Loading...
07/22/2003 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES July 22, 2003 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5h Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Dave Earling, Council President Jeff Wilson, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember Deanna Dawson, Councilmember 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT David Stern, Chief of Police Jim Larson, Acting Admin. Serv. Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Steve Bullock, Senior Planner Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Orvis requested Item F be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL Approve i15 /03 (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 15, 2003 Minutes (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #63932 THROUGH #64125 FOR THE WEEK OF Approve Claim JULY 14 , 2003 , � IN THE AMOUNT OF $750,995.15. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT Checks DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #36075 THROUGH #36230 FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1 THROUGH JULY 15, 2003, IN THE AMOUNT OF $933,806.41. Pond Capital rojects (D) UPDATE ON BOND CAPITAL PROJECTS. frd(E) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD ($102,000.00) AND SANDRA FILER ($274.92). (G) APPROVAL OF LIST OF EDMONDS BUSINESS APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF THEIR LIQUOR LICENSES WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 22, 2003 Page 1 Anderson Center (H) AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO WALKER Potable SPECIALTY CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR THE FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER Water POTABLE WATER ASBESTOS ABATEMENT PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF Asbestos Abatement $41,738.10, INCLUDING SALES TAX. Item F: Report On the General Fund and other Selected_ Funds_ Financial Position for the Ouarter Ending June, 2003. Councilmember Orvis asked staff to elaborate on the statement in the report that there were extra revenues of approximately 2.2 %. Acting Administrative Services Director Jim Larson explained a major portion of the 2.2% was one -time revenues the City received as a result of the dissolution of Medic 7. Although the City received funds from the dissolution of Medic 7, the City also assumed responsibility for the cost of equipment replacement and paramedics' accumulated leaves. Councilmember Orvis observed this was not a windfall for the City but rather a pass through and the City continued to draw down its ending cash. Mr. Larson agreed. Councilmember Plunkett observed General Fund expenditures were less than projected through June by approximately $1 million. Mr. Larsen explained there were a number of General Fund expenditures that were seasonal in nature and would be paid in upcoming months. Councilmember Plunkett suggested in the future staff provide a brief narrative regarding items that appeared to be significant aberrations. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR eneral I APPROVAL OF ITEM F. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The item approved is as and Report follows: (F) REPORT ON THE GENERAL FUND AND OTHER SELECTED FUNDS FINANCIAL POSITION FOR THE QUARTER ENDING JUNE, 2003 National 3. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF NATIONAL NIGHT OUT, TUESDAY, AUGUST 5, 2003 Night Out Mayor Haakenson read a Proclamation in Honor of National Night Out, Tuesday, August 5, 2003 and presented the proclamation to Crime Prevention Officer Robin Heslop. Crime Prevention Officer Robin Heslop described activities planned for the Sixth Annual National Night Out at Frances Anderson Center Playfield including inflatables, fire trucks and police cars, a live band, and food. She thanked sponsors including Campbell - Nelson Volkswagen/Nissan, Petosa's Family Grocery, Pepsi Bottling, and many service clubs. She encouraged the public to participate in this event. 4. PRESENTATION OF THE PARKING STUDY Parking Study Senior Planner Steve Bullock explained tonight's presentation was an opportunity for the consultants to present the parking study to the Council and seek Council acceptance of the study as completing the terms of the consultant's contract. The parking study was provided to the Council a few weeks ago as well as distributed to a number of interested parties. As a result, a number of minor formatting changes were identified and the consultant would like an opportunity to make those changes to the document that would be used for future processes. He introduced the consultants, Carol Landsman, Landsman Transportation Planning, and Mike Stringam, Perteet Engineering. Carol Landsman, Landsman Transportation Planning, commented Edmonds downtown was a very special place and parking played an important role in supporting the downtown and encouraging future Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 22, 2003 Page 2 development. She explained parking was a sensitive issue and required balancing many different interests to derive the best policy /program for parking. Ms. Landsman reviewed the purposes of the parking study: to determine the amount and use of parking in downtown including occupancy and turnover rate; assess existing conditions, use patterns, demand, enforcement, and stakeholder concerns; recommend strategies to make the most efficient use of existing parking; update parking regulations; and assess the future need for parking. Ms. Landsman