Loading...
2024-10-29 Council Special MinutesEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING APPROVED MINUTES October 29, 2024 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Rosen, Mayor Vivian Olson, Council President Chris Eck, Councilmember Will Chen, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember Michelle Dotsch, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember (arrived 6:16 pm) Jenna Nand, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Kim Dunscombe, Acting Finance Director Shane Hope, Acting Planning & Dev. Dir. Mike Clugston, Sr. Planner/Acting Planning Mgr. Leif Bjorback, Building Official Tristan Sewell, Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Beckie Peterson, Council Executive Assistant Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 5:59 pm by Mayor Rosen in the Council Chambers, 250 5"' Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Eck read the City Council Land Acknowledgement Statement: "We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water." 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Councilmember Paine (arrived at 6:16 pm). 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ECK, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO REMOVE AGENDA ITEM 10.1, 6-MONTH O&M CONTRACT WITH ECOREMEDY, LLC, AT STAFF'S REQUEST AND MOVE ITEMS 10.2 AND 10.3 TO 10.1 AND 10.2. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Paine was not present for the vote.) MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Paine was not present for the vote.) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 29, 2024 Page 1 5. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: LAND USE & HOUSING Planning & Development Director Shane Hope commented a lot of work has occurred and is continuing. She provided an overview of the Land Use & Housing elements: Comprehensive plan process overview County adopted housing units target (includes existing capacity including H-99) Edmonds currently has capacity for 5148 units, but only 4,946 units can be counted towards growth targets. • 4862 units that are multi family, senior apartments Le low rise or mid rise • 84 units that must are middle housing • Capacity for ADUs has not previously been evaluated • 201 units that are single family (Not Counted as they do not satisfy HB 1220) • Growth Alternatives 4,946 Existing 4 9464,123 1 Capacity Per BLR Existing r t + Capacty 2,052 Per BLR H 81110+Hb1337 • Achieved Ca aci 9,069 — 4,946 = 4,123 250-300 units Loss of units in UNOCAL property Required Typology for the total 4,123 1952 - low-rise or mid -rise multi -family apartment category. 2129 ADUs or low-rise or mid -rise multi- family apartment category. 42 units that are middle housing low-rise or mid -rise multi -family apartment category 2,400 unit City to find potential growth locations feasible to accommodate this additional housing Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 29, 2024 Page 2 A: Focused Growth Growth continuing along Hwy 99, downtown, etc. 4 Neighborhood centers • some mid -scale mixed use (commercial on ground floor & apartments or condos above • up to 4 floors + 5th floor if special community benefits provided 4 Neighborhood hubs (smaller than centers) • mixed use up to 3 stories • no bonus floor incentive ALTERNATIVE A. FOCUSED GROWTH Er•E.w EuHo usE Ea•tnuHt C—EHE---E. awl Em zz _o..-.,... le x--�� f Draft Comp Plan o Elements ■ Introduction ■ Land Use ■ Housing ■ Economy ■ Climate ■ Culture, History & Urban Design ■ Capital Facilities ■ Utilities ■ Transportation ■ Appendices Land Use Element o Goals & Policies by Section ■ Citywide* ■ Neighborhood Centers & Hubs • Downtown ■ Waterfront B: Distributed Growth Growth continuing along Hwy 99, downtown, etc. 4 Neighborhood centers (smaller than Alt. A) • some mid -scale mixed use (commercial on ground floor & apartments or condos above) • up to 3 floors if special community benefits provided 7 Neighborhood hubs • low -scale mixed use • up to 3 stories + 4th floor if special community benefits provided ALTERNATIVE B: FOCUSED GROWTH Eran wrunE uHo uEE rnm muEn CaEE••EHE WnuH UP— ocra 4 P .� tea.. f, � •i � �, - t o Layout of Each Major Element 1. Guiding principle (very high level) 2. Background information 3. Goals and policies (broad direction) 4. Potential implementation items (more specific action steps to consider) *Proposed Replacement of Policy LU-1.10 (about MUGA boundaries) (per city council 10/1/24 city council meeting "The City Council may consider a proposal affecting its Municipal Urban Growth Area boundary after receiving Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 29, 2024 Page 3 ■ Highway 99 Activity Center & Subarea ■ Priority Use Areas ■ Natural Environments o Potential Action Items Housing Element o Goals & Policies by Section ■ Housing diversity ■ People's Policies ■ Supportive Housing ■ Regulatory Framework ■ Adapting to Climate Change o Potential Action Items adequate information to determine whether it is in the City's best interest to take action on the proposal. The information should include: 1. Whether any other jurisdiction affected by the proposed MUGA boundary change is willing to approve or consider approving the change; 2. An engineering analysis of how the infrastructure of the proposed MUGA expansion area meets or does not meet the City's standards for level of service; and 3. The improvements that may be needed (including any downstream capacity -related improvements) and their cost as estimated by a qualified engineering firm, for the area to meet the City's standards. The City Council may consider the resulting information, along with any other relevant factors, and identify whether additional information should be obtained and/or potential tools, such as an LID process to achieve the infrastructure improvements deemed necessary, be required as part of a City decision to pursue a MUGA boundary change." Councilmember Nand asked with regard to housing, was there a way to place a prioritization on safety elements in multistory buildings such as ingress/egress windows, fire escapes, etc. When she visits Capitol Hill, she sees hermitically sealed windows and limited opportunities to escape if there was a fire, earthquake or other disaster. Ms. Hope responded the building code addresses windows, egress, fire requirements, etc. She agreed more work needed to be done on emergency management planning, but that is not covered specifically in the comprehensive plan. Councilmember Nand suggested having a link to requirements for fire escapes, exit options, etc. for higher building heights in the DEIS or comprehensive plan. Ms. Hope answered that could be a potential action item which would be implemented by zoning or the building code. With regard to the housing number, Councilmember Dotsch recalled there was a excess buffer percentage that was factored in and asked how much the excess was. Ms. Hope recalled there was a 10% buffer; the ultimate number is about 2,400 which she thought excluded the buffer, but she offered to doublecheck. Councilmember Eck liked the way this was put this together, particularly the calculation of the number of units. She commented that calculation cannot be overcommunicate to the community, especially that the target is 2,400 over 20 years. Councilmember Chen expressed appreciation for the housing requirements. He asked if green housing incentives later on tonight's agenda was part of the housing element of the comprehensive plan or was it totally separate. Ms. Hope answered it is separate and is a result of the existing comprehensive plan which recommended being more sustainable and looking at ways to encourage green building. Councilmember Chen asked if the green incentive program was incorporated in this update, could the City fulfill the comprehensive plan update requirements. Ms. Hope answered definitely as there are things about sustainability, climate, etc. in the draft comprehensive plan as well as the existing comprehensive plan. With regard to whatever growth alternative is chosen, Councilmember Dotsch asked if there was an opportunity to do a phased implementation versus doing it all at once. Ms. Hope answered it depends; the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 29, 2024 Page 4 City has to show it is adopting capacity; figuring that out will occur in the zoning code. Councilmember Dotsch commented there is infrastructure and other things coming later that can possibly have an influence. She wondered if there was an opportunity to be more mindful of how fast changes occur in certain areas. Ms. Hope responded in a lot of cases, there is infrastructure. Thinking about 2,400 units divided into 10 places over 20 years, that is 240 units in each of those places which is not a huge amount and will provide some opportunity to ensure the infrastructure matches up. Every time a project is proposed, it has to go through a checklist to ensure the infrastructure is there or the developer pays the difference. Council President Olson referred to the land use maps, pointing out in the packet Alternatives A and B are both titled Focused Growth. Ms. Hope said Alternative A should be titled Focused Growth and Alternative B should be titled Distributed Growth. She will provide Council the maps with the correct titles. Council President Olson referred to the Growth Alternative slide and asked about the differential between current heights and an additional floor if special community benefits are provided and how that ties in with the additional height for green incentives. Ms. Hope relayed her understanding that Council President Olson was asking staff to provide more details when discussing the preferred alternatives. This is still somewhat high level and the council may choose to do a hybrid of the growth alternatives. In most, there is one floor above the existing height limit, but in the Focused Growth Alternative it is up to 4 floors and a 5th floor if special community benefits are provided. That is one of the options the council could choose, but is certainly not the only option; council could choose a blend of Alternatives A and B. In Distributed Growth it is up to 3 stories if special community benefits are provided. She will provide further details in the presentation of the preferred alternative at the council's