Cmd50322
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2022
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
APPROVED MINUTES
May 3, 2022
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Susan Paine, Council President
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
Laura Johnson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Brook Roberts, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Michelle Bennett, Acting Police Chief
Susan McLaughlin, Development Services Dir.
Shannon Burley, Deputy Parks, Rec., Cultural
Arts & Human Services Director
Rob English, Interim Public Works Director
Kernen Lien, Interim Planning Manager
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
Brad Shipley, Associate Planner
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Patricia Taraday, City Attorney’s Office
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerri Bevington, Camera Operator
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Mayor Nelson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Councilmember Chen read the City Council Land Acknowledge 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.”
3. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present or participating virtually.
4. PRESENTATIONS
1. BUILDABLE LANDS REPORT AND INITIAL 2044 GROWTH TARGETS
Development Services Director Susan McLaughlin welcomed Stephen Toy, Principal Demographer,
Snohomish County Planning and Development Services. Will follow up with Edmonds specific
information. Mr. Toy reviewed:
• What preceded tonight’s discussion?
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2022
Page 2
• What is the Buildable Lands Report (BLR)?
o GMA requirement for 7 counties and the cities within them
o Requires periodic evaluation of:
▪ Urban densities achieved
▪ Adequacy of remaining urban capacity for accommodating growth (to 2035), based on
observed densities
▪ Inconsistencies between actual and planned development patterns and targets
▪ If needed, reasonable measures, other than expanding UGAs, to remedy inconsistencies
• Counties subject to the Review and Evaluation Program (2018)
• BLR History
o Countywide Planning Policies address city/county coordination on BLR through Snohomish
County Tomorrow (SCT) process
▪ SCT Procedures Report (2000)
▪ SCT Reasonable Measures Program (2003)
o Snohomish County has completed 3 previous BLRs: 2002, 2007 & 2012
o Centralized data collection and analysis approach, focused on use of County GIS resources
and PDS staff
o Relies on extensive city-county staff meetings for map/data review
o SCT recommendation
o County Council adoption of final report
• How is the BLR used?
o Cities/county to use the BLR information for:
▪ Current plan/zoning evaluation
▪ 2044 growth targets development through SCT
▪ Base data for land use alternatives analysis for next GMA local plan updates due in 2024
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2022
Page 3
• Snohomish County BLR – Conceptual Model
• 2021 BLR Mapping for City of Edmonds and MUGA
1. Land Status Map
2. Zone /Future Land Use Map
3. Critical Areas, Buffers and Easements Map
4. Additional Housing Unit Capacity Map
5. Additional Employment Capacity Map
• 2021 BLR Density Analysis for City of Edmonds Zones
o Housing Units per Buildable Acre by Zone
• Visualizing Achieved Densities by Zone Buildable densities for residential or mixed-use
development projects observed in City of Edmonds, 2011 through early 2021
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2022
Page 4
• Population Capacity
o The City of Edmonds has adequate capacity to accommodate its 2035 population growth
target
o Most of the City’s additional population capacity is for multifamily development on
redevelopable properties
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2022
Page 5
• Employment Capacity
o The City of Edmonds has adequate capacity to accommodate its 2035 employment growth
target
o Most of the City’s additional population capacity is for commercial development on
redevelopable properties
• Additional Capacity by Zone, City of Edmonds
• 2044 Initial Growth Targets
GMA: RCW 36.70A.110
Comprehensive plans — Urban growth areas.
At each major UGA review (every 8 years under GMA):
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2022
Page 6
(2) Based upon the growth management population projection made for the county by the office
of financial management, the county and each city within the county shall include areas and
densities sufficient to permit the urban growth that is projected to occur in the county or city for
the succeeding twenty-year period...
• Vision 2050 Regional Plan
o VISION 2050’s multicounty planning policies, actions, and regional growth strategy (RGS)
guide how and where the 4-county central Puget Sound region grows through 2050
o The plan informs updates to the Regional Transportation Plan and Regional Economic
Strategy VISION 2050 sets the stage for updates to countywide planning policies and local
comprehensive plans done by cities and counties
• Vision 2050 Regional Growth Strategy (RGS)
• RGS and OFM Countywide Population Comparison
• RGS: Regional Geographies in Snohomish County
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2022
Page 7
• RGS Population Growth to 2044 Compared with BLR Capacity to 2035
• RGS Employment Growth to 2044 Compared with BLR Capacity to 2035
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2022
Page 8
• Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) for Snohomish County
o Process for allocating 20 years of projected growth in Snohomish County for city and county
GMA planning follows CPP GF-5:
▪ Uses SCT process
▪ Uses the most recent OFM county population projections and the PSRC’s Regional
Growth Strategy (RGS) as the starting point
▪ Emphasizes growth in and near centers and high-capacity transit, addresses jobs/housing
balance, manages and reduces the rate of rural growth over time, and supports infill
within the urban growth area
▪ Must consider each community’s vision & regional role in the RGS
▪ Shall ensure flexibility for jurisdictions in implementing the RGS, considering levels of
infrastructure investment and market conditions
o CPP GF-5:
▪ Calls for two separate steps for establishing 20-year growth targets:
- Initial Growth Targets (developed by SCT in 2021)
To be used for at least one of the plan alternatives evaluated by jurisdictions for
their GMA plan update
- Reconciled Growth Targets (to be developed by SCT in 2024-2025)
Follows GMA plan updates by jurisdictions in Snohomish County
• SCT Planning Advisory Committee (PAC)
o PAC developed a methodology for translating the population and employment projections in
VISION 2050 by regional geography to individual jurisdictions
o Methodology takes into account the capacity results to 2035 from the 2021 BLR
o In addition, a series of data factors were used to distribute growth beyond 2035 to individual
jurisdictions, that take into account:
▪ Existing population and employment distribution
▪ Change over the past decade
▪ Volume of pending development
▪ Number of light rail and HCT stations
▪ Mic locations, and
▪ Transportation accessibility to job centers (for population)
• High-Capacity Transit Communities – Population
• High-Capacity Transit Communities – Employment
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2022
Page 9
• Additional Information
o 2044 housing targets to be adopted into CPPs following development of SCT HO-5 Housing
Characteristics and Needs Report in 2022
o 2021 Buildable Lands Report: https://snohomishcountywa.gov/1352/Buildable-Lands
o 2044 Initial Growth Targets (Appendix B of the CPPs, pages 68-71):
https://snohomishcountywa.gov/5782/Countywide-Planning-Policies
Councilmember Paine relayed her understanding that if there were any inconsistencies, consideration has
to be given to reasonable measures related to reaching the goal. Mr. Toy answered reasonable measures
take effect if there are any inconsistencies with the BLR requirements in terms of accommodating 2035
growth. The City had adequate capacity to reach the 2035 growth target for population and employment.
The 2044 Growth Targets assign more growth than the BLR capacity shows the City can handle. The
steps under reasonable measures strategies will apply in the comprehensive plan update to evaluate which
reasonable measures make sense to implement.
Councilmember Paine asked about additional information regarding HCT communities. Mr. Toy
answered the HCT communities was the basis for the 2044 targets. Councilmember Paine observed there
were another 53,000 individuals that need to be accommodated across the HCT communities and asked
when the City will find out Edmonds’ portion. Mr. Toy referred to the slide entitled High-Capacity
Transit Communities – Population, pointing out Edmonds’ portion of the 53,000 population deficit is
approximately 3,900 which means the overall population target will go from 43,000 (census 2020
population) to 56,000 by 2044. Similarly, Edmonds’ portion of the 6,700 employment deficit is 510.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented she found this information fascinating; she tried to study it in the
packet but it is in black and white and a very small font. She observed there was a colored version and
asked if that was available in print. Mr. Toy advised the published agenda included the colored PFD
version. He offered to send a colored copy of the presentation to her directly. Mayor Nelson relayed the
printer had been out of toner, so it was a onetime issue. Councilmember K Johnson commented the font
was also very small, for example she was unable to read the key with her glasses on. She expressed
appreciation for any colored version she could read. Interim Planning Manager advised he would provide
that to Councilmember K. Johnson.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2022
Page 10
Councilmember Tibbott referred to including Edmonds in the HCT, pointing out the light rail station does
not come very close to Edmonds. The best access is the Orange Line which ends in Lynnwood and there
is no reliable transit route to the transit hub at the waterfront where the ferries and train come together. He
objected to Edmonds being listed as a HCT community and asked the implications if Edmonds were not
listed as a HCT community. Mr. Toy said the other category is cities and towns, jurisdictions that are not
located on a HCT network. The definition of the HCT network includes bus rapid transit (BRT) and the
ferry. Councilmember Tibbott commented Edmonds does not have BRT. Mr. Toy said the existing Blue
Line on Highway 99 from Community Transit would have been taken into account. In addition to existing
service, the HCT community definition takes into account planned service as well which would
eventually include the Orange Line.
Councilmember Tibbott pointed out the Orange Line ends in Lynnwood and the Blue Line covers only a
very small section of Edmonds. Mr. Toy said BLR shows most of the capacity is on the Highway 99
corridor both long term and pending projects. Councilmember Tibbott observed it appeared most of the
3,900 would be in that area. Mr. Toy answered that is a choice the City would want to take a close look at
in the comprehensive plan update and zoning to see if it makes sense to continue with that corridor as the
location. In far as the BLR, 55% of the City’s additional capacity out to 2035 is in GC corridor. The City
may want to consider other options especially if the Orange Line eventually goes beyond Lynnwood.
