Updated with additional details
With an Edmonds City Council decision looming Tuesday night regarding the future of the downtown Edmonds streateries, representatives from downtown Edmonds retailers and restaurants have drafted a statement supporting an extension of the outdoor eateries — with some caveats.
The letter, drafted by a group of merchants and restaurant owners participating in the streateries program, proposes that restaurants who have streateries pay a range of $500-$750 per month for the usage of the two parking stalls provided under the program. “Funds collected from Streatery participants should be allocated directly to the leasing of replacement parking spaces at nearby private lots, and additional considerations should include wayfinding signs and a communication plan with paid advertising,” the letter said. “It is important that the public knows about additional parking spaces in the downtown corridor.”
The statement also says that all streateries “should be compliant with current city building codes, be up to date with city business licenses and any fees related to the downtown core.”
Finally, for those who no longer want to participate in the streateries program, the group proposes “a 30-day take-down period to ensure there is enough time to hire and plan for the job,” the statement said.
“Restaurants and merchants want to reiterate that we have come together to work in tandem on moving forward,” the statement said. “Edmonds is a special place and deserves cohesion and not division. We ask that council please consider our ideas and move forward in a productive way.”
Shubert Ho, co-owner of Feedme Hospitality and Restaurant Group, said that he and Jen Lawson, president of the Downtown Edmonds Merchants Association, worked together to write the statement “while gathering information from a group of merchants and restaurants with varied perspectives.”
The Edmonds City Council in December 2020 passed an ordinance that allowed the temporary streateries in on-street parking spaces, giving the public an outdoor dining option during COVID-19. That ordinance is set to sunset on Dec. 31, but development services staff is recommending that it be extended. (A letter from the Washington Hospitality Association to the council suggested the extension run through June 2022.) Edmonds Mayor Nelson has also come out in favor of extending the ordinance.
Here is the full text of the statement issued Monday:
Dear Mr. Mayor, Council Members, City Staff and Edmonds Residents,
The Downtown Edmonds Merchants Association and the Edmonds Restaurant Streatery Participants have come together to provide a joint statement of support for an extension of the Streateries program based on the followingconsiderations. Our two industries have always coexisted in a mutually beneficial way, bringing a vibrant sense ofcommunity and economic vitality to the area. Unprecedented times like these require innovative action to ensure that our local retailers and restaurants continue to thrive in a fair and equitable environment.
Recognizing the need for our neighboring restaurants to survive during the pandemic, the majority of the members of DEMA supported the installation of the Streateries, which was an important lifeline in maintaining our downtown corridor. Retailers struggled during the pandemic as well, and unlike the restaurants, were given no special accommodations to improve sales. Some were hit harder than others, being sandwiched between Streateries or losing sales due to fewer parking spaces. Instead of restaurants and shops closing, they’ve survived what hopefully has been the toughest part of the pandemic related shutdowns. DEMA recognizes thata downtown corridor like ours thrives when both restaurant AND retailers exist in harmony and cooperation.
The local Restaurant Streatery participants acknowledge that the City of Edmonds got creative and provided the industry with a means to serve customers outside during reduced capacity. It provided, and continues to provide,necessary opportunities for guests to dine in a safer open-air atmosphere, as well as allowing our local restaurant industry to continue to keep hundreds of staff employed. Local Restaurants thank DEMA for their early supportand continued partnership.
Our two groups would like to propose the following items as consideration for the final extension of the Streateryordinance:
-Restaurants with Streateries are more than willing to contribute funds towards a cause that benefits all. We propose a range of $500-$750 per month for the usage of two parking stalls. Funds collected from Streatery participants should be allocated directly to the leasing of replacement parking spaces at nearby private lots, andadditional considerations should include wayfinding signs and a communication plan with paid advertising. It is important that the public knows about additional parking spaces in the downtown corridor.