November 4 meeting. Council President Olson suggested providing the boards with circles that were displayed at community meetings. Ms. Hope agreed staff will provide those along with more detail for each center and hub. Council President Olson observed in the Distributed Growth alternative, the hubs are more significant or more dense than the centers. Ms. Hope responded in Focused Growth, the neighborhood centers are the biggest and then four neighborhood hubs, which although they are smaller than the centers, they are bigger than the seven neighborhood hubs in the Distributed Growth alternative. Council President Olson observed the neighborhood hub in the Distributed Growth has a 4tb floor option which is more than even the neighborhood center in that option. Ms. Hope agreed, advising council can choose a blend of A and B as the preferred alternative. When discussing the preferred alternative, the planning board considered each one to see what made sense, an A or B version or a slight blend. She noted as long as the alternatives add up to the numbers, that is the main thing. Councilmember Paine apologized for arriving late, thinking the meeting started at 7 pm. She watched the planning board meeting and loved that there were two significantly different alternatives along with the do nothing alternative. She expressed interest in the opportunity to not have the tallest buildings along Highway 99 and have a more distributed pattern, envisioning that taller buildings on Highway 99 creates a visual and infrastructure barrier between the sides of Highway 99. She hoped there would not be a visual canyon created along Highway 99, one of the busiest and most dangerous roads in the state. She looked forward to the discussion at next Monday's 5:30 pm meeting, noting this is an important piece of work that the City has been working toward for the last 2%2 years. Councilmember Eck asked if the ADU, DADUS, duplexes and triplexes were included or excluded from the 2,400. Ms. Hope answered they were excluded from the 2,400. Councilmember Nand referred to a question she sent Ms. Hope about addressing racial equity and displacement. Goal H-2 states, "Implement measures to increase the affordable housing supply while enhancing the public realm of growth areas." and Policy H-2.4 states, "Consider the reduction of parking requirements for residential developments in areas proximate to transit service or based on planned Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 29, 2024 Page 5 occupancy (such as seniors, affordable units) to reduce construction costs and to promote affordability of residential development." She expressed concern about the idea of reduced parking, pointing out during the mandatory evacuation for Hurricanes Milton and Helene, gas stations were running out of gas due to people trying to fill up on gas to reach safety and as a result 230 people died. With a lot of density centered in one place, during an emergency people will not be able to rely on buses or trains to reach safety and may need to use their car to drive away. She wanted assurance with the coming multifamily and larger buildings that the idea of minimum parking would be preserved. Ms. Hope commented although the City has not gotten into the zoning regulations yet, it is her intent to retain parking requirements although there may be considerations for different housing types and in some cases it will not be one parking space per unit. For example, senior housing or retirement homes, not everyone will be driving. She summarized there will be some parking requirements and it will be up to the council to approve a code that supports that. Councilmember Tibbott commented one of his overwhelming impressions of this comprehensive plan was that it was trying to do everything, improve the environment and housing, increase density, transportation improvements, etc. and some of them seem to be in conflict with each other. For example, the desire for greater housing density, but also having open space and trees and preserving the environment, but also build lot line to lot line. He asked how to interpret that for the future. Ms. Hope agreed the comprehensive plan is tackling a lot, but at a broad level. The state GMA requires the City look broadly at transportation, housing, including new housing requirements, environment, open space, etc. She agreed there logically should be a balance point; for example with open space, how much open space? Choices have to be made sometimes through codes, investment in parks, etc. She agreed it was a balancing act, just like with one's home — you want it to be really nice but not cost a lot. Councilmember Tibbott said if this is a 20 year plan, he envisioned a future council in 10 years coming across a comprehensive plan element that says there needs to be high density in Perrinville and add 3-4 stories depending on whether the council chooses Alternative A or B, but what happens with stormwater runoff with higher density? He wondered how future councils will interpret what the council is doing today. Ms. Hope responding the comprehensive plan, the EIS, and regulations tell a story so if development occurs in areas with existing stormwater issues, the new stormwater regulations need to be met. The new stormwater management codes are much stricter than the ones that were in place when a lot of that development occurred. There are still issues to consider so this council may choose not to allow as much development in an area such as Perrinville for environmental reason and that will be reflected in the plan. The council can review the comprehensive plan annually and if something is not working or a different alternative needs to be considered, that can be done. The comprehensive plan is adopted by ordinance which creates a record for future councils to follow. Councilmember Tibbott referred to the two big boards that were displayed last night, relaying he noticed in Alternative B with all hubs, they all have some level of multifamily development and commercial which to him looked like transition zones that are already moving from low density housing to higher density and more commercial uses. Those transition zones would seem to be useful for the City as it looks to add 2,400 units. He noted some of those have commercial enterprises and ownership groups that may or may not be interested in going from one story to three stories. He asked if the comprehensive plan incentivizes that or is it just on paper to be considered at some future date. Ms. Hope responded the comprehensive plan does not speak to incentivizing. If council wants to consider that, it could be considered as part of a development regulation in the future. Councilmember Dotsch said she feels there are a lot prescriptive things in the elements that cost time, money and staff, programs the City does not have the ability to do on its own. The elements contain a lot of prescriptive language as well as a lot of planning jargon and some definitions are not defined. She was still confused about the activity centers and asked if staff had a slide with the map of Edmonds with circles. She recalled originally Highway 99 and Downtown Waterfront were separate. The comprehensive plan Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 29, 2024 Page 6 discusses quite a bit of development in the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center which is from 9t1' up to Caspers and down to the waterfront. She did not think the DEIS accounted for any growth. Ms. Hope responded it did. Councilmember Dotsch commented there are some intensive environmental impacts in those areas due to proximity to the water. Ms. Hope displayed the following: ALTERNATIVE A: FOCUSED GROWTH ALTERNATIVE B: FOCUSED GROWTH DRAFT FUTURE LAND USE MAP (FLUM) COMPREHENSIVE FLAN UPDATE, OCT 7034 DRAFT FUTURE "NO USE MAP IFLUM) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE. OCT 2024 . - . HFMMw9M.rM • - • M.M�Y (�'.7 HHrMo CpxlloM„ ,YOIrOow AmnYy Cn.er Oaw..w csmnaM ® OSNeew Can..wrc. ®�. ZZ P. MGM P. WE 7 • -. HFrM.9PRmuPm •-•dmw j.:-;j Hi Neer Ow.fsNlblMeYYng4�er •eMl Cort Ovwmnv,M My D_nar� ;asnrtro� M SEEKM H.IgTAa.,,F wM+.lrMMla I Councilmember Dotsch continued, referring to Goal H-2.3, "Provide for a higher number of units per lot around the transit stops in activity centers," commenting there is now a bus and bus stops on 9t1i and in residential neighborhoods, on Dayton, etc. The Downtown Waterfront Activity Center is quite large and ill-defined with regard to how it will grow and the comprehensive plan, as written, greatly impacts that area. Ms. Hope explained the requirements in state legislation are related to within the vicinity of to '/2 mile of a major transit center, not bus stops. Councilmember Dotsch pointed out the comprehensive plan does not say that. She recalled that was discussed by the planning board because literally every neighborhood is within'/2 mile of a bus stop. Ms. Hope advised staff will address that. Councilmember Dotsch asked staff to add the number of feet along with the number of stories; the existing comprehensive plan refers to feet. Ms. Hope offered to include both, commenting some like feet and others like stories. With regard to Councilmember Dotsch's comment that some things are still prescriptive, she also noticed a few things that had not been swept into potential action items; staff will be looking at that. Councilmember Chen commented special community benefit was referenced in a couple places under the growth alternatives, in particular one the centers states if a special community benefit is provided, development can include a 5t1' floor. He asked for an example of what type of special community benefit would qualify for a 5t" floor. Ms. Hope noted more detail would be provided in the code. The idea she has heard expressed related to special community benefit is going above and beyond the standard code such as Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 29, 2024 Page 7 providing extra open space, extra community amenities in addition to what would normally be required. The exact requirement will be worked out in the zoning code. Council President Olson referred to an earlier comment about not wanting towering buildings on Highway 99 creating a corridor effect. She agreed and supported that idea, but