Community Transit is showing an eventual connection to the central area of City. Councilmember Tibbott
commented Edmonds does not have an option to increase the urban growth area (UGA), but that might be
possible in other parts of Snohomish County. Mr. Toy said the regional plan assumes very minor UGA
expansion.
Councilmember L. Johnson observed Mr. Toy indicated the City has adequate capacity to 2035 and that
the BLR indicates Edmonds has a development capacity shortfall based on the initial 2044 growth targets.
She asked what that means to current and future Edmonds residents if those goals are not met, especially
with regard to the issue of housing costs and the rising issue of housing insecurity. Mr. Toy answered
there is a regional goal on housing availability and affordability that needs to be addressed. The Housing
HO5 report being developed this year at Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) will get into questions
about housing availability and affordability consistent with these population goals. There is a link
between available housing, housing density and affordability as well as a link between housing type,
tenure and affordability. A lot of attention is being paid to the missing middle housing category between
single family housing and high density to see if more can be done in that category to help make up for
affordability problems the region is experiencing. He observed there are a lot of tricky questions to pull
out of the housing being built in relation to the population growth goals. The City may want to track the
HO5 report which goes to the elected officials on SCT’s steering committee just like the BRT did.
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Councilmember Tibbott that Edmonds is not a HCT community
based on the fact there is no east-west connectivity and with the pandemic blowing up, there is almost
nobody on buses anymore. She asked if putting Edmonds in the HCT category increased the population
target, noting there has been little population growth in Edmonds and now the projection is to grow
13,113. She asked if that was due to the HCT community algorithms that were used. Mr. Toy answered it
the regional plan defines the characteristic of jurisdictions that are part of HCT communities. The map
showed the Swift Blue Line on Highway 99 and takes into account Community Transit’s long range plan
for the Orange Line. It also takes into account the location of the ferry terminal and commuter rail station.
Mr. Toy continued, even though there is not a light rail station in Edmonds, there are other HCT facilities
and services that exist or are planned within Edmonds. That became a major determinant in Vision 2050
for assigning further growth. The last time the regional plan was updated was 2008, prior to ST2 and the
Lynnwood link extension and prior to the ST3 vote. Vision 2050 was based on the infancy of the light rail
system. Once Vision 2050 was updated, there was ST2 and ST3 and the region’s investments in the light
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2022
Page 11
rail system and the BRT system feeding into it became paramount and important in the growth
assignments that the regional plan developed. Compared to past growth assigned to Edmonds, being in a
HCT community means more is expected compared to past trends and targets.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she was on SCT for 2010-2012 and remembered doing the CPPs. She
recalled cities like Woodway had expected growth of 2,000 and their population is only 2,000. Edmonds
should be tracking the data through the SCT representatives, noting SCT has approved all this
information. Mr. Toy said the targets were recommended in September, Snohomish County Council held
a hearing in February and adopted them into the CPP in February. That means the numbers for Edmonds
need to be used in at least one of the plan alternatives that is studied. The City can study other levels of
growth, lower or higher. If the City’s preferred plan outcome differs from the initial targets, follow-up
work needs to be done with SCT to reconcile those differences in 2024 and 2025. That is not always an
easy thing to do because everyone will have adopted their comprehensive plans by then and the work will
need to be retrofitted if the numbers change for Edmonds, whether a neighboring jurisdiction or
Snohomish County. Even though there is a reconciliation phase, cities usually try to work out a plan
adoption consistent with the initial targets. If that cannot be done, there is a process for trying to resolve
those differences in 2024 and 2025.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she found the report fascinating. She asked how the reasonable measures
list was prepared and was it Edmonds related. Mr. Toy said the reasonable measures list is the most recent
and is an appendix to the CPPs that were updated in October 2021 by Snohomish County following a
SCT recommendation. It builds on the list originally developed in 2003. It is a long list of measures that
can be considered in increasing capacity within a jurisdiction. They are part of the CPPs which means
there is an obligation to look at them, but that does not mean all of them have to be adopted. If a
determination is made that a measure is not reasonable, it would not apply. They are there to look at and
consider and is important moving forward with the land use decisions the Snohomish County Council has
to make regarding UGA expansion, whether all cities have gone through a comprehensive and full
evaluation of reasonable measures within their jurisdictions that can be done to address growth before a
UGA expansion is needed.
Councilmember Chen commented this was fascinating information. He referred to slides 11 and 12,
where additional housing units and employment opportunity appear to be concentrated in the Highway 99
area. He asked about the driver for those predictions, whether it was guidance from the county for
Edmonds growth, the market, transportation driven, etc. Mr. Toy answered that is the translation of the
current zoning and the observed densities, deducting for critical areas to ensure housing units are not
placed on environmental sensitive areas, and depicting at a parcel level how many housing units could
potentially be built and how much employment could occur in Edmonds. Those are the building blocks
for the major conclusions in the BLR.
Councilmember Chen asked with this type of growth prediction, would county and city resources such as
fire, police and other services follow. Mr. Toy said the map is based on the current comprehensive plan
and shows what the capital facilities and transportation, housing and land use elements could support.
Those questions would have been answered in the City’s last comprehensive plan update in 2015. These
maps are specific to 2035, the plan horizon for the 2015 comprehensive plan update. In 2044, there will
be an extra 9 years of growth, so the City will need to go through the same exercise to answer questions
for the 2024 update whether the City has the services identified in the transportation, capital facilities,
housing and utilities elements to accommodate growth out to 2044. If not, strategies need to be considered
in the comprehensive plan to address that. The 2024 update is a City process that will occur over the next
2½ years. Mr. Lien said staff has another presentation to describe what this means for the 2024
comprehensive plan update.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2022
Page 12
Council President Olson anticipated the answers to her questions are not for today, but wanted to put it on
everyone’s radar. The council was contacted in early March by an organized neighborhood at 160th Place
SW and 68th Avenue, literally across the street from the Edmonds city limits. They have Edmonds
addresses but are in unincorporated Snohomish County and feed into Meadowdale High School their
activities are in Edmonds, and they consider themselves part of Edmonds. They are interested in annexing
to Edmonds but are in the UGA for Lynnwood. She asked if there was any opportunity to alter that. Mr.
Lien offered to follow up on that later. Mr. Toy said it has been done before, Bothell and Brier and Mill
Creek and Bothell have worked out adjustments.
Councilmember L. Johnson referred to a councilmember’s claim that almost nobody rides the buses
anymore, and agreed two years ago when the pandemic hit, transit ridership plummeted; however, that is
no longer accurate as ridership has been steadily rising since then. Community Transit will provide an
update on May 17th and she looked forward to getting factual numbers from them.
Ms. McLaughlin referred to the work ahead with the 2024 comprehensive plan update. She explained the
following presentation is offered both as a reflection of where the City has been in the recent past and a
primer of where the City is heading in the coming year plus. She explained the City needs to have a
discussion about how the City wants to meet the targets in the 2044 growth targets. There are a lot of
different options and a lot of them are in the reasonable measures; those are low, medium and high impact
and the City can choose which ones will work for Edmonds. She presented regarding the Buildable Lands
Report and Initial Growth Targets and Consideration of CPP reasonable measure and housing
commission recommendations:
• Agenda
o Development Capacity & Initial Growth Targets
▪ Gap between BLR development capacity and 2044 initial growth targets
o Reasonable measures
▪ Examples and Housing Commission recommendations that are consistent with adopted
reasonable measures for increasing capacity
o Comprehensive Plan Update
▪ Consideration of Housing Commission recommendations as an alternative in the
comprehensive plan
• Examples of reasonable measures from CPP:
Increase Residential Capacity Increase Employment Capacity Support Increased Densities
Small Impact Small-to Moderate Impact Small-to-Moderate Impact
o Allow ADUs in SF zones
o Allow co-housing
Moderate Impact
o Allow cottage cluster, duplex
townhomes and
condominiums
High Impact
o Mandate minimum
residential densities
o Mandate maximum lot sizes
o Develop an Economic
Development Strategy
Moderate Impact
o Zone by building type, not
by use (form-based code)
o Streamline permitting
process
o Administrative procedural
reforms
o Allow mixed uses
o Reduce off-street parking
requirements
Moderate-to-High Impact
o Encourage development of
urban villages
• Housing Commission submitted 15 recommendations and 8 policy proposals to council in
January 2021
o Six recommendations have been advanced or are already being done by Snohomish County,
but while important, none are identified as reasonable measures to address insufficient
population capacity.
▪ Adopt Multifamily Design Standards
▪ County Implementation of Sales and Use Tax for Housing and Related Services
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2022
Page 13
▪ Develop Community Housing Partners
▪ Edmonds-HASCO Interlocal Agreement
▪ Eliminate Discriminatory Provisions in Covenants and Deeds
▪ Use of Existing Sales and Tax Revenue for Affordable and Supportive Housing
o Six of the remaining recommendations are identified as reasonable measures in the CPP to
address insufficient population capacity
▪ Allow Cluster/Cottage Housing in SF and MF Zones
▪ Allowed Detached Accessory Dwelling Units
▪ Create Neighborhood Village Subarea Plans
▪ Incentives for Development of affordable Missing Middle units
▪ Missing Middle Housing in SF Neighborhoods
▪ New SF Zoning Designation that allows Duplex to Fourplex Buildings with Zero Lot
Line (specific to certain areas)
o Allowing detached ADUs would help provide some help toward meeting our growth targets
but is not expected to bridge the gap on its own
▪ Allowed Detached Accessory Dwelling Units
o House-scale Missing Middle building types is the topic of four recommendations
▪ Allow Cluster/Cottage Housing in SF and MF Zones
▪ Incentives for Development of affordable Missing Middle units
▪ Missing Middle Housing in SF Neighborhoods
▪ New SF Zoning Designation that allows Duplex to Fourplex Buildings with Zero Lot
Line (specific to certain areas)
o Creating Neighborhood Village Subarea Plans
▪ When coupled with zoning changes to increase density could provide a moderate to high
impact toward meeting our growth targets
▪ Create Neighborhood Village Subarea Plans
• Comprehensive plan update preliminary timeline 2022-2024
o Background studies 2022-2023
o Visioning & SEPA Scoping Early 2022- Early 2023
o Draft EIS Mid 2022 to mid-2024
o Draft Comprehensive Plan Mid 2022 to mid-2024
o Final EIS Late 2023
o Public Hearings Early to mid-2024
o Adoption Late 2024
5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mayor Nelson relayed staff asked to pull Item 9.2, Award of Job Order Contracts, as it was not ready yet.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson described the procedures for in-person audience comments.
