Cm130326EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
March 26, 2013
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Lora Petso, Council President
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember
Joan Bloom, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Walker Kasinadhuni, Student Representative
ROLL CALL
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director
Rob Chave, Acting Development Services Dir.
Kernen Lien, Senior Planner
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
City Clerk Sandy Chase called the roll. All elected officials were present.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Council President Petso announced the Council has been informed that Agenda Item 14 is not needed
tonight.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER, REMOVING ITEM 14.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Bloom requested Item A be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #201108 THROUGH #201231 DATED MARCH 21,
2013 FOR $990,591.37 (REISSUED CHECKS #201174 $91.97 AND #201154 $523.33).
APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT & CHECKS #60084 THROUGH #60097
FOR $433,962.55, BENEFIT CHECKS #60098 THROUGH #60106 AND WIRE
PAYMENTS OF $113,949.45 FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1, 2013 THROUGH MARCH
15, 2013.
C. ORDINANCE NO.3917 — EDMONDS CITY CODE UPDATES
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 26, 2013
Page 1
ITEM A: APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 19, 2013.
Councilmember Bloom requested the word "comfortable" in the third full paragraph on page 7 be
changed to "uncomfortable." She spoke with the City Clerk who reviewed the audio.
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO
APPROVE ITEM A AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Maggie Fimia, Edmonds, who lives four blocks from Harbor Square, spoke in favor of moving forward
with the Harbor Square Master Plan. Her comments focused on confusion, the Comprehensive Plan and
collaboration. With regard to confusion, she noted Councilmembers Petso and Bloom indicated they did
not support including residential uses in the Plan. Councilmember Bloom relayed her strong belief that
residential was incompatible with destination and stressed there was nothing in the Comprehensive Plan
about residential for Harbor Square. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed interest in a destination
such as a hotel zone with a variety of boutique hotels. The term destination was used numerous times by
Councilmembers to describe the intent of the current Comprehensive Plan for this area, yet destination is
used exactly three times in the entire Comprehensive Plan:
• Page 44, goals for the Downtown Waterfront area, states promote downtown Edmonds as a
setting for retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents
and the larger Edmonds community and as a destination for visitors from throughout the region. It
also states, identify supporting arts and mixed use residential and office areas which support and
compliment the downtown retail use areas.
• Page 51, Implementation Strategies, under redevelopment of the existing ferry terminal, the plan
talks about ideas that would encourage this to become a destination, drawing people from south
along the waterfront and eastward up into downtown. The next implementation strategy,
however, states the Harbor Square site should be redeveloped according to a mixed use master
plan.
• Page 52, Policy E8, states of particular significance is the enhancement of economic development
opportunities resulting from the Edmonds Crossing project and the enhancement of Edmonds as
an arts and water -oriented destination. Policy E5 states, extend downtown westward and connect
it to the shoreline by encouraging mixed use development.
Ms. Fimia submitted additional written comments.
Farrell Fleming, Edmonds Senior Center, spoke in support of the Energy Savings Contract (ESCO III),
explaining it would provide important benefits for the Senior Center. First, it will replace the five rooftop
heating units at the Senior Center, units that have become increasingly problematic over the last few
years. The unit that heats the thrift store was non-functional twice last winter for at least 24 hours;
volunteers kept the store open although the temperature was in the low 50s. The thrift store netted over
$137,000 in 2012, 1/4 of the Center's cash budget. In 2013, the store is on pace to break last year's record.
The other heating units provide heat to the remainder of the building; if the heating units fail, the center
cannot offer programs and services that a growing number of seniors depend on. The new heaters will
also lower overall operating costs which will increase the center's financial stability. Second, ESCO III
will provide improved lighting for the parking that serves both the Senior Center and the beach park. For
these reasons and for the many other improvements in ESCO III such as the new boiler for Yost Pool and
improved lighting throughout the City, he urged the Council to authorize the signing of the ESCO III
contract. He expressed his appreciation for the partnership and the support of the City in providing high
quality programs and services to the seniors of Edmonds. He also expressed appreciation for City staff.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 26, 2013
Page 2
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, relayed the answer to the question, "what is a mandatory requirement for the
Port's proposal for the redevelopment of Harbor Square", is that it must make financial sense for potential
developers of the site. Developers are not benevolent organizations, but neither are they the greedy people
some in the community portray them to be, noting they were not greedy enough when business was good
or so many that had been active in Edmonds would not have been driven into bankruptcy. The Port's
proposal was determined by expert consultants to yield sufficient profit to attract developers. The
alternatives proposed at meetings and hearings do not pencil out. He acknowledged some details had not
been put through detailed analyses but astute people often do not have to do detailed analysis to know the
outcome. Some have insisted the Port have environmental studies done now; the Port wants to wait until
later in the process. A King County Judge recently threw out a lawsuit on this very same issue with regard
to the proposed new basketball arena in the Soto area. He agreed there are legitimate environmental issues
with the Harbor Square property, but it is a certainty that those issues will be resolved before any
redevelopment occurs. The Port's proposal is radically different than areas downtown where Buildings
can be constructed lot -line to lot -line in the BD zone. The Port's proposal has a generous amount of open
space for the public which equates to loss of revenue producing square footage; the remedy is increased
height. With regard to affordable housing, he pointed out smaller residential units will result in lower unit
costs but higher per square footage construction costs. That, coupled with the high value of the land,
approximately $1 million/acre, produces a situation in which it is virtually certain there would be a need
for even more height than is contained in the current proposal.
QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE PLANNING BOARD
Planning Board Chair John Reed recognized Planning Board Member Phil Lovell in the audience. Mr.
Reed provided the following report:
The Planning Board meets regularly on the second and fourth Wednesdays of every month in Council
Chambers. The Board serves in an advisory capacity to the Mayor and City Council in regional and local
planning and specifically assists in the development of the Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinances
and their successive review and amendment. The Board also serves as an ongoing Parks Board. The
Planning Board reviews and considers strategies of economic development in conjunction with the
Citizens' Economic Development Commission. Meetings are open to the public and the Board is making
efforts to increase public involvement and participation in meetings. The agenda, materials and minutes
are available on the City's website.
Highlights of Major Activities:
• The Planning Board returned to the Shoreline Master Program which had been discussed in great
detail at not less than five Board meetings in 2011 and 2012. The Board deferred action on the
SMP after May 9 to coordinate the arrival of the SMP with the Harbor Square Master Plan
presently being discussed by the City Council. The Board held a public hearing on November 14,
2012 to finalize the SNIP and forwarded it to the Council. The SMP includes a new designation
"Urban Mixed Use III related to the designation for the Edmonds Marsh north, south and west
boundaries as shoreline by the State. The Board recommended a setback of 50 feet along the
north boundary of the marsh adjacent to Harbor Square along with a condition that nothing be
built on or over that setback, i.e. that it be fully dedicated to open space.
• Following an initial presentation on the Westgate and Five Corners Redevelopment Plans by the
University of Washington team on April 25, 2012, the Board focused on the Westgate plan first,
in part because of the then uncertain status of the roundabout proposed for Five Corners. In total,
the Board has discussed various aspects of the Westgate Plan at no fewer than six meetings
including the introduction on April 25, one of which was a public hearing held specifically to
obtain public comment early in the process. Areas discussed included how form based code
applied to and could be integrated into the final plan, a preliminary review of traffic impact and
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 26, 2013
Page 3
topography implications, and how to best proceed toward modification of the plan as it moves
forward to a public hearing and on to Council for consideration, possible modification and action.
