Report from Olympia: Edmonds city councilmembers meet with legislators

Councilmembers Neil Tibbott, Jenna Nand and Will Chen at the state capitol last week.

Edmonds City Council President Tibbott provided this report following his trip to Olympia last week with Councilmembers Will Chen and Jenna Nand.  

Gov. Inslee declared at the Association of Washington Cities conference last week, “It’s time to go big, or go home.” Then he revised his slogan for Washington State, “It time to go big, to go home.” He emphasized that our state needs to dramatically increase the quantity and kind of housing that’s available. The big goal is 1 million homes in 20 years for Western Washington.

A consistent theme during the two-day event in Olympia revolved around the housing bills both from the House and Senate. Together, there have been at least seven bills presented that seek to increase density, improve affordability and protect tenants — the most controversial ones being HB 1110 and SB 5910.

Workshops on this topic were among the most well attended and brought the most heated discussions. Edmonds residents have spoken loud and clear through the Edmonds Housing Commission and other forums for preserving self-determination with regard to local zoning. The criticism from the State is that cities and in particular Edmonds are not doing enough. However, a report by City of Edmonds Development Services Department provided to the city council on June 21, 2022 indicated that permits were issued or in process for over 500 new residential units in 2021. Many of the new permits were issued for the so-called “missing middle” kind of housing, which were taking place near transit and walkable amenities.

As a delegation from Edmonds, we brought a message requesting amendments to the top-down approach taken by state legislators. We asked for an expanded use of the Growth Management Act (GMA) instead abolishing single-family zoning. We requested that legislators leave the implementation to local jurisdiction to decide where growth would be accommodated. Nand requested that citizen boards be allowed to hear comments and give feedback to developers. Chen emphasized that we agree that more housing is needed in our region and our city is ready to roll up its sleeves and find ways to do more, but we want to have of a say in how that happens.

While visiting the capitol, we met with five representatives.Rep. Ryu urged Councilmember Nand to send in an amendment requesting more citizen input, especially from parts of any city with marginalized neighborhoods at risk of being gentrified. The response back regarding the changes with HB 1110, Rep. Ryu wrote: “I think the Substitute Bill as proposed — I understand drafted after much negotiations with AWC — will serve your city’s needs and not need further amendments.”  However, the amended bill essentially ignored Nand’s request. Please see the proposed substitute bill at the end of this report.

One of the most gratifying parts of the two-day event was the opportunity to meet with councilmembers and mayors from other cities with the same or similar concerns as Edmonds about the original bill.  We met with delegations from Lynnwood, Bellingham, Auburn, Mukilteo and more. We also heard excellent presentations on what other cities are doing to address problems with innovative solutions.

I enjoyed traveling with my fellow councilmembers while learning more about and standing together to resist top-down legislation that sidesteps local leadership in bringing real solutions.

Proposed Substitute House Bill 1110

Increased city population size to which the bill applies and scales middle housing that is allowed. (Original bill started out at 6,000 and up 4plexes everywhere)

Modifies density requirements and population thresholds as follows:

o Cities with a population of at least 25,000 but less than 75,000 must allow:

  • the development of at least two units per lot on all lots zoned predominantly for residential use;
  • the development of at least four units per lot on all lots zoned predominantly for residential use within one-half mile walking distance of a major transit stop or community amenity; and
  • the development of at least four units per lot on all lots zoned predominantly for residential use if at least one unit is affordable housing.

o Cities with a population of at least 75,000, and any city within a contiguous urban growth area with a city with a population above 200,000, must allow:

  • the development of at least four units per lot on all lots zoned predominantly for residential use;
  • the development of at least six units per lot on all lots zoned predominantly for residential use within one-half mile walking distance of a major transit stop or community amenity; and
  • the development of at least six units per lot on all lots zoned predominantly for residential use if at least two units are affordable housing.

Redefines transit stop to exclude bus stops and ferry terminals

  • Removes Washington State ferry terminals and a stop for a bus with minimum service requirements from the definition of “major transit stop.”
  • Defines community amenity as a public or private school having a curriculum below the college level and a designated entrance or pedestrian access point to a park operated by the state or a local government for the use of the general public.
  • Requires any combination of middle housing types to be allowed to achieve the required unit density.

