Loading...
2017-06-28 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 28, 2017 Vice Chair Monroe called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5 h Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Nathan Monroe, Vice Chair Matthew Cheung Todd Cloutier Alicia Crank Phil Lovell Mike Rosen BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Daniel Robles (excused) Carreen Rubenkonig (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Mike DeLilla, Senior Utilities Engineer Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JUNE 14, 2017 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE AGENDA BE ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER CRANK SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There was no one in the audience. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Vice Chair Monroe referred the Board to the written report that was provided by the Development Services Director. Board Member Lovell asked if Vice Chair Monroe would provide an update of the most recent Economic Development Commission meeting at some point in the meeting, and Vice Chair Monroe answered affirmatively. Board Member Lovell also asked if a Board Member had volunteered to be a judge at the City's sand sculpture contest on July 25th. Board Member Crank tentatively agreed to represent the Board as one of the judges. Board Member Crank asked if any of the Board Members would be participating in the 4tb of July Parade, and none indicated they would be. PRESENTATION OF 2017 COMPREHENSIVE WATER SYSTEM PLAN Tom Lindberg, Murray Smith & Associates, reviewed that the City's Water Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2011, and up until recently, the Department of Health (DOH) required utilities to update and submit their water system plans every six years. This was recently changed to require plan updates every 10 years. Board Member Lovell asked why the DOH changed its requirement from six to ten years. Mr. Lindberg answered that there has been a lot of pressure from utilities to push the updates beyond six years, and the DOH agreed, based on the fact that cities like Edmonds are staying up to date on their water systems and there are no health concerns. In addition to providing a benefit to the utilities, the change also benefits the DOH because it no longer has to review plans on a 6-year cycle. He advised that most of the utilities are choosing to move towards a 10-year cycle because of the amount of effort required to collect data and update the plans. Mr. Lindberg advised that, because the City was in the final stages of updating its Comprehensive Water System Plan, it decided to implement a 10-year update cycle moving forward. Although the plan is a 20-year plan, less time was spent on the years beyond 10. He commented that the plan is intended to meet the State's regulatory requirements and to provide the City with a useful working document to guide planning, scheduling, and budgeting of water system improvements. It brings together a lot of useful data that was analyzed carefully. He provided a brief overview of the plan elements as follows: • The Executive Summary provides a brief overview of the plan and the City's water system and describes the purpose of the update. • Chapter 1— Introduction. This chapter provides an introduction to the updated plan. • Chapter 2 — Water System Description. This chapter provides a description of the City's existing water system and provides a brief discussion of adjacent water systems. • Chapter 3 — Land Use and Population. This chapter demonstrates the plan's compatibility with the land -use policies identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan. • Chapter 4 — Water Demands. This chapter summarizes past water demands and future projected water demands for the City's system. The information in this chapter was used to analyze the existing water system facilities and formed the basis for sizing future water system improvements. • Chapter 5 — Policies and Design Criteria. This chapter outlines the laws, policies and design criteria that are applied to operating, maintaining and planning improvements for the water system. • Chapter 6 — Water Source and Quality. This chapter describes the City's existing water source and current water - quality regulations. It also discusses the City's water -quality monitoring program, monitoring requirements, and results of past water -quality monitoring. • Chapter 7 — Operations and Maintenance. This chapter summarizes the operations and maintenances activities of the City's Water Division, including a brief description of the personnel and their duties for operating and maintaining the water system. • Chapter 8 — Water System Analysis. This chapter presents an analysis of the City's existing water system. Individual components were analyzed under existing and future water demand conditions to determine their ability to meet policies and design criteria. • Chapter 9 — Water System Improvements. This chapter presents water system improvements that the City plans to implement within the next 20 years to resolve existing system deficiencies and meet the future demands of the water system. It also presents criteria used for prioritizing the capital improvements, identifying planning level project cost estimates, and developing an implementation schedule. • Chapter 10 — Financial Plan. This chapter outlines a financial plan that generates enough revenue to cover the operating and capital costs associated with providing water utility service to the City. The chapter analyzes the past six years of financial performance and looks ahead at how to implement improvements through rates, connection charges, and reserves. • Appendices. The