The City of Edmonds is inviting community members to a public meeting Monday, March 25 where they can share their thoughts about a vision for the Edmonds waterfront as part of the city’s 2024 Comprehensive Plan update.
The March 25 meeting is scheduled from 4-6 p.m. at the new Port of Edmonds administration building at 471 Admiral Way. In a news release, the city said that throughout the Comprehensive Plan public engagement process, “the Edmonds community has emphasized the importance of the waterfront area and its vibrant character, which adds to the city’s identity, along with key issues including sea level rise and the ecological health of our shoreline.”
The meeting is described as a design charette, which is defined as “an interactive meeting where community members will turn words into design concepts with the help of staff and city consultants.”
The goal of this session is to hear from diverse perspectives to ensure that the city’s approach reflects the evolving needs and aspirations of Edmonds, the news release said.
You can learn more about the Comprehensive Plan update here.
This meeting will be a waste of time for the public unless/until City staff “come-out” and tell the public what needs/must be changed in the Comp Plan update relative to the waterfront. One example I know of is the City has to change the outdated language on a multimodal transportation hub at the defunct ferry terminal relocation to Unocal site. What other ‘changes’ are absolutely necessary and what are the alternatives are for such change (including environmental impact considerations). If there are other “needs” for changesto consider (e.g., public safety), then the basis for the perceived change should be put out where the public can see it, and THEN the public can provide constructive input including design.
Let’s get the facts out and THEN decide if more abstract ideas are needed. All this crap about ‘vision’ and ‘design concepts’ is a waste of time and taxpayer money (though I’m sure the consultants love it).
Just an fyi in case it’s helpful: When the City of Mountlake Terrace unveiled Comprehensive Plan options for its city council, they did include a “Status Quo” alternative as a baseline: https://mltnews.com/to-meet-state-requirements-council-considers-options-for-multi-story-buildings-mixed-use/
Spot on Joe!
Joe, there are so many issues to deal with on our waterfront, the City has to begin this Monday event with a comprehensive presentation and discussion. Here’s some of the issues and projects– Ferry service, Edmonds Crossing, Unocal property (ownership and future uses), the Marsh, Willow Creek, natural hazards and critical areas, parks and the missing link, Railroad double-tracking, Edmonds Station, transit service (bus and rail), Port of Edmonds seawall and boardwalk, Harbor Square, and probably a couple more that I overlooked.
The Edmonds Waterfront is a large and complicated place. The City might need the full two hours to go over the important pieces, and allow time for citizens to ask questions and get answers.
Edmonds citizens who care about the Marsh or any part of our waterfront, we need to be there Monday, March 25 at 4:00 PM in the new Port of Edmonds building, 471 Admiral Way.
Roger – I totally agree with you. We need an ‘open’ interactive public meeting where the waterfront issues are defined and public input is ACTUALLY sought on the array of approaches that might be considered for the update to the Comp Plan.
BUT, this public meeting is “an interactive meeting where community members will turn words into design concepts”. That’s a mumbo-jumbo way of City staff deceptively “checking-off the box” on required public participation without getting “real” public input.
Why isn’t the City succinctly stating what are the problems/requirements that ‘they’ and the Port think must be considered so that the public can come to the meeting PREPARED to provide input not only on their views of the problems, but CONSTRUCTIVE public input on the alternatives for addressing them.
This deceptive approach being used by City staff and their consultants to determine the alternatives for updates/changes to the Comprehensive Plan has got to change or as I said its just a waste of public’s time and taxpayer money for consultants.
AND, we don’t need waste public time (like March 23rd) if City staff continue with their “sales pitch” to get the public to “swallow” their misaligned ideas rather than getting REAL public input on better alternatives for change that take into account the unique geography and infrastructure of Edmonds and its citizens’ values.
Joe and Roger. This sounds like it’s going to be, or planned to be, somewhat of a repeat of the Landmark meetings which were nothing more than a slick time share style sales job put on by the previous administration and what is still the same staff group from that administration. I don’t know about you guys, but I’m getting a little tired of mayors, staffs and consultants always telling us what’s good for Edmonds and why we should do what they recommend. When do we get an administration that just mindfully runs things based on the policy that our City Council Rep.s give them to administrate arrived at based on good facts and what the majority of people want? Isn’t that how it’s supposed to work? We need a true independent and more powerful city council that has routine meetings with the public in real give and take town hall venues ahead of, and ideally in place of, all this Planning and Development Manager pre-programmed gamesmanship that goes on constantly. Maybe we should ban the hiring of administrative consultants and fund a couple investigative and consultant type positions answering only to the the Council for more unbiased information to aid in their decision making and allocation of resources for necessary projects. There has to be something better than status quo.
Roger,
I appreciate your optimism and encouragement to attend, but I agree with Joe Scordino.
