Cmd020420EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APPROVED MINUTES
February 4, 2020
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
Susan Paine, Councilmember
Laura Johnson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Zach Bauder, Student Representative
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Scott James, Finance Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Mike Clugston, Planner
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. by Mayor Nelson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5`' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Councilmember Distelhorst read the City Council Land Acknowledge Statement: "We acknowledge the
original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes,
who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their
sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land
and water."
3. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, congratulated the Councilmembers who were elected and selected,
commenting it was a good process. During the Councilmember selection process, at approximately ballot
number 18 when Councilmembers were describing why they had nominated a person, he was shocked by
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 4, 2020
Page ]
the negative comments made by Councilmember Buckshnis regarding one of the applicants, Lora Petso.
He was most bothered by Councilmember Buckshnis lying in her statement about the $5 million which Ms.
Petso had nothing to do with. The topic of the $5 million happened during a previous administration and
finance director. Ms. Petso was not on the Finance Committee, and was only the Council President. He said
Councilmember Buckshnis' comments were out of character for a Councilmember. Ms. Petso was polite
enough not to say anything although those around her have been speaking out including comments made
on My Edmonds News. He summarized the people of Edmonds did not care for Councilmember Buckshnis'
performance that night and she owes the Council and Ms. Petso an apology.
6. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2020
2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 2020
3. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 2020
4. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENT
5. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY FOR THE SEAVIEW PARK INFILTRATION FACILITY
PHASE 2
6. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF MICROSOFT OFFICE 365
7. ACTION ITEM
HIGHWAY 99 PHASE ONE PROJECT
Mayor Nelson said he was very excited about this project and his hat was off to staff, particularly Public
Works who, even in light of the challenges the City faces due to the lack of state and federal transportation
fund, have developed a project that jumpstarts what the City has been trying to do on Highway 99 for a
long time to protect pedestrians, prevent vehicle crashes, and enhance and revitalize Highway 99. This
project endeavors to that on a quick and affordable pace.
Development Services Director Shane Hope reminded of the work that went into the Hwy 99 planning
process including Council approval of the Highway 99 Plan, a vision for Highway 99 that includes
opportunities for development as well improving the function, walkability, and safety of the corridor. The
corridor improvements are costly and the City has struggled with a way to move forward with a project that
brings the vision closer and is helpful for traffic and pedestrians.
Public Works Director Phil Williams commented this is very complicated, matching the possible funding
sources with the work planned for Hwy 99 and accomplishing as much as possible with the initial funding
in hopes of attract more money. He reviewed:
9 Introduction
o Aerial view of project
0 244th St SW to 212th St SW (— 2.3 miles)
o Speed limit: 45 mph
o Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 40,000 vehicles per day
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 4, 2020
Page 2
o City Limits: approx. 25,000' both sides
■ Edmonds (approx. 20,000' frontage — 80%)
■ Esperance (Snohomish Co. approx. 1,500')
■ Mountlake Terrace (approx. 1,000' north of 220th)
■ Lynnwood (approx. 2,500' total, 1,900' south of 212th)
o Other Nearby Transportation Assets
* Interurban Trail
■ Lynnwood Link
■ MLT Transit Station
o Funding
■ $10 million Connect Washington funding in 2018
■ $450,000 spent to date
■ $9.55 million available in 2021
■ $290,000 in local funds
Project costs ($Million/2020 dollars)
Segment
Limits
Roadway Cost
Utility Cost
Utility U/G Cost
Total Cost
1
244" to 238" Streets SW
$20.6
$2.4
$8.8
$30.0
2
2381h to 2341h Streets SW
$10.3
$1.4
$5.1
$15.8
3
2341h to 2281h Streets SW
$18.3
$2.4
$6.9
$26.0
4
228' to 2241h Streets SW
$13
$1.8
$5.9
$1.3
5
2241h to 220" Streets SW
$14.1
$3
$9.4
$26.5
6
2201h to 2161h Streets SW
$14.0
$1.8
$8.2
$24.0
7
216111 to 2121h Streets SW
$23.1
$3
$10.2
$36.3
Total Costs
$113.4
$15.8
$54.5
$183.7
Proposed Scope Change
o Current scope (estimated project cost $183,000M)
■ New sidewalks with new street lighting in most locations
■ Center landscaped medians for access control and turning movements
■ Utility improvements
■ Landscaping and other softscape treatments
■ Capacity improvements at existing signalized intersections