appendices are mostly required by the DOH, and they were attached to the plan as reference documents. Mr. Lindberg advised that the Water Use Efficiency Rule was adopted in 2007, requiring all public water systems to calculate and report on an annual basis the distribution system leakage on a 3-year rolling average as a percentage of total supply. An Planning Board Minutes June 28, 2017 Page 2 action plan is required if the leakage exceeds the established 10% threshold. Based on data the City has collected over the past six years, overall water usage, on a per capita basis, has decreased from 104 gallons per day in 2003 through 2008 to 95 gallons per day in 2009 through 2014. It is expected that water usage per capita will continue to decrease. However, the largest impact on overall water demand will be the growth of new customers within the existing service area. It is estimated that water demand will increase approximately 5.5% to 14%, depending on the amount of future water use reductions from the continued water use efficiency program efforts. Vice Chair Monroe asked what the decrease in water usage could be attributed to. Mr. Lindberg responded that it could be attributed to a number of factors. For example, conservation has been taken more seriously in recent years. A number of benefits come from regional conservation programs, and the City also has a program that includes conservation practices. In addition, all new plumbing must meet code requirements for low -flow devices. It can also be attributed to the City's aggressive program to replace old water mains and detect and repair water main leaks. Board Member Lovell noted that prior to recent improvements, the City was losing about 329,000 gallons per day as a result of leakage. This represents a 9% loss when compared to overall usage. Mr. DeLilla clarified that some of the loss is associated with meters that do not read accurately. He explained that large meters always read lower than they should. The number also includes water main breaks, which cannot be predicted. There are a number of older pipes in the downtown, and their gaskets are not up to current standards and they leak. However, he emphasized that the number is below the 10% threshold identified in the Water Use Efficiency Rule. Board Member Lovell summarized that the water loss can be attributed to a number of factors. Mr. Lindberg agreed and said that is why the City has an active leak detection program. Every other year, they make sure the entire system is checked for leaks with a sonar device. They also try to replace pipes that are more prone to leakage. Board Member Lovell observed that the report speaks of seven staff members working in the Water District. He asked if that represents all of the staff assigned to the entire district. Mr. DeLilla said it represents the seven staff members assigned to the City's water division for maintenance and operations. Vice Chair Monroe asked if the leakage number includes water that is used for fire flow, and Mr. DeLilla answered affirmatively. Mr. Lindberg added that the City does not meter water that is used for emergencies. But when the water is used for construction, they are required to have meters. Again, he noted that the City's data for water leakage is in line with other systems in the area, and the City's aggressive program will probably result in the number dropping off in the future. Mr. Lindberg explained that past water usage and future water demands were considered when the water system was evaluated to identify future improvements to the reservoir supply facilities, water mains and related elements. The analysis showed that: • Water supply and capacity is sufficient due and upgrades were done in 2010. • Water storage facility capacity is sufficiently sized to meet the existing and 20-year forecast. • The pump station that pumps water from the Five Corners Reservoir to the upper parts of the system has sufficient capacity to meet current and future needs. It was updated in 2010, as well. Board Member Rosen asked for more information about the system's storage capacity. Mr. Lindberg explained that storage within the water system serves multiple purposes. There can be times of significant demand when a lot of water is drawn from the system. In addition, if daily use places stress on the system and reserves are drawn down, water from the reservoir can be used to build the reserve back up again to maintain pressure. Lastly, water in the reservoirs can be used during times of emergency. For example, if the main supply is shut off during an emergency, the stored water could be used. Fire emergencies can also place a significant stress on the system and require backup water. In the case of a major, area -wide drought, the emergency storage would be used after the supply has dropped. He explained that the City has 11 interties with other purveyors. While they are seldom used, they are available to the City, if needed. The City also has an arrangement with Seattle Public Utility (SPU) for long-term standby supply for emergency purposes. Mr. Lindberg said the main purpose of the update was to analyze the existing water mains, recognizing that many are older. The City is replacing them at a pretty rapid pace, but there are still some older ones, and some are leaking. The plan not only identifies the need to replace old water mains, but water mains that are undersized and no longer meet the requirements of the Planning Board Minutes June 28, 2017 Page 3 Fire Department. He reviewed that, over the past six years, the City has replaced 12 miles of water main, replaced 11 pressure reducing stations, upgraded the Five Corners pump station, and done minor improvements at the Seaview and