In January 2023, a stranger knocked on my door. She was breathless, warning me to get out. There was a landslide! I rushed to my back door to check but realized my house wasn’t in danger. She was on the wrong street. Homes above the Westgate gas station on Hwy 104 were the ones being threatened instead.
The terror that I felt when that stranger knocked on my door surges in me whenever I look at those steep slopes at Westgate. I have been raising concerns about the proposed Westgate Neighborhood Center for almost a year now. Only a few on the Council have taken the time to listen, so I am reaching out with new information that I hope will not be ignored.
Bent, pistol-butted trees are indicative of unstable slopes. I have found them on all three of the sloped hillsides in Westgate Center. There are some behind the gas station right next to that landslide area, and behind Bucatini’s strip mall, Bartell and the Village apartments. These trees are examples of what the Washington Department of Natural Resources say are warning signs that a slope may be creeping downhill.
Despite this evidence, a Geotechnical Report Addendum for the permitting of the Village Apartments concluded otherwise. In a letter dated February 23, 2017, W. Paul Grant from PanGEO, Inc. stated that “All trees were straight and did not exhibit any evidence of hillside creep.” This report assured Edmonds that the hillside behind the project was stable, yet the bowed trees, which are readily visible by standing in the rear Bartells parking lot, were very prominent and easy to spot. I don’t know how they missed them. Even if these trees have magically sprung up in the eight years since the report was written, newly bent trees would cast doubt on any subsequent engineering undertaken to keep the slope stable. How can we trust the conclusions of that Geotechnical Report that overlooked the instability of the slope so starkly?
Edmonds’ code wants to rely on geotechnical reports paid for by the developer to greenlight projects on steep slopes. I don’t trust that these reports guarantee slope stability. Instead, there should be clear written guidelines established in the code so that any development in Westgate protects homes above or adjacent to Westgate as well as any new residents beneath the slopes within Westgate.
- There needs to be buffers between the slopes and new development.
- Developers should not be allowed to undercut the base of hillsides to increase land area available for their projects.
- Trees and shrubs on slopes should not be removed since their root structures help stabilize slopes.
- Groundwater issues, inadequate stormwater infrastructure, and natural ravines within the slope topography must be considered before development is approved in Westgate.
- Exemptions should not be granted on the basis of geotechnical reports.
I don’t think I can shout any louder that density at Westgate must be tightly regulated to keep everyone safe. Soils above Westgate are shown on a Washington State Department of Natural Resources map as Alderwood series, which can include permeable layers atop impermeable layers, making them susceptible to sliding under wet conditions. And now I have found evidence of bowed, pistol-butted trees on all the steep Westgate slopes that indicate slipping ground.
I am the metaphorical stranger knocking on Edmonds’ door warning of danger. Edmonds must make sure steep slopes are not ignored in the development code for Westgate. The Planning Department must draft code that won’t allow a geotechnical report to greenlight projects which might create a risk for Edmonds’ residents.
Arlene Williams lives in the Westgate neighborhood and has been advocating for the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan update to prioritize safety of neighborhood residents when developing Westgate Center.
Arlene,
I live across the street on the top of the hillside behind the Bartell Apartments. Myself and about 200 of our Westgate neighbors attended city meeting back in 2017 regarding development on the Westgate hillsides. We were only allowed to make a comment and were not allowed to ask questions. The overall comments were against cutting into the hillsides. I believe the Bartell Apartments were originally going have many more units, but the number was reduced to what they are now. I think there are around 90 units. What made this change was OSO slides happened. I agree that cutting the Westgate hillsides is unsafe.
The developers are going to present the info in their favor and to the heck with safety and to keeping trees.
Thank you for your excellent letter. Cutting the hillsides needs to not happen
Kathy Madigan
102nd place west
Thanks Kathy! It is great to get the backstory on the permitting history for those apartments. I was not in the area then. When I first saw those apartments built right up against the slope, I was appalled. There should have been a buffer. I don’t understand how that was allowed. I hope any new development in Westgate Center has a buffer between the building and the slopes to decrease the chance for impacts from a landslide. This might also reduce a developer’s desire to cut into the base of hillsides, which increases landslide risk.
Thank you for sounding the alarm-again- with photos, specific info from State guidelines, and timeliness. I think there’s three area being worked on in 2025. . The development code for the neighborhood centers is being updated now, per the schedule for the major update to the city’s comprehensive plan that was done in 2024. I don’t believe that Comp Plan struck the appropriate balance of protecting the critical areas in Edmonds (which includes slopes) and planning for more housing units for a 30%population gain in the next 20 years. The City Council agrees with this and has decided to do more work on the Comp Plan this year that relates to a critical areas. The City has a critical areas ordinance and over State regulations it has to be updated this year. Residents need to be involved in all three of these efforts. Your article is excellent- please keep writing .
Thanks Theresa for including information about the Critical Area work the Council will do. Whenever I have talked to Planning Staff, they have always fallen back on the idea that the Geotechnical Report will provide the solutions to keep the slopes in check. After looking at the Village apartments, I have doubted that. Then I read the report that the permit for the apartments was based on. There actually was an older, out-of-date report that was more thorough, but still came to the same conclusions. I am not impressed by these reports. The City cannot rely solely on these reports, which have an inherent bias toward their client, the developer. I hope the City finds a better way to keep homes near slopes safe using solid, written regulations.
Thank you for being a voice of reason. The city of edmonds desperately wants the income generated from development but at what cost to the residents- who love and invested in the Edmonds community because of the beautiful family neighborhoods? Go slowly on growth. Protect the trees, water, slopes and natural beauty of Edmonds before it’s too late.
