By Eric Livingston

On March 19, Edmonds City Councilmembers began debating possible changes to the Port’s Harbor Square Master Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment.

In legal dictionaries (I’m using Oran’s Dictionary of the Law, 4th Edition), the “Plain Meaning Rule” is defined as
“1: The principle that if a law seems clear, you should take the simplest meaning of the words and not read anything into the law This is one of several possible ways of interpreting statutes.  2: The principle that if a contract, statute, or other writing seems clear, the meaning of the writing should be determined from the writing itself, not from other evidence such as testimony.”

The reason that I’m quoting the ‘Plain Meaning Rule’ is there are several legal questions that have been forgotten, avoided or ignored by the Port, the Port’s consultants and the Edmonds Planning Board.

I presented to the Planning Board my reasoning about possible detriments to the public health and safety. I also entered into the public record several documents that supported my reasoning.

During the public hearings held by the city council, I postulated that there are several legal issues yet to be discussed. Also, these issues put the Harbor Square Master Plan in possible conflict with the following ordinances and statutes (the bolding is mine):
From Edmonds’ municipal code regarding “R” (Residential) zones.
16.10.000 Purposes.
The general purposes of the residential, or R, zones are:
A. To provide for areas of residential uses at a range of densities consistent with public health and safety and the adopted comprehensive plan;
B. Any growth or development should strive to preserve for itself and its neighbors the following values:
1. Light (including direct sunlight),
2. Privacy,
3. Views, open spaces, shorelines and other natural features,
4. Freedom from air, water, noise and visual pollution;

C. To provide for community facilities which complement residential areas and benefit from a residential environment;
D. To minimize traffic congestion and avoid the overloading of utilities by relating the size and density of new buildings to the land around them, the capacity of nearby streets, and the availability of utilities;
E. To protect residential uses from hazards and nuisances, such as fire, explosion, noxious fumes and noise, odor, dust, dirt, smoke, vibration, heat, glare, and heavy truck traffic, which may result from other, more intense, land uses.

Also from the municipal code:

Chapter 20.00 – CHANGES TO THE  – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
20.00.050 Findings.
Amendment to the comprehensive plan may be adopted only if the following findings are made:

B. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the city;

From the Comprehensive Plan:
City of Edmonds – Comprehensive Plan –  December, 2011 – page 87
B.8. It is the policy of the city to minimize noise created by the railroad.

From the State of Washington’s growth Management Act: https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=36.70A.030

RCW 36.70A.030 -Definitions.

(9) “Geologically hazardous areas” means areas that because of their susceptibility to erosion, sliding, earthquake, or other geological events, are not suited to the siting of commercial, residential, or industrial development consistent with public health or safety concerns.

The following are the web addresses (urls or links) to several articles regarding public health and noise pollution (and if these three aren’t enough, I have plenty more):

The Impact of Community Design and Land-Use Choices on Public Health: A Scientific Research Agenda

Non-Auditory Effects of Environmental Noise

Noise exposure and public health.

The following case law references are in regards to issues of both environment and safety:

460 F.2d 640 (1972)
Denis HANLY et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. John M. MITCHELL, as Attorney General of the United States, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 791, Docket 72-1354.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued April 18, 1972. Decided May 17, 1972.

This case raises important issues under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. § 4331 et seq., a statute whose meaning is more uncertain than most, not merely because it is relatively new, but also because of the generality of its phrasing. Thus the Act recognizes “the profound influences of . . . high-density urbanization . . . [and] the critical importance of restoring and maintaining environmental quality to the overall welfare and development of man,” and declares it the “continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to use all practical means . . . to . . . assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive and esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings.”

To show possible municipal liability:

66 A.D.2d 463 (1979)
Anthony Leone, an Infant, by Rosemary Leone, His Mother, et al., Respondents, v. City of Utica, Appellant
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Fourth Department.
February 28, 1979

This case was concerned with the liability which may befall a municipality for injuries sustained by a child on railroad property located adjacent to a city-owned and regularly used park and playground.
The court found that the city of Utica was liable and to pay damages to the family of Anthony Leone for injuries sustained by young Anthony (whose leg was amputated) while playing next to a railroad track.

The above references are cited to show that the HSMP has issues that need to be discussed and resolved sooner rather than later.