In a strongly worded letter to state legislators who represent Edmonds, Mayor Mike Nelson and City Council President Neil Tibbott asked lawmakers Tuesday to “abandon” proposed housing bills now under consideration. Local officials, the letter said, are in the best position to make housing decisions for their own communities. (Read more about this issue in our previous story here.)
The letter from Nelson and Tibbott refers to House Bill 1110 and its companion Senate Bill 5190, and Senate Bill 5466 and companion House Bill 1517, which are now in committee for consideration. HB 1110/SB 5190 would increasing middle housing in areas traditionally dedicated to single-family detached housing. SB 5466/HB 1517, meanwhile, would create allow mid-sized apartment buildings within three-quarters of a mile of transit stops with frequent service, and larger buildings within a quarter-mile of light rail stations and ferry terminals.
The goal of these bills, the letter notes, “is to expand the range of available housing options to accommodate population growth in our region. And we support that goal. However, we are concerned that both Bills apparently preempt the ability of local municipalities to determine how that goal should be implemented in their jurisdictions.”
Instead, the letter urges elected officials “to consider revising upward the Growth Management Act housing targets and allow the cities, who are most familiar with local conditions, to develop nuanced zoning changes that are in alignment with the state’s vision of increased housing capacity.”
The letter also states that a supermajority of Edmonds city councilmembers (the Dec. 6, 2022 vote was 6-1 with Councilmember Paine voting no) adopted Resolution No. 1510, which expresses “a strong desire for continued local control of zoning decisions. We must consider our aging infrastructure, public safety and schools as we determine how and where to accommodate additional density.”
You can read the complete letter below:
February 14, 2023
Senator Marko Liias
Senator Jesse Salomon
Representative Strom Peterson
Representative Lillian Ortiz-Self
Representative Cindy Ryu
Representative Lauren Davis
Dear Legislators:
We are writing to you today to express our concerns about HB 1110, its companion bill SB 5190, and SB 5466 and its companion bill HB 1517, which are currently in committee for consideration in 2023. The goal of these Bills is to expand the range of available housing options to accommodate population growth in our region. And we support that goal. However, we are concerned that both Bills apparently preempt the ability of local municipalities to determine how that goal should be implemented in their jurisdictions.
We propose instead…
We urge our elected officials to consider revising upward the Growth Management Act housing targets and allow the cities, who are most familiar with local conditions, to develop nuanced zoning changes that are in alignment with the state’s vision of increased housing capacity.
Edmonds, like most Washington cities, is proceeding with work on its Comprehensive Plan—of which land use and zoning are key components. We are confident our skilled staff, working with City Council, can develop well-conceived plans to drive the additional housing options in Edmonds.
Please consider removing the mandates in these bills regarding zoning. Instead, we strongly believe adjustments to GMA targets are a far better approach, with a clear expectation for all cities that those targets must be met within a specified time. If the targets are not met by any particular cities, the state could retain the discretion to mandate the zoning criteria in the two bills for the cities not meeting the targets on a voluntary basis.
Our Council Resolution…
Edmonds citizens have spoken loudly and clearly about their opposition to preempting local jurisdiction of single-family zones. A recent survey of Edmonds citizens showed well over 75% want single family zoning guidelines to be preserved. On December 6, 2022, a supermajority of Edmonds City Council adopted Resolution No. 1510, consistent with our constituents’ clear guidance (see attached) expressing a strong desire for continued local control of zoning decisions. We must consider our aging infrastructure, public safety, and schools as we determine how and where to accommodate additional density.
Edmonds knows best how to guide its growth …
- Edmonds has easily met existing state-specified Growth Management Act housing targets for decades and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
- We currently have the highest percentage of multi-family dwellings in Snohomish County impacting classroom capacity, pedestrian safety, and fire services.
- Edmonds’ wastewater treatment plant has limited capacity and we will need to consider how capacity issues can be addressed as local population growth and housing density are accommodated.
- Edmonds is squarely focused on maintaining and improving the quality of our local environment through enhanced tree canopy management, reduction in greenhouse gasses, sustainability, enhanced management of our streams/watersheds, protection of urban wildlife, etc. and is committed to ensuring those elements are properly addressed as we consider how to accommodate increased housing supply/density. Without nuanced local planning, these priorities can be undermined by a broad-gauge up zoning mandate.
