10/26/2004 City CouncilThe Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council.
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Michael Plunkett, Council President
Jeff Wilson, Councilmember
Mauri Moore, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Richard Marin, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
I� � 2 0 ma,?zi,I e]y�e� �i►`117_\
STAFF PRESENT
David Stern, Chief of Police
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Jennifer Gerend, Economic Development Dir.
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council. Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
change to Mayor Haakenson suggested moving Consent Agenda Item 2E to Item 4A.
Agenda
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Marin requested Item H be removed from the Consent Agenda, Councilmember Wilson
requested J be removed and Councilmember Moore requested Item K be removed.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
Approve
10/19/04 (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 19, 2004.
Minutes
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #74716 THROUGH #74910 FOR THE WEEK OF
Approve I OCTOBER 18, 2004, IN THE AMOUNT OF $293,200.98. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL
Claim Checks DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #39388 THROUGH #39465 FOR THE PERIOD
OCTOBER 1 THROUGH OCTOBER 15, 2004, IN THE AMOUNT OF $956,106.29.
Liquor I (D) APPROVAL OF LIST OF EDMONDS BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF
Control Board THEIR LIQUOR LICENSES WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL
BOARD.
Community
Report Services Dept (F) COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT QUARTERLY REPORT
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 26, 2004
Page 1
Stormwater (G) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 TO THE
OutfatI INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR STORMWATER OUTFALL
esign
DESIGN, PERMITTING AND CONSTRUCTION BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS
AND THE PORT OF EDMONDS.
Budget
Rely (I) 2005 BUDGET -RELATED ORDINANCES FOR INFORMATION ONLY:
Ordinances • PROPERTY TAX ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION
• BUDGET ORDINANCE
• FUND CLEAN-UP ORDINANCE
Item H: Authorization of Resolution to Submit Grant Application for the 2005 Snohomish County CDGB
Capital Program.
Councilmember Marin advised he would abstain from voting on this item as he was on the Snohomish
County Policy Advisory Board who would also be voting on this.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR
APPROVAL OF ITEM H. MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER MARIN
Res# 1071 ABSTAINED. The item approved is as follows:
CDBG Grant
Application (H) AUTHORIZATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1071 TO SUBMIT GRANT APPLICATION
FOR 2005 SNOHOMISH COUNTY CDBG CAPITAL PROGRAM.
Item J: Proposed Ordinance Vacating and Declaring Surplus a Portion of the Unbuilt Right-of-Wav in the
Vicinitv of 6915 and 6911 174th Street SW. Establishing Conditions for Such Vacation. and Fixing a Time
When the Same Shall Become Effective
Councilmember Wilson recalled he voted against this matter when it was originally considered by the
Council as he did not find the value appropriate and would vote against it again.
COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR
APPROVAL OF ITEM J. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER WILSON OPPOSED.
The item approved is as follows:
Ord#
Vacate a (J) ORDINANCE NO. 3520 VACATING AND DECLARING SURPLUS A PORTION OF THE
Portioan of the T
Portion
UNBUILT RIGHT-OF-WAY IN THE VICINITY OF 6915 AND 6911 174STREET SW
ocH ,
174 St. SW ESTABLISHING CONDITIONS FOR SUCH VACATION, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN
igbt-of-Way THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
Item K: Proposed Ordinance Enacting a New Chanter 8.36 Motorized Foot Scooters. Directing a Thirty -Da
Implementation Period. Providing for Severabilitv. Reauesting Action by the State Legislature. and Fixing a
Time When the Same Shall Become Effective.
Councilmember Moore recalled she did not support this item when originally considered by the Council,
noting the matter first arose as a noise issue and was not related to age, therefore she could not support the
proposed age in the ordinance.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF ITEM K. MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS MOORE, OLSON
AND MARIN OPPOSED. The item approved is as follows:
ord#
3521
Motorizezedd () K ORDINANCE NO. 3521 ENACTING A NEW CHAPTER 8.36 MOTORIZED FOOT
Foot Scooters SCOOTERS, DIRECTING A THIRTY -DAY IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD,
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, REQUESTING ACTION BY THE STATE
LEGISLATURE, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 26, 2004
Page 2
Domestic 3. PRESENTATION AND PROCLAMATION REGARDING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
Violence AWARENESS.
