Will you chip in to support our nonprofit newsroom with a donation today? Yes, I want to support My Edmonds News!

Key takeaways:
- Councilmembers approve an interim ordinance to remove properties from the North Bowl Hub — although the meeting ends before they can address clarifications about an amendment.
- Amendment to the police department’s Flex Fund designated for helping individuals who are homeless is also approved.
- The council hears about progress on updates to the city’s co-living housing and critical areas ordinances.
The Edmonds City Council on Tuesday night approved an interim ordinance removing properties from the North Bowl Hub zoning, but the meeting ended abruptly before a proposed amendment to the ordinance could be finalized.
Council President Neil Tibbott at the start of the meeting moved to add the interim ordinance to the council agenda, as it hadn’t been included in the packet that was published last week. When it came time to consider the matter — the last item on the agenda — City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained that interim ordinance would temporarily rezone “several parcels” in the North Bowl from their current centers and hubs mixed-use designation to low-density residential. The idea is to prevent any development applications from moving forward until the Council can take final action on the Edmonds Planning Board recommendations to remove the properties, Taraday said.
The interim ordinance identified 13 North Bowl parcels land to be rezoned — on Grandview Street and nearby — the same ones that the Planning Board had identified in their earlier recommendation. Councilmember Vivian Olson then introduced an amendment to the ordinance, which she had emailed to councilmembers earlier Tuesday, asking that an additional six parcels in the hub’s south section also be included. The result would be to temporarily “go back to having everything be low-density residential as it was before the Comp Plan amendment,” she said.

Olson made the case that while the council had “a fair amount of discussion” about the Planning Board’s recommendation about the North Bowl Hub, councilmembers had not voted on the matter. “It seemed like there were maybe properties that had not been included, that we might want to include, and properties that were excluded that we thought [might want] to be retained by at least some of the councilmembers,” Olson said. Given that the Council is scheduled to adopt the Comprehensive Plan amendments by Dec. 9, which would void the interim zoning ordinance, “it’s just seems prudent for us to take the most conservative approach,” she added.
The North Bowl Hub is one of five hubs and four centers that Edmonds created as small-scale multifamily housing and neighborhood commercial areas under the City’s 2024 Comprehensive Plan update, required by state law. In addition to North Bowl, the hubs are West Edmonds Way, South Lake Ballinger, Maplewood and East Seaview, while the centers are Westgate, Five Corners, Medical District Expansion and Firdale.
North Bowl Hub residents in 2024 raised concerns about the impact of the zoning change on their neighborhood and in response, councilmembers included further evaluation of the hub as one of two top priorities for 2025 Comprehensive Plan amendments. (The other priority was updates to the city’s critical areas ordinance, which the council also discussed Tuesday night.)
After discussion, the council approved Olson’s amendments by a vote of 4-3, with Councilmembers Chris Eck, Susan Paine and Jenna Nand voting no.
“I think that this is just…trying to reduce housing opportunities, particularly next to an elementary school,” Paine said. “I think that that’s that short-sighted. This is a 20-year plan, and this [the additional parcels] doesn’t need to be included in this interim code.”
As the meeting neared the official 9 p.m. stopping point, councilmembers voted to extend the meeting to 9:15 p.m. to get the work done. However, after the council unanimously approved the interim ordinance, Attorney Taraday asked for clarification about two whereas clauses — meant to support Olson’s amendment — that were included with her written motion to amend.
Further discussion revealed that not all councilmembers realized those amended clauses were part of the amendment. Olson then proposed an amendment to clarify the matter but Nand weighed in, stating her frustration with the process.
“I did not understand that I was voting on additional whereas clauses,” Nand said. “And I think that this is a very dangerous practice for us to start adopting, where somebody can incorporate a text by reference that has something verbally stated from the dais.”
With the clock approaching 9:15, Mayor Mike Rosen asked for a meeting extension until 9:30 p.m. Such an extension needs a supermajority of five or more to pass, but the vote was 4-3. Then Nand moved to table the matter until a future date, stating “I don’t think that three minutes is enough time to discuss these amendments thoroughly, and I prefer that we not rush this process.” The motion to table passed by a vote of 4-3, with Olson, Tibbott and Councilmember Michelle Dotsch voting no.
Taraday noted that as a result of the council vote, “we’ve got a sloppy ordinance, which is an ordinance that the mayor can sign. So I just want to make sure everyone understands that.”