Jenna Nand, Edmonds, spoke on a topic raised at the last council meeting, the proposed use of
American Rescue Act Plan (ARPA) funds to supplement funding for some sort of development at Yost
Park. City employee Shannon Burley provided her the Treasury Final Rule. She described why she did
not think it was appropriate to use ARPA funding at Yost Park. The Treasury Final Rule states ARPA
funding can be used to support families and businesses struggling with public health and economic
impacts, vital public services and support long term growth and opportunity and specifically used to
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2022
Page 14
address economic harm to households, small businesses, nonprofits, impacted industries and the public
center. She referred to a comment related to concern with not being able to adequately use ARPA funds
before the expiration date. The timeline outlined in the Treasury Final Rule is that the cost must be
incurred before or after March 3, 2021 and funds must be obligated by December 31, 2024 and must be
expended by December 31, 2026. She thought there were more appropriate ways to use ARPA funds than
at Yost Park and did not believe the taxpayers and voters wanted the funds to be allocated toward park
development. She submitted a copy of the Treasury Final Rule.
Priya Sinha, Edmonds, spoke in opposition to Ordinance 5.70. She assumed the commentary she
provided last week would go on the record. Since providing those comments, she has done more research
on the Boise ruling which is very narrow and based on the 8th Amendment, cruel and unusual punishment,
and there is a lot of jurisprudence behind it. That jurisprudence clearly states no one can be criminalized
simply for being, for being homeless, for being addicted to drugs or for being mentally ill. They have to
be non-compliant with something else. The jurisprudence went to Supreme Court, the SCOTUS refused
and it went into settlement in 2021. She distinguished this ordinance from what happened in Boise; in
Boise, they weren’t actually trying to ship out homeless people from town, they simply did not have
enough shelter beds. She acknowledged there were limited hotel options in Edmonds and there are not
enough shelters. The City is not offering shelters, but offering a bus pass out of Edmonds to sweep away
people who are inconvenient into another town. This is a clear distraction between the Boise ruling and
there are potential openings for litigation. She encouraged the council to look at the jurisprudence behind
this ruling and these cases. Even if the courts allowed this sweeping away of the inconvenient from
Edmonds, there is still the issue of the 8th Amendment, cruel and unusual punishment. She asked what if a
mentally ill person simply cannot comply, or what if a shelter in Lynnwood cannot take a child over the
age of 18, envisioning both situations would fall under the 8th Amendment. As the council considered
this, she encouraged them to read the comments she submitted earlier but also look at the jurisprudence
related to this and to see how the facts of the case differ from the Boise ruling as she did not think it was
as clearcut as some think it is.
Kate Sullivan, Edmonds, spoke in opposition to the proposed ordinance against camping in public.
There is not enough affordable housing and not enough housing in western Washington. If a homeless
person from Edmonds gets a shelter bed in Lynnwood, that is one less bed for a homeless person in
Lynnwood, a zero sum game, someone has to lose. If this proposed ordinance does not decrease
homelessness, she questioned what it does. It intimidates, terrorizes, says you are not wanted here, we
don’t care about you, get out of my sight. She did not think a person’s desire not to see a homeless camp
in the woods was more important than a person’s right to rest their head. The ordinance threatens cruel
and unusual punishment against people in dire straits. People need to be helped, not threatened, shamed or
punished. More affordable housing must be created. She urged the council to vote no on this heartless
ordinance.
Lisa Utter, Lynnwood, Chair of the Emergency Cold Weather Shelter for South Snohomish County,
provided information from the last season. Generally there is a capacity of 50, but due to COVID that was
reduced to 16; with filtration, that number was increased last year to 23. The shelter was open 30 nights
and provided 312 bed nights and served 96 individuals, the vast majority of whom are single men. There
is no shelter in south Snohomish County at all for single men, the only one is for women and children and
has very limited space. The shelter served ages 18 to someone in their 70s. That is not usually, a wide
range of people seek shelter and many years they serve people in wheelchairs or who use walkers. She
expressed concern with the ordinance related to unlawful occupation of public property, acknowledged
the important of having tools to ensure everyone can enjoy parks and other public spaces and amenities,
but it is important to remember the majority of the homeless were born and raised here or have lived here
a long time and it is very easy to be tipped over into homelessness. She was surprised by the City’s study
that found there were 450 homeless people in Edmonds; it is a much bigger problem than people are
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2022
Page 15
aware of. Criminalizing people for existing and for sleeping is the opposite of being an inclusive and
welcoming neighborhood and city that Edmonds claims to be and it is being a bad neighbor to push
people out into neighboring cities. Having been a councilmember for Lynnwood, she knew it was one big
community and boundaries really don’t mean much. Causing people to move without any place to move
to goes against the spirit if not the actual law.
Leah Pastrana, Edmonds, said she was born and raised in Seattle, has owned a home in Edmonds for
eight years and has worked for Seattle Municipal Court for 17 years as a probation counselor. She
stressed the importance of having a plan in place if this ordinance passes and to not implement it until
there is a plan in place. There are a lot of resources in the community including the police department,
herself and the Edmonds municipal court and it was important to work together for a plan. Doing this
without services will not work, it could be very unsuccessful and be very detrimental. People need to be
meet where they are, be mindful of the reasons the person is sleeping in a park, what happened to them
and recognizing they are human. She stressed the importance of putting collaboration and planning in
place before this is implemented. Additionally, it would be great not to impose a fine or have
opportunities for community services or classes; she teaches a life skills class in Seattle that is very
beneficial. Even though Edmonds is small, there are homeless people who need assistance and attention.
A colleague who saw an ordinance passed in Auburn uses three words: accountability, compassion and
community. Those needs to be at the forefront when the City moves forward with this ordinance.
Ed Lorah, Edmonds, a clinical social worker, mostly retired but still licensed by the State of
Washington, said he worked in his early career as a case manager with homeless mentally ill people in
Pioneer Square in Seattle, specifically people coming out of the jail. Their mission was to try to keep
people out of jail. Over a five year period, they reduced recidivism by case management and partnering
with people released from jail, helping them get settled and into treatment and seeing them daily, an
intensive case management program that was very successful. He agreed with the comments of previous
speakers, and added without resources and resorting only to punitive measures, those efforts are doomed
to failure. There is a long tradition of moving homeless people along as seen in Seattle with sweeps; those
people disappear from that location, regroup and return which does not really resolve the problem, it just
kicks the can down the road even further. If a homeless person commits a crime, the police probably need
to be involved, but for the police to ticket people for sleeping in the park or arrange transportation to non-
existent shelter beds feels like a complete waste of time for the police and indicates the need for social
workers. He urged the council to reject the ordinance, stating it was dead in the water without shelter
backup. The council needs to think about the commitment to resources; there need to be shelter beds and
outreach teams; this population often does not seek help, there needs to be outreach in order to be
successful.
Maralyn Chase, Edmonds (Esperance), commented when elected officials take the oath of office, they
promise to follow the constitution, obey the laws and represent all the people. That means even the people
who are homeless and living on the streets and in parks. The greater Seattle area has five times as many
homeless people as Chicago; she knows many people come to Seattle believing there are opportunities,
but opportunities are not necessarily available to them. Esperance is along Highway 99 and they are
considering annexing Highway 99 if they become a city. Highway 99 pays a lot of taxes to Edmonds. If
the ordinance passes, the Edmonds Police Department will spend a lot of time trying to shlep homeless
people and their belongings across the country or across the state. She expressed concern there were not
enough police to move the homeless and their belonging and fine them $1000 if they don’t have. Since
Highway 99 has a high crime rate, she questioned who would be protecting the taxpayers if the police are
dealing with the homeless people. This is not the way to solve the problem of homelessness; there is
simply not enough housing. Housing and infrastructure needs to be built instead of chasing homeless
people who don’t have any place to go. Maybe there need to be tents and tent cities like the farmer
workers in eastern Washington.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2022
Page 16
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, appreciated the previous speaker mentioning oaths of office and the constitution;
both are very important. There can be value in acknowledging things from the past as is stated at the
beginning of every council meeting. He encouraged elected officials to expand what they acknowledge;
doing so can build trust and restore citizen confidence in government. One thing the council can do is
acknowledge what has been done to property owners during street vacations. He suspected it got so bad
that efforts were initiated in 2019 to change the street vacation laws; those efforts failed dramatically. In
2019, the council’s 5-2 vote was not respected. He suggested councilmembers read his letter to the editor,
“What Can Be Learned from a Failed Legislative Process.” He asked the council to consider expanding
acknowledgment of things from the past including the City’s history with WCIA and encouraged the
council to initiate the process of ending the City’s WCIA membership. He referred to the earlier meeting
where there was discussion of adopting rules of procedures related to filling a council vacancy. That
process is codified in ECC 1.02.035 as well as governed under state law. The last time it was done, the
code was not followed. He pointed that out but nothing happened. He recalled the presenter regarding
buildable lands said Edmonds does not want to build on critical area, commenting he laughed at that
because Edmonds has a long history of building in critical areas under the concept of one house can be
built on each lot except if you are Donna Breske. He recommended that be reviewed, noting the City has
allowed many homes to be built in critical areas.
