08/26/2014 City Council
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 26, 2014
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
August 26, 2014
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Diane Buckshnis, Council President
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
Joan Bloom, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director
Scott James, Finance Director
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Doug Fair, Municipal Court Judge
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Sharon Cates, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Gerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PER RCW
42.30.140(1)(a)
At 6:30 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding
collective bargaining per RCW 42.30.140(1)(a). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last
approximately 15 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety
Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials
present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson, Fraley-Monillas,
Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso, Bloom and Mesaros. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Parks
& Recreation/Human Resources Reporting Director Carrie Hite, Police Chief Al Compaan, and City
Clerk Scott Passey. The executive session concluded at 6:45 p.m.
2. INTERVIEW APPLICANT FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE EDMONDS SISTER CITIES
COMMISSION
At 6:45 p.m., the City Council interviewed Sister Cities Commission candidate Michele Fellows. The
interview took place in Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. All City Council
members were present for the interview.
Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:00 p.m. and led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 26, 2014
Page 2
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON, TO PULL AGENDA ITEM 8 FROM THE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION AND TO
APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council President Buckshnis explained because tonight is a work session tonight, the title of Agenda Item
8 will be changed to remove “possible action.” Action on this item will be scheduled for next week.
COUNCILMEMBER COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS, MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO CHANGE THE TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM 8 TO
“MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE COMPENSATION DISCUSSION.” MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
5. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 19, 2014
B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #210131 THROUGH #210234 DATED AUGUST 21,
2014 FOR $911,302.63. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS
#61145 THROUGH #61160 AND #61166 FOR $478,462.20, BENEFIT CHECKS #61161
THROUGH #61165 FOR $10,005.57 AND WIRE PAYMENTS FOR $358,125.50 FOR THE
PERIOD OF AUGUST 1, 2014 THROUGH AUGUST 15, 2014
C. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM KARLA L.
THERRIAULT (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED) AND MARK AND CAROLYN
BLACKBOURN ($9,462.31)
D. CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT OF MICHELE FELLOWS TO THE EDMONDS
SISTER CITY COMMISSION
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, read a request she sent to the Council regarding the Westgate Plan. The
Westgate Plan is so full of implementation detail that a discussion of what is implemented has been
neglected. Councilmembers have a responsibility to explain any topic they are considering, especially one
that involves new theory. The proposed Westgate Plan asks the Council to incorporate incentive zoning
and form-based planning into the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code. She requested each
Councilmember provide their definition of, 1) incentive zoning and 2) form-based planning. She
requested the Council discuss as a group what adoption of those two changes will do that cannot be done
under the existing code. She requested the Council schedule 1-2 public hearings and to allow the public to
evaluate and participate in the discussion.
Alvin Rutledge, Edmonds, reported on information was provided on August 19 and 20 regarding the
King County Boundary Review Board’s consideration of Shoreline taking over the Ronald Water District
which was approved by King County. The Snohomish County Boundary Review Board will consider the
proposal at their meeting on Thursday, August 28. Public Works Director Phil Williams testified to the
King County Boundary Review Board regarding the increase in water and sewer rates in Edmonds. Mr.
Rutledge encouraged the public to participate in this process which is related to development at Pt. Wells
in 3-4 years that will include up to 1,000 units.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 26, 2014
Page 3
Charles Turra, Edmonds, a resident in the Westgate area, reported he just saw information in My
Edmonds News last week regarding the proposed zoning changes. He posed a series of questions: what
types of businesses is the City is trying to attract and whether it was Walmart-type businesses, why bring
in more businesses to compete against downtown business that just beginning to recover, whether there
was a need for another pharmacy or Starbucks, who will pay for the infrastructure, whether the City will
give tax breaks to multibillion corporations to move there, and how development will affect property
values in the adjacent neighborhoods. If the City needs additional tax revenue, he suggested allowing
legal marijuana businesses to operate in Edmonds. Mayor Earling requested he provide his contact
information to Development Services Director Shane Hope and she will provide further information.
Bill Trinkle, Edmonds, a resident of Pt Edwards, commented Edmonds is a good, walkable city and he
was pleased a crosswalk is being installed to cross SR-104.
7. INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATION ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING BY MARK SMITH,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR HOUSING CONSORTIUM OF EVERETT & SNOHOMISH COUNTY
Mark Smith, Executive Director, Housing Consortium of Everett & Snohomish County, provided a
presentation entitled 22,000 by 2035. He provided information regarding:
• What is Affordable?
o No more than 30% of income goes to the cost of housing including utilities.
o Affordable Housing: In general housing for which the occupants is/are paying no more than
30% of his/her income for gross housing costs, including utilities. Please note that some
jurisdictions may define ah based on other, locally determined criteria, and that this definition
is intended solely as an approximate guideline or general rule of thumb.
Snohomish County Area Median Income for all households is $67,777 (2011). He reviewed the
calculation of affordable housing:
• Affordable Housing for households at 100% AMI
o $67,777 x 100% = $67,777/12 months = $5,648/month x 30% = $1,694/month max. housing
cost
• Affordable housing for households at 80% AMI
o $67,777 x 80% = $54,221/12 months = $4,518/month x 30% = $1,356/month max. housing
cost
• Affordable housing for households at 50% AMI
o $67,777 x 50% = $33,888/12 months = $2,824/month x 30% = $847/month max. housing
cost
• Affordable housing for households at 30% AMI
o $67,777 x 30% = $20,033/12 months = $1,694/month x 30% = $508/month max. housing
cost
He provided information regarding Snohomish County:
Income Levels Income Ranges Percent of Total Households
30% and below AMI (extremely
low income
$20,333 and less 11%
30-50% of AMI (very low income) $20,334 - $33,888 11%
50-80% of AMI (low income) $33,889 - $54,221 17%
He provided information regarding Edmonds (median income $72,000/year):
Subject Estimate Percent
Income and Benefits (on 2012 inflation-adjusted dollars)
Total households 17,396 100%
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 26, 2014
Page 4
Less than $10,000 671 3.90%
Less than $14,999 488 2.80%
Less than $24,999 1,326 7.60%
Less than $34,999 1,419 8.20%
Total 3,904 22.50%
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how many people in a household this represents. Mr. Smith
responded HUD uses number of members in a household to determine eligibility for affordability. These
numbers do not consider the number of people in a household, only total combined household income.
