Editor:
Edmonds Planning Board should not approve the Edmonds staff recommendation of exceeding the state requirements for adding density.
Please speak up at Wednesday’s Planning Board meeting at 6 p.m. so they do not approve the staff’s recommendations to go above and beyond the state mandates for Edmonds.
As a six-year member of the Architectural Design Board (ADB), our members work hard to keep Edmonds “the gem of the Puget Sound” as it was clearly stated in our past Comp Plan. Why would you want to accept what the planning staff is proposing, which will be a “developer’s dream and a resident’s nightmare”? It will soon just be staff and developers that will be creating the future look of Edmonds.
It appears that city staff and majority of Planning Board appointees are currently showing more concern for the state than for protecting the quality of life in Edmonds. Edmonds Planning Board should not accept the city’s proposal, which would:
– Allow 30-35’ building heights (instead of 25′)
– 45% lot coverage, which eliminates more green space and trees (we’re allowed 35%)
– Decrease setbacks (not required)
– Allow three units per lot (state only requires two)
– Impact all residential within 1/2 mile of the Hubs greater than the Hubs themselves. Why would you want this?
Please speak up for adopting only the minimum density requirements.
Kim Bayer-Augustavo
Edmonds
Kim,
The land use map that was approved by Council in December was the outcome of a year of public engagement on higher density in Edmonds to comply with the 3 State housing related bills and the county- based allocation of population increases for planning purposes. Council changed the extent of certain centers and hubs in their final vote. As you remember, a key public meeting was almost exactly 1 year ago where over 200 people packed the Bracket room to see the staff’s version of the centers and hubs, and especially the building heights. After a strong message from the residents to keep the building as short as possible, the Planning Director brought a significantly different version of building heights to the next Planning Board meeting. It’s ironic that the cycle is repeating again- a staff recommendation to exceed the requirements of HB 1110. Thanks for your column, and your call to action. The zoning map changes have to be approved by Council by June, and submitted to Dept. of Commerce. I hope the Council listens to the neighbors- especially the neighbors who live in the Centers and Hubs when they make the final decision.
Thank you, Kim, for expressing what we who represent the community on the ADB, hear every day and what our Mayor, Council and the Planning Board seem determined to ignore. This coming from those who campaigned to maintain the quality of life and character of Edmonds is particularly troubling. Makes me think, lined pockets. Please stop the insanity.
Yes!
I agree Kim!
When is this ECC going to STOP acting above the law and start listening to its citizens.
Come on Edmonds Residents!
Show up and tell the ECC not to Ballardize Edmonds!
Let’s keep our hamlet city of Edmonds charming and quaint.
No new growth!
Edmonds is maxed out.
Thank you.
Patti Whitmarsh
Home Owner since 1992
We moved here 2 years ago from Green Lake due to the same sort of expansion there. Please keep within the requirements and don’t build tall or spread out when not required to.
Kim, Thank you for a concise review of what the Board is trying to do to the citizens of Edmonds and environment and its’ environment. Further, on this topic they went far above and beyond the recommendations of the Director, State requirements and the will of the people per a poll taken in 2024.
I must admit that I didn’t know how the Board members with selected, so I checked the website. The Board members are picked by the Mayor and approved by the Council. Given their recent decisions, I am very concerned that their decisions may reflect the views of the Mayor and the majority of the Council. Since the Board clearly doesn’t represent the view of the majority of the citizens of Edmonds, I wonder how the pool of candidates for the Board are selected.
Formal opposition group, with a Website, petition?
Who’s on the board? If they’re pushing for density requirements beyond the State, I’d like to see them removed from their positions.
Also time to vote out the State lawmakers who pushed this on us.
Plenty of opportunity to address lack of housing and maintain, Edmonds character. Time for new leadership.
BTW – anyone look at recent census data? Last two years WA population growth has slowed.
Nick Lopez,
I am on the Planning Board. The rest of the Planning Board membership is listed on the City’s webpage.
Please show up at 6PM on Wednesday: the Brackett room, 3rd floor of City Hall.