reviewed the methodology used for collecting data as well as considering existing conditions including the use of the existing 2001 inventory of on and off - street parking and its occupancy (conducted by the Alliance). She referred to concern that the 2001 inventory reflected an inordinately high vacancy rate, explaining that anecdotal information indicated the summer of 2001 had a fairly active tourism market as well as the timing was before 9/11. She advised their study also utilized a 2002 survey of length of stay /turnover in parking spaces (conducted by Perteet Engineering) as well as stakeholder interviews, and peer review of parking programs of cities similar to Edmonds, including Kirkland, Olympia, Everett and Jackson, Wyoming. She noted Jackson, Wyoming was used for comparison as it had a large tourist base as well as an in- lieu -of parking program in its downtown. Ms. Landsman explained their data gathering lead to the following observations: 960 to 984 on- street parking spaces (range exists because parking spaces are not striped) in the downtown including 73 public spaces in the Public Safety Building parking lot and 14 public spaces in the Fourth Avenue South parking lot; 2,674 off - street private spaces; peak usage occurs from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.; downtown parking is limited to three hours; only 75% of an employer's workers are eligible for parking permits; 350 employee parking permits were sold this year at $25; and enforcement is part-time or less. Ms. Landsman explained that to assess demand in downtown Edmonds, the area was divided into five zones: Main Street (190 spaces), Fifth Avenue Corridor (165 spaces), North Permit Area (274 spaces), South Permit Area (220 spaces), and Southwest Area (50 spaces). She displayed maps illustrating the percentage of parking occupancy by time of day in the five areas, 9 -11 a.m., 11 -1 p.m., 1 -4:30 p.m. Ms. Landsman displayed a table of the five zones and the Public Safety and Fourth Street parking lots, illustrating peak hour occupancy, percentage occupied seven hours or more by one car, number of permit parkers, and peak hour. She explained capacity was 85 -90% of parking spaces occupied; none of the downtown areas were at 85 %, Main Street peak hour occupancy (11 -1 p.m.) was closest at 77 %. She referred to the percentage of spaces occupied seven hours or more by one car, noting this was 13% or 22 vehicles on Main Street. Converting this to potential customer spaces, she noted an additional 68 cars could have parked on Main Street had those 22 cars not occupied those spaces all day. She emphasized the importance of defining the short term and long term parking areas and ensuring the short term parking was occupied only by short term parkers. She noted the number of permit parkers (47 in the north permit area and 42 in the south permit area) suggested there was room for more employee permit parkers in these employee permit areas. Ms. Landsman displayed a bar graph illustrating the turnover rate (average vehicle length of stay) in each of the five areas and the Public Safety and Fourth Street parking lots — 1.69 hours on Main Street, 1.49 hours in the Fifth Avenue Corridor, 3.6 hours in the southwest, 3.10 hours in the north employee permit area, 3.36 hours in the south employee permit area, 3.54 hours in the Public Safety parking lot, and 1.35 hours in the Fourth Street parking lot. She noted their findings indicated the average downtown visitor stayed for approximately two hours. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 22, 2003 Page 3 Ms. Landsman reviewed the findings of their study: ➢ Currently downtown Edmonds has enough parking to meet demand. ➢ Areas that are closest to capacity (85% occupancy) are Main Street between 3rd and 5d', and 4"' Avenue N from Bell to Main. ➢ Main Street as a whole is at 77% capacity during peak weekday usage. ➢ Fifth Avenue South from Main to Dayton also has high usage in those 18 parking spaces. ➢ 13% of the spaces on Main Street were occupied for seven hours or more. ➢ The permit parking areas are underused and only 350 employee permits have been sold in an area that has 500 spaces. Ms. Landsman noted many parking garages /lots sell at 120% of availability due to the unlikelihood that not all employees would be at work every day. ➢ 80% of the stakeholder interviewees commented there really wasn't a significant parking problem in downtown Edmonds. ➢ Business owners want to be involved as much as possible in the parking program. Ms. Landsman described the relationship between parking and land use, explaining the current number of parking spaces exceeded code requirements by 356 spaces, based on total number of occupied on and off - street and total number of square feet of commercial development. She estimated actual usage of parking at one space per 480 square feet of development (calculated by adding square feet of development and divided by number of cars parked at peak hour). Ms. Landsman explained there were three options for dealing with parking, 1) parking demand management which utilized the existing parking as efficiently as possible, 2) modifying the code regarding on -site parking to ensure the right mix of public and private parking, and 3) adding to parking spaces via structured parking. She explained in order to be successful, demand management located the right parking in the right places. For example, in and adjacent to the downtown core, there should be as much short