Loading...
Cm130730EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES July 30, 2013 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Lora Petso, Council President Strom Peterson, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember 1. ROLL CALL STAFF PRESENT Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Phil Williams, Public Works Director Roger Neumaier, Finance Director Rob Chave, Acting Development Services Dir. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Michael Clugston, Planner 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 with the exception of Councilmember Yamamoto. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO SCHEDULE ITEM 10 ON THE AUGUST 20, 2013 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA AND APPROVE THE AGENDA WITH THAT CHANGE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Buckshnis asked to abstain from the vote on Item A. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED (5-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS ABSTAINED. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 23, 2013. B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #203360 THROUGH #203499 DATED JULY 25, 2013 FOR $480,724.31. C. RESOLUTION NO. 1296 - REPEAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1290. 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Al Rutledge, Edmonds, suggested holding the Council meeting at Edmonds Night Out next year. He next announced the winner of the Top Foods shopping spree will be shopping at 4:00 p.m. on August 9. He welcomed new Edmonds Beacon editor, Paul Archipley. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 1 5. CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OF FILE # PLN20130030 AND THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A PROPOSAL TO REZONE ONE PARCEL (403 & 405 3RD AVE. N.) FROM CONTRACT RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY (RM-3.0) TO RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY (RM-2.4). Mayor Earling explained the purpose of the closed record hearing is for the City Council to address the recommendation of the Planning Board to approve a site specific rezone at 403 and 405 3' Avenue North. He opened the closed record hearing. Mayor Earling explained the City Clerk will make a recording of the proceedings. The hearing is not open to public testimony; this is a hearing on rezones requested by Helena Parker, Jack Shubic, Hattie Longmire, and Steve Cohn. It is not an open record hearing and there will be no opportunity during the closed record hearing for public testimony. Oral argument will be allowed from the applicants and parties of record. The parties of record include the applicant, any person who testified at the open record public hearing on the application and any person who individually submitted written comments concerning the application at the open record public hearing. Mayor Earling explained the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine requires this hearing be fair in form, substance and appearance. The hearing must not only be fair, it must also appear to be fair. He asked whether any member of the decision -making body has engaged in communication with opponents or proponents regarding the issues in this rezone matter outside the public hearing process. Councilmembers Fraley-Monillas, Johnson, Bloom, Peterson, and Buckshnis, Council President Petso and Mayor Earling advised they had not. Mayor Earling asked if any member of the Council had a conflict of interest or believed he/she could not consider and hear the application in a fair and objective manner. Council President Petso and Councilmembers Buckshnis, Peterson, Bloom, and Fraley-Monillas and Mayor Earling advised they had no conflicts. Councilmember Johnson disclosed she knows the applicant's representative, Steve Cohn; they worked together many years ago. Mayor Earling asked whether any audience member objected to his or any Councilmembers' participation. There were no objections voiced. Mayor Earling described the procedures for presentation of oral argument: applicants and parties of record will be allowed 5 minutes each; the time can be extended if necessary. The Council's jurisdiction in the closed record hearing is to determine whether the applicant has made the showing required in ECDC Chapter 20.40. The Council was agreeable to the described procedures. Staff Presentation Planner Michael Clugston explained the Planning Board conducted a public hearing on the rezone request on June 26, 2013. He displayed Attachment 2 to the Staff Report, an aerial photograph of the site and surrounding area. The site is currently zoned RM-3.0 with contract; the applicant has proposed to change the zoning to RM-2.4. He referred to the staff report, Exhibit 1; testimony from the applicant, Exhibit 2; Planning Board minutes, Exhibit 3; and public hearing sign in sheet, Exhibit 4. Mr. Clugston explained the code contains six criteria that must be considered for a site specific rezone. He referenced the Planning Board's consideration of the 6 criteria (page 9 of Exhibit 3, Planning Board minutes): A. Whether the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Board found the proposal was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as the RM-2.4 zoning classification is one of the possible implementing zones for Multi -Family — Medium Density Comprehensive Plan Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 2 designation. The current designation is Multi -Family — Medium Density. There are two implementing zones for that designation, RM-3.0 and RM-2.4. B. Whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and proposed zone district. The Planning Board found the proposal to rezone to RM-2.4 consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district. C. Whether the proposal to change the zoning is consistent with the surrounding area and nearby property. The Planning Board found it was appropriate in relation to the surrounding area. D. Whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate or surrounding area or in city policy to justify the rezone. The Planning Board found there had been sufficient change in city policy to justify the rezone. E. Whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the proposed use. The request is to rezone the parcel from RM-3.0 with contract to RM-2.4. A variety of uses are allowed in the RM-2.4 zone that could be established via the appropriate permits. Although the applicant's primary interest is to establish one more dwelling unit in the front building on the parcel facing 3' Avenue (Attachment 10 to Exhibit 1), their request is to change the zoning from RM-3.0 with contract to RM-2.4. Although the site currently may not be suitable for inclusion of an additional dwelling unit as significant alterations would need to occur, the Planning Board wanted to provide that flexibility with the understanding that building permits and additional review would be required. If the existing structures were removed and the entire site redeveloped, it would be physically suitable for that use as the parcel is fairly flat and on an arterial. Mayor Earling extended Mr. Clugston's time for two minutes and advised the applicants they would have a total of seven minutes. Mr. Clugston continued his review of the criterion: F. The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property owners. The Planning Board found there was a gain in public health, safety, welfare compared to the potential increase in value to the property owners. Applicant Presentation Steve Cohn, professional land use planner, representing the applicants, advised his complete remarks are contained in the Planning Board minutes and the addendum submitted to the Planning Board (Exhibit 2). Mr. Cohn agreed with the Planning Board's findings as relayed by Mr. Clugston. Ms. Parker is interested in an additional unit but that would be done via a separate process and would only be allowed if all the City's regulations could be met. Due to the size of the site, it is unlikely other uses could be located on the site. Other regulations such as parking would limit the size and impact of other potential uses. Helena Parker, one of the applicants, introduced herself, stating she has lived in Edmonds for ten years. She would like to add another unit eventually but recognized the first