04/07/2015 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
April 7, 2015
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:49 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember (arrived 6:58 p.m.)
Lora Petso, Councilmember (arrived 6:56 p.m.)
Joan Bloom, Councilmember (arrived 7:01 p.m.)
Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember
Michael Nelson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Noushyal Eslami, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir.
Scott James, Finance Director
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Eng. Program Mgr.
Rob English, City Engineer
Renee McRae, Recreation Manager
Carolyn LaFave, Executive Assistant
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Linda Hynd, Deputy City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. MEET WITH SISTER CITY CANDIDATE PATRICK SWEENEY FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE
ESCC
At 6:49 p.m., the City Council met with Patrick Sweeney, candidate for appointment to the Edmonds
Sister City Commission. The meeting took place in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety
Complex. All elected officials were present with the exception of Councilmembers Johnson, Petso and
Bloom.
Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:00 p.m. and led the flag salute.
2. ROLL CALL
Deputy City Clerk Linda Hynd called the roll. All elected officials were present.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Petso requested Items G and K be removed from the Consent Agenda.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 7, 2015
Page 1
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL RETREAT MINUTES OF MARCH 13-14,2015
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 24, 2015
C. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM ANDY DUFFUS
D. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #213388 THROUGH #213542 DATED MARCH 26,
2015 FOR $350,579.26
E. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #213543 THROUGH #213649 DATED APRIL 2, 2015
FOR $238,800.59. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL REPLACEMENT CHECK #61554,
DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #61555 THROUGH #61564 FOR $486,320.19,
BENEFIT CHECKS #61565 THROUGH #61572 AND WIRE PAYMENTS OF $416,835.18
FOR THE PAY PERIOD MARCH 16, 2015 THROUGH MARCH 31, 2015
F. CONFIRMATION OF PATRICK SWEENEY'S APPOINTMENT TO THE SISTER CITY
COMMISSION
H. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN 2015 SPECIAL EVENT CONTRACTS
I. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE A HEALTH &
FITNESS EXPO
J. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A LOCAL AGENCY AGREEMENT FOR
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR THE 228TH CORRIDOR
PROJECT AND THE SR99 PH 3 LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS
L. REPORT OF FINAL CONTRACT COSTS OF THE ANNUAL SEWER REPLACEMENT
PROJECT - PHASE 1
M. AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE 2014 NEW HOLLAND T6.165 TRACTOR
ITEM G: AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH
THE CITIES OF LYNNWOOD AND MOUNTLAKE TERRACE ON CITY-WIDE
BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS
Councilmember Petso asked what happens if the City accepts the grant money to design bike lanes on 76"'
by reducing the travel lanes and later decides not to proceed with the project or to undo project, whether
the City has to repay the grant money that was spent for project design or construction. City Attorney Jeff
Taraday said the grant documents are completely silent with regard to the second scenario, where the
project is built and after a couple years it is not working well. He would be surprised if Verdant would
require repayment in that scenario. The contract does address the scenario where before completing the
project the City decides to do something else. To distill the grant obligation to one sentence, it is
essentially that Edmonds agrees to design, construct and implement the Edmonds projects identified in
Exhibit A. If the Council did not intend to do that, it should not enter into this agreement.
Mr. Taraday read from Section 513 in the agreement relating to changes in scope: If at any time Edmonds
wishes to revise the scope of the project, Edmonds shall notify Lynnwood of the requested revision. Then
Lynnwood shall submit a scope revision request to Verdant for Verdant's consideration and approval. If
Lynnwood wishes to revise the scope of the project, then Lynnwood shall submit a scope revision request
to Verdant for Verdant's consideration and approval. The parties recognize that pursuant to Paragraph 4.1
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 7, 2015
Page 2
of the Verdant Agreement, Verdant, at Verdant's option, may object to any scope revision request if the
revisions will be materially inconsistent with the project identified in Exhibits A and B and such
inconsistency will substantially interfere with the intended use of the project. If Verdant objects to a
request for a scope revision, Lynnwood shall attempt to resolve Verdant's objection. Edmonds shall
cooperate with and provide reasonable assistance to Lynnwood in Lynnwood's attempt to resolve
Verdant's objection. If Lynnwood is unable to resolve Verdant's objection within 30 days after receiving
such notice, and if the party requesting the scope revision does not elect to proceed with the original
scope of the project, the parties recognize that Verdant may execute its options to terminate its funding
obligations. He clarified the agreement does not say anything about repaying money, only terminate
funding obligations. He interpreted that to mean that the City would not get any more money from
Verdant if a decision was made not to continue the project but it did not set forth any repayment
obligation. Similarly the agreement is also silent with regard to repayment obligation.
Councilmember Bloom referred to information regarding the road diet that was presented in the Consent
packet. She explained 8-80 Cities, an organization that deals with safety for 8 -year olds and 80 -year olds,
who says sharrows are not effective or safe and recommends a grade separation or a physical barrier
between the road, the bike lane and the pedestrian walkway. In the information regarding the road
diet/transit, page 14 of the Seattle study includes a picture of Dexter Avenue before and after where the
bike lane is on inside so there is a grade separation for pedestrians and a division between the road and
bicyclists. She asked whether that design would be strongly considered in this design. The materials state
sharrows will be used which is essentially bicycles sharing the road with vehicles. Mr. Williams asked
which location she was referring to.
Councilmember Bloom answered particularly in the areas around schools. She recalled several bicycle
advocates have spoken to the Council about programs where children ride their bikes to school under the
supervision of adults. She wanted assurance the children would be safe and that there would be a grade
separation or a physical barrier not just a sharrow in school areas. Mr. Williams agreed with the
observation that a protected, buffered bike lane, whether a physical or visible barrier, was better than a
sharrow. A dedicated bike lane was also better than a sharrow. He did not necessarily agree that a sharrow
was completely not advisable in some situations and in some places there was not a choice due the
amount of right-of-way available and the physical setting. When the average daily traffic (ADT), width of
pavement and width of the sharrow is considered, a sharrow gets more effective the wider the lane is and
the lower the traffic volumes are. He summarized there are places where sharrows are useful.
Councilmember Bloom clarified that was not her question. She was impressed with the 8-80 Cities
approach; she would not feel safe having an 8 -year old ride in a sharrow. She asked whether the Dexter
Avenue design where the bike lane is on the inside and sidewalk borders the road with a grade separation,
will be considered. Mr. Williams answered the $736,000 grant was built around certain assumptions with
regard to bicycle facilities. Most of pictures of Seattle are exactly what is proposed, for example on 76`h
where there are currently 2 lanes in each direction will be changed to a 3 lane section with a center turn
lane and dedicated bike lanes on the side of the road. He acknowledged it was not a protected bike lane
but was a striped bike lane, 5 feet reserved for bicycles only. If the intent was to move the sidewalk
outside the bike lane, pedestrians would be exposed to traffic. One of the advantages of a 3 lane section
with bike lanes was it provides additional buffer between vehicles and pedestrians and created a better
pedestrian experience. He did not think the Dexter Avenue geometry would be considered, basically for
financial reasons and he did not believe that configuration had been proposed.
Councilmember Bloom cited from the materials, "below are benefits that may be achieved with the 3 -lane
conversion: buffered space for pedestrians" and asked what that meant. Mr. Williams answered that was
one of the benefits of dedicated bike lanes. Councilmember Bloom observed the bike lane was the buffer.
Mr. Williams said the 5 -foot bike lane between the pedestrian walkway and the travel lane provided a
safer feeling for pedestrians.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 7, 2015
Page 3
Councilmember Bloom said for those reasons she will vote against the agreement. The City should
consider safe bicycle lanes even if they are more expensive, especially near the elementary school.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
MESAROS, TO APPROVE ITEM G. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM
VOTING NO.
ITEM K: AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH KPG FOR THE CITY-WIDE BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS,
TO APPROVE ITEM K. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING NO.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Fred Gouge, Port Commissioner, provided an update regarding Harbor Square, noting the Master Plan
has been shelved by the Port Commission. There are currently five office buildings in Harbor Square. In
the last year, the Port spent nearly $1 million for roofs and new HVAC systems in buildings 1, 2 and 5.
These are 20 -year improvements since no other improvements will be made to Harbor Square such as
housing or mixed use under the current zoning. In 2015 the Port plans to replace the roofs and HVAC on
buildings 3 and 4 at a cost of approximately $750,000. Upon learning the expansion of Salish Crossing
would require closure of the Channel Marker, the Port negotiated a long term lease with the Channel
Marker for nearly 6,000 square feet (the former Las Brisas space) and it will open in the next 5-10 days.
The Port also plans to improve the landscaping at Harbor Square. Harbor Square includes approximately
102,000 square feet of office space and is currently about 83% occupied. The remaining spaces in the
single story buildings are more difficult to rent. He invited the public to attend Port Commission meetings
held at 7:00 p.m. on the second and last Monday of each month
John Rubenkonig, Edmonds, Vice Chair, Economic Development Commission, explained at the March
18 meeting, one of the members asked that Council action on the Strategic Action Plan be delayed so that
it could be studied further. The Commission overwhelming rejected that idea and would like the Council
to move forward with their regularly scheduled review and whatever action the Council wishes to take.
Jenny Anttila, Edmonds, commented although Dayton Avenue was one of the worst roads in the City,
2nd Avenue North was chipped last year even though nothing seemed to be wrong with it. She asked when
the City planned to address roads where there are holes and make regular repairs.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the elimination of language in the Comprehensive Plan regarding
air and light, stating providing natural light and air to citizens is an important guiding principle in
planning. Tall buildings and too many trees block air and light. He referred to support for increased
setbacks for the marsh in an effort to guarantee more natural air and light to prevent buildings being too
close. The code used to allow 25 foot buildings with a sloped roof at the corner to provide natural light
and air at the corner; today the 30 foot building height limit produces square buildings. He recalled air
and light were removed in the Cultural Plan and elsewhere in the Comprehensive Plan. With regard to
Westgate, he said the cemetery provides natural air and light and a 4 -story building should not be
constructed close to that natural park area. He encouraged the Council to consider how often air and light
was deleted from the Comprehensive Plan and to consider air and light in its decisions regarding building
heights.
Dave Page, Edmonds, explained the Steller Sea Lion was added to the endangered species list in 1989.
