2013-06-17 City Council - Public Agenda-1499'4- o
90 -c9
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Brackett Meeting Room — City Hall
121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds
MONDAY, JUNE 17, 2013
City Council Mini Retreat
8:30 A.M. - CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE
1. (5 Minutes) Roll Call
2. (5 Minutes) Approval of Agenda
3. Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)
4. (30 Minutes) Miscellaneous Council business.
AM-5843
5. (30 Minutes) Training - Closed Record Review
AM-5845
6. (45 Minutes) Training - Public Records and Retention
AM-5857
7. (15 Minutes) Training - Elections / Guidelines for Elected Officials
AM-5846
8. (60 Minutes) Presentation regarding SR-104, including implications for redevelopment at Westgate.
AM-5847
9. (5 Minutes) Mayor's Comments
10. (15 Minutes) Council Comments
ADJOURN
Packet Page 1 of 74
Packet Page 2 of 74
AM-5843
City Council Mini Retreat
Meeting Date: 06/17/2013
Time: 30 Minutes
Submitted For: Council President Petso
Department: City Council
Review Committee:
Type: Information
Tnfnrr"Ofinn
Subject Title
Miscellaneous Council business.
Recommendation
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Miscellaneous Council business.
Attach 1:
2/5/13 Council Minutes
Attach 2:
3/19/13 Council Minutes
Attach 3:
3/26/13 Council Minutes
Attach 4:
4/16/13 Council Minutes
Attach 5:
5/7/13 Council Minutes
Attach 6:
5/21/13 Council Minutes
Attach 1 - 2/5/2013 Council Minutes
Attach 2 - 3/19/2013 Council Minutes
Attach 3 - 3/26/2013 Council Minutes
Attach 4 - 4/16/2013 Council Minutes
Attach 5 - 5/7/2013 Council Minutes
Attach 6 - 5/21/2013 Council Minutes
Inbox Reviewed By
City Clerk Sandy Chase
Mayor Dave Earling
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase
Form Started By: Jana Spellman
Final Approval Date: 06/14/2013
Attachments
Form Review
Submitted By:
Committee Action:
Date
06/13/2013 11:29 AM
06/14/2013 08:54 AM
06/14/2013 09:03 AM
Started On: 06/11/2013 11:32 AM
9,
Jana
Spellman
Packet Page 3 of 74
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
February 5, 2013
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5tn Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Lora Petso, Council President
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember
Joan Bloom, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
1. ROLL CALL
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director
Rob Chave, Acting Development Services Dir.
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
City Clerk Sandy Chase called the roll. All elected officials were present.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO
MOVE ITEM 6, AUDIENCE COMMENTS, TO ITEM 5 AND MOVE ITEM 5 TO ITEM 6.
Council President Petso commented typically Audience Comments follow the Consent Agenda, public
hearings and any presentations or special announcements. Therefore she would be agreeable to moving
Item 4 to Item 6B.
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM WITHDREW HER MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE
SECOND.
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
MOVE ITEM 6, AUDIENCE COMMENTS, TO FOLLOW ITEM 3 AND RENUMBER THE
REMAINING ITEMS.
Council President Petso preferred to move Item 4 to Item 6B.
For Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Bloom clarified her motion was for Audience
Comments to follow the Approval of Consent Agenda Items and prior to Item 4. Councilmember Fraley-
Monillas observed the public could not comment on the Harbor Square Master Plan outside the public
hearing. City Attorney Jeff Taraday responded that would be his advice if it were a quasi-judicial matter;
but in this case, it is not; it is a legislative matter. The Council has fully satisfied the public hearing
requirements under GMA for the purposes of taking public comment on the Harbor Square Master Plan
but there is no need to shield the Council from public comment because the Council can talk freely to
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 5, 2013
Page 1
Packet Page 4 of 74
constituents off the record about the Harbor Square Master Plan. Public comment would not be
considered a public hearing as it was not noticed as a public hearing but there is no legal harm in having
public comment.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the statement on the agenda regarding Audience Comments,
Regarding Matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings, and relayed
her understanding that the public could comment on the Harbor Square Master Plan because Item 4 is not
a public hearing.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Bloom requested Item A be removed from the Consent Agenda. She referred to a
statement on page 19, "It was the consensus of the Council to allow Mayor Earling to provide comment."
She requested a verbatim transcript be prepared as she recalled Council President Petso asked for a head
nod and she shook her head no.
Council President Petso suggested when the minutes are presented for approval again, they also include
the verbatim transcript that was prepared regarding another issue in the minutes.
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO
PULL ITEM A AND HAVE A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT PREPARED AS REQUESTED.
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO
APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #200254 THROUGH #200348 DATED JANUARY 31,
2013 FOR $519,124.56.
C. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM CHRISTOPHER
QUERUBIN (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED).
ITEM A: APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 29, 2013
This item was removed from the Consent Agenda pending the preparation of verbatim transcripts.
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (previously Item 6)
Greg Toy, Edmonds, expressed dismay with the Council's process at its last meeting. He pointed out
Mayor Earling and Councilmembers Peterson and Yamamoto's comments were directed at the efforts put
into the Port's proposed Harbor Square Master Plan rather than the merits of the plan. The process
derailed Council President Petso's motion which he felt was an inappropriate way to handle the matter.
With regard to the Harbor Square Master Plan, he explained he has a construction/development
background and has assisted large organizations such as the Port of Seattle, Port of Tacoma, Boeing, and
the University of Washington, in the development of large capital projects. The process the Port of
Edmonds is undertaking to marry their proposal with the City's Comprehensive Plan is inappropriate. It is
not correct to include the parameters of development as established by the Harbor Square Master Plan in
the Comprehensive Plan prior to resolving the issues that have been raised. He feared a developer would
base their plans on the parameters established for development, only to have the Council reject their
proposal by not allowing 45 or 55 feet. He recommended the issues related to height limits, mitigation of
water problems, and wetland issues be resolved before the Master Plan is incorporated into the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 5, 2013
Page 2
Packet Page 5 of 74
Comprehensive Plan. He encouraged the Council to approve Council President Petso's motion and start
again.
Donna Breske, Snohomish, reported the subject of extending the 7-year expiration date for short plats is
on the agenda for February 11 committee meetings. RCW 58.17.140 states preliminary plats must be
submitted to the legislative body of the city, town or county for approval within 7 years of the date of
preliminary plat approval. This applies only to preliminary plats; it does not apply to preliminary short
plats. In Edmonds, short plats are 4 lots or less and plats, also referred to as formal plats, are 5 lots or
more. State law only requires the City to allow 7 years for the expiration of formal plats. The time frame
for the expiration of short plats is not regulated by State law; individual jurisdictions are allowed to define
the time. At present ECDC 20.75.100 states a short plat will expire 5 years after the date of preliminary
approval. Due to the recent economic downturn, meeting the 5 year timeframe is a challenge and
sometimes not attainable. Recognizing the State increased the timeframe to 7 years for formal plats,
Snohomish County increased their timeframe for short plats. The concept of proactively revising the code
because it is allowed is a paradigm shift from the current operating norm of City staff; at present City
staff concludes there is nothing in State law that requires any relief be offered to investors whose
preliminary short plat applications will expire under the current 5 year time frame. She asked Council to
take action to revise the code to allow a 7 year timeframe for the expiration of preliminary short plats.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, suggested Councilmembers meet with Ms. Breske prior to a Council meeting.
Next, he reported a new house is being built next to his home on Lake Ballinger Way. He urged caution
when driving in the area because trucks often park on the roadway. Mail delivery has also has been
interrupted twice because trucks blocked the mailbox. He relayed the people building the house told him
they had two meetings scheduled with City staff and staff was late both times.
Maggie Fimia, Edmonds, explained new to this issue, she is not new to regional and local governments'
struggle to wisely implement the GMA and Comprehensive Plans, having served 14 years on regional and
local government councils. The Harbor Square Master Plan Exhibit A which describes the proposal is
mixed with existing Edmonds City Council goals, policies and strategies making it difficult to see what is
in the plan, what is in existing land use and what could happen should the Port attract a developer to
develop Harbor Square. She offered the following analysis:
1. The language in the proposed Harbor Square Master Plan overlay is not inconsistent with the current
Comprehensive Plan and GMA. If the Council does not adopt the Master Plan in some form, she
suggested amendments be proposed to the Comprehensive Plan.
2. In order to implement many of the Comprehensive Plan goals related to the marsh, keeping Edmonds
affordable, providing transit oriented development, social and economic sustainability, it is necessary
to compromise on height limits and density by a small amount and only in a small area on the site.
That seems like a reasonable tradeoff.
3. Slippery slopes; Council can include language that seismic studies will be done to determine
suitability of any specific development proposals. Ten to twenty extra feet in this area does not mean
it applies to any other area in the Downtown Activity Center.
4. Trust goes both ways; if requirements are too onerous, too unpredictable with too many loops back to
the beginning with looming unpredictability, no reputable developer will be interested.
5. Be careful what you wish for; she has been involved in land use battles where reasonable and
responsible development was proposed but opposed by a few adamant neighbors and the end result
was worse development than originally proposed.
Ms. Fimia urged the City and Port to continue to work together, determine where the problems are,
resolve the problems, adopt an ordinance and move forward.
Richard Stuart, Edmonds, encouraged Council to approve Council President Petso's motion to go back
to the drawing board. There are good elements in the proposal but he was unsure it was the best use of an
absolutely irreplaceable resource. If the ordinance is adopted, height limits extended and the code revised
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 5, 2013
Page 3
Packet Page 6 of 74
to conform, he questioned whether the height limits could be restricted to this site. He feared an argument
could be made that if height limits were extended on the Port property, it should be allowed in other areas
of the City. He corrected a misstatement he made on My Edmonds News, that the Fire Department would
not have the equipment to deal with high rise buildings; he just learned they do have the equipment. He
asked for reassurance that if the Comprehensive Plan is changed and the code changed to raise height
limits, can it be contained to a single area.
Darlene Stern, Edmonds, thanked Mayor Earling for his objectivity in conducting the Council meeting
last week. She also thanked City Attorney Jeff Taraday who tried to help the Council understand they are
voting on a vision; a vision that is not inflexible but adaptable. She requested Council continue the
process of discussion and review of the Harbor Square Master Plan as an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan. Many who cannot be here tonight believe this is a good plan for the City's future
and that it would be in the best interest of the community's long term economic health for the Council to
take the time to review the new information that has been provided. The City needs a forward -looking
vision to prepare for the future. The prevailing indicators of how and where people work is proving that
the ability to live close to transportation as well as cultural and waterfront amenities is the direction the
next generation is headed. For example, the apartment complex on SR 104 was filled immediately,
demonstrating the need is obvious and now. This is an opportunity to move forward with a healthy vision
for future generations. This plan takes a step in that direction.
Katherine Gold, Edmonds, commented it would be a significant compromise to allow the Port to build a
high density Harbor Square plan within the preexisting 35 foot height limit. The Port knew the height
limit was 35 feet in Edmonds and should be required to work within the restrictions that all others are
required to abide by. If the Harbor Square Master Plan does not work economically at 35 feet, it is not a
plan for Edmonds, as anyone else proposing that plan would be informed. It is especially unfortunate that
the Port, who is supposed to protect and beautify the waterfront of Edmonds, is trying to force through a
plan to destroy the low level architectural limits.
Jim England, Edmonds, said he is an average Edmonds citizen, not affiliated with any developer or
builder, attorney or lobbyist. He asked that the Council protect what makes Edmonds a special place to
visit and live and maintain the downtown characteristics as they are. Building these monoliths will allow
concepts that will raise the height limit which he found unacceptable. Changes to zoning and height limits
in Harbor Square should not be permitted. Buildings would destroy the view and charm of the City,
especially the downtown corridor. The Council needs to send a message to developers that they want to
maintain the charm and characteristics of the City as they currently exist. He suggested high-rises could
be constructed at Westgate and open spaces maintained on the waterfront.
Jenny Antilla, Edmonds, referred to the lack of Robert's Rules last week. Councilmembers were tired
and the matter was getting confusing and no one knew what was happening when the Mayor asked to
speak. She was uncertain whether the Mayor was supposed to speak or not but it did not seem like he
should have. When Mayor Earling spoke he sounded like he supported the Port, expressing frustration
with the way the Council was dealing with the issue. She suggested in the future the Council determine
whether under Robert's Rules the Mayor is allowed to speak.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, asserted the Port's proposal was the most presumptuous or arrogant he has
seen; for the Port to think the City is ready for 55 feet. The Council had the opportunity to go down in
history as canceling the biggest threat in years to the small town, low rise character of Edmonds. He noted
Councilmember Yamamoto apparently had not lived in Edmonds long enough because he did not think
the heights were a significant issue. He recalled during their presentation the Port indicated they were not
interested in any changes or negotiations. He suggested discussing at a Port meeting what to do next.
With regard to the 4"' finding for approval of a Comprehensive Plan amendment that was not discussed at
the Planning Board, he suggested the Council vote individually on the findings and providing their
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 5, 2013
Page 4
Packet Page 7 of 74
reasoning, anticipating the Council could not provide any reasons for the 4th finding. He agreed with
previous comments regarding the Mayor's behavior at last week's meeting.
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, stated he was particularly disappointed in Council President Petso agreeing to
change the order of the agenda because it was inconsistent with her insistence at the Council retreat that
audience comments occur precisely at the time indicated on the agenda. He summarized changing the
time of audience comments is a disservice to people who may want to speak on other topics who arrive at
the meeting later. To Mr. Toy's comment that a developer will develop his plans on unrealistic
assumptions if the Master Plan is incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan, he pointed out any rational
developer would wait until the property was rezoned. To those that say this is not the best use for the
property and ask why the Port has not submitted other options such as a market, he pointed out the Port is
not a benevolent organization; they have to meet rational financial objectives. Although a market might
be a good application there, it would require the City to buy the property for $10-15 million and develop
it. He doubted many citizens would support a tax increase to make that possible. He expressed support for
the Council taking action to approve the ordinance to amend the Comprehensive Plan.
Victor Eskenazi, Edmonds, (Esperance), expressed his sympathies to everyone that had been suffering
through the Port's efforts the past few years. He also sympathized with the Port representatives who have
put time and effort into developing and submitting a Master Plan they felt was the best possible plan and
now encounter opposition. He was not pro -development, citing Los Angeles and Seattle in the mid-80s,
and South Lake Union as examples of what development does. Regardless of what development occurs at
Harbor Square, he pointed out additional people and cars would impact the infrastructure, traffic, air
quality, etc. He summarized if the property is that nice, exceptions should not need to be made to the
rules; developers could develop it under the current rules. He suggested expanding the marsh.
Mike Schindler, Edmonds, CEO, Operation Military Families, encouraged the Council to consider the
Harbor Square Master Plan. In order for any project or city to remain solvent, it needs to create demand.
There is low demand and a declining budget in Edmonds. He proposed the Council present the financial
data to support/justify a 35 foot building. It was his understanding a 35-foot building height did not make
sense to a developer because of the spread. He encouraged Council to amend the current plan and move
forward, otherwise talent would not be attracted to the city which will result in an insolvent city. The
average age in Edmonds is 46; companies like his need to attract young 20-somethings to remain relevant.
He encouraged the Council to consider the Master Plan before them.
Dave Page, Edmonds, observed a preponderance of people do not want 55-foot building heights. The
Port was very presumptuous in proposing this plan. He supports development but feels the proposed
Harbor Square Master Plan was a disaster. He explained citizens have a choice, to stop growing and keep
low rise buildings in Edmonds requires funding the City with their tax dollars. If citizens want that, they
need to vote the City enough money to operate. There are 18,500 residences in Edmonds; increasing
everyone's taxes $200/year via a special levy would generate $3.8 million for the City. With that money,
the City could remain the way residents want it, low rise buildings. If residents do not support buildings at
Harbor Square or other places that will support the City, they need to support a special levy. He
summarized all the Mayor, Council and Port want is enough money to run the City.
5. CONTINUED DELIBERATION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON THE PLANNING BOARD
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE PORT OF EDMONDS REQUEST TO
INCORPORATE THE PORT'S HARBOR SQUARE MASTER PLAN INTO THE CITY'S
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (previously Item 4).
At Mayor Earling's request, City Attorney Jeff Taraday described the procedures. He explained the
motion on the floor is Council President Petso's motion to deny the Harbor Square Master Plan
Comprehensive Plan amendment. There was some confusion last week; many Councilmembers believed
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 5, 2013
Page 5
Packet Page 8 of 74
they were voting to deny it last week, but they were actually voting on Council President Petso's motion
to call the question. A motion to call the question must be seconded and voted on and requires a majority
plus one to pass. The purpose of that motion is to end debate. By defeating the motion to call the question,
the Council voted not to end debate on the motion on the floor (to deny the Harbor Square Master Plan
Comprehensive Plan amendment). The Council can now continue speaking to the motion.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented Councilmembers have received many calls and comments during
the past week. After reading three other cities' Comprehensive Plans, she concluded the Harbor Square
Master Plan is too specific and she would not support it in its current form. She asked the next steps if the
Council voted down the motion. Mr. Taraday explained an affirmative vote on the motion is to deny the
Comprehensive Plan amendment. In this instance, yes means no. If the City Council denies the
Comprehensive Plan amendment, that is a final action on the application for a Comprehensive Plan
amendment and the process in Chapter 20.00 comes to an end. The process can start again in two ways, 1)
by someone, like the Port, submitting an application, or 2) upon direction of the Council. In either
scenario, it goes through the entire process again, including public hearings before the Planning Board
and City Council. He clarified there is no way to skip the Planning Board process if the Council denies
the Comprehensive Plan amendment and that will take more time than amending the proposed Master
Plan.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented if she wanted to amend the plan (such as not allow residential, 35-
foot base height, Shoreline Master Plan buffers) the Port was no longer in the driver's seat, the City
Council was. Mr. Taraday answered yes; any amendments the Council wants to make to the Master Plan
are not negotiated with the Port. The Council's direction would be incorporated into the Master Plan by
staff and him and a modified Master Plan would be presented to the Council. If the Council was still not
satisfied with the Plan, further direction could be provided to staff.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether a public hearing would be required if the Council proposed
amendments to the Harbor Square Master Plan. Mr. Taraday answered if the amendments are significant,
it would be appropriate to have another public hearing at the time it is presented to the City Council.
Councilmember Buckshnis observed the Council could propose amendments but the Council did not need
to vote on them tonight. Mr. Taraday agreed.
Councilmember Johnson spoke against the motion to deny the Harbor Square Master Plan because, 1)
voting for the motion will end the process, 2) this is the beginning of the process, and 3) this is the time to
make changes to the Comprehensive Plan. The Council can take a very minimal approach; at the very
least change the land use designation to allow open space expansion and to allow for multi -family
housing. She has attended all the Planning Board meetings and public hearings and the City Council has
had three public hearings and Councilmembers have received numerous emails, telephone calls and
conversations regarding the proposal, yet have only discussed it for a short time. She suggested the
Council direct the Mayor to ask staff to summarize all the issues, analyze the data, and work with the
Council to continue the discussion regarding the Harbor Square Master Plan. At the very least, she wanted
each Councilmember to have the opportunity to have their say, identify concerns and express opinions.
She urged Councilmembers to vote against the motion to deny the Harbor Square Master Plan outright.
Councilmember Peterson referred to Mr. Taraday's statement that yes means no, pointing out that no does
not automatically mean yes. Voting no on the motion does not mean a Councilmember supports
everything in the proposed Master Plan but provides the opportunity to consider the comment provided
and work with staff and add Councilmembers' own ideas to the plan. Once the Master Plan was presented
to the City, the Port was no longer in the driver's seat. The Port has their opinions and has argued for
what they believe. Public comment has indicated there are aspects of the plan that people like. He
clarified his voting against the motion to deny the Master Plan did not mean he supported everything the
Port included in the Master Plan. He supported the Port's process and the City's process. There has been a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 5, 2013
Page 6
Packet Page 9 of 74
great deal of comment from some very smart people who raised issues well worth looking into. He agreed
with Councilmembers Buckshnis and Johnson that the Council could have City staff consider the input
from the public and feedback from Councilmembers and return with a Plan B.
Council President Petso explained if the motion fails, she will assist with making changes to the proposed
Master Plan. She was hopeful the motion would be approved. One of her biggest concerns was the short-
circuiting of the Planning Board and what she perceived as possibly a deliberate effort not to send this
back to the Planning Board. It was her understanding that if the Council approved her motion, whatever
came next would go through the Planning Board.