Councilmember Petso commented affordable housing is often referred to in terms of small units. For a
family of five for example, a small unit may be affordable but may be somewhat untenable. She asked
whether affordable housing always means tiny units. Mr. Smith answered no. A bedroom unit for five
people, although affordable to their income, would not be considered appropriate housing and they would
not be housed in that type of housing.
Mr. Smith displayed and reviewed a bar graph illustrating the annual earnings, affordability gap and
100% AMI gap for SS retirement benefit (approx. $1000/month), minimum wage ($9.32/hour), $15 hour,
and housing wage ($17.62/hour). The average monthly rent of a two bedroom apartment in Edmonds
including utilities is $1,097/month.
He referred to a report recently adopted by the Snohomish County Council, vetted by Snohomish County
Tomorrow, the Housing Characteristics and Needs in Snohomish County Report, that states by 2035, an
additional 22,000 units of housing will be needed, affordable at 0-50% AMI:
Jurisdiction Total Housing
need (units)
30% and less AMI
Housing Need
(11% of Total
30-50% AM
Housing need
(11% of total)
51-80% AM
Housing Need
(17% of total)
Snohomish County 97,128 10,684 10,684 16,512
Edmonds 2,790 307 307 474
He described ways to get to 22,000 by 2035:
• Reduce poverty
o Better education outcomes for more students
o Job training
o Address income inequality
o Will always be people who need affordable housing
• Create more affordable housing (new/acquisition and rehab)
o 2015 Comprehensive Plan Housing Element updates
Strategies, goals and polices to meet housing need at 30% AMI, 30-50% AMI and 50-
80% AMI
o Incentivize affordable housing
Density bonuses, multi-family tax exemption, fee waivers, reduced parking requirements,
etc.
o Support policies that increase public funding
Washington State Housing Trust Fund
Local Housing Levy
The State authorized counties and cities to establish a housing levy, does not count
against State mandated cap
Seattle and Bellingham have established
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 26, 2014
Page 5
A Snohomish County-wide housing levy at $0.20/$1000 would raise $15 million/year
for 10 years.
Councilmember Petso referred to Mr. Smith’s comment that Edmonds uses reduced parking requirements
to incentivize affordable housing and asked how that worked. Mr. Smith answered not specifically
affordable housing but to incentivize density. Councilmember Petso commented the reduced parking
requirements were not actually creating affordable housing but reducing development costs. Mr. Smith
agreed. Councilmember Petso observed that increased profits for the developer but did not actually create
more affordable units. Mr. Smith responded he was aware of that argument but did not have enough
knowledge of projects in Edmonds to say whether reduced parking requirements resulted in more
affordability.
Councilmember Petso asked whether any of the other tools such as fee waiver were specifically tied to the
provision of affordable housing units or if they were also just developer incentives. Mr. Smith answered
some of them, such as impact fee waivers, are tied directly to affordable housing. For example, Monroe
recently waived over $400,000 in impact fees for a 47 unit homeless family development. The developer,
Housing Hope, saved over $400,000 which allowed the AMI level to be reduced for lower income people.
He referred to Affordable Housing Alliance (AHA) who is preparing specific city profiles. At the end
their profiles is a menu of things cities can do to facilitate affordable housing; these are city specific and
will identify what each city is doing. He urged that it be read with a note of caution, for example the
report states every city in Snohomish County has adopted smaller lots sizes which facilitate more
affordable housing; however, small lot size is defined as 9600 square feet.
Council President Buckshnis asked whether the funds generated by a local housing levy are used to
subsidize developers who are building affordable housing. Mr. Smith answered the funds are used to
build, acquire or rehab and the funds must be used to serve populations at 50% AMI and below.
To the question of why try to accomplish 22,000 by 2035, Mr. Smith explained:
• Quality of life in our communities
o Our communities and neighborhoods are better when people are housed
o Higher density, attractive and affordable housing promotes community
• Economic Advantages
o Each dollar of public funds invested in affordable housing generally attracts/leverages an
additional $5 of private equity
o People who are in housing they can afford have more disposable income to spend in the
community
o Safe, stable, affordable housing for homeless and at-risk populations significantly reduces
contact with and cost to a city’s criminal justice and emergency medical services
• Common humanity
He displayed several photographs of affordable housing developments:
• Pay attention to design
• Concentrated poverty doesn’t work
• Can be attractive, enhance community if done right
o Mercy Housing Eliza McCabe Townhomes, Tacoma
• Incorporate public art, make attractive
o Greenbridge Apartments, Seattle
o Artspace Everett Lofts, Everett
Mr. Smith provided several resources.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 26, 2014
Page 6
Councilmember Mesaros referred to Mr. Smith’s indication that the projected need in Edmonds is 307
units at 30-50% AMI. He asked how many units in Edmonds qualify under that AMI. Mr. Smith
explained 307 is Edmonds’ fair share distribution of the total need in Snohomish County. There are five
subsidized housing projects in Edmonds, three owned by Housing Authority of Snohomish County
(HASCO), one owned by Compass Health and one owned by Senior Housing Assistance Group (SHAG).
He recalled there are none in Edmonds at 0-30% AMI, more at 30-50% and the bulk at 51-80%.
Council President Buckshnis advised the City will be receiving a specific report from AHA soon. She
observed the difference between Housing Consortium of Everett & Snohomish County and AHA is the
Housing Consortium is an educational source and can assist the City once it receives the statistics from
AHA. Mr. Smith explained AHA provides technical assistance regarding housing for the Comprehensive
Plan update, the Consortium provides education, advocacy and outreach.
Councilmember Peterson asked whether funds to rehab trailer parks fit into this structure. Mr. Smith
answered yes with qualifications. In Lynnwood two trailer parks were purchased a number of years ago
by HASCO and became affordable housing for seniors. Trailer parks, now called manufactured home
communities, are the largest source of non-subsidized affordable housing in Washington. Councilmember
Peterson observed in order to be subsidized, a community would need to be owned by an organization
who could obtain the funds. Mr. Smith agreed.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas thanked Mr. Smith for his efforts to educate everyone, commenting the
more this information is presented, the more people understand what elected need to do to help the
citizens in their cities.
8. MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE COMPENSATION DISCUSSION
Carrie Hite explained she has been working with Council President Buckshnis to develop this information
for the Council. Because the 2014 recommendation filed by the Compensation Commission has been
deemed null and void, the judge’s salary reverts to the Commission’s 2012 recommendation. There are
two items before the Council for discussion. First, the 2012 Citizens Commission recommended that the
judge be compensated according to 95% of the State schedule to remain eligible for court improvement
funds reimbursement. The City was notified by the Washington Courts that a 3% will be provided
beginning September 1, 2014. Since the Citizen Commission’s recommendation impacted the 2013 and
2014 salary, the City Attorney determined this would be become effective September 1, 2014 without
Council action. At the end of 2014 the Council will need to decide the judge’s salary in the future and
whether to continue with the 95% of the Washington courts to remain eligible for court improvement
funds. Beginning September 1, 2014, the increase will be $189/month or $757 for the remainder of the
year. This was not included in the budget but is within the Court’s expenditure authority.
The second item for Council consideration is a recommendation from Mayor Earling. She displayed a
2014 salary survey comparing the population, caseload, caseload type, % of FTE, annual hours, hours per
case, judge’s monthly salary plus benefit and cases based on FTE for greater Puget Sound region cities
that operate a municipal court. With regard to caseload type, she explained some cities have red light
cameras that contribute a significant number of cases that are very easy to administer. With regard to the
% FTE in court, she noted in addition to the judge, some courts have judicial support positions,
commissioners that hear cases, and pro-tem judges for overload.
She reviewed the Mayor’s recommendation:
% of FTE Annual Hours Hours per
Case
Judge’s Monthly
Salary + Benefits
Cases based on 1
FTE
Current .55 1,144 0.15 $7,864 14,198
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 26, 2014
Page 7
Proposed .75 1,560 0.20 $8,582 10,412
She reviewed a Compensation/Cases/FTE summary:
Market Hours per
Case
Caseload
per FTE
Salary per FTE Actual Salary
Edmonds/Current .55 FTE 0.15 14,198 11,443 $6,293.65
Average 0.27 13,804 11,443
Median 0.22 9,524 11,659
Edmonds Proposed .75 FTE 0.20 10,412 11,443 $8,582.25
Proposed with 3% increase per State Salary Commission 11,780 $8,839.00
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas noted the caseload for all the cities in the comparison include photo
enforcement, except Edmonds and Bothell. Ms. Hite explained some cities have many red light cameras,
some have only one. The cities with the most are Lynnwood, Kirkland and Lakewood. Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas asked why cities in the area without red light cameras were not included in the
comparison. Ms. Hite answered these are the cities in the area that operate municipal courts.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented by population, caseload and types of cases, the closest
comparison without red light cameras is Bothell. Ms. Hite agreed Bothell was the closest comparison
using those criteria.
Councilmember Petso asked whether the % of FTE was arbitrary or represented the workload and hours
committed by the judge. Ms. Hite answered the % of FTE column is the actual number the city reported
they pay their judge. Councilmember Petso asked whether that typically represents the hours actually
worked. Ms. Hite did not know, relaying Edmonds’ does not. In talking with Judge Fair, his typical
hourly workload is a .75.
Council President Buckshnis advised the 3% was already approved by the State Salary Commission. Ms.
Hite agreed, advising it will be effective September 1, 2014. Council can discuss it during the 2015
budget process. After the end of 2014, the recommendation the Citizen Commission made in 2012 for
2013 and 2014 concludes. Council President Buckshnis recalled City Attorney Jeff Taraday stating once
the salary has been set, it cannot be reduced. City Attorney Sharon Cates relayed once the Commission
has mandated the increase, it cannot be taken away for 2014. Council President Buckshnis asked about
2015, recalling Mr. Taraday stated the salary cannot be offered and then lowered. Ms. Hite answered that
is for an elected position, if a person is elected at a salary, the salary cannot be reduced. It was her
understanding that because Judge Fair will be leaving and Mayor Earling will be appointing a judge, the
salary can be restated by the Council in 2015.
Council President Buckshnis asked whether the court improvement funds would be lost if the salary were
reduced. Ms. Hite agreed that would occur. Judge Doug Fair explained Bainbridge tried to reduce the
salary for an elected judge. A lawsuit was filed and the city lost. Once the salary for an elected position is
set, under State law it cannot be reduced during the term of office. That law applies regardless of whether
the person is appointed or elected to the elected position.
Council President Buckshnis summarized next week the Council will only discuss Mayor Earling’s
recommendation to increase the judge’s FTE to .75 an impact of $2,358/month and $28,296/year.
With regard to the appointment process, Mayor Earling commented it was imperative to make these
adjustments so that the judge is compensated on a fair and equal basis; a .75 made sense to him and Judge
Fair agreed. The judge position will be advertised for 2-3 weeks in September and it would be helpful to
have this decision made by that time. He planned to assemble a panel of judges to assist with interviews
including retired Judge Thibodeau and Judge Dwyer, 9th Circuit Court and 2-3 others.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 26, 2014
Page 8
9. DISCUSSION REGARDING CITY COUNCIL MEETING FORMAT
Development Services Director Hope explained at a Council retreat in May there was discussion about
ways to make Council meetings more efficient and effective and allowing more dialogue between
Councilmembers prior to voting on an item. One idea that was briefly discussed was the possibility of two
study sessions per month alternating with two business meetings per month. At business meetings, the
Council would take official action. Study sessions would be an opportunity for Councilmembers to have
dialogue, ask questions, etc.; votes would not be taken at study sessions. Under the proposal both
business meetings and study sessions would be recorded and televised. Typically at a study session the
Council would be seated around a table instead of seated at the dais. Many other cities in this area have a
similar format; it works well to get things done and provides an opportunity for conversation.
Ms. Hope explained by including all Councilmembers in the conversation, separate community meetings
would not be needed as all information can be presented to the Council in a transparent, public process.
An exception could be made for the Finance Committee to address routine business as the Council may
choose. She summarized alternating study sessions and business meetings would be a more efficient way
for the Council to have dialogue. Although the exact details do not have to be included in the code, if the
Council chooses this format, some minor amendments to the code will be necessary. If the Council is
interested in this format, she suggested providing direction to the City Attorney to craft an ordinance for
consideration at a future meeting.
Councilmember Mesaros observed under this proposal, the Finance Committee would meet before one of
the study sessions. He felt the committee meetings were quite efficient and typically lasted only an hour.