supported requiring some minimum density which she did not see referenced in the comprehensive plan. She did not think there should be any single story development on Highway 99 because, from an economic standpoint, it was not in the City's best interest. She suggested a minimum of two stories. Ms. Hope recalled that was discussed as part of the Highway 99 plan and there may be something in that plan. The idea was to have a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) such that the only way it could be accomplished was two stories or the code could state a minimum of two stories. The intent was mixed use. Council President Olson anticipated that would make the area more walkable. Ms. Hope envisioned staff s focus would first be on what is required by the state related to housing, but also changes on Highway 99 to support the kinds of things the council has been talking about such as making it more vibrant. Council President Olson referred to Policy LU-19.1 which mentions interconnected park system, relaying when she thinks about an interconnected park system, she thought about the greenway loop proposal, something she never understood. People go from their home to various open spaces, parks and recreational opportunities, but they don't typically go from one to another. It would be of interest to her and likely other community members to have interconnected business districts so people could do multiple errands. She was concerned about a comprehensive plan policy or goal associated with interconnecting parks. She suggested an overt conversation with council and the community to ensure that was something people wanted; she personally did not. Ms. Hope answered it might make sense for some parks to be interconnected such as along the waterfront, but it doesn't necessarily make sense throughout the community. Council President Olson said she is supportive of connecting parts of the trail system, but not connecting parks. Councilmember Eck commented a lot of the concerns tonight are addressed in policy goals. With regard to sensitive areas and stormwater, using Perrinville as example, the goal cannot be to just build, build, build; there can't be growth just anywhere. Builders must abide by the City's stormwater regulations and work closely with planning & development and would not be permitted to build in sensitive areas. Ms. Hope agreed, acknowledging the concern about environmentally sensitive areas, assuring clearly those are off limits. Steeper slopes may be an exception; building can occur on a 15-30 degree slope, but a lot more geotechnical work would need to be done which is more expensive for a developer so often they don't bother with those areas. Sensitive areas like wetlands or fish habitat cannot be built on. Councilmember Eck point out as the council discusses green incentives later on the agenda, some of what is allowed with green incentives for DADUs would allow the DADU to be sited away from a tree to preserve it. With regard to downtown, Councilmember Dotsch commented the way the comprehensive plan is written, mixed use is used a lot. She asked whether BD zoning would still be allowed if this comprehensive plan is approved. Ms. Hope answered yes, there was no reason to change it based on the comprehensive plan. Councilmember Dotsch referred to community incentives, commenting green space, open space, retention of trees could be an incentive for higher density. With regard to lot combination and frontage, she commented the developer of the Baskin & Robbins halved the lots to get out of providing green space. She suggested look at that loophole in the code, especially in downtown, to avoid losing green space and open space as development occurs. Ms. Hope pointed out a lot of code work still needs to be done and likely will need to be done in stages. For example, in the first six months, staff will have to focus on implementing the state requirements, but after that a lot of things could be done to make the code better. Councilmember Paine referred to Policy LU 26.1, relaying her hope the City can create tree care initiatives, partner with local nurseries etc. She referred to Policy LU 26.4, "promote "right tree, right place," commenting sometimes there can be a grand, transgenerational tree in areas where there are views, but it Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 29, 2024 Page 8 provides a great deal of canopy cover. At some point the City will need to develop a tree code and policy direction via an ordinance to be clear about doing the right thing for the environment, preserve wildlife corridors and trees. She referred to Policy LU-26.1, "Invest in tree plantings in areas that have documented high summer temperatures, risk of flooding and low tree canopy to enhance ecosystem services and improve equity" which was something she wanted to focus on. Looking at the comprehensive plan through the lens of climate action, it does a lot in really meaningful ways. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Jim Ogonowski, Edmonds, said he found the comprehensive plan discussion very enlightening. He referred to a comment about planning for 2400 additional units, commenting he was trying to visualize what that will look like and someone's comment that it would be distributed around ten areas in the City. He cited the Hazel Apartments on Highway 99 which is approximately 200 units as an example; 2400 is 10 of that type of development throughout the City to reach the 2400 growth target. He found it daunting to think of it in that sense because that is a 5-story building. He questioned whether that was what residents want the City to look like. Richard Bologna, Edmonds, said he believes the city council and mayor should approach the budget deficit by not only cutting expenditures, but also maximizing revenue sources. Much of the budget gap can be attributed to the negative effects of the Covid pandemic. By all accounts the U.S. economy has been healthy this year, price inflation may be subsiding, and other financial indicators are improving. The hardship to individuals of being laid off is unfortunate; area businesses operating at full capacity will enhance City revenues. It is good to focus on building and assisting successful Edmonds businesses, something the Edmonds Chamber does quite well. On a personal level, he would like to work within his sphere of influence to increase parking in the downtown core which will directly contribute to generating more business revenue in Edmonds. Janelle Cass, Edmonds, expressed her concern with tonight's presentation on the land use and housing comprehensive plan elements. First and foremost, there is a change in terminology on packet page 15 regarding the future land use designations that introduces "Mixed Use-3, Mixed Use-4, and Mixed Use-5," replacing Mixed Use Commercial, Community Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial. In the current economy, small and medium businesses cannot compete with the demand for residential development. For example, the project on 5th Avenue South that will have little viable commercial space and changes to area like Firdale Village where there are culturally diverse small businesses that are at huge risk for displacement when facing a residential -focused type of mixed use. The health of the City's finances is directly related to having a balanced ratio of businesses to residential. While residential brings in property tax, it is a debit to the balance sheet because of the services and infrastructure, whereas businesses bring in property tax, sales tax and jobs. Ms. Cass continued, many cities strive to have 35% commercial land use to a 65% residential use; Edmonds is only 8% commercial and she wondered if that contributed to the current financial crisis. She urged the council to focus on the foundational numerical assumptions that the comprehensive plan is based on; she encouraged the council to question and push back on the assumption on packet page 10 that future housing will only be occupied at a rate of 1.4 persons/dwelling. The current occupancy in Edmonds is 2.25/dwelling; if that assumption were used in the calculation, the required housing goal could be reduced to 5,828. Another important number to consider on packet page 46 is the goal of 4,123 which makes an assumption there is currently zero capacity for ADUs; the 0 in the chart should be TBD which will bring down the required housing numbers. Edmonds has been doing its fair share, exceeding its GMA goal year after year and is one of the densest cities in the Puget Sound area. She urged the City to do good math and preserve green spaces. 7. RECEIVED FOR FILING Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 29, 2024 Page 9 1. OUTSIDE BOARDS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS 2. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS 3. CIP/CFP 2025-2030 QUERIES 4. BUDGET QUERIES 2.0 -COUNCIL BUDGET QUESTIONS AND ADMINISTRATION/STAFF RESPONSES 7. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 2. APPROVAL OF PROPERTY TAX AND EMS LEVY ORDINANCES 9. PUBLIC HEARING 1. PUBLIC HEARING ON PRELIMINARY BUDGET Mayor Rosen opened the public hearing. He explained the public hearing will be a Q&A; each person participating in the hearing will have three minutes to either state a comment or ask questions and he and Acting Finance Director Kim Dunscombe will do their best to briefly answer questions. Following the public hearing, each councilmember will have three minutes to make comments. Jim Ogonowski, Edmonds, expressed his appreciation for this format, envisioning it would be easy to ask a question about the budget, but it was actually more difficult than he anticipated. Part of the reason was he has two sets of documents, the budget book and the presentations and discussions and he was having a difficult time reconciling them. He's heard the City cut $7 million in expenses, yet he could not find $7 million in expenditure cuts in the budget book. He's heard 46 positions unfunded, but could not find 46 unfunded positions in the budget book. He's heard about a 10-year recovery plan; the budget book shows the City is insolvent by 2027. The council adopts the budget book, not the presentations. If the discussion topics were part of the budget book, he would have expected at a minimum decision packages associated with each of the ideas in the presentations, but did not see any decision package in the budget book that equate to the $7 million. He summarized his question was which should he believe, the words that are being said or the budget that has been presented. He asked the council what success looked like for them, whether it was simply passing a balanced budget or passing a budget that has a path to fiscal recovery of the City's finances. With regard to the $7 million in cuts, Ms. Dunscombe responded the budget process began will all the approved FTE according to the ordinance, and full employment included in the budget. Directors were asked to request everything they were proposing to do in their 2025 work plan which included professional services, supplies, etc. That total came to $65-66 million; that budget wasn't proposed because forecasted revenues are $52 million which would not result in a balanced budget. A budget reduction exercise followed which resulted in a $7.5 million reduction. That is not included in the budget book, and she recognized that was unclear when there has been reference to those numbers. She asked directors to focus on the work that won't get done next year to assist the council and community in understanding services that will be lost by reducing the budget. Ms. Dunscombe continued, she accepted ownership for failing to show that math, recognizing there are in - tune community members who wanted to be able to see that reduction whether it was FTEs, professional services, or supplies. One of the schedules she prepared 1-2 weeks ago was a list of the positions that are Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 29, 2024 Page 10 no longer unfunded. The term "unfunded" changed the way FTE was presented in the budget book. That list shows how positions are funded, whether it is by the General Fund or an allocated position, whether the position is currently vacant or there is a person filling the position and the salary savings for 2025 and 2026. The next piece is to show all the other choices that staff decided not to put in the proposed budget, most of which is professional services and reductions in supplies. IT was asked to reduce their to-dos which reduced their internal rate to departments. She acknowledged not doing a good job laying that out for the council and the community and it is important for them to see the proposed budget was created, knowing there have been comments that spending was reduced by $7.5 million. With regard to the 46 unfunded positions, instead of just eliminating positions, directors wanted to use the term unfunded where positions are still part of the approved FTE list, but funding for those positions is not in the proposed budget. The FTE ordinance is new to staff, and in conversations with Mr. Taraday and other directors, she was unsure about amending that ordinance until the council decides whether the positions would be unfunded or abrogated/eliminated. That is a decision for council to make and the council's decision will be reflected in the ordinance. In the budget book she was trying to relay the message that the positions are proposed to be unfunded but they are still approved in the ordinance with no budget for them. Filling any of those unfunded positions would require a budget amendment so filling the position would be a very clear and transparent ask and could not be done without council permission. With regard to the recovery plan, Ms. Dunscombe said Mr. Ogonowski is correct, she has not laid out in the strategic plan a clear definition of what the recovery plan looks like. The mayor has mentioned interest in amending the financial policies to state financial recovery would occur over ten years rather than seven years. She anticipated through the deliberation process, council can begin to develop that plan. She referred to Councilmember Chen's query asking that work begin on that and make clear, defined transactions to amend the proposed budget to show that recovery in the strategic forecast. With regard to difficulty reconciling presentations and the budget book, Ms. Dunscombe said she worked with the directors on the content of their presentations and Mayor Rosen clearly identified what information should be included, but she did not verify all the numbers presented by departments. For example, the Police Department had screenshots from the budget book, but related to other presented numbers, she would need a specific request to validate the numbers. Mayor Rosen commented he also owns some of this. In talking about the replenishment of reserves, he indicated the proposal of 10 years and when that clock start. That will require council action which should have been a footnote. With regard to the open positions, they are included in the org charts but filling those positions would require council action. His intent in showing them in the org chart was to help the community and council understand that council approved those positions in the past and it was work the council felt was important. In addition he has tried to emphasize via presentations the work that was not being done to help the community understand by making cuts, less will be done. With regard to future projections, it is a huge moving target in which the council and community have huge roles. Staff is finding things and presenting ideas and council has not started their deliberations and amendments. Mayor Rosen continued, on Saturday the council will start exploring revenue opportunity which will impact what could be done in the future to offset cuts or pay off things more quickly. The revenue opportunities include whether to annex into the RFA; the proposed budget assumes that occurs. The budget also assumes some money from taxes be retained for which council has signaled their approval. However both those could change, the public or council could decide not to annex into the RFA, the council could decide not to retain the $6 million in taxes. Even if the answer is yes to all that, there is still a revenue gap. Saturday's meeting will include discussion regarding options related yes/no on annexing into the RFA and retaining the $6 million so the council has a sense of the financial impact, the impact on the loan amount, potential loan payback, and replenishment of reserves. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 29, 2024 Page 11 Theresa Hutchinson, Edmonds, explained in 2016 Edmonds hired Fitch & Associates, a regional fire/EMS consultant to vet the Snohomish County Fire and Edmonds contract. Their study found EMS calls make up about 86% of Fire District 1's overall call volume, with fire calls at only 10%. The following statement is taken from the Fitch report, "Given that statistic, one of the alternatives calls for moving the fire district capability away from Station 17 all together and instead for staffing that station only with two dedicated paramedics." That move alone could save Edmonds $1.5 million annually, money that could be used to fund other important City services like streets or add to the City's reserves. Nothing has been done since the 2016 report, 8 years ago, to reform the business and operations model to bring efficiencies to the Snohomish County Fire District. She asked Mayor Rosen and/or councilmembers to speak to this. Mayor Rosen explained the opportunity was imposed on the City when South County Fire called their contract early. When that occurred, the council began the process of researching options. Fitch was hired to help do an analysis; the options were to rebuild the City's own fire department, contract with another community, the City form its own RFA via partnering with another city, annex into the RFA and renegotiate the contract. Some of those options proved to be unviable, but council wanted to ensure decisions were not forever and whatever decision is made allows future councils and residents to change their mind. Service levels and how service is provided has been an ongoing question. The primary two options currently being considered and negotiated are a contract and annexation; service levels, staffing levels, accountability for pricing, etc. are part of those negotiations. Bill Krepick, Woodway, said he had the same question as Ms. Hutchinson about why nothing has been done to reformulate the delivery of fire and EMS services. A number of recent articles have shown this is not only something raised by Fitch in 2016, but something that has been done by many EMS and fire departments. He asked who is negotiating for the City and what their background is. He referred to the national consulting firm Center of Public Safety and Management (CPMS), a nonprofit that does work for municipalities and not necessarily fire departments so they have no conflict of interest. They have worked with a city in southern California with a population of 52,000, Placentia, and have basically executed the plan that Fitch mentioned in 2016, having separate fire and EMS departments. He asked if the City had given up on having a city -owned department, commenting the savings that can accrue are unbelievable. He asked the City to reconsider that and not only look at annexation or a contract. With regard to police, given that Chief Bennett announced her retirement, she has a history with the contract police model in King County and has said on more than one occasion how much that could save any municipality. He wondered if the administration would temporarily slow the hiring process to understand what that could mean to the City. He anticipated the possibility of saving $5 million via some other model, whether it is the county or partnering with Mukilteo or Lynnwood or something else. He asked whether the administration planned to look at something different or would hire someone to replace Police Chief Bennett. Mayor Rosen refrained his earlier statement about the options that are available. There can absolutely be an option to rebuild the City's own fire department. With regard to the negotiating team, it includes two councilmembers, one of whom participated in the prior negotiations, legal counsel, himself, strategy teams to help advise on the negotiations that include cities who recently went through negotiations, reviewing the contracts from other cities, and a couple community members who have been following this issue incredibly closely and providing guidance to the negotiating team were invited to participate. With regard to police, in addition to Chief Bennett's retirement, the City has three other director openings. In a time of budget crisis, he is looking at structure throughout the organization which includes the police department. Consideration is being given to whether there are other ways to provide the service; one option could be becoming a contract city, restructuring the Edmonds Police Department, considering the needs of the community, working with others in south Snohomish County, etc. In terms of keeping the position open or restructuring, consideration is being given to what structure makes sense in the context of providing service. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 29, 2024 Page 12 That is the case for everything in the budget and all the services the City provides. If the City can do things better, faster or cheaper, the City will course correct. Finis Tupper, Edmonds, expressed concern with the budget, relaying he has watched the directors' presentation and the cuts aren't enough. There has been no explanation of why the City burned through the reserve as well as all the money received from the federal government for Covid. As an Edmonds residents who has been involved since 1980, he anticipated the City would burn through another $12-13 million in the biennial budget. The citizens need an explanation about where the money went before the City reaches into their wallets and affect their ability to pay for inflation and increases in property tax, gas, food and everything else. He said this seemed like a Dixon, Illinois, thing; where did the money go? He recommended the City cut more than is proposed to be cut, commenting there is no pain with the proposed budget. He accused Mayor Rosen of spending a year sitting on his hands and not taking care of the problem that he ran on and was elected on and recommended dropping the mike. With regard to where did it go or how did we get here, Mayor Rosen said that explanation would take more than a couple minutes. He directed Mr. Tupper to his state of union where he started telling this story. The City also had the most robust mid -year financial update that covered some of how did we get here and where did it go. In addition, it was referenced in the budget presentation. A recent, very extensive article in My Edmonds News, a transcript of a conversation, goes into additional detail. He encouraged Mr. Tupper to visit those to get sense of where it went and he hoped that would help him understand the story. If there are things that were not included in the story, he welcomed knowing that. With regard to the pain, directors have described the impacts of cuts at the last several council meetings. Council is now rolling up its sleeves to consider options for filling the gap, whether that is further cuts, different cuts, what that means to the community, and whether they ask the community for help. With no further public comment, Mayor Rosen closed the public hearing. Councilmember Nand thanked the all engaged community members for coming to the meeting and showing how democracy works and holding electeds accountable. She voted on 2022 and 2023 budgets and if she and her fellow councilmembers made unwise decisions, they should be held accountable through the political process. Each director makes proposals, the council approves them as the budget is their purview. The council got the City into this mess, not the administration and the council is now trying to get out of it. To the comment regarding pain, the council has gotten dozens of emails from families mourning the fact that the gymnastics program is proposed to be defunded. When the council defunded the Meadowdale Preschool last year, many families with young children lamented the fact that an affordable program that served young families was being taken away. The council is inflicting pain which is very tragic but necessary. Councilmember Nand reiterated the council approves budgets, directors make proposals, projects, staffing and decision packages they feel will enable them to do their job to the best of their ability and the council either says yes or no via vote of the council. The public should hold the council accountable; it is the job they signed up for. She was proud of engaged community members for holding the council accountable. She was also very proud of the directors and staff for leading the City through an incredibly difficult and painful period. She commended Ms. Dunscome for doing an excellent job putting forward the administration's budget proposal. The budget is just a proposal at this point and it's very likely the council will rip it apart. This will be a very difficult budget year, and she commended Ms. Dunscome for the level of financial transparency and accountability that she and her team built into the budget. Councilmember Paine relayed the council has heard from the public about their interest in the council continuing to talk about revenue options. That should have been done at the beginning of year. She recalled meeting with the council president earlier this year to discuss available options, an interesting conversation Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 29, 2024 Page 13 because there are a lot of options. The City does not have a strong sales tax base because it is balanced with automobile sales, about a 60/40 split. She intends to work with the council and the public to consider other sales tax options. One of her ideas is a local marijuana and alcohol surcharge/sin tax. She looked forward to hearing from the community about options they have seen succeed in other communities. With regard to what is success, to her budgeting is a team sport and everyone needs to work together to make things come together. Councilmember Dotsch thanked the engaged citizens for participating in this process and expressed her appreciation for the citizens who have been contacting councilmembers. With regard to the comment that the cuts aren't enough, in looking at the budget and having run a business, the City needs to spend within its means. One of the reasons she ran for office was the importance of the City's commercial; revenue is not just bedrooms, having a balance is important and finding way to expand revenue beyond property owners. Edmonds needs to be mindful not to get out over its skis and doing more than it can fiscally and responsibly do. She supports looking at all the options, both cuts and revenue sources. She suggested having a number associated with the revenue sources; $10,000 or $20,000 is just a piece of sand on the beach; the council needs to think broader. With regard to police, her office was in Shoreline and she worked with the Shoreline policing model. The community's highest priority in the recent survey was public safety; there are a lot of people in the higher crime areas on Highway 99 asking about the City's plans. There is a balance between the budget, costs, delivery of services and what the community wants. Edmonds provides phenomenal service for the community, but there is a budget crisis. With regard to fire service, she is interested in exploring all options. As a councilmember, she is not involved in the negotiations, but hopes to hear more about it. Council President Olson thanked the resident who mentioned revenues, agreeing that is a critical component that the council plans to tackle at Saturday's meeting. She gave kudos to the administration who have looked at some revenue options and have definitely made a lot of reorganization and structural addressing of expenditures and made reductions this year. The City needs to stop the bleeding and live within its means which sometimes means you will miss the things you used to spend money on. Just like in people's personal lives when there are fluctuations in income, sometimes you get to do what you want to do and sometimes you don't, and this is one of times where the City doesn't get to do everything it wants. The cuts are really painful; councilmember know people affected by the cuts and jobs that are going away and her hearts hurts for them and their families. She recalled another councilmember saying the city government is not a jobs program; it is here to serve and meet the needs of the community and the community's priorities need to direct spending. With regard to police, Council President Olson said the City's police and merchants have made a big impact on creating the community people enjoy in Edmonds, the art flavor and the personality, and the council and community need to figure out what they are willing to lose in the process. That is what the mayor's long term plan is, getting community buy -in and financing it through revenue generation as well as reorganization to provide what the community wants. There is a way to get what the community wants, but that requires buy -in, and if not, Edmonds will be a community that's a little different. She has been on taskforce having conversations with RFA. She has been impressed with Mayor Rosen, City Attorney Jeff Taraday, and Councilmember Tibbott for their enormous contributions. She negotiated contracts for a living when she was a government contracting officer and is a certified government contracting officer and pricing specialist. Councilmember Tibbott relayed the council has considered sales tax revenues and other revenues. This is the first year that sales tax revenues in Edmonds are anticipated to exceed property tax revenues. That has been a robust growth area for the City and hopefully will continue. One of the sources of revenue has been online sales; he has been told by experts that that source of revenue, although it has grown rapidly in the last 3-4 years, is likely to plateau so increases in sales tax revenue will have to come from other sources or Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 29, 2024 Page 14 the next generation of online sales. The council is talking about numerous revenue sources including parking meters downtown, or a B&O tax, all things the council doesn't relish imposing. With regard to the comment about the City structure, he has had a number of conversations with the mayor about how departments could be restructured and