Cm130507EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
May 7, 2013
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
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
ROLL CALL
STAFF PRESENT
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director
Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Eng. Program Mgr.
Jeanie McConnell, Eng. Program Mgr. I
Kemen Lien, Senior Planner
Michael Clugston, Planner
Jen Machuga, Associate Planner
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Linda Hynd, Deputy City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
Deputy City Clerk Linda Hynd called the roll. All elected officials were present.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Council President Petso requested Item 4 be moved to the May 21 meeting due to technical difficulties
with filming tonight's meeting. She also advised that Item 19 can be removed from the agenda as it is not
needed.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO
TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 2013.
B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #201718 THROUGH #201827 DATED APRIL 25, 2013
FOR $448,428.83 AND CLAIM CHECKS #201828 THROUGH #201947 DATED MAY 2,
2013 FOR $492,86338. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT & CHECKS
#60161 THROUGH #60177 FOR $443,836.54, BENEFIT CHECKS #60178 THROUGH
#60189 AND WIRE PAYMENTS OF $194,877.67 FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 16, 2013
THROUGH APRIL 30, 2013.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 7, 2013
Page 1
C. APPROVAL OF LIST OF EDMONDS' BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF
THEIR LIQUOR LICENSE WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL
BOARD, APRIL 2013.
D. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO APPROVE ACCEPTANCE OF RIGHT OF WAY
AND EASEMENTS FROM THE KWON TRUST PROPERTY FOR THE FIVE
CORNERS ROUNDABOUT PROJECT.
E. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO APPROVE ACCEPTANCE OF RIGHT OF WAY
AND EASEMENTS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES OF AMERICA
PROPERTY FOR THE FIVE CORNERS ROUNDABOUT PROJECT.
4. COMMUNITY SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT: MEMORIAL DAY CEREMONY
Due to technical difficulties with filming the meeting, this item was rescheduled to the May 21 meeting.
PROCLAMATION DECLARING MAY "PUGET SOUND STARTS HERE MONTH."
Mayor Earling read a proclamation declaring May 2013 as "Puget Sound Starts Here Month" in
Edmonds. He presented the proclamation to Public Works Director Phil Williams who accepted it on
behalf of the Public Works Department. Mr. Williams provided a reminder of the Watershed Fun Fair at
Yost Park on Saturday, May 11 from 11:00 a.m. — 4:00 p.m. The May 11 Mariners game is sponsored by
Puget Sound Starts Here; discount tickets are available on the Mariner's website or the Puget Sound
Starts Here's website, pugetsoundstartshere.com. Further information regarding Puget Sound water
quality and biological environments is also available on their website. Councilmembers were provided a
Puget Sound Starts Here coffee cup sleeve that has tips for improving the quality of Puget Sound.
Additional sleeves are available at City Hall.
6. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF NATIONAL POLICE WEEK, MAY 12 -18, 2013.
Mayor Earling read a proclamation in honor of National Police Week, May 12- 18, 2013. Mayor Earling
accepted the proclamation on behalf of the Edmonds Police Department.
7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Phil Lovell, Edmonds, referred to a letter submitted to the Council from citizens dated April 27, 2013
asking for clarification regarding the Port's proposed Harbor Square Master Plan and added the following
points:
1. The Council has not adequately reviewed the Port's submittal with recommendations by the Planning
Board for conformance with principles and guidelines within the City's Comprehensive Plan.
2. While the Council may be hearing desired legal advice from the City Attorney, the review process is
hampered by apparent divisiveness within the Council. As a result, proper review obligations are not
being met. This short circuited process has caused the Port to withdraw their proposal to amend the
Comprehensive Plan by incorporating their publicly supported Master Plan. It makes no sense for the
City to undertake an alternative plan or "keep the process going" unless the Port and City partner such
a plan. The City neither owns nor controls the land or buildings at Harbor Square. It is not in the
City's long term interest to be obstructive or inflexible in these matters. It could be detrimental to the
City's interest should the City implement Comprehensive Plan or Shoreline Master Program revisions
that place the Harbor Square property in a non -conforming status with respect to the provisions of the
current contract rezone.
Mr. Lovell urged Council to consider reengaging the Port in a partnership in the effort to bring new
growth and balanced redevelopment at Harbor Square to the benefit of all who live and visit Edmonds.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 7, 2013
Page 2
Mayor Earling responded the City is in receipt of a letter submitted at the end of last week. He has
informed Ms. Fimia that the City Attorney will provide a response.
Pauline Dibble, Lynnwood, a former Edmonds resident, explained she was awarded two lots on Walnut
as part of a divorce settlement. Her legal descriptions states the lots are 30 feet wide and 110 feet deep. As
part of the process of selling the property, a survey was conducted that states the lots together are less
than 3/4 inch short of the required 60 feet to be considered a buildable lot. She wondered about survey
equipment being more precise now than in prior years. It was her understanding from the Planning
Department that it was not uncommon for lots in Edmonds to be off slightly like hers. It was also her
understanding that the City's code has "wiggle room" as far as the square footage required for a buildable
lot. Unfortunately, there is no give in the 60 foot width requirement. She suggested an exception be
granted in her case. She relayed the Planning Department's explanation about a short plat option; however
she only owns two lots and a short plat requires that all seven lots once owned by the Cooper family be
included in the process. The owner of the other rive lots, her ex-husband, does not want to short plat his
property at this time but would be willing to do a property line adjustment or sell her % inch of property.