He suggested holding the other two committee meetings at the same time as the Finance Committee
meeting. For example, start at the committee meetings at 6:30 p.m. and begin the study session at 7:30
p.m. That would allow the committees to discuss some items that would be scheduled on the consent
agenda. Ms. Hope agreed that was an option. One of the rationales behind not having committee meetings
was it was difficult to be fully functional for another, longer meeting after a committee meeting.
Secondly, committee meetings are often discussion on items that still need to be discussed by the full
Council, resulting in repetition.
Councilmember Mesaros commented that was an agenda management issues; items that require
discussion by the full Council would not go to committee. The committees could review items that were
typically scheduled on the consent agenda. If an item needed to be reviewed by the full Council, it could
be discussed at a study session. He acknowledged sometimes the full Council will discuss an item that
could have been on the Consent Agenda. Councilmembers can always request an item be moved from the
Consent Agenda to the full agenda.
Council President Buckshnis expressed support for the proposed format. She noted there are items that
some Councilmembers want discussed by the full Council. To ensure transparency, she preferred to have
the Council’s discussions televised. A determination can be made by the Council President, Council
President Pro Tem and the Mayor regarding items to be placed on the Consent Agenda. She suggested
trying this format; if it doesn’t work, the format can be changed back. She referred to last week’s agenda
as an example of how many items ended up on the agenda, several that Councilmembers did not want
moved to the Consent Agenda. She summarized eliminating committee meetings will minimize
repetition.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she liked this idea because the Council was able to have a full
discussion. Sometimes when things are discussed by a committee, by the time it comes to Council, the
other Councilmembers may not know the reason the committee supported or did not support an item.
Having two study sessions and two work sessions and eliminating two committees will make the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 26, 2014
Page 9
Council’s job easier. She did not find the Public Safety & Personnel (PSP) or the Planning & Public
Works (PPP) Committees very effective as often staff gives a full report to the committee and then give it
again to the full Council. She was uncertain how items would be scheduled on the Consent Agenda as
there are different opinions regarding what should be on the Consent Agenda and what should be
presented to the full Council. Ms. Hope said the Q&A in the Council packet includes criteria for items
that would be on the Consent Agenda although she understood that could differ between
Councilmembers.
Councilmember Petso agreed with Councilmember Mesaros, stating she found the committee structure
incredibly efficient. If two committee members listen to a presentation such as regarding a lift station and
determine it can be on the Consent Agenda, that saves the Council time and does not damage
transparency. Councilmembers also have 10-12 days’ notice before an item appears on the Consent
Agenda and can pull it for further questions if necessary. She was also very concerned with splitting the
committees; if the motivation was to include all Councilmember to improve transparency, clearly the one
committee that should no long exist is Finance. It is important Finance Committee items be done in the
open and in the public and not by a small group of Councilmembers behind closed doors and placing
items on the Consent Agenda. She recalled an example of that in the past with the contingent loan
agreement with the Public Facilities District, a $4 million guarantee by the City, that was placed on the
Consent Agenda and did not want to risk that again. If the Finance Committee morphs into a Long Range
Financial Task Force she felt that needed to be done in the public. Long Range Financial Task Forces
inevitably conclude a levy will be needed in the future and a levy requires the participation and
endorsement of all seven Councilmembers. She preferred to retain the current committees or eliminate all
of them. Her preference was study sessions and the current committees; the committees could regulate
what needs a study session.
Councilmember Johnson was an advocate of this proposal, advising she has seen work effectively in other
jurisdictions. One of the big advantages is the format; having the Council seated at the table allows
conversation amongst Councilmembers and staff presenting information and it will be easier to see the
screen. This is an effective way to do business; change is difficult and there is a tendency to do things the
way they have always been done. She supported having study sessions, acknowledging there will be a
transition period to sort things out but in the end it was worth trying.
Councilmember Peterson commented one of the most dangerous phrases in the English language is we’ve
always done things that way. He supported the proposal, finding it an excellent idea. The proposed
criteria will determine what is scheduled on the Consent Agenda. In his early years on the Council, many
items were on the Consent Agenda that had not been reviewed by committee. That changed after some
surprise items on the Consent Agenda; the proposal will address that without the unnecessary minutia in
committee meetings. The Council can add additional guidelines and Councilmembers have the ability to
pull items from the Consent Agenda. The proposed format allows Councilmembers to ask questions of
staff, adds transparency and assists staff, the public and councilmembers. It will provide greater
opportunity for the public to see more of what is going on and gives Councilmember a better
understanding of the details.
Councilmember Bloom said she emailed Councilmembers a proposed hybrid approach but was unable to
find it now. She suggested Senior Executive Council Assistant Jana Spellman find the email with her
suggested approach. Councilmember Bloom explained she averaged the number of committee items and
found an average of 17.2 total items per month. The PSP Committee has a lot fewer agenda items,
Finance and PPP Committees have the highest number of agenda items. Her analysis also considered
public comments at committee meetings. She found that public comment at committees was more
intimate and allowed conversation.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 26, 2014
Page 10
Councilmember Bloom suggested holding committee meetings before meetings and two work sessions to
discuss all the items the Council typically considers and are most likely not to be scheduled on Consent
Agenda. She also suggested holding committee meetings following one Council meeting per month to
discuss items that seem to be Consent Agenda items. This approach would cover all the bases. She was
concerned with eliminating the PPP Committee as reviewing the volume of agenda items would be an
enormous burden on the full Council. She preferred to have the PPP Committee screen those items.
Councilmember Bloom was also concerned the proposal to continue the Finance Committee, comprised
of the Council President and two other Councilmembers, places an additional responsibility on the
Council President. An option would be to eliminate the PSP Committee since most of the items are on
Consent and those that are not, require discussion by the full Council such as the ethics policy and code of
conduct. If the PSP Committee were eliminated, Councilmembers with the exception of the Council
President, could be divided among the two remaining committees. She requested the Council consider
this hybrid approach and for the information in her email to be provided the next time the Council
discusses this topic.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas did not support having committee meetings following Council meetings.
Often the Council meets as early as 6 p.m. for an executive session; having a committee meeting
following a Council meeting would be very difficult. She suggested dissolving the PSP and PPP
Committees and holding the Finance Committee meeting prior to a Council meeting and filming it.
Councilmember Mesaros clarified his proposal was also a hybrid; the committees would be retained and
meet at the same time as the Finance Committee. To avoid repetition, the committees can consider items
that will be scheduled on the Consent Agenda, items the full Council should discuss will not be reviewed
by a committee.
