2023-03-28 Regular Meeting
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 28, 2023
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APPROVED MINUTES
March 28, 2023
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Neil Tibbott, Council President
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
Will Chen, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Susan Paine, Councilmember
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Jenna Nand, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Susan McLaughlin, Planning & Dev. Dir.
Todd Tatum, Comm. Serv. & Econ. Dev. Dir.
Rob English, City Engineer
David Levitan, Planning Manager
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7 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 Teitzel 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.
4. PRESENTATIONS
1. HEARING EXAMINER ANNUAL REPORT
Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts reviewed three development permits that required a public hearing and
an environmental appeal related to the update of the City’s stormwater regulations:
Glacier Environmental Conditional Use (3/6/23): Approved conditional use permit for outdoor storage
of items such as pipe, traffic control signs/delineators, small concrete structures, pickup trucks, and cargo
trailers as an incidental use to a proposed new office and warehouse located at 7509 212th St. SW.
Surrounding uses include a mix of commercial and single- and multi-family residential uses. The storage
area will be obscured from view by surrounding uses by existing trees, landscaping and fencing.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 28, 2023
Page 2
Flourish Wellness Clinic (12/15/22): Approved conditional use permit to operate a wellness clinic in an
existing multi-use building located at 9724 Edmonds Way. The majority of surrounding uses are
commercial along with one single-family residence. Prior use was an insurance office and no exterior
modifications, other than signage, were proposed.
Edmonds City Park Greenhouse Variance (6/24/22): Approved two variances to replace two
greenhouses with a single greenhouse at City Park within the 20-foot setbacks of Pine Street and SR-104.
The City requested a variance to the City’s 20-foot setback to locate the proposed greenhouse a minimum
of 14’ from the southern property line along Pine Street and 11’ from the western property line along SR-
104. The City requested a landscaping variance to waive a requirement for two trees within the setback
area. The replacement greenhouse is taller and larger than the existing two greenhouses combined, but
will be setback further from the street than the existing greenhouses. The setback to the west property line
will be increased from five feet to 11 feet and the setback to the south property line will remain at 14 feet.
Appeal of SEPA DNS for Stormwater Regulations (3/4/22) Denied appeal of issuance of SEPA
determination of non-significance (DNS) for adoption of City stormwater amendments. The appeal
hearing was held over two days, generating a 171-page transcript. The DNS had to be overturned if the
proposed amendments created probable significant adverse impacts that had not been adequately
evaluated and mitigated. However, the Appellant’s concerns primarily attached to currently existing
environmental problems that were not caused or exacerbated by the proposed amendments. With one
debatable exception, the proposed amendments were primarily designed to increase stormwater protection
and to reduce the environmental impacts of development. Using existing stormwater regulations as a
baseline for assessing impacts, the adverse impacts of all of the proposed amendments were found to be
modest if any.
The most compelling source of substantive concern in the appeal was over an amendment to ECDC
18.30.060.D.6.d. Olympic View Water & Sewer District (OVWSD) also raised this as a primary concern
in a comment letter. ECDC 18.30.060.D.6.d currently prohibits discharge of untreated stormwater from
all surfaces into groundwater. The proposed amendments limited this restriction to hard surfaces, opening
the door to discharges from soft surfaces. However, staff had always interpreted ECDC 18.30.060.D.6.d
as only applying to hard surfaces. Consequently, under the practices at the time the hard surface
amendment simply reflects what staff has already been requiring. Further, with or without the
amendment, other stormwater regulations still require treatment of run-off from soft surfaces over three
quarters of an acre. In practical terms, untreated stormwater from soft surfaces would most likely only
come from small lawns, landscaping and permeable pavement.
The appeal also raised the looming presence of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoralkyl substances (PFAS).
These are toxic chemicals of significant concern to DOE because they are ubiquitous, toxic, don’t degrade
and have contaminated hundreds of water systems throughout the country. They are a compound found in
crumb-rubber fields. The DOE Manual and the City’s regulations are not designed to treat stormwater for
PFAS contamination, because there is no known technology to do so. Although there’s no question that
PFAS is a problem, the proposed regulations do not exacerbate that problem. The only amendment that
could potentially increase PFAS contamination of groundwater was the hard surface amendment
mentioned in the preceding paragraph. For the same reasons that the hard surface amendment wasn’t
found to create significant impacts associated with untreated stormwater flows, it also wasn’t found to
create significant impacts with PFAS contaminated waters. The hard surface amendment has no impact
on PFAS contamination caused by crumb-rubber fields, since the fields are over a ¾ of an acre in area
and thus require the stormwater to be treated.
Under the former regulations, all discharges from the Edmonds Basin were allowed to go directly into the
Edmonds Marsh. Staff felt the volumes could harm the marsh and required the volumes be controlled so
they do not cause damage to the marsh. The appellant was concerned the infiltration that resulted from
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 28, 2023
Page 3
that may result in more flooding on Edmond properties. The City’s stormwater engineer explained flow
infiltration is already required in the Edmonds Basin for any development and the only way volumes
would be regulated would be via greater detention and would not involve any infiltration and would not
result in more flooding.
Councilmember Olson asked why the City requested a landscape variance to waive a requirement for
trees within the setback area. Mr. Olbrechts responded there was very limited space and there was
nowhere else to put the greenhouse that would not impact circulation. The only place to put greenhouse
was in location of the required trees.
Councilmember Nand asked Mr. Olbrechts to comment on protection of critical areas. The City is trying
to comprehend how HB 1110 and other bills under consideration by the state legislature will affect the
ability to protect critical areas, whether that was a concern he had heard from other cities and how he
anticipated the bills would affect the hearing examiner process in the future. Mr. Olbrechts answered he
has have not heard much yet. Critical area ordinances are required by the GMA and are based on best
available science and are pretty strict. Edmonds applies their regulations a little more strictly than other
communities which is backed by case law. He would be surprised if there was any significant impact.
Councilmember Nand said while the drafters of the bills say nothing can be permitted as multifamily if it
was not permitted as single family under the current zoning laws, the allowance of much tighter
subdivision of existing lots and how that may affect stormwater and critical area habitat is a concern to a
number of environmentalists. Mr. Olbrechts said what he knows about those bills is they are not telling
cities they will have to be more lenient with their critical area regulations. There are exemptions such as
reasonable use and variances, but the fact that someone has the right to develop multifamily on a lot in
addition to a single family home does not make their position more compelling with regard to reducing
stream or wetland buffers to accommodate that use especially with Edmonds’ commitment to protecting
environmental resources. Takings’ case law for critical areas has always been if someone can build one
single family home on a single family lot, their constitutional property rights are protected and they would
not qualify for a variance or reasonable use exception to build multifamily.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked for further explanation regarding the appeal of the DNS for the
stormwater regulations and asked him to explain more about PFAS, relaying her understanding there
needed to be more code to protect the aquifer and the environment from PFAS. Mr. Olbrechts answered
the bottom line is the amendments that the City considered and he assumed were ultimately approved
would not increase the amount of stormwater infiltration of pollutants including PFAS. The way the City
interpreted the regulations prior to the amendments did not change the practice following the amendments
with regard to what could be infiltrated into the City’s groundwater. With regard to what changed in the
amendments and adding PFAS to groundwater was too speculative under the SEPA appeal rules to
conclude there would be an increase in PFAS contamination. The city attorney and stormwater engineer
pointed out the Department of Ecology does not have a treatment methodology for PFAS in their
stormwater regulations. The City must, at a minimum, adopt the DOE recommended stormwater manual.