■ Potential undergrounding of overhead utilities
o Revised scope
■ Center medians for access control and turning movements along entire corridor
■ Traffic signal or HAWK installation (location TBD)
■ Considered a traffic signal at 2341h, have enough funding but not enough warrants to
justify so likely not approved by State
Existing
o Geometry cross sections
■ 84' curb to curb roadway
■ 8' sidewalks
■
13' transit lanes
■
Two 11' travel lanes each direction
■
12' center turn lane
o Signal
■
244th St SW
■
238th St SW
■
228th St SW
■
224th St SW
■
220th St SW
■
216th St SW
*
212" St SW
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 4, 2020
Page 3
• Future improvements with cross sections
o Raised median
• No Hwy 99 widening
■ Add raised/planted medians between intersection with left -turn openings
• Add C -curbs along left turn lanes at intersections
■ Add HAWK or traffic signal (specific location: TBD)
• Future build -out
o Widen Hwy 99 at 238"' St SW
• Add dual left -turn lanes NB at 238t" St SW
o Keep raised, planted medians between intersections completed as part of Raised Median
Project
o Replace C -Curb with concrete hardscape median at intersection
o Add ITS and upgrade existing traffic signals
o Potential undergrounding of overhead utility lines
• Cost estimate of revised scope
o Raised median total project cost $.5M (funded through Connecting Washington 2021-2023
Biennium
• Design phase $1M
■ Construction phase $5.5M
o Traffic signal or HAWK signal (location: TBD)
• Total project cost: range from $1M to $6M (based on selected options)
• Funding sources
- Remaining connecting Washington funds ($9.55M)
- Some or all of the $6.2M allocated to the Waterfront Connector project
- Future grant opportunities (Highway Safety Improvement Program/HSIP)
• Next Steps
o Raised median
• Approval of scope change by WSDOT Early 2020
■ Design 2020
• Construction 2021 (early 2021 advertisement)
o Future build -out
• Design TBD (secure funding)
• Construction TBD (secure funding/future development)
Mr. Williams referred to development along the City of Shoreline's frontage which has dramatically
increased activity; he anticipated the same would happen in Edmonds. Each project, particularly large
mixed use and residential projects, can be asked to dedicate property along their frontage and can be
required to build the frontage improvements.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said before serving ten years on the City Council, she was on the
Highway 99 Committee for five years. She liked the idea of a planting strip, envisioning it would improve
safety. She also encouraged staff to continue looking a HAWK signal at 234"' as the area between 238"' and
228' as there are bus stops along that section with pedestrians trying to cross seven lanes of traffic which
result in fatalities and personal injuries. She recognized the importance of traffic safety, commenting she
has seen at least ten accidents in the area between 220"' and 2241", but she was also concerned with
pedestrian safety. The new apartments in process next to the community health center will increase the
number of people trying to cross seven lanes of traffic. She summarized the planting strip was a great first
step to improving safety.
Mr. Williams agreed a HAWK signal would be a big step forward if WSDOT would approve it which he
believed they would since they approved two in Shoreline. He said the HAWK signal would not necessarily
be located at 234" and may be slightly north or south. He reviewed highlights of the crash history:
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 4, 2020
Page 4
• 8.61 crashes per million miles traveled, 3.5 times the state average.
r One-quarter of accidents involve vehicles coming to or from two-way left turn lane
■ 220"' to 220 has the most accidents followed by 228th to 228th
Mr. Williams said center turn lane improvements will change the dynamic of the accidents and can address
all the segments at the same time. Another benefit of the center median improvements is they begin to make
a visual statement, a commitment to the entire frontage along with the future gateway improvements that
identify when drivers are entering/leaving Edmonds. The gateway improvements have not yet been
designed; staff is hopeful they can be incorporated into this project.
Council President Fraley-Monillas agreed the HAWK signal did not necessarily need to be located at 230
but the lack of a crossing in that ten block section has created lot of problems. She pointed out Shoreline
has HAWK signals in front of the ice arena and further south and there are also areas where drivers can
make left turns which has created a much safer environment. Shoreline has also been successful in reducing
the speed limit from 45 to 40 and she was hopeful that could be accomplished with this project. Mr.
Williams said WSDOT is reluctant to reduce the speed limit without any improvements. Construction of a
median provides a visual clue to drivers to slow down which may justify lowering the speed limit to 40.
Although not the intent, if a person chooses to cross Highway 99, the median provides some semblance of
a refuge. Council President Fraley-Monillas agreed but said that was not a substitute for a crosswalk and a
HAWK signal.
