The URL can be used to link to this page

2015.08.25 CC Agenda Packet AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers ~ Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WORK MEETING AUGUST 25, 2015 7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE 1.(5 Minutes)Roll Call 2.(5 Minutes)Approval of Agenda 3.(5 Minutes)Approval of Consent Agenda Items A.AM-7955 Approval of draft City Council Meeting Minutes of August 18, 2015. B.AM-7954 Approval of claim checks #215757 through #215856 dated August 20, 2015 for $540,092.16 (reissued check #215768 $750.00). Approal of payroll direct deposit and checks #61746 through #61759 for $482,379.51, benefit checks #61760 through #61764 and wire payments of $525,667.24 for the pay period August 1, 2015 through August 15, 2015. C.AM-7957 Approval of claim check #215857 for $2,167.00 and reissued check #215858 for $140.00 dated August 20, 2015. D.AM-7947 Snohomish County ILA Amendment E.AM-7956 Council Grant Requests for Tree Board and Diversity Commission 4.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings 5.STUDY ITEMS A.(30 Minutes) AM-7946 Sunset Avenue Walkway Project Update Packet Page 1 of 290 B.(20 Minutes) AM-7953 Presentation of the Draft SR-104 Corridor Study C.(15 Minutes) AM-7944 Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8 Interlocal Agreement 6.(15 Minutes)Reports on Outside Board and Committee Meetings 7.(5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments 8.(15 Minutes)Council Comments 9.Convene in executive session regarding pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). 10.Reconvene in open session. Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session. ADJOURN Packet Page 2 of 290 AM-7955 3. A. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/25/2015 Time:Consent Submitted By:Scott Passey Department:City Clerk's Office Type: Action Information Subject Title Approval of draft City Council Meeting Minutes of August 18, 2015. Recommendation Review and approve meeting minutes. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attachment 1 - Draft Council Meeting Minutes. Attachments Attachment 1 - 08-18-15 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Form Review Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 08/20/2015 08:41 AM Final Approval Date: 08/20/2015 Packet Page 3 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 18, 2015 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES August 18, 2015 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember Michael Nelson, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Phil Williams, Public Works Director Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir. Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir. Scott James, Finance Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Eng. Program Mgr. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Mary Ann Hardie, Human Resources Manager Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO ADD TO THE AGENDA A RESOLUTION TO REQUEST EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT TO STOP CONSTRUCTION OF WOODWAY FIELDS. Councilmember Bloom explained she learned a few minutes ago that Councilmembers Buckshnis and Nelson will not be here next week which means the discussion on the interlocal agreement (ILA) will again be delayed, giving the Edmonds School District (ESD) more time to proceed with the fields without working with the City on a potentially different infill. She requested an opportunity to discuss the resolution tonight and ask Council’s support to stop construction of the Woodway fields until an agreement is reached with ESD. She noted the enormous response from the community in opposition to the installation of the crumb rubber infill. Council President Fraley-Monillas relayed Councilmember Bloom had asked her to add the resolution to the agenda. In light of direction the Council gave the City Attorney at the last meeting to negotiate an ILA with the District that included everyone’s input, she did not feel the resolution was appropriate and suggested Councilmember Bloom propose it as an amendment to the agenda. She was aware of negotiations occurring between the City Attorney, ESD, the Mayor’s office and Ms. Hite and preferred those negotiations continue before adopting this resolution. Packet Page 4 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 18, 2015 Page 2 Councilmember Petso suggested the negotiations Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to could be discussed if the resolution was added as an agenda item. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she has not participated in the negotiations and cannot provide any specifics. Her understanding is the parties have met and there has been some movement with regard to the ILA. Councilmember Mesaros asked the status of construction of the fields at old Woodway High School. Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite responded they are approximately 70-75% along; they expect to lay the synthetic turf in the next few weeks and be finished by September 30. Councilmember Buckshnis did not feel it was appropriate to discuss the proposed resolution and preferred to figure out the ILA first. Councilmember Bloom said her understanding of the discussion two weeks ago was the Council directed the City Attorney to return to the Council with an ILA that incorporated all the Councilmembers’ suggestions. She did not recall directing the City Attorney to negotiate with ESD on the Council’s behalf before presenting an ILA to the Council. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she may have misstated; she did not mean the parties were negotiating, it was her understanding they were discussing the ILA. The ILA still needs come to the City Council and the School Board for approval. The parties will not necessarily develop a final product until the Council sees it. City Attorney Jeff Taraday commented since the last Council meeting when the ILA was discussed, several Councilmembers have sent him emails regarding what they would like to have included in the ILA. He said it was not possible for him to reconcile all of the comments into one document. Councilmembers have very different perspectives about what they want to see in the ILA. At some point he will either need to make some assumptions about what the majority’s decision/direction is and bring back a document that he thinks reflects the majority or the Council needs to give him very clear direction in an open meeting about what the majority is directing him to do. Councilmember Buckshnis commented that is why she wants to discuss the ILA before approving another formal document like the resolution. Councilmember Bloom referred to Ms. Hite’s statement that the turf field will be installed within the next two weeks which means the Council will be voting on an ILA after the crumb rubber has already been installed. There has been an enormous amount of input from citizens who are strongly opposed to crumb rubber as the infill of choice. Given the time sensitive nature, the Council should have an opportunity to discuss her proposed resolution and decide whether to request ESD stop work to give the Council more time. If The Council does not at least ask ESD to stop work, the fields will be installed and the crumb rubber will more than likely be in before the Council negotiates an ILA with ESD. She felt that was backward given the enormous amount of opposition expressed by citizens to crumb rubber. Councilmember Petso said Mr. Taraday’s comments strengthen the reasons for discussing the resolution tonight. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the City would have liability if the Council imposed an injunction on a property owner to stop something. Mr. Taraday said as he reads the resolution proposed by Councilmember Bloom, it is only a request of the ESD. The Council has absolutely no power to stop work in the absence of a violation of law and to his knowledge, there is no evidence of a violation of law. ESD can choose to listen to the request or ignore it. The City would not have any liability by considering or adopting the resolution but it was also completely non-binding; it was simply saying please to ESD. Packet Page 5 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 18, 2015 Page 3 Council President Fraley-Monillas said that is her concern. She contacted Mr. Taraday to ask if there was any legal way to stop ESD from proceeding and he indicated there was no cause for the Council to stop the work. Her concern with going in another direction with an ask was the conversation regarding the ILA would be put off another few weeks. She recalled two different groups of Councilmembers plus City administration have talked with ESD about stopping work and they made it clear they are not going to do that. She preferred to work on an ILA that everyone agrees to and felt that was the most plausible way to move forward. Mayor Earling asked if could make comment. Councilmember Bloom raised a point of order, stating the chair was not supposed to comment on a motion. She suggested he hold his comments until the Council was discussing the resolution. COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, THAT MAYOR EARLING HOLD HIS COMMENT UNTIL THE COUNCIL DECIDES WHETHER THEY WILL DISCUSS THE RESOLUTION. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, JOHNSON, MESAROS AND NELSON VOTING NO. Mayor Earling commented the Council was beginning to debate the issue; he suggested the Council vote whether or not to put the resolution on the agenda. Councilmember Petso suggested adding the resolution to the agenda as Item 5C following the public hearings. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, JOHNSON, MESAROS AND NELSON VOTING NO. 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Bloom requested Items F and H be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 4, 2015 B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #215502 THROUGH #215658 DATED AUGUST 6, 2015 FOR $241,589.67. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #61722 THROUGH #61736 FOR $479,183.88, CHECK #61745 FOR $862.78, BENEFIT CHECKS #61737 THROUGH #61744 AND WIRE PAYMENTS OF $435,189.94 FOR THE PAY PERIOD JULY 16, 2015 THROUGH JULY 31, 2015 C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #215659 THROUGH #215756 DATED AUGUST 13, 2015 FOR $434,021.38 D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM YOON KIM ($50.00) AND GEORGE SLY ($500,000) E. APPROVAL OF CITY COMPUTER EQUIPMENT SURPLUS FOR DONATION OR RECYCLING Packet Page 6 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 18, 2015 Page 4 G. MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE SALARY ORDINANCE I. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT WITH PSE TO FUND THE OVERLAY FOR THE 238TH ST. SW WALKWAY AND DRAINAGE PROJECT ITEM F: AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT #15 FOR MADRONA K-8 Councilmember Petso referred to the termination provision which currently reads 30 days. She suggested 90 days may be more appropriate for playfields as it would allow a sports league to complete their season. In an email exchange, Ms. Hite indicated she would contact the Edmonds School District (ESD) to determine if that was acceptable. Parks & Recreation Carrie Hite explained the two contacts at ESD were out of the office today. This is the exact same agreement the City has had with ESD in the past; there are no changes to the 30 day clause. She liked the idea of a 60 or 90 day termination clause but did not know if that would be acceptable to ESD. Councilmember Petso asked if there was any downside to delaying the ILA to determine whether the termination clause could be changed. Ms. Hite answered the only downside was if it was delayed a week and the Council did not approve the ILA next week, the agreement expires at the end of August and there are many fall programs scheduled on the fields through November 15. If ESD was amenable to a 60 or 90 day termination clause, that change to the ILA would need to be approved by the School Board. The School Board approved this ILA because it was the same agreement that existed in the past. She was uncertain when the next School Board meeting was and concluded there could be issue with timing. Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding the Council had established a procedure whereby items were first reviewed during a Council study session and placed on the Consent Agenda only with the agreement of Council. She referred to Ms. Hite’s email that stated this was renewal of an agreement and she felt it could be scheduled on Consent. Ms. Hite responded there have been several discussions with Council regarding what can be put on Consent and what needs to be reviewed at a study session. Several criteria have been discussed; items that are very similar or the same can go on Consent. Based on those conversations, she made the determination this could be scheduled on the Consent Agenda because it was exactly the same as the existing ILA. Councilmember Bloom pointed out this agreement was made in 2010 when the majority of current Councilmembers were not on the Council; therefore, she did not feel the ILA fell into that category. She suggested the Council determine what should/should not go on Consent without review at a study session. She did not feel it was appropriate to place the ILA on Consent because she did not have the information she needed to make a decision. Given that the ILA was approved in 2010 and expires in August 2015, staff had plenty of time to get it to Council in advance. Ms. Hite said this five-year agreement has been very successful for the City operationally as well as for community leagues. There is nothing in the ILA that she recommended be changed. Councilmember Petso had a good point regarding the termination clause but the City has been very happy with the ILA operationally for the past five years. Councilmember Bloom preferred to postpone the ILA to allow further discussion. Council President Fraley-Monillas pointed out there is an issue with timing. If the Council discusses the ILA at the August 25 meeting, the contract is only in place for 6 more days and any change would require approval by the School Board. Unless the ILA is approved by the end of August, the City will lose the fields for fall. Ms. Hite anticipated something could be worked out with ESD between now and then; the School Board approved the ILA on their Consent Agenda because it was the same agreement that had been in place for the past five years. If ESD indicates they are amenable to changing the termination clause to 60 or 90 days, it will still require School Board approval although she does not anticipate any issue at the School Board level. Packet Page 7 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 18, 2015 Page 5 Council President Fraley-Monillas said she had no problem with approving this on Consent with direction to staff to contact ESD and attempt to negotiate a longer termination clause and return with an amendment. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, THAT THE COUNCIL ASK MS. HITE TO BRING THIS BACK NEXT WEEK ON CONSENT WITH A NOTE IN THE AGENDA MEMO AS TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S RESPONSE AND HER RECOMMENDATION BASED ON THAT RESPONSE. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the Council was micromanaging things that shouldn’t be micromanaged. She found it very tiring to continually look at things that have been around for a long time and question competent directors. She did not support the motion and did not have a problem with approving the ILA on the Consent Agenda. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked whether the action described in Councilmember Petso’s motion was reasonable. Ms. Hite answered that could be done; she expected to hear from ESD tomorrow. If ESD was agreeable to a 60 or 90 day termination clause, it would still require School Board approval. A better option would be to approve the ILA and for staff to return in September or October with an amendment to change the termination clause to 60 or 90 days. Councilmember Nelson supported approving the ILA on Consent and staff returning with an amendment. MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND BLOOM VOTING YES. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE ILA AS STATED AND INSTRUCT MS. HITE TO BRING BACK AN AMENDMENT WITH AN EXTENDED CANCELLATION CLAUSE TO 60 OR 90 DAYS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ITEM H: PURCHASE OF FORKLIFT Councilmember Bloom asked why this was on the Consent Agenda without being discussed at a study session. Public Works Director Phil Williams said the timing was inadvertent due to the cancellation of last week’s meeting. The intent was to discuss it at a study session on August 11 and schedule approval on tonight’s Consent Agenda. He explained the existing forklift is 26 years old and can no longer be repaired. The cost is approximately $26,000. COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO APPROVE ITEM H. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Christi Davis, Brier, PhD, referred to toxic infills in crumb rubber, relaying the World Health Organization and the International Agency for Cancer Research estimate that at least 7-19% of all cancer cases are caused by background exposure to environmental toxins. She questioned whether that information was used to look for non-toxic alternatives to reduce environmental exposure or to allow corporations to continue to pollute the environment, only intervening after a specific product is proven to cause cancer in one of every thousand people. She recalled earlier this year Mayor Earling declared May Puget Sound Starts Here Month in Edmonds and encouraged citizens to clean up pet waste, have cars washed in commercial car washes and practice natural lawn care; great ways of reducing water pollution and improving the health of Puget Sound. Yet according to the logic of crumb rubber proponents, there should be no problem with a person dumping a bottle of poison down a drain since by the time it reaches Puget Sound, it will be diluted and the effect on salmon or orca will be negligible. She pointed out the Packet Page 8 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 18, 2015 Page 6 effects of dumping pollutants down the drain adds up with catastrophic effects She found it ironic that Mayor Earling encouraged the reduction of water pollution while at the same time he and his staff supported dumping 80,000 ground up, used tires full of toxic chemicals on pristine open space. She envisioned grinding up waste tires and spreading them on open space was the most polluting, legal way of dealing with waste tires. Grinding up the tires maximizes the potential to off-gas toxic chemicals and possibility for them to break down and create fine particulate matter that gets into the air and pollutes everything. She found it unfathomable how the EPA ever supported that idea. If the public truly believes in sustainable development and wants a healthy environment for future generations, good choices need to be made now which includes taking care of the environment. She recommended banning crumb rubber before it gets on the fields. She urged the Council to tell the small vocal minority that wants crumb rubber and waste tires that children, everyone, deserves better. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, reported the Taste of Edmonds, sponsored by the Chamber, was well attended in spite of the weather. He thanked the Chamber for putting on a great event for the community. He reported a holiday market will be held downtown beginning the week before Thanksgiving and continuing into December. Isaac Carrigan, Edmonds, asked the Council to please not put in crumb rubber as it might make him sick. He loves the fields and goes on them all the time. Crumb rubber is toxic for food, water, and air. Jen Carrigan, Edmonds, circulated samples of crumb rubber and Geo Plus organic turf for Councilmembers to smell. Over the past few months the Council has heard many people express concern with the health and safety implications with the use of crumb rubber on athletic fields. She asked that the Council not sign the interlocal agreement which would support the use of crumb rubber on the Woodway Fields. Toxicologists have publicly express concern with crumb rubber, including Suzanne Worthell, a retired EPA toxicologist who felt the EPA made a mistake in promoting crumb rubber on fields; making something with hazardous materials into something kids play on is a really dumb idea. The US Consumer Products Safety Commission as of May 2015 publicly states they no longer stand behind a 2008 statement that crumb rubber is okay to install and play on. The Chairman of the Consumer Products Safety Commission, Elliot Kay, also states that safe to play on means something very different to parents that they did not intend to convey and should cause us to begin making different choices. Ms. Carrigan said many neighboring communities are making different choices. She urged the Council to begin a ban on the use of crumb rubber in the City and to renegotiate for a non-toxic infill. Laura Johnson, Edmonds, said many continue to call information regarding health anecdotal information submitted by some in an attempt to downplay the list of 152 players with cancer. All evidence starts somewhere; the list could also be called preliminary evidence. The fact that tires contain known carcinogens and toxins cannot be downplayed and the distinct possibility of a connection exists. She questioned whether a 10-20 year wait was required to prove harm before a change was made. She referred to lessons taught by the marketing and use of lead paint, asbestos and tobacco. Although crumb rubber was the standard for many years, many communities, governments and school districts are now questioning its safety and choosing safer options such as Long Beach Parks & Rec, New York City Parks & Rec, Los Angeles School District, and Portland School District. This spring Issaquah School District installed two fields with Nike Grind and sand as did Burien’s Kennedy High School. South Kitsap is currently installing a field with a non-toxic plant alternative; Seattle Parks & Rec is testing an alternative, thermoplastic elastomer, a food grade plastic; and King County Parks & Rec is also looking into safer alternatives. Opponents to crumb rubber at the Woodway fields have gathered 908 adult signatures asking for a ban on crumb rubber in Edmonds, 400 more than at the last City Council meeting; 54% are Edmonds residents and 46% are from surrounding communities but many will be using and exposed to the fields, not just Edmonds residents. She urged the City not to partner, not to encourage and not to take the financial risk of partnering on a project that will harm the environment, environmental health and risk Packet Page 9 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 18, 2015 Page 7 human health. She urged the Council to refuse to partner unless a non-toxic infill is chosen. She summarized everyone is on the same team, parents, coaches and citizens, all want to provide safe athletic fields for children to play on. Even Councilmembers who do not question the safety of crumb rubber, she requested they respect the concerns of almost 1000 others who question the safety. She relayed it was not true ESD has not heard any complaints about use of crumb rubber on other fields. She questioned the use of a 2005 infiltration system for the field instead of 2014 standards. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, circulated information, explaining Washington State Ferry (WSF) still has a purchase and sale agreement to construct a ferry terminal trestle and utilities necessary for operation of the Edmonds Crossing ferry terminal at the site of Marina Beach. He referred to a letter from WSF in the packet for the Marina Beach Master Plan public hearing. He asserted WSF’s right to use the property has been left out of discussions regarding Marina Beach and daylighting of Willow Creek. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MARINA BEACH MASTER PLAN PUBLIC HEARING Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained the draft Marina Beach Master was the culmination of approximately 9 months of work that included public open houses and key stakeholder meetings. She thanked Councilmember Buckshnis who served on the Project Advisory Committee (PAC), for her input and commitment to the project. She also thanked the PAC for their participation and recognized members in the audience. Chris Jones, Landscape Architect, Walker | Macy, identified members of the Project Advisory Committee: • Carrie Hite – Recreation and Cultural Services Director, City of Edmonds • Renee McRae – Interim Assistant Park Director, City of Edmonds • Keeley O’Connell– Senior Project Manager, Earth Corps • Jerry Shuster – Stormwater Engineering Program Manager, City of Edmonds • Rich Lindsay – Park Maintenance Manager, City of Edmonds • Diane Buckshnis – City Council, Floretum Garden Club, OLAE • Val Stewart – Planning Board, City of Edmonds • Rick Schaeffer – Tetra Tech • Susan Smiley – Edmonds Floretum Garden Club • Joe Scordino – Community Member (retired NOAA fisheries) • Ron Brightman – City of Edmonds Tree Board • Laura Leeman – Community Member (Edmonds Moms Group) • Kevin Conefrey – Edmonds Arts Commission Stakeholder meetings have been held with the following: • Dave Earling (Mayor of Edmonds) • Joan Bloom (City Council) • Dr. Kent Saltonstall (City of Woodway) • Susie Schaefer (Friends of Edmonds Marsh) • Marla Kempf, Bob McChesney and Jim Orvis (Port of Edmonds) • Kojo Fordjour (WSDOT) • Tammy Armstrong (Department of Natural Resources - DNR) • Karen Andres and Susan Tarpley (Ranger Naturalists) • -Kristiana Johnson, Lora Petso, Adrienne Fraley-Monillas (City Council) • Susan Morrow (Seal Sitters) Packet Page 10 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 18, 2015 Page 8 • Ann Aldrich, Diane Buckshnis, Julie Nealey (OLAE, Off Leash Area Edmonds) • Kernen Lien (Senior Planner, City of Edmonds) • Walter Smith (Burlington Northern Santa Fe - BNSF) • Neil Tibbott and Phil Lovell (City of Edmonds Planning Board) In response to Mr. Hertrich’s comment, Mr. Jones said they first met with Kojo Fordjour, Washington State Ferries (WSF), on February 10, 2015 to discuss the alignment of the Edmonds Crossing project and integrated that schematic alignment in the Master Plan. Two follow-up meetings were held with Mr. Fordjour and his team. Mr. Jones reported the public outreach process included three public open houses; approximately 30-40 attended the first open house; 100 people attended the second to discuss the dog park; and when attendees were assured at the second open house that the dog park would be retained, fewer people attended the third open house. He commented on public input provided at the open houses, noting the most successful projects engage the community and reflect the community’s sentiment. As Marina Beach is a significant natural resource, steps were taken to engage the community as well as document and integrate their input into the current master plan. As part of their team, Enviroissues, a Seattle-based outreach group, documented all the public input at the three open houses and the 2-week online open house. There were 130 participants online and 29 provided feedback; many of the comments at the online open house paralleled comments received at the public open houses. Mr. Jones described the process of site context and analysis. He recalled the first time the Edmonds Crossing alignment was identified as part of the master planning process was in March 2015. They meet with WSDOT in February and engaged the schematic alignment in the plans in early 2015. They also analyzed pedestrian and vehicle connections, inventory of park components including counting the number of parking stalls. The community indicated the existing number of parking stalls is sufficient. He displayed Stream Alignments A, B and C, explaining Options A and B, developed by Shannon & Wilson, were presented at the first open house. The community relayed strong sentiment that Option A displaced the dog park and Option B bisected the park and there was concern about their being enough useful space. Public input at the first open house included: • Beach, views, environment, picnic tables, seating, walking, active/passive recreation opportunities • Retention of dog park • Parking capacity • Restroom facilities • Provide more habitat and educational opportunities • Willow Creek alignment and impacts • Dog and human conflicts. Dog impacts to environment Option C was then developed and Options B and C were presented at a second public open house as Options 1 and 2. Public input included: • 75% of attendees preferred Option 1 • Like parking turnaround • Like restroom location – make it centrally located and/or include an additional restroom for dog park users • Prefer larger lawn areas • Prefer two overlooks • Separate dog and people best • Dislike Option 2 as it bisects the park leaving little space for active and passive recreation Packet Page 11 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 18, 2015 Page 9 He described elements of the preferred Master Plan that was presented at the third open house: • Two overlooks at north end that utilize natural materials • Topography change, berm • Parking turnaround with radius that accommodates drop-off and emergency vehicles • Restroom and space for concessions, bike parking • Four ADA stalls • Personal watercraft staging on the beach • Open lawn area • Playground in the center • Paths to the creek away from the play area • Open lawn space reduced by several thousand square feet • Second restroom adjacent to dog park, could be a single unit restroom facility like Portland Loo • At south end of park, landscape, flow of water and engagement similar to Carkeek Park • Buffer will contain alders, small trees, dune grass, paths and locations with access to creek • Maintain dog park, reduced by about one third, little change other than moving agility course from the north edge to the south edge Mr. Jones displayed the preferred Master Plan with an overlay of the Edmonds Crossing alignment. WSF is currently in the schematic phase of that project and locations of piers and posts that may be in Marina Beach Park have not been determined. They have been working with Mr. Fordjour and his team to integrate future planning with Marina Beach. He envisioned the park could exist for 10-30 years prior to the Edmonds Crossing project. The location of the parking lot and adjacency to the Edmonds Crossing project is the best marriage of uses that could occur on the site. If the Edmonds Crossing project happened tomorrow, not much change would change in the Master Plan other than integrating the piers and posts. Councilmember Mesaros referred to Slide 21 that shows 2 pedestrian bridges crossing the creek, noting the bridge to the west is identified as a possible bridge and the bridge to the east seems more definite. He asked what factors would turn the possible bridge into a definite bridge. Mr. Jones said the bridges are the highest ticket items in the park development. Working with the PAC, it was felt two bridges were important for safety. As the bridge is a significant cost item, approximately $90,000, it was included as an additive alternate. Councilmember Mesaros commented that was all the more reason to create a Parks Foundation. Councilmember Bloom commented the master plan looks absolutely amazing. She referred to Slide 19 which illustrates a circular overlook and asked where that would be located. Mr. Jones answered that illustrated natural materials that could be used for an overlook; the overlooks likely would not be circular and may be a short wall made of natural materials. Councilmember Bloom asked whether the paths would be constructed of natural materials. Mr. Jones explained 4-5 foot wide mulch or dirt paths go through the buffer space; the code does not allow impervious surfaces. Councilmember Bloom asked about the use of alders and whether soil would be brought in. Mr. Jones said that will be determined once a geotechnical report determines the overburden that will be excavated from the creek bed. A lot of that likely will be used but amended topsoil may be brought in for planting. Councilmember Bloom referred to the schematic that includes the future Edmonds Crossing, noting it appears to go over trees. Mr. Jones agreed. Councilmember Bloom observed none of structure interfered with the park. Mr. Jones said that is unknown. The drawings provided by Mr. Fordjour are not far enough along to identify the location of specific elements within the park. Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding the trees in that location may/may not need to be removed in the future. Mr. Jones recalled at the Planning Board meeting Mr. Fordjour anticipated the height of the roadway would be 30 feet; it Packet Page 12 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 18, 2015 Page 10 may be appropriate to plant smaller trees in that location. Councilmember Bloom asked the height of the alders. Mr. Jones answered 30-40 feet. Councilmember Buckshnis commented a great job had been done on the master plan and she was excited this was finally coming to fruition. She explained the PAC felt a second bridge was necessary because the first bridge will accommodate dogs accessing the dog park as well as trucks/emergency vehicles; the bridge to the west would be a pedestrian bridge. She commented on the need for tree canopy to shade the creek. Mr. Jones said the stream buffer was reduced to 50 feet from the center of Willow Creek on the north side. A more significant buffer of 60-70 feet is provided on the south side due to concern with pet waste entering the creek. Councilmember Nelson thanked Mr. Jones, Ms. Hite, Park staff and the public for their input and the adjustments made from A, B, C to Option 1 and 2 to the preferred master plan. With regard to the restroom on the east being a lower cost option, he disliked the example, the Portland Loo, because it looked like jail cell. He preferred a cost effective restroom option that fit better with the park. He also thanked the Planning Board for their input. He agreed a Tribal stakeholder would be a great contribution, relaying his understanding that that would occur as part of the approval process Councilmember Johnson asked Mr. Jones to summarize project costs, separating out the cost to daylight Willow Creek. Mr. Jones said the estimate in the packet for park improvements, $2.5 million, does not include costs associated with daylighting Willow Creek. The $2.5 million is a gross estimate based on available information and it is hoped when the park is designed it will not exceed that amount and possibly be less. Councilmember Johnson asked the cost and funding source for daylighting Willow Creek. Stormwater Engineering Program Manager Jerry Shuster said last year’s early feasibility study estimated the cost of daylighting the entire creek at $5 million. That is an early planning level estimate with a 30% contingency. Councilmember Johnson asked the status of grant funding for that project. Mr. Shuster answered the final feasibility study is being completed using the current grant. A second grant has been obtained to do preliminary design of the entire channel; that project will begin at the end of 2015. Councilmember Johnson asked how the two projects fit together time wise. Ms. Hite answered Keeley O’Connell is working with staff as the Project Manager. The goal is to marry the projects during 2018 - 2020, a 3-5 year timeframe to gather the funds to daylight Willow Creek. The draft CIP also includes funds for Marina Beach. The goal is to continue to plan the two projects, apply for grants and hopefully put the puzzle pieces together in 3-5 years. Councilmember Johnson referred to the public hearing the Planning Board held last week. The agenda memo includes a summary of their meeting; she requested the minutes be included future agenda packets. Ms. Hite answered the public hearings at the Planning Board and City Council were planned so close together the Planning Board minutes were not available to include in the packet. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Kojo Fordjour, Environmental and Permitting Manager, Washington State Ferries, agreed with the gentleman who recommended looking at how the WSF’s easement through the park will be integrated with the design. WSF has worked with the Parks Department including exchanging notes and letters and plan to reach an agreement to ensure the two projects do not conflict with each other. Anytime a project goes through a park, Federal DOT requires WSDOT to consider Section 4(f) which governs how Packet Page 13 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 18, 2015 Page 11 roadways go through parks. In this situation, the park and the transportation facilities go hand in hand so there needs to be an agreement to avoid forcing the City to remove elements of the park in the future. To the question of when Edmonds Crossing will be built, he pointed out the alternatives study regarding the at-grade crossing will impact planning for the transportation facility and the NEPA completed in 2005 will need to be reevaluated before anything is built. The coordination has been very cordial; WSDOT will continue working with the City to ensure a beautiful park and transportation facility. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, said materials similar to what he distributed as well as the letter regarding the purchase and sale dated June 19, 2015 can be found on pages 229, 232 and 234 of the packet. He offered the Council a copy of the Planning Board minutes that he obtained from staff. He found some of the Planning Board’s comments very interesting; for example one board member said the purpose of daylighting Willow Creek is to increase salmon habitat and concern was expressed with the effect activities in the park will have salmon habitat and that park space may be condensed by the ferry dock. Mr. Hertrich reiterated his concern that the ferry system was never considered a partner in this project along with the dogs, people and the fish. He feared Edmonds Crossing would condense the park elements to the south, there would be no room left for people and dogs would have the bigger portion of the park. He suggested redesigning the project to run the creek as far south as possible and completely remove it from the park, fence it off from dogs and provide a better habitat. Don Hall, Edmonds, said he attended the three open houses and found the master plan a great balance between people, dogs and fish. The consultant listened to everybody and the design tried to accommodate everybody’s ideas. He remarked Marina Beach was a wonderful place to carry a boat to the water except that it requires climbing over large logs. He suggested placing 8’x8’ boards in the sand similar to what is done in other parks on Puget Sound to provide a base for carrying a boat to the water. He acknowledged the board would not stay in place forever due to tides and the wind. He was unaware citizens got two opportunities to speak on a public hearing topic by addressing it during Audience Comments and at the public hearing. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. He advised no decision was anticipated tonight; this was an opportunity for a public hearing and Council comments. Ms. Hite suggested Councilmembers provide input regarding any changes prior to presenting it for final adoption. Parks staff is working with Planning staff on the SEPA. She anticipated the Master Plan will be presented to Council in September for final adoption. Councilmember Petso said she watched the Planning Board meeting; the Planning Board identified six items for the Council to discuss. At Councilmember Petso’s request, Ms. Hite reviewed the status of the six items: 1. Depth of the buffer on south side of creek: increased to 60-70 feet 2. Fire pits: The PAC discussed and recommended no fire pits at Marina Beach. A few Planning Board Members wanted beach fire pits to be considered. There are currently no fire pits; the Fire Department instructed they be removed when the Unocal piers existed due to the high risk of fire. 3. Coordination with Ferries: Information regarding coordination with WSF that began in February and throughout the process was presented to the Planning Board. This plan satisfies minor changes to the park if WSDOT/Edmonds Crossing comes to fruition such as the lookout to the north and possibly some trees. Staff has not responded to WSF’s letter (included in the packet) but intends to have further discussion regarding an agreement if Edmonds Crossing is included in WSF’s long term plan. 4. Emergency safety considerations due to at grade train crossings: It is hoped Marina Beach Master Plan and daylighting Willow Creek can be part of the alternatives study discussion. 5. Tribes as a stakeholder: Consultation with the Tribes is part of the process. Ms. Hite did not anticipate any huge issues with the Tribes as this project enhances salmon habitat. Packet Page 14 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 18, 2015 Page 12 6. Phasing and scheduling: This was addressed in the response to a question from Councilmember Johnson. Councilmember Petso asked how the master plan could be revised if plans for Edmonds Crossing changed or other circumstances changed such as salmon were not recovering at the expected rate. Ms. Hite answered there was always an opportunity to open a master plan and change it. She recommended as the project moves closer to being funded, the concerns of any funders will need to be mitigated. This is a schematic design as part of the master plan; more details will be flushed out once the project gets into 30%, 60% and 90% design. Councilmember Petso said several people in the community have ideas about incorporating details into the plan related to art, history, etc. She asked when that would be considered. Ms. Hite anticipated she will recommend a PAC to reach out to the community regarding design details. In response to Mr. Hertrich’s suggestion to move Willow Creek as far south as possible, Councilmember Buckshnis explained that was considered but environmentalist said it was not a good location for salmon recovery and the further north the better. She said WRIA 8 has a great deal of funding available for salmon recovery. Edmonds is a poster child; the culverts under the railroad tracks are a perfect example of working with BNSF, WSDOT and other transportation entities on salmon recovery. Councilmember Johnson commented issues the Council has discussed include Shoreline Management Program (SMP) and its buffers. Observing Willow Creek was part of the overall marsh, she inquired about the buffers and what Department of Ecology (DOE) and the Tribes recommend and their impact on funding. Ms. Hite said some due diligence was done with DOE; DOE has done buffer averaging between 30 and 70 feet. The City’s SMP and Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) also allows for buffer averaging which is why buffer averaging was included. Buffer averaging is not a given and the City will need to apply for a permit. The City also has not talked to the Tribes yet but adjustments can be made if necessary. B. PUBLIC HEARING ON A PERMANENT ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20.02 ECDC INCLUDING A NEW SECTION ECDC 20.02.004 TO DEEM A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION WITHDRAWN IF AN IRRECONCILABLE APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED LATER AND RELOCATING SECTION ECDC 20.07.007 REGARDING RESUBMISSION OF APPLICATIONS AFTER DENIAL TO NEW SECTION ECDC 20.02.006 Senior Planner Kernen Lien provided background on Interim Ordinance 3992: • Passed by City Council on March 17, 2015 as an emergency ordinance • Effective for six months (September 17, 2015) • Planning Board reviewed language for permanent ordinance and forwarded a recommendation to Council to approve the same language in the interim ordinance. He described irreconcilable applications: • Cannot have two active applications on the same property that are in conflict with each other • If a second application is made that is on the same property as a previous application and the two projects have locations or features that would be “irreconcilable,” the first application would be deemed withdrawn and will not be process further. Mr. Lien provided irreconcilable examples: • Applicant submits an application for a four-lot short plat on a particular property. Subsequently, another application is submitted for a three-lot short plat on the same property. Assuming there is Packet Page 15 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 18, 2015 Page 13 not enough land for seven lots, the two applications are irreconcilable because one could not construct both short plats. Hence, the four-lot short plat is deemed withdrawn. • Applicant submits a design review application for a twenty-unit multi-family housing development. Subsequently, another design review application is submitted for a thirty-unit multi-family housing development whose footprint would substantially overlap with the footprint of the structure shown for the twenty-unit application. Because both structures would occupy substantially the same space, they are irreconcilable and the twenty-unit application would be deemed withdrawn. He described inconsistent examples: • Applicant submits an application for a four-lot short plat on a particularly property. Subsequently a building permit application is submitted for a single-family home, the footprint of which would encroach into the setbacks as measured from the proposed short plat lot lines. Because the building permit application could be corrected to properly locate the footprint, the applications are reconcilable and do not effect a withdrawal of the short plat application. • Applicant submits a landscape plan that is inconsistent in an insignificant way with civil site- improvement plans that are submitted for the same property. If the two sets of plans can be reconciled by submitting a corrected version of at least one of the two plans, then City staff would seek corrections and withdrawal would not be deemed to occur. The ordinance also addresses resubmission after denial: • Existing code language • Moved from Chapter 20.07 ECDC – Closed Record Reviews to Chapter 20.02 ECDC – Development Project Permit Applications • Cannot resubmit an application within 12 months unless there has been a significant change Mr. Lien relayed staff’s recommendation to adopt the resolution included as Attachment 1. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There was no one present who wished to provide testimony and Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 4006, AS FOUND IN ATTACHMENT 1. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 6. STUDY ITEMS A. 2015 NONREPRESENTED COMPENSATION SURVEY POLICY DISCUSSION Human Resources Manager Mary Ann Hardie relayed staff is seeking direction on several items before finalizing the survey. The first item is comparator cities. The policy adopted by Council is 2012 uses comparator cities with population size of 10,000 above and below the Edmonds’ population of approximately 40,000 in King, Snohomish, Pierce, Thurston, and Kitsap Counties. In looking at comparator cities’ practices and best practices for compensation, the cities in these counties do not necessarily reflect the labor market in which Edmonds competes for employees. In analyzing employees who have left to go to other cities in the past 4 years, they had gone to Lynnwood, Snohomish County, Marysville and Seattle. External cities also use additional factors to define their labor market; that is reflected in staff’s recommendation to increase the population spread from 10,000 above and below Packet Page 16 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 18, 2015 Page 14 Edmonds’ population to 20,000 above and below or a range of 20,000 to 60,000 population and to use comparator cities in King, Snohomish and Pierce Counties. The second issue is the total cost of compensation. The survey being prepared by Human Resources under the policy is a total cost of compensation policy. When the compensation survey was conducted three years ago, it included the salary or base pay for exempt employees as well as fixed and incentive pays such as deferred comp, longevity, insurance, educational incentives, etc., anything that other comparator cities received as cash compensation. In order to maintain a fair and competitive process, staff recommends both salary and fixed and incentive pay again be considered in the survey. The third issue is related to starting salary. Edmonds minimum salary range appears to be consistently lower than the minimum starting salary for comparator cities. To bring the range into the median which the policy states all ranges should be, staff recommends removing the first step of the seven range salary spread, making the existing second step the first step in the range. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the City paid a consultant $50,000 to do this work two years ago. Ms. Hardie answered it was in 2012. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the work the consultant did was not sufficient/adequate. She recalled reviewing the consultant data and the ranges were not low at that time. Ms. Hardie clarified one of the items staff is seeking direction on is related to total cost of compensations. The last time the process was considered, the base salary was reviewed as well as additional compensation such as deferred compensation, longevity, etc. She was not saying that process was null and void but things have changed in three years. For example compensation, there are other items included in the compensation package that need to be considered. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was not aware there had been a huge turnover in staff. Ms. Hardie agreed there was not a huge turnover; the reason employees leave are often discovered during the exit interviews and they often are leaving for other cities, Snohomish County, Fire District 1, etc. Councilmember Buckshnis did not support defining the labor market as cities plus or minus 20,000 and to include King and Pierce Counties as they have different industrial environments. She preferred to survey only cities in Snohomish County. Ms. Hardie relayed the current, adopted policy includes King, Snohomish, Pierce, Kitsap and Thurston Counties. The recommendation is to expand the population by 25% above and below Edmonds’ population which would allow the survey to include Marysville whose population is close to 60,000. Historically the City has surveyed King, Snohomish and Pierce Counties. Councilmember Buckshnis still preferred to survey cities in Snohomish County. Mayor Earling commented the challenge is cities in Kitsap and Thurston Counties tend to draw the market down. Although the City does not have a great deal of turnover, hiring can be a challenge when the steps are lower and in order to secure a highly qualified candidate, they are often hired at a step higher. He recalled that occurring 2-4 times in the past couple years. He recommended include King County in the survey in order to include Shoreline and Kirkland. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed Kitsap and Thurston Counties should not be included. Councilmember Petso agreed with Councilmember Buckshnis, she was not in favor of including cities 20,000 above and below Edmonds’ population unless it could be demonstrated there were not comparable cities within the 10,000 range. She recalled from the survey three years ago there were a lot of comparator cities within the 10,000 population range. Surveying cities with populations half Edmonds’ size or cities with populations as high as 60,000 seemed unnecessary when there were other comparator cities. Unlike Councilmember Buckshnis, she favor keeping Thurston and Kitsap Counties in order to include Olympia and Bremerton which she considered reasonably comparable to Edmonds’ size and other aspects make Packet Page 17 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 18, 2015 Page 15 them legitimate comparables. She requested a list of employees who have voluntarily left the City’s employment in the past three years for reasons other than retirement. Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested including Skagit County instead of Thurston County. She referred to a magazine article regarding why people are leaving jobs especially public sector jobs. Age is a large factor; young people, ages 30-40 are not buying homes, are not driving vehicles in many cases or have one vehicle for multiple people and they change jobs more often. She suggested the City look at not only where people go when they leave Edmonds but why they leave. She acknowledged long term employees leaving for better pay may potentially be more of an issue. She pointed out Seattle city limits start at 145th and run south and Shoreline’s city limits start at 145th and run north to Edmonds’ border at 205th. The minimum wage in Seattle increased on July 1 which results in people working in fast foot in Seattle making $15/hour but across the street in a grocery store in Shoreline they make $9.47/hour. She agreed with Councilmembers Petso and Buckshnis about not surveying cities 20,000 above and below Edmonds’ population. Councilmember Mesaros expressed support for eliminating Thurston and Kitsap counties as comparables, noting those counties have a different cost of living. He supported surveying cities 10,000 above and below Edmonds’ population in King, Snohomish and Pierce Counties. Councilmember Johnson said it would helpful if the Council knew the comparator cities that are 10,000 above and below Edmonds’ population. She recalled in 2012 all employees were placed on one of the steps in the seven-step range. She asked the impact of eliminating the steps established in 2012, whether the recommendation was just a hiring policy or eliminating a step in the range. Ms. Hardie answered it could be an internal policy where new employees were started at the second step. However, salary ranges may lead to a false perception for people considering the position. She recommended removing the first step to align with the median; the only difference would be six steps instead of seven. When an employee reaches the top step, they would be capped at the sixth step. The difference between steps is 5%. The Mayor has the discretion to start employees at a higher step. Another reason for removing the first step is to avoid skewing comparisons with other cities. Council President Fraley-Monillas commented public sector jobs used to be great jobs because they were known to have good benefits and a comparative salary. Public sector salaries compared to private sector salaries have eroded over time. She recalled a manager who left for the private sector and immediately almost doubled his salary. She summarized the public sector does not have the funds that the private sector has to encourage people to work for them. Councilmember Petso recalled three years ago the Council did not choose to provide longevity pay. Ms. Hardie agreed. Councilmember Petso asked if staff was suggesting the Council consider adding that. Ms. Hardie said staff was in the process of gathering information and she anticipated staff will make some recommendations to be competitive and equitable. The purpose of tonight’s review is to seek direction before the survey is completed. With regard to surveying cities 20,0000 above and below Edmonds’ population, Ms. Hardie explained a 50% spread above and below is a standard practice. She acknowledged the City may not need to use that much of a spread as there are plenty of cities, but sometimes there are not matches for some benchmark positions. She said the intent would be to look at the closest spread and extend in order to find a match. Ms. Hardie recapped Council direction to use comparator cities in King, Snohomish and Pierce counties with populations 10,000 above and below. Councilmember Bloom recalled the Council was mixed with regard to the counties and Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested substituting Skagit County for Thurston. Ms. Hardie said there is a cost of living difference with cities in Skagit County such as Mt. Vernon who also has 38 hour work weeks. With regard to cities in Thurston County such as Olympia and Packet Page 18 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 18, 2015 Page 16 Lacey, there is a definite cost of living difference and it is difficult to factor a geographical pay differential. Councilmember Nelson said he was not on the Council for the 2012 discussion; he was hesitant to add counties without data to back it up and the implications. Councilmember Petso recalled when the Council discussed this previously issues were not combined such as population size and counties. Each item was considered separately and resolved via a series of votes. She suggested using that approach when this came to Council instead of combining issues. Ms. Hardie said staff wants to be able to bring comps forward and she was hoping to get Council direction tonight regarding cities to include in the survey. When the data is presented, she wanted it to be presented in an objective manner and for the Council to have an opportunity to consider it in an objective manner. B. DISCUSSION ABOUT POSSIBLE CREATION OF AN HISTORIC PRESERVATION DISTRICT Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this issue arose from Council retreat where working groups were established to discuss various ideas. Development Services Director Shane Hope and he met with Councilmembers Petso and Johnson on this subject. The City currently has a historic preservation program certified through the State based on a registry of historic places that lists individual properties voluntarily added to the registry. He described historic properties versus historic districts: • Both sites and districts authorized by code • Individual properties are listed on the Edmonds Historic Register with the owner’s permission • Districts are established for an area rather than a single property o Every property within the district must be surveyed to determine whether it contributes to the historic character • Properties within the district boundary are automatically within the district; mandatory rather than voluntary. He described benefits of districts: • Retain historic character of the area o Inventories done in the past indicate the possibility of districts based on characteristics of areas such as south of the Frances Anderson Center and the downtown core • Can enhance/support property values • Potential for financial and advisory assistance for building owners (e.g. tax breaks for restoration or compatible improvements) • Opportunities for recognition, promotion, and tourism o Note that promotion and tourism don’t require a formal historic district. Branding/advertising can offer many of the same benefits. Mr. Chave reviewed the process for establishing a formal historic district: • What do you want to accomplish (informal/promotional or formal review and designation)? • Amend code to establish threshold for establishing a district • Survey and outreach • Identify boundaries and draft design guidelines o Consultant cost: $40,000 - $50,000 • Ordinance to establish district He reviewed other considerations: • A district is mandatory – properties can’t “opt out” • Staffing is essential Packet Page 19 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 18, 2015 Page 17 o Specialized technical expertise required o Review of improvements is detailed and ongoing o Current staffing is insufficient - $100,000/year • Outreach is crucial to success o Advise of benefits o Consulting with building/business owners before they apply for changes to buildings Several options to consider • Gage current potential/interest o Survey of building owners/business owners o Consultant could be hired to do a one-time workshop • Take initial steps o Survey and identify potential districts(s) • Support BID in branding/identifying “Historic Downtown Edmonds” • Defer for future action or interest Council President Fraley-Monillas relayed a citizen’s suggestion for another option, a historic zoning overlay. Mr. Chave answered that was not really a historic district. That has been done to a degree for example in the downtown BD zones where very specific design guidance attempt to regulate things that contribute to the historic retail corridor such as windows, building materials, etc. Districts have very specific rules and a very specific level of detail such as color, window design, cladding, materials, etc. that refer to historic building forms. An overlay is a zoning regulation and is more of a one-size-fits-all and cannot get to the level of detail that distinguishes between historic buildings from others. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the intent was a historic district that would go on the national historic registry. Mr. Chave said that was another level; he was assuming a local historic district that would be recognized in the City’s codes. There are very specific criteria for national registry. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled a presentation she made to the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) in 2009; a property she owns in Portland is in a historic district that is on national historic district and their townhouse in Charlotte is part of the Dillworth historic district. She commented historic districts have very strict limitations with regard to what can be done to a house including paint colors. There are benefits such as a plaque and tax benefits, but it is a lot of work. She said Sunset would have been great example of an historic district in the past but many of the older houses no longer exist. She asked whether Sunset could be considered a historic district when old houses are mixed with new. Mr. Chave answered old can be mixed with new, the question is critical mass. He agreed Sunset looked very different ten years ago. He would defer to a professional to make a determination whether there was enough critical mass. Councilmember Buckshnis said the Salish Crossing building could be considered historic because the 60s building is relatively unchanged. Mr. Chave commented the improvements to Salish Crossing actually enhance the building in some ways. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed a historic district would be very labor intensive and would require extensive outreach. Mr. Chave said he is a proponent of historic preservation; he studied historic preservation in graduate school and his late wife was the Landmarks Coordinator for Seattle. A historic district is another order of commitment; there is a cost associated with it and it absolutely requires community support. Councilmember Nelson asked if there was a geographic limitation such as a number of blocks. Mr. Chave answered anything less than a couple blocks would be difficult. In a single block it is difficult to understand the streetscape and character of the area. It is not impossible to have a one block historic district but most districts are several blocks. Councilmember Nelson observed it was not limited to businesses; a neighborhood could establish a historic district. Mr. Chave answered there are a number of Packet Page 20 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 18, 2015 Page 18 residential neighborhoods in Seattle that are historic districts as well as Pike Place Market, Fort Lawton, and Sand Point. Councilmember Petso recalled the work group discussed which of the initial steps had opportunity for grant funding. She asked whether grant funding could be expected for either approaching property owners or determining possible districts. Mr. Chave anticipated a grant for outreach was a good possibility. Those grants are usually due in April and have not required a match in recent years. If the Council was interested, staff could research and make a proposal to Council in February Councilmember Petso asked whether a decision package could be included in the budget that states the funds are not spent unless a grant is obtained. Mr. Chave agreed that could be done. Councilmember Petso asked whether the ongoing or long term staffing requirement could be reduced via a simpler code or piggybacking on the design guidelines for the downtown zones. Mr. Chave answered he honestly did not think so because in his experience districts are very time consuming, detailed, technical work. Councilmember Petso referred to Chehalis and asked whether that was marketing of a historic district and not a formal district. She did not picture Chehalis having a full-time historic preservation staff member. Mr. Chave answered it is sometimes hard to tell; Chehalis may have individual homes on a historic register rather than a district. Chehalis also may have a strong, cohesive downtown merchants program or may have done a Main Street Program that encouraged property owners to improve facades. He summarized there are other ways of getting there without a formal historic district that are more voluntary than regulatory. Councilmember Petso summarized the first step is outreach. Mr. Chave agreed. Councilmember Bloom referred to the statement in the agenda memo, “commercial building owners can benefit from being in a district by accessing beneficial tax write-offs on building improvements” and asked whether people placing their home on the historic registry could benefit from tax incentives. Mr. Chave answered it is more difficult for a homeowner and easier for a commercial property. Properties only need to be on the registry to obtain tax benefits for improvements that are consistent with the historic character. Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding that once a district was identified, everyone within the boundaries would be included even if they didn’t want to be included. Mr. Chave agreed that was how a district worked; the district benefits all the properties within the district even non-contributing buildings simply by their location within the district. Councilmember Bloom asked how big a district had to be; whether there was a number of homes or commercial buildings. Mr. Chave answered there was no threshold with regard to the size; they are generally several blocks. It is hard to have a very small district because the character can get overwhelmed by the surrounding area. For example the buildings around the fountain probably are not enough for a district but it was a judgment call, thus the reason for the early steps of survey and assessment. Councilmember Bloom referred to Mr. Chave’s indication that there were other ways to accomplish this without a district. Mr. Chave agreed, noting the City already has a voluntary program for listing individual properties on the City’s historic registry; there are 18 structures on the registry now. He noted listing individual properties, especially when properties are recruited, can have some of the benefits of a district. There are also other ways such as ways promoting Edmonds’ historic downtown. Councilmember Bloom asked for examples of other cities that have created districts where some property owners were strongly opposed to being included. She recognized this is a property rights issue and recalled the backlash regarding the tree code due to concern with private property rights. Mr. Chave said the concern that arises with the historic registry is whether it will restrict what a property owner can do. The answer is yes and no; in some cases it will but in other cases there are options. For example it does not mean an addition cannot be added to a historic house but it needs to be done in a way that does not Packet Page 21 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 18, 2015 Page 19 compromise the historic character. Sometimes property owners are encouraged to make the addition look non-historic so the difference between the historic building and the addition is clear. Historic preservation is not about making things look old but also allowing modifications without jeopardizing the historic character. Councilmember Bloom asked if there was data available regarding historic districts in other cities. Mr. Chave answered only anecdotal information. For Councilmember Johnson, Mr. Chave explained the City obtain a $7500 grant from the State to conduct a third survey, mid-century modern 1950-1960 homes. The survey included 50+ properties and a mailing was sent to the houses that were surveyed as well as an advertisement in the newspaper. Approximately 40 people attended the HPC meeting where the consultant/architecture provided a slide show. He summarized history often generates pride and interest in the community. Councilmember Johnson remarked especially since the City just celebrated its 125th anniversary. C. SNOHOMISH COUNTY ILA AMENDMENT Parks & Recreation Director Carrie explained in November 2013 the Council authorized the Mayor to sign an ILA with Snohomish County for grant awards of $500,000 to purchase beachfront property. After many discussions and three formal offers, the owner of the property declined to sell. In June 2015 the City asked Snohomish County to reallocate the funds to the purchase of Civic Fields. The request was unanimously approved and the proposed amendment to the original ILA was prepared for Council consideration. It was the consensus of Council to schedule this for approval on next week’s Consent Agenda. D. PRESENTATION OF COUNCIL GRANT REQUESTS FOR TREE BOARD AND DIVERSITY COMMISSION Economic Development & Community Services Director Patrick Doherty explained there was $20,000 in the 2015 budget for grants from the City Council to Boards and Commissions. Of that amount $5,000 was allocated to the Historic Preservation for their calendar, $1400 to the Tree Board for minute taking and $2,000 to the Planning Board for videotaping, leaving $11,000. The current proposal is for $3,000 for the Tree Board and $3,000 the Diversity Commission for the remainder of the year. The consultant to the Tree Board would assist by: 1. Attending the Tree Board’s monthly meetings and helping address questions/information about tree issues—especially to follow up with city departments as needed. 2. Coordinating/developing the Board’s application (with Board input) to continue being certified for Tree City USA 3. Facilitate planning for an Arbor Day event (including ideas for outreach & education) 4. Providing other information/support, as time allows The Diversity Commission has similar needs for a consultant to: 1. Work with the Diversity Task Force to develop application, recruit and review applicants to seat the first Diversity Commission. 2. Assist Council/Mayor to appoint the first Commission. 3. Facilitate first Commission meetings, until officers can be appointed. 4. Assist the chair in development of the agenda, participate in monthly meetings. 5. Be a liaison between the Diversity Commission and City staff • Address issues raised by the public at meetings. Direct to appropriate staff for follow up. 6. Be the primary contact for the Diversity Commission, assist the commission in developing yearly work plan, outreach, programs and events. 7. Coordinate the provision of information, education and communication Packet Page 22 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 18, 2015 Page 20 8. Post meeting notices, coordinate meeting locations, update website and post summary minutes of the meetings. The allocation of $6,000 ($3,000 each for the Tree Board and Diversity Commission) would leave $5,600 in grant funds. The HPC has a grant request pending for $5,000. He recommended the allocation be approved on next week’s Consent Agenda. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO SCHEDULE THIS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. Councilmember Nelson said he will not be at next week’s Council meeting and he would like to vote in favor of the request. He expressed support for the requests. Councilmember Johnson asked if $750/month was an hourly contract. Mr. Doherty said it was difficult to determine the exact amount of time although the estimate is 10 hours/week. Due to the amount of start-up tasks, it would be better if the consultant agreed to a flat fee for the remaining three months. The person may put in more time during those three months but may have an opportunity to continue the following year. He feared if it was an hourly contract not enough would be accomplished this year. Councilmember Johnson questioned the involvement of the Diversity Task force in reviewing the applications which is a different process than the Mayor and Council’s involvement in appointments to other boards and commissions. Mr. Doherty said it was desirable to have the task force involved in developing the application, determining qualifications and helping recruit; he was uncertain they would have a role in reviewing the applications. Councilmember Johnson asked whether the intent was to have minutes or notes of Diversity Commission minutes. Ms. Hite said the task force was very interested in assisting with the development of the application, recruiting and reviewing applications. By ordinance the Council and Mayor confirm Diversity Commission appointments. To the extent the Council wants to interview applicants, that can be established similar to other board and commission appointments. Future Diversity Commission members will be selected by the seated Commission; the initial members are appointed by the Council and the Mayor. Councilmember Johnson expressed concern with the Commission selecting future commission members and preferred they be selected by the Mayor and Council. Ms. Hite recalled that was previously discussed with the Council and the code that was adopted allowed the Diversity Commission members to seat future commission members. With regard to minutes versus notes, Mr. Doherty suggested a summary of discussion and any action by the commission. Council President Fraley-Monillas observed the difference between the consultant’s duties for the Tree Board and the Diversity Commission was Task #8 under the scope of services for the Diversity Commission. She preferred the consultant for the Tree Board also handle those duties. Mr. Doherty said the scope of services for the Diversity Commission consultant came from the Diversity Force; the scope of services for the Tree Board consultant was developed by Ms. Hope. He will add the task under #8 to the Tree Board consultant. Mr. Hite explained the Tree Board has some support from Council Executive Assistant Jana Spellman with regard to meeting notices, etc. Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested for consistency, both consultants do the same thing. Mr. Doherty offered to confer with Ms. Hope. Councilmember Bloom observed the consultant to the Tree Board will have a lot to do such as gathering the data for Tree City USA, facilitate the Arbor Day celebration, etc. She suggested Ms. Spellman continue to do the tasks under #8 for the Tree Board and the consultant assume those tasks next year. Packet Page 23 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 18, 2015 Page 21 Ultimately she anticipated the consultant would take on those tasks, freeing Ms. Spellman for other Council-related tasks. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS WITHDREW HER MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NELSON, TO APPROVE THIS TONIGHT. Councilmember Petso suggested the original motion to approve this on the Consent Agenda next week be reinstated due to staff’s offer to make the scope of services more consistent. It was the consensus of Council to schedule this on next week’s Consent Agenda. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR FIVE MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMLSOUYSLY. 7. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling thanked the community and Councilmembers who attended 125th anniversary celebration on August 11; approximately 2,000 – 3,000 people attended the celebration. He commended Mr. Doherty the fabulous job he did as the MC as well as the work done by staff and several volunteers. He was delighted to have four former mayors join him for lunch including former Mayor Harrison who is full of energy. All the Hekinan representatives have left the City, the adults left last Thursday and the students left today. When he took the Japanese delegation to dinner on August 11, they were greeted by a costumed George Brackett. 8. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Mesaros acknowledged the work of his fellow Councilmembers especially Council President Fraley-Monillas on the volunteer picnic. He also acknowledged the sponsors, The Hotel Group, Coldwell Banker and Edmonds IGA, who provided resources that allowed family members to attend. He remarked on seeing Councilmember Johnson volunteering at the Taste of Edmonds. Councilmember Bloom thanked Council President Fraley-Monillas for organizing the volunteer picnic, noting it went very well due to her organization. With regard to crumb rubber, Councilmember Bloom expressed her profound disappointment that her fellow Councilmembers were not willing to discuss a resolution to request the Edmonds School District stop work on the Woodway fields. She wished everyone had an opportunity to smell the crumb rubber that was passed around by Jen Carrigan and her son and to compare it to the Geo Plus infill. The crumb rubber had a strong stench compared to the Geo Plus infill that is a natural organic. She was profoundly disappointed that her fellow Councilmembers were sitting on their hands while the school district moves forward with putting toxic waste on fields that children will play on. With regard to the advisory task force formed to study alternative to the at-grade railroad crossing in downtown Edmonds, Councilmember Bloom relayed she learned at a Port meeting that the task force has already met. She never saw or received a notice of the meeting. She asked City Attorney Jeff Taraday whether the task force was subject to the Open Public Meeting Act (OPMA). Mr. Taraday responded it would depend on whether it was a governing body; he would need to analyze that but off the top of his Packet Page 24 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 18, 2015 Page 22 head, if it was just a task force formed by the Mayor that reports to the Mayor, he did not believe it constituted a governing body that was subject to the OPMA. Mayor Earling said to the best of his knowledge, the task force has not met; he met with the two chairs. Councilmember Bloom said she heard at the Port meeting that the task force had already met. Mayor Earling said Mr. Orvis, one of the chairs, may have considered that a meeting; he simply wanted to give the two chairs an opportunity to meet as they did not know each other. The two chairs had a subsequent meeting with Patrick Doherty but the task force has not met. Councilmember Bloom thanked Mayor Earling for that clarification. She asked whether the task force’s meetings will be noticed. Mayor Earling responded that was discussed but assured there has not yet been a formal meeting. Councilmember Bloom requested all the task force’s meetings be noticed as open public meetings. They will be discussing spending $600,000 of citizens’ money and her understanding is the task force will be establishing the scope of what will be analyzed which she viewed as a very important part of the process. Mayor Earling reiterated that has been discussed by the two chairs and possibly Councilmember Nelson can provide further information. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 10: 15 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed the 125th anniversary was great fun. She thanked Mayor Earling and staff for their efforts. She remarked the costumed George Brackett was fabulous, a very historic, financially savvy guy. Councilmember Petso reported on the 125th anniversary celebration, remarking the costumed George Brackett amazingly made his entire presentation without notes. She commented on the awesome gifts brought by the Japanese delegation, and asked where the beautiful flag is located. Mayor Earling suggested Frances Chapin will have something to do with where it is located. Councilmember Nelson thanked everyone involved with organizing the 125th anniversary. He also thanked Council President Fraley-Monillas for organizing the volunteer picnic. With regard to the task force, he said the co-chairs meet with City staff to establish the agenda. Meetings will be noticed; the first meeting is September 2 at 9:00 a.m. in the Brackett Room and is open to the public. Councilmember Johnson reported at the Taste of Edmonds she was volunteering at the Zero Waste Station, the first recycling of food compost at the Taste, a joint effort between Steve Fisher, the City’s Recycling Coordinator, and Stephanie Leeper, Washington State University Extension Office. There were three stations this year and there are plans to have six next year. She summarized don’t dump your food, compost it. With regard to Councilmember Bloom’s concerns regarding the fields, Council President Fraley-Monillas reiterated the City does not own the fields and cannot tell anybody what to do with their property without a law to support it. The School District told the Council/City on three separate occasions including in front of Councilmember Bloom that they would not consider changing the field. She was sorry Councilmember Bloom was disappointed and felt the Council was not doing anything but she did not view the proposed resolution as anything more than fluff that School District did not even have to respond to. Council President Fraley-Monillas agreed the Taste of Edmonds was fun even though Friday night’s festivities were cancelled due safety. She thanked the 50 people who attended the volunteer picnic. She also had a great time at the 125th anniversary celebration with the Japanese delegation from Hekinan. In speaking with the Council President she learned their Council is comprised of 22 members only 2 of Packet Page 25 of 290 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes August 18, 2015 Page 23 whom are women. They meet 4 times a year for 3-4 days per meeting and once a year they have a 20-day meeting that does not end until all their business is completed. Mayor Earling commented Council President Fraley-Monillas joined him and the Japanese delegation for dinner. Council President Fraley-Monillas said it was interesting to ask questions about how they move business in Japan. It was a great experience to spend time with the group who is so dedicated to Hekinan as well as to Edmonds. 9. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. 10. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 11. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Packet Page 26 of 290 AM-7954 3. B. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/25/2015 Time:Consent Submitted For:Scott James Submitted By:Nori Jacobson Department:Finance Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Action Information Subject Title Approval of claim checks #215757 through #215856 dated August 20, 2015 for $540,092.16 (reissued check #215768 $750.00). Approal of payroll direct deposit and checks #61746 through #61759 for $482,379.51, benefit checks #61760 through #61764 and wire payments of $525,667.24 for the pay period August 1, 2015 through August 15, 2015. Recommendation Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non-approval of expenditures. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2015 Revenue: Expenditure:1,548,138.91 Fiscal Impact: Claims $540.092.16 Reissued check $750.00 Payroll Employee checks and direct deposit $482,379.51 Payroll Benefit checks and wire payments $525,667.24 Total Payroll $1,008,046.75 Attachments Claim cks 08-20-15 Packet Page 27 of 290 Project Numbers 08-20-15 Payroll Summary 08-20-15 Payroll Benefits 08-20-15 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Scott James 08/20/2015 09:45 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 08/20/2015 09:47 AM Mayor Dave Earling 08/20/2015 09:53 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 08/20/2015 10:06 AM Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 08/20/2015 08:11 AM Final Approval Date: 08/20/2015 Packet Page 28 of 290 08/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 7:49:18AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215757 8/20/2015 075325 AHERN, ALLYSON 8/3-8/17 ATTEND 8/3-8/17/15 VOLLEYBALL ATTENDANT 8/3-8/17/15 VOLLEYBALL ATTENDANT 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 115.00 Total :115.00 215758 8/20/2015 000850 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT 9731 MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER CHARGES MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER CHARGES 421.000.74.534.80.33.00 229,025.91 Total :229,025.91 215759 8/20/2015 001030 ALLIED SYSTEMS PRODUCTS INC 125234 OFFICE SUPPLIES Office Supplies 001.000.23.512.50.31.00 11.71 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.23.512.50.31.00 1.11 Total :12.82 215760 8/20/2015 073626 ALPHA ECOLOGICAL 2586522 PS - Bi Mo Maint Agreement PS - Bi Mo Maint Agreement 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 99.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 9.41 Total :108.41 215761 8/20/2015 069667 AMERICAN MARKETING 20319 PLAQUES FOR TWO CITY PARK BENCHES PLAQUES FOR TWO CITY PARK BENCHES 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 268.73 9.5% Sales Tax 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 25.53 Total :294.26 215762 8/20/2015 074306 AMWINS GROUP BENEFITS INC 3825961 LEOFF 1 Medical Premiums LEOFF 1 Medical Premiums 617.000.51.517.20.23.10 1,310.62 LEOFF 1 Medical Premiums 1Page: Packet Page 29 of 290 08/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 7:49:18AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215762 8/20/2015 (Continued)074306 AMWINS GROUP BENEFITS INC 009.000.39.517.20.23.10 9,032.24 Total :10,342.86 215763 8/20/2015 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1988163606 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 37.02 Total :37.02 215764 8/20/2015 001835 AWARDS SERVICE INC 85543 SUMMER TENNIS LEAGUE TOURNAMENT TROPHIES SUMMER TENNIS LEAGUE TOURNAMENT TROPHIES 001.000.64.571.25.31.00 162.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.25.31.00 15.44 Total :177.94 215765 8/20/2015 064706 AWC 37720 Registration Fee for 2015 Budget and Registration Fee for 2015 Budget and 001.000.11.511.60.49.00 200.00 Total :200.00 215766 8/20/2015 002100 BARNARD, EARL 55 LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement 617.000.51.517.20.23.00 214.45 Total :214.45 215767 8/20/2015 002170 BARTON, RONALD 56 LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 527.82 Total :527.82 215768 8/20/2015 072577 BAURECHT, MAGRIT 072015 AD DESIGN FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADS Ad design for economic development ads 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 750.00 Total :750.00 215769 8/20/2015 075229 BK ENTERTAINMENT LLC 8/13 HMP RESTLESS 8/13 HMP RESTLESS VOCAL BAND 2Page: Packet Page 30 of 290 08/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 7:49:18AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215769 8/20/2015 (Continued)075229 BK ENTERTAINMENT LLC 8/13 HMP RESTLESS VOCAL BAND 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 1,400.00 Total :1,400.00 215770 8/20/2015 003074 BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY 15081605 LEASE LAND FOR FENCE AND RECREATION LEASE LAND FOR FENCE AND RECREATION 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 1,913.37 Total :1,913.37 215771 8/20/2015 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 15197379 Council Office copier/printer lease Council Office copier/printer lease 001.000.11.511.60.45.00 30.65 INV 15197383 CUST 572105 EDMONDS PD15197383 B/W METER USAGE - CANON 5055 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 21.16 B/W METER USAGE - CANON 2022i 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 15.45 B/W METER USAGE - CANON 2550 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 5.50 COLOR METER USAGE - CANON 2550 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 25.87 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 6.47 CITY CLERKS COPIER LEASE15197384 CITY CLERKS COPIER LEASE 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 466.