By Teresa Wippel, My Edmonds News
November 11, 2024
Passionate comments about city planning, providing police and fire services, and protecting the character of downtown Edmonds dominated public testimony at Tuesday night’s Edmonds City Council meeting, as advocates for a range of viewpoints packed the council chambers to have their say.
One outcome following the testimony was immediate: The council voted to delete downtown Edmonds’ BD zone from the city’s proposed green building incentives for commercial and multi-family properties. The program is aimed at helping the city meet its climate goals by encouraging green building, but those testifying said they were worried that the incentives could threaten the downtown character by offering developers a 5-foot height bonus for meeting green construction standards. Councilmembers voted 6-1 to approve Councilmember Michelle Dotsch’s proposal to remove the BD zone from the program.
The lone no vote came from Councilmember Jenna Nand, who noted that buildings “do have a certain life,” and that new developments downtown, such as the building now housing the Edmonds Post Office on 2nd Avenue North as well as the Graphite building across the street, “are very well integrated into the style and the culture of the Edmonds downtown business district, and they’re often replacing buildings that are not in very good shape.”
Dotsch also made a motion to delay approving the incentives — minus the BD zone — until late January but that was rejected by 2-5 vote, with Councilmember Will Chen joining Dotsch to vote in favor.
In addition, councilmembers heard numerous people testify about the value of Edmonds maintaining its current police department, amid news reports that the city — which is facing a $13 million budget deficit — was exploring idea of contracting with sheriff’s offices in either King or Snohomish County to save money.
Two of the speakers were current or former educators at Edmonds-Woodway High School who spoke to the value of police who proactively worked with students who needed support and their quick and professional response to school emergencies.
“Please don’t balance the budget by jeopardizing our safety,” said Gwen Baugh. “Safety should be your primary responsibility. Find another way.”
Some councilmembers also brought up the topic of the police department’s future during their comments, with Council President Vivian Olson stating “we’ve had a huge PR nightmare on our hands regarding the alleged plan to outsource the police, which was never a plan. I appreciate that…we are getting information on absolutely all budget-cutting opportunities, but if our officers didn’t already know how much they were loved and appreciated in Edmonds, that was definitely a positive outcome over this.”
The topic of fire and EMS services; and the council’s consideration of a proposal from the South County Fire Regional Fire Authority for annexation, also came up during testimony. Among those offering comments in support of the idea were Steve Francis, a retired firefighter living in Edmonds, and Zach Cash, a current South County Fire captain who sits on the executive board of the local firefighters union.
However, other Edmonds residents testified in opposition to RFA annexation, pointing to the burden it would place on taxpayers. “The taxes needed to float the RFA vote will inevitably push citizens on or near the financial edge out of this community,” Edmonds resident Greg Brewer said. “There has to be another option.”
South County Fire leaders — including RFA Board Commissioner Ed Widdis and Fire Chief Bob Eastman — also made an appearance toward the end of Tuesday’s meeting. They had just come from an RFA Board meeting (which also meets Tuesday night) with news that the fire commissioners had agreed to some concessions in areas of the pre-annexation agreement that councilmembers had been unhappy with.
Two significant ones:
- 1 – If voters approved RFA annexation, city fire station 16 (located at 196th Street Southwest) and station 20 (located in unincorporated Esperance but owned by the City of Edmonds) would become the property of the RFA, as planned. But if the RFA ceases to operate the properties as active fire stations, title and ownership of them would revert to the City of Edmonds — with no payment required. “If the citizens actually support the annexation and voted, the [fire] stations follow the taxpayer,” Eastman said in explaining the change. “If the City of Edmonds starts their own fire department again and the citizens are then served fire from the city, and those stations would go back with those taxpayers to the city.”
- 2 – If after annexation, if Edmonds wanted to restart its fire department, it could purchase the rolling stock (fire engines and aid cars) from the RFA at fair market value — with no concurrence of the RFA required to make the purchase. That requirement had been a point of contention because — as City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained during a council meeting last week — “there’s a significant wait time to order new rolling stock from the factory.”
Widdis and Eastman said that councilmembers would see new draft pre-annexation agreement contract language on Wednesday. Once the city has had a chance to review it, the revised final language would be placed before the RFA Board for approval at its Tuesday, Dec. 17 meeting — in time for the Edmonds council to consider the RFA-approved draft at their Dec. 17 meeting.
