2021-10-13 Planning Board PacketC)p E 04
� O
Planning Board
Remote Zoom Meeting
Agenda
121 5th Ave. N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
www.edmondswa.gov
Michelle Martin
425-771-0220
Wednesday, October 13, 2021 7:00 PM Virtual Online Meeting
Remote Meeting Information
Join Zoom Meeting: https://zoom.us/j/98720508263?pwd=VUhBN090aWQvSkhJNOtTb3NhQytBQT09
Meeting ID: 987 2050 8263. Passcode: 155135.
Call into the meeting by dialing: 253-215-8782
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.
1. Call to Order
Attendee Name Present Absent Late Arrived
2. Approval of Minutes
A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5845)
Approval of Minutes
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Approval of Minutes from 9/22.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment 1: September 22, 2021 Minutes (PDF)
Planning Board Page 1 Printed 101812021
Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda October 13, 2021
3.
4.
5.
A.
6.
7.
8.
A.
B.
Announcement of Agenda
Audience Comments
Administrative Reports
Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5844)
Presentation / Report: Snohomish County Buildable Lands Program
Background/History
This is a presentation from Steve Toy, Snohomish County Principal Demographer, on the
County's Buildable Lands Program.
Staff Recommendation
This is an overview of the program; no action is required.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment 1: Click Here for Link to Snohomish County Buildable Lands Website
• Attachment 2: Click Here for Link to the 2021 Buildable Lands Report
Public Hearings
Unfinished Business
New Business
Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5850)
Presentation of Proposed 2022-2027 Capital Facilities Plan & Capital Improvement Program
Background/History
The City's Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Element is updated annually and identifies capital projects for at
least the next six years, which support the City's Comprehensive Plan. CFP projects are capital
improvement projects that expand existing facilities/infrastructure or provide new capital facilities in
order to accommodate the City's projected population growth in accordance with the Growth
Management Act. Thus, capital projects that preserve existing capital facilities are not CFP projects.
These preservation projects are part of the six -year capital improvement program (CIP) along with
capital facility plan projects that encompass the projected expenditure needs for all city capital related
projects.
Staff Recommendation
Hold public hearing on October 27, 2021.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment 1 - Public Works & Utilities CFP-CIP (PDF)
• Attachment 2 - 2022-2027 Proposed Parks CIP_CFP (PDF)
Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5849)
Planning Board Page 2 Printed 101812021
Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda October 13, 2021
4
A.
10.
11.
12
Code Amendment to Update Residential Occupancy Standards
Background/History
The Washington State Legislature adopted Senate Bill (SB) 5235 during the 2021 legislative session to
address "Housing Unit Inventory - Removing Limits." It was signed by the Governor in May 2021 and
addresses local control over residential occupancy restrictions. Essentially, it limits a local government's
ability to regulate the number of people living within a household, in most cases.
The applicable portion of SB 5235 is provided as Attachment 1. Note: The majority of SB 5235 was
vetoed by the Governor. To avoid confusion, the sections that were vetoed, or not applicable, have been
removed.
Staff Recommendation
None at this time. This is an introduction of the topic.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment 1 - SB 5235 (Simplified) (PDF)
• Attachment 2: Presentation (Draft) (PDF)
Planning Board Extended Agenda
Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5851)
Extended Agenda 10/13
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review of the Extended Agenda.
Planning Board Chair Comments
Planning Board Member Comments
Adjournment
Planning Board Page 3 Printed 101812021
2.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/13/2021
Approval of Minutes
Staff Lead: Eric Engmann
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Eric Engmann
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Approval of Minutes from 9/22.
Narrative
Meeting minutes attached.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: September 22, 2021 Minutes
Packet Pg. 4
2.A.a
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Virtual Meeting
Via Zoom
September 22, 2021
U)
Chair Rosen called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. c
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES 0
76
0
We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the 0.
Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We Q
respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with N
the land and water.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Mike Rosen, Chair
Alicia Crank, Vice Chair
Judi Gladstone
Roger Pence
Todd Cloutier
Nathan Monroe
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Matt Cheung (Excused)
Richard Kuen
Mr. Rosen: Calls meeting to order
STAFF PRESENT
Eric Engmann, Planning Division
Angie Feser, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
Frances Chapin, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
Mr. Monroe: Reads Land Acknowledgement
Mr. Rosen: Before roll call, asks Nathan to share news.
Mr. Monroe: States he will be resigning from the Board effective in the middle of October due
to many reasons including a new baby, promotion at work with Sound Transit, and
other time commitments. Thanks the Board for all their hard work
Mr. Rosen: Thanks Nathan and says he will be missed.
Packet Pg. 5
2.A.a
Mr. Rosen: Asks Eric to call roll.
Mr. Engmann: Calls Roll, all present except Matt Chung or Richard Kuen.
Mr. Rosen: States Matt Chung is excused. And at this point, Richard is not.
Approval of Minutes
Mr. Rosen: We have two sets of minutes to approve. The first is August 25th. I will just point
out that on Packet Page 6, Judi lost her J.
Ms. Crank: So, Packet Page 23, there's a word missing. In my first statement on that page, it
should say — the word "not" should be between body and to. And if you read the c
rest of the comment, you'll see that that's accurate that it would read to the fact that
"not" should be there. o
a
Q.
Mr. Rosen: Any other changes to August 25th meeting? Asks for a motion. (moved and a
seconded). Asks for those in favor. a
c
Multiple: Aye.
Mr. Rosen: Anybody opposed?
Ms. Gladstone: I oppose. I really have an issue with the meeting notes. When I looked at our packet
and we had a one -hour meeting and 37 pages of notes. The RS Commission has a
two-hour meeting and three pages of notes. I can't read 37 pages. I'm dedicated to
the work here. But reading 37 pages of note to find a missing word is not a valuable
us of my time. So, I have to oppose them until we get better notes.
Motion to Adopt the August 25th Minutes, as Amended. Motion Passes 5-1, J. Gladstone voting No.
Mr. Rosen: Moves to September 8th, any corrections or concerns?
Ms. Crank: Packet Case 40, I have had my name misspelled in so many ways, but I've never
been Alicia Clank. I totally laughed at that one. So, at the very top of that page.
I will also kind of say to Judi's point is where not necessarily that it has to edited
down so much, but if it's possible, and I know that staff is carrying a lot of
responsibility on limited staff, if there is a way to kind of break up the topic as we're
talking — because now, it kind of runs all together. So, if you read it, it feels like it's
just kind of one, big, long discussion, as opposed to the two or three that we had.
Mr. Engmann: Okay, yeah. I definitely can try —
Ms. Crank: Yeah, so if there's any way, just kind of put in a break to say, okay, now, we're
Planning Board Minutes
September 22, 2021 Page 2
Packet Pg. 6
2.A.a
talking about this thing and then all that as a starter. But again, I totally appreciate
and understand the constraints.
Mr. Engmann: Yeah. If I can just add to that, it's something that we definitely want to get someone
onboard. That is a reduced version, Judi, so it's 15 pages off of the way we get it in.
Ms. Crank: I can tell because I can see where some was very abridged down, and then some
were very verbatim. So, yeah.
Ms. Gladstone: So, I appreciate the difficulty with staff, but how is it that the Arts Commission is
able to get such succinct notes.
a�
Mr. Engmann: We used to have someone that did the minutes here for this board. They retired
earlier in the year. And Rob, to his credit, tried to get someone else to take over this o
board to do the minutes, and nobody's taken them off on that order. That's the
problem, no one that took up our request for this. i
a
Q.
Mr. Rosen: Any other changes to September 8th, other than giving Alicia yet another new a
name? Okay, hearing none, can I get a motion for approval with the change?
(Motion is moved and seconded)
Multiple: Aye.
Mr. Rosen: Anybody opposed? Judi?
Ms. Gladstone: Yep.
Motion to Adopt the September 8t" Minutes, as Amended. Motion Passes (5-1), J. Gladstone voting
No.
Mr. Rosen: Thank you. And any abstentions? Yes, Nathan?
Mr. Monroe: When I miss a meeting, having all the notes, it's very nice to have the entire
rundown of the meeting. I appreciate it. And I understand what you're saying Judi.
And typically, when I attend a meeting, I read my comments to make sure they're
accurate and reflecting and skip everything else because I'm not going to spend my
time reliving the entire meeting, as a timesaver for myself. So, if you take
something from that, that's great. If you don't, that's fine too.
Ms. Gladstone: Thanks for the suggestion, and I started to do that. And I found myself reading
things. It's like, did I really say that? And because it's every single word, like the
sos and the yeahs. And I —
Planning Board Minutes
September 22, 2021 Page 3
Packet Pg. 7
2.A.a
Ms. Crank: Yeah. I say gonna a lot apparently.
Ms. Gladstone: Yeah. Anyway, so, thank you for the suggestion. I will try to stomach it and see if
I can do it in the future.
Mr. Rosen: All right. That motion passes.
Announcement of the Agenda
Mr. Rosen: I will now do the announcement of the agenda. And I do want to thank you, Eric,
for implementing the request we had previously made where if there isn't a topic
for an agenda item, that agenda item is entirely removed. Thank you. That does
help a lot.
0
(Announces the Agenda)
0
L
Audience Comments a
Mr. Engmann: Okay. We got four people on the board for items. So, I'll wait on their item that. 2
We have Natalie Seitz.
Ms. Seitz: Thank you. I've stopped reading my comments when they show up in the minutes,
just so you know. So, I'm commenting tonight with regard to trees and EV
standards. With regard to trees, last night, the City Council conducted a public
hearing on the Storm Water Code. I wanted to use the opportunity to point out that
this is one code where the city can make real progress if they [inaudible] retention
and planting of trees.
Trees are already recognized as a low -impact development best -management
practice, 5.16 in the Western Washington Storm Water Manual. The city could take
further steps to prioritize the use of this particular BMP in its code and seek to
require drain entrenchments for trees as a storm water BMP. Drain entrenchment
can provide long-term, durable space for trees in the urban environment and comes
with a built-in enforcement mechanism through the Clean Water Act that would be
significantly easier to enforce in a tree maintenance regulation.
City planners can look to the City of Philadelphia for an example of trees used as
drainage infrastructure. I hope the city will put in the preliminary planning work
necessary to have this be a component of the city's code when the next municipal
permit update happens in corresponding code revisions in five years.
So then, with regard to the EV standards, I am disappointed that the planning board
chose to go with Option 2 exceptions to the new code with the upgrades. While
Highway 99 is an area of concern for utility upgrades, it is also a 7 of 10 for
environmental health disparities, and 9 of 10 for environmental exposures, and a 7
Planning Board Minutes
September 22, 2021 Page 4
Packet Pg. 8
of 10 for socioeconomic factors.
What 9 of 10 means is that only 10 percent of communities in the state of
Washington had worse environmental exposures than this community. And it is
primarily due to vehicle emissions from Highway 99. It is more important that EV
investment happens in the SR 99 quarter than any other area of the city for purely
public health reasons.
The city's desire to site low-income development here in conjunction with the
exemptions will delay this investment, prolong negative exposures, and result in a
lower standard of building for this area than the rest of the city. There's an argument
that this type of investment follows growth, but I don't understand how the
investment in electric infrastructure would happen with the exemptions when the S
exemptions are written in the code and no plans for the utility to upgrade the system —
in this area.
0
L
Although Highway 99 is not specifically mentioned, the existing conditions are a
what they are with a lack of infrastructure in the city's desire that Highway 99 be a
the location for low-income development. This is where the exemption will impact.
Sure, having no exemptions may delay development, which is why I suggest
partnerships to offset the cost. I chose to focus on equity with my previous
comments, and I'm adding on help today even though I know that it's likely too late.
If I see it come up at the council, these will be my comments to them. Thank you
for your time and consideration of these additional thoughts.
Mr. Rosen: Asks if there is any other audience comment. (No one else, closes comments)
New Business- Proposed Donation of Memorial Sculpture: Edmonds Veterans
Plaza Memorial
Mr. Rosen: We will now hear about the proposed donation of the memorial sculpture at the
veteran's plaza and then have consideration.
Ms. Chapin: Good evening. I am Frances Chapin. I'm the arts and culture manager for the City
of Edmonds. And it's my pleasure to be here tonight to introduce an item on behalf
of the Veterans Plaza Committee. They are represented here tonight by Brian
Bishop and David Varnau, who I will introduce in a couple of minutes, to bring
their proposal for a memorial sculpture for the Veterans Plaza that would be
donated to the city.
So, as the Parks Board, you are reviewing this tonight and the appropriateness of
that for this park site. I wanted to start out though by just going very briefly through
the process. The parks process for approving a donated memorial for a park site
includes a review first by the Arts Commission to assess the general context of the
Planning Board Minutes
September 22, 2021 Page 5
Packet Pg. 9
2.A.a
piece that's being proposed and any potential impact on existing or planned public
art in the vicinity. That is followed up by a review by planning board regarding
appropriateness for the park site followed by an advertised public hearing at City
Council prior to a council decision about acceptance of the memorial donation.
So, the memorial process is a little bit different. It sounds similar in some ways, but
it's a little bit different from the public art process which is what I usually am
presenting because there's no specific design review of the concept, although
comments about overall fit, safety, maintenance, and so forth are appropriate in any
part of the city's review process. So, at the Public Safety Complex, which is where
the Veterans Plaza is, there are several public art installations that have been there
since the Public Safety Complex was built. There's several more in the general
vicinity.
And the plaza itself has memorial names on a wall that you'll see in the renderings.
0
There's also a bronze sculpture of a dog honoring service animals in the area behind
0
the proposed memorial site. And some of you, if you haven't been by there recently,
a
there was a kiosk sited there that is no longer there. So, there actually are fewer
a
elements in that plaza.
So, after review and discussion of the proposal at the Arts Commission meeting on
September 13th, the Arts Commission made a recommendation stating that the
proposal was compatible with existing and planned public art elements in the
vicinity. So, tonight, you're going to hear the presentation. And planning board is
asked to review the memorial project in your role as the Parks Board and make a
recommendation to City Council about the appropriateness of the memorial for the
Veterans Plaza Park.
So, now, I'm going to turn the presentation over to the Veterans Plaza Committee.
So, hopefully, they can be brought on and allowed to screenshare their presentation.
We have two people with us tonight. One is David Varnau, who is an Edmonds
artist and sculptor and has designed the proposed memorial. And the other is Brian
Bishop, who is a landscape architect from Site Workshop Landscape Architecture,
and that's the firm that designed the Veterans Plaza originally. So, they will put it
in the bigger context for you and then also talk about the details of the proposed
memorial.
Mr. Monroe: Frances, before we do that, when you say appropriateness, can you help me define
what that means? What's our charge here tonight? Are we looking for —
Ms. Chapin: I think you're looking for overall fit. Certainly, we would have concerns about
something that did not appear to be safe that we would put in a park site, for
example. But I think appropriateness in this case is a very general concept. Take a
look at what's proposed. Is there anything that sets a red flag for you in terms of
how well this will work in a public plaza area that is used by people of all ages.
Planning Board Minutes
September 22, 2021 Page 6
Packet Pg. 10
2.A.a
Mr. Monroe: Okay, thank you. I appreciate that.
Mr. Bishop: I'll introduce myself very briefly and then let David take over. I'm Brian Bishop, as
Frances said. And I was the design for the original Veterans Plaza design process a
number of years ago and saw that through design and construction and started out
in — there was a competition through the city. And so, the group has asked me to
come on and advise in terms of appropriateness within the plaza and kind of work
with the team to locate the art and work through the particulars of how best to
integrate it in a seamless way. And I'll turn it over to David now.
Mr. Varnau: Hi, there, everybody. Yes, as Frances indicated, my name is David Varnau. I'm a
N
local Edmonds artist. And I was approached by the Veterans Plaza Committee to
S
make a proposal for a memorial sculpture to be located in the plaza.
c
Ultimately, after a number of different submissions, what was settled on was a pair
i
of realistically rendered hands, human hands, that are about five times life size. And
a
they would be in a position, as you see in the picture, a gesture of giving or offering.
a
And the image is intended to be a universal symbol of giving. The gesture, I think,
resonates with all of us as conveying that kind of message.
The title of the sculpture will be The Gift of Freedom. And it's intended to be a
tasteful portrayal that pays homage to the sacrifice service members make and have
made to protect our country. The title of the sculpture, as you can see in the picture,
is actually inscribed on the front base of the sculpture memorial. And it's intended
to provide a clear and unambiguous indication of what the image is all about.
Below the sculpture, in the area immediately below the sculpture, is planned a
quotation that would further reinforce the notion of the gift that veterans have given
our country. I think we all as viewers and any viewers in the plaza will resonate
with an image of the human hands. The hands, as we all recognize, can be very
compelling as a form of communication. And as such, an image that is created using
a pair of hands like this, can be very compelling.
And the notion is that it would draw people into the plaza and kind of invite them
to come up closer and thereby view the names of the Edmonds residents who over
the years have given the ultimate sacrifice of their life as a gift of freedom. In terms
of its size, it's, as I said, five times life size.
The first drawing, you can see that the hands from left to right will be about four
feet wide and about three and a half feet high. Just for a kind of sense of scale, the
existing wall that is there, called the memorial wall, or as the veterans call it, the
KIA wall, the killed in action wall, that wall from left to right, the tall portion of it,
is 10 feet wide. And it varies in height because it's on a slope. But it's roughly the
same height as the hands at the point where the hands are mounted on the wall.
Planning Board Minutes
September 22, 2021 Page 7
Packet Pg. 11
2.A.a
The notion that we are trying to convey is one of giving. We want it to be clear.
And as such, there will be an inscription on the bottom that actually will read as
follows — as I understand it, the veterans have chosen this quote, which reads, "To
the brave and fallen, thank you for the gift of freedom. We will never forget
freedom is not free. It has been bought with a price, a price of blood and sacrifice.
If you love your freedom, thank a veteran."
And this is something that a number of the veterans really have a lot of juice for in
terms of its message. And there's a good strong support from the majority of
veterans who have been involved in this project and have had the opportunity to
comment and to vote on it.
c
Next slide. You can see that the existing wall, you can see that we're looking at the
-
south side of the memorial wall. The existing wall is 18 inches wide — or thick, let's
call it. And for the size of the sculpture and to support it sufficiently, Brian will be
i
talking about the need to install an additional extension on the wall to provide a
a
sufficient base for the sculpture and to offer sufficient support. If you give us the
a
next slide, Brian, this is kind of a bird's eye view of it. So, you can see the existing
wall is this linear 10-feet long wall. And below the major point of part of the hands
is the wall extension that will need to be constructed to support it.
Next slide. As most of you probably know, cast metal sculptures typically are
hollow. And that will be true of this one as well. It will somewhere in the
neighborhood of a quarter if an inch thick throughout with some additional
thickness in the area where the wrist contacts the base that you see here. It will all
be cast aluminum. The aluminum will have a patina applied to it that will give it
kind of a pewter color with various highlights of kind of some minimal amount of
golds in it, grays, charcoal, just to kind of highlight its three dimensionality. Within
the hollow of the sculpture will be a reinforcement structural armature to give it
additional strength.
And as Brian has said, we've had a structural engineer consulting on this to make
certain that we have a robust and if anything, overbuilt design so that it is stable
and will withstand the vagaries of time. Brian's going to now take it from here to
give you more clarification on number of features of the project.
Mr. Bishop: As David alluded to, kind of the three considerations that myself and by extension
the structural engineer who we've included on the team who happens to be a
structural engineer who has significant experience in public art and art in highly
accessible locations, so what I have been advising on in this process is really the
placement of the memorial within the Veterans Plaza, the aesthetics of it, and trying
to as best as possible fit into the intended concept for the — the original concept and
the concept of the memorial plaza being able to evolve over time but that this is a
good fit and then also going back to the engineering side, that it's safe and durable
Planning Board Minutes
September 22, 2021 Page 8
Packet Pg. 12
2.A.a
just given how accessible and public the proposed location is.
So, on the screen, hopefully, we're all pretty familiar with the location of the
Veterans Memorial Plaza, but here's Bell. Here's 5th and then the parking lot and
municipal court. And I think we'd all be sitting over here in other times. And so,
the main pathway from the sidewalk on Bell and the corner with 5th that has always
been preserved in the design of the memorial plaza runs through here and then sort
of pivots over in the KIA or the MIA wall that David referred to, has always been
very prominent.
But it's part of the procession. And so, if you're going to court, you'll see that. It
doesn't block. We've always tried to accommodate the flow of pedestrians who are
using the building, using the space, and also those who are taking part in the
S
memorial and enjoying the space. And so, the location that's proposed and the wall
c
that David is referring to, it's right here. It's really centered on that main walkway
just to the north and west of the memorial garden. And so, the big oak tree that's in
i
the space is just south of there.
a
a
And so, we met up with David and with some of the members of the Veterans
Committee, and David created a full-size mockup of the memorial. And so, we have
been talking virtually about locations and what was appropriate for some time. And
then we met out on site and placed the sculpture at the memorial in several locations
and looked at it from a variety of different views to try to see what we felt was most
appropriate to the design vocabulary of that memorial wall. And that wall was
designed as really 15 feet divided into three.
And I don't want to go too deep into design for this conversation. But we were very
intentional about how that was set up and in a way that the steel plates where the
names and the inscriptions are located, that was designed so that it could be added
to or evolve over time. And then we had a seat next to it. And so, we reviewed a
number of different locations and in the end, agreed that locating it on the center
panel seemed to make the most sense.
And we liked that it's a prominent location. It's visibly accessible. But it also is in
the foreground of the garden beyond versus being in the foreground. The view on
the screen, if you were walking up to the courts building, the council building, you
would not see the building in the background. Your views and wayfinding is not
impacted. And so, it makes it an important part of the space but all keeps it
somewhat separate.
Additionally, the way that the wall was designed, we found provided an opportunity
to expand the wall so that we could, as David indicated, have it engineered so that
it could withstand many, many years of — I don't want to say use but basically
engineer it so that it's safe if somebody decides they want to hang on it, not that
that's encouraged but we all know that that can happen in public spaces and so
Planning Board Minutes
September 22, 2021 Page 9
Packet Pg. 13
2.A.a
basically, making sure that it's durable enough to withstand prominent placement
in a public space.
And so, this is the same design just three different views. And what we determined
was that again we wanted to work off of that five-foot module from the steel plates
that are the signage for the killed in action and missing in action names from the
community and also the inspirational quote that comes with that. And so, we located
it centered on the middle plate, and then we essentially are extending the wall back
another 18 inches so that it looks intentional and so you can see it. You kind of get
a little bit of a pinwheel effect where its wider. We've designed it such that the
finishes can match, and it would be intended to be flush on the top and a seamless
transition in the shape and the material finish for the plans.
c
To share some of our progress, we've developed a pretty robust engineered solution
o
for that base working with our structural engineer. This has actually changed a little
bit in the last day or so but didn't include that for you. But essentially, we are
i
doubling the size of the wall there, and we've confirmed that that's not going
a
anywhere over time and definitely exceeds the minimum standards for a location
a
such as this. So, that's what we wanted to share. We're happy to answer any
questions or take any comments from the group. Thank you for the review.
Mr. Rosen: Just wanted to say, Frances, always a pleasure to see you. And Brian, thank you for
the work you've been doing for this city. And David, thank you for your art and
what you are aspiring to do here. That ground is sacred ground for many people in
the community, and we really appreciate you help in not only creating it originally
but now enhancing it even further. It's an important hunk of dirt. Comments or
questions from the group? Alicia and then Nathan.
Ms. Crank: So, comment and a question. Comment is I do like where the placement is being
proposed, especially from a disability access and accessibility standpoint. I like that
it's where you can access it from the parking area which is completely kind of flat
without any kind of bumps or humps to get over. I pay attention to those things a
lot these days, so I like that that's a good placement for that.
My question may seem like an obvious one, but I feel like I have to ask it, which is
— I saw it in the presentation and in the notes that maintenance would be done by
the VFW. But I am curious, since I don't know the makeup of the committee for
this, if there was significant veteran input on the design, and if it was kind of rallied
around and acceptable to them.
Mr. Varnau: Yeah, this image was presented first to the committee and then Ron Clyboume took
it to the general membership of VFW for a vote and received overwhelming
approval for it.
Mr. Rosen: I think there was a second part to that question though. What was the other part of
Planning Board Minutes
September 22, 2021 Page 10
Packet Pg. 14
2.A.a
it?
Ms. Crank: No. That was it. I just really wanted to know if — unfortunately, there have been
times, not here specifically, where memorials or tributes to a particular group wasn't
vetted by the group being honored. And it came back as a, hey, we don't like that at
all. Like I said, I feel like I didn't need to ask the question, but I just kind of wanted
to get it on record since I didn't know the makeup of the committee and the total
involvement of the VFW.
Mr. Varnau: Yeah. In all truth, there was one outlier that had different ideas in the VFW group.
But he was outvoted by the majority.
a�
Ms. Crank: Thank you for that. I appreciate it.
0
Mr. Monroe: I had a couple questions and a couple comments. But to kind of pick up where
Alicia left off, so great presentation. Thank you. So, the VFW looked at it, and I i
guess this is directed to maybe David or Eric. The planning board's not — we're not 0.
going to make an artistic judgement. We're not artists. We're planning board a
members. Who else besides the VFW?