Removes elimination of parking minimums within a half mile of transit and increases minimum parking required from per lot to per unit

  • Modifies the maximum parking that may be required to one or two off-street parking spaces per unit, instead of per lot, and provides an exemption from the parking provisions if the city or county makes a determination, supported by empirical evidence and best practices in a study that is prepared by a credentialed transportation or land use planning expert, that the lack of minimum parking requirements in a defined area would make on-street parking infeasible or unsafe for the authorized units.

— By Neil Tibbott

Council President Tibbott will be speaking on this and other topics at the Edmonds Civic Roundtable at 5 p.m. Monday, Feb. 27 at the Edmonds Waterfront Center. Learn more here.

  1. Thank you to our city council members Tibbot, Nand, and Chen for working together to represent the wishes of Edmonds residents in Olympia. I agree that their needs to be more available housing at all price points, but this type of top-down government deregulation is something straight out of Ayn Rand. Local cities like Edmonds should have a voice in their own zoning rules.

    1. You are correct Jennifer and it something straight out of Ayn Rand. I will just add that all cities in our state should have a voice in their own zoning rules. If they choose to live in a concrete jungle that is their choice. To demand a whole state Bow and accept is something quite different.

  2. Thank you Council members Tibbott, Nand and Chen. Hopefully your efforts will bear fruit.
    I would hope that the citizens of Edmonds will pay attention to how our Representatives, Strom Peterson and Lillian Ortiz-Self,and our Senator Marko Liias(SB5910) vote on theses highly controversial bills, and remember that come the next election.

    1. Thank you Councilmembers Tibbott, Chen & Nand for listening, working together and traveling to Olympia to deliver the message. Hopefully, Representatives Strom Peterson & Lillian Ortiz-Self and Senior Marko Liias are listening to our voices. This is not a political decisions, but a vote to preserve our communities in Edmonds and let our city government decide how we will address growth, zoning and affordable housing.

  3. What a difference a word makes…

    Councilman Tibbot writes:

    o Cities with a population of at least 75,000, ‘AND’ any city within a contiguous urban growth area with a city with a population above 200,000, must allow:…

    The current revised HB 1110, Section 3, paragraph (b) reads:

    27 (b) For cities with a population of at least 75,000, ‘OR’ any city
    28 within a contiguous urban growth area with a city with a population
    29 above 200,000, based on office of financial management population
    estimates:…

    This single “and/or” is critically important for the smaller surrounding cities in western Washington.
    If the bills pass in their current form with “OR”, I suspect HB 1110 / SB 5190 will be subject to a lot of expensive litigation.

    https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1110-S.pdf?q=20230222072219

  4. Thank you for this excellent write up, Councilmember Tibbott. We had some difficult discussions and some productive ones with our state legislators in Olympia.

    Unfortunately, Rep. Bateman, the author of HB 1110, feels that public hearings during comprehensive management plan updates (which only occur every few years) are sufficient for public input in local zoning regulations on middle housing. We have a strong history of civic engagement in the city of Edmonds that would be essentially neutered by Rep. Bateman’s bill, which only allows administrative design review for new projects.

    I strongly feel that the state legislators need to hear directly from community members about retaining local control of zoning laws.

    1. Thank you, councilmember Nand, for your leadership on this issue. It is interesting to see the widening schism between local and statewide elected officials concerning zoning and local self-determination for communities. I suspect you’re right that these bills will have a negative effect on marginalized neighborhoods at risk of being gentrified.

  5. Thank you for representing Edmonds.

    Yesterday at the House appropriation committee hearing on HB1110, mayors and councilmembers from Bellevue, Mercer Island, Spokane Valley, Woodinville, and Kent spoke in opposition to this bill. The biggest concerns were the unfunded impacts on infrastructure and emergency access demands this will place on cities.

    Many, including AWC, stated the new “community amenity” language upzoning within a half mile of schools and parks should be removed. The Kent mayor explained that language takes land impacted in Kent from 16% to 89%. Woodinville said proximity to schools could require walking 3 miles to a bus.

    Cities preferred local control to determine growth areas and density that make sense and examples given how they are currently growing to meet or blow past GMA numbers.

    Commenters stated HB1110 is not positioned to require affordable housing and others lamented the lack of environmental impacts and loss of tree canopy with this bill.

    A new section in HB1110 that “population associated with permits for middle housing units are exempt from the threshold of population…projection to a county or county population allocation to a city.”

    So this new housing built would NOT apply to GMA population growth requirements for cities.

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.