Councilmember Petso endorsed Councilmember Mesaros’ approach which would retain the committees.
Another option is to shift park-related items to the PSP Committee to better distribute agenda items,
noting Ms. Hite already attends the PSP meetings to present items related to personnel.
Council President Buckshnis assured it was not her intent to have Finance Committee meetings that were
secret or behind closed doors. She agreed with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas’ suggestion to have
Finance Committee meetings filmed. She suggested retaining the Finance Committee because of the four
cities listed, three kept their Finance Committee. She felt it was more effective to discuss long range
financing, budget forecasting and policy discussions in a smaller group setting and then forward it to the
full Council. She included the Council President in the Finance Committee to add a third member. She
supported trying the alternating study session with only the Finance Committee and if a Councilmember
had an issue with a Consent Agenda item, it could be pulled.
Council President Buckshnis said in Council Presidents, Councilmembers and Mayors in other cities
agree this is a more efficient method; it avoids duplication of work and information and allows for better
communication between Councilmembers and with the public. If the public is uncomfortable with being
filmed during a Council during study sessions, their comments can be audio recorded rather than filmed.
Councilmember Peterson said he was initially undecided about keeping the Finance Committee; it makes
sense as it is the basis of a lot of decisions. With only the Finance Committee, it can be televised and
additional Councilmembers can attend the Finance Committee meeting if they wish because the meetings
are noticed as open public meeting. Televising the Finance Committee meetings also allows the public to
see the steps in the process. If all three committees are retained, there is no way to televise all three.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 26, 2014
Page 11
Councilmember Bloom asked how the Finance Committee meeting could be televised. Councilmember
Peterson explained their meeting would be held before the work session. If all Councilmembers can
attend the Finance Committee meeting and it is televised, Councilmember Bloom pointed out the items
could just be discussed at a full Council meeting. She supported having two work sessions per month.
However, during the budget process it was her understanding the Council President found it difficult to
schedule agenda items and she anticipated it would be even more difficult if action would not be taken at
two meetings per month.
Councilmember Petso agreed with Councilmember Bloom’s comment regarding scheduling in the final
quarter of year. She experienced that last year and recalled Councilmember Peterson chastising the
Council with the phrase, “we’re running out of Tuesdays in this calendar year.” If the Council chooses to
change the format, she suggested beginning in January.
Council President Buckshnis recalled last year there was a closed record review that consumed a great
deal of the Council’s time. She has worked with Mayor and Directors on the extended agenda and
preferred to try the proposed process beginning in October. She reiterated her support for retaining the
Finance Committee, pointing out three of four cities have a Finance Committee and it is important to have
policy discussion and long term planning in a committee meeting.
Mayor Earling advised the discussion will continue next week. Council President Buckshnis relayed the
agenda item next week will include action.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
10. DISCUSSION OF PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION FOR PROPOSED ZONING
CHANGES RELATED TO WESTGATE
Planning Manager Rob Chave provided background on the Westgate code discussion:
• Public hearing on August 4, 2014
• Staff has reviewed the hearing record and follow-up discussion on the draft code. As part of that
review, staff suggested:
o Make sure that the code is consistent with the expressed intent
o Remove inconsistencies
• Approximately a dozen issues were combined into seven discussion topics:
1. Commercial requirements
• Clarifying the various building types to include commercial requirements, especially
regarding the commercial mixed use types
Building Type Residential Uses Office Uses Retail
1. Rowhouse Any floor Not allowed Not allowed
2. Courtyard Any floor Ground floor only Ground floor only
3. Stacked dwellings Any floor Ground floor only Ground floor only
4. Live-work Not ground floor Ground floor only Ground floor only
5. Loft mixed use Not ground floor Any floor Any floor
6. Side Court Mixed use Not ground floor Any floor Ground floor only
7. Commercial Mixed use Not ground floor Not ground floor Any floor
8. Assuring commercial space
• Adjusted the building type location diagram (page 8) to be more consistent with the
overall intended commercial mixed use chapter of Westgate. (The old diagram is
included on page 9 for reference, but will be deleted if the new diagram on page 8 is
preferable.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 26, 2014
Page 12
• “Commercial mixed use” is not described as a “commercial block”
He displayed diagrams illustrating where different building types are allowed under the current
code and under the revised code. The biggest change is the two residential types. The original
UW diagrams showed residential along SR-104, basically where McDonald’s is. Residential
building types generally are now focused along 100th at the north and south extremes of Westgate
and an opportunity for residential along the slope. He displayed drawings illustrating:
• Adjustments to two residential building types to limit them to secondary commercial
locations (removed option for residential only from QFC owned property)
• Adjustment to the commercial mixed use building type (the principal commercial type) to
allow it throughout the Westgate zone district
9. Amenity vs. open space
• Clarified the intent to provide both amenity and open space within the area with 15%
independent requirement for each
• Amenity space must be public, while open space can be public or private. In either case,
each has its own requirements. Preserving slopes can count as open space but is not
amenity space.
• Note: no other zone in the city has anything like these requirements
He explained the difference between amenity space, open space and setbacks. Setbacks provide
locations for buildings; it does not describe what happens within the setback. Typically in large
setback in commercial zones in the City there is a landscape strip along the street, then a parking
area, not open space or amenity space.
10. Parking standards
• Remember these are minimums
• Added an increased parking standard (1.75 spaces per unit) for residential units that
exceed 900 square feet. This will achieve two goals:
o More residential parking for larger units (that may accommodate more residents per
unit)
o Provide an added incentive for smaller dwelling units
• Note: 900 square foot units are encouraged for affordability purposes (UW
recommended)
• Proposed overall blended parking rate for commercial space is 1/500 square feet
• Existing groceries have 1 space per 350 square feet. Peak use is PM peak hour, much less
during other parts of day.
• Commercial uses within an area may have different peak use periods
• Current usage assumes a shared parking area
• Comparisons with other cities show blended parking rates vary widely; many at 1/500
(Mountlake Terrace, Bothell, Issaquah, Redmond, Kent), others at 1/400 (Bothell, Kent)
or more. Some have no commercial requirement (Everett, Renton). Rates also vary by
location within jurisdiction.
• Residential parking generally varies from 0.75 or 1.0 per unit to sometimes more for
larger units.