Yes, Brenda…. growth must be balanced with nature and a sense of community. It is hard to believe that Edmonds picked Westgate for the highest density of all the centers, adding approximately 1,000 residential units, when it has the least ideal topography because of those slopes. I am not opposed to density, but we have to keep it rational and safe. Most developers will want to wring every penny out of project no matter the consequences. Push back is required when it gets unreasonable.
Thank you Arlene for this well-researched and illuminating article.
If you want to get an idea of what Edmonds Planning Dept. is allowing, go look at the house that just got built at the bottom of Bell Street Hill just up from 7th. I’m no Geological Engineer, but I have a friend who is and he told me that they are putting an awful lot of faith in steel girders pounded into the ground and the entire hillside being supported by wood beam cross members wedged between those girders. Wood rots eventually and the hillside earth gets heavier when saturated with water. I would not want to own a home on that slope.
Arlene,
The Mayors of Edmonds’ failure to enforce our Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) for decades is why developers have been allowed to build on and near critical areas, endangering Edmonds residents.
When I was on Council (2012-2015) Mayor Earling’s staff approved a development on SR 104 in Westgate. The developer cut deeply into the roots of trees (larger than those in your photos) of a home owner who lived above the development, resulting in destabilization of the slope and eventual removal of the trees. The property owner valued his trees and was justifiably angered by the damage to his property.
Mayor Haakenson’s staff approved development in our neighborhood allowing homes to be built on a steep slope with an isolated wetland located at the bottom. During the course of building the homes, a landslide covered the property line of two homeowners’ land in mud. Worse was a boulder, approximately 2 1/2 feet in diameter, that flew down the steep slope landing directly under one of the property owner’s kitchen.
Both are much longer stories, and painful to remember, that highlight how far our Mayors/staff will go to allow development in Critical Areas.
Thanks for your advocacy.
Thank you Arlene, for bringing everyone’s attention to the need to protect downhill neighbors from risky development practices.
And thank you Joan, for pointing out that this is the case for every slope in Edmonds. We have a lot of slopes, but not so many that we can’t keep track of them and ensure everyone’s safety.
All may be interested to know that Planning Board Director represented the following in an email sent Sep 9, 2014:
Responsibility for on-site safety compliance on private development projects rests solely with the contractor. The City does not have jurisdiction. This is a well-sorted legal principal in construction law. You may wish to ask Mr. Taraday to expand on this issue. Our responsibility extends to the approved civil drawings and whether or not he is building his project in a way that matches the plans and not whether he is complying with a considerable number of state safety regulations administered by the State Department of Labor and Industry.
If anybody want to see the email, please contact me directly and I will try to email it to you.
Mr Reidy, I am not quite clear on the point you are trying to make. This may be true after the permit is granted. However, whether to approve the permit or not rests with the City. Your comment seems to only point toward the fact that safety in the construction of the building, especially for construction crews, is handled by the State Department of Labor and Industry. They also make sure that the plumbing, electrical, etc meets standards. This has nothing to do with steep slopes and whether the permit should be approved in a critical area.
I’ve been involved in over 500 worker’s compensation claims over 30 years, and I’m also a commissioner on a Labor and Industries advisory commission. If this is is an actual statement from a planning board director, I am having difficulty finding a flaw in the statement.
Keep sounding the alarms. It is a question of ‘rational and safe’ density vs developers who care only about money. An uphill battle (no pun intended).
Arlene, thank you for your excellent reporting on this issue. Sadly, as always, the city will take the developer’s word, as the easy way out and give them what they want. Nothing will change until another Oso happens and deaths occur. Then Edmonds will be involved in a massive lawsuit, further plunging our city in debt. It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that the ground is unstable. So sad that a tragedy will have to occur before Edmonds wakes up.
It’s a good thing that both civil and structural engineers use the geotechnical exploratory data and recommendations to help inform and guide the actual engineered retention design that will ensure the hillside remains safe, as their professional obligation to the health, safety, and welfare requires it. The hillside isn’t going anywhere, nor is the shoring / retaining wall.
Jeremy, It would be easier to trust the engineering solutions if the original report recognizes there is a problem. Otherwise the solution will be based on erroneous information and the engineering might not solve the real problem at all. Just knowing that a company tasked with an “obligation to the health, safety, and welfare,” like in the report I read, could not see bent trees (and incidentally, only made one bore hole on the slope itself) raises so many alarm bells about the accuracy of these reports. How does an individual homeowner that might be affected by development on a steep slope understand these reports and evaluate them, let alone counter them? It seems they are powerless against the developer if the City automatically sides with an erroneous professional report. Homeowners need basic guidelines written into the code to protect them.
I appreciate the concerns. It’s true that trust in engineering solutions depends on the confidence that the original observations and reports are thorough and accurate. However, determining site feasibility involves far more than surface signs like leaning trees. I did go out there this morning to look at it and I can see your concern but was also out there to identify the type of shoring implemented. I was a little shocked you picked the multifamily building adjacent to the hillside to write about over the next door Bartels development which took out twice the amount of hillside. It made me think if the concern is truly about the steep slope or more about the building type that went there. Regardless, the adjacent property gives clues as to why they only did one soil bore on the adjacent property. Let me know if you’d like to meet up for coffee and I’d be happy to provide some guidance on how the geotech reports get used as a planning tool, as well as review how exemptions work.
