Loading...
06/23/2015 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES June 23, 2015 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tern Fraley-Monillas in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Mayor Pro Tem Phil Williams, Public Works Director Kristiana Johnson, Council President Pro Tern Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir. Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Shane Hope, Development Services Director Lora Petso, Councilmember Scott James, Finance Director Joan Bloom, Councilmember Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember (arrived 8:44 p.m.) Michael Nelson, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Dave Earling, Mayor 1. ROLL CALL Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Rob English, City Engineer Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Mayor Earling and Councilmember Mesaros. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Mesaros was not present for the vote.) 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Petso requested Item E be removed from the Consent Agenda and Councilmember Bloom requested Item A be removed. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Mesaros was not present for the vote.) The agenda items approved are as follows: B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #214806 THROUGH #214861 DATED JUNE 18, 2015 FOR $532,422.72. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #61646 THROUGH #61656 DATED JUNE 19, 2015 FOR $14,126.90, BENEFIT CHECKS #61657 THROUGH #61662 FOR $11,711.19 AND WIRE PAYMENTS OF $465,944.14 FOR THE PAY PERIOD JUNE 1, 2015 THROUGH JUNE 15, 2015 C. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM GERALYN GENDRON (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 23, 2015 Page 1 D. RENEW SNOHOMISH COUNTY ILA FOR IT EQUIPMENT ITEM E: UPDATE CITY'S INVESTMENT POLICY Councilmember Petso advised the proposed changes to the investment policy hinge in part on what is done with Council committees. She suggested the Council acknowledge by consensus that the Finance Director is authorized to deposit fund proceeds in the Snohomish County Local Government Investment Pool but bring Agenda Item E back at a subsequent meeting. There were no objections voiced to Councilmember Petso's suggestion. A. APPROVAL OF DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 16, 2015 Councilmember Bloom pulled this item to abstain from the vote as she was absent from the meeting. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE ITEM A. MOTION CARRIED (5-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM ABSTAINING. (Councilmember Mesaros was not present for the vote.) 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, asked where he could find commercial zones in the Comprehensive Plan. There is reference to downtown commercial use, but he recalled there being commercial zones such as on Highway 99. It appears the zoning now is only apartments and mixed use and he asked whether commercial zoning was being eliminated. He reported on a wonderful experience he had on Father's Day at Paine Field where he was able to fly a P-51. He summarized it was a special way to celebrate. Don Hall, Edmonds, requested the Council return to committee meetings where the public was able to interact with Councilmembers and staff and have their questions answered. The study session format is too formal and there is no way for the public to be involved except for a three minute comment. He summarized the Council committees worked wonderfully in the past. Bruce Witenberg, Edmonds, in the interest of transparency and accountability, he recommended the Council adopt a resolution or ordinance requiring the public be informed at the time judgments are entered for or against the City. As other citizens have pointed out, this Council, more than any other in recent memory, has spent extensive time in executive sessions discussing pending and potential litigation. He understood the rationale for not informing the public of the specifics regarding matters discussed in executive sessions but did not understand why the Council has not discussed a resolution or ordinance requiring disclosure of judgements entered for or against the City. Such disclosure would not violate the sanctity of executive sessions; rather disclosure would inform citizens of outcomes of litigation in which the City is involved. It was his understanding within the last week a substantial amended judgement was entered against the City in the Debi Humann case. 5. PROPOSED 2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Development Services Director Shane Hope introduced Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss and Don Samdahl, Fehr & Peers. She explained this is a follow-up to June 17, 2015 meeting. She highlighted materials in the packet: • Attachment 1: Comprehensive Plan public process • Attachment 2: Comprehensive Plan presentation from June 17, 2015 meeting • Attachment 3: Draft Comprehensive Plan Ordinance o Exhibit A: Draft 2015 Comp. Plan - edited version Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 23, 2015 Page 2 o Exhibit B: Transportation Element o Exhibit C: 2014 PROS Plan o Exhibit D: 2014 Community Cultural Plan o Exhibit E: 2006 Streetscape Plan (appendix to Comprehensive Plan) o Exhibit F: 2015 Street Tree Plan - edits version o Exhibit G: Stevens Memorial Hospital Master Plan • Attachment 11: Comprehensive Plan comment letters - updated • Attachment 12: Planning Board draft minutes of June 10, 2015 • Attachment 13: Information responding to Council discussion on June 16, 2015 • Attachment 14: Plans/Studies adopted by reference Ms. Hope explained for each draft element in the Comprehensive Plan, the Council held 2-5 meetings and the Planning Board also held several meetings on the draft elements. The Comprehensive Plan is now packaged together but the elements are not substantively different than when they were reviewed individually. She highlighted changes made primarily to reflect items that were discussed at the Council's June 16, 2015 meeting: • Included the tracked changes for the "Elements Adopted" section • Included the tracked changes for the Utilities Element • Included the Land Use Map (same as from 2011, no changes) • Added comments on the right-hand side to clarify certain changes, especially where a section has been moved from one place in the Comprehensive Plan to another • Removed the Shoreline Master Plan (SMP) from the "Elements Adopted" section. This recognizes that the current SMP is in transition (awaiting the Department of Ecology's final approval and any modifications) and regardless, the goals and policies of the SMP are automatically an element of the Comprehensive Plan under State law. • Updated staff names on the acknowledgements page With regard to the Stevens Memorial Hospital Master Plan, Ms. Hope explained although this is an old plan and in an ideal world the City would not continue to adopt it by reference, there is rationale for retaining it. In response to a Council question at the June 16 meeting, Ms. Hope explained the park acreage in the Land Use Element differs from the acreage in the PROS Plan because there are different methods of calculation. The PROS Plan includes parks that are not within Edmonds such as regional parks; there are at least 200 acres in the PROS Plan that are not within city limits as well as other areas such as rights -of - way. She suggested a sentence be added that explains the different methods of calculation. Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained the Stevens Memorial Hospital Master Plan needs to stay in the Comprehensive Plan because of a reference in Chapter 16.62 ECDC MU — Medical Use Zone. Specifically under ECDC 16.62.020, a footnote 2 (Site development standards for the Medical Use Zone) the reference is: 2The applicant may opt to use the height restrictions permitted by the underlying comprehensive plan designation, if the height restrictions are expressed in specific feet or stories. Each "story" referenced in the comprehensive plan shall be equivalent to 12 feet. Minimum setbacks as defined in Note 1 above shall still apply. The base height limit in the MU zone is 35 feet, with the footnote 2 referenced above, an applicant could apply the height restrictions identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Within the Hospital Master Plan, there are height envelopes identified (Low = 2 stories/24 feet, Intermediate = 5 stories/60 feet, and High = 9 stories/108 feet). He displayed the height envelope concept from the Master Plan identifying where the height envelopes apply. He overlaid the height envelope diagram on the zoning map to show where they Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 23, 2015 Page 3 apply. He pointed out the CG2 zone which has a 75 feet height limit. He also overlaid the height envelope diagram on an aerial photo. He referred to the Highway 99 Planning process later on tonight's agenda, noting this area could also be discussed during that process. Council President Pro Tern Johnson recalled approximately five years ago, prior to Swedish, the Stevens Master Plan was being updating. She asked whether the Master Plan in the packet was the most up-to- date. Mr. Lien responded the Master Plan has not been updated. When working with Swedish on their parking garage and ACC addition to the hospital, he pointed out the date of the Master Plan and suggested it be updated. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed concern that the Stevens Memorial Hospital Master Plan is a draft and refers to Stevens Memorial Hospital which is not the same as Swedish. She suggested only utilizing portions of it and removing all reference to Stevens. She questioned whether the City had any liability if Swedish did something that did not follow the Master Plan. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said the intent in the future is to keep what is relevant in the Stevens Memorial Hospital Master Plan and change the title, however, that takes time. Staff s indication is that will be done in the future. For the purpose of adopting this Comprehensive Plan update, the most important thing from the GMA standpoint is a policy document that authorizes the height limits in the zoning code. The code language referenced by Mr. Lien in the ECDC related to the Stevens Memorial Hospital Master Plan does not work as drafted if the Plan were not readopted. GMA requires development regulations be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; there is a consistency issue if the City does not adopt the Stevens Memorial Hospital Master Plan and the code references a document that no longer exists in the Comprehensive Plan. He acknowledged it is not an ideal situation and cleanup needs to be done in the future. Ms. Hope concurred that without the Master Plan, development regulations refer to something that did not exist and would make some existing hospital buildings nonconforming. She recommended including it as a temporary plan. Councilmember Buckshnis compared the Stevens Memorial Hospital Master Plan with the Harbor Square Master plan which included a great deal of public process. She expressed concern the draft Stevens Memorial Hospital Master Plan was dated 1994 and she was unsure the public still agreed with it. She also was concerned with having something in the Comprehensive Plan related to an entity that no long exists. Ms. Hope said the height parameters and building dimensions in the plan still exist. The City is not responsible for other things the hospital does; the City is only responsible for the portions related to development. Mr. Taraday said the Stevens Memorial Hospital Master Plan can be amended but the practical reality is a complete rewrite of the Master Plan cannot be done in time to adopt the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested only referencing what is needed in Stevens Memorial Hospital Master Plan. Ms. Hope said several pages in the Master Plan need to be referenced. She reminded the Stevens Memorial Hospital Master Plan has been part of City's Comprehensive Plan for many years. Councilmember Buckshnis concluded she still has a problem with it. Councilmember Petso agreed with Councilmember Buckshnis and preferred to find a different way to carry over the existing height limits rather than adopting the 1994 Master Plan. She asked if the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning map are supposed to be consistent. Mr. Taraday answered yes, the maps should be consistent. Councilmember Petso said the 1994 map of the Medical Use zone includes residentially and multi -family zoned property, yet the overlay shows multiple stories in those areas which she felt was seriously inconsistent. Mr. Lien said the Comprehensive Plan designation for Medical Use is Hospital and Medical. This area is also within the Hwy 99 Activity Center. The high area matches the high-rise node in the Comprehensive Plan. The zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan map. Medical Use is the zoning associated with the Hospital Medical designation. The height envelopes cannot be applied outside the Medical Use zone because the footnote and development regulations are strictly Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 23, 2015 Page 4 related to the Medical Use zoning regulations. The Stevens Memorial Hospital Master Plan is referenced as adopted; the Master Plan is mentioned in the Medical Highway 99 Activity Center as a master planned area. He summarized the zoning was not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The height regulations in the Stevens Memorial Hospital Master Plan only apply to the Medical Use zone. Councilmember Petso suggested rather than adopting the 1994 Stevens Memorial Hospital Master Plan, include a page that superimposes those heights on the Medical Use zone and delete everything else. Ms. Hope said at least three pages of the Stevens Memorial Hospital Master Plan are needed. She offered to research whether there was a practical way to do that. At this time it seemed better to adopt the Master Plan and consider adopting sections as part of a separate process. Council President Pro Tern Johnson suggested staff find a simpler way to document this or outline a process for updating it. Councilmember Bloom agreed it was confusing and the way to provide clarity was not adopting the Stevens Memorial Hospital Master Plan but to only reference pieces of the plan. She noted the plan does not accurately reflect the hospital's ownership; Stevens was a community -owned hospital and Swedish is privately owned. Ms. Hope commented for purposes of whether the Stevens Memorial Hospital Master Plan is a valid document, it is valid as it applies to this location; the name can be changed. Councilmember Bloom suggested adopting the portions of the plan and the heights related to that area versus adopting the plan itself. Ms. Hope responded it is a timing issue; staff will return at the next meeting with a way to do that or a way to make it clearer. Mayor Pro Tern Fraley-Monillas suggested calling it the medical district as hospital names change. For example, Swedish is actually owned by Providence now. Ms. Hope assured this was intended as a short- term fix. With regard to Edmonds Crossing language in the Comprehensive Plan, Ms. Hope explained that language was carried forward from the previous Comprehensive Plan. With regard to questions whether the Edmonds Crossing project is still alive, she explained it does appear to still be alive. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is still planning for it although there may be changes in the future. If the Council wished, some language in the general section could be removed and reference added to the project and its current status. Council President Pro Tem Johnson expressed concern with the performance measures in the Utility Element. The performance measure refers to the linear feet of utilities that will be replaced. However as the 1% replacement projects have been presented to Council, she found most replacements are at intersections of pipes and are not necessarily a linear extension. She requested staff consider whether there was a better performance measure. With regard to staff s indication that it appears WSDOT plans to pursue Edmonds Crossing in the future, Councilmember Bloom asked how that information was obtained as everything the City has been told to - date is that that project is not in the State's Comprehensive Plan or other plans. Ms. Hope said some things have happened more recently such during the Marina Beach Master Planning process. Public Works Director Phil Williams explained in Ms. Hite and Mr. Shuster's discussions with Washington State Ferries (WSF) and WSDOT regarding routing of Willow Creek in the Marina Beach Master Plan, WSF commented buildings and features shown in the park might conflict with the overpass to Edmonds Crossing. Although Edmonds Crossing is not in the State's plans or long term financing plan to 2030, it is still in their long term thinking. WSF plans to develop a new plan over the next 24 months that will extend to 2040; whether Edmonds Crossing and funding is included in that plan is unknown but it seems to be a possibility. The State provided the City $500,000; those funds along with funds from the City and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 23, 2015 Page 5 other partners will be used for an alternatives analysis to Edmonds Crossing. The City still needs to work with the Ferries Division on answers to a long range versus shorter range plan. Councilmember Petso referred to a press release regarding the alternative analysis that did not match her understanding of the project. She did not intend to fund a preferred alternative; she only wanted a study of the alternatives. If one of the partners thinks this is an alternatives analysis with a preferred alternative, she would recommended pulling the City's funding and participation. She referred to Mr. Williams' reference to the alternatives analysis as an alternative to Edmonds Crossing; her intent was to look at alternative ways to address the road/rail conflicts in general terms not specifically address the ferry system's problem. She was hopeful those general thoughts were shared by the City's administration and Council. Mr. Williams did not entirely disagree with Councilmember Petso' characterization; he agreed Edmonds Crossing does not address the at -grade railroad conflicts, particularly the provision of emergency services to the waterfront and/or pedestrian and auto traffic. It is a project that resolves ferry - related conflicts with railroad. When Edmonds Crossing was put on hold, discussions began regarding how to address at -grade railroad conflicts which is what the alternatives analysis is designed to consider; what can be done without Edmonds Crossing to address those conflicts. Councilmember Petso said the press release also stated a decision would be made based on funding and convenience which was not her intent. For example, if the cheapest option was to put the railroad 18 feet in the air which would block views, she would not make a decision based on funding. Mr. Williams recalled the press release refers to financeability which does not mean to cost exactly but whether it can be financed, whether it is constructible, the efficacy, and what problems can be solved with the selected options. He summarized a balance of all those things would result in a consensus on a way to solve the problem. Councilmember Nelson asked how progress on performance measures will be reported. Ms. Hope said the intent was for staff to report progress on performance measures to the Council annually. The intent of the performance measures was to choose something meaningful and easy to obtain data. Councilmember Bloom said some of language in the Comprehensive Plan regarding Edmonds Crossing is new and she found it confusing. For example, the term mixed use and mix of uses which she recalled Mr. Taraday saying were interchangeable. Ms. Hope agreed. Councilmember Bloom found it confusing because some people think of mixed use as two uses in one building versus mix of uses is generally a mixture of uses within an area. She referred to language under Edmonds Crossing, "Downtown is extended westward and connected to the shoreline by positive mixed use development as well as by convenient pedestrian routes. Redevelopment of the holding lanes and SR 104 is pursued after the ferry terminal relocation at Pt. Edwards." She asked whether mixed use or mix of uses always includes residential. Ms. Hope no, mix of uses or mixed use is any two different uses such as office and retail. Councilmember Bloom clarified that language does not cement residential in that area. Ms. Hope agreed. Councilmember Petso asked the location of the Comprehensive Plan map. Ms. Hope offered to provide the location by email tomorrow. Councilmember Petso refer to her concern with park acreage, explaining that she did not mind that the numbers were different if the numbers in the Comprehensive Plan were reasonably derived from the PROS Plan. Her concern is the numbers in the Comprehensive Plan are not internally consistent and they are impossible to derive from the PROS Plan. For example the PROS Plan includes acreage in Lynnwood such as the shared skate park at Lynndale or acreage attributable to the Public Safety building because parks maintenance maintains the building. She preferred the park acreage numbers in the Land Use Element to be land use numbers which means not counting buildings or property in another city because that skews the percentages. For example she did not want to count the regional county park outside Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 23, 2015 Page 6 Edmonds or underwater property. Ms. Hope assured it is pretty close to that; about 200 acres in the PROS Plan are not counted in the Comprehensive Plan because they are not in the city limits. The Comprehensive Plan only identifies parks, not school grounds which the PROS Plan counts. Councilmember Petso referred to page 115 of the packet in the Land Use Element where parks account for 6.8% of City land which would equate to 370-380 acres of park land. Ms. Hope offered to research. Councilmember Petso referred to the drawing and graph on page 117 of the packet where park land is stated as 6.5%. However, in her calculations the actual percentage is 5.5%. She summarized it was important that the Land Use Element reflect actual park acreage. Council President Pro Tern Johnson referred to current revenue sources on page 488 and a notation that the REET amounts are not guaranteed under the current City policies, meaning not all the .05% tax is available for transportation. She referred to a contingency plan in case of revenue shortfall on page 495 and suggested the Council reevaluate the City's REET policy this year or next year for potential allocation to transportation. It is a significant policy with significant financial implications. The Transportation Committee noted different Councils have discussed that over time. She request that be part of the financing options. Councilmember Petso did not want that in the Comprehensive Plan because it is done annually with the budget. She referred to public comment about reserving areas for commercial, recalling that language was in the prior Comprehensive Plan. For example, Westgate, Firdale Village, downtown are mixed use and Highway 99 can be entirely residential. She asked whether areas will be reserved for commercial and if so, where. Ms. Hope said commercial is allowed in a lot of areas although some areas are mixed use. She would need to research whether any areas were reserved strictly for commercial use. Councilmember Petso said if no areas are reserved for commercial, the Council may want to consider reserving some. Councilmember Petso asked about the SR 104 Plan. Mr. Hauss advised staff is reviewing the plan, a meeting will be held Friday with comments to Mr. Samdahl. He anticipated it will be presented to Council in two weeks. Ms. Hope said the projects identified in the SR 104 Plan are in