In conclusion…
We strongly believe that elected officials at the City level are in the best position to understand our environmental issues like topography, watersheds, and urban forestry. These considerations need be balanced at a local level if they are to be preserved. Statewide legislation focused on increasing density on a broad base simply can’t be sensitive to these local zoning issues.
Please abandon bills HB1110 / SB5190 and SB5466 / HB1517 and use the Comprehensive Planning process to achieve Growth Management goals.
Mayor Mike Nelson
Council President Neil Tibbott
Attachment: Edmonds Resolution No. 1510
This is disappointing but not surprising. We desperately need state wide zoning reform.
I appreciate the coverage from MEN about all this! It’s been so helpful to be able to stay in the know where how local officials are responding to this year’s legislative session.
Agreed, Mary. The Edmonds Housing Commission provided recommendations two years ago and many local leaders have chosen not to address the crisis. When cities exacerbate the housing shortage, how can more responsive leaders not act?
What crisis exactly? Let’s address this crisis. Why is everything a crisis? It’s am artificial crisis and social engineering. You can call it selfishness, remnants of past system8c abuse, or label it some other issue, but the fact that residents chose to invest, work hard, pay taxes, to have a single family home is not a crisis. It’s what I worked hard for.
Builders and developers are running out of ways to spin this “crisis”.
When everything is a crisis, nothing gets fixed.
And this is why voters removed you at our first opportunity, Luke.
I applaud our city government coming out against the top down approach to zoning, with a one-size-fits-all approach to development. Each city in our state is unique and needs to be planned around the unique factors. Environmental and infrastructure impacts of density differ depending on location. Each city should be allowed to determine where and how to meet the need for additional housing.
This is a disingenuous representation of the bill. While the state will permit higher density housing in more areas of a city, the city still has the right to assess developer fees for infrastructure improvements, environmental mitigation and so on.
The real issue with current zoning rules is that it creates de facto segregation of a city with “bad areas “ and “good areas “. It preserves increasingly valuable SFH and locks out families. Even today Edmonds is stuffed with retirees occupying three and four bedroom homes. While they have every right to their home, economics tells us that the highest and best use for that property may be a 15 unit apartment.
Robert Barnes, Your economic ” analysis” determining the best use of private property is frightening. You seem to have issues with single family homes in general, and seniors ownership, in particular. Your views replicate those of communist China and Russia regarding housing philosophy. Edmonds, hopefully, will continue to protect all private property owners from incursions of muti-use structures in our single family zoned areas.
Adrian – private property owners across 77% of Edmonds’ land are prevented by the government from building anything besides a single-family dwelling. Is this the “incursion” you were referring to in your comment? Apologies if I am misunderstanding your point.
Mr. Barne’s comment points to one of the issues that should concern us all – and that is the making of decisions based on one factor only. His answer lies in the economy of use of land. He does not consider the topography, the tree canopy, the watershed, the infrastructure, the school system impact. The location of denser housing mandates consideration of a wide range of factors – not just the economics. Additionally, I would proffer that there are no “bad” areas of Edmonds – there are view and non-view areas of Edmonds, there is the Bowl area and the out-of-the Bowl area of Edmonds. Families are not locked out of buying homes in Edmonds – three families just bought into the 7-home cul-de-sac area of Edmonds in which I live in the past two years. Mr. Barnes rather snide sentence on retirees is ageist and ought to be struck from his comment.
Well said Karen and Adrian. But I do disagree about censoring Mr. Barnes. His post supports yet another form of bigotry, and I personally find it helpful when people reveal themselves.
That’s pretty elitist. Economics may tell you that the highest and best use of your land is to have 65 apartments in it, but I am pretty happy with my garden, my trees, and the home I work hard to keep. Single family homes are not squeezing people out, demand for single family homes in safe desirable neighborhoods is. Wonder what that economics stuff says about that. Government policy isn’t squeezing people out, the market is. Government policy isn’t going to make anything more affordable. It’s going to increase density, burden infrastructure, and tout feel good rhetoric about the new $2,100 per month “affordable” apartments…
Thanks to the mayor and council for providing me with yet another incentive to call my legislators in the 32nd and explain that they (mayor and council) do not speak for everyone in Edmonds on this issue.
