Big changes are on the horizon for an Edmonds waterfront mainstay. It won’t happen quickly but when it does, it will be completely different.
On Friday, June 6, the Port of Edmonds signed the paperwork to welcome 1010 Development as the new owner of The Landing building, home to Arnie’s Restaurant and 13 other tenants.
The company plans a boutique hotel and wellness spa for guests with plenty of welcoming public spaces and eateries for locals.
It’s estimated that construction will begin sometime in 2029. Arnie’s Restaurant and other tenants will remain in place and open until construction begins.
The hotel
Ryan Appleby, the person behind the purchase and 1010 Development, has a vision for the future. He believes in Edmonds, public space and the environment. He says he is committed to all three as he builds out the hotel.
“We have roots dating back five generations in Edmonds,” said Appleby, president of 1010 Development. “It’s an important place to us.”
“Ryan is coming in with new money and new energy, new tenants and new services,” Economic Development Director Brittany Williams said.
Appleby appreciates the value of the waterfront as a public gathering place and plans to cater to both hotel guests and Edmonds residents. The ground floor will include accessible amenities like a walk-up coffee bar and café. He sees the Sunday morning cold-water plungers and says it would be good to have sauna services on the ground floor so they can come right in.
It will be one of the few waterfront hotels on Puget Sound. Others include Mukilteo’s Silver Cloud Hotel and Seattle’s Edgewater Hotel. Appleby is excited to bring new business and tourists to the Port and the City of Edmonds.
1010 Development has a long permit process to manage and will release a hotel rendering at a later date. Appleby confirms the building footprint will not change, but it will be a complete teardown.
The deal: Appleby, Catspaw LLC and the Port of Edmonds
This deal started to take shape in early 2024 when Catspaw LLC, a Snohomish County property company with local investments, decided it was time to move on. They owned the building where Arnie’s is located for the last 20 years and had a relationship with the founding families dating back to the ‘80s. But with family spread out across Washington and the US, it made no sense to hold on to one of the last pieces of commercial real estate in Edmonds.
“It has been a great run,” said Peter Challman, managing member and second-generation owner of Catspaw LLC. “But it’s time to pass the torch to a new building owner.”
Catspaw came to the Port with a plan to sell before their 2029 lease expired and were looking for a building buyer. The buyer would likely be looking for a long-term ground-lease commitment from the Port. Because the Port determines the use of this particular property, the Port made it clear the future building owner needed to be a good fit – durable, financially stable and one that valued community.
“We want it to be used and loved by the community,” Williams said. “But Ports are about economic development and that can come from public-private partnerships. This is a great piece of property. It’s on the waterfront.”
“The process was thorough,” explained Port of Edmonds Acting Executive Director Brandon Baker. “But it needed to be. There is only so much commercial waterfront property in Edmonds. We had to ensure it was the right fit for the community and the Port.”
The transition came at the ideal moment. The Port has a master planning process scheduled for 2026. This particular project jump-started that process to answer a series of future-thinking questions: What is the best use for this space? What kind of future tenant would be good for the community? Would this future tenant be a good financial fit for the Port and the city? Does this future tenant share Port values of access and environmentalism?
The answer to 1010 Development’s wellness hotel concept was yes.
“We view this partnership with the Applebys as phase one of this master planning,” Williams said. “Private investment in The Landing building allows us to focus on the rest of the master plan… and future infrastructure projects like the seawall and North Portwalk.”
A good match: The Applebys and the Catspaw group
The Appleby name may be familiar to some. The Applebys have participated in Edmonds and Snohomish County civic life for decades. Ryan Appleby went to Stanwood High School, played basketball and went on to be the 3-point record holder for University of Washington’s men’s basketball, graduating in 2008.
Prior to Catspaw LLC’s involvement, a local Snohomish County group owned the building for decades. Ownership re-formed a few times but nothing about Arnie’s and The Landing changed until the surviving members decided it was time to sell.
The Port expects that financial stability and community presence to remain unchanged with 1010 Development and Ryan Appleby.
