
More than 90 people took time out from their Monday to provide feedback and ideas as the City of Edmonds moves ahead with fleshing out the future of the Edmonds waterfront.
During Monday’s meeting, city planners introduced the broad concepts of the 2024 Edmonds Comprehensive Plan update, with specific actionable recommendations. Dubbed a “design charette,” the meetings were held at the newly opened Port of Edmonds administration building on Admiral Way. The sessions were run by the City of Edmonds Planning Division, which asked participants to preregister for the event. The response was so overwhelming that a second overflow session was scheduled so all who were interested could participate.
Leading the event were Edmonds Planning and Development Director Susan McLaughlin; Community and Economic Development Director Todd Tatum; and Parks and Recreation Director Angie Feser. They were assisted by city planning staff members Navyusha Pentakota and Jeff Levy, and Shreya Malu and Michael Cannon representing consultant VIA Perkins-Eastman. The consulting firm was hired last year to help complete the comp plan under a $649,000 contract.
The term charette — or charrette as it is spelled in French — originated in 19th century Paris. It describes the intense effort by students at the École des Beaux Arts to put finishing touches on their work as the deadline approached when they must put them in a cart (“charrette”) for evaluation by proctors. Today, the term describes a creative, collaborative planning process of workshops and open houses aimed at creating a master plan for community change driven by the talents and energies of all interested parties.
“We’re here today to put words into design concepts,” McLaughlin said. “For example, if the Comprehensive Plan says to improve access, our job today is to say what this will look like. Does it mean a bridge, a walkway, a bikeway, wayfinding signs, some combination of these, or something else entirely?
“Today we’ll be focusing strictly on the waterfront, and taking the list of visions from the 2020 comp plan and coming up with specific actions and ideas of how these will be implemented,” she added. “We need to see if these words still resonate, if they’re still relevant today.”
(You can see the full list of these visions for the waterfront on page 45 of the 2020 adopted Comprehensive Plan.)
McLaughlin then moved into polling attendees for yes/no/maybe answers to the following questions as adapted from the existing comp plan:
- Do you agree that downtown should extend westward and connect to the shoreline with positive mixed-use development as well as convenient ped. routes?
- Should the shoreline feature a full spectrum of recreational activities, park settings, marina facilities and supporting uses?
- Do you agree that the city should foster a more active and vibrant setting for new retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses?
- Do you want to see the waterfront attract visitors from throughout the region?
- Should we foster opportunities for new development and redevelopment that reinforces Edmonds’ attractive, small-town pedestrian-oriented character?
- Do you believe that pedestrian scale building height limits are an important part of the quality of life in the waterfront area?
- What is a pedestrian-scale building height? (This was an extra question added by McLaughlin to add specifics. Rather than yes/no/maybe answers, participants were asked if this means 25, 30, 35, or 40 feet, or none of these.)
- Should the city provide incentives to encourage adaptive reuse as an alternative to redevelopment of historic structures to preserve these resources?
- Should the vision include the recognition of emerging technologies and service innovations, such as EV charging, bicycling and scooter sharing? (Today this might also include things like free public wifi and electric vehicle charging stations.)
Next, McLaughlin was joined by Director Todd Tatum to describe some of the things that have changed since the last Comprehensive Plan update. Among them was the abandonment of the Edmonds Crossing plan that would have relocated the ferry terminal to the south end of the waterfront. Also included was the 2005 agreement between Chevron and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to enter a purchase-and-sale agreement for the Unocal site. The agreement would transfer ownership of the site from Chevron to WSDOT after cleanup is completed, leaving the property in WSDOT’s hands to sell or transfer. Additional details include clarifying cleanup standards, consent decrees, determinations of non-significance, what final restoration will look like, and the legal ramifications if the city were to eventually take ownership of the property.
An additional waterfront-related question was cleared up in court in October 2023, when the Washington State Supreme Court determined that the city has the right under a 1983 easement to complete the “missing link” in the waterfront pedestrian promenade across the Ebb Tide condominium’s private section of beach.
Other related projects currently in play include the Port of Edmonds Portwalk and Seawall reconstruction projects and the lingering question of Burlington-Northern’s plan to run a second track through Edmonds.
“With these considerations, there are some major gaps in the existing comp plan,” explained McLaughlin. “We’re here today to fill in some of those gaps.”
After a short presentation by Michael Cannon on similar projects taken up by other cities, the meeting broke up into facilitated work groups tasked with coming up with concrete options and suggestions to specific questions in three categories:
1. Future Forward Urban Design
– Looking into the future 20 years, what do you want the “vibe” of the waterfront area to be? What activities are available?
– What spaces are active and what spaces are passive (what is open to the public and what is private)?
– How do we connect the waterfront to downtown through Main Street and Dayton? How do we encourage people to walk
between the two?
– Does this vision include more residential? Retail? Civic uses?
– How do we manage parking here?
2. Marsh and Ecological Functionality
– How can we make the Edmonds Marsh publicly accessible and protect ecological restoration?
– How do we keep the flora and fauna safe? How do we keep visitors safe?
– How do we transition and integrate the marsh into the larger pedestrian network?
– How do we futureproof the marsh for climate change?
3. Waterfront Access/Integration
– How can we serve emergency services’ needs?
– Do you think we need a pedestrian bridge?
– What are the benefits vs the costs?
– Let’s talk about aesthetics. What ideas are there for design?
Groups were instructed to take 15 minutes on each of the broad categories, after which the group facilitator would report back on recommendations and ideas.