The Mayor and Council are absolutely correct in taking this stand. The one size fits all approach of these bills is wrong. Just declaring that all residential areas must be upzoned and provide for more density ignores the environment and contours of each individual neighborhood. While more housing is needed, it is the local government and citizens that can best identify the areas to accommodate the increases. I too commend the City for taking this strong stand.
Thank you Mayor and City council! Protect our communities from State interference.
There is no housing crisis. ST reports negative population growth, trend will continue.
This statement is quite obvious why you were not elected to the Edmond City Council Luke. Certainly, you would not have been representing the majority of the electorate of the town. It is interesting the disconnect between the local elected officials and the statewide officials even though they are all one big partisan family. It is fascinating how much disrespect and disregard the statewide elected officials like Marko Liias and Strom Peterson have towards their fellow local city officials, citizens and neighbors.
Seems to be another about face by the mayor it seems to me he has been in favor of all manner of increased density could it be because he is running for reelection and knows how unpopular increased density is? Could it be he wants these bills to fail so he can take credit for his plans? I don’t know but it seems disingenuous to me. Thanks council.
I appreciate the mayor and CP Tibbot for taking this action. This is also a good reminder to please read your voters pamphlet and do your research. None of this should come as a surprise. Most of these candidates did not hide their intentions on these actions, so if you are now upset by some of those actions, you need to look in the mirror as to your own involvement in that – that also goes for our own locally elected representatives who are also now in a position to in-fight. Strange times we live in, no doubt.
I like this letter.
Instead of HB1110, I would like to see the GMA required housing numbers go up, and to see middle housing like duplexes, etc. be encouraged and promoted where appropriately identified by good Urban Planning.
Currently, the GMA housing expansion is voluntary. Not meeting the numbers needs some teeth so municipalities that do not step up and meet their housing goals, there are consequences. Currently there are none.
The missing middle housing problem is very real.
Thank you Mayor and Council members for oposing HB 1110 and similar bills. I hope that voters remember that Marko Liisas and Strom Peterson are not representative of the majority of Edmonds residents.
What an interesting topic this is with opinions all over the board. I notice one public official is jumping in front of another parade which he seems especially good at, especially right around election time. Someone else suggests I’m a selfish person for being an overabundant Edmond’s retiree taking up more than my share of space because economics says so. He does reassure me that this is my right which I found quite a magnanimous admission on his part. Thanks so much for that. Another former appointed but not re-elected city politician tells me the state has to take over when the locals are so misguided in their views. Gee, I wonder why he got the boot? Another comment says this is all fine because the city can levee more development fees and taxes to take care of upgrades on infrastructure. Maybe Mr. “Economics tell us” can tell us how that makes middle housing more affordable after it’s made available. Enough with the Big Brother social engineering stuff. It’s supposed to be a free country.
Thank you Mayor and Council members for taking a stand in favor of local control. Well done!
Thank you, Mayor and Council. I believe that there are ways to satisfy all in our development efforts. First let’s define affordable housing with a number $$. The projects being planned are not affordable to any of our service workers, or to minimum wage citizens . I believe it is the height and blocking of air and the tip of a tree to view that is a major concern to many Single Family Homeowners. 3/4 of Edmonds does not have Puget Sound Views. The insult to SFH is astonishing. Resident owner for over 30 years I have paid my fair share of property taxes, investment in my own property and up keep to assure easy walkability for my neighborhood. I don’t complain about taxes, I vote for School Levys and I don’t have children. 65 the age of retirement is not old anymore. We are many very vital and quite capable of attending to our own homes and needs and still able to give to those who need help.
2. I believe when a lot becomes available we could do one story quadplex style housing adjoined that goes from front of lot to back, allowing for parking in front and green space in back. 2-3 family size homes and 2-4 studios style housing. Center homes floor to ceiling windows and skylights. This would not block views of surrounding homes. It would bring in more people, but that doesn’t bother me at all. It would add green space not take away. Trees when, possible could be retained. Any idea on this?? Design team get busy please. Want happy think outside of these 2-3 story box designs.
