Loading...
2022-02-23 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Webinar Meeting February 23, 2022 Chair Crank called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water. Board Members Present Staff Present Alicia Crank, Chair Susan McLaughlin, Development Services Director Roger Pence, Vice Chair Angie Feser, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director Matt Cheung Shannon Burley, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Deputy Director Todd Cloutier Michael Clugston, Senior Planner Judi Gladstone Steve Duh, Consultant with Parks Richard Kuehn Mike Rosen Lily Distelhorst (student rep) Board Members Absent None READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR PENCE, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER, TO APPROVE THE PARTIAL MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 26, 2022 MEETING AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA Chair Crank proposed moving the Administrative Report, Division Work Plan, to the 3/9 meeting to dedicate most of tonight's meeting to the public hearing. Vice Chair Pence commented that the department had published an RFQ that he was hoping to get an overview of tonight. The qualifications are due before the 3/9 retreat, and he thought this was part of the director's report. Director McLaughlin offered to do a quick summary of that. Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 23, 2022 Page 1 of 8 THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE THE ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM TO THE 3/9 RETREAT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A BRIEF SUMMARY REGARDING THE UPCOMING RFQ. THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS A. Division Work Plan Director McLaughlin reviewed the RFQ to develop public space typologies and public space activation strategies. This will be coming to the Planning Board for review and a recommendation to Council. Vice Chair Pence commented that the Planning Board needs to be more integrated in the process in general. He thought that one of them should be on the selection committee when choosing the consultant. Chair Crank suggested this would be a good topic to discuss at the Planning Board Retreat. PUBLIC HEARING A. 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Draft Plan Public Hearing Staff Presentation: Director Feser restated that there was a technical glitch at the 1/26 hearing so they are holding the hearing again. There have been quite a few public comments. Those have been included in the packet and forwarded to the Planning Board. She reviewed the format of the hearing and noted the goal was to have a recommendation tonight to the City Council. She pointed out a table of some comments received and suggested revisions. Consultant Steve Duh of Conservation Technix, Inc. gave an overview of the PROS Plan document with a PowerPoint presentation. He reviewed community feedback, the plan structure and content, key recommendations, and next steps. Director Feser reviewed the 2022 PROS Plan Capital Program with a listing of projects, timeline, estimated costs, and revenues. An illustration showing geographic location and timeline was shared with the Board. She also discussed revision considerations and limitations. Board Comments and Questions: Board Member Cloutier asked about the million -dollar grant that the City had turned down. Director Feser explained that Council voted not to accept the RCO grant for the Marina Beach Park project in January. Board Member Kuehn asked for more information about this. Director Feser explained the grant applications were very specific to this project at Marina Beach Park. Board Member Rosen noted he had strongly encouraged the Council to accept the money. His understanding was the Council thought it should be a bigger part of the marsh conversation and should be tied to the Unocal acquisition. He asked staff if there was a sense of what is next in this process. Director Feser explained the Unocal site is a Superfund site and is being cleaned up right now. Once it is cleaned up the Department of Transportation (DOT) will own the site. Her understanding is the DOT has no use for it. Last year the City Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 23, 2022 Page 2 of 8 acquired the first right of refusal for the property should it become available. There has been discussion about trying to create a marsh/estuary/restoration plan that would include this site, but the City is hesitant to move into this without being sure of the ownership of this property. She summarized they are in a holding pattern until a decision is made with the Unocal property. The Marina Beach Park project and Master Plan is at 30% currently and would be in consideration of the larger planning process. Board Member Kuehn asked if taking the grant money would have affected any other projects. Staff explained that it would not. Board Member Rosen asked if it would be acceptable to recommend that Council give this project a higher priority and move it up three years. This would give momentum to future plans and allow a phasing of any future project. Public Hearing: Natalie Seitz stated she had advocated for the Council rejecting the money because it would require $4 million of city funds to be put into a well-resourced area. She noted that the Council had talked at length about equity when they talked about that decision. She offered to provide her emails around this subject to the Board for consideration. She then commented that the PROS Plan identifies three neighborhood parks in South Edmonds/SR 99 with a