11. Large-format retail
• Incentives have been added for large-format retail uses (e.g. groceries, drug stores):
1. Added bonus points for large-format retail in the height bonus table (page 37)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 26, 2014
Page 13
2. A potential for 5 more feet of building height to accommodate the need for higher
ceiling space in large-format retailers (the extra 5 feet is only available when a large
format retail space is provided in the building (page 6/7). If the bonus is obtained for
large format retail space, the space cannot be subdivided into small retail in the
future.
3. Intent is for existing large format retail to be retained; note existing
leases/ownerships and Bartell’s interest in expanding their investment.
Mr. Chave displayed and reviewed a Height Bonus Score Sheet that identified amenities already
required and items that qualify for height bonus.
12. Building Design
• A series of design standards have been added, addressing such things as massing and
articulation, orientation to the street, ground level details, pedestrian facades, and blank
walls. This includes a 12-foot minimum ceiling height for the first floor commercial
space in the commercial building types
• One further change is needed – acknowledge outdoor uses such as outdoor dining spaces
Mr. Chave displayed diagrams in the code for the BD zones downtown.
13. Traffic and setbacks
• While traffic study shows no overall impact on levels of service, any further development
will be analyzed for detailed traffic impacts (e.g. turning movements, access points)
• 12-foot setback preserves options; SR-140 study will provide additional
recommendations for right-of-way improvements. Improvements for connecting the
Westgate quadrants will be part of future plans.
Councilmember Bloom asked what the 12-foot setback is from. Mr. Chave answered from the right-of-
way. The pavement is within right-of-way as well as some of sidewalk area, basically the property line
adjourning the right-of-way. Councilmember Bloom referred to the area of SR-104 west of PCC where
there is a 12-foot setback from SR-104. Mr. Chave clarified the 12-foot setback is from the right-of-way;
generally the sidewalk is within the right-of-way. In most instances, the 12-foot setback would start at the
back of the sidewalk. Councilmember Bloom asked the width of the sidewalk in that area. Mr. Chave
answered it varies between 5 and 8 feet; most of it is within the right-of-way. He summarized the 12-foot
sidewalk is not from the paved edge, it is typically from the sidewalk edge.
Councilmember Bloom explained she walked on the sidewalk along SR-104 in that area of Westgate with
a friend a few weeks ago and found it scary and uncomfortable because the sidewalk is so narrow. She
observed a 12-foot setback from that would not be not very far. For comparison, she walked the
Lynnwood Crossroads development at 196th and Hwy 99. The sidewalks area 12 feet wide, the corner
store is setback approximately 30 feet and another store to the west is setback 30 feet from the sidewalk
with a drive-through. Although Hwy 99 is a busy road, walking there was not nearly as uncomfortable
due to the 12-foot sidewalk and the 30-foot setback. She summarized a 12-foot setback from SR-104 with
5-6 foot sidewalks is completely inadequate. She encouraged Councilmembers to walk in that area. Mr.
Chave commented the lower multi-family building near Compass has a typically arrangement for
walking, a planted area between the roadway and the sidewalk with trees. He commented the location of
buildings is much less important than the interface between the walkway and the travel way.
Councilmember Bloom said she was unable to walk as far east as Compass because of her discomfort
with the proximity to the traffic. Mr. Chave agreed a narrow sidewalk adjoining the travel way is not
desirable. Councilmember Bloom calculated if there is a 12-foot setback and 6 feet is used for a sidewalk,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 26, 2014
Page 14
the building will be 6 feet from the sidewalk. Mr. Chave explained there is typically 6-8 feet between
travel way and the edge of the right-of-way; frequently that is where is the sidewalk is located. Under this
proposal there would be an additional 12 feet, providing 18-20 feet from the travel way. Councilmember
Bloom observed if the sidewalk is widened to 12 feet, 6 feet of the 12 foot setback would be consumed.
Mr. Chave explained the intent is provide enough setback to allow separation from the walking area and
the travel way. As redevelopment occurs, there would be a green planting area/buffer between the travel
way and the sidewalk.
Councilmember Johnson inquired about the current setback. Mr. Chave advised it is 20 feet.
Councilmember Mesaros observed the proposed parking is 1/500 square feet. He asked about the current
parking ratio at QFC. Mr. Chave answered it is approximately 1/350 square feet. The parking ratio on
QFC’s property is lower than 1/350 square feet, more like 1/370 square feet. The 1/350 square feet was
calculated by counting the parking that is typically used by QFC.
Councilmember Petso thanked Mr. Chave and staff for working on these changes, advising several of her
questions have been addressed by the changes. As she still has a large number of issues, she will schedule
a meeting with staff. She asked for a copy of tonight’s presentation. She referred to the building type
diagram and expressed concern that the commercial mixed use (formerly commercial block) was the only
type of building allowed on several parcels such as Taco Bell, PCC, QFC, Key Bank, Starbucks, FedEx,
Ivars and Goodwill. She noted some other Bartell Drugs are doing lot line to lot line mixed use with the
Bartells on the bottom. She expressed concerned with requiring so many properties to build the
commercial block building. Mr. Chave answered it is not required, it is an option.
Councilmember Petso referred to the Goodwill parcel, pointing out no other type of building was allowed.
Mr. Chave agreed that may be true for Goodwill. Councilmember Petso reiterated that was true for Taco
Bell, PCC, QFC, Key Bank, Starbucks, FedEx, Ivars and Goodwill. She offered to meet with staff to
discuss an alternative. There are many services provided at Westgate that that building type does not
provide, for instance a gas station. Mr. Chave advised the gas station is further east. She inquired about a
drive-through in a lot line to lot line building. Mr. Chave explained in this proposal a commercial mixed
use building is not lot line to lot line due to the 15% amenity and 15% open space requirement
Councilmember Petso commented for Type 7 buildings, decks count as open space; however, the
definition of open space in the code is unobstructed from the ground up. Mr. Chave explained the 15%
amenity space is required; if a developer goes above 15% they may be able to use some of it as open
space. Councilmember Petso assumed lot line to lot line would be a possibility with the exception of the
setback.
Councilmember Petso observed the rational for a different parking standard was to encourage more units
because that would be more affordable. She recalled Mr. Smith stating that smaller unit are not
necessarily affordable housing. Mr. Chave explained there are direct and indirect methods of housing
affordability. Most of what Edmonds does is indirect because the City does not have a formal affordable
housing mechanism. The direct methods used in the past include supporting the Housing Authority when
they purchased buildings, Section 8 housing. Indirect methods are reducing costs such as reducing
parking or smaller units. He agreed indirect methods do not directly result in affordable housing but the
goal was to reduce the overall cost factor for housing. As Mr. Smith mentioned, by partnering with the
AHA, they may be able to provide some of the necessary support to pursue affordable housing. A key
element is tracking, monitoring and enforcing affordable units/rents.