term parking as possible. Further out areas were appropriate for long term parking. She noted that for any parking program to be successful, a successful and strong enforcement program as well as ongoing evaluation of the enforcement program was necessary. Ms. Landsman reviewed the following parking demand management recommendations: ♦ Change the existing City ordinances to allow 100% of employees to purchase parking permits which may get some of the long term parkers out of the downtown core. ♦ Increase the cost of the employee parking permit by at least $25 to $50 which would help employees commit to using the parking spaces and the additional funds could be used to support enforcement. ♦ Prohibit downtown workers from parking on street in the downtown core via recording license numbers and enforcement as Kirkland does. ♦ Charge at least a $50 fine for a downtown employee parking in the downtown core. ♦ Convert the Fourth Avenue parking lot from monthly parking to a three -hour parking zone. She suggested people who currently utilize the Fourth Avenue parking lot for monthly parking could rent/lease an unused on -site parking space in the private sector. She commented one option would be an online bulletin board of people seeking to rent parking. ♦ Improve signage to the Public Safety Building parking lot. ♦ Increase the cost of a parking violation in the three -hour zone for a non - downtown worker to $30 dollars. Allow the first ticket to act as a warning, then require full payment of any tickets (eliminate the ability to reduce the ticket by half by paying within 24 hours). Ms. Landsman reviewed recommended parking code changes: ♦ Eliminate in- lieu -of parking program as it was not successful in raising sufficient revenue. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 22, 2003 Page 4 ♦ Simplify the code by having one standard for all types of commercial and residential parking: Commercial — one space per 500 square feet Residential — one space per dwelling unit (except for senior housing which is '/z space per dwelling unit). ♦ Grandfather existing buildings for any use change. ♦ Encourage developer /owner to rent/lease /sell excess on -site parking. She noted downtown parking was currently at 46% occupancy, resulting in 1,000 unutilized off - street spaces. She noted that if developers had more parking than required, it would be reasonable to allow them to sell it to make up the parking requirement for other developments. Ms. Landsman displayed a table comparing the proposed downtown parking requirements to the existing code, actual use, Everett downtown requirements, and Kirkland downtown requirements. She compared the proposed code to the existing code, explaining the proposed code would require a minimum of one space per residential unit and 0.5 spaces per dedicated senior housing; the existing code required one space per single family dwelling unit and two spaces per multifamily dwelling unit. Ms. Landsman highlighted other issues: ♦ Enforcement is crucial to success of downtown parking management. Funding could be realized via increased permits and tickets. ♦ Edmonds should assess occupancy and turnover rate every two years. ♦ Deal with ferry parkers by prohibiting overnight parking without a neighborhood permit in requested neighborhood. ♦ Use the $120,000 in- lieu -of funds to support existing parking program, purchase equipment for parking enforcement, signage, and striping. Ms. Landsman referred to future parking needs, explaining a bi- annual assessment would determine when /if additional parking was required. She highlighted the need to coordinate parking with the Performing Arts Center and the potential for a deck over the Public Safety Building parking lot. She commented structured parking was very expensive (approximately $25,000 per parking space). Councilmember Plunkett inquired why the parking requirement should not remain at one space per 800 square feet. Ms. Landsman answered there would not be enough parking eventually. Councilmember Plunkett recalled Ms. Landsman indicated the downtown would eventually not have enough parking regardless, and asked whether retaining the one space per 800 square feet would expedite the eventuality of not enough parking. Ms. Landsman answered she had not done the analysis to determine when that would occur. She used one space per 500 square feet as that appeared to be the amount of parking that was needed now. One recommended change to the ordinance proposed a method that would allow the developer to obtain an exception if the project did not need that much parking. Councilmember Plunkett referred to a letter that indicated an increase to $50 per year for an employee parking permit was "not acceptable." He asked what was acceptable for a community of Edmonds' size. Ms. Landsman answered many communities charged monthly rates of $10 — $30; an annual permit for $50 was a bargain. Mike Stringam, Perteet Engineering, pointed out the distinction between employee permit parking and resident permit parking, noting resident permits were typically much lower such as $10 per year. He agreed that for an employee who would otherwise pay $20 a month to park downtown, $50 per year was a bargain. Councilmember Plunkett again referred to the letter that indicated it was very difficult for employees not to be able to park in the downtown and to be required to park in the employee parking areas. He asked Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 22, 2003 Page 5 how