• The Board received an extensive and impressive report from Parks and Recreation Director
Carrie Hite on December 12, 2012 highlighting the numerous programs and activities managed
by her department in 2012. This report also included an introduction of a redesigned play area in
City Park and some of the major impacts of almost $200,000 in budget cuts on Parks and
Recreation operations. The contributions by the Parks and Recreation Department to the livability
of the City, both for its residents and its visitors, are truly amazing.
• Hosted a joint meeting with the Economic Development Commission at which Economic
Development Director Stephen Clifton and Beckwith Consulting reviewed the status of the
Strategic Plan and its organization. After fine tuning, the Strategic Plan will be forwarded to the
Council for discussion, action and implementation.
• The Board received a presentation on sustainable design from Board Vice Chair Val Stewart and
Member Ian Duncan, and recommended they make the same presentation to Council which they
recently did. The Board expects to continue to discuss ways to facilitate and encourage
sustainable design in the City's development code.
• At the Board's annual retreat on March 13:
o Reviewed the Strategic Plan items that affected both of the Board's areas of responsibility —
development services and parks and recreation. In the immediate future, the Board will begin
a review of the status of Highway 99 redevelopment which received one of the highest
priority ratings affecting planning in the public survey.
o Had an update on Vision 2040 projections and requirements through 2013 and discussed how
it affects the role and actions of the Planning Board. Of particular interest for Edmonds was
that the average annual population growth target for City planning to accommodate is 240
residents per year (approximately 5,500 new residents total or 15%) between now and 2035.
o Received an update on the status of the code restructuring project (it is not a rewrite as it has
sometimes been referred to), and learned that mapping details will begin to surface on the
Planning Board's agenda soon. While much of this work will simply involve reorganization
of the code to simplify its use, some changes will also be identified as part of this process.
The Board also discussed the procedures that will apply with regard to making those changes.
In short, all changes will have to go through the public hearing process before both Planning
Board and City Council.
Public Hearings:
• October 10, 2012
o Recommended changing zoning designations on three lots from single family to multi -family
in the 8600 block of 244t1i Street to better fit with the surrounding properties.
o Forwarded the Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement Program for 2013-2018,
noting as usual funding availability drives what actually gets done and noting that City staff
continues to make yeoman efforts with some surprising success in light of the economic
situation to locate and obtain those funds.
• November 14, 2012
o Proposed amendments to street vacation procedures clarifying which types can be retained
and notification procedures.
o Finalized and forwarded the Edmonds Shoreline Master Program to the Council with
numerous updates and changes identified over the several meetings mentioned previously.
• February 13 & 27, 2013
o Recommended code amendments to add design standards very similar to those already in
place for the BD-1 zone for downtown zones BD-2, 3 and 4 (i.e. all but the 4th Avenue Arts
Corridor) to remove stepback language as recommended by the Planning Board some time
ago and confirmed by Council and to exempt "blade signs" from sign code maximum square
footage limits.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 26, 2013
Page 4
Other items of interest:
• The Board recently emphasized coordination between the Economic Development Commission
and the Board regarding land use issues so the Board is more aware of discussions the EDC has
that affect the Board's responsibility and how they are routed through Council and the City to the
Board. Kevin Clarke is the Board's EDC liaison.
• The Board has been asked by a Councilmember to consider setting Westgate discussions aside
and possibly focus more on the Five Corners project. The Board plans to discuss this possible
change in priorities with the Council's Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee soon.
• The Board had an introduction to the Edmonds Way zoning review that was recently requested by
Council and will be discussing specifics in a future meeting.
Chair Reed thanked the Council for the opportunity to review the Planning Board's recent activities and
to present them to the public. He publicly recognized and acknowledged the efforts put forth by City
Planning and Parks leaders and staff in the areas in which the Planning Board advises. The Planning
Board also thanked all the members of the public who have provided input as the Board deliberates issues
and formulates recommendations to the Council. He thanked the Council and Mayor and their support
staffs for the hard work they do for the City.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed her appreciation to the Planning Board for the great work they have
done, particularly on the Shoreline Master Program.
Mayor Earling thanked Chair Reed for his clear and concise report.
6. JOINT MEETING WITH FIRE DISTRICT 1 COMMISSIONERS - ANNUAL REPORT
FD1 Commissioners present: David Chan (Chair), Karen Dingmon, Bob Meador, Jim Kenny and Richard
Schrock. FD1 staff members present: Ed Widdis, Fire Chief, Mark Correria, Assistant Fire Chief of
Operations, Brad Reading, Assistant Chief, John Westfall, Fire Marshal; and Marsha Moore, Executive
Assistant. There were also several FD1 firefighters in the audience.
Ed Widdis, Chief, FD1, advised this is the annual report for 2012.
Mark Correria, Assistant Fire Chief of Operations, FD1, reported fire stations in Edmonds responded
to 5,162 incidents in 2012; 4,678 calls from within Edmonds. He provided a pie chart illustrating the
majority of calls (73%) were EMS related. Fire stations responded to 19 building fires, 170 motor vehicle
collisions and 242 other (weather related emergencies, technical rescue, hazardous materials, etc.).
Assistant Chief Correria explained January 1, 2010 FD1 began providing service to the City of Edmonds.
Article 8.2 of the agreement between the City and FD1 requires this joint annual meeting regarding items
of mutual interest. Resolution 1133 based on Substitute House Bill 1756 identifies four annual
compliance reporting sections:
• Section 1: Establishment of Fire Service
• Section 2: Policies
• Section 3: Response Standards/Comparison
• Section 4: Explanation of unmet standards
Assistant Chief Correria explained SHB 1756 addresses level of service based on two elements:
• Preventing brain death at medical incidents
• Preventing flashover at fire incidents
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 26, 2013
Page 5
He reviewed a continuum of time from when the incident occurs, 911 call, dispatch, turnout, drive, arrive
and mitigate. Tonight's presentation will focus on turnout time (alert in station to wheels turning) and
drive time (leaving the fire station to arriving on scene). He noted nothing has changed in the City since
the FD1 contract was established; the fire station locations are the same, the same number of resources,
the same types of response, and the same units in the same place.
Assistant Chief Correria provided a chart of cardiac arrest survival standard: brain death, explaining FD1
has a nearly 50% cardiac arrest survival rate, close to what is provided in Seattle -King County, one of the
highest in the country and twice the average in Snohomish County. He also provided a chart of time -
temperature standard: flashover.
Assistant Chief Correria reviewed the Response Time Standard Comparison, Section 3, Standards of
Coverage (SOC):
• Turnout Time
o Standard: 2:45
o Actual: 2:48
SOC Section 1:
• First Arriving Engine Company to Fire Event
o Standard: 6:30
o Actual: 6:10
SOC Section 2: Fire
• First Full -Alarm to a Residential Fire (15 firefighters on the ground)
o Standard: 7:45
o Actual: 8:00
• Full First -Alarm to a Commercial Fire (18 firefighters on the ground)
o Standard: 9:00
o Actual: 7:59
Assistant Chief Correria explained in the above two, first full alarm, the work does not wait until all
firefighters are on scene; the first arriving company goes to work; the next arriving company supports that
company, etc. He noted the first full alarm to a residential fire was 5 incidents of the 5,162 calls in 2012.
SOC Sections 3 and 4: EMS
• First Arriving BLS (aid car) on an EMS Event
o Standard: 5:15
o Actual: 5:17
Assistant Chief Correria explained the standard is affected by where calls occur. He noted one of the
busiest areas in Edmonds is near Swedish -Edmonds, the furthest point from every fire station in the City.