Mayor Nelson described the procedures for virtual audience comments.
8:23
Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, commented a majority of homeless people are challenged with mental
health issues and drug dependency. Years ago they rented their home through the Section 8 Housing
Authority to a woman whose adult daughter was homeless due to mental illness and refusing medical
assistance. Her daughter set seven fires and burned their house down. The renter apologized but was
thankful because her daughter would finally get the help she refused, available only after she had been
arrested. A previous speaker spoke about help acquired after being jailed; a lot of people are becoming
invisible because the police have to ignore them. It is difficult for the families of mentally ill adults; they
fear for their safety or that they may hurt someone else. The intent of the ordinance is to relocate people
living in tents with no bathroom, safety, windows or doors and house them in hotels or shelters and
connect them to people and family who can assist them. Making the act of refusing safety and available
shelter illegal is not criminalizing homelessness; it is helping those who can’t help themselves. Regarding
the tree ordinance, in 2015 only 2.8% of Edmonds’ land was vacant single family zoned buildable, 167
acres. Today’s report did not state the current amount and she was certain it was less, yet instead of
encouraging owners of vacant land to build desperately needed single family homes, the planning
department and city council have created expensive obstacles. The tree ordinance requires even those
retaining the required 30% of trees, to pay the city the worth trees needing removal before allowing
division or building of homes, $3,000 to $12,000 each, devaluing all single family vacant land in
Edmonds by the worth of the trees.
Ms. Ferkingstad continued, most people want to live in single family homes and land is gold in Edmonds
but has become undesirable, damaging the potential for desperately needed homes. With the $2.00/square
foot cap, the added cost is over $107,000 for their acre. The remaining trees involuntarily become
protected by the City forever, leaving new homeowners with no rights to their trees, an illegal taking and
violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Tree penalties raise the costs of permits
and regulations and rising construction cost have greatly increased the cost of new housing in Edmonds.
The City is extorting money from owners of buildable land to deter them from building needed homes
because of a renewable resources, trees. She asked if this was necessary since Edmonds has more tree
canopy than it did 20 years ago. She requested the council rescind the illegal penalties imposed on vacant
land owners and instruct the planning department to follow the intent of the law instead of using it to
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2022
Page 17
punish those providing needed housing. She offered to provide further information regarding
discrepancies in the tree canopy report.
Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, spoke regarding why the Unocal property does not make sense as an open space
acquisition. She offered three of many points she could make. First, pocket estuaries are prioritized
salmon habitat. The Unocal property is not marsh; it is an industrially developed, contaminated fill pad
and stormwater treatment pond. She wanted to be blunt about this because it was a point often missed in
the City’s discussion. The Unocal property does not contain prioritized habitats. Second, in relation to the
planning board’s February 23rd comments and council comments on March 22nd at the PROS Plan public
hearing, both completely disregarded the PROS Plan outreach by deciding that Edmonds residents didn’t
really mean it when they overwhelmingly prioritized underserved areas for open space investment. Both
the planning board and council also intimated a connection between natural features and open space
investment. Instead of pragmatically applying the same standard across the City, the council directed staff
to rewrite the definition of open space in the latest drafts to support acquisition of the Unocal property
that contains no natural features. Why does the board and council use natural features as first a false
accusation when there are habitat features in SR-99 and south Edmonds to invest in commensurate with
the existing growth? In addition, a requirement for investment in underserved areas that the council is
unwilling to apply to the Unocal property. The marina which created the fish passage barrier and Unocal
terminal were both constructed prior to the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species, National
Environmental Policy Act and any modern environmental regulation. These developments would not be
permitted in today’s regulatory environment. Imagine the Unocal property was developed in alignment
with its current mixed use classification; a bevy of federal and state regulations including the Shoreline
Management Act and other critical area regulations would be in effect.
Ms. Seitz continued, any construction would be well setback from the marsh and on the contaminated fill
pad. Plantings would be required and it is entirely within reason that the City could require a conservation
easement on the southern portion of the property as part of the development process. While she disagreed
with this alignment as the best solution and many aspects of the 2015 feasibility study for Willow Creek
daylighting, the fact is it never envisioned the purchase of the Unocal property was necessary to
implement the proposed alignment. She questioned why the City was making it a priority to pay over $8
million for a negligible environment lift and outcomes that could be obtained for free by having a
developer pay for them. The City isn’t going to remove the contaminated fill pad, a fact proven by the
Edmonds Waterfront key findings and recommendations memo. The recommendation is for the site to be
a roadway, not restored. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, the conclusion is that is just another
way for downtown interests to subvert the existing land use classification and prevent development and
growth. She found it more than little disappointing that the City would take staff and resources away from
projects that would result in environment lift to do this. She also worried about the leadership it
represents; the inability to require those responsible for fish passage barriers to be part of the solution,
coupled with absolute inability to consider cost effective solutions for the environment so that more can
get done in more locations. The City is failing on both counts.
Finis Tupper, Edmonds, suggested the council put an update to the Edmonds Community Development
Code on their agenda, specifically Chapter 20.25 which relates to housing for low income elderly. There
are a lot of other demographics that are low income and this section dates back to the Jim Crow laws that
did not want a lot of single mothers with a bunch of children, cars, and boyfriends in multifamily areas.
When talking about outlawing sleeping on public property, everyone needs to admit there isn’t a lot of
low income housing. He has talked to several councilmembers about this law since he has lived in
Edmonds over the past 42 years. The City needs to provide more affordable housing, noting there was a
project in process on Highway 99. He summarized this section of the code needs to be updated.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2022
Page 18
Owen Lee, a high school student, spoke against the ordinance entitled Unlawful Occupation of Public
Property and urged council to reject the ordinance. She agreed with the earlier comments, finding it
appalling that so many people in the City have requested an ordinance like this be passed. Criminalization
of the homeless is a policy devoid of empathy and cruel. She appreciated that there were a lot of other
issues at play and urged those who support the ordinance to consider other methods that could be used to
address the homelessness issue such as more funding for the human services department, more public
spaces for homeless people, more infrastructure to support homeless people and addressing root causes of
homelessness. She found the proposed ordinance very unfortunate and as a young person, hoped it was
not passed into law.
Strom Peterson, State Representative and former Edmonds Councilmember, spoke against the ordinance
related to unlawful camping on public property. As he said in a letter sent to the council and published in
the Edmonds Beacon, he believed this was a shortsighted ordinance and one that needed to be tabled to
continue the conversation. He encouraged the council to have conversations with groups and
organizations that work on the front lines of this issue. He chairs the Housing, Human Services &
Veterans Committee in Olympia and meet with groups often. There is not a single group working day-to-
day with people experiencing homelessness that thinks such an ordinance is a good idea. It sends a bad
message that those experiencing homelessness are somehow other than the rest of us and instead local,
city, county, state and federal and non-profit efforts and the community as a whole need to be focused on
finding solutions that actually work and that provide services. He recalled the council holding numerous
meetings on streateries, stating those facing homelessness deserve at least that much time for discussion.
Kirsten Snyder said she is a non-practicing attorney who has worked in a different court systems as well
as pro-bono service with indigent and struggling populations, a person who has struggled with mental
illness herself, spending the better part of last April in a psych hospital, the most traumatizing, difficult
and scary thing in her life and she was grateful to make it through. Dehumanizing is the worst possible
thing in treating people. She failed to see what possible good the proposed ordinance could do; it was
literally making the issue worse financially on the system and on taxpayers. It involves not just police
time but also court time which is very expensive along with enormous administration costs. No one is
going to jail because they slept somewhere; even if the City creates this minor misdemeanor, it is not a
jailable offense. It just saddles people with financial obligations they cannot pay for processes that are not
helpful and dehumanizing. She questioned whether more services or more beds alone was the issue and
recommended taking on single family zoning. She found it concerning and the height of immorality that it
was legal anywhere in Washington. Edmonds and Shoreline are part of the same housing and job market
and she appreciated the planning to meet anticipated housing and job growth. Although there are not
many jobs in downtown Edmonds, the salaries offered have increased in recent months. She was
concerned with housing for seniors, middle class and upper middle class being displaced by competition
and housing availability if major changes are not made to allow the market to meet the need and doing so
with transportation planning in a more economical way.
