Do the citizens of Edmonds really want changes made to the city’s Comprehensive Plan (which dictates municipal operations in the city) so that we become known as “Edmonds – Where the Sewer Meets the Sea”?
The city is trying to force growth alternatives into the Comprehensive Plan update process without starting with consideration of: Can our sewer system and capacity in some/all areas to withstand increased toilets?
We already have terrible stink coming out of the sewer manholes in some areas of town due to increased sewage in the pipes. Shouldn’t that be taken into account in developing alternatives on where to put increased housing and people’s poop? If sewer line pumps and sewer pipe size will need to be increased – who is going to pay? Is it the senior citizens who are already being taxed out of their longtime homes or is it the developers who will just pass on the costs to new residents thus making new housing further unaffordable? Or should Edmonds start this planning with the premise that some of the state growth requirements and restrictions are unfunded mandates that the city has every right to say no to!
The Edmonds sewage treatment plant is already discharging too high levels of nutrients into Puget Sound (in violation of the city’s sewage discharge permit). More housing, more people, more toilets will only confound the problem. Don’t we need to take this into consideration first in developing housing and growth alternatives?
Can the city’s stormwater system in some/all areas withstand increased flows without causing flooding or further damage to our creeks and wetlands?
The Edmonds stormwater infrastructure is already well over capacity in many areas of town and causing serious documented problems in several watersheds in Edmonds (Perrinville, Shell and Shellabarger Creeks).
Do we really want to take the risk of contaminating our aquifers by placing additional housing on them?
People’s health is dependent on good, safe drinking water – do we want to intentionally change Edmonds into a bunch of sick senior citizens and infants (i.e., those most susceptible to bad drinking water)?
Do we really want all our current and/or future trees and greenery everywhere (or maybe just somewhere) replaced by concrete and asphalt?
Does the city have any idea of the impacts to the health of our watersheds (and current citizens) from more impervious surfaces (especially in the wrong place)? That consideration should be step one in developing a city growth alternative – – not some misaligned ideology that should not be applied to a dity that is already built-out in some cases beyond its capacity.
If any readers of this agree with me that we must have a totally new growth/housing alternative that takes into account our existing infrastructure and desire to preserve our living style and what’s left of our natural environment — please speak up during the public comment session of this coming Tuesday’s council meeting.
This is the only way I can think of — other than protests, boycotts or ‘walk-outs” at public meetings — to stop the crazy!
The council can/should direct city staff on the alternatives that city staff prepares on the behalf of the council, since it is the council that has to approve the changes to the Comp Plan.
— By Joe Scordino
Author Joe Scordino is a 44-year resident of Edmonds.
I sent a video to council how California has created the 15 minute villages, which do not work or is really affordable housing.. Hold firm City Council don’t let Olympia bully you into ruining our beautiful Edmonds so much is at stake.
The machine left the station and did many policy decisions NEVER approved by Council or needed for the Comprehensive Plan (i.e. branding, vision statement, “paid for” community champions or green infrastructure initiatives) and overspent Council approved bloated budget of $900k for professional services by $700k or $1.6M spent in 2023! This overspending helped push the City into a financial crisis and that’s just the financial issues! The Corporate world not tolerate that overspending.
Now the train is attempting to ruin the environment by using Paris as a model with a 15-min neighborhood – again not a direction from Council.
The machine dragged its feet on the 2021 requested CARA (critical area recharge area) code update and last week the Planning Board rescinded its original approved code (that should have immediately gone to Council) to allow digging in the Deer Creek watershed – all for the sake of growth with State laws that have yet to be finalized or growth targets that remain speculative. Seems as though it’s still the Nelson administration intact with poor transparency and pushing his agenda of ramming these “modernization techniques” to create bad policy or “check off the box” items with disregard to the reality of our infrastructure, topography, demographics, and more importantly our voices.
Please speak up for our environment! Our pure drinking water is at stake.
“Seems as though it’s still the Nelson administration intact with poor transparency and pushing his agenda …”
So, some of this stuff is being implemented by city staff despite not approved by the mayor neither the council? Can the council and mayor stop it, and if not obeyed, can those rogue employees be summarily fired? Edmonds’ population already rejected Nelson and his policies in the last election. What does it take to stop them?