Councilmember L. Johnson commended staff for developing a plan that did not wait to address safety on
Highway 99, specifically a plan that would address safety on the entire stretch of Hwy 99. During the last
year she has heard a number of concerns about safety on Highway 99 and as the mom of teenage drivers,
she is very aware of the disproportionate number of accidents that occur on Highway 99. She was also
interested in the gateway signs to welcome people to the City. Although she recognized the center island
improvements could provide a place of refuge for pedestrians, she cautioned her children not to do that.
Recognizing that 20% of the frontage is owned by other cities, Councilmember L. Johnson asked how the
City would partner with the other jurisdictions. With regard to a signal at 234th, she asked how far off the
warrants were, noting signals are evenly spaced except in that area. Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss
answered level of service (LOE) is based on intersection delay; A is no delay and E is over 55 seconds of
delay. That intersection is currently LOS B -C which indicates there is not a lot of traffic using 234th and
there minimal increase with development planned on the northwest corner. With a 20 year growth rate, the
intersection is still at LOC C.
Councilmember L. Johnson observed the warrants have been met for a HAWK signal. Mr. Williams said
that will be negotiated with WSDOT as the criteria is for a HAWK signal is more flexible. Few pedestrians
that use that intersection even though legally there is a crosswalk at any road that intersects with another
road. It is a very challenging area for pedestrians to cross 100 feet. With regard to the 20% frontage located
in other cities, Mr. Williams said staff has had discussion with the other cities and Snohomish County; the
City would sponsor the project. The cost estimates include all the frontage improvements; the partner
jurisdictions will need to approve the design.
Student Representative Bauder commented when a road is revamped, drivers tend to drive faster because
there are fewer bumps. He asked if there were any plans for additional speed cameras to keep the roadway
safe. Mr. Williams said traffic cameras cannot be used for speed control except in school zones.
Councilmember Paine said she spent much of the summer talking to people and often heard that when going
north on Highway 99 and crossing into Edmonds, it looks like you've entered 1950. She appreciate the
effort to move forward on this project quickly. She asked if this was the first time residents and businesses
have heard about the change in scope. Mr. Williams answered yes. Councilmember Paine envisioned an
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 4, 2020
Page 5
active community engagement plan so businesses and residents in the area understand what the project
looks like. Mr. Williams agreed frequent and high quality contact with businesses and residents is
anticipated, especially with property owners who will be keenly interested in limiting left turns.
Mr. Hauss recalled public outreach when the conceptual project was developed with the seven segments.
Although the complete project was not described, there were discussions about a raised median and mid -
block left turn pockets during public outreach. Councilmember Paine asked if residents and businesses
knew the project will potentially be constructed in the next 1'/z years. Mr. Williams said if the Council sees
merit in moving forward as staff has presented, the project consultant will develop a plan for public
outreach.
Councilmember Paine asked about the timeline for the project. Mr. Williams anticipated design in 2020,
going to bid in early 2021 and construction in 2021.
Councilmember Paine referred to warrants, commenting it was a term particular to the industry. It was her
understanding warrants were the number of people or vehicles involved in crashes. She asked if any other
data sets could be considered such as school bus stops to sway the decision to install a signal or a HAWK
signal. Mr. Williams said there are warrants for everything related to traffic engineering. For example a
stop sign, if a driver uses a stop sign 4 times a day and only sees another driver once every three weeks, the
stop sign stops having any value because it does not seem to provide any benefit. The idea behind warrants
is the installation of a traffic control measure should mean something and control a hazard that actually
exists, not just a hazard that might happen but only infrequently. The same is true for a signal although
there is a desire to avoid interfering with traffic flow if there is not a need. A certain amount of pedestrian
traffic and cross -street traffic is necessary to justify the traffic control. He explained Mr. Hauss is good at
warrant analyses and staff will maximize the case as much as possible. However, there are limits and with
the limited amount of congestion at that intersection, a signal does not appear to be the right answer. A
HAWK signal may be better option; the issue is finding the right location.
Councilmember Paine asked if a warrant analysis was done for the HAWK signal at City Park crossing SR -
104. Mr. Williams said that was a WSDOT warranted, funded and constructed project. The City contributed
approximately $10,000 to the $500,000 project. He never saw the warrant analysis. Mr. Hauss said a
HAWK signal will be added at SR -524 and 841". The threshold in the warrant analysis is 10 pedestrians
during the peak hour. A pedestrian count at Highway 99 & 234" found was one pedestrian crossed during
the entire day, well below the 10 pedestrian/hour threshold
Councilmember Paine asked about a HAWK signal at 7"' & SR -524t1 near Holy Rosary. Mr. Hauss
answered nine intersections will be improved as part of the Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Project, including
SR -524 & 9t" and a Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon (RRFB) at SR -524 & 7t". Mr. Williams said the cost
for a RRFB is $30,000 versus $200,000 for a HAWK signal.
Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about the $6.2M legislative re -appropriation which Mr. Williams
advised was state funding. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the $9.6M in Connecting Washington
funds and asked if the total was $15M. Mr. Williams clarified the re -appropriation of the $6.2M was on the
City's legislative agenda. After the passage of I-976, all the state -funded projects were examined; funds for
ongoing projects were preserved, projects that had not had any efforts were absorbed and several projects
were placed on a pause list. Edmonds' project is on the pause list which suggests there may be an
opportunity to have funds re -allocated from the pause list to the active list. The $6.2M for the Waterfront
Connector is currently unassigned but that does not mean Edmonds has access to it. There have been
discussion with legislature about using some or all of those funds to add elements to the center turn lane
improvements.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 4, 2020
Page 6
Councilmember Buckshnis observed there is $9.6M remaining from the existing Connect Washington
funds. Mr. Williams agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Shoreline where the utilities were
undergrounded, pointing out if 5G is installed, they will be located along Highway 99 so the City may not
want to spend the money to underground utilities. Mr. Williams answered 5G can be mounted on existing
utility pole but if the existing utilities are undergrounded, dedicated poles, even decorative poles, can be
installed and 5G antennas can be shielded/masked in a way that they are unnoticeable.
Councilmember Buckshnis said for the $54M cost of undergrounding utilities, she preferred to construct
pedestrian safety measures instead of aesthetic improvements. She agreed it would be great to have all the
utilities underground but it was costly to underground and to repair them. Mr. Williams said some of that
cost could be borne by development that funds future frontage improvements. For example, the GRE
development on the northwest corner of 234"' & Highway 99 will be undergrounding the utilities in front
of their project as well as doing frontage improvements. The community health center to the north will also
be installing frontage improvements. Over time, the utilities can be undergrounded without City funds.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO APPROVE THE INITIAL LANDSCAPING MEDIAN PROJECT ALONG THE ENTIRE
HIGHWAY 99 CORRIDOR IN ORDER TO REQUEST FROM THE LEGISLATURE RE -
APPROPRIATION OF THE $6.2 MILLION INITIALLY ALLOCATED TO THE FORMER
WATERFRONT CONNECTOR PROJECT TO THE HIGHWAY 99 PROJECT IN ORDER TO
FUND COMPLETION OF THIS FIRST PHASE IN THE 2021-2023 BIENNIUM.
Councilmember Olson expressed support for the motion. She commented there are circumstances and
projects that highlight how amazing City staff is. She thanked staff and Mayor Nelson for this interim
solution to what has been a long term problem for the City. With regard to the gateway signs, she said
citizens like to be involved in providing input and she hoped there was a process in place for getting input
from businesses and residents in that area, particularly the International District. Mr. Williams assured there
would be outreach to the public.
Councilmember Distelhorst appreciated staff's creativity in developing this project and bringing it forward.
He asked if this modular approach would limit any future elements in the larger plan or require any rework.
Mr. Williams answered not that staff could foresee; the design process will consider each intersection. The
intent is to install mid -block left turn pockets as well as U-turns at intersections which will require
maintaining turning radius. It may be possible to obtain a deviation to reduce the turning radius from 52
feet to 48 feet. There will be property takes at the intersections to provide adequate space for turning
movements.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. STUDY ITEMS
1. POTENTIAL CODE AMENDMENT TO UNIT LOT SUBDIVISION APPLICATION
PROCEDURE [AMD20190005]
Planner Mike Clugston explained the Council adopted a Unit Lot Subdivision code a few years ago that
allows the subdivision of townhomes, an alternative for fee -simple ownership instead of a
condominiumization process. Three fee -simple projects have been approved to date and several more are
at various stages of the review process. Based on that experience, staff has identified the need for a minor
change to application timing within the unit lot procedure to make the associated building permit reviews
more efficient for both staff and applicants. The existing code allows an applicant to apply for a unit lot
subdivision together with design review, together with a building permit application, or after a building
permit application is submitted. Applying for the unit lot subdivision after the building permit application
leads to processing inefficiencies for both staff and applicant. To streamline the process, staff is proposing
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 4, 2020
Page 7
a minor change in 20.75.045.C, to change "subsequent to" to "preceding." The intent is to ensure applicants
are aware of the need to apply for the unit lot subdivision earlier in process which will save staff and the
applicant time and money. Staff has educated a couple applicants in -the past 1-2 months while this change
has been in the work to encourage them to apply for the unit lot subdivision upfront and they were agreeable.