Additionally, the fees and approximately six month process will most likely be a deal breaker for her. She
is paying $2,818 in property taxes for an unbuildable lot due to 3/4 inch shortage. She appealed to the
Mayor and Council for help.
Sandy Eastly, Coldwell Banker Bain Realtor, representing Pauline Dibble, explained Ms. Dibble wanted
to sell the property in order to purchase a level entry home for her family as her husband has Parkinson's.
She listed the lot at 938 Walnut and information from the title company on lots 12 and 13, block 72,
Edmonds, and the assessor's parcel map shows the lot size to be 60.015 feet by 110.685 feet. She
displayed a City of Edmonds map that shows many lots that are supposed to be 30 feet wide, combined to
be 60 feet wide. She envisioned there were a lot of lots in Edmonds that might measure just under 60 feet.
The property was once owned by Ms. Dibble and her former husband. An aerial map obtained from the
City showed a shed on the adjacent property that was over the property line. A survey done at that time
revealed the measurement in question. She suggested a lot line adjustment or variance so the property, a
lovely vacant lot, could be sold.
Maggie Fimia, Edmonds, thanked Mayor Earling for moving the questions submitted by citizens
regarding the past, current and future process regarding the Harbor Square Master Plan to the City
Attorney and to have his response reviewed by the State or the Municipal Research and Services Center
of Washington. She was concerned that Council President Petso had added an amendment to the packet
that changes the language for the Downtown Master Plan. She was certain the Council supports growth
management and the GMA, but cautioned that the Council could not pick and choose to follow the rules
they liked and not follow the ones they did not like. The main purpose of the GMA is to have cities and
counties plan for growth, direct growth to existing urban areas, and protect rural areas to stop sprawl. A
main tool of the act is to connect land use and transportation. Edmonds signed on to Vision 2020, 2030
and 2040, Countywide Planning Policies, and Edmonds asks for and receives support for its transit center
downtown and ferry terminal. It is inconsistent with the GMA to just take transit benefits without
accepting the City's fair share of housing. Council President Petso's amendment calls for no housing in
the Harbor Square area. The amendment would be outside the State mandated process and outside the
realm of fairness. If the Council majority continues to try to stop all sensible growth in this designated
activity center where there is wonderful transit, instead of then protecting the Edmonds Marsh, growth
elsewhere will denigrate and damage a marsh somewhere else. She urged the Council to work with the
Port on developing a plan that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Donna Breske, Snohomish, referred to Ms. Dibble's testimony, explaining she herself had lost a great
deal of money on a lot she purchased in Edmonds and was dismayed by someone else going through a
similar experience. She asserted City staff needs training because rather than finding a solution, staff goes
to the code and says the lot is not buildable because it is not 60 feet wide. She noted the lot has lot status
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 7, 2013
Page 3
because it was platted. Staff needs training on what lot status means and that they must issue a building
permit if a lot has lot status. She noted this happens frequently in Everett and it is an administrative
process. She stated even if the lot is 59'/4 feet wide, there are still the same front, rear and side setbacks.
She suggested Mr. Taraday address this issue so that Ms. Dibble could sell the lots.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to his comments to the Council at the last meeting regarding 4
Councilmembers voting to raise building heights and his explanation that 25 feet was the building height
and up to an additional 5 feet was an incentive. The code now has a 30 foot building height with no
reason to have anything more than a box and any incentives would have to allow a building higher than
30 feet. He agreed 25 + 5 feet equals 30 feet; however, 25 feet was the building height previously, the
building height now is 30 feet.
8. PRESENTATION BY NICK BROSSOIT, SUPERINTENDENT, EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT #15.
Nick Brossoit, Superintendent, Edmonds School District, commented it was an honor to speak to the
Council on behalf of the Edmonds School District. He referred to a handout, 2012-2013 School Year
Highlights, that provides basic information regarding the School District. He thanked the City for their
continued partnership with Edmonds School District and the work the Council is doing. He thanked
Mayor Earling for the meetings he has participated in regarding possibilities related to Civic Field and
how the Edmonds School District could work as a partner with the City and community.
Dr. Brossoit commented one of the questions that often arises is determining a school district's
performance. That is difficult to determine due to different testing and metrics in each state used to
evaluate performance. The SAT, a test given to students interested in attending college, is the same test
given every year in every state. Edmonds School District students outperform on average both the state
and the nation on the SAT. In 2012 the State of Washington tied Vermont for the highest performing state
in the nation on the SAT and in 2012 Washington was the highest performing state. These results are even
more remarkable considering funding for students in Washington is ranked 4661 out of 50 states on a per
pupil basis, a considerable return on investment in public education in Washington.
Dr. Brossoit expressed his appreciation to the local community for their support of the Edmonds School
District's local levies and bond issues. He reiterated his thanks to the City for their ongoing partnership
with the Edmonds School District.
