Residents praise walk-and-talks and press planning board on "hub" boundaries, traffic and tree cover

City planning staff reviewed results from nine neighborhood "walk-and-talk" tours and proposed draft overlays that would guide future development in Edmonds' neighborhood centers and hubs. The presentation prompted multiple residents to ask the Planning Board to reconsider proposed mapping and to flag traffic, tree canopy and school-capacity concerns.

Planning staff member Navisha (last name not given) described the outreach and how staff coded parcels into four overlay categories: areas where commercial uses could be mandated, areas where multifamily could be allowed without mandatory commercial, candidate parcels outside current boundaries that could strengthen a center, and smaller pockets that staff recommended treat separately. Navisha said nine tours were held across three days and staff received written comments and photographs from residents.

Public commenters said they valued the walk-and-talks and thanked staff for outreach, but several urged the board to exempt or redraw hub boundaries in specific neighborhoods. Kathleen Lester, who identified herself as a 25-year Edmonds resident, said she was surprised her street had been included in the Medical District expansion and said residents had not realized that mixed-use proposals could allow buildings "as tall as 5 stories." Lester asked that the area west of 70 Sixth Avenue West be reconsidered; she said the neighborhood's tree canopy and small streets would not sustain taller, mixed-use development.

John Redline and other speakers from the North Bull Hub urged the board to recommend removal of their properties from the hub designation or to adopt a lower-impact alternate. "We have advanced positions for the North Bull Hub to be removed from the hub altogether," Redline said, describing neighborhoods of small streets and cul-de-sacs that residents said lack the infrastructure to support substantial new density. Several speakers described congestion on Puget Drive, 196th Street and other local connectors and asked staff to steer denser development toward Highway 99 and other arterials with transit and services.

Navisha told the board that boundary changes are a separate step that would require a comprehensive-plan amendment later in the year; the code overlay being drafted now is intended to guide development while the broader plan amendment is considered. "For areas outside the boundary, it needs to be a comprehensive plan amendment," she told the board, adding that staff is identifying parcels now so the code can be in place once boundaries are resolved.

Board members and staff discussed where to require ground-floor commercial versus where to allow optional commercial or residential-only redevelopment. Several board members noted redevelopment examples elsewhere in the region where mandated ground-floor commercial produced unoccupied storefronts; staff said some districts would carry mandatory commercial percentages while other streets would be allowed to remain residential-dominant to respond to market realities.

Residents asked for clearer mapping, explicit identification of parcels that will remain single-family in effect, and assurances that the city will preserve tree canopy and limit traffic impacts. Staff said they will meet with property owners of key parcels and return a draft code and map to the board for additional review.

Ending: Staff plans further outreach and to return with a draft code packet in the next planning-board meeting; boundary changes, if proposed, will be handled through the comprehensive-plan amendment process later in the year.