Residents urge council to preserve Hope and Wellness; city staff, council members to follow up

A string of public commenters at the Everett City Council meeting on Jan. 15 urged city leaders to preserve Hope and Wellness, a volunteer-run service hub for people experiencing homelessness, and to pursue exemptions or other solutions to keep the program in its current downtown location.

Speakers told council that Hope and Wellness provides food, clothing, counseling and housing navigation to people with no cost to taxpayers and that moving the program or enforcing zoning restrictions would harm the city’s most vulnerable. Austin Swetz, who identified himself as an Everett resident, called Hope and Wellness “a shining beacon” and said relocation would discriminate against unhoused and disabled people. “Hope and Wellness will not only provide you a place to rest, but we’ll help you find temporary or permanent housing…It does all this at no cost to the taxpayers,” Swetz said.

The comments followed earlier conversations about a zoning interpretation that limits clinics in the zone where Hope and Wellness operates. At the meeting the city attorney reviewed prior council work on clinic zoning and said the situation does not present an ADA violation: the 2018 ordinance amendments made clinic definitions uniform so clinics are not treated differently for zoning purposes. The city attorney said clinics in general are not allowed in that zone, and therefore an ADA claim would not change the zoning outcome.

Why this matters: Hope and Wellness is a low-cost, volunteer-run set of services relied on by people who are unhoused or experiencing addiction and mental‑health challenges. Residents at the microphone described the group’s work as essential and urged officials to find a path that preserves access while addressing zoning and safety concerns.

Details and council response

Multiple speakers recounted the program’s origins and local support. One commenter reading material from Jasmine Donahue said the property owner has allowed Hope and Wellness to occupy the space for utilities-only costs to honor a deceased family member; another speaker, Scott Sparling, noted the program provides services the city does not and asked the council to grant an exception. Michelle Pendergrass, identified as Precinct 13 Democratic PCO, told the council that Hope and Wellness pays utilities only and that the property owner supports the program.

Council and staff responses were procedural rather than decisive. A city staff member reported that the administration has reached out to Hope and Wellness and has requested a meeting; the staff member said Council Members Tuohy and another council member would participate in follow-up work with the program’s operator. The council president said staff will follow up and coordinate with community development and the Cultural Arts Commission where appropriate.

Legal context and limits

The city attorney noted that prior amendments to the city’s zoning ordinance (2018 clinic‑definition amendments) addressed whether certain treatment clinics could be zoned differently; the council at that time unified clinic definitions for zoning. The city attorney said that under the current code clinics are not allowed in the downtown zone in question and therefore the Americans with Disabilities Act does not create a separate pathway to allow the use there. Commenters at the meeting referenced state statutes (RCWs) in broad terms; city staff and the attorney said any zoning exemptions would need to follow the city’s established processes and that previous council action constrained options.

What happened next

No formal council motion or vote changed the zoning or granted an exemption during the meeting. Council members and administration said they would schedule follow-up meetings with the program operator and review potential options. The city attorney said a formal legal remedy based on ADA claims was not supported by the city’s current zoning code and past ordinance changes. Staff described the next step as a meeting and additional review, not an immediate policy change.

Ending

Speakers at the meeting asked the city to prioritize preserving the service and to explore grants or physical modifications (for example, an accessible entrance or elevator to an alley entry) that might address regulatory concerns. Council members and staff committed to follow-up meetings with the operator and indicated they would return to the council with further information rather than taking immediate action at the Jan. 15 session.