Updated at 4:46 p.m. Tuesday with Mayor Dave Earling’s comment
The Edmonds Port Commission sent a letter to the City of Edmonds Tuesday morning stating that it is withdrawing the Port’s application for a modification to the City’s comprehensive plan concerning redevelopment of the aging Port-owned Harbor Square Business Complex at Dayton Avenue and Highway 104.
The letter, approved during executive session at the Port Commission’s Monday night meeting, was addressed to City Planning Manager Rob Chave and Senior Planner Kernen Lien, with copies to Edmonds Mayor Dave Earling, the City Council and the Edmonds Planning Board. It was hand-delivered to the city Tuesday, said Port of Edmonds Executive Director Bob McChesney.
The Port first made its proposal to the council last fall, following several years of study and public engagement activities that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. The City of Edmonds Planning Board had endorsed the proposal, with conditions, and it had received support from the Edmonds business community, including the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce.
After several weeks of sometimes heated debate, including testimony from citizens concerned that the Port proposal would open the door to taller buildings on the Edmonds waterfront, a majority on the Edmonds City Council made it clear they were no longer interested in considering the Port’s plan, and instead would pursue their own plan, with assistance from City staff.
While the Port’s proposal did not include specifics for an actual project on the current Harbor Square Business Complex site, council incorporation of the master plan into the city’s plan would have been a necessary first step toward redeveloping the 14.62-acre complex. The current site includes the Harbor Square Athletic Club and Tennis Center, the Harbor Inn hotel and numerous businesses located among five buildings on the site.
The letter said that the Port Commission’s decision stemmed from “the City Council’s inability to substantively review the Planning Board’s recommended decision approving, with conditions, the adoption of the Harbor Square Master Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Council’s failure to consider the City Staff’s recommendation that the Council similarly adopt that Planning Board recommendation.”
McChesney said that neither he nor the Port would offer further comment on the decision, adding that “the process and the end result speak for themselves.”
In a city press release issued Tuesday afternoon, Earling said: “I am disappointed the Port of Edmonds chose to withdraw their application. The City Council’s attempt at re-drafting of the Port’s plan, which helped trigger the withdrawal, results in zero benefit to the City, Port or community; specifically, zero near term economic benefit and zero environmental enhancements to the Edmonds Marsh. As cited within one of the Port of Edmonds’ letters, I hope that the Port of Edmonds stands ready to work with the City to achieve a true partnership and discuss the future of Harbor Square and that this process has not jeopardized the City and Port working as partners.”
Edmonds City Councilmember Diane Buckshnis said that in light of the Port’s decision, she has asked city staff if the council can continue its own work on a Harbor Square plan. “Since we were not working off the Port’s plan anyway, I have asked for further clarification as to how to proceed,” she said.
My Edmonds News has requested comment from City officials, and we will post that as soon as it becomes available.
Here’s the complete text of the letter that the Port send Tuesday morning to the City of Edmonds:
Re: Port of Edmonds Application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment
City of Edmonds File No. AMD20110009
Dear Rob and Kernen:
This letter is to formally notify the City of Edmonds, through its Planning Department, that the Port of Edmonds is withdrawing its Land Use Application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and/or Sub Area Plan Amendment to have the City adopt the Port’s Harbor Square Master Plan as a City Comprehensive Plan Amendment or Sub Area Plan.
This formal withdrawal of the Port of Edmonds Land Use Application is necessitated by the City Council’s inability to substantively review the Planning Board’s recommended decision approving, with conditions, the adoption of the Harbor Square Master Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Council’s failure to consider the City Staff’s recommendation that the Council similarly adopt that Planning Board recommendation. Nonetheless, the Port of Edmonds understands that it is the City Council’s ultimate prerogative to accept the Planning Board’s and the City Staff’s recommendations and with the Council’s reticence to do so, the Port is left with its only realistic recourse, which is to withdraw its Application and terminate the processing of that Application.
