As the Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission concludes this Thursday, the Alliance of Citizens for Edmonds (ACE) thanks the Commissioners and alternate Commissioners, for volunteering their time, committing to this aspirational process.  Understandably, the process was made more difficult for all involved due to Covid-19 restrictions, mandating virtual meetings and eliminating the original promise of neighborhood meetings throughout all of Edmonds.

The Commission did, however, offer one in-person Open House and survey before Covid restrictions, followed by 3 more surveys combined with 3 prerecorded virtual Open House viewing options and one Zoom Webinar.  ACE followed with optimism and high hopes this 16-month process.  However, we are concerned that input the Commission received at each public engagement touchpoint, in the form of hundreds of questions, comments, emails and feedback from local folks, was disregarded.  Edmonds’ citizens were not given their promised place at the table in this citizen-driven process.

The Edmonds City Council formed this Citizen Housing Commission (CHC) via Resolution No. 1427 which stated in part:

“…options should be revised to include greater public input and balanced representation.” In addition, an expanded timeline was created “to enable direct citizen involvement in this important process.”

Neither Edmonds’ Development Services Director Shane Hope, who is in charge of this Commission, nor the contracted consultant group, prioritized citizen input although it was solicited by the Commission as each round of its proposed policy ideas were put forward. Commissioners should have been better directed to consider and incorporate citizen feedback, particularly as it often overwhelmingly contradicted policy ideas put forward, such as adding duplexes, triplexes, and townhome developments into single-family neighborhoods citywide, local sales tax increases, and most disturbingly, the elimination of current single-family zoned neighborhoods.  CHC policies will be voted on this Thursday. We are concerned that, if these policies receive the votes in the Commission to move forward, the Planning Board and City Council will be asked to vote on many policy ideas that discounted and ignored community input throughout the process.

Examples of lack of response to questions/comments by the public are as follows:

• 26 families in one neighborhood targeted as a “Transition Zone”, wrote a letter to the Commission, Council, Mayor and Tree Board, outlining concerns about losing the single-family character of their neighborhood. They were told their concerns would not be discussed by the CHC, with one Commissioner saying: “Historically inequities develop because you have a group of people that feel more privileged to be vocal for multiple reasons… holding a special discussion on letters we received not in the context of all of the feedback that we’ve gotten feels like we’re perpetuating that sense of privilege.”
• The above example, coupled with the 78% in the first survey who agreed that it is important to preserve single-family zoning, is evidence that citizen input has, selectively, been dismissed by the CHC.
• The above further indicates that one Commissioner’s use of the subjective term “sense of privilege” has influenced how citizen input is addressed by the Director, who controlled the public engagement process with the paid public engagement consultant.
• Although there were 68 citizen questions and comments posed live by written option only at the January 7, 2021 online Open House public outreach event, only 8 questions from the attendees were selected by Staff/consultant to be discussed.
• There is no indication that there has been, or ever will be, a public response to any of the remaining 60 questions/comments.
• Before Covid restrictions, Edmonds’ citizens were encouraged to make in-person comments on record at live meetings. After Covid restrictions, citizens were instructed to engage with this Commission’s process only via email to the CHC. These emailed comments were seldom discussed during CHC meetings, resulting in no transparent public record of these emails, not even in the meeting packet or notes.

Examples of citizen input being discounted or ignored are significant enough to red flag unanswered questions about CHC recommendations to Council, to be finalized at their January 28, 2021 meeting. Some of ACE’s clarifying questions are:

Where is the evidence that urbanized density in single family neighborhoods will drop property values and thus create more affordability?

Has the CHC received significant feedback and support from our community to justify citywide up-zoning of all single-family zoning in Edmonds, as their specific “Inclusionary Policy” recommends?  

Why, under the Director’s leadership, have they facilitated a discussion by the CHC of relaxing State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) guidelines in the context of developing affordable housing options in Edmonds?

In support of relaxing SEPA thresholds, one Commissioner stated: “SEPA is used by people who don’t want housing built in a location. It’s weaponized by people who don’t want housing and poor people, or people who aren’t homeowners, or whatever other NIMBY BS.”  How are the biased terms “weaponized” and “NIMBY” of use in a thoughtful discussion of SEPA thresholds?

What evidence has been presented to the CHC that the Multi-Family Tax Exemption (MFTE) project at Westgate has provided affordable housing that justifies 12-years tax-free on ALL 81 residential units, in exchange for 20% so-called “affordable” units?

Given the fact that our code has been in need of a re-write since 2000, why is the Development Services Director facilitating introduction of “policy options” that would require drastic alteration of existing inadequate code?

What evidence has been provided by the Director/Staff that our existing Chapter 20.21 Accessory Dwelling Units code, is insufficient to both retain single family quality and provide additional affordable housing?

There are points where Edmonds’ citizens agree with the CHC, such as concentrating density closer to transit and conveniences, simplifying code language, creating low-income home repair programs and other creative ideas. Greater collaboration between Edmonds’ citizens and the Housing Commission should have been facilitated by the Director, Staff, and the consultant group to have further developed those common ideas.  As we move forward, ACE encourages open, transparent processes-a true back and forth discussion-about this critical issue: what is the best way to add additional types of housing in Edmonds and what will Edmonds look like in the future?

ACE recognizes the hard work of the Citizens Housing Commission.  We sincerely hope that there will be further extensive citizen engagement as the Commission’s final recommendations move to the Planning Board and City Council. We also ask any steps taken by Council on this issue be paused until we can again gather in person.

Board of the Alliance of the Citizens of Edmonds

CC: Citizens Housing Commission, Development Services Director, Edmonds City Council, Planning Board, Edmonds Tree Board, My Edmonds News, Edmonds Beacon

**References:

Resolution 1427: Resolution+1427+(1).pdf (squarespace.com)

Code 20.21 ADU: Chapter 20.21 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (codepublishing.com)

WA State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA): Chapter 220-600 WAC:

Link to CHC 1/14/21 meeting SEPA discussion begins at 1hr26min: Video Outline – Edmonds, WA (iqm2.com)