70.00CALIBRATE FH10284

001.000.41.521.22.48.00 70.00CALIBRATE GHD-20922

001.000.41.521.22.48.00 70.00FUEL SURCHARGE

001.000.41.521.22.48.00 30.0010.4% Sales Tax

001.000.41.521.22.48.00 68.64

Total : 728.64

246033 2/4/2021 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY FredP-OPS3APP WWTP: FPANGELINAN OPS 3 APPLICATION

FPANGELINAN OPS 3 APPLICATION

423.000.76.535.80.49.71 67.00

8Page:

7.2.a

Packet Pg. 81

Att

ach

men

t: c

laim

s 02

-04-

21 (

Ap

pro

val o

f cl

aim

, pay

roll

and

ben

efit

ch

ecks

, dir

ect

dep

osi

t an

d w

ire

02/03/2021

Voucher List

City of Edmonds

9

2:27:28PM

Page:vchlist

Bank code : usbank


(Continued) Total : 67.00246033 2/4/2021 006626 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY

246034 2/4/2021 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 21-4066 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES 1/26

council meeting minutes 1/26

001.000.25.514.30.41.00 367.20

Total : 367.20

246035 2/4/2021 072145 DISTINCTIVE WINDOWS INC 22473 PUBLIC WORKS - FURNISH AND INSTALL 1/4

PUBLIC WORKS - FURNISH AND INSTALL 1/4

001.000.66.518.30.48.00 5,563.0010.4% Sales Tax

001.000.66.518.30.48.00 578.55STORM WATER HOUSE - FURNISH AND INTALL22508STORM WATER HOUSE - FURNISH AND INTALL

422.000.72.531.20.48.00 681.0510.4% Sales Tax

422.000.72.531.20.48.00 70.83

Total : 6,893.43

246036 2/4/2021 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE 2047 CITY PARK BUILDING - SUPPLIES

CITY PARK BUILDING - SUPPLIES

001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.5910.4% Sales Tax

001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.58PM SUPPLIES: CAULK205010.4% Sales Tax

001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.49PM SUPPLIES: CAULK

001.000.64.576.80.31.00 23.97FAC MAINT SHOP & M.C.H. - SUPPLIES2051FAC MAINT SHOP SULLIES

001.000.66.518.30.31.00 49.95M.C.H. - SUPPLIES/ FAUCET

001.000.66.518.30.31.00 129.9910.4% Sales Tax

001.000.66.518.30.31.00 18.71

9Page:

7.2.a

Packet Pg. 82

Att

ach

men

t: c

laim

s 02

-04-

21 (

Ap

pro

val o

f cl

aim

, pay

roll

and

ben

efit

ch

ecks

, dir

ect

dep

osi

t an

d w

ire

02/03/2021

Voucher List

City of Edmonds

10

2:27:28PM

Page:vchlist

Bank code : usbank


246036 2/4/2021 (Continued)076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE

PM SUPPLIES: SPRAY PAINT2052PM SUPPLIES: SPRAY PAINT

001.000.64.576.80.31.00 74.2810.4% Sales Tax

001.000.64.576.80.31.00 7.73PM SUPPLIES: NUTS, BOLTS, SCREWS2061PM SUPPLIES: NUTS, BOLTS, SCREWS

001.000.64.576.80.31.00 4.3010.4% Sales Tax

001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.45PUBLIC SAFETY - SUPPLIES2062PUBLIC SAFETY - SUPPLIES

001.000.66.518.30.31.00 16.5810.4% Sales Tax

001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.72

Total : 336.34

246037 2/4/2021 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR184305 ACCT#MK5648 CONTRACT 2600-02 PRINTER MAI

Maintenance 01/21/21 - 02/20/21 Canon

512.000.31.518.88.48.00 307.2010.4% Sales Tax

512.000.31.518.88.48.00 31.95

Total : 339.15

246038 2/4/2021 047407 EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPT 312 000 093 ES REF # 94513310 7

Q4-20 Unemployment Claims

001.000.39.517.78.23.00 8,868.21

Total : 8,868.21

246039 2/4/2021 078108 ESTATE OF JAMES JOHNSON 2-05100 #20-227120 UTILITY REFUND

#20-227120 Utility refund due to

411.000.233.000 191.57

Total : 191.57

246040 2/4/2021 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH917837 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE DRAFT TREE REGS

10Page:

7.2.a

Packet Pg. 83

Att

ach

men

t: c

laim

s 02

-04-

21 (

Ap

pro

val o

f cl

aim

, pay

roll

and

ben

efit

ch

ecks

, dir

ect

dep

osi

t an

d w

ire

02/03/2021

Voucher List

City of Edmonds

11

2:27:28PM

Page:vchlist

Bank code : usbank


246040 2/4/2021 (Continued)009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD

public hearing notice draft tree regs

001.000.25.514.30.41.40 47.60PLANNING - ADVERTISINGEDH917923Planning - Legal Ad~

001.000.62.524.20.41.00 50.40

Total : 98.00

246041 2/4/2021 075381 EVERETT POLYGRAPH SERVICES LLC 2021-0126E INV 2021-126E ENTRY LEO POLYGRAPH

ENTRY LEVEL POLYGRAPH 1/26/21

001.000.41.521.10.41.00 200.00INV 2021-0129E FOLLOW UP POLYGRAPH2021-0129EFOLLOW UP POLYGRAPH 1/29/21

001.000.41.521.10.41.00 250.00

Total : 450.00

246042 2/4/2021 074613 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE 869-422957380 E0GA.SUBDIVISION/PLAT CERTIFICATE

E0GA.Subdivision/Plat Certificate

423.000.75.594.35.41.00 384.30

Total : 384.30

246043 2/4/2021 076542 GRANICUS 136247 CIVIC STREAMING, AGENDA & MINUTES MARCH

civic streaming, agenda and minutes

001.000.25.514.30.48.00 1,417.5110.4% Sales Tax

001.000.25.514.30.48.00 147.43

Total : 1,564.94

246044 2/4/2021 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 5024552 WWTP: PO 487 CASTER STEEL SWIVEL & WALL

PO 487 CASTER STEEL SWIVEL & WALL

423.000.76.535.80.31.00 36.3610.2% Sales Tax

423.000.76.535.80.31.00 3.75

Total : 40.11

246045 2/4/2021 061013 HONEY BUCKET 0551912030 HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET

11Page:

7.2.a

Packet Pg. 84

Att

ach

men

t: c

laim

s 02

-04-

21 (

Ap

pro

val o

f cl

aim

, pay

roll

and

ben

efit

ch

ecks

, dir

ect

dep

osi

t an

d w

ire

02/03/2021

Voucher List

City of Edmonds

12

2:27:28PM

Page:vchlist

Bank code : usbank


246045 2/4/2021 (Continued)061013 HONEY BUCKET

HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET

001.000.64.576.80.45.00 644.99YOST PARK POOL HONEY BUCKET0551912031YOST PARK POOL HONEY BUCKET

001.000.64.576.80.45.00 439.60HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUCKET0551912032HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUCKET

001.000.64.576.80.45.00 246.00PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKET0551912033PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKET

001.000.64.576.80.45.00 120.45SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET0551912034SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET

001.000.64.576.80.45.00 120.45WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY HONEY BUCKET0551912035WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY HONEY BUCKET

001.000.64.576.80.45.00 221.65CIVIC FIELD 6TH & BELL HONEY BUCKET0551912036CIVIC FIELD 6TH & BELL HONEY BUCKET

001.000.64.576.80.45.00 120.45MARINA BEACH/DOG PARK HONEY BUCKET0551912037MARINA BEACH/DOG PARK HONEY BUCKET

001.000.64.576.80.45.00 1,514.12CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD HONEY BUCKET0551912038CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD HONEY BUCKET

001.000.64.576.80.45.00 120.45CIVIC FIELD 6TH & EDMONDS HONEY BUCKET0551912039CIVIC FIELD 6TH & EDMONDS HONEY BUCKET

001.000.64.576.80.45.00 118.25

Total : 3,666.41

246046 2/4/2021 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 3438942 WWTP: PO 491 COPY PAPER

PO 491 COPY PAPER

423.000.76.535.80.31.00 85.9810.4% Sales Tax

12Page:

7.2.a

Packet Pg. 85

Att

ach

men

t: c

laim

s 02

-04-

21 (

Ap

pro

val o

f cl

aim

, pay

roll

and

ben

efit

ch

ecks

, dir

ect

dep

osi

t an

d w

ire

02/03/2021

Voucher List

City of Edmonds

13

2:27:28PM

Page:vchlist

Bank code : usbank


246046 2/4/2021 (Continued)073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED

423.000.76.535.80.31.00 8.94DEV SVCS SUPPLIES3439986New rubber dater for dater stamp

001.000.62.524.10.31.00 36.9510.4% Sales Tax

001.000.62.524.10.31.00 3.84WWTP: PO 494 KITCHEN TRASH LINERS3440537PO 494 KITCHEN TRASH LINERS

423.000.76.535.80.31.00 190.7410.4% Sales Tax

423.000.76.535.80.31.00 19.84

Total : 346.29

246047 2/4/2021 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 300-10082159 FLEET - PARTS

FLEET - PARTS

511.000.77.548.68.31.20 364.8810.4% Sales Tax

511.000.77.548.68.31.20 37.95FLEET - PARTS300-10082244FLEET - PARTS

511.000.77.548.68.31.20 216.0010.4% Sales Tax

511.000.77.548.68.31.20 22.46

Total : 641.29

246048 2/4/2021 075062 JAMESTOWN NETWORKS 6303 FIBER OPTICS INTERNET CONNECTION

Feb-2021 Fiber Optics Internet

512.000.31.518.87.42.00 590.0010.4% Sales Tax

512.000.31.518.87.42.00 61.36

Total : 651.36

246049 2/4/2021 068489 MCLOUGHLIN & EARDLEY GROUP INC 0253489 UNIT 284 - PARTS

UNIT 284 - PARTS

511.000.77.548.68.31.10 354.87

13Page:

7.2.a

Packet Pg. 86

Att

ach

men

t: c

laim

s 02

-04-

21 (

Ap

pro

val o

f cl

aim

, pay

roll

and

ben

efit

ch

ecks

, dir

ect

dep

osi

t an

d w

ire

02/03/2021

Voucher List

City of Edmonds

14

2:27:28PM

Page:vchlist

Bank code : usbank


246049 2/4/2021 (Continued)068489 MCLOUGHLIN & EARDLEY GROUP INC

10.4% Sales Tax

511.000.77.548.68.31.10 36.91

Total : 391.78

246050 2/4/2021 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0604060-IN WATER - BIBS & JACKETS

WATER - BIBS & JACKETS

421.000.74.534.80.24.00 146.3510.4% Sales Tax

421.000.74.534.80.24.00 15.22SEWER - CH4 50% LEL IN AIR0604362-INSEWER - CH4 50% LEL IN AIR

423.000.75.535.80.31.00 145.0010.4% Sales Tax

423.000.75.535.80.31.00 15.09

Total : 321.66

246051 2/4/2021 078285 NPDESPRO LLC 1021 NPDESPRO ANNUAL LICENSING FEE (3-YEAR LI

3-Year License with Unlimited Users and

422.000.72.531.90.49.20 17,000.00One Time Fee for Migration,

422.000.72.531.90.49.20 3,800.0010.4% Sales Tax

422.000.72.531.90.49.20 2,163.20

Total : 22,963.20

246052 2/4/2021 072739 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 3685-112763 UNIT 51 - MARKER LIGHT

UNIT 51 - MARKER LIGHT

511.000.77.548.68.31.10 21.9110.4% Sales Tax

511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.28UNIT 51 - MARKER LIGHT3685-113073UNIT 51 - MARKER LIGHT

511.000.77.548.68.31.10 7.1710.4% Sales Tax

511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.75

14Page:

7.2.a

Packet Pg. 87

Att

ach

men

t: c

laim

s 02

-04-

21 (

Ap

pro

val o

f cl

aim

, pay

roll

and

ben

efit

ch

ecks

, dir

ect

dep

osi

t an

d w

ire

02/03/2021

Voucher List

City of Edmonds

15

2:27:28PM

Page:vchlist

Bank code : usbank


246052 2/4/2021 (Continued)072739 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS

UNIT 796 - PARTS/ CAPSULE3685-113748UNIT 796 - PARTS/ CAPSULE

511.000.77.548.68.31.10 19.1010.4% Sales Tax

511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.99

Total : 53.20

246053 2/4/2021 070962 PAULSONS TOWING INC 122872 INV 122872 - CS 21-2059 - EDMONDS PD

TOW TAHOE -CS 21-2059 1.5HRS

001.000.41.521.22.41.00 276.0010.5% Sales Tax

001.000.41.521.22.41.00 28.98

Total : 304.98

246054 2/4/2021 071783 PIGSKIN UNIFORMS 2021-02 INV 2021-02 - EDMONDS PD - JENSEN

SUMMER WT JUMPSUIT

001.000.41.521.22.24.00 515.00Freight

001.000.41.521.22.24.00 20.00Sales Tax

001.000.41.521.22.24.00 45.48

Total : 580.48

246055 2/4/2021 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY 1E23693 WATER - 5-CORNERS MOTION SWITCH & COVER

WATER - 5-CORNERS MOTION SWITCH & COVER

421.000.74.534.80.48.00 172.9510.4% Sales Tax

421.000.74.534.80.48.00 17.99WWTP: PO 490 CH DH221NRK, FLNR020, XTOR41F04612 PO 490 CH DH221NRK, FLNR020, XTOR4B,

423.000.76.535.80.48.00 449.0810.4% Sales Tax

423.000.76.535.80.48.00 46.70WWTP: PO 490 APP HUB1F19889PO 490 APP HUB

15Page:

