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