Loading...
2021-10-13 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Virtual Meeting Via Zoom October 13, 2021 Chair Rosen 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 Mike Rosen, Chair Alicia Crank, Vice Chair Roger Pence Richard Kuehn Judi Gladstone Matt Cheung STAFF PRESENT Eric Engmann, Planning Division Rob Chave, Planning Division Angie Feser, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Shannon Burley, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Robert English, Public Works OTHER PRESENTERS PRESENT BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Steve Toy, Snohomish County Todd Cloutier (excused) Nathan Monroe (excused) Chair Rosen: Calls the meeting to order. Matt Cheung: Reads Land Acknowledgement. Eric Engmann: Does roll call. Present: Rosen, Crank, Pence, Kuehn, Gladstone, Cheung. Excused Absence: Cloutier, Monroe. Introduces Angie Feser, Director of Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services; Shannon Burley, Deputy Director of Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services; Rob Chave, Planning Manager; Robert English, City Engineer; Steve Toy, Snohomish County Principal Demographer. Approval of Minutes Chair Rosen: Discusses the minutes from September 22nd. Asks for comments (none) then for a motion (moved for approval and seconded). Motion to Adopt the September 22nd Minutes. Motion Passes 5-1, J. Gladstone opposed. Announcement of the Agenda Chair Rosen: Discusses the meeting agenda format. Asks if the simplified agenda from the last meeting can be used instead. Eric Engmann: Asks to retain the longer agenda format for the time being. Staff is reevaluating the formats for all boards and committees. Chair Rosen: Discusses the agenda. Thanks Steve Toy for returning to discuss the Buildable Lands Report. Audience Comments Chair Rosen: Introduced audience comments and asks if anyone wishing to speak. Eric Engmann: States Natalie Seitz is in the audience Natalie Seitz: Comments on the Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement Plan. • Struck by the number of facilities in the bowl downtown, it even needs an inset map. • Noticed that the downtown lighting improvements were not shown on the map. • The planned improvements in the SR99 Corridor go well beyond the six -year timeframe which gives the impression of more investment in this area than is planned. • Questions the basis for Mathay-Ballinger Park being described as "underutilized." • Mentions green storm water infrastructure at Mathay-Ballinger can take away from active recreation space. Asks about ways to mitigate the loss of recreation during construction. • Requests sidewalk improvement projects be extended to Mathay-Ballinger. (No other public comment) Administrative Reports - Snohomish County Buildable Lands Program Chair Rosen: Introduces Steve Toy to discuss the Buildable Lands Report. Planning Board Minutes October 13, 2021 Page 2 Steve Toy: Introduces himself and thanks the Board for the opportunity to speak. What is the Buildable Lands Report (BLR) and How is it Used? • County Council adopted the Buildable Lands Report on 9/8/21. • Buildable Land Report is required by the Growth Management Act for seven Washington counties. • The report looks back at how implementation of GMA cognitive plans and zoning for growth accommodation and densities is performing. • It requires a periodic evaluation of the urban densities, and based on those densities, looks at the adequacy of the remaining urban capacity for accommodating the adopted growth targets. • It relies on a centralized data processing GIS system approach using the County's GIS resources. • It is the central repository for the buildable lands information and a comprehensive report or all 20 cities and unincorporated areas in the county. • Discusses how COVID affected the report process. 2021 BLR Mapping for City of Edmonds • Discusses how the parcels are categorized in the model to estimate buildable land capacity. • Compared this model to the growth targets in 2035 assess growth capacity. • Most of Edmonds is a green color, which means there isn't an anticipated change of land use or intensity on those sites up to 2035. • Uses zoning and future land use designations to determine density. • The 99 Corridor is a source of a significant portion of the city's additional capacity, also Edmonds Way and the Westgate area. • These same areas have a larger amount of employment capacity. • Mentions that CG zoning changes, since 2018, are factored into the density assumptions going forward. • Shows the 3D mapping to visualize buildable densities. • Discusses specific developments that are shown on the map. • Discusses the differences between what was predicted and what was developed. • Developments are coming in at higher densities than predicted in Edmonds and across the County. • Edmonds is shown as having adequate redevelopment area to handle population and employment growth to 2035. Mentions that this is a summary and asks for any questions. Chair Rosen: Thanks Steve and ask the Board if they have questions. Roger Pence: Has a few questions and was the advocate for holding this session. Planning Board Minutes October 13, 2021 Page 3 • Appreciates the verification that Edmonds has the existing capacity to absorb the expected