Loading...
2023-09-27 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Hybrid Meeting September 27, 2023 Chair Gladstone called the hybrid meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. at Edmonds City Hall and on Zoom. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES The Land Acknowledgement was read by Board Member Maxwell. Board Members Present Staff Present Judi Gladstone, Chair Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Lauren Golembiewski Rob English, City Engineer Richard Kuehn (online) Mike De Lilla, Senior Utilities Engineer Susanna Martini Angie Feser, Parks, Recreation, & Human Services Director Nick Maxwell Shannon Burley, Parks, Recreation, & Human Services Deputy Director Jeremy Mitchell Beth Tragus-Campbell, Vice Chair Board Members Absent Emily Nutsch (alternate) Lily Distelhorst (student) - excused READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR TRAGUS-CAMPBELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MARTINI, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 13. MOTION MADE BY CHAIR GLADSTONE, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER GOLEMBIEWSKI, TO APPROVE THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS. • On page 3 of 9 of the minutes, in the second full paragraph, the second sentence should be corrected to: Replacement trees wou could be triggered when the property owner has the last two or three trees on the property. • Page 3 of 9, the fourth full paragraph, delete the third sentence starting with, "Chair Gladstone. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 27, 2023 Page 1 of 7 THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Sue Oskowski, Edmonds resident, asked why the sidewalk on 84th (from 238th to 230) in the Public Works planned schedule for 2027. When Public Works presented their transportation plan to the City Council in June of this year the sidewalk was scheduled to be built in 2024. Her neighbor drives an electric wheelchair in the road because there are no sidewalks on 84th. She urged the City to put that section of the sidewalk in the plan for 2024. It is definitely needed now. Teresa Hollis, Edmonds resident, had the following comments for Public Works: 1. She stated that this plan uses priorities for walkways that were set in 2015 which is before the City Council decided to put almost all of the new housing growth in the Highway 99 subarea. This CFP mostly ignores the planning decisions that were made by the City Council about where future density would be. She requested that in future cycles staffpays attention to where the housing density is planned. 2. She referred to the EIS for the Highway 99 subarea plan which says to build flexibility into each cycle of the 6-year Transportation Improvement Program to modify the priority and the funding of capital projects serving the study area as new development occurs and creates opportunities for matching funds from private development. A building permit was issued for the Apollo apartments at 236th and Highway 99. It's waiting for the developer to pick it up and pay the big fees. So where are the city infrastructure projects for that neighborhood? 3. She said she doesn't support the amount of spending in the Green Streets demonstration project. A Green Street is a Testa, but they would be happy with a used Prius. She suggested the City just provide some sort of walkway so they don't have to walk in the street, especially when they walk their kids to school. Also, please add a project for a paved walkway on 236thbetween 84th and Edmonds Way since that's a route to Madrona School. It would also support the neighborhood where development will eventually happen on the empty lot at 236th and 80. 4. She expressed support for the big increase in traffic calming programs for 2024. She had the following comments for Parks: 1. She supports the emphasis on working down the maintenance and repair backlog. 2. She expressed concern that the Burlington Coat Factory site project is missing from the portfolio. She wondered why there wasn't at least a placeholder for it in this CFP cycle for some reasonable estimate of the city spending. Angela Winzen, Mayor's Climate Protection Committee member and Edmonds Climate Advisory Board member, commented on behalf of both of the groups to convey their shared desire for a climate action manager to be part of the City's new budget. Climate mitigation is not a task that should be on a list of many others. It deserves, at minimum, a dedicated individual who can take the lead on implementation of the 2023 Climate Action Plan and the writing of future plans, including adaptation plans and all business related to climate mitigation in the City of Edmonds. Edmonds needs a leader in the city office who is able to focus their efforts entirely on the goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2050. They cannot wait another 13 years to begin when they are already years behind. A climate action manager for this city is long overdue and needs to be part of the new budget. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 27, 2023 Page 2 of 7 None PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 2024-2029 Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Public Hearing City Engineer Rob English introduced staff members and explained the difference between the CFP and the CIP and how they have been combined into one document. He highlighted the project lists and explained the way they are prioritized and organized. He also reviewed the layout of the project sheets. He explained that the Transportation Plan Update will be coordinated with the Comprehensive Plan Update. The Storm and Surface Water Management Comprehensive Plan is just beginning an update. Chair Gladstone asked for confirmation that the priorities established in the CIP are based on the 2015 Plan. Mr. English confirmed that is true. Mr. English reviewed Pavement Preservation Projects, Safety and Capacity Projects, Active Transportation Projects and Planning, Water Utility Projects, and Stormwater Projects. There was discussion about waterline overlays and patches. Staff explained the importance of coordinating between departments to determine the prioritization of projects. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell asked if the City is on track for water utility replacement. Mr. English replied that they are. The utility rate analysis currently underway will reassess the utility rates that are needed to maintain the city's infrastructure. Mr. English continued to review 2024 projects and programs including the Stormwater Utility, Sewer Utility Projects, Wastewater Treatment Plant, and Facilities. Comments/Questions: Board Member Golembiewski asked how coordination happens with other agencies if it is a road that has other ownership. Mr. English explained it depends on the project and gave some examples. Sometimes there are joint projects where jurisdictions share costs. Highway 99 is a state route. The state's responsibility on a state route is the pavement condition. The local agencies are responsible for any improvements. Sometimes there are state dollars available for this too. Board Member Mitchell asked if the estimated project cost is an engineer's ROM (rough order of magnitude) type estimate from a cost consultant. Mr. English replied that it is. When the Comprehensive Plan updates are done there is typically a high-level engineer's estimate attached to each project. Board Member Mitchell asked how many projects end up with leftover contingency funds and what happens with leftover funds. Mr. English said it depends on the scope of the project. Mr. English explained that complex projects tend to use more of the contingency funds, while the pavement preservation program rarely touches the contingency fund. If it is a local funding source like REET, the money gets put back into the fund and is part of the balance available for subsequent year projects. Board Member Golembiewski asked how private development influences prioritization of projects, particularly transportation and sidewalk projects. For example, there could be an area where they want to encourage development and the City takes the lead in doing some frontage work or an area that has some developable, Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 27, 2023 Page 3 of 7 attractive land where they want the developer to do some of those sidewalk projects. Does that lead into the City's decision making and prioritization? Mr. English affirmed that it can. He referred to Highway 99 as an example of a high priority investment area by the current administration. On that corridor, projects will be done to beautify the corridor as well as subsequent frontage improvements that would typically be required by a developer. These improvements save costs for the developers and help to spur redevelopment. Chair Gladstone noted that the CIP is based on the 2015 Transportation Plan and asked how the prioritization of the CIP is impacted by the passage of the subarea plan. Was that evaluated and incorporated at all? Mr. English noted they will have an opportunity to do that with the current update. At the planning level, they go through the Transportation Plan each six years, and this is the big effort to look at overall planning and tie that into the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Gladstone asked if the Transportation Plan will come to the Planning Board. Mr. English replied that it would. Chair Gladstone said it didn't seem like there were really any new sidewalks before 2027. Why is that? Mr. English said there is no funding. The first three years are projects that have secured money or are reasonably expected to have secured money. There is no dedicated funding for sidewalks. Chair Gladstone asked what the replacement rate is for replacing the utility system with the dollar amounts that are in the budget for replacement. Mr. De Lilla replied it would be about 100 years. Mr. English commented that for transportation, at a rate of $2.8 million per year they could repave the streets in 25 to 30 years. The City is only currently funding about half that amount. He explained that traffic impact fees are restricted to growth related projects that address level of service. With this update they will be changing the way they do impact fees by looking at a multimodal level of service. Part of that will be looking at sidewalks and bike lanes in an effort to have a more holistic complete street approach. Board Member Mitchell referred to areas that don't have sidewalks and asked about the possibility of taking away some of the right-of-way that the City owns to incorporate some pedestrian right of way. Mr. English noted that a local impact district would be one way to fund a sidewalk on a