Jeremy, at least Bartells has a buffer. The apartments have no buffer, and no emergency access to those units at the rear. If a landslide occurs, it could go right into those back units. But I am concerned about all the slopes in Westgate, including the hillside next to my street. I have no confidence that Edmonds is going to keep the homes above/in Westgate Center safe as the code now stands. Will they keep the “maroon line” in Figure 22.110.070.D in the code to protect those Westgate slopes? Will errant geotechnical reports gloss over groundwater issues and slope stability issues? It seems everything is at the discretion of the planning Director and if they are biased toward the project, they will ignore common sense. I am trying to break through what seems like a forgone conclusion that Westgate is the perfect place to build 1,000 new units, even though it is in a canyon with steep slopes. If density is coming to Westgate, I want to be assured that Edmonds will keep me and other residents there safe. Right now I am not convinced. As a member of the Planning Board, you have a lot of input into the final recommendations. As an architect, you have a bias toward developers. If you have an open mind, however, I will listen, if you will too.
Understood. First off, no owner, architect or engineer would move forward with a design proposal without understanding the subterranean conditions as it indicates ideal building location, how much groundwork is needed, what type of foundation is needed, waterproofing requirements, storm water management, etc, and how much those systems would cost against the amount of site work needed to make the proposal work. The line wouldn’t change throughout Westgate, nor would any other mapped critical areas. The critical areas ordnance applies to all projects near, or that would encroach into a CA. If mitigation measures on a proposal can show the proposal has no deleterious impacts to the CA as proposed, then an exemption is typically granted (outside of a few exceptions and also varies by AHJ). The engineering required to stabilize slopes within a given proposal would be required if found feasible, and however much additional cost to the project it would add to make it feasible can be the determining factor in purchasing land and developing various building types in an area with CA challenges. Westgate is the perfect area to “enable” growth to happen, but whether it comes to fruition is entirely dependent on proposals being feasible. No guarantees on that front, and no guarantees on any of the other hubs and centers.
Merely an observation, but Engineers stated that the Titanic was ‘unsinkable’ and that the Jolema Building in Sao Paolo, Brazil was ‘fire-proof’. Oh, and that the Chernobyl Reactor was ‘structurally sound’…
Or closer to home, there is Galloping Gertie…
Yes, Jeremy that theory worked out really well for the people who built homes on Steelhead Lane in Oso until it didn’t. Mother nature always has her way in the end. That’s why smart people generally don’t build their homes next to meandering rivers or as close to the seaside as possible. There are lots of not very smart but really greedy people in this world unfortunately.
I agree that nature always has the final say, and would also agree there’s been some not-so-smart decisions in the past, but it’s important to be accurate that the Oso landslide (out of respect for the lost), wasn’t caused by people building homes there. That slope had a long history of instability going back decades, long before development. While building in risky areas can definitely make things worse sometimes, in this case for the Oso related tragedy, the ruled issue was the natural geology and an abundance of heavy rainfall, not human greed.
There was much speculation and controversy at the time about some clear cut logging on top of the slope where the slide occurred contributing to the ground saturation that liquified the hillside. It’s still very possible that the “not-so-smart decision” in this case was the profit making action of clear cut logging. Official causes and real causes are not always one and the same and officials often tend to want to put limits on law suits whenever possible. Proving causation is the most difficult, indeed almost impossible task of all science. That’s why scientists tend to talk in terms of probabilities and correlations, rather than “proofs.”
Arlene,
You are clearly well informed. Here is a link to 23.80.050 Special study and report requirements – Geologically hazardous areas.
https://edmonds.municipal.codes/ECDC/23.80.050
Excerpts:
B. Area Addressed in Critical Areas Report. The following areas shall be addressed in a critical areas report for geologically hazardous areas:
1. The project area of the proposed activity; and
2. All geologically hazardous areas within 200 feet of the project area or that have the potential to be affected by the proposal.
C. 3 Clearly state that the proposed project will not decrease slope stability or pose an unreasonable threat to persons or property either on or off site and provide a rationale as to those conclusions based on geologic conditions and interpretations specific to the project;
Joan: I have also found regulations in the code specific to the Westgate Center at https://edmonds.municipal.codes/ECDC/22.110.070 which talk about protected slopes on Westgate stating that: “Steep Slopes. New development shall protect steep slopes by retaining all existing trees and vegetation on protected slopes, as shown on the map included in this section (Figure 22.110.070.D). No development activity, including activities such as clearing, grading, or construction of structures or retaining walls, shall extend uphill of the protected slope line shown on the following map. Protected slope areas may count toward required open space if they retain existing trees or are supplemented to provide a vegetative buffer.” There is a diagram that shows a maroon line above which the slopes should be protected. However, I have not received an answer to my question about whether this is still in force or not. It is still on the Edmonds’ website. If it is retained in the code, it would help to some degree to protect these Westgate slopes, but I have a feeling that they want to delete this. I really do fear, without public outcry, that there would be pressure to ease regulations in place. I hope when they come to write new regulations they make sure that the code is not vague about steep slope development.
It would be interesting to hear council member Eck’s (up for reelection) views towards the considerable environmentally questionable and potentially dangerous slopes in the Westgate area slated for a huge development. Eck has talked about how she is a resident of the Westgate neighborhood and its concerns, although her primary considerations have appeared to be to maximum build and development regardless of any degradation of the quality of life in the neighborhoods.
On the contrary Brian, Chris Eck was one of only two Council Members who called me and listened attentively to my concerns over the past year.
That’s awesome to hear. Hopefully CM Eck will follow through, instead of just listening and then act to promote aggressive development indifference to reasonable environmental concerns
Arlene,
Ken Reidy’s comment was about the Planning Director’s email stating “Our responsibility extends to the approved civil drawings” and that Mayor/staff are not responsible to ensure the contractor’s (developer’s) compliance with the law.