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 44.36 PARKS & REC COPIER IRC5051 CONTRACT 001-15197385 PARKS & REC COPIER IRC5051 CONTRACT 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 273.74 RECEPTIONIST DESK COPIER LEASE CITY CLER15197386 RECEPTIONIST DESK COPIER LEASE CITY 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 20.11 9.5% Sales Tax 3Page: Packet Page 31 of 290 08/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 7:49:18AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215771 8/20/2015 (Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 1.91 P & REC PRINTER IRC1030IF CONTRACT 001-015197389 P & REC PRINTER IRC1030IF CONTRACT 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 30.65 C/A 572105 CONTRACT# 001-0572105-00415206124 Finance dept copier contract charge 001.000.31.514.23.45.00 249.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.45.00 23.75 INV 15206129 EDMONDS PD15206129 CONTRACT CHARGE JULY 2015~ 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 151.87 CONTRACT CHARGE AUG 2015~ 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 151.87 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 28.84 INV 15206130 EDMONDS PD15206130 COPIER LEASE JULY 2015~ 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 60.70 COPIER LEASE AUG 2015~ 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 60.70 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 11.54 LEASE - ENG15209006 Lease- Eng 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 612.58 LEASE- DEV SERV15209007 leave- dev serv 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 686.12 Total :2,980.80 215772 8/20/2015 071816 CARLSON, JESSICA 20058 ADVENTURES IN 20058 ADVENTURES IN DRAWING INSTRUCTION 20058 ADVENTURES IN DRAWING INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 528.00 4Page: Packet Page 32 of 290 08/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 7:49:18AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :528.002157728/20/2015 071816 071816 CARLSON, JESSICA 215773 8/20/2015 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 223464 Water - Carbon Dioxide 20lb Water - Carbon Dioxide 20lb 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 90.00 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 8.55 Total :98.55 215774 8/20/2015 075382 CITY OF OAK HARBOR HC101507 INV HC101507 EDMONDS PD - SPEER & MEHL CLASS REG - RYAN SPEER 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 225.00 CLASS REG - ANDREW MEHL 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 225.00 Total :450.00 215775 8/20/2015 071389 COASTAL WEAR PRODUCTS INC 5537 Unit 138 - Tube Broom Unit 138 - Tube Broom 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 500.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 47.50 Total :547.50 215776 8/20/2015 073759 CRITERION PICTURES USA INC 406455 MOVIE TRAIN YOUR DRAGON MOVIE TRAIN YOUR DRAGON 117.100.64.573.20.49.00 300.00 Total :300.00 215777 8/20/2015 065994 CRUZ, CINDI 082015 REIMBURSEMENT FOR MEETING SUPPLIES, 125T Refreshemtns for 6/18/15 Economic 001.000.61.558.70.31.00 8.98 Supplies for 125th Anniversary 001.000.61.557.20.31.00 112.35 Total :121.33 215778 8/20/2015 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 15-3578 Tree Board Minutes 4/9, 5/7, 6/4, and Tree Board Minutes 4/9, 5/7, 6/4, and 5Page: Packet Page 33 of 290 08/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6 7:49:18AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215778 8/20/2015 (Continued)064531 DINES, JEANNIE 001.000.11.511.60.41.00 419.10 Total :419.10 215779 8/20/2015 073772 DIRECT MATTERS 53845 OFFICE SUPPLIES Case setting notices 001.000.23.512.50.31.00 731.96 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.23.512.50.31.00 69.54 Total :801.50 215780 8/20/2015 075176 EC POWER SYSTEMS 418994 FS 16 - Repairs on Transfer Switch FS 16 - Repairs on Transfer Switch 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 4,256.52 Total :4,256.52 215781 8/20/2015 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC 000899 Traffic - Supplies Traffic - Supplies 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 5.99 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 0.57 Total :6.56 215782 8/20/2015 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC 000992 PM PAINT TRAY LINER, TRAY, ROLL COVER PM PAINT TRAY LINER, TRAY, ROLL COVER 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 37.11 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 3.53 PM NYL CORD AND ROPE000997 PM 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 17.98 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.71 Total :60.33 215783 8/20/2015 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 1-00575 OLYMPIC BEACH SPRINKLER / METER 75832746 6Page: Packet Page 34 of 290 08/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7 7:49:18AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215783 8/20/2015 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION OLYMPIC BEACH SPRINKLER / METER 75832746 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 568.57 LIFT STATION #7 71 W DAYTON ST / METER 71-00655 LIFT STATION #7 71 W DAYTON ST / METER 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 41.02 BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROOM / METER 72851-00825 BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROOM / METER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,375.72 SPRINKLER 21 MAIN ST / METER 16191-00875 SPRINKLER 21 MAIN ST / METER 1619 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 60.54 LIFT STATION #8 107 RAILROAD AVE / METER1-00925 LIFT STATION #8 107 RAILROAD AVE / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 37.77 LIFT STATION #1 450 SUNSET AVE / METER 91-01950 LIFT STATION #1 450 SUNSET AVE / METER 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 41.02 SUNSET & CASPER SPRINKLER/ METER 27191-02125 SUNSET & CASPER SPRINKLER/ METER 2719 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 93.06 SPRINKLER 290 MAIN ST / METER 718703461-03710 SPRINKLER 290 MAIN ST / METER 71870346 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 37.77 SPRINKLER 290 DAYTON ST / METER 752275311-03900 SPRINKLER 290 DAYTON ST / METER 75227531 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 164.61 OLD PUBLIC WORKS (NORTH) 200 DAYTON ST /1-03950 OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 611.46 SPRINKLER 101 2ND AVE N / METER 75401-05125 SPRINKLER 101 2ND AVE N / METER 7540 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 57.29 SPRINKLER 102 W DAYTON ST / METER 7189251-05285 SPRINKLER 102 W DAYTON ST / METER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 37.77 7Page: Packet Page 35 of 290 08/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 8 7:49:18AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215783 8/20/2015 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION SPRINKLER 190 DAYTON ST / METER 16331-05340 SPRINKLER 190 DAYTON ST / METER 1633 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 37.77 OLD PUBLIC WORKS (SOUTH) 200 DAYTON ST /1-05350 OLD PUBLIC WORKS (SOUTH) 200 DAYTON ST 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 92.02 CITY PARK SPRINKLER/ METER 714586761-05650 CITY PARK SPRINKLER/ METER 71458676 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 37.77 CITY PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP / METER 2701-05675 CITY PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP / METER 270 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 829.53 SPRINKLER @ 3RD/PINE / METER 719647871-05700 SPRINKLER @ 3RD/PINE / METER 71964787 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 213.40 LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / METER 92371-05705 LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / METER 9237 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 76.88 SPRINKLER 350 MAIN ST / METER 699729491-09650 SPRINKLER 350 MAIN ST / METER 69972949 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 96.31 SPRINKLER 390 DAYTON ST / METER 320385471-09800 SPRINKLER 390 DAYTON ST / METER 32038547 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 115.83 FOUNTAIN 490 MAIN ST/METER 757614521-10778 FOUNTAIN 490 MAIN ST/METER 75761452 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 177.62 SPRINKLER 500 MAIN ST / METER 51621-10780 SPRINKLER 500 MAIN ST / METER 5162 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 99.57 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER 690138971-13975 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER 69013897 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 557.94 CITY HALL 115 5TH AVE N / METER 24351-14000 CITY HALL 115 5TH AVE N / METER 2435 8Page: Packet Page 36 of 290 08/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 9 7:49:18AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215783 8/20/2015 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 140.90 SPRINKLER 439 5TH AVE S / METER 87291-16130 SPRINKLER 439 5TH AVE S / METER 8729 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 184.13 SPRINKLER 500 DAYTON ST / METER 699897051-16300 SPRINKLER 500 DAYTON ST / METER 69989705 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 415.05 LOG CABIN SPRINKLER / METER 699727311-16420 LOG CABIN SPRINKLER / METER 69972731 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 41.02 CENTENNIAL PLAZA SPRINKLER 150 5TH AVE1-16450 CENTENNIAL PLAZA SPRINKLER 150 5TH AVE 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 210.44 SPRINKLER 575 MAIN ST / METER 752139791-16630 SPRINKLER 575 MAIN ST / METER 75213979 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 307.72 SPRINKLER 590 DAYTON ST / METER 719650861-17475 SPRINKLER 590 DAYTON ST / METER 71965086 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 278.45 PINE STREET PLAYFIELD / METER 61631-19950 PINE STREET PLAYFIELD / METER 6163 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 73.91 SPRINKLER 1141 9TH AVE S / METER 32858301-36255 SPRINKLER 1141 9TH AVE S / METER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 37.77 Total :7,150.63 215784 8/20/2015 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AP11665 Additional Images Council Office Additional Images Council Office 001.000.11.511.60.45.00 10.59 ADDITIONAL COPIES- PLANNINGAP12600 ADDITIONAL COPIES- PLANNING 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 13.74 COPY CHARGES FOR C1030AR11631 Copier charges cor C1030 9Page: Packet Page 37 of 290 08/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 10 7:49:18AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215784 8/20/2015 (Continued)008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 9.25 Copier charges cor C1030 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 9.25 Copier charges cor C1030 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 9.24 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 0.88 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 0.88 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 0.88 COPY CHARGES FOR C5051AR11632 Copier charges for C5051 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 33.35 Copier charges for C5051 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 33.35 Copier charges for C5051 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 33.34 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 3.17 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 3.17 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 3.16 PRINTER/COPIER FEESAR11643 printer/copier fees 001.000.23.512.50.48.00 5.61 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.23.512.50.48.00 0.53 PRINTER/COPIER FEESAR11644 Printer/copier fee's 001.000.23.512.50.48.00 214.05 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.23.512.50.48.00 20.33 10Page: Packet Page 38 of 290 08/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 11 7:49:18AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215784 8/20/2015 (Continued)008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES ACCT#MK5648 CONTRACT 2600-01 PRINTER MAIAR11670 Maintenance for printers 07/21/15 - 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 343.98 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 32.68 PM PRINTER C1030 #A7078AR12010 PM PRINTER C1030 #A7078 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 33.61 COPY CHARGES FOR C1030AR12581 Copier charges for C1030 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 4.90 Copier charges for C1030 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 4.90 Copier charges for C1030 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 4.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 0.47 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 0.47 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 0.46 Additional color and b/w images fromAR12601 Additional color and b/w images from 001.000.11.511.60.45.00 19.04 Total :850.18 215785 8/20/2015 065789 ESTES, KEN 58 LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 1,347.80 Total :1,347.80 215786 8/20/2015 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH650853 PLN2015-0032 LEGAL NOTICES PLN2015-0032 LEGAL NOTICES 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 67.08 LEGAL DESC PLN20150026EDH651021 11Page: Packet Page 39 of 290 08/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 12 7:49:18AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215786 8/20/2015 (Continued)009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD LEGAL DESC PLN20150026 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 72.24 Total :139.32 215787 8/20/2015 075381 EVERETT POLYGRAPH SERVICES LLC 8-10-15 AUG 10 2015 SERVICE AT EDMONDS PD POLYGRAPH OF LATERAL CANDIDATE 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 250.00 Total :250.00 215788 8/20/2015 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU36676 Sewer - Supplies Sewer - Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 67.98 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 6.46 Water Sewer - Green Marking PaintWAMOU36684 Water Sewer - Green Marking Paint 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 46.61 Water Sewer - Green Marking Paint 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 46.60 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 4.43 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 4.42 Total :176.50 215789 8/20/2015 075208 FRALEY-MONILLAS, ADRIENNE Fraley-Monillas Reimburse Council President Reimburse Council President 001.000.11.511.60.31.00 257.80 Total :257.80 215790 8/20/2015 011900 FRONTIER 206-188-0247 TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY ACCOUNT TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY ACCOUNT 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 258.62 TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY ACCOUNT 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 258.62 12Page: Packet Page 40 of 290 08/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 13 7:49:18AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215790 8/20/2015 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE253-011-1177 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 6.38 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 24.23 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 24.23 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 24.23 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 24.23 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE TO FIVE 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 24.20 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE425-712-0417 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 32.56 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 32.56 PUBLIC WORKS OMC ALARM, FAX, SPARE LINES425-712-8251 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 16.15 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 80.75 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 67.83 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 67.83 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 90.43 CLUBHOUSE ALARM LINES 6801 MEADOWDALE RD425-745-4313 CLUBHOUSE FIRE AND INTRUSION ALARM 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 129.50 LIFT STATION #8 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINES425-774-1031 LIFT STATION #8 TWO VOICE GRADE SPECIAL 13Page: Packet Page 41 of 290 08/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 14 7:49:18AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215790 8/20/2015 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 47.12 UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE425-775-7865 UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE TO FIVE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 64.95 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE LINE425-776-1281 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE LINE 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 52.39 LIFT STATION #7 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINE425-776-2742 LIFT STATION #7 V/G SPECIAL ACCESS LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 26.21 Total :1,353.02 215791 8/20/2015 075163 GARCIA-GARCIA, CESAR 9142 INTERPERTER Interperter 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 105.66 INTERPERTER9487 Interperter 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 105.66 Interperter9524 Interperter 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 105.66 Total :316.98 215792 8/20/2015 012199 GRAINGER 9806110772 Fac Maint - Supplies Fac Maint - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 38.72 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.68 Total :42.40 215793 8/20/2015 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2664324 OFFICE SUPPLIES Office supplies 001.000.23.512.50.31.00 236.54 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.23.512.50.31.00 22.48 14Page: Packet Page 42 of 290 08/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 15 7:49:18AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215793 8/20/2015 (Continued)073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED OFFICE SUPPLIES2665699 Office Supply 001.000.23.512.50.31.00 65.17 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.23.512.50.31.00 6.19 KLEENEX TISSUE2666989 Kleenex Tissue 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 13.84 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 1.31 SHARPIE FINE POINT MARKERS2667580 Sharpie Permanent Fine Point Markers - 001.000.31.518.88.31.00 24.28 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.31.00 2.31 COPY PAPER2667589 COPY PAPER FOR CITY CLERKS OFFICE 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 137.36 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 13.04 Shared office supplies- copier paper2667601 Shared office supplies- copier paper 001.000.61.557.20.31.00 37.99 Shared office supplies- copier paper 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 37.99 Shared Office Supplies- Copier Paper 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 37.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.557.20.31.00 3.61 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 3.61 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 3.61 OFFICE SUPPLIES- DEV SERV2669554 15Page: Packet Page 43 of 290 08/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 16 7:49:18AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215793 8/20/2015 (Continued)073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED office supplies- dev serv 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 204.09 FILE STORAGE BOXES2670328 File Storage Boxes 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 35.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 3.42 Total :890.82 215794 8/20/2015 071634 INTEGRA TELECOM 13212437 C/A 768328 PR1-1 & 2 City Phone Service 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 909.58 Tourism Toll free lines 877.775.6929; 001.000.61.558.70.42.00 7.75 Econ Devlpmnt Toll free lines 001.000.61.558.70.42.00 7.75 Total :925.08 215795 8/20/2015 064934 JOHN BARKER LANDSCAPE 14-7-82 FAC BAND SHELL REPLACEMENT DESIGN DEVELO FAC BAND SHELL REPLACEMENT DESIGN 125.000.64.576.80.41.00 3,480.00 Total :3,480.00 215796 8/20/2015 075227 JOHNSON, JEFFREY 19838 CARTOONIVERSIT 19838 CARTOONIVERSITY INSTRUCTION 19838 CARTOONIVERSITY INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 281.10 Total :281.10 215797 8/20/2015 074888 JOYOUS NOISE LLC 20074 KINDERMUSIK 20074 KINDERMUSIK FAIRY CAMP INSTRUCTION 20074 KINDERMUSIK FAIRY CAMP INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 519.75 Total :519.75 215798 8/20/2015 072728 KAVADAS, JANET 20040 WEIGHT ROOM 20040 WEIGHT ROOM ORIENTATION 20040 WEIGHT ROOM ORIENTATION 16Page: Packet Page 44 of 290 08/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 17 7:49:18AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215798 8/20/2015 (Continued)072728 KAVADAS, JANET 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 50.00 Total :50.00 215799 8/20/2015 072650 KCDA PURCHASING COOPERATIVE 3928110 INV#3928110 ACCT#100828 - EDMONDS PD 10 CASES MULTI USE COPY PAPER 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 242.30 HANDLING FEE 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 50.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 23.02 Total :316.22 215800 8/20/2015 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 08062015-03 City Car Washes City Car Washes 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 5.03 Total :5.03 215801 8/20/2015 074135 LAFAVE, CAROLYN 081915 HEKINAN DELEGATION mileage for transportation of delegation 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 142.66 Husky Den -- delegation lunches 138.200.21.557.21.49.00 91.48 Pagliacci @ Husky Den -- delegation 138.200.21.557.21.49.00 37.85 Airport parking for delegation drop off 001.000.21.513.10.43.00 3.00 Hekinan delegation welcome dinner 138.200.21.557.21.49.00 105.78 sight seeing for Hekinan delegation 138.200.21.557.21.49.00 81.90 transportation for Hekinan delegation 138.100.21.557.21.43.00 24.00 parking for Hekinan delegation 001.000.21.513.10.43.00 36.00 parking for Hekinan delegation 17Page: Packet Page 45 of 290 08/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 18 7:49:18AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215801 8/20/2015 (Continued)074135 LAFAVE, CAROLYN 138.100.21.557.21.43.00 6.00 gas for Hekinan delegation 138.100.21.557.21.43.00 72.30 team building exercise -- canoeing 138.100.21.557.21.49.00 76.90 gas for Hekinan delegation 138.100.21.557.21.43.00 68.60 Subway -- student lunches 138.200.21.557.21.49.00 17.54 Total :764.01 215802 8/20/2015 075016 LEMAY MOBILE SHREDDING 4446052 SHREDDING SERVICES INVOICE #1167201 7/8/2015 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 4.38 INVOICE #1167201 7/8/2015 001.000.31.514.23.41.00 4.38 Total :8.76 215803 8/20/2015 075230 LOVE ISRAEL FAMILY LLC 8/18 HMP CAP'N ARR 8/18 HMP CAP'N ARR 8/18 HMP CAP'N ARR 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 550.00 Total :550.00 215804 8/20/2015 075386 LYSTAD, JEAN CASE 15-2758 RETURN FUNDS TO FRAUD VICTIM RETURN FUNDS TO FRAUD VICTIM - CASE EPD 001.000.237.000 3,000.00 Total :3,000.00 215805 8/20/2015 019920 MCCANN, MARIAN 57 LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement 009.000.39.517.20.29.00 8,430.00 Total :8,430.00 215806 8/20/2015 065574 MCCLURE, JOSH COSTCO-BANNERS MCCLURE EXPENSE CLAIM - RECRUITING BANNE RECRUITING BANNERS - COST SPLIT BETWEEN 18Page: Packet Page 46 of 290 08/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 19 7:49:18AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215806 8/20/2015 (Continued)065574 MCCLURE, JOSH 001.000.41.521.40.41.40 200.00 RECRUITING BANNERS - COST SPLIT BETWEEN 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 382.54 Total :582.54 215807 8/20/2015 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 207465 RENTAL OF STAGE, CANOPY, CHAIRS FOR 125T Rental of stage, chairs, canopy, for 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 948.60 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 90.12 Street - Weed Whip Line216211 Street - Weed Whip Line 111.000.68.542.71.31.00 18.95 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.71.31.00 1.80 Total :1,059.47 215808 8/20/2015 067834 NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION RENTALS 4218063 SPRAY PARK TEMP FENCE PANELS SPRAY PARK TEMP FENCE PANELS 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 345.32 Total :345.32 215809 8/20/2015 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0413279-IN Sewer - Handles Sewer - Handles 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 192.96 Freight 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 13.52 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 19.62 Total :226.10 215810 8/20/2015 074356 NAVAS-RIVAS, HERNAN 9087 INTERPERTER Interperter 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 103.23 Total :103.23 19Page: Packet Page 47 of 290 08/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 20 7:49:18AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215811 8/20/2015 024600 NEUERT, L L 54 LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Medical Reimbursement 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 443.21 Total :443.21 215812 8/20/2015 024910 NORMED 24808-703899 INV 24808-703899 EDMONDS PD NUTRALOX ANTACID 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 12.60 RELIEF PE COLD TABLETS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 26.61 PROPRINAL TABLETS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 25.89 CETAFEN EXTRA NON-ASPIRIN TABS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 8.20 CETAFEN NON-ASPIRIN TABLETS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 3.08 Freight 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 10.23 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 8.23 Total :94.84 215813 8/20/2015 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 2-1303487 WILLOW CREEKHONEY BUCKET WILLOW CREEKHONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 113.85 PORT-A-POTTIES AND SINK FOR 125TH ANNIVE2-1306404 Port-a-potties and sink for 125th 001.000.61.557.20.49.00 294.00 Total :407.85 215814 8/20/2015 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 583 PLANNING BOARD NOTES/CANC MEETING FEE PLANNING BOARD NOTES/CANC MEETING FEE 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 357.00 Total :357.00 215815 8/20/2015 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 330590 PW Office Supplies, Tape, Clocks 20Page: Packet Page 48 of 290 08/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 21 7:49:18AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215815 8/20/2015 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC PW Office Supplies, Tape, Clocks 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 42.08 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 4.00 THERMAL PAPER ROLLS333243 Thermal Paper Rolls - 1 carton 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 187.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 17.86 P&R LABEL TAPE, CATALOG ENVELOPES417329 P&R LABEL TAPE, CATALOG ENVELOPES 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 48.27 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 4.58 PW Office Envelopes908619 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 1.46 PW Office Envelopes 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 15.34 Total :321.58 215816 8/20/2015 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER July, 2015 COURT, BLDG CODE & JIS TRANSMITTAL School Zone Safety Account 001.000.237.200 109.79 Emergency Medical Services & Trauma 001.000.237.120 1,383.22 PSEA 1, 2 & 3 Account 001.000.237.130 28,187.67 Building Code Fee Account 001.000.237.150 197.50 State Patrol Death Investigation 001.000.237.330 98.49 Judicial Information Systems Account 001.000.237.180 5,172.07 21Page: Packet Page 49 of 290 08/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 22 7:49:18AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215816 8/20/2015 (Continued)070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER Washington Auto Theft Prevention 001.000.237.250 2,739.42 Traumatic Brain Injury 001.000.237.260 535.07 Accessible Communities Acct 001.000.237.290 27.77 Multi-Model Transportation 001.000.237.300 27.78 Hwy Safety Acct 001.000.237.320 156.30 Crime Lab Blood Breath Analysis 001.000.237.170 27.72 WSP Hwy Acct 001.000.237.340 558.64 Total :39,221.44 215817 8/20/2015 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 00076306 Unit 31 - Fan Assembly Unit 31 - Fan Assembly 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3,744.38 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 355.71 Freight00076659 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 159.77 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 15.18 Total :4,275.04 215818 8/20/2015 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 201121 PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 5130 PM YARD WASTE DUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 84.00 PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 5130201136 PM YARD WASTE DUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 72.00 PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 5130201153 22Page: Packet Page 50 of 290 08/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 23 7:49:18AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215818 8/20/2015 (Continued)027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS PM YARD WASTE DUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 84.00 PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 5130201165 PM YARD WASTE DUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 84.00 Total :324.00 215819 8/20/2015 074614 PENSER NORTH AMERICA 40878 Workers Comp Claims Management Workers Comp Claims Management 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 3,567.44 Total :3,567.44 215820 8/20/2015 073871 PERSONNEL EVALUATION INC 14907 INV 14907 CUSTOMER - EDMONDS PD JULY 201 WEB BASED PEP TEST - JULY 2015 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 20.00 Total :20.00 215821 8/20/2015 069633 PET PROS 0013282-IN INV#0013282-IN - EDMONDS PD NU HI ENDURANCE DOG FOOD 001.000.41.521.26.31.00 100.68 9.6% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.26.31.00 9.67 Total :110.35 215822 8/20/2015 064552 PITNEY BOWES 9607730-AU15 POSTAGE MACHINE LEASE POSTAGE MACHINE LEASE ~ 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 786.87 Total :786.87 215823 8/20/2015 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC H421018 PS - Lampholder PS - Lampholder 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 37.18 Freight 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 16.21 9.5% Sales Tax 23Page: Packet Page 51 of 290 08/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 24 7:49:18AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215823 8/20/2015 (Continued)028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.07 City Hall Finance Remodel SuppliesH451292 City Hall Finance Remodel Supplies 016.000.66.518.30.31.00 79.86 9.5% Sales Tax 016.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.59 Library - SuppliesH451879 Library - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.19 Fac Maint - ReturnsH457910 Fac Maint - Returns 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 -112.59 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 -10.70 Sr Center - Strut StrapsH459679 Sr Center - Strut Straps 016.000.66.518.30.31.00 11.04 9.5% Sales Tax 016.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.05 Total :36.87 215824 8/20/2015 072384 PLAY-WELL TEKNOLOGIES 19848 LEGO CAMPS 19848 LEGO CAMPS INSTRUCTION 19848 LEGO CAMPS INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 2,080.00 19849 LEGO CAMPS INSTRUCTION19849 LEGO CAMPS 19849 LEGO CAMPS INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 3,120.00 Total :5,200.00 215825 8/20/2015 075385 PONDEROSA PACIFIC INC 140947 Refund of Hydrant Deposit Refund of Hydrant Deposit 421.000.245.110 950.00 24Page: Packet Page 52 of 290 08/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 25 7:49:18AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :950.002158258/20/2015 075385 075385 PONDEROSA PACIFIC INC 215826 8/20/2015 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 216277 Fleet- Setcom return postage Fleet- Setcom return postage 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 36.27 Total :36.27 215827 8/20/2015 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 03870 PORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR CITY PORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR CITY 422.000.72.531.90.51.00 2,651.63 UNIT F1 B1 FUEL04371 Fire Boat - Fuel 511.000.77.548.68.32.00 106.49 Total :2,758.12 215828 8/20/2015 071594 PROFORCE LAW ENFORCEMENT 245816 INV 245816 ORDER 274447 EDMONDS PD TSR X26 DIGITAL POWER MAG 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 220.80 TSR X26 EXTENDED DPM 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 83.90 TSR X26P XPPM EXTENDED PERFORMANCE 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 63.50 TSR CARTRIDGES M26/X26 15 FT 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 2,215.00 TSR CARTRIDGES M26/X26 25 FT XP 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 1,365.00 Freight 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 9.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 376.02 Total :4,334.17 215829 8/20/2015 064088 PROTECTION ONE 31146525 ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 51.11 Total :51.11 25Page: Packet Page 53 of 290 08/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 26 7:49:18AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215830 8/20/2015 030410 PUGET SOUND BUSINESS JOURNAL 17803 AD IN PUGET SOUND BUSINESS JOURNAL 8/14/ Ad in Puget Sound Business Journal 001.000.61.558.70.41.40 3,500.00 Total :3,500.00 215831 8/20/2015 070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE 15-1722 COURTROOM SECURITY Courtroom Security 001.000.23.512.50.41.00 3,602.50 Total :3,602.50 215832 8/20/2015 061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197 3-0197-0800478 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 148.51 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW3-0197-0800897 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 29.81 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 113.27 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 113.27 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 113.27 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 113.27 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 113.26 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW3-0197-0801132 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 158.68 CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD3-0197-0829729 CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 69.50 Total :972.84 215833 8/20/2015 069477 ROTARY OFFSET PRESS INC 33909 PRINTING OF FALL CRAZE PRINTING OF FALL CRAZE 26Page: Packet Page 54 of 290 08/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 27 7:49:18AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215833 8/20/2015 (Continued)069477 ROTARY OFFSET PRESS INC 001.000.64.571.22.49.00 5,597.11 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.22.49.00 531.73 Total :6,128.84 215834 8/20/2015 068132 SHORELINE CONSTRUCTION CO E3GA.Pmt 8 E3GA.PMT 8 (FINAL) THRU 7/31/15 E3GA.Pmt 8 (FINAL) thru 7/31/15 423.000.75.594.35.65.30 34,930.95 Total :34,930.95 215835 8/20/2015 074906 SITE WORKSHOP LLC 3792 CITY PARK SPRAY & PLAY LANDSCAPE ARCHITE CITY PARK SPRAY & PLAY LANDSCAPE 132.000.64.594.76.41.00 7,288.38 Total :7,288.38 215836 8/20/2015 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-6027-1 YOST POOL YOST POOL 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2,644.19 TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / METER 100002007-2302-1 TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 48.19 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUGET DR / MET2014-3124-4 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUGET DR / 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 32.98 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / METER 100042014-4175-5 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / METER 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 80.96 ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH ST SW / MET2017-9000-3 ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH ST SW / 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 34.95 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99 / METER 100042022-8945-0 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99 / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 134.89 SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION 8100 190TH ST SW2025-4064-7 SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION 8100 190TH ST SW 27Page: Packet Page 55 of 290 08/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 28 7:49:18AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215836 8/20/2015 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 31.90 FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 8519 BOWDOIN WAY2036-5215-1 FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 8519 BOWDOIN WAY 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 245.27 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 8410 MAIN ST /2202-1638-6 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 8410 MAIN ST / 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 103.35 TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 236TH ST SW / METE2205-4757-4 TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 236TH ST SW / 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 127.38 Total :3,484.06 215837 8/20/2015 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 2015-2747 CREDIT ON #2015-2747 - SNO CO JAIL CR 1 HOUSING DAY - EDDY - 5/15 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 -84.00 INV#2015-2747 - EDMONDS PD2015-2747 418.92 HOUSING @ $84 - 7/2015 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 35,189.28 59.92 BOOKINGS @ $115 - 7/2015 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 6,890.80 48.5 MED/PREM @ $48.5 - 7/2015 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 2,352.25 16 MENTAL HEALTH @ $117 - 7/2015 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 1,872.00 10.25 VIDEO COURT @ $115.50 - 7/2015 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 1,183.88 Total :47,404.21 215838 8/20/2015 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 66772 PARKS MAINT 5005 DUMP FEES PARKS MAINT DUMP FEES 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,388.00 ILLEGAL DUMP FEE 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 5.00 Total :1,393.00 28Page: Packet Page 56 of 290 08/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 29 7:49:18AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215839 8/20/2015 075339 STEVENS, KELLY 8721 INTERPERTER Interperter 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 107.46 Total :107.46 215840 8/20/2015 072319 SUNSET BAY RESORT LLC 19884 BEACH CAMP 19884 BEACH CAMP 19884 BEACH CAMP 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 12,900.00 20274 SLEEPOVER BEACH CAMP20274 BEACH CAMP 20274 SLEEPOVER BEACH CAMP 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 7,425.00 Total :20,325.00 215841 8/20/2015 065578 SYSTEMS INTERFACE INC 18082 Water - 5 Corners Pump House - Smoke Water - 5 Corners Pump House - Smoke 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 119.22 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 11.33 Total :130.55 215842 8/20/2015 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 11456416 Traffic - Hitch Pins Traffic - Hitch Pins 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 28.75 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 2.73 Traffic - Supplies11458388 Traffic - Supplies 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 51.68 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 4.91 Total :88.07 215843 8/20/2015 075237 TE FARE O TAMATOA INC 8/16 TE FARE CONCERT 8/16/15 TE FARE CONCERT 8/16/15 TE FARE CONCERT 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 1,000.00 Total :1,000.00 29Page: Packet Page 57 of 290 08/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 30 7:49:18AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215844 8/20/2015 042800 TRI-CITIES SECURITY 40256 Traffic - Key Stock Traffic - Key Stock 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 867.