They'll be recognizing this is a city area. This is in front of our city hall and our
court. It shouldn't just be up to the VFW to decide what's appropriate here. I heard
you mention our Art Commission looked at it. Were they evaluating this based on
the aesthetics of it, or were they just looking a safety component?
Ms. Chapin: That's a good question. The way our memorial donation process works for parks,
the Arts Commission does not review it for the aesthetics or specific design. They
review it for how it impacts other public art in the area, and overall fit.
So, it's a little bit different. That's why I was saying it's different from our public
art process. However, there is still a public hearing at City Council in which the
public is invited to make comment because it is a process that involves City Council
approval of the donation being offered to the city. Does that make sense.
Mr. Monroe: And were you at the Art Commission?
Ms. Chapin: Yes.
Mr. Monroe: Were they able to refrain from making aesthetic decisions or aesthetic comments,
or were they offering their opinion as well?
Ms. Chapin: Well, there were various opinions. Let's put it this way. I think everybody on the
Arts Commission would agree that David Varnau is a very gifted sculptor, does
really beautiful work. And I did attach the minutes which are not verbatim, but the
minutes from the Arts Commission meeting. So, you can see there was a little bit
Planning Board Minutes
September 22, 2021 Page 11
Packet Pg. 15
2.A.a
of discussion. And I think David addressed some of that.
There was a question about making sure this is very much inclusive and universal.
I think that was something that Alicia Crank just mentioned, that accessibility, it's
something we think a lot about now with public art and anything like this. We want
to make sure people can see it and view it easily without encumbrances, particularly
for this plaza and this space. So, those were the kinds of things that the Arts
Commission discussed.
Mr. Monroe: I appreciate that. I just want to remind ourselves that we're not artists here in this
group. I guarantee people are going to sit in the hands. I mean, I'm glad to hear that
it's durable. People are going to sit in them and take photos. So, I'm trusting you'll
make them durable enough for that. It's just too attractive not to.
0
And then, I guess, as a personal note, thank a veteran — if you have freedom, thank
a veteran personally seems kind of heavy handed. But it's not my venue to make 0
that comment. It just seems very on point and heavy handed and a little bit not 0.
inclusive, but I'm going to refrain from going further down that. Other than that, a
thank you for the presentation.
Mr. Rosen: Any comments from any of you or questions?
Ms. Gladstone: Thank you for the presentation. And I'd say that it seems like you've given a lot of
thought to the mechanics and the placement and the safety issues, the engineering.
And it all sounds very sound to me from what I'm reading. And the one comment
that I have — it kind of follows on Nathan's and also some of the notes from the Arts
Commission. And I guess this is where appropriateness — being new to the
commission, I'm not sure what the scope of appropriateness is.
But if we're looking for right fit in terms of inclusiveness, I have some concerns
that because it invokes Christian prayer rather than just giving — I really like the
notion of giving and because I do think that the veterans are a part of what gives us
freedom. Their role is really important, and I appreciate the sentiment.
I like the words, and I like the quote. But I think the paragraph from the Arts
Commission captures something that is really important as a community in terms
of what else does it say to the community? And I have concerns. And that may not
be in the range of the planning board's role of commenting on appropriateness, but
it does raise some concerns to me that it's not inclusive because it has such close
affiliation with Christian prayer exclusively.
Mr. Varnau: I'll attempt to respond to that. I think there may be a tendency to associate this image
for some people with Christian prayer. If we were having this discussion in another
country where the predominant religion was something other than Christianity, they
may have a similar kind of response, like, I associate this with Buddhism, for
Planning Board Minutes
September 22, 2021 Page 12
Packet Pg. 16
2.A.a
example. I don't think Christianity owns this image per se. I think human gestures
are universal is my point. And this is a gesture of giving, of offering.
Yes. It can be used as a symbol of worship. But it's not exclusively conveying that
message — is where I'm coming from in proposing that gesture. There was some
talk about having the hands down lower, for example, and we did a very thorough
analysis of what that would look like visually. And as you back up from hand —
well, first of all, how a pair of hands that are basically horizontal to the ground
appear can differ depending on which side of the hands you're on. If you're on the
fingertip side of the hands, it can look like begging. If you're on the other side of
the hands, it can look like giving.
a�
But visually, if you have the hands tipped down low like this and then you back up
S
away from the sculpture — just look at the photograph for a moment and look and
c
just back up away from it, if the hands were tipped down, all you would see would
be that when you're backing away from the image. You would just see this, as you
i
can see.
0-
Q.
a
And part of the reason for using this particular gesture is just the abstract image that
it creates. It almost looks like a bird. These two hands look like the wings of a bird,
almost like a dove, for example. And that's what particularly interested me was just
the visual impact of the abstracted image of the hands, particularly from a distance.
So, that's where it was coming from.
Mr. Pence: Thank you. When I first saw the image of the hands, to me, they looked more like
they were there to catch something falling from the sky rather than offering
something up. I assume the design is locked, and we're at the fabrication stage, and
we're not tweaking this thing anymore. Is that correct, David?
Mr. Varnau: No. We're not locked. We're not in fabrication. We're not starting anything until the
thing is approved. I mean, maybe, he's catching acorns from the oak tree. I don't
know. We can really run with this if we want to.
Mr. Pence: And I guess my more basic question is, what alternatives crossed your mind or were
considered by the committee before the decision was made to go with the upraised
hands? I mean, you say this was presented to the VFW and the people in attendance,
all except one, agreed with it. But it wasn't like they had a choice between this and
something else, I guess.
Mr. Varnau: Right, the committee considered a couple of other submissions that I had proposed.
They also considered one proposed by another sculptor as well. And this is what
the committee settled on — that was their process —then took it to their membership.
Mr. Pence: And I guess my last comment is — and I don't mean this to be harsh or cutting, but
upraised hands is not exactly a new concept for a piece of art or sculpture or a
Planning Board Minutes
September 22, 2021 Page 13
Packet Pg. 17
2.A.a
memorial. Maybe common is not the right word. But there's something about it, I
guess, that leaves me a little underwhelmed. And for the record, I'm speaking as a
veteran. It's nice. And if this is what the groups and the people involved want to go
with, I certainly won't object. That's my last words on this.
Mr. Rosen: Alicia, before you go around, I just want to make sure Todd has a chance.
Mr. Cloutier: I like the submission. I agree with the committee. I'm also a veteran, but that should
have no weight here. I'm just a planning board member here. And I appreciate
especially all the background material you gave us because that made it very easy
for me. I was done before we even started the meeting. I am ready to move this
forward.
Mr. Rosen: Alicia, you wanted to respond to some earlier comments.
Ms. Crank: No. I was just going to reiterate that that's why I asked the question I asked initially
about if the veterans had a significant voice in the design because, we don't have
any say in the design per se. But if we're talking appropriateness, I wanted to just
kind of make sure that whatever feelings you might have about the design — I'm not
a veteran, so I feel like this might mean something to veterans that's different from
me as a non.
So, that's why I wasn't trying to necessarily critique design, which is not what we're
supposed to be doing anyway. But other than that, I think it is good for this space.
I don't see any issues with it, especially with the accessibility pieces. And I'm ready
to make the recommendation when others are as well.
Mr. Rosen: I'll jump in with my comments, and then back to Judi. I have three, and I'll just
throw them out there all at once, and you can respond. First, I was just curious. We
referred to it, I think, as a quote. I was wondering who the quote is attributed to.
The second question is, for the words, the title, the quote, and the design, are we
confident that we're clear of any trademark or copyright infringements? And then
my third sort of plays back to Judi's comment earlier in terms of — and I really
appreciate, David, your comments about what you hope the image — and how it
resonates and how a different viewer, not only in that plaza but in different parts of
the world, will interpret it differently, but I was curious if it might be possible to
sort of proactively validate that it doesn't conjure up an image — so, I understand
you're going to do a public hearing, but as we know, that is a hard thing to get
people to do.
I'm wondering about reaching out to a variety of faith -based organizations across a
spectrum and just sort of testing that, yes, indeed, 100 percent of the people just
don't see it as a Christian symbol, or they don't see it as offensive. So, just sort of
validating across the diversity that is Edmonds that people see it the way we want
N
c
0
0
L
0.
0.
a
Planning Board Minutes
September 22, 2021 Page 14
Packet Pg. 18
2.A.a
to. So, that would be a suggestion unless you feel like you have confidence that
nobody's going to see it in a way you don't want to. So, those are my three, who's
the attributed to, trademark/copyright, and sort of validating how it is viewed.
Mr. Varnau: Those are all great comments. And the copyright one is a good one. From my
research, I've not been able to identify any copyright -associated with that particular
gesture primarily because it's so universal.
As far as the attribution to the quote, I cannot answer that. That's one that Ron
Clybourne came up with. And there was a comment one of you made about it being
somewhat heavy handed. There's actually a sentence or two that was in the original
quote that I thought was extremely heavy handed. And I urged them to take it out
because of concerns about alienating people etc. But I could put that question to
c
them, and I could also pass that comment onto them as well and see if they want to
0
rework that quote in some way.
0
L
As far as validating, I guess my experience with public sculpture and even sculpture
a
that's in the public eye, you can get a different view about it from almost everybody.
a
And people resonate in different ways to a given image. I mean, it sounds like you're
asking for a survey of sorts in that regard.
Mr. Rosen: The city has enough scars, putting art in front of the public in that format, more of
that, I guess, I wouldn't even call it a focus group, just sort of a check in with a cross
section of community people that we have relationships across the diversity that is
the community. That's all I'm suggesting. And I agree with you. Sorry that I'm
pushing back a little bit. Recognizing that art is in the eyes of not only the artist but
the beholder, in art like this, it is less about you doing a personal expression and
more about the city, in my opinion, making a statement and trying to in fact create
an emotional response in a very specific direction.
I think in that case, it is different because we are trying to say, does this work,
because if it doesn't, then why are we doing it? And I personally like it. I'm like
everybody else at this point saying, yes, let's go forward. My question is only related
to, you are talking to seven people, and we don't represent the diversity that is
Edmonds.
Ms. Gladstone: Following up on what you were saying because the thought that was going through
my mind is I'm just wondering if this is something that the Diversity Committee for
the city may weigh in on, because it is a public space. I know when I was preparing
for this meeting, I did a Google search for examples on symbols of giving because
of my initial reaction to it.
And then I looked up symbols of Christian prayer. And this comes up if you look
at it, and it's specifically identified as Christian prayer. And I guess for a public
space is my concern, particularly being sensitive to the separation of the church and
Planning Board Minutes
September 22, 2021 Page 15
Packet Pg. 19
2.A.a
state — and so, I guess I'm with you that surveying people is not a good way to go
with art because it can be interpreted multiple ways.
But in terms of the sensitivity of the piece and its potential association for selective
groups, — maybe the diversity committee is a place to just vet it through because of
the sensitivity around religious things in public places. I think if you google, you'll
find that this kind of image is attributed specifically to Christian prayer. And I have
a problem with that in terms of it being what is in a public place.
Mr. Varnau: I understand what you're saying. I guess that's up to the board. If you want to
recommend that it be presented to the Diversity Committee, that's your call. 1�;
a�
Mr. Rosen: So, let me see if I can capture where we are and see if we have consensus. So, I
c
think we have consensus that we recommend this be sent to the Council and are
o
also recommending that either prior to their review, that the Diversity Committee
be accessed for their feedback. I don't think we're recommending that they have
0-
veto power, just that it be another data point for you. So, does that sound to the rest a
of the committee like what we are recommending? Alicia, you were about to say a
something.
Ms. Crank: I'm 75 percent there. I don't know if I would say send it to the Diversity Committee.
I think that's going to create additional issue, especially if it's trying to — I
understand the reasons. But I think when you have kind of the group that it's
supposed to be honoring potentially being vetoed by another group that wasn't
necessarily originally a part of this process, I think that could blow back on us in a
way that we don't want.
Mr. Monroe: I would echo that a little bit with Alicia, that our charge as a group was to decide if
this is appropriate for this park. I think it's pretty hard for us to decide that veterans
don't know what's appropriate for the veteran part. That sounds like a pretty difficult
bar for us to clear.
So, I'm going to recommend we approve it. If council wants to reach down and ask
diversity to look at it, they'll do that. It's not our job to point that out. I think for our
group, we need to check the box that we looked at it and that we agree. The only
question to us is, is this appropriate for the Veterans Plaza?
Mr. Rosen: Nathan, I guess, what I would suggest is that that is one filter. And to your point
about the quote, which came from that organization, you as a community member
felt that was a bit heavy handed. So, if the intent that we want the community to
understand the gift that veterans gave us and our charge is to say is it appropriate,
then isn't it appropriate for us to recommend that we validate it with the
community?
Mr. Monroe: I would say that I prefaced my comment by saying I'm not an artist, and I don't
Planning Board Minutes
September 22, 2021 Page 16
Packet Pg. 20
2.A.a
know what makes good art. That's why you have an Art Commission. In my
personal opinion, the same sentiment could be conveyed in a more eloquent way
than that. And I was inviting David to think about that. But as a board member, I
think my charge is to decide if this artwork is appropriate for this park, and I think
it is. I think I can't find fault with that.
Mr. Rosen: Because I think some of us would also like to make sure that the council hears this
message as part of their consideration, that we offer up that as a consideration as
they review it and that we offer up that they considered potentially seeking the
guidance of the committee. So, it's not a recommendation that they do, just a
suggestion that perhaps they consider that.
as
Ms. Gladstone: Mike, I guess I would be comfortable with that because I think they need to S
understand that it may have unintended consequences that don't detract from the —
beauty of the art but more its placement in a public location. And maybe, the
Diversity Committee isn't the right place. It just came to my mind as a venue that i
is available within the city to offer some viewpoint that says, not everybody a
ascribes to the same thing. a
And we have community members of all different types and how universally felt is
it because, it may not be. So, maybe, the Diversity Committee isn't the right — but I
was trying to offer something that would get at the point that this is to honor the
veterans, but putting it in a public location, you don't want to end up with
unintended consequences that end up alienating other parts of the community.
Mr. Rosen: Frances or Angie, I'd love to hear from you if any of this making you break a sweat.
Ms. Feser: So, this is an interesting situation, and this has been brought forward to this group,
as Nathan mentioned earlier, in the context of, is this an appropriate donation to
accept in this park? There will be opportunities for public review and comment
during a public hearing in front of the council in weeks to come. I'm not sure.
I think you have to be careful because if you were to say, we want the Diversity
Committee to look at this, so just this art memorial donation, then you're setting a
precedent, right? Why would this one be reviewed or be recommended to be
reviewed by others? And moving forward, would you do that every other time?
Those are my thoughts. There will be the opportunity for the public to express their
comments about this proposal during a public hearing process in front Council.
Ms. Chapin: I was just going to add that this particular park is the Veterans Plaza, but it is also
a public park. And it is the public entry to the Public Safety Complex. It's a very
well -used park in the center of town. So, in terms of appropriateness, I think you've
raised some very good points and that it's important that those be conveyed in some
form to City Council because that's your job here is to look at the overall
appropriateness of this. I wanted to reiterate that it's not coming forward as an
Planning Board Minutes
September 22, 2021 Page 17
Packet Pg. 21
2.A.a
artwork donation because that would be very different.
I hope you all read the minutes from the Arts Commission. They raised the same
concerns that you've raised, plus asked other questions. Their role is not to evaluate
the aesthetics of it in these particular circumstances because it's coming forward as
a memorial. So, it almost falls in a more general way to your review.
Mr. Rosen: I'd like to put this in the form of a motion. Does anybody want to take a shot at one?
Mr. Monroe: I guess we're moving with the artwork for the memorial as presented. It's moved
onto Council with the following considerations. Is that what we're saying, that they
consider the impact to diversity.
c
Ms. Crank: I wouldn't even say consider to be honest. And I want to make sure we're not being o
super heavy handed in what we're asking the council to do, but I like where you're
going. o
a
Q.
Mr. Monroe: I can do whatever I want. I'm on my way - a
Ms. Crank: You can. You're leaving. You're out of here. I would probably say I like everything
you said, but I would probably add to that with the notation that board members
recognized that there might be some additional community input around what the
symbolism of the design is, kind of like a footnote as opposed to, we're suggesting
that you go and talk to the Diversity Commission or any other thing.
Mr. Rosen: I'm comfortable with that.
Mr. Monroe: I think bottom line, it's all going to end up as bolded text in the minutes.
Ms. Crank: I know.
Mr. Monroe: Hopefully, they're reading that. They're reading everything else, not at 37 pages,
but they can read that part.
Ms. Crank: So, move that we recommend staffs recommendation to move this forward onto
Council with the notation that board members recognize there may be some
additional conversation or concerns from public around design or something like
that.
Mr. Rosen: Interpretation, right?
Ms. Crank: Interpretation.
Mr. Monroe: With regard to diversity, there were good brought -out points. Our Commission
brought them up. They brought up here — it wasn't just generic continued look at
Planning Board Minutes
September 22, 2021 Page 18
Packet Pg. 22
2.A.a
design, but it was diversity in —
Mr. Rosen: So, Eric, read that back.
Ms. Gladstone: Diversity and inclusion.
Ms. Crank: Honestly, I think interpretation is a better word because inclusion's going to be built
into that, but it is going to be more about how people interpret it. And I feel like a
lot of conversation, especially a lot of what you brought up, Judi, was around
interpretation.
N
Mr. Rosen: I'm good with that. So, it's not tight yet, but I think we're all know what we're voting
on. Is that correct?
0
Ms. Gladstone: I guess I'd like to hear back what it is again if you could because I'm not sure I
totally tracked. 0
a
0.
Mr. Monroe: And she's not going to read the minutes. a
Mr. Engmann: I got most of it until the last part. So, motion to approve the artwork with the
notation that the board recognizes that — that was the part that I didn't get past that
point.
Ms. Gladstone: That's what I want to hear.
Ms. Crank: That there may be questions from community members around interpretation and
design.
Mr. Engmann: Community questions about interpretation and design. So, moving forward with the
notation that the board recognized that there may be questions about interpretation
and design.
Ms. Chapin: So, nothing about artwork — Memorial not artwork.
Ms. Feser: Thanks, Frances. I was going to clarify that when the dust settled. You have very
different processes, yes, so it's important to recognize the difference between the
two.
Mr. Rosen: If you are going to go back and research or just validate our safety with the words,
the title, I would just do that as well, make sure the title is clean because you talked
about going back to Clybourne about the quote, but I wasn't sure if the title had
been searched.
Mr. Varnau: I can look further.
Planning Board Minutes
September 22, 2021 Page 19
Packet Pg. 23
2.A.a
Mr. Rosen: Okay. So, we have a motion on the floor. May I have a second?
Mr. Pence: I second.
Ms. Chapin: A second.
Mr. Rosen: Any discussion?
Mr. Monroe: Just wanted to say that's a pretty loose motion. I mean, it's, hey, we're moving this
on, but we don't really know what's going on. Good luck.
N
Ms. Gladstone: I guess they'll be able to read the notes, what everybody has said.
c
Mr. Monroe: I find if you don't put it in the actual motion, it gets skipped over. o
Ms. Gladstone: I think you're right. i
a
Q.
Mr. Rosen: All right. All in favor, raise your hand or say aye. a
as
Multiple: Aye.
Mr. Rosen: Opposed?
Mr. Monroe: Yeah.
Mr. Rosen: And abstain?
Ms. Gladstone: I'm going to abstain.
Mr. Monroe: I'm going to go with aye. I got to go back with the aye.
Mr. Rosen: All right. So, we had one abstention, and the rest were in favor.
Motion made that, The Planning Board recommends appropriateness of the memorial donation for
the park site, with the notation that board members recognize that there may be questions from the
community around interpretation of the design. Motion passes 5-0-1, J. Gladstone abstaining.
Mr. Rosen: Frances, Brian, David, and Angie, thank you for your patience and your explanation
and all the work. This is a noble effort and that it is also a donation is just amazing.
And David, you are gifted, and thank you for sharing that gift with our community.
Mr. Varnau: You're welcome. And thank you for your openness and receptivity to hearing the
presentation and your time put into it.
Mr. Varnau: I think a great deal needs to go to Brian Bishop, who's donated a great deal of his
Planning Board Minutes
September 22, 2021 Page 20
Packet Pg. 24
2.A.a
time for the design work.
Mr. Rosen: Thank you very much. You can't walk through there without being emotionally
impacted. So, it worked.
Extended Agenda
Mr. Rosen: I think we are ready to look at our extended agenda, which you all had in your
packet. Does anybody have any specific questions or concerns?
Ms. Crank: I have a question about our next meeting. I know right now all three things listed a
are tentative. Are any of those not tentative at this point, or are they still all
c
tentative?
4-
0
Mr. Engmann: The last two are pretty solid. Just waiting for a couple things with those items there.
I'm pretty sure that Steve Toy is going to come. So, tentative for all three, but o
probable for all three. a
Ms. Crank: Then we have on November 24th a question mark. I think you need to just make a a
decision about canceling that meeting.
Mr. Engmann: Does the board have to do that? I'm not sure if that's how they do it here or not. cm
Mr. Rosen: Yes. We usually do.
Mr. Engmann: Which would be fine for staff. Do you want to make that motion?
Mr. Rosen: Does anybody have a strong preference that they would like to express?
Ms. Crank: Yes.
Mr. Pence: Mr. Chairman, I guess I would only suggest that rather than just canceling it and
having one fewer meeting to do our business this year, that we try to reschedule it
to a night that's not the night before Thanksgiving. I don't know. I'm just concerned
that we've lost a few meetings along the way this year already. That's my concern.
Mr. Rosen: Alicia, you were about to say something.
Ms. Crank: Nah. I'm good with canceling the meeting. I mean, that's what we've traditionally
done. It's not anything new. And honestly, I would only reconsider rescheduling to
a new date if we had something that was time sensitive. But that's my opinion.
Mr. Rosen: Now I'm seeing some nods in that favor as well. So, Eric, if you could. I think what
we're saying is we aren't opposed to rescheduling, but we would like it to be
meaningful work that is time sensitive. So, if that is the case, because we know
Planning Board Minutes
September 22, 2021 Page 21
Packet Pg. 25
2.A.a
there is a lot that we anticipate coming to us and things we are working on, so we
would like to, as Roger pointed out, contribute as we are directed to do so.
Comments for the Good of the Order
Mr. Rosen: We'll do comments for the good of the order. Eric, I'll start with you.
Mr. Engmann: Not too much. The webpage is basically done now. Instead of having it come back
and talking about it here, I figured I would just send it to you all individually. And
if you have comments, you can just let me know. I'd love to hear from you,
especially since most of you have backgrounds with a lot of this work. I'm looking a
forward to having that out there.
c
Mr. Pence: Well, I guess I'll repeat the topic that I brought up last time, and that is the double
—
tracking of the railroad through Edmonds. There's just a whole lot of issues that that
generates and opportunities that that presents. I think that the planning board needs
o
to be involved in that conversation. I'd like to request a briefing from staff and the
a
railroad as soon as that can be arranged. Admittedly, probably not until sometime
--
next year.
a
We don't seem to know the railroad's schedule or if they even have one other than
real soon. I just want to make sure that the Planning Board is in the loop. We
shouldn't be sidelined until there's a code revision issue that comes down the pike
that we ought to be part of their conversation. When you read the state law on
planning boards and planning commissions, they're usually called, it's clear that the
intent is that they be involved in a range of planning issues and not merely code
revision.
Mr. Cloutier: I have nothing to add other than, Nathan, you'll be missed.
Mr. Monroe: Thanks, Todd.
Ms. Crank: Nothing to add.
Ms. Gladstone: I don't know if others had noticed it, but there's some roundtables going on.
Edmonds Civic Roundtable's doing a program on housing on Monday at 4:00 that
looked interesting and could be informative for our future discussions on housing.
So, I thought I'd share that.
Mr. Monroe: Just a comment about what Roger was saying there. In my day job, I work for Sound
Transit. And a number of cities have taken on putting on high -capacity transit code
requirements, meaning if you are bringing high -capacity transit to the city, you
must do XYZ. And a lot of those things, some of them are- add 500 parking spaces
or must conform to our set of requirements. But it's an interesting point, if we tag
onto BNSF, they're bringing heavy rail through our town. Now you must follow
Planning Board Minutes
September 22, 2021 Page 22
Packet Pg. 26
2.A.a
these codes.
It's a real interesting opportunity to tag on a bunch of code requirements for BNSF,
and that is an intersection between planning and the planning board for code. So,
I'd ask Eric to think about that and look into it, if there's a precedence for it. And I
think the City of Kent, City of Federal Way have done that, the Sound Transit, and
that's why we could do it with BNSF.
Mr. Rosen: Yet another reason you will be missed. I thank you all for your service and wisdom
again tonight. And I look forward to the next discussion with Nathan still with us.
Thank you all. The meeting is adjourned at 8:21.
Adjournment
The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:09 p.m.
a
Planning Board Minutes
September 22, 2021 Page 23
Packet Pg. 27
5.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/13/2021
Presentation / Report: Snohomish County Buildable Lands Program
Staff Lead: Steve Toy, Snohomish County Principal Demographer
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Eric Engmann
Background/History
This is a presentation from Steve Toy, Snohomish County Principal Demographer, on the County's
Buildable Lands Program.
Staff Recommendation
This is an overview of the program; no action is required.
Narrative
Mr. Toy will give a short overview presentation on the program and a summary for Edmonds.