7.2.a

Packet Pg. 88

Att

ach

men

t: c

laim

s 02

-04-

21 (

Ap

pro

val o

f cl

aim

, pay

roll

and

ben

efit

ch

ecks

, dir

ect

dep

osi

t an

d w

ire

02/03/2021

Voucher List

City of Edmonds

16

2:27:28PM

Page:vchlist

Bank code : usbank


246055 2/4/2021 (Continued)028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY

423.000.76.535.80.48.00 10.0710.4% Sales Tax

423.000.76.535.80.48.00 1.05WWTP: PO 503 THHN STR CU, PEN CRMP, COND1F89489 PO 503 THHN STR CU, PEN CRMP, CONDUIT

423.000.76.535.80.48.00 229.2610.4% Sales Tax

423.000.76.535.80.48.00 23.84

Total : 950.94

246056 2/4/2021 064167 POLLARD WATER WP015049 WATER - SUPPLIES

WATER - SUPPLIES

421.000.74.534.80.31.00 841.7910.4% Sales Tax

421.000.74.534.80.31.00 87.54

Total : 929.33

246057 2/4/2021 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 200002411383 YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN WAY / METER

YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN WAY / METER

001.000.64.576.80.47.00 43.80OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER 0200007876143OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER

421.000.74.534.80.47.00 445.39FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW / METE200009595790FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW /

001.000.66.518.30.47.00 943.54FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W / METE200011439656FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W /

001.000.66.518.30.47.00 92.43CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / METER 00052200016558856CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / METER

001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,916.13FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER 0200016815843FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER

001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,171.79

16Page:

7.2.a

Packet Pg. 89

Att

ach

men

t: c

laim

s 02

-04-

21 (

Ap

pro

val o

f cl

aim

, pay

roll

and

ben

efit

ch

ecks

, dir

ect

dep

osi

t an

d w

ire

02/03/2021

Voucher List

City of Edmonds

17

2:27:28PM

Page:vchlist

Bank code : usbank


246057 2/4/2021 (Continued)046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY

FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 72ND AVE W /200017676343FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 72ND AVE W

511.000.77.548.68.47.00 575.85MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 N200019375639MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 N

001.000.66.518.30.47.00 404.34SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 001200019895354SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER

001.000.66.518.30.47.00 325.39PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / METE200020415911PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /

001.000.65.518.20.47.00 44.16PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW /





422.000.72.531.90.47.00 167.79CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE S / METER200024711901CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE S /

001.000.66.518.30.47.00 463.29

Total : 7,265.06

246058 2/4/2021 075769 QUADIENT LEASING USA INC N8687762 MACHINE LEASE NOV 2020 TO FEB 2021

machine lease nov 2020 to feb 2021

001.000.25.514.30.45.00 1,542.6010.4% Sales Tax

001.000.25.514.30.45.00 160.43MACHINE LEASE FEB TO MAY 2021N8700210machine lease feb to may 2021

001.000.25.514.30.45.00 192.00

17Page:

7.2.a

Packet Pg. 90

Att

ach

men

t: c

laim

s 02

-04-

21 (

Ap

pro

val o

f cl

aim

, pay

roll

and

ben

efit

ch

ecks

, dir

ect

dep

osi

t an

d w

ire

02/03/2021

Voucher List

City of Edmonds

18

2:27:28PM

Page:vchlist

Bank code : usbank


246058 2/4/2021 (Continued)075769 QUADIENT LEASING USA INC

10.4% Sales Tax

001.000.25.514.30.45.00 19.97

Total : 1,915.00

246059 2/4/2021 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 30070 MARKER/INSCRIPTION-ELLIS

MARKER/INSCRIPTION-ELLIS

130.000.64.536.20.34.00 384.00

Total : 384.00

246060 2/4/2021 064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC 5-030216 UNIT 284 & 527 - BATTERIES

UNIT 284 & 527 - BATTERIES

511.000.77.548.68.31.10 197.7610.4% Sales Tax

511.000.77.548.68.31.10 20.57

Total : 218.33

246061 2/4/2021 078286 RUTHERFORD, DEBRA J 2005708.009 REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION: COVID SHUTDO

REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION: COVID

001.000.239.200 182.00

Total : 182.00

246062 2/4/2021 073066 SAFARILAND LLC I010-348423 INV I010-348423 - CUST 3000703 - EDMONDS

GAS MASK VOLUME CONTROL

001.000.41.521.23.35.00 1,017.00

Total : 1,017.00

246063 2/4/2021 033550 SALMON BAY SAND & GRAVEL 2477367 STORM - SPEEDCRETE & CMU SOLID BLOCK

STORM - SPEEDCRETE & CMU SOLID BLOCK

422.000.72.531.40.31.00 1,654.0010.4% Sales Tax

422.000.72.531.40.31.00 172.02

Total : 1,826.02

246064 2/4/2021 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC 14-409090 FLEET - PARTS

FLEET - PARTS

511.000.77.548.68.31.20 110.89

18Page:

7.2.a

Packet Pg. 91

Att

ach

men

t: c

laim

s 02

-04-

21 (

Ap

pro

val o

f cl

aim

, pay

roll

and

ben

efit

ch

ecks

, dir

ect

dep

osi

t an

d w

ire

02/03/2021

Voucher List

City of Edmonds

19

2:27:28PM

Page:vchlist

Bank code : usbank


246064 2/4/2021 (Continued)036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC

10.4% Sales Tax

511.000.77.548.68.31.20 11.53

Total : 122.42

246065 2/4/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200348233 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W / METER 1

TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W / METER

111.000.68.542.64.47.00 46.12LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD / METER 1200468593LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD / METER

423.000.75.535.80.47.10 420.85MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION METER200493146MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION METER

001.000.64.576.80.47.00 18.32OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER 1200638609OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER

421.000.74.534.80.47.00 334.91LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTREAM LN / ME200865202LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTREAM LN /

423.000.75.535.80.47.10 118.56FISHING PIER RESTROOMS201236825FISHING PIER RESTROOMS

001.000.64.576.80.47.00 593.45TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / METER 1000201572898TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / METER

111.000.68.542.64.47.00 52.42TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W / METER 1201611951TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W / METER

111.000.68.542.63.47.00 36.99DECORATIVE LIGHTING 413 MAIN ST / METER201656907DECORATIVE LIGHTING 413 MAIN ST / METER

111.000.68.542.63.47.00 276.27TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW / METER 1201751476TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW / METER

111.000.68.542.64.47.00 55.88TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / METER 1000201782646

19Page:

7.2.a

Packet Pg. 92

Att

ach

men

t: c

laim

s 02

-04-

21 (

Ap

pro

val o

f cl

aim

, pay

roll

and

ben

efit

ch

ecks

, dir

ect

dep

osi

t an

d w

ire

02/03/2021

Voucher List

City of Edmonds

20

2:27:28PM

Page:vchlist

Bank code : usbank


246065 2/4/2021 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1

TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / METER

111.000.68.542.64.47.00 18.89TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW / METER 1201907862TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW / METER

111.000.68.542.63.47.00 34.90LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / METER 1000202087870LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / METER

423.000.75.535.80.47.10 191.29TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / METER 10004202289120TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / METER

111.000.68.542.64.47.00 69.88LOG CABIN & DECORATIVE LIGHTING 120 5TH202421582LOG CABIN & DECORATIVE LIGHTING 120 5TH

001.000.66.518.30.47.00 220.98TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW (FS #16)202807632TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW (FIRE

001.000.66.518.30.47.00 21.77CHARGE STATION #1 552 MAIN ST / METER 10204292213CHARGE STATION #1 552 MAIN ST / METER

111.000.68.542.64.47.00 157.76

Total : 2,669.24

246066 2/4/2021 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 2020-6654 INV 2020-6654 EDMONDS PD - DEC 2020 JAIL

INMATE ER & DIAGOSTIC TESTS 11/20

001.000.39.523.60.41.00 2,041.00INMATE MD CARE IN HOSPITAL 11/20

001.000.39.523.60.41.00 1,964.00INMATE MEDS 12/20

001.000.39.523.60.31.00 28.06INV 2020-6654 CREDIT FOR OCT-NOV 2020 IN2020-6654 CMCREDIT FOR OCT/NOV INMATE PHARM

001.000.39.523.60.31.00 -20.81

Total : 4,012.25

246067 2/4/2021 076433 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 911 3257 FEB-2021 COMMUNICATION DISPATCH SERVICES

20Page:

7.2.a

Packet Pg. 93

Att

ach

men

t: c

laim

s 02

-04-

21 (

Ap

pro

val o

f cl

aim

, pay

roll

and

ben

efit

ch

ecks

, dir

ect

dep

osi

t an

d w

ire

02/03/2021

Voucher List

City of Edmonds

21

2:27:28PM

Page:vchlist

Bank code : usbank


246067 2/4/2021 (Continued)076433 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 911

FEB-2021 COMMUNICATION DISPATCH SERVICES

001.000.39.528.00.41.50 70,384.08FEB-2021 COMMUNICATION DISPATCH SERVICES

421.000.74.534.80.41.50 1,852.21FEB-2021 COMMUNICATION DISPATCH SERVICES

423.000.75.535.80.41.50 1,852.21

Total : 74,088.50

246068 2/4/2021 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER January 2021 Crime Victims Court Remittance

Crime Victims Court Remittance

001.000.237.140 294.98

Total : 294.98

246069 2/4/2021 077172 SONSRAY MACHINERY LLC W02050-09 UNIT 3 - FABRICATION OF NEW BUCKET

UNIT 3 - FABRICATION OF NEW BUCKET

511.000.77.548.68.31.10 750.009.3% Sales Tax

511.000.77.548.68.31.10 69.75

Total : 819.75

246070 2/4/2021 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103583 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N

CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N

001.000.66.518.30.47.00 626.00CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N103583CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N

001.000.66.518.30.47.00 626.00FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST103585FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST

001.000.66.518.30.47.00 644.67FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST103585FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST

001.000.66.518.30.47.00 671.93SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST103586SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST

001.000.66.518.30.47.00 605.18

21Page:

7.2.a

Packet Pg. 94

Att

ach

men

t: c

laim

s 02

-04-

21 (

Ap

pro

val o

f cl

aim

, pay

roll

and

ben

efit

ch

ecks

, dir

ect

dep

osi

t an

d w

ire

02/03/2021

Voucher List

City of Edmonds

22

2:27:28PM

Page:vchlist

Bank code : usbank


246070 2/4/2021 (Continued)038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO

SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST103586SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST

001.000.66.518.30.47.00 605.18PARKS MAINT GARBAGE & RECYCLING ACCT #10103587PARKS MAINT GARBAGE AND RECYCLING ACCT

001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,022.94PARKS MAINT GARBAGE & RECYCLING ACCT #10103587PARKS MAINT GARBAGE AND RECYCLING ACCT

001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,022.94CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N103588CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N

001.000.66.518.30.47.00 459.89CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N103588CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N

001.000.66.518.30.47.00 464.44

Total : 6,749.17

246071 2/4/2021 074990 STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES 1747924 E8JA.SERVICES THRU 12/31/2020

E8JA.Services thru 12/31/20

421.000.74.594.34.41.00 3,778.37

Total : 3,778.37

246072 2/4/2021 071585 STERICYCLE INC 3005411481 INV 3005411481 - CUST 6076358 - EDMONDS

1 MIN STOP FEE

001.000.41.521.80.41.00 10.36

Total : 10.36

246073 2/4/2021 040924 TMG SERVICES INC 0046104-IN WATER QUALITY - TUBE BLUE - WHITE

WATER QUALITY - TUBE BLUE - WHITE

421.000.74.534.80.31.00 749.40Freight

421.000.74.534.80.31.00 15.0010.4% Sales Tax

421.000.74.534.80.31.00 79.50

22Page:

7.2.a

Packet Pg. 95

Att

ach

men

t: c

laim

s 02

-04-

21 (

Ap

pro

val o

f cl

aim

, pay

roll

and

ben

efit

ch

ecks

, dir

ect

dep

osi

t an

d w

ire

02/03/2021

Voucher List

City of Edmonds

23

2:27:28PM

Page:vchlist

Bank code : usbank


(Continued) Total : 843.90246073 2/4/2021 040924 040924 TMG SERVICES INC

246074 2/4/2021 070774 ULINE INC 128903555 INV 128903555 - CUST 2634605 - EDMONDS P

TYVEK SUITS - XL - DETECTIVES

001.000.41.521.21.31.00 185.0013 X 18 RECLOSABLE BAGS 500/

001.000.41.521.80.31.00 234.004 X 6 RECLOSABLE BAGS 1M/

001.000.41.521.80.31.00 82.003 X 60 PRESSURE SEN KRAFT TP

001.000.41.521.80.31.00 519.0020" POLY BAG SEALER

001.000.41.521.80.31.00 210.0020' SERVICE KIT FOR H-1029

001.000.41.521.80.31.00 31.0012 X 12 X 8 LRG BINS

001.000.41.521.80.31.00 58.75Freight

001.000.41.521.80.31.00 78.5710.4% Sales Tax

001.000.41.521.21.31.00 19.2410.4% Sales Tax

001.000.41.521.80.31.00 126.19INV 129012970 - CUST 2634605 - EDMONDS P1290129702 X 60 PRESSURE SEN KRAFT TAPE

001.000.41.521.80.31.00 77.40Freight

001.000.41.521.80.31.00 13.8710.4% Sales Tax

001.000.41.521.80.31.00 9.49

Total : 1,644.51

246075 2/4/2021 071549 UNIVAR SOLUTIONS USA INC 48918292 WWTP: 1/21 CAUSTIC SODA

1/21 Caustic Soda

423.000.76.535.80.31.52 6,716.0010.4% Sales Tax

23Page:

7.2.a

Packet Pg. 96

Att

ach

men

t: c

laim

s 02

-04-

21 (

Ap

pro

val o

f cl

aim

, pay

roll

and

ben

efit

ch

ecks

, dir

ect

dep

osi

t an

d w

ire

02/03/2021

Voucher List

City of Edmonds

24

2:27:28PM

Page:vchlist

Bank code : usbank


246075 2/4/2021 (Continued)071549 UNIVAR SOLUTIONS USA INC

423.000.76.535.80.31.52 698.46

Total : 7,414.46

246076 2/4/2021 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9871823796 C/A 571242650-0001

iPhone/iPad Cell Service Bldg

001.000.62.524.20.42.00 639.92iPhone/iPad Cell Service City Clerk

001.000.25.514.30.42.00 36.15iPhone/iPad Cell Service Comm Svc Econ

001.000.61.557.20.42.00 199.33iPhone/iPad Cell Service Council

001.000.11.511.60.35.00 1,159.19iPhone/iPad Cell Service Council

001.000.11.511.60.42.00 722.60iPhone/iPad Cell Service Court

001.000.23.512.50.42.00 257.02iPhone/iPad Cell Service Dev Svcs

001.000.62.524.10.42.00 321.15iPhone/iPad Cell Service Engineering



001.000.67.518.21.42.00 1,473.33iPhone/iPad Cell Service Facilities

001.000.66.518.30.42.00 227.00iPhone/iPad Cell Service Finance

001.000.31.514.23.42.00 72.30iPhone/iPad Cell Service HR

001.000.22.518.10.42.00 100.84iPhone/iPad Cell Service IS

512.000.31.518.88.35.00 397.43iPhone/iPad Cell Service IS

512.000.31.518.88.42.00 372.90

24Page:

7.2.a

Packet Pg. 97

Att

ach

men

t: c

laim

s 02

-04-

21 (

Ap

pro

val o

f cl

aim

, pay

roll

and

ben

efit

ch

ecks

, dir

ect

dep

osi

t an

d w

ire

02/03/2021

Voucher List

City of Edmonds

25

2:27:28PM

Page:vchlist

Bank code : usbank


246076 2/4/2021 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS

iPhone/iPad Cell Service Mayor

001.000.21.513.10.42.00 100.56iPhone/iPad Cell Service Park Admin

001.000.64.571.21.42.00 50.28iPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks Maint

001.000.64.576.80.42.00 321.15iPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks Rec

001.000.64.571.22.42.00 140.57iPhone/iPad Cell Service PD

001.000.41.521.10.42.00 1,963.39Air cards PD

001.000.41.521.10.42.00 1,160.29iPhone/iPad Cell Service Planning

001.000.62.558.60.42.00 120.03iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin





423.000.76.535.80.42.00 7.60iPhone/iPad Cell Service Street

111.000.68.542.90.42.00 216.73iPhone/iPad Cell Service Fleet

511.000.77.548.68.42.00 50.28iPhone/iPad Cell Service Water/Sewer

421.000.74.534.80.42.00 95.43iPhone/iPad Cell Service Water/Sewer

423.000.75.535.80.42.00 95.42iPhone/iPad Cell Service Sewer

423.000.75.535.80.42.00 336.76

25Page:

7.2.a

Packet Pg. 98

Att

ach

men

t: c

laim

s 02

-04-

21 (

Ap

pro

val o

f cl

aim

, pay

roll

and

ben

efit

ch

ecks

, dir

ect

dep

osi

t an

d w

ire

02/03/2021

Voucher List

City of Edmonds

26

2:27:28PM

Page:vchlist

Bank code : usbank


246076 2/4/2021 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS

iPhone/iPad Cell Service Water

421.000.74.534.80.42.00 436.53iPhone/iPad Cell Service Storm

422.000.72.531.90.42.00 156.46iPhone/iPad Cell Service Street/Storm

111.000.68.542.90.42.00 240.06iPhone/iPad Cell Service Street/Storm

422.000.72.531.90.42.00 240.06iPhone/iPad Cell Service WWTP

423.000.76.535.80.42.00 669.26iPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks Discovery

001.000.64.571.23.42.00 40.01C/A 772540262-000019871955855Cradlepoint 1 - Court/IT

512.000.31.518.88.42.00 100.01Trimble 2 - Engineering Storm



423.000.75.535.80.49.20 3.40Trimble 1 - Storm

422.000.72.531.90.42.00 10.02Lake Ballinger monitor

422.000.72.531.90.49.20 32.20Wonderwear Modem Water/Sewer Telemetry

421.000.74.534.80.42.00 19.80Wonderwear Modem Water/Sewer Telemetry

423.000.75.535.80.42.00 19.79

Total : 13,525.57

246077 2/4/2021 075138 VIPRE SECURITY 105036 VIPRE ANTIVIRUS MAINTENANCE RENEWAL

VIPRE Antivirus Maintenance Renewal -

512.000.31.518.88.48.00 5,716.00

26Page:

7.2.a

Packet Pg. 99

Att

ach

men

t: c

laim

s 02

-04-

21 (

Ap

pro

val o

f cl

aim

, pay

roll

and

ben

efit

ch

ecks

, dir

ect

dep

osi

t an

d w

ire

02/03/2021

Voucher List

City of Edmonds

27

2:27:28PM

Page:vchlist

Bank code : usbank


246077 2/4/2021 (Continued)075138 VIPRE SECURITY

10.4% Sales Tax

512.000.31.518.88.48.00 594.47

Total : 6,310.47

246078 2/4/2021 069816 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC 8803525908 WWTP: PO 480 STATICMASTER MOUNT & IONIZE

PO 480 STATICMASTER MOUNT & IONIZER BAR

423.000.76.535.80.31.00 159.9010.4% Sales Tax

423.000.76.535.80.31.00 16.63

Total : 176.53

246079 2/4/2021 067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC 213083 INV 213083 - CS 21-2050 - EDMONDS PD

TOW MAZDA - CS 21-2050

001.000.41.521.22.41.00 184.0010.5% Sales Tax

001.000.41.521.22.41.00 19.32INV 65965 - CS 20-22859 - EDMONDS PD65965MOVE CAMRY - CS 20-22859

001.000.41.521.22.41.00 75.0010.5% Sales Tax

001.000.41.521.22.41.00 7.88

Total : 286.20

246080 2/4/2021 075283 WAVE 3201-1027483-01 FIBER HIGH SPEED INTERNET SERVICE

High Speed Internet service 02/01/21 -

512.000.31.518.87.42.00 816.00

Total : 816.00

246081 2/4/2021 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS 11321345CR FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES

FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES

001.000.66.518.30.31.00 -156.0010.4% Sales Tax

001.000.66.518.30.31.00 -16.22PARKS FACILITY MAINT SUPPLIES12107096PARKS FACILITY MAINT SUPPLIES

27Page:

7.2.a

Packet Pg. 100

Att

ach

men

t: c

laim

s 02

-04-

21 (

Ap

pro

val o

f cl

aim

, pay

roll

and

ben

efit

ch

ecks

, dir

ect

dep

osi

t an

d w

ire

02/03/2021

Voucher List

City of Edmonds

28

2:27:28PM

Page:vchlist

Bank code : usbank


246081 2/4/2021 (Continued)075635 WCP SOLUTIONS

001.000.64.576.80.31.00 566.0010.4% Sales Tax

001.000.64.576.80.31.00 58.86FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES12109072FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES

001.000.66.518.30.31.00 763.0410.4% Sales Tax

001.000.66.518.30.31.00 79.36PARKS FACILITY MAINT SUPPLIES12109073PARKS FACILITY MAINT SUPPLIES

001.000.64.576.80.31.00 656.0010.4% Sales Tax


001.000.64.576.80.31.00 886.5010.4% Sales Tax


001.000.64.576.80.31.00 849.0010.4% Sales Tax

001.000.64.576.80.31.00 88.30

Total : 3,935.26

246082 2/4/2021 064800 WEHOP 643598 FLOWER PROGRAM: PLANTS

FLOWER PROGRAM: PLANTS

125.000.64.576.80.31.00 117.3710.4% Sales Tax

125.000.64.576.80.31.00 12.21

Total : 129.58

246083 2/4/2021 077188 WELCOME MAGAZINE 1657 LTAC SPRING/SUMMER AD 2021 IN WELCOME MAGAZIN

SPRING/SUMMER AD 2021 IN WELCOME

120.000.31.575.42.41.40 3,456.00

28Page:

7.2.a

Packet Pg. 101

Att

ach

men

t: c

laim

s 02

-04-

21 (

Ap

pro

val o

f cl

aim

, pay

roll

and

ben

efit

ch

ecks

, dir

ect

dep

osi

t an

d w

ire

02/03/2021

Voucher List

City of Edmonds

29

2:27:28PM

Page:vchlist

Bank code : usbank


(Continued) Total : 3,456.00246083 2/4/2021 077188 077188 WELCOME MAGAZINE

246084 2/4/2021 063008 WSDOT RE 41 JZ0186 L009 E20CE.PROJECT COSTS FOR DECEMBER 2020

E20CE.Project Costs for December 2020

112.000.68.595.33.41.00 3,175.98GATEWAY SIGN RELOCATION PLAN REVIEWRE 41 JZ0605 L008GATEWAY SIGN RELOCATION PLAN REVIEW

001.000.64.576.80.41.00 222.97

Total : 3,398.95

246085 2/4/2021 051280 ZEP MANUFACTURING COMPANY 9005892931 FLEET - SUPPLIES

FLEET - SUPPLIES

511.000.77.548.68.35.00 1,471.8310.4% Sales Tax

511.000.77.548.68.35.00 153.06

Total : 1,624.89

246086 2/4/2021 011900 ZIPLY FIBER 425-771-0158 FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FAX LINES

FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FAX LINES

001.000.66.518.30.42.00 141.13CITY HALL ALARM LINES 121 5TH AVE N425-776-6829CITY HALL FIRE AND INTRUSION ALARM

001.000.66.518.30.42.00 141.13LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINE509-022-0049LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINE

423.000.75.535.80.42.00 26.42

Total : 308.68

Bank total : 220,276.2672 Vouchers for bank code : usbank

220,276.26Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report72

29Page:

7.2.a

Packet Pg. 102

Att

ach

men

t: c

laim

s 02

-04-

21 (

Ap

pro

val o

f cl

aim

, pay

roll

and

ben

efit

ch

ecks

, dir

ect

dep

osi

t an

d w

ire

PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)

Funding Project Title

Project

Accounting

Number

Engineering

Project

Number

STM 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements c521 E8FB

WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects i014 E6JB

STM 2018 Lorian Woods Study s018 E8FA

SWR 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project c492 E6GC

WTR 2018 Waterline Replacement Project c493 E6JC

STR 2019 Downtown Parking Study s021 E9AC

STR 2019 Guardrail Install i039 E9AB

STR 2019 Overlay Program i036 E9CA

STR 2019 Pedestrian Safety Program i041 E9DB

SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project c516 E8GA

STM 2019 Storm Maintenance Project c525 E8FC

WTR 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement c523 E8JA

STR 2019 Traffic Calming i038 E9AA

STR 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades i045 E9AD

UTILITIES 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update s020 E8JB

WTR 2019 Waterline Overlay i043 E9CB

WTR 2019 Waterline Replacement c498 E7JA

STR 2020 Guardrail Installations i046 E0AA



STR 2020 Pedestrian Task Force s024 E0DA

STR 2020 Traffic Calming i048 E0AC

STR 2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades i047 E0AB

STR 2020 Waterline Overlay i053 E0CC


STR 220th Adaptive i028 E8AB

STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC

STR 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps i037 E8DC

STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c423 E3DB

STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) c485 E6DA

STR 76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD) i052 E20CB

STR 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements i029 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 ADA Curb Ramps i033 E8DB

STR Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing i040 E9DA

STR Audible Pedestrian Signals i024 E7AB

STM Ballinger Regional Facility Pre-Design s022 E9FA

STR Bikelink Project c474 E5DA

STR Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project i050 E0DC

SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB

Revised 1/21/2021

7.2.b

Packet Pg. 103

Att

ach

men

t: F

req

uen

tlyU

sed

Pro

jNu

mb

ers

02-0

4-21

(A

pp

rova

l of

clai

m, p

ayro

ll an

d b

enef

it c

hec

ks, d

irec

t d

epo

sit

and

wir

e p

aym

ents

.)

PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)


Project

Accounting

Number

Engineering

Project

Number

STR Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements i026 E7DC

STR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion i015 E6AB

PRK Civic Center Playfield (Construction) c551 E0MA

PRK Civic Center Playfield (Design) c536 E0MA

WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c482 E5JB

STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE

FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB

STR Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector c478 E5DB

WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating c473 E5KA

PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA

STR Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization s014 E6AA

STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD

SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s011 E5GB

SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC

STR Minor Sidewalk Program i017 E6DD

STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) m013 E7FG

GF Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update s025 E0NA

STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 E7FA

STM Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements c552 E20FC

WTR Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project c549 E0JA

STM Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project c547 E0FB

SWR Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project c548 E0GA

FAC PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South c502 E9MA

STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 E5FD

STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 c546 E0FA

WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA

STR SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal) i055 E20CE

UTILITIES Standard Details Updates s010 E5NA

STM Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW c495 E7FB

STM Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 E6FD

STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA

STR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA

STR Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th) i044 E9DC

PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction) c544 E7MA

PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design) c496 E7MA

PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design) m103 E7MA

STM Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC

WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 E5HA

WTR Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment s026 E0JB

Revised 1/21/2021

7.2.b

Packet Pg. 104

Att

ach

men

t: F

req

uen

tlyU

sed

Pro

jNu

mb

ers

02-0

4-21

(A

pp

rova

l of

clai

m, p

ayro

ll an

d b

enef

it c

hec

ks, d

irec

t d

epo

sit

and

wir

e p

aym

ents

.)

PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)

Funding

Engineering

Project

Number

Project

Accounting

Number Project Title

STR E0AA i046 2020 Guardrail Installations

STR E0AB i047 2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades

STR E0AC i048 2020 Traffic Calming

STR E0CA i042 2020 Overlay Program

STR E0CC i053 2020 Waterline Overlay

STR E0DA s024 2020 Pedestrian Task Force

STR E0DB i049 2020 Pedestrian Safety Program

STR E0DC i050 Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project

STM E0FA c546 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2

STM E0FB c547 Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project

SWR E0GA c548 Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project

WTR E0JA c549 Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project

WTR E0JB s026 Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment

PRK E0MA c551 Civic Center Playfield (Construction)

PRK E0MA c536 Civic Center Playfield (Design)

GF E0NA s025 Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update

STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements

STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements

STR E20CB i052 76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD)

STR E20CE i055 SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal)

STM E20FC c552 Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements


STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)

STM E4FC c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration

STM E4FD c436 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects

STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station

SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study

WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring

FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab

STR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System

STR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project

STR E5DB c478 Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector

STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility

SWR E5GB s011 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study

WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications

WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)

WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating

UTILITIES E5NA s010 Standard Details Updates

STR E6AA s014 Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization

STR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion

STR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)

STR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program

Revised 1/21/2021

7.2.b

Packet Pg. 105

Att

ach

men

t: F

req

uen

tlyU

sed

Pro

jNu

mb

ers

02-0

4-21

(A

pp

rova

l of

clai

m, p

ayro

ll an

d b

enef

it c

hec

ks, d

irec

t d

epo

sit

and

wir

e p

aym

ents

.)

PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)

Funding

Engineering

Project

Number

Project

Accounting


STM E6FD s017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update

SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II

SWR E6GC c492 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project

WTR E6JB i014 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects

WTR E6JC c493 2018 Waterline Replacement Project

STR E7AB i024 Audible Pedestrian Signals

STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements

STR E7CD i025 89th Pl W Retaining Wall

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

PRK E7MA c544 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction)

PRK E7MA c496 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design)

PRK E7MA m103 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design)

STR E8AB i028 220th Adaptive

STR E8CA i029 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements

STR E8CC i031 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th

STR E8DB i033 ADA Curb Ramps

STR E8DC i037 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps

STM E8FA s018 2018 Lorian Woods Study

STM E8FB c521 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements

STM E8FC c525 2019 Storm Maintenance Project

SWR E8GA c516 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project

WTR E8JA c523 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement

UTILITIES E8JB s020 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update

PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor

STR E9AA i038 2019 Traffic Calming

STR E9AB i039 2019 Guardrail Install

STR E9AC s021 2019 Downtown Parking Study

STR E9AD i045 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades


WTR E9CB i043 2019 Waterline Overlay

STR E9DA i040 Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing


STR E9DC i044 Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th)

STM E9FA s022 Ballinger Regional Facility Pre-Design

FAC E9MA c502 PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South

Revised 1/21/2021

7.2.b

Packet Pg. 106

Att

ach

men

t: F

req

uen

tlyU

sed

Pro

jNu

mb

ers

02-0

4-21

(A

pp

rova

l of

clai

m, p

ayro

ll an

d b

enef

it c

hec

ks, d

irec

t d

epo

sit

and

wir

e p

aym

ents

.)

PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)

Funding

Engineering

Project

Number

Project

Accounting


PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor

STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements

STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements

STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)

STM E4FC c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration

STM E4FD c436 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects

FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab

WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring

STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station

SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study

STR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System

WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating

STR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project

STR E5DB c478 Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector

STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility

WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications

WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)

STR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)

SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II

SWR E6GC c492 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project

WTR E6JC c493 2018 Waterline Replacement Project

STM E7FB c495 Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW

PRK E7MA c496 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design)

WTR E7JA c498 2019 Waterline Replacement

FAC E9MA c502 PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South

SWR E8GA c516 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project

STM E8FB c521 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements

WTR E8JA c523 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement

STM E8FC c525 2019 Storm Maintenance Project

PRK E0MA c536 Civic Center Playfield (Design)

PRK E7MA c544 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction)

STM E0FA c546 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2

STM E0FB c547 Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project

SWR E0GA c548 Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project

WTR E0JA c549 Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project

PRK E0MA c551 Civic Center Playfield (Construction)

STM E20FC c552 Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements

STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements

WTR E6JB i014 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects

STR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion

STR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program

STR E7AB i024 Audible Pedestrian Signals

Revised 1/21/2021

7.2.b

Packet Pg. 107

Att

ach

men

t: F

req

uen

tlyU

sed

Pro

jNu

mb

ers

02-0

4-21

(A

pp

rova

l of

clai

m, p

ayro

ll an

d b

enef

it c

hec

ks, d

irec

t d

epo

sit

and

wir

e p

aym

ents

.)

PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)

Funding

Engineering

Project

Number

Project

Accounting


STR E7CD i025 89th Pl W Retaining Wall

STR E7DC i026 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements

STR E8AB i028 220th Adaptive

STR E8CA i029 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements

STR E8CC i031 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th

STR E8DB i033 ADA Curb Ramps


STR E8DC i037 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps

STR E9AA i038 2019 Traffic Calming

STR E9AB i039 2019 Guardrail Install

STR E9DA i040 Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing



WTR E9CB i043 2019 Waterline Overlay

STR E9DC i044 Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th)

STR E9AD i045 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades

STR E0AA i046 2020 Guardrail Installations

STR E0AB i047 2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades

STR E0AC i048 2020 Traffic Calming


STR E0DC i050 Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project


STR E20CB i052 76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD)

STR E0CC i053 2020 Waterline Overlay

STR E20CE i055 SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal)

STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)

PRK E7MA m103 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design)

STM E7FA m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization

UTILITIES E5NA s010 Standard Details Updates

SWR E5GB s011 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study

STR E6AA s014 Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization

STM E6FD s017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update

STM E8FA s018 2018 Lorian Woods Study

UTILITIES E8JB s020 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update

STR E9AC s021 2019 Downtown Parking Study

STM E9FA s022 Ballinger Regional Facility Pre-Design

STR E0DA s024 2020 Pedestrian Task Force

GF E0NA s025 Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update

WTR E0JB s026 Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment

Revised 1/21/2021

7.2.b

Packet Pg. 108

Att

ach

men

t: F

req

uen

tlyU

sed

Pro

jNu

mb

ers

02-0

4-21

(A

pp

rova

l of

clai

m, p

ayro

ll an

d b

enef

it c

hec

ks, d

irec

t d

epo

sit

and

wir

e p

aym

ents

.)

PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)


Project

Accounting

Number

Engineering

Project

Number

FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB

FAC PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South c502 E9MA

GF Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update s025 E0NA

PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA

PRK Civic Center Playfield (Construction) c551 E0MA

PRK Civic Center Playfield (Design) c536 E0MA

PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction) c544 E7MA

PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design) c496 E7MA

PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design) m103 E7MA

STM 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements c521 E8FB

STM 2018 Lorian Woods Study s018 E8FA

STM 2019 Storm Maintenance Project c525 E8FC

STM Ballinger Regional Facility Pre-Design s022 E9FA

STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE

STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD

STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) m013 E7FG

STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 E7FA

STM Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements c552 E20FC

STM Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project c547 E0FB

STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 E5FD

STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 c546 E0FA

STM Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW c495 E7FB

STM Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 E6FD

STM Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC

STR 2019 Downtown Parking Study s021 E9AC

STR 2019 Guardrail Install i039 E9AB



STR 2019 Traffic Calming i038 E9AA

STR 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades i045 E9AD

STR 2020 Guardrail Installations i046 E0AA



STR 2020 Pedestrian Task Force s024 E0DA

STR 2020 Traffic Calming i048 E0AC

STR 2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades i047 E0AB


STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC

STR 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps i037 E8DC

STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c423 E3DB

STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) c485 E6DA

Revised 1/21/2021

7.2.b

Packet Pg. 109

Att

ach

men

t: F

req

uen

tlyU

sed

Pro

jNu

mb

ers

02-0

4-21

(A

pp

rova

l of

clai

m, p

ayro

ll an

d b

enef

it c

hec

ks, d

irec

t d

epo

sit

and

wir

e p

aym

ents

.)

PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)


Project

Accounting

Number

Engineering

Project

Number

STR 76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD) i052 E20CB

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 ADA Curb Ramps i033 E8DB

STR Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing i040 E9DA

STR Audible Pedestrian Signals i024 E7AB

STR Bikelink Project c474 E5DA

STR Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project i050 E0DC

STR Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements i026 E7DC

STR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion i015 E6AB

STR Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector c478 E5DB

STR Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization s014 E6AA

STR Minor Sidewalk Program i017 E6DD

STR SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal) i055 E20CE

STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA

STR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA

STR Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th) i044 E9DC

STR 2020 Waterline Overlay i053 E0CC

STR 220th Adaptive i028 E8AB

SWR 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project c492 E6GC

SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project c516 E8GA

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

SWR Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project c548 E0GA

UTILITIES 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update s020 E8JB

UTILITIES Standard Details Updates s010 E5NA

WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects i014 E6JB

WTR 2018 Waterline Replacement Project c493 E6JC

WTR 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement c523 E8JA

WTR 2019 Waterline Overlay i043 E9CB

WTR 2019 Waterline Replacement c498 E7JA

WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c482 E5JB

WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating c473 E5KA

WTR Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project c549 E0JA

WTR Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment s026 E0JB

WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA

WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 E5HA

Revised 1/21/2021

7.2.b

Packet Pg. 110

Att

ach

men

t: F

req

uen

tlyU

sed

Pro

jNu

mb

ers

02-0

4-21

(A

pp

rova

l of

clai

m, p

ayro

ll an

d b

enef

it c

hec

ks, d

irec

t d

epo

sit

and

wir

e p

aym

ents

.)

Payroll Earnings Summary Report

City of Edmonds

Pay Period: 999 (01/16/2021 to 01/31/2021)

Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description

NO PAY LEAVEABSENT111 37.00 0.00

NO PAY NON HIREDABSENT112 53.00 0.00

SICK LEAVESICK121 403.50 17,993.84

VACATIONVACATION122 574.50 27,079.09

HOLIDAY HOURSHOLIDAY123 36.00 1,533.45

FLOATER HOLIDAYHOLIDAY124 9.00 418.50

COMPENSATORY TIMECOMP HOURS125 141.50 6,086.61

Police Sick Leave L & ISICK129 3.75 144.98

Holiday Compensation UsedCOMP HOURS130 8.00 321.30

MILITARY LEAVEMILITARY131 10.00 608.25

WASHINGTON STATE SICK LEAVESICK135 2.00 43.35

BEREAVEMENTBEREAVEMENT141 20.00 854.75

Kelly Day UsedREGULAR HOURS150 36.00 1,533.56

COMPTIME BUY BACKCOMP HOURS152 36.75 2,414.14

HOLIDAY BUY BACKHOLIDAY153 20.00 1,313.82

COMPTIME AUTO PAYCOMP HOURS155 177.39 9,667.34

SICK LEAVE PAYOFFSICK157 401.23 26,330.52

VACATION PAYOFFVACATION158 465.51 28,612.10

MANAGEMENT LEAVEVACATION160 11.00 785.35

COUNCIL PRESIDENTS PAYREGULAR HOURS174 0.00 300.00

COUNCIL PAY FOR NO MEDICALREGULAR HOURS175 0.00 3,496.07

REGULAR HOURSREGULAR HOURS190 16,831.00 713,681.54

FIRE PENSION PAYMENTSREGULAR HOURS191 4.00 5,126.84

Emergency Sick LeaveSICK194 73.00 2,541.43

LIGHT DUTYREGULAR HOURS196 49.50 3,010.83

OVERTIME-STRAIGHTOVERTIME HOURS210 163.25 7,821.55

WATER WATCH STANDBYOVERTIME HOURS215 48.00 2,686.90

STANDBY TREATMENT PLANTMISCELLANEOUS216 16.00 1,601.96

OVERTIME 1.5OVERTIME HOURS220 204.25 12,588.40

OVERTIME-DOUBLEOVERTIME HOURS225 0.50 43.14

SHIFT DIFFERENTIALSHIFT DIFFERENTIAL411 0.00 1,019.44

RETROACTIVE PAYRETROACTIVE PAY600 0.00 1,825.67

ACCRUED COMP 1.0COMP HOURS602 82.50 0.00

02/03/2021 Page 1 of 3

7.2.c

Packet Pg. 111

Att

ach

men

t: P

ayro

ll S

um

mar

y 02

-05-

21 (

Ap

pro

val o

f cl

aim

, pay

roll

and

ben

efit

ch

ecks

, dir

ect

dep

osi

t an

d


City of Edmonds

Pay Period: 999 (01/16/2021 to 01/31/2021)


Holiday Comp 1.0COMP HOURS603 36.00 0.00

ACCRUED COMP TIME 1.5COMP HOURS604 116.50 0.00

ACCREDITATION PAYMISCELLANEOUSacc 0.00 67.01

ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORTMISCELLANEOUSacs 0.00 177.41