Council President Petso explained the Planning Board was not permitted to make a critical finding that
the Council has been asked to make; the finding that the parcel is physically suitable for the requested
land use, including the provision of utilities and that there is an absence of physical constraints. She
observed some of those issues were raised at the Planning Board such as drainage, the marsh, whether
residential was appropriate on the site, and the explanation given, correctly, was that the Planning Board
was not being asked to make that finding. Now that the Master Plan is before the Council, the Council is
being asked to make that finding. If the process begins again, there will have been several more work
sessions on the Shoreline Master Program and public input on proposed amendments. She summarized it
was easier and clearer for everyone, regardless of what side they are on, to start over. She found it
difficult to allocate staff time to an effort to raise building heights on the site, fearing that would be the
perception if the Port is no longer in control of the Master Plan.
Councilmember Bloom voiced strong opposition to the Port's proposal. She explained the Port's proposal
did not begin three years ago; it began over six years ago, initiated via meetings of the property owners,
the Port, ESC Associates at the time and the former Skippers property; the then -Mayor; and Mr. Wambolt
who met privately to discuss how to develop the property. When the Alliance of Citizens for Edmonds
(ACE) learned of the meetings and challenged them, the Port formed the Citizen Group of 33; she was
one of the members. The Citizen Group of 33 met 3-4 times in the summer of 2007 to discuss options; a
lot of creative ideas were developed during that process. Five consultants were hired and the result was
proposals for 4-6 stories, 6-8 stories and 8-10 stories. The Port held meetings for citizens to view the
drawings; according to reports in the Edmonds Beacon, nearly every citizen said "do not change the
code." The opinion of Edmonds citizens continues today; they do not want the code changed.
Councilmember Bloom pointed out heights are not the only issue; adding residential uses is also a
concern. With regard to the seismic hazard zone, she relayed the City's code states that in geologically
hazardous areas, a seismic hazard area, the following activities are allowed within the seismic hazard area
without a geotech study: construction of new buildings with less than 2500 square feet of floor area or
roof area whichever is greater and which are not residential structures or used as places of employment or
public assembly, additions to existing single story residences that are 250 square feet or less and
installation of fences. She summarized without a critical areas study, the City's code states residences
cannot be allowed on a seismic hazard zone.
Councilmember Bloom explained two weeks ago Councilmember Buckshnis, Port Executive Director
Bob McChesney, Senior Planner Kernen Lien, Port Commissioner Jim Orvis and she met to discuss
issues related to residences on a seismic hazard zone. At that time she asked if the Port was aware the
property was on a seismic hazard zone and that it limited the uses to 2500 square feet and not to include
employment or places of public assembly or residences. She recalled Mr. McChesney's response was he
had read her post in My Edmonds News. She asked whether that was how the Port learned of that
restriction. Port Executive Director Bob McChesney answered that was when he was first made aware
of that specific site condition, when he read Councilmember Bloom's post on My Edmonds News in
response to Chris Keuss's posting.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 5, 2013
Page 7
Packet Page 10 of 74
Councilmember Bloom asked Mr. Lien his response during that meeting to her question why the Planning
Board was not informed of this restriction, that a geo tech study had to be done in advance of approving
residences on the property. Mr. Lien recalled he said liquefaction hazard areas can be built on; they exist
throughout Washington State and have been developed on. Councilmember Bloom recalled Mr. Lien said
he did not present it to the Planning Board. Mr. Lien agreed he said that but has since reviewed the
Planning Board minutes; the August 22, 2012 minutes include drainage, flooding issues at Harbor Square
and Dayton, soil conditions and liquefaction hazard. There were no details regarding liquefaction but it
was brought to the Planning Board. Councilmember Bloom relayed a Planning Board Member told her
they did not recall that an issue related to residences was raised. She summarized this was not presented
to the Planning Board and it was not fully explained to them that a geotech study was required.
Councilmember Yamamoto raised a point of order, suggesting Councilmembers stick to the facts rather
than be accusatory. He suggested Councilmembers' comments be to the point. Councilmember Bloom
responded this was definitely to the point.
Mayor Earling sought advice from Mr. Taraday regarding the process, observing it had appeared
Councilmembers were making final statements in preparation for a vote. Mr. Taraday advised the chair
rules on all points of order; the chair's ruling is subject to appeal by the Council. The Council's
procedural rules do not specifically address when a speaker is speaking out of order. It is up to the chair to
determine whether the speaker is speaking to the motion. Mayor Earling relayed it was his impression
Councilmembers were in the process of stating closing arguments. He ruled to sustain Councilmember
Yamamoto's objection.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what part of Councilmember Bloom's statement was being ruled
out of order. Mayor Earling answered he had not heard a closing argument in Councilmember Bloom's
statements; it had become a question and answer period. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if
Councilmember Bloom could continue without asking questions of staff. Mayor Earling answered yes.
Councilmember Bloom explained this is important because the ordinance states there is no danger to
public safety and it is only likely that a geotech study will be requested, yet the code states that a geotech
study is required. Stating there is no danger to public safety means there is no safety issues related to
seismic hazards, flooding, etc. The discussion seems to have gotten stuck on heights; however, the Port
has asked to incorporate residential uses on the site in the Comprehensive Plan. The site is currently
zoned General Commercial and it does not include residential uses. The contract rezone requested by the
Port in 1980 specifically states no residences. If the Comprehensive Plan is changed to incorporate
residential use, the zoning will also have to be changed.
Councilmember Bloom stated there is a close link between residences and height. The Port has stated it is
only feasible to build 55 feet as it will only be financially viable to a developer if there is that much space
for residences. There is no modification possible to the proposed Master Plan without allowing increased
height. Edmonds citizens have stated they do not want increased height on the property. The Port's
feasibility study left out serious issues; it is based on the bulk of the building and not the cost to make
them earthquake safe, and it does not include the cost of parking or infrastructure. She did not see any
way to make the proposal work and would vote to deny the Harbor Square Master Plan. She urged
Councilmembers to deny the Master Plan, observing no compromise is possible because the Port wants
residences which requires increased height.
Councilmember Buckshnis observed if the Council made amendments to the proposed Master Plan, the
City Council was in the driver's seat. For example, she could make amendments that allow mixed use but
no residential, 35 foot base height, incentive zoning for things like outdoor dining and less parking,
current buffers respected, SMP, etc. She noted the process had nothing to do with code or zoning; it was
simply moving it forward to staff to amend the Master Plan in accordance with input over the past 11/2
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 5, 2013
Page 8
Packet Page 11 of 74
months. Mr. Taraday advised the motion before the Council is to deny the amendment. All the concepts
Councilmember Buckshnis mentioned could be accomplished via amendments to the Master Plan.
Councilmember Buckshnis advised the Planning Board could be asked to investigate certain items during
the process. Mr. Taraday answered the Council could also ask City staff to investigate. Councilmember
Buckshnis summarized she did not support the Harbor Square Master Plan in its current form but was
willing to move forward with amendments such as no residential, 35 foot base height, even something
like a warehouse district with restaurants on top of warehouses. Tonight's discussion was about process
not the code. Mr. Taraday answered the Council was talking about what they wanted the Comprehensive
Plan to say about the Harbor Square property. If the Council did not like the proposal, it could be
amended to incorporate Councilmember Buckshnis' suggestions.
Councilmember Johnson pointed out the Planning Board is advisory to the City Council. If something
was overlooked in their review of the proposal as Council President Petso has suggested, the Planning
Board can be asked to review it again. She felt that would be an appropriate step versus denying the entire
Harbor Square Master Plan.
If the Council denied the Harbor Square Master Plan, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the
City could use the Port's proposed Harbor Square Master Plan as a roadmap for an alternate proposal. Mr.
Taraday answered using the subarea plan as a starting point and the City making changes to incorporate
language the Council wants or removing language the Council does not support could be done via either
an amendment process or denying the Master Plan and starting over. The difference between those two
processes is denying the Master Plan and starting over would take substantially longer to reach the point
where the Master Plan is presented to the City Council again. Via the amendment process, the Master
Plan would be presented to the Council again more quickly.
Mr. Taraday summarized if it is the Council's intent to see something come back, even those who plan to
deny the Harbor Square Master Plan, the real difference between denial and amendment is the amount of
time it takes to bring it back to the Council. The process in Chapter 20.00 identifies how to amend the
Comprehensive Plan. The Council is at a stage in that process now; several steps have already been taken.
Via amendment, the Master Plan can remain at the Council level and the Council can interact with staff to
reach a point where the Council is ready to adopt the amendment. Via denying the Master Plan, the
process starts over which will require either an application from the Port or direction from the Council to
begin work on a subarea plan.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the question in her mind is whose plan is this. Currently the
documents are the Port's plan, what the Port would like the Council to approve. As Mr. Taraday said last
week, it should be the City Council's vision, not the Port's vision, and the Council represents the citizens.
The Port said last week that they are not interested in changes to the plan and she understood why they
would feel that way due to the amount of effort they have put into it. It was her understanding the Port
indicated today they may be agreeable to some changes. If the Council attempts to amend the Port's plan,
the Council becomes disingenuous to the Port and the citizens. She questioned what happened after the
Council made amendments to the Master Plan if the Port did not want the amendments.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas explained she had analyzed the public's input at the three public
hearings, people with and without a vested interest, citizens who do not live in the area but are concerned
with the view corridor, business owners, environmental advocates, etc. She questioned whether the
Council was listening to Edmonds citizens and whether they knew the citizens' vision. After three lengthy
public hearings, she has not heard any discussion of what the public has said. She questioned why the
Council had public hearings if they did not listen to the input the public provided. She recognized citizens
had an opportunity to speak to the Port and that some citizens chose not to speak to the Port. Due to the
testimony from the public, she will support the motion to deny the Harbor Square Master Plan but wanted
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 5, 2013
Page 9
Packet Page 12 of 74
to move forward with another vision for the waterfront. She is not opposed to development, progress is
good but the Council needs to listen to the citizens.
Council President Petso commented if the Council proceeded by handling this as the Council's
Comprehensive Plan amendment, it would preempt some other business this spring because it will
consume staff, attorney, and Council time. She asked whether the Port, the original applicant, could ask
the Council to stop making revisions to their proposed amendment if they preferred the existing
Comprehensive Plan to whatever the Council develops. Mr. Taraday answered the Port initiated a
legislative process by applying for a Comprehensive Plan amendment. There is no guarantee the result
will be anything remotely like what they started with. The City's procedures related to Comprehensive
Plan amendments state the Council can approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove and there is
no boundary to modifications. The Council could modify it in a manner that it is unrecognizable. Council
President Petso asked whether the property owner had any way to return to the existing Comprehensive
Plan language other than apply for another Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Taraday answered it is
no different than any other Comprehensive Plan amendment the City would process.
Council President Petso commented the difference is the Council usually says yes or no; she was not
familiar with the Council making major modifications to a Comprehensive Plan amendment without
going through the Planning Board or checking with the property owner. She summarized the amendment
was totally in the Council's control. Mr. Taraday agreed.
Councilmember Yamamoto commented although there has been a lot of public input, there are 21,000
voters in the City, and the Council has not heard from all of them. It is a process; the Council listens to
the public, everyone has ideas, including Councilmembers. Many people would like to see the process go
forward, but not because they like everything in the Master Plan. The Council has the ability to make
modifications to the proposal, to develop a Plan B or C. That option cannot be developed if the motion to
deny the Harbor Square Master Plan is approved. He felt starting over would be a disservice; if the Port's
ideas are quashed, there is no opportunity for progress. He summarized it is not necessarily the Council's
plan; it is the citizen's plan, the City's plan, the Harbor Square plan. He acknowledged not everyone likes
a 55-foot height limit or allowing residential uses on the site, but those things can be addressed via the
process. He did not support the motion to deny the Harbor Square Master Plan.
Mayor Earling observed by closing the public hearing last week, that sets in motion a clock whereby
action must be taken within 60 days. Mr. Taraday agreed ECDC 20.00.040 refers to a 60-day time period
and that 60-day time period began a week ago when the public hearing was closed. However, the only
thing that needs to happen within 60 days is that the Council considers the recommendation. He read the
language in 20.00.040, within 60 days of receipt of the Planning Board's recommendation and the
completion of the public hearing required by ECDC 20.00.020, the City Council shall consider the
recommendation and may at that time or subsequently approve, approve with modifications, or
disapprove the proposed amendment.
Councilmember Bloom disagreed with Mr. Taraday's statements about the Comprehensive Plan being the
Council's vision, pointing out the Comprehensive Plan is the citizens' vision and has been developed over
many years. The Comprehensive Plan reflects creating a destination, drawing visitors from around the
area, a year-round market, etc.; it does not say citizens want an urban village on the waterfront. For the 28
years she has lived in the City, citizens have supported low heights, voting for elected officials who
maintain the low heights in the downtown area. She emphasized the importance of not allowing
residential uses on the Harbor Square site, because allowing that use will force the Council to increase
heights because it will not be feasible for the developer to develop at 35 feet. In order to reflect the
citizens' vision, modifications would have to prohibit residences and have a 35 feet building height the
same as the contract rezone, the 150-200 feet setbacks in the SMP, and the 150 foot setback from the
marsh. She concluded those modifications would reflect the citizens' vision, the Comprehensive Plan and
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 5, 2013
Page 10
Packet Page 13 of 74
how citizens have voted for at least the past 28 years, but would make the proposed Master Plan
unrecognizable. She did not feel it made sense to amend the proposed Master Plan.
Councilmember Buckshnis advised she has read five different Comprehensive Plans, they are all very
non-specific. She recognized citizens did not want 55-foot heights. She suggested amendments to the
Harbor Square Master Plan such as including current buffers respected for current footprint and mixed
use — no residential. She supported moving the process forward similar to Westgate, Firdale Village, and
Five Corners. Even if the Master Plan was unrecognizable to the Port, it would reflect the citizens' vision.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the Port could withdraw their Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Mr. Taraday responded the code does not speak to that; he did not know what the point would be to have
the Port withdraw their application at this point; it is before the Council for legislative action.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested the Port may want to withdraw if they believe what the
Council is interested in may be counter to their interests. Mr. Taraday answered ultimately no, because
the Council could commence its own Comprehensive Plan amendment to reflect their vision for the
property. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas concluded, beware of what you ask for because you may get it.
At Mayor Earling's request, City Clerk Sandy Chase reread the motion:
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, THAT
THE COUNCIL DENY THE HARBOR SQUARE MASTER PLAN.
Mayor Earling clarified a yes vote denied the Master Plan and a no vote was to defeat the motion.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND
COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING YES; AND
COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON, YAMAMOTO, PETERSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO.
Council President Petso reviewed upcoming meeting dates and Councilmember absences:
• February 12 — Committee night
• February 19 — Councilmember Buckshnis and possibly another Councilmember absent
• February 26 — Councilmember Peterson absent
• March 5 — Councilmember Peterson absent
0 March 12 — Committee night
Council President Petso explained there did not appear to be a way to schedule this without at least one
Councilmember absent; the next work session is February 26. Mayor Earling pointed out an absent
Councilmember had the option of participating by phone. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled it
would be inconvenient for Councilmember Buckshnis and Councilmember Peterson to call in.
Councilmember Peterson advised perhaps impossible for him as he will be out of the country. Council
President Petso suggested scheduling it on March 19.
Councilmember Peterson advised March 19 would give Councilmembers an opportunity to talk with staff
and for staff to develop a document with the Council's ideas and ideas from the public hearing.
Scheduling it sooner than March 19 would be a fast turnaround for both staff and the Council.
Mayor Earling asked if that would fit within the 60 day timeframe. Acting Development Services Director
Rob Chave answered March 19 would be a reasonable timeframe for staff. He expected Councilmembers
would submit their suggestions/recommendations. Staff would present those on March 19 and if the
Council agreed to a draft, a public hearing could then be scheduled. Mayor Earling encouraged
Councilmembers to submit their ideas to staff and/or have meetings to discuss certain points. Mr. Chave
recognized it may take more than one work session to develop a draft.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 5, 2013
Page 11
Packet Page 14 of 74
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS YAMAMOTO, FRALEY-
MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS, PETERSON AND JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL
PRESIDENT PETSO AND COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING NO.
6. PARKS STAFFING AND BUDGET AMENDMENT REOUEST
Parks & Recreation Commission Carrie Hite explained the Parks Department made significant cuts over
the past two years, including 1.5 FTE and all seasonal in 2013. After two months, the pressure is being
felt by office staff and following a job analysis, it was determined another 0.5 FTE is needed. She
requested reinstatement of the 0.5 FTE that was cut from Parks office staff. The one-time April 1 —
December 31, 2013 cost is $24,000. She will identify how to fund it in the 2014 budget. Due to under -
spending and generating more revenue than anticipated, the Parks Department left approximately
$200,000 in the budget in 2012. She requested authorization for a budget amendment for $24,000 funded
from the carryover from 2012.
Mayor Earling explained an already reduced staff was reduced by 9 this year. In a comparison of staff to
population in other cities in the Puget Sound region, Edmonds has one of the lowest staff per capita ratios.
Although there were good intentions to spread the workload, this is becoming a problem in other
departments.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed her support for reinstating the 0.5 FTE, relaying Ms. Hite
presented this to the Finance Committee. Although there were good intentions, the cuts are have made too
much impact and work is not being done. She expressed her appreciation for the cuts Ms. Hite made,
recalling she made more cuts than required.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO
APPROVE A BUDGETARY REQUEST TO REINSTATE .5 FTE PARKS SR. OFFICE
SPECIALIST.
Councilmember Johnson relayed her understanding a part time staff would be restored to full-time. Ms.
Hite answered a full-time office staff was given a 0.5 layoff notice due to budget cuts. According to SEIU
and union labor rules, that person must be recalled first.
Councilmember Peterson expressed his support, recalling the agenda packet mentioned the possibility of
decreased revenues without the restoration, impacts on staff morale and potential future staff departures.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
7. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON THE PORT OF EDMONDS REQUEST TO INCORPORATE
THE HARBOR SQUARE MASTER PLAN INTO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
To the question why the Port's Master Plan was an attachment to the packet, Mayor Earling explained
staff attached it as a point of reference, not as the plan the Council was currently, necessarily working on.
He relayed he had been contacted by Councilmembers Buckshnis and Councilmember Johnson who
wanted to make motions prior to tonight's discussion. As he heard from Councilmember Buckshnis first,
she will speak first.
Councilmember Buckshnis offered to clarify the intent of the Council's deliberation tonight. Many emails
and telephone calls she has received indicate there is confusion with the upcoming deliberation process.
She explained it is clear the citizens of Edmonds assign great value to downtown building height
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 19, 2013
Page 8
Packet Page 15 of 74
limitations. In her opinion, it was with great arrogance the Port put forward a development plan requiring
a Comprehensive Plan amendment that would significant change the height limits with no guarantee to
citizens regarding what they would receive in return for this non -monetary capital. The downtown height
limits provide inherent value to many citizens and they deserve to know the return they will receive for
the lost value. Promises draped around fluffy language regarding environmental sensitivity and open
space is not enough, the only specifics in the Port's plan were heights and setbacks.
Councilmember Buckshnis stated tonight is an opportunity to discuss parameters for the Harbor Square
Development Plan based on a staff prepared draft utilizing information obtained from each
Councilmember. She hoped to move the discussion within the community away from the emotion,
speculation and fear of opposing sides and begin to address the non -monetary capital. The community
deserves to understand what has and can be achieved with private -public partnerships that work through
the use of incentives. Incentive zoning may be a valuable approach to building consensus and ensuring
the development that occurs is desirable and moves the community forward and non -monetary items are
exchanged and discussed. For example, she would be willing to listen to 5-10 foot height increase in
exchange for a significant amount of money for restoring the marsh. Even though she was a strict height
person, she was also a strict environmentalist.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO WORK WITH THE STAFF -PROVIDED DRAFT OF THE SUBAREA PLAN KNOWN AS
HARBOR SQUARE AS A BASIS TO DEVELOP A NEW PLAN.
Council President Petso commented she was not prepared to move any draft ahead without discussion.
The agenda item was noticed without an action, but rather a discussion with the intent of working toward
a final draft. The draft in the packet is labeled discussion draft. She will oppose the motion in hopes of
hearing the staff presentation and having an open discussion.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented although she has been reviewed this, she was not ready to
take a vote on it. She noted four Councilmembers have provided input into the Harbor Square plan, input
that was only provided to Council in the last day or two. The Councilmembers' input is incorporated into
the issue table but neither she nor the citizens have had an opportunity to review the Councilmembers
input. She preferred to continue the discussion.
Councilmember Buckshnis explained her intent was to clarify that the Council was no longer working off
the Port's Master Plan. The motion simply states the Council is no longer looking at the Port plan.
Mayor Earling clarified the motion is to focus on the staff -provided draft.
