I am most interested in ensuring a successful redevelopment of the Harbor Square site, and my remarks regarding the precedence of the Shoreline Management Act were meant to be helpful to the Port Commission. As you undoubtedly know, an element in our community opposes any increase in height within the city limits. So, I was providing information that might be useful to the port at this early stage of the project.

One of the commissioners approached me during the break, and asked me if I favored the completion of the marsh walkway (i.e. a loop trail). I expressed my strong support and also proposed a spur connecting to the new demonstration garden at the Willow Creek Hatchery (and also interpretive signs). Biologist Jon Houghton, who has spent time tromping around the marsh, has determined a good location for that spur. I believe that the commissioner who conversed with me during the break was pleased that I was supporting a height increase. That jives with my desire for compromise and environmental mitigation.

Below (in green font) is a bit of background information on:

· Determining that the marsh is, indeed, within the purview of the Shoreline Management Act

· The precedence of the Shoreline Management over the Growth Management Act in certain cases

The following criteria contain the standards for the department's designation of shoreland areas associated with shorelines of the state which are subject to the jurisdiction of chapter 90.58 RCW:
(1) Tidal waters. The shoreland area shall include:
(a) Those lands which extend landward two hundred feet as measured on a horizontal plane from the ordinary high water mark; and (b) Those wetlands which are in proximity to and either influence or are influenced by the tidal water. This influence includes but is not limited to one or more of the following: Periodic tidal inundation; hydraulic continuity; formation by tidally influenced geohydraulic processes; or a surface connection through a culvert or tide gate;

Finding -- Intent -- 2003 c 321: "(1) The legislature finds that the final decision and order in Everett Shorelines Coalition v. City of Everett and Washington State Department of Ecology, Case No. 02-3-0009c, issued on January 9, 2003, by the central Puget Sound growth management hearings board was a case of first impression interpreting the addition of the shoreline management act into the growth management act, and that the board considered the appeal and issued its final order and decision without the benefit of shorelines guidelines to provide guidance on the implementation of the shoreline management act and the adoption of shoreline master programs.

(2) This act is intended to affirm the legislature's intent that:

(a) The shoreline management act be read, interpreted, applied, and implemented as a whole consistent with decisions of the shoreline[s] hearings board and Washington courts prior to the decision of the central Puget Sound growth management hearings board in Everett Shorelines Coalition v. City of Everett and Washington State Department of Ecology;

(b) The goals of the growth management act, including the goals and policies of the shoreline management act, set forth in RCW 36.70A.020 and included in RCW 36.70A.020 by RCW 36.70A.480, continue to be listed without an order of priority; and

(c) Shorelines of statewide significance may include critical areas as defined by RCW 36.70A.030(5), but that shorelines of statewide significance are not critical areas simply because they are shorelines of statewide significance.

(3) The legislature intends that critical areas within the jurisdiction of the shoreline management act shall be governed by the shoreline management act and that critical areas outside the jurisdiction of the shoreline management act shall be governed by the growth management act. The legislature further intends that the quality of information currently required by the shoreline management act to be applied to the protection of critical areas within shorelines of the state shall not be limited or changed by the provisions of the growth management act." [2003 c 321 § 1.]

Thank you and have a nice day,

Barbara

Thank you for your thoughtful and positive comments last night. I am copying Rob Chave, Planning Manager as he is the person with the most knowledge of the City’s Shoreline Master Plan. Via this e-mail, I am asking him to respond to your comments about how the Shoreline Master Plan influences planning activities for the Harbor Square Area.

I also am copying Brian McIntosh, Parks and Recreation Department Director as his department oversees the planning and construction of improvements, such as those referenced in your e-mail. Via this e-mail, I am also asking him to share any information on planning related to the Edmonds Marsh.

Stephen

Stephen Clifton, AICP
Director Community Services & Economic Development
City of Edmonds

Actually, while the marsh is in Shorelines jurisdiction, Harbor Square is not. The Shorelines boundary is the same as the boundary of the Edmonds Marsh – the buffer area surrounding the marsh is governed by the city’s critical areas regulations. That doesn’t mean, of course, that any redevelopment or changes in Harbor Square won’t get a thorough review under the city’s critical areas regulations; there may also be some opportunity for collaborating on enhancement of the buffer area around the marsh… .

Hope that helps.

Rob Chave
Edmonds Planning Manager

Questions:

Wouldn't Harbor Square redevelopment exacerbate an existing problem of excess commercial space available in downtown Edmonds? For example, the 1st level of the building on 5th St. where ACE Hardware is located has been vacant for a couple years. A couple restaurants were going to lease the space, that never happened. Commercial vacancies downtown make the city look like it is dying, not thriving. If there are a lot of commercial vacancies here, then wouldn't building more office space be overbuilding? Overbuilding might be good for developers and their lenders (assuming the developers remain solvent), but how would it benefit the rest of us who live here?

If living near the Sounder train is a draw, why do nearby condos languish on the market for a long time? That is how it seems, no matter whether they are relatively new, or relics of the 70's. I live in a nearby condo and walk to the Sounder train to commute to my office in downtown Seattle, and I love it. But I seem to be an exception. There are few who do as I do, but most drive and park. The Sounder schedule is nothing for non-commuters to cheer about. Except for the occasional game downtown, the Sounder is of little value to people who don't work downtown. If the Sounder had mid-day trips, it would appeal to a much wider group. But it doesn't.

Condos seem to remain on the market for a long time here in downtown Edmonds. Wouldn't building more and more condos make this situation worse, or drive down prices of existing condos by flooding the market even more? There are condos being built just north of the ferry terminal, overlooking the railroad tracks. No one has been working on the condos for weeks, I think they may be headed in the same direction as the restaurants that never materialized in the building where Ace Hardware is on 5th street - and that is nowhere.

Thanks for listening. Judy Murphy

Thank you for your questions and concerns regarding potential future development at Harbor Square. Market timing is certainly a critically important issue. We agree the real estate market is extremely soft right now for both commercial and residential, but I suppose that's part of the riddle. The absorption rate for existing commercial inventory is dependent on many external factors beyond our control, and essentially unpredictable. But we think the market will eventually recover. The process for adopting/approving a final plan might take another year or two, and possibly longer depending on how things go. We want to re-position and re-define Harbor Square for the future. Some form of mixed use development seems to be the best approach. Getting there will be a challenge. Thanks again for your comments.

Robert E. McChesney