Cmd010422
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2022
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING
APPROVED MINUTES
January 4, 2022
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Will Chen, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
Susan Paine, Councilmember
Laura Johnson, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Susan McLaughlin, Dev. Serv. Director
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst
ALSO PRESENT
Brook Roberts, Student Representative
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:08 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The
meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. OATH OF OFFICE FOR NEWLY ELECTED OFFICIALS
1. OATH OF OFFICE/SWEARING IN CEREMONY FOR NEWLY ELECTED
COUNCILMEMBERS
City Clerk Scott Passey advised tonight will be a ceremonial oath of office for the newly elected
Councilmembers.
Julie Johnson swore in Kristiana Johnson to Edmonds City Council Position 1 for a 4-year term.
Lisa Chen swore in Will Chen to Edmonds City Council Position 2 for a 4-year term.
Margaret Tibbott swore in Neil Tibbott to Edmonds City Council Position 3 for a 4-year term.
3. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Councilmember Paine read the City Council Land Acknowledgement Statement: “We acknowledge the
original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip
Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We
respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection
with the land and water.”
4. ROLL CALL
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2022
Page 2
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating remotely.
5. PRESENTATIONS
1. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR SERVICE AS COUNCIL PRESIDENT -
SUSAN PAINE
Councilmember L. Johnson read a resolution thanking Councilmember Paine for her service to the
Edmonds City Council as council president in 2021.
6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER.
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO
ADD ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION AS COUNCIL
BUSINESS ITEM 9.1 AND RENUMBER OTHER ITEMS. AMENDMENT CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments.
Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, commented on the City’s tree ordinance and how the City has violated
private property rights. Infringement on private property is a serious issue; taking something that doesn’t
belong to you is collective theft. Each law or procedure stretched or violated by the former council
majority shows a lack of respect for the laws that the country was built on and the citizens they represent.
Many who hear her comments each week may think they do not care about trees; they care and plan to
save the most trees feasible, but are entitled by the U.S. and Washington State Constitutions and the City
of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan to build homes without being forced to purchase their property twice.
This is not about trees or global warming, it seems to be about the City taking property rights from
owners of undeveloped property and seems to be for financial gain. They cannot remove their own trees
to build their homes until they buy the rights of the trees back from the City. Two dollars per square foot
of property or $100,000 for their property and the exemption from payments for retaining 50% of
significant trees is arbitrary, especially when considering that commercial property is only required to
retain 5%. It is an illegal ordinance and those damaged by the City could be awarded three times the
damages caused by its delays and takings, damages paid from City funds consisting of citizens taxes.
Ms. Ferkingstad continued, this year it is their property, next year it may be yours. What if council votes
for owners to pay the City for the value of their garage before allowing it to be removed and a new one
built? What part of your property are you willing to give to the City and buy back before being allowed to
use it as zoned? The tree ordinance originally required every property owner to pay into the tree fund for
any tree over 24” needing removal. Finding the ordinance infringed on property rights, council now only
applies the tree ordinance to owners of undeveloped property because they are a minority. The City hired
a tree management enforcer to assess privately owned trees and established a tree fund to hold the money
extorted from property owners. The City does not pay into the tree fund for the 24” trees it cuts down. It
is a discriminatory ordinance. The council majority has disregarded the very purpose of their office which
is to protect citizens’ rights. They have chosen not to follow City, State or U.S. laws while conducting
business. She welcomed new councilmembers and hoped all were healthy amidst the pandemic.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2022
Page 3
Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, wished the council Happy New Year and hoped they had a restful holiday
season. Her comments compared the bowl and the SR 99 uptown area; the two areas have a lot in
common, both built around major transportation resources, the Washington State Ferry featured on the
City’s logo and SR 99. Both the bowl and the SR 99 corridor contribute heavily to the sales taxes
collected by the City. Although the financial management report does not include a breakdown by area,
which she hoped it would someday, based on the sectors identified, she suspected it would show that the
SR 99 corridor is the primary driver of commercial sales tax which she wanted the community to
understand in relation to the numerous expenditures the City makes to support businesses in different
areas. Both the bowl and SR 99 corridor have salmon resources. The marsh identified for coho and
residential coastal cutthroat and Lake Ballinger identified for coho and cutthroat trout as well as identified
as gradient accessible for sockeye salmon, fall chinook and winter steelhead. Fall chinook are
documented as spawning in McAleer Creek as it drains Lake Ballinger while streams that feed the marsh
are not gradient accessible to chinook. The bowl, the SR 99 uptown area and the area connecting them
have a relatively high population density.
Ms. Seitz continued, while it is hard to know the exact population because they do not align with census
tracts, she estimated based on Tract 505.1, 505.2, 508 and 509, the population is slightly higher for the
bowl but not more than 1,000 compared to the SR 99 uptown area. The difference in population will
likely be elapsed once the high density complexes currently sited in the SR 99 uptown area are finished.
Both areas represent a fraction of the total City population of roughly 42,500 and she questioned why
there was such a tremendous disparity in City resources. So many annual expenditures as well as large
investments in the City inventory and capital investment in facility plans continue to be identified in the
well-resourced bowl which other areas of the City go without sidewalks or enough streetlights and every
park resource in the SR 99 uptown area is either partially or wholly dependent on right-of-way and
temporary limited use permits from the Snohomish County PUD. She hoped that last fact was about to
change, that the City was about to start making equitable investments in all communities. She welcomed
returning councilmembers and new Councilmember Tibbott and thanked them for choosing to serve the
City.
Linda Fireman, Edmonds, spoke regarding the notice of application PLN2021-0066 for the 24-unit
apartment with 24 parking spaces at 605 and 611 Main. She thanked everyone who has thought about the
development and commented after reading her reader view and hoped they would all attend the Zoom
Architectural Design Board meeting January 5th at 7 p.m., and voice and email their comments so they are
on record. This is more than the size and disharmony of the building in the Edmonds landscape. It is
about the future of Edmonds and those living along the alley who are affected by this building. The
Comprehensive Plan says that any growth or development should stive to preserve for itself and its
neighbors the following values: light including direct sunlight, privacy, freedom from noise and visual
pollution. Those living across the alley will lose all of these values and their safety will be compromised
by increased traffic, a very narrow 14-foot alley, poor visibility, not enough turning radius to exit garages,
and the alley continually being blocked by moving trucks. She was mistaken in her previous submission;
they will not be looking at a 3-story concrete wall, it will be a 40-foot or 4-story concrete wall because of
the change in elevation directly on the lot line, 14 feet from lot line to lot line and 23.5 feet from her
windows. The developer states structures on the adjacent parcels do not support the intensity of
development under the current zoning and Comprehensive Plan and are anticipated to eventually be
replaced by higher density development. The proposed project is seen as a guide for future development
allowed and encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan. She questioned who was more important in
Edmonds, the citizens or the for-profit developers? She urged the public to speak up and make change
happen.
Beth Fleming, Edmonds, wished the council Happy New Year, voicing her excitement for the first
meeting of the new year and the new council. She wished them all good health and great governance for
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2022
Page 4
Edmonds in 2022. With regard to tonight’s vote for a new council president, she supported
Councilmember Olson who has consistently shown integrity, thoroughness, fairness and a strong
commitment to the residents of Edmonds and is an advocate for accountability, the type of leadership the
City yearns for. Next, she referred to the current streateries ordinance that went into effect on December
31, 2021; resident Ken Reidy has brought to light in his written comments for tonight’s meeting that
Resolution 1442 adopted in 2019 adopted a schedule of fees related to bistro dining, street parking and
road use by businesses. This was passed by council in 2019 and revised via Resolution 1475 in 2021. The
fees seem to be comparable to the $4,000 in the recently passed Ordinance 4243 and she would love to
hear the council discuss that further and reconcile it with the conversation that is occurring. She
questioned why the streateries were still being discussed as it seemed time to move on.
Speaking of moving on and in the words of the newly elected mayor of NYC Eric Adams, Ms. Fleming
said we need to learn how to live with COVID. The current data on the Snohomish Health District site
posted for the week ending 12/25/21 states that while cases are up 30% for the week ending 12/25/21,
hospitalizations and deaths are down 67% and 75% respectively, all good news. She hoped because of
that the council will be able to support hybrid meetings going forward. She shared her support for hybrid
meetings to allow multiple opportunity for the constituency to participate in the governance of Edmonds.
Talk of limiting public comments should not be entertained by the council as that idea goes against the
grain of the constitutional system. Residents may have a completely different comment in a verbal
meetings setting versus a written email and that is their right. She encouraged residents to join the
Architectural Design Board public comment opportunity tomorrow at 7 p.m. regarding the 24-unit project
on 6th & Main recapped by the previous speaker. A lot of great information is available in today’s My
Edmonds News.
Brad Bernatek , Edmonds, said he was frustrated to be talking about the streateries because the City has
a lot bigger issues to address and as a resident of the bowl, this is another example of people in the bowl
arguing with one another at the expense of other areas of the City. He implored the council to pass the
revised measure regarding the streateries and demonstrate that the council is capable of working together
to come up with a commonsense compromise that takes into account the perspective of all stakeholders
involved. The compromise proposal from DEMA and the restaurants involved should guide council
deliberations; the council should also consider setting up a task force to address a long term plan. For
those who do not support the streateries, he suggested they consider the following: the current fee of
$1,000/month is completely out of line with anything around the country and does not make Edmonds
look good. This fee is a huge outlier and somewhat ridiculous. Multiple surveys found the streateries are
popular, including one from the Edmonds Beacon which he would not necessarily think would be in favor
of the streateries.
Mr. Bernatek continued, as elected representatives, councilmembers may vote however they wish, but he
encouraged them to consider the surveys and avoid unhelpful language like calling the streateries shacks.
The streateries were a creative solution to a pandemic and that language is not helpful. Despite comments
about the end of the emergency pandemic, the case count is higher than ever, the pandemic is still
underway and how Omicron will play out over the next few months is unknown. For those that support
the streateries but object to anything but a nominal permitting fee, the concerns about parking, equity and
safety have merit and should be addressed. The parking spaces clearly have value to the public and the
council should move carefully to achieve a market-based price over time based on what the market will
bear. He wished there was additional data on the cost to rent 40 spots at Bank of America because that
would provide a good starting point about the tradeoffs being considered. He congratulated
councilmembers sworn in today and thanked the mayor and city council for their service.
Matt Richardson, Edmonds, congratulated the new council and expressed his appreciation for the work
they did to get elected to represent Edmonds. The streateries are annoying, Omicron is a situation but the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2022
Page 5
biggest situation everyone will be facing is economic reality. On Nasdaq, the average stock is 20 points
down which indicates a recession which could possibly turn into the mother of all recessions. There will
be very stark and strong deflationary pressure on the stock market and real estate. The building being
constructed in the 600 block across from his business is a sign of boom time and the boom is when
damage is getting done. He urged the council to start looking at the budget; he agreed the City needed to
invest in things like affordable housing but questioned investing at the top and suggested waiting for the
bottom.
Pedro Germano, Edmonds, pointed out the city council and especially the mayor have been driving
streateries over the past 18-20 months. It is only related to 17 businesses and it looks like that’s all that
matters to them. He questioned why the mayor and council never discussed the restaurants outside of that
group and other types of businesses. If every other business had shut down due to COVID, he questioned
whether keeping only 17 restaurants would have been good for the City. He was tired of the conversation
about streateries.
(Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.)
8. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO ADD RESOLUTION 1483 THANKING COUNCIL PRESIDENT SUSAN PAINE
FOR HER SERVICE TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-0-1),
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT ABSTAINING.
MOTION CARRIED (5-0-2), COUNCILMEMBERS TIBBOTT AND K. JOHNSON ABSTAINING.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 23, 2021
2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 7, 2021
3. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14, 2021
4. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL ADJOURNED MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 16,
2021
5. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE
PAYMENTS.
6. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS.
7. SNOHOMISH COUNTY LEASE RENEWAL - BALLOT DROP BOX
8. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT JOB DESCRIPTION REVISION
9. SEPTEMBER 2021 QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT
10. OCTOBER 2021 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT
11. RESOLUTION 1483 THANKING COUNCIL PRESIDENT SUSAN PAINE FOR HER
SERVICE
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2022
Page 6
9. COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
APPROVE THE PROSECUTION OF TWO APPEALS THAT THE CITY FILED WITH THE
POLLUTION CONTROL HEARINGS BOARD. THE FIRST APPEAL CONCERNS THE
DECEMBER 1, 2021 PUGET SOUND NUTRIENT GENERAL PERMIT ISSUED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY. THE SECOND APPEAL CONCERNS THE NOTICE OF
VIOLATION FROM THE PUGET SOUND CLEAR AIR AGENCY CONCERNING AN
ASBESTOS SURVEY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. SELECTION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM FOR
2022
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS NOMINATED VIVIAN OLSON FOR COUNCIL
PRESIDENT.