or desired population growth out to 2035 and will watch the 2044 projections to see how things develop. • Asks Steve to explain the green (single-family) area which is defined as constant/replacement. What does that mean? Steve Toy: States the constant/replacement means that there is no net increase in residential capacity anticipated on those parcels. There may be tear downs but is neutral in capacity. Roger Pence: States the downtown area jumps out as an issue. • Area is mostly shown as blue, which means redevelopable. • States that isn't how he sees downtown, asks for that to be explained. Steve Toy: States that it is potentially redevelopable. • It passes the test regarding the relationship between building assessed value and land assessed value; the land is worth more than the building. • States that may not adequately address conditions in Central Edmonds, but that's the reason. Rob Chave: States that the market factors aren't equally distributed around the city. • Some blue areas may be more redevelopable. • Notes that downtown is a bit different. • Mentions the downtown rents, height limitations, and high property costs there. • Even though they show as blue areas, it's not necessarily be very redevelopable. Roger Pence: States that his stance is that they are older buildings, but not obsolete. Provides an example of how older buildings in Seattle are being reused. Rob Chave: States that this information is very hard to predict, especially in a 10-to-20-year timeframes. Market conditions can change. Steve Toy: Provides the example of the CG zoning changes, and how that changed the market conditions over time. Lists other examples in surrounding cities. Chair Rosen: Asks for any other questions. (none) Thanks him for his time and helping to understand the methodology and usage of the Report. Rob Chave: Mentions that this analysis will be an important piece of information for the 2024 Comprehensive Plan update. States that an additional positive takeaway from Steve's presentation was seeing development densities outpace projections. New Business - Presentation of Proposed 2022-2027 Capital Facilities Plan & Capital Improvement Program Planning Board Minutes October 13, 2021 Page 4 Chair Rosen: Introduces the new item. Angie Feser: Mentions Public Works will present first, then Parks. Discusses how questions and answers can be done between each presentation. Robert English: Provides background on the 2022 to 2027 Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) and Capital Improvement Program (CIP). • CFP projects are new projects, projects that increase, or expand existing services to address growth. • This is done on a six year and 20-year horizon. • The CIP projects includes those CFP projects plus maintenance projects; provides some examples. • The format has changes to consolidate both documents into one, based on Angie's previous experiences. • Public Works includes transportation, water, storm water, sewer, wastewater treatment plant projects, and facility projects. • Also includes a citywide project map and is organized depending on whether it is in the CFP or the CIP. Explains components of the CFP. • The decision package numbers for the 2022 budget are information given to City Council. • There's a project description, the benefits the project provides, and the justification. • Each project has an estimated total project cost. • It includes the anticipated revenue that's offsetting the expenditure. • A table identifies the planned expenditures by phase. • When funding is secured, we identify it as having financial funds, grant funding, or other source. • Many projects were unsecured. They're important projects but haven't been able to secure funding at this point. 2022 Transportation Projects Grouping • In 2022, there is $1.5 million programmed for the pavement preservation program. That would pave six lane miles of city streets and add ten new ADA ramps. • Discusses the joint project with the City of Lynnwood on 761h Avenue between 196th Street to Olympic View. 2022 Safety and Capacity Projects • A big focus is on the Highway 99 Corridor. The Highway 99 revitalization and gateway project are in the design phase. Going into construction in 2022. That's why the program amount is $7.6 million. It's a safety project to minimize the accidents occurring from that two-way left turn lane. • Also adds a hawk signal for pedestrian crossing just north of 234th Street and Planning Board Minutes October 13, 2021 Page 5 gateway signage at either end of the city limits. • Stages 3 and 4, are going into the design phase in 2022. Stage 3 is the very southern segment between 244th Street up to 238th Street. Stage 4, the portion between 224tb and 220th Street, received a federal grant to begin the design phase. • Another project in design is the 76th/220th intersection improvements. That will continue into 2022. • Another project is the State Route 104 adoptive system. This will coordinate five traffic signals along State Route 104 to improve the timing and coordination of the signal system. That's moving into the design phase in 2022. • The other two programs replace guard rails and make traffic signal upgrades. 