Hello – it’s me, the Environment!
Folks, please wake up and just say no to all this density noise. You are killing me as my topography in Edmonds is environmentally rich with two drinking water sources at the north with the 228th Street Southwest well field and to the south with the Deer Creek watershed. This means, should there be a catastrophic event, we would have our own drinking water. While Edmonds has many critical areas with our unique topography, these two areas have pure “aquifers” that need protecting.
Aquifer is a body of rock and/or sediment that holds groundwater. Groundwater is the precipitation or runoff that infiltrates the soil beyond the surface and infiltrates into empty spaces underground. While much of Edmonds is underground streams and/or creeks, these two areas are not. Despite the builders and pro-density proponents saying that our aquifer can be replaced, that is an incorrect assumption and they are not up to date on science. Has anyone heard of the toxic PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) issues?
The City of Edmonds received a strongly worded resolution from Olympic View Water and Sewer in 2021 requesting an update of our critical aquifer recharge area, or the CARA code, as it was grossly inadequate. Unfortunately, like all important relevant codes, and even with council prompting, the administration just stalled and stalled and are still stalling while they continue to push their “build, build, build” processes first. Zoning should come after the environmental impact pieces are completed.
So help! Speak up to our city management and council – tell them to stop the current sequencing of the Comprehensive Plan process with development driving the car as our topographically challenged city will be ruined by this progressive stance. If those critical recharge areas (which are measured to include the capture zones of these underground water resources) get tainted by density, we are in big trouble and future generations will hate us for such stupid actions being pushed by the state legislators who do not care about topography. The Edmonds City Council needs to say no and push for regional accountability to support projected growth numbers and to protect our sensitive environment.
There are no good words to describe the intent of the latest Senate Bill passed relating to the environment and density (HB 2321). This bill loosens up CARA and critical area land for upzoning where originally HB 1110 excluded all lots with CARA or critical areas from upzoning requirements. Basically, cities will be penalized if their topography has many critical areas, near-shore estuaries or critical recharge areas – all found in Edmonds. What?! Penalized? Our land should be cherished, and rather than cram more houses in the non-critical areas in Edmonds, let’s look regionally with density in cities like Shoreline, Everett, Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace. We must lobby to have these housing bills amended to look at regional buildable land so as to keep our environment healthy for future generations.
So, please make your opinion count and contact your state legislators and tell them to stop treating every city as a one-dimensional map. Get involved and comment to our local government as they are trying to deviate from the environmental process necessary for any zoning. Speak up on behalf of the environment as no one seems to care. Youth groups … please join the cause! Do you want your environment in the next 10 years showing housing at the Edmonds Marsh, houses shoved in our Perrinville Woods or so much density on Highway 99 that it ruins our precious aquifers in the 228th Street Southwest well field or Deer Creek watershed? I hope not. Only you can create change as we must reverse this build, build, build mindset and that every city has the same topography. Edmonds is a gem of the Puget Sound and we need to protect it.
— By Diane Buckshnis
Author Diane Buckshnis retired in December after 13 years on the Edmonds City Council. She has spent 13 years WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council, nine years on the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council Grant Funding Committee and eight years Puget Sound Regional Council Salmon Recovery Council.
Thank you, Diane. Soil, air, and water. Don’t sacrifice these finite and delicate resources in the name of density under the guise of affordable housing – affordable for who. Sledgehammers don’t make great legislation, but they do work really well for developers’ profit margins.
Only the developers benefit with higher density housing.
No, actually the environment benefits more from high-density development for a given amount of growth versus typical single-family suburban development. The author could have consulted some real scientific research instead of just blurting out emotional and scaremongering arguments without basis in fact.
From an EPA study on this issue:
– Higher-density scenarios generate less stormwater runoff per house at all scales and at all time-series build-out examples.
– For the same amount of development, higher-density development produces less runoff and less impervious cover than low-density development.
– For a given amount of growth, lower-density development affects more of the watershed.
I don’t think the EPA is controlled by the Big Developer Lobby…
Source: https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/protecting-water-resources-higher-density-development
Bill, I would not put my money on government agencies not controlled by lobby groups. We all know how that stuff works very well. Now to the density vs. sprawl. I found this article that describes an extensive (one of many) comparing dense population vs. sprawl. We cannot only look at one single point. There are many advantages and disadvantages for each type. One example is density has lower-cost infrastructure networks, but density spends more energy than sprawl. Density uses less water, sprawl uses less energy overall. Which is better? I’d say that lower energy consumption impacts the environment less. However, I understand we need to keep a close eye on the water. I keep hearing that Edmonds wants to be a tourism spot. If we compare which type (dense vs. open sprawl) usually attracts more tourists, which is better? I also recall people living in apartments having more psychological issues during the covid-19 isolations.
My point is that we must look at this holistically, not myopically. The latter will lead to utter failure.
Anyway, here’s the link. https://sourceable.net/density-vs-sprawl-wins-sustainability/ I’m sure there are plenty others.
There is a reason for the term “best available science” when considering decisions that affect ‘local’ environment. First step when looking at “science” or “actual” (not hypothetical) research findings is to look at the ‘methodology’ used in the research and the location of the research to determine if it is even applicable to the local situation – – i.e, Puget Sound watersheds and urban sprawl is TOTALLY different than Chesapeak Bay and Great Lakes watersheds and especially Paris, France.