There is no known treatment methodology for PFAS at this time so even if there was an environmental
impact, there was no way for the City to mitigate it. The main reason he denied the appeal on that issue
was from the evidence in the record, there would not be a material increase in PFAS contamination in the
ground water. Councilmember Buckshnis acknowledged this is a new topic that only appears on 60
Minutes most of the time.
2. PLANNING BOARD UPDATE
Planning Board Chair Judi Gladstone commented the planning board started the new year with the
council’s approval of four new planning board members. The board waited a long time to have those
positions filled and are pleased such engaged new members joined the four veterans members and the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 28, 2023
Page 4
student representative. With a full board and a new planning manager, the board is on its way toward
functioning effectively. She reviewed:
• Approval of Planning Board Handbook
o Intended to bring clarity to the planning board’s function and how the board functions
o Provides orientation for new members and ensures more effective succession for planning
board members.
• November 2022 Report
o What we plan on doing
2024 comprehensive plan update
- Planning board awaiting clarity from planning department on comprehensive plan
elements
Development Code modernization
- Designated street fronts
- Wireless facilities
- CG stepbacks
- Minor code amendment process
- Tree code updates
- Five Corners BN zoning update
- Subdivision code updates
- Sustainable development code review and updates
- Low impact/stormwater code updates
Additional Items on our extended agenda
- Climate Action Plan update and public outreach
- Housing policies and implementation
- Quarterly updates from Parks & Recreation
- Semi-annual joint meetings with city council
- Periodic development activity reports
- Further Highway 99 implementation
• Issues planning board has addressed since November 2022
o Recommendations
Minor Code Amendment Process
Minor Tree Code amendments
o Discussion/Feedback
Civic Playfield Rules
Complan Vision Statement
o Briefings
Parks quarterly report
CG Zoning Emergency Ordinance
Climate Action Plan Update
• Current Extended Agenda Issues
o Zoning and code issues require three touches by the planning board (introduction, public
hearing, discussion and recommendation)
o Zoning Changes
CG Zone ordinance
BN Zoe Use Change
o Code Changes
Tree Code – Private Property & New Development
Critical Aquifer Recharge Area Code
MF Design Standards Code
Wireless Code
ADU Code
o Complan Update
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 28, 2023
Page 5
Required Elements – Planning board reviews and makes recommendations
- Shoreline Policies
- Utilities
- Capital Facilities
- Transportation
- Housing
- Land Use
Non-required Elements – Does city council want the planning board to make
recommendations on non-required elements
- Subarea Plans
- Economic Development
- Parks & Recreation and Open Space
- Introduction
• Potential Issues – Does city council want the planning board to discuss and provide a
recommendation?
o Parks acquisition in South Edmonds
o BNSF Planning and Waterfront Plan
o Others
• Council feedback
o Priorities among the list of code changes
o Recommendations on non-required elements of Complan
o Particular considerations for any of the required elements.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Planning Board Chair Gladstone for her understanding of the
difference between mitigation and adaptation in the Climate Action Plan (CAP), relaying her opinion that
the planning board should have taken a deeper dive into the CAP. She noted the CAP or other adaptive
elements are not mentioned such as sea level rise and blue carbon. Chair Gladstone answered she would
look for adaptation policies in the comprehensive plan elements such as transportation, housing or the
non-required element that addresses sustainability. Adaptation becomes embedded in everything; it would
not have its own plan but would come to the forefront in those policies.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the Waterfront Study, commenting the council had one
presentation where number concerns were voiced and the plan has never come back to the council. She
hoped the Waterfront Study would not be presented to the planning board before coming to the council to
address the issues the council raised.
Councilmember Buckshnis noted there was also no reference to the Highway 99 SEIS, pointing out the
City needs to start thinking about the environment. With regard to the Southeast Edmonds property,
consideration should be given to the fact that the highest and best use may be something else because it is
zoned residential. When property is downzoned, the assessed value changes. She expressed appreciation
for the work Chair Gladstone does and her logical and pragmatic answers and questions and encouraged
her to mentor the rest of the planning board.
Councilmember Nand thanked Gladstone and Vice Chair Beth Tragus-Campbell for their excellent work
and for sticking it out on the planning board and helping train new members. She identified four issues: 1)
As liaison to the tree board, she was aware there is no real policy regarding tree retention. In southeast
Edmonds where she lives, residents are alarmed with clear cutting. The City could benefit from pursuing
a tree retention policy, especially with an emphasis on retaining the mature tree canopy, a concrete tool
that would put the City into compliance with the CAP. 2) Councilmember Nand favored the planning
board providing council a recommendation on non-required elements of the comprehensive plan,
specifically issues such as subarea plans and naming of the subareas. There is consternation by some that
areas were named without input from the residents in those communities. For example, residents in her
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 28, 2023
Page 6
neighborhood were surprised to learn they lived in the Gateway neighborhood. It is the planning board’s
job to provide an avenue for citizen input and naming could be a valuable PR exercise for the City. 3)
Councilmember Nand favored the planning board providing input on the park acquisition in SE Edmonds.
The City uses a subcontractor to scope perspective properties, but it would be great if there was an avenue
for residents to communicate with the City about vacant or underutilized lots in their neighborhoods that
could be considered for park acquisition. 4) Developing subarea plans for areas that have traditionally
received less attention such as North Edmonds.
Councilmember Chen thanked Chair Gladstone and Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell for their outstanding
service on the planning board. He and Chair Gladstone both served on the Citizen Housing Commission
(CHC) in 2019; he would like to see the CHC’s 15 recommendations considered especially regarding
ADUs and duplexes even if bills the state legislature is considering such as HB 1110 and others are
approved. He supported the planning board researching the size and suitability of the park acquisition in
SE Edmonds. In his opinion, areas on Highway 99 that have higher density are in greater need for green
spaces, especially with more apartment complexes being constructed in that area.
Councilmember Teitzel thanked Chair Gladstone and Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell for their service. With
regard to the Civic Field hours of operation, he recalled there was a hearing or a presentation to the
planning board. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell answered the planning board received public comment on
that issue but it was not an official public hearing. Parks presented their recommendation and after
hearing public comment and the staff’s recommendation, the planning board recommended proceeding
with staff’s recommendation at least in the interim to see what issues arise that require changing rules
versus the perception of issues which may be resolved through environmental design. The planning board
requested a review within a year of the park opening; she was hopeful that would occur by the end of the
summer.
Councilmember Teitzel commented multifamily design standards are an important issue for the City and
will become more important if the bills regarding upzoning and lot splitting are approved by the
legislature. He asked if the planning board was aware of those bills and if they had been briefed on the
impact they could have on the planning board’s work. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell answered the
planning board was aware of the bills; at the last meeting, the planning board recommended delaying
review and recommendation on some of the housing aspects of the comprehensive plan until later in the
summer to await the outcome of those bills.
Councilmember Teitzel recognized the planning board has a role in park acquisition and asked if the
planning board had been brought into the discussions about park acquisitions and what role did the
planning board feel they should play in making recommendations on those acquisitions. Vice Chair
Tragus-Campbell said it was her understanding the planning board had not been brought into the
discussion about the SE Edmonds park acquisition and the board was not aware of the potential
acquisition until the presentation at a previous city council meeting. There have been discussions in the
past about the planning board considering and vetting property, but at the time the property was being
vetted, the board was informed it was not to a point where the information could be released. The
planning board would like to have a step in the process where they could provide feedback before
properties are presented to council and would like to be involved in future acquisitions. She appreciated
Councilmember Chen’s suggestion for the planning board to provide input on the suitability of
acquisitions. Councilmember Teitzel agreed the planning board needed to be involved sooner.