What’s next
As the ink dries on the deal this week, waterfront walkers won’t see any change for a few years as the project moves through the permit process. Current tenants in the building will remain, as will Arnie’s Restaurant. Appleby shared he just secured a new tenant, Snoqualmie Gourmet Ice Cream.
The proposed boutique hotel is still in its preliminary design stage, but current plans have it maintaining the existing building’s footprint. Proposed public amenities include a full-service restaurant, sauna and spa, social club, event space and first-floor café offering coffee, smoothies, and grab-and-go items.
The project will need to undergo an extensive permitting and approval process, including a design review with opportunities for public input.
“The Edmonds waterfront has historically been a place where people from all over come to enjoy the natural beauty, great dining, and beautiful public spaces,” Appleby said. “Through our new partnership with the Port, we look forward to carrying on that tradition.”
This all sounds almost too good to be true; congratulations to the whole team and may the wind be at your backs throughout the process!!
A hotel is not an allowed use in a geologically hazardous area, in this case, a seismic hazard area. The entire Port of Edmonds lies in a seismic hazard area. Now I know why I never received a response from Council and Mayor Rosen to my Reader View:
https://myedmondsnews.com/2025/04/reader-view-opinion-the-seismic-hazard-elephant-at-our-waterfront/
This highlights Edmonds’ Mayors/staff historical and ongoing failures to enforce our Critical Areas Ordinance. And the failure of the majority of Council to remove residential uses from the Waterfront in our 2024 Comp Plan.
Doesn’t some of this criticism also lay with the Port Commissioners?
Alicia,
The Port Commissioners are responsible to comply with Edmonds’ Critical Areas Ordinance. However, enforcement of Edmonds CAO is the responsibility of the Mayor/administration. Given that the Waterfront Center does not comply with our CAO and was built AFTER the seismic hazard area was mapped and on the City website, responsibility lies directly on past and present Mayors/staff.
And now responsibility is also on Council. Council ignored the CAO in allowing non-compliant uses in the final 2024 Comprehensive plan. Council still has the opportunity to remove non-compliant uses (Mixed use at Port, residential at Main and Sunset) in the 2025 update to the Comp Plan. However, it is highly unlikely that they will do so.
Breaking the deadmonds mold one development at a time… no one on this thread is taking the risk, so sincere best wishes to the developer – the team
In the arena doing the work and taking the risk. There are lots of cheap seats in this world..
will there be more parking?
We build entire cities in seismic, volcanic, and hurricane hazard zones. The zones and their various classifications are meant to inform of the minimum deign parameters required, which in this case. along the waterfront with liquefaction prone soils may include (new / retrofit) raft over pile with base isolators which are standard.
It’s great seeing this addition to the area and wishing the development team success in it’s endeavors.
Congratulations to the whole team at the Port and best of luck to 1010 Development.
+1 to Mark’s comment, too. There are, indeed, a lot of cheap seats. Here’s to those taking the risks.
Is not the Port supposed to reimburse the local citizens of the port district? And give first options on moorage? If so, why haven’t they?
We all know it’s long past due to revamp the vision of the Port and make changes that the citizens of Edmonds can finally benefit from.
I agree, very exciting for the Edmonds waterfront community! I can’t wait!!!
Happy to learn that Snoqualmie ice cream will be coming. Soon? Now I believe the nearest shop is in Maltby. It’s really great ice cream.
How many stories high will it be?
This site is in the Commercial Waterfront zone which has a 30-foot height limit, effectively two floors like the existing building. ECC 16.55.020.
It’s Commercial Waterfront (CW), so max allowable height above average grade is 30 feet. But it appears the proposal intends to maintain the existing building’s footprint, so it’s most likely maintaining the two stories it’s currently constructed at.
This sounds great. I’m so excited!
Will Arnie’s remain after the remodel?
