The City of Edmonds’ draft Comprehensive Plan is now available for public review. A draft environmental impact statement (EIS) about updating the Comprehensive Plan has also been published. A virtual public hearing on the EIS is scheduled for 6 p.m. Wednesday, Oct. 16 and can be viewed at this link.
You can review both documents here.
The Comprehensive Planning process (known as “Everyone’s Edmonds”) began about two years ago. A final adopted plan, which looks out 20 years, is due to the state by the end of 2024.
Under state law, the city must accommodate an additional 13,000 people, 9,000 housing units and 3,000 jobs over the next 20 years. Under recent state legislation, much of the new housing that gets built should be affordable to families of low to moderate income levels.
Next steps are for the community to consider the draft EIS and draft plan and provide comments. Comments on the draft EIS are due by Oct. 29.
Ultimately, the Edmonds City Council will decide on the adoption of the plan, including any changes, after hearing from the public, having discussion, and considering the Edmonds Planning Board’s recommendations.
Comments on the draft EIS would typically focus on the environmental impacts and mitigation measures that are addressed in that report. Comments received on the draft EIS will be posted weekly on the project webpage.
Comments on the draft Comprehensive Plan may be broader and cover any issue related to the plan. Comments on the draft Comprehensive Plan should be submitted by Nov. 4.
For additional information, visit www.edmondswa.gov/everyonesedmonds.
I would urge Edmonds residents who enjoy the great assets of living in a waterfront community that still has natural areas and salmon in our creeks to speak up “big time” on the proposed changes to the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
The ‘new’ Plan will change an “Edmonds Kind of Day” to “Edmonds – Where the Sewer Meets the Sea” (yes – this is a ‘tongue-in-cheek’ statement intended to get citizens to react to the new policies for future development in Edmonds).
The reason the City is doing an ‘Environmental Impact Statement’ (EIS) on proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan is because the changes WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT the Edmonds local environment.
Although increased housing density is now required by State Law, there is other State Law that requires “Reasonable alternatives shall include actions that could feasibly attain or approximate a proposal’s objectives, but at a lower environmental cost or decreased level of environmental degradation.” Unfortunately, the Draft EIS does NOT include FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES and does NOT analyze or compare resulting environmental degradation within and between Edmonds geographic areas.
Those of us who care about our City need to speak-up now and demand that this Draft EIS be redone to correctly address feasible alternatives for all areas of Edmonds to minimize environmental degradation.
Let’s try and keep our “Edmonds Kind of Day” for our future generations.
The state’s requirement for growth in Edmonds and other existing cities is the result of environmental protections for undeveloped land under the state’s Growth Management Act (GMA).
Given the state’s requirement for Edmonds to grow, planning is essential. City planning includes designing utilities and other infrastructure that will both accommodate mofe new residents, and protect the environment, as well as locating transportation, new buildings and activities. This planning is required under the GMA, but it also makes sense. The worst possible outcome would be the chaos and random building that result of the city of Edmonds refusing to plan.
Growth is inevitable. It’s important for us to support planning efforts, and engage with them, instead of blocking them with the misguided notion that not planning will somehow prevent growth.
Hello Jeff,
I suggest you pull up another City’s EIS to see that yes no one is disputing what you are saying as Vision 2050 has all new growth goals which includes the transportation arm along with housing, environment and zoning for affordable housing.
This DEIS is written with scenarios that include growth, a bit of utilities or transportation but fails heavily in regards to our typography, mitigation and regional impacts since we are a coastal community. It’s so poorly written document and should be sent back. Change and growth are certain but can our sewer handle it or our aging infrastructure or utilities.
Redmonds EIS is what I sent our City leaders as it’s a good example of the necessary balance needed to support long-range growth and still restore the environmental gems this City possess by mitigation techniques.
I thought the PROS plan was bad and Council had to pay an additional $165k to add the environmental chapter – so this is no different. Some of us believe that it is an embarrassment that it was even accepted from Herrera.