Awareness
Councilmember Dawson explained October was Domestic Violence Awareness Month. She introduced
Tammy McElyea, an Edmonds resident and Domestic Violence Coordinator for Mountlake Terrace and a
driving force behind the South. Snohomish County Domestic Violence Task Force.
Ms. McElyea explained in July 2003, the Domestic Violence Task Force began in South Snohomish
County. She noted every law enforcement agency in the south county was represented including the
Edmonds Police Department, county prosecutors, city prosecutors, advocates, mental health and domestic
violence treatment providers, and Councilmembers. She noted domestic violence continues to be a
problem in Snohomish County and the Task Force was established to approach the issue in a proactive,
positive manner. In an effort to be a working group, the Task Force broke into several groups. One of
their successes has been the establishment of a domestic violence fatality review team that look at what
can be done in the community to make the issue of domestic violence go away.
Ms. McElyea highlighted other Task Force successes including law enforcement/prosecutor training
attended by approximately 70 people. Upcoming projects include establishing the First Strike Program, a
public awareness campaign, and Safe Haven Program, a program in conjunction with animal shelters
whereby kennels are available to temporarily house the animals of women fleeing a domestic violence
situation. She referred to the Task Force's legislative committee, of which Councilmember Dawson is a
member, that considers what can be done legislatively to make changes in the domestic violence laws and
make the community, victims and children safer.
Councilmember Dawson read a proclamation declaring October Domestic Violence Awareness Month in
Edmonds and urged all residents to support the work of the South Snohomish Domestic Violence Task
Force in serving the needs of families impacted by domestic violence and work toward the elimination of
domestic violence in our community.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There were no members of the public present who wished to address the Council.
Economic 4A. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT QUARTERLY REPORT
Development
Department Economic Development Director Jennifer Gerend explained economic development combined
Report economics, planning and business to strengthen the local economy and quality of life for residents. She
explained as part of a host of other revenue creation tools, economic development stimulated the local
business sector and encouraged where appropriate redevelopment that would boost tax revenue, both.
property and sales taxes, which together comprise approximately 58% of the City's General Fund
revenues.
Ms. Gerend explained since joining the City four months ago, she has worked to establish economic
development at City Hall and reported that valuable cooperation with other departments, the Chamber of
Commerce, the Downtown Edmonds Merchant Association (DEMA) and special task forces such as the
Hwy. 99 Task Force was occurring. She noted one of the greatest challenges was balancing short term
realities and needs with long term planning.
Ms. Gerend explained that commercially, Edmonds was more diverse than many communities in the
region due to the authentic main street environment in downtown with unique, specialty retailers,
neighborhood shopping centers that host an array of neighborhood service retailers, a growing medical
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 26, 2004
Page 3
cluster around Stevens Hospital, and Hwy. 99 with its car dealers, international markets and restaurants
and big box retailers. She stated uses that were appropriate in one part of the City were not appropriate in
others.
With regard to downtown, Ms. Gerend noted nearly one quarter of the City's sales tax revenue was
generated by downtown. Downtown is what many urban cities were trying to create with new town
center developments. When she arrived, she discovered most of the commercial space for rent downtown
was not listed in the commercial for rent multiple because no realtor was involved. Space was also not
advertised in the newspaper and the Chamber of Commerce did not have a list of space available; most
landlords put a for -rent sign in the window, thus there was a severe lack of communication regarding
available space. In an effort to assist businesses who inquire about coming to Edmonds and engage in
recruitment, she began to compile a list of space and organized a commercial open house held September
9. She recalled the press release regarding the event generated articles in. Seattle PI, Daily Journal of
Commerce, the Herald, Beacon and Enterprise which brought visitors to the open house and prompted
over 40 follow-up inquiries. She noted this was an example of a short term project that was also a good
way to get to know local property owners, get people working together and promote Edmonds as a place
ready to assist businesses in finding a home.