-Safety is paramount to the success of this program. The original intention for these Streateries was to provide a safe dining atmosphere for patrons, especially those who are unable to be vaccinated. All Streateries should be compliant with current city building codes, be up to date with City business licenses and any fees related to the downtown core.
-For those who do not wish to take part in the Streateries any longer, we propose a 30 day take down period toensure there is enough time to hire and plan for the job.
Restaurants and Merchants want to reiterate that we have come together to work in tandem on moving forward. Edmonds is a special place and deserves cohesion and not division. We ask that council please consider our ideas and move forward in a productive way.
Sincerely,
Edmonds Downtown Merchants and Streatery Restaurant Participants
Respectfully, our downtown streets and alleys are dedicated to the use of the public forever. I don’t think City Council can legally convert use of parts of our streets to what amounts to private use.
Maybe private use can be accomplished if portions of our downtown streets are vacated. I imagine it will be hard to argue that vacating portions of our downtown streets is in the public interest.
I don’t think parking stalls in public streets can essentially be rented out exclusively to one private party for an extended time. I think the public has the legal right to use those parking stalls.
Prior to the incorporation of Edmonds, George & Etta Brackett had acquired FEE SIMPLE OWNERSHIP in the entire area that was platted as the City of Edmonds on June 27, 1890. This plat is evidenced by the document with the Recording Number of 189007095001. That document states that George Brackett and Etta Brackett hereby declare the foregoing plat and hereby dedicate to the use of the public forever all the streets and alleys platted thereon.
There was clear intention by the Brackett’s to dedicate streets for the use of the public forever.
Also, highly flawed Ordinance 4209 is set to sunset December 31st. Until that changes, I would think plans for take down may already be in place. It would seem prudent to have those plans in place.
It is unfortunate that our City Council passed an Ordinance on December 15, 2020 that has divided many of us. I love our downtown and have supported our downtown businesses and restaurants for years. I hope members of DEMA who support streateries understand that some of their citizen customers feel different than they do specific to the streateries. I hope they will still welcome our business if we don’t want streateries to continue after December 31st.
Question? What would the City of Edmonds do if these outdoor structures were used by homeless at night?
Ken, Street Use Permits allow this. Refer to ECDC 18.70.000.B. It’s very common for the right of way to be used by private enterprises. I haven’t heard of anyone proposing vacating the public right of way; that is a permanent action and is much different than what is happening with Streateries, which are temporary (even if they continue for another 6 months). I actually think it’s time for them to go, but I don’t mind them staying if that’s the majority opinion. I appreciate the downtown merchants coming to the table to suggest a viable compromise that I hope the City Council will consider.
Thank you. Now we have some truth that everyone can understand. I feel confident that merchants regardless of out come of this vote will be more than happy to accept and be grateful for our business.
Thank you all for your leadership collaborating to develop a solution that meets everyone’s needs. You’re setting an example that is desperately needed at this moment.
I wonder what the average commercial rent per square foot is in the bowl and how this compares. Or what is the cost of leasing a parking spot in the area?
Totally agree. What is the commercial square foot lease cost? Seems to me that getting another 200 Sq ft for the proposed amount is a pretty sweet deal.
So can merchants who want to put up outdoor shopping space do the same, I mean it’s only fair. Can I lease 2 parking spaces for an outdoor camping space (it’s not illegal, and a hell of a lot cheaper than rent).
If they want additional square footage in prime real estate (not that I agree or disagree with the concept of Streeteries), they should pay market rent, not for a parking space, but for street front retail/commercial/business space.
Or, we could get rid if them all together. I see the benefits and the pitfalls, and don’t have a dog in this hunt, but I am pretty sure that the City isn’t going to lease me two parking spaces in downtown for an RV and picnic table.
