Eyeing impact on neighborhoods, city council considers five Edmonds housing recommendations

At the end of Thursday’s study session on housing, Edmonds city councilmembers recognized the work of Development Services Director Shane Hope (top row-right) who is retiring July 1.

Five members of the Edmonds City Council got to work Thursday afternoon, reviewing five of 20 recommendations made earlier this year by the city’s Citizens Housing Commission. One takeaway during the two-hour work session: The idea of focusing first on the city’s individual neighborhoods and how they might be impacted by proposed recommendations, rather than considering blanket approval of them to be applied citywide.

Two councilmembers — Adrienne Fraley-Monillas and Laura Johnson — were absent from Thursday’s work session, and were excused due to scheduling conflicts, Council President Susan Paine said.

The meeting got off to tense start when Councilmmember Kristiana Johnson proposed two amendments to the agenda: first, to allow for audience comments — which are not traditionally part of a council work session — and second, to include time for councilmembers to share their overall vision of how the city should be addresssing the recommendations.

Paine said she opposed those ideas, stating that the meeting “was intended so we could have some discussion amongst ourselves about these five topics.” She also noted that the study session was “visible, we’re not making any decisions here. So I would encourage others to honor the original agenda…so we can get this meeting started.” In addition, with two councilmembers absent, any overview about the council’s vision for the process “would be an incomplete discussion,” Paine said.

“I think this is just a study session. We aren’t taking any action,” Councilmember Luke Distelhorst added. “This is to learn more about these five recommendations and then that’s it.”

In supporting Johnson’s motion, Councilmember Vivian Olson said that when it comes to housing discussions, the public has demanded participation and transparency. “I think the optics weren’t great that we didn’t include audience comments in the first place,” Olson said, “and I do think that having more of a vision statement and more of an overview of what we’re trying to achieve with the policy recommendations would help guide us.”

Councilmember Diane Buckshnis questioned how the council decided on the five items for consideration. Councilmembers Paine and Distelhorst pointed out that the council came to consensus about the five policy recommendations during its June 1 meeting. (Read more about that in our June 2 council meeting report here.) Buckshnis noted that one of the items prioritized during that June 1 discussion — neighborhood village subarea planning — didn’t make it into the Thursday agenda. That particular recommendation focused on developing subarea plans to rethink areas zoned “Business Neighborhood” such as Five Corners and Perrinville. The subarea plans, the housing commission said, should create unique, thriving neighborhoods and social gathering points with the surrounding properties to integrate community values including missing middle housing, business opportunity and environmental stewardship in these areas.

Johnson’s motion to add audience comments (reduced from usual three-minute time limit to two minutes) and a council overview discussion of 10 minutes was approved on a 3-2 vote, with Councilmembers Paine and Distelhorst voting against.

There had been concerns among some councilmembers and City Attorney Jeff Taraday (who weighed in during the meeting) that with 32 members of the public watching the Zoom broadcast, audience comments could take away time allocated for the two-hour study session. In the end, only four people chose to comment, although some of them noted that they weren’t prepared to say much since the public had been told such comments wouldn’t be allowed.

“I’m very disappointed with how this has all rolled out,” resident Kathleen Rapp said of the housing commission recommendations. “We need a vision for the city and the vision should be what the citizens want. Not what the developers want, not what the policitians want.” Rapp also said she believed that any discussion about these issues should begin in 2022, after this year’s city council election season.

“I would like to encourage you to step back, relook, make sure we know where we are going as a city,” said commenter Jim Ogonowski, an Edmonds resident who also served on the housing commission. “All the policies should be linked toward — in my words — a vision for the city. I haven’t seen us develop one yet and until we do, these policies are ad hoc and don’t link into how you want to plan for the city.”

Stating she wasn’t prepared to comment, Edmonds resident Kathy Ryan noted that “perhaps a lot of people that would have attended this meeting were told that they would not be able to make comments and so are probably going to listen to the recording of it later. I think you’ve limited the opportunities for people to provide you with the comments that you’ve now decided you want to hear.”

Resident Elizabeth Fleming said she has lived in Edmonds for 12 years and noted the any decisions about development will impact the environment. “Edmonds is such a unique area from an environmental standpoint for the Puget Sound (and) that needs to be really heavily reviewed and discussed at depth and at a scientific level,” Fleming said. “I would hope that this council would take time…to make sure we are making the right decisions for our environment, as well as the people who live in Edmonds who are clearly voicing their opinions and concerns about the proposals.”

