I felt compelled to share my thoughts on the growth proposals to increase density within and across Edmonds because I feel the proposals are not nearly diverse enough, and fail to provide a sufficient understanding that will allow our city council to make an informed decision.
If you haven’t heard, Edmonds must accommodate an additional 4,000 housing units as mandated by the state. While I don’t have a comment on whether 4,000 is based in reality, I am of the belief there is a single-family housing affordability problem in our region. Go ahead and check housing prices in our area. Last time I checked, there were few single-family homes for under $1 million. And while I, as I suspect most of you, love the flat nature of our beautiful neighborhoods, I also think increasing density is a necessary step in addressing our regional affordability problem.
That being said, I do not believe the growth proposals that are being reviewed (that will soon get locked in due lengthy environmental analysis processes) are nearly comprehensive enough to understand whether they’re the right approach for Edmonds.
There are “two” proposals on the table; however, as you can see below, both “alternatives” analyze the same set of parcels for rezoning (generally) – the only difference being five-story apartments with Alternative A, and four-story apartments with Alternative B:
Five Corners
Westgate
Firdale Village
Medical District
Allowing for five- or four-story apartments in these neighborhoods is, in my opinion, a big change, and one that should be subjected to careful examination for both necessity and fit. Presently, I am unable to determine that, and unfortunately there are no plans for additional alternatives. For example, I question if Edmonds would be able to meet state mandated capacity limits through allowances of two- or three-story apartments?
The reason for this narrowness is because these proposals are based on a “15-minute” neighborhood concept that is anchored by these large apartments (the “center”). At its core, these “centers” are supposed to enable residents to stay within their neighborhoods and increase walkability by being within a 15-minute walk or bus ride from their perimeters.
Looking past the fact these “15-minute” perimeters rely on existing bus lines that are not getting improved under these proposals, I have many reservations about how an addition of a five-story apartment on top of these neighborhood “centers” will increase walkability, or get us to drive less.
At the very least, each “center” would need a grocery store, and probably some combination of a post office, pharmacy, hardware store and salon/barber. Some of these “centers” have some of these, yet most of us still use our cars to run errands, and it is difficult to imagine all businesses being present in every center — especially grocery stores given such close proximity to what would very likely be cheaper grocery options.
I think a better approach would be to spread the density out a little in order to bring down the building heights. A two- or three-story apartment would blend into these neighborhoods much better, and would allow future residents to experience the beauty and joys of Edmonds as we have.
This is all to emphasize why it’s important to have more options when thinking about growth and density. In my opinion, we need more quantitative analysis, and less qualitative benefits that these proposals claim to provide.
I understand analyzing how to support density in a fully exhaustive manner may not be feasible. I also understand it’s not just about what I, or even other residents of Edmonds, may want as our city must comply with state mandates or risk losing state funding. But I think a better balance can be struck between the two, and if there was a proposal that supported density through two- or three-story apartments, I’d probably be writing why we should be supporting that one instead.
— By Sam Byron
Author Sam Byron is a relative newcomer to Edmonds and has lived here for five years. He has fallen in love with the city’s unique charm and proximity to so many beautiful greenspaces.
Thanks Sam. I am willing as a resident of 5 corners to accept a couple of 3 story buildings and even one taller would be ok. VARING income. I do think parking should exist for all of these buildings underground maybe…I say just live with it developers. I do believe that we have many more areas in Edmonds that should also take on this extra density. 8 I think. I think that the fact that the Medical District is the same as 5 corners that again that should be considered as the overflow will be all over both areas. Parking will take up the spaces people here use to walk their dogs, their kids and themselves, guests, 3 Schools Not many side streets have sidewalks. To say that you don’t want it isn’t enough. And you are correct it’s easy to say access to facilities but up here we are not a walk from a post office or a police dept, court house, city hall or a beach and the many wonderful Art experiences, or much of anything. I hope more businesses will move to our area but they must be businesses that we all want. the shops needed to support everyday needs. Bring some Art up here. We have Artists too. We have people who buy Art. People drive, won’t stop. EV or Gas.
Where exactly is Five Corners?