BOC II CertificationMISCELLANEOUSboc 0.00 96.39

Collision ReconstructionistMISCELLANEOUScolre 0.00 87.93

TRAINING CORPORALMISCELLANEOUScpl 0.00 179.12

CERTIFICATION III PAYMISCELLANEOUScrt 0.00 404.96

CTR INCENTIVES PROGRAMMISCELLANEOUSctr 0.00 1.00

DEFENSE TATICS INSTRUCTORMISCELLANEOUSdeftat 0.00 89.56

DETECTIVE PAYMISCELLANEOUSdet 0.00 122.69

Detective 4%MISCELLANEOUSdet4 0.00 1,222.72

EDUCATION PAY 2%EDUCATION PAYed1 0.00 623.11

EDUCATION PAY 4%EDUCATION PAYed2 0.00 747.50

EDUCATION PAY 6%EDUCATION PAYed3 0.00 5,950.92

FIREARMS INSTRUCTORMISCELLANEOUSfirear 0.00 481.56

FAMILY MEDICAL/SICKSICKfmls 60.00 1,982.50

HOLIDAYHOLIDAYhol 1,348.10 60,556.99

K-9 PAYMISCELLANEOUSk9 0.00 251.53

LESS LETHAL INSTRUCTORMISCELLANEOUSless 0.00 85.68

LONGEVITY PAY 2%LONGEVITYlg1 0.00 1,066.95

LONGEVITY PAY 2.5%LONGEVITYlg11 0.00 692.74

Longevity 9%LONGEVITYlg12 0.00 4,451.51



LONGEVITY 7.5%LONGEVITYlg15 0.00 583.73

Longevity 1%LONGEVITYlg4 0.00 365.21


Longevity .5%LONGEVITYlg6 0.00 366.12

Longevity 1.5%LONGEVITYlg7 0.00 277.76

Longevity 3.5%LONGEVITYlg9 0.00 193.99

MOTORCYCLE PAYMISCELLANEOUSmtc 0.00 122.69

OUT OF CLASSMISCELLANEOUSooc 0.00 589.95

02/03/2021 Page 2 of 3

7.2.c

Packet Pg. 112

Att

ach

men

t: P

ayro

ll S

um

mar

y 02

-05-

21 (

Ap

pro

val o

f cl

aim

, pay

roll

and

ben

efit

ch

ecks

, dir

ect

dep

osi

t an

d


City of Edmonds

Pay Period: 999 (01/16/2021 to 01/31/2021)


Public Disclosure SpecialistMISCELLANEOUSpds 0.00 101.78

PHYSICAL FITNESS PAYMISCELLANEOUSphy 0.00 2,313.20

PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS SERGEANMISCELLANEOUSprof 0.00 194.64

Training OfficerMISCELLANEOUSpto 0.00 163.58

SPECIAL DUTY PAYMISCELLANEOUSsdp 0.00 650.50

ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANTMISCELLANEOUSsgt 0.00 194.64

Sergeant PayREGULAR HOURSst 0.00 141.08

STREET CRIMESMISCELLANEOUSstr 0.00 521.80

TRAFFICMISCELLANEOUStraf 0.00 122.69

Total Net Pay: $637,557.57

$971,445.7921,478.73

02/03/2021 Page 3 of 3

7.2.c

Packet Pg. 113

Att

ach

men

t: P

ayro

ll S

um

mar

y 02

-05-

21 (

Ap

pro

val o

f cl

aim

, pay

roll

and

ben

efit

ch

ecks

, dir

ect

dep

osi

t an

d

Benefit Checks Summary Report

City of Edmonds

Pay Period: 999 - 01/16/2021 to 01/31/2021

Bank: usbank - US Bank

Direct Deposit Check Amt Name Payee # Date Check #

64603 02/05/2021 bpas BPAS 19,668.72 0.0064604 02/05/2021 epoa EPOA-1 POLICE 46.00 0.0064605 02/05/2021 jhan JOHN HANCOCK 408.56 0.0064606 02/05/2021 flex NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 3,413.72 0.0064607 02/05/2021 icma VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884 4,241.14 0.0064608 02/05/2021 afscme WSCCCE, AFSCME AFL-CIO 2,244.76 0.00

30,022.90 0.00

Bank: wire - US BANK

Direct Deposit Check Amt Name Payee # Date Check #

3155 02/05/2021 pens DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS 329,307.38 0.003157 02/05/2021 aflac AFLAC 5,780.30 0.003160 02/05/2021 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 38,509.11 0.003161 02/05/2021 us US BANK 119,354.38 0.003162 02/05/2021 mebt WTRISC FBO #N3177B1 119,397.88 0.003164 02/05/2021 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 5,836.19 0.003165 02/05/2021 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 1,064.50 0.00

619,249.74 0.00

649,272.64 0.00Grand Totals:

Page 1 of 12/3/2021

7.2.d

Packet Pg. 114

Att

ach

men

t: P

ayro

ll B

enef

its

02-0

5-21

(A

pp

rova

l of

clai

m, p

ayro

ll an

d b

enef

it c

hec

ks, d

irec

t d

epo

sit

and

City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/9/2021 Ordinance amending the Edmonds Community Development Code to add “Hotel” as a Permitted Use in the CW Zone Staff Lead: Patrick Doherty / Rob Chave Department: Economic Development Preparer: Patrick Doherty Background/History This code amendment was originally proposed by the Economic Development Commission. The Planning Board recommended this code amendment after a public hearing on December 11, 2019. City Council considered this item initially at its February 4, 2020 meeting and then again after a Public Hearing at its February 18, 2020 meeting. Three members of the public spoke at the Public Hearing: two in favor of the proposed amendment; one stating that there is already a hotel near the Waterfront. Minutes of both City Council meetings are attached here. The matter was scheduled on the March 3, 2020 City Council Action Agenda, but was postponed due to the late hour of that meeting. After that time COVID-19-related restrictions did not allow its return to City Council agendas this time. This issue was brought back to City Council on 2/2/21 for continued consideration. Council directed that it be forwarded to the 2/9/21 regular agenda for continued consideration and potential action. Staff Recommendation Staff recommend approval of the Ordinance as proposed. Alternative: Approve alternative Ordinance including amended definition of Hotel. Narrative Summary of Issue:

Hotels are an allowed use in the Downtown Business (BD) zoning districts. However, in the waterfront

district of Downtown Edmonds - the Commercial Waterfront (CW) zone district - hotels are not included

on its list of “permitted primary uses.” The CW zone encompasses all of the properties waterward of

the BNSF railroad south of Brackett’s Landing South park to the City’s southern limits (see attached

map). That being said, only limited opportunities may exist for hotel uses to be developed in the CW

zone, given that there are few, if any, viable, vacant properties. If a property owner or investors were to

respond to market demand for hotel rooms, it would likely be in the form of re-use of an existing

commercial building.

A review of the history of several of the extant commercial buildings along the waterfront indicates that

they have housed a succession of different uses over the decades, including such marked changes in use

8.1

Packet Pg. 115

as apartments to offices, offices to restaurants and back again, retail to office, etc. These changes have

occurred in response to changes in market demand over the decades and in response to changing

economic conditions. The one, otherwise standard, commercial use that has not been available in this

zone is lodging.

The Economic Development Commission (EDC) considered this issue over the past two to three years,

spurred by their interest in potentially capturing more economic impact from the thousands of visitors

who come to Edmonds. While day-trippers spend on average from $44 to $85 per person, per day

(depending on their activities) in our local economy, overnighters in Snohomish County spend up to

$179 per person, per night, a substantial increase in local economic impact (Dean Runyon Associates,

May 2019).

What’s more, in proposing this potential code amendment, the EDC believed that additional lodging

opportunities in and around greater Downtown Edmonds would also serve as a welcome complement to

the important arts, culture, entertainment and culinary scene.

See attached memo from EDC Chair supporting this proposal.

For these reasons, the EDC proposed consideration of adding “hotel” to the listed of “primary permitted

uses” in the CW zone.

It should be noted that since this matter was first considered, the COVID-19 crisis has up-ended the

local, national and global economies and substantially impacted the financial viability of traditional

mainstays of our local economy, including retail, office-based and other establishments. Many business

and property owners are facing an uncertain future with their traditional business models. Office-

building owners have been left wondering if pre-existing and/or traditional tenants will return once the

pandemic has receded, given the current work-at-home environment. It is quite possible that previously

well-occupied office buildings may see long-lasting vacancies. Such property owners may start to seek

and consider any possible alternative uses that could be more financially viable. Re-use of such

buildings for lodging should be an available option.

Proposal: For these reasons, and in an effort to expand the opportunities for developing potential lodging establishments in and around Downtown Edmonds, the Administration forwards the EDC proposal to consider adding “hotel” to the listed of “primary permitted uses” in the CW zone. The current version of the CW zone is attached. Generally, the City’s zoning code provides for hotels in commercial zones, and includes this definition:

21.40.060 Hotel. Hotel means any building containing five or more separately occupied rooms that are rented out for sleeping purposes. A central kitchen and dining room and interior accessory shops and services catering to the general public can be provided. Not included are institutions housing persons under legal restraint or requiring medical attention or care. (See also, Motel.)

The current proposal can be accomplished by adding hotels to the list of Permitted Primary Uses in Chapter 16.55.010 (CW zone). Staff does not recommend adding 'motel' as a permitted use since the purposes of the CW zone are focused on public access and pedestrian use in the waterfront area, and the definition of a motel is more focused on supporting vehicle use and access.

8.1

Packet Pg. 116

This potential amendment is consistent with the Shoreline Master Program, which allows this type of use in the Urban Mixed Use shoreline environments. The City Council had some discussion regarding parking during its review on 2/4/20 and again on 2/2/21. Briefly, the standard for all commercial uses in the downtown area is as follows:

“All new buildings or additions in the downtown business area shall provide parking at a flat rate of one parking stall for every 500 sq. ft. of gross floor area of building. If it is a mixed use or residential building, the portions of the building used exclusively for residential uses shall only be required to provide parking at one stall per dwelling unit. For purposes of this chapter, “residential uses” shall refer to lobbies, stairwells, elevators, storage areas and other similar features.” [ECDC 17.50.010.C]

If the Council is concerned that the normal downtown commercial parking rate is insufficient for hotels, the Council could instead specify that hotels use the residential parking rate of “one stall per {dwelling} unit”. This could be accomplished by amending the proposed ordinance to permit hotels as:

“Hotels that include parking at one stall for every unit” Another issue that was raised last year and again on 2/2/21 was whether the existing definition of Hotel in ECC at 21.40.060 should be amended. The current definition reads as follows: 21.40.060. Hotel means any building containing five or more separately occupied rooms that are rented out for sleeping purposes. A central kitchen and dining room and interior accessory shops and services catering to the general public can be provided. Not included are institutions housing persons under legal restraint or requiring medical attention or care. (See also, Motel.) While admittedly outdated, City staff have not encountered any difficulty in applying this definition to proposed projects in the past. No other use has been construed to meet this definition (such as apartments, boarding houses, half-way houses, etc.), and in fact those other uses have their own definitions. If City Council believes an amended definition of Hotel would be an appropriate companion to consideration and approval of the subject request to add Hotels as a permitted use in the CW zone, here is a proposed alternative: 21.40.060. Hotel means a facility offering transient lodging accommodations on a daily or weekly basis to the general public and which may provide additional services, such as restaurants, meeting rooms, and recreation facilities. (See also, Motel). An "Alternative" Ordinance and Attachment is attached here for this purpose. In summary, the Administration believes it is incumbent upon the City to provide a fertile platform for

robust economic opportunity within our local business community - such as opportunities to pivot from

traditional business models to keep businesses and property owners viable in the new economic

realities we will be facing. The potential of a mostly vacant office building at the Waterfront does not

serve our community’s nor nearby businesses’ best interests. If market conditions warranted re-use of

such a building as a hotel, the Administration believes such an opportunity should be available, as it is

elsewhere in Downtown Edmonds.

8.1

Packet Pg. 117

Attachments: Exhibit 1 includes a draft ordinance that would implement the Planning Board’s recommendation to add “Hotels” to the permitted uses in the CW zone. Exhibit 2 contains the existing CW Zone language (ECDC 16.55) showing the proposed change allowing hotel uses. Exhibit 3 contains the minutes of the Planning Board discussion and public hearing. Exhibit 4 contains the EDC Memo to the Planning Board asking that lodging be allowed in the CW Zone. Exhibit 5 is a map of the CW zone. Exhibit 6 is a summary of responses to recent questions raised. Exhibit 7 contains the 2/4/20 City Council minutes. Exhibit 8 contains the 2/18/20 City Council minutes. Exhibit 9 contains an "Alternative" Ordinance that would include amending ECC 21.40.060, definition of Hotel. Attachments: Exhibit 1: 2020-02-13 Ordinance adopting revised CW zone Exhibit 2: Edmonds CW 16.55 with Hotels Exhibit 5: Zoning Map Exhibit 3: Planning Board minutes - Hotels in CW Exhibit 7 - City Council 2-4-20 minutes Exhibit 8 - City Council 2-18-20 minutes Exhibit 6: Summary of Responses to Recent Councilmember Questions Exhibit 4: EDC Memo to Planning Board Exhibit 9: 2021-02-09 Ordinance adopting revised CW zone-ALTERNATIVE

8.1

Packet Pg. 118

ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 16.55 TO ALLOW HOTELS WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL WATERFRONT (CW) ZONE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

WHEREAS, the City’s zoning code generally provides for hotels and motels in

commercial zones; and

WHEREAS, this amendment allows only hotels, but not motels, in the CW zone; and

WHEREAS, this amendment is consistent with the Shoreline Master Program, which

allows this type of use in the Urban Mixed Use shoreline environments; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board recommended this code amendment after a public

hearing on December 11, 2019; and

WHEREAS, this code amendment was originally requested by the Economic

Development Commission; NOW THEREFORE

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN

AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Chapter 16.55 of the Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby

amended to read as set forth in Attachment A hereto, which is incorporated herein by this

reference as if set forth in full (new text shown in underline; deleted text shown in strike

through).

Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this

ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of

the remaining portions of this ordinance.

8.1.a

Packet Pg. 119

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 1

: 20

20-0

2-13

Ord

inan

ce a

do

pti

ng

rev

ised

CW

zo

ne

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a P

erm

itte

d U

se in

th

e

Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically

delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5)

days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title.

APPROVED: MAYOR MIKE NELSON

ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO.

8.1.a

Packet Pg. 120

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 1

: 20

20-0

2-13

Ord

inan

ce a

do

pti

ng

rev

ised

CW

zo

ne

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a P

erm

itte

d U

se in

th

e

3

SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________

of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ____ day of ___________, 2020, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 16.55 TO ALLOW HOTELS WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL WATERFRONT (CW) ZONE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.

DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2020.

CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY

8.1.a

Packet Pg. 121

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 1

: 20

20-0

2-13

Ord

inan

ce a

do

pti

ng

rev

ised

CW

zo

ne

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a P

erm

itte

d U

se in

th

e

Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code Chapter 16.55 CW – COMMERCIAL WATERFRONT

Page 1/2

The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4161, passed October 15, 2019.

Chapter 16.55

CW – COMMERCIAL WATERFRONT

Sections: 16.55.000 Purposes. 16.55.010 Uses. 16.55.020 Site development standards. 16.55.030 Operating restrictions.

16.55.000 Purposes. The CW zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC:

A. To reserve areas for water-dependent and water-related uses and for uses which will attract pedestrians to the waterfront;

B. To protect and enhance the natural features of the waterfront, and encourage public use of the waterfront;

C. To ensure physical and visual access to the waterfront for the public.

16.55.010 Uses. A. Permitted Primary Uses.

1. Marine-oriented services;

2. Retail uses which are either marine-oriented or pedestrian-oriented, excluding drive-in businesses;

3. Petroleum products storage and distribution;

4. Offices, above the ground floor, excluding medical, dental and veterinary clinics;

5. Local public facilities with marine-oriented services or recreation;

6. Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070.;

7. Hotels.

B. Permitted Secondary Uses.

1. Off-street parking and loading in connection with a permitted use.

C. Secondary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit.

1. Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC;

2. Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070. [Ord. 3353 § 6, 2001; Ord. 2366 § 9, 1983; Ord. 2307, 1982; Ord. 2283 § 6, 1982].

8.1.b

Packet Pg. 122

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 2

: E

dm

on

ds

CW

16.

55 w

ith

Ho

tels

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a P

erm

itte

d U

se in

th

e C

W Z

on

e)

Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code Chapter 16.55 CW – COMMERCIAL WATERFRONT

Page 2/2

The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4161, passed October 15, 2019.

16.55.020 Site development standards. A. Table.

Minimum Lot Area

Minimum Lot

Width

Minimum1

Setbacks Maximum

Height Maximum Coverage

CW None None 15′ landward of bulkheads for buildings; 60′ landward of bulkheads for parking

30′2 None

1 Fifteen feet from lot lines adjacent to R zoned property.

2 Tanks which are part of a petroleum products storage and distribution facility are allowed to be 48 feet in height.

B. Signs, Parking and Design Review. See Chapters 17.50, 20.10 and 20.60 ECDC.

C. Satellite Television Antennas. Satellite television antennas shall be regulated as set forth in ECDC 16.20.050 and reviewed by the architectural design board. [Ord. 2526 § 7, 1985].

16.55.030 Operating restrictions. A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building except for:


2. Sales, storage, repair and limited building of boats;

3. Public parks;

4. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC;

5. Motorized and nonmotorized mobile vending units meeting the criteria of Chapter 4.12 ECC.

B. Nuisances. All uses shall comply with Chapter 17.60 ECDC, Performance Standards. [Ord. 3902 § 4, 2012; Ord. 3320 § 4, 2000].

8.1.b

Packet Pg. 123

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 2

: E

dm

on

ds

CW

16.

55 w

ith

Ho

tels

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a P

erm

itte

d U

se in

th

e C

W Z

on

e)

Zoning Map

8.1.c

Packet Pg. 124

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 5

: Z

on

ing

Map

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a P

erm

itte

d U

se in

th

e C

W Z

on

e)

APPROVED Planning Board Minutes

December 11, 2019 Page 3

Board Member Pence suggested there is a way to get the public engagement program right from the beginning of a project so

that the situation doesn’t escalate later in the process. However, that is a topic for a different meeting.

Board Member Monroe asked why the additional language related to existing, developed sites was added to Subsection C

instead of another subsection. For example, the language might fit better in Subsection B. Mr. Clugston responded that

Subsection C is application related, and staff felt that a little bit more explanation was warranted.

BOARD MEMBER MONROE MOVED THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS (AMD20190005) BE

FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. BOARD MEMBER

PENCE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

PUBLIC HEARING ON CODE AMENDMENT ALLOWING LODGING USES IN THE CW ZONE (FILE NO.

AMD20190006)

Mr. Chave recalled that this item was also introduced to the Planning Board on November 13 th by Patrick Doherty, the City’s

Economic Development Director. He reviewed that the Economic Development Commission (EDC) has requested an

amendment TO the City’s zoning code to allow lodging-type uses in the Commercial Waterfront (CW) zone. As noted by

the EDC, there are very limited areas for hotels to locate in the downtown waterfront area at this time. The amendment is

intended to promote the economic well-being of the City by expanding these opportunities.

Mr. Chave advised that the EDC’s request could be addressed by adding “hotels” to the list of “Permitted Primary Uses” in

ECDC 16.55.010. At this time, staff is not recommending adding “motel” as a permitted use since the purposes of the CW

zone are focused on public access and pedestrian use in the waterfront area and the definition of a “motel” is more focused on

supporting vehicle use and access.

Chair Cheung opened the hearing, but no members of the public were present.

Board Member Monroe asked if the amendment would change the height or parking requirements, and Mr. Chave answered

no. The amendment would simply allow a “hotel” as a permitted use. He pointed out that the Shoreline Master Program

(SMP) already envisions hotel uses on the waterfront, so the amendment would actually bring the zoning code into

compliance with what the SMP envisions. Board Member Monroe voiced support for the proposed amendment.

Student Representative Bryan said he also supports the proposed amendment and likes the idea of having more hotel

accommodations on the waterfront. He noted that the hotels would be within walking distance of downtown Edmonds, as

well. Expanding opportunities for hotel uses could bring more people to Edmonds, adding to the local economy.

Board Member Pence said he supports the idea behind the proposed amendment. However, his recollection is that the SMP

requires water-related uses within 200 feet of the shoreline, and a hotel would not be considered a water-related use. Mr.

Chave explained that the CW zone is located within an area that is designated as Urban Mixed Use in the SMP, and lodging-

type uses are allowed even if they are not water-related.

Chair Cheung asked staff to share any arguments against the proposed amendment. Mr. Chave pointed out that it is pretty

common for waterfront towns to have lodging in and around the waterfront area. At this point, Edmonds is unusual in that

the use is not currently allowed.

Vice Chair Robles said he supports the concept, but it might end up being too good of an idea. There are at least five existing

buildings along the waterfront that would be fantastic locations for hotels. Once the use is allowed, it would be difficult to

stop if it proliferates. He voiced concern that the proposed amendment is a haphazard approach, and he would rather look at

the entire CW zone as a whole and come up with an overall plan similar to what was done with the Westgate and Highway 99

areas. The waterfront property is unique and there is limited land on the west side of the railroad tracks. It is possibly the

most coveted piece of real estate in the State of Washington. Property owners could benefit tremendously from the

amendment, which could dramatically increase property values based on the higher use allowed. Perhaps there should be

some limits placed on the use, or at least a filter so they can get the good ideas and have an opportunity to reject bad ideas.

He summarized that the waterfront area is a public amenity (a park) that belongs to the citizens of Edmonds.

8.1.d

Packet Pg. 125

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 3

: P

lan

nin

g B

oar

d m

inu

tes

- H

ote

ls in

CW

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a P

erm

itte

d U

se in

th

e C

W Z

on

e)

chave

Line



Mr. Chave emphasized that the proposed amendment would not allow a park area to be redeveloped into a hotel. The park

spaces are zoned Open Space (OS). The amendment would be limited to the properties zoned CW, and there aren’t very

many. A lot of the properties that Vice Chair Robles is concerned about are not zoned in a way that allows hotel

development, and they are publicly owned. Therefore, the danger is extremely limited.

Board Member Monroe asked if Vice Chair Robles is concerned that existing apartment buildings would be replaced with

hotels. Vice Chair Robles said he is more concerned about properties where single-family homes are currently located.

Board Member Monroe agreed that these homes are great places for people to live, but they are currently underutilized

properties. He said he would love to have a place for friends and family to stay in hotels close by.

Chair Cheung said he can understand that people might be concerned that allowing hotel uses in the CW zone might result in

additional traffic impacts, less public access to the waterfront, etc. However, providing additional lodging opportunities

would be a nice addition that benefits the local businesses. It is a great location in that employees would be able to get to

work via the Sounder Train. Mr. Chave pointed out that the existing office buildings in the CW zone do not provide public

amenities. He would argue that a hotel use would encourage more public access and amenities.

BOARD MEMBER MONROE MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT (FILE

NO. AMD20190006) TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. BOARD

MEMBER CRANK SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA

Chair Cheung reminded the Board that the December 25th meeting was cancelled. The next meeting will be January 8th, and

the agenda will include an update on the Housing Commission’s work. The January 22nd meeting agenda will include a

quarterly report from the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department, the February 12th meeting agenda will include

an update on the Climate Goals Project, and the February 26th meeting agenda will include updates on the Puget Sound

Regional Council (PSRC) Vision 2050 and Buildable Lands processes. He noted there are a number of items on the list of

“pending projects,” as well.

Board Member Pence asked if the Board holds an annual retreat, and if so, when will it be added to the extended agenda.

Chair Cheung answered that the 2020 Chair and Vice Chair will be responsible for scheduling and establishing an agenda for

the Board’s annual retreat. In the past, the retreat has been held earlier in the year, rather than later. Board Member Pence

said that would be his hope, given that there will be a new Mayor and several new City Council Members.

Chair Robles said he will be meeting with the Development Services Director soon to discuss the Board’s extended agenda,

including a possible date for a retreat. He invited the Board Members to provide feedback regarding the items they see as

priorities for 2020.

PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS

Chair Cheung thanked the Board Members for their hard work and participation as he chaired the meetings throughout 2019.

PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS

Board Member Monroe thanked Chair Cheung for doing such a great job of setting the Board’s agendas and leading the

meetings. He made the meetings fun to attend, and the Board got a lot of business done, as well.

Student Representative Bryan referred to Vice Chair Robles earlier comment that allowing lodging uses in the CW zone

might be too good. He recalled the Board’s earlier discussions with the Architectural Design Board (ADB) about their desire

to be involved earlier in the permit process. He suggested that perhaps it would be possible for the ADB to provide feedback

to help weed out the bad ideas, like too many hotels ruining the waterfront. Vice Chair Robles emphasized that the Board

doesn’t have that power. The Board’s job is to make recommendations, and it is up to the City Council to make the final

8.1.d

Packet Pg. 126

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 3

: P

lan

nin

g B

oar

d m

inu

tes

- H

ote

ls in

CW

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a P

erm

itte

d U

se in

th

e C

W Z

on

e)

chave

Line



decision. The optimum approach is for the Board to populate the record to the maximum extent possible so the City Council

has adequate information to fully understand the public’s wishes.

Student Representative Bryan asked if it would be possible for the ADB to have the power to review projects and deny those

that do not fit in with the City’s vision. Mr. Chave explained that, depending on where a project is located, the ADB can

make recommendations or approve design, but it cannot say whether or not a use is appropriate. The uses allowed are set by

the zoning code. Adding “hotels” as an allowed use in the CW zone is essentially saying that type of use is fine in the zone,

period. The ADB can rule on whether the design is adequate for the location, but it cannot rule on whether or not the use is

appropriate.

ADJOURNMENT

The Board meeting was adjourned at 7:36 p.m.

