GMA/Vision 2050/Comprehensive Plan - The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires all local area plans to conform with the regional growth targets. If the GMA is a machine that lets communities build local comprehensive plans, Vision 2035/2050 is the pattern for those plans around Puget Sound. Vision 2035/2050 is a regional planning document. These policies must be implemented by local comprehensive plans. Localities can have the pattern ready for 2024, when the next comprehensive plans are due.

Environment/Infrastructure/Transportation/Livability/Character - Why do our local city planners and politicians not require these be included in this housing planning/zoning process and why would they be left out? We, as citizens, should demand a holistic approach to any future comprehensive plan process.

What is being proposed for Edmonds and why as a resident should I care? 

Other cities/towns used same housing choices to make “affordable” missing middle housing – Did it truly create what was intended? 

Tell your story: why did you move to/do you live in Edmonds?

Who seems to benefit most from these policies?

Special interest groups like the Master Builders and Big Realtor groups have long lobbied our state, regional and now local governments to push for changes in zoning and squeezing in more density to allow for increased development of market-rate housing. The entire purpose of local control of zoning is being eroded for a one-size fits all approach that lets development dictate the best results for their own desires, leaving our local communities' character destroyed, lacking open space, privacy and safety of Single Family housing spacing. Advocates of elimination of single-family zoning try to argue that more density and development promotes affordability and environmental benefits.

The Alliance of Citizens for Edmonds has been a leader in confronting and refuting this deliberate misinformation, and demonstrating how local control of properly planned zoning can have a positive, stabilizing effect – on residents, neighborhoods, on property values, on small businesses, and on community character. We will also work closely with our neighborhoods to both help protect existing housing stock that is truly "affordable housing" and promote the inclusion of new affordable housing in our small town where it can be supported by infrastructure, environmental protections and transit options, such as the existing subarea Highway 99 and Westgate/Edmonds Way mixed use zoning.

Will this really move Edmonds closer to being like Ballard/Seattle?

Absolutely. These unfulfilled promises of upzoning and density "solutions" have led to super-inflated housing prices and forcing people to find more affordable prices in suburbs north and south of Seattle. These policies of allowing 3-4 housing units per single-family lot, or merging parcels for track townhomes of 14-20 units, has not improved affordability, but rather quickly gobbled up formerly treed, green and open spaces in neighborhoods. Seattle is now trying in vain to reverse man-made heat zones, replant trees and reverse the environmental destruction this development-friendly policies have wrecked on its land. We have a choice in Edmonds. Let us demand of our electeds to not allow this destruction of our precious land and quality of life, for both residents and our shared environment-dwellers, both on land and in the Puget Sound.

Anatomy of same housing policies from Seattle – stats, studies, photos

Other cities in Puget Sound

Population and density of other cities

Information about cities located to or adjacent to Edmonds and their densities - ex - Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, Brier, Shoreline, Woodway. That would show the different ways different communities have reacted to the pressure of population growth and density. Compare Mountlake Terrace and Woodway for example. And for each of them, it may be the correct way in terms of what they want for their communities.

Not enough "affordable" housing in Edmonds?

Well.............................How much is really needed given already significant growth in housing options both in Edmonds and in neighboring areas?

Who decided on the housing mission statement that launched this entire exercise a number of years ago. We are unable to determine where it emanated from. Was it a council member, a city staff person, two or three citizens or a concerned group of citizens that presented this issue? Was it introduced by an organization, government or activists from outside of Edmonds? In other words - who is driving this entire debate?

Who decided how much more housing is needed? Was this a crucial issue emanating from the Edmonds community?

How much housing is needed in the Puget Sound area?

Can Edmonds by itself resolve housing needs for both Edmonds and non-Edmonds residents? If every one of these recommendations was accepted, and Edmonds was totally transformed into a much higher-density urban area, would it actually impact and resolve the housing issues of the Puget Sound area? Some try to make it sound like it would. Yet well-meaning statements about providing lower-cost housing to Edmonds residents or workers in Edmonds is probably pointless, as lower income housing developed by Edmonds can not be limited only to those who reside or work in Edmonds. Edmonds should only do what is realistically manageable for Edmonds. 