We have an Environmental Impact Statement and Comp. Plan that mentions the actual environment only somewhat in passing. There is little to no meaningful analysis of how the state mandated population growth that we are embracing with open arms (both this Administration and the last one) is going to be integrated into our water sheds and unique topography next to the Salish Sea without causing virtually impossible to correct harm. I guess one could say there are two ways to define environment. One is based on how we (humans) interact with the land and water that sustain us and the other is how we interact with each other in terms of housing and business. These particular documents were definitely written favoring the housing and business environment over the interacting with nature environment. Adding insult to injury is the fact these documents cost thousands of dollars in consultant fees to write and the money to re do them properly just does not exist. The sad fact is this town cannot be fixed without huge property tax injections to cover the waste and mismanagement of the past along with the inflation of the present. There will soon be lots of angry people in our fair town as the facts come out and the cost of just keeping the status quo is known.
Folks, this is a serious matter unless you want to see Edmonds turned into Ballard as this draft Environmental Impact Statement is inaccurate or incomplete about our streams, watersheds and two CARAs and how to mitigate for these environmental treasures.
Please tell Council to send it back for re-write so it is can accurately reflect our deteriorating watersheds and specific to our topography (earth) which require SPECIFIC mitigation scenarios or techniques.
Recently I sent the Mayor (who ran on an environmental platform), his staff and Council Redmond’s EIS which is focused on the environment and mitigation techniques and scenarios. All Council had to do is read the index and see what’s missing! So it should be sent back (like the inadequate PROS plan) and the revised DEIS should then go through the Planning Board process with proper vetting and public hearings.
Seriously, it is so bad, if not corrected Edmonds will become the sewer capital of the greater surrounding areas with overbuilding challenge our already deteriorated watersheds to the point of no return as grants will not be coming our way because it is written so poorly.
Comment for NO GROWTH scenario as the City Council already has all sub-areas, (except Five Corners) fully vetted by public.
The amount of wasted money on the comprehensive plan update process should not equate to rubber stamp approval.
It is baffling to me that people aren’t reading the State law. If Edmonds does not choose an option, a model ordinance will be applied by the state. This model ordinance goes further than all proposals and exposes Edmonds to law suits and makes the city, which is in the middle of a budget crisis non eligible for state grants.
There is not a no grow option. Exclusionary zoning, the tool of choice to prevent growth is now illegal and environmental arguments will be expensive for the city to prove. A city in a path to financial insolvency.
Edmonds also needs to grow both commercial and residential to increase its tax revenue without resorting to tax increases. Low density simply cannot sustain a model where inflation is high and tax increases are capped to 1%. The general fund has been constantly raided to pay for services that should be paid for by sharing the cost among more people. but that was always unsustainable as Edmonds ordinances also make commercial development exclusionary so the sales tax revenue is simply not going to keep up with inflation expenses either.
The quasi ponzi scheme is over folks. City council will approve an ordinance or the state will make sure one gets adopted. Growth means opportunities and revenue. It is the only way forward.
Paul, the point of a PROPER Environmental Impact Statement isn’t to stop growth or evade the State take over of municipal zoning. An older state law, SEPA, says protecting the natural environment basically can trump all other law, which would include the new zoning laws, if human life is somehow threatened by any given practice(s). Our city has to obey the new laws regarding zoning up to the point of possibly endangering human life and of course the city must make an honest attempt to obey every law we have. The city, however, doesn’t have to embrace just any old development anywhere developers want to build, as appears to be the belief of our recent past and current city leadership.
The issue here is NOT to avoid the housing density growth requirements in State Law, but rather how Edmonds might accommodate that future growth in a manner that preserves the Edmonds unique environment to the greatest extent possible.
This is what the City’s Comprehensive Plan is supposed to do – set overarching goals and policies that ensure “managed” growth across the City’s landscape – – AND – – avoid degradation of the natural AND human environment. That’s why the City contracted to have a thorough analysis of potential adverse impacts of alternative ways of managing this future growth. This “analysis” which is called an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is supposed to guide the City in making the best decisions on changes to the Comprehensive Plan to achieve the objectives of the new Housing Bills.
Unfortunately, the EIS as drafted by contractors does NOT provide necessary analyses of adverse impacts to allow INFORMED decisions on where/how REASONABLE Alternatives for increased housing can be managed with the least degrading impact on the human environment. This creates a huge mess for the City Council and the State requirement to update the Comprehensive Plan by December 30th.
The question for Edmonds residents is how can citizens help the City resolve this mess so that the State does not step-in and destroy “An Edmonds Kind of Day”?
Unfortunately, the Draft