Wow! Isn’t it thoughtful of the merchants and restaurants to come together to work out a plan to continue to occupy public property for private gain, without consideration of the citizens who the property belongs to? Why should you be making decisions for our property? The streets and sidewalks belong to us and we have the right to use them. We have gone without them long enough. Why should we get pushed off our streets and sent to private lots with wayfinding signs? What a way to treat the citizens who pay for the streets and support your restaurants. The restaurants were given a generous gift by the City and we showed support and compassion. Eighteen months later with a one year extension and financial need over and you refuse to budge. It is so sad and disheartening to see you unwilling to give back the property and instead spend your time and efforts devising ways to keep it. Shame.
Not to mention the 4+ million $’s in federal emergency aid also provided the locsl businesses. Some of that money probably financed the labor and materials for the sheds. On plus side, at least a baby step towards some attempt to at least look equitable.
The original goal of the streateries was to reduce the spread of Covid-19 in restaurants due to restaurants being a unique environment in which masks cannot be worn while dining. It was also to ensure that there continued to be a vibrant downtown area where restaurants didn’t go out of business. It was in the city’s and general public’s interest to offer a low exposure outdoor dining option to the public and reduce indoor dining numbers, while also protecting existing infrastructure.
The question is, does the current use scenario of the streateries meet the original intent and is it still needed? If the the outdoor streateries are faithfully being used to reduce exposure and restaurants are limiting indoor seating due to having outdoor seating available then it serves the general public and increases accessibility to those who are more vulnerable to illness.
Currently, the list of restaurants with dedicated outdoor seating (not streateries) is small. I agree that it is unjust for streateries to exist for some restaurants and not others. I also agree that if restaurants are using streateries as overflow seating rather than as a way to mitigate transmission risk, then it is not serving the spirit of their creation in the first place.
I suggest establishing a stricter set of Covid safety guidelines that participating restaurants need to abide by in order to qualify for the streateries. These could include: limiting indoor seating (reduce number of allowable indoor patrons equal to the number of outdoor seating options available +2 additional), requiring improvements in HVAC and ventilation within those restaurants, and requiring staff and patron vaccination cards to enter. King County has established a vaccine mandate for restaurants and their patrons, but Snohomish County has not. A way to enact that locally is to incentivize businesses to require vaccination cards in exchange for the city paying for the use of the streateries to reduce exposure and support the common good, while also adding a small increase to the restaurants overall capacity to increase their profits for taking on the risk of to reduce transmission.
I concur with the idea to incentivize businesses to require vaccination cards in exchange for the city paying for the use of streateries.
This plan was proposed before the streateries were even set up. Should have been there from the start. Plan needs a new sunset date that is firm.
Why isn’t anyone talking about the safety risk of using the streeteries? I think it’s only a matter of time before a car crashes into a streeterie injuring or perhaps killing people.
Downtown Edmonds Merchants Association isn’t that concerned about a car swerving into the side of the shacks protected by only a sheet of fiberglass injuring or killing someone. They will blame the city and say that was the code. In the meantime for them it’s about serving hamburgers and beer. Of course that will pretty much will end Mayor Nelson’s political career.
In the past the city and merchants have estimated the economic value of a parking place to the community is $1000 per day. The “offer” in the LTE is about $10-12/day. $1000 seems high until we consider “client” based businesses, CPA, Dentist, Real Estate, Financial and others. Another look at the financials of a restaurant would be to see the daily revenue per sq ft of indoor seating. Outdoor eating is just more “eating space”. For some it looks like the outdoor adds at least 25%. The range may be from 10% to as high as 50-60%. What is the estimated “rent” for the current indoor space per day compared to the estimated “rent” for the outdoor space? The $10-12/day seems a bit low?
I like it!
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Steve. I see it differently.
Prior to the adoption of interim zoning ordinance 4209 for streateries, our City Code was consistent with the clear intent of the Bracketts. Our City Code stated that: No portion of the public right-of-way designed and intended for vehicular traffic or parking shall be permanently occupied.
But then Ordinance 4209 created an exception for streateries. Streateries were suddenly made the only private improvement that could permanently occupy a portion of the public right-of-way.