Yost Reservoirs. Capital improvements identified in the updated plan focus primarily on replacement of water mains, but some pressure reducing stations will also be replaced and improvements will be made at the Five Corners Reservoirs, which were constructed in 1960 and 1979. Neither of these reservoirs meet the seismic code at this time. They will also be recoated on both the inside and outside, and minor improvements related to safety and access will also be done. Further out, the Capital Improvement Plan also identifies additional emergency intertie improvements to better prepare the facility for when they are needed. Other minor improvements are also identified in the plan. Mr. Lindberg summarized that the majority of the improvements are related to water main replacement to meet the current needs and future growth within the system. Improvements identified for the next six years are estimated to cost about $18.9 million, which results in an average expenditure of approximately $3.15 million per year. The financing plan identifies funding for the proposed improvements and ongoing operations and maintenance, while paying down depth. It is based on the City's preference to fund capital improvements from cash reserves without incurring new debt. As proposed, the improvements will be funded through a combination of cash reserves from system reinvestment, rate revenues and new water service connection charges. Ongoing water rate adjustments will be necessary to provide sufficient revenue to support water systems operations, maintenance and replacements. Board Member Lovell asked if yearly funding for projects would come from the City's budget. Mr. DeLilla answered that the City does not want to do any extra bonding, and the intent is to set the rates and fees at an amount that will allow the City to go forward without going into debt. Many of the grants are actually low -interest loans, which also carry debt. Finding ways to be completely rate -funded will give the City a massive discount on future projects. Vice Chair Monroe asked how much of the funding would come from fees for new service connections. Mr. DeLilla answered that an estimated $300,000 is anticipated from new connections, which is comparable with most jurisdictions in the area. The remaining $2.7 million will come from rates. Vice Chair Monroe noted that the City currently purchases water from the Alderwood Water and Wastewater District (AWWD). He asked how the AWWD rates compare to those of SPU. Mr. DeLilla answered that Seattle's rates are much higher, and they are planning to raise them substantially over the next several years. AWWD rates are also going to be raised, but they will remain significantly lower than SPU rates. Mr. Lindberg added that the water supply plan for the next 40 years was recently updated, which allows the City to receive a discount on its water. Mr. Lindberg reviewed that the draft plan has been completed, and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) process has been initiated. The next step will be to present the draft plan to the City Council's Public Works Committee on July 1 lth, and to the Planning Board for a public hearing on July 12`'. A public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for July 18`'. Once the City Council has issued preliminary approval of the plan, it will be forwarded to the DOH for review and comment. After following up on comments from the DOH, the plan will be presented to the City Council for final approval in December. Board Member Cloutier asked Mr. DeLilla to address the risk of lead in the service lines in Edmonds. Mr. DeLilla advised that the City has an active lead -detection program within the system, and they have not received any positive results from their testing. However, water systems on private property are not tested. The City has also replaced all of its asbestos pipe, and fecal and chloroform presences is checked on a monthly basis. Mr. Lindberg noted that data from the lead and copper testing is summarized on Pages 6-5 and 6-6 of the plan. Board Member Cloutier explained that copper and lead testing shows what is in the water, but shifting Ph levels is also a problem. Mr. DeLilla said the City does not do anything to the water and AWWD insures that it is safe. Mr. Lindberg said most of the water -quality treatment is done in Everett at the source. The water goes through a series of pipes before it enters the City's system. Board Member Cloutier asked if there has been a history of Ph changes that would cause a risk for people with lead service lines to have lead in their water. Mr. DeLilla answered no. Board Member Rosen asked what is the system's largest potential risk or vulnerability. Mr. Lindberg said the most significant risk is associated with supply. The City has interties in place if something were to occur to the AWWD or Everett systems. Edmonds is also fortunate to be connected to another regional system in Seattle. Other risks are associated with Planning Board Minutes June 28, 2017 Page 4 older, cast-iron pipes cracking when they thaw out after freezing temperatures. The City is aware of this potential risk, and they are working to replace the older lines and to detect leaks. He summarized that it is important to have storage and to make sure it is available when needed. These all come into play to make sure there are no weak links in the system. Board Member Rosen asked how vulnerable the City's water system is to a cyberattack. Mr. Lindberg said cyberattacks typically impact systems that operate via the internet versus the localized system that the City has. As the system changes over time to become more internet dependent, there will be more opportunities for cyberattacks. Board