2022-06-08 Planning Board PacketPlanning Board
Remote Zoom Meeting
Agenda
121 5th Ave. N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
www.edmondswa.gov
Michelle Martin
425-771-0220
Wednesday, June 8, 2022 7:00 PM Virtual Online Meeting
Remote Zoom Meeting Information
Join Zoom Meeting: https://edmondswa-
gov.zoom.us/j/88526558062?pwd=YUtoNGFFQ210Q2U5SDdwRUFadX15dz09
Meeting ID: 885 2655 8062. Passcode: 598700
Meeting ID: 885 2655 8062 Passcode: 598700
Call into the meeting by dialing: 253-215-8782
Call into the meeting by dialing: 253-215-8782
Physical Meeting Location
The Planning Board members will be meeting remotely for this meeting and the public may as well at
the zoom information above. However, given the expiration of Gov. Inslee's proclamation on open
public meetings, a physical location to participate in the meeting must be provided. For this meeting
the physical location provide is Edmonds Waterfront Center Community Room B located at 220
Railroad Avenue.
Land Acknowledgement for Indigenous Peoples
We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their
successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken
care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their
sacred spiritual connection with the land and water.
1. Call to Order
Attendee Name Present Absent Late Arrived
2. Approval of Minutes
A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 6498)
Approval of Minutes
Background/History
Planning Board Page 1 Printed 61312022
Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda June 8, 2022
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Approve May 25th meeting minutes.
ATTACHMENTS:
• P6220525d (PDF)
3. Announcement of Agenda
4. Audience Comments
5. Administrative Reports
6. Public Hearings
7. Unfinished Business
8. New Business
A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 6489)
Wireless Code Update Introduction
Background
This is a new project (File AMD2022-0002).
Staff Recommendation
Staff will review the proposed wireless code amendments and provide a presentation to the
Board on June 8. A public hearing on the changes is currently anticipated for July 13.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment 1 - 6.9.22 draft wireless code (PDF)
B. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 6503)
BD2 Designated Street Front
Background/History
The City Council adopted Ordinance 4247 which imposed a moratorium on the acceptance of
building permit applications for BD2 zoned properties that do not front on a designated street
front as shown in Map 16.43-1. The moratorium was initially adopted for a 60-day period to
allow the development of interim design standards for such properties. During discussions on
the interim design standards, findings for the moratorium (Resolution 1490) and three
subsequent extensions of the original moratorium (Ordinances 4253, 4254, and 4255),
questions regarding uses in the BD2 arose, particularly with regard to residential only buildings
on BD2 properties. Staff and the city attorney provided a memorandum to the City Council on
the legislative history of the designated street front and demonstrated how multifamily only
buildings may be permitted on BD2 properties outside of a designated street front (Attachment
Planning Board Page 2 Printed 61312022
Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda June 8, 2022
2).
In adopting Resolution 1490 (findings for multifamily moratorium), a WHEREAS was added
noting some council members felt it was important to reconsider with the designated street
front map should be extended. Ordinance 4255 extended the moratorium to allow staff time
to analyze possible extensions of the designated street front.
At the May 24, 2022 Council meeting, Interim Ordinance 4262 (Attachment 1) was adopted
which extended the designated street front in select locations and removed ambiguities in the
BD use table in ECDC 16.43.020.
Staff Recommendation
Schedule joint meeting with the Economic Development Commission to review designated
street front designation.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment 1:
Interim Ordinance 4262 (PDF)
• Attachment 2:
BD2 Zone Development within the Designated Street Front and Legislative Intent (PDF)
• Attachment 3:
2022-04-19 City Council Minutes Excerpt (PDF)
• Attachment 4:
2022-04-21 City Council Public Minutes (PDF)
• Attachment 5:
2202-05-24 City Council Minutes Excerpt (PDF)
• Attachment 6:
Submarket Demand Analysis (PDF)
• Attachment 7:
Otak Edmonds BD2 Zoning Analysis Recommendations (PDF)
• Attachment 8:
Color Renderings of Development Examples (PDF)
• Attachment 9:
Additional Research on Comparable Cities (PDF)
• Attachment 10:
BD2 Zoning Memo (PDF)
9. Planning Board Extended Agenda
A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 6506)
Extended Agenda
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review Extended Agenda
ATTACHMENTS:
• 06.03.2022 Extended Agenda (PDF)
10. Planning Board Chair Comments
11. Planning Board Member Comments
12. Adjournment
Planning Board Page 3 Printed 61312022
2.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/8/2022
Approval of Minutes
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Michelle Martin
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Approve May 25th meeting minutes.
Narrative
May 25th Draft meeting minutes attached.
Attachments:
PB220525d
Packet Pg. 4
2.A.a
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Webinar Meeting
May 25, 2022
Chair Crank called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m.
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
Board Member Rosen read the Land Acknowledgement.
Board Members Present
Alicia Crank, Chair
Roger Pence, Vice Chair
Matt Cheung
Todd Cloutier
Judi Gladstone
Richard Kuehn
Mike Rosen
Beth Tragus-Campbell (alternate)
Lily Distelhorst (student rep)
Board Members Absent
None
Staff Present
Kernen Lien, Planning Division Manager
Angie Feser, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director
Jen Leach, Environmental Education and Sustainability Coordinator o
Michelle Szafran, Associate Planner Anna Huttel, Certification Director,
Salmon -Safe 'o
L
Dan Kent, Executive Director, Salmon -Safe a
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Board Member Rosen referred to packet page 6 and asked if Redefining Streets and Public Spaces is the same
as Reimagining Neighborhoods and Streets. Mr. Lien stated he would verify the name of the project.
MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR PENCE, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER GLADSTONE,
TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 11 AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED (5-2) WITH
BOARD MEMBERS CLOUTIER AND KUEHN ABSTAINING.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
May 25, 2022 Pagel of 6
Packet Pg. 5
2.A.a
Margie Fields was pleased that the Board would be hearing about Salmon -Safe tonight and was interested in
hearing their thoughts about it. She appreciated the numerous detailed recommendations and timelines. She
noted, however, that she did not see what specific results they expected from the recommendations.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
A. Salmon -Safe Certification Report
Director Feser introduced this project. She acknowledged Jen Leach, Environmental Education and
Sustainability Coordinator, who helped with a lot of this project. Salmon -Safe consultants Anna Huttel and Dan
Kent made the presentation. Mr. Kent gave an overview of Salmon -Safe and discussed their work with various
parks systems and municipalities. Ms. Huttel discussed the City of Edmonds' certification process and provided
an overview of the Salmon -Safe certification report which gives a system -wide evaluation of watershed impacts.
This includes an analysis of programming, a series of site assessments, a report of team findings and
recommendations, certification upon acceptance of recommendations, and an annual review of project activity.
The Salmon -Safe Science Team has recommended that the City of Edmonds be certified as Salmon -Safe subject
to 3 preconditions, 12 conditions, and 6 recommendations that address topics ranging from habitat protection
and restoration to stormwater management, integrated pest management, and de-icing products.
Board Comments and Questions:
Board Member Campbell commended the team for this work and the report. She asked for a clarification about
how the term pesticide is used. Ms. Huttel explained that it includes pesticides and also herbicides and
fungicides. Board Member Campbell referred to Precondition 3 and the recommendation to phase out High
Hazard Pesticides. She asked for clarification about what level of communication is needed in terms of the
justification memos and requests and if these needs to happen for each instance. Ms. Huttel replied that they
provide variances typically as part of the Integrated Pest Management plan. These can be provided on an
ongoing basis for targeted use on a specific species.
Board Member Gladstone was very pleased that the City is pursuing this certification. She asked about the
difference between preconditions and conditions. Ms. Huttel explained that preconditions are items that have to
be addressed before certification can be finalized. Conditions are things that the City works on after the
certification cycle has started. Board Member Gladstone asked where the City is at in meeting the preconditions.
Director Feser stated that the City does have an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) plan but it could use some
updating which will include some public process. Board Member Gladstone asked about the impact of the
conditions on the budget. Director Feser replied that this is part of the work that is being done with staff members
from other departments before taking this report to Council.
Board Member Rosen asked about expected results. Mr. Kent stated it is very difficult to quantify the outcome
of the conditions. They have seen significant improvement over the years of working with the City of Portland
in terms of water quality and fish presence. Board Member Rosen asked about prioritizing the conditions and
recommendations. Ms. Huttel thought that was a possibility with the involvement of the Science Team. Board
Member Rosen asked if there are any other benefits to having this certification aside from the environmental
benefits. Director Feser thought it was another way to demonstrate community support for a project. It helps
with grant applications and funding requests.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
May 25, 2022 Page 2 of 6
Packet Pg. 6
2.A.a
Board Member Cheung asked if the recommendations and conditions all have equal weight. He also wondered
about the impacts on the budget.
Board Member Cloutier asked if there is a funding source required and if there is a fiscal ability to actually do
this. Director Feser thought this was manageable through Parks. Public Works and Engineering is having some
questions about the scope of the work and what it may cost. This is still being evaluated; it will then go before
Council who will have to decide if they are willing to commit the resources. Board Member Cloutier suggested
a chart showing what can reasonably be done versus what they would like to get done.
Board Member Campbell referred to Condition 9 regarding upgrading containment for the waste oil tank. She
recommended expanding the timeframe to attempt to do this due to supply chain issues. She then referred to
Recommendation 6 related to educational signage. She supported this but suggested more development on how
the public can become involved because most of the land in the City is not held by the City. Mr. Kent
commented that the scope of this project is assessing the City's impact on the watershed. They are not looking
at private land or individual citizen actions but are very interested in any opportunities to influence public
behavior.
Board Member Gladstone asked how the list of conditions compares to what Shoreline had, both in the type
and number. Ms. Huttel thought that it was similar but noted it was hard to compare. She offered to follow up
on this if desired. Mr. Kent commented that there was a lot of consistency between the cities in terms of
application of standards. Board Member Gladstone wondered if Salmon -Safe has any sort alliances with
funding partners. Mr. Kent replied there are not any direct connections, but many government agencies have
reviewed and been supportive of Salmon -Safe standards and even funded Salmon -Safe. He was not sure about
private funding sources. Board Member Gladstone commented that there is a mention in the report of
coordinating with Ronald Sewer, but they don't exist anymore.
Board Member Rosen stated he was not ready to move this on to the Council.
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER ROSEN, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG,
THAT THE PLANNING BOARD GET A SECOND PRESENTATION THAT WOULD REFLECT:
1. PRIORITIZATION OF THE 12 CONDITIONS ALONG WITH CRITERIA USED TO
PRIORITIZE THEM
2. ESTIMATION OF COSTS FOR EACH OF THE CONDITIONS, INCLUDING STAFF
COMMITMENTS
3. TIME ESTIMATES THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED
4. ANY PRIVATE LANDOWNER REQUIREMENTS THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO
MEET THE STANDARDS
5. CONFIRMATION THAT THE CITY WOULD MEET PRECONDITIONS 1 AND 2
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLN2022-0009 Rezone 9516 & 9530 Edmonds Way
Chair Crank opened the hearing and read the script for the quasi-judicial hearing reviewing the purpose and
procedures of the hearing. She asked if any member of the Board had engaged in communications with
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
May 25, 2022 Page 3 of 6
Packet Pg. 7
2.A.a
opponents or proponents regarding the issues of this rezone application outside of the hearing process. Board
members stated they had not. She asked if there were any Board Members who had conflict of interest issues in
this matter. There were none. She asked if there was anyone in the audience who objected to her participation
or any Board Member's participation as a decision maker in this hearing. No one objected. Chair Crank swore
in those intending to testify.
Staff Presentation: Associate Planner Michelle Szafran made the staff presentation regarding the rezone
application. She gave an overview of the request from Multiple Residential (RM 1.5) to Multiple Residential —
Edmonds Way (RM-EW) including site context, rezone criteria and staff recommendation. Staff concluded that
the rezone is consistent with ECDC. 20.40.010. The rezone would allow the option for a height increase from
30-35 feet for any building fronting on Edmonds Way provided that sustainability, low impact development
and/or inclusion of affordable housing are provided. Design standards and development regulations will ensure
that public health, safety, and welfare are protected. Staff proposed that the Planning Board make a
recommendation to City Council to approve the rezone from RM 1.5 to RM-EW.
Applicant Testimony:
Matt Driscoll concurred with staff s presentation. He explained the reason they asked for the rezone was because
it would give more flexibility with the roofline. The benefit to the City would be affordable housing and
sustainability by through LEED and Low Impact Development (LID).
Public Comments:
Luke Distelhorst, Edmonds, commented on the lack of multifamily housing and affordable housing in the City
He spoke in support of this rezone.
Shaun Leiser, developer for the project, stated he was looking forward to doing another development on
Edmonds Way. He clarified that the rezone only allows additional height, not more density. The unit count stays
the same. They are looking forward to building affordable units and a low impact development. It is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Map, and the development standards. He added that this future
development would be a great addition to the community.
Board Questions:
Board Member Pence asked if this would be considered a spot rezone. Mr. Lien replied that this is a site -specific
rezone, not a spot rezone. Spot rezones are illegal and would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Board Member Rosen had the following questions:
• Is access to 9520 between the two parcels? Jake Lyon, one of the applicants, replied that there is a 20-
foot easement access through his parcel, 9516.
• By doing this zoning, would there be any other properties on Edmonds Way that would now be eligible
for a height increase. Ms. Szafran explained they would have to go through the rezone as well.
• Will there be anybody whose view would be impacted by this? Ms. Szafran noted there is quite a bit of
elevation change between the proposed rezone and other properties up on hillside. Mr. Driscoll added
that there is a property that was rezoned RM-EW further down to the east of the site. The property across
the street was rezoned BN-EW. Because of the steep slope towards the back, the building would be
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
May 25, 2022 Page 4 of 6
Packet Pg. 8
2.A.a
located more towards Edmonds Way. Right now, it is heavily wooded towards the back; several trees
will be retained which are already in front of the houses. The applicant will also be adding more
landscaping. He believes that the view would be relatively unchanged.
In meeting two of the three criteria, are there minimum standards? The applicant referred to code section
16.30.030 which gives site development standards along with specific criteria as to how the RM-EW is
to be developed. Board Member Rosen pointed out that the requirements don't specify size relationship
between the units and other units in the building. Mr. Driscoll added that Snohomish County has
standards as to what is affordable. They would be subject to those standards.
Board Member Campbell asked for clarification about how much the height would be changing. The packet
mentions a change to 35 from 25 feet, but the staff report mentioned a change to 35 feet from 30 feet. Ms.
Szafran replied that the current maximum height in the RM 1.5 would allow up to 30 feet with the portion above
25 feet required to have a roof slope pitch requirement. The RM-EW would allow the applicant to go to 35 feet
without the roof pitch requirement but with the other requirements. Mr. Driscoll added that increasing the height
to 35 feet allows them to bring the building a little further out of the ground and be more generous with the
floor -to -floor distance.
The public testimony portion of the public hearing was closed at 8:30 p.m.
MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR PENCE, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER, TO
FORWARD THIS TO CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
Mr. Lien reviewed the extended agenda. The Board made comments about various upcoming topics and
scheduling of items. Director Feser indicated she would send out a survey regarding availability for the
upcoming park tour.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Gladstone said she went to the public meeting on streets and public spaces. It was interesting to
see what they are thinking about and to hear what the public had to say.
Vice Chair Pence expressed concerned about the magnitude of the upcoming Comprehensive Plan work which
necessarily includes work beyond the normal scope of the Planning Board. He hopes that the Planning Board
can be put in the loop on some of those projects so they are prepared for discussion.
Board Member Rosen also participated in the streets meeting and was confused that it took place. The Board
has been talking a lot about the Comprehensive Plan and that it would be driven by a vision and values. It
seemed that things were done out of order, but there were a lot of participants. He also expressed concern that
they asked participants about barriers to success since they haven't defined success yet. He felt this set up an
unnecessary push-pull dynamic. He cautioned staff to be careful about how they word questions. He thanked
Chair Crank for giving them the opportunity to weigh in on how they feel about meeting in person. He also
started he really enjoyed the parliamentary procedures meeting and found it very useful. Vice Chair Pence
concurred.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
May 25, 2022 Page 5 of 6
Packet Pg. 9
2.A.a
Board Member Kuehn also appreciated being able to give input on meeting in person.
Board Member Cloutier asked about the BD2 summary that Mr. Lien gave to Council last night.
Mr. Lien stated they would be required to go back to in -person meetings in June. The City doesn't have the
capacity to do a hybrid option for all the boards and commissions like they do for Council. Chair Crank asked
if the public would be notified that they would not have access to the virtual meetings anymore. Mr. Lien thought
they would be doing a press release. Board Member Rosen asked if the meetings would still be broadcast live
on Channel 21. Mr. Lien stated that was his intent to broadcast the meeting as they had done in the past. Chair
Crank stated she was concerned about losing the level of accessibility they have had with the public. She noted
there may be some members who have health concerns and are not ready to meet in person yet. She also
wondered about the equity factor of which boards and commissions are able to be broadcast and which are not.
She expressed concern about what would happen for those who do not feel comfortable returning to in -person
meetings. Board Member Rosen asked who has the authority to allocate the resources to provide hybrid
meetings and suggested they talk with them. Vice Chair Pence concurred and noted that the quality of the video
also needs to be upgraded. Board Member Gladstone asked about health protocols such as adequate spacing,
a
masking, and testing prior to meetings. Board Member Campbell asked for statistics about participation changes
c
with the different forums. Mr. Lien did not think they had any statistics but informally observed that there are
more people via Zoom than when they met in person. Chair Crank encouraged Board members to share their
0
thoughts by responding to her email and cc'ing Mr. Lien. Board Member Kuehn noted that having the option
'o
to participate online played a big part in his decision to participate on the Board.
a
Q.
a
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Crank noted it had been a hard week and encouraged everyone to be kind and patient with one another.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:06 p.m.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
May 25, 2022 Page 6 of 6
Packet Pg. 10
8.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/8/2022
Wireless Code Update Introduction
Staff Lead: Mike Clugston
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Michael Clugston
Background
This is a new project (File AMD2022-0002).
Staff Recommendation
Staff will review the proposed wireless code amendments and provide a presentation to the Board on
June 8. A public hearing on the changes is currently anticipated for July 13.
Narrative
This is a periodic update of the City's wireless communication facilities ordinance in ECDC 20.50. Like
previous updates in 2011, 2014 and 2019, the current project is proposed in response to changing
mandates at the federal level by the FCC as well as to implement current best practices and lessons -
learned from recent projects.
A redlined version of the draft code is included as Attachment 1.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - 6.9.22 draft wireless code
Packet Pg. 11
8.A.a
Chapter 20.50
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES
Sections:
20.50.010 Purpose.
20.50.020 Applicability.
20.50.030 Exemptions.
20.50.040 Prohibitions.
20.50.050 General macro facility siting criteria and design considerations.
20.50.060 Permits and shot clocks.
20.50.070 Application requirements.
20.50.080 Eligible facilities requests.
20.50.090 New building -mounted macro wireless communication facility
standards.
20.50.100 New structure -mounted macro wireless communication facilities
standards.
20.50.110 New monopole standards.
20.50.120 Temporary facilities.
20.50.130 Small wireless standards and approval process.
20.50.140 Abandonment or discontinuation of use.
20.50.150 Maintenance.
20.50.160 Definitions.
20.50.010 Purpose.
A. The purpose of this chapter is to regulate the placement, construction, modification and
appearance of wireless communication facilities, in order to protect the health, safety and
welfare of the public, while not unreasonably interfering with the deployment of competitive
wireless communication facilities throughout the city. The purpose of this chapter may be
achieved through adherence to the following objectives:
1. Protect residential areas and land uses from potential adverse impacts that
wireless communication facilities might create, including but not limited to negative
impacts on aesthetics, environmentally sensitive areas, historically significant
locations, flight corridors, and health and safety of persons and property;
2. Establishment of clear and nondiscriminatory local regulations concerning wireless
communication facilities and services that are consistent with federal and state laws
and regulations;
Packet Pg. 12
8.A.a
3. Encourage providers of wireless communication facilities to locate facilities, to the
extent feasible, in areas where the adverse impact on the public health, safety and
welfare is minimal;
4. For macro facilities, encourage the location of those facilities in nonresidential
areas and allow macro facilities in residential areas only when necessary to meet
functional requirements of the communications industry as defined by the Federal
Communications Commission;
5. Minimize the total number of macro facilities in residential areas;
6. Encourage and, where legally permissible, require cooperation between
competitors and, as a primary option, joint use of new and existing towers, tower
sites and suitable structures to the greatest extent possible, where doing so would
significantly reduce or eliminate additional negative impact on the city;
7. Ensure wireless communication facilities are configured in a way that minimizes
the adverse visual impact of the facilities, as viewed from different vantage points,
through careful design, landscape screening, minimal impact siting options and
camouflaging techniques, dispersion of unscreened features to lessen the visual
impact upon any one location, and through assessment of innovative siting
techniques;
8. Enable wireless communication companies to enter into lease agreements with
the city to use city property for the placement of wireless facilities, where consistent
with other public needs, as a means to generate revenue for the city;
9. Balance the city's intent to minimize the adverse impacts of wireless
communication facilities with the ability of the providers of communications services
to deploy such services to the community quickly, effectively and efficiently;
10. Provide for the prompt removal of wireless communication facilities that are
abandoned or no longer inspected for safety concerns and building code
compliance, and provide a mechanism for the city to cause these abandoned
wireless communication facilities to be removed as necessary to protect the citizens
from imminent harm and danger;
11. Avoid potential damage to people and adjacent properties from tower failure and
falling equipment, through strict compliance with state building and electrical codes;
and
12. Disperse the adverse impacts of small wireless facility facilities as evenly as
possible throughout the community, especially when joint use does not eliminate
additional visual impact.
Packet Pg. 13
8.A.a
B. In furtherance of these objectives, the city shall give due consideration to the zoning code,
existing land uses, and environmentally sensitive areas when approving sites for the location of
wireless communication facilities.
C. These objectives were developed to protect the public health, safety and welfare, to protect
property values, and to minimize and disperse visual impact, while furthering the development
of enhanced communications services in the city. These objectives were designed to comply
with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and its implementing regulations. The provisions of
this chapter are not intended to and any ambiguities herein shall not be interpreted in such a
manner that would materially inhibit the deployment of wireless communication facilities. This
chapter shall not be applied in such a manner as to unreasonably discriminate between
providers of functionally equivalent wireless facilities.
D. To the extent that any provision of this chapter is inconsistent or conflicts with any other city
ordinance, this chapter shall control. Otherwise, this chapter shall be construed consistently
with the other provisions and regulations of the city.
E. In reviewing any application to place, construct or modify wireless communication facilities,
the city shall act within federally required time periods. Any decision to deny an application
shall be in writing, supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. The city
shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application in accordance with this title, this
chapter, the adopted Edmonds comprehensive plan, and other applicable ordinances and
regulations. [Ord. 4147 § 2 (Att. A), 2019; Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
20.50.020 Applicability.
A. Except as provided herein, all wireless communication facilities shall comply with the
provisions of this chapter. The standards and process requirements of this chapter supersede
all other review process, setback, height or landscaping requirements of the Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC).
B. Environmental. All proposed installations are subject to a threshold determination under the
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) according to Chapter 20.15A ECDC unless categorically
exempt pursuant to WAC 197-11-800, or preempted under federal law. All proposals are subject
to the critical areas requirements in ECDC Title 23 and the shoreline master program in ECDC
Title 24.
C. Master Permit Agreement Needed.
1. Consistent with Chapter 35.99 RCW, any person, corporation or entity that
proposes to locate any portion of a wireless communication facility within the city
right-of-way must have a valid, fully executed master permit with the city expressly
applicable to wireless communication facilities. The city may require separate
master permits for small wireless facilities and macro facilities.
Packet Pg. 14
8.A.a
2. Wireless providers interested in obtaining a master permit must apply as follows
to have a complete application:
a. Make application in writing to the city attorney c/o the city clerk's office;
b. Submit an electronic proposed master permit form in Word format; provided,
that this requirement shall no longer apply in the event that the city council has
adopted a standard master permit template;
c. Submit three valid, fully executed master permits that the provider has with
other cities in Washington State; provided, that this requirement shall be
excused to the extent that the provider does not have sufficient valid master
permits in other jurisdictions to meet that requirement;
d. Submit a map showing provider's proposed new macro and small cell
facilities within the city of Edmonds over the first two years of the master
permit; and
e. If the provider is seeking legislative approval for an alternative WCF design
that does not comply with this chapter, the provider may elect to use the
following optional WCF design approval process. To use this option process, the
provider must submit with the master permit application the following
additional materials:
i. Photographs, precise measurements, and technical specifications of the
proposed alternative WCF design;
ii. A signed affidavit from a speaking agent for the provider that: (A)
explains, by citing to specific city code provisions, the factual reasons why
the WCFs used by the provider cannot comply with the city's adopted
aesthetic regulations; and (B) attaches photographs and technical
specifications of all other WCF designs currently available to the provider;
and
iii. A legal analysis as to: (A) whether the city's approval of the proposed
alternative WCF would unreasonably discriminate among providers of
functionally equivalent services; and (B) whether the city's denial of the
proposed alternative WCF would prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting
the provision of personal wireless services.
3. After receipt of a complete application, the city attorney and wireless provider
shall negotiate the terms of the master permit until they have agreed on terms that
Packet Pg. 15
8.A.a
can be recommended to the city council for final approval. If the city attorney and
wireless provider have not been able to reach agreement on the recommended
terms of a master permit within 60 days of the date the complete application was
submitted, the wireless provider may submit the provider's proposed master permit
form to the council president directly and request that the provider's proposed
master permit be added to a forthcoming city council agenda for consideration. The
city council shall conduct a public hearing on the proposed master permit, including
any renewal.
4. The final decision on any proposed master permit shall be subject to legislative
discretion of the city council and the ordinance authorizing the master permit must
be approved by a majority of the full council. Any denial of a proposed master permit
must be supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record.
5. Any prior adoption by the city council of a master permit template, as
contemplated in subsection (C)(2)(b) of this section, is merely intended to facilitate
future master permit negotiations and should in no way be seen as limiting the city
council's legislative discretion to approve or reject a similar master permit that has
come before the city council for action.
6. Master permit terms shall not exceed five years. Master permits shall require the
city to be indemnified by the provider and that indemnification shall be support by
insurance that names the city as an additional insured.
7. No master permit shall grant a vested right for any wireless communication facility
or related support structure or equipment to be or remain at any specific location in
the public right-of-way.
8. The city recognizes that a WCF could occupy city right-of-way for a period of more
than five years if consecutive master permits are granted or renewal is granted by the
city council. Therefore, subject to the ten year restriction below, all master permits
and renewals are conditioned to allow city review of the general and specific design
standards of any and all wireless communications facilities occupying city right-of-
way in recognition of advances in technology, concealment products, and changing
local law, federal law, and administrative guidance from the FCC. Considering the
foregoing and to the extent not prohibited by law, the city may require the owner of a
wireless communications facility occupying city right-of-way to apply again for a
wireless communications facilities permit to allow the city an opportunity to re-
evaluate the design standards which may result in a new location or aesthetic
requirements consistent with the above considerations and then -current code;
Provided that, no new wireless communications facilities permit will be required
under this paragraph for any WCF lawfully occupying city right-of-way until at least
ten years after the date of the initial right-of-way permit authorizing its installation.
Packet Pg. 16
8.A.a
D. Facilities Lease or License Needed. A facilities lease agreement is required prior to
placement, construction, or modification of any WCF on city owned real property other than city
right-of-way. A license agreement is required prior to installation of a WCF attached to a city
owned utility pole in city right-of-way (e.g., a streetlight), including replacement of such pole to
accommodate a WCF. The cit)(s standard license agreement form shall be used, including for
replacement or new installation of a decorative streetlight per ECDC 20.50.130(A)(4).
E. Site Specific Authorizations. Prior to placement, construction, or modification of any WCF at
any particular location, an applicant must submit a wireless communication facilities application
as specified in ECDC 20.50.070, and the city must approve that application. Said application will
include an application for a building permit or a right-of-way construction permit, as applicable.
If the city approves a WCF application, the approval shall be included as part of the associated
right-of-way permit or building permit, as applicable, and shall document all conditions of WCF
application approval. If the applicant believes its proposal qualifies as an eligible facilities
request, then it shall submit an eligible facilities request application under ECDC 20.50.080(B) in
lieu of a WCF application.
1. Building Permit. A building permit is required prior to placement, construction, or
modification -of a WCF on private property pursuant to ECDC Title 19.
2. Right -of -Way Construction Permit. A right-of-way construction permit is required prior
to placement, construction, or modification of any WCF within the city right-of-way
pursuant to ECDC Title 18. [Ord. 4147 § 2 (Att. A), 2019; Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845
§ 2 (Att. A), 2011 ].
20.50.030 Exemptions.
The following are exemptions from the provisions of this chapter:
A. Radar systems for military and civilian communication and navigation.
B. Handheld, mobile, marine and portable radio transmitters and/or receivers.
C. Satellite antennas, including direct to home satellite services, and those regulated in
ECDC 16.20.050(D).
D. Licensed amateur (ham) radio stations and citizen band stations as regulated in
ECDC 16.20.050(E).
E. Earth station antenna(s) one meter or less in diameter and located in any zone.
F. Earth station antenna(s) two meters or less in diameter and located in the business and
commercial zones.
Packet Pg. 17
8.A.a
G. Routine maintenance or repair of wireless communication facilities
H. Emergency communications equipment or a COW or other temporary WCF during a declared
public emergency.
I. A temporary wireless communication facility or COW for providing coverage during a special
event such as a festival, subject to approval by the city. Such a facility is exempt from the
provisions of this chapter for up to three days before the special event begins and three days
after the special event ends.
J. A temporary wireless communication facility or COW for providing service during repair or
replacement of an existing facility for a period of up to 14 days.
K. Subject to compliance with all other applicable standards of this chapter, a building permit
and/or right-of-way permit application need not be filed for emergency repair or maintenance
of a facility until five business days after the completion of such emergency activity. [Ord. 4147
§ 2 (Att. A), 2019; Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 20111.
20.50.040 Prohibitions.
A. The following wireless communication facilities are prohibited in Edmonds:
1. Guyed towers.
2. Lattice towers.
B. Monopoles are prohibited in the following locations:
1. All residential zones (single-family (SF) and multifamily (MF));
2. Downtown waterfront activity center;
3. Public (P) and open space (OS) zoned parcels; and
4. Within the city rights -of -way. [Ord. 4147 § 2 (Att. A), 2019; Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord
3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011 ].
20.50.050 General macro facility siting criteria and design
considerations.
A. The city of Edmonds encourages wireless communication providers to use existing sites or
more frequent, less noticeable sites instead of attempting to provide coverage through use of
taller towers. To that end, applicants shall consider the following priority of preferred locations
for wireless communication facilities:
Packet Pg. 18
8.A.a
1. Collocation, without an increase in the height of the building, pole or structure
upon which the facility would be located;
2. Collocation, where additional height is necessary above existing building, pole, or
structure;
3. A replacement pole or structure for an existing one;
4. A new pole or structure altogether.
B. New monopole facilities must include mounts capable of accommodating at least one other
wireless provider.
C. Noise. Any facility that requires a generator or other device which will create noise audible
beyond the boundaries of the site must demonstrate compliance with Chapter 5.30 ECC, Noise
Abatement and Control. A noise report, prepared by an acoustical engineer, shall be submitted
with any application to construct and operate a wireless communication facility that will have a
generator or similar device. The city may require that the report be reviewed by a third -party
expert at the expense of the applicant.
D. Business License Requirement. Any person, corporation or entity that operates a wireless
communication facility within the city shall have a valid business license issued annually by the
city. Any person, corporation or other business entity which owns a monopole also is required
to obtain a business license on an annual basis.
E. Signage. Only safety signs or those mandated by a government entity with jurisdiction may
be located on wireless communication facilities. No other types of signs are permitted on
wireless communication facilities.
F. Any application must demonstrate that there is sufficient space for temporary parking for
regular maintenance of the proposed facility.
G. Finish. A monopole may be constructed of laminated wood, fiberglass, steel, or similar
material. The pole shall be a neutral color so as to reduce its visual obtrusiveness, subject to
any applicable standards of the FAA or FCC.
H. Design. The design of all buildings and ancillary structures shall use materials, colors,
textures, screening and landscaping that will blend the facilities with the natural setting and
built environment.
I. Color. All antennas and ancillary facilities located on buildings or structures other than
monopoles shall be of a neutral color that is identical to or closely compatible with the color of
the supporting structure so as to make the antenna and ancillary facilities as visually
unobtrusive as possible.
Packet Pg. 19
8.A.a
J. Lighting. Monopoles shall not be artificially lighted unless required by the FAA, FCC or other
government entity with jurisdiction. If lighting is required and alternative lighting options are
permitted, the city shall review the lighting alternatives and approve the design that would
cause the least disturbance to the surrounding area. No strobe lighting of any type is permitted
on any monopole. If FAA guidelines would require a strobe, the location shall be denied unless
no other site or combination of sites would provide adequate coverage in accord with FCC
requirements.
K. Advertising. No advertising is permitted at wireless communication facility sites or on any
ancillary structure or facilities equipment enclosure.
L. Equipment Enclosure. Each applicant shall use the smallest equipment enclosure practical to
contain the required equipment and a reserve for required collocation.
M. Radio Frequency Emissions Compliance. The applicant shall demonstrate that the project
will not result in levels of radio frequency emissions that exceed FCC standards, including FCC
Office of Engineering Technology (OET) Bulletin 65, Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines
for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, as amended. Additionally, if
the director determines the wireless communication facility, as constructed, may emit radio
frequency emissions that are likely to exceed Federal Communications Commission
uncontrolled/general population standards in FCC Office of Engineering Technology (OET)
Bulletin 65, Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio
Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, as amended, in areas accessible by the general population,
the director may require post -installation testing to determine whether to require further
mitigation of radio frequency emissions. The cost of any such testing and mitigation shall be
borne by the applicant.
N. Landscaping and Screening.
1. The visual impacts of wireless communication facilities should be mitigated and
softened through landscaping or other screening materials at the base of a
monopole, facility equipment compound, equipment enclosures and ancillary
structures. If the antenna is mounted flush on an existing building, or camouflaged
as part of the building and other equipment is housed inside an existing structure,
no landscaping is required. The director or his designee may reduce or waive the
standards for those sides of the wireless communication facility that are not in public
view, when a combination of existing vegetation, topography, walls, decorative
fences or other features achieves the same degree of screening as the required
landscaping; in locations where the visual impact of the facility would be minimal;
and in those locations where large wooded lots not capable of subdivision and
natural growth around the property perimeter provide a sufficient buffer.