Then before citing certain “science” to support whatever position is being taken, decisionmakers must also review the “science” that does NOT support a pre-determined approach, so that the “best available science” (which may or may not be from a governmental entity influenced by politics) is used.
I suggest anyone trying to suggest there is applicable “science” to support over-development of Puget Sound watersheds should first use Google Scholar to search and review all of the ‘actual’ scientific research (not theories and unproven hypothesis) about urban development, stormwater, and impacts (past, present and projected future) of over-development of coastal cities (like Edmonds) on the environment, natural resources, and human well-being.
*Standing ovation* Diane, thank you for your continued dedication to our gem of a coastal town. And thank you for creatively sharing your wisdom and encouraging meaningful action.
This opinion piece is very timely. Although the volunteer planning board has been discussing the revisions to the CARA code for several months, and has already made a recommendation to City Council- they’re discussing more changes now. On Wed Mar 13th the planning board discusses the Deer Creek aquifer recharge area. Read their meeting packet starting on page 86 to learn about the disagreement on stormwater management. But the packet is written for the reader who has been following this topic for a year at both the planning board and the Olympic view water and sewer district meetings. Call your planning board member or water district commissioner to get their viewpoint in lay person’s language. Reading the whole planning board packet, there’s little reference to the increased housing density plans and the environmental impacts. We’re being put off until the consultant does that analysis and presents a draft EIS later this summer. Will that EIS analysis tell us essentially the same thing Diane Buckshinis (retired Council member) and Joe Scordino (retired scientist) are telling us today?
You: “Our land should be cherished, and rather than cram more houses in the non-critical areas in Edmonds, let’s look regionally with density in cities like Shoreline, Everett, Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace.”
What an Edmonds-centric NIMBY viewpoint! These are the words of a preservationist, not a conservationist. They directly contradict the WA State Sierra Club’s urban infill policy and their direct support for legislative actions to remove historical barriers to affordable housing and increased density. The Sierra Club calls the same 2023 legislative actions you decry “stupid” as one of “our successes.”
https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/default/files/sce-authors/u19041/SClub%20Infill%20Policy%202019-05-18.pdf
https://www.sierraclub.org/washington/abundant-and-affordable-housing
https://www.sierraclub.org/washington/2023legislativewrapup
The Sierra Club has a long history of self-serving narcissistic racial elitism. Protecting forests should not have anything to do with destroying urban environments and environmental sensitive areas or having common sense local controls.
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/liberal-progressive-and-racist-the-sierra-club-faces-its-white-supremacist-history/
I cannot buy a house with 50 miles of my job because of old ladies like yourself. We desperately need more housing density everywhere, and we are frankly tired of excuses and red tape. Things will change whether or not you approve, and we will celebrate those changes.
We need less people, stop all immigration and send back all illegal immigrants.
When people say “stop all immigration” the often mean “stop all darker skin immigration.” You rarely hear anyone say “stop all Swedish/Irish/Norwegian/German immigration,” or “no more tech experts, doctors, scientists allowed in.”
If people would stop hiring illegal immigrants, the problem might then be solved. But who would mow the lawns, pick the fruit, do all the other jobs Americans need done but don’t want to do?
It’s a complex situation, and as often, one-size-fits-all solutions simply create more problems.
But at least we can keep those Swedes out! (/s)
No,Mr. Gorman,you can’t buy a ‘house within 50 miles’ of your job because you can’t afford it.Should all the people who work in Seattle live in Broadmoor or the Highlands?I always wanted a penthouse on 5th Avenue in New York but don’t.Why? I can’t afford it.
Wow, Peter! So you’re blaming “old ladies” for our very high cost of housing? How can you be so ignorant and disrespectful? Your sexist attacks and ageism prejudices only discredit your opinion. Diane is a valued and wise leader in our community, who truly cares about our precious environment and wonderful community!
Right on Jewel. Ageism and sexism are just a display of general ignorance and are best discounted as such. As to Laura Johnson’s accusation that Diane is a “preservationist,” I ask what’s wrong with that? I’d rather have someone trying to preserve things that many of us value speak for me than someone who thinks non citizens should have a right to camp out in and trash our public spaces and parks. That’s what Laura was advocating for us as a City Council Rep. before she moved away. I’m with Roger Pence – stop labeling each other and people trying to do the right thing as they see it and take part in the planned discussions when you can. I signed up for the meeting on Mar. 23 at city hall and thanks Roger for getting the word out on it.
Could Mr. Gorman please inform us at what age a person’s opinion become irrelevant? And at the same time, could he let us know whether his problem is only with old ladies and not old men? We old folks need to know when we no longer count and are expected to be silent and leave Edmonds.
Good questions, Nathaniel. Maybe Mr Gorman and a former appointed council person, who believes old men have no value, could get together and share their vast wisdom with each other, then let all of us over the age of 50 know when it’s officially over.
Please folks, let’s tone down the rhetoric. Less heat, more light~ let’s move the civic conversation in a helpful direction.