Don’t let Edmonds become Ballard. Stop the growth initiatives. There are plenty of open lands elsewhere to be developed. If we have to protest to get this point across then so be it.
I along with my neighbors are tired of the stink coming from manhole covers on our small street! It’s been going on for years with no consistence progress to eliminate the smell! More development means more stink for us, and more health concerns!
Great article Joe! Thanks for pointing out some of the infrastructure issues that this increase in population density will bring upon Edmonds’ residents. Other issues that deserve highlight are electricity and streets. We already see how the rate increases were doubled from the originally projected because of a “cold snap” that caused some surges. Don’t need to be a genius to see what a constant consumption increase will cause, let alone that the same gangs imposing those density increases are also pushing for more electricity demand (100% EVs and 100% appliances). Our streets are already getting congested and will likely get much worse with the added traffic and very poorly conceived and designed “bicycle lanes”.
Add on top of that all the social issues that come up when population density increases and we have a recipe for disaster. Since we know that those pushing for these “features” are not morons, what ulterior motives do they have? I also recommend that everyone concerned about this show up at the public meetings and demand a review of this craziness.
The comprehensive plan is quite the disorderly mess. This mess started as a carryover from the previous administration but is now being continued by Mayor Rosen. Environmental disregards, Policy decisions which were never affirmed by Council, unfunded mandates, directives that make little or no financial sense. I agree with the others it’s time to speak up.
Joe is correct. We have long experience with storm water runoff affecting Shellabarger Creek, which not only affects our condominium property, but also has the potential to flood 5th Avenue South and the Ace Hardware property, cutting off a major route into Edmonds and affecting utilities in the area.
Whenever there is heavy rainfall for any extended time, a torrent of muddy water loaded with debris of all kinds rushes downhill from far above us crossing many properties until it pours into a meandering section of Shellabarger Creek south of our building. This rapid runoff is eroding the creek bed, and it causes a lake to form east of 5th Avenue South. In a single storm event in 2020, it carved away a six-foot section of the embankment near our parking lot. The storm water carries a heavy load of silt and debris down the creek. Some of this massive amount of silt undoubtedly ends up in Edmonds Marsh impacting sensitive wildlife habitat.
Storm water runoff is a community-wide issue. It is far beyond the ability of a single property owner or a small condominium to combat. We need a storm water management plan for the areas of Edmonds affected by storm water runoff that starts far above us.
John Lyons, President, Shellabarger Creek Condominium Owners Association
It was our representatives and the governor who approved the bill to increase housing density. If we continue to vote the same people into office, we can expect more laws of which we do not approve.
Our whole society and the laws/codes we create ping pong back and forth to the extremes of ideology that just create more problems in the end. It’s in everything from law enforcement to women’s health care to housing options to environmental issues. Our city Council and city Administration have this golden opportunity in disguise to use our economic problem as an excuse to just tell the State to buzz off on all the future Unocal (which we don’t even own yet) planning and housing forecast nonsense until we are able to figure out how to just meet the basic city needs of people living here NOW; while staying within a manageable budget. I sort of thought that’s what we would get when we picked a new mayor last year. Instead we vote people into office who just perpetuate the same tired old vibe of cow towing to the latest governmental fad to solve all our social problems which will never happen. Live for today and quit the fear mongering and hand ringing over 20 years from now. Hell, Putin might blow the whole thing up anyway; so why worry about it so much.
We winter in Puerto Vallarta where much of the city is essentially “walled off” from views and access to the beautiful Pacific by massive buildings along the waterfront., the latest over 25 stories high. Without a thoughtful, enforced comprehensive plan Edmonds could suffer the same fate. Already the Edmonds waterfront hosts several tall-for-this-city buildings — plus a magnificent new community center properly sized. Let’s assure that Edmonds preserves its present character with a meaningful comp. plan!