Councilmember Teitzel observed in the past planning board input may not have been given due deference
in the council process. He asked whether planning board members should attend and/or co-present on key
issues. Chair Gladstone recalled at the end of 2022, the board discussed how the board could make its
position/recommendation known. That could be accomplished via a memo or a planning board member
sitting with staff when presentations are made. Having a planning board member sit at the table with staff
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 28, 2023
Page 7
can be valuable to answer council questions about what the planning board was thinking during their
deliberations as well as allow the planning board to provide their recommendation regardless of whether
it was in line with the planning department’s recommendation.
Councilmember Olson noted a lot of the questions asked were also on her radar so she will repeat but not
elaborate on them. She expressed interest in the planning board weighing in on the vision statement,
noting if everything flows from the vision statement, it is critical to get it right. It will be important to
have the planning board vet that fully whether that means a town hall or other means to ensure everyone
understands and agrees that is the vision for the City’s future. She also emphasized subareas plans,
relaying her desire to do subarea plans for all the areas of Edmonds. Not having subarea plans has delayed
the tree code and housing recommendations because one size does not fit all, what works in one place
does not work everywhere, and the right tree in the right place is not the same depending on the location.
She agreed with another councilmember that it is critical the administration, council and planning board
prioritize the development of subarea plans.
With regard to the CHC recommendations, Councilmember Olson recalled that was identified during the
council retreat as a topic the council will take up by this summer and she was hopeful that could be done
before the recommendations are reviewed by the planning board. She recalled previous discussions about
the planning board’s heavy workload, noting things also arise that are not on their work plan such as the
Civic Park rules. She wondered whether some of the planning board’s work related to parks could be
apportioned to the tree board
Councilmember Olson commented on design standards to yield neighborhood feel in spite of density
changes that may be the result of state legislation or to implement increased GMA numbers. For example,
if there is no difference between what can be done for single family and an detached ADU, what is
missing from the single family zoning requirements that needs to be added. Putting more parameters on
single family may be the way to ensure things don’t get weird and ugly. She noted getting the tree code
right is a priority, recalling a councilmember who expressed interest in a carrot approach rather than a
stick approach. Edmonds is a community that loves nature and trees and right tree right place and she
anticipated encouragement would go further toward retaining mature trees because whenever residents
anticipate the City plans to pass punitive or limiting regulations, trees are removed.
Councilmember Paine thanked the planning board for their service. She was unsure the council has
determined the priorities for code changes and anticipate that would require coordination with the
planning department. With regard to recommendations on the non-required elements, there is already
sustainability planning in the comprehensive plan even though it was not required. There is legislation
being considered that will add sustainability as a required elements. With regard to the CHC’s
recommendations, she recalled a prior council, perhaps two years ago, identified four top priorities which
included DADUs and ADUs, multifamily design standards and two others. She did not want the CHC’s
work to be ignored as it was important to the community and there was a lot of community engagement.
Councilmember Nand commented the planning board is a volunteer board who is not paid for the many
hours they devote in service to the City. She suggested the planning board discuss having the tree board
or parks and recreation constituted separately from the planning board. She recalled Parks, Recreation and
Human Services Director Feser’s interest in having a volunteer coordinator. Chair Gladstone answered it
would be possible to alleviate the planning board’s workload. Updating the comprehensive plan results in
peak workloads but workloads are reduces when that is completed. In the two years she has been on the
planning board, there has been a lot of work. The planning board is trying reduce the amount of time they
spend in briefings at meetings and having members read materials outside meetings. Having a separate
parks board would be great in the interim, but in the long run, the workload will even out especially if less
time is spent on briefings. She recalled in the time she has been on planning board, the lion’s share of
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 28, 2023
Page 8
meeting time has been spent on briefings, not deliberating on recommendations. That needs to be
different during the comprehensive plan up.
Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell relayed with new planning board members and the new planning manager,
there is an effort to include more detail on the extended agenda regarding items. For example, Ms. Feser’s
last report was provided in writing and she was available for questions that were not addressed in the
report and instead of a 45-60 minutes presentation, it was under 5 minutes. The board is trying to improve
communication with city staff support and focusing their time at meetings. Chair Gladstone added for
items like the tree code, it is important for the planning board to hear from the tree board because the
planning board are not technical experts on trees.
Councilmember Teitzel relayed the council’s intent that the code update be holistic. The planning board
may have reviewed the minor code amendment process for the ECDC; the council’s intent is for that to
apply to the entire code including the ECDC and ECC so that task will be larger than the planning board
may have thought.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the reference to BN zone use change on the planning board work
plan. Chair Gladstone answered that is Business Neighborhood such as Five Corners; there is a citizen
request to consider that. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled in about 2014, the UW Green Futures Lab
developed form based code for Five Corners as well as Westgate. She recalled the late Councilmember K.
Johnson wanted to pursue that but it fell on deaf ears.
5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson described the procedures for audience comments.
Marlin Phelps explained he attempted to make a public records request earlier today as apparently the
City’s website is down. In the past he was able to make public records requests via phone. He described
the reason for his public records request. When he visited the court one day in the past, he saw then-Court
Administrator Joan Ferebee doing accounts receivable behind the window using a calculator that was
creating a long tape. When he visited a month later, he saw the same thing. He was not able to see the
numbers but they were either two or three digits. He ordered via CDs of the court proceedings, originally
for his own proceedings, but in listening to Judge Fair on the CDs, every defendant paid huge fines. His
public record request is to listen to the amounts in any month in the first half of 2014, add them up and
see if there is a huge discrepancy between those amounts and what was put in the City coffers, that would
be the modus operandi to kill Thomas Wales.
Ted Hikel, Lynnwood, asked the Edmonds City Council to do something about gun safety in light of the
tragedy that occurred yesterday; he has also asked the Lynnwood City Council to do the same. He relayed
a well-liked republican senator this morning said the things we’re heard, thoughts and prayers go out, but
it is too soon to talk about it. That’s what was said after Sandy Hook, Parkland, and Uvalde; somebody
has to talk about it. It is something he has to do; he will go to every city council in Snohomish County and
will try to go to every city council in western, eastern and central Washington. He has done it before
when he was on the board of directors for AWC for a number years and talked with people from Pullman
to Ocean Shores, from Blaine to Vancouver. This is personal, something needs to be done. He asked the
Edmonds City Council to do something, pass a resolution or ordinance, noting passing an ordinance may
be unconstitutional. During the 20 years he was on the Lynnwood City Council, he once voted for
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 28, 2023
Page 9
something that he believed was unconstitutional because it was a matter of principle, a sauna that was
really a house of prostitution because at some point someone has to stand up and say enough. He asked
the council to pass a resolution, an ordinance or something to let people know. He hoped every city
council in the state and across the nation will stand up and say enough.
Brock Howell, Director, Snohomish County Transportation Coalition (Snotrac), explained Snotrac brings
together transportation and human service providers and planners to identify mobility gaps and
opportunities for people with disabilities, older adults, youth and low income individuals as well as
discreet groups of people to build communities. He spoke in favor of the Highway 99 revitalization
project and taking a comprehensive approach to it. Edmonds has a strategy to accommodate growth near
the Highway 99 corridor which makes sense due to great transit and opportunities to reach jobs and
school at a fairly low cost. The challenge is Highway 99 is also one of the most dangerous places to live
in terms of air quality as well as vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle accidents. As the City continues to
develop concepts for the Highway 99 revitalization project, he encouraged the City to support an
approach that is truly Complete Streets that accommodates all users so it will be an age-friendly, ability-
friendly place that can accommodate everyone who lives in Edmonds.
Joe Scordino, Edmonds, commented on the WSDOT MOU that should not be on the council’s agenda.
