06/21/2011 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
June 21, 2011
At 6:30 p.m., Mayor Cooper announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding
potential litigation. He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 30 minutes
and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was
anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive
session were: Mayor Cooper, and Councilmembers Bernheim, Plunkett, Fraley- Monillas, Buckshnis,
Peterson, and Petso. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday and City Clerk Sandy Chase. The
executive session concluded at 6:59 p.m.
The regular City Council meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. by Mayor Cooper in the Council
Chambers, 250 5`s Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Cooper, Mayor
Strom Peterson, Council President
Steve Bernheim, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley- Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Peter Gibson, Student Representative
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director
Carl Nelson, CIO
Debi Humann, Human Resources Director
Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Rob English, City Engineer
Mike Clugston, Planner
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 7, 2011.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 21, 2011
Page 1
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #125807 THROUGH #125979 DATED JUNE 9, 2011
FOR $468,373.55, AND CLAIM CHECKS #125980 THROUGH #126142 DATED JUNE 16,
2011 FOR $416,828.44.
D. AUTHORIZATION TO SIGN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER
AGENCIES FOR DISPOSAL OF BIOSOLIDS FROM THEIR WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANTS.
E. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
WITH THE CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE TO DEVELOP CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS, SCOPE AND COSTS FOR PROJECTS
LISTED IN THE LAKE BALLINGER/MCALEER CREEK FORUM CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PLAN.
F. REPORT ON BIDS OPENED MAY 26, 2011 FOR THE 226TH ST. SW WALKWAY
PROJECT AND AWARD A CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $73,840.00 TO
NORTHEND EXCAVATING, INC.
G. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT #9 WITH
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS FOR THE INTERURBAN TRAIL PROJECT.
H. REPORT ON BIDS OPENED JUNE 2, 2011 FOR THE INTERURBAN TRAIL PROJECT,
AWARD A CONTRACT TO TRIMAXX CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF
$1,368,721.50 AND REAUTHORIZE $294,000 OUT OF REET 125 TO COMPLETE THE
PROJECT.
I. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH PERTEET ENGINEERING FOR THE INTERURBAN TRAIL
PROJECT.
J. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN (2) SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC
UTILITY DISTRICT (PUD) DOCUMENTS FOR THE INTERURBAN TRAIL PROJECT.
K. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH PITNEY
BOWES FOR POSTAGE METER EQUIPMENT.
L. SNOHOMISH REGIONAL DRUG & GANG TASK FORCE, 2011 -2012 INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT.
M. RESOLUTION NO. 1251 — TO REJECT ALL BIDS RECEIVED ON JUNE 7, 2011 FOR
THE LIFT STATION 2 REPLACEMENT PROJECT AND AUTHORIZATION TO
READVERTISE THE PROJECT.
3. CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OF THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO
APPROVE A REZONE FOR TWO PARCELS COMPRISING 25,237 SQUARE FEET (0.58
ACRES) FROM RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY RS -8 TO RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY
RM -1.5 AT 9511 AND 9513 EDMONDS WAY. (FILE: PLN -2011- 0005).
Mayor Cooper opened the closed record hearing and reviewed the procedures. He explained an open
record hearing had already been held before the Planning Board. Because this is a closed record hearing,
consideration will be limited to review of the record created before the Planning Board; only those who
participated in the Planning Board will have an opportunity to speak. Anyone speaking may not introduce
new facts that were not presented to the Planning Board. The City Council will act in a quasi judicial
capacity on this agenda item, acting as judges and not legislators. In order to ensure the hearing is fair in
form and appearance, Councilmembers will be asked to make certain disclosures in response to a series of
questions:
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 21, 2011
Page 2
• Do any Councilmembers have an interest in this property or issue? Councilmembers all
responded no.
• Do any Councilmembers stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of
this hearing? Councilmembers all responded no.
• Can you hear and consider this in a fair and objective manner? Councilmembers all responded
yes.
• Has any member of the Council engaged in communication outside the hearing with opponents or
proponents on this issue to be heard? Councilmembers all responded no.
Mayor Cooper asked whether any Councilmember planned to recuse themselves from participation on
this issue? Councilmember Petso advised she did not intend to recuse herself but wanted the City
Attorney to respond to a question she asked him yesterday. City Attorney Jeff Taraday relayed
Councilmember Petso's Appearance of Fairness question regarding whether she could participate in this
hearing in light of the fact that she participated in a similar rezone application hearing in 2002 that
affected this same property. He advised her that she can participate in this hearing because the application
today is different and the primary difference is there is a different underlying Comprehensive Plan
designation for this property than existed in 2002. One of the most significant aspects of hearing a rezone
application like this is analyzing the rezone application in light of the Comprehensive Plan designation for
the property. Because the Comprehensive Plan designation for the property is different than it was in
2002, there is a significantly different set of facts. He advised Councilmember Petso that in his opinion it
was not problematic for her to participate in this proceeding. He noted Councilmember Plunkett may have
also participated in the 2002 hearing. He asked audience members if there were any objections to
Councilmembers Petso's and /or Plunkett's participation. There no objections voiced.
Mayor Cooper asked whether there were any objections to his participation as chair or any other
Councilmembers' participation? There were no objections voiced.
Planner Mike Clugston advised the agenda memo contained four exhibits:
Exhibit l: May 11, 2011 Planning Board minutes of the public hearing
Exhibit 2: Staff Report for PLN- 2011 -0005
Exhibit 3: Parties of Record at the Planning Board public hearing
Exhibit 4: Presentation given at the Planning Board public hearing
Mr. Clugston displayed an aerial photograph of the site, identifying the location at the intersection of
Edmonds Way, 95`'' Place West and 2281" Street. The parcels are currently zoned RS8, single family
residential 8,000 square foot minimum lot size. That zoning designation is inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan designation for the site which was changed in 2005 to Edmonds Way Corridor. The
applicant has proposed to rezone the two parcels to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
designation.
He reviewed the six criteria to approve a rezone:
• Agreement with the Comprehensive Plan
• Agreement with the zoning ordinance
• Whether it impacts the surrounding area
• Changes in the general area of the rezone
• Suitability of the proposed site
• Relative value of the action
The Planning Board reviewed the six criteria and unanimously concluded all six criteria were met. The
Comprehensive Plan designation, Edmonds Way Corridor, is not compatible with the single family
zoning. Zones that would be compatible include residential multi - family as the applicant has proposed as
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 21, 2011
Page 3
well as Business Commercial, Business Plan and Neighborhood Business. The applicant has indicated
residential multi - family would be more appropriate for the site given its location adjacent to single family.
Mr. Clugston reviewed the intent of the RM zoning to preserve and regulate areas for a variety of housing
types and a greater range of densities than are available in the single family residential zone while still
maintaining the residential environment and to provide for those additional uses that compliment and are
compatible with multiple residential areas. The applicant has not indicated what would be developed on
the site; the RM zone generally envisions multi - family dwelling units. With a Conditional Use Permit,
other uses would be allowed such as a retirement home, group home, and office. When a development
application is submitted, it will be reviewed against all applicable codes including the uses in the RM
zone.
Mr. Clugston explained there is an existing Community Transit stop along the site's southern boundary
on Edmonds Way and it is located east of the Westgate area. Multi - family development in that area is
encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan and makes sense because it is a walkable area with existing
utilities and access.
With regard to changes, there have been changes along SR -104 in the recent past. As a result of a request
in 2007, the two parcels west of the proposed rezone were rezoned on the basis of the 2005
Comprehensive Plan update. Westgate Chapel also recently expanded their parking lot. With regard to
whether the parcel is economically suitable for the change, he indicated it does appear to be suitable due
to good transit service, nearby pedestrian amenities and the Westgate shopping area.
With regard to value, there would likely be increased value to the property owner via additional dwelling
units and the City's GMA responsibilities indicate changes in zoning in this area are preferred because
infrastructure and services already exist in the area.
Mr. Clugston summarized the Planning Board unanimously recommended approval of the rezone request.
Councilmember Petso referred to the surrounding area criteria, observing the property immediately across
the street to the north is single family residential. She asked if that would suggest minimum density multi-
family zoning rather than maximum density multi - family zoning. Mr. Clugston responded that would be
an option; there are multiple zoning options based on the Comprehensive Plan designation.
Councilmember Petso asked if the Council had that option given the applicant applied for the maximum
density multi - family zoning. Mr. Clugston suggested the Council would need to deny the proposed rezone
request and ask the applicant to return with a lower density rezone request. Councilmember Petso asked
whether the Council could continue the hearing to a future meeting. Because this is a closed record review
of a Planning Board recommendation, Mr. Taraday advised the Council to take action on this proposal
and if denied, the applicant would have the choice to submit a proposal for a lower density multi - family
zoning. He pointed out the bulk standards of all the multi - family zones are identical; the way they differ is
the number of allowed units.
Councilmember Petso observed access to the site would be from 22$1h, the residential street. Mr. Clugston
answered that was the probable location. There is an existing bus stop on SR -104 to the south. The
applicant will need to work with WSDOT to determine whether access on the south side would be
allowed. He envisioned access would be to the north, from 22$1". Councilmember Petso noted the
Comprehensive Plan asks for access to be from SR -104, not the residential neighborhood. Mr. Clugston
answered that is generally correct but also recognizes in some instances access can occur from residential
streets if there is no other way to provide access.
Councilmember Petso asked if the site is served by a park. Mr. Clugston answered Westgate Elementary
is approximately 1/4 mile away to the north. He was unsure whether it was served by a park.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 21, 2011
Page 4
Applicant
John Bissell, JBA Consultants, representing the applicant and property owner, explained the
Comprehensive Plan designates this site for a number of possible zones; the current zoning is not
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. According to GMA, the Comprehensive Plan and zoning must
be consistent. He explained RM 1.5 is the multi - family zoning used on the Edmonds Way Corridor. When
SR -104 enters Snohomish County, there is a similar multi- family zoning. Their request is for the zone
consistent with the other RM zone used in the area. Those zones are also adjacent to single family
residential RS 8 zones; therefore, their proposal is not different than the remainder of the corridor.