To date, approximately $22 million/year has been spent to protect them. The sea lions go as far north as
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 7, 2015
Page 4
the Aleutian Islands, come through Edmonds and in Astoria, Oregon, have taken over the docks. Sea lions
have thrived and an estimated 300,000 pass through Edmonds. Approximately 1/3 of them go up the
Columbia River to the Bonneville Dam and eat approximately 40% of the salmon, gaining an average of
100 pounds. Most of the sea lions then go the Channel Islands off Santa Barbara to breed. The average
Steller Sea Lion eats 35-40 pounds of salmon/day; Orcas eat approximately 300 pounds of salmon/day.
When sea lions can't get salmon, they eat anchovies, sardines, smelt and herring. In the Channel Islands
baby sea lions are dying and washing up on the beaches because there is not enough food. He summarized
this is a prime example of how sometimes the Endangered Species Act backfires. He recalled efforts to
relocate the sea lion Herschel who was eating salmon in the Ballard Locks. As a fisherman, diver, boater
and an environmentalist, he emphasized something was going on that needed to be discussed further.
6. MARINA BEACH PARK MASTER PLAN
Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director Carrie Hite explained Marina Beach is a gem of the
City's park system, highly used and loved by everyone and there be questions why it is being master
planned. The Comprehensive Plan and Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan included a goal to
rehab the marsh and daylight Willow Creek. To that end, the City's Stormwater Engineer Jerry Shuster,
Keely O'Connell, Earth Corps, and Dave Cline, Shannon & Wilson have been considering the feasibility
of daylighting Willow Creek through the marsh. The team has completed a 30% design process and has
received several grants for the project. The team is in the middle of a 60% design process on daylighting
Willow Creek. To complete that detailed design, a determination needs to be made regarding where
Willow Creek will cross Marina Beach Park.
Ms. Hite explained the culvert under the railroad tracks for Willow Creek directs the alignment. From the
hydrological and tidal influence studies the team did, Best Available Science (BAS) alignments were
created, Options/Alignments A and B. The City hired Chris Jones, WalkerMacy, who began with
Alignments A and B. A Project Advisory Committee was created and has been guiding her and Mr. Jones
through the process of master planning the park. Outreach has included two days of stakeholder meetings,
an open house that was attended by 50 citizens, an online open house that was very successful in
obtaining input from people unable to attend the open house, and a presentation regarding the alignments
to the Planning Board last week.
Preliminary input has been although Option A and B are BAS, people wanted to see an Option C. The
City worked with Mr. Cline and Mr. Jones to prepare an Option C which was presented to the Planning
Board last week. The alignments that will be presented include 100 -foot buffers which are the worst case
scenario. Efforts are underway to check with future anticipated funders of the project with regard to
buffers for salmon -bearing creeks. The City's Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) includes 100 buffers but
allows buffer reduction/averaging which could reduce the buffers. She noted passive recreation can occur
in a buffer such as trails, meanderings and environmental education.
Chris Jones, Walker Macy, explained Walke1 Macy was hired last year to reconfigure Marina Beach in
the way the community sees fit and accommodate the daylighting of Willow Creek. This is a 2 phase
project, 1) information gathering and public outreach, and 2) developing design alternatives. He displayed
a list of stakeholders, explaining in February he and Ms. Hite interviewed a significant number of
community members and people with a stake in the park. He highlighted input from Kojo Fordjour,
WSDOT/WSF, who advised there currently is no funding or plans for Edmonds Crossing to move
forward; and Walter Smith, BNSF, who said there currently is no funding or plans for a third rail line that
will impact Marina Beach Park.
Approximately 50 people attended the first open house on March 4, 2015; the attendees were broken into
groups and asked to provide input on the alignment of Willow Creek, their preference regarding the
alignment, current conditions at the park that work and do not work, and moving program elements.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 7, 2015
Page 5
Mr. Jones displayed several pictures of the park, explaining the input provided indicated Marina Beach is
a beloved community resource for active and passive recreation, views, storm watching, ferries, the dog
park, and the adjacency and experience of Puget Sound. Many of the existing amenities are well used
during different times of the day such as picnic areas, playground, volleyball, the dog park as well as
windsurfers, wakeboards and other watercraft. The public had concerns with restrooms and many
requested brick and mortar restrooms instead of the existing porta potties. There were also many
comments regarding parking, both parking in Marina Beach and the Port's overflow property.
With that information Walker Macy prepared two site diagrams. He displayed a context diagram,
explaining external forces, pedestrian and vehicular ways, and natural resources including Edmonds
Marsh were used to inform their decisions. Displaying a site analysis, he explained they considered site
specific elements of the park such as parking counts, pedestrian and vehicular circulation and adjacencies
to BNSF, the marina, etc.
WalkerMacy overlaid Option A and B prepared by Shannon & Wilson on an aerial map of the park to
illustrate how Willow Creek will interact with the park and opportunities and constraint. He displayed and
reviewed Option A which goes to the south through the dog park. He identified the 100 -foot buffers that
are required by code, noting they may be allowed to be reduced. He displayed and reviewed Option B
which bisects the park, breaking it into a northern and southern portion. This option also potentially
impacts parking and circulation as the buffer is close to the parking lot and reduces potential for
expanding parking and other active and passive recreational uses in the park.
When Options A and B were presented at the open house, there was interest in developing an Option C.
He displayed and reviewed Option C developed by Shannon & Wilson which also bisects parks but
leaves the dog park in place relatively unchanged and a significant portion of the park remains intact for
redevelopment on the north side of the creek.
Councilmember Johnson said the agenda memo states a new crossing under the existing BNSF railroad
bridge for the creek would be needed for Options A and B. It was her understanding the new crossing was
already in place. Mr. Jones agreed it was already in place and would be used. Councilmember Johnson
suggested the language in the agenda memo regarding a new crossing was misleading and it should be
clarified that the crossing underneath the existing BNSF railroad bridge for the creek already exists.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked what happens to the parking lot between the field and the dog
park in all three options. Mr. Jones answered it is impacted in all three schemes. Council President Fraley-
Monillas clarified that parking is lost in all three schemes. Mr. Jones agreed. Council President Fraley-
Monillas asked where parking would be located. Mr. Jones answered the number of parking stalls that
will be necessary for the redeveloped park and the location have not yet been determined. Potential
parking configurations will be determined in the next step.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked how the options impacted the parking on the north side. Mr.
Jones answered that parking likely will need to be reconfigured in all three alignments. Council President
Fraley-Monillas asked if reconfigured meant less parking. Ms. Hite said in all configurations Willow
Creek comes out at the southern parking lot. Input indicated the park has the right amount of parking;
some did not want additional parking because it would make the beach too crowded and some did not
want the parking reduced because it currently is the right amount. Ms. Hite said Walke� Macy envisions a
wider, one-way, drive-through north parking lot with a median with rain gardens and buffers that would
add all the spaces back. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if that would eliminate some of the park
area. Ms. Hite answered yes, daylighting Willow Creek will require moving things around. Council
President Fraley-Monillas asked whether reducing the size of the dog park had been considered. Ms. Hite
answered they were looking at everything.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 7, 2015
Page 6
With regard to the outfall, Councilmember Nelson asked which option was best for salmon. Mr. Jones
answered Option B. Dave Cline, Shannon & Wilson, answered the engineering, geomorphology and
fisheries analysis indicated Option B was better because, 1) it is longer and juvenile salmonids will use
that length of shoreline for habitat and 2) in this area the net shoreline drift is south to north and sediment
transports along the shore will move into the channel and would preferentially redirect the channel
slightly to the north. In a channel that is pointed more south, sediment deposition could be expected to
occur in the mouth of the channel and migrate back and forth and require more maintenance. The
alignment in Option B is more in line with the natural sediment drift.
Councilmember Nelson asked his opinion of Option C. Mr. Cline answered they did not analyze Option C
for fish or geomorphology so its benefits are likely in the middle. Option C follows the old Unocal pier
location and things may be found when the channel is being excavated. He recommended minimizing that
if possible although removal of a creosote pile could be handled engineering -wise.
Councilmember Mesaros referred to Slide 15 (Site Analysis), relaying there are 25 parking spaces in the
southern lot and 11 spaces in the northern lot, a total of 36 spaces. He observed replacing the southern
spaces in the northern lot would more than doubling the north parking lot. Mr. Jones agreed that was a
dilemma.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether Option B was where channel Willow Creek used to be. Keeley
O'Connell, Earth Corps, said no, the historic channel was about in the alignment of the southern
breakwater of the marina. When the marsh was 100 acres the creek opening was at the front of a large
sand spit on the beach (that no longer exists) at the approximate alignment of the southern breakwater.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked about the location of the pipe in Marina Beach. Stormwater Engineering
Program Manager Jerry Schuster explained when the marina was built in the 1960s, the outlet to Willow
Creek was rerouted around the marina.
Councilmember Johnson asked about the relationship of Shoreline Master Program (SMP) to the Marina
Beach Master Plan. Ms. Hite answered the SMP talks about CAO as well as buffers. The buffers will
impact Marina Beach. Recreation pursuits are allowed by the SMP and parks can be developed within the
shoreline but buffers need to be considered.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether structures within the shoreline also have to be considered. Ms.
Hite agreed that is related to the buffer requirement. The 100 -foot buffers make it difficult to site parking
which is considered a structure. The team will do due diligence on the buffers to determine whether buffer
reduction or averaging can be used. That is allowed by the City's SMP and CAO but state and federal
requirements must be considered due to potential future funding. Good preliminary discussions have
occurred with Department of Ecology regarding the possibility of buffer reduction and averaging which
would provide greater flexibility for parking than the existing alignments.
Ms. Hite encouraged Councilmembers to email her with any further comments regarding the alignments.
Another open house will be held soon and she encouraged the Council and public to attend. Alternative
concepts will be presented to the Planning Board and Council in May, followed by public comment in
June and July and she hoped to return to Council for adoption in August.
7. DISCUSSION REGARDING ISSUANCE OF 2015 WATER, SEWER, AND STORMWATER
UTILITY REVENUE BONDS
Public Works Director Phil Williams introduced Alice Ostdiek, Foster Pepper (bond counsel), and Scott
Bauer, Dashen & Associates (bond advisor). Mr. Williams explained this is the third biannual issuance of
utility revenue bonds. The first was done in 2011 followed by another in 2013. The plan has been to
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 7, 2015
Page 7
borrow money every two years to support the capital pipe replacement/rehabilitation program for the
water, stormwater and sewer utility. Each utility has its own separate Comprehensive Plan that is adopted
as part of the City's overall Comprehensive Plan every five years. The Water and Stormwater
Comprehensive Plans were adopted in 2010. A contract was recently executed with Murray Smith and
Associates to update the Water Comprehensive Plan; the Stormwater Comprehensive Plan will be
updated in 2016. The Sewer Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2013.