Councilmember Paine said she was familiar with unit lot subdivision in other municipalities. She liked the
change as well as ensuring predictability in the development process. She asked about the additional
language in subsection C, "For existing developed sites, a preliminary unit lot subdivision application may
be submitted at any time." She asked if this was prior or post occupancy. Mr. Clugston answered this
technique can be applied post occupancy for existing developed sites. For Councilmember Paine, Mr.
Clugston explained unit lot subdivision is only available to townhomes; flats would use the
condominiumization process.
If a tenant was unable to remain in a unit that was going through the unit lot subdivision, Councilmember
Paine asked if the developer was required to provide funds for displacement costs. Mr. Clugston said he
was not aware of anything like that in the City's code. Councilmember Paine remarked that is required in
other cities.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why a public hearing was necessary for such a small change. Mr.
Clugston answered a public hearing is required for a code amendment. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if
the reason this did not go through a Council committee was due to the public hearing at the Planning Board.
Mr. Clugston answered yes.
Mr. Clugston advised a public hearing at City Council has been scheduled.
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO
ADD "HOTEL" AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE CW ZONE
Planning Manager Rob Chave advised a study session and public hearing was held at the Planning Board
in response to a request from the Economic Development Commission (EDC) to include hotel as potential
use in the Commercial Waterfront (CW) Zone. He displayed a map of the Shoreline designations,
identifying the Urban Mixed Use II and Urban Mixed Use I; the CW Zone encompasses both basically west
of the railroad along the waterfront. The Planning Board considered the amendment and found it appropriate
to add hotel as a permitted use in the CW Zone. The Shoreline Master Program and Zoning Code would
also apply. He reviewed the applicable code sections:
r 24.30.070 SMP Urban Mixed Use environments
Urban Mixed Use I. This designation is appropriate to water -related and water -enjoyment
commercial and recreational uses.
Urban Mixed Use II. This designation is assigned to areas that are suitable and planned for high-
intensity, water -dependent uses related to commerce, transportation, and recreation.
• 24.40.040 Public access and views.
11. View Protection Regulations.
a. Within the urban mixed use I, urban mixed use II and adjacent aquatic I and aquatic II
shoreline designations no building or other major structure may be located within the
following required view corridors:
i. Landward of the ordinary high water mark, a view corridor must be maintained
across 30 percent of the average parcel width....
Mr. Chave commented most of the existing buildings on the waterfront do not comply with the 30% view
requirement. Given that the height limits in the CW zone are 30 feet and with the view corridor requirement,
the amendment would not result in a large building usually associated with a hotel; it would be a boutique
or small scale hotel.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 4, 2020
Page 8
Economic Development/Community Services Director Patrick Doherty said the EDC has discussed this
over the last couple years; the principal motivations were to capture more economic impact and enhance
the economic vitality of Edmonds as well as increase the limited supply of lodging in downtown Edmonds.
Although the City has a lot of visitors, overnight visitors either stay in the few rooms available in downtown
Edmonds or in Lynnwood where there are upward of 2,000 hotel rooms. The EDC's interest was to capture
a fraction of that economic impact; based on national averages, a day tripper spends $50-75/day and an
over-nightery spends $200/day. A hotel would also be a complimentary feature in Edmonds' downtown
where there are many activities, events and venues but limited lodging opportunities.
Mr. Doherty explained it was envisioned as reuse of existing buildings on the waterfront; there may be only
one building large enough to accommodate a hotel use. The existing buildings are all older and do not meet
today's standards; if they were demolished, it was likely to be replaced with a smaller building.. He relayed
a couple years ago an office building on the waterfront was for sale and the owner contacted him due to an
interested party who wanted to use it for a hotel. He informed them that a hotel was not allowed. If this
amendment was approved, there could be interest in the future for reuse of an existing building on the
waterfront.
Mr. Chave explained this only an introduction to the issue. A public hearing is scheduled on February 18th
Councilmember K. Johnson was troubled that the EDC Chair sent a memo to the Planning Board Chair.
She did not recall any other time since she has been on Council that that had occurred. According to the
memo, it was pursuant to the EDC's work plan. The EDC meets with the City Council once a year and
presents their work plan; she did not recall this issue being on their work plan. She felt this was an end run
and it would have been more appropriate to ask the City Council to consider this and for the City Council
to refer it to the Planning Board. She clarified her concern was not with the content but with the process.