Having units closer to that point or getting resources there sooner would improve the time.
• Arrival of an ALS (medic unit) to an EMS Event
o Standard: 6:45
o Actual: 6:40
SOC Section 5: Special Operations
• Hazardous Materials Response
o First Response
■ Standard: 6:30
■ Actual: 2:59
o Technical Response
■ Standard: 12:00
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 26, 2013
Page 6
■ Actual: 9:00
• Technical Rescue Response
o First Response
■ Standard: 6:30
■ Actual: 1:59
o Technical Response
■ Standard: 12:00
■ Actual: 1:59
SOC Section 6: Marine Response
• First arriving marine response trained personnel to a marine incident
o Standard: 12:00
o Actual: 3:11
Assistant Chief Correria reported on significant events that occurred in Edmonds in 2012 including 2
residential house fires, 3 marine unit calls, and a fatal apartment fire. He explained after the fatal
apartment fire, FD 1 held a community meeting in that neighborhood, provided fire safety and prevention
information. Another significant event in 2012 was Tom Tomberg, former City of Edmonds Fire Chief,
retired from FD 1.
Fire Marshal John Westfall explained the Department of Fire Prevention is established by City ordinance,
staffed by a Fire Marshal and Fire Inspector, serving by appointment of Chief Widdis and with the
Mayor's approval. The Life Safety Public Educator and Public Information Officer are valuable shared
resources provided by FD L Every fire in Edmonds is investigated for origin and cause, normally by the
Fire Captain and responding crews. Additionally fire prevention staff provide 24/7 services to conduct
investigations under certain circumstances. Circumstances include working structure fires indicative of a
higher property loss, when fires occur on City property, fatal fires, arson and suspicious circumstances.
The prevention staff works collaboratively with the Edmonds Police Department. A total of 24 incidences
rose to that level in Edmonds in 2012. He provided a pie chart illustrating fire prevention staff managed
over 1,700 inspections in 2012, including 1,337 engine company inspections.
Fire Marshal Westfall explained engine crews conduct fire and life safety surveys in the business
community. This extremely successful program recognizes and removes safety issues for businesses and
commercial businesses to prevent loss due to fire, brings firefighters into the community to educate and
inform the public, and gets firefighters familiar with buildings before a fire occurs. Additionally fire
prevention staff conducts fire plans review for building and land use proposals including construction
inspections as well as business license and special event review inspection and approvals. Fire prevention
staff conducts enforcement activities, often collaborating with the building department and code
enforcement. He highlighted events the firefighters and educators participated in during 2012 such as the
Egg Hunt, 4th of July Parade, Waterball competition, Edmonds Night Out, Taste of Edmonds, Car Show,
and Edmonds Tree Lighting.
Councilmember Bloom observed the standard for marine response was 12 minutes; the actual was 3
minutes 11 seconds. She asked how that was accomplished so quickly. Assistant Chief Correria explained
there are a very small number of marine responses, 3 in Edmonds and 2 additional events in Mukilteo.
The firefighters have a standard practice when responding; some respond to the shore, others respond to
the fire boat. The work begins when the first arriving unit reaches the shoreline. Station 17, the station
adjacent to the Public Safety Complex, can reach the shoreline very quickly.
Councilmember Bloom asked if the marine unit was able to address fires and emergency medical if a train
was blocking the tracks. Assistant Chief Correria explained something in the way would delay the
response. He referred to the tactical plan for addressing incidents on the other side of the tracks.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 26, 2013
Page 7
Councilmember Bloom asked whether the marine unit had all the necessary equipment. Assistant Chief
Correria responded depending on the type of event, some of the fire equipment on the apparatus would
need to be transferred to the marine unit.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked Assistant Chief Correria to describe the tactical plan for
responding to incidents on the waterfront if the tracks were blocked by a train. Assistant Chief Correria
responded it would depend on the type of incident. A tactical plan or Standard Operating Guideline was
written when Tom Tomberg was Edmonds' Fire Chief It addresses contacting the train company, going
through cars and depending on the length of the event and/or train, tunneling under the tracks for hose
lines. He explained any response on the other side of the tracks in the event the tracks were blocked
would be very laborious, requiring additional firefighters and extending the response time.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the tactical plan had ever been implemented. Assistant Chief
Correria answered not since he was hired in June 2004.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how adherence to standards compared to last year. Assistant Chief
Correria answered every year there are 1-3 that are missed. He advised the standard was established using
data from the prior year; in hindsight, the standard should have considered 2-3 years of data. Assistant
ChiefCorreria offered to provide a 3-4 year comparison.
Fire Commission Chair David Chan inquired about the status of the 9/11 memorial. Mayor Earling
responded it is working well.
Mayor Earling expressed his appreciation to Fire Chief Widdis and Assistant Chief Correria for the
assistance they provided Councilmembers Peterson and Petso and him during the Regional Fire Authority
(RFA) discussions. It was his understanding the three remaining entities will discuss the financials again
in a few months.
Councilmember Johnson inquired about the bicycle helmet program. Fire Marshal Westfall answered all
fire stations have helmets available for a nominal suggested donation and firefighters can fit children with
helmets.
Councilmember Peterson commented they also provide helmets for the Edmonds Bicycle Group's bicycle
safety program in the schools. He asked if there were any big things on the horizon that Edmonds, as a
contract city should be aware of between now and the next annual report. Commissioner Richard Schrock
explained FD1 is in the midst of labor negotiations; the contract expired in December 2012. Talks are
ongoing; that will be a big issue as 80% of the budget is tied to labor. He was not aware of any other
major issues. Commission Chair Chan said FD1 is also discussing contract services with Mukilteo.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to FD1's Toys for Tots program at Christmas and asked whether
bicycle helmet donations are accepted at fire stations. Assistant Chief Correria advised Toys for Tots is a
Local 1828 program. He was unsure there was any helmet donation program, noting there were issues
with the history of used helmets. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether new helmets could be
donated. Assistant Chief Correria answered donations of new helmets would be welcome.
Commission Chair Chan asked Commissioner Kenny to provide an update regarding RFA discussions.
Commissioner Kenny reported a meeting was held a few weeks ago with the two remaining cities, Brier
and Mountlake Terrace. The financial data does not pan out to move forward at this time. There had been
discussion about a ballot issue in 2013; that will not happen. FD1, Brier and Mountlake Terrace plan to
meet again in September to discuss whether the finances have changed. FD1 receives and the RFA would
receive most of its funding from property taxes so it is important to consider assessed values.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 26, 2013
Page 8
Mayor Earling welcomed new FD1 Commissioner Karen Dingmon.
7. ENERGY SAVINGS CONTRACT (ESCO III)
Public Works Director Phil Williams explained staff is requesting authorization for the Mayor to sign a
contract with the Washington State Department of Enterprise Services to authorize a total maximum
project cost of $758,683 to implement a variety of energy savings projects in Edmonds. This is the third
in a series of energy savings contracts the City has engaged in; the first in 2006 and the second in 2008
were very successful. He reviewed what will be included in ESCO III:
• Conversion of decorative street lamps to LED
• Conversion of virtually all City parking lots and yards to LED lighting
• Interior occupancy sensors for buildings
• Replacement of Yost Pool boiler — $120,000 already included in 2013 budget (REET)
• Replacement of 5 heating units at Senior Center
• HVAC upgrade for Council Chambers
• Additional controls upgrades
• Heating and water feature control at the WWTP
• Leverages $187,586 grant from DOC
• Leverages $60,376 grants from PUD and PSE
• Positive cash flow in 6 years.