Mr. Bissell explained the applicant did not request the BC zone although the map shows a BC zone one
lot away to the west and a commercial zone across the street to the east. Although the commercial zone
appears compliable on the map, on the ground directly across the street from the commercial zone is
Westgate Chapel's auxiliary parking lot in the RS 8 zone. He summarized they chose multi - family instead
of commercial because it seemed a more compatible use and the multi- family residential they chose is
consistent with multi - family residential across the street and throughout the corridor.
Mr. Bissell agreed with Mr. Clugston's review of the rezone criteria. In response to Councilmember
Petso's questions, he explained it was his understanding that although this is a quasi judicial hearing, a
rezone is still a legislative issue. A rezone that originates as an application requires a closed record review
compared to a rezone that is initiated by the City which is purely a legislative issue. Because it is a rezone
rather than a variance that is mandated to have only one open record hearing, he assumed there would be
an option to remand to the Planning Board in addition to approval/denial. The information they submitted
to the Planning Board shows the application complies with all the criteria and brings the zoning of the
parcels into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. He preferred the application be approved but that
remand could be an option.
With regard to bulk standards, Mr. Bissell stated in most jurisdictions a higher density residential zoning
also includes an increase in height. That is not the case in Edmonds; the height remains the same. In
Edmonds the difference with a higher density multi - family zoning is the units get smaller and therefore
the visual and bulk impact is approximately the same. The Planning Board asked if more units would
create more traffic. The ITE manual indicates decreasing the size of units also decreases the average trip
generation as there are typically fewer residents per unit. Because Edmonds bulk standards do not change
with increased density and the unit sizes are decreased, the impact to the adjacent land is negligible.
Therefore there is not a substantial difference in the impact between RM 3, RM 2.4 and RM 1.5.
With regard to access location, Mr. Bissell explained a sight distance study has not been conducted. The
Traffic Engineer believes there is probably adequate sight distance at the western end of the property if
access was needed on SR -104. It is possible WSDOT will not grant an access permit for that location
because it is not a great location for access. If access is not possible on SR -104, access will be taken on
the adjacent residential street.
Mr. Bissell asked for clarification regarding Councilmember Petso's question regarding whether the site
is served by a park. Councilmember Petso noted that discussion was not in the record. Mr. Bissell advised
the SEPA Checklist covers park locations but it was not specifically discussed by the Planning Board.
Mayor Cooper opened the opportunity for comment from parties of record.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, recalled he suggested at the Planning Board public hearing that they approve
the proposed rezone because the area is fairly dense, accomplishes smaller units, and is in close proximity
to shopping and transit. For an area that has never developed due to the odd location, he could not have
envisioned a better proposal.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 21, 2011
Page 5
Councilmember Plunkett asked if this item was quasi judicial and legislative as Mr. Bissell suggested.
Mr. Taraday answered it was a hybrid in that any rezone must occur via ordinance and therefore has a
legislative component. However, because it is a site specific rezone it is quasi judicial. The issue of
remand is addressed by the City's code. He asked whether the applicant was willing to waive in writing
the requirement for a decision within the time period set forward in the RCW; if so, remand is an option.
If the applicant was willing to provide a written waiver, it would be possible to continue the hearing and
defer a final decision until the written waiver was provided and the City Council could remand to the
Planning Board. Mr. Bissell answered if the Council is not in agreement and decides the application is not
what the Council wants, they prefer a remand over denial and will provide a written waiver.
Mayor Cooper asked whether any audience member wished to object to any information provided on the
basis it was new information not in the original record. There were no objections voiced.
Mayor Cooper closed the hearing and remanded to Council for deliberation.
Councilmember Petso commented on the applicant's observation that if 16 units were approved, it would
not necessarily generate twice as much traffic as 8 units. She was confident on this site the traffic would
end up on the residential street in front of the existing single family residential. For that reason maximum
multi- family residential zoning was not appropriate. She agreed with multi- family zoning due to the
availability of transit but could not approve maximum multi - family density under criteria 3 and 5 for this
site. This site is different than other properties on SR -104 because the other sites access from SR -104 and
not a neighborhood street.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO ACCEPT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION.
Councilmember Buckshnis appreciated Councilmember Petso's concerns but felt more density was
appropriate in areas served by transit to attract younger adults and seniors or others interested in smaller,
more affordable housing. She agreed a traffic study would be important.
Council President Peterson echoed Councilmember Buckshnis' comments, pointing out there is a transit
stop in front of this property. Smaller units would attract younger people and seniors who are more likely
to take advantage of transit. That would mitigate traffic concerns as well as address goals in the
Comprehensive Plan related to sustainability. Encouraging people to use public transportation is great for
the neighborhood and the environment.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to ECDC 20.40 that provides 5 tests that must be met for an applicant
to be adjudicated as a determinant of non - significance. Neither young people nor sustainability is
addressed by those five standards. The Council has been told the access will probably be from the
residential street. Because the request is for maximum density, it fails to meet the surrounding area test
and the Comprehensive Plan test due to access from a residential street. The location of the property
adjacent to single family residential suggests maximum density zoning fails to meet the standards. He
preferred to remand so the applicant could propose a density that would meet the tests.
MOTION CARRIED (4 -2), COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND PLUNKETT VOTING NO.
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Roy Chapel, Edmonds, requested the Council's support of the Complete Streets ordinance. The
ordinance describes well where Edmonds wants to go as a city and does a great deal for Edmonds. First
and foremost the Complete Streets ordinance is about safety, safety for pedestrians, runners, bicyclists,
and children traveling to and from school and other destinations. Second, the ordinance helps Edmonds
citizens stay fit; walking, running and biking to schools, stores and work become more reasonable if
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 21, 2011
Page 6
people perceive it can be done safely. Third, parking lots, streets and ferries are less congested and fourth,
the community's carbon footprint is reduced.
Warren Bare, Everett, recalled there were far fewer cars when he rode his bike as a child and stated he
rode his bike to tonight's meeting. The Complete Streets ordinance will increase safety and promote
healthy non - motorized use of public streets. It will also make Edmonds, the gem of Snohomish County, a
leader in this endeavor and solidify chances of receiving future funding associated with Complete Streets
Bill 1071 that was recently passed by the legislature and will become a new section of RCW 47.04.
Although the proposed ordinance has more limitations than he has seen in other Complete Streets
ordinances, they are reasonable.
Craig Everhart, Edmonds, spoke in favor of the Complete Streets ordinance. He rode his bike to
tonight's meeting and arrived safely only due to his own senses. He has ridden all over the world and after
experiencing Pacific NW riding this year, found it leaves much to be desired in terms of safety. He urged
the Council to approve the Complete Streets ordinance.
Don Hall, Edmonds, posed a series of questions related to the electric vehicle charging stations, agenda
item 12. Will the two proposed charging stations on Main Street between 5`" and 6`" be moved when Main
Street is upgraded and will that entail additional cost? Will the parking spaces be used only for electric
vehicles and how long will they be allowed to park? Has the City notified or contacted business owners
about the possibility of losing two parking spaces and where they would like to have the charging stations
located? Do the rates charged cover the actual cost of electricity or is the City subsidizing it via a BID?
Next, he announced Edmonds in Bloom entry forms are available at Garden Gear and the Frances
Anderson Center and other stores. Edmonds in Bloom is a garden competition; anyone in zip codes 98020
and 98026 is eligible to participate in the competition. The deadline for entering a garden, which must be
visible from the street or the alley, is June 30, 2011. He also announced the 2011 Garden Tour Sunday,
July 17 from 11 am to 4 pm, $15 /person. Tickets are available at Bountiful Home, Garden Gear and the
four local nurseries.
Marianne Zagorski, Edmonds, Port Commissioner and member of the Economic Development
Commission, explained tonight the Council will hear information related to the selection of a highly
qualified, professional firm to assist the City in developing a Strategic Plan. She urged the Council to
move the City forward by undertaking the development of a Strategic Plan. A Strategic Plan will provide
staff and government a roadmap of where the citizens want the City to go and what the citizens want the
city to look like in the future. With a Strategic Plan, the Council will not need to guess what citizens
want/need; they will know and have evidence. Any Strategic Plan will belong to those who create it; the
citizens, the City Council, and City staff but a professional planning firm brings technical skills needed to
produce a transparent and unbiased plan. She summarized this is a crucial time in Edmonds' history and
she urged the Council to seize the day.
Darrol Haug, Edmonds, member of the Economic Development Commission, explained this is a great
day for the 17 members of the Commission who have volunteered 2 years of their time because tonight
the Council will be provided an update regarding the Five Corners and Westgate study. He commented on
the engaging community process where people attended meetings to gather ideas, listen to each other and
develop very interesting ideas. As a member of the Strategic Plan Consultant Selection /Review
Committee, he assured the members of the committee were very qualified and included members of
Council, staff, the Planning Board, and the Economic Development Commission. It was a very engaging,
exciting process and the Committee developed a very solid foundation for the candidate they
recommended. He looked forward to the process, noting this was an exciting time for Edmonds.
Hank Landau, Edmonds, Co -Chair of the Edmonds Bicycle Advocacy Group, express their support for
the Complete Streets ordinance. The Edmonds Bicycle Advocacy Group advocates for bicyclists as well
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 21, 2011
Page 7
as pedestrians in the Edmonds School District area. He recalled his request and the Council's approval of
a resolution for Basics of Bicycling, a program intended to educate 3rd — 5`" graders. As a result of that
resolution and resolutions from several others, the program was implemented. With funding from the
Hazel Miller Foundation and multiple organizations, they served 2,000 3'd- 5th graders in the Edmonds
School District in 9 schools and have the enthusiastic support of the School District and the students. The
students are taught to ride safely for the benefit of their health and to interact safely and courteously with
motorists. Educating students hopefully will lead to further need for sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and trails.