Lots of implications of positive and, perhaps, negative change aspects, but my early concern is about preserving and even enhancing pedestrian flow and views along the shoreside. KOK
Here it comes folks. You better all read between the lines here. They are saying the “current” plans are to maintain the present footprint of the building. So it’s going to be one floor of various small businesses and one floor of hotel only 30ft. high? When was the last time you saw a hotel built with only 10 to 20 rooms? It’s possible I’m sure; but does it really pencil out in terms of a business actually making money. I’ll believe that when I see it. I suspect you are being fed the usual large helping of baloney on this one, but enjoy the good vibes on it, while they last.
Joan is correct. The new complex that includes a hotel is not allowed under Edmonds building code.
Here is the link:
https://edmonds.municipal.codes/ECDC/23.80.040 (B) – Allowed activities – Geologically hazardous areas states:
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
Hotels are “residential structures” and therefore prohibited in the seismic hazard area.
Clint: I attended the Port of Edmonds meeting several months ago where the architects presented their plans. One of their key goals was to stay within the current Edmonds building codes so no variances or exceptions would be applied for. This is why the 30-foot height limit was used in the design. This is also why building codes are so critically important. The peak of the current roof on the 1010 building is very close to 30-feet. The new design uses a flat roof to get the extra floor. Also, staying within the current footprint has some big cost savings for the redevelopment. They anticipate getting $450-$600 per night for the hotel rooms. That assumes they can even build hotel rooms in the seismic hazard area against Edmonds code restrictions. As an old Edmonds kid, I find that difficult to grasp. As someone that lives here now and pays attention to what’s going on, I think they will likely command those prices. If it is built with hotel rooms, that’s certainly NOT a place I would want to sleep. Liquefaction of the fill it’s built on during an earthquake is whym the seismic hazard zone exists.
Great points John and well taken. I see the planning board’s Mr. Mitchell is assuring you that now buildings can be built or retrofitted to be perfectly safe for location in seismic hazard zones, so no big deal on that and to Hell with the CAO’s that stifle rampant development and money making enterprise at the expense of the environment. “We don’t need no stinking environmental safe guards because we are way smarter than the scientists that study those things.” I’m also asking myself why someone would pay $450 to $600 per night to stay there when they could stay at the Harbor Inn for around $200 per night or in Lynnwood for $150 or so and just drive to Edmonds. Of course that $600 will give them quick access to swim in the Salish Sea, instead of one of those awful heated pools at one of the other places. It’s a strange new world we live in.
Not Arnies no
Another possible positive aspect would be if the developers offered to help the city in completing the missing walkway link in front of the condo. KOK
Well, Kevin, the developers better have really deep pockets then because the last amount I saw budgeted by the city for this major WANT was $800,000 and building that “missing link” will require support structure embedded at least 35 feet or more into bedrock to be considered safe to use. $800,000 might just cover a week or so of that project I suspect. Of course the city has probably spent somewhere near that already just to fight some of it’s own citizens over the whole concept. I think maybe the developers should bump the proposed room rates another $100/night if they are going to embrace your idea of buying into that can of worms.
I’m not inherently opposed to this proposed project. The Arnie’s building has needed a serious refresh for years, and this will be a source of new revenues the city so desperately needs. However, the developer and city will need to be certain the project complies with all laws and codes. Otherwise, we will be mired in litigation again. In addition, assuming the project is compliant, Jeremy Mitchell’s point is valid: the new building can and will be engineered with piling supports to be perfectly safe. These details will be worked through over the next several years.
Dave and Jeremy,
“Perfectly safe” Dave? It’s disturbing that self proclaimed experts Dave Teitzel and Jeremy Mitchell, are assuring us of the safety of what Best Available Science (BAS) experts have determined is NOT safe in Seismic Hazard Areas, and thus not allowed per our CAO.
It’s also disturbing that both of you are endorsing Mayors/staff’s continued failures to enforce our CAO which is meant to protect ALL of our environmental assets, for the safety and benefit of present and future residents and visitors.
Joan to be clear: no one is claiming seismic hazards don’t exist, only that projects permitted in these areas must meet stringent building code and engineering standards designed precisely to mitigate those risks, hence the various classifications. That is the purpose of the Building Code and Best Available Science: to ensure that development, when allowed, is done safely and responsibly.