Mr. Williams pointed out replacement of the five heating units at the Senior Center and the boiler at Yost
Pool have to be done anyway even without the ESCO 111. He highlighted cash flow of ESCO III including
the total project cost of $758,683, funds provided by the utilities, and the $187,566 grant, leaving a
balance to be provided by the City of $500,000. Of that amount, $280,000 is offered via financing at 2%
interest over 10 years with equal annual payments, leaving a balance of $220,000 that the City needs to
provide. Of that amount, $120,000 is already in the 2013 budget for the Yost Pool boiler, leaving
$102,000. Of that amount, $74,000 will come from utilities to make improvements at the old Public
Works building, the new Public Works building and the wastewater treatment plant. An additional
General Fund authorization is required for the remaining $28,000. In addition to approving the contracts,
he requested the Council authorize a budget amendment to provide an additional $28,000 of General Fund
resources to leverage the $758,683 project.
Mr. Williams reviewed the ESCO III cash flow, highlighting energy and maintenance operating cost
savings and annual financing costs.
For Councilmember Bloom, Mr. Williams explained the amount to be financed is $280,176 at a 2%
interest rate for 10 years. The annual financing costs of $31,052 include principal and interest,
approximately $3,000/year in interest and the remainder to principal. That rate is offered by the State of
Washington through the Department of Enterprise Services.
Councilmember Buckshnis advised the Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee recommended
approval. She clarified the remaining funds would be from the General Fund.
Councilmember Peterson observed the City has received some significant awards recently and asked
whether this would further showcase what Edmonds has done. Mr. Williams answered yes, pointing out
the Energy Star Award was for City Hall and most of this work was being done in other buildings. He
anticipated the City may leverage this into an Energy Star Award for other City buildings.
Mr. Williams recognized Facilities Maintenance Manager Jim Stevens who has spent hours working with
the two State departments and with Ameresco Quantum on the investment grade audit.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 26, 2013
Page 9
Councilmember Peterson observed there may be some intangible savings such as the cost of parts to
continually repair the boiler at Yost Pool. Mr. Williams noted a catastrophic failure of the Yost Pool
boiler could have very negative impacts on the users.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE ESCO PROJECT CONTRACT WITH THE
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENTERPRISE SERVICES TO AUTHORIZE A
TOTAL MAXIMUM PROJECT COST OF $758,683, AND THE GRANT AGREEMENT THAT
FORMS PART OF THIS CONTRACT WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE FOR $187,556. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. DISCUSSION: SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE
Senior Planner Kernen Lien advised this was the third time the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) has
been before the City Council. The intent of tonight's presentation is to review:
• Urban Mixed Use Shoreline Environments
• ECDC 24.40.080 — Shoreline Development Permitted by Area Designation
• ECDC 24.40.090 — Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards
Mr. Lien introduced David Pater, Department of Ecology, who was present to answer questions.
Mr. Lien explained the Edmonds Marsh was designated as a shoreline. Under the previous SMP, there is
no environment for the areas next to the marsh, which is the reason a new environment was developed for
those areas. The marsh on the east side of the railroad tracks is a very different environment than the west
side of the tracks, particularly because it does not front Puget Sound. The Shoreline Management Act
(SMA) talks about protection of navigable waters and priority uses that are tied to water -oriented type
development. Harbor Square and other properties given the Urban Mixed Use III environment are not the
same type of environment as property on the west side of the tracks.
He provided language from RCW 90.58.020, Legislative findings: "It is the policy of the state to provide
for the management of the shorelines of the state by planning for and fostering all reasonable and
appropriate uses. This policy is designed to insure the development of these shorelines in a manner which,
while allowing for limited reduction of rights of the public in the navigable waters, will promote and
enhance the public interest. This policy contemplates protecting against adverse effects to the public
health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life, while
protecting generally public rights of navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto."
Mr. Lien referred to language in WAC 173-26-221(4)(b)(ii), the guidelines used to develop the SMP:
• Protect the rights of navigation and space necessary for water -dependent uses.
• Prohibit nonwater-oriented develop unless WAC 173-26-241(3)(d)(ii) Navigability is severely
limited at the proposed site; and the commercial use provides a significant public benefit with
respect to the Shoreline Management Act's objectives such as providing public access and
ecological restoration.
Mr. Lien referred to language in RCW 90.58.110(c): "consider all plans, studies, surveys, inventories, and
systems of classification made or being made by federal, state, regional, or local agencies, by private
individuals, or by organizations dealing with pertinent shorelines of the state." The Harbor Square Master
Plan was considered in the SMP update.
Mr. Lien displayed a map identifying the current shoreline designations: Urban Mixed Use I for the Port,
Urban Mixed Use II south of Brackett's Landing and Haines Wharf. Under the proposed SMP, Haines
Wharf is no longer considered and Urban Mixed Use area. He provided description criteria:
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 26, 2013
Page 10
Urban Mixed Use I
o Water -related and water -enjoyment commercial and recreational uses
Urban Mixed Use 11
o Planned for high -intensity, water -dependent uses related to commerce, transportation, and
recreation
• Urban Mixed Use III
o Areas that have been intensely developed and that have no direct access to navigable waters
o Planned for mixed -use development including high -intensity, commerce, transportation,
recreation and residential development
He displayed maps identifying the location of Urban Mixed Use I, 11 and III. He identified the
Comprehensive Plan designations on the map and described each:
• Urban Mixed Use I
o Shoreline Commercial
■ This area should allow a mix of public uses, supporting commercial uses, and water -
oriented and water -dependent uses. (pg. 55)
• Harbor Square
o Downtown Master Plan
■ This area is appropriate for design -driven master planned development which provides
for a mix of uses and takes advantage of its strategic location between the waterfront and
downtown. (pg. 55)
• Port of Edmonds & Edmonds Crossing
o Master Plan Development
■ This area is governed by the master plans for the Port of Edmonds, Point Edwards, and
the Edmonds Crossing project as described in the FEIS issued on November 10, 2004.
these areas are also developed consistent with the City's Shoreline Master Program, as it
applies.(pg. 55)
He identified the location and described zoning within the environments:
• CW — Commercial Waterfront
o ECDC 16.55.000 Purposes
A. To reserve areas for water -dependent and water -related uses and for uses which will
attract pedestrians to the waterfront;
B. To protect and enhance the natural features of the waterfront, and encourage public use of
the waterfront;
C. To ensure physical and visual access to the waterfront for the public.
o ECDC 16.55.010.A Permitted Primary Uses
1. Marine -oriented services;
2. Retail uses which are either marine -oriented or pedestrian -oriented, excluding drive-in
businesses;
3. Petroleum products storage and distribution;
4. Offices, above the ground floor, excluding medical, dental and veterinary clinics;
5. Local public facilities with marine -oriented services or recreation;
6. Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master
plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070
OR — Office Residential
o ECDC 16.77.000 Purposes
B. ...provides for a mix of small-scale office and residential uses which provide a transition
between the more intensive commercial uses along Main Street and the residential uses along
Sunset Avenue.
o ECDC 16.77.010.A Permitted Primary Uses
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 26, 2013
Page 11
1. Single-family dwellings.
2. Office uses.
3. Multiple dwelling unit(s).
4. Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master
plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070.