Councilmember Yamamoto explained the staff -provided draft was developed using Council and citizen
comments. He liked many of the options but was unsure the Port would. He expressed his support for the
motion.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas advised neither the Council nor citizens have had an opportunity to
review the proposal from four Councilmembers as they were just provided yesterday and today and many
of the comments were new. She was not comfortable with proceeding as much of the material had not yet
been discussed.
Councilmember Peterson clarified the motion is not to approve the document; it is simply to use the staff -
provided plan as a starting point and the basis for further discussion. This seems a very reasonable way to
show the process was working, that compromises have been identified, language has been changed, etc.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 19, 2013
Page 9
Packet Page 16 of 74
To Councilmember Fraley-Monillas's comment that only four Councilmembers have had input, Mayor
Earling explained staff has tried to incorporate any/all suggestions into Exhibit 3. That document was
provided in the Council packet Friday. He suggested starting the discussion with Exhibit 3.
Councilmember Buckshnis clarified the issue she was trying to address was that many citizens still think
the Council is working off the Port's Harbor Square Master Plan. Via her motion, she wanted to make it
clear that the Council was no longer considering the Port's original plan.
Council President Petso agreed a good place to start would be Exhibit 3. She preferred to see staff's
presentation and begin discussion.
Councilmember Bloom did not see the point of making a motion prior to discussion. The only thing that
seems to have been excluded is Exhibit 4, Council President Petso's revised downtown master plan. Other
than a clarification that the Council was not working off the Port's Master Plan in Exhibit 1, she was
uncertain a motion was needed.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas preferred to hear the staff presentation before taking a vote.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON, PETERSON,
YAMAMOTO, AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND
COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO.
Councilmember Johnson commented staff has done an outstanding job of summarizing the issues. As she
was interested in listening to Councilmembers' discussion of the issues, to facilitate an efficient
discussion she suggested after the staff presentation, the Council work through each issue in a round-robin
format and only after discussions have been completed, begin making motions on individual parts.
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO POSTPONE ANY MOTIONS ABOUT HARBOR SQUARE PLAN ADOPTION
UNTIL THE CITY COUNCIL COMPLETES DISCUSSION OF ALL THE ISSUES. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Senior Planner Kernen Lien reviewed the process thus far:
• Port of Edmonds' process
• Planning Board review
City Council review
o Public Hearings
o Continued deliberations
At the last Council meeting regarding the Harbor Square Master Plan, Council directed staff to revise the
Harbor Square Master Plan to reflect public comments and Council discussion during the public hearings
and deliberation and Councilmembers have also submitted ideas to staff for consideration in a revised
Master Plan.
He commented on tonight's meeting materials:
• Staff has provided a modified draft plan, responding to Council's request for a version that
reflects public comments and Council discussion
• Modified plan is contained in Exhibit 2
o Rob Chave is the principal author of the revised plan
• Harbor Square Master Plan Issue Table in Exhibit 3
o Summarizes the ideas and comments heard by staff and where these are addressed in the
revised Master Plan
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 19, 2013
Page 10
Packet Page 17 of 74
o Addresses the 14 specific recommendations forwarded by the Planning Board and how they
have been addressed in the revised Master Plan
• The Port's original proposal is provided for reference and comparison in Exhibit 1
• Two Councilmembers specifically requested their comments be included in the agenda item for
tonight which are Exhibits 4 and 5
Mr. Lien commented on the revised Subarea Plan:
"Subarea" plan reflects unique status and location, consistent with Planning Board
recommendation
A more conceptual plan, emphasizing a variety of concepts available for future development.
These concepts are highlighted on page 2 of the subarea included ideas such as:
o Multi -use public space that offers opportunities for community gatherings and events
o Focus on planning for and attracting employers and businesses who could provide a stimulus
to the local economy and that take advantage of the site location.
o Emphasize a mix of uses that contribute to an active subarea, which should focus on its
location and potential for connections between the marsh, waterfront and downtown.
Does not lock in a single development scheme, but rather leaves the door open for a number of
possible development opportunities
Reflects as many comments as possible
o Many of the comments and ideas submitted by Councilmembers and heard during the public
hearing process are conflicting. Exhibit 3 from tonight's agenda memo summarizes the issues
raised during the public process and how they are addressed in the revised subarea plan
The revised Master Plan/Subarea plan is a first effort by staff to incorporate as many comments as
possible. He recognized the Council just received this at the end of last week and has not had much time
to digest this draft. The intent tonight is that Council begin discussions on the revised subarea plan and
provide feedback to staff to move forward with potential revisions to the plan for Harbor Square.
Mayor Earling requested Councilmember Johnson clarify her suggestion. Councilmember Johnson
explained her intent was to encourage an open and frank discussion without the need to make motions.
She suggested thoroughly discussing each of the issues in Exhibit 3 before proceeding to the next issue.
The Council was agreeable to this process.
Residential Uses
Councilmember Buckshnis was impressed and pleased with what staff prepared. She did not see where
residential would fit with Dayton and the new marsh setbacks. However, she was very supportive of
affordable housing which includes dense, small units. She recognized it is a balance and compromise. She
was open minded about residential uses particularly affordable housing, pointing out access to the train,
ferry, etc. would be very advantageous to young families.
Councilmember Peterson also recognized staff for developing this plan and the Port for starting the
process. He was in favor of limited residential uses. Early in the process he thought this could be a
residential -driven area but via discussions, he recognized the other side and that there is a compromise to
be made. He supports affordable housing, noting Edmonds is prime for that type of development, smaller
units for people who are downsizing from single family homes and its proximity to transportation
provides a great opportunity for young professionals. He noted much of the residential in the Port's
original plan had a view of the marsh which provides a built-in support network. The marsh is a financial
investment for those who have purchased homes that have a view of the marsh as well as an emotion
connection. That is one of the reasons Edmonds is a leader in environmental issues because residents' see
Puget Sound every day. He encouraged residential uses that take advantage of the view of the marsh,
anticipating many new residents would be interested in joining Friends of the Edmonds Marsh. He agreed
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 19, 2013
Page 11
Packet Page 18 of 74
there was a balance between environmental issues and residential uses. He also supported allowing some
of the existing businesses to shift to other parts of the development while still flourishing. He summarized
there is space for residential uses and he was hopeful a developer would be interested in that concept.
Council President Petso commented one of the difficulties she had was the desire to create a destination
on this site as stated in the Comprehensive Plan; however, residential was not a destination for anyone
other than the residents. She questioned how affordable housing other than subsidized housing could be
constructed on this site. If residential uses are allowed, she suggested it be on the northern end due to the
geologic hazards on the site. She also suggested limiting the square footage that would be devoted to
housing. She suggested 20% but recognized it could be anything.
Councilmember Bloom relayed her strong belief that residential was incompatible with a destination. The
goals in the City's 2005 Downtown Waterfront Plan for the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center
include promoting downtown Edmonds as a setting for retail, office, entertainment, and associated
businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community and as a destination for
visitors throughout the region. The 2012 Comprehensive Plan contains the same wording. She referred to
page 55 of the Comprehensive Plan that states this area is appropriate for design driven master plan
development which provides for a mix of uses and takes advantage of its strategic location between the
waterfront and downtown. Situated in the bottom of the bowl can enable a design that provides for higher
buildings outside current view corridors. She stressed there was nothing in the Comprehensive Plan about
residential.
Councilmember Bloom advised the proposed plan includes residential which creates an urban village.
There is nothing in the Comprehensive Plan about an urban village. The zoning of Harbor Square is
General Commercial, does not include residential and the code states no residential, no places of
employment and no places of public assembly can be constructed without appropriate geotechnical
studies. She did not feel there was consistency between an urban village in any form and a destination,
pointing out no one goes to an urban village as a destination.
Councilmember Bloom agreed with Council President Petso's concern about the ability to provide any
affordable housing on the property. The Port's original feasibility study did not take into account the cost
to make the building earthquake safe. She summarized the idea that any housing on the site could be
affordable was unrealistic.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented the intent was to identify parameters; they may or may not work.
She referred to units above Trader Joes and Target stores that work and those are destinations. There is
also the potential for live -work units. She summarized many things can be done creatively but that comes
after a decision regarding mixed use that may include residential.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed interest in a destination such as a hotel zone where there
would be a variety of boutique hotels. She had concerns with this process, fearing the result would simply
be argument back and forth.
Councilmember Johnson commented when she first saw the plan proposed by the Port, the majority,
approximately 60%, was residential with the assumption of vacant land. However, the existing and future
development needs to be considered. With regard to residential uses, she noted there is not a big
difference between people who stay in a hotel or in their own residence. She relayed some people are
ready to move to a condominium on this site; the views of the water and marsh make it ideal for
residential at a higher level. She agreed with Councilmember Peterson's comment that ownership would
provide eyes for the marsh. A business park with 9-5 residents does not provide a complete community;
the intent is to enhance the community. With regard to parking, residential can complement and use less
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 19, 2013
Page 12
Packet Page 19 of 74
parking than other land uses. She questioned how the Council could control the percentage of residential
that would be allowed in a proposed development.
Council President Petso commented if the Council could not control the percentage of housing, she would
be satisfied with no housing. She disagreed a hotel use was similar to a residential use; people staying in a
hotel are much more likely to spend money in the community, particularly at restaurants, than people
living in residential units. A hotel use may provide advantages for area merchants. She asked how
affordable housing could be provided and if it could not, she would support no housing.
Councilmember Peterson commented there are a number of ways the City can create affordable housing
such as limiting the square footage of a unit as a smaller unit is less expensive. The City can, via a
development agreement or incentive zoning, require a percentage of the housing to be available for under
market value. City Attorney Jeff Taraday agreed there are ways to do that. Councilmember Peterson
commented it is done to provide diversity in many communities including very expensive neighborhoods
in Seattle. He recalled Councilmembers who stated they were interested in creating more diversity.
Councilmember Peterson reiterated the Council has the ability to create affordable house and can do it in
any multi -family zone. One of the keys to being an environmentally sustainable community is giving
people options for transit. The train station, bus routes, and the ferry, provide multiple transportation
options and he supported residential uses that could take advantage of those options. He looked forward
to a creative compromise that did not hamstring development. For example, flexibility that would allow a
developer to build a hotel if that was feasible. He noted one of the new waves in hotels is a combination
of hotels and residences. He agreed a boutique hotel would be fantastic addition but residential does not
preclude a hotel.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested Snohomish County Tomorrow provide a presentation to the
Council on affordable housing. Affordable housing can be smaller units geared toward youth.
Councilmember Yamamoto spoke in favor of residential uses including affordable housing. The
Downtown Master Plan calls for mixed use and the Shoreline Master Plan allows for residential.
Residential uses will provide revenue and mixed use will bring people to the area. Until a developer
creates a plan, this is all speculation.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out the downtown near waterfront area is not the only area for
affordable housing. She suggested Highway 99 would be a more suitable place for affordable, transit
oriented housing.
Councilmember Bloom commented an urban village, which is what housing would create, is not
consistent with a destination. Since at least 2005 Edmonds citizens have envisioned a destination for that
area. There is already a mix of uses including restaurants and commercial. Adding residential uses goes in
a different direction from destination, requiring uses to cater to the needs of the residents. She questioned
someone wanting to live in a residence with a rooftop restaurant above or a retail store below. Residential
will also require parking, limiting the amount of parking for visitors who will spend money in the City.
The Port is asking to change the Comprehensive Plan as well as the zoning and to allow residents even
though the code says nothing greater than 2500 square feet can be approved without a geotechnical study.
If the Council insists on pursuing residences, she will insist the Planning Department present all the
information to the Planning Board so they can determine what that means and what the real cost of
building will be in terms of infrastructure, seismic hazards, the floodplain, shading of the marsh, etc.
Councilmember Bloom pointed out there is a link between housing and height. The Port has said they
need a certain number of residences and height; the retail, paths and bikeways are only an afterthought. If
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 19, 2013
Page 13
Packet Page 20 of 74
the Council agrees to residential uses, the Council is agreeing to increased heights and making this an
urban village rather than a destination. A destination could be created under the current code.
Councilmember Johnson referred to places that she considers destinations such as Granville Island in
Vancouver, a place that has hotels, jobs, and live -work artist spaces so that visitors can see the artists at
work. Another example is a workspace project in Everett, adaptive reuse of an old industrial building for
artists to live and work. She agreed this could be a destination with many public amenities that draw on
the environmental resources of the marsh, the arts and culture and historical aspects of Edmonds. She
supported continued discussion regarding residential uses.
Council President Petso commented one of the criteria for a Comprehensive Plan amendment is it
maintain the appropriate balance of land uses in the City. Duplicating existing residential stock probably
does not meet that criteria; live -work options may, smaller units may not.
Mayor Earling relayed in conferring with Council President Petso, it was determined a 11/2 hour
discussion regarding the Harbor Square plan can be scheduled on next week's agenda.
Height and Bulk
Council President Petso relayed her first concern is bulk provisions because neither the Port's plan nor
this plan include any bulk limitations. Bulk limitations would be valuable for preserving the small town
character and quality that people think of in downtown Edmonds. Although there is some effort to make
large bulk buildings look smaller by modulating the fagade but there does not seem to be anything to
prevent a building stretching the entire length of Dayton Avenue. She suggested limiting the bulk of
specific buildings.
With regard to heights, Council President Petso observed citizens were not interested in 55-foot heights
but anticipated citizens would find 35 feet acceptable as that is the current height limit. She commented
the current 35 foot height limit was bought via a contract rezone. She suggested using incentive zoning
between 25 and 35 feet rather which she expected would cause less public outrage than the Port's initial
proposal.
Councilmember Buckshnis questioned why Councilmembers continue to refer to the Port's proposal. The
staff -provided plan is what is currently being discussed. She referred to non -monetary assets, pointing out
the marsh would not clean or restore itself. The only way to restore the marsh is via a private -public
partnership which requires incentives such as height, affordable housing or residential. She spoke in favor
of a collection of incentives options so citizens can see why things are being given away. She noted if a
developer provided $1 million to restore the marsh, she might consider an additional 10 feet in building
height. The current Harbor Square fagade is 40 feet. She did not want to close the door and be stuck at 35
feet forever and she did not want to be the Councilmember that turned away from the marsh.
Councilmember Bloom supported Council President Petso's suggestion that the maximum height be 35
and possibly allow incentive zoning from 25 to 35 feet. Citizens have been clear regarding where they
stand on height and she did not feel the Council should ignore years of comments, input and elections.
When the plans were presented to the Citizen Group of 33, nearly every resident who commented said do
not change the code, meaning do not add residences or increase the height. She felt the Council needed to
honor what citizens have wanted for many, many years. With creativity, a destination can be developed
without residences at the current height.
Councilmember Peterson commented he also served on the Group of 33 but the difference in recall made
it seem like he and Councilmember Bloom were at different meetings. He did not recall the Group of 33
was adamant about not making changes. Councilmember Bloom clarified it was the citizens who
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 19, 2013
Page 14
Packet Page 21 of 74
responded to the consultants' proposals, not the Group of 33 themselves. Councilmember Peterson
pointed out the Group of 33 were 33 citizens.
Councilmember Peterson agreed it was time to get creative and some of that creativity comes at a price.
The marsh is an incredible resource; it will take a lot of money and a lot of creativity to determine how to
restore it. That can be achieved by encouraging responsible development where the Council and
community dictate how things are done. That may be accomplished with a limited number of buildings at
45 feet in locations where views will not be affected. The current Harbor Square fagade is 40 feet and
citizens are not protesting. There are many reasonable voices that understand giving a little is required to
get something. Edmonds is on the forefront of many environmental issues, from coal trains to plastic bags
and protecting the marsh. Edmonds is willing to take a stands but it comes at a cost. Utilizing the marsh's
environmental beauty and educational opportunity for a destination via some concessions would be a
great opportunity.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she was fortunate to get some education from a citizen well
versed in incentive zoning and she learned it can bring great things to the City. She was willing to
consider incentive zoning for bulk. During her extensive travels over the past 11/2 year to four foreign
counties and all over the United States she has looked at what makes cities prosperous and look good. She
found it was not the tall buildings that create a warm environment, it was the street fagade. She
anticipated great incentive zoning for bulk could be developed for Harbor Square.
Councilmember Yamamoto commented a lot can be done to get green buildings and open space and to
restore the marsh and streams. It may be necessary to give up a few feet of height to achieve those.
Incentive zoning requires a tradeoff. Whether building heights are 40 or 45 feet, a developer's plans will
show what it looks like.
Council President Petso reiterated her desire for incentive zoning between the former height limit of 25
feet and 35 feet, the height limit under the contract rezone. She requested the Council exhibit some
restraint with regard to incentive zoning as the City does not have a strong record of success with
incentive zoning. She referred to a building on SR 104, constructed under incentive zoning, that called for
an LID feature if feasible which does not appear to have been provided. It also called for parking enclosed
within the building but cars stick out of the building a couple feet. As Mr. Taraday pointed out, there
needs to be an appropriately valuable incentive in order to compensate the public for what they give up. If
done in a careless, laundry list type fashion, she feared it will come back to bite the Council. She
preferred not to do incentive zoning but if incentive zoning was adopted, she suggested using the distance
between the prior base height and the contract rezone height as an incentive.
Councilmember Johnson asked whether the City could change the parameters of the contract rezone to
allow for incentive zoning between 25 and 35 feet. Mr. Taraday answered yes; the Council could zone the
property however it wanted. He referred to Council President Petso's comment that the 35 foot height was
"bought" via a contract rezone. In a typical contract rezones, it is not incentive zoning such as the City
allows 35 feet in exchange for an amenity. The property owner is allowed zoning in exchange for a
promise not to develop certain uses that are otherwise allowed in the zone. For example, if the zoning is
CG and there are 20 permitted uses in the zone, the contract rezone may limit the property owner to only
10 of the uses. In this instance, the City is starting from scratch at the Comprehensive Plan level and the
current zoning on the property is irrelevant. The future zoning must be consistent with the ultimately
adopted Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked staff to respond to Council President Petso's comments regarding
incentive zoning used in a development on SR 104. She was aware there had been some contract rezones
but was not aware there had been any incentive zoning. She asked how a contract rezone differed from
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 19, 2013
Page 15
Packet Page 22 of 74
incentive zoning. Acting Development Services Director Rob Chave answered a contract rezone typically
places limitations which is not incentive zoning. The incentive zoning Council President Petso alluded to
was a privately sponsored rezone that occurred on SR 104. Technically they did do an LID feature on the
property and they did provide parking under the building at the standard City parking dimensions.
Whether the entire vehicle fits under the building is beyond the scope of the dimensions. It technically
met the requirements of the zone and the zone was configured like an incentive zone. At Council
President Petso's suggestion and with the Council's agreement, the Planning Board is considering the
specific provisions in that zone.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if that project came to the Council. Mr. Chave answered it did, it was a
standard zone with incentive provisions. The incentive zoning that is being considered is part of the form
based code for Westgate and Five Corners.
For Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, Mr. Taraday explained once changes are made to the
Comprehensive Plan, the Council can adopt any zoning that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The current zoning or the contract zone does not limit what the Council can do. The only requirement is
that future zoning be consistent with whatever changes are made to the Comprehensive Plan.
For Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, Mr. Taraday said he personally felt incentive zoning worked very
well as long as the City had a good lawyer, like him, to assist them. There are instances in the City's code
where there is sloppily drafted language that does not function well. Incentive zoning requires more
careful drafting than regular zoning and there can be unintended consequences if not carefully drafted. He
was confident in his ability to get the Council what they wanted.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented people typically think of height as an incentive but it
actually can be many things such as expedited permitting in exchange for LEED development. Mr.
Taraday commented the longer the list of "goodies" a developer can provide, the more complex it
becomes. Having fewer things on the wish list makes it easier to draft bulletproof language.
Buffers, Setbacks and Other Environmental Issues
Councilmember Buckshnis commented she had no problems with this. She plans to recommend changes
to the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) regarding the setback for the marsh buffer related to industry
standards. The Comprehensive Plan references the SMP.
Council President Petso noted one of the criteria for a Comprehensive Plan amendment is related to
adequate public services. She pointed out the Harbor Square area routinely floods and therefore the public
services are not adequate to support the Comprehensive Plan amendment under consideration. She did not
have details regarding which buildings and/or parking lots routinely flood but assumed if flooding could
not be curtailed, residential was not a good plan for this site.
Councilmember Peterson referred to the column entitled "How Addressed in revised HSMP," that states
geological hazard and flooding issues are items that will be dealt with during project level SEPA review.
He pointed out a project proposal would not move forward if it could not address flooding. Similarly, if a
building cannot be constructed safely, the project will not move forward. He relayed he was required to
hire a geotech before having a deck constructed in his backyard.
