Cm130402EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
April 2, 2013
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Lora Petso in the
Council Chambers, 250 5t1i Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Lora Petso, Mayor Pro Tem
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President
Pro Tem
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember
Joan Bloom, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
ROLL CALL
STAFF PRESENT
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director
Rob Chave, Acting Development Services Dir.
Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager
Rob English, City Engineer
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 with the exception of Mayor
Earling.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO,
TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO,
TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda
items approved are as follows:
A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 26, 2013.
B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #201232 THROUGH #201325 DATED MARCH 28,
2013 FOR $388,116.14. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL REPLACEMENT CHECK #60107
FOR $40.83.
C. LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR CANYON PARK TREATMENT SOLUTIONS.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 2, 2013
Page 1
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the stepback recommendation from the Planning Board and the
obvious, arbitrary 30-foot height limit included in the charts. He was unable to find anything in the
Planning Board minutes indicating 30 feet would be the new building height. He reminded
Councilmembers of their election promises with regard to downtown building heights, recalling the
building heights were 25 feet with an additional 5 feet allowed for other amenities, design, roofs, etc.
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, relayed that Mr. Hertrich inappropriately spoke during Audience Comments
regarding an item scheduled on the agenda as a public hearing and therefore should not be allowed to
speak again during the public hearing.
Val Stewart, Edmonds, Vice Chair, Planning Board (PB), said she would refer to the PB's work but
would also express her own opinions. The PB spent over 16 meeting hours working through the Harbor
Square Master Plan (HSMP). She noted the challenge Council faces making sure the Port's original plan
is respected and limiting the level of detail appropriate for inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan. The
Council will have an opportunity to review a project action should that occur. A motion to deny the
HSMP was defeated and now a revised Master Plan or revised Subarea Plan is being discussed that
includes Council comments, addresses the PB's 14 amendments, and retains a portion of the original
HSMP. She encouraged Council to refer to it as a revision out of respect for both the Port and PB and to
build on the work that has been accomplished rather than tossing it aside. The HSMP was not called a
"subarea" plan throughout the PB's meetings; that term was brought up later to afford more flexibility
with regard to timing of adoption. The fourth criterion for qualifying the proposed amendment to the
comprehensive plan was not addressed by the PB as there was not going to be a change to the
comprehensive plan map. She posed several questions for the Council to consider during their review:
What is the unique feature on the Port's property that everyone in this City values? Don't we owe it to
future generations to fix the sins of the past or is it enough to just get to "no net loss"? While restoring
what we all treasure, can't we come up with a version of the Plan that will be a draw not only for our
Edmonds citizens but also for visitors? Why not allow residential? Just don't be specific. Wouldn't it be
better to encourage a diverse housing mix especially to attract the younger creative class who honestly
don't value having a car but seek places to gather, public amenities and transportation alternatives?
Density does not necessarily equate with height. Imagine smaller units, fewer cars, and live work options.
She referred to the Planning Board's recommendation that any potential redevelopment go through a third
party verified green building program. She thanked the Council for doing this challenging work for the
greater good of citizens and the generations to come.
Mayor Pro Tem Petso requested City Attorney Jeff Taraday ponder whether a person who spoke under
Audience Comments on a public hearing topic could speak again during the public hearing if he chose.
5. MAYORS DAY OF RECOGNITION FOR NATIONAL SERVICE PROCLAMATION
Paulette Jacobsen, Director, Retired Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) at Catholic Community Services,
explained RSVP is a retired and senior volunteer program, part of the Corporation for National
Community Service. They had 1,000 volunteers in Snohomish County who supported 91 non -profits,
providing 181,118 hours of service; 200 of the volunteers were from Edmonds. On April 9, Mayors
across the nation will recognize National Service Volunteers. She introduced retired Advisory Council
Member Linda McCullough.
Mayor Pro Tem Petso read a proclamation proclaiming April 9, 2013 as National Service Recognition
Day, and encouraged residents to recognize the positive impact of national service in our city, to thank
those who serve; and to find ways to give back to their communities.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 2, 2013
Page 2
6. PUBLIC HEARING ON A DRAFT PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) TO APPLY DESIGN STANDARDS TO THE BD2, BD3 AND
BD4 ZONES TO REPLACE THE REQUIREMENT FOR BUILDING STEP -BACKS. THE
PROPOSAL ALSO INCLUDES A PROVISION EXEMPTING SMALL DECORATIVE 'BLADE
SIGNS' FROM SIGN CODE AREA CALCULATION LIMITATIONS.
Acting Development Services Director Rob Chave explained the Planning Board's original
recommendation to remove the step -back requirements from the BD zones was made in 2011. The
Council held a public hearing on July 26, 2011. In 2012, although supportive of replacing the stepback
requirements in the BD zone with design standards, the Council wanted design standards in place before
removing the step -back requirement. It was referred to the Planning Board and the Board has provided
this recommendation. By way of background, he reviewed how height limits have changed over time:
• First zoning code in 1956: 45 feet
• 1964: 35 feet
1981: 30 feet
o Pitched roof / modulated design / step -backs
Codes since 1981 have addressed what happens in the 5 feet above 25 feet, but the 30-foot height
limit has remained unchanged
2005 - step -back required to increase building height from 25 to 30 feet
Mr. Chave displayed photographs of buildings constructed prior to 1956: historic forms that still exist,
noting there are common features such as first floor windows; pedestrian awnings; differentiation
between the first floor and upper floor using materials and design elements; and rhythm or distinctive
breaks in facades.
He displayed photographs of buildings constructed 1956 to 1981, what he termed as the "simplified box,"
unadorned with little architectural character. The solution in 1981 was 25 + 5 feet with some kind of
design feature such as a pitched roof. He displayed photographs of buildings constructed 1981 to 1997,
commenting they tended to be "buildings with hats." Beginning in 1997 there was a requirement for
modulated buildings. He displayed photographs of buildings constructed 1997-2005, explaining the result
was different roof forms and some attempt to differentiate vertical forms with a lot of repetitive elements.
He pointed out there is a difference between building rhythm and breaking up a large facade into
individual elements.
Mr. Chave summarized:
• Buildings prior to 1956
o Pedestrian scale & orientation
o A richness of materials & architectural detail
o Vertical detailing
• 1956 to 1981
o Larger scale, very simple buildings
o Lacking in architectural detail
• 1981 to 1997
o Some improvement in architectural detail
o Pitched roofs as an add -on or afterthought
• 1997 to 2005
o More architectural elements included
o More attention to vertical elements
o "Busy" horizontal elements
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 2, 2013
Page 3
Mr. Chave noted one of the differences between historic buildings is richness in material and
craftsmanship. Even when craftsmanship is not present, the details and rhythm of the buildings fit into the
overall feel. Although buildings can be historic at 50 years old, he did not view many of the buildings
constructed more recently as historic; they are typical of the period but not historic. While the concern in
recent years has been height, it should be about design, the overall appearance of buildings and how they
fit into the streetscape.