Everyone concerned about the future of Edmonds being shaped by the new Comprehensive Plan, please attend the Open House event on Saturday, March 23rd at 10:30 AM in the Brackett Room of City Hall.
Listen to the presentations, share your concerns, and discuss with your neighbors. For the first time (hopefully not the only time) citizens will be able to ask questions and get answers, in real time, in a public forum. Planning staff, Planning Board members, and (hopefully) elected officials will be there to listen and learn.
Here’s a link to more information:https://myedmondsnews.com/2024/03/comprehensive-plan-growth-options-city-launches-online-open-house-in-person-forum-march-23/
Roger I would agree that planning, staff planning, board members and hopefully elected officials will be there to listen and learn. Unfortunately that hasn’t always been true, sometimes they are there to indoctrinate with a predetermined agenda. As the saying goes “the fix is in”.
I can understand the feeling, Brian, but at this time, and in this case, I’d cut them some slack. From my experiences in this arena, I believe we can accommodate expected growth while still preserving what I call the “look and feel” of the city of Edmonds. It will be challenging to get there, and it will take some creative planning. And the neighborhoods will need to be involved in local zoning changes; they call it “subarea planning.”
Plan on attending on Saturday the 23rd. Bring your family and neighbors. As I said before~ ask questions and get answers, in real time, in a public forum. Be there and take advantage of the opportunity; inform and be informed!
The future of Edmonds will be shaped by the new Comprehensive Plan, I guess, until state legislators decide otherwise.
One thing I find puzzling is how state legislators can require us to do Comprehensive Planning while at the same time they can usurp local control and make us do things not consistent with our existing Comprehensive Plan or existing zoning laws. How does that work? Why should we have to expend huge time and resources adopting Comprehensive Plans that state legislators don’t have to respect?
I also don’t understand the sequence of events. Do we have to change our zoning laws first or can we adopt a new Comprehensive Plan under the assumption that the related zoning laws will be changed after the fact?
Agree with Diane and Ken’s summary of the quandary created by this top down upzone.
Further confusion is caused by the Department of Commerce making all these “recommendations” we are supposedly obligated to follow regarding the numbers and mix of apartment types in the neighborhoods. When did the Dept of Commerce gain all this authority (and credibility for that matter) to predict neighborhood growth patterns 20 years into the future? I think their numbers are wishful thinking and not based on rational development patterns…and would never hold up in court.
The best approach moving forward would be to update the code and comp plan with only the bare minimum ADU changes required by the new bills that were signed into law and let the dust settle on that for a few years before any more upzoning. If the Department of Commerce objects maybe we and other cities can push back in court. I hope we can keep the Shoreline style 6-story boxes out of Edmonds. (I think they are already overbuilt along the Shoreline stretch of Hwy 99 but that remains to be seen.)
Ken,
I had the same question about the order of things.
What I hear is that, in 2024, we create the new plan, and do not have to do anything about our zoning laws or ordinances. Once the plan is in place, we revise our zoning laws and update ordinances to match what is in the plan.
Ken, how is it that when it comes to updating our entire city code, as you and Diane B. have long advocated, there is an unlimited amount of time allowed to get the job done. But, when it comes to implementing a brand new state requirement that basically eliminates single family resident zoning, our administration and staff are “busting a gut” to “get ‘er done.” The state can’t even run a competent ferry system or over see the building of a regional light rail system without breaking the bank and taking forever; let alone manage to come into Edmonds and take over zoning if they don’t like our plan. In a sane world, it seems like we would want to be the last to comply with this; not the first. And, that we would want to get all the environmental impacts to our unique and valuable setting nailed down well before we let the developers fire up the bulldozers. It’s always the cart before the horse here as others have pointed out.
While I 100% agree that we need to preserve the environment and ensure critical areas are protected, I disagree that we should “say no” to density. Saying no to density means saying yes to sprawl – and sprawl is more likely to eat into things like forests, wetlands, and farmland. The best things we can do to protect the environment are to ensure that we have good policies and infrastructure in place, that we make it easy for people to walk/bike/bus for their errands and commute, and that we are smart about creating dense and affordable housing options in key areas, so that we don’t have to sprawl into environmentally critical areas. Growth is inevitable, but we can’t just foist it onto other communities and fail to plan for it. We need to acknowledge the reality and work together to identify the ways we can accommodate the increasing population and future climate refugees.
There are no climate refugees. It is simply a Orwellian NewSpeak term coined to ‘justify’ mass immigration. So-called “Climate Refugees” are really economic refugees looking for a better life and better opportunities. And there is nothing wrong with that. Many of our ancestors migrated for the same reasons…economic opportunity, freedom from religious persecution, etc.
Don’t get caught up in the Orwellian NewSpeak!!!
…just sayin’
Don’t confuse density with sprawl. I lived in Lausanne, Switzerland for several years. Lausanne is about the same size as Edmonds (~10 square miles in the city proper), but with 3 times the population. They also have more than 3 times as much park and open space as Edmonds (865 acres for Lausanne compared with 265 acres for Edmonds). Edmonds has 14 playgrounds. Lausanne has 90. We had 4 supermarkets and 5 playgrounds within a 5 minute walk of our house. We had multiple open space parks within a mile, just *one* of which was 200 acres (Edmonds has a *total* of 265 acres of parks and open space). You don’t need a car, because bus service is frequent and reliable. As a result, traffic was relatively light compared with here. The difference? Lausanne doesn’t have single family zoning. Don’t confuse density with sprawl. Sprawl is worse. Density enables less sprawl and *more* environmental protection.