Mr. Doherty relayed the code states the EDC and Planning Board are encouraged to collaborate on issues.
When the EDC raised an issue and discovered it required Planning Board input/approval, they interpreted
that as they should approach the Planning Board. Councilmember K. Johnson said she was the Planning
Board liaison to the EDC when it was first established in 2010; there was a format for that collaboration
and both the Planning Board and EDC worked on multiple projects such as Westgate redevelopment. She
reiterated this was first time she had seen a memo sent from the chair of one committee to the chair of
another and then to City Council and said it did not feel right.
Councilmember Olson acknowledged she was a newcomer but as the Council liaison to the EDC, she was
aware there is a liaison from the Planning Board to the EDC. In her opinion, there could not be too much
collaboration. She suggested perhaps collaboration between commissions could be a topic for the upcoming
retreat or another discussion.
Council President Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember K. Johnson that something went awry in
the process. The City Council directs policy and makes decisions about how to proceed. To have the EDC
and Planning Board coordinate on this before there was a discussion at Council did not feel right. For
example, if the Council was not interested in proceeding, the EDC and Planning Board have unnecessarily
spent time coordinating.
Council President Fraley-Monillas commented some of the buildings on the waterfront that might be
repurposed are over the height limit. Mr. Doherty agreed most of the buildings do not conform to today's
standards. The likelihood that someone would demolish one to comport with today's standards was low
because the result would be a smaller building. The City allows reuse of existing buildings; the current code
allows a building owner to change from office to retail/commercial. The proposal is to add hotel to the list
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 4, 2020
Page 9
of allowed uses so someone could repurpose an existing building even though the building may be larger
than allowed in today's code.
Council President Fraley-Monillas did not object to repurposing a building provided it met the codes related
to parking, etc. She was concerned that an office building over 30 foot height would want a rooftop
restaurant or something that would increase the height. Mr. Chave assured that would not be allowed,
especially if the building already exceeded the height limit. He recognized it would be challenging to
repurpose an existing building that was not built as a hotel because the building codes would be different.
It was quite likely that the buildings were old enough that they would not comply with current building
codes. Council President Fraley-Monillas commented it would be more likely the building would be
demolished and rebuilt. Mr. Chave said would be challenging for older buildings to comply with current
codes and change the use to a hotel.
Council President Fraley-Monillas clarified if a building were converted to a hotel, it would need to meet
the fire code, codes related to parking, , etc. Mr. Chave answered yes. He explained in the downtown
waterfront area, if an existing building is converted to commercial, they can work with the existing parking
and not add parking. In his experience, hotels want more than the minimum parking, especially in an area
like Edmonds waterfront where the availability of overflow parking would be extremely limited. The one
advantage of the waterfront was potentially commuter rail could attract travelers between Seattle and
Vancouver who would not need a car.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if allowing a hotel would also allow a boarding house. Mr. Chave
answered it would need to meet the definition of a hotel. Council President Fraley-Monillas observed it
could not be a kids summer camp. Mr. Chave reiterated it would need to meet the definition of hotel in the
code. The definition of hotel in the code is out of date but the intent is clear especially when coupled with
the definition of motel. In reviewing the intent of the shoreline environments and zoning, a hotel makes
sense, but motel does not have the pedestrian component that is important for the shoreline.
Councilmember L. Johnson agreed with need for adding overnight lodging in Edmonds; however, she
questioned whether the best use of the shoreline was a public amenity. As this would apply to Urban Mixed
Use I and Il, she asked whether the number of waterfront hotels would be limited. She also questioned the
tradeoff for a waterfront hotel versus the waterfront as a public amenity for visitors and residents.
With regard to public amenity, Mr. Doherty said the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) places a high
priority on uses that maximize the public's enjoyment of the shorelines. That includes direct access to the
water as well as passing through a site, visual access, etc. An office building has less exposure to the general
public than most hotel uses. All saltwater shorelines are considered shorelines of the state and access for
all is encouraged, not just Edmonds residents. A hotel use with a greater number of people accessing the
building and site maximizes the amount of physical and visual access to the shoreline over an office
building. Many hotels also have a semipublic area such as a lobby, cafe or bar that is often on the water
side which maximizes the potential public enjoyment of the shoreline.