After listening to the four comments, councilmembers then began sharing their vision for next steps in developing a housing policy for Edmonds.

“I believe that each of our individual neighborhoods are important to…people living in them, ” Buckshnis said. “I think we should be very conscientious as to how we plan to up-zone, if we do. I also believe that there should be transition zones if, in fact, we do decide to do any type of up-zoning.” Each of the city’s subareas and their particular housing needs should be reviewed in detail before any decisions are made, Buckshnis said, adding that any decisions about zoning changes should be pushed out until 2022 “because I think we should be talking more globally about a vision for the city.”

“Even the low-hanging fruit need context of that holistic subarea plan,” Olson said. “Looking at the environment and looking at transportation, and looking at the slope and what happens to the water — all of those things taken together for each of those subareas is what is going to dictate what makes sense in terms of the changes that we make for housing.” That said, Olson — who was one of two councilmembers (Distelhorst was the other) who served as council liaisons to the housing commission — stressed it’s unavoidable that all Puget Sound communities, including Edmonds, will experience increased density in the years to come. “There’s going to be so many more people living here; the projections for that are really significant,” she said. “Whether or not we want some population increase, we’re going to have some population increase.” She also pointed out that the average house size has grown in a 50-year period from 1,600 square feet to 3,100 square feet. “I’m not telling anyone you shouldn’t live in a big house if you want to,” Olson said. “But I’m telling you maybe environmentally we should offer and have in our housing inventory some things that are smaller,” including townhomes and cottage housing.

Distelhorst said he agreed with Olson, adding that according to a new report, Puget Sound is the fastest-growing metro region in the U.S. “If you don’t plan, you end up with failure for sure,” he said. “Throughout this and when we were looking to have the study session, I kind of go back to the the actual mission of the housing commission,” noting that mission was created by the former council that included Buckshnis and Kristiana Johnson and under previous Mayor Dave Earling: “And that is to develop, for council consideration, diverse housing policy options designed to expand the range of housing —  including rental and owned — in Edmonds.” The housing commission recommendations, Distelhorst added, include many options “and I’m looking forward evaluating them as they are appropriate.”

Johnson said that while she appreciates the work of the housing commissioners, “they had a very narrow task — to come up with recommendations, which they did. I do not see that 15 housing recommendations as a to-do list for this city council. I don’t think we should just do low-hanging fruit; I think there should be context.” Current housing numbers show that “we’re on track for meeting our growth management goals, so what is the problem that we are trying to fix?” Johnson asked. “There are market forces that are driving development. You maximize the square footage to reach a gain if you are a developer.” Johnson said her vision is  “that we would look at sections of the city, maybe the subareas, maybe the activity areas. and look at housing, environment, transportation, do maybe an EIS (environmental impact statement). I’m opposed to doing global things throughout the whole city. My goal is to retain the charm of the city and the integrity of the neighborhoods with the least impact to the trees and traffic,” she said.

“We have some great neighborhoods and they should have some say-so in what’s going on,” Paine said, adding that “I don’t have as much worry about the process. I would like to see some of the things go over to the (Edmonds) Planning Board and have them do the analysis. They will also have opportunities to get feedback from the public, do the studies, get the information and then that body of work can be passed off to council, and we can decide on what to do with that information — or not.” It would be helpful, Paine said, for the broader community to have these discussions, including some specifics about what any changes could look like, if implemented. “I don’t want to have anybody’s sense of voice being taken away,” she added.

Then Paine invited Development Services Director Shane Hope to move into a presentation about the five identified items, with council discussion of each. Hope also described how each recommendation relates to Edmonds’ state-required Comprehensive Plan, which is used to guide growth in the city, and the type of public outreach the city would conduct in further exploring the recommendation (in general this was a uniform process of public meetings, online information and media announcements). And she summarized the types of things the planning board would look at when evaluating each recommendation.

Here’s a summary of the discussion for each item:

Options for allowing detached accessory dwelling units (DADUs) including parking

Shane Hope, upper right, presents information about detached accessory dwelling units, including examples (DADU at left, main house at right) of how they appear in other communities.

Hope noted that the city currently allows accessory dwelling units (for example, a mother-in-law apartment) in all of the city’s zones, but requires them to be attached to the existing home. By design, a detached accessory dwelling unit (DADU) has to be limited in size when compared to the main house. A size of 800 square feet is common but each municipality that approves such structures sets its own rules, she said.