The Port of Edmonds would like to sincerely thank the Planning Department Staff for its significant time and energy expended in focusing on the substantive issues related to the Harbor Square Master Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application. The Port of Edmonds also sincerely appreciates the thoughtful evaluation and deliberation that the Planning Board undertook in reaching its decision on the Port’s Application.
Please confirm that the Port of Edmonds Harbor Square Master Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application and related proceedings pending before the City of Edmonds are terminated as a result of this withdrawal of the Port of Edmonds’ Application.
Again, thank you for your courtesies and cooperation extended through these proceedings.
Very truly yours,
Robert McChesney
Executive Director
Cc: Port Commissioners
Mayor Dave Earling
City Council Members
Planning Board Members
This is a sad outcome for all involved and quite disheartening for those who spent countless hours of work in trying to facilitate beneficial growth for our city and its citizens.
Now that the Port has formally withdrawn their Plan I have four questions for Councilmembers Petso, Bloom, Buckshnis and Fraley-Monillas.
Links below
1. Could you please explain how the choice to not consider and amend the Port’s Plan but begin drafting a “Council” sub area plan was consistent with the State Growth Management Act, specifically, RCW 43.21C.420 which requires the city to prepare a non project environmental impact statement along with two pages of other significant and costly requirements like broad dissemination of the proposal? Were you aware of these requirements? Were you prepared to put your plan through the rigors of the requirements?
2. Could you also explain how the Council could have adopted a sub area plan that potentially was inconsistent with the existing Comprehensive plan? For instance, Some of you wanted no residential, no additional height, 150 foot buffers that severely impacted any potential for development?
3. Where will the money come from to restore, preserve and enhance the Marsh now?
4. How, specifically, was the Port proposal and process NOT consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan? It is unlikely any other major property owners will be willing to go through the time and expense to produce even a draft proposal if it is not clear just what was wrong with the Port’s plan that could not have been fixed with reasonable amendments. The Port had already incorporated twelve amendments proposed by your Planning Board.
Thank you
Edmonds Comprehensive Plan regarding the Downtown Waterfront area pages 42-60:
https://www.edmondswa.gov/images/COE/Government/Departments/Development_Services/Planning_Division/Plans/Comp_plan.pdf
Growth Management Act regarding comprehensive plans and sub area plans:
https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=43.21C.420
Some will likely view this withdrawal as a success. However, as I scratch the pros/cons on my sheet of paper (and in full disclosure I am a “return on investment” – both monetary and in quality of life) I’m shaking my head in disbelief.
This is the result of personal agendas and a lack of understanding of processes. City revenue dollars lost. The Port invested money in a process they trusted the city and council to honor – and lost. The Marsh will remain a mud puddle (a far cry from a destination as some had hoped).
And future investment dollars to our city is compromised. There have been several of us watching this process to determine where and how we should invest our future dollars.
There is more lost here than just the Port withdrawal.
How much of the taxpayer’s money was spent on this proposal by the Port?
I have never understood the Port’s strategy.
Page 67 of the current Edmonds Comprehensive Plan states that the Master Planned Development “tool” can also be implemented through zoning contracts or other implementation actions, rather than being adopted as part of the (Comprehensive) plan.
I believe that if the Port had requested a zoning contract and that request had been denied, the Port could have appealed that decision to Superior Court. Not so, apparently, with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment request. MRSC’s website contains an article that claims no one that has the authority to reverse a City Council’s decision to NOT amend the City’s Comprehensive Plan in the vast majority of cases.
Why did the Port go down the Comprehensive Plan Amendment path? It appears that it has been a very expensive process in many ways. The Port’s application has commanded much staff, Planning Board and City Council attention. I wonder how much of our current limited taxpayer resources has been expended during this process.
If anybody knows why the Port chose this path as opposed to a rezone, please advise. Thanks.
Ms. Fimia, I do not understand why you question Councilmembers Petso, Bloom, Buckshnis and Fraley-Monillas in your post #2 above. Three of those Councilmembers (Petso, Bloom, and Fraley-Monillas) voted to reject the Port of Edmonds request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment related to Harbor Square.