At Mayor Nelson’s request, City Clerk Scott Passey described the process. The code establishes that the
city council elects a council president and council president pro tem at the first council meeting of each
year. The process is typically as follows: he calls for nominations, no councilmember can nominate more
than one person until every member wishing to nominate a candidate had the opportunity to do so.
Nominations do not require a second. He will repeat each nomination until all nominations have been
made. When it appears that no one else wishes to make a nominations, he will ask for final nominations.
If none are made, he will declare nominations closed and call for a vote in the order that nominations
were made. Councilmembers will signify their vote by raising their hand. Only affirmative votes are
counted, not dissenting votes. As soon as a nominee receives four votes he will declare the council
president elected and no votes will be taken on the remaining nominees. The same process will be
followed for the council president pro tem.
There were no further nominations and Mr. Passey declared nominations for council president closed.
NOMINATION OF VIVIAN OLSON AS COUNCIL PRESIDENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT NOMINATED DIANE BUCKSHNIS AS COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PRO TEM.
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE NOMINATED KRISTIANA JOHNSON AS COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PRO TEM.
Councilmember K. Johnson declined the nomination.
There were no further nominations and Mr. Passey declared nominations for council president pro tem
closed.
NOMINATION OF DIANE BUCKSHNIS AS COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM CARRIED (5-2),
COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN, TIBBOTT AND BUCKSHNIS, AND COUNCIL
PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES.
3. VIRTUAL ONLY/HYBRID MEETINGS DISCUSSION
Councilmember Paine reviewed:
• Virtual only or hybrid city council meetings
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2022
Page 7
o Definition: Where all meeting participants have an equivalent meeting experience that is
independent of their location, either in-person or virtual. We define participants as elected
officials, presenters, public commenters, and public viewers.
o Background:
▪ Technology review
▪ Interviewed Pt Townsend and Mill Creek
▪ Needs assessment for hybrid model
• Virtual only
o Meeting format stays the same. This requires three people to manage the technology during
the meeting
o There would be no additional technology costs beyond regular maintenance
• Hybrid model
o Council will need part-time FTE support due to technology coordination challenges. Those
responsibility include audio and video coordination, in addition to tech set-up prior to our
meetings. Our camera operator duties do not change
o There will be costs to support the hybrid model. These include equipment purchases
(approximately $10,000) and the additional technology support (approximately $60,000)
o The Governor’s Stay Safe, Stay Healthy order includes COVID protocols for the OPMA.
This requires a virtual option for all participants
o Executive session would require councilmembers who are in chambers to use their devices or
the jury room would need to be equipped with interactive video technology
o If there is a technology failure the meeting may need to be adjourned to the next day if cannot
be resolved in a short amount of time
o Council will need to determine the need for
▪ Mask?
▪ Vaccine verification?
▪ Room capacity?
o Council could contract with the group that the court uses to monitor chambers. That cost is
approximately $30/hour
o Any movement to a hybrid model must include coordination with municipal court operations
• Public comments options
o Discontinue the public comments email
▪ Have received pornographic emails
o Keep the public comments email, but stop publishing them
o Allow one public comment, either written or verbal, per person
o No changes
• Graph of COVID-19 cases reported in Snohomish County by date (updated weekly)
o 12/12/2021-12/18/2021: 2,835
o 12/26-1/1/22: 5,583
Councilmember Buckshnis supported returning to hybrid meetings, noting it appeared the cost was about
$70,000/year. Councilmember Paine said the maintenance costs depends on the equipment; a part-time
person is approximately $60,000/year. There is a shortage of IT personnel; for example, the City posted a
full-time IT position in March and hired a person in November. Feelers have been put out with other local
cities, the school district and the college for contractors, but that has not proven to be a big resource.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented there are labor shortages everywhere and she questioned whether
the City would be able to find someone to assist if the council goes to hybrid meetings. She noted some
councilmembers, including herself, are not computer proficient and hybrid meetings would be different.
Councilmember Paine recalled a meeting during the summer where a technology glitch occurred. The
existing systems runs well with thanks to Dave Rohde and the technology team. Adding extra work will
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2022
Page 8
stress the system and no additional capacity is foreseen. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if it would
stress staff resources or the technology. Councilmember Paine answered the City does not have enough
people to keep things moving forward which is why a needs assessment was done for hybrid meetings.
With regard to public comment options, Councilmember Buckshnis said she did not support
discontinuing public comments and has not received any public comment containing pornography. Public
comments are included in the packet which she and others read. She supported providing the public every
opportunity to speak their minds.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked if Councilmember Paine researched how people providing public
comment could be visible on the screen during virtual meetings. Councilmember Paine responded that is
part of the Zoom webinar feature; when attendees are added, it is protective and automatically turns off
the video. There are risks of having pornography shown which would be wildly inappropriate for a city
council meeting which is why the video is off. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if there was a way to
turn the video on. City Clerk Scott Passey explained the webinar is set up to have panelists and attendees.
Attendees can see the meeting but do not have video capability unless promoted to a panelists. If the
council wanted to promote public commenters to panelists, that it is possible, but it will require an
element of time for every public comment because there is a process to do that.
Councilmember K. Johnson said that has been one of her longstanding requests since 2020, figuring out a
way to have public commentors on screen. It sounds like it is doable with some element of risk and
coordination. Councilmember Paine said in a hybrid model, the part-time person would be coordinating
audio and video. With regard to virtual-only meetings, it was her understanding the system was at
maximum capacity. Councilmember K. Johnson asked Mr. Passey if that was true or could people be
advanced to panelists. Mr. Passey answered they could be advanced to panelists. However, from his
workload standpoint, when he was in council chambers during in-person meetings such as pre-pandemic,
he was at about 80-90% capacity. During virtual meetings, he was also at capacity so combining them
would require he pay attention to a lot of things and he feared some things would slip through the cracks
because he would need to keep his head in 4-5 different systems.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked if the mayor could advance people to panelists. Mr. Passey answered
he could but he did not want to put that burden on him. Councilmember Paine said the mayor has to run
the meeting. Mayor Nelson pointed out Zoom bombing is a challenge occurring nationwide and there is
currently no way to protect against that. With Zoom bombing, anyone can say/display anything they want
and the City can only respond by pulling it within seconds, but the damage is done. How to protect
against that technologically has yet to be solved. Councilmember K. Johnson appreciated the opportunity
to explore that because it has been one of her concerns.
Council President Olson did not think limiting ways for the public to reach the council should be a
priority until well down the road when there had been so much interaction and exposure and everyone
was feeling good about where things are again. She preferred to err on the side of doing more and
allowing more rather than looking for ways to limit it. If the council cannot figure out how to meet in-
person, whether due to COVID or technology, she invited ideas from the mayor, council and public
regarding how to be face-to-face with constituents in a healthy way. Possibilities include meeting in
places with outdoor dining so people can be informed of outdoor dining locations and to be face-to-face
with constituents. That access is part of what has been lost and allows people to feel they have been
heard. Hybrid meetings in the long term is a priority to her and a worthy priority for the council.
Council President Olson continued, virtual meetings have allowed a lot of people to participate who did
not participate before due to work, childcare, mobility issues, etc. Virtual meeting have enhanced who can
attend meetings but some people want the option to attend in-person. Not just in response to COVID,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2022
Page 9
hybrid meetings are something the City can and should be doing. She recognized the task force
(Councilmembers Paine and L. Johnson, Dave Rohde, Scott Passey, Dave Turley, Jeff Taraday and
Nicholas Falk) for doing an amazing job. One of questions she asked late was based on her experience at
the Edmonds Center for the Arts (ECA) and how everyone is spread out, it is a bigger venue, and there is
technology available. That is a possibility long term and information is being communicated to Dave
Rohde. There would be some Tuesday conflicts with their current schedule but in the long term it may be
something that could be worked out with the ECA. She appreciated the task force getting the ball rolling,
but was unsure if there was enough information to make a decision.
Councilmember Paine was unsure of the practicality of going to a different venue like ECA. She noted if
any of the essential ingredients to meetings such as Mr. Taraday, Mr. Passey, or councilmembers got sick
and were unable to perform their duties, the council would be in a world of hurt. There is still a pandemic
and the latest variant is spreading like wildfire and has resulted in an exponential increase in cases.
Councilmember Tibbott agreed with Council President Olson that hybrid meetings were of value and
were important for the city council consider. From what he has heard tonight, nothing is insurmountable
and the council could move to hybrid meetings. He also took into account Councilmember Paine’s
comments that COVID numbers are up and it would seem prudent to wait a couple months to see how
that goes. He suggested moving toward hybrid meetings at the beginning of March which would provide
a couple of months to put the pieces in place.
In addition to what Council President Olson said, Councilmember Tibbott said hybrid meetings are
important because it is helpful for the council to be in same room from the standpoint of communication
with one another and would facilitate better meetings with all participants. He understood not all
councilmembers would theoretically be present at every meeting but anticipated being in-person would
facilitate better meetings. With regard to email comments, it is a significant way to get immediate
feedback from constituents and is a good idea. Although he was unsure how it would be accomplished,
limiting the public to one written or verbal comment per topic would be helpful to streamline the number
of comments the council receives.
Councilmember Paine said in the interviews with Port Townsend and Mill Creek, they do not have the
permissive position that the Edmonds city council has. She is always glad to get public comments and
finds them helpful for all but she was unsure it was helpful to have them published. They create several
hours of work/week for the council’s legislative aide and an additional 30 pages in the packet.
Councilmember Chen supported hybrid meeting even when the pandemic is over as it provides a
convenience for councilmembers and the public. He proposed heading in that direction, authorizing
appropriate investments such as infrastructure or personnel to get the ball rolling. With regard to public
comments, he did not want to hinder the ability for the public to provide comment. He likes both written
and verbal audience comments.
Mayor Nelson asked Council about next steps.
Councilmember K. Johnson pointed out Port Townsend reads the public comments, three minutes’ worth,
into the public record at meetings. That would be another option for getting the public comments into the
packet.
Councilmember Paine relayed one of her concerns is ensuring all council meetings are done in a
professional manner. Currently the council is not yet able to put together a hybrid model due to lack of
resources. She suggested staying in virtual-only until hybrid meetings can be done with some technology
integrity.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2022
Page 10
Council President Olson recommended fully exploring the opportunity with the ECA as one of the next
steps. Councilmember Paine asked if moving council meetings elsewhere was allowed, noting it would be
nice to move meetings outside the bowl if that was an option. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered the
council can move its regular meetings by amending the code to state regular meetings will be held at the
ECA or any other venue, or make every meeting at the ECA a special meeting. Special meetings have
limitations and it is always nice to work within the context of a regular meeting whenever possible. If the
council wanted to hold meetings at a venue like the ECA, he would recommend changing the code at least
until the pandemic is over and make that the regular meeting location.
Council President Olson said the ECA came to mind because they do hybrid concerts and have the
technology and staff; she was open to other venues elsewhere in the City that have the same capability.
Councilmember Paine asked Mr. Rohde to comment on the technology at the ECA. GIS Analyst Dave
Rohde said he chatted with staff at the ECA; they have the ability to do the Zoom aspect but other pieces
would need to be worked out. The biggest one was cable TV which raises the question of how important
it was to continue to broadcast on cable TV and the ability to move that hardware. Whether the ECA has
the staff available is another piece.
Councilmember Chen said he liked where this discussion was going. If the council meeting location can
alternate between council chambers and the ECA, he suggested also considering locations on Highway 99
and in other areas where council meetings could rotate once a month. He has attended some churches that
have wonderful equipment.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked Mr. Taraday to weigh in on a government body holding meetings in a
church. Mr. Taraday answered he would need to research whether locating within a church violates the
establishment clause of the First Amendment.
Councilmember K. Johnson observed it sounded like this discussion needed to be continued as the
council was not ready to make decision now. She expressed support for a hybrid model. She was
interested in the ECA for the simple reason the public could spread out on the entire first floor. There may
be some security questions or coordination issues but it is possible the council could be on the stage and
the public in the audience. She preferred to come back to this and finetune ideas once the technology and
legal questions have been answered.
Council President Olson commented the code was amended so council committee meetings could be
virtual so that would not be part of the discussion about hybrid meetings. Currently the council has been
doing a month-by-month assessment and she asked whether due to COVID numbers, the council wanted
to vote again at the end of the month when there also may be an update on the ECA’s availability.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO STAY VIRTUAL THIS MONTH AND HAVE ANOTHER UPDATE ON WHAT THE
OPTIONS ARE FOR HYBRID MEETINGS ON FEBRUARY 1ST.