Hi Pat — the general area is around 212th Street Southwest in the area of Edmonds-Woodway High School. You can see more in this link to a city presentation here: https://cdnsm5-hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_16494932/File/Government/Departments/Planning%20and%20Development/Planning%20Division/Five%20Corners.pdf
Five stories in the middle of neighborhoods seems a bit much, not to mention the medical district and Five Corners are basically blocks apart. 2, maybe 3 stories max should be more appropriate, especially with the lack of nearby services in some of these areas.
This malignant growth projection, density quotas and possibly losing state funding is all a total load of nonsense. Part of the problem of doing all this 20 year planning is that the state mandates it but provides virtually NO funding to make it all happen. We won’t lose any funding because there hasn’t been any funding that I know of. On top of all that there is no consideration of the impacts on schools, water/sewer infrastructure, public safety and our very precious nature places (watersheds, marsh, salmon habitat and parks). We are blowing off now problems to address “maybe’s” twenty years or more away. This is all money wasting nonsense and our Mayor and City Council should stop all this useless planning immediately, tell the State we will do it if and when we can afford it and start solving our NOW problems. Yost Park is a mess, the city has illegally prevented salmon passage in Perrinville Creek where the storm water run off is almost uncontrolled, and the volunteers who have almost rehabilitated our Edmonds Marsh ecological system (virtually free to the city) have just been ordered to stop working on it by our Mayor’s Parks Director. We fiddle while Rome burns.
Great points Sam! Thanks for the article. After reading your article and previous ones, as well as several other posters’ comments, I am now thinking that we should step back even further and review the whole “State Mandate” and whether it’s really positive for Edmonds. We have already seen time and time again that the individuals in Olympia only care about their own interests, agendas and pockets. The latest glaring example was a couple of them upset with the population questioning legislation that would limit the police action “because the crime increase is just a perception”. That is beyond insane. We have also seen how the city’s administration haven’t had any qualms disputing in court when it really wants something (e.g. the eminent domain over that condo on the beach and the tree replacement code). Therefore, why is it not deliberating whether taking this one also to court? The previous administration had some questionable interests (as we have been debating) but this one has a clean slate and can clean up a lot of the mess the previous one did. Take this to court, even the state supreme court or SCOTUS if necessary. However, we cannot accept a bunch of disconnected individuals with ulterior motives destroying what the Edmonds’ population took so many years to maintain. We cannot simply roll because some lunatics say so.
Please read Diane Buckshnis’ Beacon article.
Also, concentrate growth along the 99 corridor.
I grew up in the area, went to school here and recently moved back after living in Southern California for years. The biggest difference I notice is that in Southern California they fight the state. They fight to keep their neighborhoods great. They don’t just listen to what the state says. Nice neighborhoods in So. Cal. propose alternatives, or use the legal system. Manhattan Beach, Santa Monica and Huntington Beach as well as many others fight back. They put initiatives on the ballot. Maybe that’s not possible here due to laws? Change them. It’s so curious to me the way we seem to just go and do whatever is mandated vs. stand up for what and why we live here. Stop being so agreeable and rolling over. It’s ok to challenge and disagree. Everyone is leaving the state vs fighting for what you want. Does anyone really think that the people who can’t afford to live in Edmonds dream of living in a commercially owned five story apartment building the rest of their lives? No one wins except the city and state tax revenue, and the builders and owners of those buildings. The residents lose even if they’re in the affordable housing. Stand up and fight back if you don’t agree.
I appreciate your thoughtful overview Sam and concur with the other sentiments. My husband and I have lived in the Westgate area near old Woodway HS for over 30 years and we have definitely felt the squeeze of increased density especially as it pertains to traffic and parking. Putting 5 story buildings in the neighborhood will only exasperate that. It’s hard to imagine our short, dead end street with such structures. More feasible would be two story units that blend with the homes here. I don’t have information about State mandates – but I would concur that looking at a broader plan to create what is necessary to expand, is more equitable and aesthetically in keeping with what makes our town desirable.