Master Plan — Master Plan Hillside (MP 1: Pt. Edwards, MP 2: Edmonds Crossing)
o ECDC 16.75.000 Purpose
B. To reserve an area where a mix of land uses can take advantage of site conditions and
waterviews.
D. To promote a mix of residential, commercial, and other uses in a manner that is
consistent with the city's comprehensive plan...
E. To encourage visual access to the water for the public from public spaces within the
development.
o ECDC 16.75.010.B Permitted Primary Uses in MP2
1. All uses permitted in MP 1 (multifamily residential; Office; Hotels/motels; Restaurants,
excluding drive-in businesses; and Local public facilities), except that residential use is
prohibited on the ground floor of any building;
2. Neighborhood -oriented retail uses intended to support other uses in the immediate area,
3. Service uses as a primary use intended to support other uses in the immediate area,
4. Multimodal transportation center;
5. Educational facilities.
o Permitted Secondary Uses in MP1 and MP2
■ Off-street surface parking and structured parking to serve a permitted use
Harbor Square Zoning: Contract Rezone — General Commercial
o All uses allowed in the CG zone except the following prohibited uses
■ Automotive wrecking
■ Automotive sales
■ Car washes
■ Drive-in restaurants
■ Fuel storage yards
■ Kennels
■ Motels
■ Mobile home parks
■ Service stations
■ Residences, except for caretaker and/or guard
Mr. Lien provided a comparison of Mixed Use I and 11 to Urban Mixed Use III:
Urban Mixed Use I & H
Urban Mixed Use III
Adjacent to Puget Sound
No direct access to Puget Sound
Comprehensive Plan — Master Plan and Shoreline
Comprehensive Plan — Master Plan and Residence -
Commercial
Office
0 Generally encourages water oriented type
• Encourages mixed use development
development
Zoning — Commercial Waterfront
Zoning — MP2, CG, OR
• Water -dependent and water -related uses
• Zoning generally encourages mixed use
development
Commercial Development
Commercial Development
• Preference for water -oriented development
• Nonwater-oriented development
specifically ermitted
Specific view corridors pursuant to ECDC
More general view corridor pursuant to ECDC
24.40.040.B.1 La
24.40.040.B.1 Lb
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 26, 2013
Page 12
Setbacks 15 feet
Setbacks 50 feet
Parking setback 60 feet
Parking setback 50 feet
Residential development prohibited
Multifamily residential development allowed
Councilmember Bloom asked about setbacks. Mr. Lien advised the setbacks are from the ordinary high
water mark. In the case of the marsh, it would be the edge of the wetland boundary.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented she had been reading Anacortes' SMP and it was phenomenal.
She asked if the marsh could also be considered a wildlife sanctuary. Mr. Lien answered the shoreline
designation for the marsh is Natural Environment. Councilmember Buckshnis noted Anacortes' SMP
refers to conservatory, natural, riparian, restoration, etc. and has a different setback for those reasons. She
asked whether consideration was given to increasing the 50 foot setback in consideration of additional
water flowing into the wetland area and more activity such as salmon recovery when Willow Creek is
daylighted. Mr. Lien explained the edge of the wetland marsh on the north and south is established by
historic fill. Daylighting Willow Creek will not expand the marsh in either of those directions. The edge
of the salt marsh boundary would move eastward toward SR104 if Willow Creek is daylighted and
saltwater allowed to flow up the creek. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the existing viewing decks
are quite high and she has been told that the water used to be up to the viewing decks. Mr. Lien answered
viewing decks are also high to accommodate wetland plants and to provide a view down into the marsh.
Mr. Lien reviewed tables in ECDC 24.40.070 (page 50 of the draft SMP) and Section 24.40.080, the
Shoreline Development Table, that lists shoreline development permitted by Area designation. He
highlighted shoreline area designations where residential use would be allowed in the draft SMP —Harbor
Square, south of Harbor Square, and in Office -Residential areas north of Main. If the Council ultimately
decides they want to prohibit residential development at Harbor Square, a new shoreline environment
may need to be developed for Harbor Square.
Council President Petso asked if the southern edge of the Harbor Square property could be designated
Conservancy and if so, what effect would that have. Mr. Lien was uncertain that would fit with the
Conservancy designation. He referred to Urban Conservancy Environment (page 27 of draft SMP),
explaining the purpose of the Conservancy is to protect and restore ecological functions of open space,
floodplains, and other sensitive lands where they exist in urban and developed settings, while allowing a
variety of compatible uses. The designation criteria include:
1. They are suitable for water -related or water -enjoyment uses;
2. They are open space, flood plain or other sensitive areas that should not be more intensively
developed;
3. They have potential for ecological restoration;
4. They retain important ecological functions, even though partially developed; or
5. They have the potential for development that is compatible with ecological restoration.
Mr. Lien explained that portion of Harbor Square is more intensely developed and he was doubtful it met
the designation criteria.
Council President Petso asked if the south edge of the marsh could be Urban Mixed Use 11 which focuses
on transportation development. She observed the current plans indicate potential use of that site for a ferry
terminal. Mr. Lien agreed that was the site of the ferry terminal but the underlying zoning, MP2, allows
for mixed use development including multi -family residential within that area. Council President Petso
asked whether there was space for those uses in addition to a ferry terminal. Mr. Lien answered there
could be some retail with residential above. The zoning allows for residential development, similar to the
area north of Main Street.
Council President Petso asked if the zoning would need to be changed if the designation of either of those
places was changed in the SMP. Mr. Lien answered his intent when developing the SMP regulations was
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 26, 2013
Page 13
to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and current zoning. Most of the setbacks in the table are
from the SMP or zoning. He answered the zoning would not necessarily need to be changed but there
would be a conflict if someone wanted to develop residential development within the shoreline
jurisdiction as they would be unable to obtain a shoreline permit.
Councilmember Bloom observed there is currently residential on the waterfront which is Urban Mixed
Use I or 11. Mr. Lien answered it is a non -conforming use. Councilmember Bloom asked if that residential
use could be rebuilt if it was damaged. Mr. Lien referred to non -conforming regulations in the SMP, "If a
nonconforming development, building and/or structure is destroyed or damaged to an extent not
exceeding 75 percent replacement cost at the time of destruction, it may be restored to its former size..."
Councilmember Buckshnis commented the marsh and the wildlife preserve are a destination. Whatever
buildings exist in 100 years, she wanted to have the marsh preserved. She asked whether incentive zoning
that suggested residential would be consistent with Urban Mixed Use 111. Mr. Lien answered it would.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented the marsh/wetland was a wildlife habitat; Anacortes' SMP talks
about birds in their marsh and classifies habitat. She asked if consideration had been given to the
possibility of salmon and increased bird and other wildlife with restoration of the marsh. She asked if the
SMP looked into the future. Mr. Lien assured it did. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested the SMP also
consider what could happen with dredging, removing cattails, daylighting Willow Creek, etc. Mr. Lien
advised the marsh has a Natural environment designation that significantly limits uses in that area.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented she did not feel 50 foot setbacks were sufficient but she was
continuing her research.
Mr. Lien referred to 24.40.090, Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards (page 53 of draft SMP) that
identifies setbacks within the shoreline environments. The majority of the setbacks are from the existing
SMP or underlying zoning and some reference the Critical Areas Ordinance. He highlighted setbacks for
parking in the Urban Mixed Use I and 11 compared to Urban Mixed Use 111, advising parking is not a
priority use within shoreline environments, which is why it has additional setbacks in Urban Mixed Use I
and II. Structural setbacks in Urban Mixed Use I and 11 are 15 feet. The standard setback for parking is 60
feet but if walkways or boardwalks are provided, it can be reduced to 40 feet. If the desire is to have
larger setbacks on Harbor Square, incentives could be provided to reduce setbacks.