2. Landscaping shall be installed on the outside of fences in accordance with
Chapter 20.13 ECDC. Existing vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent
Packet Pg. 20
8.A.a
practicable and may be used as a substitute for or as a supplement to landscaping or
screening requirements. The following requirements apply:
a. Type I landscaping shall be placed around the perimeter of the equipment
cabinet enclosure, except that a maximum 10-foot portion of the fence may
remain without landscaping in order to provide access to the enclosure.
b. Landscaping area shall be a minimum of five feet in width around the
perimeter of the enclosure.
c. Vegetation selected should be native and drought tolerant.
d. Landscaping shall be located so as not to create sight distance hazards or
conflicts with other surrounding utilities.
3. When landscaping is used, the applicant shall submit a landscaping bond pursuant
to ECDC 20.13.040.
4. The use of chain link, plastic, vinyl or wire fencing is prohibited. Ornamental metal
or wood fencing materials are preferred. [Ord. 4147 § 2 (Att. A), 2019; Ord. 3961 § 1,
2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011 ].
20.50.060 Permits and shot clocks.
A. No person may place, construct, reconstruct, modify or operate a wireless communication
facility subject to this chapter without first having in place a master permit agreement pursuant
to ECDC 20.50.020(C) and the permit(s) issued in accordance with this chapter. Except as
otherwise provided herein, the requirements of this chapter are in addition to the applicable
requirements of this title and ECDC Title 18. Any wires, cables, conduit or equipment associated
with a wireless communication facility shall be subject to the requirements of
Chapter 18.05 ECDC, unless wireless facilities are expressly exempted from a provision of
Chapter 18.05 ECDC or the context necessitates that a provision of Chapter 18.05 ECDC not
apply to wireless facilities.
B. Wireless Communication Facilities Application (WCF application.) A WCF application is an
application for approval of a proposed site for the location of a wireless communication facility
and approval of the proposed placement, design, and appearance of a wireless
communications facility. WCF aApplications will be reviewed based on the type of wireless
communication facilities requested to be permitted. Each wireless communication facility
requires the appropriate type of project permit review (building permit and/or ROW permit), as
shown in Table A. In the event of uncertainty on the type of a wireless facility, the director shall
have the authority to determine what permits are required for the proposed facility.
Packet Pg. 21
8.A.a
Table A
Building Permit
Right -of -Way
FCC Shot Clocks
Request
Location
(ROW) Permit
for Permit
Required
Required
Review
Eligible facilities
Existing tower or base
Yes, if on private
Yes, if in ROW
60 days
request
station
property
New macro
Collocation
Yes, if any elements
Yes, if any
90 days
facility
on private property
elements in the
ROW
New macro
New structure or monopole
Yes, if any elements
Yes, if any
150 days
facility
on private property
elements in the
ROW
New small
Collocation
Yes, if on private
Yes, if any
60 days
wireless facility
property
elements in the
ROW
New small
New structure or
Yes, if any elements
Yes, if any
90 days
wireless facility
freestanding small wireless
on private property
elements in the
facility
ROW
Temporary
Varies
Yes, if any elements
Yes, if any
Standard
facility
on private property
elements in the
permit quotes
ROW
C. Timelines.
1. Macro Facilities. The WCF application review period begins when all required
application materials have been received and fees paid. If the city determines that
the application is incomplete and provides notice to the applicant within 30 calendar
days of the date of application, the clock stops. The clock restarts when the city
receives the applicant's supplemental submission in response to the city's notice of
incompleteness. For subsequent determinations of incompleteness, the clock tolls
(pauses) if the city provides written notice within 10 days that a supplemental
submission did not provide the requested information.
The aoolicant must return anv supplemental submission to the citv within 90
calendar days of the date the city provides notice the application is incomplete, as
determined by the date notice is provided to the applicant through the city's permit
system. If the applicant does not return any supplemental submission to the city
through the citv's permit system within 90 days. then the citv will consider the
original WCF application to be withdrawn.
Packet Pg. 22
8.A.a
2. Small Wireless Facilities. The city shall review the WCF application for
completeness and notify the applicant if the application is incomplete consistent with
requirements of federal and state law.
The applicant must return any supplemental submission to the city within 90
calendar days of the date the city provides notice the application is incomplete, as
determined by the date notice is provided to the applicant through the city's permit
system. If the applicant does not return any supplemental submission to the city
through the city's permit system within 90 days, then the city will consider the
original WCF application to be withdrawn.
3. In the event federal review timelines, commonly referred to as shot clocks, are
changed or removed, then the timelines in Table A and in this subsection C shall be
likewise changed or removed without the need for council amendment to this
ordinance.
D. Batched Small Wireless Facility Applications. If an applicant is applying for a small wireless
network in a contiguous service area, multiple small wireless facilities may be batched into one
application; provided, that the application fee shall still be calculated as if the applications were
submitted separately. The director ^r hic/her decigRee may approve, deny or conditionally
approve all or any portion of the small wireless facilities proposed in the application. The denial
of one or more small wireless facility locations within one submission shall not be the sole basis
for a denial of other locations or the entire batched application for small wireless facilities.
Should an applicant file a single application for a batch that includes both collocated and new
structures for small wireless facilities, the longer 90-day shot clock shall apply to ensure the city
has adequate time to review the new construction sites.
E. Any WCF application submitted pursuant to this chapter for projects proposed to be located
on public or private property or in the rights -of -way shall be reviewed and evaluated by the
appropriate director, for compliance with the applicable design standards. or his designee.-T4e
4;c-010ties.; thatare located partially or fully within the city rights -of -way. Regardless of).A.thether
the director er the director of public %vo-rks or their respective designees are reviewi r�e
bier+ Aall applications will be reviewed and evaluated pursuant to the provisions of this
chapter.
Packet Pg. 23
8.A.a
11,10
-- .. . I .. .. . _ ....
MM
GF. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all other permits from any other appropriate
governing body with jurisdiction (i.e., Washington State Department of Labor and Industries,
Federal Aviation Administration, etc.).
HG. No provision of this chapter shall be interpreted to allow the installation of a wireless
communication facility which minimizes parking, landscaping or other site development
standards established by the Edmonds Community Development Code.
1H. Wireless communication facilities that are governed under this chapter shall not be eligible
for variances under Chapter 20.85 ECDC. Any request to deviate from this chapter shall be
based solely on the exceptions set forth in this chapter.
}I. Third -Party Review. Applicants may use various methodologies and analyses, including
geographically based computer software, to determine the specific technical parameters of the
services to be provided utilizing the proposed wireless communication facilities, such as
expected coverage area, antenna configuration, capacity, and topographic constraints that
affect signal paths. In certain instances, a third -party expert may be needed to review the
engineering and technical data submitted by an applicant for a permit. The city may at its
discretion require third -party engineering and technical review as part of a permitting process.
The costs of the technical third -party review shall be borne by the applicant.
1. The selection of the third -party expert is at the discretion of the city. The third -
party expert review is intended to address interference and public safety issues and
be a site -specific review of engineering and technical aspects of the proposed
wireless communication facilities application and/or a review of the applicants'
methodology and equipment used, and is not intended to be a subjective review of
the site which was selected by an applicant. Based on the results of the expert
review, the city may require changes to the proposal. The third -party review shall
address the following:
a. The accuracy and completeness of submissions;
b. The applicability of analysis techniques and methodologies;
c. The validity of conclusions reached;
d. The viability of other site or sites in the city for the use intended by the
applicant; and
e. Any specific engineering or technical issues designated by the city.
Packet Pg. 24
8.A.a
-KI. Decision and permits. A decision on the WCF application shall either approve, approve with
conditions, or deny the application, and it shall be signed by the director. Any decision
hereunde[by the diroc*^r ^r the director of public- works shall be given substantial deference in
any appeal of a decision by the city to either approve, approve with conditions, or deny any
application for a wireless communication facility.
If the city approves a WCF application, no separate WCF permit shall issue; the approval shall be
included as part of the associated right-of-way permit or building permit, as applicable, and
shall state the conditions of WCF application approval, if any. Approval signifies compliance with
the design standards and aesthetic requirements of Chapter 20.50 ECDC and compliance with
the other requirements of ECDC 20.50.070; it is the approval of a particular location of a
wireless communication facility and confirmation that the approved placement, design, and
appearance complies with the design standards and aesthetic requirements of Chapter 20.50
ECDC.
The right-of-way permit or building permit and associated WCF application approval is issued
subject to the applicant obtaining all other required permits and authorizations and is subject
to the conditions of Ch 20.50, Ch 18.60 as applicable, all applicable city code provisions, and
subject to the terms of all city authorizations, including the master permit, lease or license, as
applicable, and federal law.
No right-of-way permit or other city approval or authorization, in whatever form, shall grant a
vested right for any wireless communication facility or related support structure or equipment
to be or remain at any specific location in the public right-of-way.
K. A decision by the director shall be appealable to the hearing examiner pursuant to
Chapter 20.06 ECDC as a Type II decision.
L. Notwithstanding other remedies that may be available under federal law, failure of the city to
issue permits within or otherwise comply with the FCC shot clock requirements does not
provide a "deemed" grant of approval for macro or small wireless facilities. No work may occur
until the applicable permits issue-s. [Ord. 4147 § 2 (Att. A), 2019; Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845
§ 2 (Att. A), 2011 ].
20.50.070 WCF Application requirements.
The following information must be submitted as part of a complete application for a wireless
communication facility permit in the city of Edmonds:
A. Project description including a design narrative, technology description, and, for macro cell
facilities, a collocation analysis indicating the alternative locations considered;
B. Aerial photo or map showing entire proposed deployment (small wireless only);
Packet Pg. 25
8.A.a
C. Site information on scaled plans, including:
1. Site plan;
2. Elevation drawings;
3. Utility plan showing existing utilities, proposed facility location, and
undergrounding;
4. Screening, camouflaging or landscaping plan and cost estimate (produced in
accordance with Chapter 20.13 ECDC), as appropriate;
D. Photos and photo simulations showing the existing appearance of each site and appearance
of the proposed installation from nearby public viewpoints;
E. Noise report (per ECDC 20.50.050(C)), if applicable;
F. Radio Frequency (RF) Emissions Standards. The applicant shall provide the certification of an
RF engineer with knowledge of the proposed development that the small wireless facility
network will comply with RF standards adopted by the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC). The city recognizes that the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 gives the FCC sole
jurisdiction in the field of regulation of RF emissions and wireless facilities that meet FCC
standards shall not be conditioned or denied on the basis of RF impacts.
G. The applicant shall provide proof of FCC and other regulatory approvals required to provide
the service(s) or utilize the technologies sought to be installed.
H. A professional engineer licensed by the State of Washington shall certify in writing, over his
or her seal, that both construction plans and final construction of the WCF and the antenna
support structure or pole and foundation are designed to reasonably withstand wind and
seismic loads.
GI. For small wireless facility deployments, the following additional documentation shall be
provided as initial justification for the proposed location pursuant to the location preference
criteria set forth in ECDC 20.50.130(B), as applicable: The applicant shall provide (i) a completed
checklist available through the city's website and ii a narrative description supporting that
checklist addressing all of the following, as applicable:
1. For installations proposed for location preference No. 2 (freestanding small
wireless facility or new streetlight), provide all of the following -to the extent
applicable within 150 lineal feet in either direction, on both sides of the street, of
each proposed small wireless facility location as measured along the right-of-way line
for the applicable street:
Packet Pg. 26
8.A.a
a. Where no poles exist in the area: evidence that no utility poles, traffic signal
poles, or streetlight poles exist;
b. Where poles exist that cannot fully conceal a small wireless facility: written
documentation from all pole owners, denying the applicant's request to replace
any of the existing poles that are not capable of hosting a fully concealed small
wireless facility with a new pole that is capable of hosting a fully concealed small
wireless facility on the grounds that no such replacement pole is available on
the market or due to other reasonably insoluble problems expressed in writing
by the pole owner;
c. Where poles exist that can fully conceal a small wireless facility: written
documentation from all owners of poles within 150 lineal feet in either direction
of each proposed small wireless facility location, as measured along the right-of-
way line for the applicable street, denying the applicant's request to install the
small wireless facility within any such existing poles.
2. For installations proposed for location preference No. 3 (on top of existing power
pole) provide all of the following to the extent applicable within 150 lineal feet in
either direction, on both sides of the street, of each proposed small wireless facility
location as measured along the right-of-way line for the applicable street:
a. Documentation as required in subsection (GI)(1) of this section; and
b. Evidence that the design standards for a freestanding small wireless facility in
the right-of-way could not be met.---vRdIf the design standards cannot be met
on the basis of a claim of technical infeasibility, such claim must be supported
by a signed statement from a licensed RF engineer, or other licensed engineer
type as applicable, that provides enough detail to allow for meaningful third -
party review under ECDC 20.50.060(M).
C. TCGRfirmatinn by the director of public works may evaluate whether hat a
new streetlight pole capable of hosting a fully concealed small wireless facility is
needed at the proposed location a-Rdor within 150 lineal feet on each side of the
proposed location and on either side of the street, and, if so determined, may
require such a pole to be installed in lieu of a freestanding small wireless facility.
If so determined, the director may deem the WCF application to be incomplete
for proposed location preference No. 3 and require revisions to the wireless
communication facilities application addressing plans for a new streetlight pole.
In this situation, federal and city timelines and rules applicable to small wireless
facilities and incomplete applications shall apply. was net etormiRk- rn ho
f�ee�e�
Packet Pg. 27
8.A.a
3. For installations proposed for location preference No. 4 (in communication space
on existing power pole) provide all of the following to the extent applicable within
150 lineal feet in either direction, on both sides of the street, of each proposed small
wireless facility location as measured along the right-of-way line for the applicable
street:
a. Documentation as required in subsections (GI)(1) and (2) of this section; and
b. Evidence that no power poles exist that would allow for installation on top of
the pole; or
c. Written documentation from all owners of the p�- poles denying
the request to install the small wireless facility on any such powe poles that
would allow for installation on top of the pole, including a-P declaratio na#+da it
from the pole owner that (i) there are no it dGes not anypole owner sanctioned
third -party attachments currently occupyingior; t„ gtach f-Arilities to similar
segments of its poles. and (ii) it has no current agreements with any third -
parties authorizing third -party attachments to occupy similar segments of its
poles. The pole owner must articulate a reasonable and nondiscriminatory basis
for any denial. In the absence of such a basis, and as a condition of the City's
continued consent to maintain poles in the City s rights -of -way pursuant to RCW
54.04.040, the pole owner shall accommodate the installation of small wireless
facilities in the manner required to accommodate the City's location preference
hierarchy of Chapter 20.50 ECDC.
4. For installations proposed for location preference No. 5 (strand -mounted) provide
all of the following to the extent applicable within 150 lineal feet in either direction,
on both sides of the street, of each proposed small wireless facility location as
measured along the right-of-way line for the applicable street:
a. Documentation as required in subsections (GI)(1), (2), and (3) of this section;
and
b. Evidence that no power poles exist that would allow for installation within the
communication space; or
c. Written documentation from all owners of the existing -power poles denying
the request to install the small wireless facility on any such existinger poles
that would allow for installation within the communication space, including a
declaration from the pole owner that (i) there are no pole owner sanctioned
third -party attachments currently occupying similar segments of its poles, and
(ii) it has no current agreements with any third -parties authorizing third -party
attachments to occupy similar segments of its poles. The pole owner must
articulate a reasonable and nondiscriminatory basis for any denial. In the
Packet Pg. 28
8.A.a
absence of such a basis, and as a condition of the City's continued consent
to maintain poles in the City's rights -of -way pursuant to RCW 54.04.040, the
pole owner shall accommodate the installation of small wireless Facilities in
the manner required to accommodate the City's location preference
hierarchy of Chapter 20.50 ECDC.
5. For each small wireless facility to be placed on or at the location of an existing
pole, whether that pole is to be replaced or whether it is to remain, written
documentation of the pole owner's consent to the applicant's proposed placement at
that location.
6. Demonstration of compliance with the National Electrical Safety Code.
14. A copy of the provider's approved master permit. A master permit is required as applicable
pursuant to ECDC 20.50.020(C)(1). If the provider does not have a master permit authorizing
the desired type of deployment, then the applicant must submit a master permit
application under ECDC 20.50.020(C) concurrent with any wireless communication facilities
application.
K. A right-of-way construction permit application, as applicable, on the form provided by
the city. If work involves pole replacement by the pole owner, then an additional right-of-
way construction permit application shall be submitted by the pole owner as part of a
complete application.
L. A building permit application, as applicable, on the form provided by the city.
M. An executed facilities lease agreement or an application for a city standard form license
agreement as applicable.
Nt. Any other documentation deemed necessary by the director in order to issue a decision
[Ord. 4147 § 2 (Att. A), 2019; Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011 ].
20.50.080 Eligible facilities requests.
This section implements Section 6409 of the Spectrum Act (codified at 47 U.S.C. 1455), which
requires the city of Edmonds to approve any eligible facilities request for a modification of an
existing tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of
such tower or base station. If Section 6409 of the Spectrum Act is repealed or modified, the
requirements of this section are likewise repealed or modified without the need for council
amendment of this ordinance.
A. Definitions. The following definitions only apply to eligible facilities requests as described in
this section and do not apply throughout this chapter:
Packet Pg. 29
8.A.a
1. "Base station" is a structure or equipment at a fixed location that enables FCC -
licensed or authorized wireless communications between user equipment and a
communications network. The term does not encompass a tower as defined herein
nor any equipment associated with a tower. Base station includes, without limitation:
a. Equipment associated with wireless communications services as well as
unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave
backhaul.
b. Radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, regular and back-up
power supplies, and comparable equipment, regardless of technological
configuration (including distributed antenna systems ("DAS") and small wireless
facility networks).
c. Any structure other than a tower that, at the time the relevant application is
filed (with jurisdiction) under this section, supports or houses equipment
described in subsections (A)(1)(a) and (b) of this section that has been reviewed
and approved under the applicable zoning or siting process, or under another
state or local regulatory review process, even if the structure was not built for
the sole or primary purpose of providing that support.
The term does not include any structure that, at the time the relevant application is
filed with the city under this section, does not support or house equipment
described in subsections (A)(1)(a) and (b) of this section.
2. "Collocation" means the mounting or installation of transmission equipment on an
eligible support structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio
frequency signals for communication purposes.
3. "Eligible facilities request" means any request for modification of an existing tower
or base station that does not substantially increase the physical dimensions of such
tower or base station, involving:
a. Collocation of new transmission equipment;
b. Removal of transmission equipment; or
c. Replacement of transmission equipment.
4. "Eligible support structure" means any tower or base station as defined in this
section; provided, that it is existing at the time the relevant application is filed with
the city.
Packet Pg. 30
8.A.a
5. Existing. A constructed tower or base station is existing if it has been reviewed and
approved under the applicable zoning or siting process, or under another state or
local regulatory review process; provided, that a tower that has not been reviewed
and approved because it was not in a zoned area when it was built, but was lawfully
constructed, is existing for purposes of this definition.
6. "Site" means, for towers other than towers in the public rights -of -way, the current
boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the tower and any access
or utility easements currently related to the site, and, for other eligible support
structures, further restricted to that area in proximity to the structure and to other
transmission equipment already deployed on the ground. The current boundaries of
the site are the boundaries that existed as of the date that the original sup -port
structure or a modification to that structure was last reviewed and approved by a
state or local government, if the approval of the modification occurred prior to the
Spectrum Act or otherwise outside of the section 6409(a) process.
7. Substantial Change. A modification substantially changes the physical dimensions
of an eligible support structure if it meets any of the following criteria:
a. For towers other than towers in the public rights -of -way, it increases the
height of the tower by more than 10 percent or by the height of one additional
antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna, not to exceed
20 feet, whichever is greater; for other eligible support structures, it increases
the height of the structure by more than 10 percent or more than 10 feet,
whichever is greater.
i. Changes in height should be measured from the original support
structure in cases where deployments are or will be separated horizontally,
such as on buildings' rooftops; in other circumstances, changes in height
should be measured from the dimensions of the tower or base station,
inclusive of originally approved appurtenances and any modifications that
were approved prior to the passage of the Spectrum Act;
b. For towers other than towers in the public rights -of -way, it involves adding an
appurtenance to the body of the tower that would protrude from the edge of
the tower more than 21-0 feet, or more than the width of the tower structure at
the level of the appurtenance, whichever is greater; for other eligible support
structures, it involves adding an appurtenance to the body of the structure that
would protrude from the edge of the structure by more than 6s+x feet;
c. For any eligible support structure, it involves installation of more than the
standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, but
not to exceed four cabinets; or, for towers in the public streets and base
stations, it involves installation of any new equipment cabinets on the ground if
there are no preexisting ground cabinets associated with the structure, or else
Packet Pg. 31
8.A.a
involves installation of ground cabinets that are more than 10 percent larger in
height or overall volume than any other ground cabinets associated with the
structure;
d. It entails any excavation or deployment outside the current site, except that,
for towers other than towers in the public rights -of -way, it entails any excavation
or deployment of transmission equipment outside of the current site by more
than 30 feet in any direction. The site boundary from which the 30 feet is
measured excludes any access or utility easements currently related to the site;
e. It would defeat the concealment elements of the eligible support structure; or
f. It does not comply with conditions associated with the siting approval of the
construction or modification of the eligible support structure or base station
equipment; provided, however, that this limitation does not apply to any
modification that is noncompliant only in a manner that would not exceed the
thresholds identified subsections A.7.(a)-(d) above.
B. Qualification as an Eligible Facilities Request. Upon receipt of an application for an eligible
facilities request, the director will review the application to determine whether it qualifies as an
eligible facilities request. All applications for an eligible facilities request must be submitted on
the city's application form.
C. Time Frame for Review. Within 60 days of the date on which a network provider submits an
eligible facilities request application, the director must approve the application unless it
determines that the application is not covered by this section.
D. Tolling of the Time Frame for Review. The 60-day review period begins to run when the
application is submitted, and may be tolled only by mutual agreement by the director and the
applicant or in cases where the director determines that the application is incomplete. The time
frame for review of an eligible facilities request is not tolled by a moratorium on the review of
applications.
1. To toll the time frame for incompleteness, the director must provide written notice
to the applicant within 30 days of receipt of the application, clearly and specifically
delineating all missing documents or information required in the application.
2. The time frame for review begins running again when the applicant makes a
supplemental submission in response to the director's notice of incompleteness.
3. The applicant must return any supplemental submission to the city within 90
calendar days of the date the city provides notice the application is incomplete, as
determined by the date notice is provided to the applicant through the city's permit
system. If the applicant does not return any supplemental submission to the city
Packet Pg. 32
8.A.a
through the city's permit system within 90 days, then the city will consider the
original eligible facilities request application to be withdrawn
4-. Following a supplemental submission, the director will notify the applicant within
10 days that the supplemental submission did not provide the information identified
in the original notice delineating missing information. The time frame is tolled in the
case of second or subsequent notices pursuant to the procedures identified in this
subsection. Second or subsequent notice of incompleteness may not specify missing
documents or information that was not delineated in the original notice of
incompleteness.
E. Determination That Application Is Not an Eligible Facilities Request. If the director -determines
that the applicant's request does not qualify as an eligible facilities request, then the director
must deny the application.
F. Failure to Act. In the event the director fails to approve or deny a request for an eligible
facilities request within the time frame for review (accounting for any tolling), the request is
deemed granted. The deemed grant does not become effective until the applicant notifies the
director in writing after the review period has expired (accounting for any tolling) that the
application has been deemed granted.
G. A decision by the director shall be appealable to the hearing examiner pursuant to
Chapter 20.06 ECDC as a Type II decision.
H. To the extent feasible, additional antennas and equipment shall maintain the appearance
intended by the original facility, including, but not limited to, color, screening, landscaping,
camouflage, concealment techniques, mounting configuration, or architectural treatment. [Ord.
4147 § 2 (Att. A), 2019].
20.50.090 New building -mounted macro wireless communication facility
standards.
A. General. Wireless communication facilities located on the roof or on the side of the building
shall be grouped together, integrated to the maximum possible degree with the building
design, placed toward the center of the roof and/or thoroughly screened from residential
building views and from public views using radio frequency -transparent panels. Building -
mounted wireless communication facilities shall be painted with nonreflective colors to match
the existing surface where the antennas are mounted.
B. Height. The following requirements shall apply:
1. Downtown Waterfront/Activity Center (as Identified in the Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan). For buildings at, or which exceed, the height limit of the
underlying zone, antennas shall be flush -mounted and no portion of the antenna
Packet Pg. 33
8.A.a
may extend above the building on which it is mounted. For buildings below the
height limit, antennas may be built to the maximum height of the zone provided they
are screened consistent with the existing building in terms of color, architectural
style and material. Flush -mounted antennas may encroach into a required setback or
into the city right-of-way if a right-of-way use agreement is established with the city.
Antennas shall not project into the right-of-way by more than two feet and shall
provide a minimum clearance height of 20 feet over any pedestrian or vehicular
right-of-way.
2. Outside the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center. The maximum height of
building -mounted facilities and equipment shall not exceed nine feet above the top
of the roof on which the facility is located. This standard applies to all buildings
regardless of whether they are at or above the maximum height of the underlying
zone. Such antennas must be well integrated with the existing structure or designed
to look like common rooftop structures such as chimneys, vents and stovepipes.
C. Equipment Enclosure. Equipment enclosures for building -mounted wireless communication
facilities shall first be located within the building on which the facility is located. If an equipment
enclosure within the building is reasonably unavailable, then an equipment enclosure may be
incorporated into the roof design provided the enclosure meets the height requirement for the
zone. If the equipment can be screened by placing the equipment below existing parapet walls,
no additional screening is required. If screening is required, then the screening must be
consistent with the existing building in terms of color, architectural style and material. Finally, if
there is no other choice but to locate the equipment enclosure on the ground, the equipment
must be enclosed within an accessory structure which meets the setbacks of the underlying
zone and be screened in accordance with ECDC 20.50.050(N).
D. Feed Lines and Coaxial Cables. Feed lines and cables should be located below the parapet of
the rooftop, if present. If the feed lines and cables are visible from a public right-of-way or
adjacent property, they must be painted to match the color scheme of the building.
Packet Pg. 34
8.A.a
Acceptable Building -Mounted WCF
Unacceptable Building -Mounted WCF
[Ord. 4147 § 2 (Att. A), 2019; Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 20111.
20.50.100 New structure -mounted macro wireless communication
facilities standards.
A. Generally. Wireless communication facilities located on structures other than buildings, such
as utility poles, light poles, flag poles, transformers, and/or tanks, shall be designed to blend
with these structures and be mounted on them in an inconspicuous manner.
B. Height.
1. Wireless communication facilities located on structures within unzoned city rights -
of -way adjacent to single-family residential (RS) zones shall satisfy the following
requirement:
a. No metal pole or tower shall be used within the right-of-way adjacent to a
single-family zoned neighborhood unless required in order to comply with the
provisions of the State Electrical Code. Wooden poles of height and type
generally in use in the surrounding residential neighborhood shall be used
unless prohibited by the State Electrical Code.
2. Wireless communication facilities located on structures shall be painted with
nonreflective colors in a scheme that blends with the underlying structure.
1. The maximum height of structure -mounted wireless communication facilities shall
not exceed the maximum height specified for each structure or zoning district
(rights -of -way are unzoned); provided the wireless communication facility may
Packet Pg. 35
8.A.a
extend up to six feet above the top of the structure on which the wireless
communication facility is installed. Antennas and related equipment shall be
mounted as close as practicable to the structure.
2. Only one extension is permitted per structure.
3. If installed on an electrical transmission or distribution pole, a maximum 15-foot
vertical separation is required from the height of the existing power lines at the site
(prior to any pole replacement) to the bottom of the antenna. This vertical separation
is intended to allow wireless carriers to comply with the electrical utility's
requirements for separation between their transmission lines and the carrier's
antennas.
C. Equipment Enclosure. Equipment enclosures shall first be located underground. If the
enclosure is within the right-of-way, the enclosure shall be underground. If there is no other
feasible option but to locate the equipment enclosure above ground on private property, the
equipment must be enclosed within an accessory structure which meets the setbacks of the
underlying zone and be screened in accordance with ECDC 20.50.050(N).
D. Feed Lines and Coaxial Cable. Feed lines and cables must be painted to closely match the
color scheme of the structure which supports the antennas.
E. Only wireless communication providers with a valid master permit shall be eligible to apply
for a right-of-way construction permit, which shall be required prior to installation of facilities
within the city right-of-way and be in addition to other permits specified in this chapter.
Acceptable Structure -Mounted WCF
Packet Pg. 36
8.A.a
Unacceptable Structure -Mounted WCF
[Ord. 4147 § 2 (Att. A), 2019; Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
20.50.110 New monopole standards.
A. No part of a monopole, antennas or antenna equipment may exceed the maximum height
allowed in the zone where the facility is located.
B. Monopoles must be completely shrouded. All antennas, equipment and cables must be
concealed.
C. All monopole facilities must conform to the following site development standards:
1. To the greatest extent possible, monopole facilities shall be located where existing
trees, existing structures and other existing site features camouflage these facilities.
2. Existing mature vegetation should be retained to the greatest possible degree in
order to help conceal the facility.
3. Equipment Enclosure. The first preference is for the equipment enclosure to be
located underground. If the enclosure is within the right-of-way, the enclosure must
be underground. If there is no other choice but to locate the equipment enclosure on
the ground, the equipment must be enclosed within an accessory structure which
Packet Pg. 37
8.A.a
meets the setbacks of the underlying zone and be screened in accordance with
ECDC 20.50.050(N).
Acceptable Monopole WCF
Unacceptable Monopole WCF
[Ord. 4147 § 2 (Att. A), 2019; Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 20111.
Packet Pg. 38
8.A.a
20.50.120 Temporary facilities.
A. The installation of a "cell -on -wheels" or COWS and the installation site shall comply with all
applicable laws, statutes, requirements, rules, regulations, and codes, including, but not limited
to, the Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code and National Electrical Code.
B. All COWS and related appurtenances shall be completely removed from the installation site
within 30 days of the date of the end of the emergency as determined by the mayor. [Ord. 4147
§ 2 (Att. A), 2019; Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 20111.
20.50.130 Small wireless standards and approval process.
Unlike macro facilities which are intended to provide wireless coverage over large areas, the
goal of a small wireless facility deployment is to provide additional capacity in localized areas,
including residential neighborhoods, using smaller antennas and equipment. The intent of this
section is to describe the city's location preferences for small wireless facility deployments and
provide appropriate design standards to ensure that the negative visual impacts of small
wireless facilities are minimized.
A. Permitted Locations. Installation of small wireless facilities on existing buildings could help
minimize the negative visual impact of additional wires, antennas and equipment that may
otherwise be placed on utility poles. However, it is understood that a multi -node deployment
may not be able to be located entirely on buildings as it may not be technically feasible to do so
and, in addition, some property owners within the desired small wireless facility deployment
area may not want to participate. A mix of zoned property and right-of-way locations may be
used.
1. Small wireless facility attachments to buildings are permitted in any zone and are
not subject to the dispersion requirement below.
2. Fully concealed freestanding small wireless facilities are permitted in any zone
(except downtown business) but are still subject to the dispersion requirement
below.
3. Dispersion Requirement.
a. Small wireless facilities located pursuant to location preference No. 1 --hollow
utility pole-- are not subject to the dispersion requirement.
b. No two freestanding small wireless facilities shall be located within 150 feet
radially.
c. For all other small wireless facilities, nNo two small wireless facilities shall be
located within 300 feet radially; provided, that this dispersion req iirement- ch-all
Packet Pg. 39
8.A.a
not apply to small wireless facilities that Pre Incaterd Pursuant ant to Incatinn
Preference Ne• 1, al helew; anfi irther Preyidedr that this dispersion requirement
shall not apply to collocation in a fully concealed pole.
4. Downtown business district (BD) zones shall be limited to building attachments or
hollow utility poles. Where a Sternberg streetlight exists, replacement or new
installation of a decorative streetlight shall match the style and character of the
existing Sternberg streetlights, as determined by the public ,arks director, and shall
be designed to contain a small wireless facility in a fully concealed manner. Small
wireless facilities shall not be attached to Sternberg streetlights that were not
designed to host fully concealed small wireless facilities.
5. In areas where utility systems are underground, small cell facility deployment will
be limited to existing buildings, new or replaced streetlights and/or installation of
freestanding small wirelessce4 facilities.
6. Small wireless facilities may not be located on sites identified on official local, state
or federal historic registries.
7. Small wireless facilities may not be located in the communications space on wood
poles that contain a streetlight.
B. Location Preference Hierarchy. When locating small wireless facilities in the right-of-way,
wireless providers shall site their small wireless facilities pursuant to the following siting
preferences. These siting preferences are expressed in descending order, starting with the
most preferred. Wireless providers may not descend to a lower preference in the list below
until they have determined that the higher preferences are not feasible in accordance with
ECDC 20.50.070(G). Failure to show lack of feasibility of a higher preference shall be grounds for
denial of an application.
1. Location preference No. 1 - hollow utility pole.
2. Location preference No. 2 - freestanding small wireless facility or new streetlight.
3. Location preference No. 3 - existing power pole (installation on top of pole).
4. Location preference No. 4 - existing power pole (installation in communication
space).
5. Location preference No. 5 - strand -mounted.
C. General Design Standards. Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the following
general design standards apply to all small wireless facilities:
Packet Pg. 40
8.A.a
1. Collocation. All new poles must be capable of accepting at least two wireless
facilities in a fully concealed manner, unless accommodation of a second facility is
not technically feasible.
2. Ground -mounted equipment in the rights -of -way is prohibited, unless the
applicant can demonstrate that pole -mounted or undergrounded equipment is
technically infeasible. If ground -mounted equipment is necessary, the equipment
must be fully concealed. Generators located in the rights -of -way are prohibited.
3. No equipment shall be operated so as to produce noise in violation of
Chapter 5.30 ECC.
4. Replacement poles, new poles, and all equipment shall comply with the Americans
with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), city construction and sidewalk clearance standards, clear
zone requirements and state and federal regulations in order to provide a clear and
safe passage within the rights -of -way.
5. Replacement poles shall be located as near as possible to the existing pole with
the requirement to remove the abandoned pole unless alternate location relnrtinn
is required in order to meet the rA,clearance standards�regulations of ECDC
20.50.130.C.4.