Councilmember Distelhorst said that nearly all jurisdictions surrounding Edmonds allow DADUs. He also said the housing commission’s support for this proposal was nearly unanimous (commissioners voting 13-2 to support) and that an accompanying citizen survey indicated more than 60% of those responding supported the concept.

Paine said she would like the planning board to look at the DADU recommendation and see how it would address potential environmental issues and footprint size.

Olson said she supports review of the proposal “but not until the subarea plans are done,” adding that DADUs “may not be appropriate” for some areas.

Johnson called the proposal to allow DADUs “an interesting and complex subject” but said it isn’t currently a priority for her to move forward. “I’m just not convinced it’s a good idea to have blanket DADUs across city,” she said. Buckshnis echoed Johnson’s comments, stating she was not interested in the proposal at this time.

Options for allowing cluster/cottage housing in some locations

Hope described these as small houses on small lots “but typically gathered around a larger common open space.” The housing commission recommended that this option be allowed within both single-family and multi-family zones.

The consensus on this proposal was that while there was interest in it, the majority of councilmembers didn’t support moving it forward at this time. Both Buckshnis and Johnson said they were intrigued by the idea, but Johnson said she was “lukewarm” on proceeding. Olson said she would like to consider after subarea planning is done. Distelhorst noted that housing commissioners supported the idea of cottage housing unanimously (15-0 vote) while Paine said it would be helpful to have design standards developed via the city’s architectural design and planning boards to see what they could look like.

Options for requiring design standards for multifamily development

This proposal drew a unanimous thumbs up from all councilmembers during Thursday’s meeting. It is aimed at enhancing current design standards of new multi-family dwellings, especially those with low- to middle income housing, to maintain and enhance the unique characteristics of Edmonds. Building types would include mixed-use buildings, small multi-family buildings and larger multi-family buildings.

“This is long overdue,” Buckshnis said. “I’m very much interested in having this move forward.”

Both Olson and Johnson said they “enthusiastically” supported moving this recommendation to the city’s architectural design and planning boards, and Paine agreed. Distelhorst added that this proposal also received a 15-0 vote of support from housing commissioners.

The last two items up for discussion Thursday were not ones that would be forwarded to the city’s planning board. They were:

Options for considering community and regional partnerships with the City

Hope explained that the council could consider partnership opportunities as they come up, similar to the interlocal agreement the council recently approved with the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO). “This could evolve over time as opportunities change,” she said.

Distelhorst expressed support for pursuing this idea, adding that housing commissioners also voted unanimously in favor of this option.

Buckshnis said she was “on the fence” about the idea, stating she would like to see how the HASCO agreement proceeds before considering further.

Olson noted that Edmonds is “built out” with very little land available, compared to nearby communities the city might develop agreements with. Another option could be for the city to partner with non-profit house-sharing agencies that work to pair those needing to rent with homeowners willing to rent space in their home, she suggested.

Pointing to past unsuccessful attempts by Edmonds Lutheran Church to build affordable housing and an Edmonds School District/City of Lynnwood effort to purchase a motel to house school district families in need, Johnson said she views such partnership opportunities as “a dead end.” These types of projects, Johnson said, “would take a tremendous amount of investment of staff time to coordinate with limited results.”

Paine, however, said she sees the proposal as “an opportunity to collabrate with partners including the school district or neighboring cities. “When you work together with a group you can actually amplify the outcomes here,” Paine said, citing her experience as a former Edmonds School Board member.

Options for addressing discriminatory deeds and covenants

This item also received unanimous support from councilmembers attending Thursday’s meeting. Hope explained that many properties in Edmonds and across the U.S. had restrictions based on race, religion and other factors. In 1948, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that such restrictions were unenforceable, but many were still in effect for years after the ruling — and numerous deeds still have discriminatory language in place.

If the council wanted to consider this recommendation, it would involve looking at the extent and impact of past practices and also review recent state laws that have been passed to address it. The council could also look at options for incentives, education or requirements to address discriminatory provisions, Hope said, and decide whether or how to take any action.

Shane Hope
Rob Chave

At the end of Thursday’s session, councilmembers recognized that it was the last time they would see Hope at a public meeting prior to her July 1 retirement. Each of them expressed their heartfelt appreciation for her seven years of service to Edmonds and wished her well.

“I’ve really appreciated your professionalism,” Johnson said. “Sometimes you’ve been in tight spots, but you never lose your cool.”

City Planning Manager Rob Chave will serve as interim development services director while a permanent director is hired. The recruiting process is underway, Hope noted.