2022 Active Transportation Projects and Planning • Several large projects being pursued in 2022. • The citywide bicycle improvements project is another project to build bike lanes within the city. It won a grant from the Sound Transit. • The Elm Way Walkway is a new sidewalk between 81h and 9th Avenue and over $900,000 going into construction. • The transportation plan update was last updated in 2015 and going to start the process in 2022. Hoping to get lot of public input and comment on that plan. • Traffic calming program will continue in 2022. • Pedestrian safety programs include funding rectangular rapid flashing beacon signs with flashing lights to cross busy streets. • The citywide pedestrian improvement project includes Main Street and adds a crosswalk and RFBs (rapid flashing beacons). 2022 Water Utility • $2.1 million per round for construction, that would be around 4,000 to 5,000 lineal feet as replacement. Will start design for the 2023 program. • Assessing the Yost and Seaview reservoirs to evaluate maintenance needs. 2022 Stormwater Utility • The first two replace old, deteriorated pipe or undersized pipe within the city. $1.45 million set for this program in 2022. • The Edmonds Marsh water quality improvements are continuing to design in 2022 to add water treatment to the catch basins along State Route 104. • The Perrinville Creek Basin projects, three are planned within our basin. The first one is a flow management project, mostly rain gardens to keep runoff out of Perrinville and reduce some of those peak storm water flows within the creek. • Lower Perrinville Creek restoration is going to be a much larger project in the upcoming years. • Seaview Park Infiltration Phase 2. This is a state grant project. Phase 1 was built a couple of years ago. Will go into construction in 2022 and add onto the infiltration facility up there. The purpose is to take some of that runoff out of the Perrinville Creek system. Planning Board Minutes October 13, 2021 Page 6 • Lake Ballinger Regional Facility will continue with design in 2022. That's an infiltration facility looking at infiltration options to reduce the flows into Lake Ballinger. • Green street and rain gardens. The primary source of funding was related to COVID. It allows opportunities for bioretention and rain gardens and to try to take care of the storm water runoff and water quality. • Storm water overlays are used to overlay streets that have been cut by the replacement program. • Going to have the storm and surface water comprehensive plan update starting in 2022. 2022 Sewer Utility • Mainly a replacement program. • Also have the pipe rehabilitation program, where we rehabilitate the pipe from the inside. • We have the sewer line overlays that extend on the other two utilities. 2022 Wastewater Treatment Plant • The capital replacement projects, are a maintenance program to keep everything up and running at the plant. Public Works and Utilities - Facilities Mentions the facility project sheets in the packet aren't complete. Will have them updated before the public hearing. It includes the list of locations or facilities that the city maintains. City council acted earlier in the year to bond for $4.4 million to take care of some of the backlogged maintenance on these facilities. Takes questions on the Public Works portion of the presentation. Chair Rosen: Thanks Rob for reducing 115 pages to a few slides and for the presentation. Asks if the Board has questions. Judi Gladstone: Has a few questions. • Asks about the order for the priority rankings and years they are shown. • Asks why some lower ranked sidewalk projects are shown earlier than higher priorities that are farther back. Robert English: States that is part of the challenge, especially on walkway projects. The difficulty is finding a funding source within the local city funds to pay for those projects. Typically, sidewalk projects are built with securing grants. The priority doesn't necessarily mean that's how they are scored on a grant competition. Provides examples. Judi Gladstone: Asks if most of the grants are state or federal. Notes that some sidewalks pushed Planning Board Minutes October 13, 2021 Page 7 out are sidewalks on more well -traveled roads where they become safety hazards. Asks about the capacity in the utility CFPs for the transportation projects. Is interested in the impacts on utilities because there are utility relocation costs associated with many transportation projects. (Dialogue between Judi and Rob to better understand the question) Judi Gladstone: Is there capacity within the utility CIP to accommodate those utility projects or are they going to hold up the transportation projects? Or will it delay other water projects or other sewer projects because the transportation projects come first? Robert English: Yes. The monies that are generated, is put into the water main, storm water, or sewer replacement programs. When a transportation project begins and it is largely funded by the grant, the replacement program monies are pulled out of those programs to upgrade the utilities within that transportation project. It could be upgrading the size of the water main or replacing it because of age. Doing it all as one project because that's the most efficient way to handle it. Judi Gladstone: Asks about the money allocated for the transportation plan. • Seems like half as much as allocated