Letter sent to Edmonds Mayor Mike Rosen, Edmonds City Council, and Edmonds Planning Director
From: Edmonds Environmental Council
November 25, 2025
Please see the linked OpEd piece in My Edmonds News yesterday and the comments to it.
As explained in the OpEd piece, the public is very concerned that the new Comp Plan will result in environmental degradation in Edmonds and must be ‘fixed’ to incorporate “Environmentally Sensitive Zoning” in Edmonds. Further, the housing density zoning should have staggered implementation over time (and still be consistent with House Bills) such that areas with least environmental impacts would have the new density zoning implemented before implementing such in more environmentally sensitive landscapes and/or landscapes that require infrastructure improvements/expansion. This would also ensure the density zoning is tracking with ‘actual’ population growth rather than the projections being questioned by many citizens in Edmonds.
We have an actual recent incident in Edmonds (in the Main Street greenbelt and wildlife corridor across from Yost Park) where the City’s Hearing Examiner allowed development to occur in a critical area even though it adversely impacts Shell Creek and the salmon that reside in it. The City must modify the Comp Plan to ensure such incidents do not occur in the future (especially since the new Comp Plan currently prioritizes housing density over the living environment in Edmonds).
Joe Scordino and Ronald Eber would be pleased to work with staff on ways to revise the Comp Plan to incorporate these comments. Just let us know.
Joe Scordino, Board President, Edmonds Environmental Council
https://edmondsenvironmentalcouncil.org/
On Tuesday, November 26, 2024 at 07:28:53 AM PST, Hope, Shane wrote:
Thanks for your message. However, two things affecting future development need to happen now and cannot be staggered without being out of compliance with state law. The first for the Comp Plan is:
1 – Per HB 1110, all lots in existing single family residential areas need to be allowed to have two units and, in very limited areas (such as near major transit stops or where strict affordability criteria are met) up to 4 units—except still retaining critical area regulations and other development standards for height, etc.
1 – Enough capacity must be provided (not staggered by the comp plan—though certainly staggering will naturally occur with the market and feasibility over the next 10-20 years) to allow more multi-family housing that, per state guidance, is needed for additional low- and moderate- income households.
NOTE: While item # 2 above is partly provided by existing capacity on Hwy 99, additional multifamily capacity is needed. That capacity needs to be provided in the plan (AND in the development regulations that are revised during the first half of 2025). To do this, the idea of small-scale neighborhood centers and hubs was explored and a preferred alternative decided, which would allow some multifamily residential development in those neighborhoods identified in the Preferred Alternative.
Sincerely,
Shane Hope, AICP
Interim Planning and Development Director
City of Edmonds, WA
On Tuesday, November 26, 2024 at 07:28:53 AM PST, Joe Scordino wrote:
Shane – could we meet sometime next week and discuss?
What I’m suggesting would be a ‘planned’ approach to meeting the capacity requirements rather than letting the market and feasibility determine where the capacity increases occur over the 20-year timeframe. It would not change the preferred Alternative adopted by the Council, it would only set an implementation ‘order’ by timeframe for the actual implementation of the density zoning.
Essentially it would be taking the projected housing units allocated to Centers, Hubs, Hwy 99 subarea, and DADUs (everywhere) and plotting them on the 20 year projected population growth curve with implementation timeframes. The Comp Plan would set the path for changing housing density zoning according to the growth curve and thus would not limit capacity, it would just “set-the course” for the density zoning as growth occurs. The bottomline is this would help place increased development in areas where it makes ‘sense’ first and then allows increased capacity in more ‘sensitive’ landscape areas last.
This would allow the Council to decide where increased capacity should go 1st and last in the City (rather than the market and developers profits) based on the growth projections (which many citizens believe are not correct, thus putting that ‘uncertainty’ into the timeline).
An example would be implementing Perrinville capacity allocations last in the cycle due to the infrastructure and stream damage problems in that watershed that will be years away from fixing and exacerbated by any additional development in the interim.
On Tuesday, November 26, 2024 at 10:24 AM PST, Shane Hope wrote:
Hello Joe (and bcc’d to Council),
I could probably meet with you next week but it is not likely to change my understanding of the applicable state laws. That’s because, based on my review of the laws and state guidance, the new laws don’t offer cities the opportunity to prevent the use of growth capacity for some period of years in those areas that the comprehensive plans shows are intended to provide the jurisdiction’s needed multifamily capacity. Rather, if there’s an area that is not reasonable for growth during the next few years, that area should be excluded from the capacity being demonstrated in the comprehensive plan. Of course, the total needed capacity needs to be available and shown as such in the comp plan. It’s also understood that actual growth and development will occur over time, based on market conditions, property owner wishes, and so on. NOTE: Protecting critical areas and managing stormwater are very important. That’s why all proposed development is subject to being reviewed for critical areas during the application stage and for critical area and stormwater regulations to be applied as part of any development.
Thanks,
Shane
On Tuesday, November 26, 2024 at 10:32:29 AM PST Ron Eber wrote:
Thanks Shane. Can you provide a more specific reference to the provisions of HB 1110 for us to find and better understand how it applies as you explain.
Also, a meeting would be easier for you to explain all of this and for us to better understand. The give and take is better in person rather than by email.
Ron