Speaker after speaker came to the microphone at the Edmonds City Council meeting Tuesday night, offering a range of perspectives during a public hearing on a hot-button topic: How wide should the buffer be to protect the Edmonds Marsh, a 22 1/2-acre urban saltwater estuary near the Edmonds waterfront?
Some of the 30 or so who testified were citizens, educators and scientists from the Save Our Marsh group, formed recently with the mission of protecting the marsh “from further degradation,” and a supporter of maintaining a 110-foot fixed buffer. Others — including citizens, scientists and Port of Edmonds commissioners — offered different perspectives on what buffer size is best. There was also a theme from some about the need for a collaborative rather than confrontational effort to restore and enhance the City of Edmonds-owned property.
After listening to nearly two hours of public testimony, the council agreed that many issues — and questions — are still on the table, and that councilmembers would further discuss them at next week’s meeting.
This long-simmering debate about the marsh buffer has been in the city council meeting spotlight for many months as the city prepares its response to the Washington State Department of Ecology, which has been reviewing the city’s Shoreline Master Program. In January, the Ecology Department said it agreed with the council’s October 2016 proposal — approved on a 4-3 council vote — for a wider 110-foot buffer and a 15-foot setback for Edmonds Marsh.
The Ecology Department’s response included two options, known as Option A and Option B, aimed at providing a more site-specific approach and a scientific study for the Urban IV Mixed Use Area, which includes Harbor Square. The Ecology Department called for a site-specific assessment prior to any future development in the Harbor Square area that could allow for an alternate, smaller buffer for proposed development/redevelopment if the study determined it was acceptable.
During council meetings subsequent to the January Ecology Department letter, city staff — at council’s request — developed a third option, known as Option C. That option combined elements from Ecology’s A and B options, keeping the council’s 110-foot buffer but allowing for approval of an alternative buffer of no less than 50 feet through a conditional use process, just like Options A and B.
Then on March 8, the council voted to add a fourth option, Option D, to its review. This option was proposed by Councilmember Diane Buckshnis with help from retired Edmonds fisheries biologist and Save Our Marsh member Joe Scordino. Buckshnis explained that the goal of Option D (attached here) was to ensure the maintenance of a 110-foot fixed buffer for the urban mixed-use development area next to the marsh. Under Option D, any consideration of an alternate buffer width as part of an approved master plan development must be “derived from a rigorous site-specific scientific study, and must includes biogeochemical, hydrologic and food web and habitat functions,” she said.
Option D was the one supported by many speakers Tuesday night as the best way to protect the well-being of the marsh, along with the birds and wildlife residing there. One Edmonds School Board member, Carin Chase, and one former school board member, Susan Paine, as well as other current and former educators, testified in favor of Option D as a way of ensuring the marsh will remain an active teaching environment for students who take field trips there.
Among those offering other perspectives were representatives of the Port of Edmonds, which has long had a stake in the matter since it owns a portion of the land bordering the marsh, including the Harbor Square Business Complex directly to the north. Two Port Commissioners — Commission President Fred Gouge and Commissioner David Preston — were present at Tuesday night’s meeting to offer comment, while a third — Commissioner Steve Johnston — was unable to attend but submitted comments through a speaker who read them on his behalf.
Gouge was the first to speak during Tuesday’s public hearing, stating that the commission has been the only public body spending money on marsh protection — including $1.7 million since 2005 alone. Gouge also said that contrary to what some believe, the port has no plans to develop the Harbor Square Business Complex beyond its current footprint — and that the proposed wider buffers only serve to restrict those existing Harbor Square businesses — including the Harbor Square Athletic Club — from making future changes to their enterprises.
“The Port has no intention of selling Harbor Square despite all the rumors,” Gouge said.
Marine scientist Jason Stutes told the council that from an ecosystem perspective, it may make sense to take a “tailored approach” to marsh preservation and enhancement. “One of the primary goals of an overly large buffer is stormwater management — infiltration and processing for contaminants,” he said, but “a buffer of that size will actually not provide that type of function.” Instead, he suggested that the city look into “more specific stormwater management through perhaps a more customized buffer option.”