To suggest that either of us are dismissing seismic risk is simply inaccurate. What we’re highlighting is that safety isn’t defined by fear, it’s defined by whether structures are engineered to comply with codes and regulatory bodies. These codes evolve alongside science and are incorporated directly into our Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO), which does not amount to a ban on all activity in mapped hazard zones, it regulates it.
Equating a legally permitted project with a failure to enforce the CAO misrepresents the process and the law. Upholding the CAO includes ensuring projects meet the code, not banning all activity outright. Responsible enforcement means following the science, but not overstating it.
I’m not opposed to this either. In fact, I hop the Applebys can pull it off. That said I am concerned that the redevelopment may not be viable as envisioned. Assuming Edmonds revises their Critical Area Ordinance to allow for seismic mitigation, then there is the problem of emergency access. Trains can and do occasionally block both the Main Street and Dayton Street crossings. BNSF plans to add a 2nd line through Edmonds which as the potential of more than doubling the train traffic, making the blocked crossing issue an even bigger problem. The project was scheduled to start in 2023 but construction has not started yet. I’d like to see if a third vehicle access over the two BNSF lines could be built on the Unocal property in conjunction with a 30-foot wide open channel connecting the Marsh to the Sound. That would solve the emergency access problem. The contamination cleanup at the Unocal site has to be completed to make the Marsh to Sound connection viable. The last problem may be finding people that will pay $600 a night for a room so close to two busy rail lines. Redevelopment is never easy.
It greatly saddens me that laws and ordinances get passed to protect the environment and then the laws are changed or circumvented someway to accommodate questionable growth and development. Mark my words, they will be advocating for at least one more story before this is over.
Please let me share another perspective Clint. Rules governing construction in seismic hazard areas are not there to “protect the environment” but rather to protect human life. We want to avoid injury or death to people resulting from an earthquake.
However, current City rules for seismic hazard areas are draconian~ you can’t build any structure for residential uses, nor for employment or public assembly. What’s left? Maybe another public storage facility, or public restrooms. The City needs to take another look at this code since its strict application would render most Port property virtually undevelopable.
As Jeremy points out, buildings can be designed to be safe during an earthquake, The point of designating a seismic hazard area is to inform developers and the public of the risks involved. If they choose to accept those risks and design for them and live with them, those should be their decisions to make in a free society.
Will Arnie’s close after construction begins? If so, temporarily or permanently? Will the public still have access to current public areas around the new structure?
Lived in Edmonds 40 years and it’s really awesome to see more positive improvements happening west of the tracks. Proper development and re-development over the years has made Edmonds a great place.
I think that this could be a good thing. However, I don’t see how a building the size of the current building could support a hotel. I’m also concerned about the effect on parking. It does no good to build if no one can get there. Also how will this effect use of the other public areas like the pier and the Olympic View Beach?
John Hood makes a good point I think. Now that I don’t live in Edmonds anymore I guess I shouldn’t care if they build a Trump Tower on that site and in some respects I really don’t. If you all think the real plan is to only have one floor of a ultra luxury hotel commanding $450 to $600 a night I don’t think you are dealing in reality. Here are some issues maybe not considered in this “great idea.” If there are, say 12 luxury rooms, how many people are going to pay $450/night to view and hear coal and oil trains all hours of the day and night on the back side? How many people are going to want to pay $450 to $600 a night to stay there in Nov. thru Mar. – you know the really nice weather months here? Referring to Roger Pence’s comment above, there is already a push to gut your CAO language to allow this and the next move will be to alter the height limits down there to make business’s such as this more viable. There is a salient reason they are calling this the “current plan.”
Roger,
The Best Available Science used in our CAO, is not “draconian” as you suggest. Code for seismic hazard areas and development near other geologically hazardous areas such as steep slopes, is about saving lives.
As John Brock points out emergency access from the west side of the BNSF railroad tracks also must be addressed. The Port property is in a 100 year flood plain, the water table is extremely high, sea level is rising, and it’s in a tsunami zone.
