Reminder: In-person Comprehensive Plan forum March 23; RSVPs requested

Edmonds City Hall

The City of Edmonds is in the process of creating an updated 20-year Comprehensive Plan that reflects the interests and priorities of all community members, and has scheduled two options for residents to provide feedback through early April.

The city has scheduled an in-person public forum March 23 from 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. in the third-floor Brackett Room at Edmonds City Hall, 121 5th Ave. N., Edmonds). This forum will be an opportunity to learn more about growth alternatives, to ask questions of staff and provide comments. Edmonds Planning Board members will be present to listen to public comments and collect feedback.

RSVPs are requested here for those planning to attend the March 23 forum.

There is also an online open house to solicit feedback from community members about the city’s Growth Management Act growth alternative strategies. The city said in a press release that this interactive online platform will inform the public on the Comprehensive Plan process and will illustrate two growth alternatives and show how they distribute the required housing growth over the next 20 years citywide.

The online open house launched March 11 and will close April 1. Visit edmonds2044.infocommunity.org to participate and share feedback. The city said it encourage residents, businesses and stakeholders to participate to ensure that the plan is shaped by a diverse range of perspectives.

Public input from both events will be utilized to make informed decisions for the Comprehensive Plan update. To learn more, visit edmondswa.gov/everyonesedmonds.

You can also sign up here to learn about all upcoming meetings and event updates.

  1. There is a HUGE public process problem here that begs the question of the intent of this meeting.

    The City has developed two growth alternatives that were essentially developed in a vacuum since they were NOT based on FACTS such as:

    1) Edmonds’ unique geography, coastal terrain, impaired watersheds, and already overdeveloped areas.

    2) Costs of changing our antiquated stormwater infrastructure that is already at overcapacity causing flooding during rainstorms and destroying our creeks and salmon (Edmonds has already violated State law in blocking salmon from Perrinville Creek to prevent residential flooding);

    3) Risks to future generations health from building over or near underground aquifers that provide drinking water

    4) Costs of changing the capacity of our sewage system infrastructure – Edmonds is already breaking the law with our sewage plant discharges into Puget Sound.

    Shouldn’t the Mayor be announcing that this and other public meeting WILL be used to develop “Edmonds Kind of Alternatives” for future growth?

    AND, given the City’s budget problems, shouldn’t we be discussing WHO is going to pay for the “INCREASED SERVICES” that the recent State legislature bills will require of Edmonds – Are they “Unfunded Mandates”?

  2. Given what we see here at Shellabarger Creek, I agree with Joe. I’m not opposed to affordable housing, but implementing these policies on the cheap without investing in infrastructure and understanding the environmental impacts is ill-advised and will harm Edmonds and its residents. Stormwater management alone is a huge issue. Edmonds is mostly downhill from everything, and storms are increasing in severity and duration. We need to be planning the steps needed to fix the problems instead of exacerbating them.

    John Lyons, President, Shellabarger Creek Condominium Owners Association

  3. Great question, Joe, about whether this is an Unfunded Mandate.

    In 1993, the citizens of Washington State passed Initiative 601 that created a requirement that local governments must be reimbursed by the state for the costs of any new programs or increased services imposed on them.
    This is known as RCW 43.135.060.

    Has HB 1110 created a justiciable controversy under RCW 43.135.060?

    In recent years, Edmonds City Government argued that the scope of the easement in front of the Ebb Tide was a justiciable controversy. City officials allowed over 4,000 legal hours to be spent on this justiciable controversy.

    If the city was willing to authorize over 4,000 legal hours to be spent on an easement, is it willing to take legal action related to state mandates that may overwhelm our stormwater and sewage system infrastructure, plus jeopardize our drinking water, creeks, salmon and the Puget Sound?

    1. Ken,
      Your comparison to the number of legal hours the City (and you and I as residents and tax payers) paid for in an easement dispute is compelling to me. The Edmonds Civic Roundtable hosted a presentation a couple weeks ago where the current housing demand and some of the recent state legislation was presented. When I asked a presenter what recourse the city had to the growth forecast we were allocated in the county-level process, he said A CITIZEN would have to sue the State under the growth mgmt act, and then the case would be heard by the GMA arbitration board. That’s not likely to happen with an Edmonds resident or group of residents in the next few months. And the city is likely to submit a comp plan land use map at the end of the year to the State that ignores that lawsuit.
      With a new mayor and a fairly new council, I don’t see anyone with the political will to sue the State now under the unfunded mandate principle. When a bunch of rule followers are given a tough mandate, they just ‘soldier on’.

  4. Those interested in the legal issues might be interested in looking at City of Olympia v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, 27 Wn.App.2d 77 (2023). In that case, a citizens group, Olympians for Smart Development & Livable Neighborhoods, alleged that the city failed to consider environmental impacts when it passed a “missing middle housing” ordinance.
    This is NOT a case about the unfunded mandate statute. But it does discuss issues folks have been discussing recently with respect to Edmonds and may provide food for thought.

    1. Thanks for the case reference Kim. I’m starting to read about it now, and Google Search has also let me know about RCW 36.70A.600(3) which states local municipality’s ordinances that increase residential building capacity are not subject to administrative or judicial appeal. I think I’ll leave the legal case and RCW interpretation to experts like yourself. I personally hope the interaction between residents of Edmonds and the city’s staff does not drive any person or group to sue. But this Comp Planning planning cycle will define huge future changes in the City. That fact, combined with the fact that some residents have quite a bit of experience with legal action, make me just wait and wonder what 2025’s news will look like here on the MEN comment pages. (My sister lives in Olympia and had been telling me about the disputes. They’re as worked up as we are here in Edmonds.)