Councilmember Chen recommended looking into investments in infrastructure and personnel.
Councilmember Paine was uncertain that would provide enough time to ensure an adequate hybrid model
would be more developed. If consideration was being given to meeting at the ECA, meetings needed to be
truly hybrid, so how virtual participants would participate would be of interest to her.
Councilmember L. Johnson encouraged the council to put time into how to do hybrid meetings long term
versus rushed hybrid meetings and ensuring it is set up in a way that avoids some of the rather
embarrassing things that happened early on when meetings transferred to Zoom. She feared rushing
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2022
Page 11
versus establishing a long term plan would set the council up for embarrassment and preferred developing
a solid plan versus a rushed plan.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN,
TIBBOTT, BUCKSHNIS, AND PAINE AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
4. ORDINANCE AMENDING STREATERIES REGULATIONS
Development Services Director Susan McLaughlin referred to the agenda memo regarding an amendment
to Ordinance 4243 adopted December 16, 2021 that extended the streateries. Staff’s recommended
changes to that ordinance include, 1) a reduction in the fee from $4,000 to $2,000 ($1000 for streateries
that occupy only one space, 2) allowing the streatery extension fee to be paid in monthly installments, 3)
sunsetting the streateries on May 31, 2022, and 4) adding language allowing revenue from the fees to be
used to cover administrative costs to review permits, do inspections and issue the permits in addition to
leasing parking spaces.
Councilmember Buckshnis observed Ordinance 4209 sunsetted. Ordinance 4243 replaced Ordinance
4209 with a vote of 5-2. She asked if Ordinance 4243 had taken effect. City Attorney Jeff Taraday
explained Ordinance 4209 adopted City code that contained a sunset date of December 31, 2021. The
adoption of Ordinance 4243 amending the City code to change the sunset date; it did not completely
replace Ordinance 4209 because some of the language adopted in Ordinance 4209 remains in City code.
In checking with the city clerk today, the ordinance was published on December 20, 2021 and went into
effect on December 25, 2021.
Councilmember Buckshnis said the council will need to rescind Ordinance 4243 and create a new
ordinance. Mr. Taraday answered the council did not need to rescind Ordinance 4243; the new ordinance
will amend the City code. The streatery provisions/regulations are in the City code and an ordinance is
required to amend the City code. The council is not amending Ordinance 4243, it is amending the City
code. It is a subtle difference but at the end of the day the code is what is amended. The code that
regulates streateries and many other things is adopted by various different ordinances over various time
periods. The code is essentially a living document and changes via ordinance amendments. The city
attorney and staff look to the City code to understand how to regulate something, not individual ordinance
numbers.
Original Motion
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO
AMEND THE STREATERIES ORDINANCE, TO HAVE THE EXTENSION FEE CONSIST OF
$200 PER MONTH FOR THE DURATION OF GOVERNOR’S EMERGENCY ORDER, UNTIL
WE’RE DONE WITH THE HEALTH EMERGENCY, AND THE EXTENSION FEE WOULD
INCLUDE ALL THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS WITH ANY EXCESS GOING TO PAY FOR
LEASED PARKING.
Councilmember Paine commented we are still in a pandemic; having eateries located outside provides an
added ability for people to gather, mix and be out in public. The current fee of $4,000 interferes with
businesses’ ability to have predictable and regular business practices and people are making decisions
based on an extraordinary high fee. It is also messing with people’s jobs; the restaurant industry provides
a lot of jobs in Edmonds, people rely on those jobs and many are good paying jobs because people enjoy
going out to dinner in Edmonds for the dining experience which is a good reason to support the motion.
Councilmember L. Johnson commented when the most recent discussions regarding streateries began,
Snohomish County had a confirmed COVID case rate of 250 cases/100,000. As of January 1, the case rate
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2022
Page 12
is 1,000 cases/100,000, a 400% increase that is projected to continue rising. She displayed a graph
illustrating the increase. In her opinion, the decision should not focus on parking, aesthetics or restrictive
measures against those offering curbside dinging. This is about the continued response to health an
emergency especially given the dramatic increase in cases. With this increase in cases, the need to keep
any and all protective measures in place is clear. Therefore it is against the council’s best interest to
charge a fee that reduces the ability of any restaurant to offer curbside dining. Additionally, the fee does
not reflect well on the City; the current fee is 30 times what any other municipality charges. A fee 15
times higher is still disproportion.
Councilmember L. Johnson supported the motion, and although it was still six times the next closest
amount, it was a drastic improvement over the current fee and gets closer to honoring the original intent
of streateries to protect public health and the economic health of restaurants and the amount will help
offset the parking costs but not be prohibitive to restaurants. She asked Councilmember Paine if she
would agree to allowing15 days after the program ends to remove the structures, similar to what currently
exists. She recalled some restaurants have said the May 31st date would be difficult because it falls on a
holiday weekend.
Councilmember Paine said she would be glad to amend the motion to add that provision, at the
conclusion of the health emergency, add 15 days to allow structures to be removed in a safe and orderly
manner.
Substitute Motion
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF PARKING RENT, NOT A FEE, NOT A TAX,
BUT PARKING RENT TO THE RESTAURANTS TO $750 PER MONTH FOR A 4-MONTH
PERIOD, A TOTAL OF $3,000 AND THE PERIOD SHOULD END APRIL 30, 2022 AND ANY
STRUCTURES BE REMOVED 15 DAYS AFTER THE END OF THAT RENTAL PERIOD.
Councilmember K. Johnson relay her understanding that the idea of streateries came about during COVID
when the governor’s emergency only allowed restaurants to have 25% seating. At that time, there was
also free parking for pickup as well as some initial streateries. Eventually the governor increased capacity
to 50% and in June 2021, it was increased to 100% capacity. The council enacted Ordinance 4243 which
required $1,000/month rent. As of today 10 of 17 restaurants have paid that in full. Upon passage of this
motion, the City would need to refund any restaurants that have overpaid the tax. She explained the
rationale for this motion; the downtown restaurants and DEMA offered to pay $500-750/month rent. This
proposal would be at the top end of that scale, a concession to those who have complained, and
recognizes that 10 of 17 restaurants have chosen to make that payment and she assumed the other
streatery structures would be removed.
Council President Olson commented the intent is to be COVID friendly and supportive of all businesses
and restaurants, not just the ones with streateries. The substitute motion accomplishes that better than the
original motion and the fact that it was supported by the downtown merchants is some evidence of that.
To an earlier comment, it is unknown that the spike in cases will continue, it may but that is unknown.
There have been significant reactions to Omicron even by foreign governments which is always
noteworthy and gets her attention because they obviously consider it a great danger and maybe she should
also. However, death rates from Omicron do not seem to be as serious yet. To the point of living with the
pandemic, she assured no one and certainly not her, was implying that the pandemic was over. However,
living with it is the question.
With regard to the loss of jobs as a result of the streateries, Council President Olson said she did not buy
into that assertion because she is not seeing that the streateries are well utilized so there would be the
same number of jobs regardless of whether the streateries exist or not. She also liked the sunset date of
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2022
Page 13
April 30th compared to the duration of the governor’s emergency order. This may need to be addressed
again if Omicron spikes continue and/or it is very deadly. She did not believe the streateries needed to be
extended beyond April 30 and hoped this would be the last extension.
Councilmember L. Johnson raised a point of order, relaying that there was nothing called a substitute
motion. City Clerk Scott Passey explained there was a motion and second for the substitute motion which
would substitute for Councilmember Paine’s motion. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if substitute
motions are in accordance with Robert’s Rules of Order. Mr. Passey answered yes, explaining the original
motion and substitute run on parallel tracks; a substitute motion changes many variables of the original
motion or poses a different question. The process would be to take amendments or changes to the original
motion first, followed by amendments/changes to the substitute motion and then vote whether to
substitute for the main motion. If that motion passes, the substitute motion is on the table. If the motion
fails, the main motion is on the table. Mr. Taraday said if there is anything out of order about the
discussion, it would be that the discussion is focused on the substitute motion first instead of first
perfecting the original motion. Once the council is done perfecting the original motion, they can return to
perfecting the substitute motion.
Councilmember L. Johnson said as it stands, Councilmember Paine’s motion is still six times what
anyone else charges. She displayed the graph of COVID cases, commenting the number of cases will only
increase. She questioned charging exorbitant fees upfront for just a few months when what is happening
is unknown and assuming that that this will only last a few more months that the restaurants can afford
this because they have already paid. She felt it was a lot of money to gamble on four months no knowing
what’s coming. What if things start to shut down or a lot of people get ill, it will be embarrassing for
Edmonds to be the municipality that charged an exorbitant fee and restaurants literally paid the price for
it.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked Ms. McLaughlin about her research regarding the cost to offset the
parking spaces occupied by streateries. Development Services Director Susan McLaughlin answered
former Director Doherty did that research and she did not have that information in front of her. Based on
the initial permit fee of $110, the cost of parking spaces could have been paid utilizing some of those fees
but largely using ARPA funds. Staff has never been concerned about the ability to lease parking space.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked if $4,000, $3,000 or even $2,000 would be charging a large amount for
a few months as well as produce excess funds. If some are saying there should be a fee to offset the
parking, the fee should be representative of what it would actually cost to offset the parking. She referred
to the original 17 streateries that occupy 29 spaces (fewer than 34 as one is not in the BD, one does not
use parking spaces and at least one is only one space), anticipating the proposed fee would generate funds
in excess of what it would cost to offset the parking. Not only would this fee be punitive and in excess of
what anyone else charges, it is above the intended use that some have stated. Councilmember Paine’s
proposal sounds reasonable, closer to the compromise that everyone is talking about - providing for
streateries during this public health emergency.
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT CALLED THE QUESTION.
Mr. Passey began to do a roll call vote.
Councilmember K. Johnson raised a point of order, recalling the council was to first ask questions on the
first motion, then ask questions on the substitute motion and then take a vote on the substitute motion. Mr.
Passey agreed, assuming the call for the question was on the vote to substitute. Councilmember K.
Johnson said the discussion has only been on the original motion; there still needs to be discussion on the
substitute motion before calling the question. Mr. Passey said the council would vote on whether to
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2022
Page 14
substitute for the first motion. Debate and perfecting the motion should happen and then the council votes
whether to substitute.
Councilmember K. Johnson said her point of order was that calling the question on the first motion was
inappropriate. Mr. Passey said he took the call for the question to be on the motion to substitute.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked whether the council had had all the discussion needed on that motion.
Mr. Passey answered there is a difference between discussion and amending/perfecting a motion.
Councilmember K. Johnson voted yes to call the question.
Councilmember Chen raised a point of clarification and asked if he could offer a substitute to the
substitute motion. Mr. Passey said a substitute involves two options, not three or it gets very convoluted
and complicated. Mr. Taraday said amendments on either the original motion or the substitute motion are
in order. Mr. Passey agreed, amendments to the first motion are in order followed by amendments to the
substitute motion and then a vote whether to substitute would be in order.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked if it was appropriate for a councilmember to call the question while
another councilmember is still asking questions of a director or is it more customary to wait until they are
called on. Mr. Taraday said Councilmember L. Johnson had the floor; councilmembers can raise a point
of order to interrupt, but that is different than making a motion to call the question. In the absent of a
point of order, Councilmember L. Johnson would still have the floor.
Councilmember L. Johnson said the fee proposed in Councilmember Paine’s motion is closer to the
compromise, recognizing we are in the middle of a health emergency, trying to protect both public and
economic health, recognizing that a lot of emails the council received were from parents of children that
cannot be vaccinated and streateries are how they go out to eat, and how to provide for the parking
eliminated by the streateries. She asked Ms. McLaughlin whether something in the range of $200/month
was an adequate amount to cover the 20 something parking spaces. Ms. McLaughlin said without doing
the math, she was confident and as previously stated, it was a good use of ARPA funds. Other cities have
used ARPA funds to cover permit review costs, or to mitigate for lost parking. She summarized even a
very modest permit fee could still cover leased parking.
Councilmember L. Johnson said if the amount in Councilmember Paine’s motion was approved, if there
was a small shortfall, ARPA funds could be used to cover that. Although that would still be six times
what anyone else charged, it would be closer to not being an exorbitant fee. Ms. McLaughlin agreed.
Councilmember Paine said having an appropriate fee for administrative costs and to help support the
parking dilemma that has existed in the downtown area for years would be helpful for all businesses not
just restaurants. It is unknown whether the governor will change restaurant capacity, something that the
group has not affirmatively recognized. Approximately 70% of the emails the council received were in
favor of retaining streateries in one form or another, feedback the council should recognize.