total proposed investment of $8.1 million. This is less than the investment in the Civic Center, Cultural Corridor, and potential investment in the Unocal property each. The proposed investment in South Edmonds park would still leave the area with significantly lower per capita acreage in parks compared to other areas in Edmonds. She commented that the $3.89 million of proposed investments in the SR99 area only represents about $2 million above direct impact fees of GRE and pending land use applications. There is every indication that the per capita provision of parks will decrease over the next six year for the SR99 area. This is not equitable, will not keep up with growth, and does not provide investment that seeks to address the City's past lack of investment in this area. Every investment in the downtown area is a decision to continue to underserve eastern, lower income and more diverse residents of the city. She expressed concern about the disparity in park resources and urged the City to change its course and to benefit those who have not been equitably served. She doesn't support the revised Level of Service because it doesn't account for over 50 acres of park resources downtown and the resources the City provides to that area. It would prevent other areas from achieving community centers and park resources to support the commercial center of the city which is the SR99 corridor. Dr. Philo Calhoun suggested that Parks take over the management of Southwest County Park, noting that the County has been trying to give Edmonds the park for many years. The park has much more historic interest than other areas in town. It also has significant wildlife and is ecologically very important. If the City is serious about bringing salmon back to the Perrinville area it would make sense to take control of the park to control waterflow that goes in that area. It also is an area that currently has invasive species that affects the rest of Edmonds and is an area where there is petty crime, vandalism, and drug deals. Police and EMTs do not know the trails that go through the park. There is a lack of mapping of the trails in the park which results in people routinely getting lost. If there were an emergency the EMTs don't even know how to get to that area. The County only pays $8,000 a year for management of this, and the City can get 117 acres for free. The park is increasingly used and is one of the most beautiful parks in Edmonds. Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 23, 2022 Page 3 of 8 Selena Bollotin stated she sees very little mention in the Plan to the assets and value of Southwest County Park because it is a Snohomish County Park within the Edmonds city limits. One of the deficits of the Plan is there is not a specific goal to partner with parks in other jurisdictions to leverage assets for Edmonds residents. She referenced Lake Ballinger, Esperance, and Southwest County Park. She also supports acquisition of Southwest County Park as it is in full alignment with the goals of the PROS Plan, specifically to address the 74-acre open space target gap. There is no purchase cost for the park. Acquiring the park would increase Edmonds overall park acreage by 50%. Within the open space category Edmonds' parks would increase from 76 to almost 200 acres. Edmonds should acquire the park to be in control of the social, health, and environmental assets of the park. She noted the park is currently neglected, and invasive species are extensive, jeopardizing environmental aspects. Perrinville Creek watershed is within the park with extensive eroded areas. Formulas in the Level of Service in the Plan show a deficit in open space. She spoke to the value of the 120-acre park as an ecosystem as well as a repository of Edmonds logging and Native American history. She believes acquisition of this park would be a huge value to the City. She also is in favor of adding parks to underserved areas and does not believe this needs to be an either/or situation. She encouraged acquisition of the park as a goal in the PROS Plan. Jim Ogonowski, resident of Edmonds, agreed with previous speakers encouraging acquisition of Southwest County Park particularly considering the moving goalposts, changing metrics, and lowered standards in the PROS Plan. Regarding partnerships, he recommended partnering with the Edmonds School District for enhancements in playground facilities as was recently done with the Sherwood Elementary playground project. Likewise, Meadowdale Playfields are a prime example where they can partner to leverage funding to incorporate stormwater retention capabilities to help with the Perrinville erosion issues. He also thinks there should be partnerships with other disciplines such as Public Safety. Laurie Sorensen, resident of Edmonds, commended the PROS Plan and the complexity of the document. She thinks there should be more goals related to the restoration and protection of wildlife diversity. Regarding the surveys, she commented that they didn't really include young people and children, who are the ones who will be most impacted by extinction. Michael Ohman, resident of Edmonds, commented he has been volunteering in Southwest County Park since 2005 and working on removing invasive species. Southwest County Park is a piece of original native land and one of the last remaining pieces of Edmonds logging history. There are also miles of trails. It is currently under threat of invasive plants and a lot of erosion, especially in Perrinville Creek. However, the City doesn't have any control of it because it is a County park and doesn't get a lot