local street if all the neighbors agreed to it. Board Member Mitchell explained that the City of Shoreline sometimes will put in temporary delineator curbs into the right of way. This is a way to provide a community that doesn't have any sidewalks with a designated area while funding for sidewalks is being generated. Mr. English said they don't have any active programs like this. They are already $1.3 million short on paving, so to pave something like that takes them further away from preservation efforts. He noted that there have been occasions where they have a wider shoulder and have striped it in a way so that pedestrians could walk there. However, they don't have an active program where they go look for wider shoulders to make a temporary path. Chair Gladstone asked if this could potentially be a temporary solution for the area on 236t' brought up by a resident today that had no place for school kids to walk, not even a shoulder. Mr. English expressed concern that it could trigger stormwater requirements related to detention and water quality. They typically look for opportunities where there is existing pavement to maintain what they have so they don't have the stormwater triggers. Director Feser suggested that some of these ideas might be able to be addressed with the new Transportation Improvement Plan's multimodal transportation focus. Mr. England concurred. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell referred to packet page 154 and stated that they need to figure out how to prevent the massive block of sidewalk projects continuing to be pushed out because of lack of funding. She asked why parks restrooms maintenance funding had been removed. Director Feser stated that might just be a facilities budget issue. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell asked staff to provide clarification on that. Director Feser noted that there is a $450,000 program for projects like that. They are still doing the restroom projects; it just isn't under the facilities budget. Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 27, 2023 Page 4 of 7 Director Feser presented the Parks, Recreation, and Human Services 2024-2029 CIP/CFP. She introduced Deputy Director Shannon Burley and expressed appreciation for the large role she plays in the budget process. She also thanked Public Works and Rob English for working with them. She presented the framework for the CIP/CFP; current and ongoing projects; capital projects (2024 highlighted projects, programs, and acquisitions); and a summary of changes in the program from last year's capital program. Public Testimony: None Questions/Comments: Board Member Martini referred to signage and wayfinding and encouraged the City to include accessibility. Director Feser concurred and stated they intend to do that. Board Member Golembiewski asked if Parks is responsible for the maintenance of all street trees. Director Feser replied that they are, and it is a challenge. They need to do an inventory of all trees so they know what they have and how they are working with it. Chair Gladstone referred to parkland acquisition and asked what the minimum size is for a neighborhood park. Director Feser replied that there is no minimum or maximum; it is more about the location and what it provides. Board Member Martini referred to the waterfront walkway and asked if the apartments agreed with the City to finally put in an accessible walkway. Director Feser explained they had not, but the courts said yes. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell referred to the ADA restroom upgrade at Seaview Park and asked if they could use REET funding for that one since they are increasing access. Director Feser said they could use REET funding, but that doesn't have to do with increasing access. She didn't think they could use park impact fees because it isn't about increasing capacity. Board Member Martini argued that it would increase capacity for her. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell encouraged staff to move this project up earlier with the justification that they can't fully utilize the existing structure they have built and paid for because it doesn't have an ADA restroom. Director Feser asked for suggestions about what in exchange could get pushed back. Vice Chair Tragus- Campbell suggested pushing back the Maplewood Hill Park playground replacement one year because then you are swapping playground for playground and increasing access to the playground you have. Board Member Golembiewski pointed out that Sierra Park desperately needs to be replaced. As far as neighborhood concerns, Seaview has access to Seaview Park so they aren't lacking a park space. This could be another potential swap. Chair Gladstone asked if there are any concerns about recommending the CIP for approval to the Council. She stated that the Council needs to understand that the way that this CIP is set up perpetuates the inequities in the city. She appreciates the philosophy that the priority is that they need to maintain what they have before they put new things in, but if the Council wants to walk the walk about leveling the playing field here, there is some real hard thinking they need to do. She understands that there are funding issues, but how you direct your REET dollars is somewhat discretionary. She is unhappy that they are not seeing any new sidewalks until 2027 when they have kids walking down a street where there is no place to walk. There are people using wheelchairs on an arterial that is becoming busier by the day, and it is not being addressed. That overall philosophy flies in the face what Council has been talking about in terms of trying to address some of the inequities in the City. Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 27, 2023 Page 5 of 7 Board Member Golembiewski asked if there is a breakdown of the amount of money being spent on maintenance of existing facilities versus money towards new facilities each year. She also commented that it appears that a large chunk of the improvement funds toward new items are being dedicated towards the Highway 99 revitalization stages 3 and 4, and that maybe some of the smaller neighborhood sidewalks and streets are getting pushed out further to prioritize this area. She acknowledged that Highway 99 is underserved so they are putting funds there, but maybe those aren't the streets that the community is actually wanting to improve. Maybe the issue with prioritization isn't necessarily between maintenance of existing and development of new. In 2024 and 2025 it appears that most of the capital facilities budget is going toward Highway 99. Maybe if some of those funds were diverted towards areas like 84th or 236th off the main arterial, you would have more support. Chair Gladstone said in her mind it isn't an "either/or" issue; it's probably an "and". Mr. English noted that the majority of the funding for Highway 99 is grant funding so they can't move it to local streets. He acknowledged that it is a complex issue. Board Member Golembiewski agreed and spoke to the importance of communicating that sort of thing well. The neighborhoods around there don't understand these issues. Chair Gladstone reiterated that it's more about the BEET dollars and impact fees and where they are used. Board Member Golembiewski recommended highlighting to Council the way impact fees for the transportation program can be used is going to change. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell said she would be comfortable recommending support of this with the caveat that the City Council needs to find additional funds to get at least one of those sidewalk projects done every year because it's important to the community. Board Member Mitchell spoke in support of the Green Streets program but suggested taking some of the funding and first putting it towards sidewalks or at least delineating walkways to give these communities a safe walking space. After those needs are met there might be more support from the community for the program. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell said she also supports the Green Streets program but is concerned about the safety of people walking or riding their bikes down the street. She is very pleased about the traffic calming program in the plan because people are going down streets way too fast, especially with the growing population. Having calming measures, sidewalks, and bike lanes to make it safer outside of the bowl areas is something she would recommend. Chair Gladstone suggested a couple board members could work on a draft memo to be reviewed by the Planning Board at the October 11 meeting. Director Feser noted that the memo would need to be ready to go into the Council packet on October 12. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER GOLEMBIEWSKI, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR TRAGUS-CAMPBELL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THAT A SMALL GROUP PREPARE A DRAFT MEMO. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Chair Gladstone and Board Member Mitchell volunteered to work on the memo. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 27, 2023 Page 6 of 7 NEW BUSINESS None PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA Senior Planner Clugston noted he would be on vacation from October 6 through October 15. Michelle Martin is also on leave right now, so logistically it will be difficult to get things done. He pointed out that the Tree Code was already bumped to October 11. Tonight, the Board added the discussion regarding the CIP/CFP memo to that meeting as well. Director McLaughlin was going to be at the October 11 meeting to talk about the Comprehensive Plan, Highway 99 Community Renewal Program Update, and the Highway 99 Landmark Site Discussion. Chair Gladstone noted they also need to have the discussion about the vision statement. Mr. Clugston indicated that would be part of the Comprehensive Plan discussion on October 11. Chair Gladstone proposed bumping the presentation to City Council to Monday, November 6 and doing it in person. There was discussion about having a small group work on a recommendation for trees similar to what they are doing for the CIP/CFP recommendation. Board Members Golembiewski, Maxwell, and Tragus-Campbell volunteered to have a memo ready for discussion at the October 11 meeting. There was discussion about using the Comprehensive Plan discussion time for the vision statement and pushing the Highway 99 Community Renewal Program Update out. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Gladstone noted she would be available but would be on east coast time on October 11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:34 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 27, 2023 Page 7 of 7