8.1.d

Packet Pg. 127

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 3

: P

lan

nin

g B

oar

d m

inu

tes

- H

ote

ls in

CW

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a P

erm

itte

d U

se in

th

e C

W Z

on

e)


November 13, 2019 Page 2

POTENTIAL CODE AMENDMENTS ALLOWING LODGING USES IN THE COMMERCIAL WATERFRONT (CW) ZONE (File No. AMD20190006 Mr. Doherty advised that the Economic Development Commission (EDC) is interested in ways to enhance the economic vitality of the City, and one potential option is to encourage greater lodging opportunities in the City center to be adjunct to the attractions (events, activities, restaurants, performance venues, etc.) that already exist. He explained that, over the years, they have tried to entice hotel developers to the downtown and even paid for a hotel demand report a few years ago that quantified the demand for hotels. The report pointed out there are few opportunities to develop hotels in the downtown given the small site size and height limit. While there is potential for small, boutique hotels that are run by independent operators, the name brand hotels usually won’t invest in a market for anything less than 75 rooms, and there are no properties in the main downtown that could accommodate a hotel of that size. Mr. Doherty pointed out that the waterfront is another part of the greater downtown where there are opportunities to adaptively reuse existing office and residential buildings for hotel uses. In fact, he was approached a few years ago by a person who was interested in converting a waterfront office building to a lodging use, but he had to advise him that it was not allowed by code. The building was later purchased by someone else and is currently used as office space. Mr. Doherty said the EDC became excited about the notion of a waterfront hotel, and it was discovered that if a waterfront office building were converted to a hotel use, it would be the only beach front hotel in the Puget Sound area. It could become an attraction for Edmonds and improve the economic vitality of the entire downtown core. He explained that the EDC is requesting that the zoning code be amended to allow lodging as a permitted primary use in the Commercial Waterfront (CW) zone (ECDC 16.55.010). Mr. Chave pointed out that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Shoreline Master Program (SMP), which already allows lodging uses in the Urban Mixed Use shoreline environment. He also pointed out that the City’s code typically addresses hotels and motels together; but in this case, the amendment would apply to properties along the waterfront that are in close proximity to public walkways, parks, etc. Staff believes it would be more appropriate to limit lodging uses in the CW zone to hotels only. Mr. Chave suggested that, in addition to the proposed amendment to add “hotels” as a permitted primary use in the CW zone, it would also be appropriate to do minor updates to the definition of “hotel.” If the Board is willing to move the proposed amendment forward, it could be scheduled for a public hearing in December. Mr. Doherty explained that the overarching concept for the SMP is to have either marine-related or marine-dependent uses on the waterfront. If that is not possible, then there is a hierarchy of uses that can be considered, and hotels are higher on the list than offices. Office uses typically serve the same crowd every day, whereas a hotel would serve different people every day and would likely provide some public space, as well. In many cases, a hotel use would provide more opportunities for public enjoyment of the shoreline than an office use would. Board Member Monroe said he believes the proposed amendment is a great idea. He asked about the boundaries of the CW zone, and Mr. Chave said it includes all of the property along the waterfront except the ferry property, the port property east of the railroad tracks, and the parks. The Port property east of the railroad tracks is zoned General Commercial (CG) and the park and ferry properties are zoned Public (P). He summarized that it is a fairly narrow strip, but there are some significant properties that could be repurposed or redeveloped for lodging uses. Board Member Cloutier provided a zoning map to illustrate the extent of the CW zone, which includes part of the Port property, but not Harbor Square. Board Member Monroe asked about the parking requirement for hotel uses. He suggested this will be important information to provide at the hearing where it will likely be raised as a concern. Mr. Chave answered that the parking requirement is one space per room or unit. Board Member Monroe asked if employee parking is also required, and Mr. Chave answered no. Mr. Doherty observed that the average occupancy for a hotel is between 60% and 70%, and typically, 100% occupancy only occurs during special events. During these times, employees would end up parking on the street.

8.1.d

Packet Pg. 128

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 3

: P

lan

nin

g B

oar

d m

inu

tes

- H

ote

ls in

CW

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a P

erm

itte

d U

se in

th

e C

W Z

on

e)


November 13, 2019 Page 3

Board Member Rubenkonig asked how creative an applicant could be in meeting the parking requirement. Mr. Chave responded that not all parking must be provided on site. Development in the downtown is allowed to take advantage of parking elsewhere within the area to meet the parking requirement. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if other methods of transportation, such as Uber or Lyft, could be used by an applicant to meet at least part of the parking requirement. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that all new uses in existing buildings are considered to comply with the parking requirement. If an applicant is renovating an existing building on the waterfront for a hotel use, whatever parking is there would satisfy the parking requirement. Vice Chair Robles pointed out that there is no emergency access solution for properties on the west side if a train is blocking the track. He asked if there is something in the hotel laws that would prohibit a hotel from being placed on the west side of the tracks for safety reasons. Mr. Doherty said he does not know of any restrictions. He said he has spoken to a few hotel developers, as well as a hotel development broker, who were conceptually interested in property on the waterfront, and they didn’t seem to find a problem. In general, there is concern about noise and vibration from the trains going by, and he occasionally hears from the Harbor Inn that guests complain about it. This is something a developer would need to address as part of a project design. Vice Chair Robles asked if the proposed amendment would increase the value of properties in the CW zone. Mr. Doherty explained that, typically, the appraised value is based on the highest and best use of a property. There are no hotels in the area and office development is currently considered the highest and best use. He does not believe that the properties would be appraised higher because there are no large under-developed or undeveloped properties that would impact the value. Vice Chair Robles said he understand that the amendment is being proposed to attract and accommodate tourists to the downtown and waterfront. He asked if a waterfront hotel is considered the only way to accomplish this goal or if there are other options available such as short-term rentals that can absorb a lot of occupancy but do not require development. This would give local residents an opportunity to enjoy the economic benefits, too. Mr. Doherty said the Airbnb phenomenon is growing in Edmonds, as evidenced by the surge in business licenses and lodging taxes. This is largely because they do not have a lot of other options. However, short-term rentals are not always to everyone’s taste, and a hotel scenario is preferred by some. The proposed amendment would widen a very narrow door that a potential developer could walk through to provide more lodging in the downtown area. Vice Chair Robles suggested they open the scope of the discussion so that it is not based solely on the premise of bringing more people to the waterfront and downtown to take advantage of the fairs and events. Mr. Doherty responded that a lot of people use lodging in neighboring cities, and the goal is to recapture some of this market to improve the City’s economic vitality. PRESENTATION ON POTENTIAL REVISIONS TO UNIT LOT SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROCEDURE (File No. AMD20190005 Mr. Clugston reviewed that the unit lot subdivision process was adopted in 2017 and has been well received. Since that time, three projects have been approved and several others are in the works. Based on experience, staff has identified the need for a minor change to the application timing within the unit lot subdivision process to make the associated building permit review more efficient. He explained that the current code allows an applicant to apply for a unit lot subdivision concurrent with design review, concurrent with a building permit application, or after a building permit application is received. However, applying for the unit lot subdivision after the building permit application leads to inefficiencies. It requires additional staff time to create, change, update and re-review applications, and it also requires applicants to prepare new documents and pay additional fees. In order to streamline the process, Mr. Clugston said staff is recommending that unit lot subdivision applications no longer be accepted after building permits are submitted. As proposed, staff will know to process buildings permits as single-family residential developments rather than having to start the process as a commercial development and change further down the road when a unit lot subdivision application is submitted. The proposed amendment to ECDC 20.75.045 would alter just a few words to implement the change in process (See Exhibit 2).

8.1.d

Packet Pg. 129

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 3

: P

lan

nin

g B

oar

d m

inu

tes

- H

ote

ls in

CW

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a P

erm

itte

d U

se in

th

e C

W Z

on

e)

chave

Line

8.1.e

Packet Pg. 130

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 7

- C

ity

Co

un

cil 2

-4-2

0 m

inu

tes

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a P

erm

itte

d U

se in

th

e C

W Z

on

e)

8.1.e

Packet Pg. 131

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 7

- C

ity

Co

un

cil 2

-4-2

0 m

inu

tes

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a P

erm

itte

d U

se in

th

e C

W Z

on

e)

8.1.e

Packet Pg. 132

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 7

- C

ity

Co

un

cil 2

-4-2

0 m

inu

tes

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a P

erm

itte

d U

se in

th

e C

W Z

on

e)

8.1.e

Packet Pg. 133

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 7

- C

ity

Co

un

cil 2

-4-2

0 m

inu

tes

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a P

erm

itte

d U

se in

th

e C

W Z

on

e)

8.1.e

Packet Pg. 134

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 7

- C

ity

Co

un

cil 2

-4-2

0 m

inu

tes

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a P

erm

itte

d U

se in

th

e C

W Z

on

e)

8.1.e

Packet Pg. 135

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 7

- C

ity

Co

un

cil 2

-4-2

0 m

inu

tes

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a P

erm

itte

d U

se in

th

e C

W Z

on

e)

8.1.e

Packet Pg. 136

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 7

- C

ity

Co

un

cil 2

-4-2

0 m

inu

tes

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a P

erm

itte

d U

se in

th

e C

W Z

on

e)

8.1.e

Packet Pg. 137

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 7

- C

ity

Co

un

cil 2

-4-2

0 m

inu

tes

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a P

erm

itte

d U

se in

th

e C

W Z

on

e)

8.1.e

Packet Pg. 138

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 7

- C

ity

Co

un

cil 2

-4-2

0 m

inu

tes

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a P

erm

itte

d U

se in

th

e C

W Z

on

e)

8.1.e

Packet Pg. 139

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 7

- C

ity

Co

un

cil 2

-4-2

0 m

inu

tes

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a P

erm

itte

d U

se in

th

e C

W Z

on

e)

8.1.e

Packet Pg. 140

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 7

- C

ity

Co

un

cil 2

-4-2

0 m

inu

tes

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a P

erm

itte

d U

se in

th

e C

W Z

on

e)

8.1.e

Packet Pg. 141

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 7

- C

ity

Co

un

cil 2

-4-2

0 m

inu

tes

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a P

erm

itte

d U

se in

th

e C

W Z

on

e)

8.1.e

Packet Pg. 142

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 7

- C

ity

Co

un

cil 2

-4-2

0 m

inu

tes

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a P

erm

itte

d U

se in

th

e C

W Z

on

e)

8.1.e

Packet Pg. 143

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 7

- C

ity

Co

un

cil 2

-4-2

0 m

inu

tes

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a P

erm

itte

d U

se in

th

e C

W Z

on

e)

8.1.f

Packet Pg. 144

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 8

- C

ity

Co

un

cil 2

-18-

20 m

inu

tes

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a P

erm

itte

d U

se in

th

e C

W Z

on

e)

8.1.f

Packet Pg. 145

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 8

- C

ity

Co

un

cil 2

-18-

20 m

inu

tes

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a P

erm

itte

d U

se in

th

e C

W Z

on

e)

8.1.f

Packet Pg. 146

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 8

- C

ity

Co

un

cil 2

-18-

20 m

inu

tes

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a P

erm

itte

d U

se in

th

e C

W Z

on

e)

8.1.f

Packet Pg. 147

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 8

- C

ity

Co

un

cil 2

-18-

20 m

inu

tes

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a P

erm

itte

d U

se in

th

e C

W Z

on

e)

8.1.f

Packet Pg. 148

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 8

- C

ity

Co

un

cil 2

-18-

20 m

inu

tes

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a P

erm

itte

d U

se in

th

e C

W Z

on

e)

8.1.f

Packet Pg. 149

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 8

- C

ity

Co

un

cil 2

-18-

20 m

inu

tes

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a P

erm

itte

d U

se in

th

e C

W Z

on

e)

8.1.f

Packet Pg. 150

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 8

- C

ity

Co

un

cil 2

-18-

20 m

inu

tes

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a P

erm

itte

d U

se in

th

e C

W Z

on

e)

8.1.f

Packet Pg. 151

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 8

- C

ity

Co

un

cil 2

-18-

20 m

inu

tes

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a P

erm

itte

d U

se in

th

e C

W Z

on

e)

8.1.f

Packet Pg. 152

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 8

- C

ity

Co

un

cil 2

-18-

20 m

inu

tes

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a P

erm

itte

d U

se in

th

e C

W Z

on

e)

8.1.f

Packet Pg. 153

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 8

- C

ity

Co

un

cil 2

-18-

20 m

inu

tes

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a P

erm

itte

d U

se in

th

e C

W Z

on

e)

8.1.f

Packet Pg. 154

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 8

- C

ity

Co

un

cil 2

-18-

20 m

inu

tes

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a P

erm

itte

d U

se in

th

e C

W Z

on

e)

8.1.f

Packet Pg. 155

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 8

- C

ity

Co

un

cil 2

-18-

20 m

inu

tes

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a P

erm

itte

d U

se in

th

e C

W Z

on

e)

8.1.f

Packet Pg. 156

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 8

- C

ity

Co

un

cil 2

-18-

20 m

inu

tes

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a P

erm

itte

d U

se in

th

e C

W Z

on

e)

8.1.f

Packet Pg. 157

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 8

- C

ity

Co

un

cil 2

-18-

20 m

inu

tes

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a P

erm

itte

d U

se in

th

e C

W Z

on

e)

8.1.f

Packet Pg. 158

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 8

- C

ity

Co

un

cil 2

-18-

20 m

inu

tes

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a P

erm

itte

d U

se in

th

e C

W Z

on

e)

8.1.f

Packet Pg. 159

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 8

- C

ity

Co

un

cil 2

-18-

20 m

inu

tes

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a P

erm

itte

d U

se in

th

e C

W Z

on

e)

SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO RECENT COUNCILMEMBER QUESTIONS

1. Q: Should hotels be allowed in the CW zone only as a conditional use?

A: In the Edmonds City Code, “Conditional use means a use allowed in one or more zones as

defined by the zoning code but which, because of characteristics peculiar to such use, because of

size, hours of operation, technical processes or equipment, or because of the exact location with

reference to surroundings and existing improvements or demands upon public facilities, requires

a special permit in order to provide a particular degree of control to make such uses consistent

with and compatible with other existing or permissible uses in the same zone or zones.”

Since offices, restaurants, and other commercial uses are already allowed in the CW zone, it is

not clear that hotels would be out of character or have “peculiar characteristics” above and

beyond the other types of commercial uses allowed. In fact, some marine-related allowed in

the CW zone may arguably have greater impacts. For these reasons, it does not appear to be

necessary to subject hotel uses to the greater scrutiny, process and expense of a conditional use

process. In addition, the Planning Board did not raise the potential need for a conditional use to

accommodate this additional permitted use in the CW zone.

2. Q: Should the definition of “hotel” in ECC be updated?

A: The definition of “hotel” could certainly be updated, and we have considered doing that

sometime soon – perhaps bundled with other “clean-up” amendments. As to specific questions

raised regarding the existing definition: The current definition of hotel could allow for B&Bs,

which are a reasonable lodging type. Other uses, such as senior home or apartments, etc., are

already governed by their respective definitions, so there would be no confusion that they could

somehow be construed to be “hotel” uses.

3. Q: Would this proposal include motels?

A: No, motels are auto-oriented lodging establishments which we do not believe are compatible

with the downtown environment.