6. Except fe ealth warninrT ciRnarre referenrerJ helm\n/ Nno signage, message, or
identification other than the manufacturer's identification or identification required
by governing law is allowed to be portrayed on any antenna, and any such signage
on equipment enclosures shall be of the minimum amount possible to achieve the
intended purpose; provided, that signs are permitted as concealment techniques
where appropriate.. All cm;fll W4relecc facilitiec chall ha)ie affixed to them health
warning sign. The health v.,_ ng sign shall be siZed and oriented an such a manne
as to be leglblP frl Am the 9TITe\ Alk Thp hp;iTCh \n/' SJTgR sh�l�texEeed Anp
square foot in area. The health warning sign shall read as follows.- "kA.I.A.RNING: This
device tranCmlts radliatinn The 10Rg term rnnceq' ienrec of evnnci ire to S Urh
radiation upon hi rnan heaIth are nknown ' e warning language shall he
accompanied by the following symbo
Packet Pg. 41
8.A.a
7. Antennas and related equipment may not be illuminated except for security
reasons, required by a federal or state authority, or unless approved as part of a
concealment element such as a streetlight.
8. Power must be drawn from a connection in the supply space on all power pole
installations.
9.8. The director is authorized to approve applications that deviate from the general
design standards, above, and the specific design standards, below, to the extent
necessary to approve an application that is consistent with the applicant's alternative
WCF design, but only where that applicant has already had the proposed alternative
WCF design approved by the city council pursuant to the optional process set forth in
ECDC 20.50.020(C)(2)(e). City council approval of an alternative WCF design does not
necessarily make other design standards inapplicable to that provider. Applicants
shall comply with the other design standards herein as much as their alternative WCF
design allows.
D. Specific Design Standards for Facilities in the Right -of -Way.
1. Location Preference No. 1 - Hollow Utility Pole. This option applies to any existing
pole in the right-of-way (power pole, streetlight pole, traffic light pole) that could
feasibly be replaced with a hollow pole designed to host small wireless facilities in a
fully concealed manner. In many but not all instances, this location preference will
involve the replacement of a wood pole with a hollow pole that serves the same
needs as its predecessor while also hosting small wireless facilities in a fully
concealed manner.
a. Combination small wireless facility and power pole must meet the pole
owner's requirements for power distribution. New combination small wireless
facility and power poles must be designed to host small wireless facilities from
at least two carriers in a fully enclosed manner. 5G antennas only may be
exposed until such time that the technology develops to make concealment of
5G antennas feasible.
b. Combination small wireless facility and streetlight pole should be located
where an existing streetlight pole can be utilized or removed and replaced with
a pole that allows for small wireless facility installation in the same location.
c. Pole design shall match or be compatible with the aesthetics of existing
streetlights installed adjacent to the pole.
d. Where a Sternberg streetlight exists in the downtown business district (BD)
zones, replacement or new installation of a decorative streetlight shall match
the style and character of the existing Sternberg streetlights, as determined by
Packet Pg. 42
8.A.a
the public�_ works -director, �i^rLc director, and shall be designed to contain a small wireless
facility in a fully concealed manner.
e. The pole shall have a streamlined appearance similar to the pole in the
embedded diagram, below. For a combination pole to be considered visually
pleasing, the transition between the equipment cabinet and upper pole should
be considered. A decorative transition shall be installed over the equipment
cabinet upper bolts, or decorative base cover shall be installed to match the
equipment cabinet size.
FIBEF
SPLIC
BOX
FI NAL
GRAC
ELEC
CON[
ENNA
IAIRE
IAIRE MAST ARM
R POLE
WENT CABINET
DARD
DATION
f. The diameter of the upper pole shall be smaller than the equipment cabinet
All hardware connections shall be hidden from view. No horizontal flat spaces
greater than one and one-half inches shall exist on the equipment cabinet to
prevent cups, trash, and other objects from being placed on the equipment
cabinet.
g. Internal separation of electrical wiring and fiber to be provided, as required
by the pole owner.
Packet Pg. 43
8.A.a
h. Weatherproof grommets shall be integrated in the pole design to allow cable
to exit the pole, for external shrouds, without water seeping into the pole.
i. The antenna shall be fully concealed within the pole, if technically feasible. If it
is not technically feasible to fully conceal the antenna within the pole, a
shrouded antenna may be flush -mounted to either the side or top of the pole.
The basis for any claim of technical infeasibility here must be supported by a
signed statement from a licensed RF engineer that provides enough detail to
allow for meaningful third -party review under ECDC 20.50.0600). Antennas and
equipment located within a unified enclosure may also be flush -mounted, as
described above, if it is not technically feasible to fully conceal the unified
enclosure within the pole, and if the unified enclosure does not exceed four
cubic feet in volume. The following is an example of a compliant unified
enclosu
j. A cantenna or canister antenna on top of an existing pole may not extend
more than six feet above the height of the existing pole and the diameter may
not exceed the diameter of the top of the pole by more than two inches. The
antennas shall be integrated into the pole design so that it appears as a
continuation of the original pole, including colored or painted to match the pole.
All cabling and mounting hardware/brackets from the bottom of the antenna to
the top of the pole shall be concealed and integrated with the pole.
k. Utility poles shall be located as follows:
i. In a manner that does not impede, obstruct, or hinder pedestrian or
vehicular travel.
ii. In alignment with existing trees, utility poles, and streetlights, where
practicable.
Packet Pg. 44
8.A.a
iii. Equal distance between trees when possible, and to avoidwith-a
m i n i rn - rA ^vf15-fps ep;irg+en s� c h that Re PrOPQSedd6st u rh;inEe
nrri it Iniirhin the critical root zone of any tree.
iv. With appropriate clearance from existing utilities.
v. In compliance with clear zone requirements.
vi. Ten feet away from the intersection of an alley with a street.
I. All conduit, cables, wires and fiber must be routed internally in the utility pole.
2. Location Preference No. 2 - Freestanding Small Wireless Facility or New Streetlight
a. Freestanding Small Wireless Facility. The specifications provided in this
section are for installations within the right-of-way only. The accompanying
diagram shows a typical pole and its elements.
i. Dimensional Requirements.
A. A freestanding small wireless facility may not exceed 2-51�-Lheight not
yet determined but likely to be 35-38) feet in height measured from
the top of the foundation to the top of the cantenna.
B. The equipment cabinet must be no greater than 2-0— h not yet
determined but like to be 20-22) inches in diameter.
C. The diameter of the upper pole shall be smaller than the
equipment cabinet or the pole shall have a uniform diameter no
larger than width allowed in Section B above22. If non -uniform
then tThe pole shall be tapered to transition from the equipment
cabinet to the upper pole, as shown in the graphic below,
inrhoc Mfedor thin tho narrn�nroct nnrtinn of tho nnlo The pole
diameter must be scaled so that no flat, horizontal surface larger than
one and one-half inches exists between the equipment cabinet and
upper pole.
D. The cantenna may not exceed six feet in height.
Packet Pg. 45
8.A.a
ii. Appearance
CANTENNA
UPPER POLE
FIBER
SPLICEIPULL
80x
ECUIPMENT CABINET
FINAL
GRADE
❑
ELECTRI AL
CONDUIT
STANDARD
;
r
FOUNDATION
Requirements.
A. The same pole aesthetic must be used along adjacent blocks to
maintain a cohesive appearance. If freestanding small wireless
facilities already exist within the deployment area, then the new
facility shall be designed to match the existing facilities as much as
practicable.
B. All small wireless facility carrier equipment must be housed internal
to the equipment cabinet or hidden within the cantenna. The
cantenna, upper pole and equipment cabinet must be of the same
brown or green colors, unless otherwise approved by the director.
Packet Pg. 46
8.A.a
C. All hardware connections shall be hidden from view.
D. No equipment may be attached to the outside of the pole.
E. The freestanding small wireless facility must be served by
underground power and fiber, if fiber is to be connected.
iii. Location Requirements. Freestanding small wireless facilities must:
A. Be I -Located such that they in no way impede, obstruct, or hinder
the usual pedestrian or vehicular travel, affect public safety, obstruct
the legal access to or use of the public ROW, violate applicable law,
violate or fail to substantially comply with public ROW design
standards, specifications, or design district requirements, violate the
Federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, or in any way create a
risk to public health, safety, or welfare.
B. Not be located in theQutsdde the downtown business district (BD)
zones.
C. NSe as-not4o be located along the frontage of a historic building,
deemed historic on a federal, state, or local level.
D. SeasNrlot4e significantly create a new obstruction to property
sight lines. Where feasible, poles should be in alignment with property
side yards.
E-P. Be equal distance between trees when possible, i.qith ;; minima im
of 1 F)_fnnt conaratinn and avoid ;- irh that nn nrnnncorJ rJicfi irhanro
shall nrn it wethin the critical root zone of any tree.
FG. Be located wWith appropriate clearance from existing utilities,
PROVIDED THAT, where adequate clearance cannot be achieved from
communications lines, such lines may be attached to the freestanding
pole.
G#. Be iln compliance with clear zone and sight distance
requirements.
Packet Pg. 47
8.A.a
b. New Streetlight. The hollow utility pole requirements are also applicable to
the new streetlight alternative of ECDC 20.50.070(G)(2)(c), except that a
streetlight would be incorporated into the design of the facility. In addition, the
following applies:
A new streetlight shall not be installed unless it has been identified by the
director of public we that a streetlight is necessary at the location in
which the small wireless facility is proposed. A streetlight may be required
to be installed instead of a freestanding wireless facility.
Packet Pg. 48
8.A.a
3. Location Preference No. 3 - Existing Power Pole (Installation on Top of
SMALL CELL
FIBER
ELECTRICAL
CONDUIT
Pole).
CANTENNA
(TOP MOUNTE❑)
LUMINAIRE &
ARM
EQUIPMENT SHROUD
WITH ANTENNA (SI❑E
MOUNTED}
UTILITY POLE
EQUIPMENT SHROU❑
xCEIL ENERGY METER
WITH DISCONNECT
a. A cantenna may not extend more than six feet above the height of the
existing pole and the diameter may not exceed the diameter of the pole by
more than two inches, measured at the top of the pole, unless the applicant can
demonstrate technological infeasibility. The antennas shall be integrated into
the pole design so that it appears as a continuation of the original pole,
including colored or painted to match the pole. All cabling and mounting
hardware/brackets from the bottom of the antenna to the top of the pole shall
be concealed.
Packet Pg. 49
8.A.a
b. Equipment enclosures and all ancillary equipment and boxes shall be colored
or painted to match the color of the surface of the wooden pole in which they
are attached. All related equipment shall -be flush mounted to the polenet-be
MOURtedmethan six inchesfrreerrn thesurface�n thre_p9nI i inIocc a fi irthor
dirt unless not technically feasible, and in such case shall be mounted as
closely as possible to the pole.is technically required, and is confirmed in nmitinrt
c All cables and �n,ires shall he re ited thre firth rnndU Uit alORg the nU Utside of the
polvleThee outside conduit shall be� ___`_olrnored or painted to match match the color of
surface of the In,nndeR pole The nU Umber of rnndU Uit shAll he minimised to the
not increase the nU Umber of rondi iit on an existing pole to more than three
ce All cables and wires shall be routed through conduit. The conduit shall
be enclosed in a riser, such as U-Guard or similar, and mounted flush against
the outside of the pole. The riser shall be a maximum diameter of 3 inches and
shall be colored or painted to match the color of the surface of the wooden
pole. The number of risers -shall be minimized to the number technically
necessary to accommodate a small wireless facility. Post installation, the total
number of risers and preexisting conduit or risers on a pole shall not exceed
three. The pole owner and the applicant shall work together to ensure the total
number of conduit and risers on the pole will not exceed three.
d. If the applicant claims any design standard of this subsection poses a
technical infeasibility, then it must support such claim with a signed statement
from a licensed engineer, of a type as applicable, that provides enough detail to
allow for meaningful third -party review under ECDC 20.50.060(M).
e. The city council has considered whether to impose flush mounting
requirements upon pole owners in the city after hearing and comment and
finds that flush -mounting is a reasonable requirement because the aesthetic
benefits are significant and the inconvenience to the pole owner is minimal. The
city council finds it is a reasonable regulation over the construction and
maintenance of poles and equipment operated within the city and so regulates
under its police power pursuant to RCW 54.04.040.
fd. The visual effect of the small wireless facility on all other aspects of the
appearance of the wooden pole shall be minimized to the greatest extent
possible.
ge. A wooden pole in a proposed location may be replaced with a taller pole for
the purpose of accommodating a small wireless facility; provided, that the
height of any replacement pole may not exceed 50 feet to the top of the
cantenna.
Packet Pg. 50
8.A.a
hf. The use of the pole for the siting of a small wireless facility shall be
considered secondary to the primary function of the pole. If the primary
function of a pole serving as the host site for a small wireless facility becomes
unnecessary, the pole shall not be retained for the sole purpose of
accommodating the small wireless facility and the small wireless facility and all
associated equipment shall be removed.
THE FOLLOWING SECTION STILL TO BE REFINED PENDING ADDITIONAL RESEARCH
4. Location Preference No. 4 - Existing Power Pole (Installation in Communication
SMALL CELL
FIBER
ELECTRICAL
Space).
'OLE
?NT SHROUD
'-NT SHROUD
ERGY METER
'CONNECT
a. Antennas should be placed in an effort to minimize visual clutter and
obtrusiveness. Only one antenna array is permitted on each wooden pole. The
inside edge of a side mounted canister antenna/equipment shroud shall project
no more than 12 inches from the surface of the wooden pole.
Packet Pg. 51
8.A.a
b. To the extent technically feasible, antennas and equipment (shall be?l located
together within a unified enclosure which shall not exceed 4feur cubic feet. The
unified enclosure shall be placed so as to appear as an integrated part of the
pole or behind banners or signs. The unified enclosure may not be placed more
than six inches from the surface of the pole, unless a further distance is
technically required and confirmed in writing by the pole owner.
c. All other equipment shall be shrouded in an-�ga,pm enclosures rwhich
shall not exceed 4 cubic feet?] and all anriIIaFY equipment and hexer, shall be
colored or painted to match the color of the surface of the wooden pole in
which they are attached. All related equipment shall not be mounted more than
12s+x inches from the surface of the pole, unless a further distance is technically
required, and is confirmed in writing by the pole owner.
All equipment shall be flush mounted to the pole, unless not technically
feasible, and in such case shall be mounted as closely as possible to the pole.
d. All cables and wires shall be routed through conduit. The conduit shall be
enclosed in a riser, such as U-Guard or -similar, and mounted flush against along
the outside of the pole. The riser shall be a maximum diameter of elide
cc)nd-it 3 inches and shall be colored or painted to match the color of the
surface of the wooden pole. The number of risers r-end,it shall be minimized to
the number technically necessary to accommodate a small wireless facility, a -Rd
Post installation, the total number of risers and preexisting conduit or risers on a
pole shall not exceed three. inrrear,e the number of renrli iit nn an exictinrT eels
to more than three conduit-. The pole owner and the applicant shall work
together to ensure the total number of conduit and risers on the pole will not
exceed three.
e. If the applicant claims any design standard of this subsection poses a
technical infeasibility, then it must support such claim with a signed statement
from a licensed engineer, of a type as applicable, that provides enough detail to
allow for meaningful third -party review under ECDC 20.50.060(M).
f. The city council has considered whether to impose flush mounting
requirements upon pole owners in the city after hearing and comment and finds
that flush -mounting is a reasonable requirement because the aesthetic benefits
are significant and the inconvenience to the pole owner is minimal. The city
council finds it is a reasonable regulation over the construction and maintenance
of poles operated within the city and so regulates under its police power.
go. The visual effect of the small wireless facility on all other aspects of the
appearance of the wooden pole shall be minimized to the greatest extent
possible.
Packet Pg. 52
8.A.a
hf. A wooden pole in a proposed location may be replaced with a taller pole for
the purpose of accommodating a small wireless facility; provided, that the
height of the antenna may not exceed 35 feet above ground, and any
replacement pole may not extend more than 10 feet above the height of the
existing pole, unless a further height increase is required and confirmed in
writing by the pole owner and that such height increase is the minimum
extension possible to provide sufficient separation and/or clearance from
electrical and wireline facilities.
ig. The use of the pole for the siting of a small wireless facility shall be
considered secondary to the primary function of the pole. If the primary
function of a pole serving as the host site for a small wireless facility becomes
unnecessary, the pole shall not be retained for the sole purpose of
accommodating the small wireless facility and the small wireless facility and all
associated equipment shall be removed.
Packet Pg. 53
8.A.a
5. Location Preference No. 5 - Strand -Mounted. Small wireless facility facilities
mounted on cables strung between existing utility poles shall conform to the
"OLE
ENT SHROUD
NT SHROUD
'EDGY METER
'CONNECT
SW
FIBS
ELE
following standards:
EQUIPMENT
SHROUD
This graphic is intended to represent a strand -mounted antenna.
Packet Pg. 54
8.A.a
a. To the extent technically feasible, antennas shall not exceed one cubic feet in
volume.
b. Only one strand -mounted facility is permitted between any two existing
poles.
c. The strand -mounted devices shall be placed as close as possible to the
nearest utility pole and in no event more than five feet from the pole unless a
greater distance is technically necessary or required for safety clearance and
confirmed in writing by the pole owner.
d. No strand -mounted device shall be located in or above the portion of the
roadway open to vehicular traffic.
e. Ground -mounted equipment to accommodate such strand -mounted facilities
is not permitted, except when placed in preexisting equipment cabinets,
underground or on zoned property.
f. Pole -mounted equipment shall meet the requirements of subsections
(D)(2)(4)(d)(iii), (iv) and (v) of this section.
g. Such strand -mounted devices must be installed to cause the least visual
impact and with the minimum excess exterior cabling or wires (other than the
original strand) necessary to meet the technological needs of the facility.
E. Specific Design Standards for Facilities Located Outside the Right -of -Way.
1. On a Building.
a. Roof -Mounted.
i. Small wireless facilities may be built to the maximum height of the
underlying zone (or use the height exception in subsection (E)(1)(a)(iii) of
this section) provided they are screened consistent with the existing
building in terms of color, architectural style and materials.
ii. Such facilities must be completely concealed and well integrated with the
existing structure or designed and located to look like common rooftop
elements such as chimneys, elevator penthouses or screened HVAC
equipment.
iii. Height Exception. The maximum height for a small wireless facility
above the underlying zone maximum is three feet with a maximum
footprint of 12 square feet in horizontal section.
Packet Pg. 55
8.A.a
b. Facade -Mounted.
i. Small wireless facility antennas may be mounted to the side of a building
if they do not interrupt and are integrated with the building's architectural
theme.
ii. New architectural features such as columns, pilasters, corbels, or similar
ornamentation that conceal the antennas should be used if they
complement the architecture of the existing building.
iii. If concealment is not possible, the antennas must be camouflaged. The
smallest feasible mounting brackets must be used and the antennas must
be painted and textured to match the adjacent building surfaces.
iv. Facade -mounted antennas may encroach into a required setback or into
the city right-of-way. Antennas may not project into the right-of-way more
than 12 inches and shall provide a minimum clearance height of 20 feet
over any pedestrian or vehicular right-of-way.
v. All other equipment must be located within the building, screened by an
existing parapet, or completely concealed and well integrated with the
existing structure or designed and located to look like common rooftop
elements such as chimneys, elevator penthouses or screened HVAC
equipment. Exposed cabling/wiring is prohibited.
vi. Height Exception. Antennas may be located on buildings that are
nonconforming for height; provided, that they are constructed to be no
taller than the adjacent facade or an existing parapet. Equipment may be
located on a roof behind a parapet that is nonconforming for height.
Vertical expansion of the height nonconformity is prohibited.
2. Freestanding Small Wireless Facility. The specifications provided in this section are
for installations on zoned property only. Refer to subsection (D)(2)(a) of this section
for dimensional and appearance standards.
a. Placement Requirements. Freestanding small wireless facilities shall be
located as follows:
i. Located such that they in no way impede, obstruct, or hinder the usual
pedestrian or vehicular travel, affect public safety, or violate applicable law.
ii. Within five feet of the street property line (right-of-way) and within five
feet of a side property line.
Packet Pg. 56
8.A.a
iii. So as not to significantly create a new obstruction to property sight
lines.
iv. In alignment with existing trees, utility poles, and streetlights.
v. With appropriate clearance from existing utilities.
vi. In compliance with clear zone requirements.
vii. On the same side of the street as existing power lines, regardless of
whether power is underground or overhead. [Ord. 4147 § 2 (Att. A), 2019]
20.50.140 Abandonment or discontinuation of use.
A. At such time that a licensed carrier plans to abandon or discontinue operation of a wireless
communication facility, such carrier will notify the director by certified U.S. mail of the proposed
date of abandonment or discontinuation of operations. Such notice shall be given no less than
30 days prior to abandonment or discontinuation of operations. For purposes of this section, a
wireless communication facility includes a freestanding small wireless facility that has been
abandoned or the operations of all its enclosed small wireless facilities have been discontinued.
B. In the event that a licensed carrier fails to give such notice, the wireless communication
facility shall be considered abandoned upon the discovery of such discontinuation of
operations.
C. Within 90 days from the date of abandonment or discontinuation of use, the carrier shall
physically remove the wireless communication facility. "Physically remove" shall include, but not
be limited to:
1. Removal of antennas, mounts or racks, the equipment enclosure, screening,
cabling and the like from the subject property.
2. Removal of all associated elements of the freestanding small wireless facility,
including but not limited to the foundation.
32. Transportation of the materials removed to a repository outside of the city.
43. Restoration of the wireless communication facility site to its pre -permit or better
condition, except that any landscaping provided by the wireless communication
facility operator may remain in place.
54. If a carrier fails to remove and/or restore a wireless communication facility in
accordance with this section, the city shall have the authority to enter the subject
property and physically remove and/or restore the facility. Costs for physical removal
Packet Pg. 57
8.A.a
of the wireless communication facility and/or restoration shall be charged to the
wireless communication facility owner or operator in the event the city removes the
facility and/or restores the site. [Ord. 4147 § 2 (Att. A), 2019; Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord.
3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011 ].
20.50.150 Maintenance.
A. The applicapt-permit holder and wireless communication facility owner shall maintain the
wireless communication facility to standards that may be imposed by the city by ordinance or
through permit condition. In the absence of the foregoing, the following minimum standards
apply: Such mainte�urce shall iRc ides but not be Iimite All shrouds and enclosures shall be
�r un-rrT vcrrnv�o c�rr-r-rrcca
kept in good repair, paint shall be in good condition, any graffiti shall be removed, structural
integrity shall remain intact, any landscaping required as a condition of the permit shall be
upkept. Upon receipt of notice of failure to comply with standards consistent with this
paragraph, the permit holder or facility owner shall repair within fourteen (14) calendar days
unless good cause is shown to the director why more time is necessary. t^ repair of damaged
shrreud-s Or eRCIOSUr-eS, pai rtiRg Structural iral integrity, and IandscaniRg
B. For purposes of this section, wireless communication facility includes freestanding small
wireless facility. Freestanding small wireless facilities shall be maintained as required in this
section.
C. All above ground wireless communication facilities shall have affixed a coded label or marker
that identifies the specific facility and sets forth a telephone number that may be called to
report any damage, destruction, or graffiti involving that facility.
D-R. In the event the permit holder or facility owner applicant fails to maintain the facility, the
city of Edmonds may undertake enforcement action as allowed by existing codes and
regulations, or under the master permit, or both. [Ord. 4147 § 2 (Att. A), 2019; Ord. 3961 § 1,
2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011 ].
20.50.160 Definitions.
A. "Antenna(s)" means any apparatus designed for the purpose of emitting radio frequency (RF)
radiation, to be operated or operating from a fixed location pursuant to Commission
authorization, for the provision of personal wireless service and any commingled information
services.
B. "Cell -on -wheels (COW)" are used to provide temporary service, usually for special events,
during repair of a permanent wireless site, or in emergencies.
C. "Collocation" means the mounting or installation of an antenna on an existing tower, building
or structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for
communications purposes, whether or not there is an existing antenna on the structure.
Packet Pg. 58
8.A.a
D.'
hanch mm;ihnu nr L nSk "Director" means either the Director of Public Works or the Director of
Development Services, as applicable, or either's designee.
E. "Distributed antenna system (DAS)" is a network of spatially separated antenna sites
connected to a common source that provides wireless service within a discrete geographic area
or structure.
F. "Equipment" means any equipment, switches, wiring, cabling, power sources, shelters or
cabinets associated with an antenna, located at the same fixed location as the antenna, and,
when collocated on a structure, is mounted or installed at the same time as such antenna.
G. "Freestanding small wireless facility" is a freestanding structure which consists of a single
vertical hollow pole, fixed into the ground and/or attached to a foundation built for the sole
purpose of supporting and concealing small wireless antennas and associated equipment.
H. "Fully concealed facili ' means a WCF where: (1) the antennas, mounting a aratus. and any
associated equipment are fully concealed within a pole or other structure; and (2) all cable is
routed internally to the structure; and (3) the associated equipment is comR[etel)t within the
building or structure, Dlaced in an underground vault, or is within another element such as a
bench, mailbox or kiosk.
HI. "Guyed tower" means a monopole or lattice tower that is tied to the ground or other surface
by diagonal cables.
11. "Lattice tower" is a wireless communication support structure which consists of metal
crossed strips or bars to support antennas and related equipment.
}K. "Licensed carrier" is a company authorized by the Federal Communications Commission to
build and operate a commercial mobile radio services system.
KL. "Macro cell facility (macro facility)" means a large wireless communication facility that
provides radio frequency coverage served by a high power cellular system. Generally, macro
cell antennas are mounted on ground -based towers, rooftops and other existing structures, at
a height that provides a clear view over the surrounding buildings and terrain. Macro cell
facilities typically contain antennas that are greater than three cubic feet per antenna and
typically cover large geographic areas with relatively high capacity and are capable of hosting
multiple wireless service providers.
Packet Pg. 59
8.A.a
LM. "Monopole" means a freestanding structure which consists of a single vertical pole, fixed
into the ground and/or attached to a foundation with no guy wires built for the sole or primary
purpose of supporting macro antennas and their associated equipment.
MN. "Poles" means utility poles, light poles or other types of poles, used primarily to support
electrical wires, telephone wires, television cable, lighting, or guide posts; or are constructed for
the sole purpose of supporting a WCF.
NO. "Satellite earth station antenna" includes any antenna in any zoning district that:
1. Is designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service, including direct -to -home
satellite services, and that is one meter or less in diameter;
2. Is two meters or less in diameter in areas where commercial or industrial uses are
generally permitted;
3. Is designed to receive programming services by means of multi -point distribution
services, instructional television fixed services, and local multi -point distribution
services, that is one meter or less in diameter or diagonal measurement; and
4. Is designed to receive television broadcast signals.
OP. "Small wireless facility (or small cell node)" means a wireless facility that meets each of the
following conditions:
1. The facilities:
a. Are mounted on structures 50 feet or less in height including their antennas;
or
b. Are mounted on structures no more than 10 percent taller than other
adjacent structures; or
c. Do not extend existing structures on which they are located to a height of
more than 50 feet or by more than 10 percent, whichever is greater;
2. Each antenna associated with the deployment, excluding antenna equipment, is
not more than three cubic feet in volume;
3. All other wireless equipment associated with the structure, including the wireless
equipment associated with the antenna and any preexisting associated equipment
on the structure, is no more than 28 cubic feet in volume;
4. The facilities do not require antenna structure registration under FCC rule;
Packet Pg. 60
8.A.a
5. The facilities do not result in human exposure to radio frequency radiation in
excess of the applicable safety standards specified by FCC rule.
P-Q. "Unlicensed wireless services" means the offering of communications services using duly
authorized devices which do not require individual licenses, but does not mean the provision of
direct -to -home satellite services.
QR. "Wireless communication facility (WCF)" means an unstaffed facility for the transmission
and reception of radio or microwave signals used for commercial communications. A WCF
provides services which include cellular phone, personal communication services, other mobile
radio services, and any other service provided by wireless common carriers licensed by the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). WCFs are composed of two or more of the
following components:
1. Antenna;
2. Mount;
3. Equipment enclosure;
4. Security barrier.
RS. "Wireless communication facility (WCF), building -mounted" means a wireless
communication facility mounted to the roof, wall or chimney of a building. Also, those antennas
mounted on existing monopoles.
-T. "Wireless communication facility (WCF), camouflaged" means a wireless communication
facility that is disguised, hidden, or integrated with an existing structure that is not a monopole,
guyed or lattice tower, or placed within an existing or proposed structure.
TU. "Wireless communication facility (WCF), equipment enclosure" means a small structure,
shelter, cabinet, or vault used to house and protect the electronic equipment necessary for
processing wireless communication signals. Associated equipment may include air conditioning
and emergency generators.
UV. "Wireless communication facility (WCF), monopole" means a wireless communication facility
not attached to a structure or building and not exempted from regulation under
ECDC 20.50.030. Does not include collocation of a facility on an existing monopole, utility pole,
light pole, or flag pole.
VW. "Wireless communication facility (WCF), related equipment" is all equipment ancillary to a
wireless communication facility such as coaxial cable, GIPS receivers, conduit and connectors.
Packet Pg. 61
8.A.a
WX. "Wireless communication facility (WCF), structure -mounted" means a wireless
communication facility located on structures other than buildings, such as light poles, utility
poles, flag poles, transformers, and/or tanks.
XY. "Wireless communication services" means any personal wireless services as defined in the
Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, including federally licensed wireless communications
services consisting of cellular services, personal communications services (PCS), specialized
mobile radio services (SMR), enhanced specialized mobile radio services (ESMR), paging, and
similar services that currently exist or that may be developed in the future. [Ord. 4147 § 2 (Att.
A), 2019; Ord. 3961 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3845 § 2 (Att. A), 2011].
Packet Pg. 62
8.B
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/8/2022
BD2 Designated Street Front
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Kernen Lien
Background/History
The City Council adopted Ordinance 4247 which imposed a moratorium on the acceptance of building
permit applications for BD2 zoned properties that do not front on a designated street front as shown in
Map 16.43-1. The moratorium was initially adopted for a 60-day period to allow the development of
interim design standards for such properties. During discussions on the interim design standards,
findings for the moratorium (Resolution 1490) and three subsequent extensions of the original
moratorium (Ordinances 4253, 4254, and 4255), questions regarding uses in the BD2 arose, particularly
with regard to residential only buildings on BD2 properties. Staff and the city attorney provided a
memorandum to the City Council on the legislative history of the designated street front and
demonstrated how multifamily only buildings may be permitted on BD2 properties outside of a
designated street front (Attachment 2).
In adopting Resolution 1490 (findings for multifamily moratorium), a WHEREAS was added noting some
council members felt it was important to reconsider with the designated street front map should be
extended. Ordinance 4255 extended the moratorium to allow staff time to analyze possible extensions
of the designated street front.
At the May 24, 2022 Council meeting, Interim Ordinance 4262 (Attachment 1) was adopted which
extended the designated street front in select locations and removed ambiguities in the BD use table in
ECDC 16.43.020.
Staff Recommendation
Schedule joint meeting with the Economic Development Commission to review designated street front
designation.
Narrative
The BD2 zone is identified as the Downtown Mixed Commercial zone in ECDC 16.43.010. Most of the
BD2 zone requires commercial uses within the first 45 feet of the designated street front (ECDC
16.43.030.B.7). Any permitted use may be located on the ground floor outside of the designated street
front (ECDC 16.43.030.B.7). Where properties do not front on a designated street front as shown in
Map 16.43-1: Designated Street Front from BD Zones, any permitted use is allowed including residential
only buildings (Attachment 2). Some council members and public expressed concerns about residential
only buildings within a Mixed Commercial zone and wished to pursue extending the designated street
front in some locations.
Packet Pg. 63
8.6
The designated street front map in Exhibit A in Attachment 1 includes the interim amendments to the
designed street front map. The blue dotted areas are locations for extensions of the designated street
front while the solid blue are the currently mapped designated street fronts in Map 16.43-1. These
were identified as potential areas for expansion based on Council comments and review of the
legislative history of the designated street front. Council noted a desire to have commercial spaces
supporting the retail core where certain office uses are not allowed in the designated street front of BD1
zoned properties (ECDC 16.43.020.A Table 16.43-1). The legislative history for the designated street
front noted that some of the consideration for the designated street front were where pedestrian
activity was most prevalent and whether there were commercial uses on both sides of the street
(Attachment 2). The map in Ordinance 4262 Exhibit A extends the designated street front around the
retail core where there are commercial uses on both side of the street in the BD2 zones.
To understand the potential impacts of extending the designated street front, staff secured a consultant
to conduct a market demand analysis to evaluate 1) if the restrictions would inhibit the market demand
for residential development, 2) if there is existing market demand for a mixed commercial building and
3) if there is market demand for a solely commercial building in the BD2 zone.
The market demand analysis (Attachment 6) found the historically and currently the retail and office
market has been stable with the retail market the stronger of the two commercial uses based on the
Days on Market indicator. The analysis found the rental market is in short supply (looking at a
downtown study area) and high demand.
The consultant work also looked at potential development examples Attachment 8). With ground floor
height requirements in the designated street front, it is likely that mixed use developments with
commercial on the ground floor would likely lose a floor of rental units impacting the financial feasibility
of potential developments.
The key finding from the study noted the risk associated with the long absorption time for the retail
spaces (average DOM at 276) coupled with the drastic reduction in rental residential units would make
the mixed -use project not feasible for the average boutique developer.
Attachment 2 contains a legislative history of the designated street front and how it has changed over
the years. The last change to the designated street front occurred in 2011 with the adoption of
Ordinance No. 3865. During the 2011 review of the designated street fronts, the Planning Board held
joint meetings with the Economic Development Commission to review the extent of the designated
street fronts. Staff recommends that the Economic Development Commission be included in review of
the proposed changes to the designated street front this time as well.
At this Planning Board meeting staff will review the history of the designated street front and recent
activity at the City Council that resulted in the adoption of Interim Ordinance 4262.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Interim Ordinance 4262
Attachment 2: BD2 Zone Development within the Designated Street Front and Legislative Intent
Attachment 3: 2022-04-19 City Council Minutes Excerpt
Attachment 4: 2022-04-21 City Council Public Minutes
Attachment 5: 2202-05-24 City Council Minutes Excerpt
Packet Pg. 64
8.B
Attachment 6: Submarket Demand Analysis
Attachment 7: Otak Edmonds BD2 Zoning Analysis Recommendations
Attachment 8: Color Renderings of Development Examples
Attachment 9: Additional Research on Comparable Cities
Attachment 10: BD2 Zoning Memo
Packet Pg. 65
8.B.a
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO.4262
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
ESTABLISHING INTERIM ZONING FOR THE BD ZONES, SETTING
SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE ORDINANCE,
AND LIFTING THE MORATORIUM THAT WAS ESTABLISHED
THROUGH ORDINANCE 4247 AND EXTENDED THROUGH
ORDINANCES 4253, 4254, AND 4255.