Several speakers supporting the wider buffers pointed to recent stories about proposed federal funding cuts in the Enviromental Protection Agency that would harm efforts to protect and restore Puget Sound. It’s clear, they said, that since federal funding isn’t guaranteed, local efforts must be taken to protect the marsh.
Other speakers addressed the need for those on all sides of the marsh issue to set aside their differences and work together to ensure the marsh is protected. “In some cases we may find we only agree on 1 percent,” said Edmonds resident Mike Schindler.”But interestlngly enough, when we drop rhetoric, explore both sides and we focus on the mission and outcomes, we can often achieve mission success, even if we are on opposite sides of the issue.”
Added Phill Butler of Edmonds: “What really concerns me most as a citizen, paying taxes for all these years, is that we seem to have an adversarial relationship between the city council and the Port of Edmonds. This is unconscionable. It has got to end.”
And Edmonds resident Marty Jones, a member of the Save Our Marsh group, noted that while marsh belongs to the city, when it comes to its future all representatives must work together for the best outcomes. “It’s time for the port, the city, the council, Save Our Marsh and others to work together to find the greatest good for Edmonds,” she said.
Edmonds Port Commissioner David Preston went through a series of slides showing how the marsh has been undergoing resetoration over time, from the days when Union Oil operated an oil storage facility adjacent to it. (The storage facility no longer exists, but the land contaminated by the oil storage remains, and it is undergoing environmental clean-up.) At the end he issued a proclamation stating, in part, that “by talking with each other rather than about each other, the marsh will have a better outcome.”
“Let’s resolve to save the marsh together and keep the unity of this community together to improve the long-term condition of the marsh for our kids, grandkids and the Emdonds and Woodway area,” Preston said.
In other action Tuesday night, the council also heard a final report from consultant John Fregonese of Fregonese Associates on the subarea plan for the stretch of Highway 99 running through Edmonds. The plan is basically unchanged from what was presented to the council in February, but councilmembers did have some questions and suggestions, which Development Director Shane Hope said would be addressed.
The plan, which includes development of more consistent Highway 99 zoning and design standards as well as the addition of pedestrian-friendly elements, is tentatively scheduled for council adoption on June 5.
— By Teresa Wippel
For all of that, Just open the tide gates and let it be a true tidal marsh
I attended the meeting and was impressed by the passion of all the speakers for protecting the marsh. There was a group of speakers supporting Option D that seemed to be working from talking points, basically suggesting that a 110 foot buffer, and a 15 foot setback should be the minimum. Of course if you look at the site map, that is impossible on the West side because of the railroad right-of -way, the railroad tracks, and Admiral Way.
Protecting the marsh from further degradation seemed to be the main objective, however, many of the scientists who spoke indicated that setbacks were not the main issue. Treating the storm drain water before it gets to the marsh is the best way to insure the marsh health, though at this time it is not economically feasible.
Mike Schindler made a please for finding that one thing we all can agree on, and working from there to build consensus. I believe that one thing could be what is termed the “Willow Creek Daylighting Project.” The marsh is a salt water estuary. It is currently connected to the Puget Sound by a pipe that is located just south of the Edmonds Marina.
I had no idea that the Port of Edmonds has expended $1.7 million dollars to restore the marsh. I have no idea how much money Chevron has spent to remediate the former Unocal site but, it must be in the millions based on how much dirt they have removed.
Dave Preston’s aerial views of the marsh beginning in the 1940’s through the 1990’s, gave me an appreciation for how the Port has contributed to the health of the marsh. Early pictures show a piece of barren land, and more current pictures show the lush vegetation more indicative of a marsh.
I personally think that the Department of Ecology version C made the most sense, and I oppose version D because it is not logical. It places unreasonable costs, and unachievable standards on any sort of change in the environs surrounding the marsh. It calls for “best science,” and “peer review” which means nothing will ever be done.