12/18/2012 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
December 18, 2012
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:15 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Strom Peterson, Council President
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember
Development Director
Joan Bloom, Councilmember
Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Rob Chave, Interim Development Services Dir.
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Carl Nelson, CIO
Adrienne Fraley - Monillas, Councilmember*
Rob English, City Engineer
( *Arrived 6:35 p.m.)
Kernen Lien, Senior Planner
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Sandy Chase called the roll. All Councilmembers were present with the exception of
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas.
At 6:18 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding
a real estate matter per RCW 42.30.110(1)(c) and pending litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). He stated
that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 30 minutes and would be held in the Jury
Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of
meeting in executive session. He noted that executive sessions are not open to the public.
Mayor Earling further announced that at approximately 6:45 p.m. the City Council would meet with a
candidate for appointment to the Sister City Commission for approximately 15 minutes in the Jury
Meeting Room. The meeting with the candidate is open to the public.
2. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING A REAL ESTATE MATTER PER RCW
42.30.110(1)(c) AND PENDING LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i).
Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Yamamoto,
Johnson, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and Bloom. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas arrived at 6:35 p.m.
Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Community Services/Economic Development Director
Stephen Clifton, Senior Planner Kernen Lien and City Clerk Sandy Chase.
At 6:45 p.m., Mayor Earling announced to the public present in the Council Chambers that an additional
10 minutes would be required in executive session. Mr. Clifton and Mr. Lien left the executive session at
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 18, 2012
Page 1
6:45 p.m. Councilmember Buckshnis left the executive session at 6:49 p.m. The executive session
concluded at 6:52 p.m.
3. MEET WITH CANDIDATE FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE SISTER CITY COMMISSION
At 6:53 p.m., the City Council met with Sister City Commission candidate Paul Anderson. The Mayor
and all City Councilmembers were present for the meeting.
Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:10 p.m. Following a moment of silence
in memory of those killed in the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, last week, Mayor Earling led the flag
salute.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER WITH THE ADDITION OF A 2 MINUTE
AGENDA ITEM FOLLOWING APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA, PRESENTATION
BY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Bloom requested Items D and N be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO, TO
APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 11, 2012.
B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #135836 THROUGH #135979 DATED DECEMBER
13, 2012 FOR $551,570.05 (REISSUED CHECK #135977 $13.92).
C. CONFIRMATION OF SISTER CITY COMMISSION CANDIDATE PAUL ANDERSON.
E. OCTOBER 2012 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT.
F. IT SUPERVISOR JOB DESCRIPTION APPROVAL.
G. PERSONNEL POLICY EDITS.
H. SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 1 TO ANIMAL KENNELING SERVICES
AGREEMENT.
I. EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO CITY
COUNCIL.
J. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO APPROVE ACCEPTANCE AND RECORDING
OF PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT FOR KEY BANK.
K. AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR THE 76TH
AVENUE W WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT TO SANTANA TRUCKING &
EXCAVATING, INC.
L. REPORT ON FINAL COST ON THE PERRINVILLE CREEK MITIGATION PROJECT
AND ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 18, 2012
Page 2
M. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL
AGREEMENT NO. 1 WITH HDR ENGINEERING, INC FOR DESIGN SERVICES ON
THE WWTP STANDBY POWER DISTRIBUTION AND SWITCHGEAR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT.
O. ORDINANCE NO. 3905 — APPROVING A CHANGE IN ZONING FOR PROPERTIES
LOCATED AT 8609, 8611, AND 8615 244TH STREET SW FROM SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (RS -8) TO MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL (RM -2.4); AUTHORIZING AN
AMENDMENT OF THE CITY'S OFFICIAL ZONING MAP, AND FIXING A TIME
WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
P. ORDINANCE NO. 3906 — ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE CAPITAL FACILITIES
PLAN ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
Q. APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER FOR THE HAINES WHARF PARK AND
WALKWAY PROJECT.
R. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT #1 WITH
HAINLINE & ASSOCIATES FOR THE HAINES WHARF PARK PROJECT.
ITEM D: REAPPOINTMENT OF 3 MEMBERS TO EDMONDS CITIZENS' TREE BOARD.
Councilmember Bloom referred to the recommendation in the agenda memo and requested the name
Susan Paine be replaced with Anna Marie Heckman.
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON,
TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM D AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ITEM N: RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CITY'S INTENT TO ESTABLISH A BUSINESS
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (BID) WITHIN A PORTION OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS.
Councilmember Bloom explained the resolution establishes a hearing date, January 15, 2013, beginning at
approximately 7:00 p.m. The BID Committee will also send out notices to all business owners within the
BID.
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON,
TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM N, RESOLUTION NO. 1285. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
5A. PRESENTATION BY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMISSION.
Larry Vogel, Chair, Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), reported the calendar that the
Commission created has been delivered by the printer. Councilmembers Petso and Johnson distributed
copies of the calendar as their gift to Councilmembers. This is the second calendar the HPC has created;
the response to last year's calendar was overwhelming. Unfortunately the HPC did not have a grant to
create the calendar this year and he thanked the Council for approving the set -up of the accounting
procedure that allows sponsorships of the calendar and sale of the calendar at City Hall and at local
businesses. He and other HPC members plan to invite more businesses to sell the calendars. They also
plan to have a table at the Art Walk. He recognized Councilmembers Petso and Johnson, Council
representatives on the HPC, for their efforts. He also thanked the Council for their support. He announced
there are four vacancies on the HPC in 2013. The HPC is seeking people who are passionate about history
and public service and who want to get involved in the community.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 18, 2012
Page 3
6. DRAFT PROPOSED CABLE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON AND COMCAST.
Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton advised he would provide a brief
overview of the franchise process and terms. Mike Bradley, special counsel for Lighthouse Law Group, is
participating via conference call.
Utilizing hybrid fiber coax cable, Comcast seeks to continue providing cable television service to City
residents, businesses and institutions in competition with the existing cable television operator serving the
City, Frontier Communications. To do so, Comcast and the City must execute a new cable franchise
agreement. The agenda packet includes a staff report, ordinance granting a non - exclusive franchise to
Comcast and a cable franchise agreement between the City and Comcast. Because the franchise
agreement is lengthy, he provided the initial draft to the City Council on November 7 to provide the
Council time to review the agreement.
Using the model used to negotiate the Frontier franchise agreement, a consortium was created consisting
of Snohomish County and nine other cities including Edmonds for the purpose of negotiating a Comcast
agreement template that could be used as a base document for all consortium participants. There are many
benefits of forming a multi jurisdictional consortium such as ensuring the public receives the maximum
rights and benefits from their respective franchise agreement, assuring citizens of each jurisdiction that
their franchise is competitive locally and nationally, and creating a common template and negotiation
strategy to maximize leverage and negotiations.
Mr. Clifton explained Mike Bradley and he negotiated the proposed franchise agreement based on
Edmonds' cable - related need and interests of Edmonds residents, businesses and institutions. The staff
report contains highlights of major provisions of the proposed franchise agreement including:
• Section 2.9: a seven year term of franchise
• Section 4.2: Comcast voluntarily provides one cable outlet of basic and expanded basic service to
most publicly owned buildings within Edmonds including fire stations, City Hall, senior center,
Edmonds Center for the Arts, library, and elementary, junior high and high school buildings
• Section 7.1: Comcast will pay the City a 5% franchise fee based on gross annual revenue
• Section 11.1 and 11.3: potential for the City to add /request a maximum of three additional
channels
• Sections 11.7.1 and 11.7.3: Education or government (EG) fee of $0.35 /per subscriber /month.
Funds can be used for capital- related expenditures such as recording machines, cameras,
annotation devices, etc. The 2013 budget includes $42,000 to purchase new equipment. Under the
franchise agreement, those funds can be reimbursed.
• Section 15.4: $10,000 application fee paid to the City. This fee may be used for any lawful
purpose. Staff recommends setting those funds aside for maintenance of technology - related
equipment.
Mr. Clifton explained other terms of the agreement include extensive customer service requirements,
audit requirements, liability insurance, indemnification requirements, and a performance bond of
$250,000. The franchise agreement is in the public interest and is reasonably comparable to the Frontier
Communications franchise. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance, adopting the proposed cable
franchise between the City and Comcast and authorizing the Mayor to execute the proposed franchise
agreement on behalf of the City.