With regard to long term planning, Ms. Gerend described her involvement in this year's Comprehensive
Plan update and efforts to ensure businesses' input was included in the process including attending
DEMA meetings every month to keep downtown merchants up-to-date on policies under consideration,
forwarding agendas and helping them to understand the timeframe of the project and the channels through
which to channel their input, summarizing concepts being considered, providing extra outreach to
affected property owners, and working with the Planning Department to proactively identify ways to
protect quality retail space in Edmonds.
Ms. Gerend described specific business recruitment for upcoming vacancies. She referred to the cluster
concept from the HyattPalma Study, the "Downtown Core District Specialty Cluster" for specialty retail
uses, food establishments, entertainment and the arts and their suggestion that the City's zoning ordinance
should reserve first floor space for those uses. This concept was being picked up in some of the policy
decisions in the Downtown Plan update. One element of the downtown cluster concept was the demand
for additional restaurants. She referred to discretionary spending leakage that is occurring for retail and
eating and drinking establishments. She noted that although all retail spending leakage could not be
recaptured, restaurants are one category where the City could retain some of those revenues which would
also benefit the surrounding specialty retailers. The addition of even a couple more restaurants could
solidify downtown as a dining destination; with a critical mass of dining destinations, people could park
and decide on a restaurant. People go out to eat year round which would benefit shops during the quieter
winter months when there are fewer tourists.
Regarding who she contacted for specific business recruitment, Ms. Gerend noted many were shops or
restaurants people have mentioned may be interested in the Edmonds downtown or ones she had
researched. She explained in her own research, she tended to look at small local chains and businesses
interested in expanding.
With regard to the neighborhood shopping Centers such as Westgate and Five Corners, Ms. Gerend noted
retailers in these locations were convenience oriented, grocery stores, pharmacies, espresso, etc. She
noted rents were actually higher in Westgate than in the downtown. She noted the potential key vacancies
on which she has been working with property owners.
With regard to Hwy. 99, Ms. Gerend stated that many already knew via the Hwy. 99 Task Force's work
about the extreme short term and long term challenges and opportunities. Approximately 35,000 cars
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 26, 2004
Page 4
traverse Hwy. 99 daily and this was the prime frontage in the City, comprised of small parcels, scattered
ownership and long, unsignalized segments where the challenge of making a left turn inhibited
development. She referred to property owners working with City Hall to consider redevelopment options
and recent inquiries regarding local demographics and development plans.
Ms. Gerend summarized she follows up on approximately 20 inquires per week from businesses, property
owners and developers regarding various commercial issues including finding space, unresolved
complaints about another City service, or businesses seeking data. Referrals stem from the Chamber of
Commerce, Development Services, residents and business owners, and the City's website. She represents
the City at Snohomish County Economic Development Council and CTED events focusing on economic
development and plans to attend the Puget Sound Regional Council's regional summit in November. She
commented on her work with the City Clerk on Special Event Permits that may be of interest for
economic development such as a movie crew interested in filming a movie downtown.
Ms. Gerend described her research efforts including monitoring a number of sources including the Daily
Journal of Commerce, Puget Sound Business Journal and other publications to keep up-to-date on
businesses expanding, types of development occurring, local businesses and general economic indicators.
Ms. Gerend stated the Comprehensive Plan update that would soon be presented to the City Council
contained many policy matters impacting economic development in the City. She noted for now she was
doing her best to work within existing guidelines, projections, plans and studies to move economic
development forward in Edmonds. She acknowledged it was a new priority to the City and she was open
to any suggestions or comments.
OPTIONS.
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the reason the presentation was being made tonight was because
providing it at the time of the public hearing on the Downtown Plan would shorten the amount of time
available for discussion. He summarized although this information was being provided prior to the
Planning Board's recommendation, it was key to understanding the Planning Board's perspectives.
Mr. Chave provided an update regarding the Planning Board's review of the Downtown. Plan. The
Planning Board had been considering a number of options for downtown and staff had provided various
sources of information in their decision making including a study on pedestrian scale development. He
displayed an example of what type of building types were considered pedestrian scale in a 60-foot right-
of-way. The study found pedestrian scale was considered to be a ratio of 2:1 to 3:1 relative to the right-
of-way which produces a range of 20 — 30 foot buildings. The study indicated a typical downtown would
have 60-80 foot right-of-way and buildings typically about 35 feet in height or 3-story buildings. He
noted the Planning Board considered and included in their current proposal (which was the subject of a
public hearing October 27), allowing one foot in additional height in exchange for each additional foot of
setback to expand the sidewalk. The Planning Board found this would provide a public purpose,
expanding the sidewalks which are currently very narrow as compared to other downtowns, while staying
within the range of pedestrian scale development.