Attachment 1 provides a link to information on the County's website about the Buildable Lands
Program. Attachment 2 provides a link to the adopted 2021 Buildable Lands Report.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Click Here for Link to Snohomish County Buildable Lands Website
Attachment 2: Click Here for Link to the 2021 Buildable Lands Report
Packet Pg. 28
8.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/13/2021
Presentation of Proposed 2022-2027 Capital Facilities Plan & Capital Improvement Program
Staff Lead: Rob English
Department: Engineering
Prepared By: Rob English
Background/History
The City's Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Element is updated annually and identifies capital projects for at
least the next six years, which support the City's Comprehensive Plan. CFP projects are capital
improvement projects that expand existing facilities/infrastructure or provide new capital facilities in
order to accommodate the City's projected population growth in accordance with the Growth
Management Act. Thus, capital projects that preserve existing capital facilities are not CFP projects.
These preservation projects are part of the six -year capital improvement program (CIP) along with
capital facility plan projects that encompass the projected expenditure needs for all city capital related
projects.
Staff Recommendation
Hold public hearing on October 27, 2021.
Narrative
The 2022-2027 Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) are being presented
in a different format this year. In previous years, the CFP and CIP were separate documents and
projects in the CIP were organized by the City's financial funds. This year, staff combined the CFP and
CIP into one document with project lists that identify Capital Facility projects and project information
sheets for all projects and programs.
The Public Works and Utilities Department proposed 2022-2027 CFP/CIP is included as Attachment 1.
The Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department proposed 2022-2027 CFP/CIP is included as
Attachment 2.
Following the Planning Board's public hearing and recommendation, the City Council will also hold a
public hearing prior to final approval.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Public Works & Utilities CFP-CIP
Attachment 2 - 2022-2027 Proposed Parks CIP_CFP
Packet Pg. 29
a)
U)
0
a
0
L.
IL
4-
0
c
O
r
r
c
m
a�
L
IL
CL
U
.r
c
d
E
z
ea
a
E
a
Packet Pg. 30
8.A.a
Index
TRANSPORTATION & UTILITY PROJECT MAP ..................................................... 2
FACILITIES & WWTP PROJECT MAP.......................................................................
3
TRANSPORTATION PROJECT LIST........................................................................4-6
TRANSPORTATION PROJECT SHEETS.............................................................
..7-64
WATER PROJECT LIST..........................................................................................65-66
WATER PROJECT SHEETS....................................................................................67-69
STORMWATER PROJECT LIST............................................................................70-71
STORMWATER PROJECT SHEETS......................................................................72-81
SEWER PROJECT LIST...........................................................................................82-83
SEWER PROJECT SHEETS.....................................................................................84-88
FACILITIES PROJECT LIST...................................................................................89-90
FACILITIES PROJECT SHEETS...........................................................................91-108
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROJECT LIST.................................109-110
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROJECT SHEETS...........................111-114
CIP-CFP COMPARISON(2021-2027).................................................................115-118
Packet Pg. 31
°V ED410 Public Works & Utilities Department
04
TRANSPORTATION &
�PWD-O
In , , UTILITY PROJECTS
PWT-28
Projects
o Sewer
o Stormwater
• Street/Intersection Project
o Non -Motorized Transportation Project
o Water
Sewer
Street/Intersection Project
Non -Motorized Transportation Project
PWT-09
PWT-12
PWT-35 PWT-
PWT-19 IPWT-16
•
PWT-11
PWT-15
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
0
a
0
a
0
i« PWT-10 I
* Site specific projects only. Citywide/annual citywide projects not shown.
PWD-06
PWT-43 0 P I T
OV BDD4 Public Works & Utilities Department
FACILITIES &
In ,�yo WWTP PROJECTS
4EWS.
Sprague
9 �t Sp
. PWF-01
��WF-07
/tea M ✓ ca Q 6Pp � +�
Edmonds_5
�T r PWF-16� d
'✓abjes� °` PWF-03` 0 Z����j11111 L;
• Mai -09 > sell st
tP.W,F.
PWF-10L
r lo
1��
' : MAIN-*IW7
Z wi . ■ • F-1.1
_ PW 0
c a Ar
yDayton St c Dayton St ** '
N � Dayton St
• - � ���♦I,+ ��e
PWF-13 ¢� ��� a ��
O O. �•
MUJ
■ Q
O Alder
a
0 Alder St
L
L4J ■ ■ 1 .
Walnut St Walnut St ,�,
will■.,
his � � ,
1"w PWF-07 PWI
So
PWF-04 PWF-09 • PWI
� PWF-03 9
PWF-10 00
PWF-13 P
10�011111111111
Projects 41i
o Facilities ► I
o WWTP
M
� Y �
■I�� WF-1
i
MN
mp
VCA
�a
PWF-08 ,
links
-_WAIN
�I�
�rI�opj
�%
a
V
a
LL
V
r`
N
O
N
N
N
0
N
m
W
O
IZ
O
a
0
c
0
C
a�
to
L
a
* Site specific projects only. Citywide/annual citywide projects not shown. Packet Pg. 33
8.A.a
TRANSPORTATION
a
v
a
U.
t�
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
M
O
L
a
4-
0
c
0
cc
c
m
w
m
L
a
a
v
d
LL
t�
m
oa
L
O
2
a
a
Packet Pg. 34
8.A.a
Transportation Proiects
# CFP PROJECT DTAL i #P 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 (20 TOTALTOTAL
2) I Project t Cost
PWT-01
Annual Street Preservation Program
76
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
$1,386,000
$1,650,000
$1,650,000
$9,186,000
$24,750,000
$33,936,OOC
PWT-02
84th Ave. W Overlay from 220th St. SW to 212th St. SW
84
$5,780
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$5,780
$0
$5,78C
PWT-03
76th Ave. W Overlay from 196th St. SW to Olympic View Dr.
78
$1,663,723
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,663,723
$0
$1,663,72',
PWT-04
Main St. Overlay from 6th Ave. to 9th Ave.
$0
$157,000
$780,000
$0
$0
$0
$937,000
$0
$937,OOC
PWT-05
Puget Dr. @ OVD Signal Upgrades
$0
$0
$0
$80,000
$450,000
$0
$530,000
$0
$530,OOC
PWT-06
Signal Upgrades - 100th Ave @ 238th St. SW
$0
$0
$0
$150,000
$700,000
$0
$850,000
$0
$850,OOC
PWT-07
Main St. 3rd Signal Upgrades
$0
$0
$0
$0
$100,000
$350,000
$450,000
r $0
$450,OOC
Safety / Capacity Analysis
PWT-08
X
228th St. SW from Hwy 99 to 95th PI. W Corridor
$0
$0
$0
$1,000,000
$1,700,000
$12,000,000
$14,700,000
$0
$14,700,000
PWT-09
X
Hwy 99 Revitalization & Gateway Project - Stage 2
80
$7,660,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$7,660,000
$0
$7,660,OOC
PWT-10
X
Hwy 99 Revitalization & Gateway Project - Stage 3
81
$640,000
$3,200,000
$1,930,000
$16,000,000
$10,752,000
$0
$32,522,000
$0
$32,522,000
PWT-11
X
Hwy 99 Revitalization & Gateway Project- Stage 4
82
$400,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$3,167,000
$16,000,000
$16,434,000
$41,001,000
$0
$41,001,OOC
PWT-12
X
Hwy 99 Revitalization & Gateway Project - Stage 5
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,080,000
$4,964,000
$7,044,000
$37,971,000
$45,015,000
PWT-13
I X
Hwy 99 Revitalization & Gateway Project - Stage 6
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$20,217,0001
$20,217,OOC
PWT-14
X
Hwy 99 Revitalization & Gateway Project- Stage 7
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$38,142,000
$38,142,OOC
PWT-15
X
Hwy 99 Revitalization & Gateway Project - Stage 8
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$35,242,000
$35,242,OOC
PWT-16
X
Hwy 99 Revitalization & Gateway Project - Stage 9
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$20,072,000
$20,072,000
PWT-17
X
SR 524 196th St. SW / 88th Ave. W - Intersection Improvements
$0
$0
$0
$238,000
$216,000
$720,000
$1,174,000
$0
$1,174,OOC
PWT-18
X
Main St. @ 9th Ave. Intersection Improvements
$0
$0
$0
$176,000
$1,000,000
$0
$1,176,000
$0
$1,176,OOC
PWT-19
X
76th Ave. W @ 220th St. SW - Intersection Improvements
83
$276,902
$387,439
$725,000
$6,881,000
$0
$0
$8,270,341
$0
$8,270,341
PWT-20
SR-104 Adaptive System
86
$150,000
$260,000
$0
$1,955,000
$0
$0
$2,365,0001
$0
$2,365,OOC
PWT-21
X
SR-104 @100th Ave W. Intersection & Access M mt m rovements
$0
$0
$0
$160,000
$931,000
$0
$1,091,000
$0
$1,091,OOC
PWT-22
X
SR-104 @ 95th PI. W Intersection Improvements
$0
$0
$0
$80,000
$450,000
$0
$530,000
$0
$530,OOC
PWT-23
X
SR-104 @ 238th St. SW Intersection Improvements
$0
$0
$0
$213,000
$1,219,000
$0
$1,432,000
$0
$1,432,OOC
PWT-24
X
Olympic View Dr. @ 76th Ave. W Intersection Improvements
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,266,000
$1,266,OOC
PWT-25
X
84th Ave. W (212th St. SW to 238th St. SW)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$16,622,000
$16,622,OOC
PWT-26
X
SR-104 @ 76th Ave. W Intersection Improvements
$0
$0
$0
$481,000
$2,750,000
$0
$3,231,000
$0
$3,231,OOC
PWT-27
X
Olympic View Dr. @ 174th St. SW Intersection Improvements
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$671,000
$671,OOC
PWT-28
175th St Sope Repair
$0
$1,000,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,000,000
$0
$1,000,OOC
PWT-57
2022 Guardrail Program
95
$20,180
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$20,180
$0
$20,18C
PWT-58
2022 Traffic Signal Upgrades
88
$30,280
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$30,280
$0
$30,28C
Non -motorized transportation projects
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
to
O
tZ
O
L
a
4-
0
C
O
cc
C
d
to
L
a
IL_
C)
d
LL
0
to
d
r
to
Y
L
O
t�
7
a
r
PWT-29
X
232nd St. SW Walkway from 100th Ave. to SR-104
$0
$0
$0
$0
$206,000
$1,183,000
$1,389,000
$0
$1,389,OOC =
d
PWT-30
X
236th St. SW Walkway from Madrona Elementary to 97th Ave. W
$0
$0
$0
$0
$227,000
$1,267,000
$1,494,000
$0
$1,494,000 E
PWT-31
X
236th St. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,831,000
$1,831,OOC v
PWT-32
X
84th Ave. W Walkway from 238th St. SW to 234th St. SW
$0
$0
$0
$0
$150,000
$640,000
$790,000
$0
$790,000_
PWT-33
X
80th Ave. W Walkway from 212th St. SW to 206th St. SW
$0
$0
$0
$209,000
$209,000
$2,476,000
$2,894,000
$0
$2,894,OOC Q
PWT-34
X
80th Ave. W Walkway from 188th St. SW to Olympic View Dr.
$0
$0
$0
$597,000
$2,339,000
$0
$2,936,000
$0
$2,936,OOC
PWT-35
X
218th St. SW Walkway from 76th Ave. W to 84th Ave. W
$0
$0
$0
$0
$240,000
$1,350,000
$1,590,0001
$0
$1,590,OOC d
PWT-36
X
Walnut St. Walkway from 6th Ave. S to 7th Ave S
$0
$0
$0
$265,000
$0
$0
$265,000
$0
$265,000 t
PWT-37
X
216th St. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave W
$0
$0
$0
$200,000
$0
$0
$200,000
$0
$200,OOC C�
PWT-38
Citywide Pedestrian Enhancements Project
85
$10,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$10,000
$0
$10,000
PWT-39
X
Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project
79
$1,562,390
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,562,390
$0
$1,562,39C Q
PWT-40
X
Maplewood Dr. Walkway from Main St. to 200th St. SW
$0
$0
$0
$201,000
$201,000
$2,300,000
$2,702,000
$0
$2,702,000
PWT-41
X
95th PI. W Walkway from 224th St. SW to 220th St. SW
$0
$0
$0
$120,000
$668,000
$0
$788,000
$0
$788,000
PWT-42
X
Railroad St. Walkway from Dayton St. to Main St. / SR-104
$0
$0
$0
$170,000
$754,000
$0
$924,000
$0
$924,000
PWT-43
X
SR-104 @ 76th Ave. W Non -Motorized Trans Improvements
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11
Packet Pg. 35
8.A.a
PWT-44
X
Downtown Lighting Improvements
$0
$0
$0
$300,000
$1,200,000
$0
$1,500,000
$0
$1,500,000
PWT-45
X
SR-104 Walkway: HAWK to Pine/Pine from SR-104 to 9th
$0
$0
$0
$327,000
$327,000
$2,636,000
$3,290,000
$0
$3,290,OOC
PWT-46
X
191st St. SW Walkway from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave. W
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$678,000
$678,OOC
PWT-47
X
104th Ave. W / Robinhood Lane Walkway from 238th St. SW to 106th
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,060,000
$1,060,OOC
PWT-48
X
80th Ave. W Walkway from 218th St. SW to 220th St. SW
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$324,000
$324,OOC
PWT-49
X
84th Ave. W Walkway from 188th St. SW to 186th St. SW
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$01,
$328,0001
$328,OOC
PWT-50
X
238th St. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,285,000
$1,285,000
PWT-55
X
Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S
93
$901,780
$0
$01
$0
1 $0
$0
$901,780
$0
$901,78C
PWT-56
X
2022 Pedestrian Safety Program
87
$20,185
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$20,185
$0
$20,18E
ti
N
CD
tV
1
N
N
CD
tV
d
Ferry Projects
N
PWT-51
X Ferry Storage Improvements from Pine St. to Da on St.
1 $0
$0
$0
$357,000
$0
$0
$357,000
$0
$357,OOC
O
C
L
Traffic Calming
d
PWT-52
Traffic Calming Program
11 94 1 $33,130
$18,0001
$18,0001
$18,0001
$18,0001
$18,00011
$123,13011
$225,000
$348,13C
p
C
Traffic Planning Projects
O
PWT-53
Citywide ADA Transition Plan
1 $0
$100,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$100,000
$0
$100,OOC
'CIO'
PWT-54
I
ITransportation Plan Update
77
1 $185,000
$0
$0
$01
$0
$0
$185,000
$0
$185,OOC
C
d
Total Projects $15,059,350
$8,622,439
$7,953,000
$34,731,000
$46,537,000
$47,988,000
$160,890,789
$201,978,000
$362,868,789
i
a
Funding Source
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
TOTAL
(2022-2027)
TOTAL
(2028-42)
TOTAL
(2022-2027)
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax $ Multi -modal revenue
$185,000
$131,000
$156,000
$150,000
$150,000
$150,000
$922,000
$2,250,000
$3,172,000
REET Fund 125
$835,199
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$835,199
$0
$835,199
REET Fund 126
$1,382,400
$1,596,000
$1,518,000
$1,518,000
$1,518,000
$1,518,000
$9,050,400
$22,725,000
$31,775,40C
Transportation Impact Fees
$60,000
$75,609
$343,750
$145,000
$500,0001
$0
$1,124,359
$0
$1,124,359
General Fund
$500,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$500,000
$0
$500,000
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
$371,272
$25,000
$5,000
$0
$0
$0
$401,272
$0
$401,272
Federal Grants
$936,428
$1,811,830
$1,343,250
$0
$0
$0
$4,091,508
$0
$4,091,50E
State Grants
$8,700,000
$3,700,000
$2,607,000
$0
$0
$0
$15,007,000
$0
$15,007,000
Other
$2,073,211
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,073,211
$0
$2,073,211
Unsecured Funding
$0
$1,268,0001
$1,975,0001
$32,918,000
$44,369,000
$46,320,000
$126,850,000
$177,003,000
$303,853,000
IL
2
Total Revenue $15,059,350 $8,622,439 $7,953,000 $34,731,000 $46,537,000 $47,988,000 $160,890,789 $201,978,000 $362,868,789
O
IL
c
a�
E
r
r
a
r
C
a)
E
nz
a
Packet Pg. 36
6
Project Description
Annual pavement preservation program to maintain City streets.
Project Benefit
Maintains the City's pavement infrastructure and reduces the need for larger capital investment to rebuild City
steets.
Estimated Project Cost
$1,500,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$225,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $200,000 $200,000
$1,275,000 $1,350,000
$1,350,000 $1,236,000
$1,450,000
$1,450,000
$1,500,000 $1,500,000
$1,500,000 $1,386,000
$1,650,000
$1,650,000
$150,000
$150,000
$150,000 $2,250,OC
$500,000
$500,000 $1,500,000
$1,500,000 $1,236,000
$1,500,000
$1,500,000 $22,500,OC
$500,000
$1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,386,000 $1,650,000 $1,650,000 $24,750,00
a
u_
U
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
Q
O
L
a
4-
0
c
O
0
as
N
a
Packet Pg. 37
212TH ST SW
U
- a
u_
21Sin_ EL 51H 4 : 0
} N
tam
CD
�igeh.syw #� N
� J�4111 '0
i� � y
O
$ Q
O
°7 220TH.ST p
kAfE c
Project Description
Pavement overlay of 84th Ave. W from 220th St. SW to 212th St. SW, with curb ramps upgrades, RRFB's at the
as
N
L
existing crosswalk in front of the Chase Lake Elementary School, and bike lane addition from 215th St. SW to
a
212th St. SW on both sides of the street. This project is funded through a secured Federal grant and local funds.
a
The project will be completed in fall 2021 and the funding in 2022 is necessary to close-out the project and
U
d
complete the grant documents. LL
0
Project Benefit
Improve pavement condition and active transportation safety along the corridor.
Estimated Project Cost
$1,130,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
$5,780
Expense Total
$5,780
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
$780
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
$5,000
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$5,780
8
Packet Pg. 38
Q;- w
Q �F151i5 Sh 5i4 155th S1 SW
rj�,Smm MN
.'7 Q
Q.
W
lain PI Sw �
1$ddh p1 9W
288TWST 5W-X -_ V
Penny LP Fmr
�a a
_�: 189uF P7
iy
Ry L d 14QU� Si
Mos S1 5ia
N
O
J�
St SW
N
C24
192013! M
N
P3jr4 1%
1?JFd W '.M N}
�93r Tik1
#51
Nw y
S
I yl1
u
Q
t
d
N o
a
—
o
0
Project Description
as
to
Pavement overlay of 76th Ave. W from 196th St. SW to Olympic View Dr. with pedestrian curb ramps upgrades, P
RRFB's at the proposed crosswalk at 75th PI. W, and possible addition of a bike lane for the northbound a
movement. This is a joint project funded by the Cities of Edmonds and Lynnwood, since the west half of the street a
U
is in the City of Edmonds and the east half is in the City of Lynnwood. d
Project Benefit
Improve pavement condition, install new Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons (RRFB's) for pedestrian safety and
upgrade pedestrian curb ramps to meet ADA standards. In addition to the existing southbound bike lane, the
project may add a new northbound bike lane as outlined in the City's Transportation Comprehensive Plan.
Estimated Project Cost
1,955,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
$1,663,723
Expense Total
$1,663,723
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
$274,195
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
$639,788
State Grants
Other
$749,740
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$1,663,723
Packet Pg. 39
9
Edmonds Police and Orvic Pinyfleid
Municipal Court
Veteran's. Z
Plaza Bell[
r
LU
> r_ i It
TZ
_
a
MAIN'— LL
N
a O
5rio•Isle Frances Artdvrson Yo1 N
Par N
,s ■ Library Anderson erater 7 0
jf :ap a C@nter Field LL
m
Uavton N
0
�r►� o
Christian,
Science hv[;il o
Church C
o
Project Description
as
N
Pavement overlay along Main St. from 6th Ave. to 9th Ave. with pedestrian curb ramps upgrades and Rectangular L
Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB's) at the existing pedestrian crosswalk at 8th Ave. The project will be funded with a a
federal grant (funds available in 2023) and City funds for a local match. a
Project Benefit
Improve pavement conditions on this segment of Main St., pedestrian safety with the addition of RRFB's, and
pedestrian accessibility with the ADA curb ramp.
Estimated Project Cost
$937,000
Design
$157,000
Right of Way
Construction
$780,000
Expense Total
$157,000
$780,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
$31,000
$156,000
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
$126,000
$624,000
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$157,000
$780,000
Packet Pg. 40
10
a
C
PU ET DR
Project Descriptio
The project consists of a complete signal rebuilt, with the removal of all vehicle head currently on spam wire and
conversion to standard traffic signal poles with mast arms. Vehicle detention will also be upgraded as part of this
project.
Project Benefit
his upgrade will provide safer roadway conditions since the vehicle heads aren't fixed while handing on those
wires. The new vehicle detection will guarantee that all vehicles will be detected.
Estimated Project Cost
$530,000
Design
$80,000
Right of Way
Construction
$450,000
Expense Total
$80,000
$450,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$80,000
$450,000
Funding Source Total
$80,000
$450,000
Packet Pg. 41
2381h St SW
Faith
Community <
Church
Project Description
Install new traffic signal and vehicle detection system.
Project Benefit _V
The existing traffic signal is near the end of its anticipated service life.
Estimated Project Cost
,,VJV,VVV
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
Ch
Ch
400 V
23 7th F' a
LL
U
ti
N
O
N
G
N
23sth Si
$150,000
$700,000
$150,000 $700,000
$150,000 $700,000
$150,000 $700,000
0
0
N o
a
o
0
12
Packet Pg. 42
Orackom
Lin ncli ng
SGVthM1
Railroad
Station
r .w.-Abk,
Project Description
Install new traffic signal and vehicle detection system.
Project Benefit
The existing traffic signal is near the end of its anticipated service life.
Estimated Project Cost
$450,000
6r *4.
Edmonds Palici
Y, and Municipal a
At / _ .� f CourtAv V
a
llateran'! V
Edmonds C-enlignnial Plaa� ti
Playa Oell S o
'4 CityHall c14
N
IF&fC*4
41L�I o
N
G] ^ 0
o
Foiirit in MAIN ST � 4-
0
c
0
Design
$100,000
Right of Way
Construction
$350,000
Expense Total
$100,000
$350,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$100,000
$350,000
Funding Source Total
$100,000
$350,000
Packet Pg. 43
13
Al
JL 1
• * ;�; pair} p ! i' it
w+y� F�"�:f*'}
W ! W! II• M �_J L � A .� art■
1 # � y ! # L 1Lru lY St SVf
-0 Rai mR itul ! j �• ! .!
■ Ln {t
two 0,
* ��■ i
.1 1 4 k�
E PHAN E
hMfW1f ! i
��•. Y �i�la =ift Rk'rip 1l {.
r A
rP
7bth SW #
a
rho :.•� �* '
■ � � 5'
1 #`: } ILMr
U1 x
y A 4F %�Jj I il IL P, do TMT: !=1
Q ME JP
�do r114,J 7�N Rm �0 ��■ V4�Y ■„ k k
111 yw d- a;A r dt' �
dt- 234t1
F.
. *py► 31�
-'���• q' r•! i� e St SW' 2-20dk'S+#!` _JD
4V IN
4+ ,i• * !a •� , t 3FE1lSraSy} 14 e-q IMF *4 �i Tti
■e.i�1�4'Lilw X'� tw'To L'717+t�! f Zip 'r
Project Description
Widen 228th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 95th PI. W to three lanes (with center two-way left turn lane), with curb and
gutter, sidewalk, and bike lanes.
Project Benefit
This project would improve active transportation safety and traffic flows along this corridor. Community Transit
will evaluate the possibility of creating a new east -west bus route along 228th St. SW, if this project moves
forward (connecting Edmonds Transit Station to Mountlake Terrace Transit Station).
Estimated Project Cost
$14,700,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$1,000,000 $700,000
$1,000,000
$12,000,000
$1,000,000 $1,700,000 $12,000,000
$1,000,000 $1,700,000 $12,000,000
$1,000,000 $1,700,000 $12,000,000
ii
U
a
LL
U
ti
N
O
N
N
N
0
N
d
N
O
Q
O
a
0
c
O
++
R
as
N
a
14
Packet Pg. 44
6O WZ)0 f
J
a
03
04
Ln
:2
17j,
244TH ST S
212THS1_,T_
n
w
a
a 3
u�
x �
to 4
0
W
Ln
_
>236TH-ST SW
244TIA sT SLV
Project Description
Installation of raised landscaped median along Highway 99 corridor from 244th St. SW to 212th St. SW, addition
of"Gateway" signage on both ends of the corridor, and a new pedestrian HAWK signal just north of 234th St. SW.
The project is funded from state funds provided by the Connecting Washington Transportation program.
Project Benefit
The conversion of the center two-way left turn lane to a landscaped raised median will improve corridor safety
along this Highway of Regional Significance (HRS), with an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of — 35,000 vehicles per
day. The new HAWK signal will provide a signalized pedestrian crossing between the existing traffic signals at
238th St and 228th St.
Estimated Project Cost
9,033,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
$7,660,000
Expense Total
$7,660,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
$7,660,000
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$7,660,000
a
u_
rl-
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
O
Q
N O
L
a
0
c
O
15
Packet Pg. 45
244TH 0 SW
z
tm
a.
