Loading...
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