Will you chip in to support our nonprofit newsroom with a donation today? Yes, I want to support My Edmonds News!
Much of Edmonds shouldn’t be further developed because of inadequate or antiquated infrastructure, or the area is already overbuilt for the existing landscape or it has unique landscapes and critical areas requiring additional restrictions. But our state Legislature didn’t take this into account when it mandated every city to update their Comprehensive (Comp) Plan to allow for increased housing density.
Many long-time residents of Edmonds hoped that the prior city administration, while drafting an updated Comp Plan, would ensure it protected our unique waterfront landscape and our coastal watersheds to ensure they continue to support salmon, wildlife and the “green” and welcoming environment that Edmonds provides.
Unfortunately, that didn’t happen and our city council is now faced with a Dec. 31 deadline for approving the resulting “total rewrite” (rather than an update) of our current Comp Plan. The convoluted and piecemeal process used to create the “new” plan has left the public dumbfounded on how to provide constructive input and caused total confusion on if/how the plan incorporates unrealistic growth projections. Further, the draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), which should have informed everyone on the adverse effects of increased housing throughout Edmonds and especially in the newly conceived “Centers and Hubs,” was totally inadequate. This inadequate DEIS reached the absurd conclusion that there were no significant environmental impacts from increased housing anywhere in Edmonds (total hogwash in my view).
Thus, on behalf of the Edmonds Environmental Council, I proposed to Mayor Rosen and his administration that “Environmentally Sensitive” zoning be incorporated into this “new” Comp Plan to protect areas of Edmonds that either should not be further developed or must have infrastructure improvements, additional development restrictions or mitigation requirements to prevent environmental degradation. For example, Perrinville Creek, Shell Creek and Deer Creek watersheds should have “Environmentally Sensitive” zoning to preserve salmon streams and drinking water aquifers within those watersheds, thus protecting them from unrestricted development. Edmonds Marsh, the waterfront and adjacent areas, and Lake Ballinger should also have “Environmentally Sensitive” zoning.
I also proposed a “staggered” approach to zoning implementation to accommodate the uncertain housing needs projection. Proposed housing increases should not become effective for all areas upon approval of the new Comp Plan. They should be staggered over the 20-year timeframe of population growth projections. Those areas that can now accommodate increased housing without environmental impacts should be the first areas where the denser housing rezoning becomes effective. Areas requiring infrastructure improvements to avoid environmental degradation should have the increased density rezoning take effect later in the 20-year plan once those infrastructure deficiencies are resolved. “Environmentally Sensitive” density rezoning would become effective last in the 20-year timeframe and only if necessary to achieve “actual” population growth and have requirements that minimize/eliminate environmental impacts.
Antiquated or inadequate stormwater infrastructure can and does adversely affect critical areas even when they are located outside the boundaries of Edmonds’ critical area designations. Salmon-bearing creeks in Edmonds (e.g., Shell and Perrinville Creeks) are the recipients of damaging pollutants in stormwater. Excessive stormwater gushes during rain events that erode stream banks, deposit “killer” sediment in the salmon spawning areas and flood streamside residences. The “Environmentally Sensitive” zoning should include these areas that are outside Edmonds critical areas but still need special environmental attention.
An “Environmentally Sensitive” zoning would put building permit applicants on notice that certain areas of Edmonds may have additional building restrictions beyond what’s covered by critical area regulations to protect the human and natural environment. This zoning would also provide a tool for the city to address its Urban Forest Management Plan goals for tree canopy, wildlife corridors, and open space and park needs.
Please join the Edmonds Environmental Council in requesting that the Edmonds City Council [Council@edmondswa.gov] and Mayor Rosen [mike.rosen@edmondswa.gov] modify the draft Comp Plan to incorporate the concept of “Environmentally Sensitive” zoning and a “staggered” approach to implementation of housing density zoning in our Comp Plan over the next 20 years.
— By Joe Scordino
Joe Scordino is president of the Edmonds Environmental Council board.
Thank you Joe. It never ceases to amaze me that people who claim to be Green are the very ones pushing this harmful plan in the interest of density at all costs.
Thank you for highlighting these important facts when talking about the Edmonds Comp Plan, also for your expertise as a biologist, the EWHS Salmon Club, and all your volunteer work on the Edmonds Marsh.
I will join you in requesting a modified draft of The Edmonds Comprehensive Zoning Plan.
