Second Waterfront Access Study open house aims to narrow alternatives, refine evaluation criteria

Sarah Napolitino patiently waits as parents Royce and Heidi sift through the various proposals.
Stella Napolitino patiently waits as parents Royce and Heidi sift through the various proposals. (Photos by Larry Vogel)

It was a night for interested citizens to have their say about the future of the Edmonds waterfront as the second of four planned Waterfront Access Study open house meetings got underway Wednesday evening in the Library Plaza Room.

The first open house was held last November. It began the public process by inviting citizens to submit their thoughts and ideas for improving access to a waterfront district that is increasingly cut off from the rest of the community by expanding train traffic.

City Councilmember Dave Teitzel discusses proposal evaluation criteria with citizens.
City Councilmember Dave Teitzel discusses proposal evaluation criteria with citizens.

In the interim all citizen input was compiled by the project team, and the resulting list of more than 40 proposals was presented Wednesday evening for further public comment and evaluation. In addition, the team presented a list of suggested criteria to be used in evaluating the proposals, soliciting citizen input on these as well.

Members of the project team were present, as were members of the Mayor’s Waterfront Access Task Force and several city and elected officials, who all actively engaged attendees to answer questions, clarify issues, and explain the process.

Project lead Rick Schaefer of Tetra Tech explains some of the project alternatives to attendees.
Project lead Rick Schaefer of Tetra Tech explains some of the project alternatives to attendees.

“Our goal for tonight is to collect sufficient public input to assist in narrowing down these 40-odd proposals to the ones with the best promise for a long-term solution,” said project lead Rick Schaefer. “We’ve suggested eight evaluation criteria to help identify the viability of each proposal, and we’re also asking for input on these to help us make sure we’re asking the right questions.”

Schaefer went on to say that the next step will be to screen the proposals, eliminate those that are not feasible and/or do not meet the evaluation criteria, and develop a short list of viable proposals and solutions for the next public meeting later this spring.

Schaefer added that the project is still on schedule for presenting a proposal to the City Council this September.

Opportunities were provided at the meeting for citizens to submit comments electronically on dedicated computers and via handwritten comment forms.
Opportunities were provided at the meeting for citizens to submit comments electronically on dedicated computers and via handwritten comment forms.

If you missed the meeting and want to provide your input, the project team has set up an online open house where you can see the same materials presented at the meeting and provide input on the various proposals and evaluation criteria. You can also sign up to receive project updates by email, and obtain a form to submit comments in writing at the project website.

Among the materials provided:

Initial concepts handout – Open house attendees were asked to evaluate a list of more than 40 proposals compiled from public input received at the first public meeting in November, 2015.

Screening Criteria – The project team also solicited public input on the screening criteria used to evaluate and narrow the list of proposals to the most viable.

Study Process – The project timeline calls for two additional open house meetings before a proposal is presented to the City Council this fall.

This diagram illustrates how the project team proposes to narrow the list of various proposals to the most viable. The process is currently at level one screening.
Screening Process: This diagram illustrates how the project team proposes to narrow the list of various proposals to the most viable. The process is currently at level one screening.

 

  1. The underpass labels on the map do not match the descriptions. Under 4 on the map should actually be Under 2,3 and Under 6 on the map is actually Under 1 and 4 in the descriptions.

    Cost and timing will be problematic for some of the alternatives. How long will we be willing to wait for a completed project? Is 10 or 15 year too long a wait to line up a plan and funding? We may have to choose a solution good for emergency response that can be completed in a cost effective and timely way. By the end of the year we will have much more to consider.

  2. That’s great. When I pointed out the error to the first staff member they had to get the lead consultant to review and he made the changes right on the map on display. The list could be figured out but the map changes help.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Real first and last names — as well as city of residence — are required for all commenters.
This is so we can verify your identity before approving your comment.

By commenting here you agree to abide by our Code of Conduct. Please read our code at the bottom of this page before commenting.