Deborah Arthur, Edmonds, recognized there were homeless people living in vans, etc. and she also
know what goes on in encampments. Heroin, meth and crack are not legal, and she was concerned with
robberies and crash and bangs, the inability let children play outside, and finding needles in parks. She
was afraid in her own house. She referred to tiny houses in Seattle that were empty because residents
could not do drugs there. Meth and crack are flammable and hazmat suits are required for cleanup. While
she is compassionate toward people with drug problems, the only way to help is to get them help. Money
is required for addicts to feed their drug habit which is the reason for robberies. Residents should not be
afraid when leaving their houses that they will be crashed and banged and robbed. She has known several
drug addicts and was aware how hard it was to get off crack and meth.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2022
Page 19
Jennifer Delia Bereskin, spoke to the proposed ordinance, advising she has been homeless as a child in
Snohomish County for over 25 years. She initially had a low income voucher and was living in Edmonds;
currently she is in the unincorporated area because she was unable to have sustainable housing in
Edmonds. The proposed ordinance tells her that a person with long-term childhood poverty and trauma
and housing instability are not accepted into the community. Residents of Edmonds stand on the bones of
her ancestors; her ancestors who stood there since time immemorial and before the new people came and
decided they would make this their home, no one in their villages or communities were homeless. The
homeless are human beings, children and elders. This is one of the richest countries in the world and we
are unable to feed and house people. What is the root cause? She serves on Governor Jay Inslee’s Poverty
Work Group to dismantle poverty in Washington State and has been working at the state level on these
issues. As elected officials, it is the council’s job to ensure they are serving all constituents, not just the
ones who say we don’t want these people in our City. The homeless are human beings, people’s parents
and people’s children. She hoped anyone who supported this ordinance never experienced homelessness
because anyone can become homeless.
Gerald Bernstein, Edmonds, expressed support for helping the homeless and getting treatment for those
who need it; giving them a place to sleep in the park is not treatment, it is not humane, not healthy and
condemns them to a short life. Little has been said about the residents of Edmonds; this is a multi-
dimensional problem that is being dealt with in a one-dimensional way. When thinking about the
homeless, one also needs to think about the rest of the community and the impacts on them. The impact
on residents in Seattle, Los Angeles and others has not been good or healthy.
7. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON,
TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
Councilmember Buckshnis requested Item 7.7 be removed from the consent agenda so the ordinance
number could be provided.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 5, 2022
2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 26, 2022
3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS
4. CONFIRM APPOINTMENT OF CANDIDATE TO A BOARD/COMMISSION
5. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS
6. ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1.04 ECC RELATED TO HYBRID MEETINGS,
TIME/PLACE OF REGULAR COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND PROVISIONS FOR
RECESSES, ADJOURNMENTS, AND CONTINUANCES
ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT
7. EDMONDS RESCUE PLAN FUND (ARPA) LANGUAGE CHANGES
Councilmember Buckshnis asked for the ordinance number. City Clerk Scott Passey advised it was
Ordinance No. 4259.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2022
Page 20
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON,
TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 4259, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE 4229 PERTAINING TO THE EDMONDS RESCUE
PLAN FUND AS PREVIOUSLY AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 4237. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
8. PUBLIC HEARING
1. RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCY CODE AMENDMENTS PUBLIC HEARING
Planning Manager Kernen Lien reviewed:
• What is a family?
o Changes across time and cultures
o Traditionally two or more people related by blood and marriage
o Modern families include single parent households, foster families, same-sex couples, child
free families and many variations of the traditional norms
o Some people do not grow up with the family of orientation but become part of a stepfamily or
blended family
o Updated definitions of family provide a more realistic and inclusive definition of family
• Senate Bill 5235
o 2021 State Legislation
o Prohibits local governments from limiting the number of unrelated persons occupying a home
o Exceptions for short-term rentals, Building Code occupancy loads, some group homes
o Also addressed owner occupancy requirements for Accessory Dwelling Units (Governor
Vetoed Section)
• Conflicting Edmonds Code
Definition of Family –ECDC 21.30.010
A. Family means individuals consisting of two or more persons related by genetics, adoption, or
marriage, or a group of five or fewer persons who are not related by genetics, adoption, or
marriage and none of whom are wards of the court unless such wards are related by genetics,
adoption, or marriage to all of the members of such group living in a dwelling unit.
D. Calculation of Residents
1. When one or more unrelated persons reside with a family whose members are related by
genetics, adoption or marriage, the total number of residents shall not exceed five persons
except as provided in subsection (D)(2) of this section.
2. A family unit consisting entirely of persons related by genetics, adoption or marriage may
rent a room to a total of two additional renters, or up to two students as a part of a
recognized foreign exchange program
• Proposed Code Amendments
o Removes Residential Occupancy Limits per State Legislation
o Strengthens Structural / Element requirements for Single Family Dwellings (One Water, Gas
and Electric Meter…Common Access to Rooms)
o Maintains Limits on Number of Dwellings in Single Family Zoning
o Maintains Restrictions on Group Homes
• Definition of Family – 21.30.010
o Removes occupancy limitation
o Family means individuals consisting of two or more persons related or unrelated by genetics,
adoption, or marriage, or a group of five or fewer persons who are not related by genetics,
adoption, or marriage and none of whom are wards of the court unless such wards are related
by genetics, adoption, or marriage to all of the members of such group living in a dwelling
unit.
o Removed subsection to calculate occupancy limits (Sub D)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2022
Page 21
o Maintains subsections on Group Living (Sub B) and Exclusions from Family Definition (Sub
C)
o Maintains provisions limiting rental of ADU to either primary house or ADU
o Maintains provision allowing normal hosting activities (guests and visitors)
• Dwelling Unit Definitions
21.90.080 Single-family dwelling unit
o Strengthens and adds criteria for definition
o Maintains requirement for one family and one dwelling unit per lot
o Adds requirement to:
▪ Be limited to one mailbox, water meter, gas meter and electric meter (Properties with an
approved ADU may have an additional mailbox)
▪ Have common access to and common use of all living, kitchen, and eating areas
21.20.050 Dwelling unit
o Strengthens and aligns better with State’s definition
o Add portion that state it includes permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking
and sanitation.
• Chapter 20.21 ECDC – ADU
20.21.030 Criteria for attached accessory dwelling units.
D. Add one gas meter and provision for an addition mailbox
F. Occupancy
o Removes occupancy limits and exceptions for nurses and caregivers
o Maintains owner occupancy requirements
20.21.020 Density limitation –Limitation on the total occupancy
o Removes reference to the exceptions listed in 20.21.030
o Maintains the density limits for ADUs
• Recommendation
o Adopt proposed amendments with ordinance in Exhibit 8
Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing and described the procedures for in-person public testimony.
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, relayed the City code says the planning board shall do research and investigation
on specific projects assigned to it by the mayor and council. The planning board is to analyze data
collected, arrange for public participation and organize its findings. The planning board is to then present
its findings to the mayor and city council and may recommend a course of action giving reasons for such
recommendation. As a citizen, he would greatly prefer the planning board be here tonight to present its
findings, recommend a course of action and give reasons for their recommendation. He did not
understand why, when items are assigned to the planning board, the planning board doesn’t come and
make their recommendation directly to the mayor and city council. He anticipated that would work better
than having staff present the planning board’s recommendation. He recalled with the street vacation code
update in the past, staff brought forth their own recommendation and put it next to the planning board’s
recommendation and no one from the planning board was present to speak to their recommendation.
Mr. Reidy recommended the city council reassign the SB5235 issue back to the planning board to
consider whether it is appropriate for the City code to define the word family. He suggested there may be
a better term; some jurisdictions now use household. He read the proposed definition of family: family
means individuals related or unrelated by genetics, adoption or marriage living in a dwelling unit. He
questioned the purpose of, related or unrelated by genetics, adoption of marriage in the definition. The
definition can be shorted to a very simple, family means individuals living in a dwelling unit. He
questioned whether family should be defined in the City code, and whether all individuals living together
in a dwelling unit want to be labeled as a family. In this era when it is very important what people are
called, the code states if someone is living with others in a dwelling unit, they are all a family. He
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2022
Page 22
questioned whether there were legal consequences if individuals living together in a dwelling unit were
defined as a family. He questioned if there was a better way to comply with SB5235.
Mayor Nelson described procedures for providing public testimony virtually.
Kirsten Snyder said she had no problems with the proposal, finding it pretty basic and straightforward
without major changes other than changing language to better reflect current nomenclature. She
commented it was important to consider doing a lot more especially when homelessness is a problem but
many do not want to allow more housing. She did not want to take down trees, lose open space or take
away anyone’s preferred neighborhood characteristics, but when one house is replaced by a four-plex, it
is not the end of the world. Supply and demand is in effect across the regional housing market, not just in
Edmonds. Edmonds’ restrictive zoning is dramatically suppressing housing supply and affordability
which she felt was the number one driver of homelessness.
Deborah Arthur, Edmonds, suggested if a four-plex was built in a neighborhood, it should be one story.
So many trees had been cut down that they no longer have a territorial view. She did not object to helping
people and when she referred to people as those people, she did not mean it as a bad thing. She relayed
one of her best friends was addicted to crack and took her life because she was unable to break her
addiction. She also had another friend who got addicted to drugs. She suggested building 10-15 one-story
units in a semi-circle with green areas. She did not hate people who live in camps, but a meth labs in a
park that blows up could start a substantial fire.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked staff for a complete packet. She agreed with Mr. Reidy, SB5235
prohibits local governments from limiting the number of unrelated persons occupying a home. She was
uncertain about defining individuals occupying a home as a family. She asked if there was a reason for
retaining “family” in the chapter. Mr. Lien said there are single family zones so if “family” is in the name
of the zone, there needs to be a definition of family. This code always amends what a dwelling unit is;
single family zones regulate density based on the number of dwelling units.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if could be changed to individuals in a dwelling unit. City Attorney Jeff
Taraday responded there are several ways the code could have been amended to comply with state law.