I am confused by the Port’s letter notifying the City of Edmonds that the Port is withdrawing its Land Use Application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and/or Sub Area Plan Amendment. Did the Port’s Land Use application include application for a Sub Area Plan Amendment?
I thought this idea came up when the City Council was discussing whether or not the Port’s 2012 Application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment was late, long after the Port’s Land Use Application was made. Was the Sub Area Plan Amendment concept applied for by the Port or introduced by the City? Anybody know the details?
Ms. Fimia – I believe your points about RCW 43.21C.420 and the requirement to prepare a non project Environmental Impact Statement are very sound. Ms. Petso asked on December 18, 2012 whether the standards were less or greater for a subarea plan. She was advised that either way it is a Comprehensive Plan amendment and all Comprehensive Plan amendments go through the same process. Does anybody know if RCW 43.21C.420 and its costly requirements were discussed? Was the City Council advised of this law?
The January 29th City Council meeting concerns me. The expenditure of significant taxpayer resources on this Comprehensive Plan Amendment application that has now been withdrawn is tough to appreciate. The expenses incurred between January 29th and this week somehow feel even more painful.
The January 29th meeting minutes reflect that one of the reasons Ms. Petso’s motion wasn’t supported was because rejecting the Master Plan wholeheartedly throws out a lot of good work. How did we go from that to the point where the City Council was “not working off the Port’s plan anyway”? What happened between January 29th and February 5th?
On February 5th, Edmonds City Council President Lora Petso’s motion to deny the Port of Edmonds request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment failed by a 3-4 vote. A small majority of the Council preferred to send the Port’s Comprehensive Plan Amendment concept to City staff for modifications based on City Council input. I wonder how they determined this was proper step to take at that point in the process.
The following is taken from the February 5, 2013 City Council Meeting Minutes directly before Ms. Petso’s motion failed 3-4:
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the Port could withdraw their Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Taraday responded the code does not speak to that; he did not know what the point would be to have the Port withdraw their application at this point; it is before the Council for legislative action.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested the Port may want to withdraw if they believe what the Council is interested in may be counter to their interests. Mr. Taraday answered ultimately no, because the Council could commence its own Comprehensive Plan amendment to reflect their vision for the property.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas concluded, beware of what you ask for because you may get it.
So where are we now? Is the Council going to continue to expend taxpayer resources working on a new Comprehensive Plan Amendment?
It appears that on March 19, 2013, The City Council voted 4-3 to CONVERT the Port’s request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment into a City Council request for a NEW plan – a subarea plan known as Harbor Square. At least, that is what I think took place.
Does State or City law allow a City Council to CONVERT another party’s request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment into a Council request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment and/or subarea plan? It is possible that the City Council has the Legislative Authority to do so, but it seems unusual.
I also do not know if the Council has to submit its own Comprehensive Plan Amendment request in writing. Comprehensive Plan Amendment requests are to be submitted no later than December 31st of every year, but maybe this doesn’t apply to subarea plans. It is very difficult to figure this stuff out.
From the City’s Code:
20.00.010 Submittal of amendments.
In order to meet the requirements of the Washington State Growth Management Act, Chapter 36.70A RCW, the city shall undertake comprehensive plan amendments only once per year. All amendments requested by the city or private parties shall be reviewed concurrently to ensure that the integrity of the comprehensive plan is preserved. All comprehensive plan amendment requests are to be provided in writing, on a form provided by the director, and are to be submitted no later than December 31st of every year, or the first business day after December 31, should that date occur on a holiday or weekend. The council may, for good cause shown, accept applications after the prescribed deadline. [Ord. 3278 § 1, 1999; Ord. 3076 § 1, 1996].
In any event, I do think the City Council should consider the concept of reviewing requests concurrently to ensure that the integrity of the Comprehensive Plan is preserved.