Per the above press release: “The meeting is described as a design charette, which is defined as “an interactive meeting where community members will turn words into design concepts with the help of staff and city consultants.””
Given Director McLaughlin’s track record with expenditure of thousands of dollars on consultants to facilitate a process which resulted in a three (now one) sentence “vision statement” for the Comprehensive Plan process, why should we expect the result of this meeting to be any different?
Turning “words into design concepts” in a two hour “interactive meeting” is an inappropriate and lofty goal for addressing the many, many issues that you’ve listed related to the future of our precious waterfront.
Joe and Joan, thank you both for the thoughtful feedback to my comments regarding the City’s waterfront public meeting on Monday, March 25. I too read the press release describing the City’s intent to conduct a “public meeting called a Design Charette…to develop goals and design concepts in order to shape a new waterfront vision…” But for that exercise to be successful, participants need to understand the issues involved, thus my call for an information download followed by questions and answers. Absent that, the “design charette” becomes just an exercise in busy work, “input” to the City’s decision processes but nothing more.
The agenda for this Monday meeting needs to change. It needs to begin with a comprehensive presentation and public discussion encompassing all the waterfront issues. Allow citizens opportunities to ask questions and get answers, in real time. The City already has the presentation–a 22-slide Powerpoint show. I will be advocating for such a change this week, with both planning staff and the Planning Board.
There is time to fix this public meeting and make it a useful event for Edmonds citizens who care about our waterfront. Monday, March 25, 4:00 PM at the nice new Port of Edmonds headquarters, 471 Admiral Way.
There was previous meetiong about the waterfront that relied on the Waterfront Study from 2022 and is being used as the basis for the needed changes Joe suggests. But this is not a logial process but a POLITICAL one and Marsh supporters need to be there to advocate for “their” vision. The Waterfront study calls for new vision statement for the waterfront to replace the one in the current plan that allocates our waterfront to a transporation hub. Those that may support development will likely attend. We need to be there to counter their positions. We need to build a strong case for protection and restoration of the Marsh or it won’t happen. If you don’t like the choices offerred by the consultants, then just say no. You do not need to be limited by what they suggest or how they channel your comments. Boycott is not an option.
Another point: Having “an interactive meeting where community members will turn words into design concepts”” is putting the cart before the horse. First we need the agreed upon words or new vision statement for the waterfront to guide the design concepts. There has not been an open public process to develop the new vision. And note the current plan vision for the waterfront is a long paragraph and not a short one or two sentence sound bite. And any ideas about possible “growth” centers are equally problematic since first one has to develop an upd to date inventory of the critical areas and hazards that will limit such growth. Again the cart has run away form the horses.
I agree that there are confusing things about the comprehensive plan update.
For instance, I have wondered for many years why the the outdated plans for a ferry terminal at the Unocal site have not been deleted. They are even referred to in places as though that was actually happening.
New laws for density are apparently driving most of the comp plan recommendations. The public needs to understand what changes are mandated and what we have some say about. I hear confusion on that.
What worries me most is what happens to our environment with increased density. I’m not hearing much to reassure me that our critical areas will be protected. It would be great to have more information on that.
Marjie,
The “outdated plans for a ferry terminal at the Unocal site” could have been “deleted” any year that you’ve “wondered.” The administration could have brought forward that deletion to be docketed before the end of any year. Council review would have included public hearing(s).
There is a piece of Unocal property that some are eyeing for mixed use. Another Comp Plan change that those concerned about the Marsh have proposed for years is designating that piece of Unocal property as open space. There is also property at the end of Main Street that will be proposed for housing by McLaughlin and consultants. This meeting likely will play mostly to developers’ “vision” for Edmonds.
Once Council approves any changes to the Comprehensive Plan proposed by Director McLaughlin and consultants, the City of Edmonds will have no choice but to accept any development applications submitted by developers that are consistent with the plan. Council’s authority ends once they’ve approved changes to the Comp Plan.
Joan is correct. The recommendation to delete the Edmonds Crossing provisions and change the plan has been dellayed and avoided for years. And right now the Unocal land is ALL planned and zoned for mixed use. So is the Willow Creek public land and Marina Beach Park is also designated for development. Too many temptations. Good planning provides certainty and until the plan is changed by the Council to do so, the planners and developers will keep playing “let’s make a deal.” More density on the waterfront is a very bad idea especially given the issues explained by Mr. Haug.
See Below. The Elected and Staff already know the alternatives for where we will put extra sewage treatment. But will it be able to handle storm water too? Hint: Edmonds already owns the property just east of the current Waste Water Treatment plant. Why is that not part of our public discussion? See below but the tradeoffs and compromises will cost money we do not have.
Treating run off water is different than sewage. Look at other studies and one can guess the storm water treatment will need to be west of the current Waste Water Treatment Plant. Two water sheds converge at 104 and Dayton. See below for what the elected and staff already know.