In response to concerns the Planning Board heard throughout the year that new construction either sinks
the first floor below street level or reduces the height of the first floor in order to obtain the additional two
floors above to fit within the City's existing 30-foot height, the Planning Board considered the
implications of requiring a minimum 12-foot first floor height in the hope of obtaining more viable
commercial space in new buildings. He displayed a diagram developed by a Board Member of first floor
heights and the Board's conclusion that if first floor heights of 12 feet were required and the building was
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 26, 2004
Page 5
at street level, the 30-foot height limit was not workable and would need to be increased to 32-35 feet to
accommodate that type of development.
Mr. Chave explained the Planning Board began early this year identifying different districts in the
downtown. He displayed a map of districts identified early in the year and a more recent map that was
the subject of the Planning Board's public hearing. On the more recent map, the Planning Board
identified specific districts and specific boundaries; their goal was to provide a range of options for input
at the public hearing. For example, the Planning Board identified a core area, Fountain. Square (the block
around the fountain), where the current proposal was for the 30-foot height limit to remain while
requiring a 12-foot first floor. This would likely result in the existing buildings remaining as it would not
be possible to construct a 3-story building in that configuration. The Planning Board also indicated an
interest in a stepback above the first floor.
Mr. Chave referred to another district identified by the Planning Board running down 5�' & Main, where
they proposed raising heights to 33-feet, requiring the 12-foot first floor and allowing one foot increase in
height for each foot of setback that was provided. He noted the Planning Board was also considering a
use restriction in the retail corridor area where retail or retail supporting uses would be required on the
first floor which would prohibit office space.
Mr. Chave noted outside the retail core, the Planning Board proposed allowing the same 33 foot height
limit with the one foot increase in height for each foot of setback but without the restriction on uses. The
Planning Board also discussed the redevelopment potential of the Antique Mall area and the Harbor
Square area. He noted in the old Downtown. Plan, Harbor Square reverted to the Port but now is being
considered a redevelopment site.
Mr. Chave pointed out another piece of the puzzle was economics. One of the biggest questions the
Planning Board had was understanding the dynamics of the market and why development was occurring
the way it was downtown such as why below or lower height first floor commercial space was occurring,
why there was so much emphasis on multifamily condominiums, etc. He noted these were questions
Heartland LLC was hired to answer. He clarified Heartland was not hired to provide recommendations,
only to analyze the dynamics of the existing zoning and the market and analyze options the Planning
Board was considering and provide objective information to the Board for their consideration. Mr. Chave
encouraged the Council to ask questions, noting Heartland's model could be used to illustrate how
various assumptions impacted the outcome.
Matt Anderson Heartland LLC, described their market overview which considered the multifamily, retail.
and office markets. With regard to multifamily, their analysis found condominium development had the
greatest market potential. He commented on average condominium sale price ($290-$350 per square foot
similar to the per square foot average of condominiums in Seattle), unit size (1,400 — 2,400 square feet),
and absorption. He noted the rental market in the downtown core was very weak although it was weak
elsewhere as well. With regard to retail, they found rents ranged from $15 — 20 per square foot and many
of the ground floor spaces were marketed for $200 per square foot for sale.
With regard to the office market downtown, Mr. Anderson noted it was based on service commercial in.
the core where rents ranged from $15 — 18 per square foot. He noted there was a somewhat different
market outside of the downtown core where rents and parking ratios were somewhat higher.
Council President Plunkett inquired whether under the existing code it was approximately as
economically viable to develop condominiums in Edmonds as in downtown Seattle. Mr. Anderson
answered Seattle was very different and the economics were driven by a different demographic. He noted
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 26, 2004
Page 6
the sales price per square foot for condominium in downtown Edmonds was possibly even a stronger
market than Seattle due to the number of empty nesters purchasing condominiums in Edmonds.