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 82.37 Total :949.37 215845 8/20/2015 074494 UK SOCCER ELITE 19948 UK PETITE SOCC 19948 UK PETITE SOCCER 19948 UK PETITE SOCCER 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 424.80 19951 UK ELITE SOCCER19951 UK ELITE SOCCE 19951 UK ELITE SOCCER 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 4,608.00 Total :5,032.80 215846 8/20/2015 062693 US BANK 0108 CARD -0108 8/6/15 STATEMENT -THOMPSON UNIFORM SHOES - SCHEELE 001.000.41.521.11.24.00 109.45 DOG RAMP FOR ANIMAL CONTROL 001.000.41.521.70.35.00 104.95 DYMO LABELER FOR DETECTIVES 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 79.81 5-12 PACKS OF CR123A 3V LITHIUM 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 57.60 OMNIVORE SOFTWARE & 1 YEAR OF TELEPHONE 001.000.41.521.21.35.00 99.00 WALL CLOCK & 3 PACK OF SCISSORS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 45.55 8 BOXES OF NIK "L" DRUG TEST KITS 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 177.24 6 BOXES OF NIK "U" DRUG TEST KITS 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 126.00 2 NITES DV HOUSING- ANDY'S MOTEL 001.000.41.565.50.49.00 125.00 National Prod- Unit 449 - Printer2674 National Prod- Unit 449 - Printer 30Page: Packet Page 58 of 290 08/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 31 7:49:18AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215846 8/20/2015 (Continued)062693 US BANK 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 165.47 Cummins - Unit 66 - Pressure Sensor 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 133.23 WWTP - JULY 2015 CC2985 ControlLogix Fundamentals - Dan Korstad 423.000.76.535.80.49.71 2,490.00 Graphics Press Tufte - Royce Napolitino 423.000.76.535.80.49.71 380.00 Graphics Press Tufte - Jeannen McKenzie 423.000.76.535.80.49.71 380.00 CARD -3314 STATEMENT 8-6-15 EDMONDS PD3314 PRISM SITE SURVEY/SYSTEM ASSESSMENT 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 1,200.00 439 SWAT/ERU TACTICAL MIRROR W/LEDS AND 628.000.41.521.23.31.00 554.40 SWAT AMMUNITION 001.000.41.521.23.31.00 2,610.24 Replacement iPad Logitech keyboard and3389 Replacement iPad Logitech keyboard and 001.000.11.511.60.49.00 86.60 Paper products for Council Volunteer 001.000.11.511.60.31.00 82.04 Amer Van - Fac ManitStorage Bin3405 Amer Van - Fac ManitStorage Bin 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 48.40 Bartells - B& G Club - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 13.12 City of Edmonds - Permit Fees - Finance 001.000.31.514.20.48.00 382.50 Guardian Sec - Old PW 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 55.00 WA St - Elect Permit for Finance Remodel 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 75.80 Amazon - Parks - Solar Flag Pole 31Page: Packet Page 59 of 290 08/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 32 7:49:18AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215846 8/20/2015 (Continued)062693 US BANK 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 79.98 CARD -3520 8-6-15 STATEMENT - EDMONDS PD3520 SHIPPING - DNA SAMPLES 14-5184 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 62.45 SHIPPING EVIDENCE 15-2047, 15-2101, 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 25.91 SHIP SAGE FOR REPAIR 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 156.90 SHIPPING - DNA SAMPLES 14-2493 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 63.77 WA DOL - Unit E102FM Lic Fees3546 WA DOL - Unit E102FM Lic Fees 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 49.25 Aliance Elect - Units 681, 455, 450 - 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 364.73 Radio Shack - Unit 449 - Lights 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 19.69 Radio Shack - Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 42.91 Radio Shack - Unit 447 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 7.63 Peninsula Truck Lines - Freguson 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 115.98 Fisheries - Unit 473 - Push Button 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 37.88 Half Price Banners - Recycle - Banners 421.000.74.537.90.35.00 235.59 Home Depot - Recycle - Supplies for 421.000.74.537.90.35.00 170.55 4675 PARKS CR CARD4675 TUMBLEBEAR, GYMNAASTICS HAND STAMPS AND 001.000.64.571.28.31.00 123.85 ACCO- CALENDAR FOR FRANCES 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 22.66 32Page: Packet Page 60 of 290 08/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 33 7:49:18AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215846 8/20/2015 (Continued)062693 US BANK BARTELL, NEW CLEANING MOPS FOR 207/209 001.000.64.571.28.31.00 61.55 AMAZON, FAN FOR RANGER STATION 001.000.64.571.23.31.00 14.01 BADGE-A-MINIT CRAFT FOR MAKING BUTTONS 001.000.64.571.28.31.00 37.75 ORIENTAL TRADING CO-SUMMER CAMP CRAFTS 001.000.64.571.28.31.00 70.84 JOANN, CRAFT SUPPLIES FOR REST OF 001.000.64.571.28.31.00 20.22 AMAZON, PHONE ANSWERING MACHINE FOR 001.000.64.571.23.31.00 32.84 AMAZON, FAN FOR WEIGHT ROOM 001.000.64.571.27.31.00 154.98 CREDIT TUMBLEBEAR ORDER4675 CREDIT TUMBLEBEARS ORDER 001.000.64.571.28.31.00 -17.48 MAYOR'S ANNUAL MEETING4697 Mayor's annual luncheon meeting 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 173.28 Mayor's summer town hall meeting 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 16.36 Mayor's annual employee luncheon meeting 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 179.94 ESCC gift to Hekinan Mayor 138.200.21.557.21.49.00 45.99 packing materials 138.100.21.557.21.31.00 10.94 mailing of certificate of eligibility 138.100.21.557.21.31.00 16.95 Hekinan delegation welcome dinner 138.200.21.557.21.49.00 139.78 stationery 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 13.09 33Page: Packet Page 61 of 290 08/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 34 7:49:18AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215846 8/20/2015 (Continued)062693 US BANK ESCC supplies for Hekinan delegation 138.100.21.557.21.31.00 20.78 Hekinan delegation welcome dinner 138.200.21.557.21.49.00 8.95 Frames for delegation host family 138.200.21.557.21.49.00 20.24 HP PRINTERS, HARD DRIVES, DOMAIN NAME RE5179 Newegg.com - HP Ultraslim Keyed Cable 001.000.31.518.88.31.00 31.00 Ocean Systems - QuickDME/Quick Manager 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 1,791.00 Avangate*RSJoomla.com - Plug in for 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 21.21 HP Direct - LaserJet Enterprise M604dn 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 1,763.63 HP Direct - LaserJet Enterprise M604dn 001.000.23.512.50.35.00 217.91 Solarwinds - Network monitoring 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 1,039.16 ServerSupply.com - Hitachi Deskstar NAS 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 1,465.20 Bulkregister.com - Domain Name 001.000.31.518.88.49.00 113.43 Newegg.com - Orico 6619US3-BK 5Gbps 001.000.31.518.88.31.00 49.98 Newegg.com - ADATA Premier Pro SP900 001.000.67.532.20.35.00 497.03 Newegg.com - ASUS VS Series VS228H-P 001.000.67.532.20.35.00 139.99 Newegg.com - High Speed Mini HDMI to 001.000.67.532.20.35.00 6.95 Newegg.com - HP LaserJet P2035 Laser 001.000.25.514.30.35.00 181.98 ExpertsExchange.com - IT Solutions 34Page: Packet Page 62 of 290 08/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 35 7:49:18AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215846 8/20/2015 (Continued)062693 US BANK 001.000.31.518.88.49.00 19.95 Newegg.com - Samsung 850 EVO 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 359.97 Bulkregister.com - Domain Name 001.000.31.518.88.49.00 28.51 Graybar Electric - Modular Crimper 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 81.22 QLULimited - website module 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 16.97 Newegg.com - HP Enterprise P3015n Laser 001.000.41.521.21.35.00 452.98 RECORDING FEES5593 Snohomish County Recording of Utility 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 379.50 Snohomish County Recording of Utility 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 379.50 Misc. Recorded Documents - Short Plat 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 143.50 UPS FREIGHT CHARGES5639 UPS freight charges 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 104.47 UPS freight charges 001.000.62.558.60.42.00 15.82 ICSC MEMBERSHIP, CONFERENCE, COPIES, ALL5923 Printing posters & post cards for 125th 001.000.61.557.20.31.00 660.72 Copies for 125th Anniversary 001.000.61.557.20.31.00 4.92 Director attendance at annual summer 001.000.61.558.70.49.00 35.00 Director attendance at Pacific 001.000.61.558.70.49.00 210.00 Membership for director to 001.000.61.558.70.49.00 100.00 35Page: Packet Page 63 of 290 08/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 36 7:49:18AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215846 8/20/2015 (Continued)062693 US BANK DESKS FOR FINANCE DEPT7081 The Human Solution - Ergonomic desk for 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 688.00 The Human Solution - Ergonomic desk for 001.000.31.514.23.35.00 688.00 CARD -7476 8-6-15 STATEMENT - BARD7476 MONTHLY MINDFLASH SUBSCRIPTION 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 199.00 2 - 4 PACKS OF SNAP BELT KEEPERS 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 45.31 2 HANDCUFF POUCHES 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 69.71 "WATER MAIN SHUT OFF" SIGN 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 16.90 4 MOTOROLA OEM NOISE CANCELING SPEAKER 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 348.00 1ST NIGHT DEPOSIT - SAN FRAN HILTON - 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 192.14 FLASHLIGHT HOLDER 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 11.18 3 SHIELD STYLE BADGE HOLDERS 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 39.36 LENS CAP BUNDLE DSLR CAMERAS 001.000.41.521.71.31.00 6.99 WIRELESS REMOTE CONTROLLER 001.000.41.521.71.31.00 21.78 WASABI BATTERY & CHARGER FOR CANON 001.000.41.521.71.31.00 48.16 MAGNUM MEN'S BOOTS - PLOEGER 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 121.30 CRAIGSLIST ADS (2) FOR POLICE OFFICER 001.000.41.521.40.41.40 50.00 CRIME SCENE ANALYSIS - SHOEMAKE 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 325.00 36Page: Packet Page 64 of 290 08/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 37 7:49:18AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215846 8/20/2015 (Continued)062693 US BANK TLO REPORTS - JULY 2015 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 36.25 2 MULTI CARD READERS 001.000.41.521.22.35.00 28.44 TV WALL MOUNT BRACKET 001.000.41.521.22.35.00 29.96 SAMSUNG 32 INCH LED TV 001.000.41.521.22.35.00 272.62 SAMSUNG HEAVY DUTY SWIVEL WALL MOUNT 001.000.41.521.40.35.00 69.99 CREDIT ON CARD -7476 - OCEAN SYSTEMS CLA7476 REFUND CANCELLED CLASS - OCEAN SYSTEMS 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 -895.00 JULY MAYORS MEETING LUNCHEON7483 July Mayor's Luncheon Meeting 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 13.00 ENG. CREDIT CARD JULY 20158017 Calibration Set (Cawrse) 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 268.28 Duct Tape 001.000.67.532.20.49.00 14.98 AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, 001.000.67.532.20.49.00 111.00 2015 Traffic Safety Conference 001.000.67.532.20.49.00 117.04 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.67.532.20.49.00 1.42 2015 WFOA CONFERENCE REGISTRATION - S JA8296 2015 WFOA Conference Registration for S 001.000.31.514.20.49.00 325.00 Advertising- Parks Dept Cemetary Laborer8304 Advertising- Parks Dept Cemetary Laborer 001.000.22.518.10.41.40 50.00 SHRM membership renewel- Mary Ann 37Page: Packet Page 65 of 290 08/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 38 7:49:18AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215846 8/20/2015 (Continued)062693 US BANK 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 190.00 Advertisting- Gymnastics Instructor 001.000.22.518.10.41.40 50.00 Office Supplies- large white board 001.000.22.521.10.31.00 56.93 Advertising- Executive Asst. Public 001.000.22.518.10.41.40 50.00 Advertising- Building Inspector ro Combo 001.000.22.518.10.41.40 50.00 Camera for making ID Badges 001.000.22.518.10.35.00 96.95 USB Cable for new digital camera 001.000.22.518.10.35.00 9.99 AWC- 2015 WAPELRA Conference 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 160.00 2015 WAPELRA Conference 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 299.00 CREDIT CARD CREDIT8304 Credit for Symplicity Corp payment that 001.000.22.518.10.41.40 -10.00 Fleet - Randys Ring & Pinion - Unit8305 Fleet - Randys Ring & Pinion - Unit 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 1,193.34 Total :27,953.66 215847 8/20/2015 064649 VERMEER NW SALES INC E00858 Water - Unit 41 - 4" Piercing Tool Water - Unit 41 - 4" Piercing Tool 421.000.74.594.34.64.00 5,600.00 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.594.34.64.00 532.00 Total :6,132.00 215848 8/20/2015 074901 WA FEDERAL %SHORELINE CONSTRUC E3GA.Ret 8 E3GA.RET 8.WA FED 316-400163-2 (FINAL) E3GA.Ret 8.WA Fed. #316-400163-2 423.000.75.594.35.65.30 1,671.34 38Page: Packet Page 66 of 290 08/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 39 7:49:18AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :1,671.342158488/20/2015 074901 074901 WA FEDERAL %SHORELINE CONSTRUC 215849 8/20/2015 075155 WALKER MACY LLC P3089.01-8 MARINA BEACH MASTER PLAN MARINA BEACH MASTER PLAN 125.000.64.594.75.41.00 7,996.36 Total :7,996.36 215850 8/20/2015 075154 WALTER E NELSON CO 496989 Fac Maint - No-Touch Cleaning System Fac Maint - No-Touch Cleaning System 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 3,088.97 Cleaner 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 152.74 Freight 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 167.82 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 323.91 Fac Maint - Bleach, Seat Covers,497005 Fac Maint - Bleach, Seat Covers, 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 230.80 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 21.93 Fac Maint - Liners, Soap, Towels,497437 Fac Maint - Liners, Soap, Towels, 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 97.32 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.25 Total :4,092.74 215851 8/20/2015 075383 WANG, LUCIA 8/10 REFUND 8/10/15 REFUND UNUSED MONITOR TIME 8/10/15 REFUND UNUSED MONITOR TIME 001.000.239.200 18.75 Total :18.75 215852 8/20/2015 073472 WAPRO 755 INV 755 EDMONDS PD - THOMPSON - FALL CON WAPRO FALL TRAINING 10/22/15~ 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 140.00 39Page: Packet Page 67 of 290 08/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 40 7:49:18AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215852 8/20/2015 (Continued)073472 WAPRO INV 797 EDMONDS PD - HAWLEY - FALL CONFE797 FALL CONF REGISTRATION 10/22/15~ 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 140.00 Total :280.00 215853 8/20/2015 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS I15-405 TREE SERVICE AT HUTT PARK TREE SERVICE AT HUTT PARK 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 800.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 76.00 TREE SERVICE AT 5TH AND MAINI15-414 TREE SERVICE AT 5TH AND MAIN 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 840.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 79.80 Water - Remove Fir & Cedar Tree onI15-419 Water - Remove Fir & Cedar Tree on 421.000.74.534.80.48.00 480.00 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.48.00 45.60 Total :2,321.40 215854 8/20/2015 075215 WELCOME COMMUNICATIONS 1042 INV#1042 - EDMONDS PD ENDURA DUAL RAPID CHARGERS 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 331.76 3800mAh/NiMH BATTERIES 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 347.76 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 64.55 Total :744.07 215855 8/20/2015 074609 WEST COAST ARMORY NORTH 17 INVOICE 17 - EDMONDS PD - GAGNER LANE FEE - 2 - GAGNER 001.000.41.521.40.41.00 27.40 9.5% Sales Tax 40Page: Packet Page 68 of 290 08/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 41 7:49:18AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215855 8/20/2015 (Continued)074609 WEST COAST ARMORY NORTH 001.000.41.521.40.41.00 2.60 Total :30.00 215856 8/20/2015 075122 YAKIMA CO DEPT OF CORR 08-10-15 INMATE HOUSING - JULY 2015 - EDMONDS PD HOUSING 1 INMATE FOR 15 DAYS 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 821.25 INMATE MEDICATION - JUNE 2015 001.000.39.523.60.31.00 34.29 Total :855.54 Bank total :540,842.16100 Vouchers for bank code :usbank 540,842.16Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report100 41Page: Packet Page 69 of 290 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STM 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 E0AA STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)c424 E3DC STM 190th Pl SW Wall Construction c428 E3FF STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 E0JA STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB WtR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA SWR 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE STM 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c406 E3FA STM 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects c407 E3FB SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC WTR 2014 Waterline Replacement Program c422 E4JA STM 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 E5FA STR 2015 Overlay Program c463 E5CA SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA STR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 E5AB WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 E5CB WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC SWR 2016-17 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 E5GA WTR 2016-17 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 E5JA STR 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk c421 E3DA STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD Revised 8/19/2015 Packet Page 70 of 290 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)c425 E3DD STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)c423 E3DB STR 5th Ave Overlay Project c399 E2CC STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP)c390 E2GB WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 E0IA STR Bikelink Project c474 E5DA STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB STR Citywide Safety Improvements c404 E2AC SWR City-Wide Sewer Improvements c301 E8GD STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)c472 E5FC STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 E0LA FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating c473 E5KA STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA FAC Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades c393 E3LA STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD STR Interurban Trail c146 E2DB Revised 8/19/2015 Packet Page 71 of 290 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)c298 E8GA STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 E8MB STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE STM NPDES m013 E7FG SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB WTR OVD Watermain Improvements (2003)c141 E3JB STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC STR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1FD FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E4LA STR School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant c420 E3AA PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 E0LB SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA SWR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 E1EA STR SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing c454 E4DB General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA UTILITIES Standard Details Updates s010 E5NA STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1FF STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)c349 E1FH STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 E0FC Revised 8/19/2015 Packet Page 72 of 290 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB STR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA STR Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 E5FB STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF Revised 8/19/2015 Packet Page 73 of 290 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title STM E0AA c329 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade STM E0FC c326 Stormwater GIS Support WTR E0IA c324 AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements WTR E0JA c363 2010 Waterline Replacement Program FAC E0LA c327 Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project FAC E0LB c332 Senior Center Roof Repairs STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STR E1AB c343 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements General E1EA c372 SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing STM E1FD c339 Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades STM E1FF c341 Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects STM E1FH c349 Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) STM E1FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives STM E1FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement SWR E1GA c347 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement SWR E1GB c370 Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update WtR E1JA c333 2011 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E1JB c344 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood WTR E1JC c345 Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study WTR E1JD c346 PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment WTR E1JE c340 2012 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E1JK c375 Main Street Watermain STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project STR E2AC c404 Citywide Safety Improvements STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) WTR E2CA c388 2012 Waterline Overlay Program STR E2CB c389 Pioneer Way Road Repair STR E2CC c399 5th Ave Overlay Project STR E2DB c146 Interurban Trail STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study STM E2FD c381 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 Revised 8/19/2015 Packet Page 74 of 290 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title STM E2FE c382 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements SWR E2GA c369 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update SWR E2GB c390 Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP) STR E3AA c420 School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study STR E3DA c421 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STR E3DC c424 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) STR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) STR E3DE c426 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S STM E3FA c406 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement STM E3FB c407 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study STM E3FE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive STM E3FF c428 190th Pl SW Wall Construction STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project SWR E3GB c142 OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements WTR E3JA c397 2013 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E3JB c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) WTR E3JB c141 OVD Watermain Improvements (2003) FAC E3LA c393 Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program STR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals WTR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays STR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project STR E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept STR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing STM E4FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin STM E4FC c435 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM E4FD c436 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines Revised 8/19/2015 Packet Page 75 of 290 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring WTR E4JA c422 2014 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E4JB c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update FAC E4LA c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades PRK E4MA c417 City Spray Park FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab STR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System STR E5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming STR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program WTR E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays STR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project STM E5FA c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects STM E5FC c472 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) SWR E5GA c469 2016-17 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects WTR E5JA c468 2016-17 Waterline Replacement Projects WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating UTILITIES E5NA s010 Standard Details Updates STR E6DA c245 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project STR E6DB c256 Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project General E6MA c238 SR99 Enhancement Program STR E7AA c265 Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STR E7CB c268 Shell Valley Emergency Access Road STM E7FG m013 NPDES PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza SWR E8GA c298 Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) SWR E8GD c301 City-Wide Sewer Improvements PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor PM E8MB c290 Marina Beach Additional Parking STR E9CA c294 2009 Street Overlay Program STR E9DA c312 226th Street Walkway Project Revised 8/19/2015 Packet Page 76 of 290 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title STM E9FB c307 Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation SWR E9GA c304 Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design PM E9MA c321 Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements Revised 8/19/2015 Packet Page 77 of 290 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title WTR E3JB c141 OVD Watermain Improvements (2003) SWR E3GB c142 OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements STR E2DB c146 Interurban Trail General E6MA c238 SR99 Enhancement Program STR E6DA c245 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project STR E6DB c256 Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project STR E7AA c265 Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements STR E7CB c268 Shell Valley Emergency Access Road PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor PM E8MB c290 Marina Beach Additional Parking STR E9CA c294 2009 Street Overlay Program SWR E8GA c298 Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) SWR E8GD c301 City-Wide Sewer Improvements SWR E9GA c304 Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design STM E9FB c307 Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation STR E9DA c312 226th Street Walkway Project PM E9MA c321 Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements WTR E0IA c324 AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements STM E0FC c326 Stormwater GIS Support FAC E0LA c327 Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project STM E0AA c329 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade FAC E0LB c332 Senior Center Roof Repairs WtR E1JA c333 2011 Waterline Replacement Program STM E1FD c339 Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades WTR E1JE c340 2012 Waterline Replacement Program STM E1FF c341 Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STR E1AB c343 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming WTR E1JB c344 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood WTR E1JC c345 Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study WTR E1JD c346 PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment SWR E1GA c347 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement STM E1FH c349 Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) Revised 8/19/2015 Packet Page 78 of 290 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements WTR E0JA c363 2010 Waterline Replacement Program STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements SWR E2GA c369 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update SWR E1GB c370 Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update General E1EA c372 SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing STM E1FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives WTR E1JK c375 Main Street Watermain STM E1FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study STM E2FD c381 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 STM E2FE c382 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements WTR E2CA c388 2012 Waterline Overlay Program STR E2CB c389 Pioneer Way Road Repair SWR E2GB c390 Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP) STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project FAC E3LA c393 Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades WTR E3JA c397 2013 Waterline Replacement Program SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project STR E2CC c399 5th Ave Overlay Project STR E2AC c404 Citywide Safety Improvements STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) STM E3FA c406 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement STM E3FB c407 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study STM E3FE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive PRK E4MA c417 City Spray Park WTR E3JB c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project STR E3AA c420 School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant STR E3DA c421 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk Revised 8/19/2015 Packet Page 79 of 290 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title WTR E4JA c422 2014 Waterline Replacement Program STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STR E3DC c424 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) STR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) STR E3DE c426 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study STM E3FF c428 190th Pl SW Wall Construction STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements STM E4FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin STM E4FC c435 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM E4FD c436 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program WTR E4JB c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab FAC E4LA c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring STR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals WTR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays STR E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept STR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study STR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project STR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program STM E5FA c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects WTR E5JA c468 2016-17 Waterline Replacement Projects SWR E5GA c469 2016-17 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects Revised 8/19/2015 Packet Page 80 of 290 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title STR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System STR E5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming STM E5FC c472 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating STR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project WTR E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STM E7FG m013 NPDES UTILITIES E5NA s010 Standard Details Updates Revised 8/19/2015 Packet Page 81 of 290 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 E0LA FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB FAC Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades c393 E3LA FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E4LA FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 E0LB General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 E1EA General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 E8MB PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA STM 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 E0AA STM 190th Pl SW Wall Construction c428 E3FF STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE STM 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c406 E3FA STM 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects c407 E3FB STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STM 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 E5FA STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)c472 E5FC STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE STM NPDES m013 E7FG STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1FD STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1FF Revised 8/19/2015 Packet Page 82 of 290 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)c349 E1FH STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 E0FC STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 E5FB STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)c424 E3DC STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA STR 2015 Overlay Program c463 E5CA STR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 E5AB STR 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk c421 E3DA STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)c425 E3DD STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)c423 E3DB STR 5th Ave Overlay Project c399 E2CC STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE STR Bikelink Project c474 E5DA STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB STR Citywide Safety Improvements c404 E2AC STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD STR Interurban Trail c146 E2DB STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA STR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB STR School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant c420 E3AA Revised 8/19/2015 Packet Page 83 of 290 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB STR SR104/City Park Mid-Block Crossing c454 E4DB STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA STR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA STR Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA SWR 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA SWR 2016-17 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 E5GA SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP)c390 E2GB SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB SWR City-Wide Sewer Improvements c301 E8GD SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)c298 E8GA SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA SWR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB UTILITIES Standard Details Updates s010 E5NA WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 E0JA WtR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC WTR 2014 Waterline Replacement Program c422 E4JA WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 E5CB WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC WTR 2016-17 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 E5JA WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 E0IA WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC Revised 8/19/2015 Packet Page 84 of 290 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re-coating c473 E5KA WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK WTR OVD Watermain Improvements (2003)c141 E3JB WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA Revised 8/19/2015 Packet Page 85 of 290 Pa y r o l l E a r n i n g s S u m m a r y R e p o r t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s Pa y P e r i o d : 7 5 4 ( 0 8 / 0 1 / 2 0 1 5 t o 0 8 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 5 ) Ho u r s A m o u n t Ho u r T y p e H o u r C l a s s D e s c r i p t i o n Ed u c a t i o n a l P a y C o r r e c t i o n RE G U L A R H O U R S -e d 2 0. 0 0 -156.28 N O P A Y L E A V E A BS E N T 11 1 84 . 6 6 0.00 SI C K L E A V E - L & I SI C K 12 0 77 . 0 2 2,481.45 SI C K L E A V E SI C K 12 1 45 5 . 7 0 17,260.70 VA C A T I O N VA C A T I O N 12 2 1, 8 2 7 . 2 3 72,652.66 HO L I D A Y H O U R S HO L I D A Y 12 3 12 5 . 0 0 4,323.84 FL O A T E R H O L I D A Y HO L I D A Y 12 4 4. 0 0 107.65 CO M P E N S A T O R Y T I M E CO M P H O U R S 12 5 13 4 . 2 5 4,944.35 Po l i c e S i c k L e a v e L & I SI C K 12 9 16 5 . 5 0 6,775.74 Ho l i d a y C o m p en s a t i o n U s e d CO M P H O U R S 13 0 8. 0 0 284.14 MI L I T A R Y L E A V E MI L I T A R Y 13 1 60 . 0 0 2,405.07 BE R E A V E M E N T BE R E A V E M E N T 14 1 28 . 0 0 957.65 Ke l l y D a y U s e d RE G U L A R H O U R S 15 0 21 0 . 0 0 7,636.62 CO M P T I M E A U T O P A Y CO M P H O U R S 15 5 13 7 . 0 2 5,556.33 SI C K L E A V E P A Y O F F SI C K 15 7 0. 6 0 18.87 VA C A T I O N P A Y O F F VA C A T I O N 15 8 11 . 9 5 375.81 MA N A G E M E N T L E A V E VA C A T I O N 16 0 10 . 0 0 524.96 RE G U L A R H O U R S RE G U L A R H O U R S 19 0 14 , 5 2 1 . 3 7 531,064.83 LI G H T D U T Y RE G U L A R H O U R S 19 6 19 9 . 5 0 6,618.17 OV E R T I M E - S T R A I G H T OV E R T I M E H O U R S 21 0 4. 5 0 157.38 WA T E R W A T C H S T A N D B Y OV E R T I M E H O U R S 21 5 48 . 0 0 2,195.06 ST A N D B Y T R E A T M E N T P L A N T MI S C E L L A N E O U S 21 6 4. 0 0 351.56 OV E R T I M E 1 . 5 OV E R T I M E H O U R S 22 0 47 8 . 0 0 30,764.54 OV E R T I M E - D O U B L E OV E R T I M E H O U R S 22 5 19 . 7 5 1,269.05 SH I F T D I F F E R E N T I A L SH I F T D I F F E R E N T I A L 41 1 0. 0 0 696.47 A CC R U E D C O M P CO M P H O U R S 60 2 11 6 . 5 0 0.00 A CC R U E D C O M P T I M E CO M P H O U R S 60 4 14 7 . 0 0 0.00 A CC R U E D C O M P T I M E CO M P H O U R S 60 6 6. 2 5 0.00 A CC R E D I T A T I O N P A Y MI S C E L L A N E O U S ac c 0. 0 0 24.70 A CC R E D / P O L I C E S U P P O R T MI S C E L L A N E O U S ac s 0. 0 0 169.99 BO C I I C e r t i f i c a t i o n MI S C E L L A N E O U S bo c 0. 0 0 81.17 Co l l i s i o n R e c o n s t r u c t i o n i s t MI S C E L L A N E O U S co l r e 0. 0 0 138.69 TR A I N I N G C O R P O R A L MI S C E L L A N E O U S c p l 0. 0 0 143.68 08 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 5 Pa g e 1 of 2 Packet Page 86 of 290 Pa y r o l l E a r n i n g s S u m m a r y R e p o r t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s Pa y P e r i o d : 7 5 4 ( 0 8 / 0 1 / 2 0 1 5 t o 0 8 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 5 ) Ho u r s A m o u n t Ho u r T y p e H o u r C l a s s D e s c r i p t i o n CE R T I F I C A T I O N I I I P A Y MI S C E L L A N E O U S cr t 0. 0 0 597.57 DE T E C T I V E P A Y MI S C E L L A N E O U S de t 0. 0 0 100.25 De t e c t i v e 4 % MI S C E L L A N E O U S de t 4 0. 0 0 962.34 ED U C A T I O N P A Y 2 % ED U C A T I O N P A Y ed 1 0. 0 0 713.39 ED U C A T I O N P A Y 4 % ED U C A T I O N P A Y ed 2 0. 0 0 852.06 ED U C A T I O N P A Y 6 % ED U C A T I O N P A Y ed 3 0. 0 0 4,459.02 FA M I L Y M E D I C A L / N O N P A I D A BS E N T fm l a 23 . 2 5 0.00 FA M I L Y M E D I C A L / S I C K SI C K fm l s 8. 0 3 212.59 Fa m i l y M e d i c a l L e a v e V a c a t i o n VA C A T I O N fm l v 16 . 0 6 425.19 HO L I D A Y HO L I D A Y ho l 9. 0 0 319.67 K - 9 P A Y MI S C E L L A N E O U S k9 0. 0 0 100.25 LO N G E V I T Y P A Y 2 % LO N G E V I T Y l g 1 0. 0 0 1,736.70 LO N G E V I T Y 5 . 5 % LO N G E V I T Y l g 10 0. 0 0 407.75 LO N G E V I T Y P A Y 4 % LO N G E V I T Y P A Y l g 2 0. 0 0 829.20 LO N G E V I T Y 6 % LO N G E V I T Y P A Y l g 3 0. 0 0 5,282.79 Lo n g ev i t y 1 % LO N G E V I T Y l g 4 0. 0 0 195.83 Lo n g ev i t y . 5 % LO N G E V I T Y l g 6 0. 0 0 258.07 Lo n g ev i t y 1 . 5 % LO N G E V I T Y l g 7 0. 0 0 908.73 Lo n g ev i t y 3 . 5 % LO N G E V I T Y l g 9 0. 0 0 86.45 MO T O R C Y C L E P A Y MI S C E L L A N E O U S mt c 0. 0 0 200.50 Pu b l i c D i s c l o s u r e S p ec i a l i s t MI S C E L L A N E O U S p ds 0. 0 0 46.65 PH Y S I C A L F I T N E S S P A Y MI S C E L L A N E O U S p h y 0. 0 0 1,688.32 PR O F E S S I O N A L S T A N D A R D S S MI S C E L L A N E O U S p ro f 0. 0 0 153.70 SP E C I A L D U T Y P A Y 5 % MI S C E L L A N E O U S sd p 0. 0 0 504.43 A DM I N I S T R A T I V E S E R G E A N T MI S C E L L A N E O U S s g t 0. 0 0 150.88 SI C K L E A V E A D D B A C K SI C K sl w 65 . 1 7 0.00 TR A F F I C MI S C E L L A N E O U S tr a f 0. 0 0 315.78 To t a l N e t P a y : $ 4 8 2 , 3 7 9 . 5 1 $7 2 1 , 3 3 2 . 9 6 19 , 0 0 5 . 3 1 08 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 5 Pa g e 2 of 2 Packet Page 87 of 290 Benefit Checks Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 754 - 08/01/2015 to 08/15/2015 Bank: usbank - US Bank Direct DepositCheck AmtNamePayee #DateCheck # 61760 08/20/2015 epoa2 EPOA-POLICE 2,808.00 0.00 61761 08/20/2015 epoa3 EPOA-POLICE SUPPORT 436.50 0.00 61762 08/20/2015 flex NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 901.00 0.00 61763 08/20/2015 teams TEAMSTERS LOCAL 763 4,372.00 0.00 61764 08/20/2015 icma VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884 2,337.51 0.00 10,855.01 0.00 Bank: wire - US BANK Direct DepositCheck AmtNamePayee #DateCheck # 2264 08/20/2015 awc AWC 302,201.84 0.00 2267 08/20/2015 us US BANK 99,216.08 0.00 2268 08/20/2015 mebt WTRISC FBO #N3177B1 88,098.21 0.00 2270 08/20/2015 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 20,132.00 0.00 2272 08/20/2015 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 4,957.60 0.00 2273 08/20/2015 flex NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 158.00 0.00 2274 08/20/2015 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 48.50 0.00 514,812.23 0.00 525,667.24 0.00Grand Totals: Page 1 of 18/20/2015 Packet Page 88 of 290 AM-7957 3. C. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/25/2015 Time:Consent Submitted For:Scott James Submitted By:Nori Jacobson Department:Finance Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Action Information Subject Title Approval of claim check #215857 for $2,167.00 and reissued check #215858 for $140.00 dated August 20, 2015. Recommendation Approval of claim checks. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non-approval of expenditures. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2015 Revenue: Expenditure:2,167.00 Fiscal Impact: Claim check $2,167.00 Reissued check $140.00 Attachments Claim cks 08-20-15a Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Scott James 08/20/2015 11:51 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 08/20/2015 11:52 AM Mayor Dave Earling 08/20/2015 02:05 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 08/20/2015 02:13 PM Packet Page 89 of 290 Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 08/20/2015 11:07 AM Final Approval Date: 08/20/2015 Packet Page 90 of 290 08/20/2015 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 11:01:58AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 215857 8/20/2015 064706 AWC AWC-Lim CORRECTION TO DAVIDSON LIM Add Davidson Lim's newborn to AWC 811.000.231.510 2,167.00 Total :2,167.00 215858 8/20/2015 073472 WAPRO 755 INV 755 EDMONDS PD - THOMPSON - FALL CON WAPRO FALL TRAINING 10/22/15~ 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 140.00 Total :140.00 Bank total :2,307.002 Vouchers for bank code :usbank 2,307.00Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report2 1Page: Packet Page 91 of 290 AM-7947 3. D. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/25/2015 Time:Consent Submitted By:Carrie Hite Department:Parks and Recreation Type: Forward to Consent Information Subject Title Snohomish County ILA Amendment Recommendation Approve on consent, authorizing the Mayor to sign ILA amendment. Previous Council Action Council authorized the Mayor to sign the original ILA with Snohomish County for acquisition of a beachfront property on 11/19/13. Council forwarded this to the consent agenda on 8/18/15. Narrative The City entered into an Interlocal Agreement with Snohomish County to receive $500,000 on Conservation Futures funds for acquisition of a beachfront property. After many discussions and three formal purchase offers, the owner of the property declined to sell it. In June, 2015, the City presented a proposal to the Conservation Futures Board; use the funds allocated for the beachfront property acquisition for Civic field acquisition. The Board voted unanimously to allow the City to use the funds to help acquire Civic field. Attached is the amendment to the original ILA authorizing this transaction. Attachments Original ILA Snohomish County ILA Amendment Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 08/19/2015 08:55 AM Mayor Dave Earling 08/19/2015 08:56 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 08/19/2015 09:23 AM Form Started By: Carrie Hite Started On: 08/19/2015 08:53 AM Final Approval Date: 08/19/2015 Packet Page 92 of 290 Packet Page 93 of 290 Packet Page 94 of 290 Packet Page 95 of 290 Packet Page 96 of 290 Packet Page 97 of 290 Packet Page 98 of 290 Packet Page 99 of 290 Packet Page 100 of 290 Packet Page 101 of 290 Packet Page 102 of 290 Packet Page 103 of 290 Packet Page 104 of 290 Packet Page 105 of 290 Packet Page 106 of 290 Packet Page 107 of 290 Packet Page 108 of 290 Packet Page 109 of 290 Packet Page 110 of 290 Packet Page 111 of 290 Packet Page 112 of 290 Packet Page 113 of 290 Packet Page 114 of 290 Packet Page 115 of 290 Packet Page 116 of 290 Packet Page 117 of 290 Packet Page 118 of 290 Packet Page 119 of 290 Packet Page 120 of 290 Packet Page 121 of 290 1 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SNOHOMISH COUNTY AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON CONCERNING ACQUISTION OF PROPERTY WITH SNOHOMISH COUNTY CONSERVATION FUTURES FUNDING THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 to that certain Interlocal Agreement between Snohomish County and the City of Edmonds, Washington concerning acquisition of property with Snohomish County Conservation Futures Funding (the “Agreement”) dated March 12, 2014, is made by and between Snohomish County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington (the “County”), and the City of Edmonds, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington (the “City”). NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual benefits conferred on both parties, the parties agree to AMENDMENT NO. 1 as follows: 1. The RECITALS of the Agreement are hereby amended to add Recital F, which reads as follows: F. The Snohomish County Conservation Futures Program Advisory Board, at its June 2, 2015 meeting reviewed a request by the City to transfer the recommended funding to another property known as Civic Field, addressed as 310 6th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington, and, after consideration, the Board recommended approval of this request. 2. Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 1. Identification of Property: The Property is located in the City of Edmonds, Washington and is generally legally described as follows: For APN/Parcel ID(s): 004342-099-001-00, 004342-100-000-00 and 004342-101-021-00 Lots 1 through 20, Block 99, all of Block 100, and Lots 21 through 40, Block 101, plat of the City of Edmonds, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Volume 2 of Plats, page 39, records of Snohomish County, Washington. Situate in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington. 3. Section 5.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: Packet Page 122 of 290 2 5.1 Acquire the Property within twenty-four (24) months of the Effective Date of this Agreement and upon closing maintain, operate and conserve the Property for open space and passive park purposes. The City shall undertake all reasonable efforts to acquire the Property but if the owner of is not a willing seller, the City shall not utilize the power of eminent domain to acquire the Property. 