Council President Petso recalled a citizen recently suggested the Council consider a liaison to the
Edmonds School District. She asked if the School Board would be interested in a Councilmember
attending their meetings on a regular basis and be a designated point of contact. Dr. Brossoit answered
that could certainly be discussed with the School Board. All meetings have an open public comment
section and Councilmembers are always welcome to attend meetings. He noted some community
members attend a monthly roundtable meeting where they can offer ideas for program topics and interact
with staff. He offered to plan a visitation or agenda item.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas explained her son graduated this year after 21 years in the Edmonds
School District. It has been a very successful, collaborative parent/teacher approach and she appreciated
all the services the School District provided. She intended to stay involved and invited Edmonds School
District representatives to call her at any time. Dr. Brossoit thanked Councilmember Fraley-Monillas for
her compliment, explaining the public school system works because of parents such as her and others. He
noted Councilmember Fraley-Monillas will assist the School District later this week as a citizen/parent in
identifying a new administrator to oversee a very important program in the District.
Council President Petso announced that because the video equipment that is not available tonight was
needed for Agenda Item 13, Presentation: Willow Creek Daylight Early Feasibility Study/Edmonds
Marsh, it will be rescheduled to the May 28 Council meeting.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 7, 2013
Page 4
Councilmember Buckshnis complimented Keely O'Connell, Friends of the Edmonds Marsh, and
Stormwater Engineering Program Manager Jerry Shuster on their presentation to WRIA 8. She asked the
date of the walkabout. Ms. O'Connell answered the RCO Technical Subcommittee site visit will be May
22 at 2:00 p.m.
9. UPDATE ON THE EDMONDS SISTER CITY COMMISSION BY MICHELLE VAN TASSELL,
COMMISSION CHAIR.
Michelle Van Tassell, Edmonds Sister City Commission Chair, referred to the Edmonds Sister City
Five -Year Plan 2012-2017. She recognized Commissioners Kay Vreeland and Iyoko Okano in the
audience. She explained the Sister City Commission (SCC) held a retreat in January to review their
mission, to promote international communication and understanding through exchanges of people, ideas,
and culture, to discuss whether their goals were assigned with the mission, and how to apply best
practices to the execution of the goals and add value for the community. She noted the five-year plan is a
working, living document and while acting on the plan, the SCC is simultaneously coordinating and
executing major events in 2013.
She highlighted goals and objectives in the five-year plan:
1. Goal: Organization and Programs
• Objectives:
o Recruit and maintain 12 commissioners and one student representative
■ One current vacancy on the SCC
■ New Student Representative Michelle Rockstead, Everett Community College
student
o Recruit and maintain pool of host families for student delegation
o Adult delegation to Japan in 2013
■ First recruited by invitation only and later expanded to citizens
■ Sent 27 delegates to Hekinan including Mayor Earling and his wife
■ 2013 delegation very successful in recruiting delegates, making/fostering personal,
professional and civic connections and providing a unique cultural experience for
Edmonds citizens
o Adult delegation from Japan, October 2013; 25-year anniversary
■ Expecting 25-30 Hekinan citizens
■ Developing an itinerary
■ Communicating among volunteer core
■ Developing printed materials
o Student delegation from Hekinan, August 2014
o Maintain and keep current database of Friends of SCC and other adult volunteers
o Support Hekinan's Assistance English Teacher (AET)
■ Recruit
■ Application/interview process
■ 2-year commitment
■ Received 17 applications, narrowed to 8 to interview
o Maintain organization of documents and inventoried items
2. Goal: SCC Community Visibility
Objectives:
o Visibility with Mayor and civic leaders
o Online/print advertising and exposure
■ Expand online presence
■ Social networking
■ Local media presence
■ Branding with logo
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 7, 2013
Page 5
■ Brochures
■ Broadly advertise all SCC events
Goal: Establish sustainable funding
• Objectives:
o Pursue grant opportunities
■ Hazel Miller Foundation
■ Others
o Annual membership drive
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether donations to the Sister City are tax deductible. Ms. Van Tassell
responded all donations to the SCC are tax deductible.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented an incredible amount of work has been done over the past
six months. Ms. Van Tassell responded she is honored, delighted and humbled to be part of the amazing
SCC team who freely share their talents and gifts. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas thanked Ms. Van
Tassell for her leadership.
10. PRESENTATION ON THE NORTH SOUND SEAWOLVES SEMI -PRO SOCCER TEAM.
Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton requested this item be scheduled
on the agenda to introduce the North Sound SeaWolves to the greater Edmonds community. The
SeaWolves play soccer for the Northwest Division of the Premiere Development League (PDL), the top
development soccer league in North America. He expressed appreciation to Mr. Underhill and Alex Silva,
SeaWolves owner, for meeting with him and Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite to discuss the
possibility of locating the SeaWolves in Edmonds. He announced the SeaWolves have made Edmonds
their home.
Jim Underhill, General Manager, North Sound SeaWolves FC, advised the franchise is for
Snohomish County. He reported the SeaWolves are partners in the May 18 Health and Fitness Expo, with
skill drills and a game following. They have also been invited to be part of the Chamber of Commerce's
4tb of July celebration. He recognized sponsors and partners including Teresa Whipple, My Edmonds
News, for allowing the SeaWolves to be one of six teams nationally that have live broadcasts of their
games. He also recognized Waterfront Coffee for their contribution, Swedish Health, barbeque from
Celtic Cowboy, and the Hotdog Man.
