Editor:
My California sister came to visit me recently and I wanted to impress her with this lovely, quaint, waterfront town of Edmonds we all call home. So I took her to the one place in Edmonds that made a huge impression on me 15 years ago when I first decided that Edmonds would be my hometown: Edmonds public, accessible shoreline that one can walk along for over 1-1/2 miles without having to leave the beachfront. Pretty amazing….something very few towns in the US have!
My sister was impressed with the ambiance and small town culture of this waterfront enclave! Then we walked past the old Harbor Square strip mall (which now houses the old antique mall by the ferry holding lanes) and I told her about the Port of Edmond’s plan to get the city of Edmonds to rezone the area for 5 & 6 story building heights in order to put in retail and high-rise condos . She looked around at the quaint, one-of-a-kind town and asked me….incredulously….”WHY?! Why would the Edmonds townsfolk be willing to erect 5 & 6 story condo buildings that block the sun, block the views, and block the waterfront from the quaint downtown? Why ruin the ONE draw that brings visitors to your town; the ambiance and small-town culture of your waterfront town?!”
I looked at my sis rather dumbfoundedly, and gave her the only answer we Edmonds folks have been fed: ”Uh….because we need it to replenish our city coffers?” At which point, she looked at me dubiously and responded with “You can’t really think that developing 2 blocks with 5 story condominiums is really going to make a big difference in your city’s revenue?! If it’s revenue your town needs, then build the 5 story high-rises on Edmonds Way…where they already are. But NOT HERE where your main draw is the ambiance of the Edmonds waterfront! To put up sun-blocking high-rises HERE is to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs!!”
Sometimes it takes an outsider to snap you out of your stupor. Of course my California sister is right; we have an amazing resource here that we seemed poised to trash. Developing (and ruining) the Edmonds waterfront with high-rises will NOT solve our financial problems…it will only make a very few, very vocal folks very wealthy with sound view condos for sale. And yes, the townsfolk of Edmonds who oppose the Port of Edmonds high-rise condo project will still be vilified by those who stand to benefit from this hyped-up development. And the pro-high-rise folks will continue to proclaim that there is a small, obnoxious, vocal population of Edmonds getting in the way of ‘The Progress’ that we ALL must surely want! But I would say to these pro-high-rise folks who are so sure that they know the hearts & minds of the people of Edmonds; “TAKE A VOTE”…see if the numbers are really in your camp. Because personally, I’m thinking that the folks of Edmonds KNOW when they are being hoodwinked by a small, vocal minority of folks who stand to benefit greatly from this scam!
And yes, sometimes it takes an outsider to remind us of what we’ve got; AND what we will lose (as Eric Livingston so aptly addressed in his My Edmonds News letter: “Port of Edmonds proposal will transform Edmonds into ‘mediocre city on the Sound’” ) if we let apathy set in.
Thank you for your time!
Jeanne Amundsen
Edmonds
AWESOME viewpoint, thank you Jeanne!
I feel exactly the same way!
~Amy
Jeanne:
You do not have a very good understanding of what the Port is proposing. There are no 6 story buildings, and the area to be redeveloped is not on the waterfront or on the Antique Mall property.
Jeanne,
Thanks to you and your sister for articulating what most in Edmonds feel about our wonderful City and the Port’s plans for Harbor Square. You are right on target!
Mr Wambolt is technically correct that the Harbor Square plans are not six story, not on the waterfront and not the Antique Mall Property. They are, however within 100′ of the water, 55′ high plus heating/ventilating/air conditioning units and elevator shafts (which effectively gets us to six stories) and is directly across the street from the Antique Mall Property, where any future owner will likely be asking to emulate whatever is done for the tax supported public entity across Dayton. The end result will be the same, a huge decrease in quality of life for the people of Edmonds.
Thank you to you and your sister for these comments as coming from a long time resident I totally agree. Ron, there is still “tall” buildings being built in the waterfront corridor, if not 6 at least 5. The Waterfront is that area west of Edmonds Way/Sunset Ave. I think there is more to be asked if this fits in to the charm of what we all value Edmonds to be. There have been a few things that have graced our shores including a white dome in the 70’s. Did that fit well into the charm of Edmonds and does this this project fit us as well? All questions to be asked.
Does my description of the waterfront represent the the waterfront for you Jeanne?
Here is the source or the building height: https://www.ci.edmonds.wa.us/cedc/presentations/110512_PortOfEdmondsHarborSquareRedevelopmentPhase2Presentation.pdf
Regards, Nathan
Jeanne, thank you so much for your post. Sometimes I feel like I’ve been whistling in the wind! I am glad your voice is added to those of us who are against this travesty they call progress! You are right, only a few wealthy will benefit, but they are the most vocal, that is for sure.