Mr. Chave summarized the existing code requirements:
• Retail core / BD1:
o No step -backs
o Mandatory design standards
• Other BD zones (BD2 — 4)
o Mandatory 15-foot step -backs
o Design objectives (not design standards)
The Board's recommendation is to remove the 15-foot stepback in the BD24 zones and replace it with
design standards. He provided photographs of 15-foot step -backs in downtown Kirkland and Old Town
Bellevue, noting they are typically on much taller buildings. He displayed photographs of Chanterelle's
and the Edmonds Theater, commenting step -backs do not complement traditional commercial building
styles. Using Chanterelle's as an example, he pointed out step -backs would not allow traditional buildings
to be built. He explained the facades on historical buildings were viewed as a desirable downtown
element. The intent is to adopt design standards that are consistent with some of the old building types
and rhythms found downtown. He relayed downtown property owners have indicated the 15-foot step -
back is a building killer and at least one developer concluded that a building utilizing that requirement
was not feasible.
He displayed photographs of buildings that echo traditional building styles and new construction that
often tries to duplicate traditional building styles such as Mill Creek Towne Center. The Board's
recommendation eliminates the 15-foot step -back requirement in the downtown BD2, 3 and 4 zones and
replaces it with the same regulations that work in the BD1 zone; a height limit of 30 feet and the BD1
zone design standards.
With regard to Mr. Hertrich's comment about being unable to find where the idea of 30 feet came from,
Mr. Chave referred to the Board's January 9, 2013 minutes, page 8, 3rd paragraph, Board Chair Reed
suggested to simplify the code language, 30 feet should be inserted. Mr. Chave noted this made sense
because otherwise the language was convoluted with a base height of 25 feet with a 12-foot ground floor
and the 12-foot ground floor was already required. He emphasized the 30-foot height was not a height
increase.
Councilmember Buckshnis clarified the Council approved 25 +5 feet to a maximum of 30 feet in October
2012. Mr. Chave responded that seemed to be the consensus of the Council although the Council did not
take formal action to approve it as the Council wanted to see the design standard language before taking
final action.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee had
reviewed this issue. Mr. Chave answered yes, at the outset of the process in 2011. The Planning Board
had a joint meeting with the Architectural Design Board to discuss the design standards.
Councilmember Bloom asked when roof modulation was removed from the code. Mr. Chave answered it
is still applicable in some parts of the City such as the BC zones in lower downtown including the Salish
Crossing property. In 2005-2006, the idea of roof modulation was replaced with step -backs.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 2, 2013
Page 4
Mayor Pro Tern Petso referred to horizontal rhythm, noting large buildings not occupying entire blocks in
the past. In recent years buildings are the size of an entire block without any horizontal modulation or
rhythm. She asked whether the Planning Board's recommendation addressed that issue. Mr. Chave
advised he would have to research that.
Mayor Pro Tern Petso observed BD5 was also being amended. Mr. Chave answered BD5 is the 4"'
Avenue Arts Corridor. The language for BD5 retains the step -back because that area needs a special
process. There is already a 15 foot setback requirement for larger buildings in that area. Staff s
recommendation to the Planning Board was to consider BD5 separately in the context of the plan that was
adopted for that area because it is unique and needs to have its own rules.
Mayor Pro Tern Petso observed it appeared an extensive change was made to the BD5 language. Mr.
Chave answered the language that was otherwise applicable to all the BD zones was retained for BD5.
Although it looks like a big change in the markup copy, it is actually status quo.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the blade signs were reviewed by the Planning Board. Mr. Chave
answered yes. He explained the intent is to make small signs that hang under awnings an easy process.
Mayor Pro Tern Petso asked whether the blade sign proposal was reviewed by the Parks, Planning and
Public Works Committee. Mr. Chave answered it was not, this was the first presentation to the Council.
Councilmember Johnson asked how blade signs apply in the BD1 zone. Mr. Chave answered the same
way as the other BD zones. The proposal is any blade sign under 4 square feet does not count against the
overall signage. A business that wants a small blade sign simply undergoes a staff review to ensure there
is enough clearance. There is no review of the overall building square footage and allowable sign space.
Councilmember Johnson observed the public hearing was in regard to BD2-4 and asked whether a
separate process was necessary for the blade sign exemption for BD1. Mr. Chave answered the blade sign
exemption was for the BD zones, not just B132-4.
Councilmember Bloom referred to a Planning Board Member's question that it was "his understanding of
the current code the additional height from 25 to 30 feet could only be achieved with a step -back.
Eliminating the step -back requirement as proposed would mean a developer could achieve the maximum
height with certain design accommodations. He asked what a developer might provide in terms of
amenities or design features in order to obtain the maximum height. Mr. Chave answered the BD design
standards provide illustrations that give a good idea of what would be expected." Councilmember Bloom
asked whether it was the Planning Board's understanding that the design standards would be required to
obtain the additional 5 feet in height and whether there had been any discussion regarding amenities that
would be necessary to obtain the additional 5 feet. Mr. Chave answered the Planning Board agreed the
design standards apply regardless of the building height.
Councilmember Bloom asked if the Planning Board discussed 25 + 5 feet with an additional amenity of
some sort. Mr. Chave answered no; they focused on design standards that would apply consistently across
the board. The idea of incentive zoning and other kinds of incentives was not discussed. There is some of
that built into the BD zones; for example buildings over a certain size require open space be provided.
Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained Roger Brooks'
presentation talked about the importance of including blade signs on storefronts in the retail area. Blade
signs are often used to attract pedestrians or drivers who do not see the storefront because they are
traveling perpendicular to the front of the business. He displayed photographs of blade signs in Fairhaven,
noting the design of the signs add to the attractiveness of the streetscape. Blade signs are typically much
thinner than wall signs. He noted 3-4 businesses have approached him about installing a blade sign but do
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 2, 2013
Page 5
not want to go through the sign process. The proposal is to allow a blade sign up to 4 feet and it would not
count against the sign square footage allowed on the building fagade. He summarized blade signs help
pedestrians and drivers see businesses more clearly.
Council President Pro Tern Fraley-Monillas recalled Roger Brooks mentioning that blade signs often
identify the merchandise or service a business provides. Mr. Clifton agreed Mr. Brooks talked about the
importance of a business listing what they sell on the blade sign. Council President Pro Tern Fraley-
Monillas asked why the blade sign issue was included with the design standards in the BD24 rather than
separately. Mr. Clifton responded the Council directed the Planning Board to look at the design guidelines
for the BD2-5 zones and it is very appropriate that the signage allowed in those zones be part of the
design standards.
Councilmember Bloom recalled blade signs identify the product a business sells; the examples Mr.
Clifton provided did not show that. She asked if that would be allowed? Mr. Clifton answered it would,
noting blade signs can also hang from awnings provided they maintain a minimum clearance above the
sidewalk.