When Council reviewed the Harbor Square Master Plan, Kiernan Lien told Council that the buildings would have to be secured to the bearing soil, approximately 35 feet down, dramatically increasing the cost to build.
We’re due for a 9.2 earthquake. Here’s info about the 9.1 earthquake in Japan in 2011:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tōhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami
How can a new building at the Arnie’s location be made “perfectly safe.” Do you really believe there would be no loss of lives in the event of an earthquake and the tsunami (seiche) that followed? Shouldn’t we be preparing for a worst case scenario to save as many lives as possible?
Great points Joan. I can just hear the hotel manager telling those $600/night guests to pay no attention to those silly Tsunami warning signs and siren as Jeremy Mitchell and Roger Pence have assured everyone that building a hotel in this location was perfectly safe. “We have a money back guarantee should you have to swim for your life.”
Well, one of the proposed attractions is to take a cool dip in the Sound before heading to the sauna—may be easier to do this than initially thought! ;). Seriously, there is a lot of discussion and planning to be done over the next four years. Let’s see how things shake out to address all the concerns that have been raised.
Im down at Gallagher’s near the Dayton crossing. A coal train is emergency stopped. It looks like the Main Street crossing is blocked too. A third access point, over the RR tracks, should be a requirement for hotel rooms west of the tracks.
I agree with you, John. These tragedies are rare, but we need to have a way to get people and emergency vehicles and from the waterfront during emergencies when the Main and Dayton crossings are blocked. A third crossing location needs to be identified. It won’t be on Sunset. In my opinion, the Port and city should take a closer look at building a low bridge crossing (similar to the one at Richmond Beach) somewhere near the dog park to connect to Admiral Way.
I think an emergency vehicle access point on the Unocal property, near the dog park should be considered. Getting the City, the Port, WashDOT, BNSF, and Unocal/Chevron all cooperating to make a needed third access point a reality, will likely take Federal intervention and oversight.
Perhaps Senator Cantwell can work some magic like she did for the Meadowdale Beach BNSF overpass that restored salmon habitat.
Either way, I can’t see how Edmonds could responsibly issue building permits for hotel rooms on the west side of the tracks until that third access point exists.
Interesting. My wife just told me there was a death on the tracks near Edmonds that has to be investigated and the ferries are down for an indefinite amount of time due to the train blockage. John and I don’t have to worry about this but it sounds like that coming Edmonds property tax levy lift might have to be kicked up a little more to make all these grandiose plans for the waterfront pencil out. John, if you have to trapped somewhere, you can’t beat Gallagher’s. You will not go thirsty my friend.
Jeremy,
You say “safety isn’t defined by fear” yet our CAO doesn’t allow additional “residential, places of employment, and places of public assembly” in seismic hazard areas to protect the public’s “safety” in the event of an earthquake. Same with steep slopes. Our CAO is meant to protect property owners from potential landslides that could damage property and injure or kill those who live in the homes. In other words, our CAO defines “safety.”
You claim safety is defined “by whether structures are engineered to comply with codes” yet, by ignoring Edmonds Critical Areas code, you are supporting Mayors/staff ignoring our code (for decades) and allowing development directly on and/or next to critical areas without code required buffers.
Please answer these questions:
– How can a new building at the Arnie’s location be made earthquake, flood, sea level rise, and train blockage safe?
– Can you personally assure the public there would be no loss of lives in the event of an earthquake (9.2 predicted) and the tsunami (seiche) that followed?
– Do you agree or disagree that Edmonds Mayor/staff should enforce our code and prepare for a worst case scenario to save as many lives as possible?
Followed your logic Joan, I’m afraid nothing would ever get constructed along Edmonds’ waterfront; the Waterfront Center, a wonderful “place of public assembly,” would not have been built! Jeremy Mitchell is a licensed architect, and I have confidence in his knowledge of safe building design and construction in earthquake hazard zones.
I do concur with observations about the need for a 3rd rail crossing down by the Unocal property. Alison and I were trapped on Admiral Way last night and had to miss Fathers’ Day dinner in Tukwila (we enjoyed a nice quiet dinner at Arnie’s instead, just without family love and camaraderie).