Mr. Lien displayed a map that identified the 200 foot Shoreline Jurisdiction, 150 foot SMP Wetland
Buffer, 50 foot Shore Setback and 200 foot CAO Wetland Buffer. He reiterated within shoreline
jurisdictions the SMA rules and outside shoreline jurisdictions, the GMA rules; CAO buffers are part of
GMA. Harbor Square is an intensely developed area. One of the main principals in developing the SMP is
no net loss over current ecological functions. The restoration plan in the SMP talks about enhancement of
the marsh, daylighting Willow Creek, etc. There are also vegetation requirements in the SMP. The 50-
foot setback would establish a new buffer; if the Port redeveloped Harbor Square, that area could be
improved and enhanced.
Mr. Lien explained the studies that established these larger buffers were done in rural areas where buffers
exist and there was no development. There is little Best Available Science (BAS) about buffers in urban
environments. The BAS report done for the CAO update in 2004 recognized this is an urban area; the
buffers can encompass several parcels and do not make sense in an urban environment. The SMP and
COA envision protecting what exists and not correcting the harms of the past.
Councilmember Johnson asked Mr. Lien to comment on the 25 foot open space strip that was part of the
contract rezone for Harbor Square versus the Planning Board's recommendation to expand that to 50 feet.
Mr. Lien explained the contract rezone for Harbor Square established a 25 foot wide band of open space
from the edge of the marsh. That area is where the walkway is located that the City maintains. The marsh
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 26, 2013
Page 14
is currently zoned open space. When the SMP was first proposed to the Planning Board, there was a 25
foot setback from the edge of the marsh. The Planning Board increased that to 50 feet. One of the
Planning Board's recommendations regarding Harbor Square is that the 25 foot open space established
via the contract rezone be protected.
Councilmember Johnson observed there are two land use designations on the Harbor Square property, CG
and open space. With the proposed change, there would continue to be two, Urban Mixed Use III and
open space. She asked if the open space was anticipated to be expanded or only the setback expanded.
Mr. Lien answered this was mixing zoning and the SMP. The zoning for the site establishes a 25-foot
open space from the edge of the marsh on the Harbor Square property. If Harbor Square were rezoned in
the future, that could be retained, changed, or expanded to 50 feet but that would occur via a rezone.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she met with environmental specialists from Seattle at the
marsh who indicated the marsh is a wetland. They felt the 25 foot setbacks were insufficient, that setbacks
are typically a minimum of 50 feet and after watching the Council meeting, preferred a 150 foot setback.
Mr. Lien answered the proposed SMP includes a 50 foot setback. At Councilmember Fraley-Monillas's
request, Mr. Lien identified a 50 foot setback and a 100 foot setback on the map.
Councilmember Peterson asked if there was currently a significant amount of development or pavement
within 50 or 100 feet. Mr. Lien identified parking and a dog run that is part of a business within the 50
foot setback and other areas of the 50 foot setback where there was no development. He concluded there
is a pretty good established 50-foot buffer. Councilmember Peterson referred to the goal of the SMP to
protect what exists, not correcting the harms of the past. He asked if Ecology was interested in the City
creating incentive zoning to expand the buffer. Mr. Lien answered one problem with that is expanding
shoreline jurisdiction. The SMA has language stating with restoration projects, the shoreline jurisdiction
can remain where it previously existed. In areas where there is fill, it would be difficult and expensive to
expand the buffer.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed her preference for larger buffers. She asked if consideration had
been given to flows from Shellbarger Creek into the marsh/wetland once the culverts under SR 104 are
expanded. Mr. Lien answered some dredging in the marsh would have to occur as part of that project to
accommodate the flow. He referred to policies the Planning Board added to the SMP (page 14 of draft
SMP) regarding climate change and associated flooding.
Councilmember Buckshnis reiterated the marsh is a destination. If the area redevelops, she wanted
sufficient setbacks to be retained to provide sufficient open space for people to enjoy the marsh. Her
research indicates a 250 foot buffer for high level functioning habitat. Mr. Lien agreed adequate setbacks
and buffers along the marsh were important but the intent of the SMA is no net loss over the current
ecological function. The SMP handbook developed to assist planners states establishing setbacks alone
meets the SMA.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if Mr. Lien was aware of other wetlands of this size where the
buffer width varied based on the need of the wetland. Mr. Lien answered he did not know of any specific
areas, but he could envision that. There are four categories of wetlands and each have different buffer
requirements; a large wetland could have various categories. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked
whether the marsh was large enough to have different buffers. Mr. Lien answered the BAS report in 2004
determined the Edmonds Marsh was a Type 1 wetland; however, there are places along the ditch between
Harbor Square and SR104 that likely do not meet the requirements of a Type 1 wetland. There is also the
historic fragment of wetland on the east side of SR 104 which may not meet the Type 1 category.
For Councilmember Bloom, Mr. Lien advised the purple line on the Setback, Buffer, Shoreline
Jurisdiction map is the shoreline jurisdiction, 200 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark. It is not a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 26, 2013
Page 15
buffer, anything that happens in that area must be compliant with the shoreline regulations. Within
shoreline jurisdiction, the SMA rules. There are specific wetland buffers within the SMP that apply within
shoreline jurisdiction. He identified the red 150 SMP wetland buffer on the map. Outside shoreline
jurisdiction, GMA rules which are the CAO buffers. He identified where the shoreline jurisdiction ends
on the map and where the 200 foot CAO wetland buffer applies (depicted in green on the map).
Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding the shoreline jurisdiction would be the CAO buffer if it
were not in the shoreline. Mr. Lien agreed. He explained the portion of the marsh that was designated as
shoreline environment was only the salt influenced portion of the marsh; beyond that point, it is an
associated wetland and shoreline jurisdiction does not extend beyond the edge of an associated wetland.
Councilmember Bloom asked about the wetland on the east side of the Harbor Square property. Mr. Lien
answered it was formerly connected. The Edmonds Marsh is largely a wetland because it is an estuary
wetland; estuary wetlands larger than an acre are automatically a Category I wetland. The wetland east of
SR 104 is not an estuary wetland. Although he had not seen a wetland determination on that area, given
its location, smaller size, disconnection from the larger marsh, it may not meet the Category 1
requirement.
David Pater, Shoreline Planner, Department of Ecology, commented he has worked with a number of
urbanized communities including Issaquah and Redmond. This is a common issue, for example in
Redmond, the Sammamish River runs through downtown. Redmond struggled with delineating the
shoreline environments and ultimately adopted parallel designations; the first 100 feet is Conservancy.
The next 100 feet has a heavy development footprint that is unlikely to change. The overall guideline of
the State SMP is no net loss from current conditions. The current conditions for Edmonds were
established by the Shoreline Inventory and Categorization developed in 2007 and are used as a baseline
for no net loss. Ecology would view a 50 foot buffer for Harbor Square as meeting the no net loss. He
recognized it was a degraded buffer and if the buffer was restored to a quasi -natural state, it would
provide a better buffer. Ecology requires the City to develop a restoration plan but implementation is
voluntary under the guidelines. Ecology recognizes it is a challenge and a long term effort to restore
buffers within built out environments. There are opportunities for restoration with the 50 foot buffer. He
noted the stormwater controls within the Port's Harbor Square proposal would be of great benefit to the
marsh via better treatment of stormwater.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented the Department of Ecology website is great; Anacortes' SMP is
great with regard to restoration and classifications, and Redmond has issues similar to Edmonds. She
hoped the marsh and the wildlife sanctuary, not the buildings, would be a destination in 100-200 years.