The mayor will appoint a new director, which is subject to city council confirmation.

— By Teresa Wippel

  1. Special meetings are not allowed to take any actions. Adding to the agenda requires a vote, and that is an action. Ms Paine was clear she wanted it to be only a Council discussion and that was clear from the noticed agenda. They all seemed aware that action is not allowed. Tara day advised them not to take action. They did it anyway and took a vote. That is a clear violation of the open public meetings act. That is not legal. Each and every Council member present knew that. The public was not given proper notice that they would be able to comment.

    1. This wasn’t the best idea. Now we again see 2 of them not even present….again they look like they are infighting. And no on waiting until council members are voted in. We need to know who is for what,exactly, before we vote for them.
      I want to know and make sure too…just like the council says they do on issues all of the time. I will say I do know after just reading all of that…who I will be trying to vote out.

    2. Diane,

      I’m not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that they should not have allowed audience comments? If so, then I’m at the opposite end of the spectrum from you on this. As you point out, the City Attorney was at the meeting and voiced an opinion, however ultimately said it was up to Council on how they wanted to proceed. Legal advice. Council President Paine then (reluctantly) upheld the motion and allowed the vote.

      But this procedural stuff isn’t what we should be talking about. What’s eye-opening is that audience comments were suppressed from the agenda in the first place! I applaud Council Member Kristiania Johnson for making the motion to allow comments and Council Members Buckshnis and Olson for voting in favor of it. It’s telling that Council Members Paine and Distelhorst voted to suppress audience comments. It’s unfortunate that two Council Members were missing from this meeting. I would have been curious how they would have voted. Ultimately, are we, the citizens, going to be listened to or not? Seems like some Council Members don’t want to hear from us.

      Also insightful is that they mentioned how many citizens were in virtual (Zoom) attendance at the meeting. Almost like a litmus test as to whether or not to allow participation. The more the merrier, or the fewer the better? I say the more the merrier. What do they say?

  2. Distelhorst voting to not allow comments tells you everything you need to know about this guy. Can’t WAIT to send this Nelson crony packing come election time.

  3. Jim,
    Omitting audience comments from the agenda was deliberate. Listen to Ms Paine on the video. She clearly did not want the public to comment. There was no notice to the public that they would have the opportunity to voice concerns or comment. How fair is that? Only the folks who were unaware that they would be given that opportunity spoke. Most of them not prepared at all, how fair is that? And those who read the agenda and stayed away? Process is important. It is to assure fairness and transparency. I understand what Buckshnis, Olson and Johnson wanted and I agree with more comments is better. But they violated the open public meetings law, they were advised they would be and did it anyway. Buckshnis, Olson.and Johnson could have voiced their opinions about not allowing comments and simply left the meeting. Simple as that. No quorum, no meeting. Done. Rescheduled to a properly notice time with comments included. Violating the Open public meetings act didn’t give the public a chance to make comments. It only gave the surprised few that opportunity. That is wrong. Process is important. Something that has been sorely missing on the housing issues, and many others with this Council.

  4. Twenty five years ago, small churches in Edmonds who were hoping to obtain building permits, were met with zoning obstructions. Dave Earling was a council member at the time and was working on churches’ behalf to deal with our local zoning regulations. I believe an historical discussion with former mayor Earling would be valuable in our city understanding how we have dealt with past single family zoning. Our city has a great deal to explain, when it comes to its support or opposition to these regulations and the motivations behind them.

  5. Diane,

    I think we agree more than we disagree on this. Yes, it was deliberate. And I agree that process is important. My point is that by the Council taking a vote, it exposed some truths. Those who appreciate audience/citizen input and those who don’t, regardless of the setting. So in that respect, I still think taking the vote mattered. Considering that no other “action” was taken during the meeting, I’m willing to let this small “violation” (if indeed it was a violation – I’m no lawyer) slide. The benefit for the citizens outweighed the risk of a potential violation – in my opinion.

    1. Jim,
      The process is the platform for getting to fundamental fairness and transparency. Excusing such a blatant violation of the Open Public Meetings act, particularly in this case, did not result in fairness to the public. This was not televised. Only those willing to jump through the zoom hoops could attend in real time. There was not proper notice to the public of any opportunity for comment, indeed the public was noticed that there would be no public comment. The vote to allow it, although I agree it should have been on the original agenda , wasn’t consistent with the rule of no actions to be taken. Even Mr Distelhorst acknowledged that simple fact, although he then ignored it and voted anyway. As did the others under caution by Mr Taraday. Leaving the meeting was the option.
      Letting violations slide because you like the outcome, well it will also let things slide when you don’t like the outcome. The rules are provide the framework for governance and should be consistently applied whatever the issue or one’s personal beliefs and opinions.