The MOU does a great job of preserving WSF’s interest in obtaining as much money as possible in the
sale of the Unocal property but without any regard to the detrimental effects on the citizens of Edmonds
or the environment. Although the mayor’s press release states this MOU is good for the marsh, it is
noteworthy that the marsh is not even mentioned in the MOU, a great way of deceiving the public into
thinking this is a great MOU. The MOU does not preserve any of the Edmonds’ taxpayers’ interest. The
MOU states the City agrees to pay fair market value without any caveats. The City should have a set of
caveats regarding what the taxpayers will be burdened with relative to this property purchase. He asked
about WSDOT’s commitment that the City has asked for repeatedly related to helping with the restoration
of salmon. That is what the City negotiated in the past and failed to get an MOU and now this MOU
signed by WSDOT does not mention helping restore salmon. He summarized why now, what’s the rush
and why this MOU.
Susie Schaefer, Edmonds, said she woke to a barrage of emails about the WSDOT MOU. She didn’t
know what to think about the MOU because she only thinks about restoring or preserving the
environment. She rarely disagrees with Mr. Scordino or other environmentalists and Edmonds is fortunate
to have some very thoughtful people committed to the marsh, salmon, orcas, beach, trees and native
plants. Next month is Native Plant Month and as she usually does, she will read the council the
Governor’s proclamation.
Pat Smoldon referred to the MOU and the important of caring for the City, the marsh and the
surrounding properties. Everyone should have a say and understand what is being considered with regard
to negotiating with the state. She summarized it was important that all the voices that should be heard are
heard.
7. RECEIVED FOR FILING
1. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS
2. OUTSIDE BOARDS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items
approved are as follows:
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 28, 2023
Page 10
1. APPROVAL OF REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 21, 2023
2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENT
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING ECC 2.35.040 - MANAGEMENT LEAVE
9. COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. HIGHWAY 99 REVITALIZATION PROJECT UPDATE
City Engineer Rob English explained this is an update on the design efforts for Stages 3 and 4 of the
Highway 99 project. He introduced Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss and Lisa Reed, Project
Manager, SCJ Alliance. The council approved the design contract for both stages in November; staff is in
the early stages of the design process. Earlier this month the design team met with WSDOT and received
guidance and new direction based on legislation approved last year related to Complete Streets and
accommodating all users. That resulted in changes to the cross sections for Highway 99 and modeling for
220th and potential accommodation of bikes lanes on 238th.
Mr. Hauss reviewed:
• Project introduction
o Stage 3 – 244th St SW to ~ 500’ North of 238th St SW
State-Funded Project (Connecting Washington & Move Ahead)
Design Phase secured
Right of Way phase secured
Construction partially secured
o Stage 4 – 224th St SW to ~ 1,000’ North of 220th St SW
Secured Federal grant/local funds
Design phase secured
Right-of-way phase secured
Construction phase unsecured
o Start of design phase for both projects
December 2022
Ms. Reid reviewed
• Highway 99 Cross-Sections
o Recommend adding protected bike lanes on both sides, remove the shy distances which
comes will associated drop in the speed limit to 40 mph
o WSDOT’s implementation of Complete Streets included a recommendation to add bike lanes.
• Stage 4: 220th WB Cross-Section Options
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 28, 2023
Page 11
• Comparison of 220th Options on LOS
• Stage 4: 220th WB Option 2
o Recommend reconfiguring to dual left-turns and shared use path
• Stage 3 – 238th EB Cross-Section Options
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 28, 2023
Page 12
• Stage 3 – 238th EB Option 1 – 12’ Shared Use Path on North
• Stage 3 – 238th EB Option 2 – 5’ Bike + 6’ Sidewalk on both sides
• Comparison of 238th Options
o 12’ Multi-use path on north side only
Multiuse path/door conflict
Does not match City’s comprehensive plan
Bike lanes do not align to future bike lanes on west side of Highway 99 (per
Transportation Plan)
o Sidewalk and 5’ bike lanes on both sides
Avoids sidewalk/door conflict
Matches City’s Comprehensive Plan
Bike Lanes Align to Future Bike Lanes on West Side of Highway 99 (per Transportation
Plan)
Bike Network Consistency and Use Expectations
o Recommend 5 foot bike lanes on both sides of roadway.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 28, 2023
Page 13
Mr. Hauss reviewed:
• Stages 3 & 4 Outreach Plan
o Each stage has the same, but independent public involvement process
Parks & Public Works Committee then council meetings (after the 30%, 60%, 90% at ad,
and as needed prior to open houses
Public open houses (one each after the 30%, 60%, 90%)
Stakeholder meetings (throughout the entire design)
Artistic Committee meetings (throughout the entire design)
Property owner meetings (after 30% and 60%)
Regular website updates
• Staff Recommendations
o Highway 99: Add protected bike lanes on both sides of Hwy 99 (as part of Stages 3 & 4)
o 220th St SW: Reconfigure westbound approach to provide dual left turns and shared use path
o 238th St SW: Add 5’ bike lanes on both sides.
Council President Tibbott commented even though he hated to give up width on walkways, bike lanes
provide a buffer for the walkway so that was acceptable to him. He also liked that there was a vegetated
strip between the bike lanes and the street in some places, a very good reconfiguration. He asked how
bike lanes on Highway 99 access the Interurban Trail and how east-west connections cross Highway 99.
Mr. Hauss answered on 220th the Interurban Trail is about 600’ from Highway 99 which will provide a
good connection and bike lanes on Highway 99 connect to 224th. Other connections will be provided in
future stages. Council President Tibbott commented he was interested in community input about that. Ms.
Reid advised in talking with WSDOT about the bike lanes, it was apparent skilled/through riders will be
on the Interurban Trail; bikes on Highway 99 will be localized traffic making connections.
Councilmember Buckshnis did not think changing the speed limit to 40 mph would work in view of
existing speeds vehicles. She expressed concern with putting bikes on Highway 99 similar to her concern
with bikes at the Westgate intersection. Bikes use the Interurban Trail which is why Edmonds completed
the missing link. Although the move is toward everyone biking, Edmonds’ demographic does not bike
and Highway 99 is a busy street. She was concerned that adding bike paths on Highway 99 would result
in accidents in the future. She was aware Seattle and Portland have good bike lanes in the downtown
areas, but Highway 99 is not a downtown area, it is a major arterial. She was concerned with safety even
with the separation. She asked how many bicycles use Highway 99, relaying she had not seen anyone
bike on Highway 99 in the 30 years she has been in Edmonds. She questioned why bike lanes were
necessary on Highway 99 and why bicycles would not use the Interurban Trail which is safer. She agreed
it would be good to have an east-west connection.
Ms. Reid answered the function of the bike lanes on Highway 99 especially with the congestion is to get
people to what is on Highway 99. For example, if a bicyclist is riding on the Interurban Trail, they are
likely to stay on it to travel north or south. When a cyclist wants to access a store/service on Highway 99
such as Dick’s, they will be able to leave the Interurban Trail, cross the street and use the bike lanes to
reach Dick’s. The only option currently is to ride on the narrow sidewalk which is shared with
pedestrians. She was not aware of any bike counts for Highway 99 but recalled at every open house, there
have been questions about bike lanes on Highway 99.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented Edmonds has a very active bike group, recalling discussions
about the Westgate intersection were very contentious because it was all about the bikes. Bikes typically
only use bike lanes during daylight hours and in fair weather; cars use the roadway 24/7. She reiterated
her concern about safety with the addition of add bike lanes, relaying her understanding the bike lanes
were more of a touristy thing. Ms. Reid answered the bike lanes would likely be used to reach
destinations rather than as a thoroughfare.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 28, 2023
Page 14
Councilmember Buckshnis reiterated it would be interesting to know how many people bike on Highway
99. Mr. English commented new developments occurring on Highway 99 include mixed use that include
multiple floors of housing. Bike lanes on Highway 99 would allow those residents to connect to the
Interurban Trail. As Ms. Reid said, bike lanes provide a connection to businesses and future development
along Highway 99. Councilmember Buckshnis commented there are no bike lanes on Highway 99 in
Shoreline or Everett or in between. Mr. English explained this is a recent change, filtering through
WSDOT due to the legislation change last year. WSDOT has funding planned for overlay work on
Highway 99 from Edmonds into Everett. WSDOT’s own design teams are looking at options for
complying with Complete Streets and there may be some meshing of Edmonds’ project with WSDOT’s
project. This will be the future of what Highway 99 will look like as more improvements are made.