for the storm water plan • Asks about the level of analysis anticipated for the transportation plan, since most projects are pushed so far out. • Mentions the amount of analysis needed to meet growth demands; the order of the projects matters. Robert English: Mentions it is based on the costs for the two previous plans (2010 and 2015). • Increased the funding to account for some inflation. • Will know more once the consultant is selected and develops the scope of work. • Feels it is a reasonable funding number based on the previous history. Judi Gladstone: Asks why the transportation plan cost is about half that of the drainage or storm water plan. Robert English: Mentions the storm water plan involves modeling that is more complex and expensive than in the transportation plan. Part of the programing is the potential to do some basin modeling and storm water projections. The transportation plan also has a modeling component, but it's the detail in the storm water plan that gets expensive. Judi Gladstone: Says that makes sense. Will look forward to seeing both of those plans. Mentions it will be good for the Planning Board to look at it, in terms of the vision for the city. Roger Pence: Mentions the Elm Way Walkway, one block between 8th and 91h avenue, and the Planning Board Minutes October 13, 2021 Page 8 $900,000 cost. Asks why the cost is so high. Robert English: Mentions the cost is based on the 30% design estimate generated by the consultant. • States that it is the cost of building sidewalks and that why it is difficult to fund sidewalk projects. • Mentions it is also the management, inspection, and documentation that's required to get the project to completion. So, it also includes staff and consultant time. Roger Pence: Asks if it included the conventional curb and gutter. Robert English: Confirms. Roger Pence: Asks to consider some less expensive ways of providing pedestrian safety on some streets. Chair Rosen: Asks about the time gap for sidewalks projects that don't show up until 2025. Robert English: Talks about the timing of projects on the CIP timeline. • Projects within that three-year horizon have realistic this is secured or expected to be secured. • Projects that don't have any funding yet, are put in the back three years of the plan. • Projects can move up if successful grant applications are received. Chair Rosen: Asks that this information be included in the presentation for the public hearing. Thinks it sends a good message that you don't plan to spend money you don't and shows fiscal responsibility Asks about the downtown lighting. Why there, is it to address a safety issue, is it to increase walkability in the early evening? Robert English: States the downtown lighting project has been in the plans for several years and was added because of the high volume of pedestrians. Needs to be shown because of potential funding from Sound Transit associated with the area around the station. Chair Rosen: Asks about the Perrinville flooding. Will the project fix the problem, including in an extreme event? Robert English: Mentions that Perrinville Creek is a system that is overtaxed in higher rain events. • This project will not completely solve the problem, and not for extreme events. • This will help address some constraints at the lower end of Perrinville Creek. • The mayor set aside some ARPA (American Rescue Plan Act) money for that project. • Also has funding to address some of the upper reaches to try to reduce intake. Mentions it is a complex system with a lot of inputs. Planning Board Minutes October 13, 2021 Page 9 Has talked with Lynnwood about contributing and updating their storm water code to address some of the issue within their city limits. Reiterates that staff is working on solutions to help. Chair Rosen: Mentions that they talked last year about pipe replacement at 1 % per yet. Asks if they are still using the 100-year replacement plan? Robert English: Mentions this was primarily focused on the water main replacement program. This would replace one percent a year, which equates about a mile of replacement for the waterline program. Chair Rosen: Asks to share that information clearly so the public understands the reality and the constraints. Asks how many rapid flashing signs r20,000.00 buys. Robert English: States that it is about two if city crews install them, $7,000 to $10,000 per crossing. It is almost double if a contractor does it, more like $15,000. Chair Rosen: Asks for question from the other Board members. Roger Pence: Discusses lighting in the Westgate district. Talks about the standards for lighting for a major intersection in State Highway 104. Asks how to get adequate lighting on a major spot like that. Robert English: Mentions there are sometimes opportunities on existing utility poles to add lights. He can talk with Street Operations to look for opportunities. Reiterates that he will have a conversation see what evaluation has been done at that intersection. Roger Pence: Would like to see it addressed. Mentions the difficulty with getting PUD to replace a burned -out light there for years. Judi Gladstone: Asks about the $500,000 contributed from the general fund in 2022 but nothing from the general fund moving forward. Asks if this is typical or could $500,000 be used in the