      1. I agree. We let nothing slide here anymore. Our trust is broken. So now it must be regained. If we truly want to be convinced this council is not partisan as they say they are supposed to be and claim they are, non- partisan I am not seeing that at all. So, it’s their turn to shape up or ship out.

  6. Diane, I absolutely agree with your legal analysis based on the Councilmembers personal liability for attending a meeting that violates not only the Open Public Meetings Act but also was inconsistent with the City’s public participation plan and the Growth Management Act. They should have exited the meeting.

    The City failed to webcast this Study Session on the city’s website and also required attendees to register with name, email address and/or telephone # in order to attend. The OPMA clearly states; “A member of the public may not be required as a condition of attendance to register his or her name or other information, or complete a questionnaire, or be required to fulfill any other condition to be allowed to attend.”

    Councilmembers have taken required Open Public Meeting Act Training and should know this law. Had the City Attorney provided proper legal advice these violations would not have occurred.

    1. Why don’t they know these things? I can’t help but think they do…but smoke and mirrors has worked so well for them until the citizens woke up to the fact that we are being handled. No one wants that regardless of party preferences.

  7. The Mayor is required to take Open Public Meetings Act Training and it is his duty to see that all laws and ordinances are faithfully enforced. I think he has a duty to review what took place during the Study Session on Thursday.

    The February 18, 2020 City Council Agenda included an Agenda Item that represented that:

    In the past several years, the Council has reviewed and changed its process for conducting Committee Meetings and Study Sessions. In 2014, a Council-hired consultant produced a document outlining the differences in meeting type entitled: Creating Efficiency through City Council “Study Sessions.”

    The document entitled: Creating Efficiency through City Council “Study Sessions” represents that:

    A study session is a public meeting in which information is presented or discussed, but no vote takes place. A business meeting is a “regular” public meeting in which votes may be taken on specific items. Both types of meetings are open to the public and are based on agendas published in advance.

    The document entitled: Creating Efficiency through City Council “Study Sessions” represents that the purpose of study sessions is to learn about and discuss issues without needing to vote on them in the same meeting. The study session fosters:
    • More opportunities for reflection, questions, and dialogue
    • Consideration of most issues at two public meetings rather than one—the first, a study session; the second, a business meeting (at which a study item may be voted on)
    • An opportunity for all Council members and public to hear information, compared to typical committee meetings (which cannot have a quorum of Council members)
    • More time to think about complex issues before taking a vote on them
    • More productive and efficient business meetings because most items will already have been studied.

    I wonder why this Study Session wasn’t cancelled when it became known that ALL Council members could not attend.

    Does anybody know what the process is for conducting a Study Session? I can’t find the related documentation. Can a Study Session be held without a Council Vote to do so? How is the Agenda determined?

    1. The proposed Council Rules of Procedures included in the June 1, 2021 Council Agenda Packet state that:

      Special Meetings may be held by the Council subject to notice requirements prescribed by State law. Special Meetings may be called by the Council President, Mayor, or any four members of the City Council by written notice delivered to each member of the Council at least twenty-four hours before the time specified for the proposed meeting. The notice of such Special Meetings shall state the subjects to be considered, and no subject other than those specified in the notice shall be considered. The order of business for Special Meetings shall generally follow Section 5.3A.

      A review of proposed section 5.3A shows that the order of business includes both approval of the agenda and public comments.

      City Council President Susan Paine and Mayor Nelson conferred after the June 1, 2021 Agenda was approved and decided that the approved Agenda Item related to a Resolution adopting Council Rules of Procedure would be addressed at a Future Meeting.

      Such is now included on the Extended Agenda for July 20, 2021.

      I made public comment about removing this from the agenda, etc. My public comments can be found in the approved June 15, 2021 City Council Meeting Minutes.

  8. I realize the unexpected and difficult problems presented by the Pandemic have been a contributing factor here, but it appears to me that this whole Housing Study has been more or less botched by the Council, the Staff and the Commission itself. As far as I can tell there was no mention in this “study session” that the original Commission was supposed to be focused around seven specific districts in the town, partly to facilitate public input and partly to recognize the possibility that the differing geographical areas might have different needs and practicalities in terms of future development. It’s like the Commission, Staff and Council just whispered to themselves “well this district thing is inconvenient, we’ll just skip this little District detail and move on with it.” The whole study should probably have been postponed until public open meetings could have been held in each district with all interested parties getting to make their points about future development needs where they actually live. I also notice public input seems to become much more important to some Mayors and Council Persons the closer they get to having to be re-elected.