LL
d.ftisW GiiFS:
V
O
N
.3.#Y
N
Sr SW a _
O
ir 0
a
UkK.E,BJ4Ll,lhIGER WAY �`�t+VAY� L,4K E �kd1N0EF I O
0
Project Description
The Stage 3 Highway 99 project limits are from 244th St SW to 238th St. SW. The project will construct wider
as
N
L
sidewalks with a planter strip, new street lighting, improved stormwater facilities, targeted utility replacements,
a
potential undergrounding of overhead utilities, landscaping and other softscape treatments. The Design and right
a
of way phases are funded through secured Connecting Washington funds.
U
d
u_
U
Project Benefit
Improve aesthetics, safety, and user experience along this segment of the Hwy 99 corridor.,
Estimated Project Cost
Y
L
$32,522,000 z
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$640,000 $2,000,000 $712,000
$1,200,000 $1,218,000
$16,000,000 $10,752,000
$640,000 $3,200,000 $1,930,000 $16,000,000 $10,752,000
$640,000 $3,200,000 $1,875,000
$55,000 $16,000,000 $10,752,000
$640,000 $3,200,000 $1,930,000 $16,000,000 $10,752,000
16
Packet Pg. 46
.4
F i; T se w
222hd Si 5W
a Jq ro togf
isP, y
r
Project Description
fit P1a sw
imt-
ti t
u,nc
eu
_w
J
' U.JI—
z
0
or To
—="
The Stage 4 Highway 99 project limits are from 220th St SW to 224th St. SW. The project will construct wider
sidewalks with a planter strip, new street lighting, improved stormwater facilities, targeted utility replacements,
potential undergrounding of overhead utilities, landscaping and other softscape treatments. The intersection of
Highway 99 and 220th St. will be widened to add capacity and improve the level of service. The Design and right
of way phases are funded through secured Connecting Washington funds, a federal grant and local transportation
impact fees.
Project Benefit
Improve aesthetics, safety, and user experience. In addition, future economic development would be improved
Estimated Project Cost
$41,001,000
Design
$400,000
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
$688,000 m
Right of Way
$500,000
$1,500,000
$2,479,000 t
Construction
$16,000,000 $16,434,000
Expense Total
$400,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$3,167,000 $16,000,000 $16,434,000 Q
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
=
d
REET Fund 125
s
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
Q
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
$1,232,000
$348,000
State Grants
$400,000
$500,000
$732,000
Unsecured Funding
$268,000
$1,920,000
$3,167,000 $16,000,000 $16,434,000
Funding Source Total
$400,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$3,167,000 $16,000,000 $16,434,000
Packet Pg. 47
17
Project Description
Along Hwy 99 from 216th St SW to 212th St. SW, the project will include wider sidewalks with a planter strip, new
street lighting, better stormwater management, targeted utility replacements, potential undergrounding of
overhead utilities, landscaping and other softscape treatments to identify the area as being in Edmonds.
Project Benefit
Improve aesthetics, safety, and user experience. In addition, future economic development will be improved
along the corridor.
Estimated Project Cost
$45,015,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$1,580,000 $2,013,000 $1,000,00
$500,000 $2,951,000 $1,000,00
$35,971,OC
$2,080,000 $4,964,000 $37,971,00
$2,080,000 $4,964,000 $37,971,OC
$2,080,000 $4,964,000 $37,971,00
18
Packet Pg. 48
'_S.--
f �- 2MI, 51 SW
Madknnn Lm
%W 61d aAr
swim
�i 4
Wi
# 23dili St~SW
M
f
d
" 8TF4 ST !;Vd
TA M!r .
`
234m sr $ Vj :
yy
m
41
a
U.
gab, a_rpsw
t�
Y ■
t# 1
Q
N
z'r
rr ?
rt.
O
O
_
5
Al
O.
0-
0
0
Project Description
as
N
Along Hwy 99 from 238th St. SW to 234th St. SW, the project will include wider sidewalks with a planter strip, L
new street lighting, better stormwater management, targeted utility replacements, potential undergrounding of a
overhead utilities, landscaping and other softscape treatments to identify the area as being in Edmonds. i
Project Benefit
Improve aesthetics, safety, and user experience. In addition, future economic development would be improved
along the corridor.
Estimated Project Cost
$20,217,000
Design
$2,146,OC
Right of Way
$1,433,OC
Construction
$16,638,OC
Expense Total
$20,217,00
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$20,217,OC
Funding Source Total
$20,217,00
Packet Pg. 49
19
ESPERAN
yM
_
1
228111 ST SW
i * 5 i ;sit IF .�
Pon a i� #
�fi
4
Ztm 51 9W r —
. +
-� r
M 4
A % J di
i l k
.
�JO it f, x i■ �,..,�
— �adF
■rt
13nbh Si sw
'. .
0 r
:�Tureiswt ���.h#
HrOV to
����Ort 6+';
' 7 *
aItY*�Ka
Falb,
IPP
"`
23Ash h SwV —
Project Description
W"A
4 W
< O W
4
Along Hwy 99 from 234th St. SW to 228th St. SW, the project will include wider sidewalks with a planter strip,
new street lighting, better stormwater management, targeted utility replacements, potential undergrounding of
overhead utilities, landscaping and other softscape treatments to identify the area as being in Edmonds.
Project Benefit
Improve aesthetics, safety, and user experience. In addition, future economic development would be improved
along the corridor.
Estimated Project Cost
$38,142,000
LU
A
Design
$4,013,OC
Right of Way
$5,354,OC
Construction
$28,775,OC
Expense Total
$38,142,00
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$38,142,OC
Funding Source Total
$38,142,00
Packet Pg. 50
20
ilia
7. i �
� }11
ILOm
a INN*�
F. 1W00Pi
■
SW
9 2751h as 5:W G'
S'
225ah Sk 5w
IN
CO 4F do
■' �
LU 9lM
10 ..
L
It
'k' n A
rye !�ev
k
u�
$ 228TH 5T SW
t 0 It
Project Description
w
w
t"
i-
226TH iL sw
Along Hwy 99 from 228th St. SW to 224th St. SW, the project will include wider sidewalks with a planter strip,
new street lighting, better stormwater management, targeted utility replacements, potential undergrounding of
overhead utilities, landscaping and other softscape treatments to identify the area as being in Edmonds.
Project Benefit
Improve aesthetics, safety, and user experience. In addition, future economic development would be improved
along the corridor.
Estimated Project Cost
$35,242,000
Design
$3,596,OC
Right of Way
$2,439,OC
Construction
$29,207,OC
Expense Total
$35,242,00
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$35,242,OC
Funding Source Total
$35,242,00
Packet Pg. 51
21
A
Project Description
Along Hwy 99 from 220th St. SW to 216th St. SW, the project will include wider sidewalks with a planter strip,
new street lighting, better stormwater management, targeted utility replacements, potential undergrounding of
overhead utilities, landscaping and other softscape treatments to identify the area as being in Edmonds.
Project Benefit
Improve aesthetics, safety, and user experience. In addition, future economic development would be improved
along the corridor.
Estimated Project Cost
$20,072,000
Design
$1,866,OC
Right of Way
$2,036,OC
Construction
$16,170,OC
Expense Total
$20,072,00
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$20,072,OC
Funding Source Total
$20,072,00
Packet Pg. 52
22
7 96TH ST SW
Project Descriptio
Install traffic signal at the intersection of 196th St. SW @ 88th Ave. W. The modeling in the 2009 Transportation
Plan indicated that restricting northbound and southbound traffic to right -turn -only (prohibiting left -turn and
through movements) would also address the deficiency identified at this location through 2025. This is same
alternative as one concluded by consultant in 2007 study but not recommended by City Council. This could be
implemented as an alternate solution, or as an interim solution until traffic signal warrants are met. The existing
LOS is F (below City Standards: LOS D). This project was ranked #6 in the Roadway Project Priority in the 2015
Transportation Plan.
Project Benefit
Improve traffic flow characteristics and safety at the intersection. The improvement would modify LOS to A, but
increase the delay along 196th St. SW.
Estimated Project Cost
$1,174, 000
Design
$238,000
Right of Way
$216,000 Q
Construction
$720,000 c
Expense Total
$238,000
d
$216,000 $720,000 s
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
Q
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
$80,000
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$158,000
$216,000 $7
Packet Pg. 53
23
Funding Source Total
geil 5[
a�
<
s
a
— - ## —
FiF
o
N
Anderson
N
N
c
N
Center
0
Feld
Yost Park
0
q
a
0
�; ..�:.;�� -•
Imo.•
a.
-4
.-
0
o
Project Descriptio
as
Installation of a traffic signal or mini -roundabout. The project ranked #4 in the Roadway Project Priority of the
a
2015 Transportation Plan.
a
Project Benefit
The existing intersection is stop -controlled for all approaches and the projected intersection LOS in 2035 is LOS F
(below the City's concurrency standards: LOS D). The installation of a traffic signal would improve the intersection
delay to LOS B.
Estimated Project Cost
$1,176,000
Design
$176,000
Right of Way
Construction
$1,000,000
Expense Total
$176,000
$1,000,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
$500,000
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$176,000
$500,000
Funding Source Total
$176,000
$1,000,000
Packet Pg. 54
24
cis
go
r
r~
0TH ST SW
is
if Mill
e
IWO
219th St S;W
I
21919
1
7514
21st PI S
INCO
STARBUCKS
a
U
a
u_
ti
N
O
N
N
N
11.
O
N
d
0
O
Q
N
O
a
o
C
0
Project Description
as
N
Reconfigure eastbound lanes to a left turn lane and through / right turn lane. Add eastbound and westbound P
dedicated left turn lanes with a protected -permitted phase. Provide right turn overlap for westbound movement a
during southbound left turn phase. (Additional improvements include wider sidewalk, bike lanes, and various a
U
utility improvements (invluding potential conversion overhead utility lines to underground). ROADWAY PROJECT a
PRIORITY #1 in 2015 Transportation Plan). 0
Project Benefit
Reduce the intersection delay and improve the LOS. The projected LOS in 2035 would be improved from LOS F to
LOS D. Improve active transportation conditions for pedestrians and bicycle riders.
Estimated Project Cost
$8,270,341
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Water Utility Fund 421
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$276,902 $287,439 $50,000
$100,000 $675,000
$6,881,000
$276,902 $387,439 $725,000 $6,881,000
$60,000
$75,609
$343,750
$21,062
$25,000
$5,000
$15,840
$15,000
$5,000
$180,000
$271,830
$371,250
$6,881,000
$276,902 $387,439 $725,000 $6,881,000
Packet Pg. 55
25
AIYMr 147 '.' m4h' ga
:l1bu,. ut
A¢ss Dr
Q* fi . -
—
71
►ram k �..•
}
_•',,arm„
Jilihal
vi
Project Description
r 7*■ 3 *ro �i
VIA "Imp
i c
4r -3�"3Tea9rSy�� { f�
+ is # ti N
CN
N
E
'rirs.rt��rr�w +1 . 4 f/i
Q
N O
0
c
0
�r
as
N
Installation of an Adaptive System along SR-104 from 236th St. SW to 226th St. SW (total of five traffic signals L
along this stretch / spaced — % mile from each other). No signal communication currently exists between any of
a
the existing traffic signals. a
Project Benefit
Improve traffic flows along this regional corridor with a current Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of — 25,000 vehicles
per day.
Estimated Project Cost
$2,365,000
Design
$150,000
$260,000
Right of Way
Construction
$1,955,000
Expense Total
$150,000
$260,000
$1,955,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
$45,000
REET Fund 126
$78,000
$264,000
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
$105,000
$182,000
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$1,691,000
Funding Source Total
$150,000
$260,000
$1,955,000
Packet Pg. 56
26
QF
PCC NATURAL
MARKET
> BANK
G
E ARTELL'S C:�
?6 GAS
WALGREEN'S
FARIOwo
a
BABE{
�
a
u_
ti
ry
EDMO D
WAY
da e15 GC d4
GD 0) G4 Ga 1*
N
IVAR'
0
CL
L
a.
c
-
o
Project Description
as
Implement Westgate Circulation Access Plan, install mid -block pedestrian crossing along 100th Ave. W, improve
N
L
safety to access the driveways within proximity to the intersection, and re -striping of 100th Ave. W with the
a
potential addition of bike lanes. This project was identified in the SR-104 Completed Streets Corridor Analysis
a
(completed in 2015).
v
a
Project Benefit
Improve access and safety at the intersection and improve active transportation safety.
Estimated Project Cost
$1,091,000
Design
$160,000
Right of Way
Construction
$931,000
Expense Total
$160,000
$931,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$160,000
$931,000
Funding Source Total
$160,000
$931,000
Packet Pg. 57
27
a
2281h Sr SVV
PVD
Sub Station
CL
En
7L -
� nn
di
a. a,
r+'LN
� �
Cl,apgl
Project Description
Upgrade all ADA Curb Ramps; and add C-Curb for access management. This project was identified in the SR-104
Complete Streets Corridor Analysis (completed in 2015).
Project Benefit
Improve intersection safety for pedestrians and vehicles.
Estimated Project Cost
$530,000
Design
$80,000
Right of Way
Construction
$450,000
Expense Total
$80,000
$450,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$80,000
$450,000
Funding Source Total
$80,000
$450,000
a
w u_
0 U
z ti
CD
C N
LU N
LUn. LA O
LULU N
d
N
O
CL
N O
A a`
0
c
O
Packet Pg. 58
28
38TH ST %:
4,
}
d
N
ICarean
Presbyter
Church,
Project Description
Install traffic signal. This project was identified in the SR-104 Complete Street Corridor Analysis (completed in
2015).
Project Benefit
Improve vehicular and pedestrian safety.
Estimated Projec ost
$1,432,000
Design
$213,000
Right of Way
Construction
$1,219,000
Expense Total
$213,000
$1,219,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$213,000
$1,219,000
Funding Source Total
$213,000
$1,219,000
FL
U
IL
LL
U
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
CL
O
a`
0
c
0
W
M
as
N
L
a
Packet Pg. 59
29
Seaview Park '0st Office
LU
— i95tlr PI SW
l�
ir 7841h PI SW
u_
U
N
N
N
Q N
OLYMP(c v,6VV CD
OR 0
0
a
Lynndals Park
A a
0
C
0
Project Description
as
N
Install traffic signal (the intersection currently stop controlled for all movements). (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in L
2015 Transportation Plan: #11). a
a_
Project Benefit V
a
u_
The improvement will reduce the intersection delay. The projected Level of Service is LOS F in 2035, which is v
below the City's concurrency standards (LOS D). The project will improve the Level of Service to LOS B. m
w
Estimated Project Cost
$1,266,000 Y
L
Design
$213,OC
Right of Way
Construction
$1,053,OC
Expense Total
$1,266,00
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REST Fund 125
y
REET Fund 126
a
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
'
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
j
<
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$1,266,OC
Funding Source Total $1,266,00
Packet Pg. 60
30
rr
LU
a
>
220TFI ST SiA,
w
CL
CL
v 287-H T SW
O�
u,
z
a
u_
U
�o
N
Cq
M �
N
d
N
O
Q
O
2367F1 S7 L
a
0
c
O
Project Descriptio
as
N
Widen 84th Ave. W to (3) lanes with curb, gutter, bike lanes, and sidewalk on each side of the street. (part of this P
project was ranked #6 in the Long Walkway list of the 2015 Transportation Plan). a
a_
Project Benefit V
a
u_
Improve traffic flow, access and active transportation uses by installing a center two way left turn lane, sidewalks, v
bike lanes and street lighting. w
m
w
Estimated Project Cost
$16,622,000 Y
L
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
3:
L
}
W
r
4
WD
2
$2,122,OC
$14,500,OC
$16,622,00
$16,622,OC
$16,622,00
Packet Pg. 61
31
Seattle 243rit PI S
Z Baptist
�r !!-: � Church Lake
°' aLLJ r' Ballinger
EDMONDS WAY LASE BALLINGE
WA T
A
Project Description
Add a second westbound left turn lane along SR-104. This project was identified in the SR-104 Complete Street
Corridor Analysis (completed in 2015).
Project Benefit
Improve access, safety and delay at the intersection.
Estimated Project Cost
$3,231,000
Design
$481,000
Right of Way
Construction
$2,750,000
Expense Total
$481,000
$2,750,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
$65,000
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$416,000
$2,750,000
Funding Source Total
$481,000
$2,750,000
IL
u_
rl-
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
Q
O
L
a
0
c
O
as
N
a
Packet Pg. 62
32
/17
OkVDA LE B
17,W1 St S)~')
7
K
rd St SW
�o
173rd p1 SVV
1740 St SW
5t. Thomas
mooro school
Project Description
Widen Olympic View Dr. to add a northbound left turn lane for 50' storage length. Shift the northbound lanes to
the east to provide an acceleration lane for eastbound left turns. Install traffic signal to increase the LOS and
reduce intersection delay. (ROADWAY PROJECT PRIORITY in 2015 Transportation Plan: #13)
Project Benefit
Improve intersection efficiency and safety of drivers accessing either street.
Estimated Project Cost
$671,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
A
$109, OC
$562,OC
$671,00
$671,OC
$671,00
a
LL
U
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
O
CL
O
a
0
c
O
as
N
a
33
Packet Pg. 63
W a
LL
ti
N
O
-. N
kG N
G
A 04
d
O
Q
N O
L
Project Descriptio
- a
The project will stabilize the roadway subgrade and embankment and rebuild the damaged pavement on 175th
St. SW.
Project Benefit r
Repair roadway and stabilize slope embankment.
Estimated Project Cost
$1,000,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction $1,000,000
Expense Total $1,000,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding $1,000,000
Funding Source Total $1,000,000
Packet Pg. 64
34
ESPER.ANC-F-,
,VIM' e
Project Description
Install sidewalk along 232nd St. SW from 100th Ave. W to SR-104. This project ranked #3 in the Long Walkway List
of 2015 Transportation Plan.
Project Benefit
This project would improve pedestrian safety.
Estimated Project Cost
$1,389,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$206,000
$1,183,000
$206,000 $1,183,000
$206,000 $1,183,000
$206,000 $1,183,000
a_
U
a
U_
U
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
Q
O
L
a
0
c
0
as
N
a
35
Packet Pg. 65
maarona
236ti� Si 9A
Elementary
Project Descriptio Aff
Install sidewalk with curb and gutter along 236nd St. SW from Madrona Elementary to 97th Ave. W. This project
ranked #4 in Long Walkway list of the 2015 Transportation Plan.
Project Benefit
This project would improve pedestrian safety.
Estimated Projec ost
$1,494,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$227,000
$1,267,000
$227,000 $1,267,000
$227,000 $1,267,000
$227,000 $1,267,000
36
Packet Pg. 66
�'.
LU I
<
w
rt�
Project Description
Install sidewalk along 236th St. SW from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W. This project ranked #10 in Long Walkway List of
the 2015 Transportation Plan.
Project Benefit
This project would improve pedestrian safety.
Estimated Projec ost
$1,831,000
a
U
a
U.
s
ti
1! o
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
CL
N 0
Aa`
o
_
0
Design
$264,00
Right of Way
Construction
$1,567,00
Expense Total
$1,831,00
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$1,831,00
Funding Source Total
$1,831,00
Packet Pg. 67
37
238
rimn
ESPERANCE
w. am ilia Ni 2 . ac A. j f
EMMewraun
AP
Chris# tz; y{
Lutheran "a
w
CMIST LUTHERA N hu rc#, v
cc�i
• Pork and Ride .QFFIFE -o-,n-
a7G@1 Ch
7HE. M.M L FUG * $
2HO? Wm ■
2Sd15 ¢
H AURORA
MARKETPLACE
T iK
U raWur h4ni.n�i �.
SEQQL
Project Description
Install sidewalk along 84th Ave. W from 238th St .SW to 234th St. SW, with curb and gutter. This project ranked
#5 in the Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan.
Project Benefit
This project would improve pedestrian safety.
Estimated Project Cost
$790,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$150,000
$640,000
$150,000 $640,000
$150,000 $640,000
$150,000 $640,000
ti
N
o O
N
i N
N
O
N
d
N
O
1Z
N O
—. O
Packet Pg. 68
38
(YNNWOOD`,,,,, 1,
ED OND5
Project Description
Install sidewalk along 80th Ave. W from 206th St. SW to 212th St. SW with curb and gutter. This project ranked
#1 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan.
Project Benefit
The improvements will improve active transportation safety (including for school kids due to proximity of several
schools).
Estimated Project Cost
$2,894,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$209,000 $209,000
$2,476,000
$209,000 $209,000 $2,476,000
$209,000 $209,000 $2,476,000
$209,000 $209,000 $2,476,000
IL
u_
U
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
Q
N o
L
39
Packet Pg. 69
R
U
a
u_
U
'
O
N
N
CD
LYNNWOOD
a
o
i V,n n1 svr
a
A0
c
0
ip
Project Description c
as
N
Install sidewalk along 80th Ave. W from 188th St. SW to OVD. This project ranked #13 in Long Walkway List of the L
2015 Trans ortation Plan a
p
Project Benefit
This project would improve pedestrian safety.
Estimated Project Cost
$2,936,000
Design
$597,000
Right of Way
Construction
$2,339,000
Expense Total
$597,000
$2,339,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$597,000
$2,339,000
Funding Source Total
$597,000
$2,339,000
Packet Pg. 70
40
Chase Lake Elementary
Chase Lake
School
}
Edmonds
Church of'Clod
.' i 6tlt St SVV Edmonds Woodway High
School wadisi
Edmond
LIJ
�I
LL
U
N
O
N
N
N
MORE
' N
0
a
N o
- a
o
0
Project Description
as
N
Install sidewalk along 218th St. SW from 76th Ave. W to 84th Ave. W with curb and gutter. This project ranked #2 P
in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. a
a_
Project Benefit V
a
a
The improvements will improve pedestrian safety. v
m
Estimated Project Cost
w
$1,590,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
0TH ST SW
$240,000
$1,350,000
$240,000 $1,350,000
$240,000 $1,350,000
$240,000 $1,350,000
Packet Pg. 71
41
BECK'S
GPEGORY
THE MAMNER
LU COMMODORE t
dw
�r
uj
4
Holly or
,5
Project Description
Install sidewalk on the south side of Walnut St. from 6th Ave. S to 7th Ave. S.
Project Benefit
This project will improve pedestrian safety along this stretch.
Estimated Project Cost
$265,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
a
miq ate' a
u_
U
$40, 000
$225,000
$265,000
$265,000
$265,000
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
O
Q
Ceder F _
O
C
O
42
Packet Pg. 72
ANT
N
no
z-
� �T
'
t
rS
Swedish
F_dmil ndc
216?11 st SW
EDMONDS
MEDICAL
pA1ILlOIV
1605
KRUGE:R
CLINIC
EN'S
E F�
MCDONALD'S
VALUE Q
VIIL,LAOEe
<'I
CP
Project Descriptio
Install 150' sidewalk on north side of 216th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave. W (completing a missing link on
north side of 216th St. SW). This project ranked #3 in the Short Walkway List (from 2015 Transportation Plan).
Project Benefit
To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
Estimated Project Cost
$200,000
Design
$20,000
Right of Way
Construction
$180,000
Expense Total
$200,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$200,000
Funding Source Total
$200,000
a
u_
U
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
0
a
N 0
a
0
c
0
43
Packet Pg. 73
Project Description
Complete pedestrian crossing enhancements with the installation of RRFB's at (7) intersections (Walnut St. @ 8th
Ave. S, SR-524 @ Brookmere, 106th Ave. W @ 229th PI. SW, Main St. @ Olympic Ave., 76th Ave W @ 206th St.
SW, Dayton @ 2nd Ave. S, and Dayton St. @ Private Drive ), a new traffic signal at SR-104 @ 232nd St. SW, and a
HAWK signal at SR-524 @ 84th Ave. W. Design, right of way and construction phases are funded through a
federal grant, TIB state grant and local funds.
Project Benefit
Improve pedestrian safety by increasing driver yielding compliance for pedestrians waiting to cross at a marked
crosswalk and safer crossing along SR-104 and SR-524 with higher speeds and longer crossing distances through
signal and HAWK signal.
Estimated Project Cost
$2,145,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
$10,000
Expense Total
$10,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
$820
REET Fund 126
$2,230
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
$310
Federal Grants
$6,640
Other
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$10,000
Packet Pg. 74
IL
u_
U
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
Q
0
L
a
4-
0
c
0
0
as
N
a
44
a
u_
U
r•
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
Q
O
L
a
4-
0
C
O
0
Project Description c
as
N
Installation of bike lanes or sharrows along various street segments as identified on the Proposed Bike Facilities L
map of 2015 Transportation Plan. Bike lanes or sharrows will be added along 100th St. SW / 9th Ave. from 244th a
St. SW to Walnut St, Bowdoin Way from 9th Ave. to 84th Av., 228th St. SW from 80th Ave. to 78th Ave., and 80th a
Ave. from 228th St. SW to 220th St. SW. v
Project Benefit
This project will create new bike connections to various destination points throughout the City (such as schools,
parks, Downtown, Sound Transit Station...). Sound Transit awarded the grant to fund improvements that will
provide more convenient access so that more people can use Sound Transit services.