After the meeting, Planning and Development Director Mike Clugston said he wasn’t clear about the impact of the interim ordinance, as approved, adding he would need to review it further on Wednesday.
The council also:

- Received a proclamation for National Arts and Humanities Month, which was read by Mayor Rosen and accepted by Edmonds Arts Commission Chair Richard Chung and Vice Chair Katie Leute.
- During public comment, heard concerns from several Edmonds residents living in the Meadowdale area regarding the $250 million planned expansion of the City of Lynnwood’s wastewater treatment plant, which is surrounded by Edmonds homes. John Quast, Meadowdale Community Club board member, asked if the City was aware of the project and the future impacts the work would have on Edmonds residents, including roads, traffic, noise, dust and local streams.
- Learned more from Planner Rose Haas about planned updates to the City’s co-living housing, required by state law. Edmonds already has co-living regulations as part of its development code, but state House Bill 1998 requires changes to allow co-living as a permitted use wherever multi-family units of six or more would be allowed. Co-living housing means a residential development with sleeping units that are independently rented and lockable and provide living and sleeping space. Residents share kitchen facilities, and may share bathroom facilities, with other sleeping units in the building.
- Heard from Senior Planner Brad Shipley regarding work to update Edmonds’ critical areas ordinance. Critical areas include streams, wetlands, landslide hazard areas, and other environmentally sensitive features. Under the Growth Management Act (GMA), all Washington cities and counties must adopt development regulations that protect these areas. The GMA also requires that these protections be based on the best available scientific information. One major change is that Riparian Management Zones — lands that occur along the edges of rivers, streams, lakes and other water bodies — “now are considered a critical area, not just a buffer for a critical area,” Shipley said. Because the department is currently understaffed and there is no budget for consultants, Shipley worked closely with local environmental to review critical areas issues, test draft language, and refine provisions to ensure clarity and consistency with best available science. Shipley said he is also working to streamline the critical areas code to make it more user friendly. (Read more about that in our previous story here.)
- Approved an amendment to a Flex Fund contract with Snohomish County that allows the Edmonds Police Department to apply for reimbursement of funds spent toward homeless individuals’ emergency needs, including food and other necessities. Acting Assistant Chief Josh McClure said the department has not used the fund to the extent it initially thought it would, so Snohomish County is reducing the amount for the remainder of the year — from $7,500 to $4,500. The department says it has other resources to use for homeless individuals in Edmonds this year, but McClure said that in the future the department would educate officers about the fund so it is used.
- Adopted a one-year interim zoning ordinance for four parcels of land in the city’s Westgate neighborhood that are currently unzoned after being left out of the City’s 2024 Comprehensive Plan Update. The plan is to conduct further analysis on the parcel designations and have a review by the Edmonds Planning Board.
- Agreed to remove two items from the consent agenda and place them on a future agenda because additional information was need: One is a resolution aimed at clarifying City policy regarding priorities for repayment of a $6 million interfund loan and replenishment of reserves. The other is amendments related to Council Rules of Procedures.
The council’s next business meeting will be on Monday, Nov. 3 to avoid conflicting with Election Day Nov. 4.





Edmonds City Council experienced challenges last night trying to adopt an interim ordinance. For some reason, the interim ordinance had been left out of Council’s packet. It will be interesting to watch the video when it is available.
Can an ordinance be amended immediately after it has been adopted? If so, who can make such a motion to amend and how many votes are needed to pass such a motion?
After the City Council passes an ordinance, the mayor has three options under RCW 35A.12.130:
1. Sign the ordinance: It becomes law.
2. Veto the ordinance: The mayor returns it to the council with written objections.
3. Take no action: If the mayor does not sign or veto the ordinance within 10 days, it automatically becomes law without the mayor’s approval.
I’ll repeat a request I have made to City Councils for years:
Please implement policies and procedures to address all steps that must be followed when it becomes known that false, misleading, inaccurate, or incomplete information has been provided to City Council and Hearing Examiners in advance of decisions.
I believe such policies and procedures would improve city government and reduce the chance of harm caused to citizens of Edmonds by decisions made under the influence of false, misleading, inaccurate, or incomplete information.
This is exactly why so many of us have lost confidence in City Hall. I hope the voters feel the same come 11/4.