Councilmember Nand commented she grew up in this neighborhood and has ridden her bike on Hwy 99
since she was 12 years old and still does when the weather is good. When she rides in Seattle, Shoreline
and Lynnwood, the Interurban Trail is better delineated and marked; bike riders and pedestrian in the
Edmonds’ section of the Interurban Trail often get confused and lose the Interurban Trail trying to get
from 76th down to 220th and under the roadway. She suggested the revitalization include more and better
signage. Lynnwood has public art on the utility cabinets along the Interurban Trail to identify the trail.
There are a lot more children on bikes in Mountlake Terrace and Shoreline especially going to Lake
Ballinger and on Meridian Avenue and she assumed there was a perception by parents that those well
used bike corridors were safer for children to bike on than in Edmonds. She was excited to see these
safety measures implemented.
Councilmember Nand said she often sees children biking on sidewalks instead of in dedicated bike lanes,
because it is intimidating for parents to let their children bike next to cars and because some adult cyclists
can be very aggressive and ride very fast. There can be conflicts between bike riders going fast and
pedestrians and slower bike riders so preserving sidewalk widths for pedestrians, slower bike riders and
children is very important. She was excited Edmonds was putting in time and effort so parents will think
it is as safe for children to bike in Edmonds as it is in Mountlake Terrace and Shoreline. Bike riding
impacts so many aspects such as childhood obesity, mental health, time away from screens, etc. and
coincides with the council’s policies about improving the community’s livability.
Councilmember Nand agreed with the difficulty reaching Highway 99 from the Interurban Trail on 220th.
She suggested giving consideration to gradation, a detour, zig zap, etc. to make it easier for bike
commuters to make that connection. She asked if the BAT lanes were for the exclusive use of public
transit and if single occupancy vehicles were not allowed. Ms. Reid answered yes, they will be signed the
same as they are today. There has been discussion about signing them the way they are in Lynnwood
which allows bicycles. Councilmember Nand commented those are very confusing to motorists in
downtown Seattle and the U-District and signage will be important to avoid conflict between transit and
motorists.
Councilmember Nand asked if wildlife crossings had been contemplated, anticipating the under-crossing
would be a good opportunity. If people cannot slow for animals, they cannot slow for a child or a person
with a disability who wanders into the roadway. Ms. Reid answered ecological connections are not
typically considered in an urban area, but she could see it on the Interurban Trail. The challenge is getting
animals to and through the crossing. It is similar to a fish culvert, the tunnel would need to be widened to
get wildlife to use it which would be a considerable cost. It could be considered in the future, but it was
not feasible as part of this project.
Councilmember Nand asked how long the construction-related lane reductions in Edmonds’ portion of
Highway 99 will continue. Mr. English anticipated construction will continue into early May. The paving
window opens April 1; WSDOT will allow installation of the final wearing course on Highway 99 which
will be followed by striping and pavement markings. Councilmember Nand commented thankfully the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 28, 2023
Page 15
construction has not affected access to small businesses. Some small businesses in Shoreline went out of
business due to how long construction took and the difficulty for customers to access their businesses and
she did not wat that to happen in Edmonds. She summarized this was an incredible improvement in the
community’s quality of life, especially in getting young people to adopt multimodal transportation when
they are in elementary school.
Councilmember Paine commented this was an exciting project. She asked about the reduction in the speed
limit to 40 mph. Mr. Hauss advised a memo was submitted to WSDOT with support from Lynnwood to
reduce the speed limit from 244th to 210th; staff is waiting for WSDOT to respond, hopefully in the next
few weeks or month.
Councilmember Paine asked whether these changes were required due to WSDOT implementing
Complete Streets. Ms. Reid answered it was part of the Move Ahead legislation passed in 2022; roads of
this size are required to look at Complete Streets. To not incorporate Complete Streets, a roadway would
have to have a design deviation which would be difficult to get for a project like this. There has been
some confusion about whether it has to be a WSDOT project to apply or whether it applies to all cities;
the way the legislation is written, she believed it applied to all roads.
Councilmember Paine expressed her support for the lower diagram for Highway 99 that includes
separated/protected bike lanes. She asked if the City’s own Complete Streets ordinance applied on the
cross streets of 220th and 238th. Ms. Reid answered yes, the connection at the 238th intersection will
connect with the planned bike route there that leads to 84th. Councilmember Paine asked if that includes
sharrows. Ms. Reid answered it is either a 12’ separated lane sidewalk height or 5’ bike lane.
Councilmember Paine asked the standard for bike lanes for Edmonds’ Complete Streets. Ms. Reid
answered there is no standard stated, only that the City will follow Complete Streets. Mr. English referred
to Section 18.80.015, the Complete Streets ordinance that indicates the City will identify ways to
incorporate modes of travel or transportation for all users. The bike lane standard is 5’; bike lanes can be
wider, the minimum is 4’. Councilmember Paine commented she was excited to see this coming together
and may even ride her bike again. She was glad the City was benefitting from the new legislation.
Councilmember Teitzel found this an exciting project and was pleased to see separation for the bike lanes
which provides a safer option; safety is his paramount concern. He asked the cost to add bike lanes to the
project. Ms. Reid answered the roadway is the same width with and without bike lanes; the cost
difference is about $0-$50,000 per project. Councilmember Teitzel asked if that was true even with the
protected median. Ms. Reid referred to Slide 6, pointing out the right-of-way width is the same.
Councilmember Teitzel asked if SB 5974 mandated bike lanes on state highways. Ms. Reid answered no,
SB 5974 required Complete Streets. There are caveats that it has to be a missing link; not every road has
to have bike and pedestrian lanes. It states a state route in an urban environment should consider
implementation and there is a category of things to implement including a public process to ensure the
right facilities are built.
Councilmember Teitzel referred to the recommendations and options, commenting they are driven in part
by the effects on LOS. The council will soon consider another concept, multimodal level of service
(MMLOS). He asked if use of that measurement would change the recommendation. Ms. Reid answered
no, multimodal looks at level of traffic stress (LTS), the stress on pedestrian or bikes of using a facility.
The highest stress is a sharrow lane, followed by a bike lane, then a separated bike lane, and then a grade
separated bike lane. LTS 1, the best, is separated from the roadway with a planting strip and at a different
elevation. Mr. English commented if the City adopts a MMLOS, as the City collects impact fees in the
future for new development, impact fees could be used to fund a portion of the bike lane. Under the
current LOS measurement, impact fees can only be used for intersection improvements.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 28, 2023
Page 16
Councilmember Chen commented it was very exciting to see this project and staff was doing a wonderful
job adapting this top down model. He was glad to see the Complete Streets concept being implemented,
noting he has personally realized many American dreams and this is about to be one more realized. He
has biked on Highway 99 by cutting through parking lots, riding on sidewalks, etc. and it is very
dangerous. Connecting the Interurban Trail at 224th to 76th and across Highway 99 is very crucial because
it connects 76th to 220th and into downtown Edmonds. He suggest making that happen in a future project.