Estimated Project Cost
2,100,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
$1,562,390
Expense Total
$1,562,390
Other
$1,323,471 $0 $0
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
$238,919
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$1,562,390 $0 $0
45
$0 $0 $0 $
Packet Pg. 75
CASPIRs T
Z
w
w
LU
a
J
MAIN ST
a
u_
U
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
Q
N O
L
Project Description
Construct sidewalk on Maplewood Dr. from Main St. to 200th St. SW (— 2,700'). A sidewalk currently exists on
200th St. SW from Main St. to 76th Ave. W, adjacent to Maplewood Elementary School (rated #18 in the Long
Walkway list of the 2015 Transportation Plan).
Project Benefit
Create pedestrian connection between Maplewood Elementary School on 200th St. SW and Main St., by
encouraging kids to use non -motorized transportation to walk to / from school.
Estimated Project Cost
$2,702,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$201,000 $201,000
$2,300,000
$201,000 $201,000 $2,300,000
$201,000 $201,000 $2,300,000
$201,000 $201,000 $2,300,000
a.
0
C
O
Packet Pg. 76
46
Project Description
220TH ST SVJ
ZZ
�IV �Y� •`ram 1
Sr
L ft
LL f►� ■ V
g F r N
C �
01
N
7
W. T 0
CL
wil
''dih S► 5w r ■ o
Ln
a+
M
as
N
Install sidewalk along 95th PI. W from 224th St. SW to 220th St. SW with curb and gutter. This project ranked #8 in L
the Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. a
Project Benefit
This project would improve pedestrian safety.
Estimated Project Cost
Design
$120,000
Right of Way
Construction
$668,000
Expense Total
$120,000
$668,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$120,000
$668,000
Funding Source Total
$120,000
$668,000
Packet Pg. 77
47
Puget Sound
Fishing Pier
oiyr pic
Beach Park
R4astroo m '01A
k
Washington Stag Ferry
Bracketts Terminal
Landing
South `^
4�
Railroad
Station
"r , 1 "
4.q141 Post Office
4- . a
i U
q1F
S Mini Park `
LU
(17
City of Edmonds
TrOlAtment Plant
a
u_
U
N
O
N
N
N
N
<
N
0
o
a.
o
0
Project Description
as
to
Install new and wider sidewalk along Railroad Ave from Dayton St. to SR-104. L
a
Project Benefit
Improve active transportation safety along Railroad Ave from Dayton St. to SR-104, key stretch since connects to
various destination points (such as Waterfront Center, Port of Edmonds, Downtown Edmonds, WSDOT Ferry
Terminal...).
Estimated Project Cost
$924,000
Design
$170,000
Right of Way
Construction
$754,000
Expense Total
$170,000
$754,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$170,000
$754,000
Funding Source Total
$170,000
$754,000
Packet Pg. 78
48
Seattle
.. flap#ist
Church W Lake
Ballinger
OAI
b WA Y
�
FDMONDS WAIF LACE BALUN
GER WAY
Project Descripti
ila
Extend bike lanes within proximity of the intersection in northbound and southbound directions. Install APS on all
corners and new ADA curb ramps.
Project Benefit
Improve active transportation safety along this section of the Interurban Trail and across SR-104.
Estimated Project Cost
$1, 294,000
Design
$238,OC
Right of Way
Construction
$1,056,OC
Expense Total
$1,294,00
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$1,294,OC
Funding Source Total
$1,294,00
a
u_
rl-
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
Q
O
L
a
0
c
O
as
N
a
Packet Pg. 79
49
or_
Project Description
Installation of street lights along various streets within Downtown Edmonds.
Project Benefit
This project will add new street lighting in Downtown to improve pedestrian safety at night.
Estimated Project Cost
$1,500,000
Design
$300,000
Right of Way
Construction
$1,200,000
Expense Total
$300,000
$1,200,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$300,000
$1,200,000
Funding Source Total
$300,000
$1,200,000
Packet Pg. 80
50
Edmonds
Marsh �
cra
z
0
W
w_ ■
U.il
iS
w
CL
4F z .I m
Fe
❑ �_.- _
F
?: On
V)
Project Description
Installation of sidewalk with ADA curb ramps along SR-104 from the HAWK signal to Pine St and along Pine St
from SR-104 to 9th Ave S
Project Benefit
This project will improve pedestrian connectivity between the residential areas along 3rd Ave. S to Downtown
Edmonds and City Park.
Estimated Project Cost
$3,290,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$327,000 $327,000
$2,636,000
$327,000 $327,000 $2,636,000
$327,000 $327,000 $2,636,000
$327,000 $327,000 $2,636,000
a
u_
U
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
Q
O
a
0
c
O
as
N
a
51
Packet Pg. 81
Sierra
Park
un m
❑o
0
LL]�
Project DescriptiAom
Install sidewalk along 191th St. SW from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave., with curb and gutter. This project ranked #8 in
Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan.
Project Benefit
This project would improve pedestrian safety.
Estimated Project Cost
$678,000
Design
$100,00
Right of Way
Construction
$578,00
Expense Total
$678,00
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$678,0G
Funding Source Total
$678,00
a
u_
U
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
Q
O
a
0
c
0
as
N
a
Packet Pg. 82
52
4 LA
i=::.
z
n C
LU
23Nh WI SW
Edmonds
Memorial
Com etery
Salem
Edmonds l uth@ran
Helghts Church
K-12
�k�:
Scril�orl
�
V
High SchooE"
� r
a
u-
y*
N
236W
O
N
N
2 - 4r.
O
i 1K. Pr' Svy
o *
N
AL A
'oil
d
Q
N
O
FaRb
a`
Community
O
Church
c
0
Project Description c
as
N
Install sidewalk along 104th Ave. W from 238th ST. SW to 106th Ave. W, with curb and gutter. This project ranked L
#10 in the Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. a
Project Benefit
This project would improve pedestrian safety.
Estimated Project Cost
$1,060,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$160,oa ,
$900,00
$1,060,00
$1, 060, 00
$1,060,00
53
Packet Pg. 83
46, "
1-
•wow—
2191;k1 St 5w
1
0TH ST SW
Edmond} Church of C,od
Project Description ir
Install sidewalk along 80th Ave. W from 218th ST. SW to 220th ST. SW, with curb and gutter. This project ranked
#7 in the Short Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan.
Project Benefit
This project would improve pedestrian safety.
Estimated ProjecTtost
$324,000
FL
0
0
c
0
Design
$59,OC ,
Right of Way
'
Construction
i
$265,OC
Expense Total
$324,00
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
!
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$324,OC
Funding Source Total
$324,00
Packet Pg. 84
54
19151h St SW
TOME
a
:{tom
a
LL
1871h t S W V
_ ti
N
C
Opwpm ON El
N
�
4 N
N
O
N
im
Ln
N
C.
# 0
L
5t SW
0
Seavivw 188�h C
� c
i=letnentary - o
Project Description
a
=
Install sidewalk along 84th Ave. W from 188th St. SW to 186th St. SW., with curb and gutter. This project ranked
as
N
L
#5 in Short Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan.
a
Project Benefit
a_
v
d
u_
This project would improve pedestrian safety.
v
N
d
Estimated Projec ost
$328,000
Design
$50,OC
Right of Way
Construction
$278,OC
Expense Total
$328,00
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$328,OC
Funding Source Total
$328,00
Packet Pg. 85
55
{ <
L L f
Q• 41
rt
G
t
a. EL
r�
or
CU CO
Ballinger
Park
r
Project Description
Install sidewalk along 236th St. SW from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W. This project ranked #10 in Long Walkway List of
the 2015 Transportation Plan.
Project Benefit
This project would improve pedestrian safety.
Estimated Project Cost
$1,285,000
Design $187,00 !
Right of Way
Construction
$1,098,OC
Expense Total
$1,285,00
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
y
Transportation Impact Fees
a
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
<
State Grants
Unsecured Funding $1,285,OC
Funding Source Total $1,285,00
Packet Pg. 86
56
Pugel Sound
Edmonds Marsh
a_
U
a
LU u_
> U
G N
s o
Project Description JV
Modify existing lane channelization on SR104 to add vehicle storage for ferry users.
Project Benefit
Reduce conflicts between ferry storage and access to local driveways.
Estimated Project Cost
$357,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
$357,000
Expense Total
$357,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$357,000
Funding Source Total
$357,000
Packet Pg. 87
57
Project Description Af
Install traffic calming devices (such as Radar Feedback signs, speed cushions, or other elements).
Project Benefit
Reduce vehicle speeds on City streets that qualify under the City's Traffic Calming Policy.
Estimated Project Cost
$33,130 for 2022
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
IL
u_
U
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
Q
O
L
a
4-
0
c
0
0
as
N
a
$33,130 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $225,OC
$33,130 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $225,00
e
$33,130 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $225,OC
$33,130 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $225,00
58
Packet Pg. 88
Project Description
The Plan identifies all existing ADA deficiencies within the City Right of Way (such as non -compliant ADA curb
ramps, tripping hazards within sidewalk, non -compliant ADA driveways, and signalized intersection without
Audible Pedestrian Signals (APS).
Project Benefit
Inventories and prioritizes ADA issues in the City right of way.
Estimated Project Cost
$100,000
Design
$100,000
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
$100,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
$100,000
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$100,000
a
LL
U
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
Q
O
L
a
4-
0
C
0
0
as
N
a
Packet Pg. 89
59
Project Description
Update the City's long range transportation plan.
Project Benefit
Estimated Project Cost
$185,000
Design
$185,000
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
$185,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
$185,000
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$185,000
01110 a
60
Packet Pg. 90
Q
2
0TH ST SW
r 1wiaul v00a.111imwll
The walkway project is ranked #6 on the short walkway list from the 2015 Transportation Plan. The project will
install approximately 700 feet of new sidewalk, six pedestrian curb ramps and modify the existing stormwater
system on Elm Way between 8th Ave. S and 9th Ave. S.
Project Benefit
The project will improve pedestrian safety and provide a missing link of sidewalk on Elm Way between 8th Ave
and 9th Ave.
Estimated Project Cost
$958,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
$901,780
Expense Total
$901,780
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
$551,880
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
$349,900
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$901,780
a
u_
U
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
Q
N O
L
A a
0
_
_ O
Packet Pg. 91
61
Project Description Jw
Addition of Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) and/or flashing LED lights around regulatory signs at
selected locations throughout the City.
Project Benefit
Improve safety at pedestrian crossings.
Estimated Project Cos
$20,000/year
Design
Right of Way
Construction
$20,185
Expense Total
$20,185
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
$20,185
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$20,185
a
u_
N
a O
N
N
N
O
N
d
N
62
Packet Pg. 92
Project Description J
Install guardrails along selected stretches throughout the City with steep drop-off and other safety issues.
Project Benefit
Improve safety of City transportation system.
Estimated Project Cost
520,000/year
Design
Right of Way
Construction
$20,180
Expense Total
$20,180
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
$20,180
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$20,180
VC
ti
�o
1 N
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
CL
O
L
a
O
_
I o
M
as
N
L
a
63
Packet Pg. 93
If 4
Project Description
Upgrade traffic signal equipment at selected signalized intersections with new equipment within signal cabinet,
new vehicular detection, new vehicle heads, and/or new pedestrian heads.
Project Benefit
Improve reliability of traffic signal operation.
Estimated Project Cost
$30,000/year
Design
Right of Way
Construction
$30,280
Expense Total
$30,280
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
$30,280
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$30,280
FL
U
IL
LL
t�
ti
N
0
N
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
CL
0
L
a
0
_
0
M
as
N
L
a
Packet Pg. 94
64
8.A.a
WATER
a
U
d
U-
U
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
0.
O
L
O
O
d
N
L
a
C)
a
LL
U
U)
m
r
06
N
Y
L
O
3.1
Q.
a+
Q
Packet Pg. 95
65
8.A.a
Water Proiects
#
CFP
PROJECT
OP
#
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
TOTAL
(2022-2027)
TOTAL
(2028-42)
TOTAL
Project Cost
PWW-01
Phase 12 Annual Replacement Program 2022
50
$2,159,412
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,159,412
$2,159,412
PWW-02
Phase 13 Annual Replacement Program 2023
46
$486,661
$3,389,788
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,876,449
$3,876,449
PWW-03
Phase 14 Annual Replacement Program 2024
$0
$506,128
$3,525,379
$0
$0
$0
$4,031,507
$4,031,507
PWW-04
I
I Phase 15 Annual Replacement Program 2025
$0
$0
$526,373
$3,666,379
$0
$0
$4,192,7521
$4,192,752
PWW-05
Phase 16 Annual Replacement Program 2026
$0
$0
$0
$547,428
$3,813,034
$0
$4,360,462
$4,360,462
PWW-06
Phase 17 Annual Replacement Program 2027
$0
$0
$0
$0
$569,325
$3,965,555
$4,534,880
$4,534,880
PWW-07
Phase 18 Annual Replacement Program 2028
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$592,098
$592,098
$592,098
PWW-08
2022 Waterline Overlays
49
$175,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$175,000
$175,000
PWW-09
Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment
47
$505,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$505,000
$505,000
Total Projects $3,326,073 $3,895,916 $4,051,752 $4,213,807 $4,382,359 $4,557,653 $24,427,560 $0 $24,427,560
Funding Source
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
Y027
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
(2022-2027)
(2028-42)
Water Fund - 421
$3,326,073
$3,895,916
$4,051,752
$4,213,807
$4,382,359
$4,557,653
$24,427,560
$24,427,560
Total Revenue $3,326,073 $3,895,916 $4,051,752 $4,213,807 $4,382,359 $4,557,653 $24,427,560 $0 $24,427,560
Packet Pg. 96
66
1
Project Description
Per the approved 2017 Water Comprehensive Plan, the projects will replace/maintain pipe and related
appurtenances at various locations throughout the City due to old age, being undersized, need to increase flow or
pressure, or more prone to breakage due to its material properties.
Project Benefit
Maintain a high level of drinking water quality, improve overall system reliability, decrease probability of
breakages and leakage, improve fire flows, and decrease overall day to day maintenance costs.
Estimated Project Cost
$2.9 to $4.5 million/year
Design
$486,661
$506,128
$526,373
$547,428
$569,325
$592,098
Right of Way
Construction
$2,159,412
$3,389,788
$3,525,379
$3,666,379
$3,813,034
$3,965,555
Expense Total
$2,646,073
$3,895,916
$4,051,752
$4,213,807
$4,382,359
$4,557,653
Water Fund 421
$2,646,073
$3,895,916
$4,051,752
$4,213,807
$4,382,359
$4,557,653
Funding Source Total
$2,646,073
$3,895,916
$4,051,752
$4,213,807
$4,382,359
$4,557,653
FL
U
IL
LL
U
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
CL
0
L
a
0
0
M
as
N
L
a
Packet Pg. 97
67
Project Description
Road pavement overlays to cover areas of roadways that were excavated and patched in previous years as part of
the Waterline Replacement Projects.
Project Benefit
Improve overall pavement condition in locations that were excavated and patched due to Waterline Replacement
Projects.
Estimated Project Cost
$175,000
Design $30,000
Right of Way
Construction $145,000
Expense Total $175,000
Water Fund 421 $175,000
Funding Source Total $175,000
68
Packet Pg. 98
185th P[ SW � a
S
:_ .. Am io
18151h PI SW Ravi@W
at@r Tank
LIa,
Project Description
Per the approved 2017 Water Comprehensive Plan, the project will replace/maintain pipe and related
appurtenances at various locations throughout the City due to old age, being undersized, need to increase flow or
pressure, or more prone to breakage due to its material properties. This work is being done to provide an in
detail evaluation of the condition of our two underground potable water storage reservoirs. Findings will be used
to determine costs and next steps for any future needed maintenance or repairs.
Project Benefit
Maintain a high level of drinking water quality, improve overall system reliability, decrease probability of
breakages and leakage, improve fire flows, and decrease overall day to day maintenance costs.
Estimated Project Cost
TBD
Design
Right of Way
Construction $505,000
Expense Total $505,000
Water Fund 421 $505,000
Funding Source Total $505,000
W a_
U
4 a
LL
N
00 CD
N
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
Q
O
a
o
c
O
69
Packet Pg. 99
8.A.a
STORMWATER
7
T
a
a_
U
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
U)
O
Q
O
L.
IL
4-
0
c
0
r
r
c
m
a�
L
CL
U
a
a_
U
m
r
06
Ch
Y
L
O
V
a�
a
Packet Pg. 100
70
8.A.a
Stormwater Projects
# �CFP PROJECT DP 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Y027 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL
# (2022-2027) (2028-42) Project Cos
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration Related Projects
PWD-01 X Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Improvements 55 1 $190,000 $1,230,8401 sol sol $0 $0 $1,420,840 $0 $1,420,8,
PWD-02 X I Edmonds Marsh/Willow Creek Daylighting - Design & Construction 1$0 $600,0001 $600,0001 $8,000,0001 $8,000,0001 $0 $17,200,00011 $0 $17,200,0(
Perrinville Creek Basin Projects
PWD-03 Perrinville Creek Flow Management Projects 60 $121,542 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $621,542 $0 $6215,
PWD-04 X Lower Perrinville Creek Restoration (Phase 1) 53 $550,000 $150,000 $2,800,000 $0 $0 $0 $3,500,000 $0 $3,500,0(
PWD-05 X Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 59 $555,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $555,000 $0 $555,0(
Storm Drainage Improvement Projects
PWD-06
Lake Ballinger Regional Facility Design Phase
54
$300,000
$250,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$550,000
$0
$550,0(
PWD-07
X
Ballinger Regional Facility Construction Phase
$0
$0
$6,000,000
$0
$0
$0
$6,000,000
$0
$6,000,0(
PWD-08
Green Street & Rain Gardens
61
$400,000
$600,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,000,000
Sol
$1,000,0(
Annually Funded Proiects
PWD-09
12022 SD Overlays
57
$60,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$60,000
$0
$60,0(
PWD-10
Phase 3 Annual Storm Replacement Project (2022)
58
$1,450,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,450,000
$0
$1,450,0(
PWD-11
Phase 4 Annual Storm Replacement Project (2023)
52
$312,000
$1,622,400
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,934,400
$0
$1,934,4(
PWD-12
Phase 5 Annual Storm Replacement Project (2024)
$0
$324,480
$1,687,296
$0
$0
$0
$2,011,776
$0
$2,011,7,
PWD-13
Phase 6 Annual Storm Replacement Project (2025)
$0
$0
$337,460
$1,754,786
$0
$0
$2,092,246
$0
$2,092,2,
PWD-14
Phase 7 Annual Storm Replacement Project (2026)
$0
$0
$0
$350,9581
$1,824,9771
$0
$2,175,935
$0
$2,175,9,
PWD-15
Phase 8 Annual Storm Replacement Project (2027)
$0
sol
sol
$0
$364,9961
$1,897,976
1 $2,262,972
$0
$2,262,91
PWD-16
Phase 9 Annual Storm Replacement Project (2028)
$0
sol
sol
$0
$0
$379,596
1 $379,596
$0
$379,55
Compliance Related Projects
p-w—p--i —7F I Storm and Surface Water Comprehensive Plan 11 58 1 $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $300,000 $0 $300,0(
I, -
cm
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
to
O
tl
O
L
a
4-
0
C
O
tv
C
d
N
N
L
a
IL
v
a
LL
C)
N
d
Total Projects $4,238,542 $4,877,720 $11,524,756 $10,205,744 $10,289,973 $2,377,572 $43,514,307 $0 $43,514,3C 06
Funding Source
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
TOTAL
(2022-2027)
TOTAL
(2028-42)
TOTAL
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
$ 2,457,292
$ 2,363,880
$ 3,774,756
$ 4,205,744
$ 4,289,973
$ 2,377,572
$ 19,469,217
$
$ 19,469,21
Federal Grants
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$
$
State Grants
$ 671,250
$ 723,840
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ 1,395,090
$
$ 1,395,09
Unsecured Grants
$ 1,110,000
$ 1,790,000
$ 7,750,000
$ 6,000,000
$ 6,000,000
$
,5,0
$
$ 22,650,00
Total Revenue
�$L43,',1"4,v3u07
$ 4,238,542
$ 4,877,720
$ 11,524,756
$ 10,205,744
$ 10,289,973
$ 2,377,572
$
$ 43,514,30
u)
Y
L
0
_V
B
7
d
71
Packet Pg. 101
Edmonds Marsh
RJniup Qf, O
Edmonds Marsh
Project Descriptio
Feasibility documents for the Willow Creek Daylighting project identified some areas of concern for water quality
of stormwater entering the Marsh. Additionally, new research has identified a chemical in tire production causing
pre -spawn mortality in salmon, further cementing the linkage between vehicle traffic and poor water quality for
fish habitat. By improving the water quality inputs of stormwater, the future marsh can provide better habitat for
the return of salmon to the marsh. This project was previously included in the 2021 budget as only a "Phase 1"
project specific to the west side of SR-104. However, with additional funding identified, staff propose to expand
this effort to provide water quality mitigation for all discharges directly into the marsh form SR-104 and Harbor
Square.
Project Benefit
Improve water quality of stormwater discharging into the Edmonds Marsh from the west portions of SR-104
located near the marsh. The improvements will provide better habitat for the return of salmon to the marsh.
Estimated Project Cost
$1,500,000
Design $190,000 $10,000
Right of Way
Construction $1,220,840
Expense Total $190,000 $1,230,840
Stormwater Utility Fund 422 $104,500
Federal Grants
State Grants $30,000 $536,340
Unsecured Grants $160,000 $590,000
Funding Source Total $190,000 $1,230,840
Packet Pg. 102
72
14aisli as it cximud in I D 41
L;lximed pLoj2aCmkepr
Project Description
The project will daylight Willow Creek and help begin restoration of historic conditions in the Marsh. The project
has three sub -components including (1) daylighting Willow Creek through the existing Unocal property, (2)
daylighting of the Willow Creek through Marina Beach Park (top of bank to top of bank), and (3)
excavation/reestablishment of tidal channels within the existing Marsh. The project includes significant re -
vegetation and mitigation within the Marsh to improve habitat conditions. The current cost estimate for the
project includes all flood walls and berms associated with daylighting the creek but does not include Marina
Beach park improvements beyond the top of bank. The project is a component of the PROS plan (comprehensive
plan) for open space, habitat and fulfills goals #1, #3 and #4. Total project cost is estimated around $17.2 million
and future funding sources are yet to be identified; however, grant funding of roughly 75% of the project cost is
tentatively planned.
Project Benefit
The daylighting of Willow Creek and subsequent redevelopment of Marina Beach park (not included) will help
reverse the negative impacts to Willow Creek and Edmonds Marsh that occurred when Willow Creek was piped in
the early 1960s. This project will provide habitat for salmonids, including juvenile Chinook. The project will also
help reduce the flooding problem at the intersection of SR-104 and Dayton Street. This project is a priority in the
Edmonds PROS plan.
Estimated Project Cost
$17, 200, 000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
Unsecured Grants
$600,000 $600,000
$8,000,000 $8,000,000
$600,000 $600,000 $8,000,000 $8,000,000
$150,000 $150,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000
$450,000 $450,000 $6,000,000 $6,000,000
$600,000 $600,000 $8,000,000 $8,000,000 Packet Pg. 103
73
Funding Source Total
Project Descriptio
Reducing scouring flows in order to reduce sediments load in Perrinville Creek was identified in a previous basin
report completed in 2015 as a critical element of restoring this creek which has been significantly impacted by
urban development. The projects funded by this program are incremental steps toward recovering this stream
run as adequate fish habitat. These effort have become even more critical given recent challenges around the
Perrinville Creek outfall area. This program is a fund for implementing projects within the Perrinville Creek basin
to reduce scour flows in the creek. It allows staff flexibility to respond to ad -hoc opportunities such as rain garden
cluster projects, or ensure matching funds are available for chasing grant applications for flow reductions projects.
Project Benefit
The project will reduce peak flows in Perrinville creek, improve fish passage and decrease creek bed scour during
peak flow events.
Estimated Project Cost
$100,000/year
Design
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
Right of Way
Construction
$111,542
$90,000
$90,000
$90,000
$90,000
$90,000
Expense Total
$121,542
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
$121,542
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Grants
Funding Source Total
$121,542
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,001
Packet Pg. 104
74
Project Description
The City has struggled to manage the undersized outfall system at Perrinville Creek; the current combination of
creek alignment, sedimentation, and undersized culverts creates several issues which make the creek
unsustainable as a natural system. The concern must be addressed from the bottom of the creek up in order to
sequence the relief of the numerous concerns correctly. A future phase would replace the culvert under Talbot
Road as well. The improvements are needed to relieve current flooding, ease City maintenance needs, and
provide better and more sustainable fish habitat. This project will build on any interim improvements which staff
are able to complete in 2021. The project would include a new culvert under BNSF right-of-way which is fully
compliant with current flood management and fish passage regulations. The project will include many
stakeholders and likely include a minimum 2-year design and development phase before being ready for
construction.
Project Benefit
The project will reduce City maintenance needs in the future and improve fish passage.
Estimated Project Cost
$5,500,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Grants
Funding Source Total
$550,000 $100,000
$50,000
$2,800,000
$550,000 $150,000 $2,800,000
$550,000 $150,000 $2,800,000
$550,000 $150,000 $2,800,000
75
Packet Pg. 105
Po s'.