    1. Diane Buckshnis briefly mentioned the District concept in this study session.
      It bears a rigorous review in Edmonds since our city is not homogeneous.
      For example, when Bellevue’s Council made decisions on housing zoning changes, they allowed their neighborhood-level governance bodies to self select on allowing DADU’s.

      1. Thanks for pointing this out Theresa and my sincere apologies to D.B. for not catching this myself. As far as I’m concerned there are only two people on the current council that truly understand the job and have all the qualities it takes to be a good one. Diane is one of the two.

        In my opinion we desperately need neighborhood-level governance bodies in Edmonds and much less of a Mayor based power structure. It just looks like to me, most of our big controversies stem from how we do business almost as much as what business we do. On this housing thing, it almost looks like the Mayor and his faithful four want to ram thru a one size fits all answer to a very complex issue or set of issues. What possible good could come of such a thing?

  9. Teresa, thank you for giving us an outstanding overview of the proceedings and of the issues involved. My Edmonds News is a great example of a local news source doing what a local news source does best: covering the issues that affect our lives most directly. These past few years quite a few of us have been have been carried away with politics on the national scene. But it’s the decisions made by the city council that will have the most direct impact on our daily lives . Thank you for covering them so well.

  10. I agree Sam, Teresa has done an outstanding overview of the proceedings, which I watched. I find it interesting that most of these comments are about whether or not the public should have been allowed to make comments at this study session, but I haven’t seen any comments about the information that was discussed? Where are the public comments about the 5 items discussed?

  11. The journalism and content in this little newspaper is phenomenal. Such an obvious labor of love. On top of the newspaper, Teresa is spearheading a debate of the Council candidates in July. I’m in awe of her work ethic and abilities.

    1. And she is on the Board of the South Snohomish County Historical Society. There are only two possibilities here: either she doesn’t sleep or she is nuclear powered.

  12. In the “study session”, Luke Distelhorst demonstrated his lack of interest in, or concern for, the desires of the people of Edmonds. His comment indicating that because all the communities surrounding Edmonds have DADUs we should too, shows that he is either not listening or doesn’t care…or both. The point is that is being like the surrounding cities is exactly the opposite of what we want. .No wonder he voted against comments from the public in the study session.

    1. Records show Distelhorst has received election campaign money from Susan Paine who also voted against comments from the public in the study session. All in the same boat.

      1. The mere facts that you have C.P.s and candidates giving each other donations and in at least one case being a speaker at another candidate’s kick off party should tell you, you have severe governmental problems and high potential for cronyism issues in making critical decisions for the city. So far, it looks to me like Lora Petso is the only really proven totally independent thinking person running.

        I mean this as more of a criticism of our system of government than criticism of the individuals involved, but you do have to look at past behaviors as an indication of what future behaviors you may experience. I do admire everyone of these folks for putting themselves out there. That takes real courage. Much more so than commenting here by myself or anyone else.

    2. Yes, It appears that maybe Luke wants a little Seattle. Doesn’t make him a bad person, just the wrong one for Edmonds. We all pretty much agree we don’t want that…any in office who do..should be voted out, recalled or not re-elected when their time comes.

  13. Janelle Cass is a very well qualified candidate. She is a graduate of the Air Force Academy, has degrees in Civil and Environmental engineering and lives and owns a business in Edmonds. She is a balance, clear thinking person and by far the most qualified to be elected to Position #2 of our City Council. I strongly recommend her.

    1. She has my interest too. Need more about her plans for upzoning…I am not really for upzoning in residential neighborhood’s. At least until we have all that goes with it finished and waiting. Like Stop lights….4 way in many places…parking agreed on….all the little huge things that go with packing people like sardines( I don’t eat them) ha.

  14. Clinton,

    “So far, it looks to me like Lora Petso is the only really proven totally independent thinking person running.” I agree. She is non-partisan, pays careful attention to quality of life of Edmonds’s residents, and works diligently. Having worked side by side with her for four years, I know this is true.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Real first and last names — as well as city of residence — are required for all commenters.
This is so we can verify your identity before approving your comment.

By commenting here you agree to abide by our Code of Conduct. Please read our code at the bottom of this page before commenting.