Even though it is called Highway 99, it is no longer a highway, it will just be a bigger street with
businesses, residences, and recreational activities. He applauded the effort and was excited to see it
coming together.
Councilmember Olson thanked the team for the hard work that is reflected in the presentation,
commenting it was obvious a lot had come together over several months. She was thrilled with the cross-
sections on Highway 99 and wanted the record to reflect that the Edmonds Bicycle Advocacy Group and
she were on the same page and 100% thrilled with this design. Having bike lanes separated from the street
by a buffer made the bike lanes much safer and she anticipated people of all ages would use the bike lane.
People live on Highway 99 and bike lanes allow them to reach other destinations such as the building
their friend lives in on Highway 99.
Councilmember Olson continued, a lot of time and effort went into this design which includes adding
high medians, crosswalks, and improving crosswalks and she did not love the idea of purposely designing
for lower speeds. To the extent that higher medians and other aspects improve safety, vehicles could still
drive 45 mph. She would love to be able to drive as fast as drivers can safely drive on Highway 99 and
every street in Edmonds. She noted in the cross sections in the packet, the right-of-way widths are same
except for the slide for 220th and 238th. Ms. Reid agreed some adjustments have been made.
Councilmember Olson asked about the recommendation on 238th. Ms. Reid advised the recommendation
for 238th is 5’ bike lanes on both sides. Mr. English advised that was a change made to tonight’s
presentation; at the time the presentation was included in the packet, that conclusion had not yet been
reached.
Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess.
2. DISCUSSION OF 2044 POPULATION AND HOUSING GROWTH TARGETS AND HB
1220 REQUIREMENTS
Planning Manager David Levitan explained this an important concept that will help shape future planning
for Edmonds. He reviewed:
• Overview of Growth Targets
o Assigned to counties based on state projections
o Allocated to cities following collaborative process facilitated by Snohomish County
Tomorrow (SCT)
o Updated in advance of each comprehensive plan periodic update for 20-yar planning horizon
(last update was for year 2035
o Provide foundation for land use, housing and employment assumptions in comprehensive
plan
• 2044 population growth targets
o Adopted by Snohomish County in February 2022
o Based on recommendation from SCT Steering Committee
o City’s 2044 target is 55,966 people by 2044 which is:
A 13,113 person increase over its 2020 population (42,853)
A 10,416 person increase over its 2035 growth target (45,550)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 28, 2023
Page 17
o 2044 growth target saw a significant increase following Edmonds’ designation as a high
capacity transit (HCT) community in Vision 2050
o On a percentage basis, Edmonds’ projected population increase is about half that of
Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace
• Supply (BLR) vs Demand (Growth Targets)
o Buildable Lands Report (BLR) estimates future population capacity (supply) based on 2020
zoning (city has one recent rezone)
o 2021 BLR was adopted by county council in September 2021
o 2021 BLR showed that City’s population capacity was 51,663 people, which is:
A 6,113-person surplus compared to 2035 growth target (45,550)
A 4,303 person deficit compared to 2044 growth target (55,966)
Only ~ 10% of current zoned capacity is in RS zones; ~ 55% is in CG zones
o 2024 comprehensive plan update will need to identify zoning changes to close this gap as
well as comply with HB 1220
• HB 1220 and Allocations by Income level
o HB 1220 was passed by state legislation in 2021
o Amended GMA to strengthen language to require jurisdictions to “plan and accommodate”
for housing affordable to all income levels, including housing unit types affordable at each
income level (0-30%, 30-50%, 50-80%, 80-100% and market rate)
o Projected housing needs at different income levels are developed by Commerce and allocated
to counties
o Counties have different options for how to allocate that growth to individual cities and
incorporated areas
o That process is concluding, with SCT Steering Community scheduled to make
recommendation to County Council later this spring
• Allocating units by income level
o Based on updated Commerce projections and calculated persons per household, City is
projected to need 9,068 more housing units between 2020 and 2044
o Commerce has developed two models for allocating units by income level
o Method A: new production only
Same share of new housing growth at each income level assigned to each jurisdiction,
based on population size
o Method B: “Fair Share Allocation”
Same share of overall 2044 total housing supply at each income level assigned to each
jurisdiction
o As there was no strong majority for either Method A or B, the Snohomish County developed
a third hybrid approach (Method C) which builds off Method A but gives jurisdictions
“credit” for their existing affordable housing supply
• Allocation Method differences in Edmonds
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 28, 2023
Page 18
o Method A shows about 41% of projected need at 100% Area median Income (AMI) or above
o Methods B and C end up being fairly similar due to city’s lack of housing supply affordable
at lower income levels and show ~3% of projected need at 100% AMI or above and doubles
need at 30-100% AMI
o Will impact development assumptions and needed housing unit types in comprehensive plan
and implementing ordinances; City will need to plan for more MFR and middle housing
• Working Group recommendation and next steps
o HO-5 Report working group met on March 9 and voted to recommend Method C to SCT
Planning Advisory Committee (PAC); several cities including Edmonds abstained
o PAC will make recommendation to SCT Steering Committee on April 13, and Steering
Committee will then make recommendation to County Council for potential adoption
o City will incorporate adopted methodology into its Comp Plan update to ensure compliance
with growth targets and HB 1220
Councilmember Olson commented she represents the City at SCT, and she heard about HB 1220 for the
first time at last week’s SCT meeting. She was disappointed to read that Edmonds had abstained from the
vote because the representative did not have direction. That would not have been the case if council had
been informed of this and she wished council had had the opportunity to give direction to the voting
member. Mr. Levitan advised the vote by the working group was supposed to occur March 30. His plan
was to present this to the city council before that vote occurred. It was a 7-0 vote with 3-4 abstentions so
even if the abstentions voted no, it would have been a 7-4 vote. Basically the southwest Snohomish
County cities are in a similar situation with regard to impacts and did not realize the vote would occur on
March 9. Discussion will still occur at several levels including the planning advisory committee (planning
directors and city managers) and Steering Committee (elected officials) before a recommendation is
forwarded to the County Council. Councilmember Olson thanked Mr. Levitan for explaining the
timeframe, relaying her hope that now that the council has had further discussion, the groups can be
apprised that the council has a preference so the decision does not look so overwhelmingly in favor of
Method C.
Councilmember Buckshnis requested Mr. Levitan send the council the PowerPoint and the source data.
Mr. Levitan agreed, commenting the HO-5 Report, housing policy 5 in the Countywide Planning Policies,
is a very good resource. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was on the SCT when those policies were
created. She was glad SEPA will be required, noting Puget Sound Regional Council and Puget Sound
Partnership and Puget Sound Recovery Council do not mesh housing with the environment. She asked for
clarification regarding the statement in the agenda memo, “The city will be issuing a scoping notice under
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 28, 2023
Page 19
the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and will be required to analyze/assess several growth
alternatives for meeting its population and employment growth targets.” Mr. Levitan answered the
scoping notice he referenced was related to the City’s comprehensive plan, not this project. Staff plans to
hold off issuing the scoping notice until there is a better assessment of the City’s housing units and
allocation needs. The plan is to do a scoping notice and potentially a determination of significance under
SEPA which will drive the EIS process for the comprehensive plan as far as what is analyzed. That will
be a major component of the scoping notice because there will be different housing types depending on
the project housing allocation.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out there are 1000 units coming on board in the next few years; she
asked if that will be considering in determining future units. Mr. Levitan answered yes, as part of
planning for the comprehensive plan and the background analysis for the comprehensive plan. An
updated RFP is being prepared; there was limited response to the original RFP. Edmonds, like a number
of other cities, is having difficulty finding a qualified consultant which has impacted development of a
work plan. A 2018 housing needs study, prepared by BERK Consulting in advance of the housing
commission’s recommendations, will be updated as well as an analysis done of how the City is doing in
relation to the analysis with the BLR completed in 2019-2020. A number of units have been completed
since then so a more accurate understanding of the supply versus the demand will be necessary.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested tapping into the Affordable Housing Alliance (AHA) who have
done work for the City with regard to demographics, housing, etc. These targets are projections based on
the global aspect of what is happening in Seattle. Mr. Levitan agreed these are projections and are done at
the four county level based on a regional growth concept. Percentages are allocated to the central city
which is Everett in Snohomish County and percentages assigned to the core cities, Lynnwood and the
Snohomish County portion of Bothell, and Edmonds as an HTC city gets a similar allocation. The
proximity to light rail is factored in which is why Mountlake Terrace’s numbers are higher. HB 1220
requires planning and accommodating, not a guarantee that all the units will be built. Cities cannot have
goals and policies that would preclude development of housing to meet the needs across all different
income levels.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she asked City staff to look into the HTC designation because in her
opinion Sounder and the multimodal station is not really HCT, the ferry is mostly commerce and there is
no east-west connection. She suggested separating Edmonds as HTC near Highway 99 and not HTC in
the bowl. She found it unfortunate that Edmonds is designated HTC when there is no east-west
connection, Sounder has been reduced to two trains and transit ridership is down since the pandemic.