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed that should be recognized but the council also should not be panicking.
She read what Michael Landau sent to council, whether it is safer to sit outside in outdoor structures and a
USA Today graphic dated March 31, 2021. According to their science, the way Edmonds’ streateries are
set up is not any healthier than being indoors. DEMA proposed a compromise which is what
Councilmember K. Johnson’s motion proposed. She preferred that restaurants with outdoor dining not
have streateries but will leave that out due to how long the council has belabored this issue. There is good
science that indicates the way Edmonds’ streateries are constructed is no safer than being indoors. It is
important to recognize there are other businesses and there are other restaurants with outdoor seating that
can accommodate customers during the winter months.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2022
Page 15
Councilmember Buckshnis favored establishing a task force to consider temporary bistro pop-ups, maybe
one per block, that people can enjoy during the summer months. She agreed we are still in a pandemic as
reported by the governor. Councilmember K. Johnson’s motion takes into consideration what DEMA
proposed and that 10 of 17 already paid the upfront $4,000.
Ms. McLaughlin relayed in anticipation of the December 31, 2021 sunset, a lot of restaurants vocalized
great concern with the $4,000 permit fee. Given the ordinance was black and white about if the fee was
not paid by December 31st, they needed to disassemble the streatery, staff advised them to pay,
understanding there was a chance the fee could be reduced and the ability to refund. She cautioned against
using that as an indicator of their willingness to pay.
Councilmember Chen said when he originally proposed the $4,000 fee, he thought it was reasonable but
now the Omicron variant is surging. The key to the conflict is the parking issue, not the money. Since the
City has ARPA funds to lean on, even though his preference would be to charge $500/month, the amount
recommended by DEMA, he did not have an option to propose that as a substitute motion. He will
support Councilmember Paine’s proposal with one change, to add May 31, 2022 as the sunset date as staff
recommended.
Councilmember Paine said she recommended that end date because we are still in pandemic and do not
have any idea what is coming down the road next. She understood the solidity of having a date on the
calendar, but each time someone gets infected with COVID there is a chance of an entirely new mutation.
The Omicron variant is spreading like wildfire and who knows what the next variant will look like.
Therefore, she was not comfortable with having the sunset based on an arbitrary date instead of having a
smoother glidepath of when things settle down. She appreciated Councilmember Chen’s support for her
motion; it is in part due to money and addressing ancillary concerns will be important, but there is not a
good idea of when the pandemic will end. It is practically the end of the second year and the pandemic
has fooled us several times. Looking at the numbers proves we are bad at guessing how we will get
through the pandemic. She summarized she would keep the verbiage in the motion related to the end of
the governor’s emergency order.
Councilmember Chen commented everyone need to learn how to live with COVID; it will continue to
will mutate. Another variant, newer than Omicron, is already popping up. He proposed having a set end
date and establishing a task force because the temporary structures are not the best for the City. A task
force could look at long term options throughout the City. It is in the best interest of the 17 restaurants as
well as the restaurant industry to have well-thought out, well designed, outdoor dining options. If
Councilmember Paine was unwilling to provide an end date, he would not support her motion.
Councilmember K. Johnson reminded 10 restaurants have decided to pay the fee and would receive a
$1000 refund. The remaining restaurants, because they have not paid the fee, may have decided to
dismantle their streateries and they have until January 15th to do so based on Ordinance 4243 that the
council passed on a 5-2 vote. Several of the councilmembers who voted for that ordinance are now
arguing for a $200 fee. All the streateries were rent free for 16 months. As this is not a fee, it cannot be
compared to the fee that was paid initially or other cities’ fees; this is rent for the parking spaces being
used by the 17 streateries. Edmonds has a central business district and Main Street, the main thoroughfare
to the beaches and downtown area and part of the main circulation plan. Not all the safety regulations are
in place for the streateries so however the council decides to move forward, the City will need to reinspect
and do code enforcement and not allow ancillary items on the sidewalk that impede the walking space.
She summarized this is rent, it is within the amount recommended by DEMA and downtown restaurants
and their willingness to pay indicates their ability to pay the fee upfront.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2022
Page 16
Mayor Nelson suggested councilmembers focus their comments on the original motion first.
Councilmember Tibbott said the restaurant owners and downtown merchants have done an amazing job
of creating a vibrant downtown during a very difficult time in the nation’s history. As many others have,
he has been to other cities and seen their ad hoc version of streateries; Edmonds’ streateries are head and
shoulders above what other cities have done. After a year they are beginning to look rundown and
horrible and many cities are removing them voluntarily. While in Bellevue, he asked a restaurant about
theirs and was told people aren’t using them and they decided to take it down. Edmonds has had so much
success with its streateries and although they are temporary, they look fairly permanent.
Councilmember Tibbott did not support Councilmember Paine’s motion because he preferred to have an
end date and the April 30th end date with a 15 day grace period to remove the streatery is adequate. There
will be multiple more options for eating outdoors as the weather improves and there are already multiple
options at restaurants with outdoor seating. He did not support extending past April 30th with the
exception of a public process that brings the City code up-to-date and affirms what the council wants to
do. He liked Councilmember Chen's suggestion to have a hearing process that includes the entire City and
does not focus just on downtown. The other exception would be if there were another State lockdown and
restaurants were not able serve indoors. Other than those exceptions, April provides adequate time to
close the streateries and he did not support an ordinance that extends them beyond that time.
Councilmember K. Johnson raised a point of order, stating although this has not been enforced in the past,
a councilmembers may only speak up to twice on any motion. Mayor Nelson questioned beginning to
enforce that now. Councilmember K. Johnson said she thought it was time. Mayor Nelson suggested the
council as a whole discuss that. Councilmember K. Johnson said it is part of Robert’s Rules of Order and
the Mr. Passey or Mr. Taraday could be asked to rule on it. Mayor Nelson said he would not recognize
that right now and suggested discussing it another time. Councilmember K. Johnson relayed her objection
to that ruling.
Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, commenting it is the council’s meeting and not his.
She asked Mr. Passey to rule on Councilmember K. Johnson’s point. Mayor Nelson requested
Councilmember Buckshnis refrain from inflammatory language; he is trying to moderate the meeting and
make sure it runs smoothly. If the council as a body wishes to enforce the number of times a
councilmember speaks to a motion, that was fine but when one councilmember asks him to rule on it, that
was a different question. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she was unsure what he found
inflammatory about her request to have Mr. Passey provide information. Mayor Nelson found
Councilmember Buckshnis’ comment that it was the council’s meeting not his inflammatory.
Councilmember Buckshnis reiterated it is the council’s meeting. Mayor Nelson said he never said it was
his meeting nor does he act like it is his meeting.
Mr. Taraday said he did not have the Robert’s Rules of Order rule about speaking twice on the top of his
head. He reminded that any ruling of the chair is subject to appeal by the council. If the council does not
like the chair’s ruling, they can appeal it. Mayor Nelson asked if the council wished to appeal.
Councilmembers Tibbott, Buckshnis and K. Johnson answered yes.
UPON ROLL CALL, THE DECISION TO LIMIT DEBATE TO TWICE PER
COUNCILMEMBER CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN, TIBBOTT,
AND BUCKSHNIS, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS
PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Mr. Passey said he had not kept track of which councilmembers have spoken twice to which motion.
Mayor Nelson assumed councilmembers had exhausted their comments. The motion before the council
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2022
Page 17
would be whether to substitute Councilmember K. Johnson’s substitute motion for Councilmember
Paine’s original motion.
Mr. Taraday referred to another procedural misunderstanding: his understanding is while there are
motions on separate parallel tracks, that does not prevent the council from making amendments to either
motion. After hearing Councilmember Chen’s remark, he was concerned the council was under the
impression they were prevented from implementing their legislative will which this procedure is not
intended to do. There is always a way to get to legislative will and he wanted to ensure the council
understood how to do that.
Amendment #1 to the Substitute Motion
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO AMEND THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON BECAUSE IT
MIGHT BE A GOOD COMPROMISE WE COULD ALL LIVE WITH, TO AMEND FROM $750
TO $500/MONTH WHICH IS THE LOWER END OF THE DEMA COMPROMISE PROPOSED
AND HAVE IT FOR THE SAME FOUR MONTHS THAT SHE PROPOSED.
Council President Olson said unless people are dying which does not seem to have been South’s Africa
experience with Omicron or unless something changes, she did not think this will go past April. She
supported April 30th as an end date, recognizing the council could revisit it. She wanted to support all
businesses, noting having streateries pay a reasonable amount this honor the businesses paying for
outdoor dining as part of their lease. She found any fee within the range proposed by DEMA acceptable;
this may be a way for the council to come together on a solution.
Councilmember Paine did not support the amendment, finding $500/month for 4 months extraordinary
usury and short sighted.
Councilmember L. Johnson said she could not support a motion that includes the words unless people are
dying. She hoped that would be taken back because she found it extraordinarily offensive. People are
getting sick from COVID and are dying from Omicron, not at the same rate but people are getting sick.
Amendment #1 to the Original Motion
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO
AMEND THE ORIGINAL MOTION, TO DO THE $200 AND STICK WITH THE ORIGINAL
TIMEFRAME PROPOSED BY THE ADMINISTRATION, MAY 31, 2022, AND 15 DAYS TO
TAKE IT DOWN AFTER.
Action on Amendment #1 to the Original Motion
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4); COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, PAINE AND
L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, TIBBOTT, AND BUCKSHNIS
AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO.
Action on Amendment #1 to the Substitute Motion
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-3); COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, TIBBOTT,
AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS
K. JOHNSON, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Amendment #2 to the Substitute Motion
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO
AMEND COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON’S MOTION BY SAYING THE FEES COLLECTED
MAY BE USED FOR PARKING, PROCESSING, ENFORCEMENT AND ANY OTHER
ACTIVITY THAT PROMOTES ECONOMIC VIABILITY AND COMMUNITY ACTIVITY AND
PUBLIC SAFETY IN OUR COMMUNITY. NOT LIMIT THE USAGE OF THE FEE TO
PARKING AND PROCESSING.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2022
Page 18
Councilmember Tibbott said there are a lot of ways the fees could be used, for parking and for enhancing
economic activity. He also envisioned that administrative processing may be more extensive than before
because there are now enforcement issues that need to be addressed. He supported having the ability to
use the fees in variety of ways that supports economic viability.
Councilmember Paine said in her past life she worked with permitting and use pf permit fees. She asked if
excess fees were allowed to be used for purposes other than directly related to the streateries. It was her
understanding that permit fees were meant to support the permit process or things directly related to the
permit. Ms. McLaughlin said in her previous experience, as long as the costs were recoverable, they can
be used for maintaining and managing right-of-way consistent with the division’s responsibility. Mr.
Taraday said with respect to fees, the traditional purpose of fees is to recoup the administrative cost of
processing the permit. The streatery fees that the council has been deliberating on go beyond what the
City would need to recoup its administrative costs and a portion becomes more akin to what the City has
for bistro dining, basically a form of rent, leasehold excess tax applies to that portion of the fee, and that
portion of the fee could be used broadly and not just for the purpose of renting substitute parking spaces.
Councilmember Paine observed there was no specific City code regarding that. Mr. Taraday answered it
would not be a lot of money, but he was not aware of any City code that expressly limits the rent portion
of the fee to only purchasing or renting replacement parking stalls.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she could support the amendment if it were limited to the downtown
area as defined by where streateries are allowed; she did not want it to apply elsewhere. She was unsure if
that was the intent. She pointed out these are not fees, it is rent for the use of the parking spaces.
Councilmember L. Johnson referred to Ms. McLaughlin’s comment that the fees are in excess of what it
would take to rent offsetting parking spaces. She believed this was beyond rent and was a punitive
amount.
Council President Olson commented the word punitive is misleading. She questioned whether it was
punitive for restaurants who pay for their outdoor dining space to pay for their outdoor dining space.
There is an element of leveling the playing field because they are competing for the same customers for
outdoor dining seats although few are being used in either capacity.
Council President Olson expressed support for the amendment, suggesting it not be limited to the
downtown area because ARPA funds are not limited to the downtown area. If these funds pay for parking
downtown, the ARPA funds can be used elsewhere or vice versa. The council has been told if they want
the use of two spaces for the streateries enforced, as many were built with footings outside the two spaces,
the council would need to expressly give that direction in the context of the amendments. She has given
that a lot of thought and decided not to start playing that game. As someone who was in the business of
writing contracts, there is no interpretation that that isn’t already the case but she did not want to add
words about requiring that enforcement. She concluded it entered into the realm of administration versus
the realm of the city council; the council expects that all codes will be followed.