difficult this was. Ms. Landsman noted the two permit parking areas, approximately 1 — 1' /2 blocks from the downtown core, have nearly a 50% vacancy. She concluded employees could find a parking space within 1 -2 blocks without much difficulty. Councilmember Petso noted the first recommended action was to accept the Parking Study as meeting the contractual obligation. She asked whether Figure 4, the map, would be colored in the final Parking Study. Ms. Landsman answered yes. Councilmember Petso referred to Table 3, comparison of parking codes, and asked whether it could have more detail. She noted the table indicated more specifics were in Everett's code but they were not shown. Ms. Landsman offered to provide those specifics, approximately 35, as an appendix. Councilmember Petso noted Table 3 did not contain comparative information for Olympia and Jackson, Wyoming and asked whether they could be added. Ms. Landsman agreed. Councilmember Petso asked where the second vehicle would park if a condominium were built with the recommended one space per dwelling unit and the occupant had two vehicles. Ms. Landsman answered the additional vehicle would park on the street or the developer could provide more than the minimum parking requirement. She pointed out the market would dictate the amount of parking that a developer would provide. Mr. Stringam noted another option would be to rent a parking space from the owner of another unit who did not need parking. Councilmember Petso asked whether there were any accommodations for guest/caregiver parking. Mr. Stringam emphasized the one space per dwelling unit was a minimum. Ms. Landsman noted the Edmonds code allowed and encouraged shared parking. Councilmember Petso recalled Ms. Landsman indicated one space per 500 square feet was what Kirkland did, however, the table indicated Kirkland required one space per 125 square feet for restaurants and one space per 350 square feet for other uses, making one space per 500 square feet considerably different than Kirkland's requirements. Ms. Landsman recalled comparing Edmonds and Kirkland regarding the amount of time cars were parked downtown. She noted Kirkland was requiring more parking; Edmonds did not need that much parking. With regard to the completeness of the report, Councilmember Petso asked whether the contract included analyzing the impact of the Performing Arts Center which would have 700 seats and only 91 parking spaces. Ms. Landsman the scope of work for this study did not include that analysis. Councilmember Orvis commented that if a developer developed to the current one space per 800 square feet requirement, they limited the office use to offices without on -site service and eliminated the potential for other uses such as retail, restaurants, etc. He pointed out the one space per 500 square feet would increase the amount of parking. Ms. Landsman answered the existing one space per 800 square feet was for business /professional without on -site service; their intent was to encourage retail and other active uses in the downtown. Therefore, the one space per 500 square feet made it more difficult for offices that did not interact with downtown and easier for business with active uses. She noted an office building that housed only the people who worked there did not have to be in the downtown core. Councilmember Orvis noted that raising the parking requirement to one space per 500 square feet would also include eliminating the in- lieu -of parking program and eliminate the need to deal with parking when a commercial space/business went into the space and instead deal with it at the time the building was constructed. Councilmember Orvis noted this would eliminate one of the major impediments to siting Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 22, 2003 Page 6 retail and restaurants in downtown, the need to add on -site parking. Ms. Landsman agreed it would encourage the retention of small scale buildings in downtown by allowing more flexibility. Councilmember Wilson referred to the statement that parking in downtown was overbuilt. He asked how many new developments in downtown had constructed more parking than the minimum required by code. Ms. Landsman clarified more parking had been built than was needed. She explained the number of parking spaces exceeded code requirements based on square footage by 356 spaces. She noted this did not mean that a particular development built more than they were required to by the code, only that the total square footage divided by the code requirement resulted in more parking than the code required. She pointed out there were 1,000 empty parking spaces in downtown during mid -day. Councilmember Wilson asked why the parking spaces were empty. Ms. Landsman answered it was likely a range of reasons. She stressed that there was nothing wrong with that, only that there might be opportunity, with encouragement, to lease those empty spaces rather than build more spaces. Councilmember Wilson asked whether consideration was given to the location of the empty spaces in relation to commercial activity. Ms. Landsman referred to Figure 5, Off - Street Parking Totals, which identified the number of occupied spaces and the available off - street spaces by block. Councilmember Wilson suggested information be provided to the Planning Board regarding the percentage of downtown commercial space that was currently occupied by restaurants versus general commercial as well as a projection of what the City could support