In response to Councilmember Buckshnis’ comment, Councilmember Nand said the ferry terminal
downtown makes Edmonds very transit rich east-west. She is the City’s AHA liaison; Chris Collier,
HASCO, reminded cities that they are paying for him and his expertise and he is happy to advise on
comprehensive plan updates. He cited Edmonds’ incredible high median house prices as an example
during a recent meeting.
Councilmember Nand said she did not have a lot of faith in the calculation of AMI to create actual
affordable housing because of the incredibly high incomes in Snohomish County, particularly in south
Snohomish County which throws off the medians to the point where even 60-80% AMI is out of the reach
of anyone earning anything close to minimum wage; AMI in Snohomish County is approximately
$80,000/year. If the goal is to create a stock of affordable housing, cities need to be more direct and look
at concepts like income restricted buildings. In California, some government entities are entering the real
estate market as market participants and school districts are acknowledging the value of teachers living in
the community where they teach but acknowledge they cannot pay civil servants enough to compete with
private sector employees in communities around Palo Alto and Silicon Valley. School districts in those
areas are buying buildings or developing buildings on land they own to provide housing for their
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 28, 2023
Page 20
employees. She asked if those options could be explored; perhaps Edmonds School District would be
interested. She recalled a former Lynnwood mayor wanted to purchase property to house homeless
families in the Edmonds School District. Creating actual affordable housing will have to be more direct
than what many of the state-level plans contemplate.
Councilmember Nand asked how DADUs and ADUs affect the calculation of affordable housing under
Methods A, B, and C. Mr. Levitan answered under current state law DADUs and ADUs cannot be
factored in to the calculation for meeting housing unit needs. There has been some discussion about
changing that and legislation has been proposed. That is something the City can assess, but it will not be
the primarily tool for meeting the City’s housing needs. That doesn’t mean they should not be pursued
from a general affordability component, but specifically for HB 1220 compliance, that would not be a tool
that could be used. HB 1220 requires cities identify a wide variety of different tools that could include
employer based programs to provide affordable housing for their employees, income restricted zoning
ordinances, requiring a percentage of affordable housing for projects of a certain size (inclusionary
zoning), etc. HB 1220 requires cities think of ways to solve this issue, to create programs and policies to
allow the city to meet their housing needs. There are a lot of different ways to comply with HB 1220 such
as considering the CHC’s recommendations, working with AHA, holding community forums to gather
input on specific programs the City should pursue, etc.
Councilmember Chen commented although 9,000 units by 2044 is an estimate, the direction is clear, the
population is growing and the City needs to get ready. If the City wants to add 7,000-9,000 by 2044, they
need to be added throughout the City and not in just one area. Highway 99 is not able to accommodate
that entire population increase due to the lack of parks, recreation, green space and infrastructure. He
looked forward to the planning department developing thoughtful and workable solutions. Mr. Levitan
said if HB 1110 in some iteration passes, it would significant alter the City’s housing capacity and require
that the BLR be rerun. If HB 1110 allows up to 3 units per lot for cities like Edmonds with population of
23,000-75,000 within a continuous UGA of Seattle, it would significant expand the projected housing
capacity and largely address this issue. The legislative session ends in a few weeks which will answer
those questions. Edmonds is slightly behind some other cities in its comprehensive plan update, but HB
1110 may require those cities to redo their housing numbers. HB 1110 will require the development code
update to occur within a certain period of the periodic comprehensive plan update which is the end of
2024.
Councilmember Paine thanked Mr. Levitan for the fascinating report and the links. She asked if the
definition of affordable for Edmonds included MFTE properties. Mr. Levitan answered it would include
all properties, but 0-30% AMI is primarily subsidized housing. Councilmember Paine observed 50% AMI
or below is about half of what Edmonds would be expected to accommodate under Methods A, B or C.
Mr. Levitan agreed, noting there is more in 30-50% under Methods B and C and non-permanent and
permanent supportive housing are similar regardless of the methodology. When shifting from Method A
to B or C, requirements move to the lower income levels. He pointed out AMI is done at the countywide
level; the average income in Edmonds is different than Granite Falls or Darrington which is reflected in
HB 1220 compliance. For example, it may be possible to provide a relatively large home in Granite Falls
at 100% AMI, but that is equal to a one bedroom condo in Edmonds. Further analysis will be required;
the comprehensive plan will be the opportunity to get into those details.
Councilmember Paine commented it would be interesting to see the City’s current level of 30% non PSH
and 30% PSH. Mr. Levitan referred to the graph of draft 2020-2044 Housing Allocations by Income, City
of Edmonds, pointing out the 0-30% non-PSH is already above 1500 units which indicates Edmonds has
very little which is why the projected need even under Method A is so high.
Councilmember Paine said she will need to review HB 1220 more closely and observed the requirements
will be built into the comprehensive plan. Mr. Levitan agreed compliance with HB 1220 will be a major
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 28, 2023
Page 21
part of the housing element, even more than the legislation that is currently proposed because HB 1220
amended the GMA. Councilmember Paine said she had heard about HB 1220, but did not grasp all the
details. She asked if the council would see this again or would it just be included in the comprehensive
plan update. Mr. Levitan answered once the County Council provides a recommendation on the income
allocations as well as legislation adopted during the current session, staff will utilize the planning board as
well as come to the council with intermediate touchpoints.
Councilmember Teitzel complimented Mr. Levitan, he has been with the City a very short time and he
admired the grasp he had of these complicated issues and he did a great job of presenting information in
an understandable manner. Whether DADUs are eventually implemented by the City or they are state
mandated, he was disappointed they could not be counted toward affordable housing targets. In his
opinion if someone wanted to build a small DADU such as 700 square feet and rent it to someone earning
30% AMI, that is exactly what the City should support. In addition, it was his understanding with the bills
currently being considered by the legislature, especially the lot splitting bit, if someone built a DADU in
their backyard and split their lot and the DADU is on half the lot, it would count toward affordable
housing targets. In his opinion it did not make sense that DADUs could not be counted toward affordable
housing targets. He was hopeful there would be an amendment before the bills were approved this session
to allow DADUs to be counted. That desire has been expressed to Mr. Tatum and the City’s lobbyist and
other cities have expressed the same concern. Mr. Levitan offered to research whether there had been any
amendments. As it relates to density, DADUs cannot be counted because they are considered accessory to
the primary residential use on the property. When the property is split, it becomes the primary residential
unit.