Currently between 2020-2021 there are 800 housing units in some stage of development within in Edmonds. (Taken directly from the Development Services report to Council on May 11, 2021.) This is a huge number for a small city with only around 43,000 residents.

New construction in Edmonds over the past years has provided many diverse housing types - apartments, condos, single-family houses, ADU's, townhouses, duplexes and triplexes. Edmonds is meeting the comprehensive plan goals of adding a diversity of housing options. Edmonds also provides current resident-shifted tax dollars to subsidize the development of lower cost and market rate housing in both the Subarea 99 and Westgate areas of Edmonds using the MFTE (Multi-Family Tax Exemption) program.

Increase in Edmonds population over the past years in numbers and percentages:

Edmonds' population has grown from 39,550 in 2000 to 42,605 in 2019. The target population for 2035 is 45,550. Edmonds has accommodated 3100 new residents from 2010-2019, so we are on track to exceed the recommended target population using our current zoning and density subarea plans. There is always some contraction of population yearly, but as you can see, even with that in mind we are clearly increasing our density.

We only need to add 2945 more people starting in 2020 to reach the UGMA goal. There is no reason to eliminate single-family zoning to achieve our recommended growth.

If we have 800 housing units in 2020-2021, at the 2.1 bare minimum avg. density of units, we are adding an additional 1680 people in these 2 years alone! That leaves 1,265 more people to add by 2035! Why would we say we are not doing our fair share - we will absolutely far exceed it!

How does it compare to other cities in terms of density percentages?

Edmonds, with a little over 8 square miles of land, had a density of population of 4,778 people/square mile in 2020.

Snohomish County as a whole only had a density of 392 people/square mile in 2019! Edmonds is 450% more dense than even King County alone. Looking even broader Edmonds is 725% more dense than the Seattle/Tacoma/Bellevue metropolitan area at 659 people/square mile.

The Highway 99 Subarea Plan was developed with a collaboration between the previous Edmonds City Council, Staff and residents in 2012. This well-thought out plan was completed to accommodate diverse housing types - apartments, condos, townhouses, cottage housing, duplexes, triplexes, ADU's and single homes. This area alone was planned for the expected GMA growth along transit areas and job centers - it can accommodate 3300 housing units - so currently all of the future growth can be planned within this subarea zone right now with no upzoning necessary of our current single-family neighborhoods

This Subarea plan was also created to improve the Highway 99 area, making the area safer, more beautiful and a desired neighborhood area for people to live, work and shop in. We have only scratched the surface of the opportunities that this Subarea allows, especially as it is the main route for our Rapid Ride buses and easy future new light rail station connections.

A new senior housing project just announced for the area off of Hwy 99 near the Hospital. Anthology of Edmonds at 21200 72nd Ave W will have 192 senior-living apartments.

Other residential projects both planned and underway for the Highway 99 area. There are 2 large projects that will utilize the Multi-family tax exemption (so Edmonds residents are helping fund lower income housing here) to build a percentage of lower-income apartments that are at 80% of AMI or below. There are 443 total units planned, both market rate and lower income fulfilling the GMA-desired TOD or Transit-oriented development. Remember - 3300 units of housing can be built in total - so this just scratches the surface! And we have until 2050 to easily meet our goals, as we also have the Westgate Center and Edmonds Way multifamily housing zones to add even more units on top of the 3300.

Esperance - while not politically a part of Edmonds, it is physically located in the middle of Edmonds, and is geographically a part of Edmonds.

Esperance is slated for even higher density residential growth than Edmonds proper and that growth for all practical purposes is growth "inside" of Edmonds. Should Esperance potential for increased population growth be considered a part of the Edmonds situation?

If not, should we just ignore Esperance and act as if it and its future higher density and opportunities to develop the "missing middle" doesn't exist? "Missing middle opportunities for Edmonds in Esperance -ex - new townhouse development.

Result of density policies in other cities and neighborhoods. City of Olympia allowed "cottage" housing (DADU) per SF lot. After 2 years they used the 2nd housing structure precedence given by the DADU to eliminate single-family zoning to allow 2 full houses per lot + each house is allowed a DADU - essentially a "half-house" - so in the end up to 4 housing structures allowed for every previous single-home lot.