Related to parking, Mr. Doherty explained reuse of a building for another commercial use is allowed to the
extent the existing parking works for that new use. The new uses in the building need to be formatted to
meet the available parking. Councilmember L. Johnson asked about the parking requirement for hotels,
recalling a residential building that was constructed recently that did not provide parking. Mr. Doherty
explained to encourage the reuse of building stock in the downtown zones including CW, the new use can
be designed to use the existing parking. For example, if there are 40 spaces, the size of the hotel would be
designed for that number of spaces.
Mr. Chave explained Urban Mixed Use 1, the privately owned commercial area, is pretty limited. The Urban
Mixed Use lI is Port property and their uses are fairly established and the opportunity for a hotel is pretty
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 4, 2020
Page 10
limited, especially when there is already a hotel at Harbor Square. It was unlikely the Port would be
interested in adding hotel rooms to compete with the existing use on their property. The more likely location
for a hotel would be Urban Mixed Use I, however, the existing buildings make that very challenging. He
summarized the opportunity for a hotel was remote.
Councilmember Paine suggested cleaning up the hotel/motel language. Ultimately the goal is to have a
hotel/motel in Edmonds either in the downtown core or elsewhere. Mr. Chave said the only hesitancy was
the impact that changing the definition had on other locations in the code. He agreed it was definitely an
outdated term.
Councilmember Paine pointed out there was a small area of CW in the north end of Edmonds by Haines
Wharf. She suggested having a hotel as a conditional use instead of adding it to the zoning. Mr. Chave
explained a conditional use permit (CUP) applies conditions to an allowed use. A CUP cannot be used for
a use that is allowed. The SMP does not allow hotel uses at Haines Wharf. A property would need to be
zoned CW as well as have the Urban Mixed Use I or 11 designation.
Councilmember Paine referred to parking, recalling the Port Commission meeting included discussion
about commuters parking in the Harbor Square parking lot and possibly implementing a tow policy. She
suggested a hotel on the waterfront be required to acquire an off-site lot for parking with a shuttle service.
Mr. Doherty explained when a use is conditional, it requires more scrutiny than other commercial uses. In
his, the Planning Board, and the EDC's opinion, a hotel is simply another commercial use and doesn't
particularly raise egregious issues. The parking issue exists for all uses; for example, an office building has
a parking demand and the hotel use would be right sized to meet the existing parking. When constructing a
new building on a vacant site, parking is a consideration. In the case of reuse of an existing commercial
building with existing parking, parking should be a wash because they are using the same parking. A CUP
would be an extra step that doesn't seem to make sense for one commercial use versus another allowed
commercial uses.
Councilmember Paine asked if adding add hotel to CW would be consistent with environmental goals and
long range plans for the waterfront. Mr. Chave answered type of use fits the purposes and descriptions of
the environments in the SMP. The goal is to establish uses that are water dependent or take advantage of
the location next to water; uses like lodging that support those activities fits the long term goals for the area.
Councilmember Paine asked if a hotel was consistent with open space plans, recalling there was interest in
purchasing a parcel on the waterfront and expanding the beach. Mr. Doherty said it ever made sense for an
investor to pursue a hotel, for example the building south of Bracket Landing South, there would be a
continuation of the beach as the building has a sandy beach in front. If the use were changed to a hotel, the
beach would be more accessible to public and it would be the only hotel in the Seattle metropolitan area on
the beach. The notion of a walkway and connectivity is not affected by the reuse of an existing building.
Mr. Chave said public walkways, beaches, etc. are protected areas and changing the use does not affect
those.
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with the concern about the process, that it should have come to the
Council first. She did not recall that this was on the EDC's 2019 work plan. The City has limited open space
and she agreed a hotel should be a conditional use. She was not in favor of hotel on the waterfront due to
the limited space and because there is already a hotel in the waterfront area. The waterfront is precious and
limited and should be retained for citizens and tourism. She was unsure that Edmonds needed to have the
first hotel on the beach and she preferred a boutique hotel be located in the downtown area.
Councilmember Olson commented these are existing buildings and other uses should be considered unless
the City wants to purchase the property for more beach or public space. The proposal is to allow an
additional use in existing building and some of the concerns are not relevant. Mr. Doherty recalled the EDC
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 4, 2020
Page 11
recognized another potential reason to have lodging in proximity to the waterfront environment was rental
events at the Waterfront Center. He did not envision a hotel of greater than 40-50 rooms could be
accommodated -in any -of the -existing buildings. A hotel would -complement -activities on -waterfront.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested obtaining hotel vacancy rates from the existing waterfront hotel,
especially in the summer months.