Since 2010 each plan has included a recommendation to immediately begin an ongoing, predictable
program to replace old pipe infrastructure. Many of the City's water and sewer lines are 70-90 years old
and need to be replaced. The goal is to replace 1% of the linear footage of the lines every year. He
acknowledged it will take a long time to complete at 1%/year and begins to look less like a capital project
and more like a very long, expensive maintenance project. The use of debt is very important to the
utilities but needs to be done intelligently and thoughtfully. As the Council has expressed in the past,
borrowing money every two years to do what amounts to maintenance is not wise and the goal is to wean
the City off revenue bond issuances every two years. It is hoped with the Council's continued support of
rate adjustments that sufficient current revenues can be generated for this purpose in a few more years.
Scott Bauer, Dashen & Associates, presented the following information:
• Bond market
o Interest rates hit 40 -year lows in early December 2012, and close to the same lows in January
2015
o Rates are generally down from the most recent peak in September 2013 and are relatively low
from ahistorical standpoint
o Chart: Bond Buyer 20 -Bond GO Index 1990 to present
Outstanding Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds
0 2011 bond issuance and refinancing outstanding debt
0 2013 bonds
Plan of Finance
o Provide approximately $14 million in project funds for the water, sewer, and stormwater
systems
o Fund the reserve account and pay the bond issuance costs
o Level debt service
o Final maturity:
■ 15 year
- All interest cost: 3.16%
- Average annual debt service: $1,399K
■ 20 year
- All interest cost: 3.60%
- Average annual debt service $1,092K (staff recommendation)
25 year
- All interest cost: 3.82%
- Average annual debt service $952K
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested with the basis point bump between 15 and 20, 25 years would be
more advisable; she asked why 20 years was chosen. Mr. Williams answered the City has done 20 years
in the past, 25 years was selected in 2013 due to the incredibly low rates. He agreed an argument could be
made for 25 year bonds; water and sewer lines will last longer than 25 years but with the higher rate of
interest for a longer period, the total amount of interest is noticeably higher. The thought was to pick a
middle ground to keep the interest reasonably low over time but not a 15 year period where the payments
are quite large. Councilmember Buckshnis preferred 25 years because interest rate will not stay this low
for a long time and refinancing bonds is costly. Mr. Williams said that same logic could apply to the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 7, 2015
Page 8
amount borrowed; he would prefer to borrow more instead of for a longer period of time. Finance
Director Scott James referred to the rate study, pointing out the City is in the second year of a three year
rate increase. The goal of the rate increases was to wean the utilities form issuing debt so 25 years is
contrary to that goal. He suggested adopting a debt policy that states the Council's preference regarding
the term of debt. He summarized the longer the term, the more interest that is paid.
Mr. Bauer agreed interest rates are exceptionally low. There is a lot of benefit debt service -wise between
15 and 20 years, less so from 20 to 25 years. He continued his presentation:
• Delegation Authority
o Under Washington State law, the City Council can delegate final approval of bond sale to
designated individuals
■ This has been utilized on the City's prior transactions
o This delegated authority allows the bond sale to occur on days other than a board meeting /
City Council date
o Certain parameters are set in advance in the Ordinance
- Maximum issue sizes
- Maximum interest rates
- Minimum savings
- Final maturity
o Provides more flexibility in timing bond issue
Schedule of Events
o April 21: Council Consideration of Delegation Ordinance
o Week of May 18: Rating Visit
o June 3: Post Preliminary Official Statement(Marketing Document)
o June 10: Competitive Bond Sale
o June 24: Bond Closing -Funds Available
Mr. Williams recalled when this was discussed at the study session, consideration was being given to
combining this biannual borrowing with the smaller one that would occur in two years. He described
things that have happened at the Wastewater Treatment Plan including replacement of blowers and
replacing the floor in clarifier 3 which was not in the CIP. Although the partners in the WWTP will help
fund these projects, there will need to be additional borrowing by the wastewater fund to cover those
costs. The next biannual borrowing is $3.5 million and a case could be made to increase the $14 million
to $17.5 million but that is not the recommendation tonight.
8. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF UPDATED STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN AND ADOPTION OF
IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
Economic Development & Community Services Director Patrick Doherty recalled a presentation by
Cynthia Bern, the SAP consultant, and himself regarding the SAP update and Implementation Plan
Report. He provided background on the SAP:
• SAP is City's roadmap to the future, containing 88 action items
• Strategic Action Plan (SAP) - City's roadmap to the future, containing 88 action items
• Approved by City Council 4/2/13
• Living policy document
• Created over 2 -year period with surveys, charrettes, focus groups
• Approx. 2500 people participated
• City Council allocated $40,000 in 2014 budget to provide for an update to the SAP and an
implementation plan.
Long Bay Enterprises, Inc., conducted the following scope of services:
o Identify lead agents, participants, stakeholders
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 7, 2015
Page 9
o Update SAP action items
o Meet with SAP Working Group
o Prepare final report (presented 3/10/15)
He provided an overview of the updates to the Action Items:
• Vast majority of the updates were editorial or clerical revisions to the original document to clarify
wording, correct inconsistencies, add clarity
• List of participants was updated
• Acronyms were defined
• Per Council comments 3/10/15 — references to BID/Edmonds Downtown Alliance were
corrected; acronyms defined, City Council was added as Primary Co -Lead in several places
• Eight Action Items saw more "substantive" changes, although no new policy direction is
proposed
o Action 1a.14 (66a): Development regulations
■ Deleted as is redundant. The preceding related Action Items Ia. 7 through Ia. 13 cover this
issue in detail for each commercial area of town so a generic action item on the same
topic is not required
o Action 1e.1 (27): Organization and Promotion — arts and culture:
■ Action Item 1e.2 is being combined with le.l as they cover the same topic
o Action 2a.3 (45c): Stormwater — Resolve Flooding on SR 104 and Dayton
■ Proposed additional wording clarifies the intent of this Action Item
o Action 3a.15 (4 lb): Senior Center (relocate to another location)
■ Deleted as no longer reflects City Council policy after recent actions (approval of PROS
Plan and approval of intent to renew long-term lease)
o Action 4b.1: Maintain Public Works Growth Management Concurrency
■ Revision simply adds explanatory text where there was none in the original SAP
(develop, apply, maintain and implement public works strategies identified in the
comprehensive plan)
o Action 5a.3 (72): Assess performance results of SAP
■ Revision clarifies that, in addition to ongoing assessment of City programs, projects and
budget, the SAP shall be assessed regularly.
o Action 5a.4 (71): Strategic Action Plan Implementation
■ Revision clarifies that the SAP shall be adopted and implemented
o Action 5c.1: Safe and security environment
■ Revision adds explanatory text where there was none in the original SAP (to reduce
crime and enhance public safety and security, improving quality of life for the
community)
Mr. Doherty relayed the Mayor and staff's recommendation:
• Approval of updated SAP
• Adoption of the implement Plan Report (which includes recommendation for implementation and
tracking in 2015 and renewed public outreach and more substantive update potentially in 2016)
Councilmember Petso referred to two added items regarding police and roads that were not in the SAP
survey which is why they did contained insufficient description and no priority ranking. She asked about
the balance between basing the SAP on voter priorities from the survey versus "open season, think up
something cool that's not in there and just stick it in." Mr. Doherty said the two items related to public
works providing infrastructure and providing public safety are not new items; they were in the approved
SAP but the explanatory language was missing. He assumed because the City has always and will
continue to provide public safety and infrastructure, they were a given with regard to implementation. He
was unsure why an explanation was not included.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 7, 2015
Page 10
Council President Fraley-Monillas noted Strategic Objective 5c, that appears above Action Item 5c.1
states, Ensure a safe and secure environment for residents, businesses and visitors.
Councilmember Petso pointed out there is no rank for Action 5c.1 because it was not in the voter survey.
Most of the Action Items have the question number from the voter survey in parenthesis. She asked
whether it was time now to add things that voters were not surveyed on. Mr. Doherty reiterated these are
not new Action Items, they are in the adopted SAP; only the explanatory language is new. Although he
was not on staff last year, he assumed because these were things the City has to do by law, perhaps an
opportunity to vote on them was not offered. A ranking is not provided because those activities occur
every day. Their inclusion in the SAP is important because they counter pose many of the other items
against things the City does every day.
With regard to the Economic Development Commission's (EDC) preference for the Council to move
forward, Councilmember Petso said she received an email from a commissioner who repeated the request
made at the meeting that the EDC have an opportunity for further review before Council action. She
asked whether that opportunity could be provided. Mr. Doherty responded at the March 18 meeting, an
absent member requested by proxy that the EDC consider requesting the Council delay the process to
allow for greater review of the changes by the EDC. At the meeting the EDC as a whole voted against
that request. Today's email from the commissioner states that person's personal preference. The EDC
SAP subgroup has not met this year so it is not accurate to say that that was their request. There is also a
slight difference of opinion regarding what the SAP Work Group's role is. It was an iterative process
between the members and the members agreed their role was not oversight/overview but rather a working
group. He summarized the implication that a subgroup of a committee below the Council should have an
oversight role is probably inappropriate.
Councilmember Petso understood why the recommendation was to adopt the SAP update but asked why
the recommendation was to adopt the consultant report and the Implementation Plan. Mr. Doherty said if
adopt was too strong, it could be accept, recognizing that it informs staff work.
Councilmember Buckshnis relayed Councilmember Johnson and she were at the first meeting of the SAP
Working Group when it was determined it was not an oversight group. Clearly the email reflects one
commissioner's opinion. She had no problem with the verbiage that was added to the SAP.
Council President Fraley-Monillas recalled public safety and infrastructure was discussed during a
charrette and recalled public safety was identified as a priority. She referred to the potential performance
measures for Action 5c.1: Safe and secure environment, such as measuring crimes per 1000 population,
number of arrests, reportable traffic collisions, etc. She was satisfied with the changes and did not see any
purpose for further review by the EDC.
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NELSON, TO
APPROVE THE UPDATED STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN AND ACCEPT THE
IMPLEMENTATION REPORT AND WORKSHEETS AND CONSIDER STAFF'S
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REVIEWING IT NEXT YEAR.
