The 2044 Comprehensive Plan update for Edmonds calls for 9,069 new housing units, based on an assumed future household size of just 1.4 people per new unit of housing, which would bring the citywide average household occupancy down to 2.11. This assumption risks causing the city to overshoot its true housing needs and invites the kind of overdevelopment that could significantly strain city resources and negatively impact the environment.
Across national, state and county levels, household sizes are indeed decreasing, largely due to older adults choosing to age in place, often as single occupants. The Washington State Department of Commerce has projected a gradual reduction in household sizes — from an average of 2.67 in 2020 to around 2.47 by 2044 — reflecting these demographic shifts. Edmonds, with an average household size of 2.29, is already well below this anticipated 2044 county average. In fact, the Edmonds household average is second lowest in the county; Index being the lowest. Our low rate is likely due to having a large older population, with 23% of residents over age 65, compared to the county average of 14%. In the coming 20 years, however, we can expect a natural shift in demographics as the city’s aging population declines, gradually making room for younger families and new residents. This shift could foreseeably increase household occupancy as family-sized households replace many single-occupant homes. This organic generational turnover will naturally balance household sizes and occupancy rates, suggesting that Edmonds will meet future housing demands without needing the excessive number of new units currently proposed.
Of course, supporting responsible growth and doing our part to accommodate population increases is important. Edmonds has consistently met or exceeded previous Growth Management Act (GMA) goals, demonstrating our commitment to sensible regional planning. However, for the sake of our community’s environment and character, we must ensure that our future growth is based on realistic, localized data. Using Edmonds’ existing household size of 2.29 as the basis for future projections — along with the Department of Commerce’s recommendation of a 6% vacancy rate — would indicate a need for approximately 6,070 new housing units, not 9,069 (actually more with the buffers outlined in the plan). This approach better reflects Edmonds’ current demographic profile and projected needs.
If Edmonds proceeds with the inflated target of 9,069 units, the consequences could be significant. Developers may seize on these projections to push for lucrative densification projects. Higher-density construction threatens our green spaces, risking the loss of mature trees and our urban canopy—elements critical for managing stormwater, reducing climate impact, and preserving Edmonds’ natural character.
Please join me in urging the Edmonds City Council and the mayor to reassess these assumptions and conduct a reality check on what housing growth is truly appropriate for Edmonds. Rather than rushing to meet overly ambitious targets, city leaders should, at a minimum, draft a formal letter of concern to the state and county, calling for these growth targets to better reflect real trends in household size and growth changes specific to Edmonds. Taking this step will ensure that Edmonds continues to do its part accommodating growth responsibly, while also protecting our natural environment and preserving our quality of life for current and future residents.
— By Janelle Cass
Janelle Cass is an Edmonds resident.
Janelle, very well stated. Hopefully the council will challenge out of touch state mandates. Jeff Remington
The Growth Management Act already has the state reaching into our community to force a cookie cutter demands on housing in Edmonds. To use any numbers, other than actual, to create a 30% increase in housing units above what the facts indicate is a great disservice to the citizens of Edmonds.
I encourage our City Council to use the actual household size and not move forward with 3000+ more housing units in this high density approach which has the likely impact of ruining the Edmonds we all love.
Thank you, Janelle. Yes, finally some actual sound thinking and analysis. Please make sure to send this to all the council members so they don’t say they never saw it. The easy way for the council is to just keep asking for feedback and continue moving forward with the same plan that so many have rejected. The responsible way is to listen to the voices of the residents, do the hard work of pushing back to county and state with data and changing the current course we’re on. Great work.
Great comments, Janelle! The sequencing of leaving the environment out was a consistent approach of the Nelson’s Administration! So much taxpayer money wasted on bias scopes and unneeded comp plan elements like a Vision Statement or branding. The Draft Environmental Statement leaves out key mitigation issues or scenarios and leaves out the topography of Edmonds completely. Edmonds will look like Ballard soon and if you like that density and don’t mind ruining all our watersheds even more – then future generations will blame us.
Please, read carefully and do as she advises and tell Council to slow the process down and allow for more vetting in 2025.
Thanks for sharing this write up on the comp plan. I reviewed the plan and came away thinking it is overly ambitious, overstates the need, but it also ignores the significant technical, environmental, infrastructure, integration complexities and community impacts. Achieving a thriving community at targeted locations requires significant integration, analysis, and infrastructure investment. I don’t believe the true costs and achievability are captured. As in all major complex developments, some of the sites are much more difficult and costly than others. I suggest a closer look and analysis and finer focus on what is achievable, realistic, affordable and embraced by the community. From a business perspective, we all see the dramatic challenges on the ability of business to thrive in our region. We should not assume that the stated goals around businesses supporting these small community hubs and neighborhoods is achievable . We have growing cost/inflation, labor gaps and a crime problem that’s making businesses fail. Take a look at similar developments and note the vacancies in the small business locations.
I suggest a review of each proposed site against object measures of impact vs ability to achieve the goal be completed. Let this guide the actual details of the plan. Realistically, Edmonds can thrive with far fewer development sites, so let data guide focus then make a realistic, affordable, achievable plan.
Excellent points and very well supported.
I too think the expected growth numbers from the state are grossly overstated. Even your corrected estimates seem quite high, but planning for a reasonable amount more that your best, honest estimate is just good policy.
Historically, how do past planning growth targets compare with actual growth?
The justification “sales job” by Olympia was to address and provide “missing middle” housing. Other than ADUs, everything in this Comprehensive Plan will only result in more market rate housing.
This DEIS and Comp Plan are on track to change development codes that will allow new code compliant building applications to sail through without reasonable environmental mitigation or review. Project level SEPA and possible EIS requirements will be avoided since the “non-project EIS” ordered for former Planning Director McLaughlin attempt to sidestep any real study.
The City seems to be attempting to dig their way out of this horrendous budget hole by throwing the development door wide open without regard for the character of our neighborhoods or the environment. This comp plan will result in an Edmonds none of us recognize.
Council recently approved a plan (hybrid alternative of A and B addressed in the Comp Plan) allowing for nearly 11,000 housing units (9,069 was the requirement) in Centers and Hubs located throughout Edmonds. Anticipate the follow-on zoning changes, to enact the Center/Hub concept, to be addressed asap…
I must have missed that. Can you post a link to the Council minutes, or something else, demonstrating that a plan outside the range of proposed alternatives was adpoted?
HiLora,
Jon M was referring to the Council decision on a Preferred Growth Alternative. That preferred alternative’s number of housing units is greater than the County’s agreed to allocation because of a decision made by interim director Hope. A brief recap of the numbers as I understand them: Book end A and Book end B that was studied in the DEIS assumed a certain number of ADU’s, and a certain number of new housing units in all the new hubs and centers. Then Director Hope changed the number of ADUs that the City has planned for. So the whole pie got bigger. But when the Planning Board and the Council made minor changes to the 2 book ends to craft their preferred alternative, they ignored the fact that the whole pie has gotten bigger – (too big in my opinion) . Si we’re left with a preferred alternative to be reported on in the FEIS that has more housing units than we’re required to plan for. See the City Council Meeting Nov 4, 2024. Here’s how our beloved MEN editor covered that meeting: https://myedmondsnews.com/2024/11/council-approves-preferred-housing-growth-targets-as-comprehensive-plan-process-continues/
By the way – you may be happy to note that the Firdale North hub has been cancelled, thanks to a successful motion by Council member Dotsch..
Thanks! I am indeed very pleased that “firdale north” is out. It looks like Westgate was also amended! Still, I didn’t exactly find anything in the article suggesting 11,000 units, so I will check the minutes or the video. I think the 11,000 is not allowed at this point–I suspect the GMA does not permit late selections outside the range of publicly presented alternatives.
Great article Janelle.
Great article and great input from citizens. I agree with Janelle that we must urge our local government to slow down. Edmonds is an environmentally sensitive place that we treasure and share and want to protect for future generations. We have surely spent an aweful lot on this research project that is based on questionable data and unproven modeling. “So much taxpayer money wasted on bias scopes and unneeded comp plan elements like a Vision Statement or branding,” as Diane pointed out is just so glaring after the Landmark and Daze Inn debacles and waste of taxpayer money.
I am grateful we have an imaginative city government and it will serve them well as they buckle down, reduce government waste, and live lean until they can get the budget under control. When and if they can do that, maybe they will have earned more confidence to proceed with new fact based growth plans. Maybe then small businesses and more affordable housing will be possible with less red tape and tax burden. Maybe.
Thank you, Janelle. Well said.
I urge the City Council to use the actual household size instead of the numbers from Olympia. Environmental concerns and impact on infrastructure need to be seriously considered. Look at all the trees cut down in North City to make way for housing density.
I have yet to see a persuasive argument about how overbuilding will benefit Edmonds. Now is the time to build sensibly. We need to minimize the impact on our salmon habitat ,tree canopy, and infrastructure.
Janelle, Thank you for the article pointing out the flaw in the current version of the growth plan. Another flaw in the current plan is that site-specific impacts of each of these hubs and centers are not being disclosed to the public. That public includes people living near each hub/center and all of Edmonds taxpayers/ratepayers.
It should be pretty obvious to everybody that each of these “hubs” and “centers” will have plenty of impacts on traffic, storm drainage, sewer capacity, bike and pedestrian safety, etc. The only way to mitigate those impacts is to raise property taxes and water/sewer bills to pay for all the needed infrastructure.
The best way to reduce the impacts is to reduce the number of hubs and centers. Better yet, go back to the plan presented in April by CM Dotsch, placing the growth along the Hwy 99 corridor because the infrastructure improvements are already in place. With the current budget trouble the City’s in, now is not the time for the planners to sign us all up for mega-millions of future tax increases over the next 20 years.
Don’t want to sound brash here, but if we remove the general fear of change out of the equation and only focus on the numbers and the justification of the numbers, its enlightening to know that the OFM projections for both population and housing targets were each off by around 1% UNDER actual for Edmonds (SCT – GMR Table P-5 which measures accuracy to initial projection), which given all the factors of market volatility, migration, mortality, birth, household size, etc, that they could come within a low percentage to what was reality is pretty remarkable. These forecasts and metrics are tracked via Snohomish County Tomorrow Growth Monitoring Reports and monitored frequently for long range planning purposes. Given the prior accuracy of the forecasted numbers, IMO the council and mayor have bigger fish to fry and should focus on attending to those priorities rather than spending time and resources of questioning or rejecting population/housing projections with a track record of accuracy within 1%.
Jeremy,
This is not about fear of change. This is about fear of a dramatic change/decline in our quality of life. Progress is not “change.” Progress is improvement.
There is nothing in the draft Comp Plan that will result in improvement in the quality of life of those who live and work in Edmonds, and those who hope to move to Edmonds. Everyone’s quality of life will dramatically decline if the development proposed in the draft Comp Plan is finalized this year.
And, what will make it even worse are the appeals/lawsuits that developers will file against Edmonds if their applications are denied before the required supporting code is in place.
Thanks Janelle. Many good comments above. No matter what the unit counts are, 9000, 6000 or 11,000, ways to achieve the affordable housing goal is lacking. A growing number of folks are already income challenged. My guess is a number of those are either empty nesters or surviving partners. All likely would like to downsize but few units are available. Affordable housing is not only for new folks but for current folks many are income challenged.
Janelle points out the smaller size families. Many live in homes with 3-4 bedrooms. Find them a new home and as they downsize, we gain population. Build a unit for 2 and gain a family of 4.
Those already challenged will have increased cost pressures with normal inflation and new tax pressures. This may cause many to leave Edmonds for the lack of affordable housing. That will change the family size data. 1000 housing units with 1.5 folks could now house a family of 3.5 for a net gain of 2000 people without building a new unit.
We should spend some quality time discussing how we can build units for our existing income challenged folks.
Edmonds will comply with state mandates or it will be given the model ordinances that creates even more growth. Growth is what Edmonds needs as it’s low population density and lack of commercial tax revenue have out the city on the verge of insolvency. Endmonds cannot afford to pay for all the infrastructure it built already and keep property taxes artificially low. This ponzi scheme has ran its course and more people, in denser more cost efficient zones to bring more revenue is the only solution.
Cass is yet again asking us to do the same thing that got us into this mess. This time results will be different? no.
Right on Paul. The STATE writ large knows exactly what it’s doing in all respects and we must comply with all their mandates like the good NATZI’s that we must all now be, nationally and locally. I say, “to Hell with day lighting Deer Creek and fixing the Marsh. Let’s buy the state owned polluted land for way more than market value so the Ferry system can be re-built and get some good tax yielding development down there.” It’s the perfect spot for another giant apartment complex, another Costco, and a Home Depot to provide all the building materials we will need to make Edmonds and even more desirable place to live for the struggling masses. Honestly folks, we are being led by total lunatics at every level now. Being Right or Left, it doesn’t matter, they are just plain NUTS and want us to just march along with all their half baked ideas. Why isn’t MS. Cass on our City Council? The answer is she is just too smart to make the grade with low knowledge Ideology oriented voters. Indeed, that’s why we lack really good people in governance across the board. Our new National Attorney General pick is an accused child sex abuser who has bragged about doing it. There, I’ve made just about everyone in town mad. I will sleep well tonight.
Thanks everyone for some good comments, but we should keep in mind that these growth numbers are merely Targets, they are aspirations and not predictions. To actually achieve those target numbers would require an unprecedented increase in Edmonds’ historic rate of growth.
Under GMA, the City is only required to create a zoning map that allows a certain level of growth~ the City cannot force that redevelopment to actually occur. History tells us most of it will not occur. Locally, the major growth driver is light rail; we can see its effects already in Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace. Those cities will be growing much more than Edmonds.
Lastly, whatever the shortcoming and flaws of the new Comp Plan being adopted next month, they can be addressed next year. The law allows cities to amend their Comp Plan once each year, and many cities do that. Given Edmonds’ difficulties in getting this plan together on time, amendments are sure to come, and soon.
Where are the 3000 jobs in Edmonds to come from?
…Just askin’
Mr. Williams, the planning department advised us at public meetings earlier in the year that the 3000 jobs were people working from home. Now that most of the planning department staff working on the comp plan has either resigned or been asked to leave, it would be interesting to read the published version of the comp plan for the answer to your question. It might have changed with the editing the interim planning director has done. The citizen volunteer economic development commission has signed off on the write up of where the jobs are coming from. You could ask them, also, if you don’t want to read the comp plan.
Roger Pence is another person who should be on our City Council, but isn’t, because people vote ideologically instead of intellectually. Just look at this comment above that involves reason, logic, historical knowledge and some just plain old common sense. Growth in Edmonds (both real and imaginary in useless 20 year plans that try to predict the future) needs to be managed first and foremost in the interests of protecting our unique and ultra special natural assets that include what could be natural salmon spawning streams and a pristine drinking water source, which we blithely throw away to the development at all costs group thinkers amongst us. The latest stupid travesty is our Hearings Examiner reverses himself to allow some guy to build another house right next to the Yost Park creek that is already in serious environmental degradation conditions. Soon there will be another small housing development all along that section of Main St. right above the the creek. INSANITY!
You’re right Clinton; Roger should now be on the city council and not Eck. Let’s get him there in 2025.
Excellent comments and input to the subject at hand, Roger. I believe you are stating true facts, and not just expressing opinion(s) as so many other ‘bloggers’ tend to do.
I am not sure if its ok now to discuss political offices yet, but I hope that Janelle Cass will consider running for CC again in Edmonds in 2025. I think she would do a marvelous job, and she lives and owns a business here. She is it seems to me very nice and very concerned about our entire city. I believe she would be fair and not so focused on one group, party etc. Just a thought. Hi Ms. Cass. I have never met you, but I do enjoy what you say at the podium during CC meetings and in print. Thank you for trying to help Edmonds with seemingly no personal agenda. Cool. Also Thank you for helping to get those ugly in the way streateries out of our DT core. You were the one. They were dangerous and they were over the lines of the streets etc. It was fine to have them during Covid to keep the restaurant scene alive and able to make some money and then give taxes to our city. It wasn’t loved much by our Businesses though in the core as I recall. So Thank you. It looks so much nicer now.