WHEREAS, on February 15, 2022, the city council adopted Ordinance 4247, which
established a moratorium on the acceptance of building permit applications for BD2 zoned lots
that do not front on a designated street front; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance 4247 took effect on immediately on February 15, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the moratorium adopted by Ordinance 4247 was scheduled to terminate on
April 15, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the moratorium was extended six days by virtue of Ordinance 4253; and
WHEREAS, the moratorium was extended two more times by virtue of Ordinances 4254
N
W
and 4255; and a)
c
WHEREAS, the moratorium extensions were intended to allow planning staff and the
city attorney sufficient time to research the history and legislative intent surrounding the BD o
zones and to carefully evaluate the intent behind the designated street front regulations and the E
ramifications of possible changes to those regulations, particularly in the BD2 zone; and
WHEREAS, that research led to a heightened understanding of the intent behind the BD
designated street front map and the BD permitted use table; and
WHEREAS, the history suggests that what was seen in 2011 as the logical limits of the
downtown commercial core may no longer fit the circumstances of 2022 due to the fact that
certain blocks are showing vibrant commercial activity right up to the edges of the designed
street front map; and
WHEREAS, the city council would like to encourage the continued vibrancy of the
downtown commercial core by expanding the limits of the designated street front map to require
at least some commercial use of new structures within the expansion area; and
WHEREAS, the city council would also like to remove an ambiguity in the permitted use
table; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Packet Pg. 66
8.B.a
Section 1. Designated Street Front Map Revision. Map 16.43-1, contained within
ECDC 16.43.030, and entitled "Designated Street Front for BD Zones," is hereby amended to
extend the designated street front as shown in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth (extended street fronts are shown in
crosshatch).
Section 2. BD Permitted Use Table Revision. Table 16.43-1, contained in ECDC
16.43.020, entitled "Uses," is hereby amended to read as set forth in Exhibit B, which is
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth (new text is shown
in underline; deleted text is shown in kedffetigh)•
Section 3. Repeal of Moratorium. Ordinance 4247, which had established a
moratorium on certain development in the BD2 zone, and Ordinances 4253, 4254, and 4255
which collectively extended that moratorium through June 2, 2022, are collectively hereby
repealed.
Section 4. Duration of Interim Regulations Adopted in Sections 1 and 2. The interim
regulations adopted by sections 1 and 2 of this ordinance shall commence on the effective date of
this ordinance. As long as the city holds a public hearing on this ordinance and adopts findings
and conclusions in support of its continued effectiveness (as contemplated by Section 5 herein),
this ordinance shall not terminate until six (6) months after the effective date, unless it is
repealed sooner.
Section 5. Public Hearing on Interim Standards. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390 and
RCW 35A.63.220, the city council shall hold a public hearing on this interim ordinance within
sixty (60) days of its adoption. In this case, the hearing shall be held on July 19, 2022 unless the
city council, by subsequently adopted resolution, provides for a different hearing date. No later
N
W
N
U
C
c
�a
L
0
E
c
Packet Pg. 67
8.B.a
than the next regular council meeting immediately following the hearing, the city council shall
adopt findings of fact on the subject of this interim ordinance and either justify its continued
effectiveness or repeal the interim ordinance.
Section 6. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance
should be held to be unconstitutional or unlawful by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other
section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance.
Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically
delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5)
days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title.
N
W
N
APPROVED:
c
c
E
MAYOR MIKE NELSON
c
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
JEFF TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: May 20, 2022
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: May 24, 2022
PUBLISHED: May 27, 2022
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 1, 2022
Packet Pg. 68
8.B.a
ORDINANCE NO. 4262
r
c
0
L
U-
r
L
d
.y
N
N
0
m
N
w
N
d
V
C
C
E
L
O
E
�L
r
r
Y
E
V
r
r
Q
c.i
Y
Q
Packet Pg. 69
Exhibit B
Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code
Page 1/3
8.B.a
16.43.020 Uses.
A. Table 16.43-1.
Permitted Uses
BD1
GBDI
BD2
BD3
BD4
BD5
Commercial Uses
Retail stores or sales
A
A
A
A
A
A
Offices
A
X
A
A
A
A
Legal/law fines
A
X
A
A
A
A
Financial
A
X
\
A
A
A
Advising
A
X
A
A
A
A
Mortgage
A
X
A
A
A
A
Banks (without tellers)
A
X
A
A
A
A
Accounting
A
X
A
A
A
A
Counseling
A
X
A
A
A
A
Architecture
A
X
A
A
A
A
Engineering
A
X
A
A
A
A
Advertising
A
X
\
\
A
\
Insurance
A
X
\
\
A
A
Fitness related business (yoga/pilates/gym/fitness club)
A
X
A
\
A
A
Service uses
A
A(2)
A
A
A
A
Retail sales requiring intensive outdoor display or storage areas, such as trailer
sales, used car lots (except as part of a new car sales and service dealer), and heavy
equipment storage, sales or services
X
X
X
X
X
X
Enclosed fabrication or assembly areas associated with and on the same property
as an art studio, art gallery, restaurant, microbreweries/distilleries or food service
establishment that also provides an on -site retail outlet open to the public
A
A
A
A
A
A
Automobile sales and service
X
X
A
A
X
X
Dry cleaning and laundry plants which use only nonflammable and nonexplosive
cleaning agents
C
X
A
A
A
X
Printing, publishing and binding establishments
C
X
A
A
A
C
Public markets licensed pursuant to provisions in Chapter 4.90 ECC'
A
A
A
A
A
A
Residential
Single-family dwelling
A
X
A
A
A
A
Multiple dwelling unit(s) — must he losated Rn second FlRo_ or behind first 45 feet
fron...:aeival . or rights 4�see ECDC 16.43.030.13 for further location
standards
A
X
A
A
A
A
Other Uses
Bus stop shelters
A
A
A
A
A
A
Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020
A
A
A
A
A
A
N
c0
N
U
C
M
C
O
E
N
r�
C
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4235, passed October 12, 2021.
Packet Pg. 71
Exhibit B
Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code
Page 2/3
8.B.a
Permitted Uses
BD1
GFSF(')
BD2
BD3
BD4
BD5
Primary and high schools, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G)
through (R)
A
X
A
A
A
A
Local public facilities, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050
C
C
C
C
A
C
Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted
master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070
A
A
A
A
A
A
Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted use
B
X
B
B
B
B
Commuter parking lots in conjunction with a facility otherwise permitted in this
zone
B
X
B
B
B
X
Commercial parking lots
C
X
C
C
C
X
Wholesale uses
X
X
X
C
X
X
Hotels and motels
A
A
A
A
A
A
Amusement establishments
C
C
C
C
C
C
Auction businesses, excluding vehicle or livestock auctions
C
X
C
C
C
C
Drive-in/through businesses (businesses with drive through facilities)
X
X
C
A
C
X
Laboratories
X
X
C
C
C
X
Fabrication of light industrial products not otherwise listed as a permitted use
X
X
X
C
X
X
Day-care centers
C
X
C
C
A
C
Hospitals, health clinics, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums
X
X
C
C
A
X
Medical uses, e.g.,
A
X
A
A
A
A
Physicians
A
X
A
A
A
A
Dental
A
X
A
A
A
A
Optometrist (without retail)
A
X
A
A
A
A
Physical therapy (without retail)
A
X
A
A
A
A
Counseling
A
X
\
1
1
A
Other similar medical services
A
X
\
1
1
\
Museums and art galleries of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria
for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033
A
A
A
A
A
A
Zoos and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for
regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033
C
X
C
C
C
A
Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and
drug abusers
X
X
C
C
A
X
Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the
requirements of ECDC 17.100.070
C
C
C
C
C
C
Outdoor storage, incidental to a permitted use
D
X
D
D
D
D
Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC
X
X
D
D
D
D
A = Permitted primary use
B = Permitted secondary use
N
W
N
U
C
M
C
:a
L
O
E
N
r�
C
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4235, passed October 12, 2021.
Packet Pg. 72
Exhibit B
Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code Page 3/3
C = Primary uses requiring a conditional use permit
D = Secondary uses requiring a conditional use permit
X = Not permitted
NOTES:
(1) BD Zone GFSF = Ground Floor Designated Street Frontage (first 45 feet measured from public
rights-of-way/sidewalk or parks/plazas) as defined under Edmonds Community Development Code Map 16.43-1:
Designated Street Front for BD Zones. Buildings set back 15 feet or more from the sidewalk shall not be subject to
the BD Zone GFSF requirements.
(2) Services — by appointment uses not providing open door retail/dining/entertainment functions as a primary
component of the business are not allowed within BD 1 GFSF (first 45 feet). Open door businesses, e.g., real estate
offices, banks (with tellers and no drive-throughs), nail and hair salons are allowed.
For conditional uses listed in Table 16.43-1, the use may be permitted if the proposal meets the criteria for
conditional uses found in Chapter 20.05 ECDC, and all of the following criteria are met:
1. Access and Parking. Pedestrian access shall be provided from the sidewalk. Vehicular access shall only be
provided consistent with ECDC 18.80.060. When a curb cut is necessary, it shall be landscaped to be
compatible with the pedestrian streetscape and shall be located and designed to be as unobtrusive as possible. a
2. Design and Landscaping. The project shall be designed so that it is oriented to the street and contributes to C
the pedestrian streetscape environment. Fences more than four feet in height along street lot lines shall only be N
permitted if they are at least 50 percent open, such as a lattice pattern. Blank walls shall be discouraged, and c
when unavoidable due to the nature of the use shall be decorated by a combination of at least two of the m
following: cco
N
a. Architectural features or details;
c
b. Artwork; c
c. Landscaping. 0
E
B. Exception to the BD1 GSFS. The owner of a building in the BD zone may apply for an exception from the
restrictions on offices and medical uses within the designated street front for leasable space meeting all of the
following criteria:
1. The space is less than 500 square feet;
d
E
2. The space does not contain direct access to the street or sidewalk;
c�
3. The previous use was a nonconforming use (e.g., not retail); and Q
4. The space has been vacant for a period of more than six months. [Ord. 3955 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3932 § d
6, 2013; Ord. 3918 § 1 (Att. 1), 2013; Ord. 3894 § 4, 2012; Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008]. E
r
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4235, passed October 12, 2021.
Packet Pg. 73
8.B.a
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.4262
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the 24th day of May, 2022, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No.
4262. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
ESTABLISHING INTERIM ZONING FOR THE BD ZONES, SETTING
SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE ORDINANCE,
AND LIFTING THE MORATORIUM THAT WAS ESTABLISHED
THROUGH ORDINANCE 4247 AND EXTENDED THROUGH
ORDINANCES 4253, 4254, AND 4255.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this 24th day of May, 2022.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
N
W
N
U
c
c
�a
L
O
E
�L
d
Packet Pg. 74
8.B.b
o� FDA,
OHO
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 13, 2022
To: City Council
From: Kernen Lien, Interim Planning Manager
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Subject: BD2 Zone Development within the Designated Street Front and
Legislative Intent
Multifamily Only Development in the BD2 Zone
The City Council has questioned whether the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)
allows multifamily residential only buildings within the BD2 zone. Based on a complete reading
of Chapter 16.43 ECDC, staff and the city attorney have concluded that the current BD2 zoning
regulations allow multifamily residential only buildings in the areas of the BD2 zone that do not
front on the streets mapped as the designated street front.
According to ECDC 16.43.020 multifamily dwelling units are a permitted primary use within the
BD2 zone. While the use table is ambiguous by containing language that multiple dwelling units
"must be located on the second floor or behind the first 45 feet from the sidewalk or rights -of -
way" a complete reading of Chapter 16.43 ECDC and an analysis of its history (see below) make
it clear that the locational restriction in the use table should only apply to properties within the
BD1 zone. We do acknowledge, however, that this ambiguity should be eliminated with a
clarifying amendment in the near future.
16.43.020 Uses. A. Table 16.43-1
Permitted Uses
BDl
GFD1
BD2
BD3
BD4
BDS
Residential
Single-family dwelling
A
X
A
A
A
A
Multiple dwelling unit(s) — must be located on second floor or behind first 45 feet
A
X
A
A
A
A
from sidewalk or rights -of -way
A = Permitted primary use
X = Not permitted
Page 1 of 13
Packet Pg. 75
8.B.b
(1) BD Zone GFSF— Ground Floor Designated Street Frontage (first 45 feet measured from public rights-of-way/sidewalk or parks/plazas) as
defined under Edmonds Community Development Code Map 16.43-1: Designated Street Front for BD Zones. Buildings setback 15 feet or more 0
from the sidewalk shall not be subject to the BD1 Zone GFSF requirements. U-
d
Within the use table there is a column for the BD1 GFSF which specifically prohibits the (nn
multifamily dwelling units within the BD1 GFSF. Footnote one under the table defines the BD1
r
GFSF as the Ground Floor Designated Street Frontage (first 45 feet measured from public rights-
of-way/sidewalk or parks/plazas) as defined under Edmonds Community Development Code'
Map 16.43-1: Designated Street Front for BD Zones. o
N
a
Footnote 3 under the development standards table ECDC 16.43.030.A Table 16.43-2 specifically 00
r
acknowledges that there may be an entirely residential building in the BD zones and when those
are located in the BD4 zone, the must apply the RM-1.5 setbacks. If the "must be located ..."
language in the table were intended to apply to all BD zones, instead of just BD1, this footnote
r
could not be reconciled with the table, because it would not be possible to have an entirely
residential building in the BD4 zone. .a)
All the ground floor discussions in Chapter 16.43 ECDC are related to the area that is within the
designated street front. ECDC 16.43.030.13.1 provides:
For all BD zones, the ground floor is considered to be that floor of a building which is closest
in elevation to the finished grade along the width of the side of the structure that is
principally oriented to the designated street front of the building (this is normally the
adjacent sidewalk). For the purposes of this section, the ground "floor" is considered to be
the sum of the floor planes which, in combination, run the full extent of the building and are
closest in elevation to one another. For the purposes of this chapter, the definition of "ground
floor" contained in ECDC 21.35.017 does not apply.
ECDC 16.43.030.13.2 further elaborates on the designated street front:
Designated Street Front. Map 16.43-1 shows the streets that define the designated street
front for all properties lying within the BD zones. The designated street front is defined as the
45 feet measured perpendicular to the street front of the building lot fronting on each of the
mapped streets. (Map 16.43-1 provided on next page).
Subsections of ECDC 16.43.030.133 through 13.6 include restrictions that pertain to development N
N
within the designated street front. ECDC 16.43.030.13.7 specifically address development within
m
the designated street front of the BD2 and BD3 zones noting:
N
r
C
Within the BD2 and BD3 zones, development on the ground floor shall consist of only E
commercial uses within the designated street front. Any permitted use may be located on
the ground floor outside of the designated street front. Q
c
While the "must be located ..." language in the table has allowed some to argue that multi- E
family residential is only a permitted use "on second floor or behind first 45 feet from sidewalk
r
Page 2 of 13 Q
Packet Pg. 76
8.B.b
or rights -of -way," the source of that language (Ordinance 3955) and the other changes that
were made to the permitted use table at that time, strongly suggest that that limitation was not
intended to apply outside the BD1 zone. Therefore, where there is no designated street front,
the entire ground floor may allow any permitted use. Since multifamily development is a
permitted primary use according to ECDC 16.43.020 Uses. A. Table 16.43-1, properties within
the BD2, BD4 and BD5 zones that are outside of a designated street front may be entirely
residential (Note: There are no BD3 zone properties that do not contain at least some
designated street front).
Below is a review of the legislative history which provides support for this code interpretation.
Page 3 of 13
Packet Pg. 77
8.B.b
Map 16.43-1: Designated Street Front for BD Zones
� F
i
r
ti
*.f J
i f � ■
Ell
MEMOpjpnl
JOE
J.V
���■■aRA
Page 4 of 13
c
0
L
LL
L
cn
d
c
.y
d
C
N
a
m
r�
a
Packet Pg. 78
8.B.b
Ordinance No. 3624 (2007)
The first ordinance to establish the BD zones was Ordinance No. 3624. There was no reference
to a designated street front in the first version of the BD zones, but there are some hints as to
what was intended for use on the ground floor.
ECDC 16.43.030.B.1 (all code refences in this portion of the memo are to the version of the code
adopted in Ord. No. 3624) provided:
B. Ground Floor. This section describes requirements for development of the ground floor of
buildings in the BD zones.
1. When a commercial use is located on the ground floor, the elevation of the ground
floor and associated entry shall be within 7 inches of the grade level of the adjoining
sidewalk. "Grade" shall be as measured at the entry location.
The use of "when" suggests something other than commercial use could be used on the ground
floor. And, in fact, that appears to have been the case at least in BD5, and arguably in BD4.
ECDC 16.43.030.B.3 further elaborated on ground floor commercial use noting:
3. Within the BD1 zone, development on the ground floor shall consist of only commercial
uses. Within the BD2, and BD3 zones, development on the ground floor shall consist
of only commercial uses to a minimum building depth of 60 feet, as measured from
the street front of the building.
In Ordinance 3624, BD1 is required to be all commercial uses on the ground floor, but in the BD2
and BD3 zones, only the first 60 feet were required to be commercial.
Regarding the BD4 zone, ECDC 16.43.030.B.4 provided additional flexibility. And footnote 3 of
ECDC 16.43.030.A expressly contemplates an "entirely residential building."
Similarly, the code relating to the BD5 zone and commercial space provides the option to provide
commercial as noted for the BD2 zone in ECDC 16.43.030.2, but provides more detail when that
cannot be met (orientation to the street and encouraging live/work type development).
Interim Ordinance No. 3691 (20
In 2008 there was a request for an official interpretation regarding ground floor commercial use
in the BD1 zone. The interpretation (2008-1 BD1 ground floor) was challenged, which lead to
further discussion on the ground floor use at city council. Upon review of the interpretation, City
Council adopted Interim Ordinance No. 3691 and referred the matter to the Planning Board for
further review. Ordinance No. 3691 added new section ECDC 16.43.035 which provided:
Page 5 of 13
Packet Pg. 79
8.B.b
16.43.035 Application of requirements to the 1313-1 zone.
The application and interpretation of Chapter 16.43 BD Downtown Business to any
development permit or application within the BD-1 zone shall conform to the requirements
of this section. These requirements are enacted in order to clarify the intent of the City
Council and the application of existing language of the Code. In the event of conflict or
ambiguity with any provision of this chapter, or the definition sections of the Community
Development Code, these provisions shall control.
The ground floor of the development in the BD-1 zone shall be devoted entirely to
commercial uses as provided by the first sentence of ECDC 16.43.030(B)(3). The ground floor
shall be no less than fifteen feet in height measured in accordance with ECDC
16.43.030. Except to the minimum extent necessary to exercise the rights granted pursuant
to ECDC 16.43.030(B)(2)(b),1 the ground floor shall be in one plane, extending the entire
width and breadth of the building.
Discussions leading up to the adoption of this interim ordinance (07.15.2008, 07.22.2008)
focused on the ceiling height of the ground floor what could happen behind the commercial
space.
Ordinance No. 3700 (2008)
The Planning Boards review of the ground floor
commercial requirements forwarded to them by the
Council with Interim Ordinance No. 3691 resulted in
Ordinance No. 3700 and the first map of the
designated street front. While the map of the
designated street front only required properties
within the BD1 zone to have a 30 foot deep
designated street front, the language in the text of
the ordinance described a designated street front
throughout all of the BD zones. Ordinance No. 3700
also added clarification that for the purpose of the
"ground floor" requirements of the BD zones, this was
related to the finish grade along a designated street
front. ECDC 16.43.030.13 adopted by Ordinance No.
3700 provided:
Map 16.43-1: Designated Street Front far Properties in the BDl Zane
r
.I--- !o 'IIIII ,
MEN Jo �� 1■1I
m
®' Designated Street Front (depth of 30 leetme-d perpendicular tc property line) N
B. Ground Floor. This section describes c
as
requirements for development of the ground floor of buildings in the BD zones. E
1. For all BD zones, the ground floor is considered to be that floor of a building which is
closest in elevation to the finished grade along the width of the side of the structure Q
a�
i ECDC 16.43.030(B)(2)(b) stated, at that time, as follows: "The building may be broken up into multiple frontages, E
so that each entry /ground floor combination is within 7 inches of the grade of the sidewalk." U
r
Page 6 of 13 Q
Packet Pg. 80
8.B.b
that is principally oriented to the designated street front of the building ( this is
c
normally the adjacent sidewalk). For the purposes of this section, the ground " floor"
U_
is considered to be the sum of the floor planes which, in combination, run the full
L
extent of the building and are closest in elevation to one another. For the purposes of
(nn
this Chapter, the definition of "ground floor" contained in ECDC 21. 35. 017 does not
apply.
c
2. Designated street front. Map .16. 43 - 1 shows the designated street front (emphasis
in the original) for all properties lying within the BD1 zone, which is 30 feet measured
o
perpendicular to the indicated street front of the building lot. For all other BD zones,
cm
the designated street front is established as the first 60 feet of the lot measured
r
perpendicular to any street right -of -way, excluding alleys. a
The final sentence of B.2, above is particularly important to understanding today's code because
it shows that, starting in 2008 (with Ordinance 3700), every BD zoned property had some form
of designated street front. (This would change in 2011.) Ordinance No. 3700 also added clarifying
language on what uses could occur outside of the designated street front. In ECDC 16.43.030.B.6
and B.7:
6. Within the BD 1 zone, development on the ground floor shall consist of only commercial
uses, except that parking may be located on the ground floor so long as it is not located
within the designated street front.
7. Within the BD2 and BD3 zones, development on the ground floor shall consist of only
commercial uses within the designated street front. Any permitted use may be located
on the ground floor outside of the designated street front.
Properties within the BD1 are required to only be commercial use on the ground floor (with the
exception of parking behind the designated street front), while the BD2 and BD3 zones could
have any permitted use outside of the designated street front. Note that the permitted use table
in Ordinance 3700 identified "multiple dwelling units" as a "permitted primary use" in the BD2
zone. Hence, because every BD2 zoned property had a 60-foot-deep designated street front,
multiple dwelling units could not be located within that front 60-foot area of the ground floor.
That area had to be commercial.
Residential uses outside of the designated street front were explicitly discussed at the Planning
Board. Below is an excerpt from the August 13, 2008 Planning Board meeting:
Board Member Lovell summarized that the existing code requires that the entire ground floor N
of a project in the BD1 zone be dedicated to commercial space. However, the BD2 and BD3 c
m
zones only require commercial space to a depth of 60 feet, measured from the front of a E
building. Mr. Chave agreed that in the BD2 and BD3 zones, residential uses could be
constructed behind the 60 foot deep commercial area. The area could also be used for Q
parking space.
aD
E
The Board agreed to move forward with a public hearing on this proposed amendment.
r
Page 7 of 13 Q
Packet Pg. 81
8.B.b
c
0
• Clarify the uses allowed on the ground floor located behind the first 60 feet. Parking U-
should be allowed behind the first 60 feet. In addition, the BD2 and BD3 zones should
L
continue to allow residential uses behind the first 60 feet. c"n
a�
r
Ordinance No. 3700 also clarified that the designated street front and the ground floor c
requirements did not apply to corner lots at the edge of the BD1 district (Council minutes
10.21.2008). A discussion on this issue is captured in the Planning Board's September 10, 2008 0
meeting minutes: m
5. Clarify that for corner lots, the 45-foot requirement noted above would not apply to
street fronts of buildings when they are located on side streets at the edge of the BD1 zone
district. However, all street fronts along Main and 4th will always have the 45-foot
requirements applied, corner or not. This can be accomplished by means of a specific map
showing where the designated street front of each lot in the BD1 zone is located.
Mr. Chave clarified that the 45-foot minimum depth requirement would not apply to street
fronts of buildings that are located on side streets of properties on the periphery of the BD1
zone. He displayed a map that was prepared by staff to identify where the 45-foot minimum
depth requirement would not be applied. Board Member Dewhirst said he is unclear as to
the intent behind this proposed amendment. If the properties at the corner of 6th Avenue
and Main Street and 5th Avenue and Walnut Street are not required to provide commercial
space on both street fronts, the City would be giving up the potential to provide good
commercial space in the downtown area. Mr. Chave expressed his belief that it would not be
necessary to require commercial space to loop around the corner at 6th Avenue and Main
Street, because 6th Avenue is not a well traveled commercial corridor. Board Member
Dewhirst disagreed. Mr. Chave noted that at 6th Avenue, once you get off of Main Street the
uses become more residential and office in nature. Board Member Dewhirst agreed that
office and residential uses exist today, but the Board must also keep in mind their desires for
the future. He noted that the residential developments would generate a lot of pedestrian
traffic past the corner of 6th Avenue and Main Street. Chair Guenther reminded the Board
that the Comprehensive Plan indicates the City's goal is to encourage retail and commercial
growth from the heart of the downtown to the waterfront. Mr. Chave agreed and said the
Comprehensive Plan also talks about connecting the commercial uses to the arts center on
4th Avenue.
Board Member Reed suggested, and the remainder of the Board concurred, that the N
proposed amendment should be changed to make it clear that the provision would not apply
to properties on the western periphery of the BD1 zone since the goal is to encourage E
connectively to the waterfront.
w
r
Q
Note that the map ultimately adopted as part of Ordinance 3700 does not show a designated
street front on 6t" Avenue. So, the planning board and council appear to have agreed with Mr. E
Chave on that point. But the map does show the designated street front wrapping around from
r
Page 8 of 13 Q
Packet Pg. 82
8.B.b
Main Street onto 3rd Avenue. This Planning Board discussion is important as we consider the c
changes made subsequently under Ordinance No. 3865, because it was clearly understood at the U-
time that development requirements, even on the same parcel and within the same zone, would
L
depend on the mapped designated street front. c"n
a�
r
Upon return the City Council, the discussion focused on the appropriate depth of the designated c
street front (10.21.2008 Council minutes).
a�
0
Ordinance No. 3865 (2011) m
On August 11, 2010, several topics related to the BD zones were discussed with the CS/DS Council
Committee. It was noted that that there were several items staff wished to initiate to clean up
in the existing downtown BD zones, such as the required depth of commercial uses, the zoning
requirements along the 4th Avenue Arts Corridor, and clarifying where the commercial street
frontages are outside of the BD1 zone (CS/DS minutes 08.11.2010). These matters were referred
to the Planning Board and Economic Development Commission for review. Many of the
discussions focused on the allowed uses within the BD1 zone, particularly what uses should be
allowed as retail. The analysis below focuses on discussions related to the designated street
front.
When the issue was introduced to the Planning Board, it was noted:
...the designated street fronts are mapped for the BD1 zones, but not for the other BD zones.
At this time, the BD1 zone has a 30 foot commercial depth requirement, while elsewhere
the requirement is 60 feet. Staff is recommending the provisions have a more consistent
framework. For example, the mapping should expand to cover other BD zones, and the
commercial depth requirement should not be greater in the BD zones outside of BD1. (PB
03.09.2011 minutes)
On introduction, the commercial depths requirements were identified for the different zones,
and the designated street front mapping change was described as an expansion. At the joint
meeting with the Planning and Economic Development Commission it was clarified that the
designated street front map identifies area where the commercial depth requirement would be
applicable:
Mr. Chave advised that the proposed amendments also include an update of the DesignatedLa
m
Street Front Map (Map 16.43-1), which identifies all designated street fronts within the BD N
zones for which the commercial depth requirement would be applicable. He noted that the c
a�
map was originally adopted for the BD1 zone, but staff is recommending to include all BD E
zones. (Joint PB/EDC 04.13.2011 minutes)
w
r
Q
So, like the original mapping of the designated street front in Ord. 3700, it is recognized that the
commercial requirements only are required in the mapped designated street front. At the June E
8, 2011 Planning Board public hearing it was noted that:
r
Page 9 of 13 Q
Packet Pg. 83
8.B.b
c
0
Mr. Chave referred the Board to the proposed map of Designated Street Fronts for BD Zones Ui
(Map 16.43-1), which has been expanded to include all BD zones, not just the BD1 zone. The
L
purpose of the map is to clarify where the primary pedestrian areas and commercial uses are (nn
intended to be oriented within the BD Zones. He explained that ground floor of properties
along designated street fronts would be required to meet the commercial height and depth c
requirements. v,
a�
0
And... o
m
r
He reminded the Board that multi -family residential and professional offices would be
r
allowed to locate on the portions of ground floor space located outside of the designated
street front areas and on the upper floors of all buildings in the BD Zones. (06.08.2011 PB
r
minutes) `%
On questioning a specific area on the map, it was noted if it were not mapped as designated
street front, the area is made available for other types of uses:
Chair Lovell referred to the proposed Designated Street Front Map (Map 16.43-1) and
recalled the Board previously discussed that a portion of the street front on 5th Avenue
between Howell Way and Erben Drive has a steep topography and is not really an ideal
location for retail uses. It was suggested that this area should not be designated as
commercial street front. Mr. Chave recalled this was discussed by the Board and the Citizens
Economic Development Commission (CEDC) at a joint meeting. He said staff recommends
that the designated street front extend all the way up 5th Avenue to the end of the BD3
zone. Otherwise, the area would be made available for other types of uses that are not
compatible with retail and/or commercial uses. (06.08.2011 PB Minutes).
This discussion of "other types of uses" being "made available" in the BD3 zone by virtue of a
possible map change demonstrates that the Planning Board was aware that other than
commercial uses would be permitted on properties outside of the designated street front and
that they considered what the appropriate extent of the designated street front map should be
given those possible "other types of uses."
More discussion on the designated street front occurred at the July 26, 2011 City Council N
meeting, the minutes of which provide insight into the Council's understanding of the designated m
street map. The following are excerpts from those minutes (pages 5 and 6 have the most helpful N
passages): c
m
E
Councilmember Petso referred to the identifying street fronts (page 111 of the packet) where
there is one parcel on 2nd Avenue extending north from Main Street that has the blue line Q
designating the street front on only a portion of the parcel. Mr. Chave explained when the
lines were drawn, consideration was given to commercial streets and the designated street E
front were identified in areas where there are commercial uses on both sides or there is a
r
Page 10 of 13 Q
Packet Pg. 84
8.B.b
long history of commercial use in the vicinity. The EDC and ultimately Planning Board may
c
reconsider the area south of 5th beyond Howell Way. In the core area the intent was to avoid
U_
extending the designated street front along areas where there are significant residential
L
uses or wrapping around corners where there is commercial only on one side.
c"n
a�
Councilmember Petso asked when this particular property at the corner of 2nd and Main
r
c
develops, will it be required to have a designated street front all the way along 2nd, part of
the way along 2nd or none of the way on 2nd. Mr. Chave advised in areas where there is not
o
a designated street front, the requirement for a 45 foot depth does not apply and any of
m
the uses allowed by the zone would be permitted.
On a property where hypothetically the blue line stopped in the middle of a parcel,
Councilmember Petso asked whether the parcel has a designated street front or only has a
designated street front as far as the blue line extends. Mr. Chave answered the designated
street front only extends as far as the blue line. If it splits a parcel, only the portion of the
parcel where the blue line is has a designated street front. The designated street fronts are
tied to street sections rather than property lines. (07.26.2011 Council Minutes)
Further on there is discussion on reasoning for the extent of the designated street front and that
ultimately it is a matter of legislative discretion:
Student Representative Gibson asked whether it would be fairer to everyone else if the blue
line extended through the entire property rather than stopping halfway through the
property. Mr. Chave answered the concept behind the designated street front is to identify
portions of downtown where there is the strongest commercial activity. There are certain
main pedestrian arterials, along Main, down 5th, and somewhat on Dayton, that tend to be
the main corridors. However, outside those main corridors, the question arises if commercial
is required, how far off the corridor commercial will it be viable. Especially in areas where
one side of the street is residential, requiring commercial on the opposite side lessens its
viability. When people walk down a commercial street, they like to see activity on both sides.
He summarized determining how far the requirement for commercial activity should extend
is a judgment call, the reason this is a legislative matter.
And...
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out the designated street front on 4th AvenueLa
m
extends to Daley Street although it is residential past Bell Street, yet on 2nd Avenue it is cut N
off a block short of James and mid -block south of Bell. Mr. Chave answered beyond Dayton
there is a consistent block on the south side of 4th versus 3rd where there is only one large E
building on the east side and only a small corner on the west side. He reiterated it is a
judgment call; the Council could revise the locations of the designated street fronts. Q
(07.26.2011 Council minutes)
aD
E
r
Page 11 of 13 Q
Packet Pg. 85
8.B.b
Testimony offered during the public hearing also sheds light on the council's understanding of c
the proposal before them. U_
a�
a�
L
Doug Spee, Edmonds, a property owner in the downtown BD2 zone, acknowledged his c"n
interest may be more personal than other speakers. He expressed support for the
proposed amendment with regard to the designated street front; extending the c
designated street front down Main Street to ensure a consistent look down Main and up
a�
the side streets that cross Main but still allow flexibility on the outer portions of the o
zoning that in some cases face a mixed residential zone. In his experience, renting m
commercial space on the edges of the commercial zone is virtually impossible; he has
r
had a vacancy for four years.
The minutes of the July 26, 2011 public hearing on Ordinance 3865 strongly suggest that the City
Council understood that non-commercial uses would be allowed, even in the front 45-feet of the
ground floor, outside of the designated street front. It was also made clear that this mapping was
a subjective exercise and that the Council had the legislative discretion to alter the designated
street front maps if it saw fit to do so.
The legislative intent of the adoption of the designated street front maps is clear. The ground
floor commercial requirements only apply within the designated street front. Outside of the
designated street, any permitted use may be allowed. And, prior to Ordinance 3955, multiple
dwelling units were unambiguously allowed in the BD2 zone.
Ordinance No. 3955 (2014)
The primary confusion on the residential -only interpretation results from the addition of this
phrase to the permitted use table in ECDC 16.43.020.A: "must be located on second floor or
behind first 45 feet from sidewalk or rights -of -way". That language was inserted with the
adoption of Ordinance No. 3955.
Discussions on the code revisions associated with Ord. 3955 were a continuation of the BD1
retail use discussions initiated in 2011, which resulted in Ord. 3865. The discussions around this
ordinance were solely related to clarifying the allowed retail uses in the BD1 zone which is
apparent from a reading of the title of Ord. No. 3955:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS m
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 16.43.020 RELATING TO LIMITING CERTAIN
OFFICE USES FROM LOCATING IN BUSINESS SPACES ALONG DESIGNATED GROUND FLOOR c
m
STREET FRONTAGES WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS 1 (BD1 — DOWNTOWN RETAIL E
CORE) ZONE.
w
r
Q
From review of the Planning Board minutes, it is apparent that the locational restrictions inserted
into Table 16.43-1 were intended to be added as a clarifying footnote. E
r
Page 12 of 13 Q
Packet Pg. 86
8.B.b
Board Member Lovell requested an explanation of how the proposal would impact a property c
owner's ability to provide multi -family residential uses. Mr. Clifton answered that residential U_
uses would not be allowed within the areas designated as BD1 GFSF. However, residential
L
uses would be allowed behind the 45-foot street front spaces and in the upper floors. Mr. (nn
Chave suggested that it might be helpful to add a reference in the footnote to the applicable
chapter in the code to provide more clarity. (09.11.2013 PB Minutes) c
.N
a�
While this clarifying footnote ultimately proved to cause the confusion present today, it was o
probably an indication of the caution with which the Planning Board was approaching this m
proposed new allowance of residential in any portion of the BD1 ground floor. Keep in mind that
r
prior to Ordinance 3955, no residential would have been allowed on any portion of the BD1
r
ground floor. So, this was a significant change that would likely have caused some concern. But
in this effort to be extra cautious with BD1, the ambiguity that the "must be located" phrase
r
created for other zones was overlooked.