4. Section 5.2 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 5.2 Immediately following acquisition of the Property, execute and record an instrument conveying a Conservation Easement for the Property to the County in substantially the form of attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “Conservation Easement”). EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY MODIFIED IN THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1, ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE AGREEMENT SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. In witness whereof, the parties hereby execute this Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement. “COUNTY” “CITY” SNOHOMISH COUNTY CITY OF EDMONDS By: __________________________ By: ___________________________ John Lovick, Executive David O. Earling, Mayor Date Signed:___________________ Date Signed:__________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: Attest: ______________________________ _______________________ Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Date City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________ City Attorney Date Packet Page 123 of 290 3 Exhibit A Conservation Easement Packet Page 124 of 290 4 After Recording Return to: Assistant Clerk Snohomish County Council 3000 Rockefeller Avenue MS 609 Everett, WA 98201 Document Title: Grant of Conservation Easement Reference Numbers: Grantor: City of Edmonds, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington Grantee: Snohomish County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington Abbreviated Legal Description: Lots 1-20, Bl 99; all Bl 100, Lots 21-40, Bl 101, City of Edmonds Additional legal on page 15 Assessor’s Property Tax Parcel No.: 00434209900100, 00434210000000 and 00434210102100 GRANT OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT This grant of a perpetual CONSERVATION EASEMENT (hereinafter “Conservation Easement”) is made this ____ day of __________, 201__, by the City of Edmonds, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington (hereinafter “Grantor”), to Snohomish County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington (hereinafter “Grantee” or “County”), in perpetuity as holder of the Conservation Easement pursuant to RCW 64.04.130. RECITALS A. Grantor is the sole owner in fee simple of the property legally described on Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the “Protected Property”), which consists of approximately eight (8) acres of land, located on tax parcel 00434209900100, 00434210000000 and 00434210102100 Snohomish County, Washington; and B. Grantor warrants that Grantor has good legal title to the Protected Property, as well as the right to convey this Conservation Easement, and that the Protected Property is free and clear of any encumbrances except those general exceptions contained in the title policy and any special exceptions shown on the Preliminary Commitment that are accepted by the Grantee; and C. Grantor warrants that Grantor has no actual knowledge of a release or threatened release of hazardous substances or waste on the Protected Property; and D. The Protected Property possesses significant long-term natural and open space values (“Conservation Values”) of great importance to the people of Snohomish County for passive recreation; and E. This Conservation Easement is authorized by RCW 64.04.130, the provision of state law governing conservation easements; and Packet Page 125 of 290 5 F. The Grantor and the Grantee intend and have the common purpose of retaining the Protected Property for open space and passive recreation by placing restrictions on the use of the Protected Property, which shall continue as a servitude running with the land, and authorizing Grantee to monitor and enforce such restrictions, as described herein; and G. To document the present condition of the Protected Property so that Grantee or its assigns are able to monitor future uses and assure compliance with the terms of this Conservation Easement, Grantee has, at its expense, prepared baseline data consisting of photographs and other documentation summarized in Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full (the “Baseline Documentation”) that the parties agree provide an accurate representation of the Protected Property as of the date of this Conservation Easement; and H. Snohomish County, as the Grantee of this Conservation Easement, is a qualified holder of conservation easements under RCW 64.04.130; and I. This Conservation Easement is being purchased with funds provided, in part, by the County’s Conservation Futures Program pursuant to RCW 84.34.200, RCW 84.34.210, RCW 84.34.220 and chapter 4.14 SCC, which authorizes Snohomish County to purchase conservation easements for the purpose of protecting open space and timber land through restrictions on incompatible uses of the land; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the above recitals and the mutual covenants, terms, conditions, and restrictions contained herein and in payment of one dollar ($1.00) and other valuable consideration by Grantee, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by Grantor, and pursuant to the laws of the State of Washington, including chapters 64.04 and 84.34 of the Revised Code of Washington, the parties agree as follows: I. Grant. Grantor hereby grants to the Grantee a perpetual Conservation Easement over, under, across and through the Protected Property, as described in Exhibit A attached hereto, to protect, preserve, maintain, improve, restore, limit future use of or otherwise conserve the Protected Property as open space pursuant to chapter 84.34 RCW. II. Purpose. The purpose of this Conservation Easement is to assure that the Protected Property will be retained forever in its natural and open space condition and to prevent any use of the Protected Property that will significantly impair or interfere with the Conservation Values. Grantor intends that this Conservation Easement will confine the use of, or activity on, the Protected Property to such uses and activities that are consistent with this purpose. This statement of purpose is intended as a substantive provision of the Conservation Easement. Any ambiguity or uncertainty regarding the application of the provisions of this Conservation Easement will be resolved so as to further this purpose. III. Rights of the Grantee. Grantor hereby conveys to the Grantee all rights necessary to accomplish the purpose of this Conservation Easement, including, without limitation, the following: A. The right to protect, conserve, maintain, improve and restore the Conservation Values of the Protected Property; Packet Page 126 of 290 6 B. The right to enter the Protected Property or allow Grantee’s invitees or licensees to enter, at a reasonable time and upon prior written notice to the Grantor, for the following purposes (i) to make general inspection of the Protected Property to monitor compliance with this Conservation Easement; (ii) to protect, preserve, maintain, improve and restore the Conservation Values of the Protected Property; and (iii) to mitigate or terminate any violation or otherwise enforce the provisions of this Conservation Easement. C. The right to enjoin any use of, or activity on, the Protected Property that is inconsistent with the purpose of this Conservation Easement, including trespasses by members of the public, and to require the restoration of such area or features of the Protected Property as may be damaged by uses or activities inconsistent with the provisions of this Conservation Easement, all in accordance with Section XI. D. The right to enforce the terms of this Conservation Easement, consistent with Section XI. E. The right to place a sign on the Protected Property which acknowledges this Conservation Easement, any conditions on access, and any funding contribution to the acquisition of the Conservation Easement. The foregoing are rights, not obligations, and shall not create any third party rights of enforcement. IV. Permitted Uses and Activities. A. Grantor reserves to itself, and to its successors and assigns all rights accruing from its ownership of the Protected Property, including the right to engage in or permit or invite others to engage in all uses of the Protected Property that are not prohibited herein and are not inconsistent with the purpose of this Conservation Easement. In the event Grantor plans to undertake actions that could be inconsistent with the purpose of this Conservation Easement, Grantor shall provide Grantee written notice of such intent not less than sixty (60) days prior to the date Grantor intends to undertake the activity in question. The notice shall describe the nature, scope, design, location, timetable, and any other material aspect of the proposed activity in sufficient detail to permit Grantee to make an informed judgment as to its consistency with the purpose of this Conservation Easement. Grantee shall grant or withhold its approval in writing within sixty (60) days of receipt of Grantor’s notice. Grantee’s approval may be withheld only upon a reasonable determination by Grantee that the action proposed would be inconsistent with the purpose of this Conservation Easement. B. Any improvements to the Protected Property shall be limited to those which are passive in nature and meet the requirements and intent of RCW 84.34.200-220. Passive improvements include, but are not limited to, trails, interpretive centers, viewpoints, picnicking facilities, access, restrooms, playgrounds and restoration projects. Active recreational improvements are prohibited. Such improvements include, but are not limited to ball fields, use by motorized vehicles, swimming pools, and recreation centers. Packet Page 127 of 290 7 C. Nothing herein precludes the Grantor from demolishing, removing, and remediating existing improvements on the property as of the date of this Conservation Easement. V. Prohibited Uses and Activities. Neither Grantor nor its licensees or invitees shall use the Protected Property for any activity or purpose that is inconsistent with the purpose of this Easement. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following activities are expressly prohibited in the Protected Property: A. The placement or construction of any buildings, structures, improvements or equipment of any kind except as permitted in subsection IV. B; B. The continuation, creation, expansion or intensification of any use or activity that is contrary to the purpose of this Conservation Easement or prohibited in this section; C. Mining or extraction of soil, sand, gravel, oil, natural gas or other mineral; D. Dumping or accumulation of trash or refuse; E. The use of motorized vehicles except for those necessary to conduct the uses permitted under this Conservation Easement; and F. Any construction, expansion, repair or other development activity that would result in more than ten percent (10%) of the area of the Protected Property being covered with impervious surfaces, including, without limitation, asphalt, concrete, gravel, buildings, or ponds. VI. Transfer of Property. The Grantor agrees to: A. Incorporate the terms of this Conservation Easement by reference in any deed or other legal instrument by which it divests itself of any interest in all or a portion of the Protected Property, including, without limitation, leasehold interests. B. Describe the Conservation Easement in and append it to any contract for the transfer of any interest in the Protected Property. C. Give written notice to the Grantee of the transfer of any interest in all or any portion of the Protected Property no later than forty five (45) days prior to the date of such transfer. Such notice to the Grantee shall include the name, address and telephone number of the prospective transferee or the prospective transferee’s representative. The failure of the Grantor to perform any act required by this subsection shall not impair the validity of this Conservation Easement or limit its enforceability. VII. Extinguishment. This Conservation Easement may be terminated or extinguished, whether in whole or in part, only under one or more of the following circumstances: Packet Page 128 of 290 8 A. By judicial determination, by a court having jurisdiction over the Conservation Easement, those circumstances have rendered the purpose of this Conservation Easement impossible to achieve. B. In the event all or any of the Protected Property is taken by exercise of the power of eminent domain or acquired in lieu of condemnation, whether by public, corporate or other authority, except by the parties hereto. VIII. Proceeds. In the event of termination or extinguishment of this Conservation Easement, Grantee shall be compensated by Grantor for the fair market value of its interest in the Protected Property as determined by either a real estate appraiser licensed by the State of Washington or a court of competent jurisdiction. IX. Transfer or Assignment of the Conservation Easement. This Conservation Easement is transferable, but Grantee may assign its rights under this Conservation Easement only to an agency or organization that is authorized to acquire and hold conservation easements under RCW 64.04.130 or RCW 84.34.250, or otherwise qualified at the time of transfer under §170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. As a condition of such transfer, Grantee shall require that the transferee exercise its rights under the assignment consistent with the purpose of this Conservation Easement. X. Costs and Liabilities. Grantor retains all responsibilities and shall bear all costs and liabilities of any kind related to ownership, operation, upkeep, and maintenance of the Protected Property. A. Taxes. Grantor shall continue to be solely responsible for payment of all taxes and assessments levied against the Protected Property. B. Attorneys’ fees and costs for enforcement. If the Grantee commences and successfully prosecutes an enforcement action pursuant to Section XI below, the Grantor shall pay all reasonable costs and expenses associated with the enforcement action, including but not limited to, reasonable attorneys’ fees. XI. Enforcement & Monitoring. Grantee shall have the authority to enforce the terms of this Conservation Easement. To exercise this authority and thereby further the purpose of this Conservation Easement, the Grantee shall have the following rights under this Conservation Easement, which are subject to the stated limitations: A. Entry onto Protected Property with Reasonable Notice. If the Grantee has reason to believe that a violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement has occurred or is occurring, the Grantee shall have the right to enter the Protected Property, provided that reasonable advance notice is given to the Grantor, for the purpose of inspecting it for violations of any requirement set forth in this Conservation Easement. Additionally, the Grantee shall have the right to enter the Protected Property at least once a year, at a mutually agreed time, for purposes of inspection and compliance monitoring regardless of whether Grantee has reason to believe that a violation of this Conservation Easement exists. B. Enforcement Mechanisms and Remedial Measures. If the Grantee finds what it believes to be a violation of this Conservation Easement, it may, at its discretion, Packet Page 129 of 290 9 use any available legal or equitable remedy to secure compliance, including but not limited to seeking injunctive relief and/or specific performance requiring the Grantor to cease and desist all activity in violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement and to return the Protected Property to its condition prior to any violation(s). Except when an imminent violation could irreversibly diminish or impair the Conservation Values of the Protected Property, the Grantee shall give the Grantor written notice of the violation and thirty (30) days in which to take corrective action prior to commencing any legal action. The failure of Grantee to discover a violation or to take immediate legal action shall not bar it from doing so at a later time or constitute a waiver of its rights. Grantee may use the Baseline Documentation as a basis for enforcing the provisions of this Conservation Easement, but is not limited to the use of the Baseline Documentation to show a change of conditions. C. Emergency Enforcement. If Grantee, in its sole discretion, determines that circumstances require immediate action to prevent or mitigate significant damages to the Conservation Values of the Protected Property, Grantee may pursue its remedies under this section without prior notice to Grantor or without waiting for the period provided for cure to expire. D. Scope of Relief. Grantee’s rights under this section apply equally in the event of either actual or threatened violations of the terms of this Conservation Easement. Grantor agrees that the Grantee’s remedies at law for any violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement are inadequate and that Grantee shall be entitled to the injunctive relief described in this section, both prohibitive and mandatory, in addition to such other relief to which Grantee may be entitled, including specific performance of the terms of this Conservation Easement, without the necessity of proving either actual damages or the inadequacy of otherwise available legal remedies. Grantee’s remedies described in this section shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to all remedies now or hereafter existing at law or in equity. E. Costs of Enforcement. In the event Grantee must enforce the terms of this Conservation Easement, any costs of restoration necessitated by acts or omissions of Grantor, its agents, employees, contractors, invitees or licensees in violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement and Grantee’s reasonable enforcement expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ and consultants’ fees and costs, shall be borne by Grantor, its successors or assigns. F. Waiver of Defenses. Grantor acknowledges it has carefully reviewed this Conservation Easement and has consulted or had the opportunity to consult with counsel of its terms and requirements. In full knowledge of the provisions of this Conservation Easement, Grantor hereby waives any claim or defense it may have against Grantee or its successors or assigns under or pertaining to this Conservation Easement based upon waiver, laches, estoppel or prescription. G. Acts Beyond Grantor’s Control. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement shall be construed to entitle the Grantee to bring any action against Grantor to abate, correct or restore any condition in the Protected Property or to recover damages for any injury to or change in the Protected Property resulting from causes beyond Grantor’s control, including fire, flood, storm, and earth movement or the like. Packet Page 130 of 290 10 XII. Hold Harmless. Grantor hereby agrees to release and hold harmless, indemnify and defend Grantee, its officers, elected and appointed officials, employees and agents (collectively “Indemnified Parties”) from all liabilities, penalties, costs, losses, damages, expenses, causes of action, claims, demands or judgments, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ and consultants’ fees arising from or in any way connected with: A. Injury to or the death of any person, or physical damage to any property, resulting from any act, omission, condition or other matter related to or occurring on or about the Protected Property that is not a consequence of an activity of the Indemnified Parties undertaken under the rights granted to Grantee under this Conservation Easement; B. Violations or alleged violations of, or other failure to comply with, any federal, state or local law or regulation relating to pollutants or hazardous, toxic or dangerous substances or materials, including without limitation CERCLA (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) and MTCA (ch. 70.105D RCW), by any person other than any of the Indemnified Parties, in any way affecting, involving or relating to the Protected Property, unless such violations or alleged violations are due to the sole acts or omissions of any of the Indemnified Parties on the Protected Property; C. The presence or release in, on, from or about the Protected Property, at any time, of any substance now or hereafter defined, listed or otherwise classified pursuant to any federal, state or local law, regulation or requirement of any substance hazardous, toxic or dangerous to the air, water or soil, or in any way harmful or threatening to human health or the environment, unless caused solely by any of the Indemnified Parties. XIII. Recordation. Grantee shall record this instrument in the Office of the Snohomish County Auditor and may re-record it at any time. XIV. Notices. Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, or communication that any party desires or is required to give to another party under the terms of this Conservation Easement shall be in writing and either served at or mailed to: Grantee: Snohomish County County Executive Office 3000 Rockefeller Avenue, M/S #407 Everett, WA 98201 Grantor(s): City of Edmonds Office of the Mayor 700 Main Street Edmonds, W A 98020 or to such other address as any party from time to time shall designate by written notice to others. Packet Page 131 of 290 11 XV. General Provisions. A. Amendment. If circumstances arise under which an amendment to this Conservation Easement would be appropriate, the Grantor and Grantee may jointly amend this Conservation Easement by a written instrument to be recorded with the Snohomish County Auditor, provided that such an amendment does not diminish the effectiveness of this Conservation Easement in carrying out its purpose to permanently preserve and protect in perpetuity the Conservation Values of the Protected Property. B. Controlling Law. The interpretation or performance of this Conservation Easement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington and the Laws of the United States. Any legal proceeding regarding this Conservation Easement shall be initiated in Snohomish County Superior Court. C. Interpretation. This Conservation Easement shall be interpreted to resolve any ambiguities and questions of the validity of specific provisions to give maximum effect to its preservation purpose, as stated in Section II, above. If the Grantor has any doubt concerning the Conservation Easement, covenants, conditions, limitations or restrictions herein contained with respect to any particular use of the said Protected Property, it may submit a written request to the Grantee for consideration and approval of such use. D. Definitions. Any masculine term used in this Conservation Easement shall include the female gender. The terms “Grantor” and “Grantee,” wherever used in this Conservation Easement, and any pronouns used in their place, shall be held to mean and include respectively the above named Grantor, its successors, and assigns, and the above-named Grantee, its successors and assigns. E. Entire agreement. This Conservation Easement sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the issues addressed herein and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings, or agreements relating to these issues, all of which are merged herein. F. No forfeiture. Nothing in this Conservation Easement shall result in a forfeiture or revision of Grantor’s title in any respect. G. Successors. As stated in the above recitals, all covenants, terms, conditions, and restrictions of this Conservation Easement shall run with the land and be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. H. Severability. If any portion of this Conservation Easement is declared unlawful or invalid, the remainder of the Conservation Easement shall remain in full force and effect. Packet Page 132 of 290 12 I. Authority of signatories. The individuals executing this Conservation Easement warrant and represent that they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this Conservation Easement. J. No merger. If Grantee at some future time acquires the underlying fee title in the Protected Property, the interest conveyed by this Deed will not merge with fee title but will continue to exist and be managed as a separate estate. XVI. Environmental Compliance. A. Grantor represents and warrants that, after reasonable investigation and to the best of Grantor’s knowledge, Grantor and the Protected Property are in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, regulations and requirements applicable to the Protected Property and its use, including without limitation all federal, state and local environmental laws, regulations and requirements. B. Grantor further represents and warrants that there has been no release, dumping, burying, abandonment or migration from offsite onto the Property of any substances, materials or wastes that are hazardous, toxic, dangerous or harmful or are designated as, or contain components that are subject to regulation as hazardous, toxic, dangerous or harmful by any federal, state or local law, regulation, statute or ordinance. There is no pending or threatened litigation affecting the Property or any portion of the Property that will materially impair the Conservation Values. No civil or criminal proceedings have been instigated or are pending against Grantor or its predecessors by government agencies or third parties arising out of alleged violations of environmental laws, and neither Grantor nor its predecessors in interest have received any notice of violation, penalties, claims, demand letters or other notifications relating to a breach of environmental laws. C. Remediation. If at any time there occurs or has occurred a release in, on or about the Property of any substances now or hereafter defined, listed or otherwise classified pursuant to any federal, state or local law, regulation or requirement as hazardous, toxic or dangerous to the air, water or soil, or in any way harmful or threatening to human health or environment, Grantor agrees to take all steps necessary to assure its containment and remediation, including any cleanup that may be required, unless the release was caused by the Grantee, in which case Grantee shall be responsible for remediation. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD unto GRANTEE SNOHOMISH COUNTY, its respective successors and assigns forever. Packet Page 133 of 290 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have, by their authorized officers, set their own hands as of the day and year first stated above. GRANTOR: _________________________________ By: David O. Earling Its: City Mayor STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) I, _____________________________________ certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ________________________ is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that (he/she) signed this instrument; on oath stated that (he/she) was authorized to execute the instrument; and acknowledged it, as the _____________________ of the __________________________, the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. ___________________________________ Printed Name: _______________________ NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at _______________. My Commission Expires: ______________. Attest: _________________________ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM _________________________ City Attorney Date Packet Page 134 of 290 14 ACCEPTED BY GRANTEE: On _______ __, 201_ the Snohomish County Council adopted Motion ___-___ authorizing the County Executive to accept the Conservation Easement, pursuant to RCW 64.04.130. GRANTEE: SNOHOMISH COUNTY By: John Lovick Snohomish County Executive STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) I, ____________________________________ certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ________________________ is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that (he/she) signed this instrument; on oath stated that (he/she) was authorized to execute the instrument; and acknowledged it, as the _____________________ of Snohomish County, the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. ___________________________________ Printed Name: _______________________ NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at _______________. My Commission Expires: ______________. APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________ Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Date Packet Page 135 of 290 15 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SUBJECT TO CONSERVATION EASEMENT For APN/Parcel ID(s): 004342-099-001-00, 004342-100-000-00 and 004342-101-021-00 Lots 1 through 20, Block 99, all of Block 100, and Lots 21 through 40, Block 101, plat of the City of Edmonds, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Volume 2 of Plats, page 39, records of Snohomish County, Washington. Situate in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington. Packet Page 136 of 290 16 EXHIBIT B (BASELINE DOCUMENTATION) I. CURRENT CONDITIONS II. PROPERTY DATA A. Present Use. B. Accessibility and Road Frontage. C. Land Area. D. Land Shape. E. Land Contour and Elevations. F. Minerals and Soil. G. Flood Zone Information. H. Flora. I. Wetlands. Packet Page 137 of 290 17 III. PICTORIAL ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS The following photographs of the Protected Property are not in recordable form and are available and on file with the Snohomish County Parks and Recreation Department: • • • Said photographs demonstrate current site conditions, features, typical flora, and impact of human development Packet Page 138 of 290 AM-7956 3. E. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/25/2015 Time:Consent Submitted For:Patrick Doherty Submitted By:Patrick Doherty Department:Community Services Type: Action Information Subject Title Council Grant Requests for Tree Board and Diversity Commission Recommendation Approve as Consent Agenda item. Previous Council Action City Council approved $20,000 in the 2015 budget for grants to Boards and Commissions for their programs and activities, with a total of $8,400 allocated during the budget approval process to the following Boards/Commissions: 1) $5,000 for the Historic Preservation Commission for the 2016 Calendar, 2) $1,400 to the Tree Board for minutes-taking, and 3) $2,000 to the Planning Board for video taping of meetings. $11,600 remains in the fund balance. On 8/18/15 the City Council considered these new requests, with consensus being to forward them to the 8/25/15 Consent Agenda for approval. One issue mentioned was that the scope of services for the Tree Board consultant might also includes meeting-related support and logistics, such as minutes-taking, noticing, etc., as included for the Diversity Commission consultant. That change has been made to the Tree Board consultant's scope of services. Narrative Tree Board Request $3,000 is requested from the City Council’s Grant Program for Boards/Commissions to assist the Tree Board for the rest of 2015. Specifically the intent is to hire a consultant to conduct the following scope of services under the direction of Development Services Department Director, Shane Hope: Assist the Tree Board by: (a) Attending the Tree Board’s monthly meetings and helping address questions/information about tree issues—especially to follow up with city departments as needed. (b) Coordinating/developing the Board’s application (with Board input) to continue being certified for Tree City USA (c) Facilitate planning for an Arbor Day event (including ideas for outreach & education) (d) Post meeting notices, coordinate meeting locations, update website and post summary minutes of the meetings, as needed. (e) Providing other information/support, as time allows Packet Page 139 of 290 Diversity Commission Request $3,000 is requested from the City Council’s Grant Program for Boards/Commissions to assist in the establishment of the Council-approved Diversity Commission. Specifically the intent is to hire a consultant to conduct the following scope of services under the direction of the Economic Development/Community Services Director, Patrick Doherty: 1. Work with the Diversity Task Force to develop application, recruit and review applicants to seat the first Diversity Commission. 2. Assist Council/Mayor to appoint the first Commission. 3. Facilitate first Commission meetings, until officers can be appointed. 4. Assist the chair in development of the agenda, participate in monthly meetings. 5. Be a liaison between the Diversity Commission and City staff • Address issues raised by the public at meetings. Direct to appropriate staff for follow up. 6. Be the primary contact for the Diversity Commission, assist the commission in developing yearly work plan, outreach, programs and events. 7. Coordinate the provision of information, education and communication 8. Post meeting notices, coordinate meeting locations, update website and post summary minutes of the meetings. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 08/20/2015 09:47 AM Mayor Dave Earling 08/20/2015 09:53 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 08/20/2015 10:06 AM Form Started By: Patrick Doherty Started On: 08/20/2015 09:41 AM Final Approval Date: 08/20/2015 Packet Page 140 of 290 AM-7946 5. A. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/25/2015 Time:30 Minutes Submitted For:Ed Sibrel Submitted By:Megan Luttrell Department:Engineering Type: Information Information Subject Title Sunset Avenue Walkway Project Update Recommendation For information only. Previous Council Action December 20, 2011. An amendment to the Capital Facilities Plan, which includes the Sunset Ave. Walkway is passed. April 17, 2012. A Resolution of the Council in support of pursuing an RCO grant for the design of City Park and the Sunset Overlook projects is passed. June 4, 2013. A Resolution of the City Council in strong support of a 2013 Transportation Investment Package, including the Sunset Avenue Walkway is passed. December 3, 2013. Public Comment and discussion of the Sunset Avenue Walkway Project. March 4, 2014. Discussion and potential action regarding modifying or terminating the Sunset Walkway Project. March 25, 2014. Public comment and continued discussion of the Sunset Avenue Project. April 1, 2014. A continuation of discussion concerning the project. June 24, 2014. The City’s Transportation Improvement Plan, including the Sunset Avenue Walkway Project passes. July 16, 2014. A motion to amend the Transportation Improvement Plan to remove the Sunset Avenue Walkway Project was defeated. August 19, 2014. A proposal to restripe Sunset Avenue to emulate what the project may look like as a proof-of-concept was approved. May 5, 2015. An update to the status of the proof-of-concept was presented. Packet Page 141 of 290 Narrative The restriping of Sunset Avenue to include the walkway was completed and fully opened for public use on September 18th of 2014. Several field adjustments were made to the walkway application as it was installed, and subsequent, targeted adjustments to particular areas have also been made as needed when issues have been identified. The purpose of this presentation is to provide an update on the status of the project, a review of draft survey questions designed to gather public opinion about the project, a discussion of traffic data and accident history that has been collected since the project began as well as some usage data by various modes of non-motorized traffic. Staff will make a presentation regarding these issues and will answer questions about the project. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Public Works Phil Williams 08/20/2015 10:18 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 08/20/2015 10:23 AM Mayor Dave Earling 08/20/2015 10:43 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 08/20/2015 10:45 AM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 08/19/2015 08:15 AM Final Approval Date: 08/20/2015 Packet Page 142 of 290 AM-7953 5. B. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/25/2015 Time:20 Minutes Submitted For:Bertrand Hauss Submitted By:Megan Luttrell Department:Engineering Type: Information Information Subject Title Presentation of the Draft SR-104 Corridor Study Recommendation Forward to the consent agenda for approval at a future Council meeting. Previous Council Action None. Narrative The SR-104 Corridor Analysis focuses on a 5-mile stretch of principal arterial, from 76th Ave W to the Edmonds Ferry Terminal. Due to the various modes of transportation interfacing along this regional corridor (high vehicle ADT, multiple bus stops, high pedestrian activity along certain sections, and bicycle connections), many deficiencies exist. The purpose of this analysis was to develop a corridor master plan, identifying safety, access management and streetscape improvements coordinated with Complete Streets principles and integrated with the proposed form-based code for Westgate Village (SR-104 & 100th Ave) and other zoning on SR-104. The City has been working with the engineering firm Fehr and Peers on this analysis. The traffic modeling, accident history, access management, and safety of all modes of transportation were analyzed along the corridor. Recommended improvements are identified to resolve those various deficiencies and then prioritized based on a set of different criteria (safety, accessibility, identity, financial, and grant eligibility). The document does not recommend addition of bike facilities within the SR-104 right-of-way prism but does identify alternate routes for north/south and east/west connections. The interactions between transportation and land use in the Westgate Area were also examined and future recommendations on this issue are included in Appendix C. A presentation was held and questions taken at the July 14 th Council meeting. The only specific change requested from Council was a proposal to make improvements to the SR-104/244th intersection based on current and future congestion levels. This item will be added to the final document, to be completed prior to its final approval. At the conclusion of the meeting, staff indicated that additional questions should be submitted via email or by phone. None have yet been received from Council. The same presentation was made to the Planning Board at their July 22 nd meeting. All questions were answered during their Q&A session. The Board indicated the analysis was thorough and complete and recommended it be used for future planning and implementation. Packet Page 143 of 290 The project began in October 2014 and is scheduled for completion in September 2015. Comments regarding this analysis were received from citizens at two Open Houses (on February 25, 2014 & June 10, 2015), Washington State Department of Transportation at a meeting on February 27, 2015, and the SR-104 Committee (which held monthly meetings for the duration of the project). Attachments Draft SR-104 Corridor Study Appendix A - Project Diagrams Appendix B - Prioritization Results Appendix C - Westgate Memo Appendix D - Level of Services Calcs Planning Board Minutes - July 22, 2015 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Public Works Phil Williams 08/20/2015 10:30 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 08/20/2015 10:31 AM Mayor Dave Earling 08/20/2015 10:44 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 08/20/2015 10:45 AM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 08/19/2015 02:15 PM Final Approval Date: 08/20/2015 Packet Page 144 of 290 SR 104 Complete Street Corridor Analysis Draft July 2015 1001 4th Ave Suite 4120 Seattle, WA 98154 Prepared by Packet Page 145 of 290 July 2015 DRAFT Table of Contents STUDY PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY......................................................................................................... 1 Project Overview .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Guiding Principles ................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Community Outreach ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 CORRIDOR PROFILE ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Character ................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Land Use .................................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Physical Conditions ............................................................................................................................................................. 9 Roadway Cross-Section .................................................................................................................................... 9 traffic control ..................................................................................................................................................... 11 Sight Distance .................................................................................................................................................... 12 Access Management ....................................................................................................................................... 15 Transportation Operations ............................................................................................................................................ 16 Intersection traffic level of service ............................................................................................................. 19 Transit .................................................................................................................................................................................... 32 Existing ................................................................................................................................................................. 32 Future .................................................................................................................................................................... 34 Washington State Ferries ............................................................................................................................................... 36 Parking .................................................................................................................................................................................. 36 RECOMMENDED PLAN ....................................................................................................................................37 Corridor Project Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 38 Project Prioritization ........................................................................................................................................................ 46 Quick Win Projects ........................................................................................................................................................... 48 Westgate Plan Concept .................................................................................................................................................. 50 Roadway Cross-Section .................................................................................................................................................. 54 Packet Page 146 of 290 July 2015 DRAFT Appendices Appendix A Project Diagrams Appendix B Prioritization Results Appendix C Westgate Memoranda Appendix D Level of Service Calculations List of Figures Figure 1. Study Area ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2. Planning Context FOr the SR 104 Complete Street Corridor ........................................................................... 5 Figure 3. Land Uses .............................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 4. Roadway Cross-Sections And Traffic Control ...................................................................................................... 10 Figure 5. Sight Distance Issues ..................................................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 6. Traffic Volume .................................................................................................................................................................. 18 Figure 7. Intersection Level of Service-PM Peak Hour ........................................................................................................ 22 Figure 8. Crashes Along SR 104 ................................................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 9. Average Weekday Vehicle Speeds Along SR 104 .............................................................................................. 26 Figure 10. Pedestrian Facilities ..................................................................................................................................................... 29 Figure 11. Bicycle Facilities ............................................................................................................................................................. 