Edmonds City Council: When updating our Comprehensive Plan, please consider the following two issues:
(1) Careful planning to create walkable “15-minute neighborhoods.”
In order to justify increased density within 3/4 mile of transit, Director McLaughlin and consultants have misrepresented “15-minute neighborhoods” by adding bike and transit to the definition. Council never authorized use of the term “15-minute neighborhoods,” or the definition being used, so council can at any time implement the real definition into the Comprehensive Plan.
I urge you to carefully read all “seven rules for creating 15-minute neighborhoods” in this article. It will inform you of the value of careful planning to achieve desired results.
“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”
Careful planning to create these neighborhoods would involve:
- Engaging property owners and residents in EACH neighborhood hub/center that we want to be walkable, in a transparent process to determine if/how that can be achieved.
- Defining what services are needed in each neighborhood, and where they might be located.
- Including guidelines for moving towards the goal of walk-ability for each neighborhood hub/center in our updated Comprehensive Plan.
When my husband and I moved to the Edmonds Bowl in 1985, there was a grocery store, two hardware stores, two drug stores, a garden center, Garden Gear, a produce market and a fish market, all within a 15-minute walk of our home. There was also a grocery store at the waterfront. Now there’s ACE hardware.
All these businesses providing “daily necessities and services” closed and were replaced with specialty stores, restaurants and bars. The bowl and the waterfront are no longer “15-minute neighborhoods.”
Five Corners is also not a “15-minute neighborhood.” See Sam Byron’s excellent Reader view.
(2) Focus on Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) code update, which supports the goal of “aging in place.”
Our ADU code, if well crafted, can increase density by supporting multi-generational housing and by providing affordable options for elders and disabled on fixed incomes who might otherwise sell their homes to developers.
To begin:
– Identify and document all existing ADUs, registered and unregistered.
– Project number of property owners who would build ADUs, if it was affordable to do so, by doing a survey as suggested by Councilmember Susan Paine.
– Include the above numbers in projection of our growth requirements.
– Since lot-line-to-lot-line development is viewed negatively by many, consider researching the number of single-family home property owners in Seattle who sold out to developers, who subsequently filled the entire property with housing.
The ADU code is in progress, and careful crafting of the code will support multi-generational housing and provide a focus on elder property owners who may consider an ADU to assist them in aging in place.
Here is a link to my Reader view, which I submitted as public comment to the Edmonds Planning Board’s hearing on ADU code.
It is critically important that Edmonds growth treads lightly on our environmental assets and can be supported by the costs of necessary infrastructure improvements.
Please give serious consideration to these two issues as you update Edmonds’ Comprehensive Plan.
— By Joan Bloom
Edmonds City Councilmember, 2012-2015
This is a thoughtful LTE of items to consider when updating the comprehensive plan. The 15-minute neighborhood is a political special interest agenda promoted by mayor Rosen’s administration, as you point out Council never authorized the term 15-minute neighborhood or it’s definition. One concern with the ADU’s is to be careful about controlling short-term rentals which often have negative consequences to neighborhoods.
Correct –
Council did not approve a number of policy issues staff has introduced and we are still waiting for code!?!
So much code is inadequate or outdated and we have full time code writer?. Example, I supplied Seattle’s Green Street code (very stringent) as staff had already started a project even when Council had said no! Stormwater eventually picked the $70k cost helping increase your utility bill.
Council consistently took out funding for green streets because of no code; rather than instruct the code writer to create code – staff hired a consultant to give the public a slick marketing presentation which Council had not asked for!?!
With inadequate code, developers will have a field day and this extravagant new zoning policy material is definitely impacting what seems to be a complete rewrite rather than an update! It is an UPDATE!
Please tell Council to pull the existing 2022 comp plan and work from it to ensure it is an update. Sub-areas can be added next year after proper vetting.
The environment, topography and climate change has certainly not been an active topic during this bias process (many could not find the survey button!) of an update. New laws last year require expanding the environmental component for climate change.
Please pay attention: the process is flawed, lacks transparency, costly & marginalizes the environment.
I think our whole approach to planning for additional growth was a big mistake of the last administration that has been taken up and even amplified by this administration to cater to the demands of wrong headed state mandates on zoning requirements. Thanks to Roger Pence we know that historical growth for the past decade or so has been about 135 people a year and we are planning for over 600 /year. Between 2000 and 2022 the biggest growth year was 2016 at +569 and the smallest was 2010 at -1199 (probably related to the housing crisis of 2008 coming to a head?). Anyway we are planning for growth based on bogus and perhaps even arbitrary numbers that just don’t add up as to real need and probability. What we should be doing is scaling back all the hurry up and comply action to please the state and use the SEPA law as an excuse to do REAL studies for an EIS of what all our environmental impacts will be on already stressed sewer/water infrastructure and our unique wetland assets including the Salish Sea Beach, the marsh and the other watersheds that make Edmonds, Edmonds. “Sorry, State. your mandates are unrealistic, unfunded, and not workable for us.” As Brian points out ADU’s could become a real headache too, if done wrong.
