After revisiting concerns expressed by Edmonds City Councilmember Joan Bloom, the City Council in a special meeting Monday night voted to approve Burnstead Construction’s proposed 27-home development next to Hickman Park in Southwest Edmonds.

The meeting was scheduled to take a closer look at the issue following a contentious exchange May 29 between Bloom and other councilmembers. During that meeting, Bloom raised issues about possible conflicts of interest and appearance of fairness on the part of attorney Carol Morris, who had been hired to represent the Council during a closed record review of a City Hearing Examiners Decision to approve the project.

On Monday night, councilmembers again took up the written version of the decision they had verbally approved on a 6-0 vote May 22, as crafted by Morris. (Councilmember Lora Petso recused herself from deliberation and voting on the issue because she lives in Southwest Edmonds and was one of the neighbors appealing the Hearing Examiner’s decision.)

Before voting on the resolution, the council agreed to make two amendments: First, in response to a request by Bloom, they added some clarifying language that addressed the City Hearing Examiner’s mischaracterization of an earlier court decision about the project. Second, the council addressed a request it had made to have Burnstead Construction research whether it was possible to obtain a five-year maintenance bond on requested drainage improvements for the project. (Flooding has been a major concern of neighbors who have been opposing the project.)

Because the bonding company that Burnstead uses said it couldn’t guarantee it could provide a five-year bond, and because Washington State law and Edmonds City Code only require a two-year bond, the council voted 5-1 (Bloom opposed) to return to the original two-year requirement.

Then, with amendments approved, the council was ready to vote on a resolution to affirm the Hearing Examiner’s decision approving the project. Bloom asked if she could read a statement explaining why she planned to oppose the project, and also addressed her aggressive line of questioning during the May 29 meeting.

Noting that “this has been a stressful process for me,” Bloom added that while she regretted upsetting some participants during last week’s proceedings, “I don’t apologize for it. My goal was to do my part in making sure this development would not cause future environmental problems, mainly flooding…especially with changing weather patterns, not only for the development’s home buyers and surrounding property owners, but for the city.”

Bloom said she was also concerned that the project did not meet the city’s open space requirements for areas dedicated to fish and wildlife conservation.

“The chief frustration for me is that, because of the legalities of an appeal, we were only allowed to discuss a few potential problems,” Bloom said. “Without access to a ‘Back to the Future’ DeLorean, our hands were tied. I pushed as hard as I did partly to make sure hat nothing more could be done by the city but also to learn what could be done differently in the future to avoid these concerns. If we learn from this process it will have been worth it.”

Given the limitations of the appeal process, Bloom said she believes “council did all it could. But I’m not convinced that the project as presently proposed is in the best interests of Edmonds. Therefore I will be voting no.”

Petso, who along with her husband Colin Southcote-Want has led Southwest Edmonds neighbors in a legal battle over the project since 2007, told My Edmonds News after Monday night’s meeting that she would be reviewing the latest decision. If errors are found, Petso said, it is likely she will file another appeal in Snohomish County Superior Court.