future to fund a sidewalk project. Robert English: Mentions the challenge in balancing the different needs that a city must fund. • The general fund isn't typically used for large contributions to capital improvements. • There was no contribution last year, they are very fortunate this year. • Council still has to approve this $500,000 in the budget, so it isn't finalized yet. • Mentions it is great to add sidewalks but there are also streets and existing sidewalks to maintain with very limited funding. Judi Gladstone: Asks if this is typical in other cities. Planning Board Minutes October 13, 2021 Page 10 Robert English: Mentions that it is pretty typical. Provides some examples of minor differences. Chair Rosen: Asks for any more questions for Rob (none). Asks for Angie and Shannon to begin their presentation. Parks Portion of the CFP/CIP Presentation. Angie Feser: Introduces herself and Shannon Burley. Will share the parks component of the CIP/CFP. • Mentions they are completing the 2022 PROS Plan. It will be discussed with the Planning Board starting in November. • There will be a CFP and CIP plan readjustment and adopted based on the community priorities through that process. Deferred Maintenance/Capital Replacement Program • This is an inventory of the status of the Parks system. • There is a lot of deferred maintenance, they are focusing safety projects or playgrounds. • The pool also requires a lot of attention • There are infrastructure projects like the surfaces of parking lots, trails, and courts. • These need to be identified and mapped out for deferred maintenance and future upkeep. 2022-2027 Parks CIP/CFP Framework • Discusses how the CFP and CIP are set up. • Shows the ties to the City's Comp Plan via reference. • Started mapping out projects based on the timing and resources they need. • Mentions there are some projects that don't have a dollar amount associated with them and are pushed way out. The purpose for showing them is long-term planning. • Discusses the map of park projects and their geographic distribution. Acknowledges that there are a lot of resources spend in the bowl area. Will hope to address that better in the PROS Plan. • Shows that the items are now project based rather than funding based. • The projects closer to 2022 and 2023 have a lot more detail and a lot more accurate cost estimates than those in the later years. • There are nine true capital projects, those in the CIP in the category called the CIP projects which are more general. • Mentions the new CIP identified the revenue sources and funding allocation through the six years. Mentions the sources of the funding. • REET funds and park impact fees are really important. • Mentions the new tree fund that is tied to land acquisition. Planning Board Minutes October 13, 2021 Page 11 • There are no general fund monies for their CIP. • There are a couple of other sources; donations, bonds, secured grants, and unsecured grants. • The bottom of the sheet shows the "cashflow" of the program. The beginning fund balance of each year plus the revenue minus the expenditures then have ending fund balance. • Mentions Shannon did a lot of work to reformat this. Civic Center Playfield (Audio goes out) • Well under way, started in August. • The entire budget is $13.7 million right now and $4 million of that is for this year. 2022 allocation of $9.7 million. • Mentions there are many revenue sources for this project. Marina Beach Part Improvements • A renovation to better serve the community. • Accommodates the new alignment for Willow Creek. • Includes a new parking lot configuration, overlooks areas, permanent restrooms, upgraded play area, improved ADA access, a loop trail system including two pedestrian bridges that go over Willow Creek and into the off -leash dog park area. • A new area for personal watercraft staging and launching. • Retaining the huge existing beach and driftwood area as well as the off -leash dog area. • Going to provide a lot of environmental education opportunities in this park with Willow Creek and someday have salmon come through that creek. • Awarded two grants for a total of $1 million and estimating that this project is close to $6 million. • Mapped it out over the years of when they'll be finishing the design work and moving into construction. 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor • Still needs the final phase of design as well as construction. • Will be a pedestrian friendly and art enhanced corridor in the public right of way that it creates a strong visual connection from Main Street to Edmonds Center for the Arts along 4th Avenue. • Funding has not been secured at this time but earmark and map out what it might take to make this project happen. • This project is a priority for the state certification for the creative district and the City's cultural plan. Playground Upgrade Program • City maintains 15 playgrounds and only 2 of them are fully inclusive. • Mentions the Sierra Park playground, slated for 5 to 12-year-olds which is part of Planning Board Minutes October 13, 2021 Page 12 a functioning capital replacement program. • This process will include regularly scheduled updates to playgrounds, many are more than 35 years old. • There will be an annual allocation of $175,000 to upgrade playgrounds. • A