With regard to future growth, he explained they will continue to approach the Chamber regarding a game
as a theme or activities and are open to other collaborations. The season is short, May — July. He
explained this is a very high level sport that not every town has the opportunity to see. Opponents include
U-23 teams Portland Timbers, Seattle Sounders, Vancouver Whitecaps, and others. He provided posters
and a season schedule.
Mayor Earling commented that having the North Sound SeaWolves locate in Edmonds is a big deal. The
team is seeking host families for players during that two month period. Mr. Underhill commented two
additional players can join the team once host families are identified. He noted Nike owns the league and
is interested in the towns where games are played and teams reside.
Councilmember Johnson congratulated Mr. Underhill and thanked him for his efforts. She also thanked
Mr. Clifton and Ms. Hite, noting this was the type of sports tourism the Economic Development
Commission has been discussing for years. She asked about the season opener. Mr. Underhill announced
it is May 18 at 1:00 p.m. against the Portland Timbers following the Health and Fitness Expo.
Councilmember Buckshnis recognized the efforts to bring the SeaWolves to Edmonds.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 7, 2013
Page 6
11. CLOSED -RECORD REVIEW OF THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO
APPROVE A CITY -SPONSORED REZONE AT 22133 AND 22121 76TH AVENUE WEST (FILE
NO. PLN20130008).
Mayor Earling explained this is a closed record review and the Council must make their decision based on
the information in the packet and information presented tonight. He asked if any Councilmembers had ex-
parte communication, information or testimony to disclose or any real or perceived conflict. There were
no disclosures made.
Mayor Earling asked whether any Councilmember had any bias or prejudgment with regard to the
application. There were none voiced.
Mayor Earling asked whether anyone in the audience wished to challenge the participation of any
Councilmember. There were no challenges made.
Planner Michael Clugston explained the City is proposing to rezone one parcel, 22133 76th Avenue West,
from contract General Commercial (CG) to General Commercial (CG2) and a portion of another parcel,
22121 76th Avenue West, from Residential Multifamily (RM-2.4) to General Commercial (CG2) in order
to correct two errors on the official zoning map. The subject parcels were inadvertently left out of an area -
wide CG2 rezone in 1995 due to a mapping mistake at that time. The proposed rezone will bring the
parcels into better alignment with the Comprehensive Plan and the CG2 zoning which has surrounded the
parcels since 1995. He referred to Exhibit 2, the staff report presented to the Planning Board; and Exhibit
3, the rezone ordinance.
This topic was introduced to the Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee on February 11, 2013,
who referred it to the Planning Board. The Planning Board held a public hearing on March 27, 2013 and
unanimously recommended approval of the rezone.
Mr. Clugston referred to Attachment 1 of Exhibit 2, a zoning map from December 2012. He referred to
Parcels A (22133 76d' Avenue West) and B (22121 76th Avenue West) on the map. He explained Parcel B
is shown as CG2 and Parcel A is CG2 with a contract. Neither of these designations are correct. The
zoning for Parcel A should be CG contract and the eastern most portion of Parcel B should be RM-2.4 as
shown on Attachment 2 of Exhibit 2. He referred to Attachment 3 of Exhibit 2, an aerial photograph of
the area and identifying the rectangle between 220th on the north, 224th on the south, Highway 99 on the
east and 76th Avenue on the west. He explained the parcels are owned by Mr. Ikegami, the owner of
Lynnwood Mazda.
He referred to Attachment 5 that shows that the property now known as Parcel A was rezoned from RM-
2.4 to CG contract in 1988 and Parcel B was still RM-2.4. He referred to Attachment 6, the 1992 Official
Zoning Map, that shows Parcels A and B as CG2, the same as other parcels on the western side of
Highway 99. For some reason between 1988 and 1992, Parcels A and B came to be shown incorrectly on
the Zoning Map. That led to the two parcels being left out of an area -wide rezone in 1995 because it was
assumed they were zoned CG2. Attachment 7 shows the area rezoned in 1995 from RM-2.4 to CG2.
Mr. Clugston explained staff could administratively change the parcels to look like Attachment 2, CG2
contract for Parcel A and RM-2.4 for Parcel B. He explained that did not make sense as in 1995 the
Council found that entire triangular area between 220th and 224th was to become CG2; Parcels A and B
were omitted at that time due to the error that existed. The proposal now is to rezone the two parcels,
officially changing the zoning map to CG2 for both Parcels A and B.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 7, 2013
Page 7
Council President Petso asked whether Parcel A was under a contract rezone at this time. Mr. Clugston
answered yes, CG contract. Council President Petso asked if the contract rezone was included in the
Council packet. Mr. Clugston answered no, recalling the contract restricted uses on the property. He
referred to Attachment 5 of Exhibit 2, showing the 1988 rezone to CG contract. He pointed out the parcels
to the east facing Highway 99 were already CG. The contract rezone for Parcel A in 1988 was to restrict
uses slightly but allow CG zoning. In 1995, the entire triangular area between 220th and 224'h and
Highway 99 and 76t" was rezoned by Council to CG2.