The fact that Ordinance 3955 was solely focused on BD1 is also underscored by other rows of the
permitted use table. On page 5 of Ordinance 3955, there are several rows added to the table to
describe the various types of office uses that are not allowed in the BD1 GFSF. But note that those
rows aren't even completed for the other BD zones. This corroborates the conclusion that
Ordinance 3955 was not intended to make any changes outside of the BD1 zone. Several of the
whereas clauses also mention only the BD1 zone as opposed to all of the BD zones.
When these code amendments were presented to the City Council (November 4, 2013 and
January 7, 2014) there was no discussion on limiting residential use in all BD zones. Rather, all
the discussion was focused on retail uses within the BD1 zone.
rnnrlucinn
Given the legislative history around designated street front, it is clear that the City Council was
aware that all permitted uses may be allowed outside the BD2 designated street front.
Furthermore, the insertion of locational restrictions for multifamily dwelling units into Table
16.43-1 was intended only to apply to the BD1 zone. Therefore the legislative history supports
the interpretation that a multifamily -only development may be located in the BD2 zone if the
property does not abut one of the mapped designated street fronts.
N
r
C
d
E
t
V
R
r
Q
C
E
t
V
R
r
Page 13 of 13 Q
Packet Pg. 87
8.B.c
with the auditor the City's hired to review those numbers. It is not as simple as looking at the incoming
number of cases, it is also the things being juggled and the ones in the system appearing for probation. If
that trend continues, SCPDA will reduce staffing in Edmonds and reduce public defender costs.
Councilmember L. Johnson said two things stood out to her including Ms. Kyle's comment about the
most vulnerable may have the worst outcome and not using the criminal justice system for systemic
issues. When talking about poverty and specifically those who are unhoused and everything that comes
with that, she asked what is the best way to address that. Some people are very uncomfortable with seeing
people who are unhoused and want it addressed in a certain way. Ms. Kyle said housing is the key; if the
intent is housing the unhoused, they need a home to go to, but that requires being creative as it is not a
one size fits all. For example, someone who is unhoused because they are autistic and no longer have
family support, need a different housing option than a shelter with ambient noise that may dysregulate an
autistic person but would be good for a person who just needs recovery as being in a community can be a
positive for people in recovery. It is important to see people as individuals and recognize their strengths.
Generalizations are used as a way to wrap our head around things, but these are human beings who are
complex and have the possibility of success.
Ms. Kyle continued, one of the hardest parts of working with unhoused populations is many of them have
lost hope. As one thinks of a chronically unhoused person or someone who doesn't want help, it is
because they have been harmed previously and are taking survival protective action and maybe the
behaviors that people don't like to see is just that trauma showing up and they need to be asked about
their path. There are 41 navigation teams in Snohomish County; there needs to be housing to navigate
them to. Creating opportunities through education is important; Edmonds College has some great low
barrier programs to help with basics such as how to sign up for medical insurance, how to get into
college, etc. Every year of education is likely a protective action and the less likely a person will be her
client and more likely they will be out in the community earning a living and supporting themselves. The
City is trying to be creative such as establishing the community court and a court calendar for people to
get relicensed and consider their ability to pay. The highest crime they see referred is Theft III; getting
creative around diversion programs for simple thefts is important. The stereotypical way of thinking is
that if people are punished, they will stop the behavior. However, as public defenders they see that
punishment does not change behavior, relationships change behavior and their needs to be investment in
those relationships.
Mayor Nelson thanked Ms. Kyle for sharing their social worker with the City's homelessness taskforce
earlier this year.
5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO AMEND TO ADD AN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING POTENTIAL LITIGATION AS
ITEM 8.1 AND TO RENUMBER THE REMAINING COUNCIL BUSINESS ITEMS. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson described the procedures for in -person audience comments.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 8
Packet Pg. 88
8.B.c
Christi Flynn, Edmonds, representing her husband and her neighbors the McLaughlin, spoke about
Perrinville Creek, fish, City structures and their properties. Their properties, west of Talbot Road at the
end of Perrinville Creek before it goes beneath the railroad tracks, have been significantly impacted by
the creek in the last two years. Exhibit A in her handout is an overview map from a report the City did in
2010 studying similar issues. Increased heavy rain events and resulting stormwater runoff create
damaging high water flows in the creek when coupled with the undersized and/or improperly maintained
City structures, culverts and crossings. Tons of sediment, large rocks and wood debris are flushed
downstream choking out potential salmon habitat and damaging properties. For the last 18 months, they
have been working with the Edmonds public works department to find a long term solution to the
flooding, fish habitat and property destruction. They seek a collaborative and cooperative process with all
the stakeholders involved.
Ms. Flynn continued, they strongly believe any plan for the creek must include the following, 1) they
basically agreed to a concept shown or known as option/alignment C in the handout in 2021. However,
details such as making it more natural looking, more sinuous, possibly backup bypass issues and
maintenance issues may need to be worked out. 2) a mitigation plan or diversion plan for the huge volume
of water and sediment that flows through the creek during heavy rainfall events. Former Public Works
Director Phil Williams informed them that 73% of the water in the creek originates in Lynnwood. During
heavy rain events, rushing waters erode the banks in South County Park sending tons of sand and rock
through the creek which end up damming and blocking the City's structures in the creek and ruining any
hope of salmon habitat. 3) a substantially improved culvert or crossing under the railroad tracks. 4)
replace and lower the culvert under Talbot Road. The current configuration is a barrier to high flows
downstream and any fish migration upstream. As property owners, they want to work with the City and
all stakeholders in a common-sense approach. It is does not make sense to carve out a new, temporary
creek bed through their properties. She submitted written materials
Chris Walton, Edmonds, referenced the project at Main Street & 6t'', and said consideration needs to be
given to where the town wants to be in 10-20 years and have a vision for that. He was concerned because
developers and real estate development organizations throughout the region are changing the town fast
and not necessarily in a great way. They have a lot of money and can influence people who make
decisions; the only thing that can be done to slow the negative effects of developers is to have very good
codes, a vision, and a good architectural review board that keeps them from using the maximization of
profits as the only goal. He was not anti -business, but the reality is maximizing profits results in pushing
the limits of codes as far as possible. He felt Main Street was a good example of where the City is not
headed in the next 10-20 years, where there will be an immensely dense downtown with a lot of people in
condos, very limited businesses with only high end restaurants and wine bars, and pushing out the type of
businesses that are needed in Edmonds. He urged the council to create a solid vision and communicate
that vision to the engineering groups creating the codes to preserve the quality of Edmonds going
forward.
Lynda Fireman, Edmonds, commented Edmonds is a small town with historic roots. It is a suburb and
not Seattle which is why people are drawn to live and visit. The business core is very small and now BD2
is not required to have a commercial first floor. She cited a comment from the developer that the high
density of the proposed project is seen as a guide for further development allowed and encouraged by the
comprehensive plan. She asked if there was a secret plan to change the zoning and increase density for
RM 1.5 on this square blook and for the rest of Edmonds. After reading through all the ordinances and
council meetings, there is never enough time set aside to have a clear and transparent City plan to align
the wishes of the residents with the need to increase the density for revenue. Everything is pushed through
without attention to detail or consideration of the ramifications on surrounding properties. She questioned
why these three lots downtown were mixed commercial if the intent was always to allow multifamily
building. Ordinance 3955 clearly states permitted residential uses for downtown mixed commercial are
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 9
Packet Pg. 89
8.B.c
single family dwelling and multiple dwelling units but they have to be located on the second floor behind
the first 45 feet from the sidewalks. Staff has said that was not the intent of the ordinance, it was different
than what was written further on, apparently an interpretation. As she understood it from a legal
perspective, intent is not the law. Clarifying it now after the fact when this is a current development issue
cannot be legal, there is too much doublespeak. Citizens deserve clarity and to know the true intent of the
mayor's intention and his direction to staff.
Ms. Fireman asked that the emergency ordinance be extended so that design standards can be properly
addressed. She was not asking for the ordinance to be extended for a maximum of six months and not to
have the developer and his architect involved as it is a conflict of interest. If it takes a year or more, so be
it; the city council has the power to have it done right once and for all. Interim and future design features
should require the scale be addressed; scale is the relationship of a building in terms of size, height, bulk,
density and aesthetics to its surroundings. A building scale is contextual in nature and is a key factor in
determining how well it blends in with the neighborhood. The comprehensive plan says stereotype, boxy,
multiple unit residential buildings are to be avoided and it's essential that commercial developments
continue to harmonize and enhance the residential small town character that the citizens of Edmonds so
strongly desire to retain. She questioned what else was waiting in the pipeline that would use these
interim design standards before the design standards and comprehensive plan is looked at again and how
long will that take and whether it would be after all the 25 identified parcels had been developed. She
gestured toward a wall in council chambers, stating it likely was not even 25 feet high; looking across
from her condo, the wall will be 40 feet high and she will not be any further away from it than the chairs.
Greg Brewer, Edmonds, said an important decision is about to be made concerning permittable uses in
BD2 mixed commercial zone. If 100% residential is allowed to be built there, the ability to protect and
grow diversity and equity in that important zone is at stake. Losing ground floor commercial will have
devastating effects on the ability of businesses to grown and thrive in a zone set aside for them by the
predecessors. Ground floor commercial must be protected. The City is changing rapidly as more
restaurants and services fill the downtown core extending up Main Street to the BD2 zone. With the new
construction of the Commons on the corner and Civic Park nearby, the intersection at 6t' & Main will
soon have an even greater prominence for the downtown. It is indeed the eastern gateway to the
downtown business district. As he read through the memorandum that City planners and city attorney put
together to justify 100% residential, he saw more evidence toward keeping ground floor commercial in
the BD2 zone. Both sides of Main Street east of 6t' currently have businesses with 9 on the north side and
at least 2 on the south side, an extension of the business corridor. Eliminating commercial on the north
side will permanently destroy this corridor.
Mr. Brewer referred to page 11, paragraph 1 of the memorandum which states, in the core area the intent
was to avoid extending the designated street front along areas where there are significant residential uses.
There are few residential uses near this intersection. Conversely, designated street fronts should be
reserved for areas where there are businesses on both sides of the street. It makes perfect sense to extend
the line east on Main and include this part of the BD2 zone. There are a couple areas of town where this
extension could help clarify the code and eliminate the need to rewrite spot zoning for BD2 areas left
behind. Regarding the blue line identifying the designated street front, on page 12 it states council has the
legislative discretion to alter the designated street front map if it sees fit to do so. Recognizing it as a no
brainer; he asked the council to extend the line and save the eastern gateway to the downtown core for
business on the ground floor. Businesses are already across the street and it is by far the easiest way to
clean up the confusion.
Jenna Jotika Nand, Edmonds, spoke regarding a troubling trend of underage prostitution along the
Highway 99 corridor, specifically being facilitated by bikini barista shops. She interviewed multiple
young women who claim they are of age but look to be between 12 and 14 years old. These young
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 10
Packet Pg. 90
8.B.c
women are heavily tattooed and are often functionally illiterate. This is a scrouge in the community where
she grew up and was a girl scout, not a place where girls are supposed to be selling sex in barista shops
claiming they are 18 years old when they have clearly not even gone through puberty. This is a very
sensitive topic that has to be approached in a way that the young girls do feel they are being criminalized
but to target the pimps. She would like the City to make an effort to review business licenses and L&I
compliance with all of these underage prostitution joints that are springing up on Highway 99, specifically
in the Edmonds section of Highway 99, but it is a problem from Everett to Seattle. She was shocked to
see one of these prostitution joints spring up in Edmonds.
Robert Stivers, Edmonds, said he loves living in Edmonds has been here for nearly a half century.
Downtown is like one of Rick Steves' precious backdoors to Europe but in the USA and its history goes
back to the 19t' century. A visitor once compared it to Main Street in Disneyland, only more real. It is his
go -to place for shopping and services; he loves stopping at Teri's Toybox to see the latest models of
exotic animals, seeing what David Varnau and Andy Eccleshall have created, the wonders of geology in
the Wishing Stone, buying a gift card for his wife at Sound Styles, and getting train tickets at the Amtrak
station, all essentially public spaces, one of the reasons why cities exist. Edmonds has a pedestrian scale
vibrant downtown and public spaces like parks and playing fields. The City needs more public spaces as
the population increases especially downtown; it does not make sense to increase one without increasing
the other. The proposed development flies in the face of this; it is the beginning of the alteration of
downtown Edmonds culture. He urged the council not to erode space dedicated to public uses or erode
downtown Edmonds with increased population without also providing this type of space. He also did not
want to walk under private balconies having lived in New York City too long for that, or go by streetside
private reserves even down an alley. He supported utilizing for private use the most underutilized of all
developable spaces in the modern city, the rooftops. Acknowledging it would cost more for a developer,
the future of downtown Edmonds is at stake and the result will be a healthier and cleaner downtown with
public spaces to accommodate all who want to visit and the preservation of the unique Edmonds
downtown culture.
Michelle Dotsch, Edmonds, spoke regarding the BD2 moratorium and BD2 design standards. The
minutes of the April 2, 2013 city council meeting are clear, only BD4 was presented to the council with
having two options, either commercial on the ground floor or multifamily only. She quoted from page 7
where Rob Chave stated clearly for the councilmembers to understand, "in the BD4 there are two options,
a commercial building that requires the 15 foot step -back or a multifamily building up to 30 feet with a
front yard setback." She pointed out he never mentions nor is there any reference during the entire city
council meeting before the ordinance is passed that BD2 also has these two options, only BD4 has the
second use of multifamily clearly defined and referenced in writing in the code and there are different
standards if either commercial or multifamily only. BD2 is not included in that exception. If the intent
was that BD2 could also have both interpretations, why did Mr. Chave not say that? Because it never
could. Only BD4 is clarified in the code that there are different parameters, setbacks, design standards and
density with the multifamily only option versus commercial. She questioned why BD2 was not done at
the same time. There is nothing in writing to clearly define that there are two options in the BD2 just like
BD4. The staff -created multifamily only areas in the BD2 zone will now have the most intense density of
any multifamily building in any downtown zoning. The reason is they are attempting to use the
commercial zoning to go right up to the sidewalk with entirely residential.
Dr. Dotsch urged the council to think about these newly zoned 28 multifamily lots within the BD2
subarea now having the highest density anywhere downtown. To say this is somehow a transition area is
incorrect as it goes from the less intense density of BD1 to this new BD2 designation that is much denser
to then the adjacent surrounding RM-1.5 zoning which is less dense. She imagined this ring of 28 lots
being out of sorts with downtown density, use and bulk from Sunset Avenue, down 2" d South, down 3'
Avenue North, on 6t' Avenue and up Main Street and Dayton Street with the solution for the setback idea
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 11
Packet Pg. 91
8.B.c
to actually shrink the current 15 foot setback to only 5 feet from the RM-1.5 middle housing zone
adjacent to these lots. The neighbors might want to know that their homes next to this newly defined
zoning is putting these giant housing projects only 5 feet from their property line with decks and roof top
decks hanging over their homes. This is not a small change, but newly created zone with new zoning
requirements. Consideration also needs to be given to the increased density and massing on these 28
downtown lots and whether it even complies with the GMA or is compatible with current infrastructure
including public facilities and services needed to serve these developments. She urged the council to
make a fully informed decision tonight; if councilmembers were unable to say they were fully informed,
she urged them not to allow this public process to be stopped by removing a full and fair discission of
what this will truly look like. Just like the connector discussion sped up before the public really knew the
impact and many councilmembers helped stop that from happening. Once these decisions are allowed to
go ahead without clarity, it is hard to pull back, but it can be done.
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, said on April 5t' after the public hearing was closed, the city council took
unplanned and unannounced action which upset citizens and resulted in citizens speaking out from the
audience. New information including staff opinions about historical legislative intent were discussed after
the citizens' time to comment ended. During the public hearing, he asked city council how citizens were
supposed to know how to prepare public comments for the public hearing as neither the public notice nor
the agenda packet identified the findings the council was to consider adopting. Council did not answer his
question but added an additional unannounced element to the public hearing process that citizens were
also unaware of before the public hearing. He asked the council to address this conduct and take steps to
ensure it never happens again during the middle of a public hearing. Next, Mr. Reidy said state law states
a moratorium may be renewed for one or more six month periods if a subsequent public hearing is held
and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal. He referred to the use of the word "renewal," which
is different than extension. Renewal allows for a new moratorium as opposed to the mere extension of
extra time to the pervious moratorium. A moratorium adopted without a work plan may be effective for
not longer than six months. A moratorium can be for one month, two months, four months, any length of
time not longer than six months. This fact was known to the Edmonds city council prior to council's vote
to pass Ordinance 4247 on February 15t''.
Mr. Reidy continued, as this fact was known upfront, it was critical that city council established a proper
time period for the original moratorium. Edmonds city council chose two months; this was allowed by the
not longer than six months authority provided by the statute. Once Edmonds city council made its legal
choice of two months, that time period could not be extended. Who would imagine Edmonds city council
thinking a moratorium could be extended rather than replacing the original moratorium with a new
moratorium. Making it worse, council failed to adopt findings of fact justifying the original moratorium
before it expired. Council also failed to justify continuing the original moratorium after the April 5t'
public hearing up to April 15t''. He urged the council to read the emergency declaration in Ordinance 4218
and questioned whether there was really an emergency if the council had the legal right to merely extend
the four months effective period of Ordinances 4200 and 4201 and do so without holding a subsequent
public hearing and making findings of fact. He questioned whether the council is being advised that they
can have their cake and eat it too. He urged the council to stop abusing the moratorium and interim zoning
process, citing Ordinance 4210 as another great example.
Mayor Nelson described the procedures for virtual audience comments.
Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, referred to the tree ordinance, stating trees are legally the property of
those whose land they grown on and can only be given voluntarily to the City by owners for protection.
Edmonds has placed the public burden of tree canopy coverage on a small group of property owners by
seizing and then charging them for the rights to their trees and the land they shadow. She provided an
analogy; the City decides your neighbors would benefit from more vehicles. Although neighbors have
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 12
Packet Pg. 92
13. APPROVAL OF SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH SCJ FOR HWY 99
GATEWAY -REVITALIZATION STAGE 2 PROJECT
14. PARK PLANNER AND CAPITAL PROJECT MANAGER JOB DESCRIPTION
APPROVAL
15. LEAD BUILDING MAINTENANCE OPERATOR JOB DESCRIPTION
16. RESOLUTION EXTENDING TEMPORARY EMERGENCY SICK LEAVE POLICY
17. PROCEDURE FOR ACCEPTING WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS
18. WWTP PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR
8. COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. EXECUTIVE SESSION: POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(D
At 8:38 p.m., Mayor Nelson announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding
potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last
approximately 20 minutes and would be held in the Police Training Room, located in the Public Safety
Complex as well as virtually. Elected officials present at the executive session were Mayor Nelson, and
Councilmembers K. Johnson, Tibbott, Buckshnis, Paine, Olson, L. Johnson, and Chen. Others present
were City Attorney Jeff Taraday. At 8:59 p.m., Mayor Nelson announced the executive session would be
extended for 15 minutes to 9:14 p.m. At 9:14 p.m., Mayor Nelson announced the executive session would
be extended for 10 minutes to 9:24 p.m. At 9:24 p.m., Mayor Nelson announced the executive session
would be extended for 10 minutes to 9:34 p.m. The executive session concluded at 9:34 p.m.
Mayor Nelson reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 9:34 p.m.
Mayor Nelson announced in conferring with Council President Olson, it was agreed to move the ARPA
Funding Status and Special Event Permits and Amendments to ECC Title 4 Licenses to a future meeting.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO DELETE ITEMS 3 AND 4. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. RESOLUTION TO ADOPT FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF THE BD2 MORATORIUM
(Previously Azenda Item 8.1)
City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained any time a city council adopts a moratorium, the statute requires
findings be adopted to justify the moratorium. It is not a question of whether to adopt findings, but
whether the findings reflect the council's belief in terms of why the moratorium was adopted and whether
they clearly and fully articulate the bases for the moratorium. Item 8.1 in the packet contains a draft
resolution with several whereas clauses that represent his best effort to capture what he believes to be
many of the council's concerns, but he may not have captured all of them. Therefore, the council is free to
amend, add, or remove whereas clauses, but ultimately the resolution in some form should be adopted
tonight with possible amendments by the city council.
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO ADD A WHEREAS CLAUSE THAT STATES SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF,
WHEREAS SOME COUNCILMEMBERS FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO RECONSIDER
WHETHER THE DESIGNATED STREET FRONT MAP SHOULD BE EXTENDED.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 15
Packet Pg. 93
8.B.c
Councilmember Tibbott recalled during council deliberations and looking at the map, councilmembers
realized the development of downtown has filled out and his question was what would it take to extend
the blue line to other areas of the City thereby extending the street front.
Council President Olson expressed her full support for this change, commenting a lot has changed in the
downtown over the years. One specific recent change is the Commons and that is one direction in which
the line should be extended because it has become almost a hub of the commercial district.
Councilmember Paine asked whether the timing mattered as part of the findings, whether it was during
the first part of the moratorium or mid -moratorium. Mr. Taraday answered the council has six months of
moratorium authority. Justifications on day 1 of the moratorium for initially enacting it may be different
than on day 60 or day 90 if the council decides to continue the moratorium. The justifications do not have
to be the ones that were anticipated on day 1; anything from day 1 to present would be acceptable to
include in the resolution.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for the motion. She noted some councilmembers were
around during the BD discussions. The gist of the 2013 ordinances and the latest Ordinances 3955 and
3918 dealt with something that fulfilled the economic development plan and strategic goals, to create
synergy for commercial businesses where possible, for example, implementing a retail core. Adding this
will help; there is already a very dense downtown and multifamily housing is needed throughout the City.
She referred to the Edmonds City Council approved minutes of November 4, 2013 where Stephen Clifton
talked about public safety with the office space and the central gathering place coming into the Commons.
The vision was for a retail core in the downtown area.
Councilmember Chen expressed support for extending the blue line, however, he wanted to see a vibrant
downtown with mixed use. The BD2 zone was intended to be mixed use so he would like to see that type
of development where commercial and residential are mixed for that purpose.
Councilmember L. Johnson said she did not support the motion. This is a new concern that never came up
with the other two projects in a similar area of the BD2 zone. By extending it, commercial only would be
allowed, but there would be no requirement for mixed use or multifamily. The City limits where
multifamily is allowed and this is one more attempt to further limit it. These concerns were not expressed
before and are an example of the way the community has repeatedly reacted to multifamily development.
Councilmember Paine said she was troubled by this last minute addition. It is trying to create a solution
that is very short sighted before there is additional information from an economic and residential needs
assessment of the community. It is clearly no longer 2013 and she does not support this addition to the
whereas clauses as the council is not operating with good information.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
CHEN, TIBBOTT AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K.
JOHNSON, CHEN, TIBBOTT AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON
VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
City Clerk Scott Passey advised that was Resolution 1490.
Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 16
Packet Pg. 94
8.B.c
3. INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY -ONLY BUILDINGS IN THE
BD2 ZONE (previously Item 8.2)
Senior Planner Mike Clugston provided an update on the status of the design standards for multifamily
only buildings in BD2. Since the April 5' meeting where there were comments on several of the design
standards, staff took the standards to the Architectural Design Board (ADB) who were generally in favor
of the proposed language with a couple of tweaks. Staff s recommend is to approve the interim design
standards in Exhibit 2 via the ordinance in Exhibit 3. With regard to materials, which was one of the
design standards, no change was recommended; the ADB and the public seemed to like the concept of
materials used on these types of buildings. Similarly, for the street side amenity space, the concept that
provides a setback was well received and no changes are proposed.
Mr. Clugston continued, there were no concerns with the private amenity space generally, but there was
some concern with roof top decks. As a result a small change was proposed to the roof top deck areas as
outlined in the packet. Previously a roof top deck would be allowed to fulfill the amenity space
requirement; that was changed to say it could not be used to fulfill the amenity space requirement, but
could be provided. Another question raised was whether roof top decks should be allowed to the edge of
the roof; the building code allows railings at the edge. There was some concern from the council, public
and the ADB who felt some setback of the railing would be useful for safety and proposed a 5-foot
setback as a starting point. He recalled a setback for the railing was also suggested by a member of the
public at the April 5' meeting.
Mr. Clugston continued, another question was raised about whether the roof top deck should be counted
toward the private amenity space requirement. There was some concern that a developer would put all the
50% amenity space on the roof, thereby depriving some individual residences of balconies, decks and
patios. The revised language changes the ability to use the roof top deck to meet the amenity space
requirement; a roof top deck is still allowed, but all the private amenity space has to be provided with
individual units or at the ground level meeting the existing standards in the proposed language. He
summarized with the feedback from council, the ADB and the public, the design standards are generally
pretty good and would result in improved projects in multifamily only buildings in BD2.
Council President Olson said she not sure she was against the idea of a roof top deck but was not sure she
was ready to say they absolutely should be allowed. Her concern was with building heights, a cultural
value in Edmonds. When building heights were increased 5 feet at one point, the idea wasn't to allow
increased levels of living units, but to allow for some roof modulation or slope so the roofs were not all
flat because that is not a great design in the Pacific Northwest. Things can be placed on a roof top deck,
even if they aren't permanent, such as umbrellas and furniture. If part of the desire to keep building
heights at a certain level is to be respectful of views due to the slope throughout the lower level of
Edmonds, she had an issue with roof top decks in the context of the community value of avoiding
increasing building heights due the impact on views. She summarized she was uncertain she was ready to
allow roof top decks as an amenity.
Mr. Clugston responded a number of exceptions to the height are allowed such as an architectural feature
that can cover 5% of the roof area on a BD building, elevator penthouses, solar panels, etc. He
summarized the height limit such as 30 feet is not an absolute drop dead maximum as things can project
above it. Using that information, staff determined roof top decks fit with that concept particularly if the
railings are transparent and there are no permanent structures on the roof top.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO EXTEND FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 17
Packet Pg. 95
8.B.c
Development Services Director Susan McLaughlin said staff is not wed to the concept of roof top decks
as part of the interim design standards. The most recent revision excludes roof top decks from the
required private amenity space and they are happy to exclude roof top deck from the interim design
standards. The multifamily design standards are a 2022 work plan item which will provide more time to
delve into it. The focus of the interim design standards is setback, articulation, and more green space on
multifamily buildings.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she was not sure if she was in favor of roof top decks; Edmonds is not
Seattle and Seattle has a lot of them. She might be interested if they were recessed further than five feet.
She recalled complaints the City received about the visibility of a tent on a business's roof for a long
period of time due the slope. She supported having more research done because Edmonds is unique and
she anticipated roof top patios could get out of hand. There are rooftop patios in many large cities and she
was not sure Edmonds was large enough for that yet.
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO
APPROVE THE REVISED INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS IN EXHIBIT 2 AND ADOPT THE
ORDINANCE IN EXHIBIT 3.
Councilmember L. Johnson commented this is the third time the council has worked on this and the issues
that were raised last week have been addressed. Staff came forward with what the council requested and
further amendments can be made.
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON,
TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE BY REMOVING THE ROOF TOP PORTION AS IT IS
WORTHY OF FURTHER DISCUSSION AND DELIBERATION. AMENDMENT CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Paine expressed support for the product as amended, noting there is an opportunity for
greater review by the public and another public process. This is a good interim proposal and it was her
understanding the process would take about nine months which would allow for a good public process.
A MOTION WAS MADE AND SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON TO AMEND TO
CHANGE THE CURRENT SECTION D OF 22.43.080 TO E AND ADD A NEW SECTION D
THAT READS, SOME ROOF MODULATION IS REQUIRED WITH PREFERENCE FOR STEP
DOWNS THAT FOLLOW THE SLOPE WHEN SLOPE EXISTS.
Council President Olson said that was one of the features she notices and likes when she is downtown and
prefers to see. The history of allowing an additional 5 feet in height was to allow slope on roofs or
modulation so buildings were not square boxes and were a more attractive design. She recognized these
were interim design standards, but some projects will vest under these interim design standards.
Councilmember Paine asked how much slope modulation there was in other parts of Edmonds. She was
concerned this would be disparate if it was only required in one of the business districts, noting it was not
required for single family residences. She asked if any other zoning districts in the City required
modulation on the slope.
Council President Olson offered a point of clarification, that was not the amendment. Her motion was
some roof modulation is required with preference for step-downs that follow the slope when slope exists,
it would not be a mandate.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 18
Packet Pg. 96
8.B.c
Councilmember Paine said she was still curious about the answer to her question, whether this existed in
any other zones. Mr. Clugston answered in the RM zones the base height maximum was 25 feet and an
additional 5 feet was allowed with a roof pitch of 4:12 or greater. That was also permitted in BC zones.
Councilmember Chen asked if there were any buildings in the City that had roof top amenities. Mr.
Clugston answered roof top decks were allowed in other zones but the only one he was aware of was the
new building at Westgate. Councilmember Chen said that could be a wonderful feature with enough
setback. He supported respecting people's privacy by having enough distance from the edge of building
so that people were looking at the water and mountain views and not into other people's windows.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
CHEN, TIBBOTT AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO
AMEND WITH REGARD TO GROUND FLOOR STREET FRONTS, TO EXTEND THE STREET
FRONT TO THE ABUTTING CORNERS AROUND THE INTERSECTION TO INCLUDE
STREET FRONTS IN THOSE LOCATIONS. THE EFFECT WOULD BE TO EXTEND WHERE
THERE IS COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL ON THE GROUND FLOOR IN THOSE LOCATIONS.
THERE ARE THREE PLACES ON THE MAP WHERE IT IS EXTENDED TO ALL FOUR
CORNERS AND FOUR PLACES WHERE IT IS NOT. FOR EXAMPLE MAIN AND 6TH, IT
STOPS RIGHT AT 6TH AND THERE ARE TWO OTHER CORNERS THAT DO NOT HAVE
STREET FRONT AND THREE OTHER PLACES THAT SIMILAR TO THAT IN THE
DOWNTOWN AREA.
Mr. Taraday asked if the intent was to have that brought back or have an ordinance drafted tonight that
would accomplish that. Councilmember Tibbott said he was open to asking Mr. Taraday to bring and
ordinance back to council for review. Mr. Taraday said he would need to work with planning staff on that;
that type of an amendment would be difficult to adopt tonight. If the intent is to have that in place before
lifting the moratorium, the moratorium would need to be extended. The complexity involved with a map
amendment of that nature would be difficult to do at 10:15 p.m. without long extensions of the meeting. If
the council extended the moratorium for a month, it would give him time work with the planning division
to bring back an ordinance that would accomplish that. If that was the case, there would need to be other
amendments made to the ordinance currently before the council such removing language in Section 2 that
lifts the moratorium.
Council President Olson asked if the council was otherwise satisfied with the design standards, could the
section about the moratorium be struck while staff is figuring out the designated street front. Mr. Taraday
answered the council has options, 1) adopt the design standards as just amended and lift the moratorium,
or 2) adopt the design standards as just amended and keep the moratorium in place. Adopting the design
standards and keeping the moratorium in place will require two separate ordinances. As he was not
certain how the discussion/vote would go, as a precaution, he prepared an ordinance to extend the
moratorium for a month so it was ready if the council needed it. If council wants to adopt the design
standards as amended and keep moratorium in place, a motion would need to be made to approve the
version of the ordinance that he sent the council by email this afternoon that contains immediate effect
language, not the packet version of the ordinance. Section 2 of that ordinance which repeals the
moratorium would need to be deleted. He summarized if the council likes the design standards as
amended and does not want to repeal the moratorium, that could be accomplished by deleting Section 2 of
the ordinance he sent council this afternoon.
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
THE SECOND.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 19
Packet Pg. 97
8.B.c
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO
ACCEPT THE DESIGN STANDARDS AS AMENDED TONIGHT AND OTHERWISE
REPRESENTED IN THE ORDINANCE SENT THIS AFTERNOON BY EMAIL WITH THE
EXCEPTION OF DELETING SECTION 2 THAT LIFTS THE MORATORIUM.
Councilmember L. Johnson observed there was an motion on the floor to approve the ordinance in the
packet. Mr. Taraday agreed the ordinance was moved originally and assumed the version of the ordinance
was the one he sent this afternoon. Councilmember L. Johnson said her motion was to approve the
ordinance in the packet. Mr. Taraday clarified the packet version will not take effect prior to the
expiration of the moratorium. A version of the ordinance needs to be adopted which takes effect
immediately which is why he sent out a revised version this afternoon. The revised version does not
change any of the substance of the design standards, it is contains a declaration of emergency and has an
immediate effect clause. He asked whether the maker of the motion was okay substituting that version for
the version in the packet. Councilmember L. Johnson said she was unable to give that at this point
without reading what was emailed.
Mayor Nelson observed there was already a motion on the floor and this is another motion. He suggested
addressing the main motion.
Council President Olson began to make an amendment, to have Section 2 deleted that lifts the
moratorium. She asked if the emergency clause could be removed if the moratorium was not lifted. Mr.
Taraday said if the council wanted to prevent developments vesting to the preexisting standards, the
ordinance needs to take effect immediately. The packet version does not take effect immediately; the
council would need to adopt the version he sent this afternoon in order for it to take effect immediately.
He offered to highlight the change to the ordinance in the packet.
Councilmember L. Johnson clarified the version Mr. Taraday sent this afternoon does not lift the
moratorium, it allows the design standards to take immediate effect. Mr. Taraday answered it does both;
the council probably will want the design standards to take immediate effect either way unless a separate
ordinance is adopted that extends the moratorium. If a separate ordinance is adopted to extend the
moratorium, then the design standards ordinance does not need to be an emergency.