the Transportation Plan. Councilmember Petso said that is the reason she would like to see the SR 104 Plan prior to approving the Transportation Plan or the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Hauss agreed to forward it to Council. Council President Pro Tern Johnson recognized the Comprehensive Plan is an update and there was carryover but suggested the capital facilities projects be updated. For example whether the Boys & Girls Club should be on the City's Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) and the price for Civic Fields is three times what the price is believed to be. She recommended staff double-check to ensure completed projects are not included in the CFP and that the CFP reflects the most up-to-date thinking. Mr. Hauss offered to resend the Council the SR 104 project list. Mr. Hauss reported staff is completing their last review of the Transportation Plan and will be submitting comments to Mr. Samdahl by Thursday so that final revisions can be made and included in the Council's July 7 meeting packet. He highlighted recent project additions: • SR 104 Complete Streets Corridor analysis (Table 4.1) • 228th project from Hwy 99 to 95th • Edmonds Waterfront at -grade crossing • 2016 expenditure for 228th project (Table 4.1) • 9th Ave/100th Avenue road diet — added subject to future analysis • Walkway project on Elm between 8t1i and 9th is included in the short walkway list, ranked 8 or 9th Connections to Mathaby Ballinger park ranked 1Oth or 1 lth Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 23, 2015 Page 7 Councilmember Petso relayed her understanding of a project in the Transportation Plan on 9th/100th was not a road diet but a bicycle lane. She asked whether the intent was to reduce 911'/100th to one lane northbound and one lane southbound and a center lane. Mr. Hauss answered yes, noting road diet and addition of bike lanes is equivalent. At the intersection of SR 104 & 100th, he agreed further analysis is necessary with regarding to the transition. Councilmember Petso referred to a 2012 traffic study that states reducing the Westgate intersection to a single lane north and southbound will cause an unsatisfactory reduction in level of service (LOS). Proof of that is last year's project that dug up the lane in front of QFC, forcing drivers into the surrounding neighborhoods to avoid the traffic. Forcing drivers off arterials to cut through neighborhoods is not good for the City. Councilmember Petso asked why the addition of a bike lane is phrased as a road diet; she preferred to add a bike lane via purchasing additional right-of-way or having a sharrow at the intersection. Mr. Hauss said further evaluation is needed regarding the intersection. It may not be possible to reduce the two north and southbound lanes to one. He agreed a road diet may not be appropriate at certain intersections and alternate solutions may be necessary. Mr. Williams said a road diet is not a very invasive project, it is primarily paint, thought and planning. He agreed in the out years it could have some impact on the throughput of vehicles at the intersection. In the meantime the benefits of that facility could be realized. In the future it may be desirable to acquire more right-of-way to increase the capacity of the corridor. Modeling indicated it would work fine with the current traffic volumes but further modeling and study may be necessary. Councilmember Petso understood the bike corridor but not the road diet. Mr. Williams said one cannot be provided without the other given the existing right-of-way. Modeling indicated that would not have a major impact on throughput at that intersection. Councilmember Petso asked if the modeling extended to 238th and the double bike lane configuration. Mr. Samdahl said that intersection was included. Councilmember Petso asked if the modeling showed the two intersections could be reduced to a single northbound lane. Mr. Samdahl said he would need to research. Councilmember Petso said in the existing condition both lanes fill with cars coming from Shoreline and when the light changes, both lanes of cars get through the signal. She asked whether one lane northbound had been modeled. Mr. Samdahl answered yes. Mr. Williams said the configuration has been modeled using the best models available but he acknowledged it was speculative. Mayor Pro Tem. Fraley-Monillas declared a brief recess to resolve technical issues. Ms. Hope advised staff will return with refinements; the Council could take action as early as July 7 or if more changes are desired, as soon after that as possible. Councilmember Bloom asked if anyone addressed Kurt Greiner's question about wayside horns. Mr. Hauss answered the design will be done this year and table 4.4 shows $300,000 allocated for construction of a trackside warning systems next year. Councilmember Bloom asked whether Mr. Reidy's comments about the consistency of the new Westgate's plan with the Comprehensive Plan had been addressed. Ms. Hope answered staff believes they are consistent; for example the Westgate plan talks about mixed use. Councilmember Bloom reiterated her question about mixed use versus mix of uses and when residential is included. She asked whether residential needed to be clearly identified as one of uses in order for it to be included. Mr. Hope said it was not necessary to specifically state residential. Councilmember Bloom commented some of the changes to the Comprehensive Plan such as information that was moved or deleted were difficult to track. She asked if a clearer way to identify where changes were made. Ms. Hope agreed it was difficult to track all the changes; over 1000 pages were modified over Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 23, 2015 Page 8 30 meetings. In the current version flags and side -notes were added to identify things that were moved. She will determine if more flags could be added. Council President Pro Tern Johnson thanked staff for their hard work and expressed her appreciation for moving away from identifying 20 separate plans by reference. She observed three plans will be adopted by reference, the Stevens Memorial Hospital Master Plan, the PROS Plan and the Community Cultural Plan. She suggested someday it would be great to have all the goals, policies and projects in one plan so that was only one policy document. Ms. Hope said they could be physical located together even if they were adopted by reference. Council President Pro Tern Johnson spoke in favor of streamlining. Ms. Hope hoped agreed it would be helpful to streamline the Comprehensive Plan. Council President Pro Tem Johnson observed some pages in the Comprehensive Plan are not necessary. Ms. Hope said the Planning Board also noted that. Councilmember Buckshnis said she has everything in one document. She commended staff for their hard work. Her only issue was the Stevens Memorial Hospital Master Plan. For Councilmember Bloom, Ms. Hope said the plans that will be adopted by reference are the PROS Plan, Community Cultural Plan and the Stevens Memorial Hospital Master Plan. Councilmember Bloom asked about reference in the Comprehensive Plan to the Port Master Plan. Ms. Hope said that is to the approved Port Master Plan but it is not proposed to be adopted by reference. Councilmember Bloom referred to the Planning Board minutes that include a motion to remove the phrase, "The location of existing taller buildings on the waterfront and the site situation in the bottom of the bowl can enable a design that provides for higher buildings outside current view corridors." She asked whether comments in the Planning Board minutes were incorporated for example Val Stewart's comment that all reference to natural should be changed to native. Ms. Hope recalled that was discussed at the Planning Board, but it was decided natural and native were appropriate in some places. Also in response to a Planning Board suggestion "resilient" or "resiliency" was added in three places. Councilmember Bloom referred to removal of language in the Comprehensive Plan (page 50 of the existing