All groups stressed the importance of preserving the Edmonds Marsh as a top priority. Some suggested a system of loop trails around the marsh and connecting to the waterfront. One group expanded on this idea with trails and walkways that would include the 4th Avenue Arts Corridor and Yost Park that could result in an arts and nature tour of Edmonds.
Other considerations included a marine science center on the waterfront, remote parking with shuttle access to the waterfront and downtown, raised platforms with semi-open space to view the water, birdwatching towers in the marsh, and more native, natural environments and plantings similar to what has been done at Meadowdale Beach Park.
Regarding waterfront access and emergency access, all groups agreed that pedestrian access from downtown could be made much safer and more convenient with measures to mitigate the impact on pedestrians of vehicle traffic at the Main and Dayton Street at-grade crossings. All groups also agreed that the question of emergency access needs more study to determine just what and how much is really needed, with one group suggesting combining pedestrian and emergency access with overpasses designed to meet both needs.
Perhaps the area of greatest agreement was to keep residential development out of the waterfront. Instead participants recommended concentrating on creating green space, especially in developing a pleasant pedestrian route between downtown and the waterfront that doesn’t require dodging traffic or walking through sterile parking lots.
Additional specific statements from the groups included the following:
– Let’s keep Edmonds special, build on what we have, and don’t just take ideas from other places.
– We need to take sea level rise seriously.
– Extra pedestrian crossings.
– Keep Harbor Square a viable place for businesses.
– No residential on the waterfront.
– Limit businesses to those that cater to waterfront activities like kayak rentals or ice cream trucks.
– Whatever we do should reflect Edmonds and blend with our existing character.
In conclusion, McLaughlin thanked all for attending and providing their input.
“Our next step is to take all we’ve learned from you today and come up with some designs which we plan to present to you in May,” she said. “This will be followed by developing a draft Waterfront Vision that will be presented at a final community engagement session in July, with adoption by the city council in late July.”
–Story and photos by Larry Vogel
I find it interesting and a little amusing that there have been no comments on this “important” visioning meeting (as of my writing this comment). My only take away from the article is that the city is going to have to find lots of money to fulfill all these visions for what could, arguably, be our finest city asset of all. I wonder if the Mayor will address what resources we have to fulfill all these dreams in his talk tomorrow at the WFC which I’m looking forward to attending.
This convoluted “so-called” public input process has got me and others very concerned.
How can the Alternatives for the Comp Plan update be analyzed in the DEIS without the Waterfront alternatives? The waterfront IS part of the City and there ARE Comp Plan changes for the waterfront area that MUST BE in the DEIS in order for Council to make a decision on what the Comp Plan changes will be by December 31st.
The city is supposed to be at the stage of developing Alternatives NOW (WITH public input) – so what was purpose of this public gathering to talk about ‘pie-in-the sky’ ideas that is totally out-of-sync with the Comp Plan update process deadlines? Does the City enjoy wasting the public’s time?
I was relieved to read that “Perhaps the area of greatest agreement was to keep residential development out of the waterfront.”
Discussion of residential uses at the Waterfront should have ended years ago. Yet, the group was asked:
“Does this vision include more residential? Retail? Civic uses?”
Apparently, Director McLaughlin didn’t provide a GIS map of Critical areas at the Waterfront in her presentation. Nor did she reference our code related to the large seismic hazard area under Harbor Square, the Marsh, Salish Crossing, and extending to a point along Sunset Ave walkway and past Caspers St.
Link to look up GIS map of Critical areas:
https://maps.edmondswa.gov/Html5Viewer/?viewer=Edmonds_SSL.HTML
Link to Chapter 23.80
GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS:
https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/#!/html/Edmonds23/Edmonds2380.html
Excerpt:
“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;”
Joe, I agree that McLaughlin’s ‘pie-in-the-sky’ ideas divert from the serious and very expensive issues that must be addressed and planned for. Unfortunately, this is consistent with everything we are seeing from McLaughlin and consultants in the Comp Plan update.
Joe, isn’t it possible that some of the provisions in the new zoning laws could conflict with SEPA from the start and end up in litigation sooner than later? Am I correct in assuming that the requirement for an EIS came from the inception of the SEPA and that SEPA would probably override any density decisions that were in direct conflict? The administration’s gung-ho charge to comply with this legal can of worms is pretty hard to fathom. Especially if we are acting on bogus facts and confusing arbitrary targets with actual trends in terms of population growth reality. It’s the classic “garbage” in; garbage out cliche.
Here’s what citizens should have been told at the Waterfront meeting. Although the Council has NOT decided yet what exactly THEY want to be considered for this Comp Plan UPDATE, here’s some likely goals.
1) Updating the Land Use Map to allow for forecasted increased housing needs in accordance with recent housing density bills.
2) Updating the Land Use Map to prevent over-development from: a) Damage to environmentally sensitive areas including critical habitat areas, aquafers used for drinking water, Shoreline Management Act areas, and tree canopy and wildlife cooridors. b) Exceeding the capacity of current City infrastructure including, but not limited to, sewage transport and processing in accordance with State law; stormwater infrastructure and preventing damage to creeks and Puget Sound; roadways, parking, sidewalks, etc. c) Impacting the “Edmonds Way of Life”
3) Updating the Land Use Map to protect and encourage small businesses
4) Updating the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map to change out-of-date priorities in the Plan such as the defunct Edmonds Crossing and Ferry relocation.
5) Updating the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map to accommodate all the changes set-forth by the Growth Management Act (i.e, the GMA Update checklist).
Then and ONLY THEN can citizens provide constructive input on the ‘shaping’ of multiple Alternatives for analysis in the DEIS.