He recalled when working with Eric on this several months ago, the intent was for the amendment to be
as limited in scope as possible to comply with the new state law and not get into making a lot of elective
code changes. If the council wants staff to go further and increase the scope of the amendment to get rid
of “family” in the code, that could be done at council direction.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested saying family or individuals in a dwelling unit. Mr. Reidy made a
valid point, there may have unrelated people in a household who are not family but are living in the
dwelling unit. Mr. Taraday responded the zones could be renamed to single household zone. The word
family could be removed from every aspect of the code, but that will take a while and might be more
work that one thinks. Mr. Lien reiterated the definition of family is individuals related or unrelated by
genetics, adoption of marriage living in a dwelling unit.
Council President Olson said she could see the complication of changing that definition now. When she
was made aware of the state law change, it was clear there was no single family zoning if the definition of
who can live in a household changes. She was satisfied with this for now. Approval is scheduled for May
17th as the council does not usually vote the same night as a public hearing. If something comes up in the
interim or if there is a better approach that does not parlay into a total code rewrite at this time, possibly
that could be incorporated.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2022
Page 23
9. COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 GATEWAY-
REVITALIZATION STAGE 2 PROJECT
Interim Public Works Director Rob English introduced Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss and Lisa
Reid, Project Engineer, SCJ Consultants. Mr. Hauss reviewed:
• Vicinity Map
o Project Limits from 244th St SW to 210th St SW
• Project Description
o Installation of landscaped raised median with mid-block left turn pockets along 2 ¼ mile of
Hwy 99 corridor from 244th St. SW to 212th St. SW with (130) trees (including Hornbean,
Magnolia, Parrotia, Maidenhair, and Zelkova trees).
o Gateway signs on both end of corridor (north of 244th St. SW and 212th St. SW).
o HAWK signal ~ 600’ north of 234th St. SW (in front of CHC)
• Landscaped Raised Median (before/after conditions)
• Possible Speed Limit Reduction from 45 mph to 40 mph
• Gateway Signs
• Hawk Signal ~ 600’ north of Highway 99 @ 234th St SW
• Bid result
Contractor Amount
Westwater construction $6,632,644
A-1 Landscaping and Const $8,846,948
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2022
Page 24
Engineer’s Estimate $5,230,000
Ms. Reid explained the difference between the bids is approximately 26%. She reviewed:
• Bid Climate & Trend In Construction Costs
o Construction costs continuing to rise due to COVID, concrete strike and new funding
▪ Skilled labor shortage
▪ Material pipeline and costs
▪ Project delay
▪ Strong backlog
▪ Fewer bidders
• Seattle – Construction Cost Index
• Seattle – Construction Employment
• Material Pricing Change
• Similar WSDOT Bids (Mar-Apr 2022)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2022
Page 25
Mr. English reviewed:
• Proposed Construction Budget
Description Amount
Contract Award $ 6,632,644
Gateway Signs & Corten Steel Elements (Estimate) $ 100,000
Construction Management, Inspection & Testing (16%) $ 1,061,223
WSDOT $ 30,000
1% for Art on local funding $ 2,700
Management Reserve (10%) $ 663,300
Total $ 8,489,867
• Construction Funding
Funding Source Amount
State Connecting Washington Funds $7,202,000
Additional State Connecting Washington Funds (Stage 3) $1,017,900
126 REET Fund $ 270,000
Total $ 8,489,900
• Highway 99 Transportation Funding
Stage Description Funds Source Status
Stage 1 Corridor Study $430,000 State CNW Complete
Stage 2 Highway 99 Gateway-
Revitalization
$9,40,900 State CNW Construction 2022
Stage 3 Highway 99 (244th to 238th) $27,197,100 State CNW/MoveWA Begin Design 2022
Stage 4 Highway 99 (220th to 224th) $3,212,000 State CNW/Fed STP Begin Design 2022
Total $40,580,000
• Construction timeline
o 151 working days, 6.8 months
o Start early June
o Bulk of construction complete before end of year
o Weather dependent work completed in spring 2023
o HAWK signal installed spring 2023 due to supply chain issues
• Right-of-Way Acquisition – three parcels
o Council approved one
o A settlement agreement has been reached on a second and will be presented to council soon
o The third, Pacific Place Apartments, is under review by HUD
• Plan to have robust public outreach effort
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2022
Page 26
• Construction management contracts will come to council in the future
• Staff Recommendation
o Award a Construction Contract to Westwater Construction Company for $6,632,644
o Authorize a 10% Management Reserve of $663,300.
Council President Olson observed the amount in the packet is less than the amount in the presentation.
She asked if the $100,000 contract will come to the council at a later date. Mr. English advised the
$100,000 is a separate contract. Council President Olson said she when adds the amounts in the staff
recommendation, it does not total $8.4 million. Mr. English said the staff recommendation is the contract
award which is $6,632,644.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO
AWARD THE HIGHWAY 99 GATEWAY REVITALIZATION STAGE 2 PROJECT TO
WESTWATER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,632,644 AND
AUTHORIZE A MANAGEMENT RESERVE OF $663,300.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the entire amount should be awarded. Mr. English answered this is
just the contract to Westwater Construction. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed appreciation for Ms.
Reid’s analysis. She anticipated there will be a lot of construction, supply, and labor issues. She asked
about funding for Stage 3. Mr. English answered it includes funding from the Move Ahead Washington
program the legislature approved this spring. Councilmember Buckshnis asked where those funds are
housed. Mr. English answered it is a reimbursement program; the City spends the money and seeks
reimbursement.
Councilmember Paine thanked staff for answering questions for her about the timeline. She was excited
that something may be underway this time next year. It is important to understand pressures related to
major construction projects and the importance of moving faster because everyone is in same pipeline for
the same people. She had hoped when the Highway 99 redevelopment was first discussed that there
would be an opportunity to underground some power lines, but it is too expensive.
Councilmember Chen thanked Mr. English, Mr. Hauss and Ms. Reid, stating he excited for this project as
his home and business are both close to Highway 99. A member of the gateway sign committee, he
recalled there were originally plans to acquire property from the Toyota dealership for the north gateway
sign, but the council later decided not to do that. He wanted to confirm that was the case. Mr. English
answered that was correct.
Councilmember Chen said when he googled Westwater Construction there were several. He asked staff to
provide background for this contractor. Mr. English answered this is first time the City has worked with
them. Reference checks were positive; they have done work for City of Bothell, Pierce Transit, City of
Renton, City of Seattle. The City of Bothell was very complimentary of Westwater and the work they did
building the first stage of their Main Street project. There were a lot of challenges with old infrastructure
and unforeseen conditions and Westwater worked well with them.
Councilmember Chen asked if they were located in Renton. Mr. English offered to find out and inform
Councilmember Chen. Councilmember Chen observed Westwater in Renton had only nine employees
and he was concerned whether they could handle a project this size. Mr. English assured they have the
capacity to do the work, noting the Bothell project was close to $5 million. Ms. Reid answered that likely
was just their permanent employees; their seasonal employees are classified differently.
Councilmember Chen commented one of the functions of Job Order Contracting is looking at contractors
by diversity profile. The sentiment now is inclusion and inclusivity. He asked if any consideration is
given to that when awarding contracts, whether bids are sent to different people with that consideration in
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2022
Page 27
mind. Mr. English answered there is an apprentice requirement for this contract; there is an encouraged
DBE goal with the contract, a state requirement with the Connection Washington funds. Councilmember
Chen commented there can be rules and regulations, but it comes down to implementation. When the bids
are send out, that criteria need to be kept in mind.
Councilmember K. Johnson recalled this came before the Parks and Public Works Committee who
suggested it come to full council due to the size and the importance of the project. She supports the
project 100% but has some lingering questions. Each time projects are presented, she raises these issues
and is not sure she gets a response. She asked about bicycles on the Highway 99 corridor, whether they
were supposed to ride on sidewalk, in the BRT lane, be walked, etc. The City is imposing more
requirements for bicycle racks and storage, but there is no plan for how the bikes are used in corridor. She
questioned who people living in the apartments are supposed to get to the Swift station on their bikes to
reach light rail. That is a question that needs to be answered, not tonight but eventually.
Councilmember K. Johnson referred to the pictures of the new facility and asked if there would be any
ADA conflicts. Their appear to be a lot of plantings and lighting and she wanted to ensure the sidewalk
would be ADA accessible. She supported moving forward with this project tonight, noting it was
unfortunate it was 25% above the engineers estimate, but as the City experienced with Civic, waiting just
makes more expensive.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. AWARD JOB ORDER CONTRACTS
This item was removed from the agenda.
3. SCREENINGS CONVEYOR REQUEST TO PURCHASE AND INSTALL
WWTP Manager Pamela Randolph commented this item has a quick turnaround; if a decision can be
made quickly the project can move forward, otherwise it could delay the project. This request is
authorization to purchase and install a new screenings conveyor at the WWTP. She reviewed:
• Background
o During the pricing of the Carbon Recovery Project, the project team identified several pieces
of equipment that if replaced during construction (due to their location and interaction with
other newly installed equipment), could result in a cost savings to the ratepayers
o The equipment identified has not been priced, purchased or installed due to the impacts and
supply chain issues associated with the pandemic. This purchase is the exception.
o Due to reoccurring failures, compatibility with new equipment, improvement safety and
reduced vector attraction, we recommend purchasing and installing this equipment now.