Council President Petso asked what happens to the contract if the parcels are rezoned. Mr. Clugston
answered it would go away; Parcel A would go from CG contract to CG2. Council President Petso asked
if the uses were broader in CG2 than would be permitted under the contract. Mr. Clugston answered yes,
the same as the surrounding parcels.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday advised that because no one spoke at the open record hearing, no one can
speak at the closed record hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3919, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AND APPROVING A CHANGE
IN ZONING FOR TWO PARCELS LOCATED AT 22133 76TH AVENUE WEST FROM
CONTRACT GENERAL COMMERCIAL (CG) TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL (CG2) AND A
PORTION OF 22121 761" AVENUE WEST FROM MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL (RM-2.4) TO
GENERAL COMMERCIAL (CG2); AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT OF THE CITY'S OFFICIAL
ZONING MAP.
Council President Petso advised she would abstain from the vote because of information she just now
understood; she thought this was a correction of a zoning area but now realized approval would be
extinguishing a contract rezone that she has not seen.
MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO ABSTAINING FROM THE VOTE.
12. PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT TO INCREASE THE TIME FRAME
FOR VALIDITY OF PRELIMINARY SHORT PLAT APPROVAL AS ESTABLISHED IN ECDC
20.75.100 (FILE NO. AMD20130002).
Associate Planner Jeri Machuga explained the subdivision process is comprised of three phases which
include preliminary, civil and final review. In the preliminary review phase, staff reviews the proposal
and issues a preliminary decision. As part of preliminary approval, staff would establish the conditions
necessary for the subdivision to comply with the code requirements such as the zoning code and critical
areas code. In the second phase, civil review, an applicant submits detailed engineering drawings showing
the proposed civil improvements associated with the subdivision. After the civil plans are approved, the
applicant can either construct or bond for the civil improvements. Following the civil phase of the
process, the applicant would submit for final review where staff verifies that all conditions of preliminary
approval have been met. The subdivision would then be recorded with Snohomish County.
Currently the subdivision code limits the validity of preliminary short plat approval to five years. This
timeframe applies only to short plats which are subdivisions into four lots or less. During that timeframe,
an applicant would need to complete the civil and final review phases of the short plat process. In the past
this process was completed by most applicants well under the five year timeframe. However, the
economic downturn caused unanticipated delays to several projects. Recognizing the impact of the
economic downturn, State law was revised to increase the timeframe for validity of formal plats,
subdivisions into 5 or more lots, to 10 years for certain formal plats that received preliminary approval
before December 31, 2007, and 7 years for formal plats that received preliminary approval on or before
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 7, 2013
Page 8
December 31, 2014, after which the timeframe for validity of formal plats will return to 5 years. Although
State law establishes the timeframe for formal plats, it is up to local jurisdictions to establish the
timeframe for short plats.
At the January 22, 2013 Council meeting a member of the public requested the City consider increasing
the current 5 year timeframe for preliminary short plats to 7 years to provide applicants impacted by the
economic downturn an opportunity to complete their projects. This was discussed with the Parks,
Planning and Public Works Committee on February 11, 2013; the committee was receptive to potentially
increasing the timeframe and forwarded the item to the Planning Board. The Planning Board held a
discussion and a public hearing on March 27 and recommended approval of an extension of the existing
short plat timeframe (Attachment 1 in the Council packet).
Ms. Machuga explained the draft code provides reference to State law requirements regarding the
timeframe for formal plats and proposes to increase the timeframe for validity of short plats to 7 years for
short plats that obtained preliminary approval on or before December 31, 2013 and retains a 5 year period
for short plats that obtained preliminary approval on or after January 1, 2014. The draft code also
establishes a provision to extend the time limit by 2 years from the effective date of the ordinance for
short plats that obtained preliminary approval on or after January 1, 2006 that would have expired based
on the 5 year timeframe prior to adoption of the ordinance.
Ms. Machuga referred to a communication from the Master Builders Association in support of the
proposal that was forwarded to Councilmembers.
Council President Petso asked whether notice of tonight's public hearing was provided to neighbors of
expired plats that the proposed code amendment would resurrect. Ms. Machuga answered no additional
notice was provided, only the typical public hearing notice. Council President Petso asked whether the
Council needed to take action tonight or could the Council hold another public hearing and give notice to
residents near where an expired plat was being resurrected. Ms. Machuga answered the Council could
continue the public hearing and provide notice. However, she was not certain there were funds in the
Planning Division's budget as a good portion of the budget for public notice had already been spent. She
anticipated the cost to be approximately $300, suggesting the Council may need to budget funds for that.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented this was an important issue and she was concerned that the
meeting was not being televised and was audio recorded only. She asked Council President Petso's
opinion regarding a public hearing that was audio recorded only and not visual. Council President Petso
relayed her discussion with City Attorney Jeff Taraday prior to the meeting and his indication that it was
okay for the Council to proceed or the Council could continue the public hearing until the video
equipment was operational. She was unsure if she had discussed the option to hold another public hearing
with Mr. Taraday. Mr. Taraday responded those were all options; re -noticing the public hearing has some
administrative burden. He noted the technical difficulties with the video equipment may prevent someone
from watching the proceedings at home but it did not prevent anyone from testifying. He summarized it
was the Council's decision whether to re -notice or hold the public hearing tonight and continue it.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether re -noticing was required if the public hearing were continued
to next week. Mr. Taraday answered there is an additional step for the City Clerk to notice public hearings
versus showing it as a continued public hearing from the week before.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked how citizens could hear what occurred tonight and if they could request
the recording. Council President Petso responded if the Council proceeds, she was not aware of any
method of this infonnation to be available other than the two press individuals in the room. She suggested
taking comment tonight and continuing the hearing which would give the public two weeks to make a
decision regarding their participation. She summarized the public would not learn about the Council's
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 7, 2013
Page 9
debate and deliberation unless the Council waited until the May 21 meeting. Councilmember Buckshnis
observed the public hearing was properly noticed.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how many expired plats this would affect. Ms. Machuga answered
approximately 15 would have expired in 2011, 2012 and early 2013.