Joan, I am sorry for your loss, as I know how much you would prefer to walk to the services you need (and I expect it is good for us all if you are able to do so). In a way you are lucky, my “15 minute neighborhood hub” and “neighborhood business zone” somehow includes, as the primary property, an artificial turf vender. (?). The “intersection(s) targeted for growth are also often/always gridlocked after noon on weekdays, particularly when the Madrona school lets the kids out and during rush hour. I wish the turf folks well, but “turf” does not, and hopefully will not ever, serve my “daily” needs, as is supposedly required for the “neighborhood business” zone. I do not expect things to improve any with the addition of a low or no parking multifamily mid-high rise in an area with marginal transit. I expect there will be little resident parking, less for the public, and a string of small business owners in a tiny storefront whose dreams are ruined by the lack of proper commercial space and/or sufficient public parking to support their business.
Thank you Joan for a well researched and thought out LTE. I believe the 15 minute neighborhood is all staff’s doing. Although, they are part of Mayor Rosen’s Administration, I am not sure that he agrees with
them. For all the reason’s that you point out, they should be removed from the Comprehensive plan.
Your discussion of DADU’s is spot on. I am very concerned that the property owner doesn’t need to live on the property containing the DADUs. This will lead to developers buying single family dwellings and adding DADUs with little concern for the appearance of the property, or it’s effect on the neighborhood.
The Strong Towns article Joan shares is very sensible. Yes to sidewalks! The last item is especially worth considering:
“This one’s especially for you, local governments. The way we used to get 15-minute neighborhoods, for most of human history, was simple: we just let them happen. We didn’t plan and zone for them in elaborate ways. What’s more relevant is what we didn’t do: rigidly dictate what kind of activity can take place on what block or lot. Today, nearly all of our places can stand to lower the bar to entry to being a local entrepreneur, by getting out of the way of things like in-home businesses, food trucks, farmers’ markets, and pop-up shops, which in too many cities are heavily regulated or banned.
“For all that is different about the modern world from that of our ancestors, we still believe this: If you allow people to take steps to meet their own and their neighbors’ needs right in their neighborhoods, they will. And often in ingenious ways.”
It’s not OK to run a gravel mine next to an elementary school, and at the same time, the liberty to start a corner store and coffee shop might be nice.
Excellent LTE! We need this type of thoughtful and honest approach to the Comprehensive Plan. I agree we need to use the true definition of “15 minute neighborhoods” and go through the steps to ensure property owners buy-in on each element Joan outlines. The ADU issue needs the same through approach…numbers that currently exist and those that would build, and use those figures in reaching the city’s required numbers. Our City Council can agree to use this approach. We need to do this right for our City so please turn this around.
Just so you know that the term was not created by anyone in Edmonds:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The 15-minute city (FMC[2] or 15mC[3]) is an urban planning concept in which most daily necessities and services, such as work, shopping, education, healthcare, and leisure can be easily reached by a 15-minute walk, bike ride, or public transit ride from any point in the city.[4] This approach aims to reduce car dependency, promote healthy and sustainable living, and improve wellbeing and quality of life for city dwellers.[5]
Good thoughts Nick. Over planning and regulation is just as bad as no planning and no regulation. The trick is finding the sweet spot for it all. Another problem is thinking we can solve climate change and systemic racism in the process of government planning of where people are going to live. That said, there needs to be good planning to not perpetuate those problems as much as possible. And we have to do all this in a financial crisis situation which is another good reason to stall off the state playing the bully with bad one party style legislation. Just tell the state – no money available to do this right now and it may violate some SEPA requirements as to environmental impact.
While your chosen Strong Towns example happened to omit bike and transit, most definitions, including those used in other Strong Towns articles, include bike… and, more often than not, transit, too.