Agree agree agree. Thank you Diane.
That comparison is not relevant. Lausanne’s infrastructure was built over centuries to accommodate their residential density…ours in Edmonds was not. Last time I was in Lausanne I saw very little expansion of their centuries old infrastructure.
The cost to upgrade our roads, sewers, water supply, etc to handle all the increased density will be an unfunded mandate to be borne by future taxpayers. The state with all these upzoning rules, as well as the City, have been noticeably silent about these future costs.
The state should have been required to complete an EIS to assess the impact of all this upzoning, including the aquifer issue highlighted in this article. Not sure how they got away with it but apparently the legislature felt like this had to be exempt from SEPA.
Very good points, John. It is quite interesting that there are plans to make Edmonds a tourism attraction, while at the same time there are plans to increase population density, increase building height, reduce traffic lanes (as we see in the idiotic 9th Ave “bicycle lanes”, etc.) that will require rebuilding the city’s infrastructure and sink it into a bigger budget deficit, besides lowering the local quality of life that makes if so attractive. What other similar tourism spot in the world has high population density, bad traffic, pollution, noise, etc.? I looked into Lausanne’s numbers, and it has approx. 450,000 inhabitants compacted in 16 square miles (28,395/sq. mile) . Edmonds has approx. 42,000 inhabitants in 9 square miles (2,662/sq. mile). Both cities are hardly comparable, let alone that both populations’ cultures are very different). By the way, a question for the “geniuses” wanting to increase the population density, what’s the plan to deal with traffic, pollution, more demand for water, electricity, etc.? What about the increased stress and crime that comes with living in high-density cities?
The fix is already in. I’m sorry to say Edmonds will have less and less say at the table. Inslee type and Bob Ferguson are rendering local small towns irrelevant. Along with your senators/governors. As you already have seen with adding smaller homes on properties. But not even looking at the infrastructure..
Thank you Diane for sharing your wisdom and being a vigilant steward of our precious environment.
Excellent article Ms. Diane! I wholeheartedly agree that there must be better ways to develop than the usual density increase that only ends up destroying the place and local environment. This has been done time after time, and there hasn’t been one single example of life quality improvement. As it’s well known, History tends to repeat when people are ignorant of it. And for who is interested, there’s a very famous experiment in the 60’s that replicates it (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-mouse-utopias-1960s-led-grim-predictions-humans-180954423/). Read the article and look at high-density cities for the parallels. Edmonds is a great place to live exactly because it’s not packed as Seattle, Redmond, Bellevue, etc. Let’s keep it this way. Whoever wants high density is welcome to move to one of those places. Locusts are not welcome.
I don’t always agree with Roger P, but do agree that this discussion needs less heat and more light. And his points about attending the meeting on the 23rd. Just do it!
I’m also confused about Mario’s reference to “locusts.”
And once again wondering if folks who keep talking about filing lawsuits to challenge the state laws will move forward with that. Those of us in the legal community are keeping an eye out, but so far, nothing filed in the state that we’ve seen. Surprising.
See y’all on the 23rd!
“Locusts” is the usual reference to opportunists, con-artists and the likes that sell snake oil to gullible buyers and then migrate to other places after literally ravaging their target locations. It reminds me of the discussions we had recently here about the approval to buy a real estate (almost abandoned strip mall) in Hwy 99 to convert it into a civic center. I recall several real estate professionals mentioning here that that location was overvalued. Still the council at that time was pushing forward, even though the city was in its last ropes trying to close the budget.
This whole thing about “increase density” and “diversity and inclusion” look like a similar issue where the opportunists will benefit themselves (e.g. developers making big bucks with new buildings, “consultants” offering more services, etc.).
So, I’m not buying any of this. I moved to Edmonds over 20 years ago and kept my house the same (unlike many recent moving in and building mcmansions) while complaining about “environmental issues”. I always loved Edmonds for what it has been. I don’t want to turn it into another drug and crime cesspool like Seattle. I wonder what the folks in Medina, Mercer Island and similar would say if tall buildings and micro-houses started popping up in their turfs.
Will current City staff ever learn from past mistakes? Take the defunct Connector Project in Edmonds which went clear to the point of final construction design (and waste of millions of “planning” dollars and public input) before infuriated citizens of Edmonds demanded it cease because it was to be located on top of a marine reserve? All it would have taken at the outset of the planning was to look at existing maps and consider “protected” areas and why they are protected to determine it was a “dumb idea” to even propose construction at an environmentally sensitive site.