with regard to restaurants based on demographics and the Performing Arts Center. He noted one of his major concerns was grandfathering existing uses for any use change, noting a significant influx of restaurants as a result of the Performing Arts Center could rapidly diminish any parking excess. Ms. Landsman commented restaurants' highest use was during the evening when there would be opportunities for shared parking. She noted many retail shoppers would be shoppers as well as diners. Mr. Stringam pointed out their recommendation to assess occupancy and turnover rate every two years. He noted the data collected to -date indicated the City was not even close to a problem with parking. He noted that although parking availability would change over time, the ability to predict those changes was precarious. Councilmember Wilson expressed concern that if the parking requirements were changed and parking needs increased substantially, the City would have to play catch up rather than being proactive. Mr. Stringam assured there would still be parking requirements for new development to add parking. Councilmember Wilson observed parking would be added at a greatly reduced rate. Mr. Stringam agreed. Ms. Landsman commented it was not a greatly reduced rate; at the most, it was 50% less. Councilmember Wilson referred to the calculation of existing on- street parking that ranged from 960 to 984. Ms. Landsman explained two counts were done, the first in 2001 done by the Alliance, and the other in November 2002 by Perteet. She explained the number of existing on- street spaces varied because the spaces were not individually identified and striped. The number of spaces was based on feet and eyeballing how many cars could park in a given area. She summarized there would always be some variation in the calculation of the number of existing parking spaces for this reason. Councilmember Wilson asked whether the counts varied due to loss of parking spaces from curb cuts, loading zones, etc. for new development that had occurred between 2001 and 2002. He estimated the number of on- street parking spaces would decrease over time as a result of new development. Mr. Stringam noted that was a reason to assess occupancy and turnover rate every two years. Councilmember Wilson referred to the study finding that downtown Edmonds had enough parking to meet demand assumed vacancy rates in 2001 were typical. Ms. Landsman asked whether there was Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 22, 2003 Page 7 reason to assume there was a high vacancy rate that summer. Councilmember Wilson pointed out the importance of validating an assumption. Councilmember Wilson noted another of the recommendations was to prohibit employees from parking in the downtown. He questioned the legality of a higher ticker for an employee versus a non - employee. Ms. Landsman noted numerous cities including Kirkland did this. Mr. Stringam commented that in his experience, it was difficult to manage enforcement of employees separately from others. He noted there were many different ways to manage employee parking. Councilmember Wilson inquired about how labor intensive Kirkland's system of monitoring employee license plates was. Ms. Landsman answered it required only one visit from parking enforcement to ticket an employee's vehicle versus overtime parking which required two, one to mark the vehicle and a return visit to determine it had been parked overtime. Councilmember Wilson noted this would require employers to submit employee's license plate numbers. Councilmember Wilson noted one of his biggest concerns was the recommended change from one space per 800 square feet to one space per 500 square feet. He stated it was difficult to justify one space per 500 square feet as it did not represent a great deal of parking for commercial use. Ms. Landsman noted the City's existing standards were not based on anything other than possibly what another community did and there was nothing to indicate the City's current standards reflected need using the ITE or parking generation manuals. She commented the new edition of the ITE manual would be available in the next year and the information would be based on numerous studies. Councilmember Wilson suggested determining demand based on industry standards such as a restaurant association to ensure there was adequate parking to support the business. Mr. Stringam answered their experience indicated different uses in different locations would have different parking generation rates. For example, a standalone restaurant in a strip mall where everyone drove to the restaurant would have more parking demand than a restaurant in a downtown area where there was a great deal of residential use nearby. He noted Everett had a zero parking requirement for restaurants in the downtown although there were higher densities and more office workers in that area. Although Edmonds had not yet evolved to that point, it was further along than one space per 200 square feet in a retail suburban mall. Councilmember Wilson expressed concern with supporting the conclusions with a one size fits all standard and basing the success of the City's downtown on current conditions rather than looking forward. He preferred to have an adequate parking standard as development occurred to meet future growth rather than needing to fix the problem in the future. Ms. Landsman noted the City's downtown parking demand per square foot would decrease as development occurred due to a higher