EL Office
S&a- -),v Park
cn
7851h S# SVv a
U
-O a
a
Ik
V
i N
O
rM
INA
N
N
O
1 R6th s7t 5W C14
m
o
0
o
o
cc c
0
Project Descriptio
20
as
N
Reducing scouring flows in order to reduce sediments load in Perrinville Creek was identified in a previous basin P
report completed in 2015 as a critical element of restoring this creek which has been significantly impacted by a
urban development. The project is an incremental step toward recovering this stream run as an adequate fish a
U
habitat. The grant for this project has already been secured. This project proposes construction of an infiltration d
system in Seaview Park, almost identical to the successful Phase 1 project which was completed in 2019, in order u`
U
to infiltrate more runoff in the Perrinville Creek basin.
Project Benefit
Decrease peak storm flows in the Perrinville Creek basin to help normalize flows within Perrinville Creek and
decrease potential of scour within the Creek.
Estimated Project Cost
$742,000
Design
$60,000
Right of Way
Construction
$495,000
Expense Total
$555,000
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
$138,750
Federal Grants
State Grants
$416,250
Unsecured Grants
Funding Source Total
$555,000
76
Packet Pg. 106
1 f1=1- - r -
a
Y u 242 nd SI S
Mathay
Ballinger
Park
L
i
U
W
a
u_
U
2401h F'! SW 241s; ST4'J
c
N
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
I _N
o
a
o
Y
........... __ —
c
O
Project Description
as
N
Lake Ballinger suffers from urban flooding & seasonal algae blooms along with other water quality impairments. L
The Highway 99 corridor is an area of high development, including a future City project which will require a
stormwater mitigation. By creating a regional facility, the City can improve the stormwater mitigation achieved a
U
by development, addressed stormwater mitigation needs for the future Highway project, and treat runoff from d
one of the City bigger pollution generating areas. The City can drastically improve Lake Ballinger water quality. v
The project proposes to implement water quality and flow control improvements at City -owned Mathay-Ballinger d
Park as green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) which would significantly benefit the Lake ecology and habitat
conditions and enhance a valued neighborhood, but underutilized, park. This phase is limited to design and
production of plans and specifications; construction phase will be tracked as separate project (to ease and
simplify grant management/reporting). N
Y
L
Project Benefit
The project proposes to implement water quality and flow control improvements at City -owned Mathay-Ballinger
Park as green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) which would significantly benefit the Lake ecology and habitat
conditions and enhance a valued neighborhood, but underutilized, park.
Estimated Project Cost
$550,000
Design
$300,000
$250,000
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
$300,000
$250,000
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
$75,000
$62,500
Federal Grants
State Grants
$225,000
$187,500
Unsecured Grants
Funding Source Total
$300,000
$250,000
Packet Pg. 107
77
Mathay
Ballinger
Park
:rO` I' 9
242od S# 5vv
w
Ld
240th Pa
r�
Project Description
Lake Ballinger suffers from urban flooding & seasonal algae blooms along with other water quality impairments.
The Highway 99 corridor is an area of high development, including a future City project which will require
stormwater mitigation. By creating a regional facility, the City can improve the stormwater mitigation achieved
by development, addressed stormwater mitigation needs for the future Highway project, and treat runoff from
one of the City bigger pollution generating areas. The City can drastically improve Lake Ballinger water quality.
This phase is limited to the construction phase and will be tracked as separate project (to ease and simplify grant
management/reporting)
Project Benefit
The project proposes to implement water quality and flow control improvements at City -owned Mathay-Ballinger
Park as green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) which would significantly benefit the Lake ecology and habitat
conditions and enhance a valued neighborhood, but underutilized, park.
Estimated Project Cost
$6,000,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
$6,000,000
Expense Total
$6,000,000
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
$1,500,000
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Grants
$4,500,000
Funding Source Total
$6,000,000
IL
u_
U
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
CL
N o
a
0
c
O
78
Packet Pg. 108
Project Descriptio
City forays into green stormwater infrastructure elements have been limited, but with good success. Continuing
to implement such projects will allow us to proactively make improvements to the conditions of the City drainage
system and will help reduce flooding. This project proposes to implement green stormwater elements, such as
rain garden and bioretention, throughout the City. Staff will leverage opportunities with other projects,
communication with property owners, and historical knowledge/experience to identify and selected locations
where green infrastructure can be implemented with relative ease or efficiency. Staff proposes to implement this
effort as a series of small work projects over the next several years.
Project Benefit
Improvements to the City drainage systems using raingardens and green infrastructure resulting in reduced
flooding and a reduction to peak stormwater flows.
Estimated Project Cost
$1,000,000
Design
$75,000
$100,000
Right of Way
Construction
$325,000
$500,000
Expense Total
$400,000
$600,000
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Grants
$400,000
$600,000
Funding Source Total
$400,000
$600,000
Packet Pg. 109
79
Project Description
Road pavement overlays to cover areas of roadways that were excavated and patched in previous years as part of
the Annual Storm Maintenance Projects.
Project Benefit
Improve overall pavement condition in locations that were excavated and patched due to the Annual Storm
Replacement Projects.
Estimated Project Cost
$60,000
Design
$9,000
Right of Way
Construction
$51,000
Expense Total
$60,000
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
$60,000
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Grants
Funding Source Total
$60,000
80
Packet Pg. 110
Project Description
U
a
u_
U
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
Q
O
L
a
4-
0
c
0
0
as
N
Annual storm drain replacement/maintenance projects. Projects propose to replace or rehab storm drain L
infrastructure in several locations throw hout the Cit Locations of work identified b Cit crews and staff via a
g Y• Y Y
first had knowledge or video inspection results. Much of Edmonds stormwater infrastructure is past its lifespan
and requires routine replacement or repair in order to preserve the function of the storm drain system. Failure to
conduct annual maintenance projects will increase chances of a storm drain system failure.
Project Benefit
Improve system reliability and capacity, decrease breakages, and decrease overall day to day maintenance costs.
Estimated Project Cost
$1.8 to $2.3 million/year
Design
$312,000
$324,480
$337,460
$350,958
$364,996
$379,596
Right of Way
Construction
$1,450,000
$1,622,400
$1,687,296
$1,754,786
$1,824,977
$1,897,976
Expense Total
$1,762,000
$1,946,880
$2,024,756
$2,105,744
$2,189,973
$2,277,572
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
$1,762,000
$1,946,880
$2,024,756
$2,105,744
$2,189,973
$2,277,572
Funding Source Total
$1,762,000
$1,946,880
$2,024,756
$2,105,744
$2,189,973
$2,277,572
Packet Pg. 111
81
8.A.a
Sewer Proiects
#
CFP
PROJECT
DP
#
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
TOTAL
(2022-2027)
TOTAL
(2028-42)
TOTAL
Project Cost
PWS-01
Phase 9 Annual Sewer Repl/Rehab/Improvements, (2022)
65
$1,606,550
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,606,550
$1,606,550
PWS-02
Phase 10 Annual Sewer Repl/Rehab/Improvements (2023)
62
$336,074
$1,889,212
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,225,286
$2,225,286
PWS-03
Phase 11 Annual Sewer Repl/Rehab/Improvements (2024)
$0
$349,517
$1,964,780
$0
$0
$0
$2,314,297
$2,314,297
PWS-04
Phase 12 Annual Sewer Repl/Rehab/Improvements (2025)
$0
$0
$363,498
$2,043,372
$0
$0
$2,406,8701
$2,406,870
PWS-05
Phase 13 Annual Sewer Repl/Rehab/Improvements (2026)
$0
$0
$0
$378,038
$2,125,107
$0
$2,503,145
$2,503,145
PWS-06
Phase 14 Annual Sewer Repl/Rehab/Improvements (2027)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$393,160
$2,210,111
$2,603,271
$2,603,271
PWS-07
Phase 15 Annual Sewer Repl/Rehab/Improvements (2028)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$408,886
$408,886
$408,886
PWS-08
1
12021 SS Overlays
64
$60,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$60,000
$60,000
PWS-09
I
I Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation Phase 4
63
$482,258
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$482,258
$482,258
PWS-10
I
IAnnual Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation
$0
$501,549
$521,6111
$542,475
$564,174
$586,741
$2,716,550
$2,716,550
PWS-11
1
1 Lake Ballinger Sewer
$0
$1,000,0001
$5,000,000
$0
$0
$0
$6,000,000
$6,000,000
Total Projects $2,484,882 $3,740,278 $7,849,889 $2,963,885 $3,082,441 $3,205,738 $23,327,113 $0 $23,327,113
Funding Source
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
(2022-2027)
(2028-42)
Sewer Fund -423
$2,484,882
$3,740,278
$7,849,889
$2,963,885
$3,082,441
$3,205,738
$23,327,113
$23,327,113
Total Revenue $2,484,882 $3,740,278 $7,849,889 $2,963,885 $3,082,441 $3,205,738 $23,327,113 $0 $23,327,113
Packet Pg. 113
83
Project Description
Per the approved 2013 Sewer Comprehensive Plan, the projects will replace pipe and related appurtenances at
various locations throughout the City due to old age, being undersized, need to increase capacity, or more prone
to breakage due to its material properties.
Project Benefit
Improve system reliability and capacity, decrease infiltration and inflow, decrease breakages, and decrease
overall day to day maintenance costs.
Estimated Project Cost
$2.0 to $2.6 million/year
Design
$336,074
$349,517
$363,498
$378,038
$393,160
$408,886
Right of Way
Construction
$1,606,550
$1,889,212
$1,964,780
$2,043,372
$2,125,107
$2,210,111
Expense Total
$1,942,624
$2,238,729
$2,328,278
$2,421,410
$2,518,267
$2,618,997
Water Fund 423
$1,942,624
$2,238,729
$2,328,278
$2,421,410
$2,518,267
$2,618,997
Funding Source Total
$1,942,624
$2,238,729
$2,328,278
$2,421,410
$2,518,267
$2,618,997
a
U
IL
LL
U
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
CL
0
L
a
0
0
M
as
N
L
a
84
Packet Pg. 114
Project Description
Road pavement overlays to cover areas of roadways that were excavated and patched in previous years as part of
the Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects.
Project Benefit
Improve overall pavement condition in locations that were excavated and patched due to Sanitary Sewer
Replacement Projects.
Estimated Project Cost
$60,000
Design
$12,000
Right of Way
Construction
$48,000
Expense Total
$60,000
Water Fund 423
$60,000
Funding Source Total
$60,000
85
Packet Pg. 115
Project Description
Per the approved 2013 Sewer Comprehensive plan and current video inspections of sewer mains, the project will
line existing sewer mains that are subject root intrusion, infiltration and inflow, and damage that can be repaired
by this trenchless method.
Project Benefit
Improve system reliability and capacity, decrease infiltration and inflow, decrease breakages, and decrease
overall day to day maintenance costs.
Estimated Project Cost
$482,258
Design
$72,338
Right of Way
Construction
$409,920
Expense Total
$482,258
Water Fund 423
$482,258
Funding Source Total
$482,258
86
Packet Pg. 116
Project Description
Per the approved 2013 Sewer Comprehensive plan and current video inspections of sewer mains, the project will
line existing sewer mains that are subject root intrusion, infiltration and inflow, and damage that can be repaired
by this trenchless method.
Project Benefit
Improve system reliability and capacity, decrease infiltration and inflow, decrease breakages, and decrease
overall day to day maintenance costs.
Estimated Project Cost
$500,000 to $590,000/year
Design
$75,232
$78,241
$81,371
$84,626
$88,011
Right of Way
Construction
$426,317
$443,370
$461,104
$479,548
$498,730
Expense Total
$501,549
$521,611
$542,475
$564,174
$586,741
Water Fund 423
$501,549
$521,611
$542,475
$564,174
$586,741
Funding Source Total
$501,549
$521,611
$542,475
$564,174
$586,741
FL
U
IL
LL
U
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
CL
0
L
a
0
0
M
as
N
L
a
87
Packet Pg. 117
tSVLKANU-
W
�
r
238TH ST SW
244TH ST SVO
A.
rn
r�
. f�1
Lake
Ballinger
�» 4 sw
den M W ul+�i
s /[M
235TH PL SW ' 236TH ST. Ruj a
4YAY LAKF 'BA LLrNGER WAY -.:�244:TH;STa {WL:7
Project Description
Per the approved 2013 Sewer Comprehensive plan and current video inspections of sewer mains, the sewer pipe
along Lake Ballinger will require additional flow capacity in the near future. These improvements are needed to
account for population growth, reduce Infiltration and Inflow from the pipe and improve maintenance and
emergency access for this major trunk system.
Project Benefit
Improve system reliability and capacity, decrease infiltration and inflow, and decrease overall day to day
maintenance costs. Improved access will help ease maintenance and access for emergencies, which will further
decease any chance of potential sewer spills into Lake Ballinger.
Estimated Project Cost
$6,000,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Water Fund 423
Funding Source Total
$1,000,000
$5,000,000
$1,000,000 $5,000,000
$1,000,000 $5,000,000
$1,000,000 $5,000,000
a
u_
U
0
O
C
O
Packet Pg. 118
8.A.a
FACILITIES
a
U
a-
U-
U
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
0.
O
L.
O
O
d
N
L
Packet P9, 119
89
8.A.a
Facilities Proiects
#
CFP
PROJECT
OP
#
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
TOTAL
(2022-2027)
TOTAL
(2028-42)
TOTAL
Project Cost
PWF-01
Boys and Girls Club
$36,151
$38,034
$27,733
$37,453
$32,077
$15,101
$186,549
$0
$186,549
PWF-02
Cemetery Building
$455
$1,954
$2,094
$8,414
$3,377
$818
$17,112
$0
$17,112
PWF-03
City Hall
$171,463
$279,064
$323,246
$150,000
$70,949
$108,628
$1,103,350
$0
$1,103,350
PWF-04
Fishing Pier
1 $10,320
$9,991
$2,971
$2,9181
$5,628
$1,043
$32,870
$0
$32,870
PWF-05
Frances Anderson Center
$143,925
$130,593
$298,378
$98,892
$20,934
$113,029
$805,751
$0
$805,751
PWF-06
IFS 16
$24,970
$47,689
$1,591
$69,388
$30,107
$31,631
$205,377
$0
$205,377
PWF-07
I FS 17
$39,935
$81,545
$225,547
$144,830
$27,575
$122,245
$641,678
$0
$641,678
PWF-08
I FS 20
$16,960
$20,000
$16,274
$94,248
$69,782
$23,765
$241,029
$0
$241,029
PWF-09
IHistoric Log Cabin
$7,903
$80,000
$888
$546
$1,361
$6,469
$97,167
$0
$97,167
PWF-10
I Historical Museum
$12,121
$13,0891
$15,000
$10,000
$4,6211
$10,199
$65,029
$0
$65,029
PWF-11
Library
$45,000
$105,1751
$150,902
$53,325
$45,038
$0
$399,441
$0
$399,441
PWF-12
Meadowdale Club House
$26,083
$13,426
$6,365
$7,985
$4,446
$1,159
$59,464
$0
$59,464
PWF-13
Old Public Works
$55,635
$107,743
$24,308
$25,000
$25,000
$24,519
$262,205
$0
$262,205
PWF-14
Parks Maint. Building
$130,631
$15,789
$40,320
$9,349
$5,177
$69,228
$270,495
$0
$270,495
PWF-15
Public Safety
$340,180
$50,967
$445,276
$55,169
$151,481
$515,071
$1,558,144
$0
$1,558,144
PWF-16
Public Works O&M
$80,000
$126,570
$218,643
$80,315
$79,348
$43,821
$628,697
$0
$628,697
PWF-17
WadeJames Theater
$21,697
$18,600
$99,077
$43,880
$115,734
$21,872
$320,860
$0
$320,860
PWF-18
Yost Pool House
$25,0001
$65,5701
$26,128
$8,409
$19,127
$30,389
$174,623
$0
$174,623
Total Projects $1,188,429 $1,205,800 $1,924,741 $900,120 $711,762 $1,138,988 $7,069,840 $0 $7,069,840
Funding Source
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
4027
TOTAL
(2022-2027)
TOTAL
(2028-42)
TOTAL
General Fund
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
REET 125 Fund
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
REET 126 Fund
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
#REF!
Total Revenue
#REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF!
#REF! #REF!
90
Packet Pg. 120
Project Description
Project Benefit
Estimated Project Cost
$186,549
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
General Fund
Funding Source Total
$36,151
$38,034
$27,733
$37,453
$32,077
$15,101
$36,151
$38,034
$27,733
$37,453
$32,077
$15,101
$36,151
$38,034
$27,733
$37,453
$32,077
$15,101
$36,151
$38,034
$27,733
$37,453
$32,077
$15,101
U
a
u_
U
r•
N
91
Packet Pg. 121
Project Description
Project Benefit
Estimated Project Cost
$17,112
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
General Fund
Funding Source Total
$455
$1,954
$2,094
$8,414
$3,377
$818
$455
$1,954
$2,094
$8,414
$3,377
$818
$455
$1,954
$2,094
$8,414
$3,377
$818
$455
$1,954
$2,094
$8,414
$3,377
$818
a.
u_
U
r•
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
Q
O
L
a.
4-
0
c
O
0
as
N
d
L
a
92
Packet Pg. 122
Project Description
Project Benefit
Estimated Project Cost
$1,103,350
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
General Fund
Funding Source Total
11
16
$171,463
$279,064
$323,246
$150,000
$70,949
$108,628
$171,463
$279,064
$323,246
$150,000
$70,949
$108,628
$171,463
$279,064
$323,246
$150,000
$70,949
$108,628
$171,463
$279,064
$323,246
$150,000
$70,949
$108,628
IL
u_
U
r•
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
Q
O
L
a
0
c
0
as
N
d
L
a
93
Packet Pg. 123
Project Description
Project Benefit
Estimated Project Cost
$32,870
FL
U
a
u_
U
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
CL
O
a`
0
M
as
N
d
L
a
Design
Right of Way
Construction
$10,320
$9,991
$2,971
$2,918
$5,628
$1,043
Expense Total
$10,320
$9,991
$2,971
$2,918
$5,628
$1,043
General Fund
$10,320
$9,991
$2,971
$2,918
$5,628
$1,043
Funding Source Total
$10,320
$9,991
$2,971
$2,918
$5,628
$1,043
Packet Pg. 124
94
Project Description
Project Benefit
Estimated Project Cost
$805,751
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
General Fund
Funding Source Total
$143,925
$130,593
$298,378
$98,892
$20,934
$113,029
$143,925
$130,593
$298,378
$98,892
$20,934
$113,029
$143,925
$130,593
$298,378
$98,892
$20,934
$113,029
$143,925
$130,593
$298,378
$98,892
$20,934
$113,029
a
u_
U
r•
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
95
Packet Pg. 125
Project Description
Project Benefit
Estimated Project Cost
$205,377
Design
Right of Way
Construction
$24,970
$47,689
$1,591
$69,388
$30,107
$31,631
Expense Total
$24,970
$47,689
$1591
$69,388
$30,107
$31,631
General Fund
$24,970
$47,689
$1,591
$69,388
$30,107
$31,631
Funding Source Total
$24,970
$47,689
$1,591
$69,388
$30,107
$31,631
Packet Pg. 126
96
Project Description
Project Benefit
Estimated Project Cost
$641,678
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
General Fund
Funding Source Total
a
u_
U
r•
0
O
N
/0/�
i6
w_- -
o
�.d
as
N
d
L
a
$39,935
$81,545
$225,547
$144,830
$39,935
$81,545
$225,547
$144,830
$39,935
$81,545
$225,547
$144,830
$39,935
$81,545
$225,547
$144,830
$27,575
$122,245
$27,575
$122,245
$27,575
$122,245
$27,575
$122,245
97
Packet Pg. 127
Project Description
Project Benefit
Estimated Project Cost
$241,029
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
General Fund
Funding Source Total
$16,960
$20,000
$16,274
$94,248
$69,782
$23,765
$16,960
$20,000
$16,274
$94,248
$69,782
$23,765
$16,960
$20,000
$16,274
$94,248
$69,782
$23,765
$16,960
$20,000
$16,274
$94,248
$69,782
$23,765
a
u_
U
r•
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
Q
O
L
a
4-
0
c
O
0
as
N
d
L
a
98
Packet Pg. 128
Project Description
Project Benefit
Estimated Project Cost
$97,167
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
General Fund
Funding Source Total
$7,903
$80,000
$888
$546
$1,361
$6,469
$7,903
$80,000
$888
$546
$1,361
$6,469
$7,903
$80,000
$888
$546
$1,361
$6,469
$7,903
$80,000
$888
$546
$1,361
$6,469
99
Packet Pg. 129
Project Description
Project Benefit
Estimated Project Cost
$65,029
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
General Fund
Funding Source Total
$12,121
$13,089
$15,000
$10,000
$4,621
$10,199
$12,121
$13,089
$15,000
$10,000
$4,621
$10,199
$12,121
$13,089
$15,000
$10,000
$4,621
$10,199
$12,121
$13,089
$15,000
$10,000
$4,621
$10,199
100
Packet Pg. 130
Project Description
Project Benefit
Estimated Project Cost
$399,441
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
General Fund
Funding Source Total
$45,000
$105,175
$150,902
$53,325
$45,038
$45,000
$105,175
$150,902
$53,325
$45,038
$45,000
$105,175
$150,902
$53,325
$45,038
$45,000
$105,175
$150,902
$53,325
$45,038
IL
u_
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
Q
O
L
a
0
O
0
as
N
d
L
a
101
Packet Pg. 131
Project Description
Project Benefit
Estimated Project Cost
$59,464
Design
Right of Way
Construction
$26,083
$13,426
$6,365
$7,985
$4,446
$1,159
Expense Total
$26,083
$13,426
$6,365
$7,985
$4,446
$1,159
General Fund
$26,083
$13,426
$6,365
$7,985
$4,446
$1,159
Funding Source Total
$26,083
$13,426
$6,365
$7,985
$4,446
$1,159
Packet Pg. 132
102
Project Description
Project Benefit
Estimated Project Cost
')LbL,LUS
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
General Fund
Funding Source Total
$55,635
$107,743
$24,308
$25,000
$25,000
$24,519
$55,635
$107,743
$24,308
$25,000
$25,000
$24,519
$55,635
$107,743
$24,308
$25,000
$25,000
$24,519
$55,635
$107,743
$24,308
$25,000
$25,000
$24,519
FL
U
IL
u_
t�
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
CL
O
a`
O
0
M
as
N
d
L
a
103
Packet Pg. 133
Project Description
Project Benefit
Estimated Project Cost
$270,495
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
General Fund
Funding Source Total
$130,631
$15,789
$40,320
$9,349
$5,177
$69,228
$130,631
$15,789
$40,320
$9,349
$5,177
$69,228
$130,631
$15,789
$40,320
$9,349
$5,177
$69,228
$130,631
$15,789
$40,320
$9,349
$5,177
$69,228
I
104
Packet Pg. 134
owl
Project Description
Project Benefit
Estimated Project Cost
$1, 558,144
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
General Fund
Funding Source Total
$340,180
$50,967
$445,276
$55,169
$151,481
$515,071
$340,180
$50,967
$445,276
$55,169
$151,481
$515,071
$340,180
$50,967
$445,276
$55,169
$151,481
$515,071
$340,180
$50,967
$445,276
$55,169
$151,481
$515,071
a
u_
U
r•
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
Q
O
L
a
4-
0
105
Packet Pg. 135
Project Description
Project Benefit
Estimated Project Cost
$628,697
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
General Fund
Funding Source Total
$80,000
$126,570
$218,643
$80,315
$79,348
$43,821
$80,000
$126,570
$218,643
$80,315
$79,348
$43,821
$80,000
$126,570
$218,643
$80,315
$79,348
$43,821
$80,000
$126,570
$218,643
$80,315
$79,348
$43,821
a
u_
U
r•
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
Q
O
L
a
4-
0
c
O
0
as
N
d
L
a
106
Packet Pg. 136
Project Description
Project Benefit
Estimated Project Cost
.R-)cu,ouu
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
General Fund
Funding Source Total
$21,697
$18,600
$99,077
$43,880
$115,734
$21,872
$21,697
$18,600
$99,077
$43,880
$115,734
$21,872
$22,697
$18,600
$99,077
$43,880
$115,734
$21,872
$22,697
$18,600
$99,077
$43,880
$115,734
$21,872
IL
u_
U
r•
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
Q
O
• a
0
c
O
as
N
d
L
a
107
Packet Pg. 137
Project Description
Project Benefit
Estimated Project Cost
$174,623
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
General Fund
Funding Source Total
U
a
u_
.r r•
N
O
N
L N
N
F 5 0
M 7 i* N
O
Q
O
L
$25,000
$65,570
$26,128
$8,409
$19,127
$30,389
$25,000
$65,570
$26,128
$8,409
$19,127
$30,389
$25,000
$65,570
$26,128
$8,409
$19,127
$30,389
$25,000
$65,570
$26,128
$8,409
$19,127
$30,389
108
Packet Pg. 138
8.A.a
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT
—
IL
v
IL
LL
t)
I-
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
M
O
L
IL
4-
0
c
0
cc
c
m
w
m
L
IL
a
v
d
LL
t�
m
oa
L
O
2
IL
a
109
Packet Pg. 139
8.A.a
WWTP Proiects
#
CFP
PROJECT
DP
#
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
TOTAL
(2022-2027)
TOTAL
(2028-42)
TOTAL
Project Cost
PWP-01
WWTP Annual Capital Replacement In-house Projects
$0
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$5,000,000
$14,000,000
$19,000,000
PWP-02
Carbon Recovery Project
67
$1,162,671
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,162,671
$0
$1,162,671
PWP-03
City Park Odor Scrubber
68
$297,121
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$297,121
$0
$297,121
PWP-04
Nutrient Removal Project
$0
$1,000,0001
$5,000,000
$0
$0
$0
$6,000,000
$0
$6,000,000
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
0
$0
$0
$o
$o
$0
$o
$o
$0
$0
0
$0
$o
$o
$o
$o
$o
$o
$o
$0
Total Projects $1,459,792 $2,000,000 $6,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $12,459,792 $14,000,000 $26,459,792
Funding Source
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
4027
TOTAL
(2022-2027)
TOTAL
(2028-42)
TOTAL
Edmonds (Sewer Fund 423) (50.79%)
$741,428
$1,015,800
$3,047,400
$507,900
$507,900
$507,900
$6,328,328
$7,110,600
$13,438,928
Mountlake Terrace (23.17%)
$338,234
$463,400
$1,390,200
$231,700
$231,700
$231,700
$2,886,934
$3,243,800
$6,130,734
Olympic View Water Sewer District (16.55%)
$241,596
$331,000
$993,000
$165,500
$165,500
$165,500
$2,062,096
$2,317,000
$4,379,096
Ronald Sewer District (9.49%)
$138,5341
$189,8001
$569,4001
$94,9001
$94,9001
$94,9001
$1,182,4341
$1,328,6001
$2,511,034
Total Revenue $1,459,792 $2,000,000 $6,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $12,459,792 $14,000,000 $26,459,792
Packet Pg. 140
110
Project Description
This ongoing project is to ensure that critical infrastructure is maintained and replaced as needed. Project
expenditures may include, but are not limited to, variable frequency drives, pumps, motors, gear boxes,
conveyors or any WWTP equipment that needs replacement versus repair.