The City staff’s current “sales pitch” approach to forcing citizens to “buy-in” to only their Alternatives for increasing housing density “everywhere” approach WITHOUT FIRST considering the environmental consequences of where/how increased buildings and human density will affect Edmonds is just plain dumb. I’m not saying Edmonds shouldn’t try to provide additional housing; I’m saying we should be developing an Alternative that looks ONLY at where additional housing can be accommodated and “fits” the Edmonds environment and existing infrastructure. And if that doesn’t “fit” with the new housing Bills, the State can take Edmonds to court – – which I doubt since history shows Edmonds would prevail if the City does a good job of documenting the adverse environmental consequences of over-development.
Same menu, same kitchen staff, different waiter (Rosen). More of the same for Edmonds. Thank you, Joe, for your local environmental leadership.
Joe is really on to something here. It seems as though this administration is inexplicably all in with the State for becoming the poster child for how this forced up-zone project should look and be instituted. It feels like the theme is “Wild Horses Can’t Make Us Not Embrace This Wonderful New Density Scheme.” One has to wonder if some of this “enthusiasm” doesn’t have something to do with Strom Peterson living here and Marko Lias living close by – two staunch supporters and authors of the state legislation that has come down from on high. I would think an on the ball Mayor of Edmonds would be yelling, “Whoa here state people, we have a certain town ambience that we aim to keep for ourselves and also where’s the cash to get all this stuff done that you want done? We’re near broke right now and have neither the time nor the money to deal with it. Feel free to sue us, if you really want this.”
Can we better define the term “affordable housing” ? I suspect the cost of land is higher in Edmonds than in the surrounding area. So, even if additional units are constructed (2044 goal is 9,000 new units for 13,000 additional residents), and they cost less and are more available than the now existing units in Edmonds, they still may not be “affordable”. Units in surrounding areas (including all the requred new units), may continue to cost less and be more “affordable” than in Edmonds. I don’t believe that simple “supply and demand” economics applies when demand in Edmonds is and should remain extremely high due to its “look and feel”. Selling densification stating that new units will be more affordable does not seem accurate. Would it be best to reserve the term “affordable housing” for the government programs or non-profits that specifically work with these programs?
Jon Milkey,
RCW (Revised Code Wa) 43.185A.010 defines “affordable housing” as no more than 1/3 of income paid towards rent. Our state legislators have gamed the system by defining “low-income” as 80% of AMI (Adjusted median income) “very low income” as 50% of AMI, and “extremely low income” as 30% AMI.
Snohomish County’s 2021 Median Income was $115,700, so those percentages allow much higher incomes to be defined as “low-income.” For example, on the Snohomish County AMI chart:
https://dpa730eaqha29.cloudfront.net/myedmondsnews/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/202120Snohomish20County20Rent202620Income20Limits_202107011608091908.pdf
Note that 80% of the AMI for one person is $63,350/year.
All new housing will be market rate even the supposedly “affordable” units (maybe slightly below?) that developers would be “incentivized” to build, because of the high average income of Snohomish Cty residents.
See my reader view for more info:
https://myedmondsnews.com/2023/02/reader-view-house-and-senate-bills-will-not-build-affordable-housing/
I am frankly surprised that MEN allowed Mr. Gorman to post:
“I cannot buy a house with 50 miles of my job because of old ladies like yourself”. He offers no arguments, no persuasive language, just vitriol.
His comment is rude and nasty. What does the Diane’s perceived age have to do with his not being able to buy a house? I personally am tired of this kind of commentary. This, in my opinion, is surely as much hate speech as the many other social media posts that people rant about.
This is very similar to a comment made earlier this year about “old white men” being appointed to the mayor’s blue ribbon panel. I agree that is indeed ageist, something that I have seen quite a bit over the years. And I agree, people should stop doing this — thanks for pointing it out, which I was hoping someone would do.
Thank you for clarifying – Teresa.
With age comes wisdom. My environmental record speaks for itself and during my 13 year tenure on Council – the wealth of environmental information, statistical data, topographical evaluations, contamination, mitigation and restoration examples (etc) coupled with working along with highly intelligent and experienced scientists, scholars, environmentalists, and engaged citizens gave me institutional knowledge where I easily visualize the unintended consequences. So please let’s ask the administration to give us adequate and complete codes along with an updated and comprehensive environmental impact statement. Then zone. Plan and build wisely with the environment in mind.
BTW, when I read the comment, I just laughed as the point of my article was clearly missed as the first two sentences were “hello? It’s me, the environment!”
Working decades in various financial and regulatory fields of financial and then politics, I’ve also found some folks like to inject their “vision” along with an insult just to draw attention – and it did.! So – Thanks folks for your kindness and support!
“Old white men” and now “old ladies “ ageist referenced comments. Please define specifically what old age means. How disrespectful. One thing is for certain, everyone sooner or later most likely joins this group depending on how one defines it.
I find it helpful when people are allowed to show who they really are, within reason. We now know something about the character of Mr Gorman, and from the previous post, the true colors of Mr Distelhorst.