Another major topic Tuesday night was the city’s 2024 draft Comprehensive Plan update. Prior to its 7 p.m. business meeting, the council met to discuss the final environmental impact statement (EIS) related to the Comprehensive Plan. Then, the council held a public hearing during its 7 p.m. meeting to obtain public feedback on the plan itself.
City staff and consultants have been working on development of the 2024 Comprehensive Plan update for two years. The draft plan includes the concept of developing neighborhood centers and hubs aimed at accommodating the city’s allocated growth targets. The growth scenarios are designed to account for and comply with the state’s housing bills and the mandatory Comprehensive Plan elements, and to align with multicounty and countywide planning policies.
During the earlier meeting on the final EIS, Acting Planning and Development Director Shane Hope reminded the council that the EIS has been issued and published, incorporating information from the draft EIS. She described the EIS as “a tool to analyze and think about issues related to the environment and provide information to decision makers and the public.” It’s also a non-project EIS, which means that “it’s much broader, at higher level” than a project-specific EIS, which is more specific to site development, Hope explained.
Lindsey Amtmann, an environmental planner working with consultant Herrera, said that EIS for the Comprehensive Plan update found “no significant impacts on any element of the environment,” with the exception of transportation — related to a level of service drop on a segment of Highway 99 in Edmonds. The city will work with the Washington State Department of Transportation to address that issue, she said.
Council President Olson said there may have been an expectation that the EIS “would actually make us aware of what areas required additional protection,” and asked if that expectation was correct. “The EIS is not designed to point out where extra protection is needed,” Amtmann replied. “We already know where those areas are that need extra protection. Those are the critical areas, and they are mapped.” She added that those areas will be identified as overlays on maps of the city’s centers and hubs, so that developers will know what areas need protection.
But during the public hearing on the draft plan itself, some took exception to the Comprehensive Plan’s ability — as written — to protect the environment. John Brock, a Woodway resident who serves on the Woodway City Council — which just approved its own Comprehensive Plan — called Edmonds’ plan “incomplete and inadequate.”
The council is “being asked to approve a plan for the future of Edmonds with only a portion of the critical information you need,” Brock said. “The process seems to have addressed the state-required housing elements very well, but is fatally flawed with respect to environmental problems created by inadequate mitigation of past development,” including creek erosion and the loss of salmon habitat. The plan also does not “adequately protect drinking water aquifers from the increased runoff new development will produce,” Brock said.
Another commenter was Edmonds resident Joe Scordino, a retired fisheries biologist who works with high school students to monitor salmon health in local streams and also coordinates habitat restoration efforts at the Edmonds Marsh. Scordino said the Comprehensive Plan EIS “was supposed to tell you where there’d be adverse effects or where there’d be less effects across the landscape, and it didn’t do any of that.” He pointed to state law that he said requires the Comprehensive Plan to review drainage, flooding and stormwater, among other things, and “it’s not in there.”
Several Edmonds environmental advocates also testified on another aspect of the Comprehensive Plan — ensuring that it contains language that the Edmonds Marsh be restored as a functioning estuary that is suitable for salmon. To make that happen, commenter Ron Eber said “it needs an open channel to Puget Sound” — and than means crossing through the Unocal property, which is undergoing environmental mediation. Edmonds resident Kathleen Sears said it was important to have that language in the plan now, so that when remediation is complete and Edmonds has an opportunity to purchase the property, the city has “its Edmonds Marsh ducks lined up in a row.”
Several others testified that the Comprehensive Plan will play a key role in how Edmonds grows. Erika Barnett, who along with her husband Jeff owns Salish Sea Brewing in Edmonds, said it’s essential to ensure that the plan’s policies “protect the small business ecosystem that drives our economy and sustains our community.” And that includes maintaining building heights that reflect the character of the city’s downtown, she said.
Hope agreed that the draft plan language could be strengthened regarding the marsh, and also noted that there are “other potential amendments” that the council may want to consider “based on their own preferences, based on community input and other information that can all be decided in the near future.” In addition, the Edmonds Planning Board has made recommendations for council consideration, Hope said.
The council is scheduled to adopt final changes to the Comprehensive Plan at its meeting next Tuesday, Dec. 17.