he was very impressed with the mayor's creativity and flexibility and citizens can be confident the administration is being very forthright, working with directors and staff to develop efficiencies that have not been seen before. Cities across the state are looking for the same kind of things. He was hopeful the budget difficulties will also result in better government. With regard to police and fire services, the number of fire stations could be reduced, but that would also increase response times and likely result in fewer EMTs and firefighters on scene. That would be one of the losses that the public could expect with Edmonds' having its own fire department. Councilmember Chen expressed his appreciation for the administration, councilmember and citizens, they all care about Edmonds and are going through this difficult budget time together. With regard to the inconsistencies between he budget book and the budget presentations, he anticipated it was due to time constraints and the biennial budget which is a different approach. It is an ongoing process; assumptions were made in developing the budget, some of which were documented in the budget book and some were not. For example, the assumption the City will annex into the RFA was documented and shows up in the strategic outlook, but the recovery plans are not documented which is why the forecast shows the City insolvent in 2027. There needs to be consistency going forward to document the assumptions and the approach. With regard to the council's responsibility for how the City got here, Councilmember Chen agreed the council had a role in it and should be held accountable. Personally he appreciated and supported the administration's work 120%, but he has always said councilmembers need to maintain their independence. When they see opportunities or different approaches, they shouldn't just rubberstamp it, they should exercise their independent analysis and judgment and not just be a nice person. He learned that and it is part of the reason for how the City got here. Each councilmember only has one vote. With regard to what success looks like, to him success is in looking at revenue options and opportunities for streamline and restructuring operations, inflation is the truth. The community needs to come together, face this together, raise revenue, cut costs, restructure and come through it together with a balanced budget for the next two years and years to come. Councilmember Eck agreed with many of the councilmembers' remarks. It is an instrumental part of an effective democracy for the public to speak. She thanked the public for attending either in person or online; spending their evening with council and sharing their input is extremely important to the process. She expressed appreciation for the written comments the council has received, they add to the council's thinking and make a difference. With regard to there not being enough pain, the City already has a lower staff count per capita and the proposed budget reduces that ratio even further. She assured the City will come out of the budget process with pain; the cuts that have been presented are painful and the pain to the community means some things will not get done, hard choices will have to be made. It also means some services that residents receive will not be done as often as they would like or not at all. The council is weighing that and taking it extremely seriously. No matter how one looks at the budget, the cuts will be painful and significant. Having said that, she recognized the council cannot cut its way out of this. As someone who has worked on budgets in the other part of her part of life for many years, cuts will not be enough. The word revenue can be striking, but it doesn't mean just taxes. The council needs to look at everything and comb through it very carefully to find the right answers. A mix of revenues and serious, painful cuts are completely warranted at this time. 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS - CONTINUED 1. 6-MONTH O&M CONTRACT WITH ECOREMEDY, LLC Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 29, 2024 Page 15 This item was removed from the agenda via action taken under Agenda Item 4. Mayor Rosen declared a brief recess. 2. POTENTIAL ACTION ON PERMIT PROCESSING TIMELINE AND PUBLIC NOTICE CODE AMENDMENTS TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH MANDATES IN SB 5290 AND HB 1105 (FILE NO. AMD2024-0002) Acting Planning Manager Mike Clugston recalled this topic was introduced to the council on September 24 and a public hearing held that evening. No public comments were received. Staff recommends council adopt the ordinance in Attachment 6 and either use the planning board recommended language in Attachment 4 or the staff recommended language in Attachment 5. The only difference between the two versions is staff s version retains language about refunds in SB 5290 and the planning board recommends removing that language if it is not required since the City already meets three of the process for permit streamlining. Staff believes it's useful to retain the references to refunds as a reminder about the possible requirement in the future. Council President Olson referred to her request to identify the location in the ordinance where the language differed; she was unable to find the difference between the staff and planning board's recommendations. Mr. Clugston relayed there are a couple places where "refund" is mentioned. There is existing language in the code regarding refunds for an application that expires; no change is proposed to that language. That occurs if an applicant submits an application and it does not continue, but staff has spent some time on it, the applicant can request a refund of unspent funds for staff review time. The planning board recommended language regarding refunds related to SB 5290 is in Attachment 4 (packet page 226); Section C on that page be removed, compared to the staff recommended version in Attachment 5 (packet page 256), where Section C regarding Permit Application Fee Refunds is retained. Council President Olson asked about time criticality, would it be problematic to verify the versions and bring approval back on the Consent Agenda. Mr. Clugston answered it would not be problematic. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON AND SECONDED TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE IN THE PACKET WITH THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION INCORPORATED ON THE NEXT AVAILABLE CONSENT AGENDA. Councilmember Paine expressed support for the motion. She felt the council could approve it tonight as the council has already touched it once and it doesn't need to be brought back on the Consent Agenda. She agreed with the planning board's recommendation. Councilmember Tibbott said while he agreed it could always be brought back, staff s recommendation to retain the refund language may provide continuity for future changes. He asked Mr. Clugston to describe the value of retaining that language for future use. Mr. Clugston responded sometimes language in RCWs exists and staff doesn't necessarily know about it or they learn about it in the process of their work. With the loss of staff knowledge over the past several years, he could see that possibly happening in the future which is why he believes it is useful to retain the language, particularly with something as important as refunds. The City will be reporting to Commerce every year but retaining the language is a belt and suspender approach. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. GREEN BUILDING INCENTIVES CODE AMENDMENTS Planner Tristin Sewell introduced Building Official Leif Bjorback. He reviewed: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 29, 2024 Page 16 Brief Summary o Buildings emit most of Edmonds' local climate pollution. Residences emit over a third o The 2020 Comprehensive Plan and 2023 Climate Action Plan identify green building incentives as necessary to achieving our climate goals. o These incentives would encourage development with reduced environmental impacts via optional permit review and land use incentives o Planning Board and Climate Protection Committee recommend Tonight's Discussion o Seeking direction on draft final amendments o Presenting land use incentive alternatives addressing concerns and questions o Modular options to simplify discussion and decision making o No changes to permit review incentives Baseline — Previously presented draft o Land use incentives drawn from existing examples ■ Using language from a different zone (e.g. pitched roof bonus, adopted residential setbacks, increased multifamily density, etc.) ■ Modeling after existing precedent in MWU and RM zones o Balancing act — enough to encourage more "green" building o Considering impact on staff administering code Summary Multifamily Residential Commercial Business (B) Zones (RM)Zones (C)Zones Built Green 4-Star LEED Gold or Built Green 4-Star Multifamily Built Green 5-Star or better get setbacks N/A one zone smaller (i.e., RS-10 to RS-8) Choose one: • +5' in addition to the +5' where all portions existing pitched roof above height limit are bonus of Ch.16.30 sloped z 4-in-12 • Maximum unit density increased one tier (i.e., RM-3 to RM-2.4) 1 per dwelling unit +5' plus the 5' pitched roof bonus for all portions sloped at least: 3-in-12 BC 4-in-12 BN, BP 6-in42 BD5 N/A BD1 - 4 I +5' (CW only) 1 per dwelling unit 1 per 500 sq. ft. leasable commercial floor area Predominant Concerns o Building height (esp. residential) ■ Primary dwellings ■ Detached accessory dwellings ■ Choice of height OR density for multifamily o Residential setbacks ■ Primary dwellings ■ Detached accessory dwelling ■ No setback incentive proposed for multifamily residential What green building can look like o RS-6 Five Foot side setback Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 29, 2024 Page 17 7th Ave S and Spruce St • Four Alternatives All Green -Certified Residential Development A: No residential height incentives B: No RS setback incentives Green -Certified Detached Accessory Dwellings C: No height incentives for detached accessory dwellings D: No setback incentives for detached accessory dwellings Mutual inclusivity: Adopting A also adopts C, and B adopts D RED highlights changes over baseline proposed