Mayor Pro Tern Petso opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Doug Spee, Edmonds, a property owner in the BD2 zone, commented this is a very fair approach to the
challenge to get development going downtown. He liked that the same design standards would apply to
BD1-4. He noted the Council need not fear ugly or boxy buildings as the ADB review is a very
challenging, effective process that, in his case, produced a better building. Once a developer complies
with the design guidelines, they still must go through ADB review.
Finis Tupper, Edmonds, commented he was involved in the final adoption of the Comprehensive Plan
and recalled the last element the Council worked on in 1981 was building heights. He recalled the Harbor
building on Main Street was the driver for the 25-foot height. He noted Mr. Chave did not show the view
of the Olympics and Puget Sound. The code was written to preserve the downtown area and the entire
area was zoned BC. Another dimensional requirement in 1981 was that 51% of the building had to be
commercial. Edmonds lacks commercial zones and more condominiums are being built than the City
needs. He questioned whether the condominiums on 5"' Avenue represented the small town character of
Edmonds. If Councilmembers liked big, boxy buildings, he recommended they raise the building height
from 25 feet to 30 feet tonight.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, clarified when he spoke under Audience Comments, he was speaking about
elections, now he was talking about building heights that have been arbitrarily changed to 30 feet. He
noted in the BD zone the height limit was raised due to the extra height of the first floor level; the BD2-4
zones were not required to have an increased first floor height. He recalled there were incentives in the
past to create extra design features in exchange for additional height such as modulated rooflines,
modulated building walls and sloped roofs. He summarized this was an arbitrary increase in height
without any requirements.
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, commented if Councilmembers did not support the proposed changes, it
meant they liked the current situation. The current situation is not construction of an abundance of
beautiful buildings; it is no buildings being built. He was a Councilmember in February 2006 when the
new BD zones were implemented to replace the BC zone; no buildings have been constructed since then
in a BD zone except for the rebuilding of two banks.
David Arista, Edmonds, owner of a building in the BD2 zone, expressed his support for the Planning
Board's recommendation to replace the requirement for building step -backs. He does not plan to
redevelop his building any time soon, but if he did in the future he wanted the opportunity to do so
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 2, 2013
Page 6
without a step -back. He commented a 15-foot step -back did not make sense for a building 25-30 feet in
height. He also supported the proposal to exempt blade signs, explaining blade signs are very helpful as
drivers do not see the front of the building but a blade sign catches their attention.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Pro Tem Petso closed the public participation portion of the public
hearing.
Council President Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas asked the current height limit in the BD1-4 zones. Mr. Chave
answered BD1 is 30 feet, BD 2, 3 and 4 is essentially 25 feet and the ability to go to 30 feet with certain
things, mainly a step -back. That is why the Planning Board felt if they removed the step -back
requirement, there was no reason to call it 25 + 5 anymore because 25 + 5 = 30. In the BD4, there are two
options, a commercial building that requires the 15-foot step -back or a multi -family building up to 30 feet
with a front yard setback.
Council President Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas observed if the Council kept the height the same and
removed the step -back, the height limits would be 30 feet in BD1 and 25 feet in BD1, 2, 3 and 4 zones.
Mr. Chave answered that would essentially be lowering the height limit in the BD 2, 3 and 4 zones
because there is no option to go from 25 feet to 30 feet. Council President Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas
observed the only option currently to go from 25 feet to 30 feet is the step -back. Mr. Chave agreed.
Council President Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas asked if the option to go from 25 feet to 30 with a step -back
was adopted because of building modulation. Mr. Chave answered the genesis of the step -back was a
concern with the appearance of the street front. At the time there was a feeling that somehow 25 feet
provided a more pedestrian -friendly environment; historically what makes more sense is the design rather
than imposing an artificial step -back. That is evident in the design of historic buildings. The primary
focus of the Planning Board and ADB Members' discussion was that design is important and the step -
back does not really produce good design and in fact is not consistent with historic designs.
Council President Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas asked whether design standards instead of a step -back could
be required to go from 25 feet to 30 feet in the BD24 zones. Mr. Chave answered under the Planning
Board's proposal, design standards would be required regardless of building height. Design standards
address variation in material, detailing on facades, etc.
Mayor Pro Tem Petso asked if horizontal modulation was addressed. Mr. Chave answered not directly;
there is discussion about materials and differentiation of facades, but nothing that sets an absolute number
when one portion of the building transitions to another and no horizontal standard is included. Mayor Pro
Tem Petso observed adopting this tonight would not provide any improvement for a building that runs the
full length of the block. Mr. Chave answered it would, such as the detailing that enhances the fagade.
There is just not a specific standard that addresses horizontal spacing although that would be relatively
easy to add. He referred to the first page of the design standards (page 83 of the packet), 22.43.010
Massing and Articulation, A. Intent. To reduce the massiveness and bulk of large box -like buildings and
articulate the building form to a pedestrian scale. A sentence could be added something like "buildings
shall echo historic horizontal building spacing or building elements consistent with the historic pattern of
the city." He noted it would be different on each block or fagade depending on the historic pattern. He
referred to the photographs of historic buildings where there is a distinctive difference between one
section of the building frontage and another.
Mayor Pro Tem Petso asked whether that would need to go back to the Planning Board or could it be
included in the ordinance for approval by Council. Mr. Chave answered the intent is there; if a majority of
the Council wanted to include that language, it could be included in the ordinance.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 2, 2013
Page 7
Mayor Pro Tern Petso referred to Mr. Chave's statement that the BD1 building height is 30 feet, yet when
she looked at the table in the packet, 25 is crossed out and replaced with 30. She noted it appeared a
change was being made to BD1. Mr. Chave answered buildings in BD1 are required to have a 15-foot
ground floor; with a 15 foot ground floor, the building can be 30 feet tall; therefore, from a practical
standpoint, the height limit in BD1 is 30 feet. That was why Planning Board Chair John Reed
recommended changing the table.
Mayor Pro Tern Petso observed the same change was being made in the table for the B132, 3 and 4 zones,
changing 25 feet to 30 feet. She asked if it would be possible to eliminate the step -backs, adopt the design
standards and not change the table, leaving the height limit at 25 feet. Mr. Chave answered yes, but it
would mean no possibility of going from 25 feet to 30 feet. Mayor Pro Tern Petso agreed pointing out the
extra 5 feet could be achieved via a development agreement, incentive zoning or other ideas that have
been discussed. Mr. Chave advised that would require a separate process.
Councilmember Bloom observed open space was required for a larger bulk building. Mr. Chave agreed.