When you add zoning changes at the start of a meeting with no public notice (outside of small punch via MEN), no staff analysis, and no clear process — that’s not leadership, that’s amateur hour. Even the City Attorney called it a “sloppy ordinance.”
As a business owner in Downtown Edmonds, I can tell you — this kind of unpredictability kills investment. You can’t attract housing, you can’t attract small business, and you can’t expect community trust when basic procedural competence is missing.
It’s not about being for or against development. It’s about competence, preparation, and respecting process. Until we elect people who know how to govern, Edmonds will keep tripping over itself.
I like your comment here, Lee but I do think a lot of this specific hub modification is about being against development. Edmonds has a LONG history of making it incredibly difficult to create new housing, business, and placemaking opportunities, especially outside a narrow set of “acceptable” neighborhoods. And, when it is enabled to happen, it gets walked back through emergency / interim ordinances long enough to kill the plan.
I think it’s one thing to consider and develop minor modifications to all hubs and centers, looking at them in the context of good city planning, but allowing modifications to a singular hub, because Grandview doesn’t like it, after a multi-year public process, and time spent aligning comp plan goals with county-wide and regional planning goals / policies is a continuation of the pattern where zoning flexibility suddenly appears only when it benefits areas already advantaged by wealth and influence. This kind of selective openness, in my opinion, deepens existing inequities, which I had thought our council made it a priority to improve.
I’ll be curious to see where this goes, the perception it gives, and what happens to other long-range planned areas for growth / opportunity.
Right on Jeremy you hit the nail on the head. It would be wise for our Mayor + City Council to not pass that new and hurried idea. My perception is this; Everyone and every place in this city should take on growth. Period. It’s tiresome to watch those areas you are speaking of get everything they want built at the expense of all of the others in Edmonds who pay high property taxes too. Yet nothing built that they feel is beneath them! Clearly the rest of the city has waited long enough, and those areas need to learn that they are not special. Mandated housing is what we have to do but we do need growth everyone should live with that knowledge. All children should be safe walking to school all children are special. All areas should do multifamily and dorm housing etc. this way those who live all over Edmonds have a pretty close proximity to work and take their fair share of the load. All homeowners all over Edmonds care what their neighborhoods look like. The nerve of the homeowners who have said some of the things they said is unbelievable entitled words, behavior and unacceptable to me. Edmonds Government you need to change your mind and fix this all of it or you will never get a yes Levy Lift.
I guess that I still don’t understand how these rezoned parcels, being all private properties will be transitioned to middle housing. We asked that question to the planning people when we did the hub walk some months ago, and got a few word salad type answers.
My memory is that the adoption of our major Comprehensive Plan update at the end of 2024 fell far short of what our city and its citizens needed. For an example of the deficiencies, see Citizen of the Year Joe Scordino’s comment on this article:
https://myedmondsnews.com/2025/03/council-april-1-set-to-review-priorities-for-comprehensive-plan-amendments/
Another thought-provoking article with many excellent comments can be found here:
https://myedmondsnews.com/2024/03/reader-view-time-to-speak-up-about-the-citys-comprehensive-plan-process/
As of April 1, 2025, 28 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ideas were proposed. Councilmember Michelle Dotsch proposed 13 of the 28 potential amendments.
The March 19, 2024 Approved Council Meeting Minutes include the following:
“Councilmember Dotsch said she is hearing from citizens that they do not feel they are part of the process. She attend the meetings in December where about 12 people at most attended other than the waterfront meeting. The idea of a 15-minute city, neighborhoods, and hubs is very abstract and high level thinking for people until it gets into the number of stories, density, etc. Her research regarding 15-minute cities found there are none, Paris isn’t one even though it is used as an example. She felt the abstracts were trying to square peg Edmonds into a round hole and the people living in the neighborhood and nodes don’t understand what’s coming. She was hopeful the open house will help them understand.”
The “Pens Down” date of April 13th was discussed.
The challenge associated with the update of the Comprehensive Plan was that it appeared to be largely driven by specific agendas, with community feedback frequently relegated to a secondary position or overlooked entirely.
Community meetings occasionally seemed to serve only as formalities, as decisions appeared to have been pre-determined by the administration and their well-compensated consultants.
Moreover, numerous aspects of the plan are probably not in harmony with current market conditions and could ultimately prove to be more of a mirage than a viable solution.