Councilmember Bloom said she has a very different opinion regarding the request by the EDC member
who was also a member of the Strategic Action Plan Implementation Group. She read from the
commissioner's email regarding Item 5a.3: "Project accountability was an outgrowth of Haines Wharf
and the public wanted more accountability in reporting on major projects." The original proposed changes
removed city projects from this item and left only SAP items subject to accountability." The original
public intent and support for this item is clear and how best to implement accountability for all city
projects, not just SAP items, should be considered. Just like Park funding, changes are being made that
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 7, 2015
Page 11
made it unclear what is Council's intent. Councilmember Bloom summarized the commissioner's points
are valid and worth of consideration.
Councilmember Bloom recalled a conversation Council President Fraley-Monillas had with the EDC
Chair Schindler during the EDC's annual report that suggested some members felt unheard. She felt this
commissioner's request should be honored, especially since he included specific examples. She expressed
concern other EDC members did not want the EDC's SAP subgroup to review the SAP. Mr. Doherty said
the example Councilmember Bloom cited above from the commissioner's email was the result of the
addition of "of SAP" to Action 5a.3. The strategic objective adds monitoring of the SAP to the ongoing
annual assessment of other City programs. He responded via email to the commissioner's specific points
and the commissioner replied his concerns were satisfied. When the EDC voted on the request for the
SAP subgroup to review the SAP before Council action, commissioners stated they had been involved,
had reviewed the Action Items, it was important to them that implementation move forward and they did
not see the value in further review by a subgroup. He summarized one commissioner is interested in
providing additional comment, but the majority opinion was not to request additional review.
Councilmember Bloom referred to page Action 5a.5 (64) NGO participation that identifies Edmonds
Downtown Alliance as a non-governmental organization. Since the Council created the BID and the City
staffs their meetings and the Finance Department bills BID members, she asked how it was not an NGO.
Mr. Doherty explained the BID was already listed as an example and the name was simply changed from
BID to Edmonds Downtown Alliance. He asked the City Attorney whether the BID should be considered
an NGO. Mr. Taraday said the BID is not a separate legal entity; it is a creature of the City similar to the
Planning Board or EDC, therefore there is no reason to call it out distinctly and is not a NGO.
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, MOVED TO
AMEND THE STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN TO REMOVE EDMONDS DOWNTOWN
ALLIANCE FROM THE STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE UNDER ACTION 5A.5. AMENDMENT
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Johnson, a member of the SAP Working Group, said the working group was part of a
process to update and implement the SAP. She pointed out the SAP is not a legal document; it is a living
planning document that is subject to change and update as the City Council sees fit.
Councilmember Bloom understood Mr. Doherty had had an email exchange with the EDC member who
had questions. She was inclined to abstain from the vote because she was not certain all his concerns had
been addressed to his satisfaction. Mr. Doherty clarified the member's substantive concerns regarding
wording were address, his concern regarding having another opportunity for review was not satisfied.
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED TO REFER THE UPDATED STRATEGIC ACTION
PLAN TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION'S STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN
COMMITTEE FOR REVIEW PROVIDED THAT THE COMMITTEE'S MEETING IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT.
Following a brief recess to allow Mr. Taraday to research whether a motion to refer was in order, Mayor
Earling ruled the motion made by Councilmember Bloom was in order.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION FAILED (2-5),
COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND BLOOM VOTING YES.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE IN THE WORK LIST A DISCUSSION AT THE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AND SUBCOMMITTEE LEVEL IN 2015.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 7, 2015
Page 12
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked for clarification of Councilmember Petso's intent, whether it
was to bring the SAP back to the EDC at some point in 2015. Councilmember Petso responded the intent
of her motion was to achieve what certain individuals wanted to achieve which was to allow the EDC an
opportunity to review the changes that the Council is considering tonight. She also intended for that to
occur quickly so that if the EDC was displeased with any of the changes, their concerns could be
addressed.
MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND BLOOM VOTING YES.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (5-0-2), COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND BLOOM
ABSTAINING.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
9. WESTGATE SUBAREA: (1) BUILDING TYPES/AREAS; (2) POTENTIAL ACTION ON
PROPOSED WESTGATE ZONING ORDINANCE
Development Services Director Shane Hope referred to items contained in tonight's packet that were not
in the last packet, such as the draft ordinance compared to the Planning Board's recommendation and the
proposed ordinance (Attachment 10).
Planning Manager Rob Chave introduced the Westgate Zoning proposal:
• City Council has had 16 public meetings with 2 public hearings
o Planning Board had 11 meetings with 3 public hearings
• Results of the SR -104 corridor study for Westgate were presented to Council on March 10, 2015.
• Last Council discussion was on March 24, 2014.
• Tonight's agenda item is intended for:
o Review of the draft Westgate ordinance
o Possible action — with amendments — on final ordinance
He reviewed proposal features:
• No expansion of the existing commercial area
• "Hybrid zone" mixture of traditional regulations (uses, setbacks, design) and form -based
elements not regulated in standard zones (requirements for amenities and open space, building
types and locations)
• Specific regulations with built-in flexibility on how to achieve desired results
• Mix of building heights dependent on location and topography, 2 to 4 stories maximum
• Amenity space (15% min) and open space (another 15% min)
• "Green Factor" landscape system
• Additional protection for surrounding slopes and trees/vegetation
He described building types and locations
• Building heights controlled according to location, based on adjacent impacts
• Building types provide definition and flexibility
o Uncertain development timeframe
o Uncertain market conditions
• Building types define relationship to adjoining space (particularly public spaces)
Mr. Chave displayed a diagram of Westgate that identified protected slope areas, the 30 -foot stepback
from the edge of the right-of-way of any 3rd or 4th floor development at the intersection of SR -104 and
100th, parcels eligible for 3 stories, parcels limited to 2 stories and parcels eligible for potential 4th story
height bonus.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 7, 2015
Page 13
He displayed diagrams identifying where various building types are allowed — the original Planning
Board recommendation and the updated proposal. The biggest change between the Planning Board's
original proposal and the update is the location of commercial mixed use. Commercial mixed use is
allowed everywhere in response to a concern expressed during the Council's initial review regarding the
location of residential only buildings and the desire to allow commercial development within the entire
Westgate area. It is unknown how market conditions, ownership patterns may change in the future.
Westgate is a fully developed area and although wholesale change is unlikely to occur, change may occur
over time. Providing more flexibility in building types provides a framework for change but does not
preclude existing uses from continuing or potentially expanding.
Mr. Chave identified building types:
• Primarily residential types
o Rowhouse
o Courtyard
o Stacked dwellings
o Live/work
• Primarily commercial
o Side court mixed use
o Commercial mixed use
o Loft mixed use
He displayed photographs of a variety of building/uses and how buildings create spaces. He explained the
current draft code is the same as November 2013 draft with changes reflecting recommendations from the
SR -104 study:
• No additional travel lanes needed along SR -104 and 100th Ave. W
• Recommended minimum setbacks
0 15' at the intersection
0 12' away from the intersection
• Parking Standards: Minimum 1 stall per 500 commercial square feet is reasonable, plus
residential parking. Can be refined over time.
• Access management with new development.
o Figure 18: Westgate Access Management Master Plan
He displayed diagrams of the standard building setback for a 12 -foot setback away from the intersection
(total of 22 feet from the curb) a 15 -foot setback at the intersection (total of 25 feet from the curb). He
commented on the extensive interactive review:
• While keeping with the original vision for Westgate, changes and adjustments have been made to
the original UW ideas during the Planning Board and Council review, and in response to public
comments.
o Quadrant -based approach.
o Hybrid code combining traditional zoning with form (relationship to public spaces) and
building design standards.
o Range of building heights with slope protection.
o Setbacks increased from original 8 -foot proposal.
o Westgate "entry" design focus.
He identified next steps
1. Council discussion and consensus changes
2. Council action on proposed ordinance (Attachment 10) to:
• Adopt ordinance as is, or
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 7, 2015
Page 14
Adopt with amendments, or
Vote to make no code amendment.
Mayor Earling said questions would be rotated through the Council with one question per
Councilmember.
Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding that the rationale for allowing commercial mixed-use
on all parcels was because the Council did not want to limit commercial use and to allow developers to do
commercial use anywhere in the entire Westgate mixed use zone. Mr. Chave said the intent was to
recognize that that is what Westgate is now. The concern with specifying residential for some locations
was making some buildings non -conforming. One of the significant reasons for allowing commercial
everywhere was it did not force a change until the properties were ready.
Councilmember Bloom said her concern with that approach was there was only one type of residential
only use, rowhouse, all the others allow commercial in the structure. She urged caution with regard to
where residential is located in the Westgate in an effort to provide environments where people want to
live. She asserted a lot people, even if they want to live in an apartment or condo, want some sense of
privacy or distance from a commercial area. She did not want to allow commercial mixed use on the
entire quadrant because that is probably what will end up happening. Mr. Chave agreed rowhouse was the
only building type that was exclusively residential. Courtyard and stacked dwelling can be exclusive
residential but there can be commercial on the ground floor.
Councilmember Bloom referred to the purposes section where it states, Encourage the development of a
variety of housing choices available to residents of all economic and age segments. She asked how that
was accomplished with these building types. Mr. Chave answered it was the distinction between allowing
versus forcing. He said he was not smart enough to determine property by property what uses should be
allowed on each property. The market and trends in general will inform/define how that occurs. That
degree of specific may make sense in a master planned community where there is a single property
owner. In Westgate there are multiple ownerships and many different building configurations/ages; he did
not know exactly how it will develop over time. The intent was to provide the maximum number of
options within an overall framework such as the amenity space, open space, green factor, etc. regardless
of building configuration but was reticent to specify the building type.
Councilmember Bloom said she was not smart enough to do that either but was confident the community
was smart enough to determine the best place and where they would be likely to live and to encourage
family/friends to live. This plan will allow the developer to maximize their profit and the result could be
commercial mixed use over the entire Westgate area because it is allowed. That could be the result in 20-
30 years if the specific locations are not identified based on what the community wants.