Councilmember Bloom asked at what point in the process the Council was; if the Council was trying to
decide whether to postpone and schedule another public hearing, or postpone and schedule another public
hearing that would include notice to those affected by expired short plats. Mayor Earling suggested the
Council take public testimony and then the Council could make whatever decision they liked.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Donna Breske, Snohomish, explained she brought this to the Council's attention at the January 22, 2013
Council meeting and was pleased with the review process. She was aware when the meetings have been
occurring, there was information available on the City's website and she has received information by
mail. She agreed the technical difficulties tonight would not have prevented anyone from being here to
provide testimony. She noted after preliminary approval of a short plat and a plat, the applicant must
either construct or bond for the civil site improvements before filing for final short plat or plat. The
bonding portion is within ECDC 20.75.130.B. She suggested that section be referred to in the revision of
20.75.170. She referred to the last sentence of 20.75.170, finding the phrase "unless the applicant has
acquired final short plat approval within the specified time period" confusing. She suggested adding to
that sentence, "per ECDC 20.75.130.B" which is the bonding section. She also suggested that same
language be added to the proposed revision in ECDC 20.75.100.B.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Earling closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Ms. Breske's suggestion. Mr. Taraday responded the subsection
Ms. Breske referred to, 20.75.130.B, does not apply to short plats; it applies to long plats or regular
subdivisions. The short plat subsection is 20.75.130.D. To the extent that any reference is made at all, it
should be to 20.75.130.D. Ms. Machuga pointed out that code section addresses bonding, not obtaining
final approval. She felt the additional language Ms. Breske suggested would be confusing, explaining an
applicant can bond for civil improvements to finish the civil phase and then do the final phase. She did
not want to mislead an applicant that this was the only code section regarding final approval.
Councilmember Buckshnis stated she understood Ms. Breske's suggestion was that an applicant could
have everything in place and bonding would show the process was moving forward. Ms. Machuga agreed
bonding would occur and then the final review phase. She was concerned with adding that language to
20.75.107 as that was not the only section that relates to obtaining final review; it was one of the steps to
reach final review. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with including language or reference regarding
bonding in 20.75.107. Ms. Machuga answered it could be cross-referenced but it was not necessary as it
was elsewhere in the code. Further, the subdivision code is being updated and further clarification will be
provided as part of that process. The intent of the proposed change is to address the timeframe.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas preferred to schedule this on a future agenda and hash out the wording at
the staff level.
Councilmember Peterson observed the recommended action is to direct staff to prepare an ordinance for
approval on the Consent Agenda.
Mr. Taraday explained staff discussed to what extent the bonding issue should be taken up at the same
time as plat expiration. The intent was to keep this ordinance to a single issue and be as streamlined and
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 7, 2013
Page 10
as simple as possible due to the urgency related to plats about to expire. Staff consciously chose not to use
this ordinance as a tool to fix all the things in the subdivision code that need to be updated, in part due to
the subdivision reorganization that is occurring that is anticipated to be completed this year. It would be
more efficient to include cross referencing during the reorganization of the subdivision code.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed support for moving forward tonight in view of the urgency
related to plats that may expire. She recommended including the suggested wording as part of the
subdivision code update.
Main Motion
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE CODE CHANGES AS INDICATED
IN ATTACHMENT 1 AND DIRECT STAFF TO BRING IT BACK AS AN ORDINANCE ON THE
CONSENT AGENDA.
Amendment #1
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO STRIKE SECTION 107 WHICH RESURRECTS PLATS WHICH
HAVE ALREADY EXPIRED.
Council President Petso explained the amendment would solve the problem for people whose plats had
not yet expired. She pointed out when development action is undertaken, residents are aware. She recalled
a neighbor who sold his house and moved to Wenatchee due to an upcoming development that he wanted
to avoid. If a resident was aware that a proposed plat near their home had expired, they would no longer
be worried about it. She had a due process concern with the Council suddenly resurrecting a plat without
telling residents about it. The issue of preventing further expirations and giving more time in the future
can be accomplished by deleting Section 107.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed Council President Petso's amendment would not assist anyone
affected by the economic downturn whose plat had expired after the current five year timeframe. Council
President Petso agreed. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if Council President Petso preferred to
give neighborhood notice to the 15 plats. Council President Petso answered yes, but that was not done.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested Council President Petso withdraw her motion and make
another motion to give notice which would address past and future plat approvals. Council President
Petso agreed, noting if the motion failed, she will make an amendment to require that expired plats are not
resurrected without notice to the neighbors. The benefit to her amendment is it prevents any potential
problems related to whether it is legal to resurrect an expired plat.