The source of all CAO abuses is Mayor/staff. Under the Mayor’s direction, staff approve plans that do not protect, as the CAO requires, steep slopes, wetlands, streams, creeks, AND seismic hazard areas. Staff approve the “civil drawings” in the application, usually issue a DNS, then the developer is “vested,” which means they can sue Edmonds to build as they have been “vested” to build. Developers have deep pockets. Surrounding property owners take the brunt of our Mayors failures to enforce our CAO.
This has been going on for more than the 20 years that I have been actively involved in advocating for enforcement of our CAO.
So maybe I have misunderstood Ken’s comment. He was trying to point out the shortcomings of the City’s approach, not defend it. Thank you for clearing that up.
Arlene,
Edmonds environmental history is long and complex. Ken knows more about the history than anyone. We have worked together in an effort to hold Mayors/administrations accountable.
I would love to talk to you to share info. I’ll ask Teresa Wippel to provide my contact info to you so we can talk, if you’d like.
Thanks for your kind words, Joan.
Arlene, history shows staff permit approvals can be based on false, misleading or incomplete information. When such takes place, the burden to stop the related activity can be shifted to citizens. Our mayors are willing to act like their codified duty to see that all laws and ordinances are faithfully enforced ends once a permit is approved.
I believe we recently witnessed an example of this with Big Red. The application to cut down Big Red appears to have been flawed. The permit was approved, and my understanding is our mayor took a passive stance when citizens pointed out the flaws with the permit application.
Regarding trees on steep slopes:
On June 29, 2009, Landau and Associates provided the City a draft Technical Memorandum titled Tree and Stump Removal Policy Guidance. Landau stated that trees within critical areas and critical area buffers protect water quality and provide habitat in addition to preventing slope instability and erosion. Landau’s report stated that “Removal of one tree may affect the stability of the group (of trees) such as predisposing the remainder to windthrow.” Trees improve air quality, enhance sustainability, etc.
I made a long comment about trees in steep slopes in response to this article:
https://myedmondsnews.com/2012/05/designing-landscapes-taking-down-our-maple-tree/
I hope you have time to read my comment – it is the second comment down.
Edmonds City Council is behind the wheel of the pro-development car and with the Mayor being pre-occupied and relying heavily on the environmentally defective attorney who is not performing his duties by saving the City $ from potential liabilities.
Recall the City senior staff under Mayor Nelson sequenced the environment component last with three years spent on branding and vision statement – both done with expensive consultants never approved by Council. So the Comp Plan update is severely inadequate and incomplete (at a cost of $650k plus) and Council being derelict in their best management practices passed it in 2024 anyway along with a grossly inadequate and incomplete Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EIS was so bad that it did not include the basic component of Earth or topography; and being a coastal town with pocket forests, large watersheds and the stormwater collector from surrounding cities and our vibrant Hwy 99 corridor, our environment should be a Council priority.
But it’s not! environmental appeals are going unchecked and thousand of hours/ high attorney/staff fees continue and Council remains silent.
The secrets like the sewer plant is still not working; the hubs in the comp plan will wipe out trees; Rimmer tree code appeal not Council approval; Perrinville five-day debacle; and clean drinking water being threatened by bad code recommended by attorney. So much $$$$ wasted.
My apologies to CM Dotsch as MEN has that word limit (smile) and so here is my public apology. We need more CMs that have leadership like you as you understand the unintended consequences of bad land use or code decisions. You have seen it all since you are Edmonds’ homegrown.
This current Council except CM Dotsch have flagrantly disregarded the social, economic and environmental impacts of maintaining our critical areas or a tree canopy to support the eco-systems related to our unique topography or code based on best management and science practices. They sans CM Dotsch continue to violate laws and Robert’s Rules to push forth Mayor Rosen’s agenda which seems like Nelson’s pro-development agenda. And CP Tibbott is showing him the ropes since the Landmark PR stunt he and Nelson orchestrated was without due process or authority: look at the millions spent on that debacle. It’s time, Council, to start leading and cutting all the $$ spent on bad code, attorneys and consultants. Over $10m of reserves blown in three years is outrageous!
Citizens need to start paying attention as our environment needs you. With the 2023 Audit being postponed til after the election, watch for it as it should be an eye-opener of bad internal controls. I hope Auditors were allowed to trace the fund balance reconciliation debacle and inform us.
And what about the clear cutting of trees on the hill side at Point Edwards. Somebody in the planning department turned a blind eye. Oh, they had to pay a fine and replant some trees. Edmonds is located on a earthquake fault. Mother nature is waiting. Only time will tell, about the hill side houses. Lynnwood isn’t any better with building on unsafe land.
Harry,
In addition to the earthquake fault, there’s a huge seismic hazard area just below the steep slope that Point Edwards sits above. Here’s a link to the map on City of Edmonds website:
https://maps.edmondswa.gov/Html5Viewer/?viewer=Edmonds_SSL.HTML
Click “critical areas.” The red cross-hatching is the seismic hazard area.
The developer of Point Edwards cut those trees down on the weekend. I remember Dawn Malkowski recently referencing trees in her neighborhood that a developer cut down on the weekend. If you’re reading this, Dawn, could you confirm?
I don’t recall the exact amount of the fine for the Point Edwards hillside tree cutting but $10K sticks in my mind. This was peanuts when spread among all the Condo owners there even if it was substantially more than that. Just part of the cost of doing development business in Edmonds. Got to protect those million dollar views people paid good money for.
Clinton,
The trees were cut down before Point Edwards was completed. This allowed the developer to increase the price of the condos that were ultimately sold. The hillside tree cutting was not approved by the condo owners (there were none at that time) to protect their views, as you as suggesting.