step was appropriate zoning. Council Questions Mayor Earling explained the Council may now ask clarifying questions. Staff and the applicant will have the opportunity to rebut responses. He cautioned the Council not to request information outside the administrative record. Councilmember Buckshnis noted staff recommended denial, based primarily on criteria D, sufficient change in the character of the immediate surrounding area or city policy to justify the rezone. Mr. Clugston responded once the Planning Board's public hearing is concluded, staff represents the Planning Board's viewpoint. When he reviewed the proposal, he did not find there had been sufficient change in the area; there had not been any additional rezones in the area and the Comprehensive Plan had not changed a great deal. The applicant testified and the Planning Board agreed there had been a few changes in the uses of existing buildings in the nearby area. With regard to city policy, the Arts Corridor and the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 3 Downtown Activity Center have been established. The Planning Board concluded there had been sufficient change to warrant the request. Mr. Cohn advised the Comprehensive Plan designation of the site changed between the time it was rezoned and today; when it was rezoned it was designated Single Family and the Planning Board utilized other Comprehensive Plan policies to justify the rezone. Since that time, the Comprehensive Plan designation on the site has been changed. Council President Petso pointed out the property, as currently zoned, serves as a transition between single family and multi -family. Mr. Clugston agreed, explaining there is an 8-unit apartment to the south and a single family use to the north. If the Council granted this rezone request, Council President Petso asked if the Council would also be required to grant a rezone request by the immediately adjacent single family property owner. Mr. Clugston answered no, explaining the Comprehensive Plan designation of the parcel to the north is still Single Family; they would need to request a Comprehensive Plan change and a rezone. If the goal was to add another unit, Council President Petso asked why the applicant did not request another contract rezone to add another unit rather than a rezone to RM-2.4 without a contract. Mr. Cohn answered in his experience it was much cleaner to have straight zoning and not have a contract rezone. Council President Petso pointed out the Planning Board did not make one of the required findings; for criteria E, the Planning Board stated the site was not currently suitable. In a past hearing, the Council was told that constituted an error. Mr. Clugston answered the Planning Board indicated although it was not currently suitable to establish an additional dwelling unit, with the rezone, it could be done with the appropriate permits. The applicant would be required to meet parking requirements, density, etc. To the question regarding whether the property is physically suitable, Mr. Cohn agreed that was the Planning Board's conclusion. The site is suitable although the current configuration on the site may not be. Mr. Clugston explained if the rezone were approved, both buildings could be removed and the site redeveloped under RM-2.4. The site is physically suitable because it is flat, has existing utilities and is on an arterial. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the Planning Board indicated the site is not suitable until it is razed and redeveloped. The site is not currently suitable for inclusion of the additional unit with confines of Unit A. If the entire site were redeveloped, it would be physically suitable. Mr. Clugston referred to additional Planning Board language that significant alterations would need to occur to Unit A in order to provide the required off-street parking a duplex in that location would require. He clarified the Planning Board recognized a duplex could not be established now; a permitting process would be required. The applicant's request is to rezone the parcel; they have expressed interest in adding a dwelling unit. The permitting process will determine whether that can be done. Councilmember Bloom asked staff to describe the transition. Mr. Clugston referred to Attachment 13 to Exhibit 1, an oblique aerial photograph of the area. He identified the two structures on the subject site, an 8-unit apartment building to the south and a single family parcel developed with a rambler to the north. When the initial contract rezone was approved in 1999, the intent was to create a transition between the more dense 8-unit building on the south and the rambler to the north. Councilmember Bloom asked for further clarification regarding staff s recommendation to deny. Mr. Clugston answered it was primarily because there had not been sufficient change in city policy or the area. He referred to page 4 of Exhibit 3, explaining other than the remodel at 403 and addition of the 405 house when the contract rezone was approved in 1999, there had not been enough change in the area. He referred to Attachment 13 to Exhibit 1, pointing out south of the 8-unit apartments there are several other RM-1.5 zoned sites that are not developed under that zone. With the exception of the 4t1i Avenue Cultural Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 4 Corridor, he did not find there had been enough change in policy to approve the rezone request. The Planning Board indicated the difference between the potential of three units, which this rezone could result in, was not a large change. He read from page 8 of Exhibit 3, "Although he concurred with some of staff s points, Board Member Cloutier said he did not feel it would be appropriate to deny the application simply because there has not [been] significant change in the area to warrant the rezone. Board Members Tibbott and Ellis concurred." The Planning Board concluded the change from RM-3.0 to RM-1.5 would be a minor change; at the most one additional dwelling unit. To the question of whether there had been enough change, Mr. Cohn said staffs focus was on physical change. He acknowledged there has not been a lot of physical change. The applicant's focus was on policy change; they showed there been a lot of policy changes and the Planning Board concurred. To the question regarding transition, he suggested and the Planning Board agreed there is not a great deal of difference between RM-3.0 and RM-2.4. Councilmember Bloom asked about the conditions on uses that were imposed with the first rezone. Mr. Clugston referred to Attachment 9 to Exhibit 1, the 1999 ordinance that established the current zoning. That ordinance stated the primary permitted use was single family dwellings and associated parking and that community facilities, boarding houses and rooming houses and bus stops and shelters were not allowed uses on the site. Several other uses would be allowed on the site that were not mentioned in the ordinance. He agreed many of the allowed uses would not fit on the site due to its size. He referred to Attachment 14 of Exhibit 1 that contains a list of allowed uses in the RM zone. Allowed uses include retirement homes, group homes for the disabled, etc. He acknowledged the parking requirements for those uses would be difficult to meet on this small site. Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding that the applicant's request for RM-2.4 would allow retirement homes, group homes, daycare centers, etc. Mr. Clugston agreed, and said those are already allowed uses under the existing contract. Councilmember Bloom asked whether additional uses would be allowed under RM-2.4. Mr. Clugston answered yes, the uses that were restricted in the 1999 ordinance — bus shelters, community facilities, and boarding houses and rooming houses. All the RM uses allowed in Chapter 16.30 are currently allowed and would be allowed in RM-2.4. Councilmember Bloom observed allowing retirement homes, group homes, offices, daycare, etc. in a transitional zone between multi -family and single family could potentially be a bigger issue for the surrounding residents. Mr. Clugston advised those uses are already allowed; the size of the site would be a limiting factor. Other uses could be established on the site under its current zoning or if the parcel is rezoned. Councilmember Bloom observed since those uses were already allowed, the only difference via the rezone was the applicant could establish an additional dwelling unit. Mr. Clugston answered that is the applicant's intent in the current proposal. Mr. Cohn advised it was unlikely other uses would occur on the site due to parking requirements. Council Deliberation and Action Council President Petso said she would be unable to approve the rezone, finding the Planning Board's consideration was an effort to apply the criteria to the proposal for one additional unit; yet the Planning Board admitted the additional unit does not work under Criteria E. If the intent is one additional unit, a contract rezone to allow the additional unit would be a preferred course. If the intent is a rezone to RM- 2.4 she preferred the staff and Planning Board's evaluation consider the loss of transition that the initial rezone provided. She was unsure the Planning Board evaluated that due to their assumption the outcome would be one additional unit which would still provide a transition. She concluded there appeared to be an error on the part of the Planning Board. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 5 Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with the Planning Board's recommendation, pointing out their finding regarding Criteria D recognized permitting would be required. She pointed out there have been changes in the area and in the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Peterson agreed with Councilmember Buckshnis. He referred to the amended Criteria E, pointing out if one read only the first part of the sentence, "The site is not currently suitable for the inclusion of an additional dwelling unit" he would agree with Council President Petso that there was an error. However, it goes on to state, "within the confines of Unit A at 403 3' Avenue North. Significant alterations would need to occur to Unit A in order to provide the required off-street parking a duplex in that location would require. If the entire site were to be redeveloped, it would be physically suitable for it since the property is flat and located on an arterial." The Planning Board was pointing out there would be work beyond this step to establish another unit. He emphasized the Planning Board did not say the site was not suitable, they said it is not suitable within the confines of Unit A. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO UPHOLD THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED REZONE AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-3), COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, PETERSON, AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON AND BLOOM VOTING NO. City Attorney Jeff Taraday recommended Mayor Earling not vote to break the tie as the ultimate action is an ordinance and the Mayor cannot break a tie on an ordinance. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO DENY THE PROPOSED REZONE. MOTION FAILED (3-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON AND BLOOM VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, PETERSON, AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO. Councilmember Peterson relayed his understanding that the Mayor cannot vote to break a tie on an ordinance; this action is not an ordinance. If the Mayor broke the tie, the ordinance would return to the Council for a vote. Mr. Taraday relayed his advice has been if the Council is voting to direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance and that vote results in a 3-3 tie, that is not a passing motion. Although it is true there is not an ordinance before the Council tonight, the intent of the motion is to affect an ordinance and for that reason he would stand by his advice. Council President Petso relayed her motion did not require an ordinance. Mr. Taraday explained Council President Petso's motion was unnecessary because the applicant must demonstrate they have satisfied their burden of proof and apparently by the vote the applicant has not met their burden and by failing to meet its burden, the application fails. 6. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING AUTHORIZATION TO FUND THE VOLUNTEER APPRECIATION DAY FROM THE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUND. Councilmember Johnson requested Council authorize up to $1,000 to fund the Volunteer Appreciation Picnic scheduled on August 25 at 1:30 p.m. for all boards and commissions, hosted by the Mayor and Council. COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AUTHORIZE UP TO $1,000 FROM THE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUND TO FUND THE VOLUNTEER APPRECIATION PICNIC. Council President Petso explained when the agenda packet was prepared her intent was to provide background regarding the Council Contingency Fund. The numbers in the packet and the numbers in this Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 6 afternoon's email are not entirely correct. In working with the Finance Director, it was determined if the legal fees for the Hillman Closed Record Review and this request are funded from the Council Contingency Fund as well as the Interlocal Agreement on Affordable Housing and other funding commitments made this year such as the Coal Train Study, there will be approximately $6,500 remaining in the Council Contingency Fund. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how the amount, up to $1,000, was determined, noting that is approximately $8 a person if all board and commission members attended. Finance Director Roger Neumaier answered there is a level government is authorized to spend on such an event without a gift of funds or hosting issue. He suggested $8/person has passed the test in his previous experience with Snohomish County. The agenda for the event includes speakers and refreshments; the total cost per person would not be a material amount. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported she is assisting Councilmember Johnson with this event and did not believe it will cost $1,000. She preferred to authorize $1,000 and spend less rather than ask for less and not have enough. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO AUTHORIZE FUNDING THE LEGAL FEES FOR THE HILLMAN CLOSED RECORD REVIEW FROM THE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUND. Council President Petso requested Council approval to pay Carol Morris from the Council Contingency Fund. She explained a majority of the Council approved a motion to hire Ms. Morris; a funding source was not specified at that time. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO PAY CAROL MORRIS' INVOICE FROM THE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUND. Councilmember Buckshnis commented professional services are different than one-time events typically funded by the Council Contingency. She feared if all the Council Contingency Fund was expended on professional services, something else could come up that the Council wanted to fund. She preferred to pay professional services from the professional services line and do a budget amendment and keep the Council Contingency Fund for one-time events such as the Coal Train Study, Interlocal Agreement for Affordable Housing, etc. Mr. Neumaier advised either approach is technically appropriate; it is a policy decision of the Council. All attorney fees are paid from a professional services line item with the exception of contingency fees. He said other cities pay legal costs from contingency reserves. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if a budget amendment would be required to fund items of interest to the Council if next year there were five closed record reviews that used the entire Council Contingency. Mr. Neumaier responded if the Contingency Fund is completely expended, anything that comes later would require a budget amendment. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the professional services budget had been used up. Mr. Neumaier answered if the Council chose to fund this from professional services, a budget amendment would be required. If Ms. Morris' legal fees were paid from the Council Contingency Fund, Councilmember Buckshnis asked that Mr. Neumaier make it clear to citizens that the funding source was the Council Contingency Fund. Mr. Neumaier assured he would. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if there had been similar items paid by the Council Contingency Fund during the past two years. Councilmember Peterson did not remember hiring an outside attorney for any closed record review cases. City Attorney Jeff Taraday recalled there was an attorney hired for the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 7 Bumstead closed record review. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether that attorney was paid from the Council Contingency Fund. Councilmember Peterson answered he believed it was. Council President Petso intended to budget enough money in the professional services line item next year to cover the City Attorney's fee as well as 1-2 closed record reviews. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether Council President Petso agreed professional services should be paid from the professional services line and not Council Contingency. Council President Petso answered yes, if it is budgeted. In response to Councilmember Fraley-Monillas' question, Councilmember Buckshnis explained there was no Council approval to pay the outside attorney used for the Burnstead closed record review from the Council Contingency Fund. Councilmember Peterson explained the Council directed that funds be allocated but did not identify the source. The Council Contingency Fund was the only available funding source without a budget amendment. MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. 8. PRESENTATION ON CRITICAL AREAS `ALLOWED ACTIVITIES' PROVISIONS. Senior Planner Kemen Lien explained this issue was discussed with the Parks, Planning & Public Works (PPP) Committee on July 9, 2013. The issue is the critical area regulations are not completely consistent with the City's Best Available Science (BAS) report that was prepared as part of the City's Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) update in 2004, particularly in regard to allowed activities. Allowed activities are activities that can occur within a critical area or critical area buffer. Allowed activities can be conditioned, must use "Best Management Practices" and must not degrade associated critical area. Examples include utility maintenance, activities within the improved right-of-way, and alterations to structures that do not increase the "footprint of development." This idea of development or redevelopment within the developed footprint was discussed in the BAS report. The BAS report noted that the vast majority of the City (96%) is already developed and that future growth will be concentrated in the redevelopment of existing parcels. The BAS report noted the challenge for the CAO is providing opportunities to improve conditions around critical areas in the long term while allowing reasonable redevelopment. The BAS concluded the main route to improving critical areas and their buffers was to require buffer enhancement in exchange for allowing development and redevelopment within the existing footprint of development. It was intended that this approach would be reflected in the City's adopted CAO. When the language was transferred to code in the critical area regulations, the language referred to "additions to existing structures" rather than "within the existing footprint of development." Two examples have come to light recently that illustrate this problem, the American Brewery silo and the City Park project. Mr. Lien identified the area where American Brewery would like to install a silo, the 200-foot CAO wetland buffer that projects onto the site. Strict interpretation of the critical area regulations that an existing structure within the critical area buffer can be altered, placing a silo is not an alteration to an existing structure, so technically cannot be allowed under the City's CAO regulations. He pointed out it is in a paved area and placing a silo in that location would not have any impact on the existing critical area. Mr. Lien explained the City Park project includes a proposal to extend the play area. He identified the remnant of Edmonds Marsh on the east side of SR 104, explaining the play area is separated by a parking lot. The proposed play area would expand within the buffer area; although not previously a developed area, it is separated from the wetland by a previously developed area. "Buffer" means the designated area Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 8 immediately next to and part of a stream or wetland that is an integral part of the stream or wetland ecosystem. The developed area is physically separated and functionally isolated. The interpretation of the CAO has impacts throughout the City particularly due to streams through the bowl such as Shellabarger, Shell Creek and Henley Stream. The buffers on those streams can encompass more than one parcel. This issue was described to the PPP Committee on July 9 who recommended forwarding it to the Planning Board. The Council packet includes a potential interim ordinance for Council consideration at a future meeting while the Planning Board conducts their review. The Planning Board is scheduled to begin their review at their August 14 meeting. Council President Petso asked whether this proposal applied to all kinds of critical areas such as fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas or steep slopes or did it only apply to wetland. Mr. Lien answered the allowed activities provision is located in the general regulations of the CAO which apply to all critical areas. Other critical areas have their own allowed activities; there is similar language in the wetland section. Anything in the general regulations, 23.40, applies to all critical areas. With regard to the City Park project, Council President Petso asked how much additional encroachment into the buffer was proposed. She viewed it as a small area and envisioned a small redesign might solve the problem rather than a code change. Mr. Lien indicated he was unable to discuss the park design. He identified the 100 foot buffer from the wetland. In discussions with Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite, she indicated any redesign would require moving the play area which would result in the loss of several large trees on the south side of the park. Council President Petso referred to the American Brewery silo, recalling there has been discussion about curing the sins of the past. She noted it was one thing to rip up a parking lot and reestablish a natural buffer; it was more difficult to remove a structure and reestablish a natural buffer. She asked whether the change from structure to developed footprint may make it more difficult to restore some critical areas. Mr. Lien answered additions and redevelopment provide an opportunity for enhancement. For allowing redevelopment within a previously developed footprint, there would be enhancement to improve the area around the wetland. Council President Petso asked if the change would allow redevelopment to occur wherever there was existing pavement. Mr. Lien answered allowed activities can happen as long as BAS are in place; these are generally things like erosion control, etc. The development must not degrade the associated critical areas. Development can be allowed within redevelopment areas but some contingents have to be met that would not impact the critical areas. He agreed it could extend to the edge of the existing parking lot if it met the other conditions. Council President Petso asked what constituted physically separated; whether a path along the edge of the wetland or a 4-foot brick wall along the edge of a steep slope would be sufficient to say it was physically separated and thus allowed to build to the existing separation. Mr. Lien answered in the draft interim ordinance, the decision regarding physically separated and functionally isolated is made by a qualified professional such as a wetland professional or stream biologist. Typically there is a road separating the property from a stream or in the case of the City Park project, the site is separated from Shellabarger from an apartment/condo complex. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the PPP Committee recommended this be reviewed by the Planning Board. She feared the Council was getting caught up in the examples when the real issue was BAS language translated to code was "additions to existing structures" rather than "within the existing footprint of development." Mr. Lien explained the interim ordinance brings the CAO into consistency with the BAS report. Responding to Councilmember Buckshnis, Mr. Lien explained the issue was scheduled for review by the Planning Board following the PPP Committee meeting; tonight's meeting did not delay the Planning Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 9 Board meeting. Councilmember Buckshnis asked what happened if the Planning Board wanted to amend the language in the interim ordinance. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained it was entirely possible the Planning Board could make changes to the interim ordinance such as was done with the Farmers Market interim ordinance. In that case, the Council adopted the revised version of the regulations and repealed the interim ordinance. If the Planning Board returned with revisions to the interim ordinance and the Council approved the revisions, the Council would adopt the revisions and appeal the interim regulations. Acting Development Services Director Rob Chave advised an interim ordinance was proposed primarily due to timing. Ms. Hite is concerned with a delay because the City Park project is at 30% design and it needs to be at 60% before it goes to bid. With regard to the City Park project Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested moving the play pad onto another section. Mr. Lien explained the real issue is BAS language translated to code was "additions to existing structures" rather than "within the existing footprint of development." The City Park project was an example of how that impacts potential development. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she did not understand the urgency. Mr. Chave relayed Ms. Hite's indication that because of the configuration of the park, if the proposed location was not allowed, it would need to be shifted. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how the Shoreline Master Plan (SMP) affects critical areas. Mr. Lien answered the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and Growth Management Act (GMA) are two different things. Within shoreline jurisdictions, the SMA rules; outside of shoreline jurisdictions, the GMA rules. The CAO is an outgrowth of the GMA. Portions of the CAO have been adopted within the updated SMP which would apply within shoreline jurisdictions. The Department of Ecology specifically excepts portions of the CAO that do not apply within shoreline areas. The allowed activities provisions within the CAO applies within shoreline areas. The buffers may be different in shoreline areas when the SMP is adopted; but the allowed activities provisions would still apply. Councilmember Johnson pointed out the interim ordinance was not discussed at the PPP Committee meeting. Her preference was an expedited review by the Planning Board; it was possible it could be completed in the next four weeks. Councilmember Bloom clarified her understanding of Mr. Lien's explanation was that BAS was not applied in the language of the CAO. Mr. Lien explained the BAS report talks about development and redevelopment within the developed footprint. The developed footprint can be considered the impervious area. When written into the critical area regulations, the language was changed to alterations to existing structures within the developed footprint. Councilmember Bloom asked if the State required the CAO to be consistent with other jurisdictions. Mr. Lien answered unlike the SMP which the State approves, the State does not approve critical area regulations. Critical area regulations must be developed in accordance with BAS. When the code language was drafted, "structures" was added which was not in the BAS report. Mr. Chave explained the Department of Ecology's general approach is with regard to existing development, there is little that can be expected to change, particularly in a city like Edmonds that is 96% developed. The approach in Snohomish County, where there are extensive areas that are undeveloped, is different than the approach in a city such as Edmonds. Edmonds' BAS report fits the circumstances in Edmonds; the focus in Edmonds is enhancement such as improving runoff control or improving the existing buffer area in exchange for allowing some additional development. Unfortunately, the code ultimately undermined that enhancement capability by being overly restrictive with regard to the existing footprint by the use of the word "structure." In response to Councilmember Johnson's comment, Mr. Chave advised the Planning Board has a public hearing scheduled on August 14. It is quite possible the Planning Board's recommendation will be returned to the Council in August. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 10 Councilmember Peterson was concerned with the impact on the City Park project and potential grant fund deadlines if design percentages are not met. Public Works Director Phil Williams commented he has talked with Ms. Hite about this issue. The concern is a consultant is actively working on the design; if that work was shut down for 1-2 months, it could have an impact on the project delivery date. Another issue Ms. Hite was concerned about was moving the project from its current location would result in the loss of mature trees which she wanted to avoid. The current location seemed to be the optimum location but this issue in the code arose. The sooner this issue is resolved, the better, in order to give the design consultant the information they need to proceed. Councilmember Peterson pointed out the aerial photograph on the City Park project example is the current pad. He envisioned the new project may encroach further and likely cannot be resolved by moving the footprint a few feet. Mr. Williams agreed the new feature will encroach into the buffer. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas preferred to have this reviewed by the Planning Board. As the project is in design, she suggested it be designed so that it does not encroach into the critical area. She was uncomfortable with unknown deadlines and rushing. Councilmember Buckshnis advised she has seen the plans, has talked with Ms. Hite, and this is the best location. She reiterated the issue is the language from the BAS report when it was transferred to the CAO. With regard to the American Brewery silo, she pointed out both structures are physically separated and functionally isolated from the marsh. Councilmember Bloom observed the Council could adopt an interim ordinance tonight or next week. She asked when the interim ordinance would be effective. Mr. Taraday answered it was up to the Council when/if they wished to adopt an interim ordinance. A public hearing is not contemplated in advance of the adoption of the interim ordinance; a public hearing is typically held within 60 days of the adoption of the interim ordinance. The Council could adopt the interim ordinance tonight; it would take effect within 5 days of publication, typically 10 days after passage. Councilmember Bloom observed the matter is already scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Board. Mayor Earling explained the intent was for the Council to adopt the interim ordinance next week as a safety net in the event there was a delay in the Planning Board's review and recommendation. He relayed concern that redesign would cost more time and money. Although Ms. Hite is on vacation, he suggested Councilmembers email her any outstanding questions. Councilmember Peterson referred to the interim ordinance the Council approved regarding the farmers market. The Planning Board reviewed the ordinance and forwarded revisions to the Council. The interim ordinance resulted in something better and without it, timing, contracts, etc. may not have been addressed. The interim ordinance would ensure funds for a park project were not lost. He was willing to delay approval of the interim ordinance until next week. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what funds would be lost and when they would be lost. Councilmember Peterson responded there was grant funding; if certain criteria are not met, the grant funds can be lost. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if grant funds were in jeopardy of being lost. Mr. Williams advised when a consultant is working on a design, if the location shifts, all the sheets must be redone. Out of caution, the design would be shut down until the issues are resolved, creating delay and there were costs associated with the delay. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what that had to do with grant funding. Mr. Williams advised any money spent on a design that has to be discarded and a new design created was not using grant funds effectively. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 11 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to Councilmember Peterson's comment that grant funding would be lost. She was concerned that was not accurate. Councilmember Peterson explained he asked if grant funds would be lost; Ms. Hite was not here to answer that question. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas agreed because Ms. Hite was not here, the Council did not have that information. Mr. Williams explained if the design, funded by a grant, has to be redone, the additional cost likely would come from City resources. He clarified grant funds would not be lost but they may need to be supplemented with additional City funds. With regard to BAS and physically separated and functionally isolated, Mr. Williams advised development can be physically separated by distance but still be functionally connected; in the case of the City Park project, the impervious parking lot and buildings functionally isolate the project environmentally. Councilmember Buckshnis commented Councilmembers are not park expects; Ms. Hite has worked on the City Park project for over a year. The Council is being distracted by the examples and issues such as moving the spray pad; the Council should not be micromanaging the project. She referred to revised language in paragraph 3 of the proposed interim ordinance (Attachment A). She was prepared to pass the interim ordinance next week. The goal was to ensure the language in the CAO was consistent with the BAS report. Councilmember Bloom supported voting on the interim ordinance next week. She asked for an opportunity to review one of the definitions with Mr. Taraday before next week. She relayed her understanding that it was not that grant funds were being lost, grant funds could be spent on a design that later needed to be changed. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 9. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON INCORPORATING THE HARBOR SQUARE MASTER PLAN INTO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Council President Petso recalled this was discussed most recently at the Council mini retreat; Council direction at that time was to bring it back to the Council in July. At that time the options presented by City Attorney Jeff Taraday were to adopt the plan, change the plan or deny the plan; do nothing was not presented as an option. She sought Council direction so that the next agenda item on this topic could read Discussion and Potential Action on the Harbor Square Master Plan. Councilmember Buckshnis commented a plan could not be adopted because a plan was in the process of being created based on Council input, Exhibit 2. The Council was in the process of reviewing Exhibit 3, the Planning Board recommendation and how the issues had been addressed in Exhibit 2. Before the Council moved on with their consideration of Exhibit 3, Council President Petso asked whether the Council can adopt the original Port Master Plan by majority vote or has that plan been denied. City Attorney Jeff Taraday's recollection of prior Council action was the plan had not been denied; none of the motions to approve or deny passed. Council President Petso relayed her understanding that the original Port Master Plan could be adopted by a majority vote of the Council. Mr. Taraday agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the Port Master Plan has been withdrawn so there is no plan. Mr. Taraday agreed the plan was withdrawn but the Port's withdrawal of the application does not prevent the Council from continuing to process the Harbor Square Master Plan; it also does not foreclose the possibility of the Council adopting exactly what the Port proposed. Even though the Port has withdrawn their application, the Port began a legislative process by applying for a Comprehensive Plan amendment; Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 12 once that legislative process has begun, it resides at the City Council until the Council takes action. The Council could ultimately decide, 1) they like the Port's original submission, 2) they like elements of the Port's original submittal but want to revise other elements, 3) deny the plan in its entirety, or 4) acknowledge the withdrawal of the application and decide to cease processing the application as a result of that withdrawal. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the Council has been working on a staff -developed Harbor Square Master Plan based on Council and citizen input, Exhibit 2. She reiterated the Council was still in the process of telling staff what they want in Exhibit 2. Mr. Taraday agreed, explaining because the Council has not decided exactly what they want the Harbor Square Master Plan to look like, he has not ruled out any of the possibilities. The ultimate plan could be any one of a hundred different flavors, including the original plan submitted by the Port. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled making a motion that the Council was no longer working off the Port plan which gave staff 45 days to develop a new plan. Mr. Taraday's recollection and interpretation of Councilmember Buckshnis' motion was the Council was moving forward with a different draft for the purposes of discussion; that new working draft did not permanently foreclose the possibility of the Council adopting the Port's original plan. He summarized there were many different flavors available for the Council's consideration. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether reconsideration of her motion to not work off the Port's plan would be necessary for the Council to again consider the Port's Master Plan. Mr. Taraday said he was unsure how significant the declaration of the working draft was. Someone needs to move a draft of a Master Plan for this property. The Council is not there yet; the prior motions in the process do not matter, assuming the Council can eventually get to four votes for some version of the Master Plan. Councilmember Bloom commented the process has been very confusing. The Port has withdrawn their plan and there are major differences of opinion between what the Council wants, what citizens have expressed they want and what has been presented. In order to simplify the matter, she preferred to abandon the Port's Master Plan that was withdrawn by the Port and focus on Exhibit 4, Council President Petso's revised Downtown Master Plan and hold a public hearing on that. She anticipated that would not take a great deal of staff time; the Council has been told there was no staff time available. Councilmember Johnson expressed her support for the Harbor Square Master Plan Issue Table, Exhibit 3, for discussion purposes only. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled Mayor Earling indicated there was not enough staff or time to work on a Master Plan. Mayor Earling responded staff on the second floor are very busy; this is the height of the permit season. He anticipated there would need to be a discussion of staff s limitations in responding to Council requests. Acting Development Services Director Mr. Chave explained there are a lot of projects bringing in revenues that will exceed expectations causing increased workload. If a majority of Councilmembers want to continue to create a plan from Exhibit 2, Council President Petso suggested beginning with page 247, the Planning Board recommendations. Councilmember Johnson summarized the Port adopted a Master Plan for redevelopment of Harbor Square. Based on the comments from the public, there are four key areas of concern, 1) whether to have residential in redevelopment, 2) the appropriate setback from the marsh, 3) building heights, and 4) the environment. There needs to be consistency between the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) for both the residential component and the marsh setback. Building heights, although a key concern, are a zoning issue and not a Comprehensive Plan issue. Environmental concerns are essentially regulatory review. She Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 13 recommended the Council focus on whether to have residential in redevelopment and the appropriate marsh setback. Councilmember Buckshnis viewed the SMP and Harbor Square Master Plan as two separate items. The SMP is strictly environmental although it does address specifics related to housing and buffer areas. The Harbor Square Master Plan in both Exhibits 1 and 2 reference the SMP. Councilmember Bloom expressed appreciation for Councilmember Johnson's summary, pointing out Exhibit 4 addresses all those issues. She reiterated Exhibit 4 would be a good starting point for discussion and a public hearing. Exhibit 4 is a one page summary with modifications/additions to language in the Comprehensive Plan. She summarized Council review of Exhibit 4 would be the simplest approach. Council President Petso summarized three Councilmembers have expressed interest in working on Exhibit 4. If a fourth Councilmember was interested in working on Exhibit 4, she suggested developing a finalized draft of Exhibit 4 for next week's agenda and scheduling a public hearing on whatever the Council produces next week. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed support for working on Exhibit 4. Mr. Chave pointed out Exhibit 4 was a separate amendment to the Comprehensive Plan; whatever is developed would need to be referred to the Planning Board. Councilmember Johnson asked Mr. Lien to explain the relationship between the Comprehensive Plan and the SMP. Mr. Lien recalled one of the Planning Board's recommendations regarding the Harbor Square Master Plan was that the Harbor Square Master Plan and the SMP be considered together. The SMP update came to the Planning Board before the Port applied for the Harbor Square Master Plan. With the marsh designed as a shoreline and shoreline jurisdiction extending into the Harbor Square property, a new shoreline environment was developed for the Harbor Square property. When developing the SMP, all plans made and being made are to be considered. The Planning Board slowed the SMP process to allow the Port an opportunity to submit the Harbor Square Master Plan. While they are separate actions, the SMP and Harbor Square Master Plan are connected with regard to types of uses. The draft SMP includes residential uses; the Harbor Square Master Plan also talks about residential uses. The setbacks are an SMP issue that any redevelopment of Harbor Square would need to comply with. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the Harbor Square Master Plan's inclusion of residential has no impact on the SMP because the Urban Use III environment includes residential. She noted the Council can move forward with the SMP, Exhibit 4 would not be as specific as a Master Plan such as was presented by the Port. Mr. Lien pointed out the key aspect between the SMP and Harbor Square is residential uses. He was uncertain how Exhibit 4 addresses residential uses. If Exhibit 4 prohibited residential uses, the Urban Mixed Use III environment would need to be revised. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how the language Council President Petso proposed in Exhibit 4 would be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Council President Petso answered there is a section that specifically addressed the near waterfront area; that is the section she changed in Exhibit 4. Councilmember Peterson asked when the SMP is on the Council agenda next. Mr. Lien answered it is not on the extended agenda; he was waiting to see what the Council did with the Harbor Square Master Plan. He anticipated two more meetings with the City Council on the SMP; first the City Council proposing changes to the draft SMP and the subsequent meeting the revised SMP that would be submitted to the Department of Ecology. He could schedule the SMP on a Council agenda next month. Mr. Chave explained the Comprehensive Plan section Council President Petso revised was the section that addresses the Master Plan area that includes Harbor Square, Salish Crossing and up to Main Street. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 14 Mayor Earling commented if the Council is considering a change that affects that entire area, that is a substantial shift and would require involving an entirely different group of property owners and considerably more staff time. He urged the Council to focus on Harbor Square and not broaden the discussion to the entire waterfront. Council President Petso recalled that concern was raised when she drafted Exhibit 4 earlier this spring. She prepared a separate draft that addressed only the Harbor Square parcel and left the other parcels under their original designation. She could do that again for next week's agenda. Councilmember Buckshnis questioned why this needed to be discussed next week. Council President Petso answered next week's agenda has an hour available. Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton referred to the reference of Exhibit 4 as Council President Petso's revised Downtown Master Plan, pointing out it is not a Master Plan; it simply amends existing Comprehensive Plan language. His concern was the Council considering that language without it being reviewed by the Planning Board as is required. Council President Petso agreed with Mr. Clifton and suggested Exhibit 4 not have her name attached to it but be a generic proposed draft. If the Council decided to pursue Exhibit 4, she agreed it needed to be referred to the Planning Board for a full and proper process. Councilmember Bloom asked if any Comprehensive Plan change must first go to the Planning Board and whether the Council could develop a draft for the Planning Board to consider. Mr. Clifton explained it would need to be reviewed by the Planning Board as a potential Comprehensive Plan amendment. He raised that concern in an email when Council President Petso first distributed the draft language several months ago. His specific concern was the title of Exhibit 4, Council President Petso's revised Downtown Master Plan; it is not a Master Plan, it is language that amends the Comprehensive Plan. Council President Petso summarized the direction she has heard is to work on a version of Exhibit 4 next week that does not involve properties other than Harbor Square. Councilmember Buckshnis requested specifics about what Comprehensive Plan language Exhibit 4 amends. She was concerned the Council was rushing. Councilmember Peterson relayed tonight's discussion about incorporating the Harbor Square Master Plan into the City's Comprehensive Plan has now turned into changing the Comprehensive Plan. He wanted to ensure the Council agreed they wanted to amend the language in the Comprehensive Plan, noting this is the first time this has been discussed. If that was indeed the Council's direction, he wanted it noticed that way, not just Continued Discussion on Harbor Square. He found it odd that the topic on today's agenda memo, Continued Discussion on Harbor Square Master Plan, has morphed into changing the language in the Comprehensive Plan, two vastly different things, both with complex processes. He summarized Exhibit 4 has been part of the Council packet but this is the first time it has been discussed. Councilmember Bloom pointed out Exhibit 4 has been an attachment to the agenda for a number of meetings. She agreed it has not been discussed previously because the focus was on the staff -prepared revised Harbor Square Master Plan. It was her understanding that Exhibit 4 was a way for the Council to indicate what they wanted there. The process has allowed a number of ideas, questions and concerns to be raised and Exhibit 4 is a way to define what the Council wants. From that, a Master Plan can be developed in the future. Council President Petso advised it was her understanding a Master Plan as proposed by the Port was a Comprehensive Plan amendment; Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 4 were also proposed Comprehensive Plan Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 15 amendments. Mr. Taraday agreed they are all Comprehensive Plan amendments; the question is whether Exhibit 4 can be considered an approval with modifications. He did not find that it was approval with modifications because the original Harbor Square Master Plan is a standalone element