I remember someone writing that the height restriction was added after the tall building that is now on the waterfront. Once something has been done, it cannot be undone.
Again, thanks for your input. Please, keep it up. I am.
Pat Sherwood
Ron, Jeanne has a very good idea what the Port is proposing! She has nailed it right on the head. No, it isn’t the antique mall site, but if the Harbor Square proposal is approved, we can all be assured that the antique mall site will be right behind it. There is a difference between what 5 story height means to different people. Dave has explained that quite well.
5 stories would be just about perfect to see over the existing waterfront buildings that block the view.
A friend of mine in California, when learning of the desire for development at Harbor Square, told me the “powers that be” should take a trip to Carmel, CA to see how that small, quaint, waterfront town developed themselves over the years. I’ve never been to Carmel but my friend has reminded me more than once what Edmonds stands to lose if they aren’t careful.
K Kalapaca,
What are you suggesting about Camel, CA?
Regards,
Nat
Per the City, incorporating the Port’s Harbor Square Master Plan into the Comprehensive Plan would lay the foundation for a future rezone and/or development agreement for the Harbor Square property to support a mixed‐use transit oriented development.
During last Wednesday evening’s Planning Board Meeting, a slide titled “Harbor Square Redevelopment Options” was displayed. The slide indicated that Residual Land Value would increase 23.86% if the property was redeveloped at 5 stories, from $8,800,000 to $10,900,000.
I believe that type of redevelopment would require rezoning and/or a development agreement .
One thing I’d like to know is what the impact will be on Adjacent Property Values, including all the properties located within the View Shed Analysis conducted by the UW. Does anybody know if this has been studied?
Rezoning can be a good thing if it is a positive for the public as a whole. It is harder to support rezoning and/or a development agreement when some citizens will be negatively impacted by such. Government gets challenging when taking from some to give to others comes into play.
I’d like to see a broad, comprehensive discussion of the impact a Harbor Square Redevelopment would have on Adjacent Property Values. That would assist in the determination of whether or not this proposed comprehensive plan amendment is in the public interest, as required under ECDC 20.00.050.
Property values are certainly not the only thing to consider under the category of “public interest”, but understanding the impact on Adjacent Property Values will be helpful.
20.00.050 Findings.
Amendment to the comprehensive plan may be adopted only if the following findings are made:
A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and is in the public interest;
B. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the city;
C. The proposed amendment would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the city; and
D. In the case of an amendment to the comprehensive policy plan map, the subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation(s) and the anticipated land use development(s), including, but not limited to, access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses and absence of physical constraints. [Ord. 3076 § 1, 1996].
Nathan, never having been to Carmel I can only say that she emphasized how their buildings don’t go over 2 stories and views have been maintained throughout as best they can be. I guess this has kept the quaint feel of the town.
An entertaining set of comments today. Some class warfare (‘the very wealthy’), a real stretch of a comparison to a town not anything like Edmonds (Carmel) and a possibly unfounded certainty that the deal is made already.
Edmonds is not Carmel and has never been, so we should toss that comparison out. If waterfront means the strip west of the RR tracks, then Edmonds is actually an active/working waterfront with a nice beach. We visit often and find rest and enjoyment there. With the slope of the beach and all, it’s difficult to feel imposed on by the many businesses and residences behind us.
Development has been invited to the beach front and we have examples of amenities that fit well in the overall scheme of things. I don’t hear complaints, in these discussions, about the restuarants, other small businesses, marina and most residences along the beach (except for ‘that awful one’), so there must an acceptable mix of activities that can be model in these discussions about HS.
And then we have the fact that development already exists on HS and I don’t hear complaints about these businesses and activities either. Somewhere in the mix of these facts should be a solution. But the solution must come from a collaboration of all parties and the citizens ensuring that Council and City staff know clearly what is acceptable and not.
I don’t think this is a pipe dream as in many other tough situations, good things have happened. My only concern is who in the world would buy a home/condo next to the railroad track especially when they lay-on that horn we hear two miles away.
Carmel has some interesting characteristics. Their down town core is 8 blocks from the beach. They do not have a railroad that runs through it and it is directly next to the famed Pebble Beach Golf Course. Carmel has a nice gradual curve to the hill all the way to the shore. The City of Edmonds has already allowed buildings above and beyond the 2 story limit that you described. Edmonds goes down and up unlike Carmel, there is not just a nice hill curve.