Council President Petso reiterated it is in the criteria for review of a Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Councilmember Johnson commented the fourth criteria is triggered if there is a change to the
Comprehensive Plan policy map, if the subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use
designation and the anticipated land use development including but not limited to access, provision of
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 19, 2013
Page 16
Packet Page 23 of 74
utilities, compatibility of adjoining land uses and absence of physical constraints. She asked whether there
was potential to change the map to designate open space or a change in land use that would trigger this
criterion. Mr. Taraday assumed a map amendment would be required if the Harbor Square plan moved
forward as a subarea plan and the findings in 20.00.050(d) would need to be made by the Council. He
questioned what data the Council needed to make that finding. This is comprehensive planning and he did
not anticipate that the code intended there would be extremely detailed studies performed but rather a
high level look at physical suitability. Mr. Chave agreed with Mr. Taraday, explaining that language is
from the GMA and speaks to general plan levels of service. It is not intended to provide a project -specific
review of every location. Those are typically resolved during the development process. During the initial
phase, the question is whether the appropriate public facilities are adequate and then during project level
approval specific impacts are identified, how they are mitigated, etc.
Councilmember Johnson commented the staff report indicated there were no planned Comprehensive
Plan map changes and therefore this would not be addressed. However, if the Council pursues a subarea
plan, it can and should be addressed.
Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding that the City, as the lead agency, issued a
Determination of Non -Significance for everything but traffic. She asked whether Council could prescribe
that the geological hazard zone be considered and require a geotechnical study be done to determine
whether housing could be developed and that it was affordable to develop housing. The Port did not do
that and that was one of her major concerns with regard to the revenues the Port indicated would be
generated. Mr. Taraday referred to the criteria, including but not limited to access, provision of utilities,
compatibility with adjoining land uses and absence of physical constraints, advising the SEPA analysis
already done by is probably sufficient to allow the Council to make the findings in 20.00.050(d). Just
because staff issued a SEPA determination that satisfies 20.00.050(d) does not preclude the Council from
asking that additional information be provided if the Council needs that information to make a decision.
Councilmember Bloom said she needed that information to make a decision. She felt the Council would
be irresponsible not to be sure that earthquake safe housing can be constructed. When the code says not
more than 2500 square feet of residential, place of public assembly or employment in a geologically
hazardous area such as a seismic hazardous zone, she did not understand how the Council could approve
housing without appropriate study.
Councilmember Bloom expressed concern that there was reference to the SMP but not the Critical Areas
Ordinance (CAO) which includes the marsh and setbacks. She requested the remainder of the CAO be
honored as well as the SMP.
Councilmember Buckshnis advised the SMP impacts the marsh because the marsh is now considered a
shoreline. When the SMP is updated, she will request Section 20.40.090 include 150 feet. She reiterated
the intent was to identify parameters to include in the Comprehensive Plan; residential could be included
as an option. The Comprehensive Plan already allows mixed use in this area. She questioned why the City
would spend money on a geotechnical study; if a developer chose to construct residential, a geotechnical
study would be required at that time.
Councilmember Bloom commented once residential is included in the Comprehensive Plan, it is no
longer optional, it has to be allowed. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the Comprehensive Plan
allows mixed use. Councilmember Bloom commented mixed use is not the same as allowing residential.
The current zoning, General Commercial, does not include residential and the contract rezone specifically
states no residential.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 19, 2013
Page 17
Packet Page 24 of 74
Councilmember Bloom summarized once the Comprehensive Plan is changed to allow a use, that use has
to be allowed and the zoning has to be changed to allow that use.
Councilmember Peterson asked whether the City has to allow a use that is included in the Comprehensive
Plan but cannot be built to code. Mr. Taraday answered no. Councilmember Peterson provided the
example, would the City have to allow a developer to build residential if a geotechnical survey found
residential could not be constructed. Mr. Taraday responded with an example, if a builder said it would
only be affordable to build condominiums out of balsa wood, the City does not have to approve the
condominium project. A developer must meet all the City's development codes. He clarified while it is
true adoption of a Comprehensive Plan requires adoption of consistent zoning, it is not necessarily true
that everything that could possibly be built under the consistent zoning has to be approved if a developer
cannot meet the underlying development regulations. He summarized a developer would not get a free
pass on development regulations just because the Comprehensive Plan allows residential.
Councilmember Peterson asked whether language could be included in the subarea plan that any
residential building is subject to feasibility via geotechnical analysis. Mr. Taraday answered it could be
done but he did not believe it was legally necessary. The seismic code will apply to any development
proposed for a seismic hazardous area.
Incorporation into City's Comprehensive Plan
Councilmember Buckshnis preferred to incorporate the subarea plan by reference versus incorporating it
into the Comprehensive Plan as has been done for plans such as the hospital master plan.
Councilmember Peterson recalled the Planning Board recommended that the Harbor Square Master Plan
be incorporated in the City's Comprehensive Plan rather just be incorporated by reference. He asked for
pros and cons. Mr. Taraday answered one of the disadvantages is elements adopted by reference could be
overlooked. For example, in a recent email to the Council, he referred to the six Comprehensive Plan
elements reflected in the Comprehensive Plan table of contents but not the elements adopted by reference.
Mr. Lien answered the Planning Board felt this was an important enough issue that it should be included
in the Comprehensive Plan rather than referenced. He noted the language in the subarea plan has the same
effect whether adopted by reference or incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chave agreed there
are pros and cons and there is no set way jurisdictions adopt subarea plans. He noted if all the plans
incorporated by reference were incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan
would be very voluminous. Subarea plans are frequently adopted separately so that it can be distributed
separately to a developer interested in that area, rather than providing the entire Comprehensive Plan. The
Planning Board thought it was significant enough that it should be incorporated into the Comprehensive
Plan.
Council President Petso referred to the height and bulk section and reference to transfer of development
rights. She questioned who had suggested that as it seemed contradictory to the direction the Council is
headed. She requested staff provide an explanation regarding where the concept of transfer of
development rights came from and the impact it would have.
Mayor Earling advised discussion of the next three pages of Council comments/suggestions
communicated to staff (Exhibit 3) would be continued next week.
8. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF MARCH 12.2013.
Finance Committee
Councilmember Yamamoto reported on items discussed by the committee:
• Purchasing policy revision for Public Works projects — approved by the Council tonight.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 19, 2013
Page 18
Packet Page 25 of 74
Council President Petso asked about making the nearest area one designation and the area further inland
another designation; for example, in Edmonds' case, Conservancy status for the first 25 feet and a
different designation beyond. Mr. Pater answered there is already a parallel designation, the marsh
setback buffer is designated Urban Mixed Use III. In Redmond, along the Sammamish River there is the
established King County Conservation Easement of 100 feet; Redmond called that Conservancy. In
downtown there is an urban designation for the upland 100 feet to make it 200 feet. In Edmonds the
railroad and the residential areas are an example of a parallel designation.
Councilmember Johnson referred to the DOE's evaluation of no net loss of ecological function and asked
whether environmental factors such as vibration, noise, glare, light, etc. are used to evaluate the impact of
redevelopment on the ecological function of the marsh. Mr. Pater answered the State SMP guidelines do
not address those issues. Mr. Lien referred to required mitigation measures to reduce impact to the marsh
(page 38 of draft SMP).
Mr. Lien asked whether the Council wanted to hold another work session to address other issues prior to
the public hearing and if so, what issues he should focus on during that presentation.
Councilmember Peterson suggested another work session to address Lake Ballinger and Haines Wharf.
Council President Petso advised a work session regarding the SMP would be scheduled on April 23.
9. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON INCORPORATING THE HARBOR SQUARE MASTER PLAN
INTO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Mayor Earling explained staff s intent was for the Council to continue their review and commentary on
Exhibit 3. He recalled the Council had reviewed and commented on the first two pages at a previous
meeting.
Special Districts or Incentive Zoning
Council President Petso asked if a special district can be created without incentive zoning. City Attorney
Jeff Taraday advised incentive zoning is always optional. Acting Development Services Director Rob
Chave explained a special district such as a brewery/distillery/pub zone is related to uses. Special districts
are about uses; incentive zoning can be about uses but provides a way of encouraging a set of uses. When
referring to a general development area such as the CG zone, the general principle is there are a variety of
uses in the zone and specific properties are not designated for certain uses. With incentive zoning,
incentives can be provided that encourage each property owner to consider certain uses. Incentive zoning
provides the best way to do that when the City does not have control of the property.
Council President Petso asked what type of things can be offered via incentive zoning other than heights
and expedited permitting. Mr. Chave answered forgiving parking, bulk requirements such as setbacks, or
other bulk standards.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented she raised the issue of incentive zoning and a brewery district,
relaying it is a huge industry according to brewpub.com. She referred to a photograph of an old building
where height was added to create an upstairs restaurant. She favored incentive zoning to create synergy
from wineries, breweries, etc.
Councilmember Peterson asked at what point the Council needed to narrow the special districts or
incentive zoning, noting a brewery district or a tech campus could be great options. Mr. Chave answered
if the Council liked all the concepts and any combination, they did not need to narrow the focus. If the
Council identified some of these ideas in the Plan, the zoning needed to follow. At that point the focus
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 26, 2013
Page 17
Packet Page 26 of 74
may be narrowed. Councilmember Peterson commented although it is not a giant property, the Harbor
Square site could support a few different things. Mr. Chave agreed it depends on the scale.
Councilmember Bloom asked whether the CG zone included all the listed uses. She observed a year-
round market is in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chave answered staff would need to research that; there
may be zoning that prohibits some aspects of these uses, such as uses outside the building.
Councilmember Bloom recalled an earlier slide regarding the SMP listed uses prohibited by the contract
rezone for Harbor Square. Mr. Chave answered the zoning for Harbor Square includes the contract rezone
which limits uses otherwise allowed in the CG zone. It is important that the Comprehensive Plan say what
the Council wants and a follow-up step is ensuring the zoning is consistent.
Councilmember Bloom referred to "Roger Brooks' Concepts," and asked the Councilmember who
suggested that to elaborate. Council President Petso answered her intent was to encourage use of the
property, particularly along Dayton Street for a public gathering space; Roger Brooks' presentation
provided several examples of public gathering spaces that were boons to the surrounding businesses and
surrounding community and would help connect downtown to the waterfront.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented tourism is a billion dollar industry; the marsh is a destination and
improving the marsh will draw more visitors.
With regard to Roger Brooks' Concepts, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether those would be
listed. Mr. Chave answered the intent was not to list them but rather capture the intent. He suggested
Councilmembers identify if something was missing with regard to Roger Brooks' concepts.
Parkin
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented her vision for this area, whether it included housing, hotels,
tech companies, etc. was less parking, a parking structure and more walkability. She preferred not to have
roads connecting the buildings.
Council President Petso did not want a reduction in the amount of parking available but she agreed with
the concept of a reduced parking footprint via a parking structure.
Councilmember Peterson asked if the parking regulations were based on older models that require X
number of spaces per 1000 square feet. Mr. Chave answered yes. Councilmember Peterson relayed new
thoughts about residential in urban settings is to reduce parking requirements to encourage people to have
one car and take advantage of public transportation. Mr. Chave answered the Planning Board and the
Highway 99 Task Force have discussed different approaches to parking requirements. The general
principal is when more transit is available, less parking is potentially needed because people will use
transit. It is also tied to the type of uses that locate around transit. There have also been discussions about
developing a flat parking ratio. He relayed one of the problems with establishing parking by specific use
is changes in parking requirements when uses change. In addition it is nearly impossible to track over
time as well as problematic for attracting/encouraging businesses to turn over. He provided the example
of a restaurant which has much higher parking requirements that wanted to replace a service business.
This was remedied downtown by establishing a flat rate; Harbor Square may be another opportunity for a
flat rate. The challenge is determining the rate. There could be a requirement established that anyone
developing in Harbor Square is required to conduct a parking study at the time of development rather than
predetermining a parking ratio. Structured parking could be part of incentive zoning; highly incentivize
structured parking versus surface parking.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 26, 2013
Page 18
Packet Page 27 of 74
Councilmember Peterson referred to the SMP and pollutants washing into the marsh, noting this is a
perfect opportunity to get creative with parking and keep pollutants out of the marsh. Mr. Chave
suggested Councilmembers look at an aerial map of the waterfront on Google Maps; it is a sea of asphalt.
Councilmember Johnson commented one of the newer concepts related to trip generation is looking at
activity centers rather than looking at parking on a use -by -use basis. A balance of job and housing has the
potential to reduce parking due to different trip generation rates. Structured parking is usually 3-4 times
more expensive than surface parking but a more desirable use of land in a compact development.
Councilmember Buckshnis described a block in North Carolina where there is a Trader Joes on the first
floor with apartments above, and three stories of parking and a Target store across the street. She
envisioned structured parking as an incentive, noting there is also the potential to locate a restaurant or a
viewing platform on the roof of a parking structure. She viewed structured parking as a great incentive.
Councilmember Bloom inquired about residential parking requirements. Mr. Chave answered it is a
sliding scale tied to the number of bedrooms, from 1.2 spaces for a studio up to 2 spaces per unit for 2+
bedrooms. Councilmember Bloom asked about the parking requirement for restaurants. Mr. Lien
answered the parking for restaurants is 1 space per 200 square feet. Mr. Chave described a scenario where
a building was constructed outside the downtown area and the parking ratio was based on office use with
no customer service which is 1 space per 800 square feet. What frequently happens is that office use is
replaced by an office that has customer service and there is inadequate parking. A general parking
requirement rather than parking requirements by use avoids that issue.
Councilmember Bloom asked if that could be done in a specific area without expending it citywide. Mr.
Chave answered yes, for example it was done downtown several years ago; a flat 1 space per 500 square
feet regardless of the business. The key is determining the number; different areas of the City would have
different standards. For example the parking standard on Highway 99 would be much different than Five
Corners where parking could spill over into residential areas.
Councilmember Bloom asked if structured parking could have free parking for residents and paid -parking
for visitors. Mr. Chave answered parking management is generally not addressed in the code. The
regulations can address shared parking. Peak hours of different uses can balance each other, reducing
overall parking requirements.
Council President Petso asked about the requirements for a destination type facility such as the ECA. Mr.
Chave stated it is typically based on the capacity of the facility, either square footage or number of seats.
Council President Petso asked whether structured parking could be required. Mr. Chave answered it could
be; the expense should be kept in mind.
Connectivity
Council President Petso envisioned the presence of a Roger Brooks' feature, a gathering space on Dayton,
as an asset to connectivity. Conversely, she did not consider buildings on Dayton casting permanent shade
on the sidewalk to be an enhancement to connectivity.
Councilmember Bloom recalled the Transportation Comprehensive Plan talks about a shuttle from the
neighborhoods with downtown. She asked if that could be included in Harbor Square to reduce the
necessity for parking. Mr. Chave answered that is a program rather than a use and would be unusual to
include in a Master Plan. The plan could refer to a shuttle as an example of a way to connect the
development to other areas. Councilmember Bloom asked about including bike and walking paths in the
Plan. Mr. Chave answered there is already a fair amount of discussion in the Plan regarding bike and
walking paths including connections offsite to existing and future pathways.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 26, 2013
Page 19
Packet Page 28 of 74
Planning Board Recommendations
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the Planning Board's recommendations were made regarding the
Port's Master Plan but issues such as the 55 foot height limit are no longer applicable. Mayor Earling
advised some recommendations are potentially relevant and they have been included in staff s proposal.
Council President Petso expressed willingness to forego discussion of the Planning Board's
recommendations if she could be assured whatever the Council developed would be reviewed by the
Planning Board.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out staff has addressed the Planning Board's recommendations in the
column on the right.
Councilmember Peterson agreed with Councilmember Buckshnis that staff has incorporated many of the
Planning Board's recommendations in the Plan. He did not view the changes to be significant enough to
warrant another review by the Planning Board.
Mayor Earling suggested discussing staff's responses to the Planning Board's recommendations at a
future meeting.
Councilmember Bloom agreed with Mayor Earling's suggestion.
Councilmember Johnson also agreed with Mayor Earling's suggestion. She observed members of the
Planning Board have been present during the Council's discussion. She thanked the Planning Board for
the work they have done.
Councilmember Peterson suggested Councilmembers email Council President Petso and staff with their
concerns about the 14 Planning Board recommendations. Mayor Earling requested Councilmembers
provide their comments to staff by Tuesday, April 2.
Council President Petso advised further discussion would be tentatively scheduled on the April 16
meeting.
10. REPORT ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Councilmember Buckshnis reported she was unable to attend the WRIA 8 meeting. She reported the
Snohomish County Tomorrow meeting will include review of the 2035 growth targets, the
Interjurisdictional Housing Agreement, and the Dispute Resolution Mediation pilot program.
Councilmember Bloom reported the Economic Development Commission discussed land use incentives,
possibly providing quarterly updates to Council, a form for communicating with the community, whether
the EDC could be involved in the coal train issues, and tourism activities.
Councilmember Bloom reported the Tree Board discussed fees for tree cutting, the City's Urban Forestry
Management Plan and a suggestion to meet with the Mayor's Climate Change Committee.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported an audio of EDC meetings is now available online on the City's
website. She reported the South County City's dinner included discussion regarding changing the way
issues are raised with the legislature such as approaching them before the session begins and holding
legislators accountable for cities' requests.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported on a meeting Councilmember Bloom, Planning Commissioner
Val Stewart and she attended regarding rain gardens. Rain gardens can be beneficial in private yards as
well as City -owned land.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 26, 2013
Page 20
Packet Page 29 of 74
10. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON INCORPORATING THE HARBOR SQUARE MASTER PLAN
INTO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
Council President Petso relayed a request from Councilmember Peterson, who was unable to be at
tonight's meeting and was unable to phone in, that the Council not take definitive action on this item
tonight. Council President Petso hoped the Council would achieve clarity on options in light of the Port's
decision to withdraw their application.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented there seems to be a tremendous amount of confusion as was
indicated during audience comments. The Council has not finished the process and has not reviewed the
Planning Board's recommendations. She relayed her understanding the Council was moving through a
subarea plan, however, the agenda memo states because the Port has withdrawn their application for a
master plan, continued planning for Harbor Square would require docketing a new plan proposal. City
Attorney Jeff Taraday answered he did not draft the agenda memo. The City Code does not state what
happens in the event a Comprehensive Plan amendment application is withdrawn by the applicant. It is a
legislative process and a legislative determination; therefore an argument can be made that the Council
can proceed, notwithstanding withdrawal of an application. Even if the Council decided it wanted to start
the process over to ensure there was no confusion, it could conclude its deliberations at this state, and
remand to the Planning Board with direction and guidance regarding the subarea plan and the Planning
Board could conduct public hearings. He envisioned the Council would have opted to send the plan back
to the Planning Board for further public comment in light of the significant changes that have been made
even if the Port had not withdrawn its application.
With regard to docketing, Mr. Taraday referred to ECDC 20.00.020 that states upon receipt of a
completed application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment or upon direction of the Council and
following department review, hearings shall be set before the Planning Board and City Council. He
clarified under this code provision an application was not required to start the process, only the direction
of the City Council was required. It is less clear what happens if the Council chooses to proceed forward.
The City Council has the legislative discretion to restart its own planning process and send it back to the
Planning Board.
Councilmember Buckshnis summarized her understanding that the Council could move forward if they
chose. She asked whether the Port could reapply in the future using the same application if the Council
chose not to move forward. Mr. Taraday answered yes.
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed all Councilmembers should be present when a decision is made. She
referred to Mr. Reidy's question whether the City Council technically denied the Port's plan by rejecting
the Port's plan and moving forward with a new plan. Mr. Taraday advised the code allows the Council to
modify an application. He referred to 20.00.040, the City Council shall consider the recommendation and
may at that time or subsequently, approve, approve with modifications or disapprove the proposed
amendment. He acknowledged there could be a question regarding what was meant by approve with
modifications. The final City Council modifications are not yet known and therefore it is difficult to say
whether the final modifications would have been similar enough to the Port's application to be considered
an approval with modifications.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the Harbor Square subarea plan could be tabled and other
subarea plans such as Westgate and Five Corners that include incentive zoning, bonuses, and base height,
moved forward. Mr. Taraday answered the withdrawal of the application alleviates the Council from the
timelines in 20.00.040 as there is no longer an applicant waiting for the Council to take action.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 16, 2013
Page 14
Packet Page 30 of 74
Councilmember Buckshnis advised she preferred to continue with the process but wait until all
Councilmembers were present.