Project Benefit
This project ensure that the critical infrastructure is maintained and equipment is replaced in order to reduce risk
to the City.
Estimated Project Cost
$19,000,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Sewer Fund 423
Mountlake Terrace
Olympic View Water Sewer District
Ronald Sewer District
Funding Source Total
a
u_
U
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
Q
O
L
a
4-
0
C
0
0
as
N
a
$200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $2,800,OC '
$800,000 $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 $11,200,OC
$1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $14,000,00
$507,900 $507,900 $507,900 $507,900 $507,900 $7,110,6C :
$231,700 $231,700 $231,700 $231,700 $231,700 $3,243,8C
$165,500 $165,500 $165,500 $165,500 $165,500 $2,317,OC
$94,900 $94,900 $94,900 $94,900 $94,900 $1,328,6C
$1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $14,000,00 ;
Packet Pg. 141
High Efficiency Blowers
Project saves: $33,9091yr, and
345 tons CO2, equivalent to:
36.6 home's energy I
799 Irerfels of
use For one year oil com med
Dewaterin
Project saves: $133,211iyr. and
537 tons C 0 r, equivalent to:
56.7 riome s e, ergy 1.243 barrels oFoil
u�afor one year I c,pn3mmd
Aeration & Blowers
Projects ayes, $3d,00yr. and
294 tons M, equivalent to:
87.3 home's energy 611 barrels of
use for oneyear I ail cDn5umed
Project Description
The Carbon Recovery Project replaces the aging Sanitary Sewage Sludge Incinerator with the Ecoremedy
Gasification Process. The multi -year project which was approved by City Council on July 7, 2020 is being delivered
through the State of Washington Energy Savings Performance Contracting program.
Project Benefit
Project benefits include a more sustainable approach to treating and disposing of biosolids by creating a
marketable biochar. The project will reduce overall energy requirements while producing a PFAS free (or greatly
reduced) end product. The project also includes a more robust odor scrubber and screenings management
enhancements which are designed to reduce operation and maintenance cost for our ratepayers while improving
odor in our surrounding community.
The Carbon Recovery Project is the final project that was envisioned within the Pathway to Sustainability
Estimated Project Cost
$26,121,039
Design
Right of Way
Construction
$1,162,671
Expense Total
$1,162,671
Sewer Fund 423
$590,521
Mountlake Terrace
$269,391
Olympic View Water Sewer District
$192,422
Ronald Sewer District
$110,337
Funding Source Total
$1,162,671
112
Packet Pg. 142
Project Descriptio
This project will remove and treat the hydrogen sulfide gas that is being released into the atmosphere from a City
owned sewer mainline and private roof vents in the area of Pine St and 2nd/3rd Ave S. The gas has a rotten egg
smell which results in numerous complaints from residents in the area. An activated carbon odor scrubber was
identified as the most efficient and effective method of capturing and destroying the nuisance odor.
Project Benefit
This project would formally address the ongoing problem and reduce odors in the area for residents and park
patrons.
Estimated Project Cost
$297,121
Design
Right of Way
Construction
$297,121
Expense Total
$297,121
Sewer Fund 423
$150,908
Mountlake Terrace
$68,843
Olympic View Water Sewer District
$49,174
Ronald Sewer District
$28,197
Funding Source Total
$297,122
_ N
N
Packet Pg. 143
113
Project Description
The State of Washington Department of Ecology will soon issue the General Permit for Nutrient Reduction. This
General Permit will be issued to all WWTP's who discharge into the Puget Sound and currently caps the WWTP
nutrient load. With the anticipation of the General Permit, the City has participated in a full scale pilot program
that began in August 2020. The pilot program has shown promise to meet the requirements of the General
Permit. This project is a place holder to fully develop a design and ultimately determine the cost of construction
and ongoing O&M expenses.
Project Benefit
This project will ensure a reduction in nutrients discharged by the WWTP into the Puget Sound while increasing
settleability and reducing effluent solids. Completion of the project will allow the City to meet the requirements
within the General Permit, accompanying NPDES Permit and to increase flows in order to maximum the rated
capacity of the WWTP.
Estimated Project Cost
$6,000,000
Design
$1,000,000
Right of Way
Construction
$5,000,000
Expense Total
$1,000,000
$5,000,000
Sewer Fund 423
$507,900
$2,539,500
Mountlake Terrace
$231,700
$1,158,500
Olympic View Water Sewer District
$165,500
$827,500
Ronald Sewer District
$94,900
$474,500
Funding Source Total
$1,000,000
$5,000,000
Packet Pg. 144
114
8.A.a
CIP- CFP
COMPARISON
(2021-2022)
a
U
d
U-
U
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
0.
O
L
O
r—
O
d
N
L
a
a
a_
U
U)
m
r
06
N
Y
L
O
3.1
Q.
a+
Q
Packet Pg. 145
115
CFP / CIP COMPARISON (2021 TO 2022)
8.A.a
ADDED PROJECTS
FUND
PROJECT NAME
CFP
DESCRIPTION
112
Hwy 99 Revitalization and Gateway - Stage 2
X
Hwy 99 Revitalization & Gateway project divided in different Stages
112
Hwy 99 Revitalization and Gateway - Stage 3
X
Hwy 99 Revitalization & Gateway project divided in different Stages
112
Hwy 99 Revitalization and Gateway - Stage 4
X
Hwy 99 Revitalization & Gateway project divided in different Stages
112
Hwy 99 Revitalization and Gateway - Stage 5
X
Hwy 99 Revitalization & Gateway project divided in different Stages
112
Hwy 99 Revitalization and Gateway - Stage 6
X
Hwy 99 Revitalization & Gateway project divided in different Stages
112
Hwy 99 Revitalization and Gateway - Stage 7
X
Hwy 99 Revitalization & Gateway project divided in different Stages
112
Hwy 99 Revitalization and Gateway - Stage 8
X
Hwy 99 Revitalization & Gateway project divided in different Stages
112
Hwy 99 Revitalization and Gateway - Stage 9
X
Hwy 99 Revitalization & Gateway project divided in different Stages
125
ADA Playground Upgrade Program
Annual Program to upgrade / replace plagrounds
125
Yost Pool Repair
Replacement of failing plaster at the pool
421
Phase 18 Annual Replacement Program (2028)
Estimated future costs for waterline replacements.
421
Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment
Reservoir assessment to determine upgrade needs and preliminary design
421
2022 Waterline Overlays
Estimated future costs for road repairs due to waterline replacements.
422
Phase 9 Annual Storm Replacement Project (2028)
Estimated future costs for storm pipe replacements.
422
Lower Perrinville Creek Restoration Phase 1
Estimated future costs for 1st phase of Creek Restoration
422
2022 SD Overlays
Estimated future costs for road repairs due to storm replacements
422
Green Street & Rain Gardens
Estimated future costs for Citywide green infrastructure projects
423
Phase 15 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements (2028)
Estimated future costs for sewer line replacements/rehab/impr.
423
2022 SS Overlays
Estimated future costs for road repairs due to sewer line replacements.
423
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase 4
Estimated future costs for sewer project.
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
0M
O
L
a
O
c
O
r
O
r
c
m
N
O
L
d
d
U
a
LL
U
d
r
06
N
Y
O
v
O
d
Q
Page 1 of 3 Packet Pg. 146
116
8.A.a
CFP / CIP COMPARISON (2021 TO 2022)
REMOVED PROJECTS
FUND
PROJECT NAME
CFP
DESCRIPTION
112
Hwy 99 @ 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
X
Removed / Included in Hwy 99 Revitalization & Gateway project - Stage 4
112
Hwy 99 @ 216th St. SW Intersection Improvements
X
Removed/ included in Hwy 99 Revitalization & Gateway project - Stage 9
112
Hwy 99 @ 212th St. SW Intersection Improvements
X
Removed / included in Hwy 99 Revitalization & Gateway project - Stage 5
112
Hwy 99 Pedestrian Improvements (SR-104 Off -Ramps)
X
Removed / included in Hwy 99 Revitalization & Gateway project Stage 2 & 3
112
Hwy 99 @ 234th St. SW Traffic Signal
X
Removed
112
Sunset Ave. Sidewalk
X
Removed
112
Walnut St. Walkway from 3rd Ave. S to 4th Ave. S
X
Completed
112
Dayton St. Walkway from 7th Ave.S to 8th Ave. S
X
Completed
125
Greenhouse Replacement
2021 Project
421
2021 Waterline Overlays
Completed
421
Dayton 3rd to 9th
Completed
421
5 Corners Reservoir RecoatinR
Completed
421
Phase 11 Annual Replacement Program (2021)
Completed
422
Dayton 3rd to 9th
Completed
422
Dayton St and Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements -Dayton Pump Station
Completed
422
2021 SD Overlays
Completed
422
Phase 1 Annual Storm Replacement Project (2020)
Completed
423
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase 2
Completed
423
Phase 7 SS Replacement Project (2020)
Completed
423
Phase 8 SS Replacement Project (2021)
Completed
423
Dayton 3rd to 9th
Completed
423
2021 SS Overlays
Completed
423
LS#1 Metering and Flow Study
Completed
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
O.
O
aL
O
C
O
r
O
r
c
m
N
a
(L
U
a
LL
U
U)
m
r
06
N
Y
L
O
v
O
a
Q
Page 2 of 3 Packet Pg. 147
117
8.A.a
CFP / CIP COMPARISON (2021 TO 2022)
CHANGED PROJECTS
FUND
PROJECT NAME
CFP
CHANGE
112
SR-104 Adaptive System
X
Moved up from 2023 to 2022
112
175th Slope Repair
X
Moved from Fund 126 to Fund 112
112
Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave.S to 9th Ave. S
X
Construction funding added in 2022
125
4th Avenue Cultural Corridor
Postponed until 2025
125
Waterfront Walkway Completion
Moved to fund 125
125
Civic Park
X
Utilizing $2M from REET and not General Fund
125
Citywide Park Improvements / Capital Replacement Program
Increase in funding 2023-2027
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
0M
O
aL
O
c
O
r
R
r
C
d
N
O
L
U
a
LL
U
U)
m
r
06
N
Y
L
O
V
Q.
Q
Page 3 of 3 Packet Pg. 148
118
EDMONDSPARKS,
RECREATION & CULTURAL SERVICES
2022-2027 PROPOSED
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN &
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
` • ill' ���� _r.-J4-�+ 1,=- -
;fAv
����.
-''�• d�r,-y�r mot. !
iA��.+�M fl{
. • fs�
•�
� �X
.
iL
� �- �� e �c�`��� ~i{�.`�•.��,s.^ �-•`ram •:. .i '��}�`t'•%�+` �+ -
y _
8.A.b
EDMONDSPARKS,
RECREATION & CULTURAL SERVICES
October 13, 2021
Members of the City Council, Staff and Citizens of Edmonds,
It is an honor to present the 6-year Parks Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The CIP serves as a long-
range planning guide identifying parks capital projects and related funding sources, both secured and
unsecured. The CIP is updated each year and presented in conjunction with the budget. Capital
Improvement projects that are also included in the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) which are identified in the
following document.
In 2022 the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department will focus on the completion of the largest
ever City of Edmonds Parks Capital project, the redevelopment of the 8-acre Civic Center Playfields. There
are significant resources of staff time and funding invested in this project which began construction in
August 2021 and is schedule to be complete Winter 2022. In addition to Civic Center the department will
continue to focus on deferred maintenance of existing parks and recreation facilities, playground
renovations and upgrades and required maintenance at Yost Pool.
The updated Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan (PROS) will be completed in early 2022. This
document, based largely on citizens priorities will guide future CIP plans. At this time, near future projects
include the re -development of Marina Beach Park ($1M in grant funding secured), and annually funds are
being set aside and accumulating for potential parkland and open space acquisition should the right
opportunity become available. The department is focused on providing an equitable distribution of access
to park and recreational facilities throughout the entire City.
Your Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department is proud to have served the citizens throughout
the COVID-19 pandemic, working to ensure residents and visitors had safe and enjoyable places to
recreate. With unprecedented usage of the city's parks system our priorities shifted to enhanced litter,
garbage and restroom sanitization however we are looking forward to returning to our list of deferred
maintenance and keeping the Edmonds Parks safe and enjoyable for all.
Sincerely,
,Ril�
Angie Feser
Edmonds Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director
425-771-0256
Angie.Feser@EdmondsWA.gov
Edmonds Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services • 600 Main Street, Edmonds, WA 98020
Page 1
Packet Pg. 150
8.A.b
2022 - 2027 SIX -YEAR PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
CFP # PROJECT 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 6-YearToi
PARKS CIP/CFP PROJECTS
Civic Center Playfield
Redevelopment of 8-acre park consistent with Master Plan adopted in 2017;
X
PRK 1
add restrooms, walking track, landscaping, inclusive playground, improve
$ 9,755,742
$
$
$
$
$
$ 9,755,7
field and lighting, skate park, petanque grove, tennis and multi sports courts.
Marina Beach Park Improvements
Redevelop the park consistent with the Master Plan adopted in 2015;
X
PRK 2
Parking lot reconfiguration, overlooks, lawn areas, permanent restrooms,
$
$
$ 1,750,000
$ 1,500,000
$ 2,750,000
$
$ 6,000,0
upgrade play area, improve ADA Accessibility, add bridges over new
alignment of Willow Creek.
4th Avenue Cultural Corridor
Prioritized in the 2014 Community Cultural Plan and State certified Creative
PRK 3
District. Improvements encourage pedestrian traffic and provide visual
$
$
$
$ 1,000,000
$ 1,000,000
$ 6,000,000
$ 8,000,0
connection between ECA and downtown contributing to economic vitality.
Playground Upgrade Program
Annual upgrades of playground equipment and fall surfacing to provide
PRK 4
additional inclusive playgrounds/facilities providing access for children of all
$ 175,000
$ 175,000
$ 175,000
$ 175,000
$ 175,000
$ 175,000
$ 1,050,0
ages and abilities.
Yost Pool Repair
Regular maintenance to re -plaster the pool to replace and repair failing
PRK 5
plaster. Pool will be forced to close without repair.
$ 175,000
$
$ -
$ -
$
$
$ 175,0
Waterfront Walkway Completion
Connecting the waterfront walkway from Brackett's Landing North to Marina
PRK 6
Beach Park by adding missing section in front of the Ebb Tide Condominiums,
$
$
$ 500,000
$ 750,000
$
$
$ 1,250,0
to provide ADA improvements.
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration (Willow Creek Daylighting)
X
PRK 7
Restoration of the Marsh to reconnect the Puget Sound within the Edmonds
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Marsh and two fresh water creeks to provide fresh water / salt water estuary
and natural tidal exchange.
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
0.
O
d
O
C
0
r
to
C
d
N
a�
a`
a
u_
U
I
a_
U
N
c`a
a
d
0
M
0
a`
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
N
c
aD
E
s
to
Q
c
d
t
v
R
a
Page 2
Packet Pg. 151
8.A.b
2022 - 2027 SIX -YEAR PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
CFP
#
PROJECT
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
6-YearToi
Community Park & Athletic Complex - Phase II
X
PRK 8
In cooperation with the Edmonds School District, complete a community park
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
and athletic complex at Former Woodway High School to include lighting and
Parks & Facilities Maintenance and Operations Building
X
PRK 9
Replace and/or renovate deteriorating building in City Park. Project in
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
conceptual phase.
(A) SUBTOTAL PARKS CIP/CFP PROJECTS
$ 10,107,764
$ 177,023
$ 2,427,024
$ 3,427,025
$ 3,927,026
$ 6,177,027
$ 26,230,7
PARKS CIP PROGRAMS
Citywide Park Improvements / Capital Replacement Program
PRK A
This ongoing program allocates funds for the regular maintenance, repair and
$ 155,000
$ 450,000
$ 450,000
$ 450,000
$ 450,000
$ 450,000
$ 2,405,0
replacement of parks amenities, structures and equipment.
Beautification Program
This ongoing program allocates funds to support beautification. Specifically
PRK B
flower plantings, irrigation and mulch in areas such as corner parks, landscape
$ 21,000
$ 21,000
$ 21,000
$ 21,000
$ 21,000
$ 21,000
$ 126,0
Park and Open Space Acquisition Program
PRK C
To acquire land for future parks and open spaces as opportunities become
$ 1,099,000
$ 399,000
$ 399,000
$ 399,000
$ 399,000
$ 399,000
$ 3,094,0
available.
Debt Service and Interfund Transfers
PRK D
Debt service on Civic Park $1.6M bond (2021) and Interfund transfers to
$ 193,832
$ 123,000
$ 148,000
$ 173,000
$ 198,000
$ 198,000
$ 1,033,8
Engineering for Capital Project Support.
(B) SUBTOTAL - PARKS CIP PROGRAMS
$ 1,468,832
$ 993,000
$ 1,018,000
$ 1,043,000
$ 1,068,000
$ 1,068,000
$ 6,658,8
(C) TOTAL PARKS CIP/CFP EXPENDITURES (A+B) 1 $ 11,576,596 1 $ 1,170,023 1 $ 3,445,024 1 $ 4,470,025 1 $ 4,995,026 1 $ 7,245,027 1 $ 32,889,5
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
m
N
O
0.
O
L
d
O
C
O
r
M
C
d
N
O
L
IL
a
u_
U
I
a_
U
N
L
M
a
d
O
M
O
a`
ti
N
O
N
N
N
0
N
N
C
O
E
t
Q
C
d
t
v
to
a
Page 3
Packet Pg. 152
8.A.b
2022 - 2027 SIX -YEAR PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PARKS CIP REVENUE
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
6-Year Tot
Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) I - Fund 126
$ 900,000
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
$ 1,900,0
Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) 11 - Fund 125
$ 3,500,000
$ 1,500,000
$ 1,500,000
$ 1,500,000
$ 1,500,000
$ 1,500,000
$ 11,000,0
Park Impact Fee's - Fund 332-100
$ 874,575
$ 450,000
$ 450,000
$ 450,000
$ 450,000
$ 450,000
$ 3,124,5
Tree Fund 143 - Land Acquisition
$ 199,000
$ 199,000
$ 199,000
$ 199,000
$ 199,000
$ 199,000
$ 1,194,0
Operating Contribution - General Fund
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
Investment Interest (3%)
$ 78,110
$ 39,793
$ 50,797
$ 31,381
$ 25,632
$ (539)
$ 225,1
Donations
$ 142,000
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 142,0
Bond Proceeds
$ -
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
Secured Grants
$ 2,728,000
$
$
$ 1,000,000
$
$
$ 3,728,0
Unsecured Grants
$ -
$
$
$ 1,000,000
$ 1,600,000
$ 6,000,000
$ 8,600,0
(D) TOTAL PARKS CIP REVENUE
$ 8,421,685
$ 2,388,793
$ 2,399,797
$ 4,380,381
$ 3,974,632
$ 8,348,461
$ 29,913,7.
Parks Fund 6-Year Overview
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
(E) Beginning Fund Balance (332 + 332-100)
$ 4,554,645
$ 1,399,734
$ 2,618,504
$ 1,573,276
$ 1,483,632
$ 463,238
(D) Revenue
$ 8,421,685
$ 2,388,793
$ 2,399,797
$ 4,380,381
$ 3,974,632
$ 8,348,461
(C) Expenditures
$ 11,576,596
$ 1,170,023
$ 3,445,024
$ 4,470,025
$ 4,995,026
$ 7,245,027
(G) Ending Fund Balance (E+D-C)
$ 1,399,734
$ 2,618,504
$ 1,573,276
$ 1,483,632
$ 463,238
$ 1,566,672
ti
N
0
N
N
N
0
N
d
O
0.
0
a
O
c
0
r
to
c
m
N
O
L
a
a
u_
U
I
a_
U
N
L
M
a
m
0
a
0
L
a
ti
N
0
N
N
N
O
N
N
C
O
E
t
V
r
Q
C
d
L
V
R
r�
a
Page 4
Packet Pg. 153
of EI)4
Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services
PARKS PROJECTS ,--
1��. 1890
Projects a.
0 Parks 11 v ti
N
O
N
N
04
N
0
0 0
a.
= ' U
0 P`RK�06
a
0
`K-02 �w� = . o
PRK+09 _ L
• ��n�� LI
04
CD
r
■�i 11��11 04
IL
F' N
C I y
N �� a
PRK-0� E
�� --- -ir
---II ■ � �II�L4
r/I�Y
* Site specific projects only. Citywide/annual citywide projects not shown. Packet Pg. 154
Page 5
8.A.b
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
PRK 1: Civic Center Playfield
_ _Y.A -
310 61h Ave. N — Downtown Edmonds
Project Summary: An 8-acre downtown park development supported by $3.47M in grant funding, $5.3M in bonds,
$1.3M in Park Impact Fees and $3.4M in Real Estate Excise Tax. This signature project broke ground in August
2021 and is slated for completion Winter 2022.
Project Justification: This is a multi -year design, fund development and construction project that is a very high
priority in the 2016 PROS plan. The Master Plan process was robust with extensive community input. Construction
began August 9, 2021 and is underway and 2022 funding necessary to complete the project.
Estimated Construction Cost: $13,758,000
2022
2023
0-
Planning & Design
Construction
$9,755,742
$9,755,742
Total Expenses
$9,755,742
$9,755,742
Real Estate Excise Tax II - Fund 125
$2,898,672
$2,898,672
Park Impact Fees - Fund 332-100
$1,352,620
$1,352,620
Bond Proceeds
$1,634,450
$1,634,450
Federal Grant (LWCF)
$500,000
$500,000
RCO State Grants
$850,000
$850,000
Snohomish County Grants
$450,000
$450,000
Verdant Grant
$170,000
$170,000
Hazel Miller Foundation Grant
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
State Appropriation / DOC Grant
$258,000
$258,000
Park Donations
$142,000
$142,000
Total Revenue
Unsecured Funding
$9,755,742
$0
$9,755,742
$0
Project Accounting #C536 & C551
FL_
U
a
U_
U
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
0.
O
a`
0
c
0
r
R
r
c
as
N
N
a`
Page 6
Packet Pg. 155
8.A.b
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
PRK 2: Marina Beach Park Improvements
470 Admiral Way, South of the Port of Edmonds
Project Summary: Park renovation to better serve the community as it accommodates the new alignment of
Willow Creek. The project will include parking lot reconfiguration, overlooks, lawn areas, potential concession
areas, permanent restrooms, upgraded play area, upgraded benches, picnic tables and BBQ's, improved ADA
accessibility, a loop trail system including two pedestrian bridges connecting the park across Willow Creek,
personal watercraft staging and launching area, bicycle racks, fencing, retaining the existing beach/ driftwood area
and off leash dog area and environmental education opportunities. The Marina Beach Master Plan includes
daylighting Willow Creek which requires removal of a 1,600' pipe that was placed in the early 1960's and is the
only exchange between the Puget Sound and the freshwater Edmonds Marsh Estuary. $1,000,000 in RCO grants
were awarded for this project in 2021.
Project Justification: Marina Beach Park is a highly used regional park. Through the City of Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan, Strategic Action Plan and the 2016 Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) Plan the
community identified the need to restore the adjacent Edmonds Marsh, and re-established for salmon habitat.
Improvements are intended to retain this site as an asset to the regional waterfront park system. This project is
intended to address sea level rise and will promote recreational tourism at both Marina Beach and the Marsh for
all generations to enjoy, learn about, and utilize as a wildlife sanctuary in an urban environment.