To see what draft code is being proposed for consideration, see packet pages 86-102 here: https://edmondswa.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=4029&Inline=True
You can review the Comprehensive Plan that was approved last December here: https://www.edmondswa.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_16494932/File/Government/Departments/Development%20Services/Planning%20Division/2024%20Comp%20Plan%20Update/241226_Edmonds%20Comp%20Plan%20FINAL_reduced.pdf
In the Comprehensive Plan, see especially p. 48, which reports that in only two areas (then flagged as Mixed Use 5) was there any consideration of POSSIBLY REQUIRING commercial use (not necessarily requiring anything). In all other zones the hubs and centers would only add options to property owners, not take options away.
Look also at what page 48 says about what was then “Mixed Use 3” and “Mixed Use 4”: “Housing types [are the] same as moderate density residential.” Page 48 also lists the “moderate density residential” housing types: “Housing types consist of a mix of detached and attached housing”
Compare that to packet page 89, “Prohibited Uses:… New Single-Family Detached Residential”
The Planning Board has already expressed disagreement with this approach, as you can see in the video of our 4/9 meeting.
The Washington State Department of Commerce is asking Edmonds to allow, not require, the kinds of development that the Comprehensive Plan allows.
Thanks Nick. Lot to digest, appreciate the share.
Thank you, Kin, for calling this out. I agree with you, Theresa and Patti. Why does it seem the residents need to be in battle to keep Edmonds….Edmonds.
Heaven forbid Edmonds allow a duplex to evolve into a triplex. Next thing you know, people might actually be able to afford living here. If keeping trees means no homes for future generations, maybe the real nightmare isn’t the planning staff, it’s the pearl-clutching nostalgia.
If Edmonds is “the gem of the puget sound,” it should lead the state in inviting new people to come and move here. Lets not trap it in a display case.
The challenge is not that the proposed code would allow a duplex to evolve into a triplex. The challenge is that the new code would require the duplex evolve into a 3-4 story condo/apartment house with commercial on the ground floor. Not “allow”, “require”. Under the proposed draft code, it’s unclear that you could get a permit to expand your duplex to a triplex without adding commercial on the ground floor.
See packet page 89 here: https://edmondswa.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=4029&Inline=True
If you can make it, please stop by at 6PM on Wednesday to let the Planning Board know about your interest in being able to expand a residential duplex to a residential triplex in a hub or center. 3rd floor, City Hall. Audience comments are limited to 3 minutes per person.
Well put, Kim., thank you. And I agree with you all. We residents must unite in our opposition to these misguided plans.
Kim, thank you for your letter. I am outraged at the development threats to our city. ECC is trying to do the opposite of what residents want. Let’s not throw up our hands like it’s inevitable. ECC is embracing Earth Day and committed to diminishing climate change yet has proposed increasing density in our city. This is a mutually exclusive concept. Don’t Ballardize Edmonds!
Thank you Kim, well spoken. One thing I never hear EPB or other pro development speakers mention is how we increase the police and fire stations, and sewer, electric, storm drain and water systems necessary to serve all these new people. Don’t forget the costs, both financial and aesthetic, of likely four laneing Main, 9th, Puget and other arterials as well as six laneing Edmonds Way to deal with all the new cars that come with the people. Oh and have you noticed that parking won’t be required for all these new units? I sympathize with young people starting out trying to buy a home but these development plans won’t be for them, everything I see going in around me is million dollar units, not starter homes. At one of these endless series of meetings we keep having I heard a speaker say that they worked and saved for many years to be able to afford to move to Edmonds. They concluded by saying living in Edmonds is a privilege, not a right.
Don’t do this..example is what they have done to downtown Kirkland..why have we fought for years to keep this town what it is. Why are you so hellbent on changing it..leave us alone .
Mark, you’ve made several excellent points. It seems none of the powers that be want to address the increases in infrastructure and related costs that will be needed to accommodate the added numbers of people, not to mention parking and other daunting issues. It is a disaster waiting to happen.