Council President Petso referred to legal advice reflected in the February 5, 2013 minutes that the Council
could modify the plan however it wanted and there was no requirement that the modifications resemble
the Port's original plan. Yet tonight Mr. Taraday used the language "similar enough" when referring to
modifications. She asked if the process had to start over if the plan was not similar enough. Mr. Taraday
answered the code was not clear when a change was significant enough that it must go back to the
Planning Board. He recalled the discussion at the February meeting was whether the City Council was
required to make an up/down decision on the Port's vision or could it embark on its own visioning
exercise. His legal advice at that time was the Council could embark on its own visioning exercise.
Whether the Council would want to send that back to the Planning Board out of an abundance of caution
to provide the public process contemplated by ECDC 20.00 may have depended upon what the Council's
final deliberations looked like. Council President Petso recalled at the February meeting, it was
contemplated the Port may bail on the plan if the Council did not stay true enough to their original
proposal. And if the Port bailed, the Council could continue working on a modified proposal.
Council President Petso asked if there was any legal effect of the Port's decision to withdraw their
application. Mr. Taraday answered there was no legal effect on the ultimate outcome; the City Council
can develop a subarea plan for the Harbor Square property; it does not matter whether the Port likes the
City's plan. It is less clear procedurally. Out of an abundance of caution and to provide the full public
process contemplated by ECDC 20.00, it may be prudent for the City Council to send the plan back to the
Planning Board.
Council President Petso asked whether it would be cleaner if the Council denied the Port's Harbor Square
Master Plan and sent a new subarea plan through the full public process. Mr. Taraday answered the Port's
withdrawal of their application makes denial a moot point.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the statement in the Port's letter, "the Council formally voted to
stop consideration of the Port's proposed Master Plan," was accurate. Mr. Taraday answered he was
uncertain the exact verbiage of the motion but recalled certain Councilmembers made comments to that
effect. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas questioned if the Port would have withdrawn their application if
there was not a vote to stop consideration. Mr. Taraday responded that was a question for the Port.
Councilmember Bloom read the motion: "Councilmember Buckshnis moved, seconded by
Councilmember Peterson, to work with the staff -provided draft of the subarea plan known as Harbor
Square as a basis to develop a new plan. The motion passed 4-3." She assumed that was the action the
Port was referring to. Mr. Taraday reiterated that was a question for the Port. His interpretation of the
motion was the City Council would continue planning for Harbor Square in a way that was not
necessarily tied to the proposal made by the Port. Because he never saw the results of the City Council's
process, he was unable to say that it was a fair characterization that the City Council was no longer
considering the Port's plan. The process would need to be concluded in order to judge whether Council's
plan contained any similarities to the Port's plan.
Council President Petso asked the normal procedure for a Council -initiated Comprehensive Plan
amendment. Mr. Lien referred to ECDC 20.00, explaining a party could request a Comprehensive Plan
amendment or it could be directed by the City Council. If started by the City Council, direction would be
given to the Planning Board to work on the amendment followed by the same process followed for the
Harbor Square Master Plan, deliberations and public hearing at the Planning Board and a
recommendation to the City Council. He summarized the same process is followed; only the initiation is
different.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 16, 2013
Page 15
Packet Page 31 of 74
Council President Petso recalled the process typically includes public hearings at the Planning Board over
the summer, public hearing at Council and adoption in December. Mr. Lien explained there typically is
more than one Comprehensive Plan amendment in a year; the Council may consider and make decisions
on several amendments and they are all approved in one ordinance at the end of the year. Mr. Taraday
explained if the City Council drafted a subarea plan for Harbor Square, it would not necessarily be tied to
that schedule. Council President Petso summarized her understanding the normal process would start at
the Planning Board with public hearing and adoption by the Council in December. Mr. Lien explained
applications for private amendments must be submitted by December 31 for consideration in the
following year. The City may also docket elements of the Comprehensive Plan such as the Sewer
Comprehensive Plan that is being considered this year. All the Comprehensive Plan amendments are then
adopted via one ordinance.
Council President Petso asked if the Council made a determination by May 7, could an amendment go
through the normal process this year? Mr. Lien answered the agenda memo also addresses concerns with
staffing if the planning process were to begin again. Given current priorities such as the code rewrite and
increased permitting as well as current staffing levels, there are concerns about whether there are
sufficient resources to undertake this work. Council President Petso asked whether a high level
Comprehensive Plan amendment would be less burdensome on staff than a detailed subarea plan. Mr.
Lien answered there may be fewer meetings but the process takes the same amount of time.
Councilmember Yamamoto asked if a subarea plan would be easier since there were not the time limits
associated with a Comprehensive Plan amendment. He was uncertain why the process would be started
over again. Mr. Lien answered subarea plans do not adhere to the once a year Comprehensive Plan
amendment schedule and could be adopted whenever the Council completed it. A subarea plan does not
provide more brevity as far as staff time and input.
Councilmember Buckshnis complimented staff on the work they have done, particularly Exhibits 2 and 3.
Exhibit 3 addresses the 14 Planning Board recommendations. She disagreed with the Port's interpretation
that the Council rejected the Port's Plan; her motion was simply that the Council was no longer working
off the Port's plan. She suggested taking a break and then moving forward on the subarea plan.
Observing the contract rezone for Harbor Square prohibits residential, Councilmember Bloom asked if the
Port would be required to apply for a contract rezone if the Council included residential in a
Comprehensive Plan amendment or a subarea plan. Mr. Taraday stated if the new subarea plan for Harbor
Square contemplated residential development, some type of rezoning would be necessary either via the
regular legislative process or another contract rezone or development agreement. He summarized some
type of zoning change would be necessary to make the Comprehensive Plan consistent with the zoning.
Councilmember Bloom asked if that process would be initiated by the Port. Mr. Taraday answered not
necessarily the Port; the City could initiate that process as well. Councilmember Bloom questioned the
amount of work necessary to make the current zoning, which prohibits residential, consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan if residential is included in a subarea plan or a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr.
Taraday answered the amount of work would depend on the kind of rezoning. For example, if an existing
zoning classification that includes residential is applied to Harbor Square, it would not require a great deal
of work. Conversely creating new development regulations that only applied to Harbor Square would be a
great deal of work.
Councilmember Bloom asked about the public process for a zoning change. Mr. Taraday answered
Planning Board and City Council. Councilmember Bloom asked whether public hearings would be
required at both. Mr. Taraday answered he believed so. Councilmember Bloom observed it would be a
long process either way. Mr. Taraday agreed there would be a process.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 16, 2013
Page 16
Packet Page 32 of 74
Councilmember Bloom asked if the process would be shorter if the Port applied for a contract rezone that
included residential. Mr. Taraday answered he did not think so, and that process would be quasi-judicial.
Councilmember Johnson commented 60 minutes had been allotted on the agenda for continued discussion
on incorporating the Harbor Square Master Plan into the City's Comprehensive Plan. She suggested the
Council decide if they wanted to review the Planning Board's recommendations. She felt the Council had
an obligation to follow through with that process. Council President Petso advised next week's agenda is
full and suggested time be allocated for a decision on May 7, assuming all Councilmembers would be
present. Councilmember Johnson asked if the time allocated could be used for that discussion tonight.
Council President Petso observed the time allocated had already been used to discuss the process.
Mayor Earling requested an opportunity to speak. Council President Petso asked if there were any
objections; none were voiced. Mayor Earling suggested after watching the dynamics in the community for
the last several weeks, taking a timeout in the process to allow things to settle down. He acknowledged
there were strong feelings on both sides of the issue and suggested slowing the process. He referred to
current workloads and short staffing as well as priorities such as the Shoreline Master Plan and code
rewrite along with increased permitting. He summarized he had a concern with providing direction that
would result in extensive work by staff.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed this had been overwhelming for the City. The Port's withdrawal
of their application has slowed the process. She suggested the Council discuss starting the process in a
thoughtful, slow manner but she did not support a 4-5 month delay and then a rushed process. If the
Council chose to move ahead, she favored beginning fairly soon and taking the time to digest it rather
than reacting emotionally to the project.
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Councilmember Johnson, pointing out there are only two more
pages to review. She suggested a 15 minute discussion at the next Council meeting. She agreed with
Mayor Earling on slowing down the process, commenting the public is very emotional and many do not
understand what is going on.
Council President Petso advised a 15 minute discussion could be squeezed into next week's agenda. She
noted there are already three hours of agenda items scheduled. Other options include up to 30 minutes on
May 7 and the June 4 agenda is open.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Yamamoto spoke in favor of having a 30 minute discussion on May 7 versus 15 minutes
next week.
Councilmember Johnson asked which Council meeting is a workshop. Council President Petso answered
the work session is next week, April 23.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule a 30 minute discussion at the May 7 meeting.
11. FORMAL REOUEST FROM KING COUNTY AND THE CITY OF SEATTLE FOR $5,000 TO
SUPPORT A HEALTH IMPACTS ASSESSMENT OF THE PACIFIC GATEWAY COAL
TERMINAL PROPOSAL.
Mayor Earling advised he emailed Councilmembers several supporting documents. Several cities in
Washington and Oregon are participating in the study including Marysville and possibly Everett.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 16, 2013
Page 17
Packet Page 33 of 74
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas restated the main motion as follows:
TO SEND THIS BACK TO STAFF TO COME BACK WITH THE DRAFT ORDINANCE.
Vote on Main Motion
MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO
VOTING NO.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
13. PRESENTATION: WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHT EARLY FEASIBILITY STUDY/EDMONDS
MARSH.
Due to technical difficulties, this item was delayed to the May 28 Council meeting.
14. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON INCORPORATING THE HARBOR SOUARE MASTER PLAN
INTO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Mayor Earling advised this item was scheduled on the agenda at the Council's request; staff has no
additional information.
Councilmember Peterson suggested due to outstanding legal questions as well as technical issues, this
item be removed from the agenda. He suggested the Council await further feedback, noting staff has other
issues they need to be working on.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS
TO EXTEND THIS ITEM TO A FUTURE DATE.
Councilmember Peterson commented there are a lot of legal and process issues that need to be answered
before the discussion regarding this topic continues.
Council President Petso asked for clarification regarding where the Council is in the process. City
Attorney Jeff Taraday responded according to 20.00.040, the Council has the ability to take three actions
on a Comprehensive Plan amendment, 1) approve as presented, 2) approve with modifications, and 3)
disapprove. As of now, none of those three have occurred. With regard to the Port's withdrawal of their
application, his opinion is when a third party commences a legislative process such as this and that third
party withdraws their application, the withdrawal of the application does not necessarily stop the process.
Once a legislative process begins, it is the legislative body's responsibility to act. It would be different if
the Port were applying for a Conditional Use Permit, a project level permit that is quasi-judicial, which he
agreed withdrawal would stop the process. In his opinion the Council still has a legislative process before
it that would lead to 1 of 3 actions: approval, approval with modifications, or disapproval. None of those
three have happened. Theoretically, in light of the Port's withdrawal of their application, the City Council
has a fourth option, to resolve to take no action on the Harbor Square proposal. Although he would not
ordinarily recommend that as a course of action, because the Port has withdrawn their application, he
noted there were unlikely to be any complaints from the applicant. Until one of those 3-4 things happen,
the Council has a proposal before it.
Council President Petso asked if the Council needed to stop the process and start a new process if the goal
was to ensure any action went through a new Planning Board process and was subject to public hearing at
City Council. Mr. Taraday answered disapproval would certainly stop the process; whether it led to a new
process was unknown. He explained the Council has a process before it upon which some action should
be taken. If the Council ultimately wants to reset the clock and start a new process, that likely was two
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 7, 2013
Page 14
Packet Page 34 of 74
separate actions, one to take action on the proposal before the Council and a second separate action to
start a new process.
Council President Petso observed if the Council took action to disapprove the proposal tonight and took
2-3 weeks to talk to the Port and community and returned in June, could a new Council -initiated
Comprehensive Plan amendment process begin by motion. Mr. Taraday answered yes, ECDC 20.00.020
allows the City Council to initiate its own Comprehensive Plan amendments. Council President Petso
advised she would likely vote against the proposed motion because it did not take action tonight.
Councilmember Buckshnis explained tonight's meeting is only being audio taped. This is a very
important process and action should be postponed until a meeting that is on camera.
Councilmember Bloom agreed with delaying this discussion until the meeting was able to be videotaped.
She asked when this issue would be discussed as she did not want it to be postponed for 1-2 months.
Council President Petso suggested scheduling it for the May 21 meeting, noting that is also a long agenda.
Councilmember Peterson commented there were other outstanding questions as well as information from
MRSC. Rather than add this topic to another full agenda, he preferred to schedule it on a less full agenda.
Council President Petso assured she would schedule it early on the May 21 agenda.
Council President Petso asked when Mr. Taraday anticipated he would be able to provide a response to
the citizens regarding their letter. Mr. Taraday expected the letter would be finalized within two weeks.
Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding that previous Council action on the Agenda Memo
meant the Council took specific action via vote. Mr. Taraday answered he was uncertain what previous
council action meant. Councilmember Bloom pointed out the previous council action on the Agenda
Memo states at the February 13, 2013 meeting, the City Council requested staff develop a modified draft
of the Harbor Square Master Plan based on comments provided by City Council and testimony received
during the public hearings. She noted the minutes of the February 5, 2013 meeting indicate no vote was
taken on that subject. The direction according to the minutes was provided by Councilmember Peterson
and Mayor Earling to staff to develop a document with the Council's ideas and ideas from the public
hearing. She concluded that was not the Council's action as no vote was taken nor was there any
discussion. She requested that statement in the Agenda Memo be corrected when the Council next
considered this item. Mr. Taraday responded he was unsure what the phrase, "previous council action"
meant. In the context of the Open Public Meetings Act, the word action is extremely broad and would
include discussion. Councilmember Bloom commented according to the minutes, there was no other
discussion other than Councilmember Peterson. She requested the statement be corrected, finding it
misleading.
Councilmember Peterson disagreed with Councilmember Bloom's premise, pointing out previous council
action has never meant a formal vote. Action referenced in Agenda Memos includes head nods and
agreement and does not refer to a Council vote on every action. If the Council voted, the Agenda Memo
would state, "the Council voted to..." He acknowledged the Council President could add specificity to the
previous council action section of the Agenda Memo.
Council President Petso offered to work with Council Executive Assistant Jana Spellman to determine if
the Council's previous action needed to be rephrased. She acknowledged this is a touchy issue and
suggested everyone calm down. She referred to Audience Comments where it was suggested she slipped
something into the packet this week. She assured the same packet has been presented three times; her
proposal was the same in the two prior Council packets.
Councilmember Peterson restated the motion:
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 7, 2013
Page 15
Packet Page 35 of 74
TO NOT DISCUSS THIS TONIGHT AND HAVE THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT PUT IT ON A
FUTURE CALENDAR SO ANSWERS CAN BE PROVIDED TO QUESTIONS.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
15. POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING DRAFT RESOLUTION ADOPTING ROBERT'S RULES OF
ORDER AS THE CITY COUNCIL'S NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE.
Council President Petso referenced a list of current practices that she would like to retain in addition to
Robert's Rules:
1. Members must be recognized by the Chair to speak or make motions. Unless there is an obvious
consensus, a motion and second are required.
2. Councilmembers chairing the meeting may participate fully in the meeting, including discussion,
debate and voting.
3. The Mayor participates in discussion and debate only with the permission of the Council and does
not make motions. Tiebreaker votes by the Mayor will be as provided by Washington State law.
4. Actions taken on matters after public hearings will not be substantially modified without advance
notice to the public and all Councilmembers.
Council President Petso explained she found the Rules of Order for Small Bodies suggest a small body
may be so casual as not to require a second to motions. She did not envision the Council being quite that
casual. With regard to her proposal that actions taken on matters after public hearings will not be
substantially modified without advance notice to the public and all Councilmembers, she noted it
appeared Robert's Rules would allow a motion to change a decision at the next meeting. She observed a
public hearing may have had a great deal of public comment and she did not want the Council to be able
to take action at a subsequent meeting to undo the action taken at the public hearing. Her intent was to
create more permanency for actions that require a public hearing.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO ADOPT ROBERT'S RULES WITH THE ADDITION OF THE FOUR POINTS SHE SENT
OUT TODAY.
Mayor Earling asked whether the intent was to use Robert's Rules in committee meetings. Council
President Petso answered that was not her intent. Mayor Earling suggested that be included in the motion.
Mr. Taraday relayed his understanding that the motion was to modify the resolution and place it on a
future Consent Agenda. Council President Petso agreed that was her intent.
Mayor Earling suggested a short delay to allow Councilmembers to familiarize themselves with the rules
before they are put into practice at Council meetings. Council President Petso answered she and staff did
not want to spend the money on Robert's Rules of Order books until it was certain the Council adopted
Robert's Rules. She offered to purchase books for Councilmembers. Mayor Earling asked if the intent of
the motion was to begin observing Robert's Rules at the May 21 meeting. Council President Petso was
amenable to delaying implementation of Robert's Rules until the Council was ready.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed there are many versions of Robert's Rules. She preferred not to
vote until she knew what she was voting on. She also suggested developing a cheat -sheet. Council
President Petso offered to work with Ms. Spellman to create a cheat -sheet.
Councilmember Yamamoto referred to page 21 of Robert's Rules that states every motion requires a
second. He preferred to utilize Robert's Rules in its entirety and not make additions.
Council President Petso responded the reason she suggested additional rules is the Rules for Small Bodies
allow not having a second which she felt was too casual for the Council.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 7, 2013
Page 16
Packet Page 36 of 74
performing arts scholarships will be awarded by the Arts Commission. Tonight is a celebration of the
three final recipients of Arts Commission scholarships as well as the total of 60 students who have been
awarded scholarships over the past 28 years. Many of the recipients have gone on to successful careers in
the arts as performers, writers and music teachers.
This year the Arts Commission is awarding scholarships to three talented students who aspire to a career
in the arts. Each of these three students exhibit excellence in their art forms, but in addition, it is clear
from the reference letters and their own statements that each has exceptional qualities of leadership,
strong personal ethics, kindness, and a commitment to helping others. She introduced the three student
scholarship recipients and described their background and educational goals:
• Sydney Bennett — is graduating from Edmonds Woodway High School and plans to attend the
University of Washington. She has always had an interest in the arts, from dancing to
cheerleading, and more recently in writing. Sydney is awarded a literary arts scholarship to
pursue her goal of a career as a political columnist
• Marco Voli — is graduating from Edmonds Woodway High School and will be attending
Cornish College of the Arts in Seattle. He has been involved in the jazz band and has been an
active part of the play production program for three years, both acting and playwriting. Marco is
awarded a performing arts scholarship to pursue his goal of a career in theater.
• Taylor Zickefoose - is graduating from Meadowdale High School and plans to attend Central
Washington University. Studying music from an early age, Taylor is already an accomplished
jazz vocalist and has received numerous honors and awards, including recognition as an
outstanding high school performance as a vocal jazz soloist in Downbeat Magazine. Taylor is
awarded a performing arts scholarship to pursue her goal of a career in music.
9. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON INCORPORATING THE HARBOR SOUARE MASTER PLAN
INTO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
Council President Petso suggested the Council finally end this Comprehensive Plan amendment process,
get to work over the next couple weeks to see if a new Comprehensive Plan amendment process can be
started in June by motion of the Council. She favored ending this process and starting a new process
because it would guarantee whatever the Council developed would be given a full public process,
meaning it would be reviewed by the Planning Board and City Council with public hearings at both
levels. It will also provide a clean Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Since the process began,
questions and concerns have been raised about the legal process used. Starting over with a clean process
would also allow the Council to put the threat of potential litigation behind them.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Exhibits 1, 2 and 3. She asked why the process needed to be
stopped and started over again when the Council has begun and is moving through a process. City
Attorney Jeff Taraday responded the Council did not have to stop the process and start over, but it could.
He relayed the three primary ways the Council could proceed were, 1) to do as Council President Petso
suggested, 2) to do as Councilmember Buckshnis suggested, or 3) to end the process and not take any
further action. The City's code allows the Council to amend a Comprehensive Plan amendment that is
presented to the City Council. The City Council has not yet proceeded far enough along that route.
Mr. Taraday explained he was asked to compare and contrast two drafts; however, the Council has not yet
approved the staff revised draft. If a majority of the Council had stated they wanted to adopt the staff
revised draft, an analysis would be done to determine whether it was within the scope of the alternatives
considered by the Planning Board or whether it had been changed so significantly that legally it was
better to start over to avoid any question whether there had been a sufficient public process. He explained
what has been confusing to many is it is not yet known what the City Council's plan for Harbor Square
would look like. Therefore the City Council's plan cannot be compared/contrasted to the Port's proposal.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 21, 2013
Page 6
Packet Page 37 of 74
Councilmember Buckshnis noted Exhibit 2, Harbor Square Subarea Plan — City Council Discussion Draft,
contains some of the issues she raised and emailed to staff. There are other items in Exhibit 2 that she
does not support. She asked how the City could be open to a lawsuit when the Council was still
discussing Harbor Square. Mr. Taraday responded he has not suggested there was a significant legal risk.