The motion was clarified as follows:
Councilmember L. Johnson was open to changing the motion to include what was emailed to the
council now that she had had a chance to look at it, provided that that lifts the moratorium. The
seconder, Councilmember Paine agreed as long as it lifted the moratorium.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she would like to see all of this in writing and give citizens an
opportunity to participate. She was concerned that at 10:25 p.m., the council was attempting to approve
something that was sent this afternoon and then making amendments to it. She preferred to have the
ordinance in the packet. She did not support the motion but wanted to have the moratorium extended so
this could be fixed and everyone could see it in writing in the packet. She asked what needed to be done
to make that happen. Mr. Taraday said the council would want to adopt the other ordinance he emailed
this evening, not the afternoon one, that extends the moratorium for a month.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the council would have to wait to do that until the motion the floor
was addressed. Mr. Taraday agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis did not support the motion as she
believed there needed to be a public process, the public had not read the ordinance and she had only read
it quickly.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
THAT WE TABLE THIS MOTION.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 20
Packet Pg. 98
8.B.c
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN,
TIBBOTT AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO EXTEND THE MORATORIUM ONE MONTH.
Council President Olson observed there was an ordinance that does that. She offered to read the
ordinance.
Councilmember L. Johnson raised a point of order, asking where this was on the agenda. Council
President Olson answered this was one of the things the council can do. Councilmember L. Johnson said
the council tabled this item.
Mr. Taraday explained the motion to adopt the ordinance that adopts the interim design standards was
tabled. If the council wants to take alternative action regarding the moratorium, it can do so, it can amend
agenda, etc. A majority of the council can do whatever it wants during a regular meeting. Councilmember
L. Johnson observed it was not on the existing agenda.
Council President Olson asked if it was the council's desire to take vote to add this to the agenda or could
it be done via a head nod. Councilmember L. Johnson commented the council did not take action via head
nods.
Council President Olson restated her motion:
TO ADD THE ITEM TO THE AGENDA AND EXTEND THE MORATORIUM.
Councilmember Paine said adding this to the agenda at 10:26 p.m. was a rather thin nail to hang the
transparency hat on.
Councilmember Chen said the council needs more time and cannot vote on something that was sent in the
afternoon. He did not support the motion.
Council President Olson offered to withdraw the motion and plan a special meeting on Thursday.
Councilmember Chen said that would be more appropriate.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she like to take this vote tonight and did not want to have a special
meeting on Thursday for this one item. It is part and parcel of what the council has discussed tonight
related to adopting a resolution to adopt the findings in support of the BD2 moratorium. The motion
would be to extend moratorium and she favored taking that action tonight.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
EXTEND 10 MINUTES TO 10:40. MOTION CARRIED (5-2) COUNCILMEMBERS L. JOHNSON
AND PAINE VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON,
FOR AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, EXTENDING THE
MORATORIUM OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR BD2
ZONE LOTS THAT DO NOT FRONT ON A DESIGNATED STREET FRONT AS IMPOSED BY
ORDINANCE 4247 AND EXTENDED BY ORDINANCE 4253.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 21
Packet Pg. 99
8.B.c
Councilmember Buckshnis said this was following through on what Councilmember K. Johnson said.
There is a moratorium in place, this is the formal action to extend it for one month. If the council does not
take this action, the moratorium will expire on Thursday and she did not think the city attorney and staff
would have the necessary materials completed in time for a continued meeting on Thursday. She
preferred to either approve extending the moratorium and if not, it will end on April 21 and the interim
building standards will take effect. This will give time to do what needs to be done in terms of getting
packet materials done and extending the moratorium.
Councilmember L. Johnson did not support the motion. She found it interesting that the council just
tabled something based on being unable to review something that was received at 5:00 p.m., yet would
vote on a document that was received during the council meeting which she has not had an opportunity to
review.
Councilmember Paine preferred to come back on Thursday. There is a chance to have enough public
process to get through the tail end of the moratorium. Moratoriums are damaging to the City's reputation
and progress on building, things that are normally allowed. She felt it was shortsighted and that the
council would not get that much more information about what the business practices need to look like
within a month as that is a much bigger study.
Councilmember Chen agreed that the council needs to come back on Thursday. It is late at night and all of
a sudden the council wants to pass a motion to extend the moratorium. He was not comfortable
supporting that.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, TIBBOTT
AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS
CHEN, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Mr. Taraday explained a 4-3 vote adopts the ordinance, but does not take immediate effect with a 4-3 vote
and will take effective 5 days after passage and publication. If the council does not meet on Thursday to
take some other action, the moratorium will end at the close of business on Thursday and on Friday a
developer theoretically could vest an application pursuant to the prior development standards. If the
ordinance takes effect five business day after publication, next Wednesday, that leaves four business days,
Friday, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, for a developer to vest an application. The council could take
other action on Thursday that would take immediate effect, but five votes are required for an ordinance to
take immediate effect.
Council President Olson began to make a motion to add back Items 3 and 4 that were deleted so they
could be discussed at the special meeting on Thursday, and then concluded a motion was not necessary.
4. ARPA FUNDING STATUS (Previously Item 8.3)
Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting.
5. SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS AND AMENDMENTS TO ECC TITLE 4 LICENSES
(Previously Item 8.4)
Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting.
9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 22
Packet Pg. 100
8.B.d
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING - VIRTUAL/ONLINE
APPROVED MINUTES
April 21, 2022
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Vivian Olson, Council President
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Will Chen, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Susan Paine, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Laura Johnson, Councilmember
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Susan McLaughlin, Dev. Serv. Director
Kernen Lien, Interim Planning Manager
Mike Clugston, Senior Planner
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 5:15 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The
meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Councilmember Paine read the City Council Land Acknowledgement Statement: "We acknowledge the
original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes,
who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their
sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land
and water."
3. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present participating remotely, with the
exception of Councilmember L. Johnson.
4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson described the procedures for virtual audience comments.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 21, 2022
Page 1
Packet Pg. 101
8.B.d
Lynda Fireman, Edmonds, referred to the email she sent to council that asked they use their minds eye to
visualize not only what each development will look like as part of a whole in the landscape, but also how
it will impact the neighborhood, not just at the front and side but the back of the building as well. Earlier
today as she was driving down Main Street, the spectacular view always takes her breath away. The current
businesses on either side at 600, 605 and 611 Main do not interfere with the ambiance, allow enjoyment of
the wonderful view and don't distract from it which is why residents live here and tourist come to experience
it. She suggested imagining how it would look with the proposed apartments dwarfing the heritage cottage
at 601 Main and obliterating the 1895 cottage at 605 Main, two of the last vestiges of Edmonds' heritage
and a blight on the landscape forever, particularly if the same was built at 600 Main. The square block
between 6' and 7' and Main & Bell is already very high density. Residents pay a premium to live there
and spend their money in Edmonds. Some, definitely not all developers, are only in it to maximize their
profits and their money goes into the bank; they don't care about the impact on the residents or on the City.
Ms. Fireman applauded the council for their wish to add addendums to expand the limits of the designated
street front map because businesses are needed, to extend the moratorium for two months for further study,
and to eliminate roof top decks, add a provision to follow the slope of the lot against the alley and lot line
to help reduce the scale of the building and alleviate the pervasiveness of the 40-foot tall straight flat wall
against the alley lot line and allow the adjacent residents to reclaim a little of the lost visual of their
surroundings and the light that will be taken away. She urged the council not to allow roof top decks,
commenting the development was already oversized and residents want to avoid being kept awake at night.
In addition, there is a wind tunnel that comes up the alley and she could envision things flying off the deck.
She would like to see the development reduced in height and scale to fit in with the historic downtown and
to somehow save the 1895 cottage; it has been a viable business for years and possibly can be moved. She
asked the council to give consideration to those who live in the area and are impacted by the development
as well as those who will be affected by other imminent development in BD2 spot zones. She recognized
there was a lot of divisiveness around these issues, but hoped the council could come together to resolve
them.
Finis Tupper, Edmonds, commented this has been quite a charade. He recognized councilmembers had a
lot of work to do and had to review a lot of materials in the agenda packet. He wondered if any
councilmembers looked at Ordinance 3955 regarding BD1 ground floor street front and compared it to the
code. He questioned why the code was not updated when Ordinance 3955 was passed. He questioned who
was in charge at the City, who was checking this stuff, whether it was the attorney, the council president,
the city clerk or the mayor. Anyone with a 6' grade education looking at the building standards for the BD1
zone knows it is business and mixed use commercial. Nowhere has Kernen Lien shown the council where
City staff was told that outside the designated street front there could be an entirely multifamily project.
The dimensional requirements in the zoning code clearly state 45 feet in the designated street front is
required to be commercial. The exception in 7 under BD 1 ground floor street front does not apply to these
buildings. There could be doctors or dentists in that 45 feet but there can't be in the BD or the designated
street front. Every house in Edmonds has a designated street front. He questioned whether it was defined
in the code and said the lie is related to ceiling height and allowed uses in those zones. What the council is
trying to do is absolutely illegal and is appealable to the Growth Management Hearings Board.
Michelle Dotsch, Edmonds, said the foundation to tonight's discussion hinges on whether to keep a small
portion of the required development in the BD2 downtown mixed commercial zone as commercial. It needs
to be accurately stated that multifamily is an allowed use in this zone, even encouraged as mixed use in the
comprehensive plan along with a minimum square footage on the ground floor for businesses and jobs that
support and compliment the BD 1 commercial only zone. The 2020 validation study of the buildable lands
study comparing development predictions with actual development, shows Edmonds exceeded the total
predicted housing units by 74%. It also shows the average buildable density in Edmond exceeded predicted
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 21, 2022
Page 2
Packet Pg. 102
8.B.d
targets by 64%. That is only through 2019, there is time to get this right. She asked how do the community
wanted the future vision of Edmonds to play out, whether it was a greater emphasis on Edmonds just
expanding housing only which the study clearly shows exceeded county targets, losing small businesses
and commercial balance along with local job opportunity growth to coordinate with housing expansion.
This will only push residents to travel farther for goods and services including driving further to their jobs
because local business options have been removed for even more housing only buildings. A 15-minute City
discussion was presented by the development services director as a possible goal for Edmonds, but if the
vital supporting role that BD2 service businesses provide to the town is removed, it will become a 45-90
minute town in the end.
Dr. Dotsch continued, support service businesses are vital to a thriving community and are excluded from
the BD 1 ground floor designated street front zone. Chapter 16.43 which defines all the BD zones contains
a footnote that states services, by appointment uses not providing open door retail, dining, entertainment
functions as a primary component of the business, are not allowed within BD 1 ground floor street front first
45 feet. Open door businesses, e.g. real estate offices, banks with tellers and no drive throughs, nail and
hair salons are allowed. Now the council is prioritizing eliminating the 13132 language that allows for these
other uses, these smaller service business to thrive and compliment the mix of jobs and uses in the entire
downtown district. Less options for small, appointment -only business will force residents to travel further
for these vital services and the staff and clients they bring that frequent the retail shops, restaurants, banks
in the core daily. This 13132 use zoning designed on the shoulders of the small downtown district should be
preserved for its core economic health, livability and job creation. She requested the council require that
businesses and jobs remain in this small BD2 zone. There is already more multifamily square footage
allowed in this zone than business, once it is 100% gone, there is no room in the small downtown core to
bring it back. She requested the council renew the moratorium and design standards for six months to get
this right as there is no rush.
6. COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. EXTENSION OF MORATORIUM ON CERTAIN BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS
IN THE BD2 ZONE
City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained two days ago the council adopted an ordinance to extend the
moratorium through May 19'. However, because that ordinance passed on a 4-3 vote, it will not take effect
until sometime next week. The moratorium ends today, so theoretically starting tomorrow building permit
applications could be submitted that would vest to the existing design standards, zoning, etc. To the extend
the council wants to prevent that from happening, the council has an opportunity at this meeting to adopt
the ordinance in the packet that would, with at least five votes, take immediate effect and would also extend
the moratorium until June 2nd. That date was chosen after consulting with the development services director
to determine the amount of time that likely would be needed for the designated street front issue to be
returned to the council for further consideration.
Mr. Taraday continued, the idea is the council could extend the moratorium tonight through June 2nd and
then take up the designated street front issue on May 17th and perhaps the following meeting, and still have
time to adopt an ordinance before the moratorium expires on June 2n1. Of course, as long as the moratorium
is within the six month authority, the council has some discretion to extend it further, but staff does not
believe that it will take longer than June 2' to complete work on the designated street front. If it appears
on May 17' that more time is necessary, the council could extend the moratorium again, but his
understanding after consulting with the development services director is that it should come to council on
May 17d`.
Mr. Taraday identified minor amendments that he suggested be made to the packet version. He referenced
the draft extension moratorium ordinance on page 4, pointing out the title references both Ordinance 4253
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 21, 2022
Page 3
Packet Pg. 103
8.B.d
and 4254 (Ordinance 4254 was adopted on Tuesday). As Section 1 does not reference Ordinance 4254, he
suggested a minor edit to Section 1 that would read, "...extended by Ordinances 4253 and 4254 ..." The
second edit would add a whereas clause before the last whereas clause that reads, "Whereas Ordinance
4254 extended the moratorium throwh May 19`h, 2022 but did not pass with sufficient margin to take
immediate effect; and. He apologized for the edits, but said with the moratorium expiring, they are
necessary.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, EXTENDING
THE MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR
BD2 ZONED LOTS THAT DO NOT FRONT ON A DESIGNATED STREET FRONT AS IMPOSED
BY ORDINANCE 4247 AND EXTENDED BY ORDINANCES 4253 AND 4254.
Council President Olson said she was excited for the opportunity to pass this ordinance with a super
majority and have it take effective immediately so there will be better design standards in place.
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO
AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE ATTORNEY, ADDING ORDINANCE
4254 IN SECTION 1 AND THE ADDITIONAL WHEREAS CLAUSE.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked Mr. Taraday to send councilmembers the language he read for the
additional whereas. Mr. Taraday shared his screen so councilmembers were able to read it and repeated the
amendments, revise Section 1 to read, "...extended by Ordinances 4253 and 4254 ..." and add a whereas
clause before the last whereas clause that reads, "Whereas Ordinance 4254 extended the moratorium
through May 19`h, 2022 but did not pass with sufficient margin to take immediate effect; and.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (6-0), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, CHEN,
TIBBOTT, BUCKSHNIS, AND PAINE AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she has either an amendment or a clarification. She referred to the 15t'
whereas clause (WHEREAS, the history suggests that what was seen in 2011 as the logical limits of the
downtown commercial core may no longer fit the circumstances of 2022 due to the fact that certain blocks
are showing vibrant commercial activity right up to the edges of the designed street front map; and) and
questioned why 2011 was used when the original Ordinance 3628 regarding BD zones was adopted in 2007.
Mr. Taraday said it was most recently amended in 2011. Interim Planning Manager Kernen Lien said 2011
is the ordinance that adopted the current extent of the designated street front. Councilmember Buckshnis
relayed her understanding it was updating Ordinance 3628. Mr. Lien agreed.
Councilmember Buckshnis said in reading this, it is kind of judgmental and she preferred using logical
limits, fit the circumstances, etc. She questioned if that whereas clause was even needed. Mr. Taraday
pointed out a typo in that whereas clause; it should be "designated," instead of "designed." In his opinion
the whereas clause is helpful because it explains why the extension of the moratorium to June 2nd is
necessary; it is necessary because the council wants to reevaluate the designated street front map. That is
essentially the primary reason for the proposed extension. He felt it was a helpful whereas clause, but
recognized the council was free to amend.
Councilmember Buckshnis said now that Mr. Taraday had explained it, she was fine with it. She suggested
a whereas clause saying the definition of the 13132 is mixed residential. She has yet to see where council has
deliberated on the two options which were given to the council at the time of the B134 zones and wanted to
have language that states, "Whereas B132 always been recognized by council as mixed residential." Mr.
Taraday answered the whereas clauses explain in essence the reasons for what the council is doing today,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 21, 2022
Page 4
Packet Pg. 104
but do not prevent the council from taking action in future. He realized that some people may still disagree
with the analysis provided regarding the BD zone. That whereas clause does not prevent the council from
stating in the future that there is not going to be residential only structures anywhere in the BD2 zone. There
are several ways to accomplish that such as drastically increasing the designated street front map, a map
amendment, text amendment, etc. That whereas clause does not prevent the council in the future from doing
what the council wants to do with residential structures.
Councilmember Buckshnis said it was Ordinance 3918 that describes the subdistricts and BD2 is downtown
mixed commercial. She would like to have a whereas in Ordinance in 3918 stating the BD2 zone is defined
as downtown mixed commercial.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS/COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, TO ADD A
WHEREAS CLAUSE THAT ORDINANCE 3918 DEFINES BD2 AS DOWNTOWN MIXED
COMMERCIAL.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented some councilmembers lived through this; she recalled former
Councilmember Petso saying land use is permanent, you better be very careful with what you do. She has
read a lot of materials, she appreciated the work done by staff and Mr. Taraday, but in her opinion Ordinance
3918 was left out of the agenda memo and she felt it was a very important ordinance. The new moratorium
addresses street fronts and defines building types. Ordinance 3918 defines BD2 as downtown mixed
commercial. She had not seen any materials related to transition zones, etc. This further acknowledges that
there are a number of important ordinance related to the BD topic.
Councilmember Paine said the whereas that refers to 2011 is the reason for extending the moratorium from
May 19th to June 2"d. She did not believe this new whereas clause adds additional clarity or a compelling
story which is the reason for having clear whereas clauses.
Council President Olson said the comment by Councilmember Paine was a fair point. She was the one that
noticed Ordinance 4254 was not referenced in the whereas clause and even though it didn't change
anything, it did document the history and she felt the same about adding language regarding Ordinance
3918. It does not have an impact because the council can choose what they think is appropriate for the BD2
zone, but it documents the history and therefor it adds value.
Councilmember Chen valued the history and the additional understanding via adding Ordinance 3918 to
the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Taraday commented it is true that Ordinance 3918 was one of the ordinance that amended the BD
zoning code, but the language about downtown mixed commercial has been in code since 2008; it was not
amended by Ordinance 3918. It was not staff s goal in drafting the memo regarding the history to identify
every ordinance that has amended any aspect of the BD zone. Staff s focus was on the ordinances they felt
had some relevance to the designated street front and the BD2 uses which is why Ordinance 3918 is not
referenced. He did not think there was any harm in referencing it, but it does not add much to explain why
the council was doing this. Ordinance 3918 was primary about building height and things like that, not
about uses or the designated street front. The red lines in the ordinance show where it was amended.
Councilmember Buckshnis read from Ordinance 3918, Whereas the following work sessions with the
members of the ADB and Planning Board took place July 9, 2013, February 13 and February 27, 2013. She
recalled it very clearly and she was sure Councilmember K. Johnson did as well and likely Councilmember
Tibbott. It defines the subdistricts, whereas the memo goes into the reasoning behind the street fronts; in
her opinion reference to Ordinance 3918 added a valuable piece of history. Ordinance 3918 was a pivotal
year when the council was looking at the BD zones; some may not feel it adds value but she thought it did.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 21, 2022
Page 5
Packet Pg. 105
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, CHEN,
TIBBOTT, AND BUCKSHNIS, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE VOTING NO.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY -ONLY BUILDINGS IN THE BD2
ZONE
Senior Planner Mike Clugston offered to review the language in the packet.
Councilmember K. Johnson said the first step is to un-table this item so the council can discuss it.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON
TO UN -TABLE THIS DISCUSSION ITEM FOR INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR
MULTIFAMILY ONLY BUILDING IN THE BD2 ZONE.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday said he included a recommendation in the agenda that the council not un-table
the motion as it will be a much easier process to move the ordinance in packet. Otherwise a number of
amendments would need to be made to the ordinance that the council tabled. If the council prefers to start
where they left off on Tuesday, that is certain the council's prerogative.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked for further clarification, advising she did not see the recommendation to
not un-table the item and she did not understand how the council could discuss it without un-tabling it. Mr.
Taraday relayed the recommendation to move the ordinance in the packet. Tuesday's motion was to move
the ordinance in that packet. They are not the same ordinances and the council's deliberation would be
much more straightforward if the council began by moving the ordinance in the packet.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
THE SECOND.
Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her understanding that by not removing the item from the table, it would
be tabled indefinitely. Mr. Taraday agreed, explaining there is no obligation to ever remove something from
the table. His intent was to provide the most streamlined process; the ordinance in tonight's packet will be
the best starting point for council's deliberation and starting anywhere else will make deliberations more
complex. He recommended leaving Tuesday's ordinance on the table and starting deliberations with the
ordinance in tonight's packet.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING INTERIM
DESIGN STANDARDS FOR STAND-ALONE MULTIPLE DWELLING BUILDINGS IN THE BD2
ZONE, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE INTERIM STANDARDS,
AND LIFTING THE MORATORIUM THAT WAS ESTABLISHED THROUGH ORDINANCE 4247
AND EXTENDED THROUGH ORDINANCE 4253.
Councilmember Tibbott said staff did a good job of capturing the essence of Tuesday's conversation and
he agreed with the language used to describe the design standards. He will support ordinance.
Councilmember Paine said she will support this ordinance and hoped it would be sufficient for as long as
it was needed. She hoped the feasibility study regarding the needs of either commercial businesses or
residential in this part of town would be completed prior to the moratorium's expiration on June 2nd. She
will support the interim ordinance, expressing her preference to have moratorium lifted well before June
2nd
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 21, 2022
Page 6
Packet Pg. 106
8.B.d
Councilmember Chen asked for clarification on design standard D, some roof modulation is required with
preference for step-down that follows the slope when slope exists. He asked if that affected the building
height. Mr. Clugston answered this was offered as an amendment on Tuesday. It does not affect the
maximum height in the zone which is still 30 feet for the BD2 zone, but requires some roof modulation and
step-down is one of the option.
Councilmember Chen asked if the roof modulation referred to the same building or separate buildings. Mr.
Clugston answered it would refer to two separate buildings, As the slope steps down, there would be roof
modulation between the buildings and the intent is that each building would have some roof modulation.
That could be achieved via a step-down or other ways. Councilmember Chen summarized the intent is for
the view from the higher building to not be blocked by the building lower on the slope. Mr. Clugston said
he did not know if that was the intent of adding this standard. If there is a slope, the buildings would step
down the slope and there would be opportunity to modulate the roof. Councilmember Chen expressed
support for the ordinance.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if Exhibit A, Chapter 22.43.080, was adopted as part of this ordinance.
Mr. Taraday answered yes.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT,
ADD TO THE END OF SECTION A, INTENT, "AND COMPLY TO HUMAN SCALE BY
VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL MODULATION."
Councilmember Buckshnis said a builder with over 20 years' experience indicated using "compatible within
the downtown area" could result in a big block building and suggested adding human scale. The intent of
the amendment is to take vertical and horizontal issues into account. She recall Councilmember Tibbott
asking about that relative to the post office building.
Councilmember Paine asked if an addition to the intent helped describe what was required or was that
accomplished via the specifics regarding materials, private amenity space, street site amenities, roof
modulation, landscaping, etc. Human scale is subjective depending on context. Adding human scale is a
broader discussion that should be reviewed by the planning board and ADB to ensure they are comfortable
with adopting that because they would need to review against it. Development Services Director Susan
McLaughlin answered this section will be a subsection of the broader design standards. The intent and
purpose of those design standards already articulate human scale, keeping with the historic nature of
downtown, repeating historic patterns, vertical and horizontal modulation, etc. so it would be redundant.
Having an intention statement identifies the outcome once all the design standards are rolled up.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS WITHDREW THE AMENDMENT MOTION WITH THE
AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO AMEND SO THE TITLE OF THE ORDINANCE READS, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR STAND-
ALONE MULTIPLE DWELLING BUILDINGS IN THE BD2 ZONE, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS
THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE INTERIM STANDARDS. , AND LIFT-ING—THE
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON,
TO AMEND ITEM 2 RELATED TO BALCONIES, TO ADD AT THE END OF THE FIRST
SENTENCE, "DECKS ENCROACHING INTO SETBACKS SHOULD BE LIMITED TO THE
SECOND FLOOR ONLY."
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 21, 2022
Page 7
Packet Pg. 107
8.B.d
Councilmember Buckshnis commented it is important to understand that decks encroach on the vibrancy
of the City because it is part of the common space. Therefore, she wanted to ensure that decks that encroach
into the setback were limited to the second floor and up.
Councilmember Paine assumed all decks would on the second or third floor and she did not understand
what this amendment would change. Most likely decks would encroach, but not beyond 5 feet.
Councilmember Buckshnis provided an example, pointing out on the post office building part of it is
commercial and she considered the patios to be decks. Mr. Clugston explained the intent of the standard
was balconies are on the second and third floors of buildings and can project out or be built into the building;
decks and patios are at the ground level which is why two different standard distances were proposed. On
the ground level, they can project into the 15 foot setback by 10 feet and balconies on the second and third
floors can project a maximum of 5 feet.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
THE SECOND
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. ADJOURN
With no further business, the council meeting was adjourned at 6:11 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 21, 2022
Page 8
Packet Pg. 108
several issues, some it can control and others likely not, including the environment, increased
transportation requirements and emergency management. This process will take time and several
stakeholders are effected including governments like the City and Port, the Washington State Department
of Transportation, Ferries as well as private entities and each have various requirements and objectives
including determining the waterfront of the future. The waterfront is one of the City's gems, visited by
thousands each year. How a person enjoys the waterfront is very personal; the Edmonds waterfront he
enjoyed as a kid is very different from today's waterfront and collectively the stakeholders need to
determine what they want it to be in the future. Each of the waterfront stakeholders plays a significant
role and realistic solutions need to be identified for some of the challenges. The Port of Edmonds
contributes greatly to the waterfront, as an environmental steward, a place for citizens and guests to enjoy,
and the economic impact it brings to the City as one of the most significant tax contributors. The Port is
committed to working with the City and other stakeholders in this process, expecting a cooperative and
collaborative effort that addresses the best interest of all.
Marlin Phelps said if there was someone in the community who grew up here, went to college, came
back and did something of great substance to which a younger generation wants to emulate her,
something very good has been done, a legacy. He commented Edmonds is a fine city with a fine city
council. He relayed in 2015, Judge Linda Coburn gave an order to have a private inspector work for him,
unsolicited, which he thought was odd but he was grateful. The inspector ran a PUD list of where his wife
of 10 years had lived and none of it was close to what he had known to be true. He goggled her, looked at
several background check websites, found his name and her kids' names, but her employer is a law firm
Honigman, Miller, Quartz and Cohn. He was being persecuted and had good story, so he called 50 law
firms, and the only one that returned his call was Honigman, Miller Quartz, Cohn so he knew there was a
connection. U.S. Senator Carl Levin then abruptly retired, became the managing lawyer of that law firm.
Meanwhile, he received a letter from Maria Cantwell offering her help. Senator Levin was Maria
Cantwell's mentor in the senate. He referred to the murder of Tom Wells, the path of righteousness, and
finding out who killed him, something that is well within the City's rights and is why municipal courts
were invented.
Michelle Dotsch, Edmonds, commented she had little time to prepare because the BD2 agenda item was
recently changed and Friday's packet did not contain some of the information being presented today. She
pointed out BD2 has the label downtown mixed use commercial, a separate district from all the other BD
zones because it is complimentary to the BD zone, especially BD ground floor street front which only
allows businesses with open door policies, not by -appointment businesses unless they are grandfathered
in. BD2 allows offices such as accountants, lawyers, doctors, dentists, medical, acupuncture, counseling,
tutoring, etc., businesses that provide services not permitted in BD 1 and providing a symbiotic
relationship. BD4 is labeled downtown mixed residential which the proposal is trying to turn BD2 into.
She questioned why BD2 was called mixed use commercial when the zones were created instead of
saying it is all BD4, downtown mixed use residential. She expressed concern with doing this hurriedly
and having outside people evaluate what is best for Edmonds. Multifamily is being constructed
throughout Edmonds; the zones considered did not include all the multifamily downtown such as up on
the hill, on 3', 2' or 5'. She referred to the book, Building a Vibrant Community, and a statement in the
book about not rushing things and not thinking that what is good for one city is good for another. She
questioned whether the goal was to build a vibrant city for Edmonds, that considers walkability, use of
services, and that leads to using retail and commercial.
Jack Malek, Shoreline, a Windermere relator, spoke regarding BD2 Designated Street Front. He has a
listing for the Soundview Plaza on 2" d & James; the suggested extension is in front of 2" d & James which
he opposes. The market study favors residential; allowing mixed use and a more robust ability to adapt to
different economies is a smarter choice. He suggested a fully residential building could be allowed with
the option to use the ground level for commercial in the future to allow for fluctuating market conditions.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 24, 2022
Page 2
Packet Pg. 109
8.B.e
Mayor Nelson described the procedures for virtual audience comments.
Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, referred to the tree ordinance, explaining Edmonds has taken the rights
and worth of their trees, making the building and safety of their homes infeasible with regulatory and
monetary takings. The intent seems to be to decrease the value of vacant property so the City can acquire
it at lower prices for their tree agenda. Edmonds has 35% tree canopy but only 2% buildable vacant land
in single family zones. She questioned whether it was necessary to punish those needing and providing
housing. In 2017, she and her family found a beautiful, sloped 1.25 acre property with trees to build
homes for themselves and her then 82-year old parents. They hired a geotech whose reports verified there
was no critical area, and water retention and soil integrity on the sloped property was so strong, he
certified no risk of slides in the next 100-200 years. The report was provided to Edmonds planning who
assured them there was no obstacle to dividing the property and they purchased it. After purchasing, Mike
Clugston advised dividing would be difficult with the small wet corner that is a landslide risk area; he did
not reveal this before. With his encouragement, they gave the corner to the neighbor, a process that took
two years, and were then ready to apply for division in November 2020, the week the Edmonds city
council halted applications to write tree codes requiring exorbitant tree fees and more work from their
engineers and arborists. On June 22, 2021, Edmonds council voted to take ownership of every tree on all
vacant, private properties, violating the constitution's takings clause. Before division is permitted for
single family homes, payment of $3,000412,000 for each tree needing removal must be made to the City.
Ms. Ferkingstad continued, they have applied for division retaining 50% of the trees, forfeiting safety and
mountain and sound views. The City's response letter states all trees retained on private property become
the City's protected trees involuntarily and indefinitely. When the property is sold, no trees rights remain
for homeowners. In the event a tree is damaged, arborist appraisals are still required for every tree, at a
costs of $200-$300 each along with a list of replacement trees and planting locations or payment of an
additional $2500 for each tree in addition to the worth of each removed. An attached drawing showed
about 40% of their property is now classified as untouchable critical area, shocking their geotech. Trees in
this area would not count toward the 30% open space or tree retention. She relayed Kernen Lien's
explanation that if 50% of trees are retained, trees in critical area count toward retained trees. If less than
50% are retained, trees in the critical area do not count and additional trees must be retained, plus fees of
over $107,000. She urged councilmembers to let them build their homes without the unconstitutional
[inaudible] only upon vacant land owners and future homeowners. The Edmonds tree ordinance violates
the 5th and 14' amendments and takings clause of the U.S. Constitution, the Washington State
Constitution, the Growth Management Act, and the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. She requested the
council reconsider and rescind the tree ordinance.
Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, spoke regarding Ordinance 4079, the 2017 upzone of the SR-99 and park
mitigation. In 2017 the City promised to improve the park system within or near SR-99 to address
geographic gaps in service. Specifically, the City promised to expand and partner with the Edmonds
School District. This was always a bit of a false commitment as there are no Edmonds schools in the SR-
99 area. Second, explore property acquisition and development and partner with neighboring and
overlapping jurisdictions to expand recreational opportunities for the community. By and large that did
not happen with the exception for the Uptown Market last year, no acquisition and no improvements since
2017. Chase Lake is not in the SR-99 area so another false commitment. Third, acquire park land in the
SR-99/104 area to provide adequate park services in redeveloping areas, create new civic spaces to
enhance investment and revitalization while meeting recreational needs especially where service gaps
exist or high residential impact is planned. That clearly did not happen. Defining the best routes and
treatments to create pedestrian and bicycle corridors did not happen. Increasing connections to the
Interurban Trail using signage, sidewalks, curb extensions and other pedestrian and bicycle enhancements
focusing on crossing Highway 99; the City did not even include the Interurban Trail in the bicycle
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 24, 2022
Page 3
Packet Pg. 110
8.B.e
improvement plan. Strongly considering the formation of a Metropolitan Park District; again, did not
happen. Broken promises from the past five years not fulfilled in the draft PROS Plan. One new
proposition with only a $1.5 million budget will be less than 1 acre and will not provide adequate service
for residents living in the area with the growth and existing land use applications let alone what is planned
over the coming years or make up for the historic inequity in service provided to this area.
Ms. Seitz continued, those living in the area pay increased property taxes associated with higher land
values in the SR-99 area which the City caused despite the upzone so the expensive property excuse is not
valid because residents already pay higher taxes to offset higher acquisition costs. All the park mitigation
in Ordinance 4079 is feasible if the City stops diverting their revenue to downtown. The PROS Plan CFP
demonstrates the City does not have the will to mitigate development impacts because they are not
identified in the PROS Plan as promises made to this area. With the over $41 million of investment
identified for downtown compared to the less than $4 million for SR-99, the City is not creating spaces
for these commitments to occur. Section 5B of Ordinance 4079 identifies that planned action ordinances
shall be reviewed no later than five years from the effective date by the SEPA responsible official. The
assumptions made by the environmental impact statement are not relevant because the City did not
undertake the required mitigation and is not planning to. August 2022 is the timeline for this review; she
requested the City perform outreach and engage the SR-99 community in the SEPA responsible official's
review of the EIS.
Deborah Arthur, Edmonds, asked whether any of the apartments proposed in BD2 would be designated
for lower rent housing. Next, she did not want streateries to return to Edmonds, noting there were other
options for outside dining. She was interested in having things done to the right-of-way on Highway 99 to
improve safety. She supported construction of a parking garage in downtown Edmonds, envisioning it
would solve a lot of problems. She did not object to closing Main Street occasionally such as once a
month in the evenings, but she did not support an open pavilion with no parking. Something needs to be
done about all the crime on 80t' and 76t''.
Arisha Ko, Edmonds, described her family's circumstances over the past 16 months. Her parents are
immigrants from Hong Kong and she is the first generation to go high school and university. They are
trying to open a family business restaurant in Edmonds near Highway 99. Her 75-year old uncle has been
helping her dad realize his dream of opening a small business noodle shop. Unfortunately, their general
contractor's construction estimate of $138,000 went up to $400,000 with equipment. Her family will be
borrowing those funds from their uncle. They trusted the contractor to do the work, but he did not finish
the fire alarm system and they failed their firm alarm inspection. The contractor hired a lawyer to sue
them and for the past 16 months they have been unable to afford to pay for the fire alarm system. As a
result, her family has been struggling with mental health issues, including her father with anxiety
disorder. They want to open a noddle shop, Harvest Wonton Noodle, in Edmonds.
7. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items
approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 17, 2022
2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 17, 2022
3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENT
4. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE
PAYMENTS
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 24, 2022
Page 4
Packet Pg. 111
8.B.e
With regard environmental impacts, Council President Olson said the City has been aware of creek
impacts and downstream stormwater issues for decades and this is an opportunity to deal with some of
those issues. With regard to the WWTP, perhaps some of the funds could be used to address the new
environmental requirement/standard that the WWTP is being held accountable for. Retention of WWTP
employees is a real issue and has been on the City's radar and would be money well spent. The nonprofit
allocation was underfunded in the last funding allocation. She encouraged councilmembers to share their
thoughts regarding this opportunity.
Councilmember Paine suggested when this comes back to council, hearing more about green
infrastructure related to global warming and climate crisis. She was also interested in hearing from
directors about their progress on opportunities such as the Perrinville Creek watershed and making a
lasting impact. She was interested in lessening the burden on carbon fuels that are completely destroying
the planet. The council also needs to hear about projects that are already underway. With regard to
providing funds to nonprofits, she was interested in hearing about nonprofits' needs. Some nonprofits
have other funding streams from ARPA; for example, the Edmonds Center for the Arts has some terrific
funding sources. She was also interested in supporting human services and ensuring Edmonds is funding
its fair share and taking advantage of collaborative programs with neighboring communities.
Councilmember Chen said his priorities are small businesses and family relief. There are many small
business who are struggling such as those in Plum Tree Plaza who were negatively impacted by a fire and
some are still looking for space and recovery. He referenced the comments by during Audience
Comments regarding Ms. Ko's family's struggles. Many of the services provided to residents are offered
by nonprofits and they should not be forgotten. A third priority is a homeless shelter and wraparound
services. Last week the council passed a compassionate enforcement ordinance; now it is up to the
council to follow up by provide the necessary services and shelter to make the ordinance better. The
environment is also important; flooding from Perrinville Creek needs to be taken care of.
Councilmember L. Johnson reported she recently learned the City of Kenmore made affordable housing
their #1 priority and have discussed dedicating half of their ARPA funds toward 100 units of affordable
30% or below AMI. She hoped Edmonds would explore that. She also supported fully funding human
services and fully funding Edmonds's share of short term shelter and not simply relying on other cities to
provide it.
9. COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. BD2 DESIGNATED STREET FRONT
Development Services Director Susan McLaughlin commented there is some urgency to lifting the
moratorium. The last time this was discussed, council was exploring the possibility of extending the
designated street frontage. Staff wanted to ensure council understands the implications of doing that, what
a market demand analysis says, and will present that information tonight. Mixed development is
definitely supported by the comprehensive plan as is residential development. This will offer transparency
to what the market wants to do and what the implication would be in terms of extending street frontage or
not in meeting comprehensive plan goals. She apologized for the late arrival of agenda materials,
acknowledging it was a lot to process overnight
Interim Planning Manager Kernen Lien reviewed:
• Recap
o Multifamily Building Permit Moratorium Ord. 4247 adopted to address insufficient design
standards for multifamily only building in the BD2 zone
o Moratorium extended three times —Ordinances 4253, 4254, and 4255
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 24, 2022
Page 7
Packet Pg. 112
8.B.e
o Interim Design Standards for BD2 properties outside the designated street front that allowed
multifamily only were adopted April 29t' with Ordinance 4256
o Led to discussions regarding BD allowed uses and designated street front
o Council indicated a desire to explore expanding the designated street front
• Potential Designated Street Front Designation
� Designated Strcel Fran! �
o�
6ALEY ST
FC( 2 c —
Av J r --
t
4~
� sni
• eR[L =
TELL ST
,-.FT��.
.:. .. __
Spit p01
'a
5 a
ALDER ST
yyeR I Si AlkDl SI
�r Tr, fn--�
i Bn3
n s. ELL IAt � ncNo.0 LY
vr.n t0.Ne
a F
EREER DR
o Councilmembers voiced interest to have commercial office to support retail core
o Legislative history favored pedestrian activity and commercial uses on both sides of the street
as part of the original designation
o Solid blue line = designated street front current in the zoning code
o Light blue = potential areas for expansion of the designated street front
■ 6' Avenue & Main down to Dayton
■ On Sunset, extending 2nd Avenue to James Street
■ Dayton & Third
• 16.43.020 Uses Table
o Clarify ambiguities
o Fill in blanks in uses created by Ordinance 3955
o Reference ground floor in ECDC 16.43.030.B for locational requirements
0 Comprehensive plan: Supports a mix of land uses
o Downtown/Waterfront Area Goal E, E-1
■ Provide for a strong central retail core ... while providing for a mixture of supporting
commercial and residential uses in the area surrounding this retail core area.
■ Support a mix of uses downtown which includes a variety of housing, commercial, and
cultural activities.
• BD Zone Purposes — ECDC 16.43.030
o ...Provide for a strong central retail core at downtown's focal center while providing for a
mixture of supporting commercial and residential uses in the area surrounding this retail core
area.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 24, 2022
Page 8
Packet Pg. 113
8.B.e
Designated Street Front — key differences
o Must be commercial use within first 45 feet of designated street front
0 12-foot minimum ground floor height in BD2 (15 feet in BD 1)
o Different design standards
Market Demand Analysis
o Would designated street front restrictions inhibit market demand for residential development?
o Is there existing market demand for mixed commercial buildings?
o Is there market demand for solely commercial buildings?
Market Analysis Area
o Target Area 1: Edmonds BD1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 designated areas, defined by blue outlined areas,
focus of commercial analysis
o Target Area 2: Expanded search area around downtown core area, defined by yellow
0 Commercial Space Demand Data
RETAIL MARKET
Current
Average days on Market
All SF types of Spaces
available spaces
DOM
Historical days on market — last 3.5 years
N/A
255 DOM (historical)
General retail
5
276 DOM (current)
Vacant — not listed: C'est La Vie
1
N/A
Business appears closed — not listed:
1
N/A
Bop N Burger
OFFICE MARKET
Current
Average days on Market
All SF types of spaces
available spaces
(DOM)
Historical days on market — last 3.5 years
N/A
230 DOM (historical)
1000 to 2000 sf spaces are what currently
7
307 DOM (current)
is available
o Closeness of the historic and current DOM is an indicator of a stable market. Inventory is low
in retail sector but not considered a leasers market
o Retail is the stronger of the two commercial uses based on DOM
Multifamily Rental Units Demand
o Approximately 425 MF rental units in study area
■ 56% Two -bedroom
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 24, 2022
Page 9
Packet Pg. 114
8.B.e
■ 34% One -bedroom
■ 10% Studio and Three -bedroom
0 1 % vacancy rate in the study area
■ 5 —6% vacancy rate considered strong and balanced market
■ Average DOM approximately 20 days
o Biggest takeaway from multifamily information is short supply and high demand of rental
units
o Study did not look at affordability of units, low inventory drives up rents, limiting who can
live in the downtown Edmonds area.
Mr. Lien explained the analysis also looked at types of development that occur:
• Option 1 — Edmonds Downtown Business BD2 Zoning/Residential Option 3-Story over below
grade parking
o Residential Units
�a:1=U•1
■ 2 BR: 7
■ 3 BR: 3
■ Total:22
o Garage parking (1 stall per unit required): 22
o Building height:
■ Garage below level
■ First floor: 9'
■ Second floor: 9'
■ Third floor: 9'
■ Parapet: 3'
■ Total Height: 30'
Option 2: Edmonds Downtown Business BD2 Zoning/Residential Option 3 story
o Residential Option
■ 1 BR: 6
■ 2 BR: 6
■ 3 BR: 3
■ Total: 15
o Garage parking at grade (1 stall per unit required): 16
o Building height:
■ First floor: 10'
■ Second floor: 9'
■ Third floor: 9'
■ Parapet: 2'
■ Total Height: 30'
Option 3: Edmonds Downtown Business BD2 Zoning/Commercial Option 2-Story
o Commercial: 1900 square feet
o Residential Option
■ 1 BR: 4
■ 2 BR: 2
■ 3 BR: 2
■ Total: 8
o Garage parking (1 stall per unit required): 12
o Building height:
■ First floor: 12'
■ Second floor: 8'
■ Parapet: 2'
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 24, 2022
Page 10
Packet Pg. 115
8.B.e
■ Total Height: 2'
o Note: Financial feasibility of a 2-story with commercial may be questionable. Third floor
may not be feasible due to 30' height limitation and specific site constraints
Examples of three story development with below grade commercial entrance
0 307 Bell Street
0 2' & Main (Post Office)
Conclusion of market analysis
o The risk associated with the long absorption time for retail spaces coupled with the drastic
reduction in rental residential units would make mixed use projects not feasible for the
average boutique developer.
Recommendation
o Given that the current designated street front map is consistent with the comprehensive plan
and BD zoning purpose, staff does not recommend extending the designated street front
o Adopt amendment to ECDC 16.40.020 use table which clarifies ambiguity within the code
Councilmember Paine commented there are new properties coming on line in BD 1 that are all
commercial. The analysis recognized it is not a big zone and she asked how having commercial space in
BD 1 would impact BD2. Ms. McLaughlin referred to DOM and the absorption rate and how it factors
into the proforma for developers making those decisions. A solely commercial building has the lowest
absorption rate. Given the increase in commercial from Main Street Commons, the report mentions that
may dilute the absorption rate potential for commercial. It is important to differentiate between
commercial and retail, commercial office, which is allowed in the BD2 zone, has the lowest absorption
rate. Retail has a positive absorption rate, however, the Main Street Commons presents a question
whether it will dilute the historic absorption rate.
Council President Olson commented the council had been waiting for the market analysis; it was not
intentional for it to be added to the packet late. The intent was to have this on last week's agenda, but that
was not possible as the information was not yet available from the consultant. She agreed with the comps,
Mukilteo and Snohomish, and she found the comparisons enlightening for Edmonds as well as for the
other cities. One of the possible deficits in Edmonds compared to other cities is parking per unit;
Edmonds is the only city with 1 space per housing unit versus 1.5-2 parking spaces per unit in other
cities; even the smallest units have 1.5 parking spaces. Edmonds may want to evaluate that criteria.
Council President Olson recognized the importance of what is happen with the Edmonds Commons and
the addition of commercial property, but it is open door commercial property, it is all restaurants. The
design of the BD zones was to have offices in the next ring. As downtown expands, having businesses
and patrons for those businesses is appropriate. She referred to a written comment submitted to council
regarding the idea of versatility and the ability to change the lower level from commercial to residential
via a code change in the future if there is less demand for commercial. However, it does not seem
appropriate to shortcut the BD2 zone today which is what would be done if the edge on the side of 6th at
least is not captured. She remarked on the differential between the commercial absorption on 5t' heading
toward Pine versus on Main Street.
Ms. McLaughlin advised the exiting BD2 zone accommodates commercial, but the proposal the City
received was not commercial. It likely was not commercial because of the absorption rate and the risk to
developers of building solely a commercial building and combining it with residential does not get the
residential yield to justify it due to DOM for a commercial tenant space. Some of the risk is if that mixed
use development isn't feasible, development will not turn over.
Councilmember Tibbott said his comments relate well to Council President Olson's comments. The
spaces currently in the corners where consideration is being given to extending the street front are
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 24, 2022
Page 11
Packet Pg. 116
8.B.e
currently commercial spaces that are rented and where businesses have been in existence for many years.
As the downtown continues to grow and become more robust, the City will run out of that kind of space
in the downtown area. He had no reason to dispute the DOM that were presented, but recalled the spaces
at 2" d and Main filled up quickly with interesting and exciting businesses that the City was glad to have
them. He anticipated the City would be glad to have commercial businesses in the areas where the
designated street front was extended. There are a lot of ways to configure buildings and improve
residential opportunities.
Councilmember Tibbott relayed one of his concerns was losing service space. Eliminating the ability for
residents to walk to a service business instead of driving was a lost opportunity so he wanted to preserve
those commercial space. There are many good examples of integrating commercial into a building that
conformed with the parameters. It may not be ideal to step down into a commercial space, but when
visiting one of those spaces recently, he found it very nice and people appreciate those spaces even if
have to step down two steps.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented all the information in the presentation was new to her as she had
no time to read it prior to the meeting. In addition, it came to a conclusion very rapidly. She asked staff to
review the conclusions again. Ms. Laughlin explained staff wanted to make sure if the designated street
front was extended, there would still be developable lots given the market demand for mixed use
development. The study found it could be more challenging to build a mixed use development with a
residential component, literally because of the ground floor height requirement for commercial offices (12
feet) or retail (15 feet). Those requirements, combined with the City's 30 foot height limit, mean it is not
possible to get enough residential units to ensure a return. The analysis concluded that long absorption
rate to occupy commercial and retail spaces, coupled with the reduction in the number of residential units,
means a mixed use project would be very challenging on these sites. Staff recommends not extending the
designated street front, because there can still be mixed use development, commercial development, and
residential development within the existing zoning and would allow the market to dictate. It is also
consistent with the comprehensive plan and existing zoning ordinance.
Councilmember K. Johnson how many closed door business are currently in the 6t' & Main development.
Mr. Lien estimated 8-10. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if those eight businesses could be replaced.
Ms. Laughlin answered staff is not the developer of this parcel; staff is looking at what the market is
demanding and understanding the likelihood of what types of development they may see. The market
analysis showed those types of businesses are more sluggish at the moment, but that's okay because when
looking at the mix of retail, commercial and residential in downtown Edmonds, there is a very healthy
market overall. The other good news is residential development will continue to boost economic
development; the report states the City cannot go wrong with adding residences to a robust economy that
serves retail and commercial which is consistent with the comprehensive plan. She summarized staff s
goal is to offer transparency to the council with the market analysis and understand the implications. Staff
is not developing this parcel and she did not want to be too hyper focused on that development in
particular.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she was trying to understand the implications of eliminating eight closed
door businesses; those businesses may not relocate in the retail core. Ms. McLaughlin suggested Cynthia
Berne, Long Bay Enterprises, address that. Ms. Berne relayed her understanding there was a specific
proposal for development on the northeast corner of 6" & Main and there are currently two houses with
commercial offices. She asked if Councilmember K. Johnson's question was if those offices were
removed for a new development, would they find places elsewhere within downtown Edmonds to locate.
Councilmember K. Johnson said her question was whether those eight closed door businesses located on
Main Street would be able to find closed door business space in that area. Ms. Berne answered in the area
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 24, 2022
Page 12
Packet Pg. 117
they studied, which was not a full-blown study due to a limited area and limited time, there were spaces
where those businesses could relocate in that core area.
Councilmember K. Johnson recalled citizens have complained about the scale of development. She asked
if the frontage were extended and it was a mixed use development, would the building scale be less and
more compatible with the adjacent residential areas. Ms. Berne answered that was a complicated question;
a lot of analysis goes into developing property. That could possibly be the case, but it could be
commercial development on first floor, office or retail, most likely retail because offices do not like to be
on the first floor, the rest would be residential. If the building was residential multifamily units or
commercial on the first floor, depending on how it is designed, a developer could do a 3-story building
with underground parking. She concluded the building could be exactly the same scale with or without
commercial depending on how the developer analyzes the feasibility of the project.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked if commercial was allowed in BD2. Ms. Berne answered yes. Ms.
McLaughlin commented there could be a solely residential building. Councilmember K. Johnson said her
question was whether commercial was allowed in the BD2 zone. Ms. McLaughlin answered yes. Ms.
Berne asked if her question was related to commercial office or retail; commercial is a general category.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she meant closed door businesses. Ms. Berne asked if that meant office
and/or services. Councilmember K. Johnson answered yes. Ms. Berne said those are allowed in the BD2
zone. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if retail was allowed in the BD2. Ms. Berne answered yes, both
commercial uses are allowed in BD2.
Councilmember K. Johnson did not understand the conclusion not to designate the street front in that
area. Ms. McLaughlin said the conclusion comes from the market analysis. Staff s recommendation pulls
from that conclusion and the reason is because there can be a mix of uses, retail, commercial, residential
under the existing zoning, Extending the street front designation would limit what developers can do and
the City may not see any development in the near term. In terms of limiting the potential to build
residential units downtown, staff thinks that's problematic given there is a very low supply and as the
market analysis indicated only a 1% vacancy rate, a very high demand for residential units. Because of
those implications, staffs recommendation is not to extend the designated street front.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked if that recommendation was based on the 1% vacancy rate. Ms.
McLaughlin advised it was based on the conclusion, the risk associated with long absorption time. If a
building is required to be mixed use, either retail or office for the 45' depth in the BD2 zone, the
absorption rate is quite lengthy so a developer would need to lean on the residential unit yield of the
development to make it feasible. If the number of residential units is cut in half with this zoning change,
that means a developer will likely not be able to make a mixed use development work.
Ms. Berne commented this a very complex discussion on a very complex topic. There are no black and
white answers; she has been a developer and developed projects throughout her career. She listed a few
factors that go into a development analysis.
1. Absorption rate — this is a critical element of the pro -forma analysis that determines financial
feasibility (different types of pro forma analysis can be based on profit margin, internal rate of
return or return on investment). The absorption rate assumptions are based on historical DOM for
the proposed use and projections as to what the future absorption could be. Absorption rates are
directly related to the risk of the given project.
2. Cost of asset management after the project is complete — a mixed use project requires a more
complete property management system than a single use project.
3. The economies of scale — this is directly related to maximizing the highest and best use of a
property, which includes the greatest density possible to spread all the cost of developing and
maintaining the property over the greatest number of income -producing units.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 24, 2022
Page 13
Packet Pg. 118
4. Construction costs — these vary significantly depending on the complexity of the site, the size of
the development company itself, and the market cost of labor and materials.
Ms. Berne explained given the current market in commercial uses and residential supply, they considered
what a developer would to build in the community and how would they look at it given assumptions they
have to make. They will look at current absorption rates; the new retail space, Edmonds Commons, will
be an indicator of how much retail the community can absorb. There are two large spaces in that
development that have not been leased, one that is 4,000 square feet and another that is 1,900 square feet.
If those remain vacant when it opens, that is an indicator there is not a huge demand for more retail
development. Office space has softened, there is more available than there was in the last two years; it not
a bad market but it is not a hot market. Their conclusion was a developer will look at the biggest demand
in the community and that is residential. There is a huge demand for multifamily residential in the
downtown area and there is very little supply. This only affects 21 lots in the BD2 zone, some of which
cannot be developed individually and would have to be assembled. It is about 15 development projects
that could include retail or office on the bottom floor or not.
Mayor Nelson commented this agenda item had exceed the allocated 30 minutes. He asked when council
was provided this packet. Ms. McLaughlin answered 7 p.m. yesterday. He commented when
councilmembers publicly acknowledge they have not read the packet and now want full-fledged
explanations, that holds up and delays everything else. He reminded councilmembers to come prepared so
meetings can be more productive.
Councilmember Buckshnis said providing council a packet at 7 p.m. last night was not a lot of time, but
she read it. She acknowledged the highest and best use downtown would be an apartment complex. A lot
of time was devoted to crafting the BD2 zone in 2013 and it is an offshoot of the BD 1 zone. She did not
believe it should be changed. Ten businesses have been displaced; the other building purchased by this
developer displaced several other businesses. Those business owners are upset and contacted her, but do
not want to rock the boat. She wanted to keep BD2 as it is with the storefront. She referred to the
Greggory building which was the first one with below grade commercial. She recalled the Spee property
took about five years to get through council. The council has spent a lot of time on these designations.
Sixth & Main is a main corridor where there is a lot of traffic.
Councilmember Buckshnis acknowledged a lot people want to live downtown but the fact of the matter is
35% of downtown is already residential. Her vision was to retain the charm in Edmonds and that does not
include allowing multifamily buildings in the BD2 zone. She referred to 39.80.018 which states BD2 is
mixed commercial. The City's comprehensive plan is very outdated and still includes Edmonds Crossing.
She wondered where the ten displaced business would go. Likely they would not be able to afford to
locate in a new building due to increased rent. She preferred to honor downtown businesses and if the
desire was to change the entire BD2 zone, it should be mapped out clearly and not spend less than two
months trying to figure it out, getting a report at 7 p.m. last night and discussing such a hot topic tonight.
She has received a lot of comments from people who are tired of talking about it because no one is doing
anything other than trying to pushing this building through.
Councilmember L. Johnson said listening to this discussion begs the question where is the concern over
the housing shortage, an actual crisis, homes for people to live in, specially multifamily? She had yet to
hear anything about a commercial or retail space crisis, yet the council's focus is on retail displacement
without any actual facts. Her hairdresser was one of the displaced businesses and they found another
location and she suspected others have as well. Councilmembers are referring to the displacement of ten
businesses when there are spaces available to absorb them. She referred to a councilmember's comment
that commercial in the downtown area gives residents an opportunity to walk to a service base; walking is
only possible if one lives in the general area, yet another bowl centric focus. There are many other areas
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 24, 2022
Page 14
Packet Pg. 119
8.B.e
of Edmonds where services can be increased such as Highway 99; she suggested adding services there
that are within walking distance, it does not have to be bowl centric. The analysis found absorption is
longer for commercial; vacant spaces do not create vibrancy, people do. People living in an area support
business.
Councilmember L. Johnson continued, this began as a concern with how the building looks; that can be
addressed by the Architectural Design Board (ADB). Councilmembers keep throwing out other things,
but are not interested in addressing the housing shortage. The council should be prioritizing multifamily,
not fighting against. If it is a priority of council to increase commercial, although it should be a priority to
increase multifamily, she suggested talking about increasing heights, something that was mentioned in the
report but not discussed. In light of news reports about housing and the 1% multifamily vacancy rate in
Edmonds, the council's roundabout discussion does not make sense, priorities are very mixed up and they
do not address the need for housing. She reiterated the council should talk about increasing heights, what
that would look like and what that would offer.
Ms. McLaughlin commented an aspects of the report was to look at zoning challenges if the designated
street front were extended, One of those challenges is the 12-foot floor height suitable for commercial
office. Adding two floors of residential then bumps up against the 30-foot height limit. Sunken
commercial office is challenging from both an absorption rate perspective and is not best practice for
pedestrian friendly design as it is not accessible for people with disabilities and is more expensive. As the
report indicates, the delta is only 2-5 feet; trying to mitigate for the sunken commercial office strategy and
allowing developers to get 3 floors which pencils out for the mixed use development option.
Councilmember L. Johnson referred to a statement that given the height restrictions, mixed use projects
are not feasible for the average boutique builder. She asked if an additional 2-5 feet were allowed, would
mixed use development be feasible for the average boutique developer. Ms. McLaughlin answered that is
what the consultant team concluded. She recognized applying that to Edmonds was challenging. If that
tactic would make mixed use development successful on these BD2 properties and council is willing to
support it, that is a solid recommendation to get what we want, mixed use develop in the BD2 to support
the retail core.
Councilmember L. Johnson commented it is clear something has to give and she hoped it was not
decreasing the availability of multifamily. To her a win -win across the board would be to consider a
height increase and she hoped other councilmembers would consider that. Ms. Berne answered if the
height were increased 2-2% feet, there would be a much more pedestrian friendly commercial spaces. She
pointed out the different between walking down the older Main Street where everything is at eye level
and very inviting compared to the below grade commercial spaces which are not as inviting and not
artistically creative. An addition 2 feet would also result in more residential because the extra 2 feet
would allow commercial with 2 floors of residential. The 30 foot heigh limit at one time meant 3 floors
with 10 feet per floor. The below grade commercial has been an unintended consequence of the 30-foot
height limit
Councilmember Chen appreciated the study and the discussion, noting a lot of work was done in a short
amount of time. He referred to the conclusion, which relates to whether the development will work for the
developer. He acknowledged developers are very important to the economy, but he preferred the study
focus on Edmonds, whether extending the designated street front was good or bad for the City in the long
term. Real estate and commercial markets fluctuate. He preferred the study focus on the outlook for the
City and not what will work for the developer.
Ms. McLaughlin answered that was where staff was coming from, what is the intent of the zoning code
and comprehensive plan. She agreed demands fluctuates; staff has done a thorough job of interpreting the
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 24, 2022
Page 15
Packet Pg. 120
policies, zoning code and market demand, the conclusion is not based on a single parcel. All the parcels
that extending the designated street front would apply to were considered and then the average was
factored into the analysis. She empathized the analysis did not focus on a particular parcel or
development; it is about the best approach for the City for the BD2 zone. The goal is to afford the most
flexibility so it does not result in undevelopable lots thereby resulting in a de facto moratorium or lots that
are developed and cannot be occupied (risk of vacancy). It is about balancing marketing demand as it
fluctuates and giving developers the most flexibility moving forward.
Council President Olson remembered a terrific business, a drop in daycare operated by December Louis,
commenting it would be amazing to have a daycare like that at the top of Main Street. She recalled the
history of the 25 foot height going to 30 feet height was the 25 foot limit resulted in 2 story buildings with
flat roofs. The height limit was changed to 30 feet to get pitched roofs, but now people are building flat
roofs to get 3 floors. Mr. Lien explained the height limit actually came down. Back in the day, there was a
40 foot height limit downtown that was reduced to 35 and then to 30 feet in about 1980. What has
changed over the years is what happens between 25 and 30 feet. There have been pitched roofs,
modulation, etc. He summarized the 30 foot height limit has been in place since about 1980.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT,
THAT THE BD USE TABLE IN ECDC 16.43.020.A BE AMENDED TO CLARIFY THE
AMBIGUITY IN THE TABLE AND THAT THE DRAFT ORDINANCE PROVIDED IN EXHIBIT
5 TO AMEND DESIGNATED STREET FRONT MAP AND AMEND ECDC 16.43.020.A BE
ADOPTED.
Council President Olson stressed this is an interim ordinance. The council got this information really late,
but the council needs to make a decision because the moratorium is coming to an end. There are a lot of
moving parts; for example, looking at the designated street front map, it is appropriate to extend it on 6t'
but it may be worth considering moving it north on 5" Avenue and allow more residential there. Since
this is an interim ordinance, it will go to the planning board and there will be more public hearings, so the
council should adopt something a little more conservative that protects the core. A lot of time, effort and
thought went into establishing the BD zones and how they supported each other and in the next few
months, these other things can be discussed with more public participation and participation by the
experts on the planning board.
For Councilmember Buckshnis, Council President Olson advised this was staff s recommendation in the
original packet, not the staff recommendation provided today. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed
support for the motion, and recommended re -analyzing the BD zones. She believed what was done in
2013 was very thorough and comprehensive and she would like to retain mixed use commercial.
Councilmember Paine did not support extending the designated street frontage for the reasons outlined
tonight. BD2 allows for mixed use which means multifamily, commercial and all the options. The most
conservative methodology would be ensure developers and businesses are not impacted in ways the City
cannot recover from. The demand analysis states to have effective commercial, building heights would
need to be raised 2-5 feet and that current market conditions support multifamily housing. The City needs
more housing in the downtown area; housing abundance and options are good for the community. She
supported having more analysis done, but was not in favor of extending the moratorium or having a de
facto moratorium. She supported having this considered in a broader way through normal procedures like
multifamily design guidelines and zoning.
Councilmember L. Johnson referred to comments about sticking with the original 2013 plan. That begs
the question whether there was a housing crisis in 2013 and what was the focus in 2013. Sometimes
things need to change with the times and not get stuck in the past. This presentation was through and the
information, although provided late, was easy to understand; a councilmember only needed to read it and
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 24, 2022
Page 16
Packet Pg. 121
8.B.e
it pretty much explained itself although it may not have been the outcome some hoped for. With regard to
analysis, no analysis is needed to understand the need for more housing; the need is clear, specifically
multifamily housing. A delay does not address the housing crisis, something the City needs to focus on
and it also seems like kicking can down the road. She did not support the motion.
Councilmember Chen said he cannot support the proposal, not because he didn't not like it, but because
he was confused. Within the same meeting, staff presented two conflicting recommendations, one is to
extend and this one is not to extend. More analysis is needed. Ms. McLaughlin said staff did not
recommend extending the designated street front in a previous agenda. Mr. Lien explained the ordinance
in the packet was for council consideration. Ms. McLaughlin said the ordinance was prepared that way
because at a previous meeting, it appeared the council wanted to go in that direction. Given the timeliness
the moratorium, staff wanted to have that ordinance ready but wanted to share the implications of doing it
so council could make an informed decision.
Mayor Nelson clarified staff drafted an ordinance but did not recommend it. Ms. McLaughlin said staff s
recommendation was not to extend; council asked for an evaluation related to extending the designated
street front.
Councilmember Chen asked if this was urgent or was there more time. Mr. Lien answered the moratorium
expires June 2" d which is one of the reason the ordinance is in the packet. If council acts on the ordinance
tonight, it will be in effect before the moratorium ends. The urgency depends on whether the council
wants to extend the designated street front. It is possible to extend the moratorium again, but it has been
extended three times already. Councilmember Chen concluded more study was needed including looking
at the relationship to the City's development from a long term standpoint, not from the standpoint of one
project. Ms. McLaughlin said the analysis studied all the parcels this would be applicable to
approximately 15 parcels.
Council President Olson referred to the agenda memo which states staff will provide a more specific
recommendation at the council meeting on Tuesday. This was not the recommendation in the packet. The
motion she made was in conflict with the recommendation made on the slide. Her recommendation is in
the interim, stay the course, extend the designated street front on Main and through the process that
follows, all of this will be revisited during the hearings. She asked it was better to adopt an interim
ordinance rather than extend the moratorium or would it be better to extend the moratorium. Ms.
McLaughlin agreed with a previous councilmember's comment that enough analysis has been done to
know where this will land. At this point up it is to council in terms of the direction they want to go, vote
to either extend the designated street front or not. Council President Olson clarified the motion on the
table is to extend the designated street front and all the attachments to the ordinance in the original packet
before the new information yesterday.
For Councilmember L. Johnson, Council President Olson explained the motion is the last two sentences
on packet page 196 in the staff recommendation section. That section also stated staff would provide a
more specific recommendation at the council meeting on Tuesday. She restated the motion:
THAT THE BD USE TABLE IN ECDC 16.43.020.A BE AMENDED TO CLARIFY THE
AMBIGUITY IN THE TABLE. A DRAFT ORDINANCE IN EXHIBIT 5 WHICH AMENDS THE
DESIGNATED STREET FRONT MAP AND AMENDS ECDC 16.43.020.A IS HEREBY MOVED.
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO SIMPLY CLARIFY THE AMBIGUITY BUT NOT EXTEND THE
DESIGNATED STREET FRONT.
Councilmember L. Johnson said obviously the ambiguity needs to be clarified, but as has been stated, the
moratorium has been extended a number of times, the council has the information it needs to make an
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 24, 2022
Page 17
Packet Pg. 122
8.B.e
informed decision. Clarifying the ambiguity is necessary but she did not believe extending the designated
street front was in the City's best interest.
Councilmember K. Johnson did not support the amendment although she supported the original motion.
She clarified a misstatement during discussion, when she on the planning board in 2012, there was
discussion was about 25 plus 5 feet not 30 feet. The height was never intended to be 30 feet, it was
intended to be 25 feet plus 5 feet for articulation.
Councilmember Paine expressed support for the amendment because there is new, good, data -based
information and this is the cycle of market. This may have been what was needed in 2013 or 2008, but it
is no longer those times. Not extending the designated street front would allow more multifamily housing,
would not put the entire BD1 and BD2 in a moratorium, and offered Edmonds a lot more opportunity for
vibrancy and participation in the marketplace.
Councilmember Buckshnis did not support the amendment and will support original motion. Zoning is
permanent for a long time; this is the result of a rush decision, targeted toward one parcel when it affects a
larger area. From an interim standpoint, the 6th & Main parcel is very important to the downtown business
area and the designated street map should be extended to allow commercial on the lower level.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, PAINE AND
L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, TIBBOTT AND BUCKSHNIS
AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO.
Mr. Taraday pointed out the main motion is lacking specificity with regard to the map. Before the council
votes, he wanted to ensure staff understood the map because there is not an amended map in the packet.
He believed he understood what the maker of the motion intended and Mr. Lien described earlier in his
presentation where the designated street front could be extended. Mr. Lien said the amended map is
Exhibit 1, packet page 198. The ordinance contains a space for a public hearing date; a public hearing is
required within 60 days of adoption of an interim ordinance. He recommended setting the public hearing
date before the vote. July options include the 5th, 19th, or 26th. Council President Olson advised the public
hearing would be held on July 19th
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, TIBBOTT
AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS
CHEN, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Mayor Nelson commented he did not believe the council would get to the Waterfront Study agenda item.
2. STORMWATER CODE (ECDC 18.30) UPDATE
Interim Public Works Director Rob English introduced Rebecca Dugopolski, PE, Herrera Environmental
Consultants, and Engineering Program Manager Jeanie McConnell. He explained this item was discussed
in July 2021 and public hearings were held in September 2021. The project was delayed by a SEPA
appeal and the resignation of the City's stormwater engineer. Staff is proceeding now that the appeal is
complete and Herrera Environmental Consultants was hired to help with the process.
Ms. Dugopolski reviewed:
• Why the Update?
o The Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit requires the City's development code to meet or
exceed Ecology's standards designed to protect surface water from being impacted by
development
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 24, 2022
Page 18
Packet Pg. 123
8.B.f
ULong Bay Enterprises, Inc.
Real Estate Consulting
May 23, 2022
MEMORANDUM
To: City of Edmonds
Susan McLaughlin
Development Services Department Director
From: Long Bay Enterprises, Inc.
Cynthia Berne
Principal/Broker
Subject: Submarket Demand Analysis for Commercial uses in the BD2 zone and surrounding
Downtown zones.
Per your request we have performed a cursory market demand analysis regarding commercial
uses in the BD2 zone and immediate surrounding area of Downtown Edmonds. We have added
some general information about the current and recent history for the demand of rental multi-
family units. (See attached map depicting target areas referenced below.)
The commercial space analysis, approximate target area, borders Daley Street to the north, a
zigzag to the waterfront and 3rd Ave to the west, Holly Drive to the south and 7th Ave to the east.
The multi -family rental information, approximate target area, borders Daley Street to the north,
waterfront to the west, Pine Street to the south and 7th Ave to the east.
Market demand for any use, does not limit itself to submarket zones, but more from a sense of
"place" for a given particular use. For instance, a retailer looking to locate in Downtown
Edmonds will focus on zones that allow the proposed use but will not target one zone. Rental
rates, parking availability, visibility to auto and pedestrian traffic are examples of criteria that
may go into a decision on where to locate rather than a specific zone.
Submarket Demand Analysis (studying a very small micro area) does not lend itself to the
general real estate data bases for all the statistical information. Many data bases are city wide
driven, and or regional analysis. We pulled information from several sources and then
extrapolated data for the micro area of study. This is not an exact science, as there may be a
pocket of data missed for the micro market area, but the sources below offer a comprehensive
look at Downtown Edmonds.