Ms. McLaughlin wanted to ensure the council considered the situation where one parking space is
occupied versus two. Staff’s recommendation in the council memo was to reduce the fee so it was
scalable based on the number of parking spaces utilized .
Council President Olson said she had been thinking about that and thought it was an equity issue. When a
restaurant chose only one parking space, it was because the frontage of the business was so small that that
was all they could do. In terms of the restaurant’s benefit, it may have expanded their seating threefold
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2022
Page 19
over what they had on the interior and she felt the additional space offset that from an equity standpoint.
She summarized although it seemed like an inequity, following her personal assessment, it was offset in a
different way.
Action to Amendment #2 to the Substitute Motion
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS TIBBOTT AND
BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS K.
JOHNSON, CHEN, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Amendment #3 to Substitute Motion
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K.
JOHNSON, TO AMEND COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON’S SUBSTITUTE MOTION, IF
RESTAURANTS WITH AN OUTDOOR DINING FACILITY, THEY DO NOT NEED TO HAVE A
STREATERY.
Councilmember Buckshnis said regardless of the words used, punitive or discriminatory, there are a lot of
restaurants and businesses that pay for outdoor dining space. If a restaurant has outdoor dining, they have
no need for a streatery that takes up parking spaces. She concluded it was a logical step that many people
have requested.
Councilmember Paine asked about mixing apples and oranges, whether the council can loop in private
property outdoor dining equivalent to the streateries. In her mind, that is private property versus the use of
the right-of-way. She asked if that mixture would put the council in some sort of jeopardy. Ms.
McLaughlin referred to the complication of a permanent extension as those outdoor dining spaces are
already permitted. Mr. Taraday asked for clarification on the motion; he was unclear whether
Councilmember Buckshnis intended bistro dining to be a disqualifying characteristic that would not allow
a restaurant to have a streatery or whether the motion only applied to outdoor dining on private property.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she was trying to allow people to dine outdoors; if restaurants have
outdoor dining, they should not have both a streatery and outdoor dining because the reason for the
streateries was to provide outdoor dining during the pandemic. Mr. Taraday asked if outdoor dining
included sidewalk bistro dining. For example, if someone had sidewalk bistro dining, would the motion
disqualify them from having a streatery. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if sidewalk bistro dining was
dining along the sidewalk that people have to navigate through. Mr. Taraday said several restaurants in
town have tables on the sidewalk legally pursuant to the City’s bistro dining regulations. He asked
whether the intent of the amendment was anyone using the sidewalk for bistro dining would be
disqualified from having a streatery.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she never thought of that but would guess yes. She looks at outdoor
dining as outdoor dining and did not realize there was a difference between outdoor dining and sidewalk
bistros. She asked if sidewalk bistros were the result of the pandemic and streateries. Mr. Taraday
answered no, they had been around for a while. Councilmember Buckshnis said she would leave them
out. Ms. McLaughlin said they are often scaled to the space where they were enabled which is often very
limited on the sidewalk. During the pandemic and public health issues and allowing more people to dine
outside, the scale likely would be too small for the need at the moment.
Mr. Taraday said he was still unclear of the intent behind amendment. Regardless of the intent, the
council can use any number of criteria to determine which restaurants qualify for streateries and if the
council wanted to use bistro dining as a disqualifier factor, it could.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2022
Page 20
Councilmember Paine relayed her understanding that outdoor dining referred to outdoor patio dining on
private property such as a former parking lot. That is how she understood Councilmember Buckshnis’
amendment but she may be wrong.
Councilmember Buckshnis clarified her intent; a number restaurants have spent money to create outdoor
dining. If a restaurant has outdoor dining, which was the reason for the streateries, she believed a
restaurant should have one or the other. She did not think about sidewalk bistro, she was just thinking
about restaurants that put in outdoor patios such as Dimitris, Calypso, and Fire & Feast. She questioned
why those restaurants need a streatery if they had outdoor dining facilities.
Council President Olson said Councilmember Buckshnis was bringing up the point that what the council
did in response to an emergency isn’t not foolproof and was somewhat of a kneejerk reaction to an
emergency. These are the types of things that would have been dealt with on the front end if the
streateries were intended to be long term. The council can take what it learned from this into a future,
more permanent endeavor. It underlines the reasons why the streateries should be ended as soon as
possible. She voted to walk away from this, but now that the council has decided to continue the
streateries, she did not want to be flaky or finetune something that is temporary. She would not support
the amendment to avoid being flaky for those that thought the council was moving forward and had
already paid to go forward. On the flip side, she suggested adding a caveat that restaurants with outdoor
dining could get a refund if they had paid the extension fee and were willing to remove their streatery.
Councilmember K. Johnson pointed out there are two types of outdoor dining approved by the City. The
first is patio dining on their private property such as Scott’s, Five Bistro or Las Barista’s. The second type
is sidewalk bistro dining. In this case, she agreed with Councilmember Buckshnis that people need to
make a choice. There is limited space on the sidewalk and the streateries already encroach on the
sidewalk 1-2 feet and the furniture for bistro dining is not used in winter. People with both sidewalk
dining and a streatery need to make a choice to have one or the other so there can be maximum use of the
sidewalk because people will not sit outside on the sidewalk in cold, inclement weather without adequate
covering. She supported the idea that if a restaurant had patio dining, they did not need a streatery; but if
they have both sidewalk dining and a streatery, they need to make a choice of one or the other.
Action to Amendment #3 to Substitute Motion
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (2-5); COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND
BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, TIBBOTT, PAINE AND L.
JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON CALLED THE QUESTION ON THE SUBSTITUTE
MOTION.
Mr. Taraday displayed the revised code language to ensure the council understood what they were voting
on or to assist with making additional amendments.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON AND SECONDED, TO AMEND
THAT ANY RESTAURANT THAT HAD ALREADY PAID THEIR STREATERY PERMIT FEE,
WHICH IS NORMALLY NON-REFUNDABLE, IF THEY HAVE CHANGED THEIR MIND AND
DO NOT WANT TO GO FORWARD, THEY CAN GET A REFUND IF THEY MAKE THAT
KNOWN TO THE CITY BY JANUARY 15, 2022.
Council President Olson wanted to give restaurants the opportunity to spend money on their outdoor
dining space instead of on a streatery.
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2022
Page 21
Councilmember K. Johnson said the amended language states fees for the exclusive use of right-of-way;
she preferred rent for the use of parking spaces in the right-of-way. Mr. Taraday said some portion of the
fee can be characterized as rent if the council would like to. He believed a portion of the fee would be
subject to leasehold excise tax and did not object to a portion of the fee being called rent. If it was the
council’s intent that some portion of the fee be used for the actual recoupment of staff costs, it is not
100% rent. The existing language allows enough flexibility for staff to recoup its costs and then apply the
leasehold excise tax to the remainder and treat it as rent.
Ms. McLaughlin requested the terminology be consistent with the code. Mr. Taraday said bistro dining is
worded as bistro dining fees, $30 annual fee plus monthly right-of-way use fee at 50 cents per square foot
times the leasehold excise tax. The word rent is not used when describing the bistro dining fees.
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO
EXTEND TO 10:30 TO GET TO THE LAST ITEM ON THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she would defer to the parallel use of terminology between bistro dining
and streateries. What struck her was exclusive use of right-of-way was not specific enough for her.
Mr. Taraday read the substitute motion as amended:
18.70.040
B. Fees for the exclusive use of the public right-of-way are those established by the city council by
resolution in its sole legislative discretion. The fee to extend a streatery permit through April 30, 2022
shall be a monthly payment of $500 with the first payment due on January 15, 2022, PROVIDED THAT
streatery operators not wishing to pay the permit extension fee shall remove the streatery from the right-
of-way no later than 11:59 pm on January 15, 2022, AND FURTHER PROVIDED THAT streateries
shall be removed from the right-of-way no later than 11:59 pm on May 15, 2022. The City shall refund
$2,000 to any streatery applicant who paid a $4,000 lump sum extension fee as required by the version of
this code adopted pursuant to Ordinance 4243. Any streatery applicant who requests a refund by January
15, 2022 after abandoning their application shall be entitled to such refund. The fee collected, after
subtracting an appropriate amount to cover streatery-related administrative costs, shall be used to rent
parking spaces that will be made available to the public.
Council President Olson did not think Councilmember K. Johnson’s motion had included allowing until
May 15th for the streateries to be removed and recalled her motion was through April 30th.
Councilmember K. Johnson said her motion included taking the streateries down by May 15th.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO AMEND TO CHANGE THAT TO APRIL 30TH.
Councilmember L. Johnson did not support the amendment. The council was basically telling restaurants
they would be charged this large fee until the end of April and they would also be charged for the time it
takes to remove the structure. She was concerned with using the word rent; the City was getting into the
business of renting out the public right-of-way, which felt like an uncomfortable and tricky area to get
into.
Councilmember Paine did not support the amendment, commenting it seemed very unfair. She preferred
to allow the streateries to be removed in a timeframe that makes good sense.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2022
Page 22
Councilmember Chen expressed support for the fee, agreeing it was not rent because the City did not own
the property title to the street, it is a public right-of-way so he preferred to call it a fee. He preferred to
allow restaurants a two week grace period, until May 15th, to remove the streateries.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
THE SECOND.
Council President Olson asked whether a motion needed to be made to address the concern with the word
rent. Mr. Taraday advised the word rent does not appear in the current draft.
For Councilmember L. Johnson, Mr. Passey advised the council would first vote on the substitute motion
and if it passed, the council would then vote on the ordinance.
Councilmember Chen asked for clarification, whether the Council had already voted on the amendment.
Mr. Taraday advised the council had voted on the amendments, but not on the substitute motion.
Action on Substitute Motion as Amended
UPON ROLL CALL, SUBSTITUTE MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (5-2),
COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN, TIBBOTT, AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL
PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING
NO.
Mr. Passey explained he Council would now vote on the ordinance, the instrument used to amend the
code.
Councilmember Chen clarified the council was voting on Ordinance 4244 that incorporated the
$500/month fee, April 30, 2022 end date and 2 week grace period for removal. Mr. Taraday agreed,
explaining he will add the revised language (above) into the ordinance in the council packet. That is how
it will be published and go into effect.
Councilmember Tibbott clarified the council approved the substitute motion and now that is taking the
place of the first motion made by Councilmember Paine. Mr. Taraday agreed.
UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION (ORDINANCE NO. 4244), CARRIED (5-2);
COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN, TIBBOTT, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL
PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS AND PAINE VOTING
NO.
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO
EXTEND THE COUNCIL MEETING TO 10:50 TO GET THROUGH THE LAST ITEM ON THE
AGENDA.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked what was the last item. Mayor Nelson advised it is a 20-minute
executive session pertaining to real estate acquisition.
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: REAL ESTATE ACQUISITION RCW 42.30.110(1)(B)
At 10:15 p.m., Mayor Nelson announced that the city council would meet in executive session regarding
real estate acquisition per RCW 42.30.110(1)(b). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to
last approximately 20 minutes and would be held virtually. Action may be taken as a result of meeting in
executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were Mayor Nelson, and
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2022
Page 23
Councilmembers K. Johnson, Chen, Tibbott, Buckshnis, Olson, Paine, and L. Johnson. Others present
were City Attorney Jeff Taraday and ________.
At 10:36, the executive session was extended for 10 minutes until 10:45 p.m. At 10:45, the executive
session was extended for 3 minutes until 10:48 p.m.
The executive session concluded at 10:47 p.m.
11. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION; POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mayor Nelson reconvened the regular city council meeting at 10:48 p.m. No action was taken as a result
of meeting in executive session.
12. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES
13. COUNCIL COMMENTS
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO
EXTEND FOR 10 MINUTES TO 11 PM. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Paine thanked the council for allowing her to serve the past year as council president,
commenting it was an interesting year filled with opportunities for the entire community. She reported the
cold weather shelter was open for 9 nights, served 134 people, and turned away a few. They are always
looking for volunteers and donations. The cold weather is particularly difficult for those without homes.
She welcomed the new councilmember and wished all a Happy New Year.
Councilmember K. Johnson reported Brackett’s Landing North and South including the Edmonds
Underwater Park are closed. Marina Beach and the Off leash Park are not impacted. Since Brackett’s
Landing is a conservation area, pets should not be in those waters and recreational shell fish harvesting is
restricted. This is largely due to the heavy rainfall causing above normal flow at the Edmonds wastewater
treatment plant and the Snohomish Health District has restricted those recreational waters until further
notice.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented the City of Seattle and King County require proof of vaccination
for indoor dining and the Edmonds council may want to consider that in the future as Omicron increases
and the risk to unvaccinated people skyrockets. She welcomed new councilmembers and thanked those
who have served and looked forward to the new year.