Because some citizens are confused by the process, in the interest of simplification and to avoid any
further confusion, the City Council may opt to start over but the Council does not have to start over.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the process continued would the plan return to staff to incorporate the
Council's ideas into a more succinct plan and then go through the Planning Board process. Mr. Taraday
answered maybe, but it was as yet unknown what the plan will look like at the conclusion of the process.
If at the conclusion of the process the amendments are minor enough to justify the GMA required public
process had been conducted, there would be no reason to return it to the Planning Board. He reiterated
that determination could not be made yet because the Council was not at that point in the process.
Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her opinion the plan would be significantly different because there
was discussion of incentive zoning and incentivizing things such as bulk, height, parking. Once the
Council process was concluded, she anticipated the plan would need to return to the Planning Board
review process. Mr. Taraday commented Councilmember Buckshnis may have a better sense than he does
regarding what the City Council approved plan will look like. If the plan is dramatically different, it
would be prudent to send it back to the Planning Board for further public participation and public hearing.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, THAT
WE FORMALLY END THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS.
Council President Petso restated her rationale; if a new process is begun, it is guaranteed to be a full
process including Planning Board review and public hearing and City Council review and public hearing
and is more likely to be a clean process where a proposal is made and the citizens understand how the
City Council is working through the process.
Councilmember Yamamoto was uncertain what starting over would entail. He recognized starting over
would be a lot of work, repeating a lot of information that was already gathered, holding numerous public
hearings that have already been held, and ignoring the work done by Port, the Planning Board and staff.
He did not see the advantage of starting the process over as the Council has received more than enough
information. He agreed the plan needs to be tweaked and add to the current process. He preferred to
continue the current process and make the necessary changes.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the motion was to cancel the current process and start a
new process. Council President Petso clarified the motion was to end the current Comprehensive Plan
amendment process. If the motion was successful, her intent was to then initiate a new process.
Councilmember Peterson stated he will vote against the motion. The implication that the process has been
unclean is insulting to the Port, another elected body, insulting to the Planning Board who put an
incredible number of hours into the plan, and insulting to the process. This process has been open and
clean. He acknowledged it may be a confusing process but that is government. Because the process is
confusing, it takes time. He expressed concern with the proposal to end the process that has been
underway for years and to present a new City Council process that will be clean and easy to understand,
pointing out it will be the same process. If the Council decides to reject the plan at the completion of the
process, so be it. He reiterated it was insulting to everyone who has worked so many hours to reject the
plan based on assertions the process had been unclean or muddy.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she will vote against the motion. She echoed Councilmember Peterson's
comments, pointing out some citizens like to make noise. She provided the example that the code allows
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 21, 2013
Page 7
Packet Page 38 of 74
building heights of 25 + 5 feet, yet a member of the public has stated the height limit was increased. The
City has done a good job moving this process forward. She urged the public to review Exhibit 2, noting
there were items she agreed with and some she did not. She viewed the changes as significant and
envisioned it would go through the Planning Board process.
Councilmember Bloom noted she was baffled by Councilmembers Yamamoto and Peterson's comments;
ending this process does not mean the information gathered has to be thrown out or the input from
citizens ignored. All the information can be used to start a new process that focuses on what can be agreed
on versus this process which has focused on what is disagreed on. She supported the motion, envisioning
the Council could better move forward after saying no to the Port's process. She pointed out in addition
the Port has withdrawn their proposal. The Council is no longer working off the Port's proposal as the
Council previously voted 4-3 to work off staff's proposal, essentially denying the Port's proposal.
Councilmember Bloom explained by working off staff's draft, the Council was formalizing their previous
action and acknowledging the Port's withdrawal of their application. She disagreed it was disrespectful,
finding this the most respectful way to proceed, by acknowledging the Port's withdrawal of their
proposal, formally denying the Port's proposal and starting with what can be agreed on.
Council President Petso assured she did not intend to insult anyone by saying the process would be
cleaner if it started over. There has been confusion with the process; the Council recently received a letter
signed by nine citizens stating they do not understand where the Council stands legally in the process. She
relayed the Council can start its own Comprehensive Plan amendment by motion. That process would be
distinct from this process, would have citizen input at the outset and guarantee a full public process.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested a simpler process was possible; the Council did not have to
formally deny the Port's plan because the Port has withdrawn their plan. Mr. Taraday explained the
Council had the option via President Petso's motion to acknowledge the Port's withdrawal of their
application and terminate the process in light of that withdrawal. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas
commented there was no longer a Port plan to work from as the Port has withdrawn their plan. The Port
does not have to accept what the Council does, it is their property. She viewed including the Port in the
development of a Council plan as a first step. She concluded it would be simpler to move ahead.
Councilmember Johnson agreed with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas's comments. She was willing to
move ahead to discuss the substance of the plan, setting aside some of the process issues at this time.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the subarea plan for Westgate, asking whether the City Council
was the ultimate decision -maker for a subarea plan. Mr. Taraday agreed the Council was. Councilmember
Buckshnis supported proceeding with Exhibit 2. Mr. Taraday responded it is up to the Council's
discretion to adopt subarea plans and any other Comprehensive Plan amendments. It would be prudent at
some point to ensure any subarea plan the Council is considering adopting will ultimately be feasible for
development; otherwise the Council is wasting its time.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM AND COUNCIL
PRESIDENT PETSO VOTING YES.
Council President Petso observed the Council was now back to considering the matrix in Exhibit 3.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested the Council have a facilitated discussion at a work session on
commonalities. Council President Petso suggested scheduling discussion at the Council's June 17 mini -
retreat. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas preferred a longer discussion that did not have time constraints.
She preferred to devote an entire Council meeting to this topic.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the Council had started reviewing Exhibit 3, a matrix with
Council comments and suggestions communicated to staff and how those were addressed in the revised
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 21, 2013
Page 8
Packet Page 39 of 74
Harbor Square subarea plan. The minutes indicate there were decisions made on some items. Exhibit 3
incorporates incentive zoning, retains the base height and allows additional height for a parking structure.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out everything changed with the withdrawal of the Port's plan;
there is no starting point for a matrix. She recommended the Council discuss commonalities and
differences. She feared reviewing Exhibit 3 would result in the Council spinning its wheels.
Council President Petso suggested an additional option would be for three Councilmembers with widely
differing viewpoints to meet with representatives from the Port and staff. She asked whether the Council
would be interested in hearing the recommendations of such a group.
Councilmember Buckshnis read the comments she offered to staff and suggested Councilmembers reread
the information in the packet:
• Special district for incentive zoning — brewery, distillery, brew pub zone. Create distinct energy
area using waste heat from the treatment plant
• Campus for tech firms or other businesses
• Tourist destinations
• Year-round farmers market
Councilmember Yamamoto suggested the Harbor Square subarea plan developed by staff dated March
19, 2013 was a good starting point.
Councilmember Peterson agreed with Council President Petso's suggestion, noting regardless of the
Port's withdrawal of their plan, the Port owns the property and should be at the table. He offered to
participate and suggested inviting the Port to participate.
Councilmember Johnson supported involving the Port, finding it a good compromise and a place to start.
Council President Petso volunteered to participate; she suggested involving 1-2 Planning Board Members.
Councilmember Peterson reminded parallel to this item is the Shoreline Master Program (SMP).
Discussions regarding the Master Plan will require discussion regarding the SMP.
Councilmember Johnson agreed the SMP is supposed to be coordinated with the Comprehensive Plan and
the Harbor Square Master Plan is integral to both. She agreed with the suggestion to involve the Planning
Board, noting the Council never reviewed the Planning Board's recommendations, which was one of the
Port's criticisms when they withdrew their amendment.
Mayor Earling asked to provide comment. There were no objections. Mayor Earling echoed the concern
that the Council never reviewed the Planning Board's recommendations. He was glad to hear that the
recommendations would be considered in the revised process. He stressed the importance of inviting the
Port to participate, noting some pretty offensive things occurred during the process and the Port was
justifiably smarting from some of the comments that were made. He also cautioned the Council about the
Planning Department's workload. Beyond their normal workload, they are in the middle of rewriting the
code, will receive Strategic Plan assignments, the permit process has dramatically increased in recent
months, and the department is down one planner.
9B. PARK LEVY EXPLORATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION (formerly Agenda Item 15)
Parks and Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained in March 2012 the Council requested the formation
of a Metropolitan Parks District (MPD) Exploratory Committee. Forty people were recruited to be on the
committee; the first few meetings were well attended with robust discussion regarding an MPD. In July
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 21, 2013
Page 9
Packet Page 40 of 74
AM-5845
City Council Mini Retreat
Meeting Date: 06/17/2013
Time: 30 Minutes
Submitted For: Council President Petso/Jeff Taraday
Department: City Council
Review Committee:
Type: Information
Tnfnrr"Ofinn
Subject Title
Training - Closed Record Review
Recommendation
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Training - Closed Record Review
Inbox Reviewed By
City Clerk Sandy Chase
Mayor Dave Earling
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase
Form Started By: Jana Spellman
Final Approval Date: 06/13/2013
Form Review
Submitted By:
Committee Action:
Date
06/13/2013 11:29 AM
06/13/2013 11:57 AM
06/13/2013 01:31 PM
Started On: 06/12/2013 10:45 AM
5.
Jana
Spellman
Packet Page 41 of 74
AM-5857
City Council Mini Retreat
Meeting Date: 06/17/2013
Time:
Submitted By:
Department:
Review Committee:
Type:
45 Minutes
Sandy Chase
City Clerk's Office
Information
Information
Subject Title
Training - Public Records and Retention
Recommendation
For information only.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Committee Action:
717
Patricia Taraday is an Attorney with Lighthouse Law Group whose area of expertise is public records.
She advises city staff on issues associated with the Public Records Act and has provided training sessions
to all employees. She also was a presenter for the recent Washington Association of Public Records
Officers conference. Ms. Taraday will give a presentation regarding public records.
Megan Shoemaker is the Lead Branch Archivist/Records Management Consultant at Washington State
Archives' Northwest Regional Branch. She provides records management support for state and local
government agencies throughout Northwest Washington, as well as manages archival operations in the
regional branch. She coordinates paper and electronic records transfers to Washington State Archives,
provides records management advice and guidance to public agencies, revises public records retention
schedules, and manages the archival collection in Bellingham. Ms. Shoemaker will give a presentation
regarding the retention requirements for public records.
Information will be distributed at the meeting by the speakers.
For your information, attached are copies of the following:
1. Definition of a Public Record
2. Washington State Archives provides "Records Retention Schedules" for all records created by the
city. The Schedule for "All Local Government Agencies" is 178 pages; attached is a copy of the
cover page as well as one example page.
Attachments
Packet Page 42 of 74
Definition of a Public Record
Records Retention Schedule Cover and Example
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Dave Earling 06/13/2013 11:53 AM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 06/13/2013 01:31 PM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 06/13/2013 09:04 AM
Final Approval Date: 06/13/2013
Packet Page 43 of 74
What is a Public Record?
• PRA only applies to public records.
• A "Public record" is defined by statute.
• A "Public record" includes ANY writing
containing information relating to the conduct
of government or the performance of any
governmental or proprietary function
prepared, owned, used, or retained by any
state or local agency, regardless of its physical
form or characteristics. RCW 42.56.010(3).
Lighthouse
SM Law G rou p ILL°
m
7-
CD
m
CD
m
A
CS7
0
�¢ srers nk
Washington State Archives Local Government Common Records Retention Schedule (CORE)
Office of the Secretary of State Version 3.0 (November2012)
This schedule applies to: All Local Government Agencies
Scope of records retention schedule
This records retention schedule authorizes the destruction/transfer of the public records of all local government agencies relating to the common functions of
the management of the agency, and management of the agency's assets, finances, human resources and information resources. It is to be used in conjunction
with the other approved schedules that relate to the functions of the agency.
All current approved records retention schedules can be accessed online at: http://www.sos.wa.gov/archives/recordsretentionschedules.aspx.
Disposition of public records
Public records covered by records series within this records retention schedule must be retained .for the minimum retention period as specified in this schedule.
Washington State .Archives strongly recommends the disposition of public records at the end of their minimum retention period for the efficient and effective
management of local resources.
Public records designated as Archival (Permanent Retention) or Non -Archival (with a retention period of "Life of the Agency" or "Permanent") must not be
destroyed. Records designated as Archival (Appraisal Required) must be appraised by the Washington State Archives before disposition. Public records must
not be destroyed if they are subject to ongoing or reasonably anticipated litigation. Such public records must be managed in accordance with the agency's
policies and procedures for legal holds. Public records must not be destroyed if they are subject to an existing public records request in accordance with chapter
42.56 RCW. Such public records must be managed in accordance with the agency's policies and procedures for public records requests.
In addition to the minimum retention requirements specified in this schedule, there may be additional (longer) retention requirements mandated by federal,
state and/or local statute, grant agreement, and/or other contractual obligations.
Revocation of previously issued records retention schedules
All previously approved disposition authorities for records that are covered by this retention schedule are revoked, including those listed in all general and
agency unique retention schedules. Local government agencies should take measures to ensure that the retention and disposition of public records is in
accordance with current approved records retention schedules.
Authority
This reco ds retention schedule was approved by the Local rds Committee in accordance with RCW 40.14.070 on7Nmber 29, 2012.
For the State Auditor: Cindy Evans For the Attorney General: Sharo Payant he 5 e Archivist" JeA Handfleld
Page 1 of 178
0
77
N
CD
(D
A
rn
0
p Washington State Archives Local Government Common Records Retention Schedule (CORE)
= _ Office of the Secretary of State Version 3.0 (November X12)
�yt rues �
1.1 ADMINISTRATION (GENERAL)
The activity associated with the day-to-day operations of the agency. Includes short-term records that can be disposed of as part of normal
administrative practice.
DISPOSITION
AUTHORITY
DESCRIPTION OF RECORDS
RETENTION AND
DESIGNATION
NUMBER (DAN)
DISPOSITION ACTION
GS50-01-12
Communications— Governing/Executive/Advisory
Retain for 2 years after
ARCHIVAL
Rev. 3
Internal and external communications to, from, and/or on behalf of the agency's governing
communication received or
(Appraisal Required)
bodies, elected officials)/executive management, and advisory bodies, that are made or
provided, whichever is later
NON -ESSENTIAL
received in connection with the transaction of public business, and that are not covered by
then
OFM
a more specific records series.
Transfer to Washington State
Includes all communication types, regardless of format:
Archives for appraisal and
• Correspondence, email;
selective retention.
• Web sites/forms/pages, social networking posts and comments, etc.
Includes, but is not limited to:
• Agency -initiated information/advice;
• Communications sent or received by support staff (administrative assistants,
communications staff, etc.) on behalf of the executive or governing/advisory member;
• Requests for and provision of information/advice.
Excludes:
• Non -executive communications covered by DAN GS2010-001;
• Public records requests covered by DAN GS2010-014;
• The provision of routine information covered by DAN GS50-02-01.
Note: Information/advice published online by the agency continues to be "provided" until the
date it is removed/withdrawn.
Page 6 of 178
AM-5846
City Council Mini Retreat
Meeting Date: 06/17/2013
Time: 15 Minutes
Submitted For: Council President Petso/Patricia Taraday
Department: City Council
Review Committee:
Type: Information
Subject Title
Training - Elections / Guidelines for Elected Officials
Recommendation
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Training - Elections / Guidelines for Elected Officials
Attachment: PDC Guidelines for Elected Officials
A 4-4-1........4-
PDC Guidelines for Elected Officials
Inbox Reviewed By
City Clerk Sandy Chase
Mayor Dave Earling
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase
Form Started By: Jana Spellman
Final Approval Date: 06/13/2013
Form Review
Submitted By:
Committee Action:
Date
06/13/2013 11:29 AM
06/13/2013 11:57 AM
06/13/2013 01:31 PM
Started On: 06/12/2013 10:48 AM
7.
Jana
Spellman
Packet Page 47 of 74
PDC Interpretation
APPROVAL DATE: September 28, 2004 NUMBER: 04-02
STATUS: Approved SUPERSEDES: Interpretation 00-05
REFERENCES: RCW 42.17.130 APPROVED BY: The Commission
SEE ALSO: WAC 390-05-271 and WAC 390-05-273
Guidelines for Local Government Agencies in Election
Campaigns
Public Disclosure Law Re: Use of Public Facilities in Campaigns
USE OF THE GUIDELINES
These Guidelines are meant to aid and assist in compliance with the law.
This document is an educational tool that is an expression of the Commission's view of
the meaning of RCW 42.17.130 and relevant administrative rules and case law involving
local government and election campaign activity. It is intended to provide guidance
regarding the Commission's approach and interpretation of how the statutory prohibition
on the use of public facilities for campaigns impacts activities that may be contemplated
by government employees and other persons who may seek to utilize those public
facilities. Readers are strongly encouraged to review the statute and rules referenced in
these Guidelines.
For ease of reference, the majority of this interpretation is in chart form. In part, the
chart identifies categories of persons, some possible activities, and some general
considerations. These illustrative examples in the columns of the chart are not intended
to be exhaustive.
For example, the categories of persons identified are, in many cases, illustrative only
and simply identify groups of persons more likely to undertake or consider undertaking
the activity mentioned in the adjacent columns. If an activity is described as being
viewed as "Permitted," it is viewed as permitted for all agency personnel otherwise
having the authority under law or agency policy to undertake that action, not just the
persons identified in the chart or in a particular column. The same approach is applied
to the "Not Permitted" column. Further, the remarks in the chart's "General
Considerations" column have relevance for the entire section and are not limited to the
specific bullet point immediately to the left of the general consideration.
As noted in the Basic Principles section below, hard and fast rules are difficult to
establish for every fact pattern involving agency facilities that may occur. Situations
may arise that are not squarely addressed by the guidelines or that merit additional
discussion. The PDC urges government agencies to review the guidelines in their
Packet Page 48 of 74
entirety, and to consult with their own legal counsel and with the PDC. The PDC can be
reached at pdc@pdc.wa.gov, 360/753-1111 or toll free at 1-877-601-2828.
RCW 42.17.130
Forbids use of public office or agency facilities in campaigns.
No elective official nor any employee of his office nor any person appointed to or
employed by any public office or agency may use or authorize the use of any of the
facilities of a public office or agency, directly or indirectly, for the purpose of assisting a
campaign for election of any person to any office or for the promotion of or opposition to
any ballot proposition. Facilities of public office or agency include, but are not limited to,
use of stationery, postage, machines, and equipment, use of employees of the office or
agency during working hours, vehicles, office space, publications of the office or
agency, and clientele lists of persons served by the office or agency: PROVIDED, That
the foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply to the following activities:
(1) Action taken at an open public meeting by members of an elected legislative
body to express a collective decision, or to actually vote upon a motion, proposal,
resolution, order, or ordinance, or to support or oppose a ballot proposition so
long as (a) any required notice of the meeting includes the title and number of the
ballot proposition, and (b) members of the legislative body or members of the
public are afforded an approximately equal opportunity for the expression of an
opposing view;
(2) A statement by an elected official in support of or in opposition to any ballot
proposition at an open press conference or in response to a specific inquiry;
(3) Activities which are part of the normal and regular conduct of the office or
agency.
WAC 390-05-271
General applications of RCW 42.17.130.
(1) RCW 42.17.130 does not restrict the right of any individual to express his or her
own personal views concerning, supporting, or opposing any candidate or ballot
proposition, if such expression does not involve a use of the facilities of a public
office or agency.
(2) RCW 42.17.130 does not prevent a public office or agency from (a) making
facilities available on a nondiscriminatory, equal access basis for political uses or
(b) making an objective and fair presentation of facts relevant to a ballot
proposition, if such action is part of the normal and regular conduct of the office
or agency.
WAC 390-05-273
Definition of normal and regular conduct.
Normal and regular conduct of a public office or agency, as that term is used in the
proviso to RCW 42.17.130, means conduct which is (1) lawful, i.e., specifically
Packet Page 49 of 74
authorized, either expressly or by necessary implication, in an appropriate enactment,
and (2) usual, i.e., not effected or authorized in or by some extraordinary means or
manner. No local office or agency may authorize a use of public facilities for the
purpose of assisting a candidate's campaign or promoting or opposing a ballot
proposition, in the absence of a constitutional, charter, or statutory provision separately
authorizing such use.