I have this to say. The Governor of WA is a favorite of many of our youth. Our Governor is older than me He is now 73 years old. President Bidens campaign and his backers (DEM) are now talking about the importance of age and wisdom. It seems often ideas and ideals are twisted up for the subject de jour. I believe like many here that too much density in named areas will cause much harm in many ways. I say slow down, spread it out and no we have no farms in Edmonds. Affordable will not be what some are hoping to see. Joan is correct about developers. Profit is their love. This is just the way it goes. If affordability in Seattle hadn’t been an issue for us 30 years ago, we would not have bought in Edmonds but it was and so we chose where we could afford to live not where we really wanted to live. We also chose where we wanted to live based on where we planned to work. Later we were happy we chose Edmonds. There are many places one would think they want to live but then find that it is unattainable. There will be challenges to this government overreach. We need safe happy places for all demographics. Planning Board needs to be reasonable. Diane is Great!
Good points Deborah. There’s one requirement that many, if not most, nowadays forget that is very basic for a healthy society. One’s right ends when the others’ rights start. It’s very beautiful to welcome more people; however, we cannot forgot what past experiences of individuals pushing similar agendas and policies in other places show. There are many studies, books and articles talking about how big and dense populations, large corporations and similar environments lead to many problems. A couple of my favorites are “Permission to Steal” (Lisa H Newton) and The Village Effect (Susan Pinker). All have one thing on common. It has been more than demonstrated that high density leads to many issues such a higher crime, health problems, stress, and corruption, among others. Edmonds is what is it today because of its current mindset and geography. Change it and it will be gone. Pretty much like the couple that changes each other and then say “I don’t recognize you anymore!”. So, let’s not accept at face value what opportunists and con-artists are trying to sell. Everyone, do your own research and check what happened where those individuals implemented such policies. After Edmonds is done, they will migrate somewhere else pushing the same thing and the population that stays has to deal with the endemic issues that remain.
I would like to add to my above statement. We chose Edmonds and my husband then worked in Shoreline. That firm changed and he found himself working in Seattle. Then he left that firm for his own reasons, and he ended up over just beyond Bellevue. Then he had to commute, and he had to have a car. So yes, people must adapt. I am hoping that we will have some truly affordable housing here and I know we do have some subsidized housing here also. I expect we could have more of that also in existing buildings and yes, the county and state will do some of that also. I resent being called a spineless Nimby. That is what Gov Inslee said on March 7th 2024 in a recorded interview in Olympia. I watched it. Anyone who doesn’t like his plan is what he thinks apparently. I think he is wrong. I voted for him too. Also decriminalizing drugs killed much of our youth and continues to do so. That wasn’t a good idea either. Families and youth suffering. Think about it! We need lots of change in our state and counties to keep WA a great place for all to live and work (all ages all demographics). I welcome responsible change in my neighborhood. I always have. I care for everyone.
If you think it’s bad now….wait until Bob Ferguson comes along….another story…
Hi Joy. Maybe 12 years ago I would have voted with naiveté for Ferguson. Not now. I know it would be worse it’s obvious. I read news and I watch, and I know some of what is going on all over this world and state and county and our little city. I watched intently as Seattle allowed itself to be basically adversely possessed. I watched as a parade was supposed to be a nice gesture here and in other cities turn into a political freefall a nightmare. I watched as police tried very peacefully to hold a line to prevent destruction of Fed courthouse and police stations, I watched them stand the line and I watched them not flinch as they were beaten with frozen water bottles passed up and thru the raging crowds. I watched as the crowds raised their umbrellas to stop the news from photographing. It was pretty clear to me then that Seattle was in big trouble. I watched Seattle and cities all over our nation fall prey to anarchists who don’t care who they are teaching and leading but just care about anarchy (themselves) and then they leave. It is so sick. When someone like me only wants to help others all kinds of others this behavior does not help those causes it discourages. It is bad for everyone concerned.
Neighbors- read the schedule for the 2024 Comprehensive Plan work – it includes a city-wide Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). SEPA regulations will be followed. There’s 2 tasks happening coincidentally- updating the development code to protect the aquifer recharge process and defining the 2 (or 3 ) scenarios for where the taller buildings which is a primary piece of input to the EIS analysis. Public hearing on the aquifer code is tonight – Mar 13. A Residents meeting to discuss the density alternatives that will be analyzed by the consultant doing the EIS work is Mar.23rd in the Bracket room at City Hall.
It’s going to be a long struggle to decide where the taller buildings are allowed- and that’s the zoning map update- and that’s due 6 months after the Comp Plan is approved by City Council. Edmonds is doing all this at the last possible moment: Comp Plan will probably be approved at the last Council meeting in Dec, so the zoning changes will be approved by Council in June 2025. The EIS analysis will be discussed for several months this summer and fall.
I have been participating at Planning Board meetings and sending thoughts to them via email. I encourage all these MEN commenters to do the same. Don’t just opine on MEN’s comment section. And read HB 1220- it’s important.
Theresa, is 1220 the bill suggesting that if you don’t vote in a presidential primary you are not sent a ballot next election? I don’t get to vote in presidential primaries because I decline to declare a party. Does that mean I don’t get a ballot next time if the bill is adopted?
ha ha! i guess you’re not reading the PB packets as closely as i am, so i should be more specific in my MEN comments. see the bill passed in 2021 or 2022. It mandates planning new housing units by ‘income band’. It is the most impactful state law in our current planning for how tall the new buildings will be. i thought HB 1110 would be a driving force in this Comp Plan cycle, but it’s not. ( Hi Lora)
Thanks, but now I have to research planning board packets and old legislation! Oh dear. At least I still get to vote in most elections, for now! (And Hi, best wishes to you and yours!)
