Accessory dwelling units to be discussed at April 10 Edmonds Planning Board meeting

Edmonds City Hall

After completing its recommendations to the Edmonds City Council on growth alternatives proposed for Edmonds’ 2024 Comprehensive Plan update, the Edmonds Planning Board this Wednesday, April 10 will turn its attention to city code updates regarding accessory dwelling units.

The amendments, which would allow for detached units known as DADUs, are designed to accommodate the Washington State Legislature’s 2023 passage of HB 1337. The bill directed cities to amend their development codes to include provisions for detached accessory dwelling units.

Read more about this topic in our previous story here.

This planning board meeting will be in the third-floor Brackett Room,
121 5th Ave. N., Edmonds. You can also attend the meeting remotely via Zoom. Meeting ID is 873 2287 2194 and the passcode is 007978. Or listen by telephone  at US: +1 253 215 8782.

You can see the complete meeting agenda here.

  1. The entire reason for this to continue is because of “CITY OF EDMONDS IS BROKE” many streets in Edmonds don’t have sidewalks therefore no street parking, As others have pointed out our infrastructure is already suffering, we are not NY where folks use the transit system more than there cars, someone else brought up the issue of these being used for short term rentals , the codes needs to be very clear and not allow VBRO’S that’s not what the change is meant for, or is it? It feels like not only is this being way to rushed without really addressing all the negative affects it’s going to have on our city but that doesn’t matter because we are going to force it on you no matter if you like it or not!. Let the lawsuits begin. No more SFR.

    1. Good Comments as to infrastructure needs!

      What about parking? What about our sewer capacity? Is it even commissioned yet? How is the City dealing with the capacity issues? Why are we not hearing this information as part of these comp plan sessions?

      What about our streets? It’s embarrassing to drive down 9th and see how the City has ruined that street; and bicyclists are biking elsewhere. Can someone at least restripe it? Folks from out of town were appalled by our streets – especially on 9th. Has all the $2.0 grant money been spent or what is the deal? Do those folks living on 9th have to live with that mess? I keep expecting to see it fixed, but nothing?

      Where are the code that addresses short-term rentals or design standards? This was to be an economic development commission project, as well as planning board. But like all codes – they are on the back burners. Portland clamped down on their rentals requiring a yearly filing as everyone was using the ADUs as short-term rentals or renting their house and living in the ADU. So, not only did they want wanted to keep track of the disruption to the neighborhoods, but also obtain a small slice of the rental income since it had become so lucrative.

      Please tell City Council to require good code!

  2. This is very ill conceived bill. and it appears that it contradicts itself. Is it illegal to require on street parking for ADU’s or ADU’s within 1/4 mile or 1/2 mile walking distance of a major transit stop? What sense does this make for a ferry terminal. Further It only pays lip service to our infrastructure, environment, and aesthetics. It is the result of top down decisions driven by nothing more than political agenda.

  3. Correction of my above comment. I meant to say “off street parking”, not on street parking.

  4. (These comments are my own, and not as a representative of any government or group.) I hope the planning board shelves this until after the comprehensive plan update is completed and the City has written the allowed protections into its stormwater and critical areas ordinances. For example, RCW 36.70A.680(4) would allow the City to restrict ADU’s or at least DADU’s in drinking water protection areas and landslide hazard areas via CARA and stormwater ordinances (which seems like a good idea). And, the legislature would have an opportunity to reconsider the entire bill, including the (apparent) need for owner occupancy to allow housing for residents to take priority over investment opportunities for corporations and other opportunists. Imagine what State and local jurisdictions could accomplish to improve 1337 over the next year if we give them the chance. It looks like we have until six months after the comprehensive plan update, let’s use that time!

  5. Lora, how much time does the City have to pass new ADU code? 6 mos after the Comp Plan is approved, I believe. But that’s not the deadline I’m tracking. The deadline I’m tracking is Apr 13, 2024. that’s when the City work plan in the consultant contract defines the bookends to the DEIS analysis, and those bookends include a count of the number of ADUs planned for in the next 20 years in the Comp Plan. At the council workshop Apr 9th for the Comp Plan growth alternatives, they decided on 2 ADUs on every lot. Now we wait- what will the preliminary draft environmental impact statement in early June tell us about aquifer impacts, about traffic congestion impacts, about waste water treatment plant capacity problems? The land use map has to show where ADUs are allowed, and it has to be approved by Council by Dec 2024. Staff has advised that it’s OK to have denser residential development in the CARA. Are they right? We’re years behind some cities on the east side in allowing ADUs. What did they allow on top of their aquifers?

    1. (These comments are my own, and not as a representative of any government or group). It looks like (1) the April deadline is self imposed and not a deadline and, (2) this is one case where being “behind” may make us the winners! You could google the State’s SWAP map to see where aquifers are located, then google the State’s PFAS dashboard to identify some of the problem areas for just that particular class of chemicals. (Note, the State map uses a less protective standard than the federal standard adopted today).

    2. It’s extremely IMPORTANT that we defend the environment with using unintended consequences.

      Density has RUINED our environment over the last few decades. Our City plugged Perrinville Creek and that near-shore estuary is now very expensive as homeowners are involved! The City Council was foolish to approve permitting in that area but I’m guessing staff did not plan Lynwood’s explosive growth.

      Shell Creek is a mess with bridges out due to massive runoff and the City continues to drag its feet (no space to explain).

      The 2023 CARA code WILL protect the Deer Creek Watershed and “buy everyone time” to wade through these density bills as they will be challenged, especially by the Cities that receive the crux of the regional drainage.

      Because the City purposely pushed through a GHG centric Climate Action Plan – the environmental adaptative measures are non-existent; so Administration continues to push density in areas where protecting our environment is critical! Especially at this juncture when surrounding density WILL impact Edmonds (MLT is over their sewer capacity).

      Comp plans or codes can be changed yearly!

      Tell Council to not gamble with that DeerCreek Watershed and revoke digging in the code.

      We need to step back and put the environment first!

      If not, our City’s look could mimic the wavy lines on 9th Ave, paid for by a $2m grant!

      PROTECT our CARA!

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.