“15-minute city as an ideal geography where all human needs can be met within a 15-minute walk or bike ride.” https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/6/24/strong-towns-and-the-15-minute-city
“Everyone living in a city should have access to essential urban services within a 15-minute walk or bike.” https://www.15minutecity.com/about It’s a global climate solution — if it can get past conspiracy theories and NIMBYs “in a 15-minute city, a person can access key things in their life — work, food, schools and recreation — within a short walk, bike, or transit ride of their home.” https://www.npr.org/2023/10/08/1203950823/15-minute-cities-climate-solution
“.. strengthening transit connections with the rest of the city to serve the trips that people want or need to make, as well as ensuring that residents of all ages, backgrounds and abilities can meet their daily needs locally, in a short walk or bike ride from home.” https://www.c40knowledgehub.org/s/article/Introducing-Spotlight-On-15-minute-cities?language=en_US
“A 15-minute city enables residents to access most daily amenities within a 15 to 20-minute walk, bike or other mode of transportation from any point in a city, town or village regardless of size. The concept integrates transportation planning, urban design, mixed-used development, safety on streets and sidewalks, with policy making and the real-life experiences of residents…” https://www.nlc.org/article/2023/06/13/exploring-the-15-minute-city-concept-and-its-potential-for-communities-of-all-sizes/
Accusations of conspiracy theories or NIMBY’s is part of the playbook of extremists to discount reasonable questions or concerns. Consequences or more importantly unintended consequences by these activists are ignored because they are not part of their dogma. Ironically local environmental concerns are mostly ignored because of their inflated utopian vision.
Thank you for this! “NIMBY” is like the ever-popular “virtue signaling” as a way of denigrating the other person’s view without the need to engage with it an any substantive fashion. It is the age-old tactic of poisoning the the other person’s well in order to avoid actually saying something to the point.
“While your chosen Strong Towns example happened to omit bike and transit, most definitions, including those used in other Strong Towns articles, include bike”
I would argue that the age of many of our Edmonds neighbors, our terrain, and our weather – all militate against the genuine utility of biking, much as I favor the bike where feasible and safe. Which brings us to the final factor: given the roll-throughs, speeding, ignoring cross walks, vanishing bike lanes (try 9th…) biking in Edmonds is taking your life in your hands. Walking is dangerous too, as I have found out through several close escapes: we need sidewalks more than we need bike lanes.
Let’s address safety first!
Please explain. if you can and are so inclined to answer, just what the “conspiracy theories” are and just who the NIMBY’s are in your comment Laura. Mostly Democratic Party politicians pushed this State control of city zoning thru the legislature on the pretext that it would increase housing and the affordability of housing. That’s not a conspiracy theory; that’s a simple fact. Our yard would probably meet the criteria for adding a two story DADU that would be totally out of character for what now exists on the East side of our neighborhood. (On the West side there is already a grandfathered in rental complex with an ADU). So in some ways I’m arguing against what would be our own economic self interest in an effort to try to be a good neighbor. Does that make me a NIMBY, or my neighbors a bunch of NIMBY’s? Labeling people based on your own bias’s is usually not a real swift idea.
In 2015, Prof. Carlos Moreno coined the term 15-Minute City (Ville du quart d’heure) at the Paris United Nations Climate Change (COP21) Conference. Moreno became an advisor to Paris’s Mayor, Anne Hidalgo, who embraced the concept and made it part of her election campaign and mayoral policy.
But Edmonds is not Paris. Edmonds has only one-tenth the population density~ 5K people per square mile vs. 50K in Paris. Yes, it’s useful for Edmonds to improve walkability and focus new development, somewhat greater density, in areas where people have more places to walk to. But let’s not oversell the idea and expect we can or should remake Edmonds into something fundamentally different.
My friend Nick Maxwell makes a good point about rethinking our zoning code in ways that could improve livability. After the new Comprehensive Plan is adopted this December, then we begin the challenges of actually implementing it~ something that will require major changes to zoning code and the zoning map, if we want to do it it right.
Nick, I fully support your sentiment about “yes to sidewalks.” That goes for accelerating installation of sidewalks where they don’t yet exist as well as repairing/maintaining those that now exist. However, here is where we need your and the Planning Board’s help: it’s not at all clear where the responsibility for sidewalks lies in many instances. Our city code seems to indicate it is the adjacent property owner that bears the responsibility for sidewalks, and I don’t believe that is well understood by our citizens. Instead, I think our citizens believe it is the city that bears the responsibility (the city does bear the responsibility when the sidewalk is adjacent to city-owned property, but most of our sidewalks are not in this category). This needs to be clarified very soon for the benefit of all, since new and better sidewalks always rises to the top of the priority list when citizens are asked what is important to them. Can you and the Planning Board look into this and develop recommendations for Council? This is something that shouldn’t be allowed to languish as it is a clear citizen priority and we need a near term plan about how to better provide sidewalks city-wide.
If staff is making proposals to the Council those proposals should be first vetted by the Mayor for his approval. He runs the staff as part of the Executive branch.
The 15 min. neighborhood is a nice idea but, it depends on there being sufficient popular interest to support the businesses you may desire in your neighborhood. Property and business owners want the best use of their property in order to be profitable. Government should nor be imposing it’s opinion what may be a succesful use of property. The reason all those businesses left the bowl is they were not succesfull or there was a better use of the land.
Thanks, Joan, for pointing out the flaws in these grandiose ideas for changing our neighborhoods,
Two major components of the City’s future growth have potential for the majority of the State mandated 9,000 additional housing units. These components are the Highway 99 subarea and the DADU/ADU code update. These two components should be approved first and given time to work, and the outcomes should be monitored and measured to inform forecasts for the remaining State mandated growth targets.
The remaining components of the Comprehensive Plan Growth Alternatives should be deferred until both the revised Highway 99 subarea plan and the new code for ADU/DADU expansion, targeted and encouraged as necessary, have been given a chance to work. The Neighborhood Centers, Neighborhood Hubs, 15-minute neighborhoods, etc. are all “too much, too fast” to be sprung on us with hard deadlines. The cumulative impacts of these major changes to neighborhoods all around Edmonds are frankly too much.
Mr. Bucklin makes the best case for why the “15-minute city” is so problematic.
What population density within a 15-minute walk would be necessary to support the businesses that provide the everyday services we seem to need? Only high-rise and high density would support such a business concept. A population density well beyond what is being proposed. Hence these “needed” businesses will not locate there without their need to attract customers from outside their area. And how will that happen if there is inadequate infrastructure (i.e. transit, parking) to facilitate the transactions? Ultimately the free market will decide.
If one were really interested in what’s behind this walkable urban setting concept, the book “Missing Middle Housing” by Daniel Parolek is a must read. The framework of what city staff is proposing is laid out in this book.
News Flash
Pack the city council chambers on Tuesday night!
Storm Peterson is running for state representative again. This is your Edmonds representative living on his waterfront home that voted in favor of high density neighborhoods being crammed down our throats by the state without any regard for it’s citizens and our neighborhoods.
It really bothers me that our council is voting way to soon on this and is having a special meeting on Tuesday night to hear citizens input on this density in our town. Looks like 4 council members have already made up their minds about the growth and are backing Strom for his re-election. Looking at Storm’s voting record on the drug contaminated motel on hwy 99 and ruining single family neighborhoods and not wanting police to pursue criminals, his list goes on.
A quote from his e-mail blast.
“In my campaign, I am proud to have the support of a broad list of elected leaders at every level of government, including Attorney General Bob Ferguson, Congressman Rick Larsen, Mukilteo City Councilmember Richard Emery, and Edmonds City Councilmembers Will Chen, Susan Paine, Chris Eck, and Jenna Nand”
Do these 4 council member’s represent the Edmonds taxpayer or is their allegiance to the party that funded their last campaign?
You judge for yourself who’s cares about the taxpayer and our neighbors.
Mmmmm . . . . . . It will be interesting to see if there is a return of partisan ideology based block voting to the Edmonds City Council. Got to hand it to the Dem.s in WA. though; they have done a great job of stealing the old Republican Party (Karl Rove) tactic of loading up city and county councils and school boards with highly partisan individuals. I just asked Mr. Peterson to take me off his “please vote for and send money to me” list as I never plan to vote for him again for anything let alone donate. Same goes for Marko when he comes calling for a vote and money. I’m busy juggling my accounts to try to pay all the taxes these save the World types have inflicted on us with their social and climate engineering legislation to date. Meanwhile really fixing the watersheds, saving salmon, fixing Edmonds old and deteriorating infrastructure and generally protecting all the beauty and way of life we have going here is on the back burner. I know people just deserve to live here if they want to, no need to earn it required. I’m just fed up with all the hypocrisy and baloney from both sides.
Fred, Thanks for the informative email. It is time for the local voters to wake up and realize who has brought this disaster upon us. Votes have consequences!
Mr. Gouge, I am following the comprehensive plan update work closely, and monitoring most meetings. I think you might be misunderstanding the ‘vote’ anticipated at the council workshop on Apr 9th. Have you read the resolution language that is in the meeting packet? The council is following the planning process that is required by law in Washington state. Regardless of who is endorsing whom in future elections, the environmental impact analysis that describes mitigations for the damage that growth can cause needs to be done. Yes, I think we should pack the city council chambers on Apr 9 just like we packed the Brackett room on Mar 23rd. but be clear on the agenda topic and make relevant comments. Re: timing. This is not a vote happening too soon. This is a fairly technical decision on how to define the low end and the high end of the range (increased density by neighborhood and roadway) that will be studied in April and May. The important decision point in my mind is in June when council defines the “recommended growth alternative”. State law requires a public process to review that Draft Environmental Impact Statement. But the conversations with our council members should be going on now if you want to influence the ‘vote’ they make in June.