Councilmember Bloom relayed she asked Mr. Taraday whether any other jurisdictions have created an
ordinance like this to allow expired plats to be reopened without any other due process. It was her
understanding he did some research at the State level which she did not feel applied to the City. Mr.
Taraday explained at the State level, RCW 58.17.140, requires a preliminary long plat be submitted for
final plat approval within 5 years of preliminary plat approval. That statute was amended in 2010 and the
5 year requirement was changed to 7 years to give an additional 2 years to developers suffering from the
great recession and unable to complete their plats before they expired. The reason the State statute is
somewhat relevant is when the State did that in 2010, it effectively revived plats that had already expired.
Mr. Taraday provided a hypothetical example, a long plat approved in 2004 expired after 5 years in 2009;
then in 2010 the State Legislature adopts the new 7 year requirement. The effect of the Legislature's
action in adopting that law was to provide an additional year to complete the 2004 plat that had already
been expired for a year. He assured he was not taking a position on the policy issue; he had no interest in
whether the Council did or did not revive expired plats. The proposed amendment was essentially the
same as what the Legislature did to extend long plats from 5 years to 7 years. In 2012, the Legislature
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 7, 2013
Page 11
adopted another amendment to the same statute, adding another 2 years. Using his hypothetical example,
the 2004 plat that would have expired in 2009, was revived in 2010, would have expired again in 2011, in
2012 the Legislature's second 2 year extension, revived the 2004 plat a second time, and expiring in 2013.
He summarized clearly the Legislature did not have a concern with the legality.
Mr. Taraday explained he did not research other cities' ordinances because he did not feel it would be
useful or persuasive as Edmonds does not look to other cities for authority regarding what Edmonds is
allowed to do; the RCWs and State Constitution give Edmonds its authority. Whether he could or could
not find a similar law in another city would not guide Edmonds in determining what it can do.
Councilmember Bloom asked if there were long plats on a statewide basis that were revived that had
issues. Mr. Taraday answered he did not know but assumed in a state as big as Washington there would
have been long plats that would have been twice revived by the Legislature's actions. Councilmember
Bloom asked whether notice was required to surrounding property owners. Mr. Taraday answered the
State law makes it automatic.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Attachment 3, observing there were 5 expired plats in 2005, 6 in
2006 and 6 in 2007 for a total of 17. Ms. Machuga advised the year in Attachment 3 was the year of
application. Councilmember Buckshnis observed Council President Petso's amendment would eliminate
the 5 plats that expired in 2005 and the remaining 12 could reapply. Ms. Machuga answered the year of
application does not necessarily correspond to the year it was approved. If Section 20.75.107 were
eliminated, 2 years would be added to the expiration date. She noted there were 10 that expired in 2012;
plats that expired at the end of 2012 would have until the end of 2014. The plats that expired at the
beginning of 2012 would get less than a year. There were 3 plats that expired in 2011; those would likely
not have enough time to complete their project.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked how many plats overall would be affected by Council President Petso's
amendment. Ms. Machuga answered it was difficult to determine because it was unknown how long it
would take them to complete their project. Of the short plats that expired in 2012, 7 had submitted for
civil review or had gotten civil approval. There could be quite a few that could come in quickly and get it
finished up; some may take more time and the ownership may have changed on some. If the extension
only gives an applicant a few months from the effective date of the ordinance, staff will also be
scrambling to get it reviewed and finished. Councilmember Buckshnis concluded she would not be in
support of removing Section 107.
Vote on Amendment #1
MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO
VOTING YES.
Amendment #2
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO
REQUIRE NOTICE TO NEIGHBORS OF AN EXPIRED PLAT BEING RESURRECTED UNDER
107 AND AN OPPORTUNITY FOR NEIGHBORS TO PROVIDE INPUT.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked what happens if the amendment is approved, the neighbors are notified,
and a neighbor doesn't like that the plat is extended. Mr. Taraday answered it depends on the intent of the
amendment, whether it is to make the applicant go through a similar process as they went through the first
time around or do a brief check for code compliance. He assumed if there was notice and comment, there
would also be some kind of decision criteria. While the motion does not speak to decision criteria, that
should be included in an ordinance. He requested guidance on whether the intent was a complete redo of
the process or a brief check for errors or code compliance
Councilmember Johnson asked if the intent of the amendment was notice of the public hearing or case -
by -case review.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 7, 2013
Page 12
Council President Petso explained her intent was if someone came to the City trying to revitalize an
expired plat, the extension would not be automatic but rather the neighbors would be given notice and
someone would accept input from the neighbors and make a decision regarding whether the plat was not
granted in error. She explained the review would prevent the City from accidentally resurrecting
erroneous plats and resurrecting plats without informing the neighbors.
Councilmember Bloom expressed support for the amendment, finding it appropriate to inform the
neighbors of expired plats that will be resurrected. She felt it would be a mistake to resurrect expired plats
without allowing the surrounding neighbors to comment publicly.
Ms. Machuga relayed staff s concern regarding what kind of review process this would be. An applicant
who submits an application to extend their plat has already received approval. She was uncertain what
criteria the application would be reviewed against as the application could not be reviewed based on the
current code because codes may have changed since the application was approved. She envisioned the
neighbors could be provided a courtesy notice but was unsure how accepting input and reopening old
issues would work.