Director McLaughlin and consultants are not in charge of policy, that is the City Council’s job. Further, the Director works for Mayor Rosen and he’s the one that needs to start taking responsibility. Let me restate that, Mayor Rosen is the one responsible for staff whether he only sits at meetings and just counts hands. The “Vision” Is a mess, with questionable environmental reviews, especially with state mandates which are unfunded.
Marjie and others commenting on the WF study and the CP. Lots of examples to support: “Elected and Staff know more that they fully share with the public because A. it will requires tradeoffs and compromises, and B. things in A cost money we do not have.” Connect the dots to see some potential impacts on our CP.
The earlier WF study was VERY complete, most of the issues were discussed and documented. During the life of this updated CP here are some things that are planned over which we have little or no control.
1. Third ferry will be added.
2. Second track will be added.
3. Joe S has remarked that Edmonds is where the Sewer Meets the Sea.
Third boat issues: Boats will be hybrid, smaller so fewer cars on each but with 3, Capacity and Frequency will be increased. Need 2nd slip. Existing dock? Cannot go north. Reduced time between sailings need more car space that is not hampered by BNSF.
Second track issues: It will happen soon, 1-5 yrs? BNSF owns Railroad Ave! City has confirmed that RA will be converted to One Way.
Sewer And cleaner storm water will need to be treated. More Sewer and Water treatment will be required in the span of the CP update. Follow up in second post if allowed.
More! Sewer and storm water. ALL runoff will need to be treated. Increase in wastewater will come from uphill. Lynnwood, MLT and Hwy 99 area. Affordable or not the 15,000 units will have 20-25,000 toilets and 30,000 sinks.
Treatment options. Send it downhill and treat it before releasing to Puget Sound. Treat it closer to its origin and send clean water to Puget Sound.
What might it cost and who pays. For Each $10m with 20 year bonding cost $18m or a payment of $900k per year. If we split the cost with others, then the Edmonds share is $30/yr for a $1m home for 20yrs. If the total cost is $100m then that is $300/yr. We would have the choice to fund it from Billing or Taxes.
Said in an earlier post: “Elected and Staff know more that they fully share with the public because A. it will requires tradeoffs and compromises, and B. things is A cost money we do not have.” We need to connect the dots to see some potential impacts on our CP.
Things that Will happen: Third boat, two tracks and more sewage and more water to treat. Now the tradeoffs and compromises will need to be discussed along with their costs! There is more but already pushing my luck on this second post. Connect the Dots!
Thank you Darrol and Joan!!
All the more reason for people to show up on Monday the 25th at 4:00 PM at the new Port of Edmonds headquarters, 471 Admiral Way. There are so many questions about our waterfront and its future. Take this opportunity to ask those questions, and insist on answers.
Darrol, All I want to know is just how soon can I build my two story DADU; rent it and the main house out for 3K/Mo. each and move my trailer and boat to Republic WA. to keep living the good life and not have to cave to state mandates on Density?
We have virtually no control over what the RR can and will do and it’s still not too late for the messed up State Ferry System to build a parking lot on Unocal as a last resort for their growth plans. All they have to do is put a cement cap down to seal in the pollution and paint parking lanes. All we really control in town is the sewer part and that still doesn’t work from what I’m hearing.
Sounds like a confluence of problems that a Edmonds crossings type project could largely resolve go figure that some want to completely remove the idea from future planning. I got it let’s hire some high priced department directors and a bunch of highly paid consultants that will fix it.
Roger, if there is still time “to fix the meeting,” (your words), just how do WE do that? I just looked up the definition of “design charette” and I suggest everyone planning to attend this event do that before they go to it. My understanding of the concept is everyone from city elected officials, city planners, to engineers and developers and members of the general public get together and design a plan of some sort. Based on what Darrol is saying, and he’s a smart guy who is usually right about stuff, WE (whoever that is) will be making a design for an area where we have little to no control over two of the most potentially dynamic parts of the area. How is it possible to do such a thing? Do WE all just rush the presenters, take over the microphones and conduct a true give and take town hall over the topic? I’m going to attend just to observe what is going on. I don’t plan to take part in any of it, least of all deciding if it’s just a good idea or a great idea to try to purchase Unocal before we know it will absolutely be guaranteed pollution free by the people who polluted it and those currently owning it (WSDOT – State of WA.).
This “invitation to the public” must not include working people who cannot make meeting at 4 PM on Monday.
I agree it’s a dumb time to have a public meeting or alternatively it was planned that way to limit public input. “Kudos” to Mayor Rosen.
Instead of a pointless discussion online I would recommend everyone here to go to the meeting instead.
Lars – thank you for pointing out the “pointless discussion” because that is exactly what this public meeting will be.