draft • Current proposal Primary One district 25' 5'sloped 4-in-12 30' smaller* Attached ADU Same as Same as Same as Primary Same as Primary Primary Primary 2-Story DADU Same as 24' 5'sloped 4-in-12 29' Primary, with 10' DADU rear setback 1-Story DADU Same as 15' 5'sloped 4-in-1 2 20' Primary, with 5' DADU rear setback *Requires 5-Star or better. Each building certified separately. • Alternative A — No Residential Height Incentive Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 29, 2024 Page 18 Primary One district 25' None 25' smaller* Attached ADU Same as Same as None Same as Primary Primary Primary 2-Story DADU Same as 24' None 24' 41 Primary, with 10' DADU rear setback 1-Story DADU Same as 15' None 15' Primary, with 5' DADU rear setback *Requires 5-Star or better. Each building certified separately. • Current Code: Multifamily Residential Retain existing height limit: • 25'+5' if sloped >4-in-12 = 30'total Density one zoning district smaller (e.g., RM-2.4 to RM-1.5) • 5 units on 7,500 sf vs.12,000 sf • +60% dwelling unit density Outwardly the same as today's code one parking space per dwelling • Alternative B — No Residential Setback Incentive Primary No incentive 25' 5'sloped 4-in-12 30' Attached ADU Same as Same as Same as Primary Same as Primary Primary Primary 2-Story DADU Same as 24' 5' sloped 4-in-12 29' Primary, with 10' DADU rear setback 1-Story DADU Same as 15' 5'sloped 4-in-12 20' Primary, with 5' DADU rear setback • Alternative C — No DADU Height Incentive Primary One district 25' smaller Attached ADU Same as Same as Primary Primary 2-Story DADU Same as 24' Primary, with 10' DADU rear setback 1-Story DADU Same as 15' Primary, with 5' DADU rear setback 5'sloped4-in-12 30' Same as Primary Same as Primary No incentive 24' No incentive 15' Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 29, 2024 Page 19 • Alternative D — No Setback Incentive for DADU Primary One district 25' smaller Attached ADU Same as Same as Primary Primary 2-Story DADU No incentive 24' 1-Story DADU No incentive 15' • Staff recommendation 5'sloped 4-in-12 30' Same as Primary Same as Primary 5'sloped 4-in-12 29' 5' sloped 4-in-12 20' o Adopt the baseline proposed amendments as the most comprehensive and effective incentive package capable of capturing the greatest amount of certified green development o Supported by the planning board and Mayor's Climate Protection Committee o Provide staff any additional input on incentives not discussed Next Steps o Staff drafts code amendment responsive to council input o Council action: early November A. Approve Green Building program B. Approve modified Green Building program ■ Using one or more presented alternative(s) ■ Using one of more presented alternative(s) and other changes ■ Using other changes C. No action now Councilmember Tibbott explained several councilmembers participated in a tabletop exercise at the PSPHSP Committee meeting which helped him understand what could potentially be achieved. He is inclined to approve both height and setback incentives for the main residence but not the ADU. The main reason is in most cases an ADU will be added to properties and has the greatest potential for impacting nearby properties. With the potential of a 30' ADU within the proximity of someone's backyard or privacy area, he preferred not to have those throughout the City so it would be better not to allow the extra height and setback reduction for an ADU. Councilmember Tibbott referred to staff s response to his question about the BD5 area which currently allows up to 30' heights so ADU's would be allowed up to 35' with a pitched roof. BD5 is primarily developed with one-story historic homes and he found that in conflict with the comprehensive plan in terms of maintaining historic structures, and the potential for 35' buildings to impact the view corridor. Staff also responded to his question about rooftop utilities, in commercial zones there are flat roofs with utilities on top and the building code requires screening. However he did not realize in addition to 30', there is also the potential for 3.5' for a railing. Therefore adding a 5' incentive could result in some building in commercial zones being 38.5' which may not have been what the public has in mind. Councilmember Tibbott recalled asking staff about roof top utilities related to sloped roofs, and he wasn't clear whether that was allowed. Staff referenced the building code, but that is a something that needs to be clarified. If a heat pump can be attached to a sloped roof, he was unsure that was much of an incentive. If rooftop utilities were inside an attic area, that would be different. He summarized he did not think these green incentives were ready for passage tonight. He needed some clarifications and wanted to hear more about how the height incentives would work in commercial areas. Councilmember Eck thanked staff for taking the council's comments to heart and returning with these alternatives. She was concerned about changing the proposed green building incentives so much that they Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 29, 2024 Page 20 do not attract builders to build green although she understood the concerns about height and setback. As one thinks about smaller lots in the Bowl, without green incentives, she wondered if there was a lot of pent up demand to build on those lots. Mr. Sewell answered in a lot of the already developed areas, there is potential through the remodel pathway Built Green offers. Redevelopment is a bit more limited due to cost. However, it is easier to hit the constraint of lot coverage maximum on smaller lots. That incentive was removed during discussions with the planning board. People want a certain size home and are little less sensitive to the size lot it is on. Councilmember Eck commented with very small lots, a DADU may not be an option. Her tendency was toward the baseline proposal based on recommendations from the Planning Department, Planning Board and Mayor's Climate Protection Committee's. Knowing the market will self-select a lot of what will inevitably happen, some lots in Edmonds will not be attractive to a builder. Councilmember Nand referred to Alternative C, no DADU height incentive, and wondered if this was a more academic options as she hasn't seen tall DADUs. The concept of adding stairs or a ladder becomes very awkward in a constrained space. If the council were to concede something for those more concerned about the impacts to neighbors, would that be lower hanging fruit trying to get green built incentives along with ADUs and DADUs. Mr. Sewell responded that is a well -taken point, akin to Councilmember Eck's point of market self-selection. Housing is a product and consumers have preferences about the produce they buy. An envelope can only be pushed so far with certain design choices. There is also the chicken and egg aspect, one doesn't see things because the code says you cannot have them. It's hard to know what the result of the code change will be. Councilmember Dotsch said she was trying to understand and balance the number of changes coming to single family zoning due to comprehensive plan update and HB 1110. HB 1110 allows lots up to 2000 square feet; this incentive program will need to consider even smaller lots. She asked how to make that compatible. Mr. Sewell answered that is an open question. This program was drafted with the current code in mind. There are elements that can be transposed forward as they compatible. Having Brad Shipley back in a term limited position, staff has already had casual discussion about what that level of compliance looks like. He summarized these regulations are for today and not for tomorrow. With regard to writing code, Councilmember Dotsch recognized there is limited staff and limited time. She assumed if this code is written now, once the comprehensive plan is completed, it most likely will have to be rewritten to be compatible with HB 1110. She was trying to understand how there could be a more holistic approach to including green building incentives. She referred to a photograph Councilmember Tibbott displayed at the committee meeting and sent to council, commenting the photo illustrates setbacks getting smaller and with each having a driveway, there is no parking on the street. The photo also shows two cars parked haphazardly on a green area in front of one of the houses because there was no street parking. In BD5 or single family neighborhoods with cul-de-sacs or small lanes which exist all over Edmonds due to annexing semi -rural areas, they may not be able to handle the parking reductions. To Councilmember Eck's comment, she asked if some things could be required by code for the primary structure and the ADU/DADU if it was something the council wanted, and not have it be an incentive. She asked how the green incentive program matched up with the community incentive program since they both involve heights, bulk, and parking reductions. Mr. Sewell responded he is aware of the community incentive program but has not been involved with it. Councilmember Paine said she liked how the options had been developed. She commented the agenda memo describes how this won't be supportive of having green buildings. She referred to Alternative B and the pitched roof bonus, noting the pitched roof adds to how housing fits in neighborhoods. Otherwise there are massive, square, blocky buildings that do not always allow for light, air and peekaboo views, things that people like. Pitched roofs also accommodate things to make a house more green and having that available Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 29, 2024 Page 21 makes it an option to include for people building a DADU. If the primary structure isn't Built Green, it may be great to have something more affordable to operate as an ADU on the property. In Edmonds, having generational housing is supported by cheaper ADU or DADU which includes green incentives which make them cheaper to operate. She appreciated staff developing and explaining the alternatives; the only one she would be comfortable adopting was no setback bonus, particularly in the smaller RS zones. Councilmember Paine asked how green building incentives for residential and multifamily comply with HB I I10 and other new legislation. Mr. Sewell answered it