part of the Mayor's initiative is to not just meet ADA, but to have inclusive level design. Yost Pool Repair • Was built 50 years ago and will have a 50-year celebration. • Needs to have its plaster lining replaces as part of a 10-year routine maintenance. Waterfront Walkway Completion- Ebb Tide Section • Mentions that it is known as the Missing Link. • It's the one missing area in a mile that connects Brackets Landing North down to Marina Beach Park. • Currently doesn't have ADA accommodation and requires people to go down onto the beach cross the sand and then back up. • This section of walkway would be constructed within the city owned easement. • The walkway in front of the condos, the easement, and the design are currently under legal review. • It will be a few years before it is finished, shoreline permits are reviewed, and the project has been approved. Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration • Would reconnect Puget Sound with the marsh and restore the natural tidal exchange. • Also impacts the proposed Marina Beach project, where Willow Creek comes in underneath the railroad. • Supports salmon recovery and improves water quality and habitat. • Helps to address sea level rise impacts. • Is an opportunity for recreation tourism and environmental educational. • This project is listed here because it might be in Park's CIP program. • Mentions this has been passionately debates of the last few years and that is why it is listed here without park funding. • Mentions the funding exists in the Public Works CIP and CFP. Community Park and Athletic Complex Phase 2 (CFP Only) • Mentions there are great grant opportunities for partnership in the renovation. • Are really two projects, one adds lighting to the Phase 1 improvements and the second is creating a multi -sport athletic field to increase usage. • Serves a densely populated area of 150,000 residents within a 5-mile radius of the site. • First phase was completed in 2015 for about $4 million. Planning Board Minutes October 13, 2021 Page 13 • Estimates for Phase 2 are about $6 to $8 million. Parks and Facilities Maintenance Building (CFP Only) It is undersized for the work being done there (mower repair, welding flower baskets, etc.) Also has a locker room, a meeting room, and is the only office space for the park's lead. Citywide Park Improvements/ Capital Replacement Program Mentions another component of the CIP is combining all the small projects into one category. It adjusted the CIP to have one fund for all these citywide improvements and capital replace programs required by our entire park system. • Discusses the Deferred Maintenance Program and how it contains a list with projects. • This is important to identify insufficiently maintained park and reduce higher maintenance costs down the road. • Delayed maintenance can increase the city's liability. • It helps achieve PROS Plan Goal 7, which is to provide a high quality and efficient level of maintenance service for all parks and facilities. • $155,000 is allocated in 2022. • Will need some time to get fully organized and get future projects laid out. • By 2023, that money is bumped up to $450,000 to work on these projects. Beautification Program • It has an annual budget of $21,000 and support irrigation and mulch many areas of the city. • The program is highly supported by volunteers. • Additional funding is supplied by the Basket and Corner Parks sponsorship, which contributes about $19,000 per year. Park and Open Space Acquisition Program • Based on community priorities for open spaces. • Allocation of about $700,000 reserved through 2021 REET funding. • Tree code funds will also help with this. Estimates are about $200,000 a year from fee -in -lieu and the fines. • The City is working on a few acquisitions, but they are still confidential until the approval of purchase. Finishes the presentation and thanks the Board. Takes questions on the Parks portion of the presentation. Chair Rosen: Thanks Angie and Shannon for the great presentation. Vice Chair Crank: Appreciates the streamlining of the presentation and having the two reports Planning Board Minutes October 13, 2021 Page 14 together. Recognizes the amount of work it took. Roger Pence: Asks if the Port is contributing to the marsh estuary restoration. Angie Feser: Reiterates that they don't have money earmarked for the restoration. Robert English: Isn't aware of any contributions by the Port. Roger Pence: Asks about the Missing Link at the Ebb Tide. • Is it in litigation? • Is the issue with the Ebb Tide Condominium? Shannon Burley: Mentions the litigation is about the easement itself. • The easement has been validated, but there are questions the easement being used to build a raised walkway. • Currently being disputed by the Ebb Tide Condominium Association. Roger Pence: Mentions the city's powers of eminent domain to acquire the legal rights to provide that pedestrian access. Shannon Burley: Mentions they are currently trying a different method. Judi Gladstone: Appreciates the connection to the goals of the plan. • Asks about the long-term planning and maintenance of Yost Pool. • Asks if there is clean up money available for the Chevron property by the marsh. Angie Feser: Mentions the Yost Pool is 50 years old and there was a