The program hopes to reduce childhood obesity and diabetes and promote healthy living throughout their
lifetimes. Complete Streets is part of this health, safety and fun issue.
Val Stewart, Edmonds, Planning Board Member and member of the Strategic Plan Consultant
Review /Selection Committee, echoed Ms. Zagorski's comments regarding what a Strategic Plan will do
for the City. The Committee conducted a very careful process and the many dedicated individuals spent a
great deal of time narrowing the original 13 respondents to 5, then to 2 and then to 1. They considered
what the City needs and determined the best fit. One of the strengths of the candidate the Committee
recommends is the outreach they will provide, reaching all citizens to determine what they want the City
to be in the future, what they consider important, and their values. She urged the Council to act on the
Committee's recommendation. Working with the consultant, the City will have an action plan and
measurable benchmarks. She also endorsed the Complete Streets ordinance for the health and safety of
citizens, providing accessibility for all citizens as well as reducing the community's carbon footprint.
Carrie Dolwick, Transportation Choices Coalition, a statewide organization that works to increase
transportation options for Washingtonians across the State, spoke in support of the Complete Streets
ordinance. She explained citizens across Washington as well as in Edmonds are urging cities to complete
their streets, to create road networks that are safer, more livable and welcoming for all users including
young and old, motorists and bicyclists, walkers, wheelchair users, bus riders and shop keepers.
Transportation Choices Coalition was involved in the conversation that led to the passage of the Complete
Streets bill by the legislature. WSDOT is in the process of creating criteria for a grant program; cities with
Complete Streets ordinances will be eligible for grants through the Complete Streets grant program in the
future. The State bill also directs WSDOT to work with cities and counties to incorporate Complete
Streets aspects into retrofits and new road projects across the State. The Coalition fully supports the
ordinance but suggests the following changes: 1) the ordinance currently applies to new projects only; it
could be strengthened to include retrofit projects, 2) delete exemption b, no identified need, because the
ordinance was not in place when City plans were developed and the ordinance has the opportunity to cast
new light on City projects, and 3) exemption c, ordinance maintenance activities, is wider than other cities
have adopted. Oftentimes maintenance activities are a great time to ensure all users are considered.
Max Hepp- Buchanan, Seattle, Advocacy Campaign Manager, Cascade Bicycle Club, explained
Cascade worked with Cascade Land Conservancy and the City to craft this ordinance and has since
worked with six jurisdictions to draft and adopt policies. Edmonds has the opportunity to set an example
of Complete Streets policy in the region. He shared a misconception about Complete Streets that other
jurisdictions have expressed: Complete Streets means prioritizing pedestrian and cyclists over cars and
adopting a policy means tearing up the existing roadways to install bike lanes and crosswalks. He
explained Complete Streets is about accommodating all users, old, young, disabled and fully abled. While
the term all users includes bikes and pedestrians, it also refers to transit, freight and automobiles.
Complete Streets is a policy to accommodate users in the planning and implementation of roadway
projects. He encouraged Edmonds to consider all future projects for Complete Streets treatment whether
the construction of a new roadway or rehabilitation of an existing street. Although there may not be a
documented need for Complete Streets implementation along a roadway, there may be future need. It is
less expensive to build streets to accommodate all users in the beginning than retrofitting in the future.
Cascade has worked to educate the residents, decision - makers and City staff in Des Moines, Federal Way,
Burien, Kent, Snoqualmie and SeaTac. He urged Council to vote in favor of the ordinance.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 21, 2011
Page 8
Jeff Aken, Cascade Land Conservancy, expressed strong support for the adoption of the ordinance as a
way to enhance quality of life in cities, making them safer and healthier places to live. Complete Streets
are essential to addressing the following issues that face many communities: Safety — 126 pedestrians
were killed in Washington State in 2007 -2008. Complete Streets provides a mechanism for safer
crosswalks, curb bulbs, sidewalks and other pedestrian improvements to make streets safer. Health — 56%
of Edmonds residents are either overweight or obese according to Snohomish County Health Department.
Making streets work for all users provides options for daily physical activity within the community.
Equity — about 1/3 of residents do not drive because they are too young, too old, cannot afford it, or are
not interested in driving. Complete Streets make neighborhoods more accessible for those people and
provide them more choices. Choice — according to a national household transportation survey, 50% of all
trips are 3 miles or less and 28% are 1 mile or less. Complete Streets provides an opportunity for people
to choose how to make those short trips.
Kristiana Johnson, Edmonds, Planning Board Member, commented the Council has three closely
related issues, 1) review of the Westgate study, 2) consideration of a change to the street setbacks in the
Westgate area, and 3) the Complete Streets ordinance. The relationship between land use and
transportation is very important particularly during times of change. The City's Transportation Plan
identifies SR -104 as a principle arterial and defines a principle arterial as providing a high degree of
vehicle mobility but a minor amount of land access. Typically principle arterials are multi -lane facilities
and also usually have sidewalks and sometimes have separate bicycle facilities so that non - motorized
traffic is separated from vehicular traffic. She provided and described a cross section of the design
standard: the principle arterial has a 5 -7 foot sidewalk, a 5 -foot planting strip and a 5 -foot bicycle lane in
each direction. She recommended determining the existing right -of -way from the edge of the curb to the
property line before considering a change to the setback requirement. The City needs to know whether
there is sufficient land to meet the City's adopted principle arterial standards. She participated in all the
meetings for the Westgate area, she supports the Complete Streets ordinance and could support the
concept of changing the setback requirements but only if there is sufficient capacity to meet all the non -
motorized requirements for that roadway. She concluded it is crucial to understand the available right-of-
way to meet the non - motorized standards prior to changing the street setback standards.
Reid Larsen, Edmonds, relayed his observations since 220`'' was widened and bike lanes and sidewalks
were added. Traffic often slows when pedestrians are walking on the sidewalk on a roadway without bike
lanes. With a bike lane between the pedestrian area and the roadway, cars are able to move faster due to
the separation. The bike lane actually speeds up traffic. When a vehicle enters 2201'', the sidewalk plus
bike lanes provides good visibility and allows a driver to prepare to enter without being too close to the
roadway. Without incoming traffic being at the edge of the roadway, traffic moves at full speed until
vehicles feel safe to enter the roadway. When pedestrians are preparing to cross the street, they can step
off the curb into the bike lane, making it clear to cars that they are about to cross the street without
endangering themselves. He concluded bike lanes make people not riding bicycles safer and improves the
flow of traffic. He urged the Council to support the Complete Streets ordinance to allow the development
of more streets like 2201h to benefit pedestrians, bicycle and transit riders as well as automobile drivers.
Alvin Rutledge, Edmonds, commented the City already commissioned 10 -year plans in 1991 and 2005.
Seattle's plans extended through 2026. Next, he reported Edmonds School Board Members took no pay
due to budget cuts and suggested the Council do the same.
John Bissell, Edmonds, expressed support for the Complete Streets ordinance. When an engineer creates
a standard, he relies on national standards which has been the American Society of Highway Traffic
Officials (ASHTO) for a long time and modified by the local jurisdiction. The US Department of
Transportation recently adopted Complete Streets as a viable standard, a standard that is designed for
cities and towns, not a highway standard. Although bicycle lanes and reducing the carbon footprint are
great side benefits of Complete Streets, Complete Streets is about making streets work for towns and
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 21, 2011
Page 9
cities. He pointed out studies have found that a bicycle lane separating pedestrians results in increased
traffic flow and increased pedestrian safety. He also supported agenda item 6, reduced setbacks in the
Westgate area. He was involved in the Bartell project and they wanted the reduced setback to bring the
building closer to the street but were unable to do so and make the parking work. The proposed
amendment will allow buildings to be located closer to the street and allow parking to work.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented he drove through the Westgate and Five Corners areas today
enjoying the sunshine from all angles as well as the foliage and greenery. He feared the five story
buildings along the road edge as proposed in the UW study would block the sun. People in Edmonds like
plantings, greenery, openness, views and low buildings and he feared the proposed increase in building
heights would fuel discussion during the upcoming election.
Craig Dela, Edmonds, expressed support for the Complete Streets ordinance, explaining he is teaching
his 4 and 5 -year olds to ride their bikes in their neighborhood where the streets are wide and quiet and
some streets have bike lanes. Expanding bike lanes throughout the City will allow them to ride safety in
other areas. He pointed out the buses and trains that serve this area all have bicycle racks; there needs to
be bicycle lanes to reach the bus and train via bicycle lanes.
Mark Bailey, Edmonds, echoed the support for the Complete Streets ordinance. He and his wife walk
and ride their bicycles in Edmonds. He cited the importance of using the public roads which is a big part
of what makes Edmonds such a wonderful place to live.
Council President Peterson apologized for the length of tonight's agenda. Next week's Council meeting is
a workshop regarding levy options that is open to the public.
5. UPDATE ON THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON PLANNING FOR FIVE CORNERS AND
WESTGATE.
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the UW was here to present an interim report. The study was
initiated by the Economic Development Commission (EDC) to plan for eventual changes in Five Corners
and Westgate. This is not a redevelopment scheme but a planning approach for long term redevelopment
of these areas. There have been changes in these areas such as the new Bartell's in Westgate and
refurbishing such as the PCC. This planning is an attempt to position these areas to take advantage of
changes that may occur in the future so that they better match what the community wants to see. He
requested the Council accept the results of the study to date and refer it to the Planning Board for formal
review and deliberation on alternatives. The Planning Board will ultimately forward a product to the
Council for adoption. He explained this had been a multi -month process that involved several classes and
a large number of students. There was a great turnout at public meetings and good interest from residents
and property owners in the areas.