Joan, I realize that, but the trees were obviously cut down so as not to discourage the potential view oriented buyers he/she would need to maximize profits at sale. My point is that the fine for the environmental destruction was so minimal that it was all but meaningless to the developer and the potential buyers. Not being argumentative with you at all as you and I are virtually always right on the same page on all that’s environmental in Edmonds. I differ with you, Joe, Diane and Ken a little bit on the wisdom of trying to control old “landmark” trees on private property as I think that may just create losing law suits but that is certainly not an environmental hill I would die on, metaphorically speaking. I just think that might be handled better with incentives rather than prohibitions.
Clinton,
I don’t agree with Council position on Landmark trees. I see it as a distraction from the real issue of allowing developers to remove trees in Critical Areas. Enforcing tree retention via the Tree Code is hypocritical given lack of enforcement of our CAO. And it is disrespectful of private property owners decision making regarding their own trees.
I can’t speak for Joe, Diane or Ken, but I’ve not seen any comments suggesting their support either.
Joan, excellent point and if I was overly presumptive about where they are at on this I sincerely apologize to all or any of them. I totally agree with your position on this.
Thanks Joan and Clint.
My position on tree laws and all city laws is that our laws and ordinances should be consistent with the constitution and laws of the United States and consistent with the constitution and laws of the State of Washington.
Our laws and ordinances are to be faithfully enforced by our mayors. I believe the successful administration of our city government is dependent on our mayors respecting and executing this codified duty.
I also believe strongly in the following taken from the Open Public Meetings Act:
“The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed and informing the people’s public servants of their views so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”
For example, if the city wants to consider appealing a tree-related court case decision such as Rimmer, that deliberation should take place in an Open Public Meeting. I believe the Council should take a vote on whether to appeal a case the city has lost.
Arlene,
In response to Jeremy you say “Will errant geotechnical reports gloss over groundwater issues and slope stability issues?” That’s highly likely, given Edmonds history.
In the case of the Sandpiper Condominiums, the application was deemed “complete” on December 10, 2024. Staff were prepared to issue a DNS based on Soundview Consultants “environmental” review which did not include that the Sandpiper project site includes a seismic hazard area, a portion of the Edmonds Marsh (east of SR 104) and a wildlife refuge. It was only due to concerned neighbors and environmental stewards that the property owner was directed by staff to have a qualified geotechnical engineer do the required geotechnical study, which has not yet been submitted by the property owner.
Sandpiper Condominiums (PLN2024-0085) application, scroll down to 12-10-24: https://www.edmondswa.gov/cms/one.aspx?portalId=16495016&pageId=17555268
Jeremy has demonstrated that he supports excessive up-zoning. Your time would be better spent talking to Planning Board members Jon Milkey and Nick Maxwell, or PB alternate George Bennett, who are more thoughtful in balancing development with protection of our environmental assets.
I’m a resident of Edmonds too. Like you, I care about our city’s future. I don’t support “excessive up-zoning”, I support effective planning that takes what we been handed (not by choice) and implement it in a way that results in good city planning. The goal isn’t to overbuild, but to shape growth in a way that improves underutilized areas, increases equity, and protects what makes Edmonds special (refer to the comp plan kick-off notes and themes). You haven’t been accustomed to know what that looks like because the default, status quo has always been to sweep growth towards 99 and call it a day. I also haven’t seen you at the planning table providing any real solutions to what we have to provide outside of just, “not doing it”. Let’s be honest: choosing not to plan is still a choice, but it usually leads to worse outcomes, as we’ve seen in other cities. I’d rather see us take a proactive approach and guide change thoughtfully than have decisions made for us by default. Wouldn’t you? I respect that others may see it differently and speculate on a lot of things that are not true, but we all benefit when the conversation stays grounded in facts, not fear. And we all benefit when we plan for ALL of Edmonds, and not just the few.
Jeremy, I have heard you in a planning board meeting talking about Westgate as this wonderful place to build a neighborhood center development but you were disappointed that that vision never came to fruition with the last comp plan. You really believe in your vision for Westgate. That is fine. But I think your vision is a bit blind to the problems that exist with that location, namely the steep slopes and canyon topography. You have always seen it as a commercial space. I come here, relatively new to the area, and see it with outsider eyes and I just don’t see it as ideal. And when you dismiss my “facts” about bent trees indicating unstable slopes as not the only factor to consider, then I don’t feel you are objective or will come up with real solutions to the problems that will keep me safe. You have a professional bias that defers to those in your industry. Now if you had said to me “wow that’s a real problem. Let’s see if there is a solution.” I would think you had my interests at heart. Instead you wanted to explain to me how you were right. I have been trying to say I want Edmonds to take these concerns seriously and come up with a plan to keep people safe.
I do want to clarify that the idea of Westgate as a neighborhood center is not solely my vision, it’s a concept that has been explored and shaped through years of public engagement, planning efforts, and input from residents, the Economic Development Commission, and city staff that predates both you and I. The Westgate subarea plan and Five Corners was a product of those community-driven processes, not something I unilaterally imagined on my own. https://www.edmondswa.gov/government/departments/development_services/planning_division/plans_long_range_planning/five_corners_westgate_neighborhood_studies
Ironically, before the comp plan update kicked off, these already drafted sub area plans had full support from a former Councilmember on this exact thread stating that “we need to get those off the shelf and dust them off”.
That said, I understand how it can feel dismissive when your observations, like the bent trees and your safety concerns aren’t reflected in the way I respond (hence it’s better to have these dialogues in person). My intent is not to disregard your input, but to emphasize that planning decisions require looking at a full range of factors, including environmental constraints, community needs, long-term goals, among others. I rely on my professional training, expert analysis and historically proven planning methods to inform those decisions, but I also believe in integrating a variety of community voices. You are one of many community voices that we have to plan around.