Comprehensive Plan and 67 of the new Comprehensive Plan), "Complete redevelopment of the Pt. Edwards site consistent with an overall master plan that provides for ^,,,. me -eia or mixed use development compatible with the Edmonds Crossing project." Ms. Hope offered to research why that was removed. Councilmember Bloom asked Ms. Hope if she obtained input from Tree Board Member Ronald Brightman about tree species changes. Ms. Hope said she was happy to accept his input but he has not responded. She will continue to consult with him but noted the plan includes several tree species. Councilmember Nelson thanked citizens for their input into the Comprehensive Plan update, the Planning Board for their work, and staff and the consultants for their work and keeping everyone on a strict timeline. He agreed with Council President Pro Tern Johnson about streamlining the Comprehensive Plan so that staff and citizens can find things quickly. Councilmember Petso recalled in 2002-2003 there was a zoning and planning effort for the Unocal hillside; it was supposed to be mixed use or mix of uses but the first project was entirely multi -family residential. At that time, it was anticipated a mix of uses would occur on the other part of the property. She asked whether the other part of the property could be entirely multi -family residential if the language "commercial or mixed use" was removed. Ms. Hope offered to research and respond. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 23, 2015 Page 9 Councilmember Petso referred to a change made by the Planning Board that removed reference to buildings that may potentially create view shadows and asked whether that was done with the intent that the entire waterfront can have taller buildings or that none of the waterfront should have taller buildings. Ms. Hope answered it was done because the Comprehensive Plan did not need to say there were taller buildings. She recalled the sentence referred to taller buildings downtown; a member of the public did not like that because it implied there were taller buildings downtown and the Planning Board agreed building height was governed by regulations and recommended removing the sentence. Councilmember Petso asked whether the Comprehensive Plan was now silent about building heights in downtown and the waterfront area. Ms. Hope answered yes, as far as she knew but the only change was removing the sentence referencing taller buildings downtown. Mayor Pro Tern Fraley-Monillas encouraged Councilmembers to submit questions to Ms. Hope before the next Council meeting, recognizing that having questions answered before the meeting might streamline the process. 6. PROGRESS UPDATE ON DEVELOPMENT AND CRITICAL AREA CODES Development Services Director Shane Hope described the Development Code update/rewrite process: • Funding by City Council • Initial legal review of existing code • Consultant hired to assist Development Services Department • Meeting with key stakeholders • Public open house — March 11 • Objectives include o Tuning up existing language for clarity and consistency and to work in a practical sense o Addressing emerging issues such as stormwater mgmt. and other best practices o Addressing concerns brought up by City Council, board members, staff and citizens She described topics to be addressed: • Update subdivision and "planned residential development" (PRD) provision o Clearer more consistent regulations to reduce need for "staff interpretations" and to provide best practices Permit process o Identify ways to make project review processes clearer and fairer o Explore better provisions for bonding, insurance... Other topics to be addressed o Signage o Nuisances o Variances o Access dwelling requirements o Right-of-way construction o Driveways o Sidewalks o Bicycle facilities o Comprehensive Plan amendment process o Criteria for zoning code amendments She reviewed highlights of the gap analysis: • Code language often imprecise or confusing • Subdivision & PRD sections not clear in some terminology & process • Design standards don't provide enough guidance to applicants & reviewers, including to ADB Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 23, 2015 Page 10 • Recent state guidance on stormwater management is not included • Some code topics are scattered in various chapters & should be reorganized/ consolidated • Some topics (e.g. binding site plans) are missing • Development review and other administrative procedures are not always clear Ms. Hope described the current timeframe: • Analysis underway, with first focus: o Subdivisions o Planned Residential Developments • More specific timeframe for code topics • Summer —work on code drafting • Fall —Beginning of public review for initial draft code update She described timing of code topics: • April — July: o Land division ■ Formal subdivisions ■ Short plats ■ Planned residential developments ■ Binding site plans o Community development framework o Tree regulations (starting) July — August o Definitions o Transportation concurrency o Multifamily development o Accessory dwellings o Off-street parking o Right of way issues o Bicycle facilities Ms. Hope said no changes are proposed to some portions of the code such as Title 19, Building and Construction. She listed other code update issues that are progressing on a separate but related track: • Shoreline regulations • Stormwater management • Critical (environmental) areas Senior Planner Kernen Lien advised the City is in the process of updating its Critical Area regulations: • Critical Area Regulations/Ordinance (CAO) - outgrowth of GMA • Critical Areas include: o Wetlands o Fish and Wildlife Habitat o Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas (None in Edmonds) o Frequently Flooded Areas o Geologically Hazardous Areas (erosion hazard, landslide hazards, and seismic hazard areas) • Required to be updated periodically by GMA He described the 2014-2015 CAO Update: • Current CAO effective since 2005 • Best Available Science (BAS) report in 2004 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 23, 2015 Page 11 • City selected consultant ESA to assist in updating 2004 BAS Report • 2015 BAS Addendum and Gap Analysis Matrix He described the focus of the 2014-2015 CAO Update: • Update to Best Available Science Report • Review existing CAO for consistency with updated BAS report • Recommend changes where needed for consistency with current scientific information • Review CAO administration and procedures Mr. Lien highlighted CAO provisions that will be updated: • Wetland regulations • Updating geologically hazardous areas • Revising Native Vegetation Provisions (ECDC23.90.040.C) • Review of allowed activities o Physically separated and functionally isolated o Development within the previously developed footprint • Frequently flooded areas o Require development within the Coastal Flood Hazard zones to be constructed two feet above base flood elevation o Allowable zoning height implication • Relief for restoration projects not required as mitigation He described next steps: • Planning Board public hearing: July 8, 2015 • At least one more Planning Board meeting following July 8 public hearing • Currently on City Council extended agenda for August 25 Councilmember Buckshnis recalled at a Lake Ballinger/McAleer Work Group meeting, some citizens who live on Lake Ballinger were interested in having FEMA purchase their property. Mr. Lien said the updated FEMA maps are for coastal areas only as a result of a study of coastal flooding issues in Snohomish County. He was not aware the maps around Lake Ballinger were being updated. Council President Pro Tem Johnson inquired about the Gap Analysis Matrix. Mr. Lien explained Attachment 3 is the 2015 BAS Addendum with Gap Analysis Matrix. The consultant reviewed the current CAO using the updated BAS and identified areas where the code should be updated to be consistent with BAS. Council President Pro Tem Johnson suggested consideration be given to how the Marina Beach project to daylight Willow Creek will be affected by the 50, 75 or 100 foot requirement and how projects such as Senior Center will be affected by the requirement for development within the Coastal Flood Hazard zones to be constructed two feet above base flood elevation. Mr. Lien agreed the Senior Center will be in the new floodplain area. 7. PRESENTATION OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BHC FOR THE 2016-2017 SANITARY SEWER REPLACEMENT PROJECTS City Engineer Rob English reported this is a contract for the design of the 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project. The project includes approximately 2,000 lineal feet of sewer main replacement. The pipe replacements were chosen from the 2013 Sewer Comprehensive Plan as well as input from Public Works operation crews and project coordination. The scope of work includes surveying, preliminary and final design, geotechnical investigation work as well as bid assistance and as built Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 23, 2015 Page 12 drawings during the construction phase. The total fee $158,123 and there is a $30,000 management reserve for unforeseen conditions. 