Permanent residential is not the same as transient structures under which hotels are classified.
The CAO sets land use limits to reduce risk, not eliminate it, but safety is also defined by modern engineering and building codes. Structures built today must meet the exposure, seismic, and site classification standards and their importance factors which informs of structure and life safety minimums. That’s not ignoring safety.
Yes, our CAO should be enforced. But enforcement must also reflect evolving science and engineering, not just static rules.
No one can guarantee zero loss of life in a major disaster. What we can require is that buildings meet the minimum design standards for the areas they are sited in and show mitigation measures for achieving no deleterious impacts to the environment and life safety. Proposals are required to do that already (these are the G-sheets of the architectural / engineering set). If it can’t meet the code, it doesn’t get approved. Pretty simple.
Yes — the City should enforce code and plan for worst-case events but based on factual assessments and scenario modeling, which is how cities get their hazard classifications to begin with.
Jeremy,
Thanks for answering my questions!
Edmonds code is poorly written and doesn’t define residential structures. However, the Washington Administrative Code (WAC), which Edmonds is also required to comply with, does. WAC 51-54A-0202 says that hotels are generally classified as a type of residential occupancy, falling under the “Residential Group R” designation:
* Hotels (Transient): WAC 51-54A-0202 lists hotels (transient) within the R-1 residential occupancy group. This group is for sleeping units used mainly by transient occupants.
My additional questions:
– Do you agree with others that emergency access must be resolved before this hotel is allowed at the Waterfront?
You said,“ Yes, our CAO should be enforced. But enforcement must also reflect evolving science and engineering, not just static rules.”
– Are you suggesting that if the PB, Mayor, or staff think the CAO is made up of “static rules” it’s okay not to enforce it?
– Please explain how the depth of the bearing soil will be determined at the Arnie’s site.
Doesn’t matter if I agree to it or not, emergency access and egress are a part of the building process.
I can’t speak for the PB, mayor or staff so you’d have to ask them. That comment is my own based on my professional experience. And again, no one is saying not to enforce something.
There’s not enough project information to respond to your last question but there’s already historical geological data about soils you can find on USGS and depending on what the proposal entails will inform of additional exploratory work and surveys.
Roger,
Why are you defending Planning Board member Jeremy Mitchell instead of defending our Critical Areas Ordinance by holding Mayor/staff accountable for its enforcement?
Happy to repeat myself Joan. First, I’m defending architect and PB member Jeremy because I agree with him~ buildings can be designed and built that withstand seismic loads.
Second, I support reasonable redevelopment along the waterfront of the scale of the Waterfront Center and the proposed 30-foot tall hotel on the Arnie’s site. The Port recently completed a new 2-story headquarters building that fits well with the area.
Third, I support changes in Edmonds’ CAO to allow such redevelopment along the waterfront, providing seismic hazards are mitigated. Developers should be allowed to build structures that include people~ such as hotels, neighborhood retail, and community centers. It is not in the public interest to forbid such redevelopment, essentially prohibiting economic reuse of waterfront sites.
I was on the Planning Board a few years ago when we approved a code amendment allowing hotels as a permitted use in the Waterfront Commercial zone, and nobody took any issue regarding CAO matters.
You raise another important point that the CAO needs to be amended to build this. Thus an admission that the CAO will not permit or significanlty limit such development? Without a comprehensive waterfront plan all this is just ad hoc decision making. All this article demonstrates is that the Port has contracted with a developer to prepare a proposal for review ands permitting by the City. There should be NO prejudgement by city officials. Their reponsibility and duty is to conduct a tranparent open public review of whatever is submitted for compliance with the development code and CAO provisions. Any prejudgement or supportive comments by city officials who may be involved in this review will need to recuse themselves from the review.
You make an interesting point Mr. Eber, but I note the Edmonds Waterfront Center and the Port’s new HQ were both built successfully, CAO restrictions notwithstanding. When it comes to inconsistencies, it appears zoning code trumps critical areas code.