31 Figure 12. Existing Transit Service ............................................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 13. Future Priority Transit Corridors ............................................................................................................................. 35 Figure 14a. Recommended Projects .......................................................................................................................................... 39 Figure 14B. Recommended Projects .......................................................................................................................................... 40 Packet Page 147 of 290 July 2015 DRAFT Figure 14C. Recommended Projects .......................................................................................................................................... 41 Figure 14D. Recommended Projects ......................................................................................................................................... 42 Figure 14E. Recommended Projects .......................................................................................................................................... 43 Figure 14F. Recommended Projects .......................................................................................................................................... 44 Figure 15. Westgate Access Management Conceptual Plan ............................................................................................ 53 Figure 16. SR 104 Preferred Cross Sections ............................................................................................................................ 55 List of Tables Table 1. Existing and Future Land Use ......................................................................................................................................... 7 Table 2. Typical Roadway Level of Service Characteristics ............................................................................................... 20 Table 3. Level of Service Criteria for Intersections ............................................................................................................... 21 Table 4. Total Collisions And Collision Rates .......................................................................................................................... 23 Table 5. Observed Corridor Speeds ........................................................................................................................................... 24 Table 6. Recommended Projects ................................................................................................................................................. 45 Table 7. Prioritization Criteria And Weighting ....................................................................................................................... 47 Table 8. Recommended Projects ................................................................................................................................................. 48 Table 9. Quick Win Projects ........................................................................................................................................................... 49 Packet Page 148 of 290 June 2015 DRAFT S-1 Packet Page 149 of 290 July 2015 DRAFT 1 STUDY PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY PROJECT OVERVIEW The SR 104 Corridor Complete Streets Corridor Analysis evaluates existing transportation conditions, relies on input from stakeholders and users, and analyzes potential safety and mobility improvements for drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians, and transit. The study identifies key improvements that may be included for future consideration in the city’s Capital Improvement Program. SR 104, shown in Figure 1, extends for four miles between Downtown Edmonds and 76th Ave W, just west of I-5. It serves as one of two primary east-west arterial connections in Edmonds. GUIDING PRINCIPLES After consulting with stakeholders, a corridor vision was developed that is based on the following guiding principles:  Support both local and regional mobility  Improve circulation and safety for biking, walking, and transit access  Reinforce land use vision, including at Westgate  Create a sense of arrival in Edmonds and tie to the waterfront  Coordinate with the state and other entities  Take a phased approach that provides benefits over time  Promote environmental sustainability and economic vitality Working with a Technical Advisory Committee and conducting extensive public outreach, the City used these principles to identify and prioritize the corridor recommendations outlined in this report. Packet Page 150 of 290 July 2015 DRAFT 2 FIGURE 1. STUDY AREA COMMUNITY OUTREACH Community involvement was important in developing and implementing a successful corridor plan for SR 104. To prepare a common vision for future improvements to the corridor, the City gathered input from the community at two public open houses and use of the city’s website. A technical advisory committee Packet Page 151 of 290 July 2015 DRAFT 3 was also formed to serve as a forum for information sharing among city staff, City Council, WSDOT, Community Transit, and the Planning Board. The project team conducted stakeholder interviews, created informational materials and website content, and facilitated the committee meetings. COMMUNITY OUTREACH The City identified key target audiences to engage: Businesses and residents along the project corridor and within the City of Edmonds Users of the project corridor; local and regional Local agencies, such as Edmonds School District and Community Transit Washington State Department of Transportation City of Edmonds staff Elected officials Packet Page 152 of 290 July 2015 DRAFT 4 CORRIDOR PROFILE This section characterizes existing and future conditions on SR 104 in the City of Edmonds. The following sections describe the corridor in terms of character, land, use, physical conditions, and transportation operations. CHARACTER The four-mile section of SR 104 changes character several times, from a downtown environment near Puget Sound, to neighborhood zones with frequent property access, to commercial areas that serve multiple businesses. The changing character means that a single design concept may not be appropriate along the entire corridor. SR 104 can be thought of as having four primary ‘zones’, as shown in Figure 2. The project recommendations were tailored to best meet the needs of the surrounding land uses and roadway function as shown in these zones. WSDOT Main Street Design WSDOT has developed Chapter 1150 of its Design Manual (July 2014) that defines Context and Modally Integrated Design- Main Streets. WSDOT realizes that many state highway segments function as the main streets of communities. The main streets not only move people and goods, but provide a sense of place. In these locations, there is a need for design flexibility to address tradeoff aspects in design. These tradeoffs can be articulated once a community vision is created for a street. Along SR 104, WSDOT and the City of Edmonds collaborated to create a vision for the roadway, which changes character throughout its length. While SR 104 is an important highway connector within the region, and a Highway of Statewide Significance, it also serves as one of the main streets for the Edmonds community. This is particularly apparent in the Westgate area, which the City is planning to redevelop over time into a mixed use, pedestrian- oriented neighborhood. In this context, WSDOT is supportive of street design on SR 104 that facilitates safe and efficient mobility for all travel modes. This means that there are tradeoffs between such factors as vehicle speed and delay, roadway width, and pedestrian treatments. WSDOT has indicated that it has no plans to widen SR 104 or to add turning lanes throughout its length. The existing roadway configuration will allow for efficient movement of vehicles through the corridor, while still providing an opportunity to calm the traffic speeds and facilitate safe and efficient pedestrian movements. Packet Page 153 of 290 199th St SW 240th St SW 9t h A v e N Elm St 74 t h A v e W NE 205th St 80 t h A v e W 25t h A v e N W 202nd St SW 203rd St SW 2 26th St SW 70 t h A v e W 2 7 t h A v e N W 228th St SW NW 2 01st St 238th St SW 82 n d A v e W 4t h A v e S NW 195th St NW 199th St 208th St SW 1 2 t h A v e N 216th St SW 72 n d A v e W 234th St SW 7 5 t h A v e W N 205th St Bell St 8t h A v e N W 232nd St SW 12 t h A v e N W 15 t h A v e N W NW 205th St 5t h A v e S 200th St SW 212th St SW 218th St SW Pine St 236th St SW 76 t h A v e W 196th St SW 10 0 t h A v e W 220th St SW Main St 83 r d A v e W 8 1 s t A v e W 3r d A v e S 88 t h A v e W 11 4 t h A v e W 224th St SW Planning Context for the SR 104 Complete Streets Corridor Neighborhood Connections Pedestrian-Oriented Ferry Terminal Area Boulevard Commercial Figure 2 \\ F p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ C o r r i d o r R e p o r t \ F i g 2 _ C o n t e x t . m x d LakeBallinger Edmonds 104 Snohomish CountyKing County 99 Packet Page 154 of 290 July 2015 DRAFT 6 Pedestrian-Oriented Ferry Waiting Area The section of SR 104 in downtown Edmonds provides access to downtown land uses and also serves as a waiting area for auto traffic entering and leaving the ferry terminal. The roadway accommodates a mix of pedestrians, stopped cars, and other multimodal activities. Insert Photo Boulevard Portions of the corridor at the east and west ends function like a boulevard, providing users with smooth flowing entry and exit points to/from the city. Property access is limited in these segments. Insert Photo Commercial The Commercial zone around the Westgate area serves all modes and trip types. The roadway in this area accommodates business access and transit stops, emphasizing multimodal interaction and gateway elements. Frequent pedestrian movements require safe crossings of SR 104 and side streets. Insert Photo Neighborhood Connections The segment from around 95th Ave W and 240th St SW emphasizes connections to neighborhoods on both sides of SR 104. The corridor in this area serves all trip types but focuses on balancing access needs from side streets and driveways with safety for bicycle, pedestrian and auto trips. Insert Photo Packet Page 155 of 290 July 2015 DRAFT 7 LAND USE Land use in the vicinity of SR 104 consists largely of single and multi-family homes combined with commercial development focused in downtown Edmonds, Westgate, and SR 99. To the west of SR 104 are two elementary schools and one K-8 school, as shown in Figure 3. At the west end of the corridor, SR 104 is adjacent to Edmonds City Park and Edmonds Marsh. Along the waterfront, SR 104 provides convenient access to Brackett’s Landing and Marina Beach Park. Table 1 summarizes existing land use and the amount of growth expected to occur by 2035 both citywide and within approximately a one-half mile vicinity of SR 104. By 2035, almost 40 percent of the city’s households and 50 percent of the employment will be located within the general SR 104 corridor. TABLE 1. EXISTING AND FUTURE LAND USE Area Existing 2035 Total Growth Percentage Growth HH EMP HH EMP HH EMP HH EMP Corridor Vicinity 6,700 4,600 8,350 5,750 1,650 1,150 25% 25% Edmonds Citywide 19,300 10,000 22,650 12,450 3,350 2,450 17% 24% Notes: HH = Households; EMP = Employment Sources: City of Edmonds Packet Page 156 of 290 SherwoodElementarySchool WestgateElementarySchool MadronaSchool 2 0 8 t h St SW 6 t h A v e S E d mondsWay Robin H o o d D r Caspers St 212th St SW S u n s e t A v e N Ad m i r a l W a y F i r d a l e A v e 10 4 t h A v e W 7 t h A v e N 22 6 th St SW 3rd A v e N 11 4 t h A v e W 95 t h P l W 9t h A v e N Ol y m p i c A v e Ti m b e r L n Maple St 224th St SW 216th St SW 9t h A v e S Bowdoin Wa y 3r d A v e S 200th St SW Walnut St Dayton St 218th St SW 98 t h A v e W 5 t h A v e S 244th St SW W o o d w a y P a r k R d 96 t h A v e W 92 n d A v e W 88 t h A v e W Pine St 228th St SW 220th St SW 10 0 t h A v e W 8 0 t h A v e W 84 t h A v e W Main S t Kingston-EdmondsFerry Land Uses PugetSound Figure 3 \\ f p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ C o r r i d o r R e p o r t \ F i g 3 _ L a n d U s e s . m x d Snohomish CountyKing County Other Commercial Recreation School Medical Government Residential Vacant/Open Space City ofEdmonds 104 99 Packet Page 157 of 290 July 2015 DRAFT 9 PHYSICAL CONDITIONS The guiding principles emphasize addressing safety needs for all travel modes, while maintaining the corridor’s identity. This section describes the physical conditions that frame many of the corridor’s needs. Many of the safety concerns along SR 104 relate to the physical conditions along the corridor. The following section describes:  Roadway cross-section  Traffic Control  Topography  Sight Distance  Drainage  Illumination ROADWAY CROSS-SECTION SR 104 is characterized as a four to five-lane roadway along its length. Figure 4 shows typical sections for the existing roadway. The five-lane sections typify SR 104 where left turns are required. A four-lane section is provided where SR 104 passes through the SR 99 interchange and approaching downtown Edmonds. The roadway also provides ferry vehicle queuing north of Pine Street to the Edmonds Ferry Terminal. Most of the corridor has a right-of-way width of 80 feet. However, the right-of-way is not readily usable in some sections due to slopes, vegetation, and other impediments. Bus pull-outs are provided at several bus stops along SR 104. WHAT WE HEARD FROM THE COMMUNITY Improving safety in the corridor is very important; especially for bicycles and pedestrians Any improvements should be context sensitive of the blend between neighborhoods and commercial areas Traveling the corridor can be difficult during rush hours and during ferry loading/unloading, but there is minimal interest in widening the corridor for more automobile lanes. Providing good access to and from Westgate is important Packet Page 158 of 290 èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëííí èéëìí èéëìí PugetSound Snohomish County King County City ofEdmonds 104 99 208th St S W Admi r a l W a y 6t h A v e S Ed m o n d s W a y R o b i n H o o d D r Caspers St Suns e t A v e N Fird a l e A v e 10 4 t h A v e W 7 t h A v e N 226th St SW 3rd A v e N 11 4 t h A v e W 95 t h P l W 9t h A v e N Ol y m p i c A v e 212th St SW Ti m b e r L n Maple St 224th St SW 216th St SW 9t h A v e S Bowdoin Wa y 3r d A v e S Walnut St Dayton St 200th St SW 98 t h A v e W 5t h A v e S 244th St SW W o o d w a y P a r k R d 218th St SW 9 6 t h A v e W 92 n d A v e W 8 8 t h A v e W Pine St 228th St SW 10 0 t h A v e W 220th St SW 80 t h A v e W 84 t h A v e W Main St 76 t h A v e W Kings t o n - E d m o n d s F e r r y Roadway Cross Sections and Traffic Control Figure 4 èéëìí Traffic Signal èéëííí Emergency Signal 4 Lanes 5 Lanes FerryLoadingFerryLoading Packet Page 159 of 290 July 2015 DRAFT 11 TRAFFIC CONTROL Along the four-mile SR 104 corridor, eight traffic signals are in operation, as well as an emergency signal. The signals locations are as follows (see Figure 4): Traffic Signals:  Main St  Dayton St  226th St SW  100th Ave W  95th Pl W  236th St SW  244th St SW (2 SB)  76th Ave W Emergency Signal:  232nd St SW The emergency signal has a yellow light for traffic along SR 104. In the event of an emergency response, vehicles along SR 104 will then be given a red light. At 244th St SW, there are two coordinated signals for southbound traffic; northbound vehicles only experience a signal if turning onto 244th St SW from SR 104. Northbound traffic boarding the ferry has a designated holding area. This begins at the SR 104 and 5th Avenue W split, and continues along the duration of the corridor. Signs along the corridor notify drivers of the ferry loading and warn drivers of other vehicles making a right turn off of SR 104 and across the ferry loading lanes. During ferry loading/unloading, traffic is controlled manually to enable continuous movements to/from the boat. Packet Page 160 of 290 July 2015 DRAFT 12 SIGHT DISTANCE The SR 104 Corridor is characterized by curving road segments with limited sight distance in some sections. Motorists need adequate sigh distance or visibility for turning onto and from SR 104. The combination of frequent driveway and side street approaches to SR 104, along with some tight roadway curves, creates several areas with challenging or severely limited sight distance. Figure 5 shows those areas with sight distance issues for side streets/driveways (i.e. drivers wanting to turn onto SR 104) and for SR 104 itself (i.e. drivers wanting to turn left from SR 104 into a side street or driveway). These locations of limited sight distance are correlated with the locations of collisions, as described in a later section. An example of sight distance issues along SR 104 can be seen going northbound when approaching Pine St. At higher speeds, vehicles may be unable to react in time to a right-turning vehicle out of Pine Street. The recent speed limit reduction has helped improve access at this location. Rockeries and overgrown brush encroach on the right of way and restrict sight distance for cars attempting to turn onto SR 104, as shown in the image on 232nd Street SW. SR 104 Corridor Functional Classification SR 104 is one of two main east-west corridor s connecting downtown Edmonds with SR 99 and I-5. It also provides a direct route to the Ferry terminal. The City of Edmonds and WSDOT classify SR 104 as a principal arterial. SR 104 connects to one other principal arterial – the north/south running SR 99. Minor arterials intersect SR 104 at 5th Ave S, 100th Ave W, 228th St SW, 238th St SW, and 76th Ave W. These arterials feed Edmonds traffic from local and collector streets onto the principal arterial routes. Packet Page 161 of 290 July 2015 DRAFT 13 Packet Page 162 of 290 208th S t SW 6 th A v e S E d m o n d s W a y R o b i n H o o d D r Caspers St 212th St SW Su nse t A v e N Adm i r a l W a y Fi r d a l e A v e 10 4 t h A v e W 7 t h A v e N 226th St SW 3rd A v e N 11 4 th A v e W 95 t h P l W 9t h A v e N Ol ym p i c A v e Ti m b e r Ln Maple St 224th St SW 216th St SW 9t h Av e S Bowd oin W a y3r d A v e S 200th St SW Walnut St Dayton St 218th St SW 98 t h A v e W 5t h A v e S 244th St SW W o o d w a y P a r k R d 9 6 t h A v e W 92 n d A v e W 8 8 t h A v e W Pine St 228th St SW 220th St SW 10 0t h A v e W 8 0t h A ve W 84 t h A v e W Main St Kingston-Ed m ondsFerry Sight Distance Issues Figure 5 \\ f p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ C o r r i d o r R e p o r t \ F i g 5 _ S i g h t D i s t a n c e . mx d Sight Distance Issues Along SR 104 From Side Street / Driveway Puget Sound Snohomish County King County City of Edmonds 104 99 Packet Page 163 of 290 July 2015 DRAFT 15 ACCESS MANAGEMENT Numerous commercial and private driveways along the corridor complicate the sight distance and traffic safety issues. WSDOT requires strict access management for new development, but the existing access patterns result in driveways that are hidden due to vegetation, topography or geometric conditions. Although there is limited access management, some locations have features in place. In the eastbound direction at 100th Ave W, a C-curb prevents vehicles from attempting an early left turn into the QFC shopping center. The C-curb also prevents the cross traffic from coming out of the Bartell’s and going straight across to QFC. LIGHTING Lighting is a direct contributor to safety. Existing light levels were determined using lighting analysis that examined average light levels (i.e. average light visible per square foot on the roadway) and what is called the uniformity ratio, the average light level to the darkest areas on the roadway. The analysis indicates that below-standard light levels on SR 104 exist at both westbound and eastbound approaches to 97th Ave. W and 236th St. SW, as well as mid corridor between 232nd Pl. SW and 236th St. SW. The remainder of the corridor appears to meet the standards in the current configuration, but may warrant upgrades with proposed improvements, such as intersection improvements to 100 th Ave. W (Westgate area). Refer to Appendix A for a lighting diagram of the corridor. Packet Page 164 of 290 July 2015 DRAFT 16 TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS The guiding principles emphasize safety for all modes. Understanding the transportation operations is important to the safety issues. This section describes existing transportation operations along SR 104 for each supported transportation mode: automobile, bicycle, pedestrians, and transit. Traffic flow, corridor safety, speed, and parking are discussed as they relate to these four modes of travel. TRAFFIC FLOW Peak hour and average weekday daily traffic (AWDT) counts were collected at three locations along SR 104 in October 2014 (Figure 6). Counts were performed for a 24-hour period on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, days which represent the most typical weekday traffic conditions. Daily traffic totals for the three days were averaged to obtain the final AWDT values. The corridor carries from 11,000 daily vehicles (mostly stopped or moving slowly) at the Pine Street intersection to more than 20,000 daily vehicles travelling at 40 mph at the east end of the corridor. AM peak hour counts range from 700 vehicles at the Pine Street intersection up to 1,300 vehicles at the Westgate area near 100th Ave W. PM peak hour counts range from 900 vehicles at the west end of the corridor to 1,600 vehicles between Westgate and the east end of the corridor. Afternoon commute traffic on SR 104 is heaviest in the northbound direction, while morning commute patterns show similar volumes in both directions. As with the daily counts, AM and PM peak hour demand is heaviest near Westgate and the east end of the corridor. FERRY TRAFFIC EFFECTS Ferry loading and unloading can cause spikes in vehicle volumes during a short timeframe. Ferries leave Edmonds approximately every 45 minutes during peak periods, and with each ferry holding up to 188 vehicles, this surge of volume can affect the corridor. Packet Page 165 of 290 July 2015 DRAFT 17 To better understand how peak hour travel patterns impact corridor traffic conditions, additional traffic counts were collected at eight intersections along SR 104:  100th Avenue W  238th Street  Meridian Avenue  Sunset Avenue  Dayton Street  226th Street  95th Place W  236th Street SW Packet Page 166 of 290 èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëííí èéëìí èéëìí Puget Sound Snohomish County King County City of Edmonds 104 99 ADT: 5,000 AM: 270 PM: 420ADT: 6,000 AM: 450 PM: 470 ADT: 10,300 AM: 660 PM: 900 ADT: 10,500 AM: 660 PM: 770 H H H H ADT: 11,000 AM: 680 PM: 1,010 ADT: 10,500 AM: 600 PM: 630 H H 208th S t SW Adm i r a l W a y 6t h A v e S E d m o n d s W a y R o b i n H o o d D r Caspers St Sun s e t A v e N Fi r d a l e A v e 10 4 t h A v e W 7 t h A v e N 226th St SW 3rd A v e N 11 4 t h A v e W 9 5t h Pl W 9t h A v e N O ly m p i c A v e 212th St SW Ti m b e r L n Maple St 224th St SW 216th St SW 9t h A v e S Bowd o i n W a y 3r d Av e S Walnut St Dayton St 200th St SW 98 t h Av e W 5t h A v e S 244th St SW W o o d w a y P a r k R d 218th St SW 9 6 t h A v e W 92 n d A v e W 8 8 t h A v e W Pine St 228th St SW 10 0 th A v e W 220th St SW 80 t h A v e W 84 t h Av e W Main St 7 6t h A v e W Ki n g s t o n - E d m o n d s F e r ry Traffic Volumes Figure 6 \\ f p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ C o r r i d o r R e p o r t \ F i g 6 _ T r a f f i c V o l u m e s .m x d èéëìí Traffic Signal èéëííí Emergency Signal ADT: ### AM: ### PM: ### Afternoon peak hour vehicle traffic volume Morning peak hour vehicle traffic volume Average daily traffic volume Packet Page 167 of 290 July 2015 DRAFT 19 INTERSECTION TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE Level of Service (LOS) is the primary measurement used to determine the operating quality of a roadway segment or intersection. The quality of traffic conditions is graded into one of six LOS designations: A, B, C, D, E, or F. Table 2 presents typical characteristics of the different LOS designations. LOS A and B represent the fewest traffic slow-downs, and LOS C and D represent intermediate traffic congestion. LOS E indicates that traffic conditions are at or approaching urban congestion; and LOS F indicates that traffic volumes are at a high level of congestion and unstable traffic flow. Level of Service Criteria Methods described in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board 2010) were used to calculate the LOS for signalized and stop-controlled intersections. Table 3 summarizes the LOS criteria for signalized and stop-controlled intersections. LOS for intersections is determined by the average amount of delay experienced by vehicles at the intersection. For stop-controlled intersections, LOS depends on the average delay experienced by drivers on the stop-controlled approaches. Thus, for two-way or T- intersections, LOS is based on the average delay experienced by vehicles entering the intersection on the minor (stop-controlled) approaches. For all-way stop controlled intersections, LOS is determined by the average delay for all movements through the intersection. The LOS criteria for stop-controlled intersections have different threshold values than those for signalized intersections, primarily because drivers expect different levels of performance from distinct types of transportation facilities. In general, stop-controlled intersections are expected to carry lower volumes of traffic than signalized intersections. Thus, for the same LOS, a lower level of delay is acceptable at stop-controlled intersections than it is for signalized intersections. Packet Page 168 of 290 July 2015 DRAFT 20 TABLE 2. TYPICAL ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS Level of Service Characteristic Traffic Flow A Free flow – Describes a condition of free flow with low volumes and high speeds. Freedom to select desired speeds and to maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely high. Stopped delay at intersections is minimal. B Stable flow – Represents reasonable unimpeded traffic flow operations at average travel speeds. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted and stopped delays are not bothersome. Drivers are not generally subjected to appreciable tensions. C Stable flow – In the range of stable flow, but speeds and maneuverability are more closely controlled by the higher volumes. The selection of speed is now significantly affected by interactions with others in the traffic stream, and maneuvering within the traffic stream required substantial vigilance on the part of the user. The general level of comfort and convenience declines noticeably at this level. D Stable flow – Represents high-density, but stable flow. Speed and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted, and the driver or pedestrian experiences a generally poor level of comfort and convenience- Small increases in traffic flow will generally cause operational problems at this level. E Unstable flow – Represents operating conditions at or near the maximum capacity level. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely difficult, and it is generally accomplished by forcing a vehicle or pedestrian to "give way" to accommodate such maneuvers. Comfort and convenience levels are extremely poor, and driver or pedestrian frustration is generally high. Operations at this level are usually unstable, because small increases in flow or minor disturbances within the traffic stream will cause breakdowns F Forced flow – Describes forced or breakdown flow, where volumes are above theoretical capacity. This condition exists wherever the amount of traffic approaching a point exceeds the amount that can traverse the point. Queues form behind such locations, and operations within the queue are characterized by stop-and-go waves that are extremely unstable. Vehicles may progress at reasonable speeds for several hundred feet or more, and then be required to stop in a cyclical fashion. Source: Transportation Research Board 2010 Packet Page 169 of 290 July 2015 DRAFT 21 TABLE 3. LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR INTERSECTIONS Average Delay per Vehicle (seconds/vehicle) LOS Designation Signalized Intersections Stop-Controlled Intersections A ≤ 10 ≤ 10 B > 10 – 20 > 10 – 15 C > 20 – 35 > 15 – 25 D > 35 – 55 > 25 – 35 E > 55 – 80 > 35 – 50 F > 80 > 50 Source: Transportation Research Board 2010 Figure 7 shows the existing and 2035 forecasted LOS values along SR 104. All intersections along the corridor will experience vehicular growth between 2015 and 2035. The average intersection volumes are expected to grow at an annual rate of 1.5%. Table 4 summarizes the existing and future traffic operations at eight intersections along SR 104, listed from downtown Edmonds at Main Street to the intersection of SR 104 and 76th Ave W. The traffic operations at the Main St and Dayton St signalized intersections are strongly affected by ferry operations. While these intersections operate at LOS A during typical PM peak hour conditions, delays build temporarily during ferry loading and unloading. The signalized intersection at 100th Avenue W operates at LOS C, increasing to LOS D in 2035. Queues occasionally exceed the established left turn pockets on both northbound and southbound approaches. The intersection at 238th St. SW is a side-street stop controlled intersection. This intersection sees substantial delay on the eastbound approach (LOS E), despite having a very low traffic volume. This delay will increase substantially by 2035 due to growing volumes on SR 104 and fewer gaps available for traffic entering from 238th St. SR 104 and 76th Ave W is technically a Shoreline intersection, but it affects the overall traffic operations along SR 104. Currently it operates at LOS C, but it is expected to degrade to LOS E by 2035. Heavy westbound left turn volumes exceed the turn lane storage and affect through traffic conditions on SR 104. A table summarizing the specific intersection results is provided in Appendix D. Packet Page 170 of 290 != != != != != != != != !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( != != != != != != != != != != Puget Sound City of Edmonds 104 99 Snohomish County King County 208th S t SW Adm i r a l W a y 6 th A v e S E d m o n d s W a y R o b i n H o o d D r Caspers St Sun s e t A v e N Fi r d a le A v e 10 4 t h A v e W 7 t h A v e N 226th St SW 3rd A v e N 11 4 t h A v e W 95 t h P l W 212th St SW 9t h A v e N Ol y mp ic Av e T im b e r L n Maple St 224th St SW 216th St SW 9t h A v e S Bowdoin W ay3r d A v e S Walnut St Dayton St 200th St SW 98 t h A v e W 5t h A v e S 244th St SW W o o d w a y P a r k R d 218th St SW 9 6 t h A v e W 92 n d A ve W 8 8 t h A v e W Pine St 228th St SW 220th St SW 10 0 th A v e W 80 t h A v e W 84 t h A v e W Main St 76 t h A v e W C D C E A A A B B B A B A B A A A B E F Kin g s t o n - E d m o n d s F err y Intersection Level of Service - PM Peak Hour !(Unsignalized Intersection !(Signalized Intersection Figure 7 \\ f p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ C o r r i d o r R e p o r t \ F i g 7 _ L O S . m x d PM Peak Hour Level of Service (LOS) Designation !=A B 20352014 Packet Page 171 of 290 July 2015 DRAFT 23 SAFETY Along SR 104, the existing roadway geometry, multiple driveway access points, relatively high vehicular volumes and limited sight distance present potential safety concerns. Collision data for vehicles were collected to determine where design or operational concerns translate into safety deficiencies. Collision data were obtained from the City of Edmonds over a period of five years (January 2009 – September 2014). There were a total of 324 collisions, for an average of 68 collisions per year. Reports provided details about individual collisions, including type, probable cause, severity, and time-of-day (summarized in the text box). Vehicle collision rates at study intersections can be seen in Table 4. While the total number of collisions is larger than those on most other Edmonds roadways, this can be attributed to the larger volumes of vehicles on the corridor. The collision rates are typical of urban arterials and do not indicate a substantial safety problem. There are no recorded crashes that led to a fatality, although 33% of the collisions resulted in injuries. Despite there not being many reported pedestrian or bicycle collisions, exposure is high due to speeds and lack of separation from motor vehicles. TABLE 4. TOTAL COLLISIONS AND COLLISION RATES Location Collisions Collisions/year Collision Rate (PMEV) Edmonds Way (SR 104) and 100th Avenue W 90 13.24 1.18 238th Street SW and Edmonds Way (SR 104) 7 1.03 0.14 244th Street SW (SR 104) and 76th Avenue W 18 2.65 0.18 SR 104 and Main Street 19 2.79 1.03 SR 104 and Dayton Street 21 3.09 0.62 SR 104 and 226th Street SW 9 1.32 0.18 SR 104 and 95th Place W 33 4.85 0.66 SR 104 and 236th Street SW 16 2.35 0.31 COLLISION STATISTICS (JANUARY 2009 – SEPTEMBER 2014) Magnitude o SR 104 and 100th Ave W had the largest collision rate. o The segment with the most collisions is between 5th Ave S & east of 100th Ave W o No segment or intersection had high collision rates Severity o There were no reported casualties during the timeframe o 33% of the 324 total crashes led to an injury The most cited collision type was rear end. Packet Page 172 of 290 July 2015 DRAFT 24 For analysis purposes, SR 104 was split into 5 segments, with each segment showing various collision statistics. (See Figure 8.) In general, most collisions that occurred on SR 104 were from rear end collisions, caused by abrupt stops or trailing vehicle unawareness. Sight distance issues were referenced multiple times. The emergency signal on 232nd St SW, which is constantly flashing yellow, led to confusion among some drivers. Drivers unaccustomed to the signal would decelerate, leading to trailing vehicles being surprised and an increase in rear end collisions. SPEED Speed is an important factor in the safety and perception of comfort along SR 104. Speed studies were conducted at three locations along SR 104 in both the northbound and southbound directions. Figure 9 and Table 5 summarize the posted speed limit and observed speed levels at these locations. Two values are shown:  85th Percentile Speed – 85 percent of motorists travel below this speed, and 15 percent of motorists exceed this speed. Typically, the 85th percentile speed is used to establish posted speed limits.  Percent of drivers exceeding the speed limit  Times of day in which over 10% of people exceeded the speed limit by at least 10 mph. TABLE 5. OBSERVED CORRIDOR SPEEDS Location on SR 104 (Refer to Figure 8) Posted Speed Limit (mph) 85th Percentile Speed (mph) Southbound Northbound North 40 47 48 Central 35 37 40 South 40 46 47 Packet Page 173 of 290 - 23 crashes (7% of total along SR 104) - 4 involving injury - 158 crashes (49% of total along SR 104) - 53 involving injury - 76 crashes (23% of total along SR 104) - 28 involving injury - 4 crashes (1% of total along SR 104) - 2 involving injury - 63 crashes (20% of total along SR 104) - 21 involving injury 208th S t SW 6 th A v e S E d m o n d s W a y R o b i n H o o d D r Caspers St 212th St SW Su nse t A v e N Adm i r a l W a y Fi r d a l e A v e 10 4 t h A v e W 7 t h A v e N 226th St SW 3rd A v e N 11 4 th A v e W 95 t h P l W 9t h A v e N Ol ym p i c A v e Ti m b e r Ln Maple St 224th St SW 216th St SW 9t h Av e S Bowd oin W a y3r d A v e S 200th St SW Walnut St Dayton St 218th St SW 98 t h A v e W 5t h A ve S 244th St SW W o o d w a y P a r k R d 9 6 t h A v e W 92 n d A v e W 88 t h A v e W Pine St 228th St SW 220th St SW 10 0t h A v e W 8 0t h A ve W 84 t h A v e W Main St \\ f p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ C o r r i d o r R e p o r t \ F i g 8 _ A c c i d e n t s . m x d Crashes Along SR 104 (January 2009 - September 2014) Figure 8 - 324 total crashes between January 2009 - September 2014 - 68 crashes/year - 0 fatalities - 108 crashes leading to injury Puget Sound Snohomish County King County City of Edmonds 104 99 Packet Page 174 of 290 Yost Park ||¡ | | ¡ ||¡ | | ¡ ||¡ | | ¡ 99 104 104 3rd A v 208th S t S W 7 th Av e N 9t h A v e N Ol y m pi c A ve 6t h A v e S E d m o n d s W a y R o b i n H o o d D r 212th St SW Adm i r a l W a y Fi r d a le A v e 10 4 t h A v e W 226th St SW 11 4 t h Av e W 95 t h P l W Ti m b e r L n Maple St 224th St SW 216th St SW 9t h Av e S Bowd o i n W a y 3r d Av e S Walnut St 218th St SW Dayton St 98 t h A v e W 5t h A v e S 244th St SW W o o d w a y P a r k R d 9 6 t h A v e W 92 n d A ve W 8 8 t h A v e W Pine St 228th St SW 220th St SW 80 t h A v e W 10 0 t h A v e W Main St 84 t h A v e W Average Weekday Vehicle Speeds Along SR 104 Speed Limit on State Route 104 35 mph 40 mph \\ f p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ C o r r i d o r R e p o r t \ F i g 9 _ S p e e d s . m x d Figure 9 City of Edmonds 30 35 40 45 50 55 12 AM 6 AM 12 PM 6 PM Sp e e d ( m p h ) Time of Day 30 35 40 45 50 55 12 AM 6 AM 12 PM 6 PM Sp e e d ( m p h ) Time of Day 30 35 40 45 50 55 12 AM 6 AM 12 PM 6 PM Sp e e d ( m p h ) Time of Day 30 35 40 45 50 55 12 AM 6 AM 12 PM 6 PM Sp e e d ( m p h ) Time of Day 30 35 40 45 50 55 12 AM 6 AM 12 PM 6 PM Sp e e d ( m p h ) Time of Day 30 35 40 45 50 55 12 AM 6 AM 12 PM 6 PM Sp e e d ( m p h ) Time of Day 30 35 40 45 50 55 12 AM 6 AM 12 PM 6 PM Sp e e d ( m p h ) Time of Day Average daily 85th % speed: 47.9 mph Percent of drivers: Exceeding speed limit: 82% More than 10 mph over speed limit: 7% Average daily 85th % speed: 47.2 mph Percent of drivers: Exceeding speed limit: 80% More than 10 mph over speed limit: 6% Average daily 85th % speed: 36.9 mph Percent of drivers: Exceeding speed limit: 28% More than 10 mph over speed limit: <1% Average daily 85th % speed: 39.6 mph Percent of drivers: Exceeding speed limit: 51% More than 10 mph over speed limit: 2% Average daily 85th % speed: 46.1 mph Percent of drivers: Exceeding speed limit: 67% More than 10 mph over speed limit: 3% Average daily 85th % speed: 46.5 mph Percent of drivers: Exceeding speed limit: 73% More than 10 mph over speed limit: 4% 85% of people drive slower than this speed; 15% exceed this speed Posted speed limit At this time of day, over 10% of people exceed the speed limit by at least 10 mph Speed limit changed to 35mph in early 2015 Packet Page 175 of 290 July 2015 DRAFT 27 The north section of the corridor (i.e., 5th Ave S to Dayton Ave) experienced a speed limit drop from 40 mph to 35 mph in early 2015. The speed data in Table 5 were collected before the speed limit change, and all values and comparisons reflect the 40 mph speed limit in place during the data collection. Results show that the majority of drivers exceed the posted speed limit throughout the study area. Speeding is more prevalent in the north and south sections, while speeds are closer to the speed limit in the commercial center section. For example, in the northern section, over 80 percent of drivers exceed the posted speed. While speeding occurs throughout the corridor, the amount of extreme speeding is relatively low. Time of day data associated with the observations indicate that most extreme speeding occurs at night, especially in the early hours before the AM peak occurs. Packet Page 176 of 290 July 2015 DRAFT 28 PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS This section describes the pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the SR 104 study area. Pedestrians Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks and crosswalks. Along SR 104, sidewalks are provided on at least one side of the road for most of the study area. The lone exception occurs to the south of 5 th Ave W, where a pedestrian path is used off of the roadway instead. Figure 10 illustrates the existing sidewalks and walkways within this portion of the city. The figure shows that the sidewalk system is most complete inside the core area of downtown and the ferry terminal. Outside of this area, sidewalks are primarily located along roads classified as collectors or arterials. Raised and striped walkways are generally associated with schools, and provide safe walking routes. Marked crosswalks are provided at the following locations: Traffic Signals  Main St,  Dayton St.  226th St SW  100th Ave W  95th Pl W  236th St SW  76th Ave W Midblock Crossings  North of Pine Street (new HAWK signal)  5th Ave S (SB only) Pedestrian push buttons are located at all signalized intersections. The federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed in 1990 and amended in 2008. ADA requires jurisdictions to provide accessible sidewalks primarily through the installation of ADA-compliant sidewalk ramps. The design requirements address various areas of concern such as curb alignment with crosswalks, narrower sidewalk width, obstacles such as utility poles, placement of the sidewalk adjacent to the curb, or the slope of the ramps. Most of the SR 104 sidewalk ramps were constructed before ADA requirements. As pedestrian improvements have been made along the corridor, the City has upgraded sidewalk ramps or installed new ones in accordance with current standards. Packet Page 177 of 290 $+ú 208th S t SW 6 th A v e S E d m o n d s W a y R o b i n H o o d D r Caspers St 212th St SW S u n s e t A v e N Adm i r a l W a y Fi r d a l e A v e 10 4 t h A v e W 7 t h A v e N 226th St SW 3rd A v e N 11 4 th A v e W 95 t h P l W 9t h A v e N Ol y mp i c A v e Ti m b e r Ln Maple St 224th St SW 216th St SW 9t h Av e S Bowd oin W a y3r d A v e S 200th St SW Walnut St Dayton St 218th St SW 98 t h A v e W 5t h A v e S 244th St SW W o o d w a y P a r k R d 9 6 t h A v e W 92 n d A v e W 8 8 t h A v e W Pine St 228th St SW 220th St SW 10 0t h A v e W 8 0 t h A v e W 84 t h A v e W Main St Kingston-Ed m ondsFerry Pedestrian Facilities Existing Paved Walkway Proposed Walkway Project $+ú Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Figure 10 \\ f p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ C o r r i d o r R e p o r t \ F i g 1 0 _ P e d . m x d Puget Sound Snohomish County King County 104 City of Edmonds 99 Packet Page 178 of 290 July 2015 DRAFT 30 Bicycles SR 104 is not a designated bicycle route and has no bicycle lanes existing along the travelled way. However, Edmonds is a well-connected city, and various bicycle facilities are available parallel to, and connecting with the corridor. Figure 11 shows existing and proposed bicycle facilities within this portion of the city. These facilities include bicycle routes, bicycle lanes, trails, sharrows and bicycle parking facilities. The bicycle projects include bicycle lanes or bicycle routes that can be added as part of future roadway improvement projects. The projects are concentrated around two major efforts: creating east-west bicycle connections between downtown Edmonds and the Interurban Trail, and creating north-south bicycle connections between the northern and southern portions of Edmonds. While SR 104 itself is not a designated bicycle route, the following roadways provide existing or proposed convenient and safe bicycle travel within the study area; East-West Travel  Main St/Dayton St  220th St SW  226th St SW  228th St SW  244th St SW  238th/236th St SW North-South Travel  3rd Ave S/Woodway Park RD  5th Ave S  9th Ave S/100th Ave W  84th Ave W Bicycle parking is available throughout the city. The areas with the most parking options are along the beaches, in downtown, and in the Westgate area. There are also easy connections for cyclists to ferries, Sound Transit’s Sounder service, and Community Transit. Bicycles are allowed on all of these systems. WSF provides a reduced fare for bicycles, Sound Transit provides bicycle racks, and all Community Transit vehicles have bicycle racks. Packet Page 179 of 290 ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l¬l¬l ¬l ¬l¬l¬l¬l ¬l¬l ¬l¬l ¬l¬l¬l¬l¬l ¬l¬l¬l¬l¬l¬l ¬l¬l¬l¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l¬l¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l ¬l An d o v e r S t 6t h A v e S EdmondsWay Robin H o o d D r Caspers St Suns e t A v e N A d m i r a l W a y F ir d ale Ave10 4 t h A v e W 7t h A v e N 72 n d A v e W 226th St SW 3rd A v e N 186th St SW 11 4 t h A v e W 95 t h P l W Ti m b e r L n Maple St 184th St SW Puget Dr 9t h A v e S 224th St SW 216th St SW 188th St SW O l y m p i c V i e w D r Bowdoin Wa y 3r d A v e S Walnut St Dayton St 200th St SW Ol y m p i c A v e 98 t h A v e W 208th St SW 5t h A v e S 244th St SW W o o d w a y P a r k R d 218th St SW 96 t h A v e W 92 n d A v e W Pine St 9t h A v e N 228th St SW 68 t h A v e W 212th St SW 88 t h A v e W 10 0 t h A v e W 80 t h A v e W 196th St SW 84 t h A v e W Main St 220th St SW 76 t h A v e W Kingston-EdmondsFerry Bicycle Facilities \\ f p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ C o r r i d o r R e p o r t \ F i g 1 1 _ B i k e . m x d ¬l Proposed Bike Parking ¬l Existing Bike Parking/Locker Bike Lane Bike Route Trail/Path Bike Sharrow Existing Proposed Major Bicycle Corridor Figure 11 PugetSound Snohomish CountyKing County City ofEdmonds 104 99 !"#5 LakeBallinger Packet Page 180 of 290 July 2015 DRAFT 32 TRANSIT EXISTING Community Transit provides public transit service along portions of SR 104. Figure 12 shows the two bus routes (130 and 416) that serve the corridor. Details of bus routes are described below: Route 130 – Route 130 connects Edmonds Station to Aurora Village Transit Center in Shoreline, Mountlake Terrace Transit Center and Lynnwood Transit Center. The route serves downtown Edmonds via W. Dayton St, then travels on 5th Avenue S to reach SR 104. There are only two stops each direction on SR 104 before the bus turns south onto 100th Avenue through the Firdale area. Route 130 operates weekdays at 30 minute headways until 6pm and evenings, Saturdays/Sundays/Holidays with 60-minute headways. Route 130 is the only local route that continues to serve the west side of the railroad tracks with stops at Brackett’s Landing Park and the South County Center. Route 416 – Route 416 is an express route between Edmonds and downtown Seattle. It serves SR 104 between 5th Avenue S and 238th St SW, where it turns off of SR 104 to approach the SWIFT Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) station on SR 99. Route 416 operates five runs on weekdays southbound between 5:45 am – 8:00 AM and northbound between 3:30 pm – 6:00 PM. Accessibility to fixed route transit is considered to be ideal when transit stops are located within 0.25 mile of residents. Figure 12 shows that residents living along the SR 104 corridor have reasonably good walking proximity to bus stops. As discussed previously, however, there are limited safe opportunities to cross SR 104 for access to/from bus stops. Sound Transit provides four (4) round trips from Edmonds Station on the Sounder North commuter rail line. These trips travel south from Everett in the AM peak period and return north in the PM peak period. King Street Station (Downtown Seattle) is the only destination available from Edmonds. In Seattle, commuters can connect with Link Light Rail and other transit routes. Edmonds Station is also served by Amtrak Cascades and Empire Builder trains traveling to Vancouver, BC and Chicago, IL respectively. King County Metro operates peak hour express and local routes in the study area south of the Snohomish-King County line. The Rapid Ride E line BRT provides frequent direct service from Aurora Village Transit Center where it connects with Swift BRT throughout the Hwy 99 corridor to downtown Seattle. Packet Page 181 of 290 Æb I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1I1I1 I1I1I1 I1 I1 I1 I1I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1I1 I1 I1I1 I1 I1I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 I1 èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí èéëííí èéëìí èéëìí èéëìí 524 99 PugetSound Snohomish CountyKing County City ofEdmonds 104 99 LakeBallinger Puge t D r 6 t h A v e S Ed m onds W ay Robin H o o d D r Admi r a l W a y Caspers St Suns e t A v e N FirdaleAve 208th St SW 10 4 t h A v e W 7t h A v e N 72 n d A v e W 226th St SW 3rd A v e N 11 4 t h A v e W 95 t h P l W Ti m b e r L n Maple St 9 t h A v e N Ol y m p i c A v e 216th St SW9t h A v e S 224th St SW Bowdoin Wa y 3r d A v e S Walnut St Dayton St 200th St SW 98 t h A v e W 5 t h A v e S 244th St SW W o o d w a y P a r k R d 212th St SW 218th St SW 9 6 t h A v e W 92 n d A v e W 8 8 t h A v e W Pine St 228th St SW10 0 t h A v e W 80 t h A v e W 84 t h A v e W Main St 220th St SW 76 t h A v e W Kingston-EdmondsFerry Existing Transit ServiceFigure 12 \\ f p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ C o r r i d o r R e p o r t \ F i g 1 2 _ T r a n s i t . m x d Community Transit Commuter Route (416) Community Transit Local Route (130) I1 Bus Stop èéëìí Traffic Signal èéëííí Emergency Signal Æb Sounder Station / Park and Ride Lot 1/4-Mile Bus Stop Zone Packet Page 182 of 290 July 2015 DRAFT 34 FUTURE Figure 13 depicts a future transit system with potential priority transit corridors shown in green. These priority corridors would emphasize good daily transit service and bus stop amenities to make transit attractive. With the expected opening of Link Light Rail to Lynnwood during the planning horizon, it is likely that several Community Transit bus routes will be redesigned within Edmonds and surrounding areas to integrate with light rail. SR 104 would provide a major transit corridor to tie into Link and SWIFT BRT. As vehicle capacity on the Ferry is constrained, the walk-on transit passengers will need to increase to meet this rising demand for travel alternatives. The future transit plan also recommends new transit service along 100th Ave W/9th Ave S between Main Street and SR 104. This local bus service would provide enhanced accessibility to Westgate and provide connections to the priority transit corridor bus services. Any service changes would need to be closely coordinated with Community Transit. In addition, the city should coordinate with Sound Transit on improvements that will attract more riders to Sounder north train service and access to the SR 104 corridor. Edmonds should seek reverse peak- direction trips that could bring travelers to town in the AM peak period and return them to Seattle and points south in the PM peak period. Bus Stops along SR 104 Community Transit currently uses the bus pull-outs provided at several locations along SR 104. However, the agency prefers having buses stop in the travel lane to avoid delays reentering the traffic stream. Currently, the traffic volumes along SR 104 do not create many delays for buses, and the volume of buses on the corridor is fairly low. This could change in the future depending on the service provided along the priority transit corridors and access to Sound Transit Link light rail. At that time, the city could consider removing the bus pull-outs tied to other SR 104 enhancements. Packet Page 183 of 290 ""X ""X IA IA Æb 524 99 PugetSound Snohomish CountyKing County City ofEdmonds 104 99 Admir a l W a y 6t h A v e S Edmonds W ay Ro bin H o o d D r Caspers St O l y m p i c V i e w D r Suns e t A v e N F ir d ale Ave10 4 t h A v e W 7t h A v e N 72 n d A v e W 226th St SW 3rd A v e N 11 4 t h A v e W 95 t h P l W Ti m b e r L n Maple St Puget Dr 9t h A v e S 224th St SW 216th St SW Bowdoin Wa y 3r d A v e S Walnut St Dayton St 200th St SW Ol y m p i c A v e 98 t h A v e W 5t h A v e S 244th St SW W o o d w a y P a r k R d 218th St SW 9 6 t h A v e W 92 n d A v e W 208th St SW 8 8 t h A v e W Pine St 9t h A v e N 228th St SW 68 t h A v e W 10 0 t h A v e W 80 t h A v e W 212th St SW 196th St SW 84 t h A v e W Main St 220th St SW 76 t h A v e W Future Priority Transit CorridorsFigure 13 \\ f p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ C o r r i d o r R e p o r t \ F i g 1 3 _ F u t u r e T r a n s i t . m x d Existing Bus Route New Transit Service Options Priority Transit Corridor Proposed Link Light Rail Swift BRT Swift BRT Stop IA Park and Ride Lot Æb Sounder Train Station ""X Link Light Rail Station Note: When Light Rail is open, several existinglocal and regional bus routes will be redesignedwithin Edmonds and surrounding areas. Proposed Proposed §¨¦5 Packet Page 184 of 290 July 2015 DRAFT 36 WASHINGTON STATE FERRIES The Edmonds-Kingston ferry route connects the northern portion of the Kitsap Peninsula and the Olympic Peninsula with northern King and southern Snohomish Counties. The route is 4.5 nautical miles long, and takes approximately 30 minutes to traverse. The Edmonds-Kingston route operates seven days per week year round, with average headways ranging between 35 and 70 minutes. In 2013, the Edmonds-Kingston route carried 3.9 million people, at an average of 12,200 passengers per day. This is slightly less than the 4.3 million people the route carried in 2006. The annual Washington State Ferries Traffic Statistics Report indicates that in-vehicle boardings were the most prevalent, with about 86 percent of passengers boarding in this manner on the average weekday. Walk-on passengers constituted 14 percent of all passengers on an average weekday. PARKING Parking along the SR 104 corridor is limited to private off-street lots. There is no on-street parking allowed on SR 104 itself. The largest concentration of parking is within the Westgate commercial area, with over 600 off-street spaces serving a variety of retail uses. While certain parking areas immediately adjacent to the QFC and PCC supermarkets can be busy for short periods of the day, there is ample parking capacity to meet the daily parking demands within the Westgate area. Parking supply and demand will be closely monitored by the city as Westgate redevelops over time. Packet Page 185 of 290 July 2015 DRAFT 37 RECOMMENDED PLAN The SR 104 Corridor Plan contains recommended projects that meet the study’s guiding principles and can be phased over the next several years. The evaluated projects were developed in coordination with the Technical Advisory Committee, public outreach, and city staff. The following sections describe the corridor plan recommendations in further detail. The plan recognizes that SR 104 passes through a wide variety of land use zones (see Figure 2) and is a major route bisecting a predominantly conventional grid street system. This land use variety and road alignment dictates the treatments that are appropriate to address safety, access, and mobility needs. The plan contains features important to the upgrade of corridor facilities for all modes- pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit. The plan features include:  Basic roadway cross-section that contains two travel lanes in each direction and a sidewalk along most sections. In some sections, the conversion of the two-way left-turn lane to a median or dedicated turn lane (also referred to as access management treatments) is an option.  Pedestrian crosswalks with flashing beacons.  Intersection treatments, such as traffic or pedestrian signal, turn pockets, turn radius reductions (to shorten pedestrian crossing distances), better sight distance, and signage.  Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility improvements. The corridor plan does not recommend the addition of vehicle travel lanes, because the Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and traffic analyses completed as part of the City’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan did not show the need for additional vehicle capacity. Completing all of the proposed corridor projects is an expensive undertaking and will take several years to fund and implement. The plan sets priorities and identifies some ‘quick win’ projects that could be funded in the near future as funding becomes available. These ‘quick win’ projects are projects that best meet the criteria developed to support the guiding principles. Packet Page 186 of 290 July 2015 DRAFT 38 CORRIDOR PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS The corridor plan consists of 20 projects grouped into six geographical regions from north (Edmonds Ferry Terminal) to south, shown in Figures 14A to 14F and summarized in Table 6. The total cost of the plan is approximately $8 million. The costs are considered to be conservative with contingencies applied. Packet Page 187 of 290 Fir Pl Alder St A d m i r a l W a y Walnut St Howell Way Dayton St 3r d A v e S 4t h A v e S Pine St Ed m o n d s W a y 2n d A v e S No o t k a R d Makah Rd \\ F p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ C o r r i d o r R e p o r t \ P r o j e c t s . m x d Recommended Projects Right of Way Figure 14-A !!! !! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! 104 99 City ofEdmonds Evaluate additional ferry storage A1A1 GG Global Improvement: Provide ADA compliant curb ramps and signals at appropriate locations A2A2 Packet Page 188 of 290 !U !U !U P a r a d i s e L n Fir Pl WhitcombPl M a k a h R d Birch St 13th Way SW 2n d A v e S 6 t h P l S Fir St E l m W a y Elm St Kulshan R d E d m o n d s W a y A A v e S W o o d w a y P a r k R d 6t h A v e S 5t h A v e S Elm P l 4t h A v e S 3r d A v e S \\ F p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ C o r r i d o r R e p o r t \ P r o j e c t s . m x d Recommended Projects Right of Way Figure 14-B !!! !! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! 104 99 City ofEdmonds B1B1 Provide ADA ramps to cross SR 104 Implement flashing beacon Speed limit feedback sign (25mpg) on exit to 5th Ave N for westbound traveling vehicles 5th Avenue GG Global Improvement: Provide ADA compliant curb ramps and signals at appropriate locations Packet Page 189 of 290 + + + + 97 t h P l W 226th Pl SW 232nd Pl SW 8t h P l S 227th Pl SW 9 9 t h A v e W 2 2 5 t h Pl SW 7t h P l S 226th St SW 8t h A v e S 1 4 t h Way SW 2 2 8 t h S t S W 232nd St SW 15th St SW E d m o n d s W a y 10 5 t h A v e W 9 8t h A v e W 1 0 2 n d P l W 10 0 t h A v e W \\ f p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ C o r r i d o r R e p o r t \ P r o j e c t s . m x d Recommended Projects Right of Way Figure 14-C !!! !! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! 104 99 City ofEdmondsC1C1 C2C2 C3C3 Install Westgate “Gateway” sign in eastbound direction Access management 100th Ave W to 102nd Pl W 226th St SW / 15th Street SW Provide signage directing pedestrians to cross south approach (across SR 104) Add “Right Turns Yield to Pedestrians” signage on eastbound 226th St Add bike detection for traffic signal Add exclusive pedestrian phase Extend SR 104 westbound left turn lane to 226th St SW GG Global Improvement: Provide ADA compliant curb ramps and signals at appropriate locations Midblock pedestrian connection (location to be determinded) Implement Westgate Circulation Access Plan (see Figure 5) Midblock pedestrian connection between QFC and PCC 100th Ave W C4C4 C5C5 To Main Street C7C7 Option: Rechannelize for bicycles (along 100th Ave) C6C6 Packet Page 190 of 290 + + + 226th Pl SW 93 r d A v e W 9 6 t h P l W 231st St SW 227th St S W 232nd Pl SW 94 t h A v e W 94 th P l W 231st P l S W 93 r d P l W 97 t h A v e W 234th St SW 95 t h P l W 92 n d A v e W 228th St SW 232nd St SW E d m o n d s W a y 9 1 s t A v e W 96 t h A v e W 90 t h A v e W \\ F p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ C o r r i d o r R e p o r t \ P r o j e c t s . m x d Recommended Projects Right of Way Figure 14-D !!! !! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! 104 99 City ofEdmonds D3D3 D1D1 D2D2 Change traffic signal to protected left-turn signal phasing Update ADA Ramps Add C-curbs for access management Relocate westbound speed limit to east of intersection Install Westgate Gateway sign in westbound direction Install HAWK signal with emergency vehicle activation Maintain early emergency vehicle detections D4D4 GG Global Improvement: Provide ADA compliant curb ramps and signals at appropriate locations Packet Page 191 of 290 + + + 85 t h A v e W 91 s t P l W 234th St SW 91 s t A v e W 86 t h A v e W 89 t h P l W 87 t h A v e W 8 8 t hA v e W 234th Pl SW 242nd St SW 236th St SW 238th St SW 84 t h A v e W E d m o n d s W a y 240th St SW 88 t h P l W \\ F p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ C o r r i d o r R e p o r t \ P r o j e c t s . m x d Recommended Projects Right of Way Figure 14-E !!! !! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! 104 99 City ofEdmonds 238th Street SW Install traffic signal Coordinate signal with 236th St SW Revise geometry on 238th St SW for safer turns Add bus pullout on SR 104 on NE corner Install “Welcome to Edmonds” gateway sign westbound on SR 104 240th Street SW 236th Street SW E1E1 E2E2 E3E3 E4E4 GG Global Improvement: Provide ADA compliant curb ramps and signals at appropriate locations Provide updated curb ramps, signals, and pedestrian facilities to meet current ADA standards Coordinate traffic signal with 238th St SW Packet Page 192 of 290 + 239t h P l S W N 204th Pl 242nd Pl SW Bu r k e A v e N A s h w o r t h P l N N 201st St N 205th St 7 4t h A v eW240thStSW 77 t h P l W 241st St SW E d m o n d s W ay 78 t h P l W N 203rd St N 200th St 242nd St SW Me r i d i a n A v e N 76 t h A v e W 7 9 t h P l W N 203rd P l Wa l l i n g f o r d A v e N \\ F p s e 0 3 \ f p s e 2 \ D a t a 2 \ 2 0 1 4 P r o j e c t s \ S E 1 4 - 0 3 6 0 _ E d m o n d s _ S R 1 0 4 _ C o r r i d o r \ G r a p h i c s \ G I S \ M X D \ C u r r e n t \ C o r r i d o r R e p o r t \ P r o j e c t s . m x d Recommended Projects Right of Way Figure 14-F !!! !! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! 104 99 City ofEdmonds F1F1 Add Westbound Left turn lane GG Global Improvement: Provide ADA compliant curb ramps and signals at appropriate locations Packet Page 193 of 290 July 2015 DRAFT 45 TABLE 6. RECOMMENDED PROJECTS #1 Project Location Project Description Estimated Cost ($1,000) Rating A1 Ferry Terminal / Main Street to Pine Street Additional Ferry Storage. $ 490 30 A2 Pine Street & SR 104 Improve west approach to meet current ADA standards. Sign restricting pedestrian crossing of SR 104. $ 66 30 B1 5th Avenue and SR 104 Add crosswalk and pedestrian actuated flashing beacons to connect pedestrian path to and from the bus stop. Speed limit feedback sign for WB traffic exiting onto 5th Ave. Provide ADA ramps to cross SR 104, accompanied by flashing beacons. $ 440 34 C1 226th Street SW/ 15th Street SW Provide signage directing pedestrians to cross south approach. Add "Right Turns Yield to Pedestrians" on eastbound 226th. Add bicycle loop for signal on 226th St. Extend SR 104 westbound left turn lane. $ 194 43 C2 Near 15th Way SW Install Westgate Gateway sign facing eastbound. $ 55 22 C3 100th Avenue W to 102nd Place W Access Management $ 314 26 C4 Westgate Area Implement Westgate Circulation Access plan. $ 165 39 C5 100th Avenue W (North of SR 104) Midblock pedestrian connection between QFC and PCC. $ 132 43 C6 100th Avenue W (South of SR 104) Midblock pedestrian connection (Location TBD). $ 132 43 C7 100th Avenue W Rechannelize for bicycle lanes and mid-block pedestrian crossings. (See projects C5 and C6) $ 588 38 D1 West of 95th Place on SR 104 Relocate westbound speed limit to east of intersection. $ 11 26 D2 West of 95th Place W Install Westgate Gateway sign facing eastbound. $ 55 22 D3 95th Place W Intersection Change signal to protected left-turn signal phasing. Update ADA ramps. Add C curbs for access management. $ 495 30 Packet Page 194 of 290 July 2015 DRAFT 46 #1 Project Location Project Description Estimated Cost ($1,000) Rating D4 232nd Street SW Install HAWK signal with emergency vehicle activation. Maintain early emergency detections. $ 1,535 32 E1 236th Street SW Provide updated curb ramps, signals, and pedestrian facilities to meet current ADA standards. Coordinate signal with 238th St SW. $ 531 34 E2 238th Street SW Install Traffic Signal. Coordinate signal with 236th St SW. Revise geometry for safer turns. $ 1,338 36 E3 240th Street SW Include current ADA standards for side streets. Add sign to prevent pedestrian crossing of SR 104. $ 110 26 E4 West of SR 99 on SR 104 "Welcome to Edmonds" sign $ 55 22 F1 SR 104 & 76th Avenue W Add a second westbound left turn lane; bicycle lane striping through intersection on 76th Avenue $ 3,017 21 G Along the SR 104 Corridor Provide ADA compliant curb ramps and signals at appropriate locations $ 534 38 Total $10,257 1 Corresponds to identification numbers on Figures 14A through 14F PROJECT PRIORITIZATION The projects in Table 6 were rated using criteria that were developed based on the projects guiding principles. The prioritization criteria were as follows:  Safety elements of the proposed projects were evaluated based on whether they enhanced safety. Some traffic collision data along the corridor was available to review mostly intersection related issues. Public input on locations with safety concerns were also incorporated into the evaluation. Improvements that received a higher rating improved a known high collision area or addressed a safety concern. Because there were Packet Page 195 of 290 July 2015 DRAFT 47 no areas of recorded high collision rates all projects received either a lower or medium rating.  Accessibility components of the proposed projects were evaluated whether they provide access to various transportation modes along the corridor and/or connect land uses. Projects that rated high improved access for multiple modes or removed an existing access barrier (completed a movement that could not be made today).  Identity improvements were evaluated based on a proposed projects consistency with the SR 104 corridors identity and surrounding land uses. Projects that enhanced the identity of the area received a higher rating. Examples include additional ferry storage to reduce the queue length and place marker signs such as the Westgate signs. Because all projects were developed with the guiding principles in mind, no project was considered to diminish (receive a lower rating) the identity of the corridor or surrounding land uses.  Financial investment for the proposed projects was evaluated based the range of estimated improvement costs. Projects with an estimated construction cost of less than $100,000 received a higher rating while improvements over $1 million received a lower rating. These cost ranges represent a general level of complexity and difficulty for a projects implementation. Half of the proposed projects are estimated to cost less than $100,000.  Grant Eligibility was evaluated qualitatively based on the project teams (which included city staff) understanding of the current grant environment. Generally, improvements that benefited walking and bicycling, improved connections to schools, and/or addressed safety received a higher rating. Table 7 summarizes the weighting and rating for each prioritization criteria. Guidance on how the ratings were evaluated is also provided. TABLE 7. PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA AND WEIGHTING Criterion Weight Rating Lower Medium Higher Safety 5 Limited or no effect Direct safety benefit Improves high collision location Accessibility 4 Limited or no effect Improves single mode, enhances an existing crossing Improves multiple modes, completes a crossing that can’t be made today Identity 1 Diminishes identity Neutral effect Enhances identity Financial 2 High project cost (>$1,000,000) Medium project cost ($100,000-$1,000,000) Low project cost (<$100,000) Grant Eligibility 4 Low likelihood of grant funding Likely to compete for grant funds Good potential for grant/ other funding Packet Page 196 of 290 July 2015 DRAFT 48 Table 6 includes the ratings (higher, medium, or lower) for each project using these criteria. Appendix B includes the detailed prioritization results and more complete project descriptions. A summary of project costs and the percent of costs for higher, medium, and lower ratings is summarized in Table 9. TABLE 8. RECOMMENDED PROJECTS Rating Cost Percent of Cost Higher $1,745 30% Medium $4,895 35% Lower $3,617 35% Total $10,257 100% Over 60 percent of the corridor plan costs are represented by proposed projects that rate as higher or medium priority. The prioritization process will be helpful to the city seeking grant funds or packaging project elements along the corridor. QUICK WIN PROJECTS Realizing the high implementation cost of the entire plan, the team identified several actions that could produce immediate benefits – “quick wins”. Table 10 lists these quick win projects in order of priority rating. The total quick win project costs total $1,305,000. Sixty (60) percent of the quick win project costs are tied to higher or medium priority projects. Several are also tied to the implementation of the Westgate Plan. Packet Page 197 of 290 July 2015 DRAFT 49 TABLE 9. QUICK WIN PROJECTS # Rating1 Project Location Project Description Estimated Cost ($1,000) C1 H 226th Street SW/ 15th Street SW Provide signage directing pedestrians to cross south approach. Add "Right Turns Yield to Pedestrians" on eastbound 226th. Add bicycle loop for signal on 226th St. Extend SR 104 westbound left turn lane. $194 C4 H Westgate Area Implement Westgate Circulation Access plan. $165 C5 H 100th Avenue W (North of SR 104) Midblock pedestrian connection between QFC and PCC. $132 C6 H 100th Avenue W (South of SR 104) Midblock pedestrian connection (Location TBD). $132 B1 M 5th Avenue and SR 104 Add crosswalk and pedestrian actuated flashing beacons to connect pedestrian path to and from the bus stop. Speed limit feedback sign for WB traffic exiting onto 5th Ave. Provide ADA ramps to cross SR 104, accompanied by flashing beacons. $440 A2 M Pine Street & SR 104 Improve west approach to meet current ADA standards. Sign restricting pedestrian crossing of SR 104. $66 C2 L Near 15th Way SW Install Westgate Gateway sign facing eastbound. $55 D1 L West of 95th Place on SR 104 Relocate westbound speed limit to east of intersection. $11 D2 L West of 95th Place W Install Westgate Gateway sign facing eastbound. $55 E4 L West of SR 99 on SR 104 "Welcome to Edmonds" sign $55 1Rating: L=Lower; M=Medium; H=High TOTAL: $1,305 Packet Page 198 of 290 July 2015 DRAFT 50 WESTGATE PLAN CONCEPT A key part of the SR 104 Complete Streets Corridor Analysis was to examine transportation and land use interactions within the Westgate area. Appendix C contains the results of this investigation, consisting of a memorandum by Joseph Tovar (1/28/15) that summarizes the team’s review of a variety of transportation, land use and urban design issues, and a memorandum by Fehr & Peers (1/26/15) that focusses on the transportation issues. This section provides additional transportation perspectives on the following questions: 1. What are the long-term street lane and width requirements on SR 104 and 100th Avenue W through Westgate? 2. How should bicycles and pedestrians be accommodated? 3. How should property access and internal circulation be considered? N O D E N O D E NODE N O D E Northern Gateway Southern Gateway Eastern Gateway Western Gateway DISTRICT EDGE DISTRICT EDGE D I S T R I C T E D G E D I S T R I C T E D G E DISTRICT EDGE DISTRICT EDGE DI S T R I C T E D G E MAJOR ACTIVITY NODE N O D E Packet Page 199 of 290 July 2015 DRAFT 51 What are the long-term street lane and width requirements on SR 104 and 100th Avenue W through Westgate? The team evaluated the current and forecasted (2035) traffic volumes, speeds and movements on SR 104 and 100th Avenue W. Both SR 104 and 100th Avenue W have sufficient capacity to serve forecasted increases in traffic volumes. The City may choose to re-stripe either or both roads and re- phase the signal at the intersection to meet mobility and safety objectives; however, neither action depends on the acquisition of additional right-of-way. How should bicycles and pedestrians be accommodated? Bicycles Bicycle facilities are not envisioned along SR 104, but other parallel and connecting bicycle routes are included within the comprehensive transportation plan. Bicycle lanes on 100th Avenue W are included in the city’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan. 100th Avenue W is an important non-motorized north/south link between the cities of Shoreline and Edmonds. As discussed in the text box, the team examined a potential rechannelization on 100th Avenue W to accommodate bicycle lanes. Within Westgate, bicycles could be accommodated on private property pursuant to proposed amendments to the draft Westgate Mixed Use (WMU) zoning district. These enhancements would tie in well with the bicycle treatments along 100th Avenue W. What About Creating Bicycle Lanes on 100th Avenue? The team analyzed an option to rechannelize 100th Avenue W (from the south city boundary to Main Street) to allow for dedicated bicycle lanes and safer pedestrian crossings. This rechannelization would have a 3-lane cross section plus bicycle lanes, planter strips and sidewalks. The traffic analysis indicated that a 3- lane section would operate acceptably under existing traffic conditions. In the future, this design would also be expected to work well to the south and north of SR 104. At the SR 104/100th Avenue intersection, vehicle delays would increase on the north and south approaches of 100th Avenue and may exceed the city’s desirable Level of Service at that location. Retaining a northbound right turn lane on 100th Avenue approaching SR 104 would reduce vehicle delays; however, some roadway widening might be needed to retain the bicycle lane in that location. The rechannelization concept represents a tradeoff between auto queueing and delay versus and creating a continuous bike lane and a ‘calmer’ traffic environment. A more in-depth corridor analysis and design is desirable to examine these tradeoffs. Packet Page 200 of 290 July 2015 DRAFT 52 Pedestrians Pedestrians need to have a safe and pleasant environment along SR 104 and 100th Avenue W, crossing those streets, and internally within private properties. Pedestrians would benefit by having wider sidewalks along SR 104 and 100th Avenue W along with the installation of highly visible crosswalk panels and/or pavement at the intersection of SR 104/100th Avenue W1. Two midblock pedestrian crossings of 100th Avenue W are recommended, one connecting the entrances of the QFC and PCC to the north, and another one located to the south of SR 104. These pedestrian crossings could also serve as traffic calming and safety devices along 100th Avenue W. How should property access and internal circulation be considered? The Westgate area is bisected into four quadrants by SR 104 and 100th Avenue W. Vehicular access is provided at each quadrant by a variety of driveways, serving a mix of individual and grouped properties. The northeast quadrant has been recently redeveloped, with upgraded access points along SR 104 and 100th Avenue W. The other quadrants provide a mix of access points, some of which pose safety and circulation problems. As shown in Figure 15, the Westgate plan envisions consolidation of driveways within each quadrant and encouragement of internal circulation between properties. This will reduce in- and -out driving on the arterials and encourage one-stop parking. The plan also recommends access management treatments using curbing along SR 104 to the west of 100th Avenue (see Project C-3 in Table 6). This treatment will improve safety for turning vehicles into and out of the Westgate area and facilitate driveway consolidation. The signal at the SR 104/100th Avenue W intersection provides full pedestrian crosswalks and signalization, although crossing these roadways is not always a pleasant experience. Implementing wider sidewalks and urban design features at this intersection will encourage more pedestrian connections among the four Westgate quadrants. 1 The Tovar memorandum provides details regarding the use of urban design treatments to improve the pedestrian experience in Westgate. Packet Page 201 of 290 Westgate Access Management Conceptual Plan Figure 15 Existing driveway Existing driveway link to internal circulation drive Conceptual internal circulation drive Consolidate driveways SR 104 10 0 th A v e W Packet Page 202 of 290 July 2015 DRAFT 54 ROADWAY CROSS-SECTION SR 104 is largely built-out within its 80+- foot right-of-way. However, there are opportunities to make more efficient use of the available width or to add mobility improvements by acquiring some additional right-of-way. Currently, the predominant five-lane cross section consists of four 12 foot travel lanes, a 13 foot left turn lane and sidewalks that vary in width from 5.5 to 7.5 feet. Some sections have planter strips where new infill development has occurred. Two potential cross-sections are depicted in Figure 16. The top diagram shows a ‘full-build’ section that would be preferred if the roadway were rebuilt. Slightly narrower travel lanes would provide opportunities for a wider sidewalk and planter strips. As shown, an additional 2 feet of right-of-way may be required on both sides of the corridor. The bottom diagram shows what could be accomplished with a roadway overlay project. The curb locations would not change. The travel lanes would be reduced in width, providing a 1-3 foot buffer between the outside travel lane and the sidewalk. This buffer would provide some visual separation between vehicles and pedestrians and offer a slight increase in sight distance. As new development occurs within the corridor, hybrid cross sections are possible, in which the existing curbs remain but width is added for planter strips and wider sidewalks. In some cases, this requires dedication of some right-of-way by the developer. Packet Page 203 of 290 SR 104 Preferred Cross Sections Figure 16 Packet Page 204 of 290 July 2014 FINAL A-1 APPENDIX A Project Diagrams Packet Page 205 of 290 July 2014 DRAFT C-1 APPENDIX B Prioritization Results Packet Page 206 of 290 Appendix B Project ID Rating Location Sa f e t y Ac c e s s i b i l i t y Id e n t i t y Fi n a n c i a l Gr a n t E l i g i b i l i t y Total Priority Rating Description Estimated Cost A1 M Ferry Terminal / Main Street to Pine Street 13331 30 Additional Ferry Storage. 489,500$ A2 M Pine Street & SR 104 22231 30 Improve west approach to meet current ADA standards. Sign restricting pedestrian crossing of SR-104. 66,000$ B1 M 5th Avenue and SR 104 22232 34 Add crosswalk and pedestrian actuated flashing beacons to connect pedestrian path to and from the bus stop. Speed limit feedback sign for WB traffic exiting onto 5th Ave. Provide ADA ramps to cross SR-104, accompanied by flashing beacons. 440,000$ C1 H 226th Street SW/ 15th Street SW 23333 43 Provide signage directing pedestrians to cross south approach. Add "Right Turns Yield to Pedestrians" on eastbound 226th. Add bike loop for signal on 226th St. Extend SR 104 westbound left turn lane. Modify signal to provide pedestrian only phase. 193,600$ C2 L Near 15th Way SW 11331 22 Install Westgate Gateway sign facing eastbound.55,000$ C3 L 100th Avenue W to 102nd Place W 21231 26 Access Management 314,000$ C4 H Westgate Area 23332 39 Implement Westgate Circulation Access plan.165,000$ C5 H 100th Avenue W (North of SR 104)23333 43 Midblock pedestrian connection between QFC and PCC.132,000$ Criteria Weight Packet Page 207 of 290 Appendix B Project ID Rating Location Sa f e t y Ac c e s s i b i l i t y Id e n t i t y Fi n a n c i a l Gr a n t E l i g i b i l i t y Total Priority Rating Description Estimated Cost Criteria Weight C6 H 100th Avenue W (South of SR 104)23333 43 Midblock pedestrian connection (Location TBD).132,000$ C7 H 100th Avenue W 22233 38 Rechannelize for bicycle lanes and mid-block pedestrian crossings 588,468$ D1 L West of 95th Place on SR 10421231 26 Relocate westbound speed limit to east of intersection.11,000$ D2 L West of 95th Place W 11331 22 Install Westgate Gateway sign facing eastbound.55,000$ D3 M 95th Place W Intersection 22231 30 Change signal to protected left-turn signal phasing. Update ADA ramps. Add C curbs for access management. 495,000$ D4 M 232nd Street SW 22222 32 Install HAWK signal with emergency vehicle activation. Maintain early emergency detections. 1,534,716$ E1 M 236th Street SW 22232 34 Provide updated curb ramps, signals, and pedestrian facilities to meet current ADA standards. Coordinate signal with 238th St SW. 531,330$ E2 M 238th Street SW 23222 36 Install Traffic Signal. Coordinate signal with 236th St SW. Revise geometry for safer turns.1,337,960$ E3 L 240th Street SW 21231 26 Include current ADA standards for side streets. Add sign to prevent pedestrian crossing of SR 104. 110,000$ E4 L West of SR 99 on SR 104 11331 22 "Welcome to Edmonds" sign 55,000$ F1 L SR 104 & 76th Avenue W 11212 21 Add a second westbound left turn lane, bicycle striping 3,017,000$ G H Along the SR 104 Corridor 23232 38 Provide ADA compliant curb ramps and signals at appropriate locations 534,000$ 54124 TOTAL:10,257,000$ Packet Page 208 of 290 July 2014 DRAFT C-2 Appendix C Westgate Memoranda Packet Page 209 of 290 July 2014 DRAFT C-3 Appendix D Level of Service Calculations Packet Page 210 of 290 May 19, 2015 - 5:28pm rpfiefle C:\Users\RPfiefle\appdata\local\temp\AcPublish_16864\20140195 PB with McD's options.dwg Layout Name: McD-Taco Bell Preferred P a c k e t P a g e 2 1 1 o f 2 9 0 Packet Page 212 of 290 Packet Page 213 of 290 Packet Page 214 of 290 Packet Page 215 of 290 1 TO: City of Edmonds FROM: Joseph W. Tovar, FAICP DATE: January 28, 2015 SUBJ: Westgate Form Based Code in the SR 104 Corridor I. Executive Summary In the fall of 2014, the City Council began its review of the Planning Board recommendation to adopt a new Chapter 16.110 entitled – Westgate Mixed Use District (WMU). At a series of study meetings, the Council considered amendments to the WMU, but decided to postpone a final decision on the proposed code until several questions about the Westgate area could be answered by the pending SR 104 Complete Streets Corridor Analysis. To assist the Council’s deliberations, the consulting team was asked to provide analysis on several key questions. A. Key Questions 1. What are the long-term street lane and width requirements on SR 104 and 100th Avenue West through Westgate? 2. What should the WMU code say about building setback requirements along these two roadways? 3. How should bicycles and pedestrians be accommodated? 4. What other amendments to the WMU could be adopted to highlight Westgate as a walkable, sustainable, mixed use District? 5. How should property access and internal circulation be considered? 6. What is the appropriate parking standard for commercial uses in the Westgate district? B. Conclusions and Recommendations 1. Both SR 104 and 100th Avenue West have sufficient capacity to serve forecasted increases in traffic volumes up to 2035. More detailed technical information is in the Fehr and Peers Tech Memo (Fehr and Peers Memo). 2. Bicycle facilities (e.g., bike racks or lockers) could be accommodated in redevelopment plans on private property pursuant to proposed amendments to the draft WMU zoning district. The addition of bike lanes in 100th Ave W. would do the most to enhance Westgate as a multi-modal transportation district. These could be accommodated within existing right-of-way by extending the three-lane section with bicycle lanes that now exists on Firdale Avenue north to Westgate. The reconfiguration of 100th Avenue to accommodate bicycles can be accomplished with a “road diet” which maintains acceptable levels of traffic flow Memorandum Packet Page 216 of 290 2 through the intersections of SR 104/100th Ave W. and 100th Ave W./SW 238th St.. See Fehr and Peers Memo. 3. Pedestrians will be accommodated by the 8’ wide sidewalks and adjacent 5’ wide amenity space in SR 104 and 100th Ave. W. The sidewalk area should be widened at the corners of the intersection by modifications to the WMU standards to increase building setbacks from the 12’ default to 15’. 4. Additional pedestrian accommodation in Westgate could be achieved by two capital improvement projects that should be coordinated with adjacent site plan improvements: (1) installation of highly visible crosswalk panels or pavement at the intersection of SR 104/100th Ave. W., similar to the improvements made on SR 99 in Shoreline; and (2) creation of a mid- block pedestrian crossing in 100th Ave. W. to provide a direct connection between the entrances of the QFC and PCC. 5. Internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation should meet the materials and dimensional standards for “Internal Circulation Drives” set forth in the WMU at 22.110.050. It is recommended that this section be supplemented with a map that indicates where on each block face the end points of each segment of the Internal Circulation Drive must meet the public right of way. See Fig. 18. 6. Property vehicular access within Westgate should be controlled with additional WMU zoning district access management standards. These standards would essentially: (a) “freeze” the driveway locations on SR 104 east of 100th Ave. W.; (b) eliminate or consolidate the existing driveways on 100th Ave W. (particularly the QFC and Bartell quadrants) and: (c) eliminate or consolidate the driveways on SR 104 west of 100th Ave W. Flexibility in the specific location and dimensions of driveways should be administered through the Code’s review process of future site plan/building permit applications. 7. The required building setbacks along both SR 104 and 100th Ave. W should be 12’, provided that within 40’ of the intersection corners the setback should increase to 15’. This additional setback would help accommodate the greater amount of pedestrian, transit and bicycle traffic that will concentrate approaching the crosswalks of the intersections. See Fig. 5. 8. The visual images and impressions of the “view from the road” convey a powerful message about a district’s identity and sense of place. The two major places to shape these impressions for Westgate are: (a) at the gateways into the district; and (b) at the epicenter of the district, which in this case is the intersection of SR 104 and 100th Ave W. (a) The “Edmonds Welcomes you to Westgate” sign that was erected during the City’s centennial in 1990 was recently removed. It was located not at the entry to the district, but rather well within it, adjacent to the new Walgreens. A better location for a new district gateway sign would be further east on SR 104, closer to 95th Ave W. It would also help to move the 35 mph speed limit sign even further east, in order to help slow down westbound motorists before they enter the Westgate mixed use district. (b) The WMU zoning district should amend the corner requirements for the four properties at the intersection. Strong, structural vertical elements will read best from the perspective of the motorists and take up relatively little horizontal space between the Packet Page 217 of 290 3 building and the curb. Trellis, pergola or arbor treatments could incorporate signage, sculptural motifs, and banners. Such prominent visual landmarks would be a relatively small cost to projects on these corners, but collectively create a strong visual image for Westgate. See Figures 11 through 17. 