Jeremy, your references to those studies are great. They were initiated by the Economic Development Commission. The EDC did a number of studies that can be helpful for sorting out our future.
There was a useful study done on the BARC property that discusses the costs and types of development could be financially feasible on the site.
Jeremy with your city connections via the Planning Board can you get that study or the link.? It will be very useful for the affordable housing discussion.
Darrol, good call on the BARC property study. I believe we were provided that reference document early on in the comp plan when VIA was doing the analysis of the buildable lands report to the cost feasibility of housing types. I’ll see if I can dig that up and send it your way.
Jeremy,
I have tried go find this study but no luck yet. As a member of one or our only remaining boards, could you ask for that study. I will be very useful to help us all understand a bit more about the real data.
Darrol, thanks for the reminder. I think I found it, but not sure if this is the one that VIA used. It was completed by, Property Counselors and included the economic and development feasibility for Five Corners in general.
Also, I believe The Port at one time had their own cost performa completed when they were thinking about redeveloping Harbor Square. That data would also be useful to have and I think it was done around the same time.
Darrol: Here is an interesting article about making housing affordable by capturing increases in land value from upzoning: (https://macleans.ca/economy/why-canadas-housing-crisis-is-not-just-a-supply-and-demand-problem/ ) It is from a Canadian journal, Macleans, and written by Patrick Condon, about why Vancouver, BC is so unaffordable. The byline goes: The city has built homes faster than any other in North America, but it’s still the priciest place to live on the continent.
One of the points he makes is that without capturing the increase in land value when upzoning a lot, cities just pass all that value on to developers for their profit, creating the problem. What is needed instead is: “Policymakers must recognize that housing affordability is not simply a matter of supply and demand in the abstract; it’s about who controls and benefits from the value of urban land.” He advises: “Let’s continue upzoning and building more homes. But alongside that, we must implement policies like taxes and development fees that capture the lion’s share of private land value increases. We should then use the revenue generated to build co-operative housing, land trusts, and other non-market models that remove housing from speculative pressures.”
Community Land Trusts are definitely an interesting idea to explore. Check out Homes and Hope Community Land Trust here in Snohomish County. They remove the rising cost of land from the price of homes.
Arlene, interesting link. The basic message is to be affordable some form of subsidy needs to happen. On the supply side, lower cost land, building materials, labor, fees, taxes. On the demand side, subsidizing income, rent, or making payment cover mortgage, lower or no interest loan. But some form of subsidy.
When codes change that reduce the value of someone’s land or building, we really don’t compensate someone for that loss. The link describes ways to take the increase value away from the owner.
What is needed is a more complete, factual, data driven discussion on affordability. When we tamper with the free market, we often just shift things around a bit, and while we may get some desired results, we often create unintended consequences.
To me this all goes back to our Mayors and their staffs along with Mayoral appointed planning boards and commissions having way more power and influence than they should and our at large Council having way less power and influence than it should. Developers and special interests get represented by the Mayors hand picked appointees and the ordinary citizens get routinely dumped on with bad planning, wasteful special elections, bad environmental decisions and sewage treatment plants that don’t work and create on going increased water and sewer bills for everyone. People on the planning board should be self selected volunteers with names drawn from a hat. Council Members should be elected out of specific districts and we should have a paid city manager running things who actually knows what he or she is doing as to providing the basics first. The current Mayor now wants to hire a marginally qualified person to do his job while he does what? for $160K plus benefits per year.
It’s important to recognize that many of the volunteers serving on boards and commissions do so out of a desire to contribute positively to the community, not to serve special interests or sabotage the place in which they live. These roles require long hours, significant review of complex materials, and the willingness to make difficult decisions, often with imperfect information and limited resources. All free of charge.
As for how we as a city structure leadership, whether through a strong mayor, a city manager, or a council district system, those are big questions, and it’s healthy to debate them. But I hope we can have that debate in a way that doesn’t assume bad faith by everyone involved. Most of us are here because we care deeply about Edmonds and want to see it thrive.
If the system needs improvement, let’s work together to identify where those improvements can be made, and how we can make local government more responsive, effective, and representative for ALL residents, not just the select few.
Also, Jeremy, when I look at the 2011 Westgate subarea plan and Five Corners web page, which you linked to above, it seemed from the documents that at first no one doing the study was talking about the steep slopes and the geologic hazards. It was all design and amenities. The final document does show that there was recognition the hillsides needed to be protected by retaining the trees and vegetation on certain sections of slopes.
This must have resulted in the maroon line in Figure 22.110.070.D of Chapter 22.110 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE WMU – WESTGATE MIXED-USE DISTRICT (https://edmonds.municipal.codes/ECDC/22.110.070) which designates protected slopes in Westgate where no development activity can occur. Yet, no one will tell me if this will be retained in the new code. It would protect some of the undisturbed slopes beneath the homes on 228th Pl SW and do some good. Perhaps you could start there by advocating for the retention of that in Planning Board deliberations. We should keep good sections of code that protect slopes. Let’s not lose that, at least.
Jeremy, instead of looking at these opposing comments as people who are just saying no to everything, and only thinking of themselves, why don’t you try to understand that Edmonds has made some very bad mistakes in the past, from what I gather, and people were harmed. They don’t trust the City’s motives because of that. Safety should be one of the highest priorities for a government, protecting its citizens. This can be from crime and traffic accidents, but also environmental harm, in the form of water pollution, and physical harm from landslides, earthquake soil liquefaction, flooding, etc. In all my comments and discussions, not once has City staff, Council Members, or Planning Board Member said clearly that my concerns for my safety and my home’s safety are valid. Maybe they thought it, but no one has ever said it to me. Where is safety on your priority list? Number one? Number 90? This gives me the queasy feeling that it is Edmonds’ lowest priority, which is why my anxiety runs high. I don’t want people to die from a landslide, from a flood. Shouldn’t it be at the top of the priority list for Westgate? Perhaps that is the place to start.