Also I would like to add that homeowners who have for many years, me over 30 years owned and maintained a house in Edmonds. Paid a lot of money in property taxes and others fees and taxes and DO not complain a bit. Vote for School Levies and encourage neighborhood beautification and organic water shed gardens to protect our marshes and the bowl area deserve a little more respect. 65 retirement age is not old anymore. Most are vibrant and healthy and capable. Our homes maintained with sold walls and foundations. Improved duct work all of it. We count and we spend too.
Thank you to the mayor and council for taking action on this and representing the wishes of your constituents. Yes I want there to be more affordable housing options in Washington state, but massive government overreach is not the way to accomplish it.
I am highly disappointed in Strom Peterson and Marko Liias for being a part of this. It shows they are completely out of touch with the wishes families and retirees who have sunk the majority of their life savings in their homes here in Edmonds.
Thank you to the Mayor and City Counsel for writing the letter for local control. Before committing to denser housing, careful consideration should be made to strengthen infrastructure, police and fire response, and traffic. In my lifetime, I have had to move three times from communities that didn’t do it right. The same thing happened every time. Housing became very expensive and the poor and middle class lost an affordable safe place to live. Traffic was dangerous and impossible. The only folks that did well were the developers who made lots of money.
It should be noted that every legislator to whom this letter is addressed is a Democrat. Our Democrat Governor Inslee is a big proponent of these bills. These state office holders are proponents of big state mandates for higher city density at the expense of single family zones . They are ignoring the wishes of most City officials and citizens who want local zoning control. So, remember elections have consequences when this gets rammed down our collective throats. A good letter that I fear will fall on deaf ears.
I too thank the Mayor and City Council for standing up and explicitly reinforcing the Resolution the council passed on retaining local control over our land use and zoning codes and policies. This was finally a unified front by our elected officials supporting the wishes of the community. Well done!
For the rest of us, maybe there is some hope that we can make a difference if we continue to make ourselves heard. Never know who may be listening.
The best way to be heard on this or any topic is to send a message to your Olympia representatives.
Hearing from constituents that make the effort to reach out with their views are gold to them.
Remember that we as citizens have no Lobby representing us, but we do have a vote when it’s time to replace them.
For Robert Barnes,
There’s nothing disingenuous about wanting local control over zoning, or about the proposal to “revise upward” GMA requirements. Thankfully, our Mayor and Council have chosen to stand up for our beautiful Edmonds, and for many other cities who will be negatively affected, and request this bill be abandoned.
As Ron Eber says, upzoning “ignores the environment and contours of each individual neighborhood.” It ignores Edmonds’ valuable, yet rapidly depleted, critical areas. Removal of trees, building near steep slopes and creeks, and on wetlands (all of which has happened in Edmonds), puts enormous stress on our aging infrastructure. The cost to upgrade our infrastructure will not be recovered from “developer fees.”
From https://propertymetrics.com: “The concept of highest and best use is one of the fundamental principles that underlie real estate appraisal.” This “concept” results in increased property taxes on single family homes, forcing many of the seniors you malign, to sell their homes to developers. Homes, trees, landscaping are then bulldozed and replaced with 4-6 market rate units, each costing as much or more than the original single family dwelling. These homes are not even “affordable” to a majority of the “missing middle”.
Please don’t fall for the Mayors sudden change of heart, regarding residential zoning. The Mayor supported zone changes, all through out his term as Mayor. Upon becoming Mayor Nelson started talking about affordable housing in Edmonds with his band of four. I do sympathize for people who find Edmonds unaffordable, who wish to live here. My husband and I had to wait about seven years for our dreams to be realized. The City should find other ways to make living in Edmonds easier for people, without taking away from the residents, who purchased their dream home, among other residential homes. Thank you to council members, who were true activists, for residential neighborhoods, but don’t fall for Mayor Nelson’s last ditch efforts, to gain voter’s favor. A mule can’t change into a Mustang it’s just not reality.