8. UPDATE ON HIGHWAY 99 PLANNING Development Services Director Shane Hope recalled at the City Council retreat, temporary committees were established consisting of Councilmembers and one or more directors to look at specific topics; one of those was Highway 99 and identifying next steps. Committee members included Council President Fraley-Monillas, Councilmembers Petso and Nelson, Mr. Doherty and her. The committee held one meeting on May 18 and reviewed a map of the Highway 99 area noting landmarks, adjacent jurisdictions and past City efforts such as the special lighting in the International District and ways the City is planning for Highway 99 such as advocating for State funds to design and construct infrastructure improvements. The committee also discussed groups engaged with Highway 99 including local businesses, residents, and other organization such as the Highway 99 Task Force, an informal group that has been meeting for 10-12 years. The committee also discussed current issues that may be of interest to the City Council such as future development, redevelopment opportunities, safety and security issues, affordable housing, etc. and next steps such as the Highway 99 planning process. Ms. Hope explained Highway 99 is a 2 mile corridor; the east boundary includes a State highway as well as residential and commercial uses and mixed use. At least four sub -districts were identified: 1) the medical area, 2) the International District, 3) residential and retail south of the International District, and 4) the commercial area at the southwest end which includes some large auto dealers. The character of the portion of Highway 99 within Edmonds varies as do the uses; some uses are very high value, attractive and economically important. Some uses are a high value to the people who use them such as ethnic restaurants and some uses are not considered high value and are difficult to deal with such unauthorized encampments on vacant property and a range of housing some of which is in transition as well as other areas that provide amenities for residents. The roadway is a major feature and serves a large number of vehicles and is a major hub for Community Transit's bus rapid transit system, Swift. While much of Highway 99 in Edmonds has sidewalks, they are not uniform; some are quite narrow, on the edge of traffic and have little greenery. One of challenges is how the streetscape should look and function. Improvements to Highway 99 have occurred in other jurisdictions, particularly in Shoreline. Ms. Hope explained with those things in mind, the City Council allocated $100,000 to begin a Highway 99 subarea plan. She envisioned that planning process will begin after the Comprehensive Plan update is completed and take about a year to complete. That planning process could help clarify the vision for this area while recognizing distinct characteristics within Highway 99 and ways to achieve that vision. Some ways to achieve the vision may be simple and could be done by the City, property owners, organizations interested in assisting; other ways to achieve the vision may include streetscape infrastructure requirements for development. The subarea planning process will also better position the City for future grant funding, help address existing issues, encourage healthy businesses to remain and grow and coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions. If possible the Council could allocate additional funding for 2016 to carry the plan further to ensure more options are considered, to identify environment impacts and mitigation and to recommend changes to development regulations. The status of the State funding request for Highway 99 is unknown. Mayor Pro Tern Fraley-Monillas pointed out Highway 99 abuts 3 cities and Snohomish County; Shoreline, Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood and a section of Highway 99 is in unincorporated Snohomish County. Ms. Hope said the unincorporated area is within City's UGA and it will be important to coordinate with Snohomish County. 9. PRESENTATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AWARD FOR THE SW EDMONDS — 105TH/106TH AVE W STORM IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 23, 2015 Page 13 City Engineer Rob English said he had hoped to bring the bid results to Council but an addendum was issued that extended the bid opening to Thursday. This project is storm drainage improvements on 105th and 106th Avenues as they intersect 228th in southwest Edmonds. If good bid results are received, he recommended sharing them with Council and scheduling approval on the Consent Agenda. If bid results are higher than expected, a presentation and any budget adjustment will be scheduled on the Council's July 7 agenda. Staff wants to maintain the schedule to ensure the project is completed before fall rains. He said feedback has indicated the engineer's estimates may be low; that will be determined when bids are opened on Thursday. 10. PRESENTATION OF FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND A RECOMMENDATION FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE 2014 WATERMAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT City Engineer Rob English reported this project began in August 2014 and included installation of over 7,000 lineal feet of new pipe as part of the 2014 Watermain Replacement Program as well as 2 pressure reducing stations. The bid award was $1,474,497; the final paid amount of $1,582,025 included 4 changes orders. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule approval on the Consent Agenda. 11. CONTINUED DISCUSSIONS ON THE STUDY SESSIONS Councilmember Buckshnis reported study sessions began in August 2014 as a pilot project. Early in the process study sessions were more interactive with tables arranged so that Councilmembers faced each other; it is now arranged very similar to the dais. Early study sessions also included round robin discussion which is not done anymore. There are no time constraints on items and meetings are now 3-4 hours every Tuesday. She recalled the consultant Jim Reid suggested the study session format so that the Council could be more informal. Councilmember Bloom felt this was an experiment that had run its course and the Council should return to committees with a few changes. She recalled the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee had the most agenda items (9.5 per month), followed by Finance Committee and Personnel & Public Safety Committee. The Council now spends an inordinate amount of time on Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee issues that could have been addressed and screened in a committee meeting. She recalled the Council discussed a three touch rule before an issue came to Council for a decision; now some issues come to the Council once before they are scheduled on the Consent Agenda. She found the study sessions much less efficient and as Mr. Hall stated, study sessions do not allow for conversation with citizens which the committee meetings allowed. Committee chairs had the leeway to allow discussion versus the three minute audience comment. The committee format allowed her to keep in touch with citizens who were interested in specific issues and she felt losing that was damaging to the process. She was ready to return to committees with one change, add parks issues the Personnel & Public Safety Committee. She recalled suggesting that to Ms. Hite who indicated that could potentially work. Councilmember Petso observed with the two Councilmembers who have spoken and two Councilmembers who did not support changing from committee meetings to study sessions, there will be enough Council support to restore committees. She was happy to change to committee meetings as soon as next week. She suggested redistributing the workload among committees as follows: Public Works Committee, Finance & Human Resources Committee, and Planning, Parks & Public Safety Committee. She suggested the Council take action next week. Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas commented although there have been complaints about the number of touches the Council has on items, a three touch rule was never approved by the Council although she has Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 23, 2015 Page 14 pursued that with the assistance of Mr. James. She liked the transparency and accountability to citizens in a study session format. Having committee meetings in three different rooms means three groups of Councilmembers make decisions in individual areas that are then forwarded to Council and Councilmembers never hear how the decision to approve an item was formulated. Conversely when study sessions are televised, citizens can observe the discussion which is very transparent. Committee meetings were not televised although minutes were taken. She relayed citizens like to hear the Council discussions versus "behind the door decisions" made at committee meetings. Mayor Pro Tern Fraley-Monillas observed another issue seems to be Councilmembers' interest in creating an opportunity for citizen participation. In her early years on the Council, committee were intended for discussion between Council and staff. Committee meetings were then expanded to allow citizens three minutes to make comments and then later expanded to allow citizen participate in the meeting. She did not feel that was a Council committee but rather a work committee of Councilmembers and citizens. Unfortunately, only certain citizens feel welcome enough to participate in that process. Citizens can contact Councilmembers to discuss issues one-on-one or via email. Committees were intended to be an opportunity for Council to have discussion with staff. If citizens participate in the discussion, that is not a Council committee. Councilmember Buckshnis said in speaking to a lot of citizens, they hate the microphone issue at study sessions but do like the transparency. She agreed the Council never adopted a three touch rule. She noted some Councilmember assimilate things quicker than others; she liked the committee format because although she still skimmed and scanned the materials, she counted on other Councilmembers to review the items in detail. She recalled due to a lack of trust by some Councilmembers, some items were forwarded to the full Council or Councilmembers pulled items from the Consent Agenda. She recommended establishing some ground rules related to that. She liked getting home by 8:00 p.m. on one Tuesday of the month. She suggested two committees, Public Works, Parks & Planning Committee and Finance & Human Resources with three Councilmembers on each. She summarized it was cumbersome and burdensome to have meetings that last until 10:00 p.m. every Tuesday. Councilmember Mesaros commented committees can make the Council more efficient but they do require a lot of trust. If the Council returns to committees, Councilmembers have to trust that items scheduled on the Consent Agenda have been reviewed. He suggested establishing a written outline/framework for how committees operate but afford the committee chair the opportunity to create some their own rules based on the Councilmembers serving on the committee. Council President Pro Tem Johnson did not like the committee system other than Councilmembers were able to leave early one Tuesday per month. The study session is a more modern and efficient way for the staff and Council to do their homework. One of the advantages is everyone hears the same thing at the same time. In an effort to keep up with what the committees were doing, she read the minutes, etc. so it was actually more time consuming for her. If a topic is introduced/discussed at a study session and the decision made at a business meeting, Councilmembers have an opportunity for discussion and to ask questions a week in advance. Otherwise items are placed on the Consent Agenda that Councilmembers have not previously discussed or items are scheduled for immediate action at a business meeting. In her experience working in other jurisdiction, it was standard practice for the Council to meet around a conference table without cameras and without as much exposure as the current study sessions. She was comfortable with the study session format because it was important for people to see the whole process. However, she also receives a lot of complaints about the microphones which she recommended be improved. She summarized she liked the study session format and although there was room for improvement and the committee system was not very effective for her. The Council can always meet in subcommittees if necessary. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 23, 2015 Page 15 Councilmember Nelson said because of his short time on the Council, he had not participated in Council committee meetings. He was conflicted because the Council seemed to be just moving from the dais to the floor and sitting in the same way which did not enhance dialogue among Councilmembers. He was concerned with returning to a format that was not transparent. He suggested a hybrid format that fostered more dialogue but allowed citizens to see committee meetings. Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas said action will be on the agenda at the Council's next meeting. To Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas' assertion that decisions were made behind closed doors, Councilmember Bloom clarified the only decisions made in committee meetings were whether put on an item on the Consent Agenda or bring it to full Council for discussion. Councilmembers had the opportunity to pull an item from the Consent Agenda for questions. At the Council retreat, a long list of items were identified; Councilmembers and staff met behind closed doors with no documentation or announcement to the public because there were a lot of issues that needed fuller exploration. She felt a good portion of those items could have been discussed within the committee format. Eliminating committees has made the process less transparent and resulted in the need for the subcommittees. She felt the loss of a connection to citizens who want an opportunity to discuss something that is important to them. Prior to eliminating committee meetings, the Council held a work session once a month where no decisions were made and there was more opportunity to discuss topics. She suggested dividing the Council into two committees and alternate filming them each month. Councilmember Petso suggested in addition to choosing a committee format and workload allocation, consideration also be given to the rules. There has been difficulty in the past with whether these are Council or citizen committees. It is important to her that they remain Council committees because Councilmembers are elected whereas no one voted for the citizens who are providing input. She suggested citizen be allowed to provide three minutes of public comment at the end of the committee meeting and committee members have the ability to suspend the rules on a particular issue if it was deemed profitable and relevant to have a greater level of citizen interaction. She did not want to return to the days when citizens were arguing with staff during committee meetings. Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas said anytime citizens do not have the opportunity to view and hear the Council's discussion, that is behind closed doors. She objected to the assertion that the work groups formed as a result of the retreat met behind closed doors. The retreat was formatted differently this year and because so many issues were identified, the only way to reach a conclusion was to form work groups. The work groups were not secret meetings; they were subcommittees with a couple of Councilmembers and a couple staff to review issues. Council President Pro Tem Johnson said part of her opinion was based on participating on subcommittees that did not work and were not part of the overall public decision making process. She has served on all three with different Councilmembers. She experienced improper behavior her first year; people who disrupted the discussion between Councilmembers and staff, open discussion with citizens as part of the discussion group and lobbying from specific elected officials and staff who were not part the committee. She was very uncomfortable with that and it helped shape her opinion that study sessions were a better process. In response to Council President Johnson's observations, Councilmember Mesaros said that was a structure problem not a committee problem, thus the need for a framework for how committees operate. 12. REPORTS ON OUTSIDE BOARDS AND COMMITTEES Councilmember Buckshnis referred to her report regarding the Ballinger/McAleer Work Group that is working with WRIA 8 on funding. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 23, 2015 Page 16 Councilmember Nelson reported the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee meeting included the 2016 budget as well as a quarterly presentation regarding promotion and marketing for the City. He looked forward to examples of ads, brochures, Facebook pages and the Visit Edmonds website. Councilmember Bloom reported the June 8 Port meeting included discussion regarding the Artist in Residency program, Puget Sound Express, the restroom permit, and a lot of Commissioner comments. The Tree Board meeting included discussion about the Planning Board's public hearing. Councilmember Mesaros referred to his report two weeks ago regarding the SeaShore Transportation Forum who met with the Seattle Transportation Committee to discuss transportation issues north of Seattle. The two groups plan to hold a quarterly joint meeting. Councilmember Mesaros reported SnoCom met when he was out of town. SnoCom held a joint meeting with SnoPac at the Fire District 1 headquarters at the end of May but did not have a board meeting in June. Councilmember Petso reported the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) meeting included discussion regarding the formation of a historic district. Council President Pro Tern Johnson, Ms. Hope, Mr. Chave and she met to outline the process. There is a high level of interest and expertise among the HPC members. Councilmember Petso reported the Economic Development Commission did not have a quorum so instead of a meeting there was a casual discussion with Greg Urban, President and CEO, Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce. The Public Facilities District meets at 7:30 a.m. on Thursday; she is unable to attend and strongly encouraged another Councilmember to attend in her absence. Council President Pro Tern Johnson reported the HPC is conducting a survey of historic buildings; there are up to 50 new buildings. They are particularly looking for mid-century moderns built around 1965. Buildings only need to be 50 years old to be on the registry. A commissioner suggested the historic significance of the waterfront be considered in the Marina Park Master Plan such as a diorama of the old sawmills. Councilmember Petso has submitted that idea in a memo to Ms. Hite. Council President Pro Tern Johnson reported on the Transportation Committee which was formed to assist with the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The group would like to continue meeting quarterly to discuss transportation issues. She relayed Councilmember Petso and she are assigned to the Transit Oriented Development for Puget Sound Regional Council; to date the focus has been on light rail, stations, and housing around stations. Council President Pro Tern Johnson relayed she represented the Council on the 4th Avenue Artist Selection Committee. The artist is scheduled to begin work in the fall. There is discussion occurring regarding the appropriate color of the lights in the street. The Highway 99 Task Force is not meeting this month. Mayor Pro Tern Fraley-Monillas reported the Disability Board is working on updating procedures and policies. She relayed the Economic Development Commission needs another Council liaison. She planned to attend the PSRC's Executive Committee meeting this week. She attended the Safe Energy Leadership Alliance meeting which included discussion regarding coal and oil trains. 13. MAYOR'S COMMENTS — None 14. COUNCIL COMMENTS Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 23, 2015 Page 17 Councilmember Buckshnis thanked everyone who attended the Edmonds Arts Festival preview party. This year was the first time in 12 year she has not attended Edmonds Arts Festival. Councilmember Nelson reported he also attended the Edmonds Arts Festival. His son graduated from kindergarten and his artwork "Polar Walk" was chosen to represent his school. Councilmember Mesaros reported he had a great time at the Edmonds Arts Festival with his daughters on Father's Day. Councilmember Petso reported the highlight at the Edmonds Arts Festival is always the children's art at Frances Anderson Center. Particularly stunning this year was the middle school artwork. Council President Pro Tem Johnson agreed with Bruce Witenberg's request that the Council provide an explanation about legal decisions once they have been made. She will confer with the City Attorney regarding how to proceed. Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas reported the Edmonds Arts Festival was great. She also attended the Summer Market. She reminded there is no Council meeting next week as traditionally the Council does not meet on the fifth Tuesday of the month. 15. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) At 9:50 p.m., Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). She stated that the executive session was scheduled to last at least 15 minutes with possible extensions and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. Action is anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Councilmembers Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Petso, Bloom, Mesaros and Nelson. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Public Works Director Phil Williams, Development Services Director Shane Hope, Senior Planner Kemen Lien and City Clerk Scott Passey. The executive session concluded at 11:04 p.m. (Councilmember Buckshnis left the meeting at 10:57 p.m. and Councilmember Bloom left at 11:05 p.m.) 16. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Pro Tem Fraley-Monillas reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 11:05 p.m. MAYOR PRO TEM FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM JOHNSON TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO HIRE MARK BUCKLIN AS CONFLICT COUNSEL. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmembers Buckshnis and Bloom were not present for the vote.) 17. ADJOURN COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NELSON, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmembers Buckshnis and Bloom were not present for the vote.) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 23, 2015 Page 18 With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:06 p.m. DAVID O. EARLING, MAYOR SCOTT PASSEY, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 23, 2015 Page 19