Member Rosen asked about the ratio between residential and commercial water use. Board Member Cloutier pointed out that this information is outlined on a table in Chapter 4. Mr. Lindberg advised that the meters are classified as single- family residential, multi -family residential, commercial/industrial, and government/education. He summarized that the majority of water use in 2014 was associated with single-family uses, but commercial/industrial uses use more water per connection. Board Member Crank asked how many total miles of water main the City has. Mr. DeLilla answered that the City has about 140 miles of water main. Vice Chair Monroe summarized that replacing 12 miles of water main per year will result in a 100- year replacement schedule. He asked about the life expectancy of the new water mains, and Mr. Lindberg answered that it is about 100 years. Board Member Crank asked if the proposed improvements are listed in priority order. Mr. DeLilla answered that the projects were listed in order of priority, which was established based on the following criteria: flow, age and pipe material. However, the City also reserves the right to adjust the priorities when emergency situations come up. Board Member Lovell asked about the sequence in which pipes are replaced. He recalled that the Public Works Director has previously mentioned that when the Public Works Department finds out that a street is going to be overlaid, a utility project may be moved up on the list to be done simultaneously. Mr. DeLilla agreed that the City takes this into consideration. He said he works with stormwater, sewer and water, and the goal is to do projects at the same time if possible. Vice Chair Monroe referred to Table 10-1, which summarizes the water utility's financial performance from 2010 to 2015. He noted that water rates increased by 47.6 % from 2010 to 2015. Mr. DeLilla explained that, prior to 2010, the City's rates were the lowest by far, and it was not possible to have an effective replacement program. The increase puts the City's rates about average with other utilities in the region. Vice Chair Monroe suggested it would be helpful for the consultant to provide a table to illustrate how the City's rates compare with those of other jurisdictions in the region. Mr. Lindberg agreed to add a comparison to the next presentation. Mr. DeLilla advised that the only water utilities that charge a lower rate than Edmonds are the City of Lynnwood and the Olympic View Water District, and neither have an active replacement program. Mr. Chave noted that this information is analyzed every time there is a rate study, and it is available for the Board's review. Vice Chair Monroe noted that expenditures increased by 24.5%. Mr. DeLilla advised that these costs are for operations and maintenance. He explained that the way the City is required to account for these costs make them seem larger than they actually are. He noted that the big increase occurred in 2013 when the accounting system changed. Vice Chair Monroe noted that, in the plan, it appears that the water utility budget is paying for street overlays. Mr. DeLilla explained that, oftentimes, when a new water main is installed, the pavement is damaged and an overlay is required. The cost of the overlay must be funded by the water utility fund. REVIEW OF DRAFT PLANNED ACTION CODE LANGUAGE Mr. Chave observed that the Board is familiar with the overall "Planned Action Ordinance" (PAO) process, and they have reviewed the proposed zoning code and zoning map changes associated with the Highway 99 Subarea Plan on previous occasions. They have also reviewed materials related to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The draft PAO is based on the draft EIS, and is intended to implement the zoning code and map changes associated with the Highway 99 Subarea Plan. It describes the parameters by which development projects can be covered under a relevant EIS without needing separate State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. Some aspects of the ordinance will be filled in or revised later, Planning Board Minutes June 28, 2017 Page 5 after the Highway 99 Subarea EIS process has been completed. In addition, Appendix B of the PAO will be completed to include a summary of mitigation measures. Mr. Chave referred to the table in Section 4, Item D.2, which describes the land uses contemplated by the PAO over time. The PAO anticipates 1,634,685 square feet of building area and 3,325 new dwelling units. He also referred to Section 5, which states that the City will monitor the progress of development in the Highway 99 Subarea and review the PAO within five years of its effective date. The review is to result in a report from the City's SEPA official about whether to propose amendments to the PAO and whether to supplement or revise the underlying EIS. The intent is to track development, as it occurs, to make sure it is consistent and does not exceed what the EIS anticipated. Mr. Chave said the Board's review of the draft PAO is an opportunity to review the basic concepts and ask questions. The SEPA process for the Highway 99 Subarea Plan will continue, and a public hearing before the Planning Board has been tentatively scheduled for July 12d'. The intent is to comprehensively look at the environmental impacts within the entire subarea over an extended period of time so that each individual project does not have to do a separate EIS. A PAO is a much more efficient approach and provides guidance in terms of future infrastructure improvements that need to be done. Board Member Lovell referred to the table in Section 2, which identifies the maximum square footage of building area that can be added within the subarea. Mr. Chave