Building where we already have buildings makes sense. Improving existing infrastructure makes sense. Building up rather than out to accommodate expanding population makes sense. It doesn’t have to be a high rise. It can be zoning for multifamily (a fourplex where a 5000 square foot lot line mini mansion would be). It is far healthier for the environment to leave existing natural spaces alone and create housing density so we can work, live and play without having to travel a long distance.
It’s always fascinating to see folks pushing back on multifamily and density but then also knowing they own condos in fancy developments in Edmonds. For clarification: is it ok for thee, but not for me?
Heather- your scenario won’t be approved by the Dept. Of Commerce. Read HB 1220, and the meeting packet for the planning board on 2-14-24. The key doc. in that packet is the technical assumptions memo by Perkins Eastman. Almost none of the future 4 plexes in your example can be counted towards the additional housing units the city has to plan for because of the cost of land in Edmonds, and the requirement to plan for a certain number of apartments for each income bracket.
Heather,
According to you, those “pushing back” on density “own condos in fancy developments in Edmonds.” This is, obviously, an inaccurate assumption. And your worry about 5000 square ft McMansions being built in Edmonds makes no sense given how few buildable lots remain in the most desirable neighborhoods.
My “pushing back” is related to the effect these bills will have on our critical areas. I’m concerned about those on fixed incomes struggling to manage the expense of home ownership being pressured by developers to sell, as has happened in Seattle. Developers and the wealthy will be the beneficiaries of this legislation. WA state government will benefit from the resulting increase in property taxes through the building of market rate housing.
That’s why it’s so important to get our ADU/DADU code right. We have the opportunity to increase density, protect our critical areas, potentially reduce # cars on our roads, AND support disabled and elders to remain in their own homes by providing affordable options for care and/or income through accessory dwelling units.
Diane’s article is a “Before Scenario”. Of where we fortunately are right now.
Please contrast this with a headline with from the NEW YORK TIMES. relating to the present tense disaster on the East Coast The article has animations showing what to expect all down the East coast. There is no place to pump water now!!!!!! Just loose their coastal cities.
The East Coast Is Sinking
“New satellite-based research reveals how land along the coast is slumping into the ocean, compounding the danger from global sea level rise.
A major culprit: overpumping of groundwater.”
By Mira Rojanasakul and Marco Hernandez Feb. 13, 2024
Let’s go back to the title of the article. How can we say no to density? Are you proposing extermination or denial? Our population is expanding and housing is obviously a challenge which confronts us. Just saying no and not wanting to deal with the challenges is not a solution. Raising fear and false issues does not provide any positive solutions to resolve an existing problem. Density has been increasing since long ago. We can’t possibly stop it, but we can improve our environment and community with proper planning. Be involved and provide positive solutions, not fear.
No Will, most against this (irresponsible) increase in population density are not in denial neither want genocides (I don’t work for the WEF). We want rational and honest solutions. Not something (demonstrated time after time) that will make Edmonds look like Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and other crime, filth and promiscuity cesspool examples where similar ilk took charge and we all can see how they look like.
There are many alternatives to increasing densities.
1) improve failing small towns’ infrastructure and incentivize people to move there (improve healthcare, security and safety, entertainment, etc.)
2) following on the above, improve mass transportation such as high speed trains (Europe shows it’s possible)
3) improve telecom and telecommuting means
The list can keep going, but it shows that turning safe and pleasant small towns into cesspools of crime, filth, promiscuity and decadence is not acceptable. One example that shows how bad those “solutions” are for Edmonds is just looking at what the previous administration did to 9th Ave when implementing a “bicycle lane”, how it put the city in a negative budget with irresponsible spending, etc. That shows we do not have the right people working on the discussed issue and following this path will only make the city a lot worse (at least for normal people to live there).
Gee- i wish I could also come up with a clever comment in MEN that uses the word PROMISCUITY. then i would get more page views. But I just can’t find that reference in the index of my text books on urban planning. MEN editor- was this comment submitted for a different article?
Ecologists use the term “carrying capacity” to describe how many living organisms a region can support without degradation. People are masters of adapting carrying capacity, but there are limits to what we can do. Increasing density in some areas is going to hit carrying capacity, so whether you talk about adding people here (more density) or putting them in new areas (sprawl), you’re moving towards carrying capacity, and have to consider how close you are. In nature, when a system hits carrying capacity, organisms start dying, migrating away, or reducing reproduction. Or the system collapses – but nature doesn’t do that very often. We like to hope the solution when we exceed carrying capacity won’t be people dying off, but nature doesn’t take that option off the table.
If the state is requiring things for urban planning, it should start by requiring an analysis of carrying capacity (with current technology) and the greatest risk factors for exceeding it in each area. That’s going to vary from town to town, even Shoreline to Edmonds.
isn’t that what an EIS analysis is supposed to do?
I would like to think so. I’ve never dealt with an EIS, so I don’t know what parts of it may reflect carrying capacity.