Thank you Joe, Diane and others! The pressures on the health of Edmonds human and natural environments are set to increase with no overall accounting for the dangers including threats to stream flow, stormwater runoff pollution, ground water/aquifier health, increased sewage loading and treatment, “heat island” impacts, sea level rise, urban flooding, tree removal , disrupted wildlife corridors, and so on. We don’t have a “comprehensive planning” that is “comprehensive”. Each of our concerns are addressed by a different board, department or committee with little or no cross-linkages. Olympia now tells us to start with building, and ignores the infrastructure required to support population, as opposed to defining the limits and costs of incremental increases in the quality, quantity and costs of water, power, sanitation, heat island compensation, air quality….not to mention how we support our contribution to maintaining what our resident and migratory sea and shorebirds, fish (inc salmon), shellfish, shoreline kelp and seagrass beds, and wildlife need to maintain themselves for future generations of citizens. For example, kelp beds protect residential, public and commercial shorelines from storm waves, and enhance sportfish habitat, but not when worsening storm driven mud runoff buries and destroys them. We don’t connect the pieces, let alone recognize them. We don’t start with the resources we value, then work backwards into the infrastructure. So much from a resident ecologist.
You are absolutely right Alan. In Edmonds the cart is always ahead of the horse. Our Mayors and City Council people routinely tell our Council what the town policies should be when it’s supposed to be just the other way around. That is the cause of most of our problems. The Unocal property; a great example. When we should be telling the state (current owner) we want nothing to do with it until they make sure it’s 100% clean, our Mayor and Council assure the state we want to buy it under any circumstances. Our Mayor and Staff, with virtually no prior knowledge and consent from our elected City Council (policy branch) makes a commitment to purchase a private property and instead of stopping the illegal overreach our City Council embraces and supports the action. This system we have simply doesn’t work as far as I can tell. I still hope to be proven wrong someday; but so far it isn’t looking good.
Correction Staff; not Council in second sentence.
Thank you Joe and other commenters who talk about sewer capacity, stormwater mgmt, and the principles of planning that values our natural resources. We need people- lots of people- to comment at the city council meeting at 7pm on Mar 19th on this issue. Be specific about the environmental damage; just pounding on the speaker’s podium with enthusiasm won’t change any council member’s mind. This is the only council meeting before the consultant starts doing the environmental impact analysis of Plan A and Plan B. One of those alternatives created by the consultants needs to be thrown away in my personal opinion and we need a NEW alternative reflecting the utility infrastructure limitations we have. Here’s my example: flooding in Perrinville. The Comp Plan citizen engagement process included meetings last December for every affected neighborhood. Perrinville was not one of the neighborhoods they asked for input on. But here we are in March and there’s a suggestion in Alt B that Perrinville adds about 200 apartments in buildings that could be 4-5 stories high. I’m not an EIS consultant, but it not hard to figure out how to write that paragraph of the draft EIS and state that “serious stormwater mgmt problems need to be mitigated through major capital spending on infrastructure. “ why is Perrinville even in the alternatives?
+ more from the City’s website for communicating about the comprehensive planning in 2024. The growth options studied in the environmental analysis ‘should represent a range of reasonable, achievable options’. That statement is something I can support- but it’s not what we were handed in Alt A. and Alt. B as developed by the consultants. it’s not ‘achievable’ if you have to spend $100M to expand your sewer and stormwater infrastructure. I used to think about where the money would come from for a buildout of our sidewalk network. The sidewalk money is peanuts compared to expanding capacity for sewer + stormwater, and then getting the nitrogen level reduced in the sewer outflow to Puget Sound to be compliant with State of Wash regulations. Is anyone following the mess in Lynwood as they are ordered to shut down their failed sewage treatment facility? Will that be Edmonds fate in 2034? The Director of Public Works and Utilities told City Council there’s only 10 years left in the sewage treatment plant.
“Do the citizens of Edmonds really want changes made to the city’s Comprehensive Plan (which dictates municipal operations in the city) so that we become known as “Edmonds – Where the Sewer Meets the Sea”?”
Overheard in our house:
“Let’s attend all the meetings so we can get the latest poop on the plans for the Edmonds (toilet) Bowl.”
I found a flyer on my porch reading, “Will Edmonds Become Unrecognizable?” The gist of the flyer is that we should attend the citywide forum on Mar. 23rd. from 10:30 am. to 12:30 pm.; Brackett Room, City Hall. ” Planning Board members will be present to listen to public comments and collect feedback.” The flyer was not signed either by a group or an individual, so I don’t really know where it originated. The ideas it claims the City Planning and Development Department are “floating” closely (indeed almost exactly) reflect what is incorporated in the new state mandated laws supposedly designed to create more entry and mid level “affordable” housing in our town. I’m guessing that we will be presented a basic party line plan with a bunch of reasons why we should support it; with little opportunity for real opposition or dare I say, “protest.” It’s going to take anti-connector level protest to stop this new madness and since the state is mandating it; such a protest will probably fail. Edmonds as we have all known it for so long is pretty much over I suspect. We had an opportunity to elect real knowledge and a way to change the system and we blew it in the last election; listening to the usual hype about good management.
It probably will take anti-connector level protests to slow down this train. These proposals are writing a lot of big checks with other people’s money and that’s not sustainable in addition to questionable environmental management I suspect there’ll be a pushback in the form of lawsuits, amended laws, and initiatives. It’ll be interesting to see how much the current mayor is willing to carry his predecessor’s torch. The mayor already has one war going on getting the city’s financial house in order. Is the mayor willing to have a second front open up in a war against its own town citizens with quick and dirty development policy?
But but that new sewer plant was supposed to be the cats meow what happened? Does it even work? Will it ever work as advertised? I’ll give the new mayor the same advice I gave the last one. Spend some time with the sewer department so you can learn about things that stink. The last mayor didn’t listen and I am guessing this one won’t either.
Wow at this letter + comments! I understand the concerns about stormwater and sewer management… but if we do nothing to add further housing stock, we’re going to leave Edmonds in the lurch. More density is coming. It HAS to come — there just isn’t enough housing supply, and Edmonds isn’t some walled off garden that deserves special protection more than any other city in this state. We have to be part of the solution here.
Side note, I’m begging y’all, please remove “stop the crazy” from your lexicon.
Why does more density have to come? Seems like an unsubstantiated conclusion. There is plenty of undeveloped land in Washington that is available for housing.
I am looking forward to the updated comprehensive plan. I believe that the city is making the right choices and that the increase in density will continue to make Edmonds a wonderful place to live. I don’t understand all of the complaints about the sewage issue. Didn’t we just replace the incinerator with a new facility that creates biochar instead?
Connor yes we did we replaced it with what could be considered a unproven system. Does it work well the short answer is no the last I heard it only works a few hours a day. We were we are? Still hauling waste out by truck or dumping not fully processed material into the salish sea. I don’t know it seems to be a secret that the city doesn’t want told. My vague understanding is the new system if performing properly had less capacity than the previous system and it seems it isn’t up to par. Add not just the 13 thousand toilets in Edmonds but the thousands from other cities and you might see the current problem and the extreme problem in the future. To coin the phrase Edmonds is where the sewer meets the sea. Is the truth. How we deal with the problems presented will define Edmonds far beyond my lifetime. So as the old adage says. Maybe people should get while the getting is good.
the public works director told city council last Dec. that the sewage treatment plant will be out of capacity in 10 years
“Currently there has been little substantial progress towards steady state running of the new equipment.”
This quote comes from the WWTP website. We were sold a bill of goods by the previous administration. The carbon recovery system pilot project in Morrisville, Pennsylvania from which our system is based, never became operational before it burnt down due to spontaneous combustion. It was a total loss and they never rebuilt it.
The operational timeline for our facility has continued to move to the right with no reasonable expectation in sight. We have a white elephant on our hands.
Did Edmonds buy this thing? It has been a very controversial subject and has too many questionable benefits vs. the actual costs. It is presently more a snake oil sold by con-artists and other crooks with no guarantee of it doing what they claim it does, let alone the actual benefits it would provide if it actually did what they claim it does.
This is just one of the many articles questioning it. https://phys.org/news/2023-12-cop28-reality-carbon-capture-experts.html
Following up on Jim’s comment on the status of the wastewater treatment plant. Bellow is a link to the the status as of January. The summary says they think it will be fully functioning “by the end of March”. (Even though it says early in the update that as of January “there has been little substantial progress towards steady state running”. Odd disconnect.).
https://cdnsm5-hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_16494932/File/Government/Departments/Public%20Works%20and%20Utilities/Wastewater%20Treatment%20Plant/2024/LettertoWWTP-residents15January2024.pdf
Darrell,
You are correct. However, if you read each of the reports, the operational date has continuously been pushed back going on two years now. And if you really dig into this, the consultant that we’ve hired isn’t an expert in these sorts of systems. He’s a dispute resolution professional. So, we know where this is going while we pay all the excessive sludge hauling expenses and not reaping the cost saving benefits as sold to us. I expect that this system will cost us more to operate and not provide the environmental benefits promised.