clarified that it identifies the amount of development that is likely to occur in the subarea over that period of time based on economic projections, but it is not intended to identify a maximum. If they see more development, the City could potentially revise the EIS and factor in the added development. Board Member Lovell asked if City staff would monitor development in the subarea and keep statistics, as per Section 5. Mr. Chave answered affirmatively. Board Member Lovell referred to Section 4, Item G.3, and asked if the intent is to review applications to make sure they are in accordance with the Highway 99 Subarea Plan and implementing code. Mr. Chave explained that an applicant would be required to submit an SEPA Checklist when submitting an application for design review or another type of permit within the subarea. However, rather than issuing a determination, City staff will match it up with the EIS parameters for the subarea and indicate whether or not it is consistent or if additional analysis will be needed. Most of the time, applications will be consistent because the code anticipates a significant level of development. Board Member Lovell referred to Section 4, Item G.5, and noted that it is possible that an applicant could submit a proposal that is inconsistent with the PAO. Mr. Chave explained that applications that are inconsistent with the PAO would be required to go through a separate SEPA review, which could result in a separate EIS and/or additional mitigation measures. The only thing he can think of that would trigger additional SEPA review would be a huge cluster of development within a small area. But given the level of development that was analyzed for the PAO, that seems very unlikely to occur. Vice Chair Monroe asked who would be responsible for making the determination of whether or not an application is consistent with the PAO. Mr. Chave answered that the decision would be made by the Director or designee. Board Member Lovell referred to the map of the PAO and asked if the areas within the dashed lines are intended to identify the unincorporated area of Snohomish County (Esperance), which are not part of the Highway 99 Subarea Plan. Mr. Chave answered affirmatively. He noted that two properties fronting on Highway 99, between 228`h and 232nd Streets, are actually part of Esperance and not subject to the PAO. Vice Chair Monroe observed that the significant advantage of a PAO is that projects that are consistent would no longer be required to go through a lengthy SEPA process. Mr. Chave said the intent of EIS is to look at the environmental impacts over a long period of time to make sure that development that occurs is consistent with the analysis. Vice Chair Monroe concluded that, the adoption of the PAO would result in the City losing its ability to deny an application based on an individual EIS. Board Member Lovell said the intent of the PAO is to make the process more predictable and flexible. Mr. Chave said the PAO is intended to contemplate the impacts of total build out of the area based on the proposed zoning. It also helps the City plan for needed infrastructure improvements to accommodate the growth. Basically, it allows the City to take an overall Planning Board Minutes June 28, 2017 Page 6 view rather than reviewing each individual project as it comes in over time. It is a collective look at what needs to happen within the corridor and streamlines the way for a project to go forward as long as it is consistent with the overall plan. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Vice Chair Monroe asked that presentations on the Urban Forest Management Plan and the Economic Impact of Art Report be placed on the agenda when they become available. Board Member Crank reminded the Board of their previously -discussed desire to have joint meetings with the Economic Development Commission, the City Council, and the Architectural Design Board. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Vice Chair Monroe reported on his attendance at the June 21" Economic Development Commission Meeting at which there was a presentation on affordable housing. While the presentation provided informative regional information, it did not provide a lot of information specific to Edmonds. The EDC did not have a quorum present, so there was no business following the presentation. Board Member Lovell said he thought there was a mounting urgency or awareness across all boards and commissions, as well as the City Council, that would lead to more concrete work being done to address the problem. Vice Chair Monroe commented that, currently, there is no working definition for the term "affordable housing." There are a number of definitions, and the City has commissioned a report to identify what the term means to the City. Mr. Chave said Brad Shipley is working with Shane Hope to prepare this information, and the topic fits into the ordinance that designates portions of Highway 99 for tax incentives and so forth. There is a fair amount of background working going on now. Vice Chair Monroe commented that Chair Rubenkonig did a great job presented the Planning Board report to the City Council last week. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Mr. Chave reported that the City's Sustainable Cities Partnership with Western Washington University has concluded, and the final reports are coming in. They are being posted on the City's website as they become available, and he encouraged the Board members to review them. He noted that the final reports on the cemetery, sea level rise, and walkable communities projects have already been posted. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Planning Board Minutes June 28, 2017 Page 7