Theresa (and others reading) – the problem is an EIS only analyses the alternatives proposed thus allowing decisionmakers to acknowledge the impacts of their decision. What it doesn’t do, is CREATE an alternative that minimizes those impacts – that has to be done via ANOTHER alternative structured to do that. We need to get City staff to STOP their “sales pitch” on what they think the alternatives should be (BEFORE doing a draft EIS). Citizens should DEMAND that City staff do their job of looking out for the City by developing another Alternative that is structured (at the outset) to avoid or minimize impacts on existing municipal infrastructure, our local and regional environment (i.e., Puget Sound), and the values and lifestyles of current and future residents.
We need to somewhere/somehow make it clear that some or all of our municipal infrastructure and geography cannot accommodate more development without environmental disasters such as is happening currently with excessive stormwater in the Perrinville and Shell Creek watersheds. AND the COSTS to local taxpayers to improve infrastructure to avoid such disasters from over-development must be articulated.
AND, and can’t resist making the tongue-in-cheek comment that is going around town about the City staff’s two alternatives that will change the identity of Edmonds to be – – “Edmonds – Where the Sewer Meets The Sea”
Theresa, The problem here as I see it is first the legislature and then the Department of Commerce jumped ahead of the EIS by dictating the very specific requirements for the rezones.
I will be surprised if this whole mess does not see either lawsuits, initiatives or major revisions and changes before too long. The most prudent course for our Planning Board and Council is to move slowly on this comp plan update and let the self inflicted problems created at the state level get either fixed or litigated before rezoning our entire town. Regardless of the bossy mandates and deadlines imposed by the state.
Hello John, 2 weeks ago I sent the City Council president the RCW references to the penalty of turning in the Comp Plan late. i hope she digs into the myth that unacceptable things happen if we’re late. in my mind, the choice is either to get it right or turn it into the State on time. Secondly, the dye was cast in late 2022 when Cities in South Snohomish Cty allocated the population growth forecast between themselves.
Will,
You say “we can improve our environment and community with proper planning.” That’s what this article is about. Proper planning would put the environment first by doing the EIS and CARA studies before locating where housing density can best be increased.
We won’t improve our community by disrespecting our environmental assets and adding more burden to our already overstressed aging infrastructure. Development Services Director McLaughlin and her consultants are presenting plans for 20 years from now. These plans ignore the years of damage done to our critical areas for the past 20+ years by previous Edmonds’ administrations.
By honestly and openly assessing our environmental assets now, we have a better chance of planning for a future that will “improve our environment and community.”
Perhaps I missed it, but I haven’t seen any council member comment on the fictitious forecast of a 13,000 increase in our population in the next 20 years. Our population has gained only 3,000 since 2000, and has actually decreased almost 1,000 in the past year. What can possibility cause it to increase 13,000 in the next 20 years? Probably only illegal immigrants being directed our way.
The city should not be taking actions based upon our population growing to 55,000 in the next 20 years. We do not need zoning changes to increase population density.
I agree that we don’t need zoning changes now. In the future perhaps we will but this is being pushed much too fast. It may be that a lot of density may not occur right away, but it leaves it open to any type of possibility for building things that will destroy our neighborhoods. I would think before a city or people demand we only ride busses and walk (this means your kids too) we would first build sidewalks for them to walk while going to school or playing, riding bikes and breathing. I would think that as stated in the comments we would first fix our infrastructure all over our city to prepare for our future and the future of your children. Those children will be the ones paying the bill for those delayed improvements that must occur in the near years to come. Cities in the past in other states this type of building occurred and they failed and are still not recovering. Putting the Cart before the WORK horse seldom works. Slow and steady. I know change is difficult and inevitable and I accept responsible well thought out change. I embrace diversity I do, but everyone wants safety in all ways. Be careful who you trust with your city. I honestly believe all our residents in Edmonds want the best for everyone.
John,
Excellent suggestion to “update the code and comp plan with only the bare minimum ADU changes required by the new bills that were signed into law and let the dust settle on that for a few years before any more upzoning.”
Ken,
In 2012 (my first year as a Councilmember) on behalf of the Port of Edmonds, Mayor Earling’s administration brought forward the Port’s request that we adopt their Harbor Square Master Plan into our Comprehensive Plan. One of the many reasons that I strongly opposed adopting their plan into our Comp Plan was based on the following MRSC article that you found:
The Unassailable Right to Make Any Decision You Want: Avoiding Judicial Intervention in Local Land Use Decision Making
https://mrsc.org/stay-informed/mrsc-insight/june-2012/the-unassailable-right-to-make-any-decision-you-wa
This article by Phil Olbrechts highlights the importance of Council being extremely careful of land use zoning defined in our Comp Plan. Once it’s in the Comp Plan, Council has no legislative authority to deny subsequent development applications.
Excerpt:
“Similar reasoning applies to comprehensive plan amendments. Any amendments you approve will have to be consistent with the GMA in order to survive an appeal to a GMA hearings board, so you will want to assure that your approvals are supported by detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law that establish that compliance.”
And:
“However, as previously discussed you can deny an application for a comprehensive plan amendment for practically any reason you want. So why bog yourself down with detailed standards for denial that take up a lot of staff resources and council time?”