Council President Olson thanked the council for their support of her as council president in 2022. She
intended at the end of 2022 that councilmembers could say they were respected, they and their ideas were
included and considered, and that she made their job easier rather than harder. If she can accomplish that,
she will feel she served them and the community well.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked everyone who contributed to Court Appointed Special Advocate
Christmas trees at Harbor Square, Axis Pharmacy, Gallagher’s Where You Brew, and Crucible Brewery.
She was in charge of that Rotary program this year; they processed 290 gifts including 106 that she
purchased. Of the 290 gifts, 125 were teens who have entered the system. She commented kids are our
future and she hoped everyone learned to get along amid COVID, and worked on having happy families.
She wished all a Happy New Year and looked forward to working with everyone in 2022.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2022
Page 24
Councilmember Tibbott wished everyone a Happy New Year, commenting the council was getting off to
great start. This is his first council meeting in a long time, but he assured the muscle memory did not go
away, he worked through the council packet just like he always did. It was good to be back and he looked
forward to work with the council. He had a lot of out-of-town family visit during the Christmas season
and they enjoyed being in Edmonds together. He thanked the council for all they were doing to serve the
City and make it a great place for people who lives here and for the next generation.
Councilmember Chen wished all a Happy New Year. He thanked Councilmember Paine for her service as
council president, recognizing it took a lot of time and personal sacrifice and he admired her dedication.
He congratulated the community and the council for a good first meeting which showed that compromises
do work. The council is capable of compromise moving forward collectively and the council needs to
seek middle ground and work for the community. The entire country is very divided and he hoped the
council was not being sucked into that type of divisiveness. Following the recent snow, there is a lot to
improve on, going back to basics, finding resources to improve public safety including cleaning streets
and building sidewalks. He looked forward to working with the council and the community to make the
community better.
Councilmember L. Johnson wished everyone a Happy New Year, may be it be a be healthy 2022 and that
people use the many tools at their disposal to make it so.
Student Representative Roberts expressed congratulations to Councilmembers K. Johnson, Chen and
Tibbott and to Council President Olson. He gave a huge shout out to the street maintenance crew for their
hard work during the period of snow and thanked Mayor Nelson for recognizing that improvements need
to be made. In 2022 he hoped the council was able to find more common ground while serving everyone
in the City. He hoped the council was able to find mutual respect for one another, for citizens and
especially for City staff and start being the example rather than the laughing stock. COVID continues to
be a huge concern, especially as he heads back to school. In the last week before winter break, there were
12 confirmed cases at his school. He urged everyone to get their booster as soon as possible and wear
masks. QFC on 100th and Safeway have multiple time slots the week of January 10th. He wished all a
Happy 2022.
14. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson thanked Councilmember Paine for service as council president and thanked Council
President Olson for being this year’s council president. He welcomed Councilmember Tibbott and looked
forward to this year, hopefully with less snow and less COVID and that the council gets to meet in person
wherever that may be. He wished all safe travels as it is still icy and slick and urged everyone to get their
booster shots.
15. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:58 p.m.
____ ____
MICHAEL NELSON, MAYOR SCOTT PASSEY, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2022
Page 25
Public Comment for 1/4/22 Council Meeting:
From: Pam Brown
Date: January 4, 2022 at 9:36:57 AM PST
To: "LaFave, Larry" <Larry.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Proposed 24 unit apt building on 6th and Main
Reply-To: pbexpresso@gmail.com
Re: Proposed 24 unit apt building on 6th and Main
Dear Mayor,
Please rethink and revise your ideas on acceptance of this building proposal.
As is clear, it does not
1. Fit in with the neighborhood in any way
2. Improve the neighborhood aesthetically
And further will add to the growing parking problem downtown.
The only perceived benefits would be to the builder and 24 residents.
Please ask that all buildings provide parking for 1.5-2.0 cars per unit AND (thinking outside the box) a
few available free public parking spaces as well!
Minimum effort should be made to make a new building look attractive, provide community parking,
maybe a garden area, and not merely to maximize dollars and square footage.
In a tiny town such as ours, that is a designated arts community, this and all new buildings should reflect
this goal of artistic messaging. A statue out in front will not satisfy this, by the way. It's the whole feel
that needs to exude 'arts'. Please. This can be done economically. It does take creativity. But isn't that
what a community dedicated to the arts should strive for?
Thank you for all your efforts on behalf of the community. Your work is appreciated.
Kind Regards,
Pamela Brown
From: LaFave, Larry <Larry.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 4:45 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Fwd: PLN2021-0066
Sent from my iPhone
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2022
Page 26
Begin forwarded message:
From: Marilyn Overton
Date: January 4, 2022 at 1:16:10 PM PST
To: "LaFave, Larry" <Larry.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: PLN2021-0066
Hello,
I am writing to state my opposition to the application for PLN2021-0066, for the 24-unit apartment
building at 605 and 611 Main with only one parking stall per unit.
The current building is in excellent condition with a new climate-controlled circulation system and fresh
paint.
The services offered are helpful to the Edmonds community, and would be sorely missed both by the
people who offer these services and those who receive them.
Additionally, the alleyway is convenient, consistently used by both pedestrians and cars/trucks alike.
We, the citizens of Edmonds, want to maintain the beauty and small-town feeling we all cherish. We do
not our city blighted by a huge apartment building.
Please have my email put on record.
Thank you,
Marilyn Overton, Edmonds resident and homeowner
From: ACE President
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 4:45 PM
To: Johnson, Kristiana <kristiana.johnson@edmondswa.gov>; Chen, Will <will.chen@edmondswa.gov>;
Tibbott, Neil <Neil.Tibbott@edmondswa.gov>; Buckshnis, Diane <Diane.Buckshnis@edmondswa.gov>;
Olson, Vivian <Vivian.Olson@edmondswa.gov>; Paine, Susan <Susan.Paine@edmondswa.gov>; Johnson,
Laura <Laura.Johnson@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; LaFave, Carolyn
<Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; Rohde,
David <david.rohde@edmondswa.gov>; Passey, Scott <Scott.Passey@edmondswa.gov>; Turley, Dave
<Dave.Turley@edmondswa.gov>; Falk, Nicholas <Nicholas.Falk@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: RE: Jan 4, 2022 Council Agenda Item 9.2: Virtual Only/Hybrid Meetings Discussion
To: Edmonds city Council, Mayor Nelson and Staff,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2022
Page 27
The Alliance of Citizens for Edmonds is writing in support of returning to the hybrid option, both virtual
and in person city Council meeting attendance options, to begin as soon as possible in 2022. This will
allow a maximum of citizens to participate in the way in which they are able, while we are still under the
Governor's emergency orders which requires that all citizens “be heard” by everyone attending the
meeting. Many cities are using a hybrid format successfully. Some cities have chosen to be even more
inclusive and read written comments submitted for public hearings aloud into the public record.
Maximizing full public participation would reassure citizens that you are listening, hopefully alleviating
angst and confusion that has occurred when citizens believe they have not been allowed to participate
fully in the democratic process.
We further recommend:
• All commenters start by stating their full name and city of residence, as historically done.
• Consider the option of the virtual commenter being allowed to turn on their video so the rest of
the open public meeting attendees can see them as they would in council chambers. The
commenter would have the choice to do so, or not.
We were highly concerned about recommendations made by the committee of Susan Paine, Laura
Johnson and staff members related to public comments. We urge the Council not to support any of their
“Other recommendations.”
Please vote NO to:
“1. Discontinue having the public comments email. Our virtual public comments are abundant and often
repetitive of the emails. The practice of including these emails in our Council packets as that is repetitive
as well as using a lot of paper for those CMs who get the printed packets.”
Rationale against: The publiccomment@edmondswa.gov has provided an excellent opportunity for
citizens’ comments to be printed in the Council agenda packet, in their entirety. A summary of the
comment is not the same. We urge you to continue the public comment email.
"2. Alternatively, include the public comment in the weekly packets, but don’t print them."
Rationale against: The number of pages of public comment are a very small percentage of the entire
packet.
"3. Allow one public comment—either written or verbal—but not both."
Rationale against: This is an abuse of the democratic process. All citizens should be allowed to comment
as frequently as they choose, in writing and verbally.
The Alliance of Citizens of Edmonds continues to be a staunch advocate for more open government in
Edmonds.
Dr. Michelle Dotsch, on behalf of The Alliance of Citizens for Edmonds (ACE)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2022
Page 28
From: Jeanne Hecker
Sent: Monday, January 3, 2022 9:25 AM
To: LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: 24-unit Apartment Building
Dear Mayor Nelson,
Please do NOT approve the proposed 24-unit apartment building in downtown Edmonds. It is
esthetically VERY unattractive, out of proportion and not in keeping with the charm of our downtown
core. There are parking and density issues in an already tight downtown area as well as safety concerns.
Please don’t let Edmonds turn into Kirkland or Ballard for the sake of profit. Please don’t ruin our
Edmonds jewel on your watch!
Thank you,
Jeanne Hecker
From: Steven Tenure
Sent: Monday, January 3, 2022 6:18 PM
To: LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Opposed to PLN2021-0066
I would like this email to be put on the record.
Mayor Nelson,
As an Edmonds resident who moved here in 2017 for the charm, small-town feel, and diverse business
community, I am opposed to PLN2021-0066, the 24-unit apartment building at 605 and 611 Main with
only one parking stall per unit.
The Edmonds Comprehensive Plan says that “any growth or development should strive to preserve light,
privacy, and freedom from visual pollution.” That is not followed here with PLN2021-0066. Edmonds is
uniquely called “The Gem of Puget Sound” and follows our existing Comprehensive Plan growth
management goals. Mimicking Lynnwood- or Ballard-style redevelopment is not in our goals --- and
shouldn't be the future of Edmonds. The developer even admits that: “Structures on the adjacent
parcels do not support the intensity of development under the current zoning and comprehensive plan
and are anticipated to eventually be replaced with higher-density development. The proposed project is
seen as a guide for future redevelopment allowed and encouraged by the comprehensive plan."
Please do not approve this application. Please do not move forward. Protect Edmonds and our
fantastic community. Again, I am opposed to PLN2021-0066, the 24-unit apartment building at 605 and
611 Main with only one parking stall per unit.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2022
Page 29
Steven Tenure
Edmonds resident
From: robert chaffee
Sent: Sunday, January 2, 2022 9:35 AM
To: LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Proposed 24 Unit 3 story apartment complex on Main near 6th
I am against this development. My reasons are well expressed by Lynda Fireman in her Jan. 2nd article in
MEN. Further, it will do nothing for affordable housing.
Robert Chaffee
From: Cate Callahan <catecall@live.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 2, 2022 11:13 AM
To: LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: 24 Unit Apartment Building
Please review the plans for this large building. It does not make sense to build it in that location and it
would cause endless parking problems, for starters. Please vote NO on this proposed plan.
Cate
From: Lynn Neal <lvneal206@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 2, 2022 2:28 PM
To: LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: 24 unit apartments
Dear mayor Nelson,
Please do not allow more apartments to plague downtown. Please remember you are to act on the
behalf of your current citizens. Edmonds is special because of it's "slower" lifestyle and quaint buildings.
Don't turn us into shoreline, Seattle, everywhere else. Just because everyone else does it does not make
it right.
Regards,
Lynn Neal
-----Original Message-----
From: Kathleen Cavanagh <kcavanagh125@gmail.com>
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2022
Page 30
Sent: Sunday, January 2, 2022 5:52 PM
To: LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: You must be kidding?
Mr Mayor,
If the drawing is anything close to what the proposed building is supposed to look like—SERIOUSLY???
How ugly and what an eye sore for Edmonds. As if we don’t have enough of an issue with parking and
mobility right now, this is not, repeat not and “enhancement” to Edmonds. If people want to live in a big
cube on a main street, move to Kirkland. And that in itself should be a lesson of a beautiful waterfront
area that sold out.
Talk about parking issues!
Sincerely,
Kathleen Cavanagh
Edmonds resident 28 yrs
From: Jamie Kahn
Sent: Monday, January 3, 2022 10:56 AM
To: LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Against the application for PLN2021-0066
I would like this email to be put on the record.
Mayor Nelson,
As an Edmonds resident who moved here in 2017 for the charm, small-town feel, and diverse business
community, I am opposed to PLN2021-0066, the 24-unit apartment building at 605 and 611 Main with
only one parking stall per unit.