Long Bay Enterprises, Inc. 320 Dayton Street, # 200 Edmonds, WA 98020 (206) 937-9536
www.longbayenterprises.com
Packet Pg. 124
List of sources used
8.B.f
Commercial Broker Association multiple listing data base
Northwest Multiple Listing Service data base
Snohomish County Assessor's web site
OfficeSpace.com
Hotpads.com
Loopnet.com
Apartment.com
Rent.com
Trulia.com
Walking the target area for signage of space available that is not listed in any of the above
COMMERCIAL SPACE DEMAND DATA
RETAIL MARKET
Current available
Average Days on Market (DOM)
all SF types of spaces
spaces
Historical Days on Market —
N/A
255 DOM (Historical)
Last 3.5 years
General Retail
5
276 DOM Current
Vacant — Not listed:
1
N/A
C'est La Vie
Business appears closed —
1
N/A
Not listed:
Bop N Burger
OFFICE MARKET
all SF types of spaces
Current available
spaces
Average Days on Market (DOM)
Historical Days on Market —
N/A
230 DOM (Historical)
Last 3.5 years
1000 to 2000 sf spaces are
7
307 DOM (Current)
what currently is available
MULTI -FAMILY RENTAL UNITS DEMAND DATA
There are approximately 425 muti family rental units in the target area. The largest number of
units are 2-bedrooms, which account for approximately 56% of the total units. One -bedroom
units represent approximately 34% of the total unit supply and the remainder 10% are 3
bedrooms and studios. Currently there are approximately 5 units (three 2-bedroom units and
two 1-bedroom units) available in the target area, which equate to a 1% vacancy rate. A 5-6%
vacancy rate is considered a strong and balanced market for Lessors and Lessees. From the
small amount of information, we could gather from our sources, we extrapolated the average
DOM to be approximately 20.
DEMAND CONCLUSION
The data above demonstrates that historically and currently the retail market has been stable,
strong, and even robust at times. The closeness of the historic and current DOM is a good
indicator of a stable market. The inventory is low in the retail sector but not what is considered
a Lessor's Market. The office data shows a stable and at times strong market. The retail
Long Bay Enterprises, Inc.
Packet Pg. 125
8.B.f
market is the stronger of the two commercial uses analyzed, using the indicator of DOM as the
key factor. There are many other indicators to analyze but this study did not lend itself to the
next layer of research, that being calculating the full office and retail inventory in the entire
submarket. The additional information this next layer of research would provide is the vacancy
rate of each commercial use. The vacancy rate is a valid indicator but is more informative to a
prospective developer than prospective tenants or zoning criteria review.
The addition of Main Street Commons, to the commercial district of Downtown Edmonds, is
worth noting as a very large influx of retail uses that add to the current inventory. The absorption
rate of all the retail space in this new development will be a significant indicator of the strength
and demand for retail space. In many ways it is a project that will generate more interest in this
corridor, but it could also affect the inventory enough that the demand will slow due to this new
supply of spaces.
The multi -family information is more cursory in nature as it was not an initial request of this
analysis. It is an important factor in the overall review of zoning uses and requirements and
therefore we added this general information to help with the broader discussions. The biggest
take away from the multi -family information is the obvious short supply and high demand for
these rental units. We did not evaluate the affordability of the current market inventory, but a
brief look indicates that the extremely low inventory is driving the rent rates very high and
therefore limiting those that can afford to live in the Downtown Edmonds area.
FEASABILITY OF MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT IN THE BD2 ZONE
The results of the Otak massing development analysis identifies that the mixed -use alternative
reduces the number of multi -family units significantly in comparison to all residential unit
alternative. Due to the cumbersome height requirements for the commercial space and height
limit of the entire building, the project loses an entire floor of residential units, reducing the
number of units from 15 to 8. The commercial space is approximately 1900 SF which could
render 3 small -size retail spaces. The risk associated with the long absorption time for the
retail spaces (see chart above average DOM at 276) coupled with the drastic reduction in
rental residential units would make the mixed -use project not feasible for the average
boutique developer. There are several factors to consider for a project of this type to be
determined feasible; below are a few examples
1. Absorption rate —this is a critical element of the pro -forma analysis that determines
financial feasibility (different types of pro forma analysis can be based on profit margin,
internal rate of return or return on investment). The absorption rate assumptions are
based on historical DOM for the proposed use and projections as to what the future
absorption could be. Absorption rates are directly related to the risk of the given project.
2. Cost of asset management after the project is complete- a mixed use project requires
a more complete property management system than a single use project.
3. The economies of scale — this is directly related to maximizing the highest and best
use of a property, which includes the greatest density possible to spread all the cost of
developing and maintaining the property over the greatest number of income- producing
units.
4. Construction Costs- these vary significantly depending on the complexity of the site,
the size of the development company itself, and the market cost of labor and materials.
Long Bay Enterprises, Inc.
Packet Pg. 126
8.B.f
Edmonds Map
Target Area 1: Edmonds BD1,2,3,4 & 5 Designated areas, defined by blue outlined area
Target Area 2: Expanded Search area around downtown core area, defined by yellow highlight
Long Bay Enterprises, Inc.
Packet Pg. 127
8.B.g
Otak
Memorandum
To: Cynthia Berne, Long Bay Enterprises
From: Sierra Carson, AICP Candidate, Chad Weiser
Copies: File
Date: May 23, 2022
Subject: Edmonds BD2 Zoning Analysis —Recommendations
Project No.: 20793
Purpose
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide recommendations to Edmonds City Staff and City Council
on potential code changes to the BD2 zoning regulations. The findings of this analysis indicate no
significant revisions to the code are required, although some minor refinements in code language and
standards should be considered. The recommendations include suggested code changes to the
requirements for the BD2 zone to address inconsistencies and to improve the ease of development for
owners and developers in achieving the intent of the allowances within the zone.
Summary of 13132 Zoning
Development in the BD2 zone is regulated through the development standards located in Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 16.43. New buildings in the BD2 zone located along a
Designated Street Front must have a street level floor with commercial uses at a minimum 12 foot height.
New buildings located outside of the Designated Street Front are not required to have commercial uses
on the first floor and may be multifamily residential (only) buildings.
New buildings in the BD2 zone are limited to 30 feet in height. Height is defined as the vertical distance
from the average level of the undisturbed soil of a site covered by a structure to the highest point of the
structure. Buildings located along a Designated Street Front are allowed to place commercial storefronts
below grade with limitations as defined in the code. No off-street parking is required for new commercial
or retail uses, and one parking space is required per multifamily residential unit. Public open space is
required in new developments on lots of 12,000 square feet or more or on lots with 120 feet or more of
street frontage. Please reference the Edmonds BD2 Zoning Memo for additional information.
Summary of Comparable Cities
Other Puget Sound communities similar to Edmonds, such as Mukilteo and Snohomish, have similar
downtown zoning requirements as Edmonds, although Edmonds has more subsets of their Downtown
Business District zoning. Mukilteo and Snohomish are similar in size and scale to Edmonds including their
downtown areas. In general, the Downtown Business District zoning is very comparable between all three
communities including permitted uses and bulk/dimensional standards. However, there are some minor,
but notable differences. Both Mukilteo and Snohomish have higher maximum height requirements (35
11241 Willows Road NE, Suite 200 1 Redmond, WA 98052 1 Phone 425.822.4446 1 otak.com
I: Itemplkernenlbdlcouncil 05.17.221final 22 0523_edmonds bd2 zoning analysisrecommendations.docx
Packet Pg. 128
Edmonds BD2 Zoning Analysis —Recommendations
Page 2 of 4 $ B g
May 23, 2022
and 40 feet respectively) than Edmonds, but in comparison, require more off-street parking for both
commercial and residential uses. Mukilteo restricts residential development on the ground floor of new
buildings in their downtown business zone similar to Edmonds BD2 regulations for Designated Street
Front, while Snohomish has no restrictions on the location of residential development. Please reference
the Zoning Memo — Additional Research on Comparable Cities for additional information.
Recommendations
Permitted Uses
Permitted uses in the BD2 zone are listed in ECDC 16.43.020. No changes to specific permitted uses are
recommended. It is recommended to revise the use table ECDC 16.43-1 to clarify where multi -dwelling
housing is allowed to eliminate the inconsistencies in language regarding the allowance of all residential
development in the BD2 zone when not on a Designated Street Front.
Site Development Standards (setbacks, height)
Site development standards for the BD2 zone are located in ECDC 16.43.030.(A). Existing regulations
limit building development in the BD2 zone to 30 feet in height. The analysis shows that a 30-foot building
height with a required 12-foot first floor height puts constraints on mixed use development within the
downtown core. Requiring a 12-foot commercial first floor along with a 30-foot height limit, constrains the
ability of a developer to build three stories on many sites within this zone. It is possible to develop a 3-
story mixed use building while meeting the code requirements for the BD2 zone if the site has sloping
topography and the commercial space is, in part, set below existing adjacent grade. By using the average
grade methodology for measuring building height, as defined in the code, developers have been able to
achieve a third floor. The addition of a third floor to a mixed use development project within the existing
height limits often results in needing to build a partially subterranean first floor. The below grade
commercial space impacts the aesthetics, marketability and desirability of street front commercial as well
as the general streetscape appearance in the downtown business district. Examples of developments in
the downtown business district where these regulations have impacted development have been included
for reference, see Figures 1, 2, and 3 below.
Figure 1. Three story development with a below grade commercial entrance.
I: Itemplkernenlbdlcouncil 05.17.221final 22 0523_edmonds bd2 zoning analysisrecommendations.docx
Packet Pg. 129
Edmonds BD2 Zoning Analysis —Recommendations
Page 3 of 4 $ B g
May 23, 2022
It is recommended a minor increase in allowed building height be considered in the BD2 zone, as well as
any other BD zones similarly affected. This height increase would create more flexibility for a developer to
design a 3-story mixed use development. An increase of two (2) to five (5) feet in building height would
encourage more 3-story mixed use redevelopment by making a third story feasible on more sites and
allowing already feasible sites to be developed in a manner that avoids less desirable subterranean first
floor commercial space. This recommended change is intended to make the Designated Street Front
commercial requirement as feasible to integrate into a 3-story development as developing an all -
residential development. Any increases in height should be crafted with code language that limits all BD2
development to no more than 3-stories in height.
Figure 2. Three story development with a below grade commercial entrance.
I: Itemplkernenlbdlcouncil 05.17.221final 22 0523_edmonds bd2 zoning analysisrecommendations.docx
Packet Pg. 130
Edmonds BD2 Zoning Analysis —Recommendations
Page 4 of 4 $ B g
May 23, 2022
G-gle EaM Pro — B X
File Edk Y J-k Ada yap
Figure 3 — A multi -family residential building (left) adjacent to a Mixed Use Building (right)
showing the 3-foot height difference in the first floor
Designated Street Front
Regulations for the Designated Street Front are located in ECDC 16.43.030.(B). The extent of Designated
Street Front as reflected on the Designated Street Front Map (EDCD Map 16.43-1), could be expanded
based on the discretion of the City Council and the City's goals for the downtown business district. An
expansion of the extents of Designated Street Front should be addressed in the context of the other noted
recommendations.
Off -Street Parking
Off street parking regulations in the BD2 zone are located in ECDC 16.43.030.(D) The existing off-street
parking regulations are more flexible than comparable cities and do not negatively impact the ability to
develop parcels in the BD2 zone. As long as the community is not experiencing a negative impact from a
less stringent parking requirement in the downtown area, no changes are recommended for this
requirement.
Open Space
Open space regulations in the BD2 zone are located in ECDC 16.43.030.(E). No changes are
recommended for the Open Space regulations.
I: Itemplkernenlbdlcouncil 05.17.221final 22 0523_edmonds bd2 zoning analysisrecommendations.docx
Packet Pg. 131
ALLEY ACCESS
LL
U)
STAIRS
0
0
PARKING
rn
22
0
A
LU L
w
LU
d
LU
A
STAIRS
EL.
J
DESIGNATED STREET FRONT
GARAGE
RESIDENTIAL UNITS:
1BR: 12
2BR: 7
3BR: 3
TOTAL:22
2 BR
921 SF
2BR
927 SF
STAIRS
1 BR
670 SF
1 BR
625 SF
1 BR
625 SF
1 BR
625 SF
STAIRS
3 BR
1,440 SF
EL-
LOBBY
up
2BR
2BR
921 SF
927 SF
STAIRS
1 BR
670 SF
2 BR
970 SF
1 BR
625 SF
STAIRS
EL.
3 BR
1 BR
1,325 SF
700 SF
GROUND LEVEL 2ND FLOOR
GARAGE PARKING1: (1 STALL PER UNIT REQUIRED)
TOTAL: 22
BUILDING HEIGHT:
GARAGE: BELOW GRADE
FIRST FLOOR: 9'
SECOND FLOOR: 9'
THIRD FLOOR: 9'
PARAPET: 3'
TOTAL HEIGHT: 30'
Edmonds Downtown Business BD2 Zoning /
Residential Option 3-Story Over Below Grade Garage
8.B.h
C
2BR 2BR OLLL
921 SF 927 SF
d
d
r
STAIRS fA
1 BR 1 BR
685 SF 600 SF
T
d
1 BR 1 BR N
600 SF 600 SF o
m
STAIRS to
Q
EL. E
3 BR M
1 BR 1,200 SF W
570 SF
0
d
3RD FLOOR 4-
0
ch
c
c
a�
L
0
0
U
co
c
a�
E
a
r
w
a
OPTION 1
Packet Pg. 132
RESIDENTIAL
IDENTIAL
.�V*Pv
REs,�roN dim
lgv� OT&I'lk
Packet Pg. 133
8.B.h
ALLEY ACCESS
STAIRS
vLLj
o I0
GARAGE
CO
PARKING
rn
A 16
O
J
WdIF
J
w
LU
A
XIco
W
STAIRS
I
3BR
1,260 SF
I
LOBBY
J
C
O
L
LL
d
i
d
R
C
a'l
N
0
ca
Q
R
X
W
C
E
O
DESIGNATED STREET FRONT
d
t�
4-
0
N
GROUND LEVEL 2ND FLOOR 3RD FLOOR
�L
RESIDENTIAL OPTION: GARAGE PARKING1: (1 STALL PER UNIT REQUIRED) (D
1 BR: 6 TOTAL: 16 L
2BR: 6 O
3BR: 3 BUILDING HEIGHT: U
FIRST FLOOR: 10'
co
TOTAL: 15 SECOND FLOOR: 9'
THIRD FLOOR: 9'
PARAPET: 2'
TOTAL HEIGHT: 30' Q
r
c
m
E
t
Edmonds Downtown Business BD2 Zoning / Residential Option 3-Story
OPT10 Packet Pg. 134
46 V
va%lr S
RESIDENTIAL
OPTION 2
a
Packet Pg. 135
8.B.h
ALLEY ACCESS
I
LL
STAIRS
to
0
GARAGE
0
PARKING
rn
A 12
O
J
W
�
J
LL
W
Q
ofBIKE
STAIRS
LOBBY
Tw
COMMERCIAL
1,900 SF
J
C
O
LL
d
N
L
N
R
C
a1
N
d
N
m
N
N
Q
E
R
K
W
C
d
E
0
DESIGNATED STREET FRONT
d
O
N
aI
GROUND LEVEL
2ND FLOOR
L
COMMERCIAL: 1,900 SF
GARAGE PARKING1:
(1 STALL PER UNIT REQUIRED)
TOTAL: 12
L
O
RESIDENTIAL UNITS:
BUILDING HEIGHT:
NOTE:
°
U
1 BR: 4
FIRST FLOOR: 12'
Financial feasibility of a two-story with commercial may be
co
2BR: 2
SECOND FLOOR: 8'
questionable. Third floor may not be feasible due to 30' height
3BR: 2
PARAPET: 2'
limitation and specific site constraints.
TOTAL: 8
TOTAL HEIGHT: 22'
t
Q
r
c
m
E
t
Edmonds Downtown Business BD2 Zoning 1 Commercial Option 2-Story
01 Packet Pg. 136
RESIDENTIAL
t4s
Packet Pg. 137
8.B.h
U-
STAIRS
Cn
0
I
GARAGE
0
PARKING
rn
14
O
WI�
wUj
J
a
A
XIco
W
STAIRSV"
I
LOBBY
COMMERCIAL
1,900 SF
J
c
0
LL
m
as
L
N
N
R
C
Cl
N
d
0
N
0
Cal
to
N
Q
M
K
W
C
d
E
O
DESIGNATED STREET
FRONT
d
O
GROUND
LEVEL 2ND FLOOR 3RD FLOOR
N
COMMERCIAL OPTION:
GARAGE PARKING1: (1 STALL PER UNIT REQUIRED)
L
1,900 SF
TOTAL: 14
L
O
RESIDENTIAL UNITS:
BUILDING HEIGHT:
NOTE:
0
U
1 BR: 6
GROUND LEVEL: 12'
Third floor may not be feasible due to 30' height limitation and
2BR: 6
FIRST FLOOR: 8'
specific site constraints. An additional 2' in height allows for a
00
3BR: 2
SECOND FLOOR: 8'
more traditional building design that would front the street with
PARAPET: 2'
commercial at grade with fronting public sidewalk.
E
TOTAL: 14
c�
TOTAL HEIGHT: 32'
Q
r
c
m
E
Edmonds Downtown
Business BD2
/ Commercial 0 tion
Zonin g p
t
3-Stor a
Y
OPT
Packet Pg. 138
loto 0
jpp�o a *
;000 9 , , ir
7A
v
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
m
Packet Pg. 139
8.B.i
Otak
-. a 0,0 .411 -0" "A 6 1
Memorandum
To: Cynthia Berne, Long Bay Enterprises
From: Sierra Carson, AICP Candidate, Otak
Copies: Chad Weiser, Otak
Date: May 19, 2022
Subject: Edmonds BD2 Zoning Analysis —Additional Research on Comparable Cities
Project No.: 20793
Purpose
The purpose of this memo is to provide a short summary of the approaches comparable cities to
Edmonds have taken to zone their historic downtowns. A summary of both the City of Snohomish's
Historic Business District zone and Mukilteo's Downtown Business zone have been provided below. A
comparison table, showing at a glance the differences between the approaches Snohomish, Mukilteo,
and Edmonds have taken in their downtown zoning, has been provided, see Table 1 below.
Table 1. Research Comparison Table
Setbacks
(NOTE: may differ for
developments
adjacent to
residential zones)
Max Height
Multi Family
allowed
Commercial Space
requirements
Open space
requirements
Special Parking
requirements
Commercial
parking
Edmonds BD2 Zone
0'
30'
Yes, but restricted on
`Designated Frontage
Streets'
Yes, first 45' of the
bottom floor must be
commercial
Yes (on lots larger
than 12,000 or with a
frontage of over 120 ft)
Yes
No parking required
for commercial or retail
uses. 1 parking space
required for every 500
Mukilteo DB Zone
0'
Required if necessary to
provide adequate 10'
wide sidewalk
35'
No, no multifamily only
structures allowed
Yes, the first portion of
the street level floor of all
structures must be
commercial
No
No
Parking varies per use.
4.5 to 5 spaces required
per 1,000 sqft of gfa for
commercial or retail uses
Snohomish HBD Zone
0'
40'
Yes, no restrictions
No, no requirements
No
Yes
1 parking space required
for every 400 sgft of new
commercial, retail, or
service uses.
11241 Willows Road NE, Suite 200 1 Redmond, WA 98052 1 Phone 425.822.4446 1 otak.com
m
k:Iprojech20700120793105 documentslreports122_0519_edmonds bd2 zoning analysis —additional research on comparable cities
.docx
Packet Pg. 140
Page 2 of 2
Edmonds BD2 Zoning Analysis —Additional Research on Comparable Cities May 19, 2022
sqft of uses that are
not commercial or
residential.
Residential 1 parking space 1.5 spaces per studio
2 spaces for two -
parking required per and one -bedroom units, 2
bedroom dwellings or
multifamily unit. spaces for all other units,
larger, 1.5 spaces per
plus 1 space for every
one -bedroom dwelling,
four units for guest
1.2 spaces per dwelling
parking
unit per studio unit
Snohomish Downtown Zoning Summary
Snohomish has designated their downtown zoning district, the 'Historic Business District' (HBD).
Snohomish allows both multifamily buildings and mixed -use buildings anywhere within the HBD, but has a
max residential density of 18 dwelling units per acre. Snohomish has no setback requirements for
buildings in the HBD zone and has a max height of 40 feet. There are no open space requirements for
new structures in the HBD zone.
New buildings within the HBD zone containing commercial, retail, or services uses, must supply one off
street parking space for every 400 square feet of gross floor area. Multifamily dwelling units must provide
parking based on unit size, 2 spaces for two -bedroom dwellings or larger, 1.5 spaces per one -bedroom
dwelling, and 1.2 spaces per dwelling unit per studio unit.
Mukilteo Downtown Zoning Summary
Mukilteo has designated their downtown zoning district 'Downtown Business' zone (DB). Multifamily
buildings are not permitted in the DB zone, residential units are only allowed as part of a mixed -use
building. The front portion of the street level of all structures must be occupies by commercial/retail uses.
Residential uses may be located above, behind or below commercial/retail uses. In the event that a lot
depth is less than 60 feet, the entire street level of the structure must be a commercial/retail use. Mukilteo
has designated certain streets as 'pedestrian -oriented street' in their downtown business district subarea
plan and has codified design standards pertaining to pedestrian access for structures along these
streets. All structures in the DB zone are encouraged to build right up to the lot line, unless a setback is
required for adequate pedestrian access, public space, or outdoor dining areas. The max height in the DB
zone is 35 feet.
There are no special parking regulations for the DB zone, parking is required based on the proposed use,
which can vary from 4.5 to 5 spaces required per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Residential uses
must provide one and one-half spaces per studio and one -bedroom units and two spaces for all other
units, plus one space for every four units for guest parking.
k:Iprojech20700120793105 documentslreports122_0519_edmonds bd2 zoning analysis —additional research on comparable cities
.docx
Packet Pg. 141
8.B.j
Otak
_. a 0,0 .411 -0" "A 6 1
Memorandum
To:
Cynthia Berne, Long Bay Enterprises
From:
Sierra Carson, AICP Candidate, Otak
Copies:
Chad Weiser, Otak
Date:
May 19, 2022
Subject:
Edmonds Downtown Business Zone BD2 Zoning Memorandum
Project No.:
20793
Zoning Analysis
The purpose of this zoning memorandum is to provide a summary of the development regulations in the
city of Edmonds BD2 zoning district. This summary will support the planning team with development of
designing yield alternatives analyzing the effects of zoning changes on housing yields.
Background
The purpose of the Downtown Business (BD) zone is to:
■ Promote downtown Edmonds as a setting for retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses
supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, and as a destination for visitors
from throughout the region.
■ Define the downtown commercial and retail core along streets having the strongest pedestrian links
and pedestrian -oriented design elements, while protecting downtown's identity.
■ Identify supporting arts and mixed -use residential and office areas which support and complement
downtown retail use areas. Provide for a strong central retail core at downtown's focal center while
providing for a mixture of supporting commercial and residential uses in the area surrounding this
retail core area.
■ Focus development between the commercial and retail core and the Edmonds Center for the Arts on
small-scale retail, service, and multifamily residential uses.
The "downtown business" zone is subdivided into five distinct subdistricts, each intended to implement
specific aspects of the comprehensive plan that pertain to the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center. Each
subdistrict contains its own unique mix of uses and zoning regulations, as described in this chapter. The
five subdistricts are:
■ BD1
— Downtown Retail Core;
■ BD2
— Downtown Mixed Commercial;
■ BD3
— Downtown Convenience Commercial;
■ BD4
— Downtown Mixed Residential;
■ BD5
— Downtown Arts Corridor
11241 Willows Road NE, Suite 200 1 Redmond, WA 98052 1 Phone 425.822.4446 1 otak.com
k: project120700120793105 documentsVeportsVinal_22_0519 edmonds bd2 zoning memo.docx
Packet Pg. 142
Edmonds Downtown Business Zone BD2 Zoning Memorandum
Page 2 of 6
May 19, 2022
The extent of the BD2 zone is show below in Figure 1
1
1
1
1
ccd®¢
Downtown
Business a
BD1
Downtown Retail Core
BD2
Downtown Mixed Commercial
BD3
rn
Downtown Convenience Commercial
BD4
a
Downtown Mixed Residential
BD5
Downtown Arts Corridor
Historic Sites Sites on Edmonds Register of Historic Places
uRezones Contract Rezones (contractual requirements apply)
PRD PRD - Planned Residential Development
Figure 1. Excerpt from City of Edmonds Zoning Map
Allowed Uses
Permitted uses in the BD2 zone are listed in EDCD Table 18.43-1 and provided below for reference.
Permitted uses are split into three use categories, Commercial, Residential, and Other Uses. Some other
uses may require a conditional use permit. Uses that are only allowed as secondary to a permitted or
conditional use are marked with *.
Commercial Permitted Uses
■ Retail store or sales
• Offices
■ Service uses, including dining or entertainment uses
■ Automobile sales and services
■ Enclosed fabrication or assembly areas associated with and on the same property as an art studio,
art gallery, restaurant, microbreweries/distilleries or food service establishment that also provides an
on -site retail outlet open to the public
■ Dry cleaning and laundry plants which use only nonflammable and nonexplosive cleaning agents
k:Iproject120700120793105 documentsVeports;Vinal_22_0519 edmonds bd2 zoning memo.docx
Packet Pg. 143
Page 3 of 6
Edmonds Downtown Business Zone BD2 Zoning Memorandum May 19, 2022
■ Printing, publishing and binding establishments
■ Public markets licensed pursuant to provisions in Chapter 4.90 ECC
Residential Permitted Uses
■ Single-family dwelling
■ Multiple dwelling unit(s)'
Other Uses Permitted
■ Bus stop shelters
• Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020
■ Primary and high schools, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R)
■ Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject
to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070
• Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted use*
■ Commuter parking lots in conjunction with a facility otherwise permitted in this zone*
■ Hotels and motels
■ Museums and art galleries of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public
facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033
Other Conditional Uses
■ Commercial parking lots
■ Local public facilities, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050
■ Amusement establishments
■ Auction businesses, excluding vehicle or livestock auctions
■ Drive-in/through businesses (businesses with drive through facilities)
• Laboratories
■ Day-care centers
• Hospitals, health clinics, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums
■ Museums and art galleries of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public
facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033
■ Zoos and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities
as defined in ECDC 21.85.033
■ Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug abusers
■ Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC
17.100.070
■ Outdoor storage, incidental to a permitted use*
■ Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC*
Site Development Standards
Site development standards for the BD2 zone are listed in ECDC Table 16.43-2. There are no minimum
lot area requirements and no minimum front, side, or rear setbacks. The maximum building heightz is 30
1 A Memorandum of Legislative Intent, dated April 13, 2022, clarified that the current adopted code never intended to
limit the location of multifamily housing outside of the Designated Street Front.
2 Pursuant to EDCD 21.40.030, height means the average vertical distance from the average level of the undisturbed
soil of the site covered by a structure to the highest point of the structure.
k:Iproject120700120793105 documentsVeportsVinal_22_0519 edmonds bd2 zoning memo.docx
Packet Pg. 144
Edmonds Downtown Business Zone BD2 Zoning Memorandum
Page 4 of 6
May 19, 2022
feet. The minimum height of the ground floor within the Designated Street Front is 12 feet3. Definitions for
the Designated Street Front and ground floor are provided below.
Designated Street Front
Pursuant to EDCD 16.43.030 (B) there are special regulations for the ground floor of buildings in the BD2
zone that are located along a Designated Street Front. The locations of the Designated Street Front are
shown in blue in Figure 2 below. The Designated Street Front is defined as the 45 feet measured
perpendicular to the street front of the building lot line fronting on each of the mapped streets.
t� Designated Street Front LI__
5�
r
�r
BELL ST
��'..
BOT N Y
DAYTO
�L=
MAPLE ST
ALDER s7 � � -
11 F-d
r --� WALNUT s
W LLV OR.-
7
a BE13 -.--.
HQM1{�ELL wqv
M
W -
N HOMCLwHG 6R
- x
Q
} ERBEH DR w
Figure 2. EDCD Map 16.43-1: Designated Street Front for BD Zone
3 Minimum height of ground floor means the vertical distance from top to top of the successive finished floor surfaces
for that portion of the ground floor located within the designated street front. If the ground floor is the only floor above
street grade, from the top of the floor finish to the top of the ceiling joists or, where there is not a ceiling, to the top of
the roof rafters. "Floor finish" is the exposed floor surface, including coverings applied over a finished floor, and
includes, but is not limited to, wood, vinyl flooring, wall-to-wall carpet, and concrete.
0
Li
a�
L
R
C
.y
N
N
0
CO
O
E
C�
G
N
N
a
m
O
C
d
E
t
V
R
a+
a+
Q
C
N
E
t
C1
Q
k:Iproject120700120793105 documentsVeportsVinal_22_0519 edmonds bd2 zoning memo.docx
Packet Pg. 145
Edmonds Downtown Business Zone BD2 Zoning Memorandum
Page 5 of 6
May 19, 2022
Ground Floor
Regulations for the ground floor of development in the BD2 zone are in EDCD 16.43.030.(B). The ground
floor is defined as the floor of a building which is closest in elevation to the finished grade along the width
of the side of the structure that is principally oriented to the designated street front of the building (this is
normally the adjacent sidewalk). For the purposes of this section, the ground "floor" is the sum of the floor
planes which, in combination, run the full extent of the building and are closest in elevation to one
another.
Within the BD2, development on the ground floor along the Designated Street Front must consist only of
commercial uses. Any permitted use may be located on the ground floor outside of the designated street
front. If the first 45 feet of the building as measured perpendicular to the street consist only of commercial
uses and permitted secondary uses, then multiple -family residential unit(s) may be located behind the
commercial uses. Parking is not considered to be a commercial use for the purposes of satisfying the
ground floor commercial use requirement within the designated street front. In all areas of the Designated
Street Front, pedestrian access to permitted residential uses is allowed as a permitted secondary use.
When a commercial use is located on the ground floor within the Designated Street Front as shown in
Figure 2, the elevation of the ground floor and associated entry must be within seven inches of the grade4
level of the adjoining sidewalk. When the designated street front of a building is on a slope which does
not allow both the elevation of the entry and ground floor within the designated street front to be entirely
within seven inches of the grade level of the sidewalk, the portion of the ground floor of the building
located within the designated street front may be designed to meet one of the three following conditions.
■ The entry is located within seven inches of the grade of the adjacent sidewalk, and the commercial
portion of the ground floor located within the designated street front is within seven inches of the
grade level of the entry.
■ The building may be broken up into multiple frontages, so that each entry/ground floor combination is
within seven inches of the grade of the sidewalk.
■ For corner lots, a primary entry shall be established for the purposes of determining where the ground
floor entry rules detailed in this section shall apply. The first choice for the primary entry shall be
either 5th Avenue or Main Street. In the case of the BD5 zone, the primary entry shall always be on
4th Avenue. Portions of the ground floor outside the designated street front of the building need not
comply with these access requirements.
Parking
Pursuant to EDCD 16.43.030.(D), no parking is required for any permitted commercial uses located within
the BD2 zone.
Pursuant to EDCD 17.50.010.(C), all new buildings or additions in any BD zone that are not commercial
or residential uses shall provide parking at a flat rate of one parking stall for every 500 square feet of
gross floor area of building. Any portions of a building in any BD zone used exclusively for residential
uses5 must provide one parking stall per dwelling unit.
4 Grade is measured at the entry location for the development.
5 The term residential uses refer to lobbies, stairwells, elevators, storage areas and other similar features.
0
E
a�
a�
c
.E
0
N
N
0
CO
k:Iproject120700120793105 documentsVeportsVinal_22_0519 edmonds bd2 zoning memo.docx
Packet Pg. 146
Edmonds Downtown Business Zone BD2 Zoning Memorandum
Page 6 of 6
May 19, 2022
Open Space
Pursuant to EDCD 16.43.030.(E), new buildings on lots larger than 12,000 square feet or on lots that
have an overall building width of more than 120 feet must provide open space available to the public.
Open space is not required for additions to existing buildings that do not increase the building footprint by
more than 10 percent. A minimum of five (5) percent of the site area must be devoted to open space, the
width of the open space cannot be less than 75 percent of the depth of the open space. Open space must
be provided adjacent to the street front, must be open to the air, and can be provided as any combination
of the following
■ Outdoor dining or seating areas (including outdoor seating or waiting areas for restaurants or food
service establishments).
■ Public plaza or sidewalk that is accessible to the public.
■ Landscaping which includes a seating area that is accessible to the public.
Design Standards
Development in the BD2 zone must be consistent with the design standards outlined in EDCD Chapter
22.43. The design standards provide guidance on the architectural form, ground level details, window
transparency, signage, and other street level, pedestrian oriented, details. The design regulations do not
provide any regulations that are relevant to this size, scale, or use of the structure, and have not been
summarized for the memorandum.
0
E
a�
a�
c
.E
0
N
N
a
m
k:Iproject120700120793105 documentsVeportsVinal 22 0519 edmonds bd2 zoning memo.docx
Packet Pg. 147
9.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/8/2022
Extended Agenda
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Kernen Lien
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review Extended Agenda
Narrative
Extended Agenda attached.
Attachments:
06.03.2022 Extended Agenda
Packet Pg. 148
9.A.a
Items and Dates are subject to change
IPLAMMM BOARD
ARD
Extended Agenda
June 3, 2022
June 2022
June 22 1. Equitable Outreach Plan
2. Development Services Activity Report
3. Comprehensive Plan Update
July 2022
July 13 1. Wireless Code Update Public Hearing
2. Parks Department Second Quarter Update
July 27 1. Parks Tour
Pending 1. Implementation / code updates concerning trees and the UFMP
For Future 2 Climate Action Plan update and public outreach
Consideration
2022 3. Housing policies and implementation (incl Multifamily Design)
4. Comprehensive Plan update preparation and gap analysis
5. Subdivision code updates
6. Community Development Code Amendments / Re -Organization
7. Neighborhood Center Plans & implementation (esp. 5 Corners)
8. Low impact / stormwater code review and updates
9. Sustainable development code(s) review and updates
10. Further Highway 99 Implementation, including:
a. Potential for "urban center" or transit -oriented
design/development strategies
b. Parking standards
11. Parkland Acquisition
12. ADA Transition Plan
13. CIP/CFP
Q
Packet Pg. 149
Items and Dates are subject to change
9.A.a
Recurring 1. Election of Officers (1" meeting in December)
Topics 2. parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department Reports & Updates- First
meeting after previous quarter (4/13, 7/13, 10/12, 1/11/23)
3. Joint meeting with City Council —April or as needed
4. Development Activity Report
Packet Pg. 150