Council President Tibbott echoed Councilmember Teitzel’s concerns. If there are ever incentives for
ADUs or DADUs, they will need to count toward meeting the City’s housing targets because if not, there
is no reason for the City to encourage them. He agree housing in Edmonds at 30% AMI will require a
subsidy. He asked the source of those subsidies. Mr. Levitan answered the comprehensive plan goals and
policies will need to identify potential partnerships, programs to pursue grant funding, tax credits, etc. HB
1220 requires the comprehensive plan identify strategies for the potential production of those units.
Council President Tibbott said he was skeptical and had no idea how the state would subsidize that much
housing.
Council President Tibbott commented it was very unlikely that a duplex or triplex on a single family
residential lot in Edmonds would be less than 80% AMI and he was skeptical even the requirements in
HB 1110 could meet the lower income housing requirements in Edmonds. To be successful, one needed
to believe it was possible, and he did not believe it was possible. Mr. Levitan agreed it will need to be
analyzed; HB 1110 is not directly related to HB 1220. Only HB 1220 is effective now, but if HB 1110 is
passed, it will have an impact on the City’s capacity to meet the affordability requirements as far as unit
allocations. He agreed there duplexes would be far and above affordable even at 120% AMI.
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT,
TO EXTEND FOR 15 MINUTES.
Councilmember Olson said the extension should be 30 minutes as there was still another agenda item. She
did not support the motion.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN,
BUCKSHNIS, AND NAND AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBERS OLSON AND PAINE VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT, TO
ASK FOR ALLOCATION METHOD A BECAUSE IT IS A SMALLER IMPOSSIBLE NUMBER.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 28, 2023
Page 22
Councilmember Paine said she preferred to spend time with the information and to have Mr. Collier
(HASCO) talk to the Council about the allocations, recalling he made a presentation to the council in the
past. Before the council selects Method A, she wanted to have further discussion to determine what each
method look likes for Edmonds.
Councilmember Nand appreciated Councilmember Olson’s desire to limit the City’s burden, but did not
understand why the City would vary from the method that seemed to be pursued by Snohomish County,
Method C which includes the existing supply in the calculation for the amount of affordable housing. Mr.
Levitan clarified Method C is built off Method A but varies significantly based on the existing housing
supply. Edmonds does not have a large affordable housing supply which is the reason Edmonds’ Method
C is more similar to Method B than Method A. A city in NE Snohomish County that has a significant
supply of affordable housing 0-40% AMI, their Method A and Method C would be more similar because
they get credit for their affordable housing supply. Edmonds does not get credit for affordable housing
supply because the City does not have much affordable housing. The fundamental difference between
Methods A and B is Method A is an equal allocation of new growth and B is an equal allocation of total
housing supply in 2044. For cities that have a lot more housing supply at 0-80% AMI, their Method C
would be more similar to Method A because they start with new growth and get credit for lower income
levels and their housing supply shifts toward market rate housing because they get credit for below
market rate housing whereas the opposite occurs in Edmonds because the City does not have an
affordable housing supply and housing shifts toward a lower AMI under Method C.
Councilmember Nand pushed back on the black box perception that when someone buys a property, it is
occupied by one nuclear family. She is a millennial and when people in her generation buy property,
especially in the Edmonds area, they usually rent out a portion of it. That is lost by focusing on the new
production and the black box assumption that one house has one family. That is not her lived experience
as a millennial; due to the incredibly hot real estate market, homeowners think in terms of multifamily
even with homes designed as traditional single family dwellings. She was hopeful by not limiting the City
to Method A, there could be a more nuanced view of how housing is being used. Mr. Levitan answered
this is a countywide planning effort so the methodology is consistent across all jurisdictions and it is
difficult to have an individualized approach. There will be cities who are happy with each of the methods.
For example in Lake Stevens, the distributions were much more similar. He offered to provide the charts
for each city in the HO5 Report to illustrate the variation between jurisdictions. He understood
Councilmember Nand’s point about nuances and changing housing trends; those will be considered in the
comprehensive plan.
Councilmember Chen commented there are too many moving parts with HB 1110 that is still under
consideration as well as Councilmember Nand’s point about houses accommodating two families. Once
those moving parts settle, the City may find another method more advantageous. He did not want to make
a decision regarding the method at this point and preferred to study it for a short time. Mr. Levitan
advised the PAC, which includes Planning & Development Director Susan McLaughlin, will make their
recommendation to the Steering Committee on April 13, the Steering Committee will consider it and
make a recommendation to the County Council so there is still opportunity for councilmembers to do
additional research and discuss it again.
Councilmember Olson said the reason for voting now is to register the City’s preference with Snohomish
County. Edmonds is one vote out of many and it may not affect the end result. It will be a challenge for
the City to meet the allocation even utilizing Method A. The land in Edmonds is very expensive which is
why there has not been a lot of affordable housing built. That will not change and it will continue to be a
challenge. Edmonds needs to do its part, but Method A is much more than the City has ever had. She
recommended councilmembers vote in favor of the motion.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 28, 2023
Page 23
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT AND
COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS
TEITZEL, CHEN, PAINE AND NAND VOTING NO.
3. WSDOT/CITY OF EDMONDS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
COUNCIL PRESIDENT TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
POSTPONE THE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE MOU.
Mayor Nelson voiced his disappointment that the director sat through the council meeting only to hear at
10:09 p.m. that the council would not be discussing this item.
Council President Tibbott said over the past week, the council has heard comments for and against the
MOU and a number of questions have been raised. The discussion is valuable but could take another 20-
40 minutes. He requested councilmembers forward their questions to the appropriate staff person and this
agenda item brought back to the council as soon as possible for deliberation.
Councilmember Paine did not support the motion and preferred the council discuss the MOU now. She
had no problem with the MOU; this is a chance in a lifetime and the information in the packet is very
clear. A lot of the council have already seen the purchase and sale agreement with Unocal and WSDOT.
Approval of the MOU is a way to advance a cause that everyone supports and delaying it doesn’t make
sense. All the options are laid out in the MOU and it keeps the ball in the City’s court. This is the first
time in over five years that the council has a chance to do something and she was concerned with
delaying it. If the motion passed, she requested a date certain not later than April 18. She was very
disappointed the council wanted to delay this item.
Councilmember Teitzel relayed his understanding that the City has a right of first refusal on the purchase
of the Unocal property and asked if that expires soon. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered it expires at
the end of the biennium, June 30th. Councilmember Teitzel observed if the council did not approve the
MOU tonight, it does not affect the expiration of the right of first refusal. Mr. Taraday answered it does
not.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for the motion, noting Councilmember Paine obviously
does not hear from some of the people she hears from. The City has a right of first refusal in the state
biennium budget which she provided council. This MOU requires a very detailed discussion and she has
submitted numerous questions to staff. There is a Department of Ecology cleanup and public hearing
scheduled in July. She suggested everyone take a breather and read all the documents so they know what
they are voting on.
Councilmember Nand apologized to Director Tatum. The crux of the confusion seems to be related to
Provision 2.3 and Provision 4.3, the previous valuation of $8.1M versus the guarantee that the City will
pay fair market value regardless of what WSDOT determines that to be in the future. If the conflict
between those provisions could be satisfied, she anticipated that would settle a lot of the concern. The
MOU has a much better chance of passing if the council’s and community’s questions regarding these
two provisions as well as how the right of first refusal binds the City to pay fair market value could be
resolved.
Councilmember Paine commented she is well aware there is a proviso, but this is different than a proviso;
it lays out the path the City will take. She took personal offense at Councilmember Buckshnis’ comment.
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 28, 2023
Page 24
12 ADJOURN
The council meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
____
SCOTT PASSEY, CITY CLERK