I just left today’s open house on growth planning mandates as I couldn’t take it any longer. In the hour I was there I quickly learned that Mayor Rosen and his Staff are totally intimidated by the state mandates and they have no intention of doing any official push back to speak of. The only questions for them is where we put all the tall, probably shoddy and ugly, apartment buildings, and how high they will be and how much of it they can make “affordable.” If you got the land for an ADU you get to build it no matter where you live unless you are an HOA governed community or you have a deed with a covenant against. . Planning Director McLaughlin assured the crowd, just before I left, that our natural environment and infrastructure will be part of the big equation with no detail on that aspect. The bottom line is we, the public, can comment on how they plan to do this (preferably thru the planning board) and make suggestions; the Council will be spoon fed what options the Mayor and Staff end up with and Council will vote on that. So much for the citizen being at the top of the organization chart in Edmonds.
Sam,
You’re wise to “have many reservations about how an addition of a five-story apartment on top of these neighborhood “centers” will increase walkability, or get us to drive less.”
The city and consultants have mis-represented the term “15 minute neighborhood” The true definition is about walkability, not walk/bike and transit 15 minutes away tacked on. See: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2019/9/6/7-rules-for-creating-15-minute-neighborhoods
“What is a 15-minute neighborhood?
A 15-minute neighborhood is a neighborhood in which you can access all of your most basic, day-to-day needs within a 15-minute walk of your home. It is also sometimes called a complete neighborhood.”
So, “a grocery store, and probably some combination of a post office, pharmacy, hardware store and salon/barber” should be within a 15 minute WALK to meet the actual definition of “15 minute neighborhood.”
Housing legislation imposed by our State Legislature uses the “15 minute to transit” terminology. The city has followed suit, thus imposing this concerning level of density into Council’s decision making process.
Thanks for your excellent Reader View.
I agree with all of the comments above. I don’t want it either. I was trying to be sensitive to the people who make less money. I agree that most wouldn’t want to live in those buildings for long at all. I frankly don’t think the way these are built they will last long either. I will stand with all of you if you pursue action to stop the mandates and the city. Yes, these tall buildings are too much and yes, they will destroy so much of what Edmonds or any community has tried so hard to build. I have suggested duplexes, triplexes with parking. But it seems no conversation is going on with the Planning division about other alternatives. Stubborn is what I see. Some imagination in building would be quite helpful, but the force is strong. Everyone is absolutely correct in all of the points they make. To plan 20 years in advance is ridiculous. It’s fine to dream but dreams shouldn’t be touted as reality. This state acts like this is going on all over the country but only the states that do believe dreams are their reality. I will sign any initiative brought forward. WE need a place in Edmonds to sign initiatives!! I have already complained about the lack of any near enough to attract folks. I tried.
Lets reflect. Our Democrat Governor Inslee and our Democrat State Representatives Lillian Ortiz Self and Strom Peterson and Democrat State Senator Marko Liias all voted and approved a state mandate to destroy single family zoning and to mandate higher density regardless of the size of the city or the wishes of the residents because they know better. They did so without providing any funding for the impacts of higher density on schools, roads,sewers, or parks. Thanks know it alls. We need changes at the top to reverse this insanity. If the State wants more affordable housing why not start with lowering property taxes or providing money for lower cost housing? Higher density in Edmonds does nothing to lower housing costs because the land is too expensive. Look what has happened to higher density downtown Kirkland. Canyons of high priced condos and apartments.
There is still time to influence Council, our decision making body, regarding our state legislators’ mandates to increase density.
Director McLaughlin has presented only two Draft Growth Alternatives to be included in the Draft Environmental Impact Study (DEIS). John Zipper has proposed a third alternative: the draft Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) code that is also being worked on. His comment is here:
https://myedmondsnews.com/2024/03/comprehensive-plan-growth-options-city-launches-online-open-house-in-person-forum-march-23/#comment-518252
Excerpt: “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.”
I agree with John and will also propose focus on ADU code as a third growth alternative, even though it means sifting through ridiculous questions to get to the comment section at the end.