Another uncertainty – how does RCW 43.21C.420 apply to this situation? If the City has to do a Nonproject Environmental Impact Statement, do we have money in the budget to finance what RCW 43.21C.420 refers to as a substantial financial burden?
If the City Council keeps its NEW plan alive, who would have appeal rights if they don’t like what the City Council eventually approves? I believe changes to Comprehensive Plans may be appealed to one of the Growth Management Hearing Boards.
Melissa in 4
Public costs come several forms.
1. Citizens who have worked on the Economic Development Commission and Planning Board.
2. City Staff who have supported the activities of 1 above
3. Direct costs by City staff and direct costs by the Port for the consultants, planners, and their staff. The Port represents the western half of Edmonds and Woodway residents who live in the Port District and pay port taxes.
The Port has said they have direct cost of over $200,000. The also had a citizens group who provided advise and served as a sounding board for the community. The untold volunteer time spend in 1 is substantial and to these citizens they may feel their volunteer time has been wasted.
Too bad that Council did not get involved from the get go and work on the procedural issues first. That would have saved a lot of time and money.
The following is taken from next Tuesday Night’s City Council Meeting Agenda packet:
Narrative
Given that the Port has withdrawn their application for a master plan, the Council needs to discuss how it wants to proceed. If the Council desires to continue with planning for Harbor Square, this would require docketing a new plan proposal that would need to go through the entire planning process. This would necessitate substantial staff time, review and hearing(s) by the Planning Board, and subsequent review and hearing(s) by the City Council. Given current priorities and staffing levels, we have serious concerns about whether we have sufficient resources to undertake this work.
This is an unfortunate example of how a few people operating outside of their strengths and in ignorance scuttled significant public and private resources- both in time and money – costing our community long term benefits economically and environmentally.
Mr. Schindler, You make some pretty strong allegations about a few people.
Does anybody know what year it was that the Port paid $13,500,000 for the 6 buildings it bought from the private developer? What was the Port’s due diligence before that purchase related to redevelopment? Did the Port study whether or not any future redevelopment would require a comprehensive plan amendment and rezone – especially a rezone involving one of the biggest controversies in this City’s history – building heights?
Also . . . who owned the related land when it was originally developed and did that original development enhance the environment?
Mr. Reidy, no allegations Sir, just observations. As someone who deals with many government agencies, I’ve learned to observe what is effective government efficiencies and what is not.
Ken @12
On October 30, 2003 Harbor Square Associates and Beselin Hovde Associates filed a complaint against the Port of Edmonds and Union Oil of California in Snohomish County Superior Court. The lawsuit was settled by Port of Edmonds purchasing the buildings March 31, 2006.
According to County Records, the purchase price was $9,375,000.00 and current assess value of $2,976,400.00.
You are right the Port of Edmonds appears to be underwater on this transaction. It is not the fault of the Citizens or City Council. Also, It was the Port that withdrew their Comprehensive Plan Admendment. Therefore any blame rests solely on the Port Commissioners. The Port Commissioners must be the few people Mr. Schindler is speaking about.
Please observe comment #9. There were mis-steps on both sides – however, I believe the reason the Port withdrew rests solely on the shoulders of the council, not the Port.
One of the challenges we as a city now face is attracting future investment – this “experience” does not lend itself to attracting those with capacity to strengthen and invest in our city.
With all due respect Mr Schindler, you seem to have more information than the City Council.
Please enlighten us if you are going to blame those that have the duty to make and enforce the City zoning laws.
I sent the following email to Councilmember Buckshnis. She doesn’t know why the Port withdrew their application.
On Apr 14, 2013, at 10:45 AM, “Finis Tupper”
Dear Diane:
Let’s clear the air, did the Port withdraw the Comprehensive Plan/Subarea Planning amendment because of the majority of the Council that choose to modify the proposal or the minority that voted to deny the application?
Was it the must haves for the plan:
1.) Multi-use commercial (whatever that is.)
2.) Respecting the new Shoreline Master Plan setbacks.
3.) 500 to 1MM bribe for Marsh and Willow Creek enhancements.