Councilmember Johnson relayed the Council initially heard the community did not like the Compass
building because it was too close to the road and it was too tall. She asked Mr. Chave to compare the
Compass development to the proposed development in the QFC quadrant. Mr. Chave said he has heard a
much more mixed reaction to the Compass building. He asked which Compass building Councilmember
Johnson was referring to, the 4 story or the 3 story. Councilmember Johnson clarified it was the 4 -story
building. Mr. Chave answered that building is quite different, it does not resemble the standards for
Westgate. For example, the Compass building has no amenity space, open space, and had a minimum 4 -
foot setback although it ended up with a 5 -foot setback. There were no design standards for the Compass
building; the Westgate Plan includes several pages of design standards with regard to vertical and
horizontal differentiation and making the building look like a separate building every 60 feet. He
summarized it was an apples and oranges comparison. In addition, Westgate requires the 4th floor be
stepped back 10 feet.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 7, 2015
Page 15
Councilmember Johnson observed Compass was the most current example of 4 -story building in the
corridor. She summarized the 4 -story Compass building had a 5 -foot setback and the proposal for
Westgate is 12-15 feet. Chave said the setback for the QFC quadrant is primarily 15 feet. Councilmember
Johnson asked the total height of the 4 -story Compass building. Mr. Chave answered it was 40-45 feet; 45
feet was the maximum allowed. Councilmember Johnson asked the maximum building height at the QFC
corner. Mr. Chave answered 45 feet.
Councilmember Petso observed proposed amendment #13 regarding the 30 -foot circle was now not
necessary because that is how the code already reads. Mr. Chave agreed. Councilmember Petso suspected
she may be partially to blame with regard to building types; she no longer suggests going back to the
original version because one of properties that did not have a commercial type designation, formerly
Blockbuster Video, has historically been used for commercial activity. That prompted her initial concern
about messing with areas that had already demonstrated they were commercially viable and valuable. The
problem with the proposed solution is there is no distinction between an ordinary commercial building
and a mixed use commercial. She suggested creating an eighth building type, commercial only, to make
that distinction and concentrate that eighth building type at the commercial intersection and move
residential away from the intersection. That would eliminate the current potential for standard Puget
Sound mixed use on every single property in the Westgate area which everyone can agree is not the
intent.
Mr. Chave said straight commercial was likely one story. Councilmember Petso said some office
buildings are two stories and she has seen some 2 -story Fred Meyers. She envisioned designating the
commercial only building type for a small number of lots near the intersection. Mr. Chave answered the
problem with commercial only was it probably would not be built unless it was in the existing building.
Councilmember Petso relayed her understanding of Mr. Chave's comment that new development in the
Westgate area is only feasible if residential is allowed. Mr. Chave answered if the desire was more than
one story, it needed to be either residential or mixed use buildings; historically commercial only is one
story.
Councilmember Petso asked if there was anything wrong with the parcels at the corner being only one
story. Mr. Chave answered it was counter to the overall concept. The point of mixed use is a vibrant local
community with people who live there, shop, enjoy the amenities, etc. If mixed use is abandoned, the
result is likely a traditional shopping center layout such as exists there now. Councilmember Petso
observed there were two types of traditional shopping layout, using Lynnwood as an example, there is the
older form on the northwest corner of 196`/99 — landscaping, parking lot, building — and the newer form
on the southwest side — commercial building at the sidewalk with parking behind. She asked if the goal
was only multi -floor and including residential. Mr. Chave said mixed use is not required, it is allowed and
it happens when the market is ready. If one story commercial is what the property owner/developer wants
to do or to expand existing buildings that is allowed.
Councilmember Petso observed with an eighth building type, commercial only, the parcels at the
intersection could be designated commercial only. Mr. Chave said another building type was not
necessary because commercial mixed use allows what Councilmember Petso is proposing. The only
reason for another type of commercial building would be if the goal was to restrict multi -story mixed use
from happening at all. Councilmember Petso agreed, noting those are commercially viable parcels and
would not allow residential at the intersection. Mr. Chave summarized that was a very different concept.
Councilmember Buckshnis observed Chapter 16 contains the code changes to implement the Westgate
Study and Chapter 22 contains the design standards. Mr. Chave agreed, Chapter 16 is the traditional
zoning set up; the design standards and open space, etc. is in Chapter 22. Councilmember Buckshnis
concluded staff did a great job on the plan, implementing the SR -104 recommendations as well as several
of Councilmember Petso's amendments.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 7, 2015
Page 16
Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to the slide with the 15-foot setbacks at the intersection,
observing that is the recommendation of the SR-104 study for the area around the intersection. She asked
where the 15 feet starts from. Mr. Chave answered the edge of property line which is the edge of the
right-of-way and it moves away from the road.
Councilmember Mesaros relayed he received a number of positive and negative emails. Some of the
negative emails referred to a limited number of opportunities for public input. He asked the numbers of
opportunities citizens had to provide input since the beginning. Mr. Chave explained at the end of 2010
and into 2011, the University of Washington classes that worked on the plan invited the community to
open houses and design charrettes via mailing sent to residents within 500 feet of the Westgate area and
ads in the newspaper. Approximately 40 — 80 people participated. The Planning Board had a number of
meetings over two years, including three separate, noticed public hearings. Different groups of people
came to the public hearings with different sets of issues. The Council has had numerous meetings over a
long period of time. The EDC had numerous presentations and meetings to review the plan and forwarded
a recommendation to Council who then forwarded the plan to the Planning Board. There was an informal
process initially such as community outreach with UW and the EDC, followed by more formalized
meetings at the Planning Board and City Council. He summarized there have been many different
methods and ways to participate and a great deal of material is also available on the City's website.
Councilmember Bloom referred to the consultant's recommendation of 1 space per 500 square feet of
commercial and asked the amount of parking required for residential. Mr. Chave said the SR-104 Study
only included a recommendation for commercial parking. The residential standard in the City's code is
1.2 parking spaces per unit up to 900 square feet and 1.75 parking spaces per unit above 900 square feet.
Councilmember Bloom asked what the consultant's recommendation for 1:500 for commercial parking
was based on; observing in Councilmember Petso's emails with the consultant it appeared to be random.
Ms. Hope answered they looked at a lot of different cities, focusing on cities with downtown commercial
or mixed use. The initial list included 12-15 cities such as Redmond, Bothell, Everett, Kent and others.
Every city is unique and none are exactly like Edmonds. Most recently the consultant did a utilization
survey of 3 quadrants on SR-104 & 100`h to identify the utilization rate in 1/2 hour increments.
Councilmember asked why the utilization study was not done until after the consultant presented their
recommendation. Ms. Hope responded the consultant looked at the parking study as a different creature
originally, what other cities are doing and how that compares rather than a utilization study. The
consultant was then asked to do a utilization study; she acknowledged utilization rates vary depending on
the time of day, there is a bigger rush during the 4:30- 5:30 period but overall there is quite a lot of
capacity. Councilmember Bloom observed one quadrant had an 85% parking space occupancy rate; the
study was done mid-week although during high usage time of 3:00 — 7:00 p.m. When she visits QFC or
PCC on the weekends, the parking is even busier. She asked why the consultant did not also do a
weekend study. Ms. Hope answered the consultant was asked to pick a day.
Councilmember Bloom asked whether the consultant projected the capacity based on their
recommendation of 1:500 square feet of commercial space; the current capacity is 1:350. Ms. Hope
answered the consultant did not do a projection. The actually parking rates in Westgate are between 1:350
and 1:450; a good part of the time there is only a 50% occupancy rate.
Councilmember Nelson sked whether it was correct that of the four quadrants, the southwest quadrant,
Bartell, was the only one being considered for short term development. Mr. Chave answered Bartell has
been the most engaged and has expressed interest but he did not know about the others. Mayor Earling
pointed out Bartell does not own the entire quadrant.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 7, 2015
Page 17
Councilmember Petso referred to 12 -foot setback diagram that shows an 80 -foot right-of-way. Although
the typical right-of-way is 80 feet, according to information in the packet the right-of-way is measured at
77.5, 69.5, 74.5 and even 67.5 feet. Using a 67.5 right-of-way, with a 12 -foot setback the buildings are
2.5 feet from the sidewalk. Mr. Williams agreed there are some odd looking things on the GIS map that
do not appear to currently be in City ownership. When a specific development proposal is submitted, the
expectation would be to clean that up and have the property dedicated to the City. He noted in every case
public improvements will also reside in part on private property. One of the solutions would be if a survey
determines the right-of-way is slightly less than 80 feet, more of the public improvements would reside on
private property. That would be addressed at the time a specific development proposal is reviewed.
Councilmember Petso said her concern was not the amount of improvements on private property but
because if the setback is measured from the right-of-way line and if it is not 80 feet, the building is not the
specified distance from the right-of-way. Mr. Williams explained if the Official Street Map states the
right-of-way is 80 -feet wide, that cross section would be built including the planter strips, sidewalks, etc.
and the 80 feet of right-of-way will need to be in place before the proposal proceeds. Councilmember
Petso said if the desire was to have the building more than 2.5 feet from the sidewalk, a larger setback
would be needed. Mr. Williams answered the setback would be measured from the right-of-way as
modified upon submittal of a specific proposal. If there was an apparent failure in the past to dedicate
parcels, that would be cleaned up so that the right-of-way was where it needed to be to support all the
street infrastructure and comply with the Official Street Map as well as provide the public streetscape
improvements outlined on the drawing.
Councilmember Petso said that sounds inconsistent with the building being 12 -feet from the sidewalk,
recalling an earlier statement that some of the improvements will be on private property. Mr. Williams
answered the setback is 12 feet from the right-of-way line. If the survey suggests there is not 30 feet of
right-of-way, the right-of-way line will have to move and the developer proposing the project will have to
give the City property to provide a full 80 feet of right-of-way which would then provide a new right-of-
way line from which to measure the 12 -foot setback. Mr. Chave displayed an aerial map, noting there are
a couple of jogs on 100th where for whatever reason in the past a dedication for right-of-way may not
have been done. In a typical development process, all that is sorted out when an application is submitted.
Once the dedications are cleaned up, right-of-way reestablished, then the setback is applied. The setback
is not applied where the right-of-way currently exists; it is applied once all the negotiations and
dedications have been cleaned up. Councilmember Petso understood there were places where the right-of-
way jogged but there were also places without jogs that were measured for example at 69.5 feet. She
asked whether those property lines would also be rectified. Mr. Chave answered if the right-of-way on the
Official Street Map is 80 feet that will be rectified during the development process.
