July 1 council update, part 2: Council learns about Edmonds marsh study and approves residential parking code

The Edmonds City Council Tuesday night received an update on the planning process for reconnecting the Edmonds Marsh to Puget Sound and restoring vital estuary habitat.

The Edmonds Marsh Planning Study, underway since 2023, has been gathering crucial data to support a comprehensive restoration plan. The plan will focus on reducing flood risks for the surrounding community, including reducing flooding of Dayton Avenue and Harbor Square now and as sea levels rise in the Puget Sound.

It will also focus on supporting the Puget Sound food web and creating important rearing habitat for salmon, forage fish, birds and other wildlife. Also, the study will explore ways to improve public access to the marsh while maintaining its ecological health.

The effort hit notable milestones recently with the completion of key environmental documents and the several well-attended public meetings. Engineers from Blue Coast Engineering and a representative from the Edmonds Marsh Estuary Advocates briefed the council Tuesday on the hydrology and contamination reports, the Unocal property and the approach to fund the next phase of pre-design work.

Hydrology

The hydrology and hydraulics reports focused on past data, current conditions and future modeling with an emphasis on storm events, storm surges, king tides, projected sea level rise and the best way to manage flooding, with an emphasis g on Harbor Square, Dayton Avenue and SR 104. Kathy Ketteridge of Blue Coast Engineering factored these elements into the long-term marsh restoration plan alternatives.

Slide from the Blue Coast Engineering hydrology report. The blue designates flooded areas. The deeper the blue, the deeper the water.

The long-term plan creates a channel through Marina Beach Park to connect the marsh and Puget Sound, restoring the estuary. There are two alternatives under discussion: The first is an open channel through the railroad bridge and through the dog park. The second is a full excavation of the Unocal site, now undergoing work to clean contaminants from the former fuel facility.

But according to Ketteridge,  Unocal excavation will not help manage flooding because the excavation creates new space for sea water.

“It’s kind of like going out into the nearshore area and digging a big hole in the beach, the water level must go down right? It’s the same type of scenario,” Kittridge told the council. “So it [excavation of Unocal] would add additional habitat benefits, you get more acres of fish habitat, which can help for funding and other reasons, but specifically for flooding, digging out and excavating deeper into the site doesn’t actually increase the [flood mitigation] benefits you get for the project.”

A seawall or berm would be a better alternative around the marsh area and SR 104 to manage sea level rise, king tides and a storm surge.

Contamination 

The engineers were clear that there is now very little contamination at the nearby Unocal site. If the site is developed, the new landowner would be responsible for managing contamination associated with development. Unocal is only responsible for newly identified contamination. Engineers agreed that development associated with past contamination is more expensive because there is a higher standard of care. 

Such contamination can be managed with conventional protections like liners and walls or new innovative ideas. 

“Residual contamination doesn’t preclude restoration,” Ketteridge said. “Most of the site is clean and we can deal with whatever is left there and avoid it.”

Grants and future plans

The team is moving forward on a new grant proposal for marsh restoration work, and signs are positive it will be secured. A decision could come by December. That pre-design work could be completed by 2028, which gets the community to another decision point about construction. 

Deliverables for the next round of grant funding.

“We’ll complete an appraisal, we’ll do a cultural resources survey of the site, we’ll develop very refined cost estimates for restoration, and we’ll develop a plan for future funding,” said Bill Derry of the Edmonds Marsh Estuary Advocates. “It will be primarily grants, both state and federal and maybe some private, and the final product will be a 30% preliminary design and what’s necessary to get to a go-no go decision.” 

The council thanked the presenters for their work on the project.

Residential parking

Interim Planning Director Mike Clugston provided a residential parking code update in light of SB 5184, a major parking reform bill passed in Olympia this session. The bill outlines state requirements for multi-family housing parking and senior and affordable housing parking. It allows cities to eliminate requirements for off-street parking for new development. 

It allows, not requires, cities to cap new development minimum parking requirements at one-half of a parking space per unit and allows, not requires, new senior and affordable units to be built with no parking requirement.

The question before council was whether to require any parking for affordable and senior housing. Councilmember Susan Paine made a motion to eliminate parking requirement for affordable and senior housing. 

“We want to make these projects developable,” Paine said, noting that parking adds to construction expense. “Each parking space adds $30,000 to the developer’s cost,” she said. Councilmember Chris Eck, who also supported the measure, said she sees more people gravitating to multimodal transportation options. 

Councilmember Jenna Nand did not support the motion. She said in the Highway 99 area, where there is low-income residential housing, people use commercial properties like the Safeway parking lot as overflow. Nand said that since the parking requirement was not yet a mandate, there was no need to rush. 

Councilmember Michelle Dotsch, who also opposed the measure, used Firdale Village as an example of a neighborhood that has no street parking. “If we develop affordable housing there, they have no parking,” she said. 

“The low-income people I know have to go to work to generate the low income that they have,” said Councilmember Will Chen said, who also opposed the proposal. “We don’t have public transportation that’s [good enough] in our community now.” 

The motion to eliminate parking requirements for new developments for senior and affordable housing passed 4-to-3 with Councilmembers Chen, Nand and Dotsch voting no. 

 

  1. Going once going twice for moving the ferry to the unical property? So no parking minimum for sienor housing, guess taxing people out of their homes isn’t good enough for you now you want them out of the city or to be trapped without means to get around. I guess the my only recourse is is to refuse to spend any money in Edmonds but don’t worry I doubt you will miss my dollars but just maybe others will join in and take their business elsewhere just maybe then enough pressure can be asserted for our city to make better policy decisions.

    1. Thank you Council members Will, Jenna, and Michelle for voting against eliminating parking at new senior and affordable housing projects. Susan, Chris, Vivian, and Neil, have you lost your minds? Do you really think that the vibrant seniors that live in this town don’t drive? I cannot imagine where your thought process is. And Susan, where ever did you get your information on the cost of a parking space? Was that from a developer who wants to eliminate parking? Hmmm. The $30,000 price tag for parking, is what a parking space sells to the homeowner for in Seattle or Bellevue in a condo complex. The four of you are causing so much damage our beautiful town with your uninformed decisions.

      1. No one is eliminating anything. The new law only increases what is allowed. It does not prohibit anything that was allowed before. It does not eliminate parking anywhere. You can still put as many as 40 off-street parking spaces on your property if you want to. Or just a few. It’s up to you.

        1. Establishing standards for parking that are none or marginal does not serve the best interests of the community, which is the job of the city council. There’s an election this fall to decide who’s up for that task. Allowing no building requirements for parking does not benefit senior citizens, individuals with disabilities, or those with limited income due to insufficient public transit.

  2. About SB 5184: Here is some of the text of the law:

    “(1) A city may not require more than 0.5 parking space per multifamily dwelling unit or more than one parking space per single-family home.
    (2) A city may not require more than two parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of commercial space.
    (3) A city may not require any minimum parking requirements for:
    (a) Residences under 1,200 square feet;
    (b) Commercial spaces under 3,000 square feet;
    (c) Affordable housing;
    (d) Senior housing;
    (e) Child care centers…” (https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2025-26/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Passed%20Legislature/5184-S.PL.pdf?q=20250703072655)

    The law requires cities set minimum parking requirements between zero and one half spaces per apartment.
    Edmonds could set the minimum at one half, or at one quarter space per apartment, or no minimum at all.

    This is all about minimums. With a minimum of one half spaces, an apartment complex could build two spaces per apartment if that would work best for their business. They just could not go below the minimum.

    For single-family homes, you can still have seven spaces for your home, or more if you like. Just not fewer than whatever minimum the Council sets.

  3. As a senior who is disabled and currently do not drive, I use transit to get everywhere. I can’t afford the cost associated with having a car, but if I could I would. Having parking available for seniors and low income people is more essential than those not in that category. Seniors need vehicles to go to the doctor appointments, and grocery shopping. Imagine carrying all you groceries home without a car. This is very difficult, labor intensive and time consuming. I am limited on what I can buy, because I have to carry it all the way home. Imagine carrying several can food items, a gallon of milk, vegetables, toilet paper, and meats, etc from the store to yiur home via transit. Next time you go to the store, think about what it is like not to use a car. I challenge all those on the counsel to do exactly that. How many of them are using transit to get around. One other point, we need parking for home health care, nurses, and visitors who check on us and who provide services to the seniors and disabled. If you want to take away parking, do it for the young at heart. Build larger apartments on Highway 99, less car dealerships. Don’t build up downtown Edmonts, do it on highway 99.