Councilmember Yamamoto pointed out the Planning Board held a public hearing where a couple people
spoke. The Planning Board recommended approval. He expressed support for the main motion.
Mayor Earling relayed his conversation with Acting Development Services Manager Rob Chave prior to
his vacation that much of the funds for noticing have been spent. He envisioned the Council would need
to make a budget amendment if they approved noticing of up to 17 plats.
Council President Petso clarified she was not suggesting noticing all 15 sites. Her suggestion is to provide
notice to the neighbors if someone applies to resurrect an expired short plat. Mayor Earling reiterated that
could occur on several properties and require additional funds to be budgeted for noticing.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed Council President Petso's proposal was a courtesy notice to
the surrounding homeowners that someone was extending their plat. She asked how much it cost to notice
homeowners in one area. Ms. Machuga answered typically notice is mailed and published in the Herald as
well as posting of the site. For a short plat, notice is mailed to property owners within 300 feet. In a single
family neighborhood that ranges from 30-60 homes and more if the site is adjacent to a multi -family zone.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas envisioned not publishing notice or posting the site but simply sending
notice to the homeowners in the immediate area. Ms. Machuga answered the cost would be materials,
postage, and staff time. She suggested if an applicant submitted an application for an extension, a fee
could be included to recoup the cost of providing courtesy notice. Mr. Taraday recalled the amendment
stated the extension would not be automatic, there would be an application process and a check for errors
before the extension would be granted which implies it is more than a courtesy notice.
Councilmember Peterson commented the amendment would require a significant rewrite of Section
25.75.107. The language proposed by staff states permits shall have their preliminary approval
automatically extended. The amendment envisions a notice and a re -application which was counter to the
reasoning behind the proposed change. He noted the Planning Board addressed some of these issues in
their deliberations. He did not support the amendment.
Vote on Amendment #2
MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM
VOTING YES.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 7, 2013
Page 13
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 SQUARE 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
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
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
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested the motion be withdrawn until the Council had an opportunity
to review Robert's Rules.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO WITHDREW HER MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
THE SECOND.
Councilmember Buckshnis requested Council President Petso provide her the correct title and she will
purchase her own book.
flrl�u /:\Y1]k"W1011]u lu I WN V
Mayor Earling reported a panel comprised of staff, citizens and Councilmembers interviewed candidates
for the Finance Director position. The number of candidates has been narrowed to two; the code refers to
the Council interviewing three candidates. At his suggestion, it was the consensus of the Council to
schedule the two interviews prior to Council comtnittee meetings next Tuesday.
Mayor Earling reported Tom Petruzzi, a Councilmember in the mid-1990s, passed away last week.
Former Councilmember Petruzzi was a very knowledgeable, articulate, thoughtful person whom the
Council valued enormously. He had a special interest and expertise in commercial properties and was
instrumental in making important decisions including the decision to purchase City Hall. His analysis
confirmed the City saved $1 million by purchasing the building versus purchasing a new building. Mayor
Earling concluded he knew Mr. Petruzzi fairly well and would miss him.
17. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if Mayor Earling wanted Councilmembers to provide specific questions
in advance of the Finance Director interviews. Mayor Earling suggested suggestions be submitted by
Thursday.
Councilmember Buckshnis reported the Waterfront Festival will be held Friday, May 31 — June 2.
Councilmember Johnson reported the 2013 summer concert series was unveiled at the recent Edmonds
Arts Commission meeting. There are two venues this year, City Park and Hazel Miller Plaza. A
presentation will be made in a few weeks and Councilmembers will be invited to introduce concerts.
Councilmember Johnson reported an open house for the Edmonds Museum was held Friday; there is a
new exhibit regarding the growing season featuring farming in Snohomish County. She reminded that the
Summer Market is now open.
Council President Petso reported she has been trying to schedule a mini retreat on May 31 for the Council
to receive training recommended by the City Attorney and to discuss big picture items. Only three
Councilmembers have responded, two of whom indicated that date is convenient. If she does not hear an
overwhelming response to the proposed date, the mini retreat will not be held and she will work with the
City Clerk to schedule the necessary training.
Council President Petso reported a correction needed to be made to the minutes. It was the consensus of
the Council to place the correction on the next Consent Agenda.
Council President Petso reported Tree Board interviews will be scheduled for May 28. There are four
applicants for the two vacancies.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 7, 2013
Page 17
Councilmember Bloom reported the Tree Board will be at the Edmonds Fun Fair at Yost Park on May 11.
Councilmember Peterson announced the Edmonds Police Foundation will hold their annual ceremony on
May 16 at 6:30 p.m. in Council Chambers.
18. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION PER RCW
42.30.110(1)(i).
At 9:45 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding
pending litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last
approximately 15 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety
Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials
present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Yamamoto, Johnson, Fraley-
Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and Bloom. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday and
Deputy Clerk Linda Hynd. The executive session concluded at 9:50 p.m.
Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 9:51 p.m.
19. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
This item was removed from the agenda via action taken under Agenda Item 2.
20. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:52 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 7, 2013
Page 18