How do you see those ideas working into what Edmonds is now?
Jim,
I can hear the trains and ferry from 4 miles away. I think the true answer is in the million dollar homes that are north of main street, right on the railroad tracks.
-Nathan
I’ve been reading what the Ports Master Plan is and I am not so sure it is anymore correct then the Master Plan when they put in the Marina and the existing structures at Harbor Square that stand today. I do like the public boat access but leaving each morning by train into Seattle it appears to me there is an abundance of unused dry boat storage and parking trailer slots that go unused a majority of the year. I’d like a much more clear understanding about how many boats are hostage to Port liens compared to those that pay and how much money is lost to unpaid empty parking space than the actual parking for the beach and the off lease area is rather a small parking area.
What are the impacts to the business already in this area going to be? I can think of two businesses there that I see as a customer on regular bases and a half dozen more that I have seen there for years what happens to these port tenants during these improvements? This is Harbor Square as it is right now where will business go or if displaced will they come back?
I worked for years in South Lake Union and watched a Master plan take effect. Small business was pushed out as well as the people that made South Lake Union what it was. So much so that the high end Condo owners begin to complain that there was no community life beyond their mixed use condos. After seeing so many mixed use projects retail / office /condos in Seattle where the street level shops sit empty except for high end chain specialty shops none which I feel convey the Edmonds Community.
Now let’s talk trains a moment, there are the Sounder plans for Edmonds Station, a dual sent of tracks along Railroad Ave where one can catch a commuter train on either side of the tracks. There are four commuter trains per day plus Amtrak trains that daily match then add the freight trains Garbage going to Oregon, containers to the Port of Seattle, Tacoma, Portland and South when there are also Containers and coal heading North on trains. Yes there already are coal trains through Edmonds a few times per day. I will wait until there the just started two year study on the impact of existing coal trains to either approve or disapprove of them. But the fact remains how many people are willing purchase a condo in a rather gutted housing market projected not to recover for 5 or more year will to pay for a Condos on Railroad Tracks not at a distance but at ground shaking distance?
I fully understand that the Port of Edmonds is a separate entity not related to the City of Edmonds what they are presenting the City of Edmonds with is like the past if we put in this huge storage space for boats the city will make this amount, then if we put up a tilt up California style small business park they will come the City will make money. Well guess what he city has not benefitted to the extent the Port projected they would and I would expect this plan to be no different. Mixed Use does not belong in such a small community as Edmonds. I’d rather the Port start to charge for vehicles and boat trailers $4.00 per day parking split 50/50 with the City of Edmonds, Everett, Seattle and Tacoma do why not us? I am just not buying into this plan to few citizens of Edmonds or our City as it is now will benefit from this plan while consultants and project planners developers will. I would suggest one take the Cascade train either North or South and see what other communities have done along their rail lines as I have done many times and you will see just how far out of line this Master Plan is.
Ask the right questions wait for answers but object with facts I say.
My question is how long can Edmonds remain a quaint little town? When I was growing up you could drive both ways on Sunset Ave. and sit there watching the Sound and play my radio. Can’t do that now. What if we went back to when lumber mills where the mainstay of the waterfront. The reason the downtown is up from the waterfront is because the area east of the tracks was swamp. Oh yes and the tracks and the ferry. Everyone (not in this article) always bring up other quaint waterfront towns but they don’t have these two problems to deal with.
This town is evolving but it is going to stagnate unless we can find some compromise in the redevlopment process. The high limit mantra is driving developers away.
By the way why doesn’t anyone ever mention the ugly glass boxed shaped building on Main street?
After all that is said and done, I love this town. Spend local and get your friends to do the same. (here)
Paul you have made some good points. I think we can have the Quaint Town thing if we are willing to pay for it. All we have to do is say we do not want any growth, or height, or what ever and get our checkbooks out and pay for the cost of having no economic development. If we all agree then it is likely to just add about 5% a year to our tax bills to maintain the status quo. BUT many want something for nothing or they want to other guy to pay for it but not them. We can hear it already with those that will trot out “blotted city wages” and all that but frankly they always do that while not offering any solutions.
So if we want development to help pay the bills the lets find the best way to do that. If we don’t then we ought be be willing to pay for the status quo.
Ban the box in Edmonds.
The box is useful in so many ways. I use it to carry things around and when the box gets old and worn I recycle it. I bet if someone needed to move out of or into Edmonds they would likely need a box or two. What would the substitute be, a paper bag?
The people of Edmonds have no use for the box.
Michael, are you one of the people of Edmonds or did you move out? I hear the Magnolias are blooming. Just asking.