When redevelopment occurs, she wanted to be eligible for as many grants and private -public partnerships
as possible. She asked if there was a standard for grants with regard to buffers. Mr. Pater answered some
grant programs such as the Salmon Recovery Board give more points to projects with larger buffers. He
agreed a larger enhancement would increase the chances of receiving funds. In looking at the Port's plans
for mixed use residential development, from a SMA standpoint, it would increase public access to this
special area that currently exists. That is a positive aspect that addresses improving access and water
enjoyment in the SMP.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if it was necessary to include restoration goals and objectives in the
SMP. Mr. Pater answered Ecology does like to see restoration goals and policies in the SMP that mirror
the goals in the Restoration Plan. He explained Ecology does not formally approve the Restoration Plan
as they do with the SMP.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why Edmonds SMP was not on the list of SMP on Ecology's website.
Mr. Pater answered because Edmonds SMP has not been locally adopted. After local adoption, Ecology
runs its own public process, the City's plan is provided its own web link and when Ecology approves it, a
final copy is posted to Ecology's website.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 26, 2013
Page 16
Council President Petso asked about making the nearest area one designation and the area further inland
another designation; for example, in Edmonds' case, Conservancy status for the first 25 feet and a
different designation beyond. Mr. Pater answered there is already a parallel designation, the marsh
setback buffer is designated Urban Mixed Use III. In Redmond, along the Sammamish River there is the
established King County Conservation Easement of 100 feet; Redmond called that Conservancy. In
downtown there is an urban designation for the upland 100 feet to make it 200 feet. In Edmonds the
railroad and the residential areas are an example of a parallel designation.
Councilmember Johnson referred to the DOE's evaluation of no net loss of ecological function and asked
whether environmental factors such as vibration, noise, glare, light, etc. are used to evaluate the impact of
redevelopment on the ecological function of the marsh. Mr. Pater answered the State SMP guidelines do
not address those issues. Mr. Lien referred to required mitigation measures to reduce impact to the marsh
(page 38 of draft SMP).
Mr. Lien asked whether the Council wanted to hold another work session to address other issues prior to
the public hearing and if so, what issues he should focus on during that presentation.
Councilmember Peterson suggested another work session to address Lake Ballinger and Haines Wharf.
Council President Petso advised a work session regarding the SMP would be scheduled on April 23.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON INCORPORATING THE HARBOR SQUARE MASTER PLAN
INTO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Mayor Earling explained staff s intent was for the Council to continue their review and commentary on
Exhibit 3. He recalled the Council had reviewed and commented on the first two pages at a previous
meeting.
Special Districts or Incentive Zoning
Council President Petso asked if a special district can be created without incentive zoning. City Attorney
Jeff Taraday advised incentive zoning is always optional. Acting Development Services Director Rob
Chave explained a special district such as a brewery/distillery/pub zone is related to uses. Special districts
are about uses; incentive zoning can be about uses but provides a way of encouraging a set of uses. When
referring to a general development area such as the CG zone, the general principle is there are a variety of
uses in the zone and specific properties are not designated for certain uses. With incentive zoning,
incentives can be provided that encourage each property owner to consider certain uses. Incentive zoning
provides the best way to do that when the City does not have control of the property.
Council President Petso asked what type of things can be offered via incentive zoning other than heights
and expedited permitting. Mr. Chave answered forgiving parking, bulk requirements such as setbacks, or
other bulk standards.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented she raised the issue of incentive zoning and a brewery district,
relaying it is a huge industry according to brewpub.com. She referred to a photograph of an old building
where height was added to create an upstairs restaurant. She favored incentive zoning to create synergy
from wineries, breweries, etc.
Councilmember Peterson asked at what point the Council needed to narrow the special districts or
incentive zoning, noting a brewery district or a tech campus could be great options. Mr. Chave answered
if the Council liked all the concepts and any combination, they did not need to narrow the focus. If the
Council identified some of these ideas in the Plan, the zoning needed to follow. At that point the focus
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 26, 2013
Page 17
may be narrowed. Councilmember Peterson commented although it is not a giant property, the Harbor
Square site could support a few different things. Mr. Chave agreed it depends on the scale.
Councilmember Bloom asked whether the CG zone included all the listed uses. She observed a year-
round market is in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chave answered staff would need to research that; there
may be zoning that prohibits some aspects of these uses, such as uses outside the building.
Councilmember Bloom recalled an earlier slide regarding the SMP listed uses prohibited by the contract
rezone for Harbor Square. Mr. Chave answered the zoning for Harbor Square includes the contract rezone
which limits uses otherwise allowed in the CG zone. It is important that the Comprehensive Plan say what
the Council wants and a follow-up step is ensuring the zoning is consistent.
Councilmember Bloom referred to "Roger Brooks' Concepts," and asked the Councilmember who
suggested that to elaborate. Council President Petso answered her intent was to encourage use of the
property, particularly along Dayton Street for a public gathering space; Roger Brooks' presentation
provided several examples of public gathering spaces that were boons to the surrounding businesses and
surrounding community and would help connect downtown to the waterfront.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented tourism is a billion dollar industry; the marsh is a destination and
improving the marsh will draw more visitors.
With regard to Roger Brooks' Concepts, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether those would be
listed. Mr. Chave answered the intent was not to list them but rather capture the intent. He suggested
Councilmembers identify if something was missing with regard to Roger Brooks' concepts.
Parkin
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented her vision for this area, whether it included housing, hotels,
tech companies, etc. was less parking, a parking structure and more walkability. She preferred not to have
roads connecting the buildings.
Council President Petso did not want a reduction in the amount of parking available but she agreed with
the concept of a reduced parking footprint via a parking structure.
Councilmember Peterson asked if the parking regulations were based on older models that require X
number of spaces per 1000 square feet. Mr. Chave answered yes. Councilmember Peterson relayed new
thoughts about residential in urban settings is to reduce parking requirements to encourage people to have
one car and take advantage of public transportation. Mr. Chave answered the Planning Board and the
Highway 99 Task Force have discussed different approaches to parking requirements. The general
principal is when more transit is available, less parking is potentially needed because people will use
transit. It is also tied to the type of uses that locate around transit. There have also been discussions about
developing a flat parking ratio. He relayed one of the problems with establishing parking by specific use
is changes in parking requirements when uses change. In addition it is nearly impossible to track over
time as well as problematic for attracting/encouraging businesses to turn over. He provided the example
of a restaurant which has much higher parking requirements that wanted to replace a service business.
This was remedied downtown by establishing a flat rate; Harbor Square may be another opportunity for a
flat rate. The challenge is determining the rate. There could be a requirement established that anyone
developing in Harbor Square is required to conduct a parking study at the time of development rather than
predetermining a parking ratio. Structured parking could be part of incentive zoning; highly incentivize
structured parking versus surface parking.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 26, 2013
Page 18
Councilmember Peterson referred to the SMP and pollutants washing into the marsh, noting this is a
perfect opportunity to get creative with parking and keep pollutants out of the marsh. Mr. Chave
suggested Councilmembers look at an aerial map of the waterfront on Google Maps; it is a sea of asphalt.