4.) Base height of 35 ft.
Really Diane, tell me which one of your requirements was the deal-breaker. Or was the Port decision to withdraw based on the Subarea Planning Environmental Impact Statement requirement and that any council decision would be final, not legally appealable.
Your insight would be greatly appreciated.
Finis.
Sent via Diane’s cell… 🙂
Morning
Your guess is as good as mine. I have no clue what their thinking is other than they did not like how the conversations were progressing. I would still like to continue but have not heard an opinion yet from Taraday.
Can I blame the Mayor and City Attorney for not advising the City Council of the Non-Project Environmental Impact Statement requirement? Can I blame the Mayor for scheduling a hearing for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment not properly docketed?
Maybe the Port realized if the Council made a decision contrary to their desires that decision was final and legally appealable.
Do you have a clue?
Thanks for the information Finis. Edmonds Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts stated the following in his June 2012 Article: The Unassailable Right to Make Any Decision You Want: Avoiding Judicial Intervention in Local Land Use Decision Making
“No one is entitled to a comprehensive plan amendment. That is legislative discretion in its absolute purist form!”
The Port of Edmonds should have had complete knowledge of the Comprehensive Plan when it bought the 14 plus acres of land in 1978 for $350,000. The Port was directly involved in the 1980 Contract Rezone. The Port should have known the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning when they bought the buildings on the property in 2006.
Furthermore, the October 26, 2004 City Council Meeting Minutes contain the following:
With regard to the Harbor Square site, they (Heartland LLC) determined three-story office and/or stand-alone retail would offer the highest potential for redevelopment. However, redevelopment would be constrained by the current ground lease, existing improvements and existing cash flow.
I believe the related Heartland Document mentions that condominiums were precluded from being built on leased land. Does anyone know if that is true?
The Port’s recent Comprehensive Plan Amendment request put the City Council in the position of having to a make a very difficult decision that would be controversial no matter what they decided. I believe the Port’s request had a large cost – significant staff, planning board and Council resources expended on what would be an extremely difficult Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the City Council to approve. In the mess that commenced during the January 29, 2013 City Council Meeting, it appears that on March 19, 2013, The City Council voted 4-3 to CONVERT the Port’s request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment into a City Council request for a NEW plan – a subarea plan known as Harbor Square. I have to wonder if this was an option available to the Council or if such a step required “docketing a new plan proposal that would need to go through the entire planning process.”
All of this related to a Harbor Square Master Plan already consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan. Why didn’t the Port simply apply for a rezone then?
The Comprehensive Plan Amendment process has been expensive in many ways.
Since the Harbor Square Master Plan was already consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan, doesn’t the Port still have the option of applying for a rezone right now? Weren’t they still going to have to go through the rezone process even if the Council HAD AMENDED the Comprehensive Plan?
Can somebody please explain why so much time and effort went onto pursuing a comprehensive plan amendment rather that just applying for a rezone?
Especially when Page 67 of the current Edmonds Comprehensive Plan states that the Master Planned Development “tool” can also be implemented through zoning contracts or other implementation actions, rather than being adopted as part of the (Comprehensive) plan.
Finis, I’ve not had the pleasure of meeting you yet and would welcome the opportunity.
The Port was clear on why they withdrew – but here is the bottom line: We can expend wasted energy on assigning blame – which amounts to nothing – or we can find a solution moving forward.
The challenge is this: the process was not friendly. I sat in on several meetings and my perception was several on the council seemed to throw more roadblocks instead of provide opportunities and options. There was not an attitude of “how can we make this happen” but rather “how do we kill it, get what we want, and use what they did without them being in the way.”
This begs the question, “do you think this process encourages me as a potential investor to invest?”
There was no alternative plan – just a “we don’t want your plan.”
@11. Mike just exactly what are you referring to when you say, “This is an unfortunate example of how a few people operating outside of their strengths and in ignorance scuttled significant public and private resources- both in time and money – costing our community long term benefits economically and environmentally.” ?