certain complies and is crafted around the current ADU legislation, HB 1387. With regard to HB I I10, an easy switch is duplexes are counted as single family in the residential building code and the same fleet of incentives that apply to single family could apply to a duplex. A duplex is only one building type in the list of nine that HB 1110 requires the City adopt six. Staff can shop around how the different building typologies are applied and how they fit in. The Built Green certification program groups townhomes into the same scoring system as single family residential so that is a compatibility bonus. The application and roll out of townhomes in places in Edmonds where they perhaps haven't been before would be relatively compatible with the green building incentive program. Whether the council applies a more multifamily model for the incentives to those levels of density, number of dwelling units, housing typologies, etc. is open to discussion. Councilmember Paine hoped the council would make a decision soon, recognizing minor fixes could be made if necessary with the implementation of HB 1110. She looked forward to getting the green building incentives program passed this year. Council President Olson thanked staff for going above and beyond to help the council understand and found very resourceful ways to ensure the council understood. She recalled the presentation mentioned light and asked if that was one of the incentives from the LEED program where points are awarded for light inside a unit. Mr. Sewell responded natural lighting is often considered an element of green building design and a pretty standard practice such as was implemented in the Waterfront Center. He didn't know for sure that was the case as he had not read their LEED scorecard, but having been in the space, that was something they capitalized on. Council President Olson commented natural light would be hard to achieve if the setbacks aren't very big so it would be unlikely that someone would choose that LEED incentive if the structure was 5' from the neighbor or the property line. Mr. Sewell answered that is part of choice, it is a choice how to implement and earn points for certification. If capturing natural light is one of the lower hanging fruits, he envisioned they would make design choices around that. If it is harder to achieve due to things on the site such as large trees, they probably will make other design choices. The flexibility and options is what an incentive program like this offers. It is not to force anyone to an specific thing or fleet of things, but to have options available to make design choices based on consumer preference. Council President Olson relayed she feels strongly she did not want to give people the option of building that close to their neighbor. She preferred not doing any of the setback options and definitely not for DADUs. She thanked staff for their transparency and bringing up the fact that council had already made concessions on setbacks in DADU code. She has seen so many pictures and personally seen things that do not feel or look good. To the extent the council has control, it should be allowed in the code. She supported not having any incentives related to setback. If other councilmembers felt strongly about doing it for the primary residence, she could live with that more easily than she could with the DADU. She also did not want a height incentive for DADUs. Council President Olson continued, there are a lot of one level single family homes that are in good condition and aren't going anywhere or getting built up. If there's room on the property to build a DADU, they absolutely might. There will be an incentive to build a 24' DADU instead of 15' to provide more Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 29, 2024 Page 22 square footage and higher rent or more living space. She has personally seen examples as well as a lot of photographs of tall skinny DADUs on single family lots next to single level single family homes and a 29' DADU (which could be achieved with green incentives) looks weird next to a 15' single family home. She did not like seeing that and felt the council owed residents to protect the look and feel of neighborhoods. One of the options staff displayed was do nothing, but she felt the City could at least do the expedited processing as that is non -controversial. She preferred to wait to approve any incentives other than the expedited processing until the comprehensive plan is finalized so the impacts of additional height in that plan can be considered. Councilmember Chen echoed the comments about flexibility and transparency and incorporating the council's comments into the program. He asked if delaying the green building incentives until the comprehensive plan is complete would delay the process for homeowners who want to build a DADU but are waiting for the green incentive program. Mr. Sewell answered it is certainly a possibility. In the case of ADUs, whether they have the option of green incentives may not drastically change the number that are built or the timeline in which they are developed. It will change the manner in which they developed; whether they are certified Built Green or not. The demand for them is latent and independent of the availability of the green building incentives. There may be some that won't be built, but he did not think it was a major contributing factor based on his experience and what he is hearing from the community. Councilmember Chen asked if implementing a green building incentive program will increase or decrease permits and the City's income. Mr. Sewell answered staff has kept fees out of this proposal, there are no financial incentives. There will be staff time involved with an expedited process, a tighter window in which to respond to applicants and provide reviews. He was unsure if a financial analysis had been done regarding that. Mr. Bjorback said it didn't seem appreciable or worthy of dramatic concern. Mr. Sewell said as far as property value revenue, that math has not been done and would be interesting to learn more about. Councilmember Chen commented from a construction perspective, green incentives increase the cost of construction so the value of the product would also increase. Councilmember Eck said the reason for this program is to reach the City's climate goals. She believed green incentives were a vital part of that since greenhouse gas emissions largely come from buildings. Shoreline adopted green incentives with no dramatic changes overnight. It was her understanding developers who utilize green incentives have been primarily multifamily. When looking at it from a financial standpoint, developers are looking at scale. She envisioned Edmonds would have a similar experience. She did not want to whittle down the incentives too much more because the City has climate goals to meet. Not all developers will want to utilize green building incentives and those that do are likely to be developing multifamily. Mr. Sewell agreed, multifamily is where the meat of the residential aspect of the program lives, where there is more to offer and more to gain. Councilmember Paine relayed her understanding this complies with the ADU legislation, observing the incentives might change a little with the comprehensive plan depending on height. This is a great time to put this program in place so there isn't another moving piece with all the other development codes that need to be revised with the adoption of the comprehensive plan. This is the third or fourth time the council has considered this program and she urged councilmembers to adopt it. She emphasized there is a climate crisis; the southeast has had terrible storms. A recent Washington Post article said the cost for the impacts of climate change is extraordinary and going up at a parabolic rate. The things that can be done now to support the climate are super important. There might be some ADU development which she anticipated would help families and having the green incentives would be great for the planet. She urged councilmembers to get this done this year as it is compliant with HB 1337. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 29, 2024 Page 23 Councilmember Dotsch referred to capturing natural light, pointing out if someone builds a structure higher than their neighbor or cuts down trees or vegetation, that could provide natural light. She worried about what was incentivized and the byproduct. If a bonus is offered for height, development will occur up to that limit and the neighboring home, which may not have the financial wherewithal to do anything, often ends up selling their house or lose their light. This is a great foundation, a green building incentives program is in the existing comprehensive plan, but she did not think delaying a few months would have a dramatic impact. She referred to a Conservation PRD which is allowed on smaller lots and asked if that could be applied to ADUs so an ADU could be sited on a lot to preserve trees. Mr. Sewell answered that is the same intent as the setback incentives. The conservation subdivision process allows lots to allocate portions of the land for conservation of significant natural resources which are set aside and in exchange, the lot minimum is eliminated, the density remains the same, setbacks are reduced and there are no particulars about lot width which provides much more flexibility in the lot layout. It can lend itself to unique property development in an attempt to leave a portion untouched. The setback incentives attempt to mimic that to an extent. Councilmember Dotsch relayed she was inclined to wait to adopt this program until after the comprehensive plan and compliance with HB 1110 are complete. 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION. RCW 42.30.110(1)(I) At 9:10 pm, the Council convened in executive session to discuss pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) for a period of 20 minutes. Executive session extension At 9:30 pm, Mayor Rosen announced that the executive session would be extended to 9:35 pm. 12. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION The meeting reconvened at 9:35 pm. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:35 pm. SCOTT PASSEY; CKCLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 29, 2024 Page 24