The Edmonds Comprehensive Plan says that “any growth or development should strive to preserve light,
privacy, and freedom from visual pollution.” That is not followed here with PLN2021-0066. Edmonds is
uniquely called “The Gem of Puget Sound” and follows our existing Comprehensive Plan growth
management goals. Mimicking Lynnwood- or Ballard-style redevelopment is not in our goals --- and
shouldn't be the future of Edmonds. The developer even admits that: “Structures on the adjacent
parcels do not support the intensity of development under the current zoning and comprehensive plan
and are anticipated to eventually be replaced with higher-density development. The proposed project is
seen as a guide for future redevelopment allowed and encouraged by the comprehensive plan."
Please do not approve this application. Please do not move forward. Protect Edmonds and our
fantastic community. Again, I am opposed to PLN2021-0066, the 24-unit apartment building at 605 and
611 Main with only one parking stall per unit.
Jamie Kahn
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2022
Page 31
Edmonds resident
From: Steven Tenure <stenure133@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 3, 2022 6:18 PM
To: LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Opposed to PLN2021-0066
I would like this email to be put on the record.
Mayor Nelson,
As an Edmonds resident who moved here in 2017 for the charm, small-town feel, and diverse business
community, I am opposed to PLN2021-0066, the 24-unit apartment building at 605 and 611 Main with
only one parking stall per unit.
The Edmonds Comprehensive Plan says that “any growth or development should strive to preserve light,
privacy, and freedom from visual pollution.” That is not followed here with PLN2021-0066. Edmonds is
uniquely called “The Gem of Puget Sound” and follows our existing Comprehensive Plan growth
management goals. Mimicking Lynnwood- or Ballard-style redevelopment is not in our goals --- and
shouldn't be the future of Edmonds. The developer even admits that: “Structures on the adjacent
parcels do not support the intensity of development under the current zoning and comprehensive plan
and are anticipated to eventually be replaced with higher-density development. The proposed project is
seen as a guide for future redevelopment allowed and encouraged by the comprehensive plan."
Please do not approve this application. Please do not move forward. Protect Edmonds and our
fantastic community. Again, I am opposed to PLN2021-0066, the 24-unit apartment building at 605 and
611 Main with only one parking stall per unit.
Steven Tenure
Edmonds resident
From: blayne white
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 6:21 AM
To: LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Downtown Housing
Hi,
I think this proposed 24-unit complex in downtown is a bad idea for Edmonds and I do not support it. I
understand that you may need to increase the housing supply in Edmonds, however putting these types
of buildings on main and the surrounding areas will negatively impact the appeal and charm of
downtown Edmonds which is the whole reason people like to visit and live here. I left Seattle 4 years ago
and purchased home in Edmonds to get away from living in a cramped and unsafe city. Edmonds is so
special because of its small town feel and beautiful old and single family homes. It’s such a unique
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2022
Page 32
feature that you can’t find many other places. It’s also special because Edmonds is still close enough to
other larger cities, which is where more larger housing units should and could be built.
Thank you for your time,
Blayne White -homeowner in downtown Edmonds
From: Jeremy White
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 6:33 AM
To: LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Proposed housing
I am a 4 year homeowner in downtown Edmonds and I oppose the proposed 24-unit complex in
downtown Edmonds. It is a bad idea for Edmonds because the small town charm and aesthetic of
smaller, single family homes is what draws people to Edmonds in the first place. If the housing supply in
Edmonds needs to increase, these types of units can be built in other places close to downtown but not
right in town or in surrounding cities. Edmonds is unique because it is still close enough to larger cities
while still maintaining a quaint, quiet coastal town feel. I moved out of the city of Seattle 4 years ago for
this very reason and have loved living in Edmonds, I would hate to see this change. Putting these types
of buildings on main and in downtown Edmonds will have a negative impact on our special city.
Thank you for your time,
Jeremy White -homeowner in downtown Edmonds
From: John McDonald <john@mcdonaldmcgarry.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 8:33 AM
To: LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: 505-511 Main St. Redevelopment
Dear Mr. Mayor:
Being nearby Main Street property owners, we are concerned about this project, its impact on the
streetscape and are wondering if it is a one off or a preview of coming attractions.
Most of us may recall that high school or college paper or project that had a checklist of elements to
include. For example, number of words, footnotes, perhaps even a bibliography and table of
contents. We may also remember the night before the due date, cramming to get all of the boxes
checked, but creating a really lousy project which the resulting grade reflected. That is what it looks like
here. The architect has tried to check off of all the boxes to get a passing grade from the city but has
failed miserably.
The design is to say the least, non-descript, perhaps even brutal and, despite the applicant’s remarks,
pretty much void of significant aesthetically pleasing elements. While it was designed for Edmonds, it
could be anywhere. It could incorporate some design elements of the adjacent or nearby buildings, but
it doesn’t. It is pretty much a square box.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2022
Page 33
We hope that the ADB would require the developer to add elements to break up the mass of the
building and add some visual interest. Perhaps a varied roof line. Compare the roof lines of the
adjacent office at 501 Main St., Reliable Flooring and the Main Street Commons under development at
6th & Main. The nearest similar building to this is the 1990 vintage Centennial Building at 6th & Main
which has a similar box design but at least offers a roof peak element on its 6th Avenue façade. Also add
some modulation to break up the massive sides of the building so that it does not overwhelm it
neighbors.
Question 13A of the project environmental impact statement asks if this project is on or near any
building 45 years old or older that is listed in, or eligible to be listed in a national, state or local historic
register. The applicant responds, “None are known to exist.”
This is incorrect, we are the proud owners of the Charles Larson house at 630 Main St., which in 2013
was designated as an historic property by the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission and the
city. We estimate that our property is within 350 feet of these parcels.
Also, let us not forget some of the other historic properties, whether registered or not, within a short
radius of the site, which include the “Rose House” at 555 Main St., the Reliable Flooring building at 542
Main St, the 524 Main St building and the residence at 560 Bell St.
Since in its review the state Department of Ecology noted that there are two contaminated sites within
750 feet of project, we would argue that since we and all of these other properties are within this same
radius, this statement must be corrected and the historic significance nearby buildings considered by the
ADB.
In addition, per the Snohomish County Assessor, the single-family home on the site, is over 100 years old
and is representative of the smaller homes owned by families that could have provided housing for
waterfront mill workers that may have just walked up and down Main Street to and from the mills. In
fact, this is the last home of its size and style remaining on the north side of Main Street.
Given the gap between the response to this question and the reality, we encourage the ADB and city to
carefully scrutinize all responses to the environment checklist to ensure their accuracy.
The developer of the 605-611 Main St project, GBH Holdings, is also the developer and owner of an
apartment building at 303 Edmonds St. Some may recall this project, the Beachwalk apartments, a
three story, 9-unit apartment. In 2018 the developer was able to take advantage of a provision of the
zoning code that did not require a building with a footprint of less than 4,800 sf to provide onsite
parking. As that was the zoning code in force at the time, the city had no choice but to issue the permit,
which it did. Hurriedly, the city council approved a 6-month moratorium on any new permits until the
code could be updated to remove this exception.Of additional concern to us, perhaps selfishly, due to its
proximity to our property and office, is that this owner has apparently acquired the property at 627
Dayton St., the former Baker Funeral home which for almost the last 50 years has been used as an
office. This information is reflected on the Snohomish County Assessor’s website.
This site shares the same zoning classification, BD2, and is also under 12,000 so is exempt from the 5%
public open space requirement. If this property is developed in the same fashion as is proposed for the
Main St. property and has 24 units with one parking space per unit, where will the overflow parking go?
Well, that answer is pretty obvious. Adjacent to this site is the lower library parking lot which provides
over 50 parking spaces that do not have any time limitation. Potentially, these residents could consume
a significant portion of the library parking lot.
As for parking, that may not be able to be disputed for the Main St. project, since the current code is
one spot per unit. Perhaps the code may need to be revised to require 1.25 to 1.5 spots per unit. In a
building of this size that would provide an additional 6 to 12 stalls.
It appears clear that the developers are reviewing the codes to see how to maximize their property’s
potential. Projects like this will significantly affect the look and feel of downtown Edmonds. As citizens
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2022
Page 34
we need to pay more attention to what the codes allow, not just in the central business district zones,
but throughout the city. Or this project could be just a preview of coming attractions.
Sincerely,
John and Sandy McDonald
McDONALD McGARRY Insurance
From: Marilyn Overton
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 10:48 AM
To: LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Proposed 24-unit downtown apartment building (PLN2021-0066)
Hello,
I am writing to state my opposition to the application for PLN2021-0066, for the 24-unit apartment
building at 605 and 611 Main with only one parking stall per unit.
The current building is in excellent condition with a new climate-controlled circulation system and fresh
paint.
The services offered are helpful to the Edmonds community, and would be sorely missed both by the
people who offer these services and those who receive them.
Additionally, the alleyway is convenient, consistently used by both pedestrians and cars/trucks alike.
We, the citizens of Edmonds, want to maintain the beauty and small-town feeling we all cherish. We do
not not our city blighted by a huge apartment building.
Please have my email put on record.
Thank you,
Marilyn Overton, Edmonds resident and homeowner
From: Laurie Cooper
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 10:50 AM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Streateries
Streateries make dining out safer. Remove the excess fee of $4000.
Pandemic getting worse, it’s the only safe way to eat. I don’t necessarily want to eat at other restaurants
that happen to have an outdoor eating area.
I’m handicapped and haven’t had trouble finding parking, fake argument by a vocal minority.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2022
Page 35
Laurie Cooper
Edmond voter
From: Laura Hill
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 10:26 AM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Streateries Comment
Hello,
I posted this comment on Facebook in response to Councilman Chen’s December 21 Facebook post
regarding the streateries. I am emailing it as a public comment for the Council’s consideration. I am a
homeowner by Yost Park/ Five Corners and am a regular voter. My husband and my parents (who own
a condo on Third and Walnut) feel the same way. Thank you.
***
I am a parent of two kids under 3 years old and was pregnant for a good chunk of the pandemic.
Outdoor dining (including the streateries) have been the only way I have felt safe dining at restaurants in
Edmonds. I am sure other pregnant people, parents of young children, and immunocompromised
people feel the same way and urge the Council to weigh these health concerns at the next meeting.
Laura Hakken
From: Ken Reidy
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 9:10 AM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Public Comments for January 4, 2022, city Council meeting
Edmonds Community Development Code and Resolution 1475 indicate that multiple fees may be
required to use any portion of public space or city right-of-way for objects which are temporary in
nature.
There is a Permit Application Fee that shall be paid before the permit coordinator may accept any
application. Application Fees are for city processing services.
Resolution 1475, passed by city Council on June 15, 2021, indicates there are fees for the exclusive use
of the public right-of-way that may involve the following:
1. Annual Fees.
2. Monthly ROW Use Fees.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2022
Page 36
3. Monthly Closure Fees.
4. A Leasehold Tax of 12.84%. The Leasehold Tax is a tax on the use of public property by a private
party. This tax is in lieu of the property tax.
As Edmonds city Council has established a lump sum figure of $4,000 under Ordinance 4243, it is hard to
determine what is what. Please clarify.
ALSO, please disclose what the fee for exclusive use of the public right-of-way by streateries was during
all of 2021. Please confirm that the Leasehold Tax for 2021 was remitted to the State. If not, please
provide an estimate of what is owed the State Department of Revenue including any penalties and
interest that apply.
Resolution 1475 includes an Alley, Sidewalk, Parking Disruption/ Closure Fee that addresses fees
charged for any activity that occupies or closes, sidewalks, parking space(s), parking lane(s) or other
paved area of a street/ road for more than 72 hours. Does this fee also apply to streateries? If not, why
not?
Fees for street use or encroachment permits are those established by the city Council by Resolution, in
its sole legislative discretion. Why does Ordinance 4243 establish a $4,000 fee? Why did Council choose
to do it this way instead of amending Resolution 1475? Also, should city Council have already adopted a
revised Fee Schedule for 2022 by now?
Next, Bistro and outdoor dining use part of the public right-of-way, outside of a completely enclosed
building. As this outside use isn’t allowed under the city’s Operating Restrictions, an exception allowing
for Bistro and outdoor dining has been adopted as part of our Zoning Laws.
Streateries also use part of the public right-of-way, outside of a completely enclosed building.
An exception allowing Streateries has NOT been adopted as part of our zoning laws, even on an interim
basis. The city’s Operating Restrictions don’t allow for Streateries and they never have.
Finally, please return city Council’s Meetings to Council Chambers. The refusal to allow certain citizens
to speak in attendance during the November 16, 2021 budget public hearing indicates that Virtual
Meetings don’t work for all citizens of Edmonds.
Thank you.
From: Autumn Waite
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 8:22 AM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Re: Streateries
I have nothing new to add, except for that I hope you make the right decision tonight. With Omnicron
raging, you will look extremely silly to consider this pandemic over.
Please let the streateries continue without additional fees.