Jill Sterritt, Department of Urban Design and Planning, UW, acknowledged the many students
involved in the process. The process began in the fall quarter 2010 as part of an undergraduate class; that
team included Elizabeth Abrahamson, Cristina Haworth, and Brad Shipley. Brad Shipley continued
throughout the process and in January they hired a group of student interns that represent urban planners,
landscape architects and built environment. She introduced students present tonight, Betsy Jacobson,
Masters in Urban Planning and Landscape Architect, and Jeanine Matthews, Masters in Landscape
Architecture.
Ms. Sterritt explained this is the sixth project she has done where they are hired by a city and they in turn
hire students to work on a project. It has been a win -win for the cities and the students, many of whom
said they got their full -time job based on experience gained from this work. The city also receives the
work for a fraction of the cost of a consultant.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 21, 2011
Page 10
Nancy Rottle, Department of Landscape Architecture, UW, displayed a timeline for the process,
explaining they will continue to refine the plan and develop it into a form based code working with the
Planning Board. The first phase of the process began with a citizen survey that was available on the City's
website for four months. At the same time students conducted site surveys particularly looking at
walkability, parking at the two centers and existing conditions. Their partners at Cascade Land
Conservancy (CLC) provided examples of exemplary commercial centers throughout the Pacific NW
with the goal of making communities that are complete, compact and connected. She recognized Jeff
Aken, CLC, for his participation in the process.
The second phase included two public listening sessions, one for Westgate and one for Five Corners.
These were open houses to listen, gather information and learn from the public regarding how they used
the centers. Instant polling was also used to tally visual preferences. The students also began researching
form based code and held meetings with property owners to learn their desires.
The third phase included a Saturday design workshop attended by over 50 people and volunteer
professionals where they collected information about preferences and realities regarding the two centers.
The approach used was life space building that allows participants to explore the type of life, activities,
spaces that support that life, and buildings that form and activate the spaces within the two centers. Six
teams worked on Five Corners and three worked on Westgate. The students compiled the information
developed by each team. She displayed examples of concepts developed by the Five Corners and
Westgate teams. From those nine alternatives, the students developed two alternatives for each center.
The alternatives were presented to the public at a public forum and included examples of life space for
each center. The public was asked to provide feedback regarding the qualities they liked in each
alternative. She explained form based code will define the qualities the public and the City would like
developers to provide as they develop. It is a more flexible approach to development but tends to provide
more of the desired physical qualities.
The public preferred 2 -3 stories with housing for Five Corners and 3 -4 stories at Westgate. In both areas,
the public felt it was important to increase public space with the most popular recommendations being
plazas, sitting space and green space. The public was interested in improving walkability in both centers.
At Five Corners there was initial concern about congestion and traffic speeds due to the roundabout; as
information was provided, the fears were allayed. Services people wanted include restaurants, street cafes,
bakery, and overwhelmingly preferred buildings at the street front and cared a great deal about
landscaping and the use of native plants.
Two alternatives for each center were then presented to the EDC at three meetings. She described the
alternatives for Five Corners; both are oriented around the planned roundabout. Public space around the
roundabout was envisioned; in one alternative the building fronts the roundabout and in the other
buildings formed courtyards. The alternatives illustrate different building heights; in one 2 -3 stories and
the other 3 -4 stories. Two alternatives were also developed for Westgate. Taller buildings are at the corner
and there is internal circulation. She described the location of commercial, residential, and office use on
the sites.
She displayed maps identifying needs and opportunities for better pedestrian and bicycle connections to
the center as well as to schools and parks and better connected green space that can enhance walkability
and habitat. The centers are envisioned as having slightly less parking as it is expected people will get
there via means other than driving vehicles.
The studies found Edmonds has a separated stormwater system which although this prevents overflows,
polluted stormwater continues to enter Puget Sound and likely in the future the NPDES permit will
require cities to treat their stormwater before discharge. They also made recommendations to encourage
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 21, 2011
Page 11
green features in the two commercial centers that would help treat stormwater such as bioswales, green
roofs, and permeable paving. Those features could be integrated into open space the public wants.
Ms. Sterritt explained with the input of the EDC and Planning Board at joint meetings, the preferred
elements from the two alternatives were combined into an illustrative plan for each site. She emphasized
the plans were examples of how development could occur on the site after form based code is developed.
The plans do not dictate or determine a specific outcome. She displayed the illustrative plan for Five
Corners that emphasizes open space for public gathering particularly around the roundabout. It
emphasized mixed use with low cost smaller dwelling units and affordable housing in the upper stories. A
recent EDC decision allows for three stories near the roundabout with one additional possible story, a
total of four, if the developer provides additional amenities such as green features or affordable housing.
On the periphery, the base height is two stories and a possible one story bonus.
Ms. Sterritt displayed the building massing plan for Five Corners related to the illustrative site plan that
provides an indication of building heights and types of uses. Commercial is typically on the ground floor,
residential on upper floors and office uses. She reviewed life space options for Five Corners such as
smaller shops in plazas, buildings fronting on plazas and streets, row houses or life /work units, and a
variety of uses and housing options.
Ms. Sterritt displayed the illustrative site plan for Westgate which permits three stories overall; additional
stories require a development agreement. The EDC recommended one additional story be allowed for
meeting certain criteria and a second additional story for meeting further criteria. The EDC emphasized
five story buildings would relate to the topography and be located primarily on the periphery of the site
where there are steep hillsides so there is less impact on surrounding residential uses and less impact on
the street. She displayed the building massing for Westgate, highlighting features such as the internal
street and connections to the residential area. There is some massing around the intersection as well as
key open spaces to highlight the intersection. There are a great deal of residential uses to the south. She
reviewed life space options for Westgate such as bicycle lanes on both SR -104 and 1001''. She relayed the
public's preference to retain the PCC and QFC. She noted redevelopment of those uses could provide the
opportunity for a green roof.
Ms. Sterritt reviewed the contents of a form based code that includes, 1) introduction with intent and
goals, summary of the public process, and how to use the code; 2) regulating framework that addresses
street types, frontage types, building types and public space and green feature types; 3) building
standards, 4) civic investment — streetscape and public space standards; 5) private investment — gathering
spaces and green features, and 6) administration and implementation standards. She acknowledged this
was a different approach than the typical zoning code that establishes setback, height restrictions, and
parking requirements. It includes those but addresses how the public space is arranged and how buildings
are massed and formed. They are recommending five building types: residential building types includes
rowhouse, live /work, courtyard residential; commercial building types include side court and commercial
block. She displayed photo examples of each building type.
Ms. Sterritt displayed and reviewed examples of streetscape standards for Five Corners and Westgate. She
requested the Council refer the plan to the Planning Board to review and refine the plan and the form
based code. Additional public meetings will be held and she anticipated a complete plan for each site will
be presented to the Council by year end.
Councilmember Buckshnis, liaison to the EDC, agreed this has been a very interesting process; the
students have worked very hard and produced a great product. She relayed a resident's concern that the
City Council did not understand "spot rezone." She asked why a form based code was not a spot rezone.
Ms. Sterritt answered both areas are zoned BN. The form based code they are developing would apply to
the BN zone. They are not establishing zoning for individual properties. Councilmember Buckshnis
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 21, 2011
Page 12
summarized they were establishing a template to specify what was desired in certain areas. Ms. Sterritt
explained spot zoning specifies what happens on a single parcel; the form based code would apply within
the BN zone.
Councilmember Buckshnis acknowledged Ms. Johnson's concerns and asked whether those had been
taken into consideration. Ms. Sterritt advised they are looking closely at that. The examples provided are
illustrative; they will be working with Public Works staff to refine them to ensure they are consistent with
the Council's decision regarding setbacks and /or Complete Streets.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why a development agreement is not a spot rezone. Ms. Sterritt
answered in most jurisdictions certain things can be agreed to via a development agreement. The things
that can be allowed in a development agreement would be established by the form based code. A
developer would need to meet the code requirements for additional height and in order to obtain the
additional height, complete the development agreement public process.
Councilmember Petso observed the street standard for 100`" south of the corner shows it reduced to three
lanes, one lane each way and a turn lane. The current configuration is two lanes each way plus a turn lane.
She asked whether a level of service analysis had been conducted to study the effect of reducing the travel
lanes. Ms. Sterritt emphasized the street standards were very preliminary. Staff also pointed out there are
four travel lanes in that area. There was some discussion that that configuration may be workable if it is
needed to accommodate bike lanes. Further discussion is planned; this is only an initial effort to look at
the right -of -way and how it could accommodate bike lanes, bioswales, parking, etc.
Councilmember Petso observed if a travel lane, bike lane, a safe pedestrian area was desired, buildings
should not yet be moved closer to the street until the right -of -way has been measured to determine if all
those things can be accommodated. Ms. Sterritt responded those are two separate issues. They are
considering the right -of -way as it exists and then the amount of setback and the buildings. They are not
considering expansion of the right -of -way; they are working within the existing right -of -way. If there is
interest in expanding the right -of -way and acquiring additional right -of -way, that is a different question
and not what their plan assumes. Mr. Chave commented there has also been discussion about alternate
routing for bicycles such as taking them off SR -104 and onto the internal streets through the development.
The cross sections that were displayed were simply possibilities.
Councilmember Petso asked how many residences the Westgate plan envisioned. Ms. Jacobson answered
650 [this was later clarified to be 650 people and 282 dwelling units]. Councilmember Petso observed the
public put a high priority on public space. She expressed concern that for 650 residences, the only park
area was approximately the size of her side yard. Ms. Sterritt identified park and plaza/open space areas
throughout the Westgate plan, noting those areas were envisioned as hardscape with landscape elements.
She agreed this plan does not have any large expanses of green space or park. One of the things that has
been discussed is the City providing underground parking with a park above which could foster
redevelopment.