Please comment in the online Open House at https://edmonds2044.infocommunity.org/
AND send your comments to Council@edmondswa.gov
Pat, 5 corners is the actual Gateway to the Bowl in Edmonds. 212th is the main street that leads to the Downtown core. So is Westgate. 5 Corners is where your children who are not in private school get their education. 5 corners is where your hospital is for testing and ER visits. Filled with crime now. Police beat read you will see that many have and continue to be robbed, cars stolen while people are in the building for day appts. People who work inside have been attacked. etc. THIS is the Medical Dist. 3 blocks from 5 corners. A short mile down hill to the Beautiful Bowl. Many have come here, and purchased SFH and Nice new townhome properties. Many real close if not a million dollars. I have owned a home here for 30+ years. They have added on and improved these homes, and it could be quite lovely here but not with what is proposed by the Planning Dept. This area as they “imagine it” will be like Seattle (Not good at all) Lower Queen Ann Hill and Ballard if we let them. No reason that this area cannot be nice town homes, Duplexes etc. I would think it would be wise for Edmonds Bowl Residents to help us in 5 corners. I love The Bowl. Please let your voices ring.
Sam,
You and I are thinking somewhat similarly. At the meeting today I left a copy of an “Alternative C” with the consultants to expand the thought process. My alternative was along the lines that you have outlined, spreading the impact over a broader footprint. Along the transit routes, expand the use of low-to-midrise multi-family units (apartments, condos, townhomes, etc.) with the appropriate development codes so as not to be intrusive on adjacent neighborhoods. When you look at our transit routes, there are a lot of miles to work with so the density impact should be less noticeable.
The intent of my suggestion was to spur additional thought and discussion, not as a final solution. We need more alternatives on the table to other than the one (I say one because the other is just a slight variation on the same theme) that city staff, along with their consultants, have come up with.
I agree with Mr. Byron and most of comments shared above. I do NOT recall anyone mentioning the role of the Federal Government in funding the State, or the requirements each Federal Department placed upon the State. The history of planning in this Country is very complex and, in our area, started in the sixties with the development of freeways and the impact of Urban Renewal on our communities. I think it is very important to find out what Federal requirements have been placed on the State by the Department of Housing and Urban Development on any monies the State received, and how the funds were distributed. The same with the Departments of Transportation and Environment. Surely the growth can be spread more then by increasing our density. Maybe we don’t want all of those funds. I also strongly believe all new residential units should require onsite parking.
Thanks for the maps. Am I seeing this right? Alternative B, supposedly “distrubuted” growth, actually leaves growth at Firdale Village at 5 floors just as in alternative A, while also increasing growth (more parcels AND more floors) at the historically congested double intersection at 238th and Firdale/100th?
I was very disappointed with the so-called “citizens’ input” meeting this past Saturday and have very little expectation for anything going forward. Some of the notes I took: 1) The mayor, council and staff appear to be all together pushing the two presented alternatives and even instilled the fear for “not complying”, which, according to them, seems like a mafia-style requirement to pay protection or else. 2) I understood that Mukilteo is pushing back. Why Edmonds also cannot. When I asked about other cities no one was able to tell, which means the Edmonds’ administration is sold out on this plan to roll over and comply. 3) It seems that those bills are Strom Peterson’s poster childs and he pushed for their approval, which means he’s the main culprit for those Frankenstein makers. Remember that in the elections (if that matter here in WA). 4) One city staff is totally misinformed or in the agenda to spread disinformation. He insisted that the crime is going down and Seattle is wonderful place to live when I asked him about it. So, we guess what’s behind it. 5) The Consultant I spoke with is using numbers given to him to calculate environmental impact. When I challenged some of them, he said he “had to use those numbers”. 6) We are on our own.
Yay, Mario. I agree with you and would love to vote for you! The meeting yesterday was not designed to hear in our thoughts but in letting us know their plans. You raise excellent points about surrounding cities and why we are not questioning this.
Two plans that are basically the same is the best that our staff and their consultants could come up with? I remember years ago talking to a developer considering building a hotel and facing height restrictions. He said that it is almost impossible to make a profit on a three story structure but the taller the structure above 3, the more profitable it becomes. This fact and the lack of ADU/DADU focus to solve this problem indicates to me that there is developer influence in this process. I want a proposal that looks at the potential of ADU/DADUs to solve more of this problem. I spoke to the Mayor at the end of the meeting and although he understands that the vast majority of the citizens are against these alternatives, he didn’t seem to want to take a leadership role in turning this around before we end up becoming another Kirkland.
Possibly the mayor is in over his head. Maybe he doesn’t understand that his job is to work for and advocate for the citizens of Edmonds. Maybe he should do the honorable thing if he’s not up for the job and to withdraw and so that the city council can nominate somebody who is more suitable.