Councilmember Bloom recalled being at Council meetings when the Gregory Building was approved
where citizens were in opposition to the building design. The former City Attorney said three errors were
made by the Planning Department in approving the building but nothing could be done because an appeal
had not been filed during the 21 day LUPA period. She recalled one of the errors was related to open
space. Mr. Chave responded he was not directly involved with that project but recalled there was split
zoning on the property and a bay window that extended beyond the facade that was not picked up during
building review. There was nothing regarding open space at the front of the building. The provisions in
the BD zones that he referenced earlier, page 11 of the zoning chapter (page 79 of the packet), Open
Space Requirements, for buildings on lots larger than 12,000 square feet or having an overall building
width of more than 120 feet, at least five percent of the lot area shall be devoted to open space, is a new
requirement that was not in place until the BD zones were adopted. The intent of the open space
requirement was to encourage pocket open spaces along a building frontage, particularly larger buildings
such as a full block. There is also language regarding where the open space should be located. It is not an
incentive; it is a requirement for a large building. The discussion regarding the Gregory Building was
related to the back of the building.
Councilmember Bloom observed there are a number of buildings that have been built under the current 25
+ 5 building code that many citizens have not been happy with, including Old Milltown and the Gregory.
She was agreeable to eliminating the step -back but was concerned with eliminating 25 + 5 without any
tradeoff for the additional 5 feet. She was also supportive of blade signs. She appreciated Mr. Spee's
comments tonight and at the Planning Board that there is a lot of fear. She noted the fear is due to
buildings that have been constructed that citizens have had issues with. Mr. Chave responded the ADB
and Planning Board looked at it differently. From a practical standpoint, they felt the height limits were
established at 30 feet and the discussion is really about the overall facade and design of the building, not
what occurs above 25 feet.
Councilmember Bloom asked what the highest part of the Gregory Building is, recognizing that portions
of buildings can be higher than the height limit due to the topography. Mr. Chave answered the overall
height of the Gregory was 30 feet. He referred to the photo of the building with the curved roof which
looks like a 2-story building at the street, but is a 4-story building down the hill. The opposite happens on
the other side of the street where the uphill slope is behind the building. The Gregory appears taller
because it takes advantage of the slope behind the building. That is a function of the way height limits are
calculated and the topography. There has been discussion in the past about establishing height limits at
the street front; but that was not done because it was such a huge change.
Councilmember Bloom asked how tall the front of the Gregory Building is. Mr. Chave guessed it was 33-
34 feet and the back of the building was less than 30 feet. Councilmember Bloom observed that was the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 2, 2013
Page 8
reason citizens view this as a height increase; some buildings seem quite large due to the topography. Mr.
Chave agreed a building's height calculation depends on the site's topography.
In response to the comment that the City was not getting anything in return, Mr. Clifton assured the City
was getting something in return — BD1 design standards applied to the BD2-4 zones. He noted the BD1
design standards were adopted after the development that Councilmember Bloom referred to. The two
developments that have occurred since then, the banks, particularly the one at 3rd and Main Street, would
not have been allowed under the proposed design standards because they do not reflect the desired
downtown urban form. The bank building looks like it belongs in a suburban office park; it would have
been better to gut the existing building and build around the facade than to build that building. He found it
interesting that the Council was fearful when they had already approved BD1 guidelines that require a 15-
foot first floor ceiling height which allows a 30-foot building in the most concentrated and intimate area
of the downtown, but did not want to allow that in the rest of downtown. He noted the intent of the BD1
design standards was to require building design and construction that reflected the architectural style that
many in the community find attractive such as the Beeson building, Chantrelle's, Edmonds Theater, the
Starbucks building, etc. He found the 15-foot step -back arbitrary and had never understood why it was
imposed.
Main Motion
COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO APPROVE THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDED CODE CHANGES AND DIRECT
THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR CONSENT AGENDA
APPROVAL TO INCLUDE THE PROVISION EXEMPTING SMALL DECORATIVE BLADE
SIGNS FROM SIGN CODE AREA CALCULATION LIMITATIONS.
Councilmember Peterson commented by adopting the design standards, it is no longer a tradeoff, it is
forcing good design which is a great step toward ensuring buildings fit the feel of downtown. Although
not anti -development, the design standards are the City showing a heavier hand and requiring good
building design regardless of the height. As Mr. Clifton pointed out, these design standards are required in
BD1, a zone that citizens are adamant about protecting, and it makes sense to expand them to the
surrounding zones.
Amendment #1
MAYOR PRO TEM PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD A SENTENCE THAT THE BUILDINGS SHALL ECHO
HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT HORIZONTALLY.
Mayor Pro Tern Petso referred to Mr. Chave's indication that it would be a simple matter to ensure
buildings demonstrate horizontal rhythm by adding a sentence to the ordinance. Mr. Chave responded the
intent is stated in the code. He displayed a picture of a block that reflected building rhythm, noting the
additional language would not prohibit or otherwise restrict construction of a large building, but it would
address the facade and appearance at the street.
Vote on Amendment #1
UPON ROLL CALL, THE AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), MAYOR PRO TEM PETSO AND
COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON, FRALEY-MONILLAS, BLOOM, AND JOHNSON VOTING
YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS YAMAMOTO AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO.
Amendment #2
MAYOR PRO TEM PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO ELIMINATE THE STEP -BACKS, ADOPT THE DESIGN
GUIDELINES BUT LEAVE THE BUILDING HEIGHTS AT 25 FEET.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 2, 2013
Page 9
Councilmember Peterson reiterated the design standards were created with a great deal of public input for
the most intimate area of the City, around the fountain, and he did not understand the reasoning behind
Mayor Pro Tern Petso's motion. He pointed out many of the buildings on the Historic Register could not
be built with a height limit of 25 feet. If the goal is an historical element, which he supports, he
questioned how that could be accomplished with this motion.
Councilmember Bloom recalled during a past discussion there was an indication that incentive zoning
was included in the Comprehensive Plan. She asked if the option for incentive zoning applied to all zones.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday advised the City Council always adopts incentive zoning anywhere in the City
it wished. Councilmember Bloom asked what would be required to adopt incentive zoning to allow an
additional 5 feet with certain amenities. Mr. Taraday referred to the memo his office prepared regarding
incentive zoning, explaining there needs to be a careful balance between the public benefit that is sought
and the deviation that the City is willing to accommodate. The tradeoff only works if the benefit and
deviation are in balance; just the right amount of public benefit and just the right amount of incentive to
the developer. That needs to be carefully considered and he was uncertain that there had been any analysis
regarding how much going from 25 to 30 feet was worth economically and what a developer would be
willing to provide in the way of an amenity to gain the additional 5 feet in height. The drafting of the
incentive is a simple process; the analysis of whether it will actually work to generate the amenity has not
been done with regard to an increase from 25 to 30 feet.
Councilmember Bloom asked whether development agreements could be used to allow an additional 5
feet and get something in exchange. Mr. Taraday said staff could be asked to develop a proposal that
would accomplish that and bring it to the Planning Board for review and ultimately to the City Council.