For Councilmember Buckshnis, Mr. Clifton explained the franchise fee is deposited into the General
Fund. A separate fund will be established for the EG fee to ensure expenditures are used for technology
related equipment.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 18, 2012
Page 4
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETERSON, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3907, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON GRANTING A NONEXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO COMCAST OF
WASHINGTON LLC AND COMCAST OF CALIFORNIA /COLORADO/WASHINGTON I, INC.
TO CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN, OPERATE AND REPAIR A CABLE SYSTEM TO PROVIDE
CABLE SERVICES IN, ACROSS, OVER, ALONG, UNDER, UPON, THROUGH AND BELOW
THE PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Earling thanked Mr. Clifton and Mr. Bradley for their work.
7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON THE PLANNING BOARD
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE PORT OF EDMONDS REQUEST TO
INCORPORATE THE PORT'S HARBOR SQUARE MASTER PLAN INTO THE CITY'S
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE HARBOR SQUARE MASTER PLAN ENVISIONS A MIXED -
USE TRANSIT- ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT. THE MIXED -USE NATURE OF THE MASTER
PLAN WILL ALLOW FOR RETAIL, COMMERCIAL, OFFICE AND PUBLIC USES, AND
RESIDENTIAL HOUSING. THE MASTER PLAN COULD PROVIDE 340 TO 358 RESIDENTIAL
UNITS, 50,400 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL, 9,784 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE, 123,410 SQUARE
FEET OF RECREATIONAL HEALTH CLUB USES (INCLUDING TENNIS COURTS), 3.8
ACRES OF PUBLIC OPEN SPACE, AND 1,091 SPACES OF OFF - STREET PARKING. THE
MASTER PLAN ENVISIONS BUILDINGS OF VARYING HEIGHTS, UP TO A MAXIMUM OF
55 FEET CONCEPTUALLY, BUILDINGS UP TO 35 FEET ARE PROPOSED FOR THE SR-
104/DAYTON STREET INTERSECTION WHILE BUILDINGS OF 45 FEET ARE PROPOSED
ALONG DAYTON STREET (WITH STEP -BACK PROVISIONS FOR PORTIONS ABOVE 35
FEET). FIVE STORY BUILDINGS (UP TO 55 FEET IN HEIGHT) COULD BE LOCATED
TOWARD THE FAR SOUTHERN EDGE OF THE SITE.
Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained the Port of Edmonds has submitted a request to the City of
Edmonds to incorporate the Port's Harbor Square Master Plan into the City's Comprehensive Plan. The
Port envisions a mixed use, transit - oriented development that includes retail, commercial, office, public
uses, and residential development. He emphasized this is a non - project level plan review. The Port has not
applied for a development permit or a rezone.
Mr. Lien reviewed steps in a timeline of the Comprehensive Plan/development review process for Harbor
Square, identifying points where the City Council will be involved:
• City reviews and adopts Harbor Square Master Plan as a Comprehensive Plan amendment
• City and Port enact conceptual development agreement/MOU
• Developer applies to City for final development agreement, City reviews and approves with
conditions
Pursuant to ECDC 20.00.050, an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan may be adopted only if the
following findings are made:
• The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan
and is in the public interest.
• The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare
of the City.
• The proposed amendment would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City.
• In the case of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan map, the subject parcels are physically
suitable for the requested land use designations(s) and the anticipated land use development(s),
including, but not limited to, access, provisions of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses
and absence of physical constraints
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 18, 2012
Page 5
Mr. Lien explained Harbor Square is located within the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center and the
site itself is within the Downtown Master Plan District which includes Harbor Square, the Antique Mall
site, the former Skippers site and the WSDOT parking area. The Downtown Master Plan district is
described as:
Downtown Master Plan. This area is appropriate for design- driven master planned development which
provides for a mix of uses and takes advantage of its strategic location between the waterfront and
downtown. The location of existing taller buildings on the waterfront, and the site's situation at the
bottom of "the Bowl, " could enable a design that provides for higher buildings outside current view
corridors. Any redevelopment in this area should be oriented to the street fronts, and provide pedestrian -
friendly walking areas, especially along Dayton and Main Streets. Development design should also not
ignore the railroad side of the properties, since this is an area that provides a "first impression" of the
city from railroad passengers and visitors to the waterfront. Art work, landscaping, and modulated
building design should be used throughout any redevelopment project (pg. 55).
Mr. Lien explained the Planning Board reviewed the Harbor Square Master Plan during eight meetings
and forwarded a recommendation to the Council to incorporate the Harbor Square Master Plan into the
City's Comprehensive Plan (attachment 3 in the packet). The Planning Board also made 14 specific
recommendations for Council consideration. This is the second of two public hearings; the first was held
on December 4. The Port and staff have provided written responses to questions submitted by
Councilmembers Bloom and Buckshnis (included in the agenda packet). The packet also contains copies
of correspondence the Council received at the December 4 public hearing and following the December 4
public hearing as well as comments received since the agenda memo was prepared.
Councilmember Bloom asked staff to explain the Port's Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance.
Mr. Lien explained certain proposals require State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. Threshold
determinations as a result of a SEPA review include:
• Determination of Significance — requires an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
• Determination of Non - Significance — proposal does not have any significant impacts and an EIS
is not required
• Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance — mitigation brings the threshold to a
Determination of Non - significance
The Harbor Square Master Plan has undergone two SEPA reviews: 1) for the Port Commission's adoption
of the Harbor Square Master Plan, and 2) for the City to consider incorporation into the Comprehensive
Plan. The City also issued a Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance and added a few more
mitigation measures: 1) transportation impact analysis, 2) consider future global warming impacts such as
rising sea level, and 3) average height of all building not to be above 45 feet.
Councilmember Bloom asked whether with the Port's issuance of a Mitigated Determination of Non -
Significance meant the Port did not have to study the soils. Mr. Lien answered it is a non - project action at
this time; the location of buildings, appearance of buildings, etc. is unknown. The Port did a higher level
traffic impact analysis for SEPA review; at the time of a development agreement or planned action SEPA,
more detail will be provided.
Councilmember Bloom noted the soils were not studied. She recalled Mr. Lien stating at a Planning
Board meeting that the soils on this property are consistent with the soils across the street, which she
assumed meant the current Echelbarger property. Mr. Lien answered that was most likely; explaining
portions of the marsh have been filled over time; fill on top of the historic marsh.
Councilmember Bloom referred to the ESC Associates property, recalling when they were doing a
contract rezone, the file contains a statement it is on an earthquake liquefaction zone. She assumed the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 18, 2012
Page 6
soil on the Port property is the same as the ESC Associates property. Mr. Lien agreed. Councilmember
Bloom commented there is no information at this point regarding how deep piling would need to be to
reach the bearing soil. Mr. Lien answered there is no information specific to Harbor Square; he recalled it
was 25 feet on the Antique Mall site.
Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding that the study done to determine feasibility at 55 feet
was done on the bulk of buildings only. Bob McChesney, Executive Director, Port of Edmonds,
responded the initial study, a bulk analysis, done by LMN and Berk Associates in 2009, was to determine
what could be developed on the site in an economically feasible way. That bulk had nothing to do with
soil conditions. Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding that it is very expensive to put piling to
reach the bearing soil. The Port's analysis of feasibility was only based on the bulk of buildings and not
the cost to reach the bearing soil. Mr. McChesney answered generally speaking that was a true statement.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented on the 100 -200 foot buffer in the Shoreline Master Plan and Mr.
Lien's indication that the existing Harbor Square footprint was grandfathered and the Planning Board
added another 25 -feet to 50 feet. She asked whether any case history had been found regarding deviating
from the buffer. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered he had not had an opportunity to research that and
possibly could do so during public comment.