Autumn Waite
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2022
Page 37
From: Autumn Waite
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2021 10:55 AM
To: PublicComments@edmondswa.gov <PublicComments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Streateries
I will keep this brief. As a young family, and nearly 36-year resident of Edmonds, I am extremely
disappointed that members of this city Council continue to ignore that this pandemic is far from over. I
have two young children with asthma, one of which cannot be vaccinated yet. To think that we are
anywhere near dining inside is absurd.
You know what else is absurd? A fee of $4,000 (or even $2,000) for a few months of using a few parking
spots. Look around the state and see that no one else comes close to charging anything like this.
Please reconsider charging any additional fees at this time, and look at how to continue the streateries
into the future (and forever in my opinion).
Thank you,
Autumn Waite
From: David Harb
Sent: Monday, January 3, 2022 5:33 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Public Comment
Do you think it's time to put the continual grabber regarding the awful shacks on our streets. You've
made a decision, stick with it and move on.
Please stop the weekly debate about the parking place shacks. They are not needed, we can sit inside .
Sincerely,
David Harb
From: Donna Fraser
Sent: Monday, January 3, 2022 2:11 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>; Clugston,
Michael <Michael.Clugston@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: PLN2021-0066 Opposition
To:
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2022
Page 38
• city Council - council@edmondswa.gov
• Mayor Nelson - Carolyn.lafave@edmondswa.gov
• Architectural Design Board - michael.clugston@edmondswa.gov
I would like this email to be put on the record.
Architectural Design Board,
As an Edmonds resident who moved here in 2017 for the charm, small-town feel, and diverse business
community, I am opposed to PLN2021-0066, the 24-unit apartment building at 605 and 611 Main with
only one parking stall per unit. It is an ugly building.
The Edmonds Comprehensive Plan says that “ any growth or development should strive to preserve
light, privacy, and freedom from visual pollution.” That is not followed here with PLN2021-0066.
Edmonds is uniquely called “The Gem of Puget Sound” and follows our existing Comprehensive Plan
growth management goals. Mimicking Lynnwood- or Ballard-style redevelopment is not in our goals ---
and shouldn't be the future of Edmonds. The developer even admits that: “Structures on the adjacent
parcels do not support the intensity of development under the current zoning and comprehensive plan
and are anticipated to eventually be replaced with higher-density development. The proposed project is
seen as a guide for future redevelopment allowed and encouraged by the comprehensive plan."
Please do not approve this application. Please do not move forward. Protect Edmonds and our
fantastic community. Again, I am opposed to PLN2021-0066, the 24-unit apartment building at 605 and
611 Main with only one parking stall per unit.
Donna Fraser
Edmonds, WA 98020
From: Michael Landau
Sent: Sunday, January 2, 2022 12:09 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Council
<Council@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Seating in outdoor structures isn’t always safer than indoor dining
Council,
I would encourage you to consider requiring each streaterie to demonstrate adequate air circulation
testing in order to prove that their outdoor establishment is safe. Perhaps you could group the
streateries into several types of designs to reduce the number of tests but this may be inadequate
because crosswinds will be different at each location.
This article says "creating temporary dining rooms in parking lots or sidewalks outside doesn’t always
mean it’s safer. In some situations this fall and winter, it possibly increased diners’ odds of infection"
https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/graphics/2021/03/17/indoor-vs-outdoor/6824399002/
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2022
Page 39
Thank you,
Michael Landau
From: Luke Distelhorst
Sent: Sunday, January 2, 2022 9:03 AM
To: Clugston, Michael <Michael.Clugston@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Support for PLN2021-0066 (600 block Main St)
Dear Mr. Clugston,
I would like to express my support for PLN2021-0066. Downtown Edmonds is the densest part of the city
and already full of (and zoned for) appropriately sized multi-unit buildings.
Housing of this size for people is totally suitable for downtown, and many other neighborhoods. We
need more units in our community and there is nothing controversial about building housing that fits
the zoning of its property.
For the 7+ years our family has lived in Edmonds we have solely lived in multi-unit (multifamily) housing,
as both a renter and owner, including in downtown.
Thank you,
Luke Distelhorst
Edmonds, WA
From: Michael Bourbonnais
Sent: Friday, December 31, 2021 9:37 AM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Streat eries
Hello - I am a huge supporter of reaching a compromise with the restaurants. My family feels safe eating
outside & would most likely not visit downtown as much without them. Now is not the time to penalize
a business during covid with the out of touch $4000 fee. I believe it draws people into DT and as a small
business owner myself —- I have heard & read the other businesses sales are not suffering. Please reach
a compromise. Something in line with what other cities charge. Perhaps something like $1000 fee thru
May 2022 in one lump sum.
Best,
Michael Bourbonnais
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2022
Page 40
From: Ryan Boyd
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2021 10:30 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Streeteries
Hello,
My family of 5 only eat outside and hearing our favorite restaurant Sante Fe would be closing their
outside eating area due to the $4000 fee was extremely upsetting. We love going there but will never
step foot inside a restaurant due to Covid and our very young children. Clearly they need the finances or
they wouldn’t be balking at the $4000 fee, but now they’ll be missing out all our dining fees too since we
won’t go inside.
Please do us all a favor and just rescind this fee altogether.
Thanks.
Ryan Boyd
From: JOHN BARNINGS
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2021 10:10 AM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Streaterie Fee Cost
$4000 for this fee is way to much. Will the city Council please do their homework and work together?
Get the opinions of your constituents and ask the business owners that are trying to make payroll and
stay in business. Without the small businesses down town we as a city would not exist. We want you to
do your job.
From: ayesharognlie
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2021 4:29 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Streeteries and Parking in Edmonds
To whom it may Concern,
I think that putting such a heavy fee on the Street restaurants is really a bad idea. Some of them will not
be able to comply and it will punish their businesses. To my understanding the fee has to do with
parking spaces. Parking was already an issue in downtown Edmonds, long before the streeteries were
put in place.
Edmonds has been growing in population over the years. Many people come from out of town to eat
here. Every year it has been harder and harder to find parking. We need a parking lot or garage to
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2022
Page 41
accommodate the population. Taking a few streeteries off of the few sidewalks will not accommodate
the Edmonds population.
Additionally, what would really be helpful is for Restaurants to ask for vaccination ID’s. This would make
it safer for us to eat inside. Until that is put in place, we rely on the outdoor streeteries.
All the very best,
Ayesha Rognlie
Edmonds, WA
From: Kathy Brewer
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2021 4:38 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Doherty,
Patrick <Patrick.Doherty@edmondswa.gov>; McLaughlin, Susan <susan.mclaughlin@edmondswa.gov>;
Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>; Passey, Scott <Scott.Passey@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Another special meeting? Please don't! REVISED FOR ALL.
To All,
I read Will Chen's post on Facebook about supporting another special meeting on the 28th regarding the
streateries. Please do not go forward with this for the good of our community. Ending this contentious
debate and the unfair streateries is the right thing to do. Will states:
"The street and the parking spaces are funded by taxpayer dollars. It is not fair to other businesses
and the public to award these parking spaces to selected restaurants for putting up the streateries."
All that matters is right there! Truth, common sense, logic, reason, fairness, equity. What more needs to
be said or considered?
The streateries program was a success for what it was intended but now it needs to sunset. Remember,
the streateries were allowed as a TEMPORARY EMERGENCY measure to allow restaurants to operate
with more capacity due to indoor dining restrictions. Governor Inslee resumed indoor dining at 100% on
June 30th. The restaurants have since been able to fill their restaurants and they're full! Plus they have
also been allowed to crowd our sidewalks with tables and chairs. All this extra seating and the
streateries in our public parking spaces have provided overflow and a hefty profit during warmer
weather but now they mostly sit empty. It is no longer temporary, it is no longer an emergency, and it is
no longer necessary.
One argument for them has been that the streateries have provided jobs and if they go away the
employees will lose them. But keep in mind, the hiring of these extra positions became necessary after
the allowance of 100% capacity, more tables and chairs on our sidewalks, and streateries. These
positions were meant to be temporary just as the streateries were meant to be temporary.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2022
Page 42
Final point, the restaurants and supporters are playing the Covid card and saying they need them for
financial survival and public health, but realize at least three owners have recently opened one or more
restaurants in Edmonds and Seattle... during a pandemic! They are doing well. Pictures of the inside of
these restaurants show packed restaurants, crowded tables, no masks, no fear. If you continue to cater
to these restaurants, it will never stop. Once extended into late spring/early summer, they will say, "The
streateries are full. We must keep them." We will never get our public property back.
Please represent Edmonds citizens and protect our downtown streets and sidewalks that belong to
everyone, not just selected restaurants, which Will rightfully points out. Allow the more than fair
ordinance to stand and the streateries to sunset on January 15th without the $4000 fee and April 30th
with it. This is a reasonable price for the use of our public property. Plus, it gives the restaurants the
incentive to remove them if they aren't being used; and if they are being used and want to keep them,
they will have four more months -- which makes it almost two full years of occupying our property!
We are a diverse city full of citizens and businesses that all have needs and desires. We are not just a
small collection of downtown restaurant owners and their streateries supporters. Let's move forward
productively as a community and do what's best for all --remove the structures and return our beautiful
downtown Edmonds to the people.
Sincerely,
Kathy Brewer
From: Collin Rognlie
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2021 2:01 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Please Keep the Restaurants' street seating areas
With the omicron virus transmissibility it is important for people to be able to enjoy our restaurants with
outside seating. Please delay charging the $4000 fee for the streeteries at least until after the coming
virus surge.
Thank you,
Collin Rognlie
Edmonds
From: Pat MacDonald
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2021 9:12 AM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Streateries
I live just outside the Edmonds city limits, and regularly go into downtown Edmonds for dinner and
shopping. I wanted to write and express my deep disappointment that the council did not act to undo
the punitive $4,000 fee charged to restaurants to keep the streateries open.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2022
Page 43
I have never had a problem parking in downtown Edmonds the last few years and have greatly
appreciated the expanded options to eat outside. Even without the pandemic downtown Edmonds is a
wonderful place to spend time outside during the summer. I hoped this would be a permanent change.
Downtown Edmonds was much more inviting, safe and enjoyable when main street is closed entirely to
cars.
Instead the council decided to charge a $4,000 fee to use free parking spaces. This is absurd. I hope
when the city inevitably reclaims the space that new parking fees are also based on the price of average
commercial real-estate.
From: Isaac Chappell
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2021 8:41 AM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Streataries
Hello,
If parking continues to be the main issue for non-restaurant merchants and community members not in
line with the streatery extension, why not consider making Main Street a one-way street heading east
(towards the ferry)? The section of Main St between 6th and 3rd is where a majority of streateries
exist... why not make that portion one way traffic? Then, you could increase parking on one side of the
street with 'angle-in' parking, turning 2 spots into 4 (or more).
Continue to pursue a fee ($4k seems a bit high) for those restaurants that wish to extend but would be
great to understand where and for what purpose the fee goes.
One way traffic with angle in parking in the heart of downtown seems a nice solution for increased
parking while maintaining a safe, outdoor dining option as we continue to navigate through COVID-19
times. One might even argue that maintaining a one way street with angle in parking 'post streateries'
would be a great way to increase access to downtown businesses.
Just a thought...
Thank you,
Isaac C.
(life long Edmonds resident)
From: N. Ryan Eusoya
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2021 12:36 AM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Council
<Council@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Public Comment regarding Streateries
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 4, 2022
Page 44
Dear Honorable Members of the Edmonds city Council,
This public comment is in regards to streateries in Edmonds, particularly the city center. What people
appreciate about the Edmonds city center is its walkability. The density of the local businesses makes it
an enjoyable experience for pedestrians to spend time in the city core. The streateries have enhanced
the enjoyable experience of the city core. Which is why I want to underline this point: the city center is
meant for people, not for cars. The amount of parking spaces gained by inhibiting their use by
restaurants is minimal. Businesses in the Edmonds city core should understand that the streateries bring
more pedestrian traffic and they can increase the visibility of their own businesses--they do not
decrease it. If there are those who suggest that senior citizens cannot access businesses in the city
center because their parking spaces were taken away, I would suggest asking senior citizens of the cities
and villages of Europe who seem to have plenty of ease being able to shop, dine, and walk in their car-
less or car-minimal town centers. An Edmonds city center should be meant for all people, it is not meant
for cars. Please end the $4000 or $2000 street parking rental which is clearly meant to hinder
restaurants.
Ryan Eusoya
From: mfmetsker
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 2:15 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Public opinion - $4,000 for sidewalk business???? Highest in the nation.
Another city run idiots. Restaurants are having a hard time anyway. Hope all close, so the city won't get
the taxes. How many council members have ever run a business or even had an outside job. Idiots.