Arlene, it was a pleasure to meet you and have the opportunity to talk with you tonight. Thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention, and yes, they are valid. Let’s continue the conversation as we develop the code further.
Arlene, sounds like you had a bit of break through on the reality front with our Planning Board about why we are so concerned about protecting what we have from over development in the wrong places. I think Edmonds is on the brink of making some unfixable long term mistakes with development if people don’t wise up fast and do some major push back. Good luck to you and other like minded citizens in this fight, and it is a fight, make no mistake about that.
So it requires only highly knowledgeable people with planning and building skills in their portfolios to be on these planning advisory boards and we should just admire all the work and free time they contribute and be cooperative instead of combative towards them. Don’t address the details of what your critics are telling you; vilify and marginalize them as malcontents who just don’t understand all the issues. Jeremy, you need to wake up to reality here. It’s people like you that are destroying our city. I’m just trying to get out while the getting is good.
Clint, do you need a hug?
It’s gonna be ok, buddy. No one’s destroying our city.
There it is folks. When you really don’t have any good rebuttals to what someone is saying, you attack or try to marginalize the person instead of defending the subject you are talking about. Jeremy, you are the guy who accused concerned environmentalists in town, of which I’m one, of wanting to counteract much needed growth and development by mis – using environmental law. The point we are trying to get across to you, Rosen, and most of the current City Council is that we need you to see that environmental law and code are enforced as intended and if any of you had any spine whatsoever to stand up to the Dem.s and their over development mongering you would be doing just that. Whether or not I need a hug, has about as much to do with what’s happening in Edmonds as the cost of tea in China but if it makes you feel good to ask something that inane so be it. I’ve been watching .Mayor appointed people like you sell and give away the best of Edmonds most of my adult life. I will soon be very happily watching from a little ways away but trust me; I’ll keep watching and commenting whenever I feel like it, hugs or no hugs.
Clint, I appreciate the dramatic monologue and thank you for the sole destroyer title. If holding people accountable is now classified as city sabotage, I must be more powerful than I thought. I’ll be sure to add ‘urban destructor’ to the resume.
Let me know when you want to ditch this platform along with the bullying tactics and actually talk meaningful planning. You can tell me how I have it backwards and what’s most important to you and how you would do it, and I can tell you about the details of what I know we have to do as a city, the amazing people in various neighborhoods I have had the pleasure to meet with over the past couple of years who have different opinions than yours, their desires, and how best to incorporate their needs and yours (because we also have to plan for them too); all while balancing these complex problems out with other competing interests and attempting to tie the smallest percentage of equity around it all. At the end of that we can all sit around a campfire, roast marshmallows and sing kumbaya, knowing that at least we had a constructive dialogue about difficult topics, even if we disagreed on the best path forward for all. Hugs can be optional. What do you say, friend?
No thanks. You are really good at being sure all the other opinions get aired and considered and the State’s mandates get honored while pretty much dismissing the people from the old school who are just trying to protect what they have. Your beloved Planning Board recommended protecting the the Deer Creek Aquifer from possible PFA contamination and then reversed course so we wouldn’t possibly get sued by potential developers on the advice of our City Attorney. You are complicit with the City Council in allowing something that could literally destroy a drinking water source when the environmental laws make it pretty clear that you had it right in the first place. In my case you’ve won the battle, as our house is going on the market in a few days. We just hope someone who wants to live in the old house gets it and not a two or three unit Edmonds view condo builder, for the sake of some awfully good neighbors and friends for the past many years. In fairness to you, part of our moving is downsizing and having a home we can age in place better in, which we have found. That said it was RFA passing and the specter of another huge tax ask in the fall that made us want to pull the trigger now.
I won’t pretend this isn’t painful to read. It’s clear that your decision to leave didn’t come lightly, and while I respect your reasons, it’s heartbreaking that we’re losing someone who’s been part of the community for so long. I don’t believe anyone’s trying to dismiss the ‘old school’ perspective; in fact, the loss of a full-time community member like yourself is exactly what we should be trying to avoid, and it’s a large issue given our demographics here. I wonder what the ‘balance’ of competing interests and compromises would have looked like 15-20 years ago if we would have prioritized effective age in place policy goals and actually implemented those goals to retain important community members today? In your opinion, what would those goals and implementation from a codes, land-use, housing types, and programs perspective have looked like?
Clint is not alone in his plans/desire to leave this town. If it wasn’t for family I’d be gone asap. I have been actively involved in Edmonds government/policy for 35 years. I used to care deeply (with my wallet, heart, and time) and now it is just a place I’m observing auger in until I decide it’s time to cash in my property value.
A sleepy little town that I used to enjoy and frequent businesses. And now it is over run (which I would think is good for tax basis) and I usually don’t solicit because it is over priced. Maybe this is normal “aging in place”. However, I just find it sad. The only thing I find motivating is figuring out where Clint is moving. Maybe it’s an option for us.
Jeremy,
As PB Chair you could have helped create ADU/DADU code to support aging in place. Instead, Council approved code that EXCLUDED garage/storage space from ADU/DADUs square footage, allowing much larger 2-story buildings not usable for those with mobility issues but attractive to developers, escalating our property values and the cost to build an ADU.
In 2023, John Zipper proposed to Council during 2024 Comp Plan deliberations a focus on ADUs/DADUs that would have supported aging in place. Former Director McLaughlin quickly dispensed any attention to ADUs and focused entirely on developer friendly buildings.