Councilmember Yamamoto referred to page 2 of the ordinance which states the Master Plan could be
considered a subarea plan, which would allow it to be adopted independently of the regular
Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle. He asked the ramifications of considering the Master Plan as a
subarea plan. Mr. Taraday explained the Council can adopt the Harbor Square Master Plan two ways, 1)
as a subarea plan of the Comprehensive Plan, or 2) as a regular Comprehensive Plan amendment. If the
Council adopts the Master Plan as a subarea plan, there is more flexibility with regard to the timing of
adoption as it does not have to be done in conjunction with all other Comprehensive Plan amendments
docketed for the year.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas referred to the comments by Bill Angle at the December 4 public
hearing regarding the $35 million cost of a 1,000 car garage. Mr. McChesney recommended using
numbers very advisably at this stage. The number of cars, cost of structured parking, etc. are things that
cannot be precisely identified/defined at this stage. One of the reasons for five stories on part of the
development is to allow structured parking. He was unsure where the figure of $35 million came from as
it did not come from any of the Port's study materials. He acknowledged structured parking was more
expensive than surface parking. Mr. Angle's comments are worth noting but cannot be relied on at this
stage to guide the process.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Chuck Loomis, Edmonds, an instructor at Edmonds Community College, spoke in support of the Harbor
Square Master Plan. He pointed out the Master Plan would likely be unrecognizable in 1 -2 years due to
changes that will be made. He commented on the current disconnect between downtown and the
waterfront, which does not allow downtown shoppers to make their way to the waterfront. Development
at Harbor Square would tie the waterfront to downtown. The Harbor Square Master Plan addresses a
number of environmental issues that would not be addressed otherwise. Development at Harbor Square is
not likely to impact most of the people here tonight; it is for the next generation, people moving into the
area, the Y generation and millenniums who will need to be enticed to live in Edmonds.
Councilmember Bloom read a letter from Barbara Tipton, Edmonds, who referred to her parent's home,
on Barnegat Bay in Tom's River that was destroyed by Hurricane Sandy. Although a residential
community with views of the Edmonds Marsh would attract new residents, the lessons of Hurricane
Sandy should be heeded. Harbor Square is built on sediment dredged from Puget Sound that was dumped
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 18, 2012
Page 7
into the Marsh. Fill is comprised of decomposed sedges, reeds and rushes and is easily saturated and
poorly drained. The land is within the 100 year flood plain and has a very high water table. The site is
located within a geological critical area; in an earthquake the mud transforms from a solid state to liquid.
A significant portion of the Harbor Square site is rated as highly prone to liquefaction and therefore not
well suited for large scale urban development. The City's 2004 Best Available Science report discusses
fish and wildlife habitat consideration areas; a guiding principle is the need to evaluate potential negative
impacts near critical areas and recommends establishment of buffer zones around environmentally
sensitive areas. The State Shoreline Management Act calls for buffers along shorelines of significance;
the Edmonds Marsh is designated as a significant shoreline. She recommended reconsidering the Port's
vision in the Master Plan approved by the Port Commission on 06 -12 -05 that calls for the construction of
a cultural interpretive center highlighting the marsh and marine environment, suggests a partnership with
Edmonds Community College and other educational intuitions, expanding the trail along the marsh to the
fish hatchery, and installing interpretive displays and signs. The State GMA asks municipals to focus
population growth in designated urban areas to reduce sprawl. She preferred mixed use development in
areas throughout the City such as Westgate, Five Corners, Perrinville, Firdale and along Hwy 99. The
GMA also asks jurisdictions to protect wetlands, frequently flooded areas and lands within geologically
hazardous areas. Land use policies should consider the inherent characteristics of the land, its soils, water
table and topography, setting and surroundings as well as the inevitable sea rise from climate change.
Steve Bernheim, Edmonds, provided a visual presentation that included a statement made by Mayor
Earling in the 07 -08 -11 Edmonds Beacon during his campaign (read by Mr. Bernheim), "I solidly support
and will lead as mayor a real economic development plan that maintains the status quo on building
heights to create jobs and vibrant neighborhoods that keep Edmonds a special place to live." He provided
several photographs along with commentary asking if Harbor Square would solve the City's problems,
what would a Plan look like. Noting the Port makes many promises and asking whether the real costs of
the plan had been considered, and whether alternatives had been considered such as small buildings,
fewer buildings, protection of community standards, residences, low level offices, or retirement
community with some publicly assisted units.
Mayor Earling clarified because all the commentary was in Mr. Bernheim's voice including the quote
from the Edmonds Beacon, he did not want the public to think he had made the comments in the
remainder of Mr. Bernheim's presentation.
Katherine Gold, Edmonds, recalled a distinction made at the 12 -04 -12 public hearing between public
and private views. She agreed the City was not responsible for homeowners' private views; however, the
public's views will be affected because taller buildings around the waterfront will have a confined spatial
feeling. She relayed concern with the impact of taller buildings on the sense of open space while walking
or driving and the additional congestion and population density created by a five story building.
Maintaining the building height at the current 35 -feet will lessen the impact of density on the public and
wildlife. Although an opportunity for economic development, she hoped the development would include
open spaces for gathering, sculpture and other art to enhance the waterfront, and to attract interest and
appreciation of the Edmonds Marsh. Although an opportunity for tourism, new property owners and
increased tax base and commerce, she urged the Council to maintain the quiet setting while structuring a
thriving new part of the town attractive to all. If the Harbor Square Master Plan is incorporated into the
Comprehensive Plan, she suggested a compromise, maintaining the 35 -foot height restriction as well as
incorporating enhanced open spaces. She urged Council not to let developers Ballardize Edmonds.
Rowena Miller, Edmonds, recalled hearing "high rise and density," in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s and now
2012. She reminded Council they are not obligated to follow the Planning Board's recommendations and
hoped the Council does not in this case. She recognized the City needed revenue but felt the proposed
Master Plan did not fit Edmonds' citizens' vision. She urged Council to consider the long term costs
including sewer, stormwater, water, traffic, road maintenance, possible legal costs, construction
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 18, 2012
Page 8
congestion, fire and police. Although benefits have been cited, they are unknown and there are other ways
to save the marsh such as environmental grants and citizen efforts. She preferred the Port repair existing
buildings and property and not use the Edmonds community to rescue the Port and in the process destroy
Edmonds' character. She relayed comments from Norma Bruns, Edmonds, that the waterfront is
precious and hopes that the Council has a vision for the future. Ms. Bruns hoped the Council has the guts
to stand fast to preserve Edmonds' small town feel and quality of life. Ms. Miller urged the Council to
vote no on the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Ernie Collins, Edmonds, a 12 year resident of Edmonds who has lived in 21 places over 44 years of
marriage, commented they have experienced similar situations with strong emotions on extreme sides of
the issue. He referred to perceptions, misconceptions, miscommunication and listening to opposing
viewpoints. The Port has presented a plan for development; although the pros and cons can be argued
endlessly, the responsible reaction is not to complain or resist but to offer another solution. The City has a
process in place to allow the Master Plan to proceed with caution. He urged the Council to seriously
consider the Port's proposal and work together to find a way to resolve it.
John Reed, Edmonds, relayed the Alliance of Citizens for Edmonds' (ACE) position: ACE does not
support the incorporation of the Harbor Square Master Plan into the Comprehensive Plan even if all
Planning Board recommendations are incorporated. Specific reasons are detailed in ACE's 12 -03 -12 letter
to the Council; as currently conceived the Harbor Square Master Plan is not in the public interest, which
is one of the criteria it must meet for incorporation into the Comprehensive Plan. ACE supports
responsible development and redevelopment that respects and compliments the character of Edmonds, its
small town atmosphere and its general low level architecture. ACE does not oppose change and
recognizes change is inevitable, but strongly believes change should be carefully evaluated in light of
what exists in Edmonds and the effect of change on the community and residents. He referred to the
Group of 33 effort in 2007 related to all properties along the tracks from Harbor Square to Main Street.
The proposed alternatives from that process were all multi - family residential mixed use projects ranging
from 4 -10 stories. Citizens were opposed to the substantial building heights and were concerned with the
absence of destination alternatives. He referred to two special public meetings ACE held in March 2008
to discuss potential uses for the properties. The results were summarized in a presentation to Council on
April 1, 2008. He summarized the Port, City and the public should work together to develop a beneficial
alternative vision for the Harbor Square site, taking advantage of the prime location near the waterfront.
ACE supports a process from the bottom up rather than the top down, sponsored and facilitated by the
City. Including citizens, property owners, and organizations is a logical next step in the process.
Eric Livingston, Edmonds, urged Council not to support the Port's request. The documents he has read
do not contain any meaningful discussion regarding Chapter 16.10(B), the general purpose of residential
zones, which includes any growth or development, should strive to preserve for itself and its neighbors
the following values: #4 states freedom from air, water, noise, and visual pollution. 16.10(E) states
protects residential uses from hazards, nuisances such as fire, explosion, noxious fumes and noise, odor,
dust, dirt, smoke, vibration, heat, glare, heavy traffic which may result from more intensive land uses. The
Port's application to incorporate the Master Plan into the Comprehensive Plan states their intent to have
Harbor Square rezoned to allow up to 350 residential units. He pointed out the intent of Chapter 16.10
was to protect residential uses from the hazards listed in the ordinance. Given the location of Harbor
Square, he questioned how residential uses would be protected from train noise, fumes, vibration, etc. He
questioned how much of Chapter 16.10 was needed to approve the request. He questioned the process
whereby environmental issues are resolved at the time of rezone, finding that approval of the Port's
request was in conflict with Title 16.10. He recommended the Council return the Port's application and
ask the Port to return with a plan that does not have a residential focus.
Keeley O'Connell, Edmonds, speaking on behalf of Friends of Edmonds Marsh (FEM), reiterated their
focus during this process was on the health of the Edmonds Marsh now and into the future. She noted
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 18, 2012
Page 9
there were many valid concerns regarding how redevelopment at Harbor Square could affect the Marsh
such as density, amount of impervious surface now and with redevelopment, protection and enhancement
of existing and potential future vegetated buffers, and stormwater impacts. She noted there are a lot of
assumptions and little data to determine the impacts and/or how redevelopment will address the existing
impacts including unfiltered stormwater entering the marsh from and through the site and existing
minimal buffers. FEM feels redevelopment is an opportunity to address some of the current impacts and
look at how the site may function in the future to protect the marsh. FEM feels this is an opportunity to
initiate a process to study and understand impacts. FEM supports adoption of the Harbor Square Master
Plan into the Comprehensive Plan as an opportunity to move forward to study impacts using real data, not
assumptions.
Mike Echelbarger, Edmonds, agreed with the Planning Board's recommendation, pointing out the view
corridor study that contemplates 65 foot heights from 43 locations indicates there are minimal impacts to
views. The action before the Council is not a specific proposal but rather a broad -brush concept
Comprehensive Plan amendment. Questions about soil conditions, etc. will be resolved in the next
process. He pointed out the stadiums in Seattle are all build on the same type of material that is under the
current Harbor Square. He did not agree with all concepts such as the L building on Dayton and along SR
104, recommending it be on one or the other, not both. He also did not agree with the amount of
commercial development proposed in the Master Plan, approximately 50,000 square feet. There is already
too much commercial development downtown as evidenced by vacancies over the past 10 years. He
counted approximately 15 vacancies recently in the area of 5th & Main. The City needs more residential
development in the core which results in more people walking, more services, fewer vacancies and a more
vibrant downtown.
James Claussen, Edmonds, commercial real estate managing broker, certified investment manager, said
people cannot invest in commercial properties in Edmonds under the present restrictions as there is no
return on investment under the current height restrictions. The economic study conducted by Heartland in
2004 found 2 -story buildings were not economically feasible; at least 3 story buildings were needed for
development to be economically feasible. As a result, there has been very little growth in Edmonds from
2000 to 2010 compared to other cities. If these height restrictions existed in the past, the City would not
have allowed the library, Chantrelle's, the Edmonds Theater or the Edmonds City Hall. He sold Old
Milltown a few years ago for $3.2 million; a developer added $3 million in improvements. The bank took
over the property and it was resold last year for $2.535 million, a huge devaluation. After expenses, the
bank received 33% on their money from the sale of Old Mill Town. As a result of building height
restrictions, the value of commercial properties is decreasing but residential properties remain very high.
He pointed out the City's economic challenges have resulted in four police officers not being replaced
when they retire December 31 which affects the livability of Edmonds. He expressed concern with
Councilmember Bloom's statement on the blog regarding why she opposes the Harbor Square Master
Plan when the public hearing had not yet been completed.
Drake Bradley, Edmonds, Bella Coola Condominium on 5"' Avenue, referred to the statement that the
City has no responsibility to protect private views, only public views. However, the study regarding view
impacts includes statements about assessing the impact of increasing development height limits above 35
feet on the views currently enjoyed by neighboring property owners which indicates there was interest in
private property owners' views. However, the methodology of the study did not address those concerns.
The study addressed public view corridors only; all observation points were in the middle of streets or
intersections and in most cases the view was blocked by adjacent building lining the street. He noted most
of the observation sites did not represent a test of whether the height will interfere with views from
residences and restaurants with some elevation. He suggested tethering a balloon to a 55 -foot height on
the northeast corner of Harbor Square and allowing residents to view it.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 18, 2012
Page 10
Charles Gold, Edmonds, commented his private view is not affected and he has no direct or indirect
personal or financial interest in the project. He thanked the Council for passing a balanced 2013 budget.
He commented the way Council deals with this issue will affect Edmonds as a getaway recreational
destination as well as residents' quality of life. He expressed concern with the use of the word conceptual,
finding it is disingenuous as it allows people to be lulled into the idea that the plan is conceptual when it
will in fact happen if the Port is not required to conform to the 35 foot height limit. He was concerned the
unique public view of Edmonds would be lost, walled off by massive buildings from the ferry to the
marsh, obscuring sunsets and views. Citizens should not have to lose the lovely, low -key, laid back,
beachside presence that is attractive to retirees and young families that support good schools. Edmonds
does not need a large influx of young singles with their late night clubs, noise and other police problems.
He feared older citizens may move out to gain a restful and attractive atmosphere. He referred to a
statement in the Port's strategic plan that some development issues could be put to a vote of the District
residents, particularly projects involving significant tax funds and/or major community impacts.
Bob Rinehart, Edmonds, commented due process and due diligence is messy. In this case, the Council is
presented with a choice, halt or move forward with a process, not make a final decision. The Council is
bombarded with emotion, speculation, strong opinions and even a few facts. Although he did not agree
with many of the points made at the 12 -04 -12 public hearing, he admired and respected the passion and
conviction. He urged Council to avoid the Iowa straw poll syndrome where the ardent who voted did not
represent everyone. He commended the Council on their efforts to gather public opinion but urged them
to determine broad public opinion, not just the opinion of people who come to Council meetings or
submit letters to the editor. He also asked Council to use their own judgment. He spoke in favor of
moving the project forward, seeing the potential of bringing a new and exciting dimension to Edmonds.
He urged the public to read the questions submitted by Councilmembers Buckshnis and Bloom and the
responses provided by staff and the Port. He referred to a response to a question submitted by
Councilmember Buckshnis, that this is a non - project action, not an action to approve a development
proposal that will result in a physical development of the site. He noted this is only one of many steps.
Don Kleuenu, Edmonds, resident of a view condominium, recognized views are subject to change on the
whim of the legislative body. He urged Council, should they choose to approve incorporating the Harbor
Square Master Plan into the Comprehensive Plan, to limit the height of the development. Although many
have said this is only the beginning of the process and there will be environmental reviews, he feared
once the 55 -foot height limit was set, the developer would demand it be retained. If he was on Council, he
would want some of the questions provided via a full SEPA review before a decision was made.
Andrea Bonnicksen, Edmonds, explained she moved to Edmonds 6 months ago from Illinois due to the
view, the marina, the beachfront, the vibrant downtown, compact buildings and manageable traffic. A
couple she spoke to who are planning to move to Edmonds said they were attracted by the view and the
downtown personality. She appreciated the efforts of the Port to develop the Master Plan but did not
believe it would enhance Edmonds' uniqueness and appeal. If approved, the Master Plan will result in
densely situated structures that overwhelm the waterfront, create traffic, interfere with the view and look
unappealing. Her questions included: Why not make investments to existing buildings in the area; some
offices are vacant? Will people move to the apartments /condominiums when there is noise from the
trains, particularly if coal trains become a reality? What will the impact be to the marsh and wildlife?
What will the impact be on downtown? Is this mega plan necessary? Ms. Bonnicksen preferred Edmonds
continue its current vision for the waterfront; one that does not involve tall buildings, and to make
changes that will attract people, draw praise, preserve natural assets and showcase them as a long term
investment.
Ron Clyborne, Edmonds, representing himself and a group of ardent people who are unable to be
involved, the age group of 25 -40 who are busy raising families, building careers and have limited time.
One individual requested he read her email to the Council: she encouraged the City Council to incorporate
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 18, 2012
Page 11
the Harbor Square Master Plan into the Comprehensive Plan. An Edmonds resident for over 20 years,
attending Edmonds schools and living in multiple Edmonds neighborhoods, she chose Edmonds to raise
her family and built a successful career with a professional services firm based in downtown Edmonds.