Councilmember Johnson commented she had been following this issue for some time and it was both
simple and confusing. In the interest of clarity for elected officials, developers, staff and citizens,
Planning Board Chair Reed suggested changing the minimum height from 25 feet to 30 feet. It was her
understanding the building height was 30 feet prior to the adoption of step -backs and it will be 30 feet
once the step -back requirement is eliminated, yet the table indicates the height is 25 feet. At the very
least, this is a PR nightmare. She suggested being clear about what the standards were, what they are and
what they will be. She agreed the 15-foot step -back was not a good idea. She referred to Figure 16.43.4
that illustrates uphill and downhill examples, observing that depending on the topography, the frontage
could be above 30 feet. She summarized the goal was improved communication between advisory boards
and the City Council; her preference would have been for the Parks, Planning and Public Works
Committee to have reviewed the Planning Board's recommendation so that there could have been an in-
depth discussion with staff. In the interest of expediency and because this has been discussed since 2011,
she supported making a decision tonight.
Councilmember Buckshnis echoed Councilmember Johnson's comments that the goal was clarity and
pointing out 25 + 5 = 30 feet. The proposal simplifies the regulations. She referred to Roger Brooks'
suggestion #5, keep it simple. The amendment would require buildings to echo historical horizontal
design. She agreed this is a PR nightmare in that this has been going on since 2011. She summarized the
step -back was being removed and building heights were not being raised because 25 + 5 = 30 feet.
Council President Pro Tern Fraley-Monillas disliked step -backs particularly in shorter buildings. She
spoke in favor of blade signs. She supported the amendment to keep building heights at 25 feet.
Vote on Amendment #2
UPON ROLL CALL, THE AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-
MONILLAS AND BLOOM, AND MAYOR PRO TEM PETSO VOTING YES; AND
COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON, YAMAMOTO, JOHNSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 2, 2013
Page 10
Mayor Pro Tern Petso said she will not support the main motion; in order for her to support the main
motion, both amendments would have needed to pass. She thanked everyone for their work on this; the
positive is improved design standards will be adopted and they will be further improved before final
adoption via the amendment.
Councilmember Bloom echoed Mayor Pro Tern Petso's comments, stating she supported the removal of
the step -back requirement and supported blade signs but would vote against the main motion due to the
30-foot height limit.
Councilmember Johnson expressed her support for extending the BD design standards to the BD2, 3 and
4 zones.
Vote on Main Motion
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON,
YAMAMOTO, BUCKSHNIS AND PETERSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS
BLOOM, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND MAYOR PRO TEM PETSO VOTING NO.
Mayor Pro Tern Petso declared a brief recess.
7. EDMONDS STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN — PRESENTATION OF DRAFT FINAL REPORT.
Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton reported the Planning Board (PB)
and Economic Development Commission (EDC) conducted a joint meeting open to the public on January
23, 2013. The City Council was also invited. The purpose of the meeting was to provide an opportunity
for Beckwith Consulting Group (BCG) to present information related to a Draft Strategic Action Plan
Report dated December 21, 2013. PB and EDC members asked questions and discussed next steps with
Mr. Beckwith.
Following the January 23, 2013 joint PB/EDC meeting, Mr. Beckwith submitted a revised Draft Strategic
Action Plan dated February 8, 2013 to the City. The document was forwarded to the City Council, PB and
EDC members, City staff, Chamber, Senior Center, etc. The document was also provided to the Strategic
Action Plan subcommittee consisting of City Council/PB/EDC members and City staff. All entities were
asked to review the document and provide comments.
On March 5, 2013, the Strategic Action Plan Committee met to discuss the February 8, 2013 document.
During the meeting, the committee focused primarily on BCG's proposed five strategic objectives, related
plan actions, who/which entity would perform in a lead capacity and as participants, etc. Using comments
provided during the meeting, revisions were made to the document and clean/redlined versions were
again provided to City Council, PB and EDC members, City staff, Chamber of Commerce, Senior Center,
and others and each was asked to provide comments by Friday, March 22, 2013. The redlined document
and comments submitted by reviewers were then sent to BCG to give them time to review and prepare the
final draft products for the April 2, 2013 City Council meeting.
The purpose of tonight's meeting is to provide Tom Beckwith an opportunity to present information
related to the Final Draft Strategic Action Plan. Following the presentation, the City Council may be
interested in conducting a public hearing on the Final Draft Strategic Action Plan or the Council could
approve the Plan tonight in order to begin implementation.
Mr. Clifton introduced Tom Beckwith, Beckwith Consulting Group, who introduced Steve Price,
Beckwith Consulting Group. Mr. Beckwith provided an overview of the Strategic Action Planning
process:
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 2, 2013
Page 11
Purpose
• Why?
o Economic trends impacted Edmond's fiscal sustainability requiring the city to make strategic
decisions about services and projects that reflect citizens' desires and aspirations.
• What?
o Short (3-5 year) and midterm (5-10 year) actions by the city and all other possible participant
parties with which to integrate Comprehensive Plan, Capital Facility Program (CFP), and
annual city budgets.
• Who?
o Community organizations and interest groups, business owners, employees, customers, young
adults, the public at large, and finally a random survey of registered voter households.
• How?
o Overview by 31 member Joint Committee composed of City Council, Economic
Development Commission (EDC), and Planning Board (PB).
• Result?
o 86 specific actions with citywide priorities, lead agents and participants, schedules, and
performance measures (plus 2 added but not ranked).
Process — Six joint Committee Retreats
• Retreat #1: Validated the process and scope of work
• Retreat #2: Reviewed demographic/socioeconomic scans
• Retreat #3: Reviewed fiscal trends in Edmonds and Washington cities and Budgeting for
Objectives (BFO) approach
• Retreat #4: Reviewed results of the focus group sessions, surveys of businesses, employees,
customers, young adults, and residents; the 3 public charrettes, and the open house
• Retreat #5: Reviewed results of the open house survey and refined the contents of the random
sample survey of registered voter households
• Retreat #6: Reviewed results of the random sample survey of registered voter households and the
implementation process
Process — Public Outreach
Focus group sessions
20 focus group sessions (Appendix B
96
Adult resident survey
mail -back and internet (Appendix C
681
Business owner survey
mail -back survey (Appendix D
219
Employee survey
mail -back and internet (Appendix E
86
Customer survey
mail -back and internet (Appendix F
484
Young adult
mail -back and internet (Appendix G
119
Charrettes
2 adult and 1 young adult (Appendix
150
Open house
hand -back and internet (Appendix
213
Voter survey
random sample controlled mail -back and internet (Appendix
466
Total
Participations (including some multiple events per person)
2,514
Mr. Beckwith reviewed the result of the Strategic Action Planning Process.
