Edmonds waterfront park possibility entices

Published 11:11 am Friday, January 18, 2008

A City Council discussion Jan. 15 that might have ended with the city pursuing the concept of parkland on the waterfront instead ended with no conclusion outside of the simple one: More discussion is necessary.

No action was taken. No direction was given.

The topic at the meeting was a complex one, with the council asking if the city should study the possibility of purchasing some land for parks or open space at the nearly 20-acre, privately owned waterfront redevelopment site centered on the Old Antique Mall.

The idea was controversial enough that council members couldn’t even agree on the nature of future talks.

At the end of the discussion, council president Michael Plunkett suggested there was enough support for the possibility of parkland that the council should draft plans of pursuit at its February retreat.

Council newcomer DJ Wilson immediately challenged Plunkett, saying he wasn’t sure there was support for that. Wilson heard only that the waterfront issue needed more consideration, he said.

No other council member spoke up, which led to an awkward moment. The talks had stalled, but nobody was willing to propose a vote to clear up the confusion.

The council simply changed topics.

While the outcome of the discussion was unclear, the discussion itself had its merits.

At least four council members, including Plunkett, indicated some level of unhappiness with the current waterfront talks, which have been led by the property owners, including the Port of Edmonds, and developers Al Dykes and Bob Gregg.

Councilwoman Deanna Dawson said the city should at least be willing to consider some public ownership of the property.

The land doesn’t need to become a park, she said. In fact, Dawson said she has yet to hear widespread support for one.

But, if city owned some of the property, it could better control the type of development that goes there, she said.

Councilman Dave Orvis echoed Dawson.

“Open space is going to cost us one way or the other,” he said. “It is either going to cost us our dollars, or it is going to cost us our ambience.”

Property owner efforts have led to a conclusion — taller buildings — that could cost Edmonds its ambience, Orvis suggested. The city might as well explore what would happen if it elected to sacrifice financially instead, he said.

New Councilman Steve Bernheim supported the idea of studying the site with the intention of getting more open space. More voices and more input would be valuable, he said.

At the meeting, the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce also offered its first public statement on the site since the property owners released conceptual designs for the property in October.

Chamber president Jim Hills presented a list of goals for the property — including mixed building uses, and economic development that complements downtown — and said parkland would not likely accomplish those goals. Hills is the publisher of the Enterprise Newspapers.

The loudest critic of parkland on the waterfront was Councilman Ron Wambolt, who said he hoped to “put that idea to bed.” The city cannot afford to pay for a park, nor can it afford to take that property off its tax roles, he said.

“This is not a good time to be talking about new obligations,” he said.

After the meeting, Wambolt said the possibility of public ownership controlling non-park development was interesting. But, he worries about the timeline, he said.

The current property owners can develop the property to existing code, he said. There is no mandate they wait for the city before moving ahead on their own.

“I think timing is part of this issue,” he said.

Reporter Chris Fyall: 425-673-6525 or cfyall@heraldnet.com.