Council. President Plunkett asked for a comparison on the per square foot rental space for retail and office
space. Mr. Anderson answered retail space was approximately what would be expected in a dense
walkable pedestrian environment. Office space was also typical; he noted office space rents have
decreased in recent years due to the economy. In fact prices have decreased to such an extent that rents
did not support construction of new office space. Council President Plunkett summarized the economic
viability of the Edmonds downtown was approximately as strong as any urban area in the Puget Sound.
Mr. Anderson answered the real estate economics were stronger.
Mr. Anderson described the redevelopment scenarios they considered, two and three-story redevelopment
under the current zoning, two and three-story redevelopment assuming a 12-foot first floor ceiling height,
mixed use redevelopment with upper -level setbacks, single -story commercial reuse or redevelopment and
the unique attributes of the Antique Mall and Harbor Square sites. He summarized their findings with
regard to mixed use, explaining condominium sales drive the financial performance of mixed use projects
and the values associated with ground -floor commercial uses are less significant. He noted eliminating
the third floor would make mixed use redevelopment infeasible. Upper level setbacks, while negatively
impacting the return, do not make the project infeasible.
With regard to commercial reuse/redevelopment, he explained renovation by existing owners of higher
quality retail structures would provide better returns than redevelopment. While acquisition and reuse of
existing structures is feasible, it is less likely to occur given redevelopment values. He explained single -
store redevelopment cannot compete with mixed use redevelopment. He summarized redevelopment by
existing owners versus acquisition at highest and best use price was significantly different as acquiring a
site at its improved value was often too expensive to make a new project feasible.
With regard to the Antique Mall site, their review concluded that medium -format retail was likely the best
use for the site given the parcel size and zoning. He noted the maximum height limit of 25 feet and the
proximity to the railroad tracks would further limit the potential for mixed use. With regard to the Harbor
Square site, they determined three-story office and/or stand-alone retail would offer the highest potential.
for redevelopment. However, redevelopment would be constrained by the current ground lease, existing
improvements and existing cash flow.
Mr. Anderson described the model program that was used to review the various zoning, market and
number of floor scenarios for downtown development and redevelopment including project assumptions
that included financing, interest rates, timing, cash flow, etc. Using this formula, he then reviewed
several scenarios, noting the goal of a feasible project was a 20% return.
Councilmember Moore asked whether a scenario was available for the taller buildings with the one foot
increase in height for each foot of setback to increase the sidewalks. Mr. Anderson answered that was a
new concept and a scenario was not prepared; he estimated it would be similar to the mixed use with
upper level setbacks.
For Councilmember Wilson, Mr. Anderson advised the return on investment was the return to the
developer at the time the units/space was sold. Also for Councilmember Wilson, Mr. Anderson explained
apartment construction was closely tied to employment growth. He noted this was not specific to
Edmonds, overall apartment construction was down due to the lack of employment growth.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 26, 2004
Page 7
Councilmember Wilson inquired about the annual revenue return to the City from condominiums via
property taxes versus retail sales tax. Mr. Anderson agreed a condominium did not contribute as much
revenue to the City.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether there was a scenario that had one floor of retail, one floor of office
space and one floor of condominiums. Mr. Anderson answered such a scenario could be run but because
the rents for office did not support construction of new space, that combination would likely not result in
a viable project.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the scenarios incorporated onsite parking. Mr. Anderson
answered yes, first as much parking was accommodated below building and then the remainder if
necessary was below grade.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about a scenario that allowed full utilization of the lot area for the
building and parking in an offsite location such as a centralized parking structure. Mr. Anderson
answered a condominium developer would always want onsite parking available for the purchaser. He
noted the retail spaces in the mixed use buildings were small and did not require much parking. He
summarized a centralized parking structure would not contribute much to the project but the flexibility
may be desirable.
Councilmember Wilson commented it appeared from the modeling that the downtown core did not have
much use as a commercial core and it would be better to convert it all to residential. Mr. Anderson
disagreed, noting on a project -by -project basis, the retail did not contribute what condominiums did.
However in good retail locations, he noted ground floor residential was likely not a good option. In lesser
spaces where it was 2-3 blocks from the retail core, ground floor residential may be a better option for a
developer.