She is involved in the community, has a child in the School District and helps with community events.
She considers herself part of the generation XYZ. She recognizes that decisions made today will set the
community tone for years to come, affecting her lifestyle and her child's future. The Harbor Square
Master Plan is appealing to her and her generation because it will include items they find imperative such
as affordable housing, recreation and entertainment choices, convenient transportation and expanded
services. Development will draw new people and businesses to the Edmonds area which is attractive to
people who want to avoid a commute to Seattle. This is an opportunity to provide a variety of new
choices and attract new people and money, resulting in an overall positive increase to the tax base.
Disallowing the development means losing young couples and families to other cities that provide
amenities that appeal to them. Mr. Clyborne, father of 4 and grandfather of 5, urged Council to take the
process to the next step and allow the process to continue.
David Jones, Bothell, explained he works in Edmonds and is in the process of purchasing a home in
Edmonds. He commented on the challenges someone from his demographic faces moving to Edmonds,
recognizing the charm of Edmonds comes at a substantial price tag. He understands the concept of legacy,
the process of developing maturely and not losing the charm. He was not for or against increased building
heights but encouraged the Council to do their due diligence on the Harbor Square Master Plan, consider
the facts and allow the process to continue. He commented on the difficulty of creating a young
professional network due to the limited number of young professionals in Edmonds.
Sharon Powell, Edmonds, resident of a condominium four blocks from the railroad crossing, explained
in the summer when doors are open, conversations have to be stopped until the train passes. She recalled
102 Sunset did not sell well; it is located by another railroad crossing. She questioned the advisability of
having residents at Harbor Square when the trains blow their horns through both crossings. She
envisioned the 55 -foot height limit would be as high as hills across the sound, eliminating their view
completely. She explained they pay as much in taxes for 1200 square feet as they did in Shoreline for
2800 square feet.
Jim England, Edmonds, explained he likes the character, views and personality of Edmonds. The
Harbor Square Master Plan is a concept for 55 feet; he recommended consideration be given to another
concept because it does not work at 35 feet and it destroys the personality of the downtown area. He
feared the Council was selling out for increased taxes; the increased height does not work in that area. He
suggested if people wanted to have all kinds of shops and high rises, they should move to Bellevue.
Darrol Haug, Edmonds, a 38 -year resident who has served on the Economic Development Commission
(EDC), CTAC and the levy committee, speaking as a private citizen tonight, explained one of the EDC's
seven recommendations to the City Council was to develop and support a process for redevelopment of
Harbor Square. The Council approved those recommendations and now that process is moving forward.
He referred to Mr. Rinehart's suggestion that the Council listen to everyone, not just those who speak to
and write to the Council. He referred to citizens' support (72% in favor) for a statement in the strategic
plan survey to review and approve a long term master plan and agreement for Port of Edmonds Harbor
Square property. He encouraged Council to gather as many facts as possible. He displayed information
provided to the Port on December 13 regarding revenue estimates. Mr. Haug urged Council to allow the
process to continue in order to gather data to help with making a decision on the best use of the Harbor
Square property.
Jamie Reece, Edmonds, purchased a home in Edmonds in his early 20s. The culture of Edmonds brought
him here; the schools and community have kept them here. He commented responsible growth and
renewal is key to Edmonds' economic and cultural future. The waterfront deserves the same innovative
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 18, 2012
Page 12
renewal seen over the past decade in the downtown core. To those who support delay or believe that
incorporating the Harbor Square Master Plan into the Comprehensive Plan is an over - reaction to the
current economic downturn, he shared advice given to him early in his career by a business mentor, don't
wait to build an ark until it's raining, by then it's too late. If the City wants to be stronger and weather
future storms it is the City's responsibility to ethically grow and develop the City, to provide the best
resources to current citizens while attracting people and businesses to the community. Even passing the
Plan today, it will be years before renewal occurs. If the Plan is tabled, he feared it would be decades
before the waterfront was renewed. He shared the concerns with height limits and the desire to protect
views and property rights but urged the community not to be ruled by fears of hypotheticals or impractical
zero tolerance policies. After five years of development and open consideration, the Plan is a great
example of a proposal that should be supported and approved. He encouraged Council to approve the Plan
and take the next step in strengthening Edmonds and providing the next great community center for
family, friends and neighbors.
Greg Urban, Edmonds, Chamber Ambassador and Chamber Board Member, commented people visiting
Edmonds are struck by the community's character and environment; the downtown core and the
waterfront are always the main attractions. When accompanying visitors to Edmonds, no comments are
ever made about Harbor Square or the Antique Mall property as there is nothing to attract visitors and the
sites are not very inviting. The Port's proposal is an idea with a five year window. Many
Councilmembers' terms will be up before action is taken on future plans. The Plan is a process, a step
toward development, a step toward increasing residential and economic capacity of downtown. This is an
idea that needs to be considered and there are two future opportunities for the Council to be involved.
Kim Dirkson, Edmonds, stated the City needs to find a solution that generates revenue quickly and for
the long term that is demographically correct. With the graying of America, it makes sense to build a
transit -based community closer to link light rail and current bus routes to connect Edmonds with major
medical and healthcare facilities in Seattle as well as arts, sports and cultural venues. A longtime member
of the Harbor Square Athletic Club, she questioned how redevelopment of Harbor Square would impact
the Club. The owners signed a 30 year lease and spent a substantial amount to make improvements. She
questioned if the Club would need to be moved in the future and how it could retain its full service status.
The Club has been an important member of the community for two decades and there is no other health
club in South Snohomish County or King County that offers these amenities. She questioned how the
density of the proposed development would impact the marsh and traffic. She acknowledged the City
needed to do something with Harbor Square but it should be done intelligently, without emotion and
looking at facts and the environmental concerns for the marsh. She urged Council to think about these
things while developing a great solution for the City.
Elliott Shaw, Edmonds, explained his family took over a project at 155 P Avenue two years ago and
was told by the Planning Department to cut the building down 11/2 inches because the City was strict
about building heights and would not approve a variance. He was not opposed to redevelopment of
Harbor Square but was opposed to the 55 -foot height as he wanted his view protected. He referred to
realtors' advertisements of property in Edmonds; a vacant view lot listed for $1.199 million and another
listed for $999,000. He noted a commercial tenant on the second floor of their building pays $2500 /month
for less than 1500 square feet with a view of the Olympics; the project along Dayton Street will block that
view. He did not have time to understand the due diligence process as he often works 12 -14 /hours day. He
spoke in favor of preserving the 35 -foot height limit, noting a 3 -story building is profitable for his family.
They purchased the building for $450,000, put $200,000+ into it and it brings in over $11,000 /month, a 4
1/2 year return on investment.
Kevin Clarke, Edmonds, provided a copy of an Interlocal Agreement between the City and the Port
regarding the Edmonds Marsh Park, located in the north end of Edmonds Marsh, a 25 -year agreement that
ends in 5 years. There is an opportunity to extend the agreement into perpetuity and continue to maintain
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 18, 2012
Page 13
the walkway, the view vistas and the boardwalk. He relayed a comment made to him expressing surprise
that he voted in favor of incorporating the Harbor Square Master Plan into the Comprehensive Plan. Mr.
Clarke explained he asked a lot of questions during the Planning Board process, and voted yes because he
wanted it to come to the City Council for a decision. He did not believe the non - elected officials on the
Planning Board should make that decision. Few people attended the Planning Board public hearing; he
was glad to see the number of people participating at the Council level. He recognized the importance of
the process and for the public to provide input. He encouraged Councilmembers to walk the south end of
Lake Union including the boardwalk and experience the height limit that was placed on the buildings
compared to Carillon Point. He noted both have a place, both are urban environments. The Council's
decision is what kind of development should be allowed at Harbor Square. He hoped to preserve the
Edmonds Marsh Park.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, a 40 year resident who served on the City Council 20 years ago, explained he
has participated in many land use processes in the City. He did not support making a change to the
Comprehensive Plan, fearing if a change was made for one site the City would be required to make
changes for all properties in the area. He expressed concern with the Port's proposal for 55 -foot height
limits, commenting the Port apparently does not understand that citizens value building heights. He
recalled when he ran for City Council 20 years ago, building heights were an issue and they continue to
be an issue during every election. He referred to issues raised regarding the Port's application including
height, the Marsh, setback, grandfathering existing development, transit use, soil conditions, liquefaction,
etc. He did not support having residential uses in that area. He concluded if the Council delays a decision
until after the first of the year, a decision can be made at the end of 2013.
