||| BY MINOR LILE & MATTHEW GILBERT, ORCASONIAN REPORTERS |||
Prompted by an open letter from former EPRC member and local architect Fred Klein, the County Council raised some last-minute questions regarding Prune Alley’s extensive redevelopment plan at its September 15 meeting. Klein’s eleventh-hour letter contends that the finalized plan does not sufficiently reflect the intentions of the original 2013 plan, calling it a threat to Eastsound’s “unique sense-of-place” and “its beloved village character.” He cites, for example, an “elaborate” design for ADA-compliant intersections, inadequate landscaping, and a general aesthetic that is not in line with North Beach Rd., A Street, and Main St.
Councilmember Jamie Stephens began the questioning by asking whether the plan had significantly varied from what was approved last year. Referring to Klein’s letter and a review of public comments, he felt that the final design for the project is “quite a bit different” than what the Council had previously agreed to. He specifically brought up the issue of lighting, saying, “We agreed on a conduit for street lighting, but we didn’t agree to pay for street lighting.”
Stephens’s questioning seemed to take County Engineer Colin Huntemer by surprise. Huntemer replied that he was hesitant to respond until he had an opportunity to review both Klein’s letter and the project documentation. Huntemer did confirm that any improvements would be constructed within the existing right of way because adjoining property owners were unwilling to provide more land to expand the development zone.
He added that he was aware that the issue of street lighting had “taken on a side discussion of its own” and that he had been working closely with the Eastsound Planning Review Committee (EPRC) and Councilmember Rick Hughes on the project.
Stephens then questioned why the County was “dealing with EPRC” on a project that was entirely within the County right of way. He also agreed with Klein’s point that the project keeps changing and that he didn’t want to spend more time on it. “To me, it goes ahead the way we approved it, or we should just pull it and worry about it in another six years.”
County Manager Mike Thomas then suggested that another way to look at it would be to see if there had been any changes to the scope of work. Huntemer verified that there had been no such changes, and that the issue “coming from some in Eastsound” is about the architecture and esthetics. He added that EPRC’s input did not change planned improvements such as storm drains, underground utility accommodations, curb-cutters, and sidewalks.
“As with other community projects such as the Deer Harbor bridge,” Huntemer said, the County “engaged with EPRC to help implement rural character” but “not to change the design.” He expressed confidence that “We are within the original scope of work,” adding that, “I don’t think the EPRC’s design suggestions have any material effect on cost.” He noted that the decisions on pavers, lighting, and selection of trees had “quite a bit of debate behind them.”
Hughes then said that “The bricking has been in every design we’ve seen for a long time. That is one of the ways we are using to slow down traffic at the intersections.” He noted that the EPRC voted unanimously to proceed last week and told Mr. Klein they did not support his position.
“Every property owner on Prune Alley except for one is supportive of this project,” said Hughes, “and has appreciated Public Works’ efforts to listen to the community and provide a safe and hopefully scenic route through Eastsound. I’m not sure the letter from Mr. Klein is accurate. It is not reflective of the view of the five members of the EPRC and the people who have attended public meetings and supported this effort. I support where we are at right now and want the project to get going as soon as the utilities can begin moving their infrastructure.”
Stephens countered with, “I stand by my comments [regarding the lighting]. When the EPRC has a budget, maybe they will take it more seriously.” To which Hughes replied, “Can you explain that? I think the EPRC has taken this incredibly seriously and taken a lot of time working with the community, going door to door, and trying to find a way to support a road project in the center of town.”
Councilmember Bill Watson then shared his perspective. He said it was his recollection that the Council had discussed low-profile lighting at previous meetings, “but that’s just from an old man’s memory.” Watson recommended that the Council ask Huntemer to identify any variations from what the Council had previously agreed to and bring that information back for a final round of discussion and review at the next Council meeting, which is scheduled for September 29. Stevens and Hughes agreed with this approach and the meeting moved on to the next item on the agenda.
It doesn’t seem to me that I “don’t want to spend more time on this”” is a valid answer to a current question. However long it takes to decide, we will live with the changes to Eastsound for a lot longer.
Why not ask those currently running for Council to adopt a position on the redevelopment of Prune Alley as part of their campaigns for office? Yes, it will add another six weeks or so before a decision can be made. It will also show, through people’s ballots, how in fact the community feels about the proposed changes to Prune Alley.
Thank you Fred.
“Every property owner on Prune Alley except for one is supportive of this project,” said Hughes”
Yeah… we get it Rick. “My constituents say….”
My constituents say differently. They say that this should not be a decision in which property owners in town have any more say than anybody else. We all live here… the character of our town is meaningful to the rest of us too.
“Do you guys want to get into this?” said Rick Hughes at the county council meeting. These words, and the silence that followed at the end of their discussion regarding vacation rentals are still with me. The lack of political will is ominous… it shows an agenda.
Thank you Matthew and Minor for updating our community on this important topic. You quote Mr. Hughes as stating, “I’m not sure the letter from Mr. Klein is accurate”; however, Mr. Hughes does not cite any specific inaccuracy. I worked hard for that “letter”, actually a Guest Opinion here at The Orcasonian, to be factually correct, an “Opinion” which garnered 28 supportive comments, zero negatives.
Today I learned of one error. In my Opinion piece, I’d attributed the elaborate street intersections to our “high priced Seattle consultants”; that is inaccurate. Mr. Hughes corrected me yesterday saying that all those street intersections were his idea and he believes they are wonderful, contrary to many of his constituents.
Mr. Stephens is correct when he questions whether the present plans reflect what the Council had previously approved. Although the earlier plans had shown some areas of brick, the present plans for 3 of the 4 street intersections include the introduction of 10 foot wide concrete ramps leading up 8 foot wide raised decorated concrete crosswalks plus the decorative brick shown above and more fully described in my “Be Prepared for Prune Alley”. Now EPRC has recommended brick instead of or on top of the concrete. None of this is required for ADA-compliant sidewalks or crosswalks. It’s my belief, a belief shared by many, that all this glitz, now showing up in many communities wanting to attract notice, introduces an element which is alien to the unassuming and beloved character of Eastsound. Our County Engineer, who simply wants clear direction on how to proceed, has agreed that there are other, simpler options for achieving ADA-compliance.
The genesis of this project was in 2012 when SJC Public Works came to EPRC to announce that Prune Alley was going to get a fresh coat of chip-seal and new gravel sidewalks…a repeat of the “temporary” treatment down 20 years before when there were no funds to continue the work on Main St. and N. Beach Rd. When EPRC balked at this, Public Works challenged it to come up with a design for safe sidewalks, curbs, street trees and an optimal mix of landscaping and on-street parking. I think a lot of people would be happy if we could achieve this.
Oh…and BTW, the present plan cuts down the 5 trees between the Island Market driveways. My conversation with the owner/manager was not encouraging that they will be replaced.
Thank you Fred. As a recovering architect, this treatment of our roads seems expensive, unnecessary and foreign to our village.
Growth equals development which equals crowding which begets more development which engenders economic predation.
No one wanted the ‘condo” ships next to the liquor barn as I remember nan then there were the sidewalks and, oh yes, the road widening project .
Capitalist development is the enemy of mankind, There will be no test/
“Storm drains, underground utility accommodations, curb-cutters, and sidewalks.” Why can’t we just do this?
Peg, you nailed it. Bingo et voila. Of course that raises the onerous question of what to do with the money saved.
John: What to do with money saved?…easy peasy: PLANT STREET TREES and create a true, appreciating asset which enhances the village without “tarting-it-up”…
Thank you for all the thoughtful research Fred,
Might be time to clean house in the next election.