Strategic objectives the 86 action tasks are organized around these five)
1. Economic health, vitality, and sustainability
a. Foster a dynamic and diverse economy
b. Take advantage of special and unique characteristics
c. Enhance economic and employment opportunities
d. Build on the community's history, heritage, natural resources, and livability to promote Edmonds
as a tourist destination
e. Effectively develop, market, and promote Edmonds arts and cultural heritage and brand (Arts &
Culture)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 2, 2013
Page 12
f. Promote a permit and licensing process to promote business recruitment, expansion, and retention
2. Maintain, enhance, and create a sustainable environment
a. Build a community that balances protection, economic health, and social needs
3. Maintain and enhance Edmonds community character and quality of life
4. Develop and maintain a transportation and infrastructure system to meet current and future needs
a. Create efficient, effective, and balanced transportation system to meet current and future needs
b. Provide quality services, facilities, and infrastructure
5. Responsible, accountable, and responsive government
a. Provide efficient and effective delivery of service
b. Promote and encourage an active and involved community
c. Ensure a safe and secure environment for residents, businesses, and visitors
Mr. Beckwith reviewed an example of an action task which includes the lead, ranking, complexity,
months, strategic objective, participants, implementation schedule, and potential performance measures.
Next, he reviewed Strategic Action Plan Implementation Particulars:
Strategic actions and priority or rank
• Who defined the strategic action tasks?
o Public input from focus group sessions, surveys, and charrettes helped define the actions that
were desired to be accomplished within the next 10 years in the city regardless of who would
be the implementing agent.
• Who defined the priorities and what were they?
o Voter household survey ranked each and every action on a scale of 1-5 where 1 was the
lowest and 5 the highest priority. The scores were grouped into 1-2, 3, and 4-5 scores then
ranked where 4-5 scores were:
68%-50% = very high 29 = 34%
49%-40% = moderate -high 24 = 28%
39%-32% = moderate -low 15 = 17%
32%-21%= low 15 = 17%
21%-13%= very low 3 = 3%
• What are the financial implications of the task priorities?
o The action tasks, including some of the city tasks, do not compete for the same source of
funds. Many of the action tasks will be accomplished by parties with funds other than the city
— Port, WSDOT, Chamber, etc.
• What do the priorities signify?
o The priorities indicate voter household opinions of the overall priority of each and all actions
on a citywide basis (e.g., the survey sample) for accomplishment within the next 10 years
regardless of who would be the implementing agent or the source of financing.
• How will the city use the priorities for city actions?
o Where the city is the lead agent, the priorities will be used in the Budget for Objectives
(BFO) process to determine how the city's limited financial and staff resources will be
budgeted or allocated amongst the city's lead actions.
• How will the priorities be used where the city is not the lead?
o Depending on whom the lead agent(s) is, the organization will likely follow the same process
as the city in determining how to allocate resources to accomplish the action tasks.
• Will the action tasks be accomplished in rank order?
o Not likely nor should that be an objective. Some of the action tasks will require lead times
necessary to form participant groups, secure outside funding, conduct environmental reviews,
etc. Consequently, even if a task is a high priority it may take a number of months or years to
fully initiate and achieve results.
• Should a low priority task be ignored or deferred?
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 2, 2013
Page 13
o Not if the lead agent is successful in getting it accomplished or primed for accomplishment.
The Strategic Action Plan is opportunistic and multifaceted looking to implement as many
community desired actions as possible involving as many participant interests in the
community as possible as events and circumstances allow.
Should the list of action tasks be reduced or tasks eliminated?
o It is not necessary to eliminate an action if it scores a moderate -low to very low priority if
there is an interest group who is willing to take the lead and implement the action without
unduly using city funds or resources. The Strategic Action Plan is holistic defining all actions
city residents wished to see accomplished within the next 6-10 years without limitations on
who would be the party to implement or fund them.
Complexity
• What does complexity mean?
o Complexity refers to the degree of ease or difficulty that may be involved in implementing
each action task. Low complexity tasks may involve a single implementing agent following a
simple process. High complexity tasks may involve multiple agents, including where the city
is not the lead or the authorizing agent, and a complex process that involves public
participation, environmental assessments, permits, hearings, and other procedures.
• Who determined complexity?
o A subgroup of the Joint Committee and Department Directors determined the complexity
assessments ranging from low, moderate, high, and very high.
Months and Implementation Schedule
• What do months mean?
o Months refer to the probable production time involved in implementing an action task
accounting for the specific steps that would be involved in implementing an action task and
its degree of complexity. An ongoing entry indicates the action task is a continuous activity.
• Who determined months?
o A subgroup of the Joint Committee and Department Directors determined the probable
number of months that would be involved in each task.
• How do months relate to an implementation schedule?
o The Strategic Action Plan defines the action tasks desired to be implemented within the next
6-10 years. The schedules shown assume each task would be initiated as soon as possible and
extend through the number of months assigned to the task. In reality, actual schedules will
depend on who the lead agent is, how many other tasks they are responsible for, what
complexities are involved in the implementation, when funding is available, and other
opportunistic variables.
Participants and Lead Participants
• Who are the participants and how were they determined?
o The participant lists include all parties who will be affected by or on an individual action task.
The lists were determined from the focus group sessions, survey comments, charrettes, and
by the consultants and staff.
• Who are the lead agents?
o The lead agents are assumed to be the primary implementing party, where there is a single
agent, or the facilitating and implementing parties where there are multiple leads. In some
instances the lead agent may be the authorizing or approving agent — as in City Council. How
were the lead agents selected?
• How were the lead agents selected?
o In some instances lead agents were self-selected based on the actions they proposed during
the focus group sessions, survey comments, or charrettes. In other instances, the lead agents
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 2, 2013
Page 14
are presumed to be the most likely party who has the predominant interest and benefit in the
action, and the resources with which to accomplish or facilitate the action with other affecting
or affected participants.
• How did the action task priorities distribute where the City is the lead agent versus others?
Lead Agent
VH
MH
ML
L
VL
Total
Edmonds Only
10
12%
8
9%
9
10%
8
9%
0
0%
35
41%
Edmonds w/other leads
13
15%
8
9%
3
3%
3
3%
1
1%
28
33%
Other leads w/Edmonds
4
5%
2
2%
2
2%
2
2%
1
1%
11
13%
Other leads only
2
2%
6
7%
1
1%
2
2%
1
1%
12
14%
Total
1 2
34%
6
28%
1
17%
2
17%
1
3%
86
100%
• How are the lead agents distributed between the city and others?
o Though Edmonds elected officials and staff are involved in a large number of action tasks,
they are not the lead or primarily implementing party in a large number of them — such as in
the business district development, arts and culture, hospital, etc.
• Who are the other lead agents?
o There are a large number of other public agents (Port of Edmonds, WSDOT, Sound Transit)
and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs — Downtown Edmonds Merchants Association,
Chamber of Commerce) listed as lead agents who have authority, responsibility, or benefit
from an action task for which they are listed as lead.
• Will this require additional organizations?
o It could, depending on who the participants and the lead agents determine will be most
effective and representative of the costs and benefits.
• What will result if the lead is not interested or able?
o Then the lead will pass to another interested party or parties or the action will not be
accomplished.
