Draft growth alternatives for the City of Edmonds 2024 Comprehensive Plan will be the sole focus of an Edmonds City Council special meeting at 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, April 9 in the council chambers, 250 5th Ave. N.
The council will still hold its virtual April 9 committee meetings — parks and public works, public safety-planning-human services-personnel, and finance — as scheduled. Meeting schedules and agendas can be found on the city’s meeting agenda page.
The 7:30 p.m. special meeting will feature a presentation from staff that includes preliminary feedback of the online open house that took place March 11-April 2 and a review of the Edmonds Planning Board recommendations.
Audience comments specific to the draft growth alternatives are welcome following the presentation. Audience comments are possible in person or remotely via Zoom, and you can also submit written comments online.
During the meeting, the council will discuss and deliberate and could consider taking action via a resolution that would provide their input to staff and consulting team. A news release announcing the special meeting stated that “council’s direction on the draft growth alternatives is not an adoption of these alternatives, rather guidance for the purposes of the environmental impact statement (EIS) analysis. Council will make future decision on whether to adopt a preferred alternative in the final EIS.”
I want to thank Mayor Rosen and City Council President Vivian Olsen for arranging this Special Meeting that will allow the citizens of this City to be heard AFTER the presentations so that the public can provide informed input that may actually get incorporated by the Council into the range of Alternatives that need to be analyzed for their merits as well as environmental impacts.
I think it’s important for citizens in Edmonds to understand that the State mandated growth “accommodations” will affect everyone either directly (in their neighborhood) or indirectly (increased utility/infrastructure costs, “compromised” open/green areas and creeks/shoreline, etc.).
Also, the Council has received a “DEIS Framework” white paper that responds to public input for a broader range of Alternatives for analyses at this step in the process. Please E-Mail council@edmondswa.gov to obtain a copy before the meeting.
Agreed! We must consider our environment as these laws will be refined as the Department of Ecology is considering new open space rules for “net ecological gain” since these growth bills ignore regional impacts or the individual topography of Cities. The current administration sans our Mayor Rosen does not have a good track record for sound environmental decisions, good codes or even complying to existing codes. Perrinville Watershed is a mess as the Administration plugged the Creek in 2021 – where is the plan? The Administration left out the environmental component of the “rewritten” (as opposed to updated) PROS plan; an additional $165K had to be spent despite citizens providing draft environmental language to the planning board and consultants well before the PROS plan was published. More wasted money on the horizon as the GHG-Centric Climate Action Plan (CAP) pushed through bypassed vetting by Planning Board and ignored adaptive measures (i.e. marsh restoration for carbon sequestering, sea level rise, etc.) and the Administration ignored us. The critical area recharge area (CARA) code requested in 2021, came forth in 2023 and was written to protect our Deer Creek Watershed. Recently, that section was dropped to allow digging in that Watershed which could ruin this unique water source. Another lawsuit threat to create fear (I’ve heard this excuse many times).
We must speak up for our environment!
The only way to push back against this obvious social engineering perversion of the original Growth Management Act (GMA) is to use the State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) as a lever to try to prevent some of the obvious over reach of these draconian density requirements. It’s come to my attention that Edmond’s non-historical based growth projection has actually come from Snohomish County Regional influences and our obligation to meet the state requirements could be met with a substantially lower number with a different approach. It’s important that our Council not just rubber stamp either of the Administrations proposed options and consider CM Dotch’s White Paper on the subject. Our Council and Mayor need to be City of Edmonds loyal and not Demacrtatic Party and County Council loyal. Can’t serve two masters and all that. This issue has potential to show some true colors. Hoping for some pleasant surprises but not holding my breath.