• Photos of current screenings conveyor
o Belt segments often break and must be manually repaired. When segments break, solids build
up and create unsanitary conditions
o Material clings to the belt and cannot be scraped off due to the original design
o Material clings to the belt and collects in the bottom pan. Staff must remove the material
manually
• Photo of proposed screenings screw conveyor
o Cleaner installation, frees up space, does not allow material to collect underneath, and will
reduce odor and vector attraction
o The WWTP has standardized on this type of conveyor
• Diagram of proposed screenings screw conveyor
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2022
Page 28
o Design of the screw conveyor shows better access and cleaner installation. This reduces
maintenance costs and improves working conditions for staff
• The requested authorization has three elements
1. Purchase of equipment (sole source) $100,831.25
2. Change order for installation $102,217. 28
3. Mgmt reserve $20,000.00
Not to exceed including tax $223,048.53
• If approved, the expense will be shared with our treatment plant partners in the following manner
o City of Shoreline $21,162.84
o City of Mountlake Terrace $51,689.27
o Olympic View Water District $36,916.76
o City of Edmonds $113,279.66
• Staff requests the city council authorize the mayor to approve the sole source purchase and
change order for the installation of the new screenings screw conveyor.
Council President Olson asked if the city attorney has looked at this and determined the City can legally
use a sole source. Mr. English answered Sharon Cates, Lighthouse Law Group, has reviewed the contract.
Ms. Randolph said they reviewed the sole source justification and the warranty terms. They have one
more item to work out before the purchase order is issued.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO AUTHORIZE THE SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE OF A NEW SCREENINGS SCREW
CONVEYOR AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN A CHANGE ORDER FOR THE
INSTALLATION OF THE CONVEYOR.
Councilmember Paine commented it looks like everything in the plant has been replaced. Ms. Randolph
answered there was a lot of 30 year old equipment and there is still more. Councilmember Paine asked
about the condition of the other equipment. Ms. Randolph answered the incinerator failed last summer
and was shut down on July 1st. To this point blowers and screw presses have been replaced and the
incineration equipment is in the process of being replaced, and the control system and electric switch gear
have been replaced in the last 10 years. Some of those needed to be replaced due to the location such as
the switch gear which was outside in a saltwater environment and it is now inside a case. She summarized
quite a few things have been replaced in the WWTP, but as things are replaced, other things fail.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO
EXTEND TO 11:00.
Council President Olson pointed out the council has a lot of business to conduct. There are five Tuesdays
in May, but no one wants to work on a fifth Tuesday. She hoped the council could get some work done
tonight.
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND TO EXTEND UNTIL 10:30.
AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING
NO.
Councilmember Paine hoped the supply chain would start settling down.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2022
Page 29
Councilmember Chen asked if this was related to the flooding in January. Ms. Randolph answered no, the
flooding was in the 400 building. Some equipment there is in the process of being replaced such as
motors and a screening system. A lot of the WWTP equipment has a lifecycle of 10 or 15 years so there is
always equipment being replaced.
Councilmember Chen referred to the change order for installation that includes removal of the old belt.
Ms. Randolph answered it includes removal of the old belt, disposal and installation. It needs to be
installed in a short period of time which requires double shifts because the wastewater keeps coming into
the WWTP while this work is being done. A lot of the cost is removal of the rags by hand which is a
challenging endeavor.
Councilmember Chen inquired about the contractor. Ms. Randolph answered the contractor through
Ameresco will be utilized. Ameresco is the provider of Ecoremedy system for the carbon recovery
project. The project requires putting in new screenings wash compactor and a new dumpster and that is
what makes installation of this belt critical because the belt feeds into the wash compactor. They are
already under contract with the carbon recovery project to do that work. It is designed to work with the
new waster compactor. The screenings will have to be washed, compacted and bagged before they can go
to the transfer station in the future. The carbon recovery will be tested on rags in the future and hopefully
able to incorporate those in the future, but that will take some regulatory finesse.
Student Representative Roberts asked if the amount paid by each plant partner was based on the
percentage of ownership in the plant. Ms. Randolph answered yes.
Council President Olson advised if the public knows anyone who is interested, the City is hiring for the
WWTP. They are good union jobs with built in career progression and employees receive premium pay
above the union scale. She encouraged the public to consider applying.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADDING NEW CHAPTER, CHAPTER 5.70 ENTITLED
“UNLAWFUL OCCUPATION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY" TO CITY CODE
Patricia Taraday, city attorney’s office, advised the ordinance has been revised to include input from
council at the last meeting and guidance from the council president. The ordinance makes it clear that it is
unlawful for anyone to occupy or store personal property on public property overnight. The ordinance
also sets forth protections for those who are homeless. Section 5.70.050 Enforcement speaks to those
protections. The ordinance will not be enforced against homeless individuals when no available shelter is
in place for that particular person. Homeless individuals will not be arrested for sleeping outside when
there is no available shelter. The ordinance will only be enforced if available shelter is found, offered and
subsequently refused. She had an opportunity to speak with some councilmembers this week and answer
questions and she is here tonight to answer questions.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 5.70 ENTITLED UNLAWFUL
OCCUPATION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY TO THE CITY CODE.
Councilmember L. Johnson referred to the statement, not enforceable when no shelter exists. If available
shelter exists and found, it is required to be offered along with other available human services to the
individual experiencing homelessness. Only if refused can it be enforced. She asked what that would look
like; for example, if a call is made and the Everett Gospel mission says they have space, how is it ensured
that once the individual is removed from the place they have chosen to be and transported to Everett, they
actually get a bed? Ms. Taraday answered human services and the police chief will create standard
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2022
Page 30
operating procedures regarding how to document that available shelter exists, what that looks like for that
particular person, how to facilitate transport, and how to ensure that it is available once they arrive.
Councilmember L. Johnson recalled in a recent letter to the editor from the council president, she talked
about serving on the homelessness force and that most actions focused on the underlying causes of
homelessness, prevention and human services to help those in crisis and stated that the task force
recommended a last resort tool for the rare cases when a person refused to move on from a public space,
calling it a last resort measure for the most extreme circumstances. She referred to an example last
summer of a woman who lost her housing in Edmonds and was sleeping on the Interurban Trail which is
being used as justification for this ordinance. This challenging case took months of relationship building
and understanding to find appropriate services to fit the individual’s needs, but they did and it was a
success story. If the individual had been forcibly removed without taking the time to understand her needs
and to find appropriate services, the outcome may have been very different. The same may be true for the
young man who was staying outside the library; last she heard he is now in a situation where he doing
much better.
Councilmember L. Johnson continued, these individuals are Edmonds residents, part of the community.
There are housed individuals with issues that take months, sometimes years to resolve; don’t our
unhoused residents deserve the same dedication and care? In order to survive without a home, a person
needs to sleep, eat, bathe, rest and seek shelter. Instead of sleeping and resting, people are often harassed,
constantly moved, criminalized and pushed to new levels of exhaustion and poor health. The
criminalization of homelessness only increases the burden on those who are unhoused, making the stress
and struggle to survive even more difficult. This has been said over and over by experts; we need to meet
people where they are. She agreed people should not be living unsheltered; it is not humane, but it is also
not humane to ship someone off regardless of their actual need or, as was mentioned earlier, not actually
offering shelter but offering a bus ticket out of town.
Councilmember L. Johnson continued, the ordinance states it will not be enforced against persons if there
isn’t overnight shelter that can be utilized for that person. If shelter is available, the shelter space must be
offered and only if it’s refused. It doesn’t state that the services must meet the individual’s needs;
understanding takes time. It also doesn’t state how much time will be spent working with the individual.
The task force is used as support for the ordinance; however, the task force stated the City should work to
ensure shelter availability, property storage is available and resources are in place to enforce and adhere
to the policies before considering no camping laws as required by federal law. They also listed as
immediate action to evaluate and seek to establish a centralized care system in which first responders
work in collaboration with City social workers to establish consistent care case management for clients.
The City does not have a social worker so none of that has been done. The recommendations should be
followed by first expanding shelter options in Edmonds and shelter availability.
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO
TABLE THIS UNTIL WE WORK ON THAT.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND L. JOHNSON
VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN, TIBBOTT, AND BUCKSHNIS AND
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO.
Councilmember Paine asked when the police have contact with someone believe to be unhoused and who
plans on staying overnight in a public place, what will that interaction and process look like. Police Chief
Bennett answered most often what happens is they receive a call or if an officer is driving around and sees
someone who has set up a tent or has shopping carts and appears unhoused, officers will stop and ask how
they can help. Officers carry homeless care kits in their car with food, water, socks and other supplies
because they want to be seen as a helping entity. The officer then contacts Mindy Woods, the human
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2022
Page 31
services manager. Once it is determined to be a safe place, human services staff come out to assess and
offer services. She offered to provide examples of that occurring prior to development of this ordinance.
Options can include motel vouchers, offering assistance via human services, etc. The police are often who
gets called to try to get that person the services they need. That can happen over a period of days or weeks
or as occurred last week, a period of months. She assumed the process would be the same with this
ordinance. Police would make contact, ask if they can be of assistance, ask what they need, do a basic
assessment, call human services and have them come out, offer services and transportation, call shelters
or get voucher for shelter if the person desires shelter. All but maybe twice since her arrival in Edmonds,
people absolutely refuse shelter, but most of the time they will take a motel voucher.
Chief Bennett continued, in the small number of cases where services are offered and there is a shelter
bed available or a motel voucher is offered and the person refuses and says they want to stay on public
property, the police would say there is an ordinance that prohibits occupying public space for camping. At
that point the person has the option to leave, it is not an immediate arrest. The person would be warned
they are not allowed to occupy the space overnight and then they have a choice to go elsewhere, accept
services, get on a bus or whatever they choose to do. It is not a situation of oh, you’re unhoused, we’re
going to arrest you. The person is given the option for services and advised they are not allowed to camp
overnight. It is all about first finding services to help. There are officers that started a slices and socks
program, where they buy pizza and socks to give to people who are unhoused in the community. Many
officers are advocates, trying to help people get the services they need. This is not intended to be punitive,
it is trying to help people have a healthy space; it is unhealthy to sleep on the sidewalk. The goal is to get
them every shred of help possible; arrest or charging would be the absolute last resort.