Mr. Pence – I enjoyed your answer because it’s precise, polite and personal to you. Thanks for improving the vibe of this discussion.
What is missiing in long this discussion is the fact that the City has deferred or kicked the can down the road multiple times rather than develop a COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR the waterfront. There was a consultant study paid for by the City in 2020 or 2021 that pointd out all the issues that needed to be addressed. But this was never acted on and deferred to the 2024 plan update. A good start was made but then dropped. So the one area of the 2024 plan uppdate that was NOT done was for the Waterfront.
Now we are back to more ad hoc, knee jerk decision making for the waterfront. All the issues remain unaddressed like the seismic hazards, sea level rise, more trains and noise, emergency access, marsh restoration, Unocal land clean up, etc. To add vehicle access over the BNSF tracks will need their permission and if from Marina Beach Park, need to cross the Unocal land and possibly complicate if not block restoration fo the Edmonds Marsh.
The list goes no and until there is an open public process to develop a comprehensive plan for the waterfront, we will continue to have more ad hoc decisionmaking and political deals.
Time for a comprehensive waterfront sub area plan update for the comprehensive plan. We cannot put this off any longer.
My question is: Does Edmonds have an up to date seismic building code that will ensure this hotel won’t succumb to liquefaction? I don’t have any knowledge about what is needed to keep buildings upright in case of liquefaction issues during an earthquake, but I do hope that the strictest requirements are written into the building code to keep those people sleeping in a hotel safe. I also believe that buildings in a liquefaction zone should have signs warning about the risk. Many, many years ago, before I lived in Edmonds, I stayed at the Harbor Inn. I did not know the risk. I would have appreciated knowing that it was in a seismic zone before I chose a place to spend the night. Are there tsunami signs down there as well? Evacuation will be a nightmare. And we can’t forget the rising seas. I used to take a class at the Waterfront Center. I saw how high the water came during those King Tides and could picture it rising even higher during a storm. What will rising sea levels do to those foundations? Saltwater can corrode the steel in foundations creating “spalling,” which can crumble the concrete around the rebars. There are a lot of issues with the Waterfront. I’m not as optimistic as I used to be that Edmonds can solve them.
Roger: I direct your attention to Code 23.40.020 which says that the CAO provisions are an overlay and in addition to what is in the base zone. CAO protections are required by state law and a local code cannot provide for less than full compliance. That said, the provisions of Chapter 23.40 about the application of CAO provisions is quite complex and it will take a careful review once their is a specific proposal submitted by the Port. Further, the buidlings you cite for examples are new ones as opposed to the reuse or configuration of Arnie’s which is much older and would also likely have to deal with the codes nonconforming use provisions. So until there is a specific proposal submitted any speculation about what code provisions apply and how is just that – speculation and not worth any more time.
Mayor Haakenson’s big planning dream was to annex the already incorporated city of Woodway. The Mayor Earling era saw the promotion of a big, ugly and illegal emergency connector between Sunset Ave. and your marine sanctuary/beach. Now the Mayor Rosen era (encouraged by CM Chen) gives you the terrific idea of a small luxury hotel/business center located in a known problematic seismic area right next to the Salish Sea and the BNSF rail right of way. Anyone else see a pattern as to how these basically pretty bad ideas develop and where they really come from. That’s another reason we finally decided to move to an unincorporated HOA managed community, not subject to the new draconian state controlled zoning laws or the legacy dreams of the would be Edmond’s Savior Mayor types and their appointed planning boards. I don’t see the “crazy” stopping in your town anytime soon.
I left out the Mayor Nelson era Landmark purchase “planning decision” that cost the tax payers a cool $100K and produced nothing for them in return. Didn’t mean to offend anyone by leaving out that little piece of municipal government brilliance.
Thanks, Jeremy. Your answers are helpful. If I understand correctly, emergency access means providing safe access to the east side of the tracks in the event of an earthquake or other emergency, and must be addressed as part of the building process. Egress is access to the building itself.
I assume the “historical geological data” is what former senior planner Kiernan Lien used to estimate the bearing soil at Harbor Square to be approximately 35 ft down.