This exact format has been used in many West Coast urban cities and just rubber stamped in smaller towns with no attention to the environment, infrastructure, parking capacity, safety - so just by allowing the "gateway" detached half-house (DADU) first, then once the single-family zoning was eliminated, there were 4 housing structures per lot immediately available for developers to squeeze in on formerly single house lots.

Zero lot lines are the big tool that developers and real estate groups clamor for to build and sell multiple units at once for a hefty profit. The city, county and state also get an increase in profits so the lobbyist are pushing for this alliance of government and big development, to the detriment of the middle-class neighborhood homeowner and families. They target the middle-class neighborhoods with more affordable older homes on larger lots with green and open space to develop first. This makes them the most profits to buy low, now newly zoned for 2-4x density, build and sell high. Rinse, repeat, and the entire neighborhood is upzoned and stripped bare of its former setbacks of trees, foliage, large gardens and privacy. too bad if you live next to one of these - your neighbor, most likely having sold to a developer who can sweeten to pot with more funding behind them than a family looking for a more affordable modest older home, can build up to your fence line, have less parking required and most likely multiple new skinny houses with windows and lights and noise will be looming literally directly over your house and backyards! Maybe you had nice sunshine, green space or shade from previous neighboring SF zoning setbacks - all gone with these zero lot line MF structures on your fence line.

Cities that have embraced density and transformation of their cities such as Mountlake Terrace:

With light rail transportation, those cities or towns along the route, like Mountlake Terrace, have much higher GMA demand for density and population to live along those light rail routes. As a town without any light rail station, Edmonds has been given the ability by the GMA to transfer some of the population and housing unit growth demand to those neighboring cities like Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace, as they are being developed to easily absorb more population and density in their planning. There are cities that have resisted both density and "missing middle" construction - ex Woodway. And both approaches are good for each city. And Edmonds the way it is at present is good for Edmonds if the citizens want to keep it that way.

Urban Growth Management Act - what is it, what are its requirements, and how does it impact Edmonds? 

Coming soon: Is Edmonds meeting or exceeding the requirements of the UGMA?

The relationship between the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning and the legal ramifications of both (note- this is crucial - most citizens believe that the plan is just a plan and can be ignored, and most citizens believe the time to act is when the zoning requests are submitted. In this author's view - incorrect - the zoning complies with the plan and is the blueprint of how to build. The time to act is when the comp plan is up for revision to advocate for or against changes. Citizens need to be educated as to how the process operates so they are not too late in preventing changes they may not want.)

Planning Commission

Their function, responsibilities and how they arrive at their recommendations

City Council - how they function and how they arrive at their conclusions

Citizen involvement? -- some but not enough public input received during a year of COVID stay-at-home pandemic emergency orders

Pressure groups such as non-profits, Master Builders and realtor lobbyist groups?

Regional government and quasi government groups with pre-set agendas?

Other sources

Letters and e-mails - we have the useful email addresses and direct links listed under Get Involved - Steps I Can Take.

Speak to City Council members and Planning Board members. They need to hear from residents: Call, email, or even better, in-person. 

Testify at Planning Board and City Council hearings.

Alerts as to upcoming hearings and what they are about that impact this process. Sign-up here and on the City of Edmonds website.

Other activities - community forums, meetings, educational events, etc.

Every Edmonds homeowner could be financially impacted by the variety of proposed housing zoning changes. And perhaps negatively when values to existing homes are reduced by reduced lot lines and lost views. This combined with an ongoing acceleration of property taxes and fees to pay for expanding essential services (police, fire, roads, utilities, schools, etc). These can make it increasingly hard for many residents, especially those on on fixed-incomes, to stay in the single family home they have owned and cherished.

Let's not forget our elderly residents who may be especially impacted.

1) What percentage of Edmonds single family neighborhoods don't have sidewalks, will not have sidewalks and will be affected by increased traffic?

2) By refusing to implement new programs that are irrelevant to Edmonds citizen’s needs, lower the cost of government and thus lower the cost for all homeowners and renters in Edmonds.

3) The Edmonds city official not concerned about these policies that will not solve anything is not occupied with city issues that do affect more Edmonds residents.

Solve the problems that face Edmonds at present: