Opinion: Harbor Square Master Plan – Why this has been so hard
By Maggie Fimia
I am new to the Harbor Square Master Plan issue, which the City Council is schedule to vote on Tuesday night, but not new to regional and local governments’ struggle to wisely implement the Growth Management Act and their own Comprehensive Plans. I served 14 years on regional and local government councils.
In looking further into the Port’s proposal and the City’s Comp Plan, it is clear that it is not very clear. The Harbor Square Master Plan Exhibit A, which describes the proposal, is mixed in with existing Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Goals, Policies and Strategies. So, it’s not easy to see what is the plan, what is existing land use and what could actually happen there should the Port be successful in attracting a partner to develop it.
I offer the following descriptions analysis with the goal of hoping to make things a little clearer for those of us trying to decipher it all.
SR 104 and Dayton St. and the Marsh and the RR border this Port property, known as Harbor Square. It is zoned General Commercial through a contract rezone in 1979. After a three-year process, the Port is ready to ask the City to adopt a Master Plan development “Overlay.” They are technically asking for an Overlay because the land use there is already designated as “Master Plan Development.” Here is the language associated with that land use designation:
The Downtown Master Plan: …This area is appropriate for design-driven master planned development, which provides for a mix of uses and takes advantage of its strategic location between the waterfront and downtown. The location of existing taller buildings on the waterfront, and the site’s situation at the bottom of “the Bowl,” could enable a design that provides for higher buildings outside current view corridors. Pg. 55, Comprehensive Plan 2011.
So, this Comprehensive Plan amendment puts more definition into that existing land use designation. To add to the complexity, however, the “Downtown Master Plan,” is only one of nine “districts” in the “Downtown Waterfront Activities Center.” So, it is easy to assume that when you read about “Downtown” all of Downtown comes to mind.
In addition, the Comprehensive plan has a list of broad land use designations like, Activity Center, Corridor Development, Mixed Use Commercial, Community Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, and Highway 99, Edmonds Corridor, Westgate Corridor, four types of single-family residential, high density multi-family, medium density multi-family, Hospital/Medical, Master Plan Development and Public Use or Park/Open Space, Park or School Site.
Within each of those is specifically allowed zoning and uses. Zoning is dictated by the Comprehensive Plan “land-use” designation. You have to change the Comp plan first to change the zoning.
What is clear is that this has been a very long, deliberative process. The Plan has been amended and approved by the Planning Commission with a 6-to-1 vote and is supported by both the Chamber of Commerce and the Friends of the Marsh.
So what exactly is in this Master Plan Overlay? The principles and elements are listed at the bottom.
My Analysis
1. I could not find any language in the proposed Harbor Square Master Plan Overlay that was NOT consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan and Growth Management Act. If the Council majority does not adopt this, they should consider going back and proposing amendments for the next Comprehensive Plan cycle to take out any language that would allow mixed use and higher heights in that area because none would really be feasible.
2. There is no free lunch. In order to implement many of the Comp Plan goals for improving the Marsh, keeping Edmonds affordable, providing transit-oriented development and other important social, economic and environmental sustainability goals, it is necessary to compromise on height limits – and only by a small amount in a small area of the site. That seems like a very reasonable trade off.
3. Slippery slopes: Council can make sure language is included in the actual legislation (“Exhibit A”) that seismic studies will be done to determine suitability of any specific development proposals. Ten to 20 extra feet in this area does not mean it applies to any other area in the Downtown Activity center.
4. Trust goes both ways. The Port and/or the City cannot redevelop property by themselves. If we make it too onerous, too unpredictable and with too many loops back to the beginning with looming unpredictability, no reputable developer will want to do business with us.
5. Be careful what we wish for: I was involved with numerous land use battles where reasonable/responsible development was proposed but opposed by a few adamant neighbors. We ended up with worse development because we couldn’t change existing zoning or require environmental and community benefits.
6. Opposites attract: When you have the Chamber of Commerce and the Friends of the Marsh in agreement it means you’re working to address both environmental and economic concerns. They are not mutually exclusive but mutually inclusive if done right.
Every effort was made to accurately reflect all the documents involved. I welcome any corrections to that effort. I’m no fan of Ballard, Kirkland, Bellevue or South Lake Union. Edmonds is one of the most beautiful and successful places on the planet. I’d like it to improve the areas we didn’t get right the first time and in order to do that, we have to create an atmosphere of partnership with all the stakeholders, present and future. I believe the Port has striven to do that with this plan.
Here are the Principles and Elements of the Harbor Square Master Plan as outlined in Exhibit A of the proposed Legislation before the Council:
1. Create a pedestrian entry and visual gateway at the Hwy. 104/Dayton St. intersection, which is the key link to downtown Edmonds.
2. Create an attractive street front along Hwy. 104.
3. Feature pedestrian-friendly facades and uses along Dayton St.
4. Establish a pedestrian-friendly esplanade with adjacent activities between the plaza and the marsh.
5. Connect pedestrian walkways to linkages around the marsh.
6. Provide vehicular access into the site from Dayton Street.
7. Provide direct pedestrian access to the marsh from Hwy 104.
8. Create a pedestrian focus such as a village green or plaza in the center of the redevelopment.
9. Locate residential development in the SE portion of the site.
10. Locate parking near the western perimeter, next to the RR within a parking structure designed to serve the entire re-development.
11. Architectural character should emphasize a Northwest style compatible with the rest of downtown and feature high quality traditional materials and variety of colors, form and textures.
12. Provide improved vegetation buffers to protect and enhance the Edmonds marsh.
13. Provide for a well-landscaped, Norhwest-oriented small town design theme.
14. Create a village character with pedestrian gathering spaces.
15. Introduce a mix of uses that complement downtown and that provide optimal tax revenue and other benefits to the City and Port, including pedestrian oriented retail and a residential mix (multifamily) geared toward a range of incomes.
16. Keep interior streets narrow to slow traffic and put the emphasis on pedestrians.
17. Provide for bicycle circulation with shared use trails, bike lanes and/or safe shared lanes on internal streets.
18. Create a pedestrian entry plaza to Harbor Square that invites public use and provides a visual gateway to the Marsh from Dayton St. It will serve as a key link to downtown Edmonds, and provide space for public activities such as concerts, performances, fairs or an outdoor market.
19. Create active sidewalk/pedestrian areas with retail spaces that open onto the Dayton Street sidewalk. Small-scale pedestrian spaces should be integrated between the development and the streetscape.
20. Connect pedestrian walkways to linkages around Edmonds Marsh and to Citywide bike and pedestrian routes. Provide direct pedestrian access to Edmonds Marsh from SR 104.
21. Provide a civic/cultural viewpoint interpretive element within the development as a public benefit.
22. Include bicycle connections and facilities in circulation and open space planning.
23. Provide for multi-functional uses that are close to transportation facilities
24. Incorporate low energy and low water consumption techniques to minimize carbon footprint.
25. Employ alternative systems and techniques such as life-cycle cost analysis.
26. Provide improved natural vegetated buffers and building setbacks to protect and enhance the Edmonds marsh.
27. Incorporate low impact development elements such as pervious pavements and rain gardens to reduce run-off.
28. Contribute to day-lighting Willow Creek and improving the site’s ecological value.
29. All structures above 35 feet should not diminish the “human scale” experience of pedestrians or decrease daylight. For every additional 1 foot in height there should be a 1-foot set back from Dayton.
30. The “average building height” SHALL not exceed 45 feet.
31. All development within shoreline jurisdiction is subject to the Shoreline Master Program. Therefore, new buildings and development, including clearing, grading, parking areas etc. will comply with the Shoreline Master Program. Additionally, the Port is committed to improving the ecological health of the marsh and will ensure that new development along the marsh will increase ecological functions.
32. All buildings should employ horizontal and vertical articulation and other architectural methods to maintain the small scale of Downtown Edmonds.
33. Ground floor of buildings fronting Dayton Street should feature “pedestrian-oriented facades and pedestrian-oriented uses.
34. Frontage along SR 104 should feature either pedestrian oriented facades or attractive landscaping sufficient to screen the majority of building facades and all parking areas. There should be a pedestrian path along the entire SR 104 frontage.
35. Building heights shall be limited to 45’ and consideration may be given for heights up to 55’ if the development proposal includes significant public amenities and/or sustainable design certification such as LEED Platinum.
36. Tallest buildings should be placed towards the south and west boundaries.
37. Buildings along Dayton St. should be limited to 35 feet.
38. Plans shall ensure the Public View Corridor down Dayton Street is preserved and enhanced.
39. Adequate parking allowance be made to accommodate all customer, employee and resident vehicles during peak use times.
40. Consideration should be given to enhance street-side parking to support separating human activity from the traffic along Dayton Street.
Edmonds resident Maggie Fimia is a former Shoreline City Councilmember, Metro Councilmember and King County Councilmember. She was one of the founding members of the Westminster Triangle Neighborhood Network (1989) and was appointed by the County Council to serve on the Shoreline Governance Committee, a pre-incorporation citizen-led advisory committee, which studied the alternative forms of governance for unincorporated Shoreline.
Maggie, that southeast part where it is suggested for the tallest buildings would indeed block water views for many! Everything in the plan sounds great except for the height exceptions. And, the Port has not presented a plan with buildings within the current height restrictions. Why? Would they really attract that much more revenue for the city with an extra 2 stories? Remember, on top of those stories will be all the things that are needed for operating everything in the buildings, making them even taller. Or, will the added attraction of taller buildings, thereby more condos/apartments, attract a buyer?
You say that restricting might lead to something less than desireable and we would be sorry in the future. I believe that allowing the exception to the height restriction will be much less than desireable and we will be sorry in the future once that happens.
You say also that you are not a fan of Ballard, Kirkland, south Lake Union, etc. but, that is what the plan is mirroring, that type of developing. I left Kirkland after owning a home there for 35 years. This reminds me of the beginnings of the end of a friendly family oriented city there. I pray that doesn’t happen to Edmonds.
Thank you, Maggie, for this very helpful discussion and presentation of the Harbor Square Master Plan. Your input is extremely valuable. I, for one, am happy that you chose Edmonds for your residence and hope that you’ll continue to weigh in on complicated matters of government.
Link to Comprehensive Plan
http://www.edmondswa.gov/images/COE/Government/Departments/Development_Services/Planning_Division/Plans/Comp_plan.pdf
Thank you Pat and Rebecca for your comments and feedback. I share your concerns Pat for the future of Edmonds. I am encouraged by the dedicated people in our Community who participate and volunteer time and energy to guide this and future decisions.
It would be wonderful if we could make all the proposed improvements called out in the Harbor Sq. Master Plan without giving up anything. The question is whether or not this proposal is balanced and reasonable?
The Comprehensive Plan is a good tool if we follow it and hold up any proposals to make sure they are consistent with the Plan. This democracy stuff is hard work, but just as we apply the rule of law to our judicial system, we also need to follow land use policies adopted through a public process.
The bottom line is that the Harbor Sq. Master Plan is consistent with existing law.
I know this is a lot of information, but going back to enabling legislation can be very helpful when trying to know the right way to move forward.
Below is language directly from the Comprehensive plan. There is a reference to mixed use no fewer than 10 times. These goals, strategies and policies are only a few examples of how the Harbor Sq. Master Plan is consistent with State and City Goals.
Pg. 3 –4 State Goals
General Background
A. Urban growth: Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner.
B. Reduce sprawl: Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development.
C. Transportation: Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans.
D. Housing: Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock.
E. Economic development: Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic opportunity for all citizens of this state, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons, and encourage growth in areas experiencing Insufficient economic growth, all within the capacities of the state’s natural resources, public services, and public facilities.
F. Property rights: Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation having been made. The property rights of landowners shall be protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions.
G. Permits: Applications for both state and local government permits should be processed in a timely and fair manner to ensure predictability.
H. Natural resource industries: Maintain and enhance natural resource-based Industries, Including productive timber, agricultural, and fisheries Industries. Encourage the conservation of productive forest lands and productive agricultural lands, and discourage incompatible uses.
I. Open space and recreation: Encourage the retention of open space and development of recreational opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks.
J. Environment: Protect the environment and enhance the state’s high quality of life, Including air and water quality, and the availability of water.
K. Citizen participation and coordination: Encourage the involvement of citizens in the planning process and encourage coordination between communities and jurisdictions to reconcile conflicts.
L. Public facilities and services: Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards.
M. Historic preservation: Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites, and structures that have historical or archaeological significance.
N. The goals and policies of the Shoreline Management Act as set forth in RCW 90.58.020.
Pg. 19
Sustainability Goal A. Develop land use policies, programs, and regulations designed to support and promote sustainability. Encourage a mix and location of land uses designed to increase accessibility of Edmonds residents to services, recreation, jobs, and housing.
A.1 Adopt a system of codes, standards and incentives to promote development that achieves growth management goals while maintaining Edmonds’ community character and charm in a sustainable way. Holistic solutions should be developed that employ such techniques as Low Impact Development (LID), transit-oriented development, “complete streets” that support multiple modes of travel, and other techniques to assure that future development and redevelopment enhances Edmonds’ character and charm for future generations to enjoy.
A.2 Include urban form and design as critical components of sustainable land use planning. New tools, such as form-based zoning and context-sensitive design standards should be used to support a flexible land use system which seeks to provide accessible, compatible and synergistic land use patterns which encourage economic and social interaction while retaining privacy and a unique community character.
A.3 Integrate land use plans and implementation tools with transportation, housing, cultural and recreational, and economic development planning so as to form a cohesive and mutually-supporting whole.
Pg. 21 Sustainability Goal E.
Develop economic development policies and programs designed to support and promote sustainability. Encourage the co-location of jobs with housing in the community, seeking to expand residents’ ability to work in close proximity to their homes. Encourage and support infrastructure initiatives and land use policies that encourage and support home-based work and business activities that supplement traditional business and employment concentrations.
E.1 Economic development should support and encourage the expansion of locally- based business and employment opportunities.
E.2 Land use policies and implementation tools should be designed to provide for mixed use development and local access to jobs, housing, and services.
Pg. 22 Sustainability Goal G.
Develop housing policies, programs, and regulations designed to support and promote sustainability. Support and encourage a mix of housing types and styles which provide people with affordable housing choices geared to changes in life style. Seek to form public and private partnerships to retain and promote affordable housing options.
G.1 Land use and housing programs should be designed to provide for existing housing needs while providing flexibility to adapt to evolving housing needs and choices.
G.2 Housing should be viewed as a community resource, providing opportunities for residents to choose to stay in the community as their needs and resources evolve and change over time.
Land Use Element
Land Use Designations
Pg. 34
Activity Center: Mix of uses; refer to specific plan designations within activity center
Pg. 37
A key feature of Edmonds’ comprehensive plan is its emphasis on mixed use development, which includes both commercial and residential uses on a single lot or combination of lots. For example, a mixed use development could include a two-story development with residential dwelling units on the development continues as a basic assumption underlying the current comprehensive plan.
Pg. 39
The City should consider using incentives to achieve redevelopment and infill goals and zoning incentives or other measures to ensure that land adjacent to infrastructure facilities is utilized to maximize the economic benefits of that infrastructure.
Pg. 40
Specific implementation measures should seek to reduce barriers or impediments to development. For example, measures that reduce the regulatory compliance burden of the private sector, if successful, would reduce the cost imposed by such regulations. Similarly, implementation measures that are designed to encourage flexibility could also help reduce compliance costs – at least on a case-by-case basis. Specific measures could include: provision of flexible development standards; density bonuses for site designs that provide public benefits; and fee waivers or expedited review that lower financial development risks.
Pg. 41
Activity Centers in Edmonds are intended to address the following goals:
A. Provide a pedestrian-oriented streetscape environment for residential and commercial activity.
B. Encourage mixed-use development patterns that provide a variety of commercial and residential opportunities, including both multi-family and small-lot single family development.
C. Build on historical character and natural relationships, such as historic buildings, slopes with views, and the waterfront.
D. Encourage transit service and access.
E. Strategically plan for development and redevelopment that achieves a balanced and coordinated approach to economic development, housing, and cultural goals.
F. Coordinate the plans and actions of both the public and private sectors.
G. Provide a context for urban design guidelines that maximize predictability while assuring a consistent and coherent character of development.
H. Provide incentives to encourage adaptive reuse as an alternative to redevelopment of historic structures in order to preserve these resources.
Downtown Waterfront Activity Center
A. Plan Context. A number of public plans and projects have been taking shape in recent years, and these will have a profound impact on the future of the city’s downtown waterfront area. Some of these ongoing activities include:
• Continued development of the city’s waterfront parks and walkways into an interconnected necklace of public spaces.
• Public access to the water and the natural beauty of the waterfront figures prominently in the Port of Edmonds’ plans, including new plazas, improved walkways and public art. Public pedestrian/bicycle access across the railroad tracks to the waterfront, in the vicinity of the south end of the marina, near Marina Beach Park, should remain a high priority.
Pg. 44 B. Downtown Vision
• Downtown is extended westward and connected to the shoreline by positive mixed-use development as well as by convenient pedestrian routes. Redevelopment of the holding lanes and SR-104 is pursued after the ferry terminal relocates to Point Edwards.
• The downtown supports a mix of uses, including traditional commercial and multi family development with new mixed-use development types. Single family neighborhoods are a part of this mix of uses, and contribute to the choice of housing and character of downtown.
Pg. 51
Redevelop the area from the east side of SR-104 to the railroad tracks, from Harbor Square to Main Street, according to a mixed use master plan. This area could provide a significant opportunity for public/private partnerships. Under the right circumstances, consolidated parking or a pedestrian crossing to the waterfront could be possible as part of a redevelopment project. Every opportunity should be taken to improve the pedestrian streetscape in this area in order to encourage pedestrian activity and linkages between downtown and the waterfront. Uses developed along public streets should support pedestrian activity and include amenities such as street trees, street furniture, flowers and mini parks. Main and Dayton Streets should receive special attention for public art or art integrated into private developments to reinforce the visual arts theme for downtown. Redevelopment of this area should also take advantage of the ability to reconfigure and remove the ferry holding lanes paralleling SR-104 once the Edmonds Crossing project is developed.
Pg. 52 Downtown Waterfront Plan Policies
E.5. Extend Downtown westward and connect it to the shoreline by encouraging mixed-use development and pedestrian-oriented amenities and streetscape improvements, particularly along Dayton and Main Streets. Development in this area should draw on historical design elements found in the historic center of Edmonds to ensure an architectural tie throughout the Downtown Area. Pursue redevelopment of SR-104 and the existing holding lanes once the ferry terminal moves to Point Edwards.
E.12. Support a mix of uses downtown which includes a variety of housing, commercial, and cultural activities.
Pg. 55
Downtown Master Plan. The properties between SR-104 and the railroad, including Harbor Square, the Edmonds Shopping Center (former Safeway site), and extending past the Commuter Rail parking area up to Main Street. This area is appropriate for design-driven master planned development which provides for a mix of uses and takes advantage of its strategic location between the waterfront and downtown. The location of existing taller buildings on the waterfront, and the site’s situation at the bottom of “the Bowl,” could enable a design that provides for higher buildings outside current view corridors. Any redevelopment in this area should be oriented to the street fronts, and provide pedestrian-friendly walking areas, especially along Dayton and Main Streets. Development design should also not ignore the railroad side of the properties, since this is an area that provides a “first impression” of the city from railroad passengers and visitors to the waterfront. Art work, landscaping, and modulated building design should be used throughout any redevelopment project.
Pg. 58 Height
a. Maintain the human, pedestrian scale and character of historic Edmonds. b. Create and preserve a human scale for downtown buildings. Unless more specific provisions are contained in the descriptions for specific downtown districts, buildings shall be generally two stories in exterior appearance, design and character. However, incentives or design standards may be adopted which are consistent with the pedestrian scale of downtown Edmonds and which allow for additional height that does not impact the generally two-story pedestrian-scale appearance of the public streetscape. Note that the Downtown Master Plan district described on page 55 (corrected page #) could allow a design which provides for higher buildings outside current view corridors.
I agree completely with Pat Sherwood–that raising the height limits for Harbor Square
would change Edmonds from Seascape to Cityscape for many residents. It would also greatly add to congestion, pose major infrastructure expenses for the City–such as very expensive upgrades to fire engines so they can deal with the added height and surface water management for a site that already floods, would put residents at risk in a highly earthquake sensitive area, and more. There is the added risk of establishing a precedent: granting what amounts to a variance from the City’s height limit for one developer will give others a strong legal argument (equal treatment) for doing the same.
I am interested in the timing of Maggie’s post, which reads more like PR for the Port than the musings of an interested citizen. Why post it so late in the game? To influence a vote at which no public discussion will be allowed? The dire prediction that if this project is rejected Edmonds’ development will be stopped in its tracks is absurd.
It is the kind of threat that makes me deeply suspicious of the proposal. The Port has a major stake in the development of the area and will not walk away from the area if it can’t have everything it wants. The area should be developed–but not this way.
Hi Richard,
Sorry to disappoint. I have a long and keen interest
in land use and transportation issues and am just offering some analysis after “musing” for about 30 hours through the Comp plan, Planning Commission recommendations and Master Plan proposal.
Maggie’s post is not PR; her objective and factual post is the result of her long and laborious review of all of the relevant documents. Citizens are not disadvantaged by not being able to comment on it at a council meeting because, as she has stated, land use is decided by laws and not by popular vote.
“There is the added risk of establishing a precedent: granting what amounts to a variance from the City’s height limit for one developer will give others a strong legal argument (equal treatment) for doing the same.” The preceding statement by Mr. Stuart was deemed to be untrue by our city attorney when he was asked at a public meeting.
Those of us in the port district own the port; it is not owned by some clandestine organization. One of the Port’s key missions is economic development – development that helps to minimize the property taxes we all pay them. I have never been a boat owner, and I have no intentions of becoming a boat owner, but I have no regrets paying them taxes that are less than one-quarter of what we pay to the library district. We’re happy to pay the taxes just to have a very pleasant area to walk.
Maggie, thank you for this information. It appears the next step and right thing to do is obvious.
Maggie: Thanks for shining such a bright and intelligent light on the Harbor Square issue. It is truly informed citizens like you that will help blaze the way to a better community that meets the needs of the many. And Ron, thanks for pointing out the true mission of the Port. Boats are just a piece of the big picture. I invite all to read the Port’s charter, which is aimed at creating economic wellbeing and jobs in the community as well as maintaining strong environmental stewardship. The Port as well as the City has the responsibility for making our community a better place to live and work. The Port and the involved citizenry who brought the prospect for a new, revitalized Harbor Square forward for public discussion appear to have done the heavy lifting on this issue and have done it well. This will be an emotional decision for many no matter how it turns out, but strict adherence to 30 year old planning precepts and stale, unimaginative campaign promises won’t create the Edmonds many and arguably most of us now want. Let’s hope we do the right thing.
Wonderful, insiteful &knowledgeable. Very clear and understandable.
I can assure the citizens of Edmonds that Maggie Fimia has no ulterior motives. She is one of the hard-working public servants that I’ve ever worked with. Before the redistricting, she and I were both in the 32nd Legislative District. She is honest, above board, and super-competent.
Thanks for your interest and hard work on this Ms. Fimia. I have not had time to read everything. Near the beginning, you state that the Harbor Square master plan is consistent with existing law. If this is true, what is the purpose of this multi year process initiated by the port? Thanks for your answer.
Hi Ken,
Currently, the Port can only do commercial development there (general commercial zoning with restrictions, 1979) and the Land Use designated in the Comprehensive plan is “Master Plan Development,” but this only allowed them to develop a Master Plan, which is what is on the table. The Harbor Square Master Plan “Overlay” (a conceptual plan that gives the scope, elements and goals for a potential 11 acre redevelopment), from what I have seen, is consistent with our existing Comprehensive plan goals.
Hope that helps.
It isn’t surprising to see the chorus of supporters of the Port’s interests finding such value in this post. Of course there are some useful elements. Not addressed in the post, is the fact that the change to the Comp plan will REQUIRE conforming adjustments to the Code–thereby blowing the roof off height limits.
That means that even, as is likely to be the case, the site is found to be geologically unsuitable for high rise construction, height limits can become history elsewhere in the City. But problems in the plan go beyond heights and move to conception: do we in fact want to essentially privatize important areas of the shoreline as would be the case with residential construction? Do we want to build residences rather than creating other public spaces and functions that can become destination attractions for residents of Edmonds and the surrounding areas. And why, after 3 years, has the Port failed to provide acceptable answers to the many questions asked by Councilwoman Bloom? I would really like to see projections of just who will profit from the proposed development which, in my mind, places the economic interests of a few ahead of the interests of the majority of City taxpayers.
It seems to me that a majority of the City taxpayers will benefit greatly if the Port can become self-sufficient enough to hold or reduce its tax rates. Sure, some developers will profit, but many more households will benefit if their taxes can be held in check due to the Port not having to raise taxes.