Victor Eskenazi, Edmonds, a new resident in the Esperance area, said the presentation regarding
revenues and jobs should have included costs and identified what type of jobs would be created. He
suggested delaying a decision on the 55 -foot height limit and considering it when development is
proposed.
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, commented his purpose was to serve as a fact - checker. Many citizens,
including him, oppose higher heights in the core downtown area, but it is not valid to extrapolate that
belief into saying citizens do not want higher heights in the remainder of the City. The 55 -foot height
limit is included because the Port is trying to attract a developer and analysis reveals developers will not
be interested with 35 -foot height limits. Although the mayor has a great deal of authority, he does not
decide heights for the City as a former Councilmember suggested. He noted citizen comments are much
of the same doom and gloom that was stated regarding the Pt. Edwards project, which has been a good
development for the City; Edmonds' population was shrinking, Pt. Edwards added 500 -600 people and
property tax revenue. He pointed out Harbor Square Athletic Club is not part of this proposal; their lease
will be honored. If the Club relocates, it will be via mutual agreement. Regarding the cost of a parking
structure, he pointed out that will not be a cost to taxpayers; it will be paid by whoever redevelops the
property. He summarized Harbor Square is already developed; it is proposed to be redeveloped.
Bill Trimm, Snohomish, planning consultant working with the Port and Harbor Square Steering
Committee on the preparation of the Harbor Square Master Plan, relayed the Port believes this is an
important first step, having the opportunity to create a unique and sustainable development that if done
properly and consistent with the planning principles in the Harbor Square Master Plan, can be an asset to
Edmonds. He offered several facts as the Council prepares to deliberate on the conformance of the Plan
with the City's code:
1. The Harbor Square Master Plan is a vision, a strategy and a conceptual representation of an idea,
a thought and a process developed by the Harbor Square Steering Committee of what can take
place on the 11 acre Harbor Square property. It is not a development project.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 18, 2012
Page 14
2. The Master Plan will be used as a starting point in a process of working with the City and the
community to eventually attract a responsible developer to propose a development that adheres to
the planning principles in the Master Plan and the existing Comprehensive Plan policies.
3. Incorporating the Master Plan in the Comprehensive Plan serves to add additional public policies
regarding how the Port believes the property should be developed. In regard to whether action on
the Harbor Square property would set a precedent for the other properties on the waterfront, he
referred to a 09 -26 -12 memo prepared by the City Attorney that states the City has discretion
about implementing the Comprehensive Plan and different zoning districts that can implement the
same Comprehensive Plan designation. The Plan is only for Harbor Square; it does not affect or
set a standard for other properties in the waterfront area.
4. The view shed analysis conducted by the University of Washington focused on view impacts
from public places if a hypothetical building were constructed at 65 feet. There are no buildings
proposed at 65 feet, the proposal is 55 -foot building heights.
The tool to evaluate specificity of future development at Harbor Square will be SEPA. Planning staff and
the Planning Board have both found the proposed amendment conforms to the approval criteria in the
City's code and the Port urges Council to approve the Master Plan to keep the options open regarding
what can happened at Harbor Square.
Bruce Witenberg, Edmonds, explained he has served as a member of the EDC since 2009 and currently
as the Vice Chair, was two term chair of the Planning Board, member of the Highway 99 Task Force and
also the Harbor Square Steering Committee. He supports the Master Plan and urged Council to adopt it.
The Port and City have undertaken an open/transparent process developing the Plan. He has not seen
another issue that provided as much information to the public or opportunities for public input. The
Steering Committee was comprised of a diverse group of citizens and all meetings were public. The Port
held open houses, presentations and updates were provided to the Port Commission, Planning Board and
EDC. The Council has a liaison to the Port Commission who communicates Council concerns to the Port
and vice versa. Presentations were made to civic groups. The Port mailed brochures to the Edmonds
community and provided notice of its public hearing to 1100+ residents, in excess of the requirement. The
Planning Board spent at least 6 meetings discussing the issue and held a public hearing. The Port and City
responded orally and in writing to extensive questions from the Planning Board, Council and community.
Articles have been written in local media and documentation is available on the Port and City websites.
Citizens had opportunities to comment at Port, Planning Board, EDC and Council meetings during the
development of the Plan. The Port and City outlined subsequent opportunities for Council and public
input when a specific project is proposed. To those who suggest environmental and geotechnical studies
are needed before the amendment can be considered, he stated it is more appropriate for a developer to
pay for that due diligence rather than taxpayers. He was concerned with Councilmembers who advocated
for public input including two public hearings but have made up their minds regarding how they plan to
vote before all public input has been received. He summarized there has been a 3 year open and
transparent process. It is time for citizens to have a yes or no decision from elected officials this year.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Bob McChesney, Executive Director, Port of Edmonds, thanked the audience members who spoke for
their ideas and input, both pro and con. The Port believes there has been an open, respectful, and
transparent process over the course of three years. The process validates the plan; it is a good plan, a
reasonable compromise that gives the community what it needs without jeopardizing what it values. If
further deliberation by Council is necessary, the Port is amenable to a continuance. The Master Plan is not
a perfect plan but this is about a process. This is a way to move forward and there are many opportunities
as the process continues for details and issues to be resolved. He thanked the Mayor, staff and Council,
remarking this is an important milestone in the process. On behalf of the Port, he thanked the public who
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 18, 2012
Page 15
have taken the time to express themselves. He summarized it is time to move forward, but up to the
Council to determine the proper course of action.
Council President Peterson thanked the Port Commissioners who were in the audience for attending
tonight's meeting. He expressed appreciation for the amount of time the Port has put into the process. The
City Council has looked at the Master Plan over six weeks but pointed out during that time the Council
also passed a budget. There have been some questions asked by the Council and the public and answers
provided including by the Friends of the Marsh regarding their support for moving the process forward.
He suggested continuing the public hearing into 2013, suggesting the fifth Tuesday, January 29.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out there are differences between development codes, zoning, the
Comprehensive Plan, the Harbor Square Master Plan, and the Shoreline Master Plan, and why the Master
Plan includes 55 -foot heights but not a 100 -foot buffer. She suggested discussing development codes
including form -based codes before making a decision on the Harbor Square Master Plan.
Councilmember Petso relayed her understanding that if the Council delayed a decision until 2013, it can
be adopted any time as a subarea plan or as a Comprehensive Plan amendment with the other 2013 docket
items. Mr. Taraday answered yes, explaining the Council would have more flexibility if it was treated as a
subarea plan; it can be adopted whenever the Council wishes.
Councilmember Petso asked who chose whether it is adopted as a subarea plan or a Comprehensive Plan
amendment and whether it made any difference other than schedule, such as whether the standards were
less or greater for a subarea plan. Mr. Taraday answered either way it is a Comprehensive Plan
amendment and all Comprehensive Plan amendments go through the same process. In this case, where the
Harbor Square Master Plan is a standalone document, the Council can easily justify treating it as a
subarea plan. He clarified the Council could not treat any Comprehensive Plan amendment as a subarea
plan; because of the way the Harbor Square Master Plan is formatted and the analysis and work done to
create the document, the Council can treat it as a subarea plan and adopt it on whatever schedule works
for the Council.
Councilmember Petso asked if any precedent was set in adopting the Harbor Square Master Plan as a
subarea plan; could another property owner request their amendment be adopted as a subarea plan. Mr.
Taraday explained treating something as a subarea plan does not require the Council to act within a
particular timeframe. Property owners who seek a Comprehensive Plan amendment may want the
certainty that the Council will act on it by the end of the year with all the other docketed Comprehensive
Plan amendments. It is easy to make a distinction regarding the Harbor Square Master Plan because it has
been through a three year process; most property owners will not do that before beginning the City's
process. That could be used as a distinguishing characteristic if there was concern with treating other
Comprehensive Plan amendments as subarea plans.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas pointed out there have been 57 testimonies and 2 public hearings and
many citizens have now spoken twice. She recognized the value of public input however noted many of
the same comments are being made. She was unsure another public hearing would be beneficial to the
process and whether any new information would be provided at another public hearing.
Mr. Taraday explained under the City's code a clock begins to run once the public hearing has been
concluded. He referred to 20.00.040, Council action on amendments, which states within 60 days of
receipt of the Planning Board's recommendation and the completion of the public hearing, the City
Council shall consider the recommendation and may at that time or subsequently approve with
modifications or disapprove the proposed amendment based on the findings. He noted it was not entirely
clear based on the wording of the section but out of an abundance of caution, he suggested continuing the
public hearing to avoid the Council being forced to act within 60 days. He suggested if there was a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 18, 2012
Page 16
concern about duplicative comments, the Council could continue the public hearing for those who have
not yet testified.
Councilmember Yamamoto expressed his thanks to the members of the public who spoke during the
Council public hearing as well as participated during the process. He was a member of the Harbor Square
Steering Committee. Although he preferred the Council take action tonight, he acknowledged there were
some questions the Council still needed to have answered. He asked whether any action was necessary to
designate the Harbor Square Master Plan as a subarea plan. Mr. Taraday answered it was not inherently a
subarea plan but the Council had every right to treat it as a subarea plan but was not required to.
Councilmember Yamamoto asked whether adjoining property owners outside the Harbor Square property
could seek the same height limits. Mr. Taraday answered anyone could ask for it but this is a completely
legislative process. There may be good reasons for distinguishing this property from other properties,
even property across the street. Treating this as its own subarea provides a basis for identifying
development regulations that apply in the subarea that do not necessarily apply anywhere else in the City.
For Councilmember Buckshnis, Mr. Taraday explained a subarea plan is an overlay within the
Comprehensive Plan. Within the Comprehensive Plan there are various land use designations. If the
Harbor Square Master Plan is treated as a subarea plan, it retains the Comprehensive Plan land use
designation and overlays it with a subarea; adding another set of Comprehensive Plan policies to the
policies that already apply to the property. Neither of those are zoning; zoning will occur later. Zoning
must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation; whatever the Council decides to do with the
Harbor Square property, the development regulations and zoning must be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan decision.
Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about the 60 day timeframe. Mr. Taraday explained once the Council
completed the public hearing, there is an argument to be made that based on the language in the code a
decision is needed within 60 days of the date the public hearing is completed. If out of an abundance of
caution the Council wanted to preserve schedule flexibility and not be forced to act within 60 days, he
recommended not completing the public hearing tonight. Whether it is adopted as a subarea is a totally
different issue and has nothing to do with the 60 day timeframe.
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL THE FIFTH TUESDAY, JANUARY 29, 2013,
AS PROPOSED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON.
Mayor Earling asked whether that would be an open public hearing for anyone to speak or limited to
those who have not spoken previously. Councilmember Johnson answered she had no preference.
Councilmember Petso suggested the fastest way to move ahead may be to turn around and take another
road. There is potentially a fatal flaw in the process; it started with minimal consideration of alternatives
and common ground. She recalled a citizen asking her what she wanted on the Pt. Edwards site, and her
response that she envisioned a conference center, hotel, public space and a coffee shop. That option was
never considered. At the time she recalled there was only one proposal; she felt in that same position now.
She invited citizens to evaluate what everyone agreed on which suggests not starting with building
heights but rather protecting the marsh or what constitutes a pedestrian focus, destination, or a connection
between downtown and the waterfront. By considering alternatives she could determine whether the way
forward was actually to turn around and take another road.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 18, 2012
Page 17
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED (6 -1),
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY - MONILLAS VOTING NO.
Council President Peterson pointed out the Port is a public entity. The Port deserves a great deal of
respect for the open process, inviting citizens to participate and seeking compromise over the past three
years. The Port of Edmonds' elected officials are bringing this proposal forward; they answer to the
citizens in the Port District the same as the Council answers to citizens. The Port Commissioners deserve
citizens' appreciation and respect for the work they do.
Councilmember Yamamoto commented options were considered; the public participated in choosing the
option they preferred and the majority agreed on the proposal in the Harbor Square Master Plan.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas encouraged the public to contact Port Commissioners, not just the City
Council.
8. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Darrol Haug, Edmonds, speaking as a private citizen, congratulated the Council on the budget,
commenting it was done early, harmoniously and the budget was balanced. He referred to the budget as
the "flower and fiber budget," flowers because the flower program was preserved and fiber because the
Council supported all the fiber optic initiatives. Speaking as Chair of the CTAC, he thanked the Council
for their support of the fiber project, assuring everything will be done to enhance revenues from fiber and
to secure reliable service for the City. Speaking as a private citizen, he pointed out the Budgeting by
Priorities process will be a wonderful exercise and he urged the Council to move forward with it as fast as
possible. When the EDC was restructured, the Council removed its ability to consider all revenue sources.
He has communicated with Councilmembers regarding revenue sources that would generate up to $1.6
million. He encouraged the Council to incorporate revenue growth in the Budgeting by Priorities process
prior to deliberations on the 2014 budget.
Donna Breske, Snohomish, Edmonds property owner, relayed Mitch Sorros purchased two partially
constructed buildings located on 84"' Avenue West behind the TJ Maxx store. When it was discovered the
roof exceeded the 30 -foot height limit of the R -1.5 zone, in accordance with direction from the building
inspector, the roof framing was removed and reconstructed to be in compliance. The buildings then
passed the height inspection and Mr. Sorros completed the project. During final inspection to obtain an
occupancy permit, the Planning Department discovered the building inspector was not aware of the City's
code requirement, 16.20.030(1) that in addition to the 30 -foot height limit a minimum roof slope of 4:12
was required. Mr. Sorros was directed by the Planning Department to request a variance. The staff
recommendation to the Hearing Examiner, prepared by Gina Coccia, stated the area is a mix of
commercial and residential. The buildings at 30 feet are an excellent transition between the 60 -foot height
limit of the General Commercial zone to the east and the 25 -foot height limit of the RS -8 zone to the
west. There are no views at stake so the development protects residential qualities. The staff
recommended denial of the variance request, stating staff was unclear if the situation on the property
constitutes a special circumstance. The Hearing Examiner concurred with staff's recommendation and the
variance was denied. Mr. Sorros lost the building in foreclosure as he was unable to obtain an occupancy
permit. Ms. Breske urged the Council and Mayor to get involved in changing the culture in the City that
allows staff to wreak havoc on the lives of citizens. Staff needs training on reading and interpreting the
code to help people who invest money to be successful.
Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, commented the premise of democracy was keeping things simple enough so
the public listening can understand. She questioned what was meant by subareas, viewing it as a delaying
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 18, 2012
Page 18
tactic. She did not believe Councilmembers did not have enough information at this point to make up
their minds. She urged the Council to take a vote and not waste time discussing subareas.
Valerie Stewart, Edmonds, referred to a letter she and her husband wrote to the City in May. They
designed a green home, a demonstration project for the City and for them, and it was approved after 9
months. However, they were unable to build the home due to the economy, design dollars spent on
changes, increase in connection fees and the amount of the permit fees. She explained green building is an
integrated design approach; all the systems designers are involved. She relayed suggestions from the
green team they hired to improve the process:
• Make the code easier to navigate and incentivize green building
• Train and develop a green team that can move a project forward in a systems- integrated design
approach rather than piecemeal
• Have all departments involved be in close proximity to each other
• Assign a point person to be available for questions at all times on green projects
• Expedite the permitting process for green building
• Reduce fees to reflect reduced loads on City systems
• Make it easier and cost effective to integrate green stormwater infrastructure
She recognized the challenges developers experience developing in the City such as unpredictability in
the timeline and cost and confusion in the code, particularly stormwater. She urged the City to fix this in
order to help forward- thinking developers and citizens be successful in building projects that are more
sustainably designed. Sustainability is responsible stewardship of natural human and financial resources
through a practical and balanced approach.
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, agreed with Ms. Shippen. He also agreed with a statement made by a CNBC
staff member that the difference between the private sector and government is the sense of urgency;
government bodies lack any sense of urgency. The Council tonight proved that observation. He
questioned why the Council needed a third public hearing, noting there is not one Councilmember who
does not know how they plan to vote. The Council has had enough time to study the issue and is just
wasting everyone's time.
9. ANNUAL REPORT - CITY ATTORNEY
City Attorney Jeff Taraday reported Lighthouse represents the Council in six pending cases, three are
cases they inherited, Precision Earthworks, Locke v. Edmonds, and Myers v. Edmonds; two are cases
where the facts arose while they were City Attorney; and one, the New Cingular case, nearly every city in
Washington was sued for the same relief. He provided an update on each case:
• Precision Earthworks v. City of Edmonds — this is a dispute over a construction contract for
Haines Wharf Park. A recent mediation was partially successful; tonight the Council approved a
change order for $139,100 which settled a claim from a subcontractor, Kulchin, in the amount of
$253,000 plus interest. The remainder of the case is still pending.