Performance Measures
• What are the suggested performance measures?
o The performance measures are indicators or benchmarks by which to measure the progress
and effectiveness of the implementation of each action task. A low score on a performance
measure indicates the action task is not achieving the desired result and may need to be
reassessed or revised to achieve the results listed in the performance measure.
• How were the performance measures determined?
o The performance measures were defined by existing city benchmarks, by comparison with
benchmarks from other cities, and from objective parameters defined by the nature of the
action task function. Additional performance measures may be added as action tasks are
further defined and implemented
• How will the performance measures be gauged?
o Some of the performance measures are objective measurements — i.e., the number of tons
recycled per year, miles to the nearest park, etc. Others depend on community surveys where
the public indicates the degree to which they are satisfied with various conditions — such as
perception of safety, access to jobs, satisfaction with appearances, etc.
Strategic Action Plan Updates
• When will the Strategic Action Plan be updated?
o Ideally, this Strategic Action Plan defines key objections, tasks, responsibilities, schedules,
performance measures, and other particulars for the next 6-10 years concurrent with updates
to the Comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities Program (CFP), and annual city budgets.
However, should an unforeseen event require, the Strategic Action Plan can be updated if and
when City Council deems necessary.
Mr. Beckwith described 'initiating the Strategic Action Plan — what to do next:
• Finalize the draft document and complete Council hearings.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 2, 2013
Page 15
o Review and confirm action task complexity, months, lead agents, participating parties,
schedules, performance measures, and other particulars with which to initiate action. To the
question whether the Council needs to adopt or approve the plan,
Confirm suggested lead agents and participants.
o Assign the action tasks to the lead agents and work with them, city included, in formulating
detailed contents, schedules, funds, and other particulars. Where necessary, create new ad hoc
groups to take the lead on tasks involving multiple lead agents and interests.
Coordinate with other city, public agency, and NGO programs.
o Update city documents including the Comprehensive Plan, CFP, annual city budgets, and
other agency and NGO plans, projects, and programs to reflect the strategic objectives, action
tasks, and performances defined in the Strategic Action Plan,
Monitor performance and adjust particulars as necessary.
o Score and evaluate performance of each lead agent and participants on the accomplishment of
the action tasks using the performance evaluation measures or benchmarks to make
adjustments, revise approaches, and other particulars.
To the question whether the Council needs to adopt or approve the plan, Mr. Beckwith explained adopt
means it becomes a formal document. He preferred the Council approve the Plan to give staff some
direction about what they wanted to achieve and so that the non-public players have a sense that it is okay
to pursue their objectives.
Mr. Beckwith reviewed what can be initiated in the next 12 months:
• Pending update to the Park, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan.
o Could initiate work on up to 17 action tasks including Anderson Center, Yost Pool, Senior
Center, Civic and Woodway Fields, youth activities and participations, off -road trails, on -
road bike networks, and a parks fiscal sustainability strategy among others where Parks is the
lead, shares the lead, or may facilitate others.
• Pending update to the Cultural Arts Plan (CAP).
o Could initiate work on up to 10 action tasks including branding and themes, market surveys
and promotions, central clearinghouse, cultural arts website, and funding 4th Avenue cultural
corridor, among others where Cultural Services Division is the lead, shares the lead, or may
facilitate others.
• Pending update to the Cultural Arts Plan (CAP).
o The PROS and CAP planning process could initiate work on 27 of the 86 identified actions
tasks or 31 % of the total tasks over the next year!
Mr. Beckwith provided examples from the Chehalis Renaissance Project:
• What is the Chehalis Renaissance Plan?
o A citywide plan with projects in community building, economic development, quality design,
traffic and parking, and downtown development.
• What is the overall goal — the bottom line?
o Make the Chehalis area a more attractive place in which to live, enhance job opportunities
and involvement of youth, increase tourism traffic, and grow the retail base to enhance local
shopping.
• What is the mission of the Chehalis Community Renaissance Team (CCRT)?
o Driven by voluntary leadership, broad community participation, and using disciplined project
management - implement the Council -approved plan.
• What is different about the Chehalis Renaissance Project and the Chehalis Community
Renaissance Team (CCRT)?
o Driven by volunteers — the city is a partner.
o Counts on and encourages citizens to provide leadership and work in partnership with CCRT.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 2, 2013
Page 16
o Relies primarily upon private investments and donations.
o Success is a combination of many small, some medium, and a few large projects.
o A chance for citizen volunteers to put a permanent stamp on the Chehalis area.
• 21 active CCRT members.
CCRT has completed 21 action tasks to date.
CCRT is working on 15 projects.
Mr. Beckwith summarized the message to the community at large is that we are in this together. This is
not the community defining their wishes and then asking when they will get done.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented Edmonds already has a number of volunteer groups that do a
variety of things. She asked who becomes the ringleader and if it would be Mr. Clifton. Mr. Beckwith
answered the ones where the City is the lead, a lead will have to be identified. For example if it is related
to parks, the lead will be Ms. Hite or if is related to arts, the lead will be Ms. Chapin.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Roger Brooks' presentation and his recommendation to get rid of
the Strategic Plan and have an Action Plan instead. She asked Mr. Beckwith his thoughts on that,
recognizing this was an Action Plan. Mr. Beckwith explained when planning first began in the 1960s, it
was very process oriented. The public is comfortable with that process. The trend now has been what is
being done/achieved. The City has plenty of documents that identify the goals and vision; the community
wanted to identify specific issues they wanted done or improved upon. The difference between a Strategic
Plan and an Action Plan is this plan emphasizes who is responsible, how success is measured, how
complex it is, how to get started, etc. He summarized this plan is a complement to other efforts.
Mayor Pro Tem Petso relayed one of her concerns is the presence of so many low priority items on the list
for which the City is the lead. Her concern was these items would divert staff time away from things that
were not identified in the questionnaire but were of importance to the Council. For example pages 14-15
of the Strategic Action Plan have four low priority items regarding making code amendments to
encourage mixed use development in various parts of town. Those items did not generate a lot of support
and she was concerned staff would not be working on the code rewrite if they were working on these low
priority items. The code rewrite has been underway for several years and offers the potential to reduce
land use litigation and ensure good development and fair treatment. She asked how the Council could be
sure time was not diverted to low priority items in the Strategic Action Plan and away from other
important business. Mr. Beckwith answered the original task was to create mixed use standards citywide.
For the purposes of the survey, it was broken into ten different areas. He noted regulations were usually
not a high priority but respondents identify with the area they live. He suggested not pursuing them as ten
different areas, but rather as consolidated development regulations that address those areas. Some of the
items will also be utilized in Budgeting For Objectives including the use of resources, budget availability,
staff availability to determine which items are pursued. He did not expect the low priorities to be
addressed in that process unless it was something that was easy, low hanging fruit. For example,
wayfinding signs have been designed and just need to be funded. That would achieve a very visible result
very quickly and show momentum although it is not one of the highest priorities.