Gonna play Sherlock Holmes, so just maybe the biggest reason we are in this financial pickle is because of the large increased ongoing expense from our turd of a sewage system. So I guess we can disband the blue ribbon panel and our government can come clean cause I am sure this failure is the elephant in the room. Probably millions of dollars in cost overruns by now.
Regarding “the stink.” During high run-offs, there is a distinct sewage smell in Shell Valley. A year or so ago, someone even called the fire department, thinking it was a natural gas leak. The City, pardon the expression, pooh-poohs this, asserting it is probably overflow from Goodhope Pond in Pine Ridge Park, and one of the sources of Shell Creek. I know what sewage smells like and I know what Goodhope Pond smells like. Not the same. Someone else at the city speculated that the smell was due to an inversion, holding the emissions from sink vents in Shell Valley. Never mind that it was the end of the inversion that caused the heavy run off that brought the sewage smell. I suggested that the City test the water in Shell Creek during these high run-off/smell events. I don’t think this was ever done. Now, with hundreds of new homes proposed in both Alternative A and B in the Comprehensive Plan, how is this not going to be worse?
bingo! you are right, Vince. Extrapolate to a sewage treatment plant odor mgmt problem downtown in 10 years or so, and you have the distinctive stink in our precious historic core that drives our tourist industry, and the nice food and beverage experience we are all enjoying in Edmonds today. Can’t one of the bookends of the EIS analysis hold all the constraints of storm and sewer systems? simply put- analyze focused growth in the parcels that have the storm/sewer infrastructure today. Consultant- tell us how tall the buildings have to be to hold the apartments HB 1220 forces us to plan for
Everyone don’t forget to RSVP for the 23rd meeting.
Reminder: In-person Comprehensive Plan forum March 23; RSVPs requested
https://myedmondsnews.com/2024/03/comprehensive-plan-growth-options-city-launches-online-open-house-in-person-forum-march-23/?mc_cid=01df12000a
Stop the crazy!
RSVPs are requested to have a sense of crowd size to expect. But if you don’t RSVP, you are welcome to attend anyway~ and if you have any interest at all in the future of Edmonds, you should attend! This Saturday, 10:30 AM in Edmonds City hall.
As of right now (Fri. Morning) I plan to don my rhetorical gas mask and attend. My expectations for this to be an open and honest two way exchange of what actual citizens ideas and views are is quite low. My plan is to be very much the observer and very much not a participant any little table get together games to “visualize” a wonderful 20 years from now. So far our over all city administration has shown little ability to address even today’s financial problems; let alone plan for a viable future here. Due to advanced age my future here is in the short range anyway. One thing you learn as you age is that “Now” is way more important than “Then.” I’m starting to find our State and City plans for the perfect future to be just a little amusing. Affordable housing coming out of these mandates is a joke but it is a developer’s dream come true.
Since no one seems interested in talking about population control on the federal, regional, state, or local level; or exerting the least push back on growth, maybe we could explore some out-of-the-box options. If it has been determined that population growth somehow must reach level X, then could we cap it at that, and then trade growth targets? Some places might want or “need” more growth, while Edmonds seems to be built out if you take environmental and other impacts into account, not to mention an apparent widespread sentiment against more density.
Golf courses are vast swathes of land that benefit relatively few relatively well-off people in prime suburban settings. (MLT and Lynnwood, I’m looking at you). Expropriate them. Non starter? Well then, since Edmonds doesn’t have one, its relative growth “requirements” should be reduced accordingly.
You see where this is going? Ad absurdum. This is what we may find ourselves reduced to when subjected to the pressures of these state mandates. The details bring out the devil in us.
I’m not an absolute acolyte of the free market in determining best outcomes, but the state’s legislation seems too far over on the spectrum toward a command economy. But like others, I feel the horse has already left the barn…