of love and attention from the County. The park is currently underused; there is no mention of it on the Edmonds website; and there is a lack of signage and maps showing where the trails are, especially the trails on the north side of the park. The County wants to give the park to Edmonds, and maintenance costs would be low. He noted there would be no difference in the cost of policing because it is already the Edmonds police who respond to 911 calls in that area. He commented that at the last meeting they were pitted against underserved areas in south and southeast Edmonds. He did not think it was right to compare the two in this way since this would be getting 120 areas open space for free versus paying a couple million bucks for an acre or an acre and a half. They don't serve the same purpose. If this is managed correctly that size of the park should be the responsibility of developers. Joe Scordino, resident of Edmonds, commented that the PROS Plan is supposed to be a guide for managing and enhancing open spaces but is deficient in the whole arena of managing. Yost Park is an example of neglect and isn't even mentioned in the PROS Plan. He commented that the Plan seems to be totally focused on acquisitions at the expense of management of existing parks. He noted that the marine beaches have issues and they also Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 23, 2022 Page 4 of 8 weren't mentioned. He asked why the plan for the Marina Beach/marsh/Unocal project isn't in the PROS Plan. He pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan currently says that the Unocal property is for a multimodal facility (ferry terminal, etc.). The Comprehensive Plan also needs to be updated. He stated there is a lot of work that needs to be done on the PROS Plan before it is ready for approval. There have been a lot of other comments mentioned by residents that should be reflected in the Plan to manage and enhance the parks. Michael Ohman (again) agreed that they need to take care of what they have before they go after other stuff. If they lose these parks, they will never get them back. Susie Schaefer commented that Edmonds has large, special areas, such as the beach or marsh, which are special opportunities with wildlife and birds for everyone in the community to enjoy, regardless of where they live. Just focusing on placing parks in neighborhoods isn't enough. She referred to Meadowdale estuary restoration project and suggested that the City take notes on how the County did this in thinking about its own marsh project. Seeing no further comments, the public hearing was closed at 8:34 p.m. Board Deliberation: Board Member Cloutier thanked everyone for their comments. He referred to the metric of park acreage per thousand residents and noted that it would be impossible to spread this evenly throughout the city. The west side of Edmonds has the beach and the marsh as well as massive watershed areas and trails that cannot just be created in neighborhoods. He agreed that everyone should be able to walk to a park, but they are not going to be able to put in a beach or a watershed in these areas and it will never be the same acres per thousand people in these areas. He is interested in seeing what the real cost of Southwest County Park would be, but that is a separate issue from the PROS Plan. He asked Director Feser to address comments stating that maintenance isn't in the PROS Plan, noting that these are addressed even though the Board wasn't briefed. Director Feser commented that the PROS Plan is a broad document that includes a lot of things that they haven't had much discussion here. Goals, recommendations, and key recommendations must be general enough and flexible enough that they are applicable in the future and also leave the City open for opportunities. Very specific maintenance issues per park is not something that is done in this document. However, as an example, she noted that one of the recommendations for Yost Park is a Master Plan which would address the environmental issues they are having in the park in addition to usage and layout issues. Mr. Duh agreed that they are trying to take a systemwide approach with the goals and objectives. Maintenance or upkeep concerns tend to be addressed with the operational side. Board Member Gladstone expressed appreciation for all the comments. She asked how the marsh is referenced in the PROS Plan. Is there an objective to have a Master Plan? If so, does that provide a roadmap for accepting future grant opportunities like the Marina Beach Park improvements? Director Feser replied there is a recommendation within the Edmonds Marsh assessment in the Appendices that mentions work around a restoration plan. It is worded in such a way that if the Unocal property were acquired it would be included in the restoration plan as well as Marina Beach Park. She added that in response to comments, staff created a new section around Environmental Goals (Section 6). There is also more language around the marsh narrative. Board Member Gladstone asked if there has been any study done related to Southwest County Park on the costs of taking on ownership versus a partnership. Director Feser commented that staff would need time to put that Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 23, 2022 Page 5 of 8 information together if desired by the Board. She has had talks with the County, and the annual maintenance costs are not $8,000-9,000 as has been stated tonight. She thinks those are costs related to supplies and materials for the parks, not staffing, administration, management, or vehicles. They