percentage of multiple -use trips and a higher percentage of alternative mode .transportation such as walking. Councilmember Wilson asked whether they envisioned alternate transportation serving the City's downtown. Ms. Landsman answered the biggest alternative mode of transportation was walking. She envisioned an increase in the number of people walking as development occurred as there would be more residents in the downtown area who would walk to restaurants. She did not envision a large increase in transit but noted commuter rail service to Edmonds may be another avenue. Mr. Stringam commented commuter rail traffic as well as ferry traffic were other ways for people to reach downtown. Councilmember Dawson questioned the comment that commuter rail would bring people to downtown, noting commuter rail only operated in the morning and evening and people would not be using commuter rail to come to downtown stores and restaurants. Mr. Stringam answered it would be possible in the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 22, 2003 Page 8 future. Councilmember Dawson pointed out it would not occur in the foreseeable future. Mr. Stringam commented their experience with commuter rail in Tukwila was that the majority of riders were not Tukwila to Seattle but rather from further south to Tukwila. He noted there many be a market for commuter rail travel from Everett to Edmonds. Councilmember Dawson questioned how much the consultants understood the community, for example the statement that people would not drive to downtown restaurants. Ms. Landsman answered commuter rail or transit was not envisioned as major contributors, but a walking downtown was a real possibility as more mixed use occurred. She summarized the biggest alternative mode of transportation would be walking although there may be transit opportunities in the future. Councilmember Dawson noted the recommendation was to reduce parking requirements for residential and retail in half. She noted the one parking space per dwelling unit for single family would result in at least one car parking on the street which would not be possible with a condominium development. She presumed many of the vacant off - street parking spaces counted in the study were occupied by condominium residents at night. She questioned the feasibility of a condominium resident renting their space during the day. Ms. Landsman emphasized developers would have the option of providing one space per dwelling unit; the market would determine whether they wanted to provide more parking. Councilmember Dawson expressed concern with the assumption regarding parking enforcement when that was a service that had been substantially reduced in recent years for budgetary reasons. She questioned comparing Edmonds to Everett and Kirkland, noting although they are similar in some ways, the demographics and opportunities for transit in Edmonds differed greatly from Everett. She summarized Everett and Kirkland had some of the worst parking in the region. Mr. Stringam noted studies have shown Everett's parking has a 50% occupancy rate. He noted the on- street parking may be full because employees are utilizing that space; however, the off - street lots are only 50% occupied. The situation was similar in Edmonds; there was a great deal of parking that was not properly managed. Councilmember Dawson asked whether there was any consideration given to reducing the parking requirement to 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit from two spaces per dwelling unit. Mr. Stringam answered that was certainly a possibility, citing Kirkland's 1.7 spaces as an example. He explained that based on the information from this study, they found downtown Edmonds had a large number of empty spaces. What they know from other communities, they believed one space per dwelling unit would be adequate. He stressed one space per dwelling unit was the minimum and assumed a high -end condominium would likely not sell with only one space per dwelling unit and developers know that. Councilmember Dawson asked whether the evening occupancy rate was calculated. Mr. Stringam answered it was not. Councilmember Dawson reiterated her concern with reducing the parking requirement to a flat one space per 500 square feet for commercial rather than having a requirement that varied by use. She noted Kirkland's parking requirements were similar to Edmonds' existing requirements, yet their parking was often atrocious during the day. And in Everett, there were numerous high -rise office building whose employees patronize the local businesses. Councilmember Petso asked whether there was a professional standard for determining the number of parking spaces per condominium unit. Ms. Landsman answered a new edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) parking manual would be issued soon that was the first comprehensive analysis of parking needs. She concluded that although there were industry standards, they considered individual developments, not as part of an overall activity center. She explained industry standards for Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 22, 2003 Page 9 parking looked at the busiest hour. If that standard were used for a mixed use downtown, parking would be substantially overbuilt using resources that did not contribute to the vitality of downtown. Councilmember Petso commented that if the parking requirement remained at two spaces per dwelling unit for multifamily, there would be opportunities to rent /lease spaces; however, if the parking requirement was reduced, there would not be any spaces available for rent/lease. Ms. Landsman answered that when parking was overbuilt, there was less land for more housing, retail, etc. and the community put too much of its resources into parking. Councilmember Petso pointed out the potential for eliminating the ability for residents living in neighborhoods outside downtown or in surrounding communities to come to downtown if sufficient parking were not available. Ms. Landsman answered the recommendation was not to cease creating parking, only to create it at a lower rate. She noted parking was not typically constructed to peak hour in industry standards. She cited the example of a shopping center that constructed parking to the peak hour, two days before Christmas; much of the year that parking remained empty. Mr. Bullock summarized the action items for the Council: • Accept the Parking Study as meeting the consultant's contractual obligation, and • Direct the Planning Board to consider the recommendations of the report and develop code amendments for on -site parking only and the Council review on- street parking requirements, or • Direct the Planning Board to consider the recommendations of the report and develop code amendments for on -site and on- street parking standards for the downtown. He explained the on- site parking requirements required review by the Planning Board, public hearing, and a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Bullock explained that for any change to on -site parking requirements, the code required review by the Planning Board, a public hearing and recommendation to the City Council. However, consideration of on- street parking requirements did not require Planning Board review. The Council could review those issues (employee parking permits, violation fines, location of three -hour parking, etc.), hold its own public hearing, and enact a policy and direction via ordinance. Assuming the Council would accept the study, Mr. Bullock explained the parking study was not intended to be adopted verbatim and there would likely be a great deal of discussion regarding parking requirements in the downtown area. Mr. Bullock clarified accepting the report was not an endorsement of the recommendations in the report; it was only moving the report on to the Planning Board to begin the public process of reviewing the parking requirements. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO ACCEPT THE PARKING STUDY SUBMITTED BY LANDSMAN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND PERTEET ENGINEERING AS MEETING THEIR CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, TO DIRECT THE PLANNING BOARD TO CONSIDER THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE REPORT AND DEVELOP CODE AMENDMENTS FOR ON -SITE PARKING STANDARDS AND ON- STREET PARKING AND ANY ASSOCIATED CHANGES TO THE FEES OR FINES, TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE COUNCIL FOR FINAL CONSIDERATION AND ACTION. Councilmember Petso expressed her support for the Planning Board considering both on -site and on- street parking requirements. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 22, 2003 Page 10 1 Councilmember Wilson noted the parking study was a great starting point; with the review by the Planning Board and subsequent public process, parking could be thoroughly studied and a recommendation provided to the Council. He expressed his reservations with the study, noting there was a great deal more evaluation that needed to be done. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Marin requested that the issue of disabled parking in downtown not be overlooked in the Planning Board's review. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Gail Sarvis, 1101 12th Avenue N, Edmonds and owner of Salon 512 on 5th & Walnut, expressed arking concern with potential over - saturation of the use of in- lieu -of fees, particularly with another new Study development being proposed across the street from her business. She explained her business, 1,100 square feet, needs parking for 17 stylists as well as their clients. She summarized there was already a huge parking need which the addition of office /retail in the area would exacerbate. She encouraged the City Council and Planning Board, when considering the parking study, to carefully consider the recommended one space per 500 square feet. She asked to be kept informed of the future consideration of the parking study. Sharon Shannon, 1414 91h Avenue N (residence) and 201 5`h Avenue S (business — Ambiance at Mill arking Town), commented employees were a major detriment to the availability of parking downtown. She Study disagreed with increasing the employee parking permit fee. She cited examples of businesses' employees parking in the downtown area. She suggested creating a parking package for employees and providing a reduced rate for a group of parking permits. She summarized employers needed to be responsible for how their employees parked. omcast I Matt Gormley, 24117 89th Place W, Edmonds, referred to the television franchise services provided by able Comcast, specifically recurring interruptions to the program material that occurred on July 17 at approximately 4:30 p.m. Upon calling Comcast's service department, their technical explanation of the problem was that it was caused by United States Air Force Airborne Warning & Controls. He recommended Comcast admit and fix the problem and not try to hide behind