Estimated Cost: $6,000,000
Planning & Design
2022
2023
2024 2025
$600,000
2026
$600,000
Construction
$1,150,000 $1,500,000
$2,750,000 $5,400,000
Total Expenses
$1,750,000 $1,500,000
$2,750,000 $6,000,000
Real Estate Excise Tax II - Fund 125
$750,000
$1,000,000 $1,750,000
Fund 332 Balance + Park Impact Fees
$1,000,000 $500,000
$1,150,000 $2,650,000
Secured Grants
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
Total Revenue
Unsecured Funding
$1,750,000 $1,500,000
$2,150,000 $5,400,000
$600,000 $600,000
Project Accounting # C550
Page 7
Packet Pg. 156
8.A.b
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
PRK 3: 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor
41h Avenue from Main St. to the Edmonds Center for the Arts, Downtown
Project Summary: Final design of 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor to include site design and construction documents
for a safe, pedestrian friendly, and art enhanced corridor in the public right of way which provides a strong visual
connection along 4th Avenue N between Main Street and Edmonds Center for the Arts. Interim work on this
project since the concept was developed includes a 2015 temporary light artwork "Luminous Forest", as well as
preliminary design development through 2020-21. Funding for this project has not been secured at this time.
Project Justification: The corridor improvements in the public right of way will encourage pedestrian traffic and
provide a strong visual connection between the ECA and downtown retail. Improvements will enhance
connectivity as an attractive walking corridor and contribute to the economic vitality in downtown. The project
has been supported by the community in the 2014 Community Cultural Plan and in the goals and priorities for the
State certified Creative District.
Estimated Cost: $8,000,000
Planning & Design
2022
2023
2024
2025
$800,000
$800,000
Construction
$200,000
$1,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,200,000
Total Expenses
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
Real Estate Excise Tax II - Fund 125
Park Impact Fees - Fund 332-100
Operating contribution — general fund
Secured Grants
Total Revenue
Unsecured Funding
$0
$1,000,000
1 $0
$1,000,000
1 $0
$6,000,000
1 $0
$8,000,000
Project Accounting #C538
Page 8
Packet Pg. 157
8.A.b
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
PRK 4: Playground Upgrade Program
z
a
u_
U
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
fA
O
0.
0
L
a
4-
0
c
0
r
0
c
a�
L
a
Project Summary: City of Edmonds owns, operates and maintains 15 playgrounds and only two of them are
considered fully inclusive and accessible (Seaview and Civic Parks). One of the Parks, Recreation and Cultural
Services Department initiatives is to continually update playgrounds which range in installation dates from 1985 -
2019. As part of these scheduled updates the department will work to enhance playgrounds to be inclusive versus
merely meeting ADA standards. In many cases this includes enhanced play surfacing and play equipment that
provide for children of all abilities.
The playground improvement prioritization is slated to be established at the conclusion and adoption of the 2022
PROS plan to determine an implementation strategy.
Project Justification: Playground upgrades are a necessary part of maintaining a safe play environment. With
playgrounds that are 35+ years old many will be scheduled for upgrades. Further, it is the goal of the City to ensure
that those upgrades include considerations for children of all physical and mental abilities and that these play
amenities are designed to be a welcoming and healthy experience for all.
Estimated Cost: $175,000 per year / $1,050,000 (6-year total)
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
Planning & Design
Construction
$175,000 $175,000
$175,000 $175,000
$175,000 $175,000
$1,050,000
Total Expenses
$175,000 $175,000
$175,000 $175,000
$175,000 $175,000
$1,050,000
Real Estate Excise Tax II - Fund 125
$175,000 $175,000
$175,000 $175,000
$175,000 $175,000
$1,050,000
Fund 332 Balance + Park Impact Fees
Secured Grants
Total Revenue
Unsecured Funding
$175,000 $175,000
$0
$175,000 $175,000
$175,000 $175,000 $1,050,000
$0
Page 9
Packet Pg. 158
8.A.b
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
PRK 5: Yost Pool Repair
96th Ave W & Bowdoin Way, Yost Park
Project Summary: Yost Pool was built nearly 50 years ago and continues to provide recreational opportunities for
many residents. In addition to teaching our youth water safety, the pool serves as an opportunity for community
members of all ages to lead healthy and active lifestyles. At this time, the pool needs a significant capital repair as
the plaster lining the inside of the pool is continuing to deteriorate, falling off the walls and detaching from the
bottom of the pool. The pool was re -plastered in 2001, 2011 and it is past due to re -plaster it again.
Project Justification: Typically, the plaster on the pool bubbles when it reaches its end of life, eventually breaking
open creating sharp edges which present a danger to the pool users and leads to future damage to existing plaster.
If the plaster repair is not completed, the pool will not be operational at a point in the near future.
Estimated Cost: $175,000
Planning & Design
i
Construction $175,000
$175,000
Total Expenses $175,000
$175,000
Real Estate Excise Tax II - Fund 125 $175,000
$175,000
Fund 332 Balance + Park Impact Fee's
Secured Grants
Total Revenue $175,000
Unsecured Funding $0
L $175,000
i
Page 10
Packet Pg. 159
8.A.b
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
PRK 6: Waterfront Walkway Completion — Ebb Tide Section
Beachfront in front of Ebb Tide Condominiums (200 Beach Place)
Project Summary: This would connect the waterfront walkway from Brackett's Landing North to Marina Beach
Park ensuring all individuals, including those with mobility challenges and those pushing strollers can safely enjoy
the waterfront. The final missing piece would be constructed in front of the Ebb Tide condominiums in the
easement owned by the City of Edmonds. The easement and walkway design are currently under legal review.
Project Justification: To provide public access along the waterfront for all individuals. Completion of the walkway
would meet ADA requirements and would support efforts to keep dogs off of the beaches. A top priority in the
2016 PROS plan is to open up beachfront access.
Estimated Cost: $1,250,000
i
Planning & Design
$125,000
1
$125,000
Construction
$375,000
1 $750,000
$1,125,000
Total Expenses
$500,000
$750,000
$1,125,000
Real Estate Excise Tax II - Fund 125
$500,000
$750,000
$1,125,000
Park Impact Fee's - Fund 332-100
Operating contribution — general fund
Secured Grants
Total Revenue
Unsecured Funding
$500,000
so
$750,000
$0
$1,125,000
$0
Page 11
Packet Pg. 160
8.A.b
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
PRK 7: Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration (Willow Creek Daylighting)
Edmonds Marsh - City of Edmonds Marsh and property owned by Unocal (Chevron Services Co.)
Project Summary: Reconnect the Puget Sound with the Edmonds Marsh restoring the natural tidal exchange. This
project will impact the existing Marina Beach Park and its proposed renovation including daylighting of Willow
Creek within the park. That project is identified and detailed a separate capital improvement project (PRK 2).
Project Justification: This project will fulfill the 2016 PROS plan goals and support Governor's Inslee's capital
budget for salmon recovery, culvert removal, water quality and water supply projects to expand and improve
salmon habitat. The marsh estuary restoration project will allow for and provide a natural tidal exchange, allow
Chinook salmon to again migrate into Willow Creek, support migratory birds and waterfowl, provide a natural
redistribution of saltwater -freshwater flora and fauna and address sea level rise impacts. In addition, it will
promote recreational tourism at both Marina Beach and the Marsh for all generations to enjoy, learn about, and
utilize as a wildlife sanctuary in an urban environment. The project has a stormwater component which will
require removal of tidal gates and a 1,600 pipe that was placed in the early 1960's as a connection between the
Puget Sound and the Edmonds Marsh.
Estimated Cost: TBD
Page 12
Packet Pg. 161
8.A.b
Land Acquisition
Planning & Design
Construction
Total Expenses
Real Estate Excise Tax II - Fund 125
Real Estate Excise Tax I — Fund 126
Fund 332 Balance + Park Impact Fee's
Bond Proceeds
Secured Grants
Tree Fund 143 — Land Acquisition
Park Donations
Operating Contribution — General Fund
Stormwater — Fund 422
Total Revenue
Unsecured Funding
Project Accounting #M070
a_
U
a
u_
U
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
m
0
0.
0
L-
a.
0
c
0
R
r
c
a�
N
N
L
a
a
a_
U
I
IL
U
N
L
a
m
0
Q.
0
L-
a.
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
N
C
N
E
m
V
R
Q
r
C
d
L
V
a
Page 13
Packet Pg. 162
8.A.b
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
PRK 8: Community Park & Athletic Complex Phase II (CFP Only)
23200 100`h Ave. W — Former Woodway High School
Project Summary: Two projects - Phase I lighting, Phase II renovation of existing underdeveloped athletic field
Project Justification: By adding lighting to the newly renovated Phase I year-round field, usage of the multi -use
facility would significantly increase. Phase II would renovate a currently poorly maintained and underutilized large
athletic field to provide community significantly more multi -sport use of an existing facility. This Athletic Complex
serves a densely populated area of more than 150,000 residents within 5-mile radius. Future maintenance costs
offset by user fees. Phase I was completed in 2015 for $4.2M, Phase II estimated at $6-8M.
Estimated Cost: $6-8M
2022 2023 2024
2025 2026 2027 Total
-------
TotalConstruction
-------
Real Estate Excise Tax 11 - '125TotalBond
Proceeds
-------
Unsecured Funding
$6-8 M
Page 14
Packet Pg. 163
8.A.b
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
PRK 9: Parks & Facilities Maintenance Building (CFP Only)
600 3rd Avenue South — City Park
Project Summary: The 40+ year old maintenance building in City Park is reaching the end of its useful life and
needs major renovation or replacement and is currently too small to accommodate staff and needed work areas.
Project Justification: Parks and Facilities Divisions have long outgrown this existing facility and need additional
work areas and fixed equipment in order to more efficiently maintain City parks and Capital facilities.
Estimated Cost: $3 — 4M
Planning & Design
Construction
Total Expenses
Real Estate Excise Tax II - Fund 125
Park Impact Fees— Fund 332-100
Bond Proceeds
Operating Contribution — General Fund
Park Donations
Total Revenue
Unsecured Funding
I M
Page 15
Packet Pg. 164
8.A.b
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
PRK A: Citywide Park Improvements / Capital Replacement Program
Project Summary: The City of Edmonds owns, operates, and maintains 47 parks and open spaces consisting of
more than 230 acres and including a mile of Puget Sound beach and shoreline. Funding allocation for major
maintenance, replacements and small capital projects for the city-wide parks and recreation amenities including
paved and soft -surface trails, bridges, playgrounds, sports courts, athletic fields, skate park, Yost pool, restrooms,
pavilion, picnic shelters, fishing pier, lawn areas, parking lots, fencing, lighting, flower poles, monument and
interpretative signage and related infrastructure.
Project Justification: Insufficiently maintained parks and related assets lead to higher deferred maintenance costs,
increased city liability and decreased level of service and community satisfaction. The 2016 PROS Plan Goal #7 is
to provide a high quality and efficient level of maintenance for all parks and related public assets in Edmonds.
Estimated Cost: $2,405,000 (6-year total)
Repair & Maintenance
$105,000
$400,000
$400,000
$400,000
i
$400,000
$400,000
$2,105,000
Professional Services
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$300,000
Total Expenses
$155,000
$450,000
$450,000
$450,000
$450,000
$450,000
$2,405,000
Real Estate Excise Tax II - Fund 125
$155000
$450,000
$450,000
$450,000
$450,000
$450,000
$2,405,000
Total Revenue
Unsecured Funding
$155,000
$450,000
$450,000
$450,000
$450,000
$450,000
$2,405,000
$0
Page 16
Packet Pg. 165
8.A.b
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
PRK B: Beautification Program
Project Summary: Beautification to include flower plantings, irrigation and mulch in multiple areas throughout
town for example: outdoor plazas, corner parks, the library, Frances Anderson Center, streetscapes, gateways
and hanging flower baskets.
Project Justification: Improve beautification and provide comprehensive adopted plan for beautification and
trees. This program is highly supported by volunteers in the community. Baskets and corner parks are sponsored
resulting in about $19,000 of contributions a year in additional funding.
Estimated Cost: $21,000 per year / $126,000 (6-year total)
Page 17
Packet Pg. 166
8.A.b
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
PRK C: Park and Open Space Acquisition Program
Project Summary: Acquisition of land when feasible that will benefit citizens and support the priorities identified
in the PROS plan. $700,000 is currently reserved for park land and open space acquisition. These funds were
accumulated in 2019, 2020 and 2021. There is no request to purchase a specific property at this time.
Project Justification: There are large areas of Edmonds where the Parks, open space and recreation facilities level
of service is below adopted standards; particularly on the Hwy 99 corridor. This is a priority in the PROS plan.
Estimated Cost: TBD, funds accumulated in preparation for land acquisition opportunities total $3,094,000 over
6 years.
Land — Park Facilities
Total Expenses
Real Estate Excise Tax I - Fund 126
$900,000
$200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $1,900,000
Tree Fund 143 - land acquisition
$199,000
$199,000 $199,000 $199,000 $199,000 $199,000 $1,194,000
Total Revenue $1,099,000
Unsecured Funding
$399,000 1 $399,000 1 $399,000 1 $399,000 1 $399,000) 1 $3,094,000
i
Page 18
Packet Pg. 167
8.A.b
CIP/CFP COMPARISON 2021-2022
Fund Project Name CFP Description
New Projects Added
125
Playground Upgrade Program
Annual upgrades of playground equipment and fall surfacing to provide additional
inclusive playgrounds / facilities providing access for children of all ages and abilities.
125
Yost Pool Repair
Regular Maintenance to re -plaster the pool to replace and repair the failing plaster. Pool
will be forced to close without repair.
Projects Removed
125 Greenhouse Replacement 2021 Project
Projects Changed
125
4th Avenue Cultural Corridor
Postponed until 2025
125
Waterfront Walkway Completion
Moved to fund 125
125
Civic Center Playfield
X
Utilizing $2M from REET and not the General Fund
125
Citywide Park Improvements / Capital Replacement Program
Increase in funding 2023-2027
ti
N
O
N
N
N
0
N
d
N
O
0M
O
L
O
C
0
r
O
C
d
In
CD
a
a
ILL
U
I
a_
U
to
L
M
a
m
0
a
0
L
a
r`
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
N
C
O
E
t
V
r
Q
C
d
E
L
V
R
r�
a
Page 19 Packet Pg. 168
8.B
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/13/2021
Code Amendment to Update Residential Occupancy Standards
Staff Lead: Eric Engmann
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Eric Engmann
Background/History
The Washington State Legislature adopted Senate Bill (SB) 5235 during the 2021 legislative session to
address "Housing Unit Inventory - Removing Limits." It was signed by the Governor in May 2021 and
addresses local control over residential occupancy restrictions. Essentially, it limits a local government's
ability to regulate the number of people living within a household, in most cases.
The applicable portion of SB 5235 is provided as Attachment 1. Note: The majority of SB 5235 was
vetoed by the Governor. To avoid confusion, the sections that were vetoed, or not applicable, have been
removed.
Staff Recommendation
None at this time. This is an introduction of the topic.
Narrative
This introduction discussion will cover:
- The specifics of SB 5235 that apply,
- The City's code sections that need amending, and
- Possible solutions to comply with the legislation and still maintain single-family usage and zoning.
This is an introductory meeting to understand the changes made by the State Legislature in SB 5235 and
how it affects the City's regulations. This legislation removes the City's ability to set limits on the number
of people living in a household, with a few exceptions: Building Code requirements, group living, and
short-term rentals. The draft presentation is also included (Attachment 2).
The Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) contains several references to occupancy limits in
the definitions. This is done to differentiate between permitted usage in a single-family dwelling and
other uses such as boarding houses, short-term rentals, etc. The definition for Families (ECDC 21.30.10)
and the Criteria for Attached Accessory Dwelling Units (ECDC 20.21.030) both contain limits on the
number of unrelated people that can live in a dwelling unit. These references will need to be removed
per this State legislation.
Packet Pg. 169
8.6
The purpose of this code amendment will be to remove these specific occupancy limits and replace
them with other criteria and standards that address how a household operates. These replacements will
need to ensure that the intent of single-family dwelling units and single-family zoning remains intact.
Action Needed
None at this time. This action is a Type V legislative permit where the Planning Board will review the
proposed code language, once presented, and make a recommendation to City Council.
Attachments:
Attachment 1- SB 5235 (Simplified)
Attachment 2: Presentation (Draft)
Packet Pg. 170
8.B.a
CERTIFICATION OF ENROLLMENT
ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 5235
Chapter 306, Laws of 2021
(partial veto)
67th Legislature
2021 Regular Session
HOUSING UNIT INVENTORY —REMOVING LIMITS
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 25, 2021
Passed by the Senate April 14, 2021
Yeas 30 Nays 18
DENNY HECK
President of the Senate
Passed by the House April 7, 2021
Yeas 57 Nays 40
LAURIE JINKINS
Speaker of the House of
Representatives
Approved May 13, 2021 11:53 AM with
the exception of sections 1, 3, and
4, which are vetoed.
JAY INSLEE
Governor of the State of Washington
CERTIFICATE
I, Brad Hendrickson, Secretary of
the Senate of the State of
Washington, do hereby certify that
the attached is ENGROSSED
SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 5235 as
passed by the Senate and the House
of Representatives on the dates
hereon set forth.
BRAD HENDRICKSON
Secretary
FILED
May 13, 2021
Secretary of State
State of Washington
d
.Q
E
co
u�
M
N
LO
m
N
c
m
E
z
v
c�
Q
c
d
E
t
c�
Q
Packet Pg. 171
8.B.a
ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 5235
AS AMENDED BY THE HOUSE
Passed Legislature - 2021 Regular Session
State of Washington 67th Legislature 2021 Regular Session
By Senate Housing & Local Government (originally sponsored by
Senators Liias, Das, Nguyen, Nobles, Saldana, and Wilson, C.)
READ FIRST TIME 02/05/21.
1
AN ACT Relating to increasing housing unit inventory by removing
p
2
arbitrary limits on housing options; amending RCW 36.70A.696,
3
36.70A.697, and 36.70A.698; adding a new section to chapter 35.21
c
4
RCW; adding a new section to chapter 35A.21 RCW; adding a new section
5
to chapter 36.01 RCW; and creating a new section.
m
6
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
.Q
E
M
7
*NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. The legislature finds that local zoningLO
8
laws can contribute to limiting the housing available for
ai
9
Washingtonians. The legislature finds that reducing these barriers
10
can increase affordable hog options. The legislature finds that
E
11
accessory dwelling units can one way to add affordable long-term
5
12
housing and to provide a needed �& rease in housing density. However,
Q
13
the legislature finds that resea from several cities shows that
r
14
when accessory dwelling units are b)lt and offered for short-term
z
U
15
rental for tourists and business vis" rs, they may not improve
Q
16
housing affordability. Therefore, it is t -ntent of the legislature
17
to encourage reducing barriers to accessory 2l%elling units when local
18
governments have programs to incentivize or assure that they will be
19
utilized for long-term housing. The legislature finds that owner
20
occupancy requirements may provide an appropriate means for local
21
governments to ensure community impacts of accessory dwelling unit.-
P. 1 E S S packet Pg. 172
1 applicable health and safety provisions as established by applicable
2 building code or city ordinance, a city or town may not regulate or
3 limit the number of unrelated persons that may occupy a household or
4 dwelling unit.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
NEW SECTION._ Sec. 6. A new section is added to chapter 35A.21
RCW to read as follows:
Except for occupant limits on group living arrangements regulated
under state law or on short-term rentals as defined in RCW 64.37.010
and any lawful limits on occupant load per square foot or generally
applicable health and safety provisions as established by applicable
building code or city ordinance, a code city may not regulate or
limit the number of unrelated persons that may occupy a household or
dwelling unit.
NEW SECTION._ Sec. 7. A new section is added to chapter 36.01 E
CL
RCW to read as follows:l�
Except for occupant limits on group living arrangements O
regulated under state law o ,Nn short-term rentals as defined in RCW
64.37.010 and any lawful limi't�gn occupant load per square foot or _
Z
generally applicable health and Q�ety provisions as established by
applicable building code or couni>ordinance, a county may not :6�( 2
regulate or limit the number of Ctnrelated persons that may '•=
Q.
occupy a household or dwelling unit. E
in
Passed by the Senate April 14, 2021. N
Passed by the House April 7, 2021. LO
Approved by the Governor May 13, 2021, with the exception of M
certain items that were vetoed.
Filed in Office of Secretary of State May 13, 2021.
m
Note: Governor's explanation of partial veto is as follows: z
V
"I am returning herewith, without my approval as to Sections 1, 3,
and 4, Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 5235 entitled: Q
"AN ACT Relating to increasing housing unit inventory by d
removing arbitrary limits on housing options." E
Section 3 allows cities to delay local implementation of statewide
requirements around siting of accessory dwelling units until two a
years after their next required comprehensive plan update. Accessory
dwelling units play an important role in creating additional housing
options in urban areas and the state is currently facing a housing
crisis.
Section 4 limits the ability for local governments to require owner
occupancy on lots containing an accessory dwelling unit, but it also
creates numerous exceptions to that limitation which are problematic.
I am concerned that the language may allow a local government to
p. 6 E S S Packet Pg. 173
prevent the siting and development of accessory dwelling units in
perpetuity with very little justification.
Section 1 establishes the intent of the bill. Due to the vetoes of
Sections 3 and 4, the original statement of intent no longer fully
applies to this bill.
For these reasons I have vetoed Sections 1, 3, and 4 of Engrossed
Substitute Senate Bill No. 5235.
With the exception of Sections 1, 3, and 4, Engrossed Substitute
Senate Bill No. 5235 is approved."
--- END ---
d
.Q
E
CO
u�
M
N
LO
m
Cn
C
d
E
t
V
Q
�.i
C
d
E
t
t�
r
Q
P. 7 E S S Packet Pg. 174
8.B.b
r
a
Packet Pg. 175
8.B.b
L
_
R
cn
TONIGHT'S TOPICS a
X I
1) SENATE BILL 5235: WHAT IT DOES, WHAT IT MEANS y
L
2) NON -COMPLIANT CITY CODE SECTIONS 0
w
N
L
3)POTEN TIAL SO LUTIO N S
N
r-+
_
E
L
V
R
Q
E
L
V
fC
r
Q
Packet Pg. 176
8.B.b
2021 State Legislation Addressed:
Removing Limits in Housing Unit Inventory
Prohibits local governments from limiting the
number of unrelated persons occupying a home
Exceptions for short-term rentals, Building
Code occupancy loads, some group homes
Also addressed owner requirements for
Accessory Dwelling Units (Governor Veto)
Packet Pg. 177
8.B.b
Recognizes that there are many versions of a fami ly
Not all people who act as a family are related
Cities can't use the number of unrelated people in a house to determine
what constitutes a family
Cities often use this method to identify other residential type uses within
households
10.13.2021
Packet Pg. 178
8.B.b
CONFLICTING EDMONDS SECTIONS o
U
'O
Definition of Family- ECDC 21.30.010
Cn
Section A
_
Family means individuals consisting of two or more persons related by genetics, adoption, or marriage, or a
group of five or fewer persons who are not related by genetics, adoption, or marriage and none of whom are
w
wards of the court unless such wards are related by genetics, adoption, or marriage to all of the members of
such group living in a dwelling unit W
Section D. Calculations in Single -Family Zones o
1. No more than five unrelated people w
r
2. Contains special considerations for two renters or exchange students
L
a
N
r-+
_
Many Other Sections Rely on this Definition of a Family (Single -Family)
a
ME
a
Packet Pg. 179
8.B.b
What We Will Do
Remove the Occupancy References, per State Legi sl at i o n
Review Other Sections for Compliance
Establish or Strengthen Definitions to Maintain Single -Family
Uses& Zones
What We Will Not Do
Will Not Remove SIngle-Family Zoning Categories or Uses
Packet Pg. 180
8.B.b
NEXT STEPS
1)CONTINUE WORKING WITH STAFF ON DRAFT AMENDMENT
2) PRESEN T D RAFT REC O M M EN D AT I O N S TO PLAN N I N G BOARD
10.13.2021 dommol
w
c
a�
E
c
a�
E
Q
a�
0
U
L
R
cn
ci
C
m
CL
0
0
w
C
.y
r
fC
L
f+
N
L
IL
N
r-+
C
E
L
V
R
Q
ME
as
E
R
r
Q
Packet Pg. 181
Visit the Edmonds Code Update webpage for more information or to sign up for notifications.
Residential Occupancy Limit (Update) specific page coming soon!
www.edmondswa.gov/codeupdates
Webpage Q R Code
r A
FOR QUESTIONS, CONTACT
ERIC EN GMAN N , AICP
SENIOR PLANNER I CITY OF ED M O N D S
ERIC.ENGMANNBEDMONDSWA.GOV
( 4 2 5 ) 9 9 7 - 9 5 4 1
10.13.2021 "—
E
c
a�
E
Q
0
U
L
R
Cn
CL
0
U
0
w
.y
fC
Q
0
w
N
IL
N
Q
ME
as
E
R
r
Q
Packet Pg. 182
9.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/13/2021
Extended Agenda 10/13
Staff Lead: Rob Chave
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Eric Engmann
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review of the Extended Agenda.
Narrative
The Extended Agenda is attached for Board discussion.
Packet Pg. 183