• Locke v. City of Edmonds — this is a case that has been going on since 2005. Lighthouse hopes to
resolve it in 2013. It is a dispute primarily over a driveway that connects the Locke property to
Pine Street but there are other tangential issues related to stormwater and building permit.
Lighthouse has been working cooperatively with Mr. Locke to resolve some of the issues and is
optimistic some can be amicably resolved.
• Olson v. City of Edmonds — this is a LUPA matter involving a final plat approved by the City.
The case has been on hold for a period of time to allow for negotiation. The Olsons and Thuesens
are trying to resolve the matter in an amicable way.
• Humann v. City of Edmonds — this is now two matters, first a whistle blower complaint pending
before the Administrative Law Judge regarding whether Mayor Cooper's termination of Ms.
Humann was in retaliation for a protected whistleblower activity. A hearing is scheduled in
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 18, 2012
Page 19
March. The second is a Superior Court proceeding to determine whether the City should be
required to submit the City Council's legislative budgetary action, to eliminate the Human
Resources Director, to the ALJ for review as a second act of retaliation. In the absence of a
settlement, this matter could continue for some time.
New Cingular Wireless v. City of Bothell — this is a lawsuit seeking a refund of taxes that were
mistakenly paid by AT &T. New Cingular Wireless sued nearly every city in Washington to get
the taxes refunded. The City joined in a motion to dismiss that will be heard on Friday.
Myers v. City of Edmonds — this case is in regard to mountain beavers. A settlement has not yet
been reached.
Mr. Taraday reviewed litigation that was resolved during the past year:
• Cole v. City of Edmonds — a partial settlement was reached in a late payment of wages claim in
the amount of $1,900. The remaining contract claims were dismissed on a motion for summary
judgment. No appeal was filed. The EEOC investigation is still ongoing.
• Browns Bay v. City of Edmonds — this was a LUPA case that challenged the City's award of a
contract to make stormwater drainage improvements. The case was dismissed with prejudice this
fall. No money was paid to obtain the dismissal.
Mr. Taraday advised they also do a great deal of advisory and transactional work using a team approach.
He identified the members of the Lighthouse team:
• Patricia Taraday — Public Records Act (PRA) compliance, works closely with City Clerk's Office
and Police Department regarding PRA requests as well as code enforcement and other
miscellaneous work.
• Sharon Cates — handling the Myers and Precision Earthworks cases, labor and employment
matters along with Rosa and Kathy. Also does contract review.
• Mike Bradley — lives and works in Minnesota. Has very specialized expertise in cable franchise.
The Council approved a franchise that Mr. Bradley and Mr. Clifton negotiated. Also works on
fiber optics contracts.
• Susan Drummond — participated in advising the Planning Board regarding the Harbor Square
Master Plan. She drafted the memo in the Council packet.
• Chuck Wolfe — advised the Planning Board regarding form -based code matters
Mr. Taraday explained his role is providing advice to the City Council and Mayor, land use matters and
point guard for nearly everything. The firm as a whole has worked 3,369 hours year -to -date, 482 hours or
14% were billed to City Council. They recently began tracking litigation hours separate from
transactional hours; 2012 figures will not be as accurate as 2013. They have spent at least 1,150 hours on
litigation this year, 34% of their total hours. He anticipated it was likely closer to 50% of the total work
the firm has done this year for the City. As litigation cases are settled or resolved through other means,
they will spend time on other issues such as policy matters.
Mr. Taraday explained they work on a flat fee. Their average hourly rate calculated using the fee earned
to date and the number of hours worked to date is slightly under $110.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED (6 -1),
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY - MONILLAS VOTING NO.
10. 2012 BUDGET AMENDMENT
Finance Director Shawn Hunstock referred to the ordinance (page 567 of packet), and requested the title
of the ordinance be corrected to remove the words, "creating a new contingency reserve fund." He
referred to page 572 of the packet, Exhibit C, where items were added related to the Precision Earthworks
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 18, 2012
Page 20
subcontractor settlement, specifically payment of the claim out of the Risk Management Reserve Fund
and $30,000 for expert witness fees paid from the REET fund with a transfer in from the General Fund to
cover it.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETERSON, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3908, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3898 AS A RESULT OF
UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, DELETING
THE WORDS, "CREATING A NEW CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND" IN THE TITLE OF
THE ORDINANCE." MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
11. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 1 WITH
AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. FOR THE MAIN ST. DECORATIVE LIGHTING AND
SIDEWALK ENHANCEMENTS PROJECT (5TH AVE TO 6TH AVE).
City Engineer Rob English reported the project is nearing completion. This is a supplemental agreement
to AECOM's professional services contract for the Main Street project. The City hired AECOM to
provide inspection services and contract administration support during the project. The project extended
beyond the original completion date due to weather and removal of concrete found beneath the asphalt
pavement. The additional services total $13,053.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY - MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
YAMAMOTO, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO.
1 WITH AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. FOR THE MAIN ST. DECORATIVE
LIGHTING AND SIDEWALK ENHANCEMENT PROJECT. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
12. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF DECEMBER 11. 2012.
Finance Committee
Councilmember Buckshnis reported the committee reviewed the draft proposed Franchise Agreement
between the City and Comcast which was approved on tonight's agenda. The committee also discussed
the budget amendment and the addition of the settlement with Kulchin which was approved on tonight's
agenda. The committee discussed the October 2012 Monthly Financial Report; the General Fund working
cash balance is slightly under $3 million.
Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas reported most items were approved on the Consent Agenda. Mr.
Schuster will provide the Council a briefing on the Dayton Street and SR 104 drainage study in January.
The committee had a lengthy discussion regarding McDonald's plans to construct a new building;
Councilmember Petso, staff and she met with the owners to discuss an alternative design for the new
building. Councilmember Petso reported the follow -up with the McDonalds' owners avoided having the
Council consider an emergency ordinance.
Public Safety & Personnel Committee
Councilmember Bloom reported the three items the committee discussed were approved on the Consent
Agenda, Supplemental Agreement No. 1 to Animal Kenneling Services Agreement, IT Supervisor job
description approval and personnel policy edits.
13. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling wished everyone a happy holiday and encouraged them to take time to pause and reflect.
14. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas reported she attended the coal train hearing in Seattle representing the
City Council and presented the Council's resolution. There were approximately 1000 people at the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 18, 2012
Page 21
hearing including a number of Edmonds residents. She testified regarding the problems the coal trains
will create, from health to commerce.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas commented on the public process regarding the Harbor Square Master
Plan. She recognized the Port for holding numerous meetings to take public input. She was hopeful there
would not be repetitive comments at the third public hearing from citizens who have spoken before. She
looked forward to hearing from citizens who had not yet had an opportunity to speak. She invited citizens
to email and call Councilmembers.
Councilmember Yamamoto wished everyone happy holidays.
Councilmember Johnson wished everyone happy holidays.
Council President Peterson thanked Harry Gatjens for the article he wrote in MyEdmondsNews about a
woman he befriended and for befriending the woman.
Council President Peterson relayed his intent to amend the City's Legislative Agenda to encourage the
state legislature to address issues of gun safety which could include a ban on assault weapons, ban on
large capacity magazines, and universal background checks including gun shows. Seattle City Council
just added this to their legislative agenda.
Council President Peterson wished everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, expressing his
appreciation for family and friends.
Councilmember Buckshnis wished everyone happy holidays. She relayed a comment from former
Councilmember Plunkett that this Council took time to deliberate and did not just vote on principle. She
envisioned there may have been a different decision if the Council had voted on the Harbor Square
Master Plan tonight. She has serious concerns about zoning, development agreements, form based code,
and which ones take precedent.
Councilmember Buckshnis reporting tonight is CIO Carl Nelson's last Council meeting; he is retiring at
the end of the year. She thanked him for his service.
Councilmember Bloom wished everyone a relaxing holiday season.
Councilmember Petso thanked Councilmembers Fraley - Monillas and Johnson for the gifts they gave
Councilmembers. She also thanked Larry Vogle, Historic Preservation Commission, for his presentation
regarding the calendars. She invited anyone unable to find a calendar to email her.
15. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:43 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 18, 2012
Page 22