Neighbors say Medical District expansion was insufficiently noticed; council dockets and tables multiple comp-plan items

Residents from neighborhoods slated for a proposed Medical District expansion pressed the Edmonds City Council on April 21 to reconsider zoning changes they said were adopted with inadequate outreach and would concentrate a large share of the city’s required housing growth into a small area.

Patrice Rapley, Kathleen Lester and multiple neighbors told the council the so-called Plan B medical expansion would place an outsized burden on a single neighborhood surrounding Swedish Edmonds, saying they learned of rezoning only recently and that mailed, individualized notice had not been provided. “We urge the council to support alternative A, the focused growth strategy outlined in the 2024 comprehensive plan,” Kathleen Lester said, and noted that her group’s petition collected “79 residents in our neighborhood” who oppose the deeper expansion.

Speakers repeated several numbers from the adopted comprehensive plan and from public materials: the Medical District expansion was described in public remarks as planned to accommodate about 1,500 new housing units; the 5 Corners area was cited as taking 350–800 units; the comprehensive-plan materials cited a citywide total of approximately 9,961 new units the plan accounts for. Commenters urged redistribution of growth rather than deepening density in older, single-family neighborhoods, and pressed for clearer commitments on sidewalk, pedestrian and stormwater infrastructure and for preservation of tree canopy.

Council action: councilmembers debated a set of proposed comprehensive-plan amendments and made several docketing decisions during the meeting. Council President Tippett moved to remove several properties and park/community-center sites from further comp-plan consideration (items described in staff materials as North Bull Hub, Hummingbird Park, Francis Anderson Center, Meadowdale Clubhouse, City Hall, Francis Anderson land-use options, and Wade James Theatre site). That motion passed unanimously.

Council also removed items staff recommended be addressed through development-code updates rather than comp-plan amendments (items listed in staff materials as 9, 11, 12 and 20). Separately, the council voted to table indefinitely a broader list of proposed amendments (including some hub and center adjustments, marsh and stormwater mapping questions and other items) by roll-call vote. That tabling motion passed 4–2 (Yes: Ek, Tibbitt, Payne, Nand; No: Chen, Dodge). A later motion to direct staff to draft a resolution documenting advancement of the North Bull hub and a critical areas program failed on a 3–3 vote.

Votes at a glance: - Remove properties/parks from further consideration (items 1,2,3,6,26,27,28): passed unanimously. - Remove staff-recommended items for code handling (items 9,11,12,20): passed unanimously. - Table additional listed comp-plan amendment items (items 5,7,8,13,15–18,21–25): passed 4–2 (Ek, Tibbitt, Payne and Nand in favor; Chen and Dodge opposed). - Motion to draft resolution to advance North Bull hub and critical areas program: failed 3–3.

Councilmembers and staff emphasized limited planning staff resources and the need to sequence code updates, critical-area work and policy-level comp-plan changes. Some councilmembers argued the North Bull hub and critical-area work should be prioritized; others urged delaying many amendments until the city’s staffing and finances permit thorough, equitable review.

Several speakers asked the council to re-examine public-notice procedures and to ensure the state’s public-participation expectations are met; one speaker cited a statutory reference during public comment as RCW 36.708 0.14 to support a claim that early public participation is required.

Ending: The council’s docketing decisions remove several high-profile properties from active comp-plan amendment consideration and direct staff to address some items through code changes. Neighbors said they will continue to press for alternatives to the deeper rezoning approach and for clearer, earlier outreach in future land-use work.