Councilmember Petso observed there was no park within a mile of the Westgate center and it may be
appropriate to consider some form of recreation for the proposed 650 residences. Ms. Sterritt clarified it
would be 650 people and 282 dwelling units. Under the direction of the EDC and Planning Board, smaller
dwelling units were assumed for this center, a 900 square foot average, with the idea of encouraging
young families and seniors who are downsizing and providing places they can live affordably in the City.
Councilmember Petso asked if the plan was driven by the EDC or the citizens. Ms. Sterritt stated the plan
was initiated by the EDC but there has been an extensive, hands -on public process to gather public input.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 21, 2011
Page 13
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas asked about traffic from 282 dwelling units that are envisioned at
Westgate. Mr. Chave answered development would occur over a long period of time, it would likely not
be developed by a single developer. The level of traffic created is basically background as the largest
volume is through traffic. It is hoped more of the traffic will stop at the Westgate center. Given overall
levels of traffic on SR -104, traffic generated by the development would be minor. Councilmember Fraley -
Monillas observed that piece has not yet been investigated. Mr. Chave answered that is part of the review
that will occur at the Planning Board. Five Corners is somewhat different because the Comprehensive
Plan already envisions four stories and the Transportation Plan considered up to four stories. The long
term traffic needs at Five Corners was one of the things that drove the roundabout. He advised a
Transportation Plan update was planned for next year that would consider updated land uses.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas assumed the intent of reducing the traffic lanes was to provide additional
space for sidewalks and alternate mobility surfaces. She pointed out the plan adds more vehicles with less
roadway space than exists today. Ms. Sterritt answered in most areas the travel lanes are not reduced; the
possibility of reducing from four travel lanes to two travel lanes with a common turn lane is only
considered on 100"' south of SR -104. In all other areas there are the same number of travel lanes although
they may be slightly narrower. On mixed use sites with a variety of uses including residential, the number
of trips per unit are typically less because residents can walk to uses on the site. Mr. Chave pointed out
both areas are well served by transit and to the extent that walking can be encouraged, that will reduce
traffic. He pointed out in the sample cross sections, the reduction to three lanes does not occur at the
intersection. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas commented it was difficult to understand how everything
will work together.
Councilmember Plunkett asked how the number of units at Westgate was determined, envisioning the free
market would determine the number of units. Ms. Sterritt agreed, explaining 282 was determined by the
building footprints and number of residential floors to provide a square footage of residential which was
then divided by 900 square feet per unit. Because this is form based code and not a development plan, the
market, property owners and developers will determine the number of units.
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the plan is based on existing buildings, however, as the economy
improves, he envisioned some buildings will be removed. Ms. Sterritt responded the majority of buildings
in the plan are new, developed at a reasonable upper level of development with a couple exceptions due to
favored uses that people wanted to retain.
Councilmember Plunkett inquired about the 900 square foot average size of residences. Ms. Sterritt
answered 900 square feet per unit was used due to the EDC's interest in smaller units. Councilmember
Plunkett responded he thought the EDC was interested in economic development; if they want economic
development, telling a developer he can have 900 square foot units will retard economic development
because most developers do not want to build a 900 square foot condominium. Ms. Sterritt answered the
plan does not dictate the size of units.
Councilmember Plunkett observed the intent was not a plan but to have the marketplace to build it. Ms.
Sterritt explained they wanted to create building envelopes and standards that make good public places.
Within those building envelopes, the property owners and developers will have a great deal of flexibility
to determine what the market will bear. Mr. Chave recalled the EDC discussed target populations. They
hoped these urban areas would attract young professionals and smaller households that would add to the
vibrancy and activity in the area. Given that idea, the smaller housing units make sense. Ultimately the
marketplace will determine the size of the units.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 21, 2011
Page 14
Councilmember Petso asked if the process included a market study. Mr. Chave stated a market analysis
was conducted and factored into the plan. For example the market study indicated underground parking
probably would not pencil out in these locations. That dictated more surface and tuck -under parking.
Councilmember Petso asked if the market analysis commented on the feasibility of mixed use. She noted
the Unocal mixed use development has only residential and mixed use downtown is condominiums over
empty space. Mr. Chave stated the market analysis indicated mixed use was very viable at both locations.
Councilmember Bernheim expressed support for the motion, relaying his interest in creativity in City
planning which in his opinion has not occurred in the four years he has been on the Council. The
downtown stepback has not generated any development. Before he was on the City Council, he actively
promoted student involvement in City planning. He recalled the designs developed by the students at
Edmonds- Woodway High School for the Skippers and Antique Mall properties provided very valuable
information. Five Corners and Westgate were identified as centers where development could occur. This
has been an exciting and vibrant process for the residents and the public meetings have been well
attended. He was eager for the Planning Board to begin their review.
1 04 MIN [176N[tlN 7 7101177iflLIUII►[tl i 11 1l �I►I i C3 X1.7 � Df1 KY�l +L�71 Y 1►[ll►C�a
6. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND
EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) SECTION 16.45.020 TO REDUCE
THE REQUIRED STREET SETBACKS IN THE BN ZONE FOR THE WESTGATE
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL CENTER FROM TWENTY (20) TO EIGHT (8) FEET ALONG
SR -104 AND FROM TWENTY (20) FEET TO FIVE (5) FEET ALONG 100TH AVENUE WEST,
THE AMENDMENT IS RECOMMENDED TO SUNSET ONE YEAR AFTER ADOPTION.
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the current BN zoning requires buildings be setback a minimum
of 20 feet from the street front which is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with the current
direction being developed for Westgate and Five Corners. The current BN setback pushes buildings into
the site and encourages placement of parking or drive aisles between buildings and the street. It is hoped
that reducing the minimum setback will push buildings closer to the street and allow improvement of the
street front and pedestrian amenities provided on private property adjacent to the street front. The
proposed change would apply only to the Westgate area. He displayed an aerial photograph of Westgate
that shows buildings are typically set well back inside property lines.
Mr. Chave provided photographs of the Bartell /Starbucks development. On the 100m side, the businesses
are setback from the street with a landscape strip between the sidewalk and parking between the sidewalk
and building; the traditional design encouraged by the existing BN zoning requirement. As a result,
anyone walking in that area must cross the parking /drive aisle to reach the building front. On the SR -104
side of that development, the building is approximately 9 feet from the existing right -of -way. Placing the
building closer to the right -of -way allows the parking to be moved to the side and the street front to be
enhanced with walkways and landscaping. The SR -104 side of that building is what the setback as
recommended by the Planning Board would provide opportunity for. He explained under the existing BN
zone, the SR -104 side is non - conforming.
Mr. Chave explained the recommendation is only for the BN zone for the Westgate area. There is ample
policy direction in the Comprehensive Plan regarding the Westgate Community Center with regard to
accommodating transit and pedestrian access and providing pedestrian walkways. The design objectives
in the Comprehensive Plan speak to buildings oriented to the street front with pedestrian access. The UW
plan contains setbacks similar to those recommended by the Planning Board.
Mr. Chave relayed the Planning Board's recommendation:
Reduced street setback only applies to Westgate Community Commercial area, as defined in
Comprehensive Plan
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 21, 2011
Page 15
Minimum 8 -foot street setback along SR -104
Minimum 5 -foot street setback along 100th Avenue West
One year sunset (assumes UW planning process complete)
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas asked Mr. Chave to respond to Ms. Johnson's concerns. Mr. Chave
answered Ms. Johnson wanted more time to examine the right -of -way, needs, etc. He pointed out setbacks
are what occur on private property. It does not change what occurs in the public right -of -way. The
reduced setbacks allow enhancement of what occurs in the public right -of -way. There is typically 10 feet
from the property line to the public lane; 10 feet does not provide much space for plantings, sidewalk, etc.
Providing an additional 8 feet along SR -104 will provide space on the private property to compliment
what is done in the existing right -of -way. When a 20 -foot setback is required, the result is a minimal
landscape area, no enhancement of the sidewalk and the buildings do not relate to the street front. If
buildings are pushed closer and additional setback provided, it provides more space adjacent to the right -
of -way.
For Councilmember Fraley - Monillas, Mr. Chave explained in the existing right -of -way there is typically
not enough space for a 5 -foot landscape strip and a 5 -8 foot sidewalk. The idea with the 8- foot/5 -foot
setback is an additional area available for amenities adjacent to the right -of -way.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas referred to the SR -104 side of the Starbucks building and asked the
width of the sidewalk. Mr. Chave answered it was approximately 7 feet with 9 feet of landscaping.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas asked why that could not be done on the 100"' Street side. Mr. Chave
answered when the building is required to be set back into the site, in order to accommodate parking, the
parking is placed in front. If the buildings on the 1001h side were allowed to be closer to the street, he
would expect the SR -104 treatment on that side of the building. The result would be more parking in the
back. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas asked if there would still be a 7 -foot sidewalk. Mr. Chave
answered it would depend on what frontage improvements are required.
Councilmember Petso provided a series of photographs she took comparing buildings fronting on the
street to the current strip mall type design. She displayed a photograph of a bank in Shoreline, noting she
was unsure whether the building was initially at the street front or was located there due to insufficient
right -of -way. She compared the bank in Shoreline to the 100`" side of the Bartell /Starbucks building,
noting the BartellStarbucks building provided a green presentation. The street presence of the bank in
Shoreline is a narrow corridor with a sidewalk and a tiny bit of landscaping between the sidewalk and
building. At the Bartell in Edmonds, there is beautiful landscaping, a much more green presence. She was
willing to walk across the parking lot to Bartell to enjoy the green street presence. She displayed a
photograph of a blank wall on the north side of the bank in Shoreline which is much less attractive than
the BartelUStarbucks development in Edmonds. She summarized allowing the setback space to be used
for landscaping is great. To the extent the bank is so close to the roadway may reflect Ms. Johnson's
desire to measure the right -of -way before changing the setbacks.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the City's Transportation Plan was inaccurate or inadequate, recalling
Ms. Johnson's reference to 5 -7 foot sidewalks, 5 -foot planting strip and 5 -foot bike lane in each direction
on a principle arterial. Mr. Chave answered much of the right -of -way on SR -104 was built long ago and
does not meet what would be required today. There is some flexibility but generally the landscape strip is
between the sidewalk and the travel lane. The opposite occurs today in the Westgate area.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked when that could be upgraded. Mr. Chave answered when development
occurs and street improvements are required. For example if someone purchases the existing Shell station
and changes what occurs on the property, they will be required to make improvements along both rights -
of -way that conform to the new standards. The proposed reduced setback would provide more area for
those improvements between the building and the right -of -way.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 21, 2011
Page 16
Councilmember Buckshnis asked how often the Transportation Plan was updated. Mr. Chave answered it
was a 6 -year update cycle. The next update will occur in 2015.
Council President Peterson referred to the photograph Councilmember Petso provided of the bank in
Shoreline, pointing out it argues for the proposed change because that bank is clearly located right at the
right -of -way with only a minimal sidewalk. The proposed setback adds additional space between the
right -of -way and the building. The tiny strip of green adjacent to the bank in Shoreline would be an 8 or
5 -foot strip in Edmonds with the proposed change. The photograph of the bank in Shoreline is a perfect
example of what is not wanted in Edmonds but also not what is being proposed. The proposed
amendment is not to push building up to the right -of -way; the proposal is an 8 or 5 -foot setback from the
right -of -way. Mr. Chave agreed Councilmember Petso's photograph was a good example of what was not
wanted and the reason the setbacks are proposed, to provide additional space between the sidewalk and
the building. The larger setbacks push the building back into the site and developers do not want to make
improvements by the street front. He pointed out there is also reference in the proposed code amendment
to design objectives regarding blank walls.
Councilmember Bernheim asked whether footnote 2 in the site development standards was the suggested
change. Mr. Chave answered yes.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDED ACTION (APPROVE THE PLANNING
BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION [CONTAINED IN EXHIBIT 1 AND DESCRIBED IN THE
MOTION ON PAGE 8 OF THE PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF 5/11 /2011, EXHIBIT 21 AND
DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR COUNCIL ADOPTION
ON ITS NEXT AVAILABLE CONSENT AGENDA).
Councilmember Petso observed the current setback is 20 feet that can be landscaping or whatever and the
proposed amendment is to reduce it to 5 feet on 100`" and 8 feet on SR -104. Mr. Chave answered yes.
1611I.JIM ' III 06i
Council President Peterson asked whether parking could fit into a 10 foot setback. Mr. Chave answered
no, advising these are minimum setbacks. The issue then becomes on a given site if there is enough space
outside the 10 foot setback for everything else that must happen on the site. If the rest of the site does not
work with the setback, the developer will automatically push the building into the site. The Planning
Board recommended the minimum setback they felt was reasonable.
Council President Peterson advised he would vote against the amendment because he anticipated a
developer would move the building back on the site and put the parking in front. He agreed 10 feet would
be better than 8 feet for green space but he was concerned a building would not pencil and be pushed back
onto the site.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas expressed support for the amendment. She did not think 2 feet and 5 feet
on one side of a building would create an issue for parking, particularly on that corner. With the one year
sunset, staff will need to return to the Council to extend the proposed amendment. Mr. Chave relayed the
Planning Board's hope that the UW process would be through the Planning Board and adopted by the
City Council in one year.
Councilmember Plunkett indicated he would not support the amendment because he believed the
Planning Board wants an aesthetically pleasing development. Unless the maker of the amendment could
show that they had done some analysis to determine why 10 feet was selected, he would assume it was
arbitrarily determined. He assumed the Planning Board had made a more intraspecific decision.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 21, 2011
Page 17
Councilmember Buckshnis explained she suggested 10 feet because of the indication the sidewalk was
not in compliance with the 5 -7 foot standard. She wanted to ensure there were pedestrian friendly
sidewalks and felt 10 feet would be a good compromise.
Council President Peterson observed if development is proposed and new sidewalks required, the
sidewalks must meet the City's standards. Public Works Director Phil Williams explained when
redevelopment occurs, staff seeks to get the frontage improvements that meet the current standards. With
regard to the cross section of a principle arterial in the Transportation Plan versus what exists and what
the UW study proposes, those are each different things. There is only 80 feet of total right -of -way on SR-
104. Everything in the ideal principle arterial cross section totals 89 -93 feet. He acknowledged there is
tension between the Plan and the real world. He doubted the ability for the City to acquire an additional
10 feet of right -of -way on this major arterial in a commercial center.
UPON ROLL CALL, THE MOTE ON THE AMENDMENT FAILED (3 -3); COUNCILMEMBERS
PETSO, FRALEY- MONILLAS, AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETERSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS BERNHEIM AND PLUNKETT VOTING NO.
THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION CARRIED (5 -1); COUNCILMEMBER PETSO VOTING
NO.
Community Services /Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained this was a collaborative
effort between the Economic Development Commission (EDC) and Planning Board that began in early
2010. In March 2010, the Council approved Resolution 1224, expressing support for six of the EDC's
high priority recommendations, one of which is the strategic planning effort. In December 2010 the
Council appropriated $100,000 to conduct a strategic planning effort. In April 2010 the Council
authorized staff to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) to prepare a strategic plan.
Mr. Clifton provided a chronology of actions once the Council authorized issuance of the RFP:
• April 20, 2011. — The City issued a RFP for a Strategic Plan. Notice was published in the Everett
Herald and Daily Journal of Commerce newspapers and posted on the City's website.
Additionally, consulting firms which expressed an interest in the City's Strategic Planning
process in the past were also notified. Proposals were to be received by the City no later than 4
p.m. on May 12, 2011.
• April 27, 2011 — A pre - submittal conference was held for consultants to ask questions about the
strategic planning process.
• May 12, 2011 — Thirteen firms submitted proposals. Each Strategic Planning Review /Interview
Committee member was provided all submitted materials in hard copy and /or electronic form.
• May 18, 2011 — The Review /Interview Committee met on May 18, 2011 to discuss submittals
and select the top five consultants to interview.
• May 20, 2011 — Proposals from the five consultant teams were provided to the Edmonds City
Council for their review.
• May 24 and 25, 2011. — The top five consultant teams participated in a presentation/interview
process. The Review/Interview Committee asked each consulting team to prepare a presentation
in response to several questions initially proposed by the committee. In addition, the
Review /Interview Committee asked an additional list of questions, and allowed time for a
question and answer period.
• May 26, 2011 — The Review/Interview Committee met to discuss and select the final two
consulting teams, Beckwith Consulting Group and ECONorthwest.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 21, 2011
Page 18
• May 31, 2011 — The Review /Interview Committee conducted an additional interview with both
Beckwith Consulting Group and ECONorthwest to seek additional information related to the
consultant's understanding of a strategic plan or planning process, who would serve as the
project's primary lead, scope of services, financial budgeting skills, council and public
involvement process, and the consultants' role during the strategic planning process.
• June 2 and 3, 2011 — members of the Review /Interview Committee conducted reference checks
on Beckwith Consulting Group and ECONorthwest.
• June 7, 2011 — The Committee met to discuss reference checks. During the meeting, the
Committee discussed what each consulting team would bring to the strategic planning process.
• June 10, 2011 — Members of the Review/Interview Committee met with Tom Beckwith to seek
clarifications related to his general approach to conducting community forums and stakeholder
interviews, and availability.
The Review /Interview Committee was comprised of two Councilmembers, Diane Buckshnis and Fraley -
Monillas; two Planning Board Members, Valerie Stewart and Kristiana Johnson; two Economic
Development Commissioners, Darrol Haug and Marianne Zagorski; Parks & Recreation Director Carrie
Hite; Public Works Director Phi Williams; Planning Manager Rob Chave; Cultural Services Manager
Frances Chapin; and himself. Mr. Clifton expressed his sincere appreciation for the hours the committee
committed to this process.
After an extensive review process, the Review /Interview Committee recommends the City contract with
Beckwith Consulting Group to complete the Strategic Plan. Positive aspects of the Beckwith Consulting
Group proposal include:
• Initial approach, i.e., conducting a workshop with City Council, Planning Board, EDC, and City
staff and others to review goals and objectives, scope, tasks of work, schedule, and other
particulars of a proposed work program is approximately 2.5% of overall project costs vs. 6.25%
of overall project costs for ECONorthwest.
• Early retreat with the above mentioned parties.
• Creation of direct linkages to the City's website and web pages devoted to the strategic planning
process.
• Conducting an internal/external scan during Phase 1 of the strategic planning process.
• Significant community outreach:
• Conduct six City Council/Planning Board/Economic Development Commission retreats. Four
of these will be held prior to drafting a strategic plan.
• Conduct forums with delegates and the general public.
• Staffing booths during community events.
• Publishing newsletters for posting onto the City's website /pages devoted to the strategic
planning effort.
• Interviewing of stakeholders (personal interviews and/or focus group sessions).
• Key officials (elected and non - elected)
• Property and business owners
• Public organizations (includes employees)
• User groups
• Parties of interest identified from the results of the initial retreat referenced above
• Conduct survey of students (the Review /Interview Committee liked the proposal to involve a
younger demographic)
• Conduct a visioning charrette.
• This effort involves inviting /recruiting persons to serve as delegates who will participate
in the strategic planning charrette. The proposed limit is 200 participants per evening for
as many evenings as the City wishes to hold visioning charrettes.
• Delegates are proposed to participate in a brainstorming workshop where the participants
will work to create as many ideas as possible.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 21, 2011
Page 19
Phase 2 — Development of a Strategic Plan
o The strategic plan could include elements such as:
• Community prioritization of services /capital projects /initiatives (a requirement of the
RFP)
• Branding and marketing
• Retail development strategies
• Business development strategies
• Tourism strategies
• Land use strategies
• Transportation strategies
• Urban design strategies
• Green sustainability strategies
• Sustainability strategies
• Levels of service and providers
• Fiscal strategies
• Benchmarking
Testing the Strategic Plan with the Public via a statistically valid survey
o The Strategic Plan RFP Review /Interview Committee appreciates this proposed effort as it is
intended to survey respondents for their opinions, preferences, and priorities concerning
proposed strategic planning concept(s). The results are intended to provide a statistically
valid method of determining public support for various strategic planning concepts and
strategies, particularly aspects requiring public implementation and financing.
Near the end of the process, Beckwith Consulting Group will conduct a forum with delegates and
the public to review the phone /internet survey results. This survey will be compared with the
charrette delegate's priorities. This effort also includes discussing the survey respondent reactions
to and preferences for various strategic planning implementation measures.
The last task includes conducting Planning Board and City Council hearings to present the final
draft strategic planning strategies and implementation measures.
The Strategic Plan RFP Review/Interview Committee believes the consultant review process was
executed well. An extensive amount of deliberation took place prior to submitting this recommendation.
Collectively, the Committee spent at least 400 hours or more on the Strategic Plan RFP review and
interview process. Committee members look forward to working with the Edmonds City Council, fellow
board members /commissioners /city staff, and residents, business owners, property owners and various
organizations as the strategic planning process progresses.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas thanked Mr. Clifton and Ms. Cruz for the work they did putting the
process together and keeping the Committee focused.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT WITH BECKWITH
CONSULTING GROUP TO PREPARE A STRATEGIC PLAN.
Councilmember Bernheim and Council President Peterson complimented the Review /Interview
Committee for their work.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 45 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 21, 2011
Page 20
8. ORDINANCE ADDING A NEW COMPLETE STREETS SECTION TO EDMONDS CITY CODE
(ECC) 18.80.015.
Public Works Director Phil Williams recalled that the effort regarding a Complete Streets ordinance
began in October 2010 when a lengthier, more detailed Complete Streets ordinance was presented to
Council. It was referred back to staff who met several times with the sponsors, the transportation related
organizations who originally suggested the City develop a Complete Streets ordinance, and over time the
ordinance has been simplified. The key paragraph states: City of Edmonds will plan for, design and
construct all new transportation projects to provide appropriate accommodations for pedestrians,
bicyclists, transit users and persons of all abilities. Complete Streets principals will be incorporated into
City plans, rules, regulations and programs as appropriate.
With regard to the comment regarding new transportation projects versus retrofits, he viewed retrofits as a
new transportation projects such as the Main Street project where the street will be demolished from
building front to building front and new concepts and ideas can be considered. He commented on the need
to balance users in an appropriate way. He assured staff is interested in incorporating these features into
projects whenever possible, when the right -of -way and funding exists.
Mr. Williams reviewed exceptions when facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users and /or people of
all abilities are not required to be provided:
a) Where the establishment would be contrary to public health and safety;
b) Where there is no identified need (as established in City Plans and future travel demand models);
c) For ordinary maintenance activities designed to keep assets in serviceable condition (e.g. striping,
cleaning, sweeping, spot repair and surface treatments such as preservation paving);
d) Where the cost would be disproportionate to the current need or probable future uses;
e) In instances where a documented exception is granted by the Public Works Director; or
f) Where implementing Complete Streets Principals in a small project would create a very short
section of improvements with problematic transitions on either end or that are unlikely to be
followed by similar improvements at either end resulting in little progress on implementing
Complete Streets Principals.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to a speaker's suggestion that exception b, no identified need, be
deleted because many of the City's plans predate Complete Streets. Mr. Williams responded the
Transportation Plan, adopted in 2009, was developed balancing all users. There is tension between plans
goals and the real world; this establishes a vision. There was input into the 2009 Transportation Plan from
the Bicycle Advisory Community as well as people with different abilities.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3842, ADDING A NEW COMPLETE STREETS
SECTION TO EDMONDS CITY CODE (ECC) 18.80.015.
Council President Peterson thanked staff, Mr. Williams, Rob English, Bertrand Hauss, Cascade Land
Conservancy, Edmonds Bicycle Group, and the numerous stakeholders who provided input.
Councilmember Bernheim commented it remains to be seen whether the Complete Streets ordinance will
yield actual changes in infrastructure development. He was willing to support the ordinance in its present
form and wait to see how it was implemented before suggesting modifications.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON COMPENSATION CONSULTANT PROJECT.
Human Resources Director Debi Human explained the Council placed an item on the December 21, 2010
City Council agenda regarding a review of the Non - Represented Compensation Policy (NRC). After
discussion, the Council expressed interest in hiring a compensation consultant and requested she provide
a scope of work for Council review. As a result of that request, she wrote the February 24, 2011 letter
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 21, 2011
Page 21
outlining ideas regarding an approach to the project. The scope she suggests includes three aspects to an
RFP process:
• The first portion of the RFQ /RFP would be to provide a bid and a detailed process for analyzing
and updating the City's current compensation policy. This phase should include:
• A comprehensive review of our current policy; assisting staff /Council in updating the
document to better meet the needs and goals of the city from a budget standpoint and from a
recruitment/retention perspective.
• A comprehensive review of "comparables" making effective external market based
suggestions.
• A comprehensive review of our current salary compression issues that includes best business
practices for correction and an internal equity component.
• The second phase of the RFQ /RFP would be to review and update all non - represented job
descriptions to ensure that they accurately reflect the essential functions of each position. The
City's job descriptions have been reviewed in a comprehensive manner since 1997. Not only is it
critical that all non - represented job descriptions accurately reflect job tasks since they serve as the
basis for any salary comparison, this portion of the work would fulfill a WCIA audit requirement
that mandates a complete update of job descriptions before October 31, 2011. This phase should
include:
• A comprehensive review of position descriptions to accurately reflect actual duties and
responsibilities performed, including identification of essential job functions.
• A review and determination of exempt or non - exempt classification status per the Fair Labor
Standards Act as updated August 2004.
• The third phase of the RFQ /RFP would be to provide a detailed process for conducting
confidential, professional, and comprehensive surveys of our positions using the approved
comparables. This phase should include:
• A survey that addresses market rate salaries, benefits, staffing comparables, and spans of
control.
• An internal salary analysis to ensure, as much as possible, internal equity among non -
represented positions.
• A detailed analysis of the data and a vehicle for communication of that data as appropriate.
Councilmember Plunkett observed this item was on the Public Safety /Human Resources Committee
agenda in March, April and May; however, the packet contains no comment from the Committee. Ms.
Humann advised it was on the March, April and May agendas but due to lengthy conversations regarding
self- insurance, it has not been discussed.
Councilmember Plunkett commented under the existing policy certain individual's salaries may be
changed in accordance with the policy. He asked if those changes came to the Council in the budget as a
separate ordinance and if the Council votes on the changes the policy implements. Ms. Humann answered
the bands are approved by Council annually via the salary ordinance. Salaries via the merit process stay
within those bands. The Council does not approve each merit increase, but they do approve the bands.
Councilmember Plunkett recalled before L -5 and NCR, the policy was salary changes came to the
Council in a package. Ms. Humann advised that was still done via the budget process. Each department
provides their budget for salaries and benefits, and salaries are also approved via the salary ordinance.
Each non - represented position is in a band by responsibility level. Per the NRC policy, each band is
adjusted annually via a market based survey. The adjusted bands are presented and approved by the
Council in a salary ordinance.
Councilmember Plunkett observed that was different than what was done previously. Ms. Humann
recalled it had always been done via a salary ordinance. Through the budget process each department
budgets what their employees will receive as a merit which is also approved by Council via the budget.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 21, 2011
Page 22
Councilmember Plunkett asked why there was a change from the previous policy to L -5. Ms. Humann
referred to a memo in the packet that provides the history. Her understanding is that prior to L -5 the City
did not have a policy. Via the L -5 all non - represented employees at the top of their band were at the
median marketplace salary. The L -5 policy required surveying every non - represented position,
approximately a three month process. When staff was reduced in Human Resources, that process was no
longer possible and the L -5 policy was streamlined, producing the NRC policy where only two positions
are surveyed to the marketplace and the bands adjusted accordingly.
Councilmember Plunkett commented his reference to the former policy was pre-L-5. Prior to L -5 salaries
were presented to Council and the Council would vote on them. He asked how the Council's role pre -L -5
differed from the current policy. Ms. Humann advised the L -5 policy was established about the time she
was hired. Her understanding is that there was no policy prior to L -5. Councilmember Plunkett noted not
having a policy was a policy. Pre-L-5, each pay increase was presented to Council. He asked if the
Council via the budget process votes on every increase. Ms. Humann responded the Council approves the
salary ordinance that establishes the bands but does not review every non - represented employee's
increase unless a Councilmember reviewed the budget line item by line item by department and identified
salaries. Councilmember Plunkett observed that even if the Council did not review every non - represented
employees increase, the Council had the final authority via the budget. Ms. Humann agreed, noting the
Council also reviews and approves the salary ordinance every year.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether not providing an employee the amount called for in the policy
created a liability for the City. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered he would need to confer with one of
their employment lawyers. He assumed the City's budgetary process would trump the NRC policy. Ms.
Humann advised although the NRC policy states merit increases are 0 -3% based on performance, one
year merit increases were completely frozen and for the last 3 years the ceiling has beenl.5%.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas observed this issue was on the March, April and May Public
Safety /Human Resources Committee agenda but not discussed. In May it was forwarded to the full
Council. She suggested this issue be returned to the Committee.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas commented the Public Safety /Human Resources Committee is no longer
the title of that committee; it is now only the Public Safety Committee. Ms. Humann advised it was her
understanding the Committee was Public Safety/Human Resources.
Councilmember Buckshnis explained this issue began at the Finance Committee last year.
Councilmember Wilson, Chair of the Public Safety/Human Resources Committee, felt it should return to
the Finance Committee. She supported proceeding with a compensation study, pointing out for example
she did not agree with placing the Chief Information Officer in Band D due to the importance of his role
in the City. An independent review of the bands would be appropriate.
Mayor Cooper recalled the Council budgeted $50,000 for a compensation study. He suggested
respondents to the RFP /RFQ be asked to provide separate proposals for each portion to allow the Council
to choose which parts of the study to proceed with. As the budget cycle begins, it is critical to have a
better picture of non - represented employee compensation. He relayed Councilmember Wilson's
suggestion to only proceed with the job description portion of the study. Mayor Cooper suggested that
was inconsistent with the budget amendment which requested a compensation study not a job description
study. He suggested to Councilmember Wilson and Council President Peterson that proceeding with only
the job description portion of the study needed to be the consensus of the Council, not the two members
of the Public Safety /Human Resources Committee. Staff and the Mayor recommended doing the RFP for
all three portions and then deciding which portions to proceed with.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 21, 2011
Page 23
For Councilmember Petso, Ms. Humann advised the job descriptions must be updated with or without a
compensation consultant. Councilmember Petso asked if only job descriptions and salary survey could be
done. Ms. Humann answered the Council did not agree with the NRC policy; since the policy generally
guides the work, it was included in the scope of work. Councilmember Petso commented her
disagreement with the policy is almost entirely with the banding and the selection of L -5 cities for salary
comparisons.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO DIRECT THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, MAYOR AND STAFF,
TO WRITE AND ADVERTISE AN RFQ/RFP FOR A COMPENSATION AND CLASSIFICATION
STUDY FOR THREE PHASES, ANALYZING AND UPDATING THE CURRENT
COMPENSATION POLICY, REVIEWING AND UPDATING ALL NON - REPRESENTED JOB
DESCRIPTIONS AND A DETAILED PROCESS FOR CONDUCTING A DETAILED PROCESS
FOR CONDUCTING CONFIDENTIAL, PROFESSIONAL AND COMPREHENSIVE SURVEYS.
Councilmember Bernheim recalled he voted against a compensation and classification study in the past.
He expressed concern with $50,000 to readjust the bands when there was little money at stake in the
adjustment. He preferred to work with the in -house Human Resources and save the $50,000 for more
urgent needs.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas asked if there was anything that could be done at the Committee or
Council level to reduce the cost of a consultant. Ms. Humann responded few cities use a compensation
consultant; the City has not used a compensation consultant since 1997 and she is uncertain how much the
study will cost. It may be possible to hire a different consultant to complete each portion of the study.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas asked if there was anything the Council could do to reduce the scope of
work. She agreed with Councilmember Bernheim's concern regarding the amount of money, but it may
be worthwhile in the long run if it is only done once every 10 -15 years. Ms. Humann responded a
compensation survey requires a lot of man hours. Because there is disagreement regarding the policy, an
outside consultant will be helpful in providing examples that may work. With regard to comparables, in
her opinion comparables should be entities from which the City draws employees or to whom they lose
employees. Selecting a comparable that does not fit those categories is not an appropriate comparable.
Preparing job descriptions will take time meeting with supervisors and employees to ensure the essential
functions identified are accurate. Conducting salary surveys will also take a great deal of time. Having a
consultant does not mean they will do the job on their own; Human Resources staff will work closely
with the consultant.
Councilmember Plunkett observed the motion was not to spend $50,000; it is to provide additional
information that the Council can use to make a decision regarding how to proceed. He asked if
administration would like to complete all the portions of the study. Mayor Cooper responded all the
portions need to be done but it is ultimately up to the Council to prioritize them. The most important is the
salary survey and job descriptions. If proposals are submitted separately, the Council can decided which
ones to award. Councilmember Plunkett summarized he could support some or all the portions of the
study if administration said it was needed.
Council President Peterson advised the intent of the motion was to advertise for an RFP, not allocate any
money yet. The RFP will determine the cost which will assist the Council in their decision.
la[DTIY[I7►[alIat7101 oxf -aE Ke111 ►reImaIplaIn01ma01wil.,101 lamo Y1►[E oll
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BERNHEIM, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED 5 -0.
(Councilmember Petso was not present for the vote.)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 21, 2011
Page 24
Mayor Cooper requested Council President Peterson identify two Councilmembers to participate on a
consultant review /selection team.
10. RESOLUTION REGARDING EDMONDS ENERGY INDEPENDENCE.
Council President Peterson explained the resolution contains a checklist of what the Council and City has
accomplished in recent years with regard to energy. He cited the importance of benchmarking what has
been accomplished.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 1252, A RESOLUTION REGARDING EDMONDS
ENERGY INDEPENDENCE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
1 '$11�1.1[1Jk N10k1i7A D1►1 D1 Z0MM 1115i.`�
Council President Peterson advised the packet contains the final product from the New Energy Cities
workshop, a roadmap with ideas for moving forward on an action plan. The next step is to reconvene the
60 people who attended the 2 -day New Energy conference to describe what has been accomplished and
what the City hopes to accomplish. Later this summer there will be a more formal discussion by the
Council regarding opportunities to take meaningful action to save energy in the City.
Mayor Cooper commented the Council and staff worked with the New Energy Cities team on the action
plan. The Mayor's Climate Protection Committee has reviewed the action plan and he has requested they
assist him with developing priorities for Council consideration in July. The next agenda item is on the
action plan.
12. ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION CONTRACT.
Public Works Director Phil Williams explained Coloumb Technologies is a company with a federal grant
to provide charging stations distributed on a regional and equitable basis through the United States.
Although the current supply of electric vehicles cannot keep up with demand, adequate infrastructure
needs to be in place. Most cities are working through a contract with Coloumb Technologies to obtain
chargers distributed by ChargePoint NW or another contractor. Staff considered both and recommends a
contract with ChargePoint. There was no upper limit on the number of charging stations a city can request
but there is a balance between the cost associated with operating them and the demand. Staff proposes the
following:
• Six "free" stations (approximately a $40,000 value)
0 2 at the Public Safety Complex
0 2 on Main Street between 5t` and 6th
0 1 at City Park
0 1 on the south wall of City Hall
• City pays installation costs (approximately $20,000)
• City owns the stations and sets the rate for charging (i.e. $1 -3 /hour)
• ChargePoint collects $0.50 /charge plus 7.5% for administering the billing service and $199 /year
for network management (free during DOE program through2013)
• City is responsible for maintenance of charging stations
Mr. Williams provided photographs of the ChargePoint charging stations. There is opportunity to identify
the charging station as City of Edmonds and the LCD on the charging station can be programmed.
Charging stations are networked and smartphone apps allow the user to find charging stations, identify
which ones are available, etc.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 21, 2011
Page 25
Councilmember Plunkett observed staff anticipates charging stations will become more popular and asked
whether the City will need to continually provide more and more electric vehicle charging stations. Mr.
Williams advised most cities are moving in this direction including Shoreline, Redmond, Bellevue and
Seattle. The grants require the stations be installed and operational prior to November. It could be that a
private sector organization sees an opportunity to commercialize charging stations. He anticipated it will
require government to get the process started and establish the market.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the City would net revenue from the charging stations. Mr.
Williams answered the rate could be set to more than cover the costs assuming there is sufficient demand.
Councilmember Plunkett inquired about maintenance costs. Mr. Williams answered the vendor indicates
the stations do not require normal maintenance. There may be costs associated with damage to the
charging stations which he anticipated may occur due to their location near the curb.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONTRACT FOR THE MAYOR'S SIGNATURE. MOTION
CARRIED (5 -1), COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT VOTING NO.
13. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF .TUNE 14.2011.
Finance Committee
Councilmember Petso reported sales tax collections are per expectations. The reports now tie, allowing
Councilmember Buckshnis to get from the quarterly statement to the financial statements. Staff is
working hard to answer outstanding questions prior to next week's levy discussions.
Community Services/Development Services Committee
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas reported the Committee considered numerous items, most of which were
approved on the Consent Agenda. She highlighted several items. The Six Year Transportation Plan will
be forwarded to Council for a public hearing. The Committee had an exploratory discussion about
businesses in parks. The Cultural Services Manager provided the Committee an update on the SR 99
International District Enhancement Project.
Public Safety Committee
Councilmember Buckshnis reported the Committee discussed Marine 16, which is the rescue boat utilized
95% by Fire District 1. Per contract, the Edmonds Police Department pays for repair and maintenance,
approximately $50,000 over the past 2� /z years. Assistant Chief Lawless and Mayor Cooper plan to
renegotiate the contract with FD1. The Committee also discussed revisions to the open burning
regulations that currently do not allow recreational enjoyment of fires. The revisions will address
ceremonial fires and fire pits.
14. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Cooper reported Marine 16 responded to a call this evening to pick up a person with a medical
emergency at Picnic Point Park.
Mayor Cooper reported Mr. Clifton, Ms. Humann and he reviewed 19 applications for the Finance
Director position and the team interviewed 4 applicants. After the directors held additional interviews
with two of the four applicants, he made a decision not to recommend a person for confirmation by the
Council. The position will be advertised again.
Mayor Cooper attended the unveiling of the new sign at the Edmonds Library honoring the late
Councilmember Peggy Prichard - Olson. He thanked Council President Peterson and Councilmember
Bernheim who attended and for bringing the idea forward originally.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 21, 2011
Page 26
Mayor Cooper relayed that former Councilmember Bill Kasper passed away a few weeks ago.
15. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Peterson thanked Mayor Cooper for his words at the ceremony renaming the Edmonds
Library, noting it was an honor to attend that ceremony.
Council President Peterson reported he was honored to attend the retirement party for L.P. Miller who is
retiring after 29 years with the Edmonds Police Department.
16. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:12 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 21, 2011
Page 27