Folks,
The Comprehensive Plan Update was a myriad of ignoring Council and Citizens, expensive consultants, poor sequencing of the environment, and inadequate and incomplete document with lofty density scenarios in critical areas with little consideration to our topography, regional growth, our sewer capacity, and infrastructure needs. Just like the inadequate and incomplete PROS plan that left out the environment, it’s clear the Nelson Administration had BAD management practices. And, with the “rubber-stamping” Council with the “check the box” attitude as we can fix it later – means Edmonds will be the next Ballard with our pure water supply from Olympic View and Water being tainted more as all the environmental CODES and INADEQUATE to allow development. Woodway’s Deer Creek Watershed will definitely be compromised and Council hasn’t learned yet by looking at the damage development has done to the Perrinville or Shell Creek watersheds. Please with these inadequate documents, write to Council tell them to EXTEND the Comp Plan approval and get some of these environmental issues included in these very important documents.
WE MUST stand up for the environments as we are a Coastal town and everything flows downstream. Our Sewer is still not working properly or is the City complying to the nitrogen standards required to protect our Puget Sound for our Orca population.
This is so strategic to address. Thanks so much Joe for laying out where we are and what is at stake. How best to make our voices known before this bureaucratic deadline?
In a sane world, this would be the only approach to all development all over the state. It’s an approach that would certainly be in step with the intent of both the SEPA and the GMA. As it is, our State Legislators have made law that forces cities and counties to basically place “affordable” housing and population density promotion over earlier legislation that was meant to enhance and protect the natural environment. As Joe so accurately points out here, lack of a real and honest EIS statement in relation to population placement and density in our 20 year city Comprehensive Plan is a prime example of what a blunder this legislation has been for the welfare of our water sheds and the Salish Sea that we have both moral and simple self interest reasons (actual drinking water and food for the whales) to protect at all costs. The state legislature has literally bullied the cities and counties into encouraging building legal loop holes to get around this earlier legislation. The Environment needs local leadership that will fight back; not just be rolled over. This “group think” is literally destroying the world around us slowly, inch by inch and water shed by water shed.
Thank you Joe for your excellent article. I still believe Edmonds should join together, with all the western cities and towns who object to this ridiculous housing mandate and sue the state to repeal this.
Thanks, Joe Scordino, for writing this excellent Reader View. I hope many people will read it and appreciate its importance.
Edmonds city government is facing enormous financial challenges which impacts our ability to even maintain infrastructure capable of servicing our existing housing supply.
I agree that a strong argument can be made that Edmonds is already overbuilt for the existing landscape or it has unique landscapes and critical areas requiring additional restrictions. I’ve read that increased density can harm the environment, and have negative impacts on mental health and physical health.
Washington State adopted laws before 1970 to allow land use planning at the local level. Local governments use one of these laws to authorize local planning. Planning Commission Act (RCW 35.63) allows comprehensive planning by a city or county through a planning commission or planning agency. This was extended to all code cities by RCW 35A.63.
RCW 35A.11.050 states:
The general grant of municipal power conferred by this chapter and this title on legislative bodies of noncharter code cities and charter code cities is intended to confer the greatest power of local self-government consistent with the Constitution of this state and shall be construed liberally in favor of such cities.
Mapping and identifying the environmentally sensitive lands in Edmonds is a must. These important areas cannot be embedded and hidden away in the City Code. All need to know where they are when they are considering buying or developing their property. It is “truth in planning.” Protection fo the environment, critical areas, shorelines and areas where the infrastructive is inadequate to handle furture growth needs to be noted on maps and code provisions updated to ensure these areas are protected. Just “encouraging” these things to happen is not a commitment by the City to do so. The plan needs stronger policies. The staggard approach suggested is essential to protecct Edmonds critical area and sensitive resources. Mandated growth targets can be achieved but it must be done in a responsible timely manner and we should not open up the entire city at once to a “free fire” development and increased density zone. More time is need to get this right so the next 20 years is not a chaos of development. Let’s get an extension of time as too much time was wasted while the key issues identified here were not adequately addressed or ignored.
These comments are my own, and not as a representative of any government or group. I believe that some State legislators and employees are beginning to realize that they launched their amendments to the GMA without sufficient consideration for either utilities or the environment. There is no penalty to the City in deferring action on the comprehensive plan until after the legislative session (unless perhaps the City has a particularly critical and unfortunately timed grant application in for certain State funding programs). Why not give the legislators, the new governor, and the Council time to clean things up (GMA, Comprehensive Plan and environmental regulations, including stormwater)? Land use mistakes tend to be permanent, projects vest, and we guarantee poor results and/or lawsuits.