You didn’t live in Edmonds 15-20 years ago. Many residents opposing excessive up-zoning HAVE lived here and have dedicated enumerable hours providing input at the “planning table.” And yet, you suggested to Clinton that you meet privately “and I can tell you about the details of what I know we have to do as a city,”
Your arrogance is mind boggling.
My RV about ADUs:
https://myedmondsnews.com/2024/02/reader-view-when-it-comes-to-accessory-dwelling-units-think-small/
Well said, Joan. I will add condescension, disingenuousness, and entitlement to arrogance.
Well said, Annon. I hope you don’t have to move out of Edmonds. I’ve appreciated your astute comments on myedmondsnews for a long time.
Jeremy, as of now I have absolutely no interest or purpose in continuing this debate with you other than my environmental concerns and I question real sincerity on your part since your responses to me suggest that I’m using some sort of platform that uses “bullying tactics.” You first insinuate that I’m a little unhinged “needing some hugs” and then accuse me of being some sort of “bully.” You don’t even try to defend against my accusation that you, the Mayor and the majority Council are complicit in not stringently following our environmental laws and codes to protect the environment; so as not to offend any potential developers or development that the state has mandated; but may well be very critical areas inappropriate and just plain unwise. If that’s not true, then tell me and the other interested folks in town why it isn’t true. This is why I accused you and others of destroying Edmonds, which I admit was a little over the top, but I sincerely think that is what much of your planning with obvious bias toward over development and development interests is slowly but surely doing.
Far from it, sir. I was born and raised in a small town much like Edmonds that failed to do any real long range planning that purposefully ignored all of the projections that were forthcoming and when those projections became reality, they were put on the back of their heels making reactionary planning decisions that upended both the character of the town, surrounding environment, and nearly resulted in a 100% turnover of native residents that made the place special to begin with. Sorry for wanting to be proactive and engaged in the planning process so that doesn’t happen here.
Which environmental accusation would you like me to provide some clarification or context to first? CARAs? Compact development? Other critical areas? Comp plan is general? I’m happy to provide that input.
Then just do it. Do an Op-Ed in MEN and/or Beacon explaining exactly why and how you first recommended stormwater injection wells should NOT be allowed in new construction in the Deer Creek Critical Aquifer Recharge Area and then reversed course on your recommendation to the Council. (This resulted in a six to one vote to allow these wells that could very well inject PFAS chemicals into drinking water that Esperance, Woodway and some Edmonds citizens tap right now thru the Olympic View Water District.) Tell us about every meeting in detail you had about it and who was involved in those meetings. Inform us about any and all public input that you sought in order to make this change in recommendation and who asked the City Attorney to give an opinion as to what the consequences of NOT allowing these wells to be used by developers might be. It’s my understanding that his opinion that this might result in “takings” litigation was part of the decision to reverse course. Enlighten us all about that please. I’m not particularly worried about the other issues you reference because I won’t be a citizen much longer; but a couple of my friends get that water at their homes and I might end up drinking some of it someday. Others can now ask you what else to explain.
Members of the planning board and city staff serve in an advisory capacity and lack decision-making power. The ultimate responsibility for city planning and vision rests with the elected officials, namely the city council and the mayor. These officials are accountable to the residents of the community, rather than to special interests, political parties, or advisors with self-serving agendas. It is the duty of local citizens to ensure that these elected officials do not merely approve decisions without careful consideration of the implications of their actions.
Jeremy,
It must have been painful to watch the small town you grew up in change so dramatically. However, each small town is unique and you can’t rescue Edmonds from your home town’s fate. You’re failing to understand and value the decades long effort that many of us have been involved in, providing input to planning for Edmonds future.
To help frame Edmonds’ future you must have knowledge of its past. Please be “proactive” and listen to the many Edmonds residents who have lived through severe damage to Edmonds’ environmental assets and infrastructure that Edmonds Mayors/administrations are responsible for causing by allowing building directly on and near Critical Areas, for decades.
Please start with Alan Mearns comment: https://myedmondsnews.com/2024/12/reader-view-lets-extend-the-deadline-for-finalizing-the-edmonds-comprehensive-plan/#comment-537351
In my reader view:
https://myedmondsnews.com/2024/12/reader-view-lets-extend-the-deadline-for-finalizing-the-edmonds-comprehensive-plan/
Then read everything by Edmonds Environmental Council (Joe Scordino President) on https://edmondsenvironmentalcouncil.org
That won’t be enough to educate you of Edmonds past, there’s so much more, but it’s a start.
Please protect residents and the environment. Do not build developments on fault lines that are not safe. You also need to protect the marshes and wetlands. Mother Nature wins when abused.
I find it interesting that all these people, including Mayor Rosen and Jeremy, move into Edmonds from somewhere else and then promote themselves as the “saviors” of Edmonds and call everyone who’s lived here longer or doesn’t own a recently built set back to set back McMansion a bunch of “Nimby’s” who aren’t up with the times, are just looking out for themselves, and are trying to keep young people from ever being able to buy a home in Edmonds. Some people are just trying to protect what they have and worked hard to get and at least some of what has been so good about living in Edmonds. A local family wanted to build a sky scraper Ebb Tide waterfront apartments back in the ’60’s, the people up the hillside cried fowl and stopped it, and it has been a battle against people wanting to improve and “save” Edmonds ever since. Haakenson, Earling, Nelson and now Rosen have “saved” us from being “Deadmonds” yet the town is somehow headed for bankruptcy without immediate huge tax infusions. The first thing you should do is stop electing and appointing people that promise to “save” you.