words that implied cause other than their own. He solicited the Council's assistance in addressing this problem. arking Doug Dewar, 110 James Street, Edmonds, commented that like it or not, development would occur in downtown Edmonds. The Alliance's recent study identified approximately 100 developable parcels, 70 of which were likely to be developed over the next ten years. He noted how the parcels would develop depended on the codes in place at the time and parking, not heights, drove what was built. He explained only 20 cars could be parked in the basement of a 2 -3 story, 15,000 square foot building. He summarized changing the parking requirement from one space per 800 square feet to one space per 500 square feet would no longer allow construction of a 2 -story commercial building because there would not be adequate space to provide parking. He concluded this change would force 3 -story buildings with one story of office /retail and two floors of condominiums. He recommended the Council's goal in revising the parking requirements be to provide for development flexibility. He noted prior to 1980, all buildings were one space per dwelling unit; the average condominium household was less than two spaces per lu dwelling unit. Ray Martin, 18704 94th Avenue W, Edmonds, expressed concern with false political advertising, comm enting it was a violation of state law to make false claims stating or implying support or Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 22, 2003 Page 11 endorsement of any person or organization when in fact the candidate did not have the support or endorsement. He referred to the letters to the editor of the Edmonds Beacon entitled, "Tea Party Supports Marianne Burkhart" and "Welcome to the Race Ms. Olson." With regard to the Hearing Planned Examiner making the final decision regarding PRDs, he relayed a recent conversation with a Senator that Residential indicated the Master Builders Association was advocating or the Hearin Examiner process all over the Development g g p county. He expressed concern with the Hearing Examiner making the final decision regarding PRDs. 6. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS Sound ransit and Council President Earling reported both Sound Transit and Community Transit would be revising their Community ransit schedules; he offered to provide further information when it became available. ealth Councilmember Marin reported on a National Association of Local Boards of Health Conference held in District Baltimore. One of the lectures was regarding work being done at the national level to develop a health impact assessment that could be used as a companion document to an EIS to show the health impacts that may be associated with development. SnoCom Councilmember Dawson reported SnoCom was working on their budget but were involved in labor negotiations. She noted SnoCom's budget would basically be a flat line budget. 7. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson had no report. 8. COUNCIL COMMENTS aterfront Councilmember Marin reported two weeks ago he had the opportunity to make a hard hat inspection of Pulkhead the waterfront bulkhead. He was pleased with the work being done on a very challenging method of securing pilings and the unique curved bulkhead. He concluded it would be a fantastic enhancement to the community when completed. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. i SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 22, 2003 Page 12 i C AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 51" Avenue North, Edmonds 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. JULY 22, 2003 7:00 p.m. - Call to Order Flag Salute 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Consent Agenda Items (A) Roll Call (B) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of July 15, 2003. (C) Approval of claim checks #63932 through #64125 for the week of July 14, 2003, in the amount of $750,995.15. Approval of payroll direct deposits and checks #36075 through #36230 for the period July 1 through July 15, 2003 in the amount of $933,806.41. (D) Update on Bond Capital Projects. (E) Acknowledge receipt of Claim for Damages from the City of Lynnwood ($102,000.00), and from Sandra Filer ($274.92). (F) Report on the General Fund and other selected funds financial position for the quarter ending June, 2003. (G) Approval of list of Edmonds businesses applying for renewal of their liquor licenses with the Washington State Liquor Control Board. (H) Authorization to award a construction contract to Walker Specialty Construction, Inc. for the Frances Anderson Center Potable Water Asbestos Abatement project in the amount of $41,738.10, including state sales tax. 3. ( 5 Min.) Proclamation in honor of National Night Out, Tuesday, August 5, 2003. Page 1 of 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA July 22, 2003 Page 2 of 2 4. (60 Min.) Presentation of the parking study. 5. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)* *Regarding matters not listed as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings. 6. (15 Min.) Individual Council Reports on Outside Committee /Board Meetings. 7. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments S. (15 Min.) Council Comments Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Please contact the City Clerk at (425) 771 -0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda as well as a delayed telecast of the meeting appears on cable television Government Access Channel 21.