No public hearing was held.
Was this exception for streateries consistent with the clear intent of the Bracketts?
I don’t think so. Our streets and alleys are dedicated to the use of the public forever. Streets that the City has improved and opened for public use are designed and intended for vehicular traffic or parking.
I don’t think permitting exclusive use of parking stalls by private parties is consistent with a dedication to the use of the public forever.
Furthermore, Ordinance 4209 says that all streatery use shall be entirely within the approved space(s).
The words “entirely within” are very clear. Words matter.
Streatery use was not kept entirely within the approved spaces as required by Ordinance 4209. Streateries spilled onto our sidewalks and some were permanently attached to the sidewalks. Street use permits do not allow permanent attachment to the ground.
The sunsetting of Ordinance 4209 on December 31st will end code violations such as streateries located outside of the approved parking spaces. Sunsetting will also allow for the clear intent of the Bracketts to once again be complied with. Parking stalls within our rights-of-way are supposed to be available for the use of the public.
Well that should be it then. A vote tonight to enforce the Dec 31st sunset deadline is the only legal and to me right thing to do. Great job Ken. You are a very engaged and honest person. I respect that.
If a restaurant already has outdoor space, like “the Loft” or “Mar-ket” then why do they need the space in the street and on the sidewalks? if other restaurants doesn’t have an outdoor space and they want to continue having the space in the street then it should be billed at a fair market value , say $1000 per parking space per month or more! if it is really worth it they will cough up the cash but as i have observed in these colder wet winter months, there is no one sitting outside with the exception of maybe “Daphnes Bar” The rate of $500-700 seems pretty low to me. i have enjoyed sitting outside when the weather is nice but that ship has sailed and so have these “Streateries”
The solution to the streatery issue is now not money. Money was an issue on day one of their existence when payment wasn’t required for the use of public space, but now they need to go for the numerous reasons outlined in many comments here in the past several weeks. They are dangerous, they’ve become ugly as they’ve aged, they are taking up needed parking space, they are not needed anymore, etc. Their useage should be stopped Jan 1, 2022 and the owners should be given reasonable time to have them removed.
The opinion that the streateries are ugly is a subjective point and dependent upon the specific streatery to which you are referring. Salt and Iron has done a nice job with there’s, but Claire’s has all but abandoned theres. So the brush being used is too broad. There could be a requirement for a certain objective level of maintenance and cleanliness to stay in compliance. This could and should be at the restaurant’s expense.
I think it’s more valuable to focus on identifying objective concerns and solutions to them rather than defaulting to the “let’s just tear them down”. The streateries are helpful to some people, myself included, and not helpful (for whatever reason) to others.
To the point of the streateries being dangerous, I see no evidence of them being any more dangerous for people than a parked car or an actual store front. If a car is driving fast enough to plow through a streatery, then it’s fast enough to plow through a vacant parking space into pedestrians and a store front.
If the City proceeds with this approach, essentially renting city property to a tenant, does the City’s insurance provide adequate liability coverage in case of an accident and/or lawsuit as a result of the “rental” to a tenant? How is the public/taxpayer protected to ensure this is a risk-free endeavor? Since the streateries were a city-based design and specification, is there already a liability risk that wasn’t realized and the sunset of streateries will remove all associated risk (i.e. the City dodged a bullet)?
I support the abolition of the streateries, but I’m sure the Bracketts never even thought of another possible pandemic (as most of us didn’t) so exceptions are “understandable”. Also, even though I personally feel the sunset clause should not be extended for numerous reasons, I do feel that the pandemic is far from over. Let’s not forget that.
While I’m at it, I think that our council members right up to the mayor’s office, should not announce their hard stance a week before the vote. While they may be leaning one way or the other, the time before the meeting should be for LISTENING to us, evaluating the circumstances & then representing the constituents’ reasoning one way or the other. For we who are voicing our thoughts, back it by facts & a proposals.