  5. Thanks for your thoughts, Theresa. I don’t think the unfunded mandate statute is something that would be heard by the GMA arbitration board.

    I know that municipalities have petitioned the court about the unfunded mandate statute. I think the scope of that case was very narrow. WSAC, Snohomish County, Kittitas County, and Whitman County v. State of Washington

    My hope is that our elected officials will have the willpower to consider legal action related to the state mandates. Other municipalities may be willing to join Edmonds in that legal action.

  6. I don’t think many want to have to engage in legal action but frankly our state government is out of control. All of the initiatives and all of the failed attempts for our State Legislature should tell us that citizens all over the state are not happy in many ways right now. When a governor takes a throw it on the wall and see what sticks approach with countless bills people grow weary. Legislature passed that took all of our states money now threatens our safety even more. Anger breeds contempt and well then people do bring lawsuits and sometimes ask for Federal assistance those suits. No way to know just now how our Fed government is gonna go in November State either. I hope both sides here get it together…All things in time perhaps but it’s gone way too far. Our police are now being threatened Statewide with less funding! Threatening Prison release into communities. Prosecutors gone? Not good folks. Our police in most places are not animals. Complete chaos will occur when we don’t fund, or no one wants the job ALL will suffer every single component of our society. I don’t think anyone here in Edmonds wants to see this happen. The R fighting the L. The L fighting the R. Nope Extremism is good for no one but Anarchists 🙁

  7. I’m out of state and unable to attend…but I want to remind everybody to comment online at https://edmonds2044.infocommunity.org/

    It’s a typical City survey which asks us repeatedly about the only two options the planners are presenting. You will have to slog through it to the end in order to leave written comments.

    My comments are that the ADU upzoning of the entire town as required by the new state laws needs to be the third option studied for growth of the town. The City has a chance to encourage small scale ADU add-ons to the houses of current Edmonds residents dispersed all over town. If done right, I think these could be reasonably affordable and would not overstress our roads, sewers, or streams as much as the two options planned by the City. The City has so far not considered what could be done to encourage affordable ADU add ons for current residents.

    1. Thanks, John for your excellent suggestion. I hope many follow your lead to suggest ADU code be a third draft option to be included in the DEIS. I know I will. And thanks for the link and advice to shoulder through to the end to add written comments.
      Deadline for comments is April 11.
      Every written comment should also be sent to council@edmonds.wa.gov as soon as possible.

  8. Hey Theresa, I do know through the grapevine that there are Edmonds folks looking for pro bono counsel to push back on the new state housing laws. That’s all I know. Don’t know who it is or any details. Just lawyer gossip.

  9. As I have already commented in another thread today; I briefly attended the Comprehensive open Forum today at City Hall. I stayed long enough to find out that our Mayor and Staff are either totally intimidated by or totally enthralled with the state mandated re-zoning (or a combination of those states of mind) and there will be no push back from their direction. The Council will be presented with two limited possible plans or an amalgamation of those plans incorporating taller buildings in five possible neighborhoods by the city planning staff with input from the planning board. Any talk or actions of push back or protest on all this will have to come totally from the private sector of concerned citizens who aren’t generally happy with how things are done in this town. I heard a little lip service given to the idea that consideration of our environmental and infrastructure needs will be part of this comprehensive plan conclusion but no specifics on that aspect of this future visioning process we are also paying consultants lots of money to help us accomplish. We are no better off on anything financially than we were a year ago, except we now have a more congenial and more communications savvy Mayor. That is something, but not enough I’m afraid.

    1. Clint,

      I too was at the meeting today and came away with much of the same impression as you. Lots of excuses and little creative thinking.

      In talking with the consultants afterwards I found them more defending their positions and ideas rather than listening. They have collectively made their decisions and are going to ramrod their one idea through the system.

      I went into the meeting wanting to get answers to two questions. How many new bedrooms will we need to build for the additional 13,000 residents? And what does a “housing unit” look like that meets the standards for each of the economic categories we need to comply with?

      The answer to my first question was: “that’s not the way it’s calculated”.

      The answer to my second question was: “we don’t have that view”.

      So obviously I came away disappointed.

      1. I also attended the meeting and didn’t get an answer to my one question: What assumptions were used to determine the 13,000 growth in population over the next 20 years?

  10. Thank you, John. I totally agree with you. I do think that is where we should start with increasing density. That and there can as there have been the last several years still be other housing added. Then we see where we are all over our city. I intend to comment on the survey. I have read the many comments and I am going there again now.

  11. I read all of the comments again today and by my estimate 90% of our citizens want a third option. I hope our citizens flood this survey comment site and continue to fight back against this atrocity. At this point it appears from comments and meeting attendees that we cannot trust our Planning Dept. SO sad. Isn’t it. Isn’t A planning dept supposed to do and suggest what is wanted by the citizens that pay their salaries? Aren’t our CC members in place to do the same thing? Something is very amiss here. We need option C and we need to wait on zoning too. DADUs approve this and let’s see what happens when all of the statistics wanted can be established. FIGHT back. Hire new people who are non-partisan that we can trust to do their jobs not push their destructive ideals down our throats. While we were in Covid Time much was happening. Clicking on their computers and then they popped out ready to rumble. Well, we are all out now and we are rumbling back. Don’t give up. Push Harder and harder whatever it takes. National News OK. Fine. That is how it is supposed to be as far as I am concerned.

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.