9. Although further work on other parts of the SR 104 corridor will continue into the spring, the information in this memo and the Fehr and Peers Memo answers the transportation, parking and land use questions regarding Westgate. No further work on the SR 104 Corridor Study is necessary to support the Westgate conclusions in these two Memos. II. Background Edmonds is a city of commercial districts and residential neighborhoods. Some districts are relatively large, such as Downtown Edmonds and the SR 99 commercial corridor. Others are smaller, such as Firdale, Five Corners and Westgate. While commercial districts share some objectives, circumstances and characteristics (e.g., location on arterials and typically a mix of commercial uses), each is also somewhat unique. Some, such as the Downtown, already have multifamily residential incorporated into the land use pattern while others, such as the SR 99 corridor and Westgate, may add residential as part of the use mix. Providing housing choices in commercial districts, in the form of mixed-use buildings and/or mixed-use projects, responds to an emerging market - Baby Boomers and Millennials. These two cohorts combined are the majority of today’s U.S. population – and many have strong interest in housing choices other than the traditional detached single-family home. They would be attracted to housing opportunities in mixed-use districts with good access to transit, bicycle and walkway facilities, grocery stores, pharmacies, restaurants, banks, and other goods and services nearby. The Westgate District presently has many of these amenities. As a state highway, SR 104 will continue to play an important role linking the regional transit system and road network to Downtown Edmonds, the WSF Terminal, and the Amtrak/Sounder station. The Washington State Department of Transportation recognizes that many segments of the state highway system serve multiple functions – not just as parts of the regional mobility system – but also as “Main Streets” for many communities in the urban area. To evaluate potential code amendments and/or physical projects that would advance the City’s objectives, it helps to begin with an understanding of Westgate’s fundamental urban design structure and character. The following urban design terms have been used to describe the constituent parts of urban structure: • Districts are geographic sections of the city with some shared and identifying character. Always identifiable from the inside, districts frequently have distinct boundaries or edges and are traversed by paths. • Edges are the linear elements that separate districts, such as a shoreline, railroad tracks, freeways, or steep slopes. • Paths are the channels along which an observer moves. They may be streets, walkways, bike lanes, or transit lines. People observe the city while moving through it, and along these paths the other environmental elements are perceived, arranged and related. • Nodes are concentrations of uses or activities, often at the convergence of several paths, and frequently serving as destinations within a district. Packet Page 218 of 290 4 • Gateways are the points or places along paths that serve as the entrance to a district. • Landmarks are another type of point-reference, but an observer does not enter them – they are external. They are physical objects: a distinctive building, sign, or prominent natural feature, e.g., a very large tree or hill. While some landmarks have deliberate symbolic meaning, e.g., a large statue, many landmarks are simply clear and vivid objects in the environment that provide the viewer with a sense of place and orientation. Applying this methodology to Westgate (see Figure 1) it is a District, similar to other Edmonds districts in some ways, but distinct in other ways. Westgate is accessed and traversed by two major Paths (SR 104/100th Ave. W), and bordered on the north and south by strong topographic and forested Edges. The Gateways into Westgate are not now marked with public signage, but generally occur along Paths where there is a distinct shift in land use. This is most clear on 100th Ave W, less so on SR 104. Finally, there are a series of land use/activity Nodes within the district, usually sharing localized circulation and parking areas. The largest and most prominent Node in Westgate consists of the four quadrants of the intersection of SR 104 and 100th Ave. W. Unlike many urban districts and nodes, Westgate lacks prominent and vivid landmarks. The old “Robin Hood Lanes” sign was a prominent local landmark due to its size, shape and character. While a lot of commercial signage remains in Westgate, it serves localized functions identifying individual businesses, rather than an entire district or node. The four star symbols in Fig. 1 indicate a potential rather than an existing set of landmarks. This location, at the convergence of two major Paths, linking the four quadrants of the area’s major activity Node, is a major urban design opportunity to provide orientation, identity, and a strong sense of Westgate as a place. Fig. 1 The Edmonds Westgate District – Urban Design Elements NODE% NODE% NODE% N O D E % Northern( Gateway( Southern( Gateway( Eastern( Gateway( Western( Gateway( DISTRICT(EDGE( DISTRICT(EDGE( DISTRICT(E D G E ( DISTRICT(E D G E ( DISTRICT(EDGE( DISTRICT(EDGE( DI S T R I C T ( E D G E ( MAJOR% ACTIVITY% NODE% ( N O D E % Packet Page 219 of 290 5 III. Questions and Analysis 1. What are the long-term street lane and width requirements on SR 104 and 100th Avenue West through Westgate? The Fehr and Peers Memo evaluates current and forecasted traffic volumes, speeds and movements on SR 104 and 100th Ave W. It concludes in relevant part: “WSDOT sees SR 104 as a ‘Main Street Roadway’ that has a multimodal focus. Traffic forecasts and analysis show no additional through lanes or turning lanes are needed. Traffic volumes will increase along 100th Avenue W., but the traffic can be accommodated with the existing lane configuration. No additional right-of-way along 100th Avenue W. is needed to provide for traffic flow and the wider sidewalk/planter requirements.” 2. How should bicycles and pedestrians be accommodated? The WMU should be amended to adopt a standard for bicycle racks to be provided in both residential and commercial new developments at Westgate. The wide sidewalks required as a standard for both SR 104 and 100th Ave W. will be sufficient to provide for safe and attractive pedestrian movement along the block faces. An increased setback of 15’ from the property line near the corners of the intersection will provide additional room for both pedestrian movement and amenities such as lighting standards, bollards, and street trees. The consulting team has evaluated the opportunities for adding bicycle lanes to 100th Ave W. It would be possible to add lanes within the existing rights-of-way by restriping and making minor improvements (e.g., islands and tapers). See Figs. 2, 3 and 4. Fig. 2 Road Diet section option for 100th Ave. W. 8’ sidewalk 5’ planter 5’ bike lane 11’ travel lane 11’ travel lane 11’ travel lane 5’ bike lane 5’ planter 8’ sidewalk Fig. 3 Firdale Ave illustrates a section with 3 travel lanes and 2 bicycle lanes Packet Page 220 of 290 6 Fig. 4 Schematic of road diet, adding bicycle lanes to 100th Ave W. 3. What should the WMU code say about building setback requirements along these two roadways? The draft Code for the Westgate District departs from the conventions of traditional zoning, such as the default 20’ front yard setback. By reducing the setback to 12 feet adjacent to SR 104 and 100th Ave W., the proposed Code brings the building facade closer to the street. This conveys that the space between the building frontage and the curb is a place for people on foot or bicycle, as opposed to automobiles. The 12-foot setback (in combination with the 8 foot sidewalk in the right of way) provides sufficient width to accommodate safe and comfortable pedestrian movement along the block face, as well as room for benches, landscaping, tables, etc. This is illustrated in the two cross sections in Figure 5. Packet Page 221 of 290 7 Fig. 5 Illustrative Cross Sections at SR 104/100th Ave W. Pushing the building face further back, as the 20’ setback would do, doesn’t add much to the qualitative value of this frontage. Rather, it forces more of the “amenity” and “open space” away from the site interior, reducing the chance to maximize amenities throughout the site. Another negative consequence of the 20-foot setback is to lessen redevelopment potential by reducing the gross floor area achievable. The scale of this impact is difficult to quantify – what can be said is that it does less to encourage redevelopment than the 12 foot setback. Packet Page 222 of 290 8 The portions of sites within 40’ of the intersection have an additional and somewhat different role than the rest of the frontage. To accommodate the greater amount of pedestrian foot and bicycle traffic (at the confluence of two crosswalks) as well as the likely entryways into the buildings, a larger setback, such as 15 feet, would be appropriate. These observations are summarized for the SW Quadrant in the matrix below. 4. What amendments to the WMU could be adopted to highlight Westgate as a walkable, sustainable, mixed use District? Existing conditions at the intersection of SR 104/100th Ave W. are illustrated in Figures 6 through 10. Figure 6 is an aerial perspective, while Figures 7 through 10 are ground level perspective images of the four quadrants at this intersection. Packet Page 223 of 290 9 Fig. 6 Aerial perspective of intersection at SR 104/100th Ave W. Fig. 7 NW Corner – QFC and other retail uses and restaurants Packet Page 224 of 290 10 Fig. 8 NE Corner - PCC and Walgreen’s Pharmacy Fig. 9 SE Corner – Key Bank, etc. Fig. 10 SW Corner - Starbucks, Bartells, etc. Packet Page 225 of 290 11 In September of 2014, City staff drafted for Council’s consideration an additional amendment to Section 22.110.070 – Amenity Space, Open Space, and Green Factor Standards. The new paragraph D, titled SR-104/100th Avenue Intersection, focused on the private properties that immediately abut this intersection and proposed language to address the types of improvements that would be appropriate. Using that September draft language as a basis, I recommend the following revisions, shown with underlining and strikethroughs as follows: D. SR-104 / 100th Avenue Intersection. 1. The design objectives for configuration of development, amenity space, open space, and landscaping landscape construction features at this key intersection is intended are to provide a sense of place and convey the walkable and sustainable character of serve as a signal of arrival at the Westgate District area. 2. Building step-backs, pedestrian oriented facades and amenities are required for the portions of buildings within forty feet of the corner at each quadrant of this intersection. 3. The design objectives required setback areas at this intersection shall be designed to use addressed with a combination of landscaping, building façade treatments, public signage and amenity features (e.g. water features, art work, bollards, benches, pedestrian scale lighting, arbors, greenwalls, arcades). to signify the intersection’s importance as a focal point of the Westgate area. Paragraph 1 sets forth the City’s design objectives for the Westgate District : (1) to provide a sense of place and identity for Westgate and (2) to convey the desired walkable and sustainable character of the District. As the epicenter of Westgate, these four quadrants and the intersection itself play important functional and symbolic roles. The creation of distinct and memorable visual landmarks at these four corners can be achieved with landscape construction amenities, as discussed below. These are improvements that could be placed on the façade of new structures at the corners of the intersection, or freestanding in the open spaces between the building façade and the curb. Paragraph 2 specifies building placement, the details of building facades, and the furnishings to be placed in the public spaces between the buildings and the curb. Paragraph 3 identifies a menu of physical improvements and amenities that developers would be required to design and install. Below are examples of possible building facade treatments and landscape construction amenities. The specific details of a proposed design would be reviewed and approved through the City’s Design Review Process. Once a “unifying theme,” for example, a public sign or solar-powered light standard, is determined with the first development subject to this standard, it would inform appropriate facade treatments and landscape construction amenities as redevelopment occurs on the other three corners. Figures 11 through 16 are examples of potential “landscape construction amenities” that could be incorporated into the corner designs at this key intersection. It is recommended that these figures be included in the Westgate Code to give potential developers and their designers a clear idea of the type of furnishings that the City may require for these key public spaces. Packet Page 226 of 290 12 Fig. 11 Pergola Fig. 12 Arbor Fig. 13 Bollards Fig. 14 Green Wall Fig. 15 Public signage Fig. 16 Solar lighting An element like a pergola or arbor can also provide a location to display civic banners, public signage or lighting standards. If a major district gateway improvement is made, for example, at the easternmost entry into the Westgate District, it would be logical to coordinate design materials, fonts or other details with any such landmark improvements made at the intersection corners. One example might look like this: Fig. 17 Potential vertical gateway/landmark feature Many districts, nodes, and centers have utilized landscape construction amenities of this sort to provide orientation, convey character and provide local identity. See Attachment A for an example of how a similar treatment was done at the Crossroads District in Bellevue. The Bellevue example utilized low masonry walls with inset tile work on all four corners, with a more elaborate arbor and landscaping on the Northeast corner (by the Bank of America). 5. How should property access and internal circulation be handled? Access management to properties in Westgate will be important for safe and efficient travel within and between the four quadrants. The number, location and permitted turning movements into and out of driveways on 100th Ave W. and SR 104 should be controlled by the Westgate Packet Page 227 of 290 Packet Page 228 of 290 14 A major premise of the proposed innovative approach to mixed-use zoning is to tailor regulations to recognize a district’s unique circumstances, attributes and objectives. In recognition of Westgate’s high walkability, access to transit, and potential for bicycle access, the Planning Board recommended that the WMU zone have a blended parking ratio of 1 stall for each 500 sq. ft. of commercial floor area. In view of Westgate’s existing and emerging multi-modal character, this appears to be a reasonable parking standard. It has been suggested that perhaps a ratio of 1 stall per 400 sq. ft. would be appropriate, since that ratio was considered for Edmonds’ SR 99 corridor. However, as noted in Figure 18, the Westgate District is a more walkable area than the SR 99 corridor. The land use pattern of the SR 99 corridor includes very large parcels with great parcel depth back from the state highway. While the SR 99 corridor does have some uses that would be assets for a mixed-use neighborhood, such as grocery stores and restaurants, they are interspersed with institutional and auto-oriented uses (health care offices, auto sales and service). The overall large lot pattern means that walking distances are greater. In contrast, the parcels at Westgate are much smaller and most of the mix of uses (e.g., grocery stores, pharmacies, restaurants) are within a much more walkable distance. Fig. 19 Walk Score Ranges in Edmonds Walk Score Edmonds Districts 90 to 100 Walker’s Paradise Daily errands do not require a car 70 to 89 Very Walkable Most errands can be accomplished on foot Downtown Edmonds (81) Westgate (70) 50 to 69 Somewhat Walkable Some errands can be accomplished on foot SR 99 – Starbucks (64) SR 99 - Ranch Market (59) Firdale (56) 25 to 49 Car dependent Most errands require a car SR 99 – Whirlyball site (49) Five Corners – (42) 0 to 24 Car dependent Almost all errands require a car Given that development and redevelopment at Westgate will occur over a number of years, there is little risk in adopting the 1 stall per 500 square feet of commercial floor area. If experience warrants, it would be a relatively simple matter for the City to amend the WMU parking ratio. Page 229 of 290 15 Attachment A Intersection improvements at NE 8th Street and 156th Ave NE in Bellevue Fig. 20 Intersection detail Fig. 21 Crosswalks include patterned pavement NORTH This intersection carries comparable traffic volumes but has been improved with patterned pavement crosswalks to enhance pedestrian visibility and safety. At each of the four corners, the developers were required to incorporate into their site plans landscape construction improvements including an arbor and benches on the NE corner, and vegetation and low masonry walls with inset tile work on all four corners. Page 230 of 290 16 Fig. 22 NW corner – Crossroads in Bellevue Fig. 23 NE corner – Crossroads in Bellevue Fig 24 SW corner -‐ Crossroads in Bellevue Page 231 of 290 1001 4th Avenue | Suite 4120 | Seattle, WA 98154 | (206) 576-4220 | Fax (206) 576-4225 www.fehrandpeers.com MEMORANDUM Date: January 26, 2015 To: Bertrand Hauss, City of Edmonds From: Donald Samdahl, Fehr & Peers Subject: Westgate Area Transportation Analysis SE14-0360 As part of the SR 104 Complete Streets Corridor Analysis, the consulting team was asked to focus initial analysis on the Westgate area. A memorandum by Joseph Tovar (1/28/15) summarizes the team’s review of a variety of transportation, land use and urban design issues. This memorandum provides additional transportation perspectives on the following questions: 1. What are the long‐term street lane and width requirements on SR 104 and 100th Avenue W through Westgate? 2. How should bicycles and pedestrians be accommodated? 3. How should property access and internal circulation be considered? This memorandum provides insights into each of these issues to help the city in finalizing its form‐based code requirements. What are the long-term street lane and width requirements on SR 104 and 100th Avenue W through Westgate? The team evaluated the current and forecasted traffic volumes, speeds and movements on SR 104 and 100th Avenue W. This analysis took into account traffic forecasts to 2035, including the effects of WSDOT ferry traffic and the impacts from build‐out of the Point Wells development. Page 232 of 290 Bertrand Hauss 1/26/2015 Page 2 of 7 SR 104 WSDOT considers SR 104 as a ‘Main Street Roadway’ that has a multimodal focus and has no plans to widen SR 104 through Edmonds. Our traffic forecasts and analysis confirm that no additional widening/capacity is needed through Westgate. 100th Avenue W Traffic volumes are anticipated to increase along 100th Avenue W; however, the projected traffic increase could be accommodated with the existing lane configuration. No additional right‐of‐ way along 100th Avenue W is needed to provide for traffic flow and the wider sidewalk/planter strip requirements. Intersection Analysis The team analyzed future (2035) traffic volumes and traffic operations at the SR 104/100th Avenue W intersection. If no changes are made to the channelization, the intersection would operate at Level of Service (LOS) D during the PM peak hour. The team also analyzed a road diet on 100th Avenue W to allow for bicycle lanes and wider sidewalks through Westgate. The road diet proposes a 3‐lane cross section plus bicycle lanes, planter strips and sidewalks (see Figures 1 and 2). On the northbound 100th Avenue W approach to SR 104, the team recommends the inclusion of a right turn lane to accommodate heavy right turning volumes (see Figure 3). Adding a northbound right‐turn lane would eliminate the planter strip for the length of the right turn lane. The resulting LOS would remain at D, although the overall intersection delay would be slightly worse with the road diet compared to existing conditions. A LOS of D meets the city’s performance threshold for acceptable intersection operations1. Under both scenarios, delays could be reduced by allowing permissive + protected left turns on the 100th Avenue W approaches to the intersection. In summary, both SR 104 and 100th Avenue W would have sufficient capacity to serve forecasted increases in traffic volumes. The City may choose to re‐stripe either or both roads and re‐phase the signal at the intersection to meet mobility and safety objectives; however, neither action depends on the acquisition of additional right‐of‐way. 1 SR 104 is a Highway of Statewide Significance and has a LOS E standard per WSDOT guidelines. Page 233 of 290 Bertrand Hauss 1/26/2015 Page 3 of 7 Figure 1. Proposed SR 104/100th Avenue W Channelization Page 234 of 290 Bertrand Hauss 1/26/2015 Page 4 of 7 Figure 2. 100th Avenue W with 3-Lane Cross Section Figure 3. 100th Avenue W with 3-Lane plus northbound Right-Turn Lane Cross Section Page 235 of 290 Bertrand Hauss 1/26/2015 Page 5 of 7 How should bicycles and pedestrians be accommodated? Bicycles Bicycle facilities are not envisioned along SR 104, but other parallel and connecting bike routes are included within the comprehensive transportation plan. Bicycle lanes on 100th Avenue W are likely to become part of the city’s long‐range plan. 100th Avenue W is an important non‐motorized north/south link between the cities of Shoreline and Edmonds. As discussed above, the team examined a potential road diet on 100th Avenue W. This would convert the existing 4‐lanes into a 3‐lane configuration plus bike lanes. This layout is projected to function acceptably for traffic and provide for a continuous bicycle lane through the Westgate area. As indicated in the Tovar memorandum, bicycles could be accommodated on private property pursuant to proposed amendments to the draft Westgate Mixed Use (WMU) zoning district. These enhancements would tie in well with the bicycle treatments along 100th Avenue W. Pedestrians Pedestrians need to have a safe and pleasant environment along SR 104 and 100th Avenue W, crossing those streets, and internally within private properties. As summarized by Tovar, pedestrians would benefit by having wider sidewalks along SR 104 and 100th Avenue W along with the installation of highly visible crosswalk panels and/or pavement at the intersection of SR 104/100th Avenue W2. This intersection will provide the primary pedestrian connections among the Westgate quadrants. 2 The Tovar memorandum provides details regarding the use of urban design treatments to improve the pedestrian experience in Westgate. Page 236 of 290 Bertrand Hauss 1/26/2015 Page 6 of 7 A possible midblock pedestrian crossing of 100th Avenue W connecting the entrances of the QFC and PCC was also considered. The midblock crossing appears to be physically and operationally feasible, but requires additional analysis and coordination with property owners. This crossing could also serve as a traffic calming and safety device along 100th Avenue W because the nearby driveways could be reconfigured to provide right‐in/right‐out movements. How should property access and internal circulation be considered? The Westgate area is bisected into four quadrants by SR 104 and 100th Avenue W. Vehicular access is provided at each quadrant by a variety of driveways, serving a mix of individual and grouped properties. The northeast quadrant has been recently redeveloped, with upgraded access points along SR 104 and 100th Avenue W. The other quadrants provide a mix of access points, some of which pose safety and circulation problems. Tovar’s memorandum encourages consolidation of driveways within each quadrant and provide maximum internal circulation between properties. This will reduce in and out driving on the arterials and encourage one‐stop parking. Tovar describes specific access treatments within each quadrant3. One access treatment to improve safety is the designation of right‐in/right‐out movements at selected driveways. Tovar’s memorandum identifies some specific locations where these restrictions may be considered. To address staff and resident concerns about vehicles ‘darting’ across SR 104 and 100th Avenue W at driveways, a detailed access management plan for this area could be developed. This plan could serve to enhance aesthetics through landscaped medians, safety through directing vehicles to turn at predictable and controlled locations, and accessibility through new and enhanced pedestrian crossing. Vehicular 3 Tovar Memorandum: Property vehicular access within Westgate should be controlled with additional WMU zoning district access management standards. These standards would essentially: (a) “freeze” the driveway locations on SR 104 east of 100th Ave. W. ;(b) eliminate or consolidate the existing driveways on 100th Ave W. (particularly the QFC and Bartell quadrants) and: (c) eliminate or consolidated the driveways on SR 104 west of 100th Ave W. Flexibility in the specific location and dimensions of driveways should be administered through the Code’s review process of future site plan/building permit applications. Page 237 of 290 Bertrand Hauss 1/26/2015 Page 7 of 7 connections between quadrants take place through the SR 104/100th Avenue W intersection. Some midblock vehicle crossings of 100th Avenue W take place, notably between PCC and QFC. These movements are problematic, especially during peak periods. There are no reasonable options to provide additional signalized vehicular crossings between quadrants, but there may be opportunities for midblock pedestrian crossings. As described above, safe and efficient pedestrian connections between QFC and PCC would reduce the need for people to drive between the two sites. The signal at the SR 104/100th Avenue W intersection provides full pedestrian crosswalks and signalization, although crossing these roadways is not always a pleasant experience. Implementing wider sidewalks and urban design features at this intersection will encourage more pedestrian connections among the four Westgate quadrants. Page 238 of 290 Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS A 13 B 13 B 12 B 12 BA 29 SR 104 & 236th St SW Signal D 5 28 SR 104 & 95th Pl W Signal D 7 B 16 B 16 B 10 B 10 BA 27 SR 104 & 226th St Signal D 11 26 SR 104 & Dayton Signal D 8 A 8 A 8 A25Main St. and Sunset Ave.Signal D 7 C 77 E Add 325' WB to NB right turn lane. Provide NB to EB right turn overlap with WB left.47 D >150 F Install Signal. Provided protected NB/SB left turns 11.9 BE 21 SR 104 & 76th Ave Signal D 23 20 SR 104 & 238th St Side Street Stop D 50 41 D 41 DC18SR 104 & 100th Ave.Signal D 26 Improvement Notes 2035 Improvements PM PM PM 2035 #Intersection Control LOS Standard 2015 Page 239 of 290 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes July 22, 2015 Page 6 Board Member Rubenkonig commented that, although not required, the applicant chose to submit a site plan as part of the rezone application. She asked the applicant’s representative to explain why other locations on the subject property were not pursued. Mr. Vontver explained that during the lease negotiations, Winco flat out denied the property owner the ability to construct a building in any other location other than the one identified on the site plan. As per the agreement, the building must be constructed in the proposed location or not at all. He noted that Winco voiced concern that a building closer to highway would block the view corridor and make the grocery store less visible from the street. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if any internal locations were considered. Mr. Vontver explained that buildings located within the interior of the site can be very disruptive to the grocery shoppers’ experience. It also makes parking more difficult. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if it would be possible to place the new building in the southwest corner of the property. Mr. Vontver answered that the property owner is bound by the current lease with Winco, which will only allow one new 6,000 square foot building in the location identified. He explained that, originally, the property owner was unaware of the contract and believed the entire site was zoned CG2. It wasn’t until later in the process that they discovered that the overlay needed to be addressed through a rezone application. Board Member Robles asked if Winco might look more favorably on a different location for the building if the tenants of the new building were complementary to Winco’s product. In other words, would Winco be willing to make concessions if the tenants of the new building drew additional customers to the site. Mr. Vontver explained that there were no prospective tenants when the lease was being negotiated with Winco. The only thing they knew was that the zoning allowed for retail uses, which is consistent with the type of shopping center development and the zoning. The leasing activity for the new shops building has taken place after the lease with Winco was signed. Board Member Robles expressed his belief that the contract should have been removed two years ago before the property owner entered into lease negotiations with Winco. Mr. Vontver agreed. Board Member Robles commented that the proposed change is good. However, when the proposal is presented to the City Council, it would be wise for the applicant to address common citizen concerns about tree location, lack of intensity in the development and the order of events that determined the location of the building. Again, Mr. Lien reminded the Board that, with the current contract rezone, the proposed new shops building could not be located anywhere on the site. The contract rezone only allows for the existing grocery store building. Vice Chair Lovell asked about the length of the lease between Winco and the property owner. Mr. Vontver answered that the lease is for 40 years. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FIND THAT FILE NUMBER PLN20150024 (REQUEST TO REMOVE THE CONTRACT ZONING AND ITS RESTRICTIONS ON THE WESTERN HALF OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 21900 HIGHWAY 99) MEETS THE CRITERIA FOUND IN ECDC 20.40.010 AS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT DATED JULY 22, 2015, AND FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 5-0-1, WITH BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG ABSTAINING. Board Member Rubenkonig explained that she chose to abstain from the vote because she felt the process was incomplete. Vice Chair Lovell commented that it probably would have done well for the applicant not to show a plan, but just ask for the rezone to accommodate Winco. He said he believes the application will study options for constructing the building without removing all of the trees. However, that is not a subject of the application before the Board. Mr. Vontver said the applicant appreciates the sensitivity about trees. They are stuck in a hard place because they signed a lease with the grocery store tenant before they knew about the contract restrictions. PRESENTATION OF DRAFT COMPLETE STREETS SR-104 CORRIDOR ANALYSIS Mr. Hauss presented the draft Complete Streets SR-104 Corridor Analysis that was prepared by consultants from Fehr & Peers. He advised that the analysis was presented to the City Council on July 14th and another meeting will be scheduled at a later date. He advised that the study focuses on a five-mile stretch of principal arterial from 76th Avenue West to the Edmonds Ferry Terminal. Due to the various modes of transportation interfacing along this regional corridor (higher than average daily traffic, multiple bus stops, high pedestrian activity along certain sections, and bicycle connections), many deficiencies exist. The purpose of the analysis was to develop a corridor master plan that identifies safety, access Page 240 of 290 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes July 22, 2015 Page 7 management and streetscape improvements based on Complete Streets Principles. Guiding principles for the analysis included: • Support both local and regional mobility. • Improve circulation and safety for biking, walking and transit access. • Reinforce the City’s land-use vision, including at Westgate. • Create a sense of arrival in Edmonds and tie to the waterfront. • Coordinate with the state and other entities, • Take a phased approach that provides benefits over time. • Promote environmental sustainability and economic vitality. Mr. Hauss displayed a map that was included in the analysis to identify the different road configurations that are present along the corridor. He noted that the roadway consists of a variety of four and five-lane segments. He advised that there are sidewalks on both sides of a major portion of the corridor, but there are some locations where there is only a sidewalk on one side. He also pointed out that there are no sidewalks where the corridor intersects with Highway 99. There are eight traffic signals along the corroder, as well as an emergency signal at 232nd Street SW. Mr. Hauss shared a map that illustrates the average daily trips (ADT) on the corridor, noting that the street has significantly more ADTs than most other streets in Edmonds. From downtown to the intersection at 5th Avenue, ADTs are between 5,000 and 6,000 in each direction. However, ADTs on the remainder of the roadway are over 10,000 in each direction. He also provided a map to illustrate the current Level of Service (LOS), as well as the projected LOS in 2035 at each of the major intersections. He explained that the City’s current LOS standard for intersections is LOS D, and the study indicates that, with the exception of the intersection at 238th Street SW, where improvements have been proposed, and the intersection of 76th Avenue West, none of the existing signalized intersections will fall below the City’s LOS. He explained that because SR- 104 is classified as a Highway of Statewide Significance, it is not required to meet the City’s LOS D. The State’s LOS is LOS E and LOS F. Mr. Hauss provided a map that illustrates the collision history along the corridor over the last five years to determine where design or operational concerns translate into safety deficiencies. Due to the high volume of traffic on the roadway, there have been a very high number of collisions, particularly near the intersection of 100th Avenue West and SR-104. There were no non-motorized vehicle accidents reported along the roadway, and almost 100% of the accidents involved vehicles. Mr. Hauss referred to a map that illustrates the average speeds along the highway. He explained that posted speed limits along the corridor are between 35 and 40 miles per hour (mph). The study found the average speed along the corridor is between 6 and 7 mph over the speed limit, and speed is not generally considered a problem unless the average speed exceeds the posted speed limit by 10 mph. However, there are some site distance issues due to the curvature of the roadway, particularly between 5th Avenue South and 100th Avenue West. There is also a site distance problem heading westbound near 95th Avenue South for cars waiting to make a left turn into the apartment complex, and a project has been proposed to address the problem. Mr. Hauss provided a map to illustrate existing paved walkways and proposed walkway projects. He noted that there are numerous sidewalks and bicycle facilities that cross the corridor. The study identifies new walkway projects at 228th Street SW and 238th Street SW. He also provided a map to illustrate the existing and proposed bicycle facilities. He recalled that the initial goal of the study was to consider opportunities to provide bicycle facilities to create a new east/west corridor route for bicycles. However, after looking at the details in terms of safety, limited right-of-way and high cost, it was determined that a better option would be to provide alternative bicycle connections and not encourage bicycles on SR-104. He reviewed the projects that are currently funded, as well as projects that are planned in the future that include bike lanes, bike routes, trails, and bike sharrows. He specifically noted that bike lanes will be added on 220th Street SW, 228th Street SW and 100th Avenue West, which are all designated as major bicycle corridors. Mr. Hauss referred to a transit map that highlights the existing bus routes along the corridor, as well as 100th Avenue, 5th Avenue and 234th Street SW. He also provided a map to highlight future transit routes, noting the potential for an additional route on 228th Street SW to connect SR-104 to the Mountlake Terrace Park and Ride. New transit service is also being Page 241 of 290 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes July 22, 2015 Page 8 considered on 9th Avenue South/100th Avenue West and 220th Street SW. He noted the proposed link light rail stations at the intersections along Highway 99 at 200th Street SW and 245th Street SW. Mr. Hauss provided a map to illustrate proposed modifications for access and internal circulation at Westgate to improve operations and the pedestrian experience. The modifications include consolidation of driveways and internal circulation drives in the southwest, northwest, and northeast quadrants. Mr. Hauss reviewed that the analysis started in 2014 with input from the SR-104 Committee, which included a City Council Member, Planning Board Member, City staff, and representatives from the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and Community Transit (CT). The Bicycle Committee was also invited to provide input, and a public workshop was held to solicit citizen feedback. Mr. Hauss advised that the SR-104 Corridor Plan contains recommended projects that meet the study’s guiding principles and can be phased over the next several years. He reviewed that the plan consists of 20 projects grouped into six geographical regions from north to south. He specifically noted the following projects: • Evaluate additional ferry storage. Queues at the ferry terminal can be long on the weekend. Perhaps striping changes would be appropriate so the storage area does not go as far down SR-104. The State is also looking at a reservation system that would reduce queuing significantly. • Pedestrian improvements at the Pine Street intersection. The west approach to the intersection would be improved to meet current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. • Add a crosswalk and pedestrian actuated flashing beacons near the 5th Avenue South intersection to connect the pedestrian path to and from the bus stop. Post speed limit feedback signs on the exit to 5th Avenue for westbound traveling vehicles. Add ADA ramps to cross SR-104 and implement a flashing beacon to cross SR-104 where it connects to 5th Avenue. • Extend the SR-104 westbound turn lane to 226th Street SW, provide access management from 100th Avenue West to 102nd Place West (in front of McDonalds and QFC), implement the Westgate Circulation Plan, and provide a mid block pedestrian connection on 100th Avenue West between the QFC and PCC. • Install gateway signs in both eastbound and westbound directions. • Add bicycle lanes or sharrows along 100th Avenue West. • Install a left turn signal at the intersection of 95th Avenue West for the westbound movement. • Install a HAWK signal with emergency vehicle activation at the intersection of 232nd Street SW. • Complete pedestrian improvements on 236th Street SW. • Coordinate the existing signal at 236th Street SW with the proposed new signal at 238th Street SW. • Upgrade the intersection at 240th Street SW to include ADA standards for side streets, and add a sign restricting pedestrian crossings of SR-104. • Add a westbound left turn lane at the intersection of Meridian Avenue North. Mr. Hauss summarized that the total cost of implementing the plan is estimated to be approximately $10 million. All of the projects are included in the Transportation Plan, and a certain number have been included in the City’s 6-year Capital Improvement P lan (CIP). The remaining projects are identified in the out years through 2035. Vice Chair Lovell requested more information about why the study was initially started in 2014. Mr. Hauss answered that the study was initiated at the suggestion of a City Council Member, and the original intent was to identify bicycle improvements and address safety concerns along the corridor. Vice Chair Lovell asked at what point the City engaged the consultant Fehrs & Peers. Mr. Hauss answered that Fehrs & Peers was hired to assist with the Transportation Plan Update, and they began working on the SR-104 Corridor Analysis in October of 2014. Vice Chair Lovell asked if it is the City Council’s intent to adopt the study and use it as a master plan to fix problems on SR- 104. Mr. Lien answered that the recommended projects contained in the plan are intended to address the concerns and provide direction to the Transportation Plan and CIP. Page 242 of 290 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes July 22, 2015 Page 9 Vice Chair Lovell referred to the “collisions” map and noted that 49% of the collisions over the past five years occurred near where Paradise Lane splits off of SR-104. Mr. Hauss clarified that the map is intended to illustrate that 49% of the collisions occurred along the stretch of roadway from 5th Avenue South to 95th Place West. He noted there were numerous accidents in front McDonalds and QFC, and the study proposes management access, as well as some C curbs and raised medians to make the area safer. The left turn lane for 226th Street SW would also be lengthened. Vice Chair Lovell suggested that perhaps even more should be done along this 1-mile stretch of roadway to make it safer. Board Member Stewart asked if the plan would be incorporated into or referred to in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Hauss said answered that the projects identified in the recommendation section of the plan are all included in the Transportation Plan, and some are included in the 6-year CIP. The remaining projects are identified in the CIP as projects through 2035. He said the study will likely be referenced in the Westgate Plan and utilized when grant opportunities come available for projects along SR-104. He noted that the consultant ranked the projects based on grant eligibility and other criteria, and staff will consider the rankings as they move forward with future projects. Board Member Stewart asked if everything in the plan is consistent with the Westgate Plan, and Mr. Hauss answered affirmatively. Board Member Cheung asked if the bicycle route shown on 228th Street SW would be sharrows or an actual bicycle lane. Mr. Hauss answered that bicycle lanes would be provided from the Interurban trail to 78th Avenue West, and the remainder of the route would have sharrows. Board Member Cheung questioned the safety of using 228th Street SW as a bike route since it is a steep hill, as well as a public transportation route. He suggested that buses may end up getting stuck behind bicyclists who are traveling much slower unless there is a dedicated bicycle lane all the way through. Mr. Hauss pointed out that they are also adding bicycle lanes on 220th Avenue West as part of the overlay project from 84th Avenue West to 76th Avenue West. He agreed that the bike route could be changed from 84th Avenue West to 80th Avenue West, and signage could be placed on 228th Street SW at 80th Avenue West to direct bicyclists to the 220th Street SW bicycle lanes. This would enable bicyclists to avoid the steep hills on 228th Avenue SW. Board Member Robles commented that with all of the new signage and accessibility for bicycles in the area, it is likely that the number of bicycles on SR-104 will increase even though it is not a designated bicycle route. He asked if the City would actually restrict bicycles from using SR-104. Mr. Hauss answered that the City would neither accommodate nor restrict bicycles on SR-104. Board Member Robles observed that discussions about bicycle facilities often exclude motorized vehicles, which are increasing in use throughout the community. Electric bicycles have access to streets that regular bicycles do not, and he suspects they will be used on SR-104 by people living nearby, as well as those traveling to the various bus stops. He noted that the use was incorporated into the Transportation Plan, and he questioned if it was transferred over into any of the projects identified in the analysis. Vice Chair Lovell replied that, as currently proposed, nothing is going to be done to accommodate bicycles on SR-104 because it is a Highway of Statewide Significance and the City has no jurisdiction. Board Member Robles asked if there would be signage to educate bicyclists of the alternative routes. Mr. Hauss advised that are both north/south and east/west routes that will be safer than using SR-104, and these alternative routes will be identified on the bicycle map that is used by bicyclists to figure out where the existing facilities are located. Mr. Hauss announced that the bicycle lanes on 76th Avenue West will be striped in 2016 as part of a grant funded project that will also add some signage to identify the routes and distance to downtown Edmonds. The same type of signage will be provided from the Interurban Trail to downtown Edmonds, and all of the major activity centers will be identified on the signs. Board Member Robles suggested that an alternate route to SR-104 is something the City should consider, at least in words, if not on the plan. Mr. Hauss said alternate routes to SR-104 have been identified in both the study and in the Transportation Plan. Chair Tibbott noted that there is an east/west route from the ferry terminal that takes bicyclists up Main Street to 9th Avenue South, 220th Street SW, 84th Avenue West, 228th Street SW and then the