Hooray DEMA. Thank you for working together to offer a resolution regardless of the outcome. You should be commended for remembering the word “compromise” and how to accomplish it. It’s a forgotten art.
Stepping off my soapbox now….
Response to Anne Hetherly Dec 14, 10:05 am
DEMA’s concern to ramp up the Downtown Edmonds Merchants takes away much needed business from other Edmonds merchants that are not in downtown. It is supporting the merchants who formed the association and it should, without regard to others that not part of the Association. The sales taxes that are gained in downtown are those lost in other parts of the city. Edmonds Council members are representing the entire city and not just downtown merchants. Merchants don’t vote them in – people do, from all over the city. Folks who seek outdoor dining can certainly find outdoor dining in existing private outdoor dining rooms that many restaurants already offer, and don’t have to sit in a shack on the street parking space with all the inherent problems of safely and code violations, and lack of users at these shacks these days. Just walk by the Streateries at dinner rush hour and you’ll find everybody jammed inside the restaurant.
Why the lack of transparency?
This LTE is signed by “PARTICIPANTS” — i.e. “Edmonds Downtown Merchants and Streatery Restaurant Participants”” Who are they, what percentage of downtown businesses are “participants” . Seems much less transparent than if they listed their names and businesses.
Without this information it is impossible to determine if this was an all inclusive or meeting of special interest of selected stakeholders. Before I take this as an indication of cohesiveness among downtown businesses, it’s best to know who is involved.
Is there a reason for the lack of transparency?
We are very opposed to the continuation of the “streateries” First, these structures are very dangerous; as others have noted, it is just a matter of time before someone crashes into the very thin plexiglass, hurting or killing someone. THEN the city gets sued….also, they have served their purpose. We are at practically 70% vaccinated. if anyone is STILL uncomfortable eating out, then don’t. You can always get food to go. The letter to the city council mentioned something about retailers getting some sort of help during covid that restaurants did not? what was that? No we didn’t. PARKING. for 15 years, all we have heard was how horrible parking is in downtown Edmonds and these structures take away about 50 parking spots.
It’s great that the retailers and restaurants are working together to find common ground on this issue. I support the continued use of parking spaces for the streateries, I love them and use them. The timing of this article is interesting as I listened to a news story on my way to work today that discussed the shift from in-person shopping to online shopping during the pandemic. I know I have done more of my shopping online in the past 18 months. Perhaps some of the local merchants are seeing a decrease in their sales not because people have trouble finding parking but because they don’t want to shop in person. Parking has never been an issue during the day when I have gone to a local merchant, I have always found a spot within a block of where I want to go. Maybe the merchants could all get together and find one night a week that they stay open later to accommodate working people as a lot of us find it challenging to get to the shops by 5:00 or 6:00 pm.
Great idea!
It’s most likely the vote will again be 4 to 3 in favor of an extension with no strings attached. We have top down, and highly staged city government, that is too highly predictable, which is the saddest thing of all.
Wether you love them or hate them or are neutral, that is not the issue I see or even how much rent to charge. It is an issue of fairness and equality. Some business are not being dealt an equitable hand in downtown Edmonds due to the structures impeding customer flow and thus potential sales and profit. As a citizen I am not being treated fairly when I try to park downtown on the streets my tax dollars pay for which are now being used solely by specific entities and not shared fairly by all citizens. Thank You!
I question if it’s actually illegal for drivers to ignore the parking signs that say “for take out only” and simply resume parking closer to shops, because most of those signs
were posted on an ad hoc basis when the pandemic began. If residents just started parking there to do some shopping in our unique stores, can the city really cite a law to prevent it?
Yes, they are unsightly. (“Danger”, though, seems to be speculation. )
But what sways me is that so long as some among us feel safer in a streatery, the rest of us, as good neighbors, should keep their concerns in mind (the “pick up” parking places might deserve some discussion by now). But as long as the pandemic keeps growing – we’re up to 800,000 deaths – and changing, surely keeping the streateries around a bit longer is both prudent and considerate.