Mr. Williams assumed Councilmember Petso was referring to places on 100th where the right-of-way is
69.5 feet, pointing out the right-of-way narrows away from the intersection on 100th. His explanation was
in regard to the right-of-way width on SR -104. Councilmember Petso relayed her understanding for any
area that has a setback of less than 80 feet, if she does not want the building to be closer than the
illustrated 9 feet, the City will need to acquire a full 80 -foot right-of-way. Mr. Williams answered yes on
SR -104 and the initial part of 100th; the right-of-way narrows away from the intersection. Councilmember
Petso observed away from the intersection the building will be closer to the street. Mr. Williams answered
no, the street section will change north and south and the necessary property will be dedicated to achieve
the cross-section. The setback will then be measured from whatever property line is established at that
point. He clarified that would all be resolved when plans are submitted, a survey done, and a
determination made regarding the demands of the zone with regard to public improvements and the street
section considered.
In response to Councilmember Nelson's earlier question, Councilmember Buckshnis relayed the manager
at PCC indicated they have a 30 -year fixed lease and have invested $10 million in the building so they are
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 7, 2015
Page 18
not going anywhere. A new Starbucks is locating in front of Walgreens and she did not anticipate
Walgreens would change anytime soon. She has only heard that Bartell is interested. She had no more
questions and was ready to vote.
Councilmember Mesaros said he had no more questions and was ready to vote.
Councilmember Bloom referred to an email she received from a citizen who is involved in these issues
and does extensive research. She questioned Mr. Williams' statement that the City would get that
property, and asked whether it was a legislative rather than administrative authority to obtain property
through dedication, a taking, imminent domain, etc. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered a condemnation
proceeding would require City Council adoption of an ordinance, but that was not what Mr. Williams was
suggesting. Mr. Williams' suggestion was as a condition of development approval there would be
dedication of additional right-of-way to conform the right-of-way to what is set forth in the Official Street
Map. Councilmember Bloom asked whether that was a taking of property and could staff could initiate it.
Mr. Taraday answered staff regularly conditions development approval on dedication of right-of-way
such as in a short plat, and it is commonly done without any City Council involvement. He acknowledged
in extreme cases a property owner can contest the validity of the condition but it is usually not challenged
and property is dedicated as conditioned by the City.
Councilmember Bloom asked how that differed from what happened at Five Corners where a property
owner wanted a delay for negotiations and the City initiated imminent domain proceedings. Mr. Taraday
answered Five Corners was a Public Works capital project that required additional right-of-way and it
could not be constructed until the additional right-of-way was acquired. In order to build the project
according to the goal timeline, a condemnation action was required to acquire right-of-way the City did
not own. Mr. Williams said this is also different because someone else is initiating the action to develop
property which provides the opportunity for a conversation and to insist on a design that meets the City's
standards before the development can be approved. In adopting the Westgate Plan, the Council is giving
staff direction that that is what they want to see and staff will make every effort to make that happen. Mr.
Taraday said even in the absence of dedication of additional right-of-way, the City is authorized to require
developers to setback from future right-of-way lines even if they are not current right-of-way lines.
Councilmember Bloom said in case of Westgate, would the City be required to pay for the property or is
it assumed the property owner will dedicate it to the City. Mr. Taraday provided an example, assuming
there was a problem with requiring a dedication, the developer was resisting or threaten litigation, it
would not necessarily change the setback issue at all because the City can require a developer to setback
from a future right-of-way line just by identifying the future right-of-way lines on the Official Street Map
even if the City does not currently own the right-of-way line.
Councilmember Johnson recalled previous discussion regarding drive-throughs in Westgate; there are
currently six, soon to be seven one-story businesses with drive-throughs. She recognized a drive-through
was a conditional use. She asked whether drive-throughs were consistent with proposal for two, three, and
four story buildings and non -auto orientation. Mr. Chave said hopefully drive-throughs would start to
disappear in the future. Staff was hesitant to rule them out now because it would make a number of
businesses nonconforming. He felt it was unlikely there would be more drive-throughs if the Westgate
Plan was approved due to the pedestrian requirements, amenities, etc. The developer would need to show
as part of the conditional approval that they are not negatively impacting pedestrian circulation,
connection between building, etc. An amendment with regard to drive-throughs could be considered in a
few years.
If the City can claim a "fantasy" 80 -foot right-of-way for improvements on 100`h, Councilmember Petso
asked whether an additional 10 feet can be added for bike lanes. Mr. Taraday said he was talking about
the adopted Official Street Map. Cities are authorized to plan for future right-of-way; if the city has
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 7, 2015
Page 19
identified a location where they would like a street someday on an adopted Official Street Map, even if
acquisition of the right-of-way for the street is 10-15 years away, the city can prevent someone from
building a house in that right-of-way or require development to setback from the future street.
Councilmember Petso relayed her understanding that if the City formally planned and adjusted the
Official Street Map, 10 feet could be added for 5 foot bike lanes on each side. Mr. Taraday answered yes,
the City plan for a 90 -foot right-of-way instead of an 80 -foot right-of-way.
Main Motion #1
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, THAT
THE WESTGATE MIXED USE ZONE BE REVIEWED QUADRANT BY QUADRANT
STARTING WITH THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT, THE LOCATION OF BARTELL.
Councilmember Bloom recalled Mr. Chave saying Bartell was ready to proceed with developing and it
that it had also been indicated QFC and PCC have leases and there was no indication they would
redevelop. Given the number of concerns, questions and amendments, the City would be well served by
considering Westgate quadrant by quadrant and looking at what the community wants. She suggested
holding a public hearing on each quadrant before adopting a plan for that quadrant.
Councilmember Buckshnis observed if the Council approved this plan for the entirety of Westgate and
didn't like what Bartell was doing, it could be amended in the future. Mr. Chave answered yes, it would
need to follow the required procedure such as Planning Board review, etc.
Councilmember Petso observed if the Council adopted the Westgate Plan and several development
applications were submitted, the plan could not be changed relative to applications that had already vested
and/or been constructed. Mr. Chave agreed projects that were vested could proceed under the existing
rules. Any changes would apply to future development. Councilmember Petso commented that was
precisely what happened with the Compass building; it vested and was built and changes were made to
zoning so that did not occur again. Mr. Chave answered the Compass building had been built when
changes were made to the code.
Action on Main Motion #1
MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND BLOOM VOTING YES.
Motion to Extend and Action
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
MESAROS, TO EXTEND MEETING TO 10:25 P.M. MOTION CARRIED (5-2),
COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Councilmember Petso commented the parking number can help drive what type of businesses can/cannot
locate in Westgate. For example under the current code the parking ratio of 1:500 is only used for
businesses like service stations and car dealers; more retail oriented businesses have a parking ratio of
1:300. In researching other cities, businesses such as shoe repair shop or a furniture store have a parking
ratio of 1:500. If all the buildings are constructed and everyone builds to the minimum parking of 1:500,
she asked whether the result would be like Arbor Village in Mountlake Terrace where 7 of the 8
commercial spaces are vacant 18 months after completion. She asked whether the City would get
developers building to the minimum parking standard rather than the commercial vibrant area that is
desired. Mr. Chave answered parking does not drive commerce, commerce drives parking. Businesses
know their parking needs and that typically determines how much parking is provided which is the idea
behind minimums. In mixed use developments with a mixture of uses have different peaks, resulting in an
ebb and flow of parking need.
Councilmember Petso commented that approach assumes the person constructing the building is the
business owner. If it is assumed the business drives building design and parking allowances, it should be
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 7, 2015
Page 20
hoped the building is constructed by a company that wants to locate there and not the standard mixed use
developer. Mr. Chave disagreed, developers have to be attuned to their potential tenants, the type of
businesses they are marketing to and trying to attract. That is part of the proforma that is developed for
the financial institution. Councilmember Petso questioned whether that was true or was residential so
profitable that the commercial serves as a podium to hold up the valuable residential. Mr. Chave answered
not in Westgate. Councilmember Petso said she has seen commercial holding up residential in many areas
including the building in Mountlake Terrace. Mr. Chave said some developments are geared toward the
commercial element. He referred to South Lake Union, pointing out the synergy between residential and
commercial. Councilmember Petso said Edmonds does not have the synergy that South Lake Union is
experiencing.
Councilmember Petso referred to the EDC's white paper that stated the Westgate Plan was targeting a
lifestyle mall. The nearest comparison to that is the Mill Creek Town Center project whose parking is
1:250 which she assumed recognized that restaurants and high end retail require parking. She asked why
this proposal was so different from that. Mr. Chave answered there are many different parking standards.
In the Fehr & Peers utilization study, occupancy was quite high immediately in front of grocery stores and
much lower away from the front. Ms. Hope commented one of the differences is Mill Creek is not a
mixed use district so more people drive there.
Councilmember Petso referred to the market and feasibility study done for Westgate at the beginning of
the process that demonstrated Westgate is a drive -to destination and that any residential added to the area
is irrelevant because the businesses pull a regional audience. Mr. Chave answered Westgate serves a dual
propose; the information Fehr & Peers provided indicates Westgate has a very high walkability score.
Councilmember Petso commented the fact that Westgate is walkable does not change where the volume
of business comes from.
Councilmember Petso recalled asking staff for cities that use the 1:500 standard; 4 were listed including
Mountlake Terrace and Kent. She found a Kent ordinance that states they chose in their future light rail
station area 1:100 for restaurants and 1:200 for banks or retail or supermarkets. Kent only chose 1:500 for
furniture or shoe repair. Ms. Hope said Fehr & Peers initially considered Kent but found they were not the
best comparable. Councilmember Petso suggested if she discounted Mountlake Terrace because it does
not produce commercially viable properties and Kent because it was not really 1:500, were there any
examples of 1:500 where she would see something other than vacant commercial propping up vacant
commercial. Ms. Hope referred to Bothell, Redmond and Everett, noted some of the standards are new
and evolving. Councilmember Petso suggested this may be an issue where the City does not want to be on
the cutting edge.
Councilmember Petso referred to the Regional Transit Oriented Development forum that she attended by
phone where someone observed these building types were largely vacant. She suggested not going there
until someone demonstrates it is commercially viable. Ms. Hope explained vacancy in most cases is not
caused by parking; it can be for other reasons. Councilmember Petso asked the reason for the vacant
commercial space in the building in Mountlake Terrace. Ms. Hope answered that was a new building and
there was not much around it. One of the problems is the corner space in the building, intended to be the
premier space and designed for a restaurant, the developer did not install the grease interceptor. That is
very expensive and restaurants who have expressed interest in locating there are not willing to install it.
Another one-story building in Mountlake Terrace with surface parking located a block away was
redeveloped/renovated after being vacant for seven years. Councilmember Petso asked if that was the
strip mall type building where the pie company located. Ms. Hope answered yes.
Councilmember Petso asked whether the Arbor Village building had parking. Ms. Hope advised it has 2
stories of understructure parking; the required parking was 1:500 but she did not know if any extra had
been provided.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 7, 2015
Page 21
Main Motion #2
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
MESAROS, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3993, WHICH INCLUDES THE
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE SR -104 STUDY.
Amendment #1 and Action
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO AMEND FIGURE 22.I10.010.11, ENTITLED BIG BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITS
AND STEPBACK REQUIREMENTS, BY REDUCING THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT TO
3 STORIES IN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT LOCATED NORTH OF SR-104/EDMONDS
WAY WEST OF 100TH AVENUE WEST AND SOUTH OF THE EDMONDS CEMETERY IN THE
WESTGATE AREA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Amendment #2
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO INCREASE THE SETBACKS TO 16 FEET.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked Mr. Chave to illustrate 16 -foot setbacks. Mr. Chave displayed
the diagram of 15 -foot setbacks, noting the amendment would add 1 foot in the intersection area but
would increase the setback from 12 feet to 16 feet outside that area. Council President Fraley-Monillas
asked why Councilmember Petso proposed adding one foot. Councilmember Petso said her intent was
something that would allow for bike lanes on 100th without the need for a road diet. There may be a
different and better way such as adopting a 90 -foot right-of-way instead. Mr. Williams observed analysis
is being done on a 3 -lane option on 100tb with bike lanes to allow bikes to safely cross SR -104. Mr. Chave
said if the intent was to change the overall configuration of the right-of-way, amending the Official Street
Map would make the most sense rather than fussing with setbacks in the zoning code although that is a
fairly length process.
Councilmember Petso commented the original traffic study done in 2012 concluded a road diet could not
exist for very long because it would cause the intersection to drop to LOS F. She asked whether there was
a flaw in that study. Mr. Williams answered a road diet would work well work at the current road
volumes, retaining the LOS at D. If assumed growth in traffic volume over time, traffic from the future Pt.
Wells development, and development of Westgate in its most intensive form were added to existing
volumes in 2035, the LOS on 100th would deteriorate. The benefit of a road diet is dedicated bike lanes
through the intersection which is safer for bicycles as well as pedestrian due to the additional buffer as
well as being safer for vehicles. There are far fewer accidents in a 3 lane road section. He acknowledged a
road diet could result in delays in the out years if the predictions are correct. If the road diet was installed
now and it was not working in 2035, it could be changed to a sharrow through the intersection. He
summarized the goal was to establish bike lanes on 100th
Councilmember Petso commented it appeared staff was trying to establish bike lanes at the expense of
LOS; she preferred to establish bike lanes via a wider right-of-way. Mr. Williams said the 80 -foot right-
of-way is on SR -140, there is an area on 100th where the right-of-way is also 80 feet but it quickly reduces
to 70 feet.
Motion to Extend and Action
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
MESAROS, EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 11:00 P.M. MOTION CARRIED (4-3)
COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON, PETSO, AND BLOOM VOTING NO.
For Council President Fraley-Monillas, Mr. Chave advised the consultant proposed a 12 -foot setback
outside the intersection and a 15 -foot setback within 40 feet of the intersection.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 7, 2015
Page 22
Call for the Question and Action
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS CALLED FOR THE QUESTION, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS. CALL FOR THE QUESTION CARRIED (5-2),
COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND BLOOM VOTING NO.
Action on Amendment #2
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS
AND COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, JOHNSON AND PETSO VOTING YES; AND
COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, MESAROS AND NELSON VOTING NO.
Councilmember Johnson commented when the Council voted to change the building height on the QFC
quadrant, the total height allowed in the quadrant, 45 -feet, was not changed. Mr. Chave answered that
would be automatic, the height for a 3 -story building is 35 feet.
Councilmember Petso commented one of things the Council did by passing that motion was to
significantly reduce the number of properties that would follow "that green outline" to get a fourth floor.
Amendment #3
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO
AMEND TO GET A THIRD OR FOURTH FLOOR WOULD REQUIRE COMPLIANCE WITH
THE HEIGHT BONUS STANDARDS.
Councilmember Mesaros asked for clarification whether Councilmember Petso intended the amendment
to apply only to the northwest quadrant. Councilmember Petso responded her intent was for a building
with a third or fourth story to comply with the building bonus standard. Mr. Chave referred to the Height
Bonus Score Sheet; currently to obtain four stories requires a bunch of things. Councilmember Petso's
amendment would require that be done to achieve three stories. Councilmember Mesaros asked what the
impact would be. Mr. Chave answered it would require amenity space above 15%, a greener building; at
least four of the categories would need to be selected. Ms. Hope said it could lead to less development.
Council President Fraley-Monillas observed four stories were currently allowed in the three other
quadrants. Mr. Chave answered only in the southwest quadrant. To obtain a fourth floor, the developer
would need to select from the height bonus score sheet; Councilmember Petso's amendment would
require the same for three stories. Council President Fraley-Monillas did not support that requirement for
three stories, noting Westgate is being treated very differently than other development. She supported the
Height Bonus Score Sheet for four story buildings. Mr. Chave pointed out a number of the things on the
Height Bonus Score Sheet are already required. This would be add-ons which cost money. Mayor Earling
clarified if a Councilmember did not want the add-ons, they would vote no on Councilmember Petso's
motion.
Call for the Question and Vote
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS CALLED FOR THE QUESTION, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS. CALL FOR THE QUESTION CARRIED (5-2),
COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND BLOOM VOTING NO.
Action on Amendment #3
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, JOHNSON
AND COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS NELSON,
MESAROS, AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING
NO.
Amendment #4
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 7, 2015
Page 23
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO AMEND TO SET COMMERCIAL PARKING AT 1 TO 400 RATHER THAN 1
TO 500.
Councilmember Petso said she preferred 1:300 in order to provide commercial vitality but she thought
1:400 might pass. She reiterated choosing a parking requirement is choosing the type of businesses that
will locate in Westgate. If only shoe repair shops are wanted, the 1:500 standard is probably the right
number but she envisioned the desire was for something more vibrant.
Council President Fraley-Monillas commented this was approved by Council in November.
Action on Amendment #4
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Amendment 05
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO
AMEND TO DELETE THE HEIGHT BONUS PARAGRAPH IN 22.110.010.B AND REQUIRE A
1sT FLOOR CEILING HEIGHT OF AT LEAST 16 FEET FOR ANY BUILDING TYPE WITH IST
FLOOR COMMERCIAL USE.
Councilmember Petso recalled the code allowed 45 feet and an extra 5 feet could be obtained by
providing commercial on the I't floor for a total of 50 feet. She preferred all the commercial spaces in
Westgate to be vibrant. The zoning downtown requires 15 feet and literature available on the internet
suggests 16-22 feet. Her motion was for a 16 -feet lst floor ceiling height because she doubted the Council
would support 22 feet.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked what the current ordinance states. Mr. Chave answered there is
no commercial floor requirement, only an incentive for large commercial spaces. If a 16 -foot 15t floor
ceiling height is required, the building height will also need to be raised because it essentially eliminates a
floor.
Councilmember Petso raised a point of order. She requested an opportunity to correct the misstatement
just made by Mayor Earling to Council President Fraley-Monillas that her intent in making the motion
was to wipe out a floor. It is not and she will happily refer it to staff for a recommendation regarding
additional height. She made the motion because everyone knows if the height of the commercial level is
squashed, there is a limitation on commercial uses and the result is an insurance agent instead of a
restaurant. Mr. Mayor Earling clarified he said that would lose a floor which Mr. Chave confirmed. Mr.
Chave said if the intent is to increase ground floor heights, the overall building height also needs to be
increased at least 4-5 feet because that cannot be accomplished under the existing heights.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said she did not hear Mayor Earling say anything. She asked Mr.
Chave his recommendation regarding the height of first floor commercial. Mr. Chave answered it
depends; the idea behind the additional five feet and tied to a large footprint store was specifically to
recognize the grocery stores' need for high ceilings.
For Councilmember Buckshnis, Mr. Chave recommended dispensing with the bonus if the Council
wanted to increase the height of ground floor commercial.
Council President Fraley-Monillas was not interested in increasing every building type 5 feet to get a 16 -
foot ground floor commercial. She did not support the amendment.
Councilmember Johnson commented this is difficult to discuss at 10:45 p.m. She observed many grocery
stores prefer a ceiling height even greater than 16 feet. She preferred to allow the developer to determine
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 7, 2015
Page 24
the floor heights within the overall building height. Councilmember Petso agreed a 22 -foot ceiling height
provided a superior commercial facility. The reason for the motion was years of experience with buildings
downtown that do not have sufficient height to accommodate uses such as restaurants, etc. and a 15 -foot
1st floor ceiling height was required downtown to ensure it was commercially vibrant. She wanted
Westgate to remain commercially vibrant and therefore wanted at least 16 -foot 1st floor ceilings.
Council President Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember Johnson, if a height limit is established, it
is up to the builder to determine the first floor ceiling height. Councilmember Bloom said if
Councilmember Petso's amendment did not pass, the result could be just office -type space instead of
viable retail. Council President Fraley-Monillas said that assumed the developer would prefer to construct
office space instead of 10-12 foot ceiling.
Action on Amendment #5
MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND PETSO VOTING YES.
Amendment #6
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO ADD
A SECTION G TO 22.110.050.0 STATING THE FIRST 45 FEET OF BUILDING DEPTH FACING
A STREET OR SIDEWALK MAY NOT BE USED FOR PARKING.
Councilmember Petso said she was not in favor of a bunch of buildings where the streetscape on
Edmonds Way was vehicle parking and instead of strip mall type where there is parking behind
landscaping, some of the buildings have parking behind "little cages."
Councilmember Bloom expressed support for the amendment recalling pictures Councilmember Petso has
shown her of a streetscape with parking behind "horrid crosshatch black cages" in of the front of building,
a bare sidewalk and a little bench as an amenity. She could not fathom that on SR -104 or 100th Avenue.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked Mr. Chave for his input. Mr. Chave said that would make
configuring a building difficult because it may have multiple orientations. He suggested changing the
amendment to streets; sidewalks will be problematic because there could potentially be sidewalks on
multiple faces of a building.