Councilmember Distelhorst observed there hasn't been any specific interest in the past couple years about
repurposing an existing building. Mr. Doherty said there was an inquiry a couple years ago when one of the
buildings was for sale; a potential purchaser was interested in the possibility of a hotel if it were allowed.
No one has specifically identified a building for purchase for a hotel. There was an inquiry in November
whether hotels were allowed in the waterfront area; he told them no, but that it would be considered in
2020.
3. RESOLUTION ADOPTING COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE
City Clerk Scott Passey explained after the election, he met with the Mayor and new Councilmembers to
discuss City processes. Those discussions included ways to promote more understanding and cooperative
working relationships and he mentioned the Rules of Procedure that the Shoreline City Council adopted.
The draft rules are based on Shoreline's rules and modified to fit Edmonds. In Shoreline, these rules
facilitated mutual understanding about procedures as well as promoted collegiality and cooperative
interaction among Councilmembers, the Mayor and Staff. For the most part, the rules articulate processes
the City already follows but there are a few changes. Tonight is an introduction; the packet includes a
resolution to adopt the rules.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled financial policies were adopted via resolution and posted on the City's
website. She suggested doing the same with the Council Rules of Procedure.
Councilmember Olson suggested reviewing the Rules of Procedure sequentially.
Councilmember L. Johnson said as a new Councilmember, she needed something to help her understand
the processes. Updated, comprehensive rules of procedure will provide clear direction on how the Council
should conduct business. She suggested posting it on the City Council's webpage so constituents are clear
regarding procedures.
Councilmember Paine said the Rules of Procedure are wonderful and it will be nice to know the rules of
the road. She particularly liked the addition of behavior outside Council Chambers.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule 60 minutes on a future agenda to review the proposed Rules
of Procedure section by section. Councilmembers were encouraged to send questions to Mr. Passey in
advance.
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson reported at approximately 5 a.m. today, a gentleman turned onto an access road that
paralleled the BNSF train tracks at the Dayton intersection and his truck was sideswiped by a train. Mayor
Nelson said he asked Public Works to contact BNSF to request a barrier or signage to prohibit future access
to the road. As a temporary measure, Public Works has erected temporary barriers.
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 4, 2020
Page 12
Student Representative Bauder relayed the good news that he received a nomination from U.S. Senator
Patty Murray to the U.S. Naval Academy. He thanked Council President Fraley-Monillas for making phone
calls on his behalf.
Councilmember Distelhorst reminded the public that the Edmonds School District is hosting a series of
events about Black Lives Matter. The first was on Sunday and events continue on Wednesday and Friday
evenings, a good opportunity for the community to listen and learn. He thanked the school district for
organizing these events.
Councilmember Olson referenced ballots that voters have received for the February 11 election. She
encouraged voters to drive around school properties so they can make an informed decision about the school
district's needs and to vote.
Councilmember L. Johnson echoed Councilmember Olson comments about ballots and encouraged voters
to have their voices heard and to turn in their ballots by February l I".
Council President Fraley-Monillas told Student Representative Bauder it was easy to talk about him. The
congressional office was very impressed with him and the work he did.
Council President Fraley-Monillas reminded of the Council retreat on Friday, February 7 from 8:45 a.m. to
4:30 p.m. in the Brackett Room of City Hall. The retreat will include training for new Councilmembers.
She encouraged Councilmembers to think about topics for the next retreat, possibly in April.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented the Council has used study sessions and committees in the past.
She felt committees are were efficient; study sessions take longer. The Council needs to decide whether to
continue with committees or to hold study sessions. Council President Fraley-Monillas advised that topic
was on the agenda in about 2 weeks. Two Councilmembers have proposed different processes.
Councilmember K. Johnson looked forward to discussing parliamentary procedures at the retreat. During
tonight's meeting, Councilmembers spoke regarding Highway 99 and then a motion was made. The proper
procedure is to start with motion and then have discussion. That is another topic the Council needs to
discuss.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to information about Wallace Falls Creek and an article in the Everett
Herald that directed the public to contact Snohomish County Executive Dave Somers. However, because
County Executive Somers cannot veto a resolution, the public should contact Department of Natural
Resources District Manager A] McGuire, DNR Allen McGuire.
Councilmember Paine commented the Council survived its fourth week. She thank staff for their
presentations, particularly the study topics. She looked forward to providing a report on the Port of
Edmonds including environmental mitigation for parking lots.
11. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m.
MICH4A NELSON, MAYOR PA SEY, CITY CLE
-111
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 4, 2020
Page 13