    1. Hi Paul,

      Yes, Seniors are sometimes those most in need of having a car. I used to work for a Podiatrist and mobility issues among older people 50+ were enormous. They couldn’t walk to a bus or wait for it to arrive. Those that could afford it used Uber. Those who couldn’t were dependent on family and friends to get them around if there wasn’t senior transit available. And low-income folks who are desperate to keep their jobs have to have a car if the bus lines don’t run near their employment or can’t get them there in a reasonable amount of time. I hope the Council Members are working to find ways to help these folks get to where they need to go without a car. One solution is the Zip Shuttle like the one Lynnwood operates (https://www.communitytransit.org/services/zip-shuttle). This only seems to work within the Lynnwood City limits however. Unfortunately, public transit funds from the federal government will probably be diminished under Trump, so increases in public transit might not be available for quite a while.

    2. Mr. Nelson, thank you for speaking out as a disabled senior with your perspective on parking. We need more of you to speak up on your unique challenges. Advocates speaking for you simply cannot carry the credibility that you do.

    3. Paul, you raise some very valid points, particularly concerning seniors and low-income individuals who are forced to rely on marginal public transportation. Additionally, home health care nurses and visitors require parking to deliver their services. The council members who have overlooked these essential parking needs of our senior citizens are utterly ignorant or heartless regarding these necessities. It seems that their commitment to political correctness and partisan loyalty takes precedence over addressing these issues.

  4. As a footnote, and as someone with increasing mobility issues, even if you have a car, parking is choked and Disabled Parking is vastly under requirements and a times downright stupid, as illustrated by the imbecilic placing of one lone spot at the corner of Dayton & 6th while there are none on Main north of the fountain.

    Try getting up to 6th and Dayton from, say, Taki Tiki, if you have trouble walking or are in a wheelchair! But there are so few disabled spots that that one, solitary spot is usually taken.

  5. We certainly hope that decreases in parking minimums will bring more affordable housing for seniors and low-income folks. However, Edmonds City Council Members must now work on problems that can arise from this policy. Having lived in Portland and Capitol HIll in Seattle, I know that projects with little or no parking will push cars onto the streets, parking up whole blocks in surrounding neighborhoods. People still have cars for other reasons than getting to work, or roommates will both have cars so one has to park on the street (if there is only one space per unit). I urge the City Council to think of ways to deal with this because it does make voters furious. One way is to use residential parking permits. I don’t know how well this works. The second way is for homeowners to be allowed to increase parking in their front yards. It doesn’t look pretty, but it will allow for their family members or visitors to find a parking spot when neighboring apartment dwellers have taken up all the parking spots on the street. People with young children, seniors who can still drive, and low-income people who can’t afford an Uber, need to have cars. Unless Americans vote for politicians that will prioritize public transit, streets with bike lanes, and other amenities, we are stuck with cars.

    1. Arlene, some great points. Since you lived in Portland, ask how their abandoning parking for new affordable housing worked out. Basically, there are no new units bult over the past few years due to a variety of reasons, but removing the parking minimums did not help one iota.

      1. Portland stopped its off-street parking requirement at the end of June, 2023. Here’s how people who are in favor of off-street parking requirements describe the housing market in Portland since then: “an influx of new apartments has kept rents relatively flat in the last year… From 2021 to 2024, developers in Portland built more than 1,400 such homes in its low-density neighborhoods” (https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2025/06/as-seattle-adopts-new-developer-friendly-rules-dont-expect-an-immediate-building-boom.html)

        It makes sense: https://www.sightline.org/2024/12/10/parking-reform-alone-can-boost-homebuilding-by-40-to-70-percent/

        That’s not to say you can’t mess things up removing parking requirements: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2024/11/19/spokanes-step-by-step-approach-to-repealing-parking-mandates

  6. All part of the 15 minute city agenda from the UN and WEF. It move us one step closer to no cars allowed and only public transportation allowed.