Amendment 069
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO
AMEND THE AMENDMENT TO LIMIT IT TO THE FIRST 45 FEET OF BUILDING DEPTH
FACING A STREET.
Mr. Doherty commented 45 feet is a huge distance, especially for a site with 2-3 streets. If the desire was
not to have parking on the front fagade, it did not need to be 45 feet. He suggested stating parking is not
allowed as part of the fagade or a lower distance. Councilmember Petso said she chose 45 feet due
commercial depth constructed downtown that was not adequate for vibrant commercial building. Mr.
Chave said the standard is generally 45 feet downtown; that is the only area with that requirement. He
suggested 30 -foot should be adequate. He said the window requirements in Westgate would not allow
grilled parking frontages.
Councilmember Bloom asked why Mr. Chave suggested a 30 -foot depth for Westgate when 45 feet was
required downtown. Mr. Chave explained most downtown businesses typically have a single frontage.
Buildings in Westgate may have multiple frontages including the street and internal streets. He
summarized 30 feet would be adequate and would provide more flexibility.
Amendment #6a-1
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 7, 2015
Page 25
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PETSO, TO AMEND THE AMENDMENT TO 30 FEET.
Councilmember Johnson suggested having that on SR -104 and 9th Avenue as it may be impossible to
achieve on internal streets.
Action on Amendment #6a-1
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, JOHNSON, AND PETSO VOTING YES; AND
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, MESAROS AND NELSON VOTING NO.
Amendment #6a-2
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
AMEND THE AMENDMENT TO LIMIT IT TO SR -104 AND 100TH/9TH/FIRDALE AVE.
Action on Amendment #6a-2
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Amendment #6 Restated as amended
Councilmember Petso restated the amendment as amended:
ADD SECTION G TO 22.110.050.0 STATING THAT THE FIRST 30 FEET OF BUILDING
DEPTH FACING SR -104 OR 100TH/9TH/FIRDALE AVE NOT BE USED FOR PARKING.
Action on Amendment #6
AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS VOTING NO.
Amendment #7
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD A PROVISION THAT 4 STORIES WILL ONLY BE
PERMITTED ON THAT PORTION OF BUILDINGS AND PARCELS WITHIN 60 FEET OF THE
PROTECTED SLOPE LINE.
Councilmember Petso explained the reason for this motion is people do not object to extra height against
the hillside but are less interested in extra height out by the street. A compromise can be achieved by
placing taller buildings within 60 feet of the protected slope line.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said with the elimination of four stories on the QFC quadrant, the 4 -
story buildings are against the slopes. Councilmember Petso said there was one exception, the front
corner of the southwest quadrant where there is currently a Starbucks, UPS store and a sandwich shop
would not be within 60 feet of the steep slope line. Mr. Chave said the Council already approved a 16 -
foot setback; the only area left with up to 4 stories is the southwest quadrant. There is also a 30 -foot
stepback for 3rd and 4th floors from the intersection. He summarized the Council has already heavily
restricted what can be done and how close the building can be to the intersection and 60 feet is a pretty
small distance.
Councilmember Mesaros asked for a map with a scale. Mr. Chave offered to look for one.
Councilmember Petso said her next motion was related to prohibiting outdoor merchandise displays and
dining within 12 feet of SR -104 and 100th for safety reasons. Ms. Hope answered dining, etc. could be
allowed in their setback area but not in the 12 -feet of right-of-way where the landscaping and sidewalk
are located. Councilmember Petso asked if that also applied to utility enclosures. Ms. Hope said a utility
enclosure would be required to be in the setback.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 7, 2015
Page 26
With regard to the amendment regarding 60 feet, Ms. Hope said redevelopment to 4 stories on the Bartell
parcel would not be possible.
Motion to Extend and Action
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
MESAROS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 11:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED (4-3),
COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON, BLOOM, AND PETSO VOTING NO.
Councilmember Petso commented it is theoretically possible if the property were in one ownership, to
start a building at the Wells Fargo and extend the building to the rain garden at PCC, a total of 700-800
feet. She asked what number would top buildings out at 250-400 feet. Ms. Hope responded some of the
existing buildings are about 250 feet which would mean they could not add on if there was a 250 -foot
maximum length. The design standards would not allow one long front fagade on a building. If it was
important to establish a maximum length she suggested 400 feet.
Mr. Chave displayed a photograph, explaining it appeared the depth on some of the properties on the
southwest corner were in the range of 400 feet so 60 feet would be well back inside the property. He
noted the slopes generally run on the southwestern edge.
Councilmember Petso said PCC and QFC are approximately 250 feet long. If one of those building were
sited against the steep slope, most of area except the front corner could go to the full height; only the
corner where the Starbucks and UPS are located would be affected. Mr. Chave said within 60 feet of the
slope line would be well back inside the property.
Council President Fraley-Monillas questioned how a building could be construction on that site anyway
with the setback and the stepback at the intersection. Councilmember Petso said a building could be
constructed; it would just not be as tall out by the front. Mr. Chave agreed the 3rd and 4th floors have to
be stepped back 30 feet so there would not be a 3 or 4 story building at the street. He concluded the
proposed amendment would be severely limiting.
Call for the Ouestion and Action
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS CALLED FOR THE QUESTION, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS. CALL FOR THE QUESTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Action on Amendment #7
AMENDMENT FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND PETSO VOTING YES.
Councilmember Petso asked about a provision requiring space be allocated on site for service vehicles,
delivery vehicles, moving vans, etc., pointing out it would be problematic for a moving van to obstruct
traffic on SR -104 or 100th. Mr. Chave advised loading zones are always part of the standard review of
development site plans. Parking a moving van or other truck on the right-of-way would require special
permission from the City which they would not get.
Councilmember Petso asked whether a requirement for the interior circulation drive needed to be added
or was that covered by the access management plan. Mr. Chave answered it was covered.
Amendment #8
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO
AMEND TO CREATE AN EIGHTH BUILDING TYPE, COMMERCIAL ONLY.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked the intent. Councilmember Petso answered as was discussed
earlier, she was trying to allow commercial buildings in the corners of the intersection and have mixed
use further away from the commercial core. The current diagram allows commercial mixed use with
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 7, 2015
Page 27
residential on every parcel in Westgate and she cannot designate the four corner parcels for commercial
only unless an eighth building type is created. She restated the amendment as follows:
Amendment #8 Restated
CREATE AN EIGHTH BUILDING TYPE AND APPLY IT TO THE FOUR CORNER PARCELS.
Action on Amendment #8
AMENDMENT FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND PETSO VOTING YES.
Amendment #9
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO
AMEND TO LIMIT BUILDINGS TO A MAXIMUM LENGTH, WIDTH OR DEPTH OF 400
FEET.
Councilmember Petso explained mixed use buildings are often quite large and generally end only because
they reach a street. That can work where there is a street grid system but there are no streets in this area.
For example on the northeast side, there is the potential for a single building to extend from PCC to Wells
Fargo and she did not want that to happen.
Action on Amendment #9
AMENDMENT FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND PETSO VOTING YES.
Councilmember Petso said she will vote against the main motion because the proposal is required to
comply with the Comprehensive Plan and it does not. One of the Comprehensive Plan requirements reads
we intend to permit uses in community commercial areas that serve both local neighborhood, regional and
through traffic, and also set aside a sufficient number of sites for a variety of commercial uses. During
tonight's discussion it has become clear the City is not setting aside Westgate for commercial uses but
rather rezoning Westgate to residential which is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember Mesaros said he will support the motion for the opposite reasons stated by
Councilmember Petso. He believed this was setting aside Westgate for greater commercial and residential
use and creating an atmosphere where young people will want to live and a vibrant center. That transition
will not be quick, it will occur over the next 15-20 years. He concluded the plan is a good step for the
City.
Councilmember Bloom thanked Councilmember Petso for the amendments she made and for her hard
work. She will vote against the motion for several reasons; many of amendments she supported did not
pass, one of the sentences regarding purposes is encourage the development of a variety of housing
choices available to residents of all economic and age segments which she did not feel had been
accomplished by this plan, the plan ignored important concerns that citizens have raised, and one
quadrant would have four stories too close to the street.
Councilmember Johnson invited staff to respond to Councilmember Petso's claim that the plan is
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She recalled a change was to the Comprehensive Plan in
November 2014 to set the stage for this portion of the plan. Mr. Chave said the policy Councilmember
Petso cited was part of that. Especially with the amendments, the plan supports commercial use while also
supporting mixed use. He referred to synergy, noting the additional residential will make the commercial
stronger. The Council increased the parking requirements to make commercial stronger. He summarized
it would be difficult to argue that the plan did not accommodate the policy cited by Councilmember Petso.
Council President Fraley-Monillas expressed her appreciation for all amendments offered by
Councilmember Petso who did a great deal of work on the Westgate plan. She also thanked staff for their
work. She appreciated the Council respecting each other's opinions tonight.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 7, 2015
Page 28
Councilmember Petso echoed the comments regarding staffs efforts. There have been a lot of
improvements made to the plan since the Council first saw it in August and since her article in the
Edmonds Beacon such as making amenity space public. She read Comprehensive Plan provisions that are
of concern to her, assuming they applied to the Westgate area:
• B.1: A sufficient number of sites suited for a variety of commercial uses should be identified and
reserved for these purposes. The great majority of such sites should be selected from parcels of
land already identified within the Comprehensive Plan for commercial use and/or zoned for such
use. She said Edmonds does not lack for residential sites as most of the City is residential. The
City's commercial property is precious and provides a necessary diversity and sales tax.
• B.2: Parcels of land previously planned or zoned for commercial use but which are now or will be
identified as unnecessary or inappropriate for such use should be reclassified for other uses. She
was on board with that but the Council has not identified Westgate as inappropriate or unsuitable
for commercial uses. Sales tax data indicates Westgate is the City's most productive commercial
zone with the exception of car dealerships and generates twice the sales tax compared to other
commercial districts. She questioned why Westgate would be the first place chosen to rezone to
residential.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked staff for the five years of work they did on this, recalling the process
that began at the EDC several years ago. She relayed many people who live in the Westgate area are very
excited about redevelopment. She assured the uses in some quadrants would not change.
Action on Main Motion #2 as Amended
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND PETSO
VOTING NO.
Due to the late hour, the remaining items were not considered.
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
12. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.1100)(i)
13. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
14. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:24 p.m.
C� --
SCOTT PASSEY, CIT RK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 7, 2015
Page 29