Councilmember Paine recalled Edmonds officers recently received commendation for respectfully
handling a situation with someone who was less than well wrapped. She noted it was important for the
community to hear the steps the police would be taking. She asked how often officers have interactions
with people who are unhoused. Chief Bennett commented it comes in spates, currently there have been a
number of complaints near the Burlington Coat Factory, people camping there with tents. Officers have
been out several times trying to gain assistance for those people. Then there might be a period of time
where there are no encounters. Today there was an unhoused person who decided to lay down in the
middle of the sidewalk near Swedish Hospital and refused to move. That call took a lot of resources and
time to get the person the help they needed. It is call dependent, sometimes there might be a couple
complaints in a week, sometimes there are none for a couple weeks. If the ordinance goes into effect,
word travels fast regarding what is allowed/not allowed so there may be a decline in people trying to
camp if they know they aren’t allowed to do so in the City of Edmonds.
Councilmember Chen thanked Ms. Taraday for spending time talking with him today and the follow-up
email on his proposed amendment. He was okay with some of the proposal, but he had an important
amendment to add.
COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
INSERT A NEW SECTION 2 IN THE ORDINANCE TITLED, DOCUMENTATION AND
IMPLEMENTATION, THAT READS, THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS UNLAWFUL
OCCUPATION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY ORDINANCE SHALL BE APPLIED TO ANY
INDIVIDUALS WHO OCCUPY PUBLIC PROPERTIES UNLAWFULLY. THE OFFER OF
ASSISTANCE INCLUDING FOOD, MEDICAL CARE, AVAILABLE SHELTER AND
NOTIFYING FAMILY SHALL BE DOCUMENTED.
Councilmember Chen recognized the issue of homelessness is very complex and the community wants to
protect not only the housed, but also the unhoused. Adding this amendment ensures assistance including
food, shelter, medical care, notifying family is documented. He was born and raised in the eastern culture
of China where family is a strong bond and 4-5 generations live under one roof taking care of each other.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2022
Page 32
There is talk about family as a definition, but families need to take care of each other and support each
other. In this culture, animals are treated like family, not to mention siblings, parents, etc. He purposefully
inserted notifying family into the amendment to ensure that help is documented and empty promises are
not offered but truly helping people who don’t have a place to stay and give them a place to shower, rest
their head, get medical help, whatever they need. That is why the City plans to have a social worker work
with the police. Edmonds does not have a lot of available resources, housing is very expensive and out of
reach to many, and there is no available shelter.
Council President Olson asked the city attorney and police chief to comment on how this would relate in
practice. Ms. Taraday answered the law requires offering available shelter. This ordinance goes above and
beyond by offering human services. The way it is written now, the standard operating procedures would
provide for documenting the offer of available shelter and human services and it does not incorporate any
documentation procedures for medical services or notifying family. She suggested Deputy Director
Burley or Chief Bennett speak to practical issues related to documenting those services and potentially
notifying family.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO EXTEND TO 11:00.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (4-3) FOR LACK OF A SUPER MAJORITY,
COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT
OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN AND TIBBOTT VOTING
NO.
COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO
EXTEND TO 10:45.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, TIBBOTT,
BUCKSHNIS, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Deputy Parks, Recreation, Cultural Arts & Human Services Director Shannon Burley advised medical
services would be provided by paramedics, not by police or human services. Of course, if they entered
into a crisis, they would do their best, but the paramedics would provide medical services. As such neither
human services nor the police department should be codified as offering medial services. With regard to
notifying family, that is an incredibly compassionate suggestion, one that would make sense to try to do.
There could not be a guarantee that they would get in touch with family members. Often when they are
communicating with individuals, the first steps is to ask if they will accept a cell phone so staff can begin
to communicate with an individual and build trust in a way to better understand the challenges they are
facing and be able to provide adequate services. There are programs that provide donated cell phones.
Councilmember Chen said nothing is guaranteed, but we need to try, and to deliver the effort.
With regard to implementation, Ms. Taraday said the way the proposed ordinance is written, both sections
030 and 040 make it clear that it applies to any person and enforcement is only suspended when there is
no available shelter. The implementation referring to any person is not necessary as it is already
mentioned in 030 and 040.
Council President Olson said she has had a lot of conversation about implementation. Staff is amazing
and totally has their hearts in the right place. It would be great to include attempting to notify family in
the implementation plan, but she did not feel it needed to be in the ordinance although she appreciated the
sentiment behind it. The part about food and available shelter is more within the purview of the police and
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2022
Page 33
is already their standard practice. She recommended taking out reference to medical care and notifying
family from the proposed amendment.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO DELETE MEDICAL CARE AND NOTIFY FAMILY AND HANDLE THAT IN THE
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN INSTEAD.
Councilmember Tibbott spoke in favor of the amendment. Notifying family could be problematic, the
family of origin could be dangerous to a person, the source of addiction, and/or completely undesirable. It
should be up to the professionals to make that contact if it is deemed beneficial.
In response to Council President Olson’s comment, Councilmember Chen said medical care is very
critical when dealing with some of the unhoused population due to their medical needs. He understood the
City was not in the position to provide for medical needs, but they could refer it. There needs to be an
effort for social workers to connect the needs to different professions. If they need shelter, provide shelter;
the City does not provide shelter, staff provides a motel voucher, they don’t drive bus, but call Uber or
buy plane tickets. The same for medical services, the intent is to refer the person to the provider. With
regard to notifying families, he asked if the family does not take care of those people, who else will.
Those are their loves ones.
Council President Olson restated the amendment:
REMOVE REFERENCE TO MEDICAL AND CALLING THE FAMILY AND INSTEAD HAVE
THAT IN THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AS APPROPRIATE.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
TIBBOTT, AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Council President Olson restated the amendment:
ADD SECTION 2, DOCUMENTATION AND IMPLEMENTATION, THAT READS, THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS UNLAWFUL OCCUPATION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY
ORDINANCE SHALL BE APPLIED TO ANY INDIVIDUALS WHO OCCUPY PUBLIC
PROPERTIES ILLEGALLY. THE OFFER OF ASSISTANCE INCLUDING FOOD AND
AVAILABLE SHELTER SHALL BE DOCUMENTED.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
CHEN, TIBBOTT, AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
During the above vote, Councilmember Chen asked for clarification, if this motion fails, does it goes back
to his original amendment. Mr. Taraday advised Councilmember Chen’s amendment was amended as
proposed by Council President Olson. If this vote fails, it returns to the language in the packet.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked Ms. Burley and Chief Bennett if they had the staffing available as there
needs to be a pragmatic, comprehensive plan in place that includes staff. Some people think the police
will spend all their time taking care of this and not doing police work even though this is partially police
work. Chief Bennett answered this is part of the regular duties the police perform. This is another tool for
offering assistance. She did not see a staffing issue in daily patrol.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if there was human service staffing available. Ms. Burley answered this
is what human services does, what isn’t available is shelter. She did not want to mislead anyone to believe
by passing this ordinance people could immediately be put into shelter. The timeline to secure shelter
varies by each individual and it will take time. If she called right now, there are no congregate shelter
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 3, 2022
Page 34
beds available anywhere close. It will take time; passing this ordinance does not mean that anyone
camping in Edmonds will be swept off the streets. Staff will continue to provide compassion, gain trust
and do their best to secure shelter for individuals who often don’t decline it once it is found. As Chief
Bennett said the hiring of a social worker is getting closer which would expand staffing. Between the
human services manager and social worker, she believed they would be able to coordinate services but
cannot respond 24/7.
Councilmember L. Johnson reiterated there is no shelter and there are limited hotel vouchers. Hotel
vouchers are not a City-funded program, it is a temporary grant from the Department of Commerce, tied
directly to the pandemic. Actions speak louder than words. In the last two years, there have been multiple
attempts to defund human services including in 2020 with CARES funding, Council President Olson
supported only dispersing funds to businesses versus low income residents and three councilmembers
supported reducing the housing and supplemental relief fund from $300,000 to $100,000. In 2021 budget
deliberations, three councilmembers voted to defund human services by half. In 2022 during the budget
redo, two councilmembers proposed removing 1/3 or $200,000 from human services. During last week’s
meeting, Councilmember Buckshnis stated I do believe we should in fact provide an ordinance that allows
people, normal people like myself, to have a right that if someone starts camping in my driveway, I have a
right to call Chief Bennett and have the police check on what’s going on. The use of normal would seem
to indicate that those struggling are not normal which is both offensive and discriminatory. It is
reminiscent of the so-called ugly laws that existed prior to the 1970s which made it illegal for unsightly
people to be in public view. This ordinance says if you lose your access to shelter in Edmonds, the normal
people should not have to witness…
Mayor Nelson interrupted, stating it was 10:45 p.m. and the council needed to consider whether to extend
the meeting.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON,
TO EXTEND TO 11:00.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (4-3) FOR LACK OF A SUPER MAJORITY,
COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, PAINE, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT
OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN AND TIBBOTT VOTING
NO.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO CONTINUE THE MEETING ON THURSDAY.
5. SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS AND AMENDMENTS TO ECC TITLE 4 LICENSES
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
12. ADJOURN
The Council meeting was adjourned at 10:46 p.m.