Councilmember Petso expressed concerned with simply providing smaller units. Mr. Chave commented
another reason for smaller units is demographic changes such as aging households and younger people
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 26, 2014
Page 15
looking for a different type of housing. That is one of the reasons reduced parking for smaller units
potentially makes sense.
Councilmember Petso expressed support for the 12-foot minimum ceiling height and asked if the
minimum ceiling height downtown was 15 feet. Mr. Chave answered only in the retail core.
Councilmember Petso observed additional building height would be allowed for greater than a 12-foot
ceiling height. Mr. Chave answered the extra height is only allowed if building includes a large format
retail, a minimum of 15,000 square feet.
If she accepts that the height limit was calculated to be appropriate for the surrounding residences
Councilmember Petso asked whether it would it be inappropriate if additional height were allowed. Mr.
Chave answered the building heights were substantially the surrounding heights except in the southeast
quadrant. If the Council was willing to allow the additional height in other locations, the southeast
quadrant could be excluded. The size of the properties in that area makes it questionable that a large
format retail could be built in that location. In the other locations the building heights are nowhere near
the surrounding slopes. Councilmember Petso recalled a development agreement does not provide a way
to restrict the future use of a building. Mr. Chave answered the code can specify once the bonus has been
accept and the minimum 15,000 square foot space provided that subdividing is prohibited.
Council President Buckshnis pointed out the Compass apartments are not point based incentive zoning; it
was a contract rezone. The Westgate Plan is predetermined point based incentive zoning for bonuses
which Edmonds has never utilized before. Mr. Chave said Compass was not a contract rezone; the zoning
was proposed by a developer and certain things were required to achieve an additional 5 feet in height.
Council President Buckshnis pointed out that development was not form-based code that addresses
streetscape, landscaping, etc. Mr. Chave recalled the setbacks for the Compass development were
substantially smaller such as 4 feet.
In response to Councilmember Petso’s concern, Council President Buckshnis pointed out live-work,
stacked and courtyards are allowed on the corner of the Goodwill property. She assured this will not result
in a Compass type development because the City has never before utilizing point driven incentives. Mr.
Chave pointed out the setbacks are larger than Compass and Compass did not have any requirement for
open space or amenity space. Council President Buckshnis agreed with Councilmember Bloom that a 12-
foot setback is not sufficient and she preferred to retain the 20 foot setback. Mr. Chave explained an
option would be to retain the 20-foot setback until the SR-104 study was completed.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember Bloom that it is an uncomfortable area to
walk. For next weeks’ discussion, she asked for a drawing of where things would be in the right-of-way.
Mr. Chave offered to provide cross sections.
Councilmember Peterson asked how much space is needed in the setback for a travel lane or parking. He
was concerned if the setback was too large, there would be a sidewalk between the highway and a drive-
through. Mr. Chave recalled language in the proposed code that does not allow drive-through between
building and street. Councilmember Peterson asked whether the setback would be green space. Mr. Chave
explained recent development on SR-104 in Westgate was with a 20-foot setback. Developers typically
do not build a building with a 20-foot setback; buildings are typically built further onto the property with
a parking lot between the building and the sidewalk and travel way because the 20-foot setback pushes
them there. The only requirement the City has is a 5-foot planting strip. Retaining the 20-foot setback in
the interim would allow the 15% amenity space and 15% open space to be accomplished in that space.
Councilmember Peterson asked whether open space can be in the setback. Mr. Chave answered it can.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 26, 2014
Page 16
Councilmember Mesaros referred to Councilmembers Fraley-Monillas’ and Bloom’s comments about
walking on SR-104. He often walks from his home at Pt. Edwards to Esperance at 238th & 84th
approximately 3 miles. He agreed it was much safer at the Compass development. The proposal will
improve the existing situation in the Westgate area. He noted it was particularly bad west of the
commercial area on SR-104 along the Woodway border.
Councilmember Bloom referred to Nick Echelbarger’s presentation to the Economic Development
Commission about Salish Crossing. One Commissioner expressed concern about spillover parking; Mr.
Echelbarger said Salish Crossing has 4.66 spaces/1,000 square feet. Mr. Chave agreed, noting it was a
huge parking area. Councilmember Bloom relayed Mr. Echelbarger’s comment that Lynnwood
Crossroads had 3.9 spaces/1000 square feet. She expressed concern that the parking would not be
sufficient if residential was added to the existing 1/350 square feet. Mr. Chave advised the residential
parking standards would be in addition to the commercial parking standards. Councilmember Bloom was
also concerned with traffic egress and ingress, anticipating it would be worse with buildings closer to the
street.
Councilmember Bloom reported she visited the Compass development today to inquire why their
commercial space is not completely full; one space is occupied and two are empty. She learned the three
spaces were built to be live-work spaces but the City does not allow it to be used as live-work space. The
tenant, Farmers, had to do a great deal of tenant improvements to create office space. The broker raised
many issues associated with residential/retail close to SR-104 including traffic speeds, difficulty getting
in and out, signage not visible from the street and venting is an issue for a bakery or restaurant. Mr. Chave
agreed office space is difficult to convert to commercial space. Councilmember Bloom relayed the
broker’s indication that even if the space could be vented properly, smells would cause problems for
residents.
Councilmember Bloom clarified she was not opposed to residential at Westgate but she has not seen
combined residential and commercial work well in Edmonds due to contradiction between residential and
commercial spaces. Residential requires privacy; there are no setbacks proposed for privacy. She believes
the concept of residential sharing parking with retail is a fantasy that will not work. It appears the entire
space could potentially become commercial mixed use. She anticipated developers will do whatever
maximizes their profit. Her office is located in a building with below ground retail; the landlord said he
made enough money on the condos that he did not need to fill the office spaces. She was concerned with
filling the entire area with mixed use and considering it a destination when the destination is the
waterfront and downtown. The comments Councilmember Petso provided today excerpted from
approximately 20 emails from citizens reflect those same concerns. She recommended the Council
discuss the reality of how this will work and suggested locating residential in a more private, specific area
rather than giving a developer free rein to place commercial and residential in the same place.