Councilmember Olson recalled Mr. Anderson's indication that a two-story building was not feasible and
asked the rate of return a bank required. Mr. Anderson answered banks typically want a 20% or greater
return.
omprehensive 6. REPORT ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
Ian Update
Planning Manager Rob Chave displayed proposed Comprehensive Plan maps, explaining the Planning
Board held a series of public hearings and has completed their work on the Critical Areas Ordinance and
the Best Available Science (BAS) report. This information will be presented to the Council at a work
session on November 1 and Council questions will be researched and responded to at the November 16
public hearing. Although several comment letters were received, the Planning Board determined the
overall direction was sound and did not want to wait for additional staff recommendations in response to
the comment letters. Therefore, the draft Critical Areas Ordinance presented to the Council contained a
few changes made since the draft was presented and recommended by the Planning Board. He advised a
matrix was included in the Council's packet of the comment letters the City received on the Critical Areas
Ordinance and an item by item response.
Mr. Chave advised the Planning Board also held a public hearing on large lot zoning in the City. He
noted one of the issues raised as a result of a hearing before the Puget Sound Growth Management
Hearings Board was the City's large lot zoning did not meet the Growth Management Hearings Board's
four lots per acre test established by GMA. Mr. Chave referred to the Comprehensive Plan Map that
identified the small scale lots that met the GMA density requirements and areas that did not meet the four
acre per lot test.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 26, 2004
Page 8
Mr. Chave described an exercise where the Critical Areas inventory maps were overlaid on the
Comprehensive Plan. Map in an effort to determine where critical areas matched large lot development.
He pointed out the pattern of critical area locations including stream corridors and buffers west to east,
large areas of slope, wetland and related fish and wildlife habitats that cross the streams and form
complex patterns particularly in the northern part of the City where the largest lot zoning occurs, RS-20.
Mr. Chave noted the conclusion of staff and the critical area consultant was there was some logic in.
maintaining large lot zoning and development where a consistent pattern of critical areas existed. Where
there was not a pattern of critical area, there was little justification to retain the large lot zoning. He
identified the Seaview area as an example of an area with a large lot zoning pattern, RS-12, but no
combination of critical areas. He noted in some other large lot areas, the pattern of streams and buffers or
wetland and slope areas did appear. The next stage of the Planning Board's review was to highlight areas
that would be suitable for changing the Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning pattern.
Mr. Chave identified areas on the map where based on patterns of critical area were not justified for large
lot zoning. The Planning Board favored the creation of a new zoning classification, RS-10, 10,000 square
foot lots. He noted this would allow at least four lots per acre thereby meeting the four lots per acre
required by GMA. The areas were proposed to have two different Comprehensive Plan designations,
Urban 1 for RS-6 or RS-8 zoning and Urban 2 for RS-8 or RS-10. The decision regarding the zoning
would not occur until next year. The intent this year was to establish the Comprehensive Plan
designations with zoning analysis and detailed hearings next year to establish the appropriate zoning. He
identified areas that had the potential to be designated Urban 2. He summarized the Planning Board held
a public hearing on this issue but had not yet made a final recommendation.
Mr. Chave displayed a comparison of land uses in the Comprehensive Plan, explaining that
approximately 26% of the City was large lot zoning and 36% was small lot zoning. If the proposed
changes occurred, under the new designation, large lot would be renamed Single Family Resource, which
would reduce the 26% in large lot zoning to 21%. Conversely Urban Single Family would increase from
36% to approximately 40%. He recalled a point made to residents was that approximately 96% of the
City was developed and the change in zoning to RS-10 on a lot -by -lot basis would have little impact. He
acknowledged here were some instances where the RS-10 zoning would allow a lot to be subdivided
although small changes from RS-12 to RS-10 would not have a large impact on the development pattern.
More impact could be expected from RS-8 zoning.
Councilmember Moore asked whether the Planning Board's intent with the RS-10 zoning was to be in
compliance with. GMA and to minimize the impact. Mr. Chave agreed their intent was to strike a balance
between the requirement for urban density and minimize impact on neighborhoods.