Councilmember Johnson commented one of the newer concepts related to trip generation is looking at
activity centers rather than looking at parking on a use -by -use basis. A balance of job and housing has the
potential to reduce parking due to different trip generation rates. Structured parking is usually 3-4 times
more expensive than surface parking but a more desirable use of land in a compact development.
Councilmember Buckshnis described a block in North Carolina where there is a Trader Joes on the first
floor with apartments above, and three stories of parking and a Target store across the street. She
envisioned structured parking as an incentive, noting there is also the potential to locate a restaurant or a
viewing platform on the roof of a parking structure. She viewed structured parking as a great incentive.
Councilmember Bloom inquired about residential parking requirements. Mr. Chave answered it is a
sliding scale tied to the number of bedrooms, from 1.2 spaces for a studio up to 2 spaces per unit for 2+
bedrooms. Councilmember Bloom asked about the parking requirement for restaurants. Mr. Lien
answered the parking for restaurants is 1 space per 200 square feet. Mr. Chave described a scenario where
a building was constructed outside the downtown area and the parking ratio was based on office use with
no customer service which is 1 space per 800 square feet. What frequently happens is that office use is
replaced by an office that has customer service and there is inadequate parking. A general parking
requirement rather than parking requirements by use avoids that issue.
Councilmember Bloom asked if that could be done in a specific area without expending it citywide. Mr.
Chave answered yes, for example it was done downtown several years ago; a flat 1 space per 500 square
feet regardless of the business. The key is determining the number; different areas of the City would have
different standards. For example the parking standard on Highway 99 would be much different than Five
Corners where parking could spill over into residential areas.
Councilmember Bloom asked if structured parking could have free parking for residents and paid -parking
for visitors. Mr. Chave answered parking management is generally not addressed in the code. The
regulations can address shared parking. Peak hours of different uses can balance each other, reducing
overall parking requirements.
Council President Petso asked about the requirements for a destination type facility such as the ECA. Mr.
Chave stated it is typically based on the capacity of the facility, either square footage or number of seats.
Council President Petso asked whether structured parking could be required. Mr. Chave answered it could
be; the expense should be kept in mind.
Connectivity
Council President Petso envisioned the presence of a Roger Brooks' feature, a gathering space on Dayton,
as an asset to connectivity. Conversely, she did not consider buildings on Dayton casting permanent shade
on the sidewalk to be an enhancement to connectivity.
Councilmember Bloom recalled the Transportation Comprehensive Plan talks about a shuttle from the
neighborhoods with downtown. She asked if that could be included in Harbor Square to reduce the
necessity for parking. Mr. Chave answered that is a program rather than a use and would be unusual to
include in a Master Plan. The plan could refer to a shuttle as an example of a way to connect the
development to other areas. Councilmember Bloom asked about including bike and walking paths in the
Plan. Mr. Chave answered there is already a fair amount of discussion in the Plan regarding bike and
walking paths including connections offsite to existing and future pathways.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 26, 2013
Page 19
Planning Board Recommendations
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the Planning Board's recommendations were made regarding the
Port's Master Plan but issues such as the 55 foot height limit are no longer applicable. Mayor Earling
advised some recommendations are potentially relevant and they have been included in staff s proposal.
Council President Petso expressed willingness to forego discussion of the Planning Board's
recommendations if she could be assured whatever the Council developed would be reviewed by the
Planning Board.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out staff has addressed the Planning Board's recommendations in the
column on the right.
Councilmember Peterson agreed with Councilmember Buckshnis that staff has incorporated many of the
Planning Board's recommendations in the Plan. He did not view the changes to be significant enough to
warrant another review by the Planning Board.
Mayor Earling suggested discussing staffs responses to the Planning Board's recommendations at a
future meeting.
Councilmember Bloom agreed with Mayor Earling's suggestion.
Councilmember Johnson also agreed with Mayor Earling's suggestion. She observed members of the
Planning Board have been present during the Council's discussion. She thanked the Planning Board for
the work they have done.
Councilmember Peterson suggested Councilmembers email Council President Petso and staff with their
concerns about the 14 Planning Board recommendations. Mayor Earling requested Councilmembers
provide their comments to staff by Tuesday, April 2.
Council President Petso advised further discussion would be tentatively scheduled on the April 16
meeting.
10. REPORT ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Councilmember Buckshnis reported she was unable to attend the WRIA 8 meeting. She reported the
Snohomish County Tomorrow meeting will include review of the 2035 growth targets, the
Interjurisdictional Housing Agreement, and the Dispute Resolution Mediation pilot program.
Councilmember Bloom reported the Economic Development Commission discussed land use incentives,
possibly providing quarterly updates to Council, a form for communicating with the community, whether
the EDC could be involved in the coal train issues, and tourism activities.
Councilmember Bloom reported the Tree Board discussed fees for tree cutting, the City's Urban Forestry
Management Plan and a suggestion to meet with the Mayor's Climate Change Committee.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported an audio of EDC meetings is now available online on the City's
website. She reported the South County City's dinner included discussion regarding changing the way
issues are raised with the legislature such as approaching them before the session begins and holding
legislators accountable for cities' requests.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported on a meeting Councilmember Bloom, Planning Commissioner
Val Stewart and she attended regarding rain gardens. Rain gardens can be beneficial in private yards as
well as City -owned land.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 26, 2013
Page 20
Councilmember Yamamoto reported the dispute resolution related to SnoCom's New World system
continues.
11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling reported the Edmonds-Woodway High School jazz band has been selected one of 15
finalists to perform in the Essentially Ellington Competition in New York. A concert is being held
tomorrow night at the ECA. Councilmembers are invited to attend the Edmonds-Woodway Music
Department dinner and auction on April 13 at Holy Rosary.
12. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Johnson acknowledged awards given at the City/Chamber Art Awards ceremony:
• Mike Popke — Individual Leadership Award
• Barbara Kindness — Individual Volunteer Award
• Monya Vee — Business Leadership Award for the Art Walk and Mural Society
• Rick Steves, ECA, KCTS9 and the Cascadia Symphony Orchestra — Collaboration Award for
Europe: A Symphonic Journey
Council President Petso thanked staff for setting up Council Chambers tonight for the joint meeting with
FD1. She thanked GIS Analyst Dave Rohde for his efforts to live stream tonight's Council meeting.
Council President Petso announced she has appointed Roger Hertrich to the EDC, replacing Don Hall
who resigned. Council President Petso advised there are two vacancies on the Tree Board.
Councilmember Bloom echoed Councilmember Fraley-Monillas's comments about the meeting with Val
Stewart and a company that develops rain gardens. She was hopeful a presentation regarding rain gardens
would be made to the City Council. Rain gardens can be developed quickly, grants are available, and they
generate interest from citizens, beautify the City, and clean stormwater.
Councilmember Peterson relayed at the request of citizens, he plans to bring a resolution to the Council
related to the Citizens United Decision regarding campaign finance reform.
Councilmember Buckshnis reported the Floretum Garden Club knows a lot about rain gardens. She
encouraged anyone interested in a pea patch to contact a Garden Club member. She thanked citizens who
have contacted her with their concerns.
13. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW
42.30.110(1)(i).
At 10:09 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding
potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last
approximately 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 Yamamoto, Johnson, Fraley-
Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and Bloom. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, and
City Clerk Sandy Chase. The executive session concluded at 10:15 p.m.
Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting and adjourned at 10:19 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 26, 2013
Page 21
14. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
This item was removed from the agenda via action taken under Agenda Item 2.
15. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 26, 2013
Page 22