You raise a good point Denise about Mayor Nelson’s role in this and his change of heart. Just last June, the mayor’s planning department was proposing to study upzoning 30 percent of our single-family lots to allow redevelopment with multiplexes and small apartments. A 5-vote majority of City Council voted to reject that proposal.
I served in the Edmonds Planning Board for three-and-a-half years, and never once did anyone come to the Board and make a case for allowing multi-family redevelopment of our single-family neighborhoods.
What’s missing in this discussion is any evidence that the housing crisis is caused by too much single-family zoning, or that allowing multi-family redevelopment everywhere will somehow result in abundant housing at lower prices. I suspect the reason nobody discusses such evidence is because it really doesn’t exist. The movement to eliminate single-family neighborhoods is rooted in left-wing political orthodoxy, not in facts and data.
Roger,
You say “The movement to eliminate single-family neighborhoods is rooted in left-wing political orthodoxy, not in facts and data.” It’s also rooted in right-wing political orthodoxy via AEI, on a national basis. AEI also lobbies for preemption of all local regulation.
See https://myedmondsnews.com/2023/02/reader-view-who-will-benefit-from-house-and-senate-housing-bills-follow-the-money/
We’re being played, by the left and by the right.
Quite true, Joan. I mentioned only left-wing because all our Olympia representatives are Democrats, and they are listening to their left wing, or a portion of their left wing.
This is NOT a left-wing Democrat issue!
These housing bills have strong bipartisan support.
Generally speaking, the Democrats want more housing built, and the Republicans want to build it!
But Mr. Brock, why the obsession with putting additional density into existing single-family neighborhoods? Edmonds already has substantial land area zoned for multi-family redevelopment~ along Highway 99, a 2-mile strip upzoned to 7 stories in 2017. And all the low-rise zoning long Edmonds Way and in the Bowl, along 76th, 212th, and 196th.
If the evidence, the data show that is not adequate to accommodate growth in coming years, then the City can plan for where best to put additional density~ planning involving citizens, done with public involvement and decisions made by local elected officials, not imposed by remote control from Olympia.
The City is just beginning the process updating its Comprehensive Plan, with a primary focus on growth, how the City can grow in ways that maintain the character and quality of life we value in this town. Edmonds citizens planning the future of Edmonds. We should let that process work.
What do you have against planning Mr. Brock? Why would you abdicate planning decisions to political forces in Olympia? Why force density into single-family neighborhoods if there are better places to put it?
-Roger Pence-
Former member and chair, Edmonds Planning Board
Pro or Con, You can send your feedback here to your legislator. Do so quickly:
https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1110&Year=2023
I am a Lynnwood resident, and wish our mayor would send a similar message to our representatives in Olympia.
Read BH110:
3.1.a The development of at least for units per lot on all lots zoned residential use.
This number goes up to 6 units if you are within 1/2 mile of a bus stop.
3.1.f Shall not require more than one off-street parking space per lot of permitting development…
I am really not clear on how parking requirements relate to housing affordability.
If you oppose this, make it clear to your legislator that residential zoning use should be sovereign to local municipalities. This bill trumps all the hard work our local communities have done to define how and where local communities will grow.
Yes Republicans are pro business they want to build Democrats want to decide where the building takes place, so if Democrats get to build a 6 plex in a single family neighborhood they are thrilled and Republicans are happy construction business can make money government is happy because they like the increased revenue. It is lose lose situation for those that don’t want higher density left or right.
John Block:
Please do not spread bull. There are 27 more Democrats than Republicans in the Wa State legislature, so it’s from the Democrats where the support for these unwanted bills is coming from.
I am very much against these bills in their current form. I doubt they can be changed to the point they will be acceptable or effective.
I am also very aware of the problem they are intended to address.
I have no confidence they will achieve what they are intended to do.
I think a far better approach would be to increase the projected housing units in the Growth Plan, that the counties and cities use the Urban planning process to determine where, how, and when these new goals are set.
A one-size fits all, “wrecking ball” approach from Olympia is a very bad idea.
Additionally, the GMA needs to get some teeth so when growth goals are not met, there are serious consequences.
If you go back through what I have posted and written, I’m surprised my “no” position on these bills has not been clear.
The problem is real, HB 1110 and SB 5190 are NOT the right way to address the problem.