feasibility study in 2009 to look at alternatives for renovations or a new pool. • The PROS plan process shows support for a new pool and aquatic facility. The next round of engagement will look at those options. • Mentions they are looking at indoor vs. outdoor facilities and the big price tag attached. • Looking at ways to keep the current pool operational. Shannon Burley: Mentions the $175,000 project is very specific and it's rather large. The $450,000 programmed for other projects that would be used if something broke down or needed repair. Angie Feser: Mentions needing $10,000 to $15,000 a year to fix the pool. This is part of the citywide improvement funds to account for the uncertainty. Mentions the marsh property has a long history. • Half the area is owned by Chevron and was going to be sold to WSDOT for the future ferry landing. Planning Board Minutes October 13, 2021 Page 15 • WSDOT has decided not to use that land for a new ferry landing. • The site is in the process of clean up from oil contamination. • It can't be turned over to WSDOT until the Dept. of Ecology deems it clean enough. • The City will have right of first refusal if it is available for sale. • Asks Rob English if he has anything to add. (He does not) • Mentions there's associated with the Willow Creek and Shelleberger Creek project, but they can't really design it if they don't own it. Richard Kuehn: Asks about the process to make upgrades at the parks. What is the process to choose these upgrades? Angie Feser: States that it is part of the PROS Plan. • It's going to help identify community priorities and reallocate resources. • Some of it is age, safety, and ensuring equitable distribution across the city. • Mentions the PROS Plan will help represent the entire community rather than focus the improvements in one area. Richard Kuehn: Mentions that Spokane has done a great job with community engagement and inclusivity with their parks. Talks about signage emphasizing people making comments on preferences. Angie Feser: Mentions that Spokane is her hometown and remembers the '74 Expo at Riverfront Park. Is familiar with the whole project. Matt Cheung: Enjoys these parks conversations because it is big draws for Edmonds. Asks about hearing that there are $100,000 for repairs this year but then $400,000 after. Would like to know the reason. Angie Feser: Mentions a lot of the current funding is going into a project downtown. • Talks about the small team to do park planning. • Involves identifying future projects, prioritizing them, getting bid documents ready, and have them ready. • They hope to have a dedicated park planner in next year's budget. • Sees 2023 the timeframe they'll have the resources in place to utilize that extra funding on projects. Matt Cheung: Asks if they consider engaging the volunteers to assist with parks? Shannon Burley: Mentions they rely on the community to help us maintain the City's parks. Pre- COVID, they averaged 30 volunteer projects a year at parks. Chair Rosen: Asks about the 4th Avenue corridor. Understands that there is no money but asks what it would take to get that moving. Planning Board Minutes October 13, 2021 Page 16 Angie Feser: Mentions the challenge is funding and that the next phase to finish the design. Believes it has an $8 million estimate to do the work. States they need to finish the design, get construction documents, get a bid, then comes construction. States that it is very specific and grant funding is challenging, it isn't really eligible for transportation or park grants. Asks Shannon to confirm the current design level, 60% or 30%. Shannon: Believes it is at 30% design. The goal was to try and secure economic development type grants for the project. Mentions the challenge of using utility funds because, after opening the street, there were few utilities there. Chair Rosen: Asks about the Missing Link. It has a date and is expressed as Plan A and Plan B. Asks about the confidence level that this is a reasonable amount of time to resolve this. Angie Feser: Believes this is correct. Mentions the has had a legal component and was paused because of COVID related reasons. States that it is back on the schedule for next year. Chair Rosen: Asks about the beautification projects that have uniform numbers spread out over the years. How is that flat number assessed, given inflation? Angie Feser: Mentions it is generally a place holder and it comes down to sponsorships. There have been more baskets created at corner parks and are part of the new landscaping needed for street improvement projects. Mentions they should probably look at increasing resources and funding because there has been more demand. Provides an example of the roundabout at Five Corners, it requires a significant amount of maintenance. Chair Rosen: Asks why the greenhouse was removed from this year's list. Mentions that it was important during last year's CFP because it was failing Angie Feser: Mentions they've been working on, but it needs a variance. They're not sure if they can get it down and rebuilt in time for next year after getting the variance approval. There are also issues with the bids. This will probably carry forward to next year's budget. Chair Rosen: Thanks Rob, Angie, and Shannon and asks them to pass the thanks along to