I have to laugh as after 13 years on Edmonds City Council, writing opinion editorials (op-eds) should be a cinch!  Not this topic — two of my three editors said I’m too much in the weeds; and the third said “media ready” but she’s lives on Highway 99. So, I’m trying to be as succinct as possible.

In 2017, the city council passed Ordinance 4079 as a “Planned Action” Ordinance covering the “Planned Action Environmental Impact Study” (EIS) for the Highway (Hwy) subarea. Hmm, that’s a lot of “Planned Actions” — what does that mean?

Let’s hop back to 2017 and talk about three sequential ordinances. Two of the three ordinances (4078 and 4079) were a big deal. Ordinance 4077 placed the approved Highway (Hwy) 99 subarea master plan into our Comprehensive Plan.  The subarea included the entire corridor starting at the Gateway District and ending at the Hospital District with the International District in the middle. Ordinance 4078 took nine different residential and business zones and changed them to Commercial General (CG). That CG zone allows for seven-story buildings to a maximum height of 75 feet (a big deal too but not part of this op-ed).

The kicker was Ordinance 4079, which allowed all developer in that subarea to “punt” the State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) requirements out the window. Developers would only need to complete a SEPA checklist (see Ordinance 4079).

Why is that a big deal? Well, the Planned Action EIS for the Highway Subarea Plan was like a “playbook” that the city was supposed to follow. It contained a myriad of datum like population, housing, jobs, transportation, utilities, etc. and then added assumptions, projections and defensive strategies (mitigation) for this futuristic Hwy 99 subarea metropolis.

The “playbook” also included implementation recommendations with one alternative (preferred) compared against the status quo (no change) on areas like land use, zoning, housing type, transportation, open space, code, design standards, transitional housing, mixed-use housing, etc.

An analogy of Ordinance 4079 would be that if the development process was a trip on a plane, the Planned Action Ordinance would be equivalent to a TSA precheck.

So, what’s the hub bub about the need to repeal Ordinance 4079 and the dilemma citizens face? 

Last year, at the five-year anniversary review, citizens and council realized that the 2017 Planned Action EIS was terribly outdated. The city had yet to complete responsibilities outlined for major issues like code, transportation, zoning, etc. and estimated projected targets for housing, population, job creation, etc. also had not met. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) was budgeted and it was to update the Planned Action 2017 EIS “playbook.”

This year, the city decided as part of the 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update that a different “playbook” was needed for evaluating the environmental impacts from growth and thus came forth with having a citywide EIS only, which council approved.

So, citizens on Hwy 99 said, now what? Because of timing and staffing, the Planned Action SEIS for the Hwy 99 subarea was pushed to 2025! Hmm, that is a seven-year window allowing the Hwy 99 developer free punts over the goal line because of the grossly inadequate “playbook.” That’s not fair to the citizens on Hwy 99. Hence this op-ed.

Here are just a few examples that in five years, the administration had not completed:

• Develop multi-family design standards;
• Develop code for four- or five-story multi-family buildings.
• Design form-based code for transition zones and/or design standards to mitigate these large seven-story buildings plopped into residential areas (i.e., this year, council did have to place an emergency moratorium on these buildings to add stepbacks to designs).
• Update our Critical Area Recharge Area (CARA) code as commissioners of the Olympic Sewer and Water District urged the city to expedite this code update (see resolution).
• Ensure that density and developments have no impact to our CARA as it relates to stormwater drainage, flooding and stormwater runoff (i.e., one development would have had seventh-floor water pressure problems had it been permitted).
• Perform updated multimodal transportation trip reports and sidewalk needs.
• Update affordable housing needs.
• And so on … as I could get more into the weeds but this op-ed is already long.

Just modifying and updating the assumptions in itself would be beneficial. And updating from one alternative analysis for development to industry standard of at least two alternatives is needed.

And while folks say that a citywide EIS might be sufficient, many disagree, as a citywide EIS will dilute the entire area and affect mitigation because of our diverse topography. Common sense should tell you that a citizen living on Hwy 99 will have a greater health impact with the projected density in that area than someone living along Hwy 104, where a marsh nearshore estuary restoration will have a positive health impact on those living in that area.

Once the Comprehensive Plan and citywide EIS are completed, council can decide if they want to brush off the repealed 4079. A new EIS scope might include developments surrounding our city. Open space and affordable housing might be available in adjoining cities, and thus mitigation for some of those environmental concerns could be handled by interlocal agreements.

I hope this op-ed helps everyone understand why a repeal of Planned Action Ordinance 4079 is necessary.  We must protect our environment and let citizens living along the Hwy 99 corridor know we are listening.

— By Diane Buckshnis

Diane Buckshnis holds Position 4 on the Edmonds City Council.