Councilmember Moore inquired about the feedback from residents. Mr. Chave advised there were not a
lot of residents at the Planning Board's public hearing. Some were concerned about the specific zoning
that would be applied, most were less concerned about RS-10 but more concerned about RS-8. He noted
Friends of Washington and the Audubon supported changing the land designation of more areas.
For Councilmember Orvis, Mr. Chave explained the State would ultimately need to certify that the
Comprehensive Plan met GMA requirements. He noted the Transportation Element would need to be
reviewed and certified by the Puget Sound Regional Council.
Councilmember Orvis asked whether the proposed change would be acceptable to the State. Mr. Chave
answered it was defensible as the one area the Growth Management Hearings Board indicated there was
justification for lower densities was in critical areas. He pointed out 27% of the City was covered by
critical areas which provided a nexus between the large lot zoning and critical areas.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 26, 2004
Page 9
For Council President Plunkett, Mr. Chave explained the maps prepared for the Critical Areas Ordinance
were not regulatory; they were an inventory that indicated the presence of a critical area but did not
identify the exact boundary. Critical areas would be determined on a site by site basis at the time of
development.
Snohomish 7. DISCUSSION ON SNOHOMISH COUNTY TOMORROW FAIR SHARE HOUSING.
County
Tomorrow
Fair share Planning Manager Rob Chave explained ten years ago, as part of the original countywide planning
Housing policies there was a model established to ensure communities accepted their fair share of the burden of
providing low and moderate income housing throughout the region to avoid some communities having a
disproportionate concentration of low income/special needs housing that was not provided in other
communities. Due to the effort to establish new targets for 2025, that model has resurfaced. When
discussion regarding the model arose recently, he and other members of the Planning and Advisory
Committee that provides advice to Snohomish County Tomorrow expressed concern with the model. A
subcommittee was established who developed a set of recommendations.
Mr. Chave summarized the subcommittee's recommendation was that the model needed to be updated
because it did not accomplish what it was intended to accomplish. He noted King County, rather than
grouping together all existing housing into future needs, focuses on future needs. The difficulty with the
existing Snohomish County model was the difficulty in differentiating between existing housing choices
and future needs. For example, he noted there may be a household choosing to live in Edmonds where
there are very high housing/land values; but that was a choice they made to spend more than 30% of their
monthly income on housing. The question that arises then is whether that household is in need if that is
the choice they have made. He explained it was easier to project future needs.
Mr. Chave pointed out the problem now is the need to factor this information into existing plans to allow
planning for the 2025 targets. He recommended the numbers developed via the model be considered
indicators rather than targets. He pointed out the model indicated approximately 35% of Edmonds was
housing in need that the City needed to provide programs for. He acknowledged there was some need but
much of it was a matter of choice.
Mr. Chave also expressed concern with adjustments made to the model including an increase in the
amount of low income housing in cities with a higher proportion of low income jobs. He pointed out
Edmonds had a shortfall of commercial development and income from commercial development, thus the
City was penalized twice. If the City had more economic base, they would be better able to provide
additional affordable housing. He supported the use of the numbers developed via the model as an
indicator for the Housing Authority to base funding decisions for housing.
Councilmember Wilson noted one of the SCT agenda topics for the October 27 meeting was approval of
the Fair Share Housing Allocation Methodology and Guidelines. Mr. Chave advised SCT's past practice
has been to approve by consensus but it appeared in this instance they would ask jurisdictions to adopt
individual resolutions of support.
Councilmember Wilson noted if SCT adopted this methodology, the City would need to incorporate
measures in its Comprehensive Plan to meet the targets. Mr. Chave noted there was a lengthy list of
implementation methods to encourage affordable housing, ranging from flexible development standards
to direct investment. The City had accomplished a number of the methods on the list including changing
zoning to allow more density in multifamily zones, adjusting parking regulations, implementing a PRD
ordinance, etc. that would be cited in the Comprehensive Plan as efforts to accommodate affordable
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 26, 2004
Page 10
housing. He noted SCT was not able to change the model at this time, but there was adequate information
indicating it was an indicator that needed to be readjusted.
It was the consensus of the Council that the numbers developed via the model be considered indicators
and not targets/allocations.
8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Halloween Mayor Haakenson advised the Downtown
Trick or Treat
Event extravaganza on Sunday, October 31.
Merchants would be holding their usual Halloween
Council Mayor Haakenson reminded next week's Council meeting would be held on Monday, November 1 due to
Meeting on the election on Tuesday, November 2. He advised the first public hearing on the 2005 budget was
November 1 scheduled for the November 1 meeting.
9. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEEBOARD MEETINGS
Health
istrict Councilmember Marin reported the Snohomish County Health District and Community Transit were in
Community
the budget process. He reported on the American Legion's efforts to enhance the City's war memorial by
Transit obtaining a Navy artifact and an Army artifact.
snocom Councilmember Dawson reported SnoCom passed their 2005 budget which did not include any increase
in assessments to member cities.
riends of the Councilmember Olson encouraged the public to visit the Friends of Library Book Sale on Saturday,
[Library October 30 in the Frances Anderson Center gymnasium.
Councilmember Moore advised Monday's budget workshop would be aired every day at 11:00 a.m. She
expressed her thanks to Mayor Haakenson and Economic Development Director Jennifer Gerend for the
report on economic development, recognizing the opportunity for Edmonds to strengthen its economic
base. She noted there were three non -tax ways to raise revenue in Edmonds — sales tax sourcing,
annexations, and economic development. She agreed with several citizens who have told the Council in
Chamber of the past that as important as recruitment of new businesses is, marketing the City is just as important. She
Commerce referred to a Chamber of Commerce marketing program, noting there were no funds in the 2005 budget to
Marketing
Program support their marketing effort. She proposed the inclusion of funds to allow the City to join the Chamber
in their marketing campaign designed to attract visitors and shoppers to the City.
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:56 p.m.
i
uW,a
. ENSON. MAYOR
SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 26, 2004
Page 11
1
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North
7:00 - 10:00 D.M.
OCTOBER 26, 2004
6:00 p.m. - Executive Session regarding legal and real estate matters.
7:00 p.m. - Call to Order
Flan Salute
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Consent Agenda Items
(A) Roll Call
(B) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of October 19, 2004.
(C) Approval of claim checks #74716 through #74910 for the week of October 18,
2004, in the amount of $293,200.98. Approval of payroll direct deposits and
checks #39388 through #39465 for the period October 1 through October 15,
2004, in the amount of $956,106.29.
*Information regarding claim checks may be viewed electronically at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
(D) Approval of list of Edmonds businesses applying for renewal of their Liquor
Licenses with the Washington State Liquor Control Board.
(E) Economic Development Department Quarterly Report
(F) Community Services Department Quarterly Report
(G) Authorization for Mayor to sign Amendment Number 1 to the Interlocal
Cooperation Agreement for Stormwater Outfall Design, Permitting and
Construction between the City of Edmonds and the Port of Edmonds.
(H) Authorization of. Resolution to submit grant. application for 2005 Snohomish
County CDBG Capital Program.
(1) 2005 Budget -related ordinances for information only:
• Property Tax Ordinance and Resolution
• Budget Ordinance
• Fund Clean-up Ordinance
Page 1 of 2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
OCTOBER 26, 2004
Page 2 of 2
(J) Proposed Ordinance vacating and declaring surplus a portion of the unbuilt
right-of-way in the vicinity of 6915 and 6911 174t' Street SW, establishing
conditions for such vacation, and fixing a time when the same shall become
effective.
(K) Proposed Ordinance enacting a new Chapter 8.36 Motorized Foot Scooters,
directing a thirty -day implementation period, providing for severability,
requesting action by the State Legislature, and fixing a time when the same
shall become effective.
3. (15 Min.) Presentation and Proclamation regarding domestic violence awareness.
4. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.
5. (90 Min.) Work Session - Redevelopment feasibility analysis of Downtown Plan options.
6. (15 Min.) Report on the Comprehensive Plan Update
7. (15 Min.) Discussion on Snohomish County Tomorrow Fair Share Housing.
S. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments
9. (15 Min.) Individual Council reports on outside committee/board meetings.
ADJOURN
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.
A delayed telecast of the meeting appears on cable television - Government Access Channel 21.