4. Q: Will sufficient parking be required for a hotel use?

A: Throughout Downtown Edmonds (in the BD zones) the parking requirement for all

commercial uses is 1 space for 500 square feet of gross building area. This includes hotel uses in

the Downtown Business (BD) zones. This uniform requirement is intended to allow our existing

building stock, including historic buildings, to be readily adaptable to a full range of commercial

uses over time and as market demand dictates. To require specific parking ratios for each

possible use could result in certain uses being unavailable for certain buildings, and/or could

even render certain buildings unadaptable or even obsolete. Wishing to promote a rich variety

of interchangeable commercial uses in Downtown Edmonds, the City has implemented this

standard parking ratio requirement and staff believes it should be continued in the CW zone for

hotel uses also. If the Council wishes to consider another option, we have included the option

of using the standard of 1 space per hotel room unit.

5. Q: Would hotel(s) in the CW zone be compatible with the City’s plans to complete the

waterfront walkway and otherwise provide physical and visual access to the waterfront?

A: Yes. Re-use of existing buildings for lodging would in no way impact the City’s efforts in this

8.1.g

Packet Pg. 160

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 6

: S

um

mar

y o

f R

esp

on

ses

to R

ecen

t C

ou

nci

lmem

ber

Qu

esti

on

s (

Ord

inan

ce a

men

din

g E

CD

C a

dd

ing

“H

ote

l” a

s a

Per

mit

ted

regard. What’s more, two factors may argue in favor of hotel uses as providing greater public

access to and enjoyment of the shoreline (a central tenet of the Shoreline Management Act)

than some private uses, such as office: the common inclusion of semipublic spaces and functions

in hotels (lobbies, cafés, bars), especially when fronting an amenity like a public beach, and the

larger and ever-changing daily population of users of a hotel.

6. Q: Would hotel(s) in the CW zone be required to observe the view corridor requirements of the

Shoreline Master Program (SMP)?

A: Yes. All new buildings in the CW zone, within the shoreline environment, would have to

observe all development standards of the SMP, including view corridors. However, given that

most, if not all, existing commercial buildings in the CW zone predate current SMP requirements

(most do not include view corridors, e.g.), it is unlikely that a property owners or developer

would demolish an existing building to accommodate a new structure, given that the result

would be a smaller new building. Re-use of an existing building as a hotel would not trigger view

corridor requirements.

8.1.g

Packet Pg. 161

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 6

: S

um

mar

y o

f R

esp

on

ses

to R

ecen

t C

ou

nci

lmem

ber

Qu

esti

on

s (

Ord

inan

ce a

men

din

g E

CD

C a

dd

ing

“H

ote

l” a

s a

Per

mit

ted

8.1.h

Packet Pg. 162

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 4

: E

DC

Mem

o t

o P

lan

nin

g B

oar

d (

Ord

inan

ce a

men

din

g E

CD

C a

dd

ing

“H

ote

l” a

s a

Per

mit

ted

Use

in t

he

CW

Zo

ne)

ALTERNATIVE

ORDINANCE NO. __________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,

WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 16.55 TO ALLOW

HOTELS WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL WATERFRONT (CW)

ZONE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING

AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

WHEREAS, the City’s zoning code generally provides for hotels and motels in

commercial zones; and

WHEREAS, this amendment allows only hotels, but not motels, in the CW zone; and

WHEREAS, this amendment would update the codified definition of hotel; and

WHEREAS, this amendment is consistent with the Shoreline Master Program, which

allows this type of use in the Urban Mixed Use shoreline environments; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board recommended this code amendment after a public

hearing on December 11, 2019; and

WHEREAS, this code amendment was originally requested by the Economic

Development Commission; NOW THEREFORE

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN

AS FOLLOWS:


amended to read as set forth in Attachment A hereto, which is incorporated herein by this


through).


amended to read as set forth in Amendment A hereto, which is incorporated herein by this


through).

8.1.i

Packet Pg. 163

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 9

: 20

21-0

2-09

Ord

inan

ce a

do

pti

ng

rev

ised

CW

zo

ne-

AL

TE

RN

AT

IVE

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a

Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this

ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of

the remaining portions of this ordinance.

Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically

delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5)

days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title.

APPROVED:

MAYOR MIKE NELSON

ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:


APPROVED AS TO FORM:

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:

BY

JEFF TARADAY

FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:

PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:

PUBLISHED:

EFFECTIVE DATE:

ORDINANCE NO.

8.1.i

Packet Pg. 164

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 9

: 20

21-0

2-09

Ord

inan

ce a

do

pti

ng

rev

ised

CW

zo

ne-

AL

TE

RN

AT

IVE

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a

3

SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________

of the City of Edmonds, Washington

On the ____ day of ___________, 2021, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed

Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting

of the title, provides as follows:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,

WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER

16.55 TO ALLOW HOTELS WITHIN THE

COMMERCIAL WATERFRONT (CW) ZONE;

PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN

EFFECTIVE DATE.

The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.

DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2021.


8.1.i

Packet Pg. 165

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 9

: 20

21-0

2-09

Ord

inan

ce a

do

pti

ng

rev

ised

CW

zo

ne-

AL

TE

RN

AT

IVE

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a

4

ATTACHMENT A

Chapter 16.55

CW – COMMERCIAL WATERFRONT

Sections:

16.55.000 Purposes.

16.55.010 Uses.

16.55.020 Site development standards.

16.55.030 Operating restrictions.

16.55.000 Purposes.

The CW zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes listed in Chapter

16.40 ECDC:

A. To reserve areas for water-dependent and water-related uses and for uses which will attract pedestrians

to the waterfront;

B. To protect and enhance the natural features of the waterfront, and encourage public use of the

waterfront;

C. To ensure physical and visual access to the waterfront for the public.

16.55.010 Uses.

A. Permitted Primary Uses.

1. Marine-oriented services;

2. Retail uses which are either marine-oriented or pedestrian-oriented, excluding drive-in businesses;


4. Offices, above the ground floor, excluding medical, dental and veterinary clinics;

5. Local public facilities with marine-oriented services or recreation;

6. Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan

subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070.;

7. Hotels.

B. Permitted Secondary Uses.

1. Off-street parking and loading in connection with a permitted use.

C. Secondary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit.

1. Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC;

2. Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC

17.100.070. [Ord. 3353 § 6, 2001; Ord. 2366 § 9, 1983; Ord. 2307, 1982; Ord. 2283 § 6, 1982].

8.1.i

Packet Pg. 166

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 9

: 20

21-0

2-09

Ord

inan

ce a

do

pti

ng

rev

ised

CW

zo

ne-

AL

TE

RN

AT

IVE

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a

5

16.55.020 Site development standards.

A. Table.

Minimum

Lot Area

Minimum

Lot

Width

Minimum1

Setbacks

Maximum

Height

Maximum

Coverage

CW None None 15′ landward of

bulkheads for

buildings; 60′

landward of

bulkheads for

parking

30′2 None

1 Fifteen feet from lot lines adjacent to R zoned property.

2 Tanks which are part of a petroleum products storage and distribution facility are

allowed to be 48 feet in height.

B. Signs, Parking and Design Review. See Chapters 17.50, 20.10 and 20.60 ECDC.

C. Satellite Television Antennas. Satellite television antennas shall be regulated as set forth in ECDC

16.20.050 and reviewed by the architectural design board. [Ord. 2526 § 7, 1985].

16.55.030 Operating restrictions.

A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building except

for:


2. Sales, storage, repair and limited building of boats;

3. Public parks;

4. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC;

5. Motorized and nonmotorized mobile vending units meeting the criteria of Chapter 4.12 ECC.

B. Nuisances. All uses shall comply with Chapter 17.60 ECDC, Performance Standards. [Ord. 3902 § 4,

2012; Ord. 3320 § 4, 2000].

Chapter 21.40

DEFINITIONS – “H” TERMS

21.40.060 Hotel.

Hotel means any building containing five or more separately occupied rooms that are rented out for

sleeping purposes. A central kitchen and dining room and interior accessory shops and services catering to

the general public can be provided. Not included are institutions housing persons under legal restraint or

requiring medical attention or care. a facility offering transient lodging accommodations on a daily or

weekly basis to the general public and which may provide additional services, such as restaurants, meeting

rooms, and recreation facilities. (See also, Motel.)

8.1.i

Packet Pg. 167

Att

ach

men

t: E

xhib

it 9

: 20

21-0

2-09

Ord

inan

ce a

do

pti

ng

rev

ised

CW

zo

ne-

AL

TE

RN

AT

IVE

(O

rdin

ance

am

end

ing

EC

DC

ad

din

g “

Ho

tel”

as

a

City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/9/2021 Overview of WCIA Annual Audit Staff Lead: Jessica Neill Hoyson Department: Human Resources Preparer: Jessica Neill Neill Hoyson Background/History The City of Edmonds is a member of the Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA) which is a pooling organization for purposes of insuring and addressing liability. Member organizations complete and audit annually with WCIA as part of their compact requirement. The 2020 audit covers the claim period 2015 - 2019. Staff Recommendation No action requested. For information only. Narrative See attached PowerPoint which will be reviewed during the committee meeting. Attachments: 2020 WCIA Audit Overview

9.1

Packet Pg. 168

WCIA 2020 Annual Audit For claims years 2015 - 2019

Overview of audit information

9.1.a

Packet Pg. 169

Att

ach

men

t: 2

020

WC

IA A

ud

it O

verv

iew

(O

verv

iew

of

WC

IA A

nn

ual

Au

dit

)

ITEMS FOR REVIEW• WCIA Overview • Stewardship Report• Coverage and coverage levels• 5 year Risk Profile• 2021 Assessment

9.1.a

Packet Pg. 170

Att

ach

men

t: 2

020

WC

IA A

ud

it O

verv

iew

(O

verv

iew

of

WC

IA A

nn

ual

Au

dit

)

WCIA Overview

• The Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA) is a municipal organization of Washington public entities that join together for the purpose of providing liability and property financial protection to its members.

• Formed in 1981, as the first liability risk pool in Washington State. WCIA has evolved from the original nine members to a financially strong liability and property pool of over 150 members, with one common goal; to aggressively manage members' financial risk.

• WCIA is fully funded by its members, who make annual assessments on a prospectively rated basis, as determined by an outside, independent actuary. The assessment covers loss, loss adjustment, reinsurance and other administrative expenses.

• An investment committee, using investment brokers, produces additional revenue by investment of WCIA’s assets in financial instruments which comply with all State guidelines.

• A Board of Directors governs WCIA, which is comprised of one designated representative from each member. The Board elects an Executive Committee and appoints a Treasurer to provide general policy direction for the organization. The WCIA Executive Director reports to the Executive Committee and is responsible for conducting the day to day operations of WCIA.

9.1.a

Packet Pg. 171

Att

ach

men

t: 2

020

WC

IA A

ud

it O

verv

iew

(O

verv

iew

of

WC

IA A

nn

ual

Au

dit

)

Stewardship Report (Edmonds use of discretionary services)

9.1.a

Packet Pg. 172

Att

ach

men

t: 2

020

WC

IA A

ud

it O

verv

iew

(O

verv

iew

of

WC

IA A

nn

ual

Au

dit

)

Comparison With Other Group Members

9.1.a

Packet Pg. 173

Att

ach

men

t: 2

020

WC

IA A

ud

it O

verv

iew

(O

verv

iew

of

WC

IA A

nn

ual

Au

dit

)

Coverage & Coverage Levels

9.1.a

Packet Pg. 174

Att

ach

men

t: 2

020

WC

IA A

ud

it O

verv

iew

(O

verv

iew

of

WC

IA A

nn

ual

Au

dit

)

It should be noted that WCIA has changed the replacement cost base for vehicles to $50,000 starting in 2021. Edmonds has reviewed and updated coverage for the fleet based on this.

9.1.a

Packet Pg. 175

Att

ach

men

t: 2

020

WC

IA A

ud

it O

verv

iew

(O

verv

iew

of

WC

IA A

nn

ual

Au

dit

)

9.1.a

Packet Pg. 176

Att

ach

men

t: 2

020

WC

IA A

ud

it O

verv

iew

(O

verv

iew

of

WC

IA A

nn

ual

Au

dit

)

9.1.a

Packet Pg. 177

Att

ach

men

t: 2

020

WC

IA A

ud

it O

verv

iew

(O

verv

iew

of

WC

IA A

nn

ual

Au

dit

)

9.1.a

Packet Pg. 178

Att

ach

men

t: 2

020

WC

IA A

ud

it O

verv

iew

(O

verv

iew

of

WC

IA A

nn

ual

Au

dit

)

9.1.a

Packet Pg. 179

Att

ach

men

t: 2

020

WC

IA A

ud

it O

verv

iew

(O

verv

iew

of

WC

IA A

nn

ual

Au

dit

)

9.1.a

Packet Pg. 180

Att

ach

men

t: 2

020

WC

IA A

ud

it O

verv

iew

(O

verv

iew

of

WC

IA A

nn

ual

Au

dit

)

5 Year Risk Profile 2015 - 2019

9.1.a

Packet Pg. 181

Att

ach

men

t: 2

020

WC

IA A

ud

it O

verv

iew

(O

verv

iew

of

WC

IA A

nn

ual

Au

dit

)

2021 Coverage Year Assessments

Total Assessment: $920,264

9.1.a

Packet Pg. 182

Att

ach

men

t: 2

020

WC

IA A

ud

it O

verv

iew

(O

verv

iew

of

WC

IA A

nn

ual

Au

dit

)

Questions?

9.1.a

Packet Pg. 183

Att

ach

men

t: 2

020

WC

IA A

ud

it O

verv

iew

(O

verv

iew

of

WC

IA A

nn

ual

Au

dit

)

agenda edmonds city council regular meeting - …

Documents