Today’s Guardian:
The World Health Organization (WHO) has warned that the Omicron variant is spreading at an unprecedented rate and is likely already present in most countries.
…The variant was first detected in southern Africa last month but has already been reported in 77 countries, WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told reporters.
But, he stressed, “the reality is that Omicron is probably in most countries, even if it hasn’t been detected yet.”
“Omicron is spreading at a rate we have not seen with any previous variant.”
He also cautioned against “dismissing Omicron as mild”. “Surely, we have learned by now that we underestimate this virus at our peril,” he said.
“Even if Omicron does cause less severe disease, the sheer number of cases could once again overwhelm unprepared health systems.”
The streateries are not needed for those who prefer to eat outside. There are plenty of outside eating spaces on the properties of many restaurants.
This letter is simply signed “participants”? How do we know who actually wrote it? This is the opposite of transparency.
Let’s be honest, the last two years have nothing to do with reason or the law. Once an “emergency” was declared, it was open season for silliness. We still don’t have a clear explanation of the parameters for all of the senseless mandates we have endured. Haven’t we all questioned why we are an imminent threat to others while walking to our restaurant seat but that threat magically disappears while seated? I’m getting exhausted checking the Snohomish county rolling 7 day death rate and trying to make sense of ugly shacks as a response.
Nothing works better than a little fear when it comes to selling a bad idea that profits someone, someway. Happens in Edmonds all the time. “Pedestrians” were dying like flies on the tracks because we didn’t have a Connector. A major catastrophe was right around the corner. If you eat inside a restaurant, your chances at old age are as low as 50 – 50. Inadequate parking on site of our “new” Civic Field park would cause unbearable congestion in that area. If we don’t turn our Main Street into a walking mall, everyone will go somewhere else to shop and eat. B.S. chasing a fast Buck has been a major problem here ever sense some guy wanted to build a sky scraper called the Ebb Tide on our beach.
Let’s do the math – suppose 10 of 17 restaurants decide to pay a very reasonable estimated $600/mo for each streatery for the next 6 months. That’s a total of $36,000., or $3600 each restaurant to keep their streateries (in this example)
From streatery supporters, times are tough, restaurants are losing money, they’re on the brink of closing doors, if they don’t keep their streateries. Yet restaurants can still find significant funds / excess profits (in my example to the tune of an average of $3600 per restaurant) to keep them?
Opponents have noted that streateries are not being used that much (granted winter months now and for the next 3 months). Based on that usage, will an additional six months of streateries provide restaurants adequate profits to recoup that money?
On the surface, the math for restaurants to spend this money to keep their streateries isn’t there – it doesn’t add up. Is there more below the surface that make this a profitable endeavor for restaurants?
It seems to me that there is confusion about the primary role and intended purpose of the streateries. I’m sure that the streateries are intended to serve multiple functions at the same time, but keying into its priorities will allow folks to better understand their purpose and provide directed feedback on whether or not that purpose is being fulfilled in the best way possible. So is the purpose to:
1. Boost profits of restaurants so their storefronts stay open?
2. Reduce overall disease exposure during the pandemic
3. Create an outdoor mall environment
4. Increase restaurant accessibility to those who are more vulnerable to illness
Depending on what the top priority is, we can more clearly assess how effective the streateries are at addressing that priority, what the alternatives are, and what would need to change to boost the effectiveness of the program and mitigate any problems with the program.
What we really need downtown is a parking garage. The streeteries have helped us be able to dine out during the pandemic. Before they were even created, downtown already had a parking problem. Taking a few outside places to eat off the streets will not solve our parking problem. It needs to be taken into account that new houses are being built and many more people live in Edmonds than ever before. I am in favor of keeping the outside restaurants unless some changes are made. For one, we need the restaurants to require proof of vaccination, so we can feel safer eating inside.