Councilmember Petso recalled amenity spaces must be public; she asked whether the amenity space could
be elevated such as on the roof of a parking garage. Mr. Chave answered he did not believe so but would
need to check. It is not allowed to be on the rooftop such as a roof garden. Councilmember Petso said a
courtyard in front of a building such as the Hazel Miller Plaza is a more valuable amenity. Mr. Chave
advised it could be on top of a submerged parking garage. A garage deck is when the top of the garage is
at ground level or below.
Councilmember Petso inquired about the ability to construct a building lot line to lot line. She observed
there is a 12-foot setback from the two major streets and other than that it is the fire code setback unless
the property abuts a residential area. Mr. Chave answered amenity space and open space must be
provided. Councilmember Petso observed decks count as open space and amenity space can be on top of a
parking garage. Councilmember Peterson pointed out Mr. Chave already said amenity space could not be
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 26, 2014
Page 17
on top of a parking garage. Councilmember Petso pointed out amenity space could be a deck on a
subterranean parking garage. Mr. Chave clarified that would be ground level amenity space.
Councilmember Petso asked whether private balconies could provide open space. Mr. Chave answered he
did not think so but he would verify that.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the 15% amenity space was public space. Mr. Chave
answered amenity space is defined as publicly accessible and usable by the public, it is not necessarily
publicly owned. An example is the seating area outside Starbucks.
Mayor Earling relayed Agenda Items 12 and 13 are being deleted.
11. PRESENTATION ON DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE AFFECTING THE CG ZONES IN THE
HIGHWAY 99 AREA
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the Planning Board recommendations focused on two issues:
1. 2-floor commercial requirement before residential units can be added
2. Parking standards
He reviewed goals for the update:
• Remove obstacles to redevelopment
• Encourage retention of commercial uses while encouraging more residential uses along Hwy 99 –
develop a “community”
• Take advantage of transit and other development scenarios developing along the corridor in other
jurisdictions (Lynnwood, Shoreline, Everett)
With regard to the commercial requirement, he explained:
• Planning Board looked at two options with the focus on removing the requirement for two floors
of commercial space:
o No commercial requirement
o Minimum requirement (e.g. equivalent of 1 floor of commercial across the site)
• Planning Board recommended no requirement with a review after one year of experience
With regard to parking standards, he explained:
• Planning Board looked at two options:
o Single blended rate of two-tiered parking requirement based on access to Hwy 99 (1/400
square feet or 1/600 square feet)
o A parking study option was also considered, where a project-specific study could be
approved in lieu of the specified standards
• The Planning Board recommended the two-tiered parking system and the study option
He advised the Council will have a public hearing on the proposed revision to the development code.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
MESAROS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 10 MINTUES. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas inquired about Shoreline and Lynnwood’s parking requirements. Mr.
Chave answered Lynnwood required 1 parking space per unit for residential in their Hwy 99 Mixed Use
nodes and 3/1,000 square feet for commercial. He was uncertain whether Shoreline had any parking
requirements unique to Hwy 99. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas remarked there is already overflow into
the neighborhoods from businesses on Hwy 99.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 26, 2014
Page 18
Mr. Chave relayed this is the Planning Board’s recommendation; for the public hearing the Council could
advertise the other options the Planning Board considered. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed
support for flexibility in developing standards on Hwy 99 to encourage development.
Councilmember Johnson commented she is familiar with the ITE parking generation report. She recalled
the intent was to avoid recalculating parking requirements when a business leaves and was replaced by
another business. She felt the best information was local information such as determining the amount of
parking provided at Safeway, Ranch 99 and Top Foods based on square footage. Mr. Chave advised Top
Foods provided far more parking than was required. Top Foods found the huge expanse of unused
parking was not producing revenue and began to redevelop within their property. He urged caution when
looking at existing parking provided for a specific use by a specific developer at a point in time; it does
not necessarily reflect what the standards are or should be. In addition parking needs vary based on use
and even the specific company.
Councilmember Petso asked staff to provide standards applicable to a rezone. Mr. Chave advised this is
text amendment to the Zoning Code not a rezone. Councilmember Petso commented one of her concerns
is the elimination of the commercial requirement is not consistent with CG Zone or the Comprehensive
Plan; both call for Hwy 99 to be a commercial area. She requested the City Attorney consider that. She
asked whether the changes to the CG Zones would apply to the Port property or any other CG-zoned
property in the City. She recalled reference to a Hwy 99 Task Force and Planning Board joint discussion
in February which was not publicly noticed and no minutes were taken. Recently Mr. Taraday informed
the Council a recommendation was null and void for failure to comply with the Open Public Meetings
Act and she requested the City Attorney research whether that meeting somehow tainted the process.
Councilmember Bloom asked whether the CG Zone text amendment applied to all CG and CG2 Zones in
the City. Mr. Chave answered the only one he could recall outside the Hwy 99 is Harbor Square. Harbor
Square was a contract rezone with very specific standards. The amendment could be limited to Hwy 99 if
the Council chose. He will research whether there are any other CG or CG2 zones.
12. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF AUGUST 12, 2014
This item was deleted from the agenda.
13. REPORT ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS
This item was deleted from the agenda.
14. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling reported he and staff are working on the budget. The decision packages have been
submitted and he will be reviewing them next week. The budget will be presented to the Council on
October 7.
Mayor Earling reported the Pacific Little League did very well in the Little League World Series; the first
time a Little League team from Snohomish County has been involved at this level. A Welcome Home
Celebration will be held tomorrow at 6 p.m. at Lynndale Park in Lynnwood. Councilmembers are invited.
He and Lynnwood Mayor Nicola Smith will be there.
Mayor Earling reported on meetings with Fire District 1 FD1. They have settled their union contract and
there will be substantial increases in the contract amount in 2015. He will provide further information
when it becomes available.
15. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Buckshnis advised she is in the process of developing the extended agenda which
includes budget discussions. She invited Councilmembers to inform her of other items they would like
added to extended agenda. She commented on the Pacific Little League's Welcome Home Celebration
tomorrow evening.
Councilmember Mesaros thanked Councilmember Johnson for organizing Sunday's volunteer picnic.
16. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110(1)( )
This item was not needed.
17. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
This item was not needed.
18. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:09 p.m.
7n -Al
;A-, DAVID O. EARLING, MAYOR SCL�TT PAS ,.CI CL RIG
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 26, 2014
Page 19