could also look at an interlocal agreement like they do with Lynnwood. This is a step beyond the PROS Plan. Board Member Gladstone asked if the County is open to an interlocal agreement. Director Feser was not sure. Vice Chair Pence asked if there is anything that could or should be added to the Plan to make the acquisition or improvements of Southwest County Park more likely to come about. Director Feser replied that it is adequately covered in the PROS Plan. Consideration of the park would be the next step. Board Member Rosen thanked people who spoke tonight. He spoke to the hundreds of comments they have received on this matter. Topics that he heard the loudest were related to the Underwater Park, the Southwest County Park, the marsh, and overall interest in the role of parks in the environment. Equity is an issue that cut through many others. He referred to the proposed language regarding the Underwater Park and asked if this was mainly looking at volunteerism. Director Feser explained the intent of this and offered to clarify this more. Board Member Rosen then referred to the Southwest County Park and stated he would like to send a message to Council that encourages exploring the feasibility of different options. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER ROSEN, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER KUEHN, TO RECOMMEND THAT CITY COUNCIL ADVISE STAFF TO EXPLORE WITH THE COUNTY THE FEASIBILITY OF DIFFERENT AGREEMENTS AND/OR ACQUISITION OF SOUTHWEST COUNTY PARK. Board Member Gladstone asked if this was separate from the table of recommendations. Board Member Rosen replied that it was. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Board Member Rosen referred to Marina Beach Park and suggested this be moved up in the timeline to 2024 or 2025. Director Feser she was not sure how it could be done any sooner without grant funding. She has it listed at the end of the timeline as a placeholder to keep it active. Board Member Rosen clarified he was more concerned with sending a message that it was important to get it going than the actual date. Board Member Gladstone asked if they had to have the marsh planning done before the Marina Beach Park. She also wondered how this would impact other items that are earlier in the timeline. Director Feser commented that project is solely Marina Beach Park. She discussed the need to daylight Willow Creek, which is currently underground, and how this relates to Marina Beach Park planning. Board Member Gladstone asked how this would impact other projects. Director Feser indicated this would require some staff work to sort out. Board Member Kuehn expressed appreciation for all the public comments and spoke in support of exploring options for the Southwest County Park. Chair Crank asked if there were comments they received that are not in scope of discussion for the PROS Plan. Mr. Duh generally reviewed this and noted that certain operational items are good to hear about but are not part of the PROS Plan. Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 23, 2022 Page 6 of 8 Board Member Rosen asked about the request to Cascadia Art Museum to the list of art and cultural facilities and organizations on page 35. Director Feser commented that would be included in the next version. Board Member Gladstone asked how much would be changed before sending it to Council. Director Feser replied that everything on the table would be included as well as a few minor additions such as the name of a group or facility as mentioned above. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER ROSEN, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROS PLAN VERSION 4 INCLUDING THE REVISIONS SUGGESTED IN THE ATTACHED TABLE AND SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE BOARD TONIGHT. Board Member Gladstone referred to 3(b) in the table and commented that the metrics need to be specific to the Parks although they may be in coordination with the Climate Action Plan. She suggested using verbiage like "in coordination with the Climate Action Plan". She then referred to 4(b) and recommended revision 8.7 read "Support and promote volunteerism ..." She also recommended deleting the second sentence. Board Member Rosen also referred to 8.7 and recommended language about formalizing relationships with community partners, as opposed to just making it about volunteerism. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Director Feser thanked the Board for all their hard work. Chair Crank thanked staff and the consultant for their tremendous amount of work on this item. She also thanked the public for the wonderful involvement and encouraged them to stay involved in the process. AUDIENCE COMMENTS None UNFINISHED BUSINESS None PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Crank reviewed upcoming items. Board Member Gladstone suggested adding some items that Vice Chair Pence had asked for briefings on into the extended agenda. Chair Crank explained that some of the items would be addressed at the Board Retreat on March 9 as well as the work plan. Vice Chair Pence commented that the extended agenda can be fleshed out at the retreat because they will have feedback from departments about what they can handle. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS None Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 23, 2022 Page 7 of 8 PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Crank thanked everyone for all their time and hard work. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:27 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 23, 2022 Page 8 of 8