of the Comprehensive Plan. If the Council ended up adopting a standalone element of the Comprehensive Plan called the Harbor Square Master Plan, depending on how it read, it would be an approval with modifications. Exhibit 4 is not a standalone element; it is essentially an amendment to existing text in the Comprehensive Plan. For that reason it was difficult for him to view it as approval with modifications. If the Council wanted to pursue Exhibit 4, that was inconsistent with approval of a standalone Harbor Square Master Plan element. If the Council wanted to process Exhibit 4, Mr. Taraday recommended a Councilmember make a motion to do so and incorporate in the motion an intent to deny the Harbor Square Master Plan. If the motion passed, the Council would be initiating its own Comprehensive Plan amendment which would be sent to the Planning Board for further hearing and consideration before returning to the City Council. Council President Petso clarified that motion could be made next week or during future discussion. Mr. Taraday agreed. If the Council pursued Exhibit 4, Mr. Chave recommended the Council clarify whether they are addressing only the Harbor Square property or the entire Master Plan area. By pursuing Exhibit 4, the Council was embarking on a new Comprehensive Plan amendment that will need to be docketed. The typical process would be review by the Planning Board during the following year. GMA has fairly extensive requirements for consultation, public process, etc. The Council could hold hearings and develop language for the Planning Board to use as a starting point. COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL PROCEED WITH EVALUATION OF HARBOR SQUARE BASED ON EXHIBIT 3, THE HARBOR SQUARE MASTER PLAN ISSUE TABLE. Councilmember Johnson recalled this is the path the Council had agreed to take. When the Port withdrew their application, the Council got sidetracked and never completed that analysis, the most important of which is the Planning Board recommendation. All the Council's concerns are embedded in the issue table and she preferred to systematically complete that process before discussing an entirely different process. Councilmember Buckshnis commented Exhibit 2 is a function of Exhibit 3. The Council can continue with discussion of Exhibit 3 but that will require staff to finish Exhibit 2. Exhibit 3 is a compilation of Council comments/suggestions and how they are addressed in Exhibit 2. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked for clarification of whether Councilmember Johnson meant Exhibit 2 or Exhibit 3. Councilmember Johnson responded she meant Exhibit 3. She recognized that Exhibit 2 put the decisions in Exhibit 3 in a different format but that was the framework for the discussion that the Council did not complete and she preferred to complete that discussion. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether Councilmember Johnson expected staff to complete Exhibit 2 based on the Council's discussion of Exhibit 3. Councilmember Johnson said her expectation was the Council would reach consensus on key issues. Council President Petso explained Exhibit 4 was based on the information available at the time which included the Planning Board's recommendation and public comments. Her expectation was the Council would not reach consensus on key issues because that has not been accomplished previously despite a variety of different meeting formats. The information in Exhibits I and 2 are too specific for the Council to reach consensus. Exhibit 4 is more general and the Council may be able to tweak it to reach agreement. She did not support the motion. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 16 Councilmember Buckshnis did not support continuing to discuss Exhibit 3 unless staff would be directed to change Exhibit 2 based on the Council's discussion. Councilmember Johnson commented there were no conclusions in Exhibit 3, only statements of opinion on different subjects. For discussion purposes the Council needs to revisit and reach consensus on the key issues. Councilmember Peterson preferred Councilmember Johnson's suggestion rather than pursuing Exhibit 4 He was unsure the Council would be able to reach consensus. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if Councilmember Johnson's expectation was to only discuss Exhibit 3 or would staff be directed to change Exhibit 2. Councilmember Johnson clarified her motion was for the Council to continue the discussion of Harbor Square using Exhibit 3 as the medium for the discussion. Councilmember Peterson suggested if the Council reached consensus, the Council could direct staff to change Exhibit 2. THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING NO. Mayor Earling commented he did not expect staff to do any more work until they receive some specific direction from the Council. 10. DISCUSSION REGARDING CODE OF ETHICS This item was moved to the August 20, 2013 Council meeting via action taken under Agenda Item 2. 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported before tonight's meeting, Councilmember Johnson, Peterson, and he attended Edmonds Night Out at the Francis Anderson Center. Hundreds of kids and parents attended. The emphasis of the event was public safety but it was a great neighborhood event. He complimented staff and volunteers who made the event possible. 12. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Petso reported Councilmember Bloom has volunteered to change from the liaison to the EDC to being the liaison to the Port. She next asked if the Council objected to her informing the EDC and the Planning Board that the Council no longer requested they hold a joint meeting to discuss retail only in the BD1 zone. There were no objections voiced. Councilmember Buckshnis reported tourism is a billion dollar business. Driving the I-90 corridor, she visited many cities the size of Edmonds. She hoped Edmonds would move forward with Roger Brooks' suggestions. For example, millions of people visit a corn palace in Mitchell, South Dakota. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Keely O'Connell and Jerry Shuster for their walkabout at the marsh. She also thanked Councilmember Bloom and Val Stewart for attending. WRIA 8 recommended Edmonds for a $200,000 grant and potentially an additional $50,000 if another project does not proceed. Councilmember Peterson thanked the Edmonds Police Foundation for the Edmonds Night Out event tonight. He extended special thanks to the Police Department, Fire District 1 and National Guard. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 17 Councilmember Bloom recognized Councilmember Buckshnis for her work with WRIA 8. She provided a reminder of the Salish Crossing mid -week market on Wednesdays from 3:00 to 7:00 p.m. Councilmember Johnson reported on Edmonds Night Out, an event sponsored by the Edmonds Police Foundation. She reported a special guest tonight was K9 Officer Dash making his final appearance. K9 Officer Dash is an 8-year old German Shepherd; his handler was promoted and Officer Dash is retiring due to health problems. To help raise funds for a new K9, the Edmonds Police Foundation is selling a stuffed K9 dog wearing a City of Edmonds Police Department vest. The stuff dogs are available at the Edmonds Police Department for $20. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas apologized to Councilmember Peterson for losing her temper during tonight's discussion. She had great concerns with the erosion of critical area buffers and did not want project issues taking priority over the environment. Councilmember Peterson accepted her apology. 13. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). At 9:48 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 30 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. Action may occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and Bloom. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton, Public Works Director Phil Williams, Senior Planner Kernen Lien, and City Clerk Sandy Chase. The executive session concluded at 10:17 p.m. 14. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 10:18 p.m. No action was taken as a result of meeting in executive session. 15. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:18 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 30, 2013 Page 18