Let me provide a little ‘history’ as to why I am boycotting all these ‘useless meetings until they are actually structured for citizens to provide constructive input on options/alternatives for ‘whatever’ changes are absolutely needed right now in the Comp Plan update . In 2019, WSDOT Ferries publicly announced they had totally abandoned their plan to relocate the Edmonds Ferry terminal to the Unocal property. So…. not only was the ferry relocation plan defunct, but so was Edmonds’ Comp Plan priority for a multimodal transportation hub on the waterfront – – 54 pages in the Comp Plan affecting the ENTIRE City had become defunct.
The City Council tried to fix this by amending the 2021 budget to provide contractor assistance to City staff to develop options/alternatives for re-writing those pages including rezoning the Unocal property. Instead, City staff contracted for a useless waterfront (only) study that City Council did not accept.
Now 4 years later, the City has started a convoluted process that doesn’t define the ‘problem’ – – what are required Comp Plan changes – – and has structured meetings to intentionally stifle public INPUT. Further, the City is actually paying certain citizens to provide favorable comments.
Joe,
Do you mean Waterfront Issues Study 2022?
https://cdnsm5-hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_16494932/File/Government/Departments/Development%20Services/Planning%20Division/2024%20Comp%20Plan%20Update/Waterfront/Edmonds%20Waterfront_City%20Council_22-0719.pdf
P. 20, “Key Findings
• Large portion of the waterfront is in an area susceptible to liquefaction in an earthquake”
Liquefaction occurs in a Seismic Hazard Area.
Chapter 23.80 Geologically hazardous areas
https://edmonds.municipal.codes/ECDC/23.80
B. Seismic Hazard Areas. The following activities are allowed within seismic hazard areas:
1. Construction of new buildings with less than 2,500 square feet of floor area or roof area, whichever is greater, and which are not residential structures or used as places of employment or public assembly;
Pg. 30, “Recommendations – Economic Development
• Adopt policies that support working to attract a
hotel operator and associated uses
• Consider adopting policies that allow a wider mix
of land uses in the Commercial Waterfront zone”
Per Edmonds code, “residential structures” and “places of employment or public assembly” are not allowed. Yet, the 2022 report recommends “hotel operator” and “wider mix of land uses.” Residential uses will likely be discussed also.
The GIS Critical Areas Map: https://maps.edmondswa.gov/Html5Viewer/?viewer=Edmonds_SSL.HTML
The Waterfront Center is in a seismic hazard area. Why is our code being ignored?
Daylight the stream out of our Marsh… For salmon and orca restoration.
Roger, if we do what you say, and I agree that’s what should ideally happen with that property, there is a high probability that petroleum residue will start bubbling up into the day lighted stream bed. If that happens someone will have to pay for that clean up or the project will need to be abandoned and the area be capped over with cement to seal in the petroleum and keep it out of the Salish Sea. WSDOT wants to sell that property for huge money to support the Ferry System and the State Dept. of Ecology has determined to let the polluting oil industry off the hook for the rest of the clean up. Do the math on who is going to end up paying for the rest of the clean up or end up seeding the property to developers for housing after it’s capped. This is what the city administration is not telling us, but should be. I’m not smart enough to have come up with this information but Joe Scordino is and he is the person the city and the rest of us should be listening to. This meeting will be mostly self serving for the City Planning Dept.; and their consultants. Mayor Rosen is the head man now and he owns what his employees do and say.
Based on my observations on this past Saturday meeting, the 25th meeting will be another dog-and-pony show, and the Edmonds’ population will have to organize itself and likely push back against its own administration’s plans to roll over and comply. I’ll not speculate about what interests are behind all this but they seem obvious. So, does anyone know anyone in the Mulkiteo’s administration to learn how they are pushing back? Anyone knows anyone in other cities’ administrations so we can meet with them and try to organize something?
Anne, I have the same question. The timing underscores a lack of sincerity in the desire for true and inclusive public input. “Everyone’s Edmonds” sounds great in theory. Let’s see it in practice.
The retired, who could participate in the 4-6pm meeting, do not represent working age residents who will have to live longer with the decisions.
Remember the Connector Fiasco? More recently, the Burlington property?
Regarding the CP – It’s disingenuous and patronizing to ask for input after the decisions have been made. For example, to be given two lengthy options on impending building heights, when the only difference is one story.
Where’s a “Blue Ribbon” Committee on our current issues? Informed local people (ideally, not all one gender) who can bring the facts in layman’s terms to the general public so authentic options can be considered? People who cherish and respect our city? Those without hidden agendas? Many of whom are evidenced in this thread.
While Joe’s objections are valid, a boycott is no way to register these objections. You have to be there to get your contrary points in the record to counter the others who show up.
Not attending a meeting that is essentially a one way communication with orchestrated interactions is not a boycott. It’s just a more sensible way to spend some of your valuable short time on earth. Like having a beer or two with people you actually like.