Sounds like you are saying anyone who disagrees with your point of view is blocking public progress, whatever that is in your opinion, and ignorant? Really!!!
The PORT apparently put this plan forward on their own, at least we citizens have been lead to believe so. If they wasted budget dollars, shame on them. They and they alone are responsible for these wasted dollars. If private citizens, who collaborated lost dollars, oh well!
Many disagree with the Ports’ plan as witnessed by their withdrawal.
As stated earlier, please see comment 9. My opinion has very little to do with this – whether or not I agree with the outcome is not the point – I’m referring to the process.
The end result does not aid either side. The Marsh will remain compromised as will future investment into our city.
The Marsh has been compromised for several decades. The Ports plan is about saving the Marsh?
Future investment into our city for what? Mike, what are you talking about? Take your BS invest money to another town!
Many, if not most, are very happy with Our City as is.
Frankly, I could care less if another carpetbagger invests here.
I and many others love Edmonds as is.
Your agenda Sir, is suspect!
Tom, my preference is to stick with the issues. The Port’s plan would have added benefit to the Marsh.
As an Edmonds native I can assure that I love this city for what it is, the changes it has made, and the changes it will need to make in order to remain a viable and thriving city.
There was a time when generations thought of how their works and legacies would benefit future generations – how their grandchildren would benefit.
The “as is” attitude is short sighted in my humble opinion, reflects more of a selfish attitude and not selfless, and a “no plan” agenda for a better future is what i would suggest is more “suspect” than my desire to see the heart of our city preserved and the economics of our city strengthened.
The Port of Edmonds and the City of Edmonds are both called to practice open and transparent government. As such, I believe it would be helpful if they would explain publicly why they chose to try and implement the Harbor Square Master Planned development “tool” via adoption of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) as opposed to through a zoning contract or other implementation action.
Furthermore, on a somewhat related but different note: Does Edmonds allow Concurrent Rezone Applications to be submitted together with a proposal for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA), like the City of Bellevue does?
From Bellevue’s website:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
CONCURRENT REZONE
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (AC): Applications will be accepted from December 1 through January 31 for the immediately following year.
Concurrent Rezone (LQ): A change in the land use district classification (zoning) applicable to the property being considered for a site-specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment. A concurrent rezone may only be submitted together with a proposal for a CPA.
Would Port and City Taxpayers have benefited from a Concurrent CPA and Rezone process? Would a Concurrent process have been more efficient than a CPA followed by a future REZONE effort and/or DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT?
The following is from the City’s website:
The Port of Edmonds has submitted a request to the City of Edmonds to incorporate the Port’s Harbor Square Master Plan into the City’s Comprehensive Plan. While the Harbor Square Master Plan contains some language on the types of uses to be allowed and building heights, the request is not for a rezone and is not a project level proposal. However, 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.
“Tom, my preference is to stick with the issues. ”
Mike, I do not doubt your heart and love of Edmonds. While not a native I have been a tax paying resident of Edmonds since 1980.
Sticking to issues does not include, “This is an unfortunate example of how a few people operating outside of their strengths and in ignorance scuttled significant public and private resources- both in time and money – costing our community long term benefits economically and environmentally.” That statement Sir is your opinion.
Nor does sticking to issues include, “The “as is” attitude is short sighted in my humble opinion, reflects more of a selfish attitude and not selfless, and a “no plan” agenda for a better future is what i would suggest is more “suspect” than my desire to see the heart of our city preserved and the economics of our city strengthened.” That is also your opinion, as noted by yourself in your comment.
So in your sticking to the issues comments you have called your opponents on this issue, ignorant, uniformed and selfish.
Their are significant issues in developing the Port Property and the entire waterfront area. Not the least of which is ground stability. Increasing building heights have been opposed for a very long time by the citizens of Edmonds, but it keeps coming back in every developer proposal.
In my opinion the Port did the right thing in withdrawing. In my opinion the City of Edmonds needs to shrink their expenses! In my opinion the City is doing OK and I love living here!