Mr. Price added the action items came out of the various citizen -based charrettes. The intent of the
charrettes was to determine what the community thought was important. The comments from the
charrettes were grouped by the consultant and staff into 86 tasks. Whether they are rated low, they were
mentioned by the community as an item they wanted to see action on. Although a task may have been
rated low compared to other tasks, it was identified by the community. He summarized in a way all the
tasks are worthy of undertaking.
Mayor Pro Tern Petso referred to the relocation of the Senior Center that generated 44% of the lowest
possible ranking. She was concerned with adopting a Plan that included that as a task when it was not a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 2, 2013
Page 17
top priority. She wondered whether that 44% would have said they did not want to include it as a task if
they had been given that option. Mr. Beckwith explained the reason the registered voter survey was done
at the end was to determine prioritization of City funds. If something is a high priority, consideration
needs to be given to how to use City funds on that task and if it is a low priority, that is an answer when
someone asks why an item is not being pursued. With regard to the Senior Center, not all the respondents
use the Senior Center and he would not expect the entire city to rank that as a high priority. The question
did not say City funds would be used; it said the City may help facilitate what happens there but the
seniors must pay for it. Although it is a low priority citywide, he cautioned against removing it and
suggested the seniors be allowed to determine how to do it.
Council President Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas asked if the Strategic Action Plan was a roadmap for
Budgeting By Priorities/Budgeting For Objectives. Mr. Beckwith explained one of the strategies in
Budgeting For Objectives is to ask departments to develop a strategy for achieving an action with an
emphasis on alternatives; some objectives will require a multi -departmental action plan to achieve it. He
noted in the first year of Budgeting For Objectives, most cities keep it internal, allow only city
departments to bid and later allow non -city entities to bid. He noted the Strategic Action Plan focused on
what citizens wanted to achieve that they thought was not being done. There are a number of tasks that
would need to be included in Budgeting For Objectives that were not considered problems that needed to
be addressed such as infrastructure, public safety, etc. and actions still need to address those. Budgeting
For Objectives is much more comprehensive than only the tasks in the Strategic Action Plan.
Councilmember Johnson noted Mr. Beckwith was able to easily identify the three lowest priorities and
asked if he could identify the top 10-12 priorities among the 29 top priorities. Mr. Beckwith answered that
would be difficult off the top of his head; noting each category contained 2-3 tasks that were ranked very
high. Of the very high tasks, 29 involve only the City; the majority involves the City helping someone
else.
Councilmember Johnson wanted to be able to identify the highest priorities and to easily communicate
them. There is a tremendous amount of information in the Plan but summarizing it is very difficult
because it includes 86 different action tasks. Mr. Beckwith responded the highest priorities are identified
on pages 4, 5 and 6 of the Strategic Action Plan. The highest priorities are distributed between categories
and have diverse lead agencies. He encouraged the City to look to other partners. For example in
Chehalis, the city designed a wayfinding sign program, but the Port, Chamber and Economic
Development District paid to implement it.
Councilmember Johnson advised the appendix identifies both mandatory and discretionary services.
Mandatory services included public safety, utilities, streets and some general services; discretionary
services include parks and recreation, cultural services and library. She was concerned with balancing the
responsibility to operate the City and the priorities in the Strategic Plan in Budgeting For Objectives. Mr.
Beckwith responded one of the issues, even without the recession, was the initiative that limited property
tax increases to 10/o/year. The legislature requires the city to fund mandatory services first but innovative
ways can be considered to fund discretionary services. For example, he suggested going back to the
community to ask how to pay for them such as a general levy lid lift, a levy lid lift dedicated to a specific
purpose, a Metropolitan Park District, etc.
Mayor Pro Tem Petso observed there were two alternatives, 1) approve or adopt the plan, or 2) hold a
public hearing.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why a public hearing needed to be held when the Strategic Plan was the
result of a great deal of public involvement. Mr. Clifton clarified it was not staff s recommendation to
hold a public hearing; he listed tonight's presentation as an action item in the event the Council wanted to
conduct a public hearing.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 2, 2013
Page 18
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
YAMAMOTO, TO APPROVE THE STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN.
Mayor Pro Tern Petso preferred to hold a public hearing despite the extensive public process to create the
plan. She pointed out it has been a long time since the survey was done and the questions determined. She
would like to hear whether there were any serious objections to the tasks that were ranked as low
priorities and which of the very high priorities were truly the most important to citizens. She did not
support approving the Plan tonight for those reasons.
Councilmember Peterson expressed his support for the motion, pointing out the Plan would never be
perfect; there would always be tasks that someone does not like. The public input, including the telephone
survey, were legitimate ways to hear from the public. He was pleased with the rankings and felt it was
time to move forward and get other players outside City government involved. He noted most of the items
on the list would come back to the Council.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the Strategic Action Plan is a living document, priorities may shift
and not all 29 high priorities could be accomplished in one year. There are a tremendous number of
volunteer groups in the City that are willing to help and are just waiting for the opportunity. She
supported approving the plan tonight.
Councilmember Johnson commented Beckwith Consulting Group conducted an extensive public
outreach; more people were involved in this process than was anticipated. It is a snapshot in time; what
people thought when asked these questions, participated in the charrette or attended a public meeting. As
a Strategic Action Plan the Council is not obligated to any decisions; it reflects the work done for this
plan.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED (6-1), MAYOR PRO TEM PETSO VOTING NO.
8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Pro Tern Petso had no report.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Buckshnis reported she will be out of town in Charlotte, North Carolina, for the April 9
and 16 Council meetings. The Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee meeting will be held on
April 8 at 4:00 p.m. at City Hall. The meeting will include review of the WRIA 8 pre -application for the
Edmonds Marsh, special event contracts, development agreements and incentive zoning.
Councilmember Buckshnis wished Jack Bevan a Happy Birthday, noting he helped her with the Adopt -A -
Park project as well as Adopt -A -Flower Basket and Adopt-A-Flowerbed.
Council President Pro Tern Fraley-Monillas thanked the City for the Mayors Day of Recognition for
National Service Proclamation. She encouraged everyone to volunteer their time for whatever cause they
chose.
Councilmember Peterson thanked staff, particularly Mr. Clifton, Ms. Hite, Ms. Chapin and others who
put a lot of time into the Strategic Action Plan. Next, he reported Mayor Earling and the Sister City
Commission, a delegation of 24 Edmonds residents, are visiting Hekinan, Japan. This is the 25th
anniversary of the Sister City relationship with Hekinan.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 2, 2013
Page 19
Councilmember Johnson congratulated former Councilmember Jack Bevan who celebrates his 90'
birthday today.
10. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION PER RCW
42.30.110(1)(i)
City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the executive session was only an update and could be delayed until
the next regular Council meeting.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO,
TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
11. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
This item was not necessary as the Council meeting was adjourned without the Council meeting in
executive session.
12. ADJOURN
The Council meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 2, 2013
Page 20