  7. I echo Dawn Malkowski’s thanks to CMs Dotsch, Nand, and Chen.

    Nick Maxwell, your statement “no one is eliminating anything” is inaccurate. CM Paine’s motion was “to eliminate parking requirement for affordable and senior housing.” She went on to say, “We want to make these projects developable”.

    Since this was a 4/3 vote, any of the four CMs who voted FOR it can bring the issue back to Council and ask for a re-vote. Consider emailing:

    Susan.paine@edmondswa.gov
    Chris.eck@edmondswa.gov
    Neil.tibbott@edmondswa.gov
    Vivian.olson@edmondswa.gov

    Request they reconsider their votes.
    Include: Council@edmondswa.gov so all of Council will receive your email.

    And here’s a link to Council on the city’s website for emails and phone numbers:

    https://www.edmondswa.gov/government/city_council

    1. Eliminating a requirement does not eliminate the thing that used to be required. I know it’s confusing like lots of double negatives, but think of it like full body bathing suits. In the early 20th century, women were required to wear full body bathing suits on the beach. That requirement has been taken away. You can still wear a full body suit. In fact, in Puget Sound waters, I recommend a full-body wet suit to keep you warm. Removing the requirement doesn’t make it so you can’t do whatever was required before.

      Voting against these code changes is financially irresponsible. These changes are required by state law. Our new code is the very smallest possible adjustment to Edmonds code to comply with those laws. If we violate those laws, we risk cuts in our funding from the State and we risk financial penalties if we are sued by the state.

      1. Without this requirement, then it will be up to the developers whether the put parking in or not, correct?

        1. Correct. They will try to create the housing that works best for their market.

  8. Eliminating the requirement, but expecting or hoping a developer will do what’s best and sensible because at one time it was required, is like asking the fox to guard the hen house. We used to not allow the fox near the hen house, and now we do. Get my point? If you remember, just a few short years ago, the apartments on 3rd and Bell found a loophole in the parking regulations and built the building with no parking assuming tenants could and would park on the street. Everyone was up in arms about it, and it was my understanding that the loophole was closed so that the NO NEED FOR PARKING requirement would never be an issue again. And here it is rearing it’s ugly head.

    1. I don’t get your point at all. You think developers want to create housing that people don’t want to live in? What is it you think they are “eating” in this case? Parking spaces? If tenants want parking spaces, it would be just stupid for a developer to build without parking spaces.

      I live around the corner from the apartments on 3rd and Bell that you are referring to. I was among the neighbors who said the no-parking apartments were good. It worked out well. Now I only see evenings when there are not available spaces nearby when something is happening at the ECA. During the farmers’ market, there are no spaces nearby. The ECA parking and the farmers’ market parking has nothing to do with off-street parking: my neighborhood will be swamped with visitors no matter what developers, or the ECA, or the farmers’ market put in. It’s wonderful to see all the visitors coming to Edmonds.

      But really, I don’t get what you’re imagining developers are trying to do. It seems like you think they enjoy the idea of tenants who want parking spaces not getting them, and they are willing to cut their profits to cause trouble.

  9. The analogy of the “fox guarding the hen house” is particularly relevant given the recent changes in code parameters. Regrettably, in the current environment, numerous political leaders at both local and state levels are being supported by dubious “foxes.”

  10. You can spin this parking issue any way you want to; but it just seems obvious to me that cramming as many people into and as close together as possible in the still very desirable community that is known as the Edmonds Bowl is an on the face of it a very bad idea, yet it is promoted and facilitated by your local government(s), state, county and municipal. The obvious reason is the need for more property taxation to pay the now very high government salaries and benefits of public servants. Can Edmonds really afford a Police Chief making over a quarter million dollars a year and a fire/ems system that doubled in cost in the space of one year with no change whatsoever in service provided? Our home near FAC sold quickly for a great price mostly because the property still had on site parking available, even for an RV, and some actual green space as well. Happily for our great old neighbors I think someone got it who actually wants to live there as we did and not build two or three condos instead.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Real first and last names — as well as city of residence — are required for all commenters.
This is so we can verify your identity before approving your comment.

By commenting here you agree to abide by our Code of Conduct. Please read our code at the bottom of this page before commenting.