the people they work with. Says the work shown tonight is a testimony to all the things that they do. Angie Feser: Talks about how she brought forward this new format for the CIP and how Parks and Public Works worked together. Mentions the work of Rob English and the many hours Shannon put in. Planning Board Minutes October 13, 2021 Page 17 Robert English: Says he'll pass along the comments to his staff and appreciates it. He's very proud of what they can do with the limited they have. Roger Pence: Asks about the sign on SR 104. Saw a little movement a couple of months ago then it stopped. Angie Feser: States the project started on September 13th. Everything was started then they found a sewer line where the sign would be. That requires a redesign and relocation of the sign and other components. The sign company is scheduled for September 25th. Judi Gladstone: Asks if private funding is ever considered. Angie Feser: Mentions they work with a lot of donations and grants. Have a policy that organizations paying more than half the price of the improvement can have it named. Lists several of the companies and organizations they've worked with. Chair Rosen: Asks for any other comments. (none) Will be ready for the public hearing at the next meeting. New Business — Code Amendment to update Residential Occupancy Standards. Chair Rosen: Introduces Eric to discuss the next item. Eric Engmann: Offers to move the Residential Occupancy Code Amendment introduction to the next meeting. Mentions that there has already been a lot of information shared tonight. Leaves it up to the Board to make the decision to move it. Chair Rosen: Asks if the Board has a preference. Judi Gladstone: Appreciates the offer and would entertain the postponement, given the hour. Matt Cheung: Mentions the next meeting contains a public hearing and two code amendments. Asks how long that meeting is estimated to take. If two hours, then it makes sense to add this onto that agenda. Eric Engmann: States that moving the Residential Occupancy slides to the next meeting won't take much extra time. Chair Rosen: Agrees to move it to the next agenda. Extended Agenda Planning Board Minutes October 13, 2021 Page 18 Chair Rosen: Mentions the extended agenda was sent out separately. Asks if anyone has any questions. Roger Pence: Mentions the upcoming public hearing on the CFP/CIP. Feels the notice in the Everett Herald will only be read by a few people. Would like much more information shared on upcoming public hearings. Chair Rosen: Asks staff to be as aggressive as possible in informing the public. • Suggests using social media platforms to spread the word. • Talks about the Board being proactive, such as writing letters to the editor. • Reiterates the role of the city in making the public as engages as possible. Roger Pence: Says that a press release should be sent to the Beacon and My Edmonds News and the Herald and that there is a PIO to help. Rob Chave: Mentions all agendas are sent to the newspapers. Roger Pence: Says that the public hearing is only one element of that agenda. Unless the public hearing is highlighted, we're depending on them to read the whole thing to find that one item. States that should do better. Vice Chair Crank: Reiterates that, just because it is sent, it doesn't mean they're going to publish it. Asks to make sure that the Board is not putting all the onus on whether or not it is in the paper because many times, they just don't run it. Rob Chaves: Confirms staff can't predict what the paper will run. Judi Gladstone: Mentions that the extended agenda seems packed. Asks staff to be aware of trying to put too much into one meeting so that everything can get proper attention. Matt Cheung: Mentions the PROS Plan is on there twice. Angie Feser: States there will only be one discussion in the upcoming meetings. But there will be a department update too. They can be flexible with the schedule. Rob Chave: Will coordinate with Angie and Rob about how much time they will need and reassess the schedule. Comments for the Good of the Order Chair Rosen: Asks for comments for the good of the order. Eric Engmann: Mentions the web link for the new code update page. People can go to www.edmondswa.gov/codeupdates. Asks the Board to look and provide feedback. Planning Board Minutes October 13, 2021 Page 19 Rob Chave: Mentions City Council approved a contract for the new Development Services director, who starts on November 16th. Chair Rosen: Asks for any other comments from staff or the Board. (none) Offers a couple of updates. • There is an opening on the Planning Board — help spread the word. • The Board received an application for student participant. The Chair and vice chair will meet with her, then possibly forward the nomination to the group. • Community meeting this Saturday (10/16) at 1 pm to participate in the process of creating future parks. • The Department of Corrections is looking to expand their work release program in Snohomish County. Nine potential sites have been identified and all but one has fallen through. The site in Mountain Lake Terrace but borders Edmonds. They are not moving forward at this point, just feasibility. Adjournment The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:51 p.m. Planning Board Minutes October 13, 2021 Page 20