Similar prohibitions on the use of public facilities by state employees and state officers
are described in a memorandum from the Attorney General's Office regarding RCW
42.52 and available at http://www.atg.wa.gov/pubs/publicfundsmemo062800.htm
BASIC PRINCIPLES
Public facilities may not be used to support or oppose a candidate or ballot
proposition. RCW 42.17.130. Facilities include local government agency
equipment, buildings, supplies, employee work time, and agency publications.
The statute includes an exception to the prohibition for "activities which are part
of the normal and regular conduct of the office or agency."
2. The Public Disclosure Commission holds that it is not only the right, but the
responsibility of local government to inform the general public of the operational
and maintenance issues facing local agencies. This includes informing the
community of the needs of the agency that the community may not realize exist.
Local governments may expend funds for this purpose provided that the
preparation and distribution of information is not for the purpose of influencing the
outcome of an election.
3. Public employees do not forfeit their rights to engage in political activity because
of their employment. Neither may agency employees be subjected to coercion,
pressure, or undue influence to participate in political activity or to take a
particular position. Public officials and employees should make it clear that any
participation is personal rather than officially sponsored.
4. Supervisory personnel have a duty to know, apply, and communicate to their
staffs the difference between acceptable information activities and inappropriate
promotional activities in support of local government ballot measures.
5. Local elected officials are free to support agency ballot issues and engage in
other political activities as long as such activities do not make use of government
facilities, time or resources and do not either pressure or condone employees'
use of agency facilities, time or resources to support ballot issues.
6. The PDC is charged with enforcing RCW 42.17.130. This requires consideration
and analysis of activities, which may or may not be determined to be in violation
of the statute. The PDC has, over the years, developed methods of considering
and analyzing activities engaged in by public offices. Among the factors
considered are the normal and regular conduct and the timing, tone, and tenor of
activities in relation to ballot measure elections. As in any matter where intent is
to be considered, hard and fast rules, which will be applicable to all situations,
are difficult to establish.
3
Packet Page 50 of 74
The combination of a number of activities into a coordinated campaign involving
close coordination between agency activities and citizens' committee activities
which closely resembles traditional election campaign activities and which is
targeted at and/or occurs close in time to a ballot measure election is likely to
draw close scrutiny and careful consideration by the PDC as to whether a
violation has occurred.
7.a. Historically, the PDC has routinely advised and held that with respect to election -
related publications, one jurisdiction -wide objective and fair presentation of the
facts per ballot measure is appropriate.
In addition, if an agency* has also customarily distributed this information through
means other than a jurisdiction -wide mailing (e.g. regularly scheduled newsletter,
website, bilingual documents, or other format), that conduct has also been
permitted under RCW 42.17.130 so long as the activity has been normal and
regular for the government agency.
b. The PDC will presume that every agency may distribute throughout its jurisdiction
an objective and fair presentation of the facts for each ballot measure. If the
agency distributes more than this jurisdiction -wide single publication, the agency
must be able to demonstrate to the PDC that this conduct is normal and regular
for that agency. In other words, the agency must be able to demonstrate that for
other major policy issues facing the government jurisdiction, the agency has
customarily communicated with its residents in a manner similar to that
undertaken for the ballot measure.
c. Agencies are urged to read the definitions of "normal and regular" at
WAC 390-05-271 and WAC 390-05-273. Agencies need to be aware,
however, that in no case will the PDC view a marketing or sales effort
related to a campaign or election as normal and regular conduct.
8. The PDC attributes publications or other informational activity of a department or
subdivision as the product of the local agency as a whole.
9. Providing an objective and fair presentation of facts to the public of ballot
measures that directly impact a jurisdiction's maintenance and operation, even
though the measure is not offered by the jurisdiction, may be considered part of
the normal and regular conduct of the local agency. The agency must be able to
demonstrate that for other major policy issues facing the jurisdiction, the agency
has customarily communicated with its residents in a manner similar to that
undertaken for the ballot measure.
10. State law provides certain exemptions from the prohibition on the use of public
office or agency facilities in campaigns for an elected legislative body and elected
officials that are not afforded appointed officials. RCW 42.17.130 (1) and (2)
apply only to elected legislative bodies and elected officials.
* Agency means any county, city, town, port dostdct, special district, or other state political subdivision.
El
Packet Page 51 of 74
Public Disclosure Commission
Guidelines for Local Government Agencies in Election Campaigns
Persons
Permitted
Not Permitted
General Considerations
Agency`
• May inform staff during non -work
• Shall not pressure or coerce
• Has there been communications
Administrators
hours' of opportunities to participate
employees to participate in
with staff and with union
(County Administrator, City
in campaign activities.z
campaign activities.
representatives regarding the
Manager, Executive
prohibition on the use of the
Director, Fire Chief, PUD
Manager, Etc.)
agency's internal mail or email
system to support or oppose a
ballot measure?
• Are encouraged to communicate to
Shall not use internal memoranda
staff the difference between
solely for the purpose of informing
acceptable and unacceptable
employees of meetings supporting
activities related to a ballot measure.
or opposing ballot measures.
• In the course of normal publications
Shall not coordinate informational
• Is the distribution of this
for the agency, may distribute an
activities with campaign efforts, in a
information consistent with the
objective and fair presentation of the
manner that makes the agency
normal practices of the agency
facts' based on and expanded upon
appear to be supporting or
(such as newsletters, websites, or
the information prepared by the
opposing a ballot measure.
some other format)?
agency in accordance with the normal
and regular conduct of the agency.5
'Agencies may set the definition of work hours for their employees. For example, to the extent that an agency defines the lunch hour as a non -work
hour, activities to support or oppose a candidate or a ballot measure that do not use public resources and that are held away from government facilities
are permitted during the lunch hour.
z RCW 42.17.680(2) provides that "[nlo employer or labor organization may discriminate against an officer or employee in the terms or conditions of
employment for (a) the failure to contribute to, (b) the failure in any way to support or oppose, or (c) in any way supporting or opposing a candidate, ballot
proposition, political party, or political committee."
' Throughout these guidelines, the clause "objective and fair presentation of the facts" means that in addition to presenting the facts, the materials should
present accurately the costs and other anticipated impacts of a ballot measure.
a For the purposes of these guidelines, For refers to the documents prepared, printed, and mailed to persons within the governmental
jurisdiction by that agency solely for the purposes of informing residents regarding an upcoming ballot measure. The agency may continue to distribute
information consistent with the customary practices of the agency, including but not limited to newsletters, websites, and multi-lingual documents. These
publications may continue, but if they discuss the ballot measure, the information needs to be an objective and fair presentation of the facts.
For the purpose of these guidelines, the term "normal and regular" is defined in WAC 390-05-273 and clarified further by WAC 390-05-271.
*Agency means any county, city, town, port district, special district, or other state political subdivision
5
Public Disclosure Commission
Guidelines for Local Government Agencies in Election Campaigns
Persons
Permitted
Not Permitted
General Considerations
Agency
May speak at community forums
Shall not use public resources to
Is the information provided an
Administrators
and clubs to present factual and
operate a speakers' bureau in a
objective and fair presentation
(continued)
objective information on a ballot
manner that may be viewed as
of the facts?
measure during regular work
promoting a ballot measure.
hours.
• May encourage staff and members
Is the activity consistent with
of the public to vote, as long as
the agency's normal and
such encouragement routinely
regular course of business?
occurs for other elections.
• May respond to questions
• Do the materials accurately
regarding a ballot measure if such
present the costs and other
activity is consistent with his or her
anticipated impacts of a ballot
normal and regular duties.
measure?
May wear campaign buttons or
similar items while on the job if the
agency's policy generally permits
employees to wear political
buttons.
• May engage in campaign activities
on their own time, during non -work
hours and without using public
resources.
Community
May use agency facilities for
Shall not use agency facilities to
Groups
meetings supporting or opposing a
produce materials that support
ballot measure to the extent that
or oppose a ballot measure.
the facilities are made available on
an equal access, nondiscrimina-
tory basis, and it is part of the
normal and regular activity of the
jurisdiction.
Public Disclosure Commission
Guidelines for Local Government Agencies in Election Campaigns
Persons
Permitted
Not Permitted
General Considerations
Local Elected
May collectively vote to support or
. Shall not pressure or coerce
Legislative Body
oppose a ballot measure at a
agency management to
properly noticed public meeting,
participate in campaign
where opponents of the measure
activities.
are given an eIual opportunity to
. Shall not explicitly include
express views.
passage of a ballot measure in
the agency's annual goals.
Local
May engage in political activities
• Shall not direct agency staff to
• Is the elected official using staff
Government
on his or her own time, if no public
perform tasks to support or
time, a public vehicle, or other
Elected Officials
equipment, vehicle or facility is
oppose campaign activities or
public resources?
used. (An elected official may use
ballot measures.
. Has the agency adopted a
his or her title, but should clarify
. Shall not use public facilities or
resolution? If yes, the elected
that he/she is speaking on his/her
resources to engage in political
official can speak on behalf of
own behalf, and not on behalf of
activities.
the agency. If not, has the
the agency. If the elected
elected official made it clear
legislative body has adopted a
that he or she is not speaking
resolution, the official can then
on behalf of the agency?
speak on behalf of the agency.)
• May attend any function or event
at any time during the day and
voice his or her opinion about a
candidate or ballot proposition as
long as they are not being
compensated and are not using
any public equipment, vehicle or
other facility.
RCW 42.17.130(1) provides that action may be "taken at an open public meeting by members of an elected legislative body to express a collective
decision, or to actually vote upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order, or ordinance, or to support or oppose a ballot proposition so long as (a) any
required notice of the meeting includes the title and number of the ballot proposition, and (b) members of the legislative body or members of the public
are afforded an approximately equal opportunity for the expression of an opposing view."
7
Public Disclosure Commission
Guidelines for Local Government Agencies in Election Campaigns
Persons
Permitted
Not Permitted
General Considerations
Appointed
May engage in political activities
• Shall not direct agency staff to
• Is the appointed official using
Officials
on his or her own time, if no public
perform tasks to support or
staff time, a public vehicle, or
(Boards, Commissions, and
equipment, vehicle or facility is
oppose campaign activities or
other public resources?
similar appointed positions)
used. An appointed official may
ballot measures.
• Has the appointed official made
use his or her title, but should
• Shall not use public facilities or
it clear that he or she is not
clarify that he/she is speaking on
resources to engage in political
speaking on behalf of the
his/her own behalf, and not on
activities.
agency?
behalf of the agency.
• Shall not use public facilities to
• May attend any function or event
express a collective decision or
at any time during the day and
actually vote upon a motion or
voice his or her opinion about a
resolution to support or oppose
candidate or ballot proposition as
a ballot proposition.
long as they are not being
• Shall not use public facilities to
compensated and are not using
make a statement at a press
any public equipment, vehicle or
conference or responding to an
other facility.
inquiry in support or opposition
to any ballot proposifion,
Management Staff
May speak at community forums and
Shall not use public resources to
Is the management staff using
or Their Designees
clubs to present an objective and fair
operate a speakers' bureau in a
public resources in a manner that
presentation of the facts on a ballot
manner that may be viewed as
promotes or opposes a candidate
measure during regular work hours.'
promoting a ballot measure.
or a ballot measure?
• May fully participate in campaign
Shall not use public resources to
Does the presentation accurately
activities, including meeting with
promote or defeat a candidate or
present the costs and other
citizens' campaign committees to plan
ballot measure.
anticipated impacts of a ballot
strategies, during non -work hours and
measure?
without the use of public resources.
' Agencies may set the definition of work hours for their employees. For example, to the extent that a agency defines the lunch hour as a non -work hour,
activities to support or oppose a candidate or a ballot measure that do not use public resources and that are held away from agency facilities are
permitted during the lunch hour.
0
Public Disclosure Commission
Guidelines for Local Government Agencies in Election Campaigns
Persons
Permitted
Not Permitted
General Considerations
Management
• May inform staff during non -work
. Shall not pressure or coerce
Staff or Their
hours of opportunities to
employees to participate in
Designees
participate in campaign activities.
campaign activities.
(continued)
• May respond to questions
• Shall not use agency resources
regarding a ballot measure if such
to organize the distribution of
activity is consistent with his or her
campaign materials.
normal and regular duties.
• May wear campaign buttons or
Does the agency have a policy
similar items while on the job if the
permitting employees to wear
agency's policy generally permits
political buttons?
employees to wear political
buttons.
• May place window signs or
bumper stickers on their
privately -owned cars, even if those
cars are parked on government
property during working hours.
• Are encouraged to communicate to
staff the difference between
acceptable and unacceptable
activities related to a ballot
measure.
• May encourage staff and members
of the public to vote, as long as
such encouragement routinely
occurs for other elections.
Public Disclosure Commission
Guidelines for Local Government Agencies in Election Campaigns
Persons
Permitted
Not Permitted
General Considerations
Agency
May speak at community forums
Shall not use work hours or
• Do the presentations accurately
Employees
and clubs to present an objective
public resources to promote or
present the costs and other
and fair presentation of the facts
oppose a candidate or ballot
anticipated impacts of a ballot
on a ballot measure during regular
measure (such as gathering
measure?
work hours.
signatures, distributing
+ Is the employee acting on his
• May inform staff during non -work
campaign materials, arranging
or her own time, during non -
hours of opportunities to
speaking engagements,
work hours?
participate in campaign activities.
coordinating phone banks, or
fundraising).
• May engage in campaign activities
Shall not pressure or coerce
Is the employee using public
on their own time, during non -work
other employees to participate in
resources in a matter that
hours and without using public
campaign activities.
promotes or defeats a
resources.
candidate or a ballot measure?
+ May respond to questions
regarding a ballot measure if such
activity is consistent with his or her
normal and regular duties.
• May wear campaign buttons or
Does the agency have a policy
similar items while on the job if the
permitting employees to wear
agency's policy generally allows
political buttons?
employees to wear political
buttons.
• May, during non -work hours, make
+ Shall not use agency resources
available campaign materials to
to organize the distribution of
employees in lunchrooms and
campaign materials.
break rooms that are used only by
staff or other authorized
individuals.
10
Public Disclosure Commission
Guidelines for Local Government Agencies in Election Campaigns
Persons
Permitted
Not Permitted
General Considerations
Agency
May place window signs or
Employees
bumper stickers on their cars, even
(continued)
if those cars are parked on
government agency property
during working hours.
• May encourage staff and members
of the public to vote, as long as
such encouragement routinely
occurs for other elections.
Union
May, during non -work hours, make
Shall not use the agency's
Are campaign materials made
Representatives
available campaign materials to
internal mail or email system to
available only in those areas
union members in lunchrooms and
communicate campaign -related
used solely by staff or other
break rooms that are used only by
information, including
authorized individuals?
staff or other authorized
endorsements.
individuals.
• May distribute campaign materials
Shall not distribute promotional
Does such distribution occur
at union -sponsored meetings.
materials in public areas.
during non -work hours?
• May post campaign materials on a
bulletin board, if such a board is in
an area that is not accessible to
the general public and if such
activity is consistent with the
agency's policy and the collective
bargaining agreements.
11
Activities and
Resources
Equipment and
Supplies
Meeting Facilities
Public Disclosure Commission
Guidelines for Local Government Agencies in Election Campaigns
Permitted
Agency employees, in the course
of their employment, may use
equipment (including but not
limited to projectors and
computers) to make an objective
and fair presentation of the facts at
community forums and clubs.
• Agency employees, in the course
of their employment, may produce
information that is an objective and
fair presentation of the facts using
public resources.
Agency meeting facilities, including
audio visual equipment, may be
used by campaign committees for
activities on the same terms and
conditions available to other
community groups, subject to the
provisions of the agency's policy.
Not Permitted
Public resources (including but
not limited to internal mail
systems, email systems,
copiers, telephone) shall not be
used to support or oppose a
candidate or ballot measure,
whether during or outside of
work hours.
Citizens' campaign committees
and other community groups
shall not use agency equipment
(including but not limited to
internal mail systems,
projectors, computers, and
copiers) to prepare materials
for meetings regarding ballot
measures.
General Considerations
• Do the presentations fairly and
objectively present the costs and
other anticipated impacts of a
ballot measure?
• Can community groups typically
use agency facilities?
• Are facilities made available to
all groups on the same terms?
• Has the agency adopted a policy
regarding the distribution of
campaign materials on agency
property?
12
Activities and
Resources
Meeting Facilities
(continued)
Lists
Public Disclosure Commission
Guidelines for Local Government Agencies in Election Campaigns
Permitted
Use of agency meeting facilities is
permitted when the facility is
merely a "neutral forum" where the
activity is taking place, and the
public agency in charge of the
facility is not actively endorsing or
supporting the activity that is
occurring.
• Lists of names (such as agency
vendors or customers) that a
agency has obtained or created in
the course of transacting its
regular public business are subject
to public disclosure requirements;
thus, unless otherwise exempt, the
lists must be released subject to
public records requests.
• Agencies may charge a
pre -established fee to cover the
costs of providing copies of such
lists on an equal access,
nondiscriminatory basis.
Not Permitted
Agencies shall not sell copies
of such lists (though they may
charge a pre -established fee to
recover the costs of providing
copies of the lists).
• If a list is generally available as
a public record, it cannot be
denied to a person or group on
the grounds that it might be
used in a campaign.
General Considerations
• Is the meeting facility
customarily made available on
an equal access,
nondiscriminatory basis for a
variety of uses?
• Is the list obtained or created in
the course of the agency
transacting its public business?
• Are the fees charged no greater
than necessary to cover the
costs of providing copies?
• Has the agency complied with
established policy in responding
to any public record requests?
13
Public Disclosure Commission
Guidelines for Local Government Agencies in Election Campaigns
Activities and
Resources
Permitted
Not Permitted
General Considerations
Voting
Agency personnel may encourage
Agencies shall not pressure or
Is the activity related to providing
Information
staff and members of the public to
coerce employees to vote.
voting information for elections,
vote, as long as such
as opposed to advocating for or
encouragement routinely occurs
against a particular candidate or
for other elections.
ballot measure?
• Public facilities may be used to
Agencies shall not organize an
register people to vote and to do
effort to encourage staff to
periodic poll checking.
wear campaign buttons or
display campaign materials.
14
Public Disclosure Commission
Guidelines for Local Government Agencies in Election Campaigns
Activities and
Resources I Permitted Not Permitted General Considerations
Agency
Publications
(Specific to
Elections)
Agencies may develop an
objective and fair presentation of
the facts regarding agency needs
and the anticipated impact of a
ballot measure, and may distribute
it in the agency's customary
manner. This information may be
printed in various languages and
communicated in other formats as
required by the ADA.
In the course of regular
publications for the agency, the
agency may distribute an objective
and fair presentation of the facts
for each ballot measure in
accordance with the normal and
regular conduct of the agency.
• Agencies shall not distribute
election -related information in a
manner that targets specific
subgroups. Targeting does not
refer to mailing information to
agency constituencies such as
community leaders, or some
other group, or to the agency's
regular distribution list to
provide information in a manner
that is consistent with the
normal and regular conduct of
the agency.
• Agencies shall not publicize
information supporting or
opposing a candidate or ballot
measure.
• Does the information provide an
objective and fair presentation of
the facts?
• Is the timing, format, and style,
including tone and tenor, of the
information presented in a
manner that is normal and
regular for the agency?
• Is the information distributed in a
manner that is normal and
regular for the agency?
s For the purposes of these guidelines, "information" refers to the documents prepared, printed, and mailed jurisdiction -wide by the agency solely for the
purposes of informing residents regarding an upcoming ballot measure. The agency may continue to distribute information consistent with the customary
practices of the agency, including but not limited to newsletters, websites, and multi-lingual documents. These publications may continue, but if they
discuss the ballot measure, the information should be an objective and fair presentation of the facts.
15
Activities and
Resources
Agency
Publications
(Specific to
Elections)
(continued)
Agency
Publications
(Regular)
Public Disclosure Commission
Guidelines for Local Government Agencies in Election Campaigns
Permitted
Agencies may include all or part of
the information regarding agency
needs and the anticipated impacts
of a ballot measure in the agency's
regular publications, such as
agency and department
newsletters. (For example, a
department newsletter may
specifically describe the projects
and/or programs planned for that
department.)
Agencies may inform staff and/or
parents of community meetings
related to ballot measures if other
such information is normally
published in a newsletter or
community calendar, and if both
those supporting or opposing a
ballot measure have the
opportunity to appear on the
calendar or in the newsletter.
Not Permitted
Agencies shall not use internal
memoranda or other agency
publications to encourage
employees to participate in
campaign activities.
• Agencies shall not publish
materials supporting or
opposing a candidate or ballot
measure.
General Considerations
• Do the materials accurately
present the costs and other
anticipated impacts of a ballot
measure?
• Does the agency typically
distribute information by
newsletters, websites, or some
other format?
• Does the agency routinely
distribute such information?
• Does the agency normally
inform staff and/or parents of
community activities and
meetings?
16
Public Disclosure Commission
Guidelines for Local Government Agencies in Election Campaigns
Activities and
Resources
Permitted
Not Permitted
General Considerations
Agency
Agencies may factually report
• Is the information presented in
Publications
jurisdictional support for a ballot
an objective and fair manner?
(Regular)
measure, so long as it is the
• Is the agency engaging in
(continued)
normal and regular conduct for the
significantly different activities
agency. (For example, a
during the time period
community newsletter that
immediately prior to the ballot
ordinarily reports on governmental
measure compared to all other
actions may report that the
times of the year?
jurisdiction adopted a resolution
supporting a ballot measure.)
• Agencies may thank citizens for
their support after an election in
agency publications.
Reader
Information encouraging staff and
Agencies shall not display a
BoardstPosters
members of the public to vote, or
"Vote for ...." sign or other
providing the dates of upcoming
promotional messages on
elections such as "vote on
reader boards or posters.
February ", may be posted, as
long as such encouragement is
customarily posted for elections
other than just an agency's ballot
measure.
• Agencies may thank citizens on
Signs advocating for or against
their reader boards for their
candidates or ballot measures
support after an election.
shall not be posted on agency
property in any area accessible
to the general public.
17
Activities and
Resources
Reader
Boards/Posters
(Continued)
Surveys and
Research
Public Disclosure Commission
Guidelines for Local Government Agencies in Election Campaigns
Permitted
May post objective and fair
information at an agency or at a
future site regarding anticipated
improvements to be funded by a
ballot measure that is specific to
that agency or site.
Agencies may conduct surveys
and/or other community research,
including demographic questions,
to determine the community's
priorities, public perception of
performance, and/or to inform the
community about agency
programs and policies.
Agencies may conduct community
research (including but not limited
to the use of questionnaires,
surveys, workshops, focus groups,
and forums) to determine the
community's priorities for both
programs and/or facilities and their
associated total costs and
projected dollars per thousand
assessment.
Not Permitted
• Publicly owned vehicles shall
not be used to carry or display
political material.
Agencies shall not conduct
surveys to determine what
taxation level the public would
support.
• Agencies shall not conduct
surveys designed to shore up
support or opposition for a
ballot measure.
General Considerations
• Has the elected legislative body
passed a resolution authorizing
a measure to be placed on the
ballot? (if so, actions may be
more closely scrutinized.)
• Does the election -related survey
target specific subgroups?
18
Public Disclosure Commission
Guidelines for Local Government Agencies in Election Campaigns
j Activities and
Resources I Permitted Not Permitted General Considerations
Surveys and
Research
(continued)
Technology
(websites, emails,
computerized
calling systems)
• The surveys and/or other
community research can be
conducted before or after the
elected legislative body has
approved a resolution to place a
ballot measure on the ballot.
However, research conducted
after the adoption of the resolution
may be subject to greater scrutiny.
• Agencies may publish survey
results if it is consistent with the
normal and regular conduct of the
agency.
An agency may develop an
objective and fair presentation of
the facts and post that information
on its website, including
information regarding agency
needs and the anticipated impacts
of a ballot measure. This
information may be reformatted so
that it is consistent with the
manner in which the agency
customarily presents information
on its website.
• Agencies shall not target
registered voters or other
specific subgroups of the
jurisdiction in conducting their
election -related surveys.
• Agencies shall not use survey
results in a manner designed to
support or oppose a candidate
or ballot measure.
Agency computers, email
systems, telephones, and other
information technology systems
shall not be used to aid a
campaign for or against a
candidate or ballot measure.
• Is the survey or community
research consistent with normal
and regular activities of the
agency?
• Are the materials developed an
objective and fair presentation of
the facts?
19
Public Disclosure Commission
Guidelines for Local Government Agencies in Election Campaigns
Activities and
Resources
Permitted
Not Permitted
General Considerations
Technology
Agency websites may permit
Electronic communication
Is the agency engaging in
(websites, emails,
viewers to make selections to
systems shall not be used to
significantly different activities
computerized
learn about the anticipated impacts
generate or forward information
during the time period
calling systems)
of a ballot measure for a specific
that supports or opposes a
immediately prior to the ballot
(continued)
division, or otherwise allow
candidate or ballot measure.
measure compared to all other
readers to explore issues in
. Agency websites shall not be
times of the year?
greater or lesser detail.
used for the purposes of
+ Do the materials accurately
Agencies may update the
supporting or opposing a
present the costs and other
information on their websites in a
candidate or ballot measure.
anticipated impacts of a ballot
manner that is customary for the
measure?
agency.
+ Has there been communications
• Staff may respond to inquiries
with staff and with union
regarding a ballot measure in an
representatives regarding the
objective and fair manner, via
prohibition on the use of the
email or by telephone, if it is part of
agency's technology to support
their normal and regular duties.
or oppose a ballot measure?
Note on Timing of Activities: A particular activity may be subject to the scrutiny of the Public Disclosure Commission
depending in part on whether it is a part of the "normal and ordinary" conduct of a local government agency. Generally,
activities that occur after the elected legislative body has passed a resolution authorizing a measure to be placed on the ballot
will be subject to greater scrutiny by the Public Disclosure Commission than those occurring before such a resolution has been
passed.
Note on Agency Policies: The application of these guidelines is also subject to each jurisdiction's own adopted policies.
20
AM-5847
City Council Mini Retreat
Meeting Date: 06/17/2013
Time:
Submitted For:
Department:
Review Committee:
60 Minutes
Council President Petso
City Council
Type: Information
"information
Submitted By:
Committee Action:
Subject Title
Presentation regarding SR-104, including implications for redevelopment at Westgate.
Recommendation
Jana
Spellman
Previous Council Action
During the February 2013 Edmonds City Council Retreat the following discussion took place regarding
form -based code:
"Councilmember Johnson restated her initial idea: as it relates to Westgate and the form based code, she
felt the City needed to look at both the land use and transportation as a form based code is developed.
Initially she thought the study would complement the work that has been done regarding land use to
ensure making the best use of resources. The amount allocated was lowered during budget deliberations
due to competing priorities and the hope of partnering with other agencies such as WSDOT.
Discussion followed regarding whether to change the focus of a form based code to Five Corners while a
transportation analysis is completed for Westgate, study that indicates there are no capacity issues at
Westgate with draft form based code, and determining the impact on Edmonds from development at Pt.
Wells.
Summary: Schedule for Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee."
This topic was discussed at the April 8, 2013 Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee Meeting
(minutes attached).
The topic, Direction to Planning Board and Economic Development Commission Regarding Council
Priorities on Westgate and Five Corners, was scheduled for the May 21, 2013 Council
Meeting. During that meeting, with the approval of Council, it was to be rescheduled on a future agenda.
The topic was put on the May 28, 2013 Council agenda for discussion (minutes attached).
Narrative
Packet Page 68 of 74
Presentation regarding SR-104, including implications for redevelopment at Westgate.
Attachment 1: 4/8/13 PPP Council Committee Minutes
Attachment 2: 5/28/13 Council Minutes
Attach 1: 4/8/13 PPP Committee Minutes
Attach 2: 5/28/13 City Council Minutes
Inbox Reviewed By
City Clerk Sandy Chase
Mayor Dave Earling
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase
Form Started By: Jana Spellman
Final Approval Date: 06/13/2013
Attachments
Form Review
Date
06/13/2013 11:29 AM
06/13/2013 02:34 PM
06/13/2013 02:38 PM
Started On: 06/12/2013 11:13 AM
Packet Page 69 of 74
Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee Meeting
April 8, 2013
Elected Officials Present:
Council Member Kristiana Johnson
Council Member Diane Buckshnis
Members of the Public Present:
John Reed
Val Stewart
Don Hall
Ron Wambolt
Staff Present:
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Rob English, City Engineer
Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director
Renee McRae, Recreation Manager
Rob Chave, Acting Dev. Services Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services /
Economic Development Director
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
The committee convened at 4:00 p.m. in the Fourtner Meeting Room, City Hall.
Annual Special Event Contracts
A brief discussion was held concerning the annual Special Event Contracts.
ACTION: Committee forwarded to Council on consent.
2. Interlocal Agreement with Snohomish County Fire Protection District No. 1 Regarding
Classes.
A brief discussion was held concerning the Interlocal Agreement.
ACTION: Committee forwarded to Council on consent.
3. Discussion regarding development agreements / incentive zoning.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday summarized the distinction between development agreements and
incentive zoning, and that the two concepts could result in very similar zoning constructs, i.e. that
the city could identify benefits or developments that are to be incentivized, and the incentives
that the city was willing to `give' in exchange. The best place to start would be for the Council to
discuss the types of things it wanted to see happen; this could be done city-wide, or targeted to a
specific area. Benefits could be things like affordable housing or open space, or specific uses
such as a boutique hotel in the downtown area. Incentives could be a variety of things, such as
additional density or height, or reductions in other requirements (such as parking). Incentive
zoning can be tailored to a specific location, such as Highway 99 or a portion of downtown. The
Committee discussed what areas they would like to explore, with most of the discussion focusing
on the potential for addressing the need for a boutique hotel downtown and whether some
incentives could be developed for Highway 99. The Committee agreed to further discuss the
incentive zoning/development agreement issue at its next meeting, focusing the discussion on
downtown and Highway 99.
4. Discussion of Planning Report
The Committee discussed how tracking of items referred by Council to the Economic
Development Commission or Planning Board could be done. Planning Board members Valerie
Stewart and John Reed noted that they intended to keep up their periodic reports to Council, and
Packet Page 70 of 74
Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee Minutes
April 8, 2013
Page 2
staff indicated that they could also post Planning Board extended agendas online, as is already
done for Council extended agendas. The Committee also discussed timing of Westgate and Five
Corners form -based zoning plans, with Councilmember Johnson indicating her preference for
moving Five Corners ahead of Westgate while Councilmember Buckshnis stated her preference
was to keep Westgate moving toward a conclusion. Planning Board Chair Reed said he couldn't
speak for the entire Planning Board, but he indicated the Board was nearing completion of its
work on Westgate and he felt that work could be completed within a couple of months and
should be brought to a conclusion. Acting Development Services Director Rob Chave indicated
that it would be beneficial for the Planning Board to have a clear consensus from Council before
changing its current work schedule (which has Westgate getting done first). The Committee also
had a brief discussion about timing of the Westgate Corridor Study and how that might affect
overall planning efforts.
5. Report on final construction costs for the Talbot Road Grind and Overlay Small Works
Project and acceptance of project.
Mr. Williams described the scope of work completed and the final cost paid to the contractor.
ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval.
6. Authorization for Mayor to approve release of a Utility Easement & acceptance and
recording of new Storm Utility and Public Pedestrian Access Easement
Mr. Williams briefly described the locations of the new stormwater and pedestrian easements
and why they were needed as part of the proposed Walgreen's Development. He also provided
information on why the existing easement was being released.
ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval.
7. Authorization for Mayor to approve acceptance and recording of a Water Utility Easement.
Mr. English explained the history of the Willow Townhomes and why the easements were
necessary for water meters and a fire hydrant.
ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval.
8. Authorization to award a construction contract for the 2013 Waterline Replacement
Project.
Mr. Williams gave a summary of the current project schedule and budget for the project. He
informed the committee that bids are due on April 16t" and it was anticipated the construction
contract would be on the consent agenda for award on the April 23rd Council meeting.
ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for approval.
9. Quarterly Public Works Project Report.
Mr. English reviewed selected projects that were in construction or scheduled for construction
later this year. Councilmember Buckshnis recommended staff review the report at a future
Council meeting on a night when there was availability on the agenda.
Packet Page 71 of 74
o Damage assessment
o Coordinate resource needs with ESCA
Ms. Gross identified concerns:
• Decreasing grant funds
• Sensitive to strained city budgets
• 30% increase in cities since 2005
• 350% increase in mandated planning elements
• 20% staffing decrease
Council President Petso advised she obtained some level of NIMS compliance and asked whether NIMS
compliance was required or recommended for elected officials. Ms. Gross answered the level of training
Council President Petso was asked to complete was familiarity versus operational training. During a
disaster response, there are issues in which the Council is engaged, particularly during recovery. The
mayor, city manager and anyone working in the EOC needs higher level training.
In the event of a large earthquake in which Edmonds homes were uninhabitable, Councilmember Bloom
asked where residents would go and what ESCA's role would be in getting them to the location. Ms.
Gross answered there are a variety of levels; first is a shelter of last resort which is simply to get people
out of the weather. In the event of a disaster, it is likely a series of interim shelters would be opened to
house people out of the weather until Red Cross established shelters. The City's disaster plan addresses
short and long term housing issues. Councilmember Bloom recalled discussions regarding grant funds to
upgrade the Edmonds Center for the Arts gym for use as an emergency shelter. Ms. Gross explained the
Red Cross has agreements with a variety of churches and schools regarding use for shelters. After an
earthquake, all those shelters must be evaluated before they are opened as shelters. People may need to
use an interim shelter until structures are evaluated.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
to. DISCUSSION: CITY CODE REVIEW/BEWRITE
Acting Development Services Director Rob Chave explained the City has begun to receive model
language from Carol Morris who is assisting with the rewrite. Staff will integrate Edmonds specific
material into the model code language, ensure internal consistency, remedy existing problems in the code,
etc. As stated in February, staff is committed to enabling the Council to discuss policy issues as they
arise. He asked at what point in the process the Council would like to have policy discussion regarding
issues such as subdivision and enforcement. He suggested having that discussion after internal review has
occurred and Edmonds specific information has been inserted.
Council President Petso requested policy changes be highlighted. Mr. Chave assured they would be.
Council President Petso commented scheduling Council review will become more difficult closer to
budget review. Mr. Chave advised the code review/rewrite is taking longer due to decreased staffing and
increased permitting.
11. DIRECTION TO PLANNING BOARD AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
REGARDING COUNCIL PRIORITIES ON WESTGATE AND FIVE CORNERS.
Councilmember Johnson advised this issue has arisen several times throughout the course of the Westgate
Plan and was discussed most recently at the Council retreat and the Parks, Planning and Public Works
Committee meeting. She was interested in coordinating the long range plans in the Westgate area. She
relayed it has been suggested the Council proceed with form based code in the Westgate area and address
transportation on a case -by -case basis as development occurs. She found that a short-sighted approach as
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 28, 2013
Page 11
Packet Page 72 of 74
there was an opportunity to coordinate the land use and transportation planning efforts, an approach that
is consistent with regional, multi -county and city policies such as Destination 2030, Vision 2040 and
Complete Streets.
She referred to Policy 3.15.A in the City's adopted Transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan
that encourages the preparation of comprehensive access plans and consolidation of access points in
commercial and residential areas through shared driveways and local access streets. She concluded there
is sufficient direction from a policy standpoint to coordinate land use and transportation. The question is
how to proceed to that end with the $50,000 allocated to initiate a study in the Westgate area. Her intent is
to coordinate the Westgate plan and transportation planning.
Councilmember Peterson observed the Planning Board has been working on the Westgate Plan for some
time and is relatively close to completion. He agreed with the idea of working on them together but did
not want to lose momentum on the Westgate Plan. He was also concerned with shifting staff time due to
the issues Mr. Chave noted with limited staff.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if Councilmember Johnson's intent was to begin with Five
Corners then finish the Westgate Plan once the transportation study for SR104 has been completed.
Councilmember Johnson answered that was an initial suggestion because the transportation analysis and
the roundabout design for Five Corners has been completed. Her suggestion was the Westgate Plan would
be incomplete without the transportation study of SR104. Her research of the Planning Board's activities
indicates the only recent significant discussion regarding the Westgate Plan was on February 13, 2013.
There have been general discussions regarding form based code, often using Westgate, but only the one
detailed discussion about Westgate. She noted there appeared to be a shift in thinking about how form
based code integrates with transportation which heightened her concern.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked Councilmember Johnson to clarify what she was asking.
Councilmember Johnson asked to move forward with the transportation analysis for Westgate and not
conclude the Planning Board's recommendations until that work is complete. Councilmember Fraley-
Monillas asked if it was Councilmember Johnson's intent that no planning be done for Westgate or Five
Corners while that occurred or that the Westgate Plan and transportation planning occur concurrently.
Councilmember Johnson answered her concern was SR104 and did not think one should be done without
the other.
Public Works Director Phil Williams relayed Councilmember Johnson, staff and he have talked about the
scope of the SR104 study. Although the Council provided some funding, it is not enough to do a robust
study of the entire corridor. He and key staff are planning to meet with WSDOT to determine their
interest in pursuing a study. He did not see any problem with the two occurring concurrently, noting it
was similar to the daylighting study and flooding study that were presented to the Council earlier tonight;
they are occurring at the same time and although they do not have identical goals, there are several
commonalities. If the two were conducted independently, he was unsure when funding for a complete
project would be available.
Mayor Earling relayed Mr. Chave's indication that the Westgate study is 75-85% complete. Mayor
Earling expressed concern with timing, particularly a 1-2 year delay while funding is sought for a
transportation study. Mr. Chave advised the Planning Board has put a substantial amount of time into the
Westgate study including one hearing. The Planning Board has not put as much effort into Westgate in
recent months, awaiting feedback from the Council. The impetus for presenting this issue to the Council
was the Planning Board heard individual Councilmembers were interested in doing Five Corners first and
the Planning Board did not want to proceed to conclusion on Westgate if that was not the direction the
Council wanted to proceed. The Planning Board has not worked on the Five Corners Plan because they
wanted to "get their feet wet" on the Westgate Plan first.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 28, 2013
Page 12
Packet Page 73 of 74
Council President Petso recalled the Planning Board Chair indicated the Planning Board needed to wrap
something else up and that would be a better time for the Planning Board to take a break from the
Westgate Plan and come to the Council after they had incorporated the Transportation element. She was
supportive of giving the Planning Board direction that the Council did not want them to finalize the
Westgate Plan until they have the Transportation Plan.
Councilmember Bloom noted there needs to be an understanding of the transportation system in Westgate
with regard to items such as turn lanes, bike trails, make it more pedestrian friendly and safe, etc. The
Westgate plan needs to address internal circulation, reaching the area safely via all modes of
transportation as well as pedestrian and bicycles crossing the street. She agreed with the Planning Board
delaying the Westgate Plan until the transportation element is integrated. She anticipated the Westgate
form based code would address setbacks, road and sidewalk widths, bike paths, turn lanes, ferry traffic,
etc. Mr. Chave responded form based codes do not deal with details of the right-of-way design. He agreed
it would be helpful to discuss a study with WSDOT.
Mayor Earling advised the WSDOT representative indicated she will be available for the Council's June
17 retreat. He suggested exploring the potential with the WSDOT representative before the Council made
a definitive decision. Mr. Chave agreed.
Councilmember Johnson agreed. She suggested conducting a tour of the area after the retreat.
Councilmember Peterson asked whether the City had much input into what can be done on SR104. For
example, he did not anticipate a bike lane on SR104. Mr. Williams responded the City has some influence
as SR104 serves as a City street and a State highway; WSDOT will make the final decision. He
envisioned the Westgate Plan and transportation study could occur simultaneously.
12. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO,
TO ALLOW UP TO $5,000 TO CONTRACT WITH A LAND USE ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT
THE CITY COUNCIL AND PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL LEGAL ADVICE DURING THE
UPCOMING CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL
DECISION ON THE HILLMAN VARIANCES.
Council President Petso asked whether the motion was to hire an attorney but not specify the attorney.
Councilmember Peterson recalled in a recent quasi-judicial hearing, the City Attorney worked directly
with staff and the Council hired an outside land use attorney to advise them without any appearance of
conflict. The Council will be reviewing the Hearing Examiner's decision in a quasi-judicial setting. It is
best practice to hire an impartial attorney to ensure the public process is as smooth as possible.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MADE THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT WHICH WAS
ACCEPTED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO:
TO HIRE CAROL MORRIS.
Councilmember Peterson explained the City Council hired Carol Morris to advise the Council during a
previous quasi-judicial matter. She is working on the code rewrite so is very familiar with land use issues
in Edmonds. According to the City Attorney, Ms. Morris is one of the top land use attorneys in the region.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether it would be preferable to have the flexibility to hire a land
use attorney rather than specify an attorney. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered he will inform the
Council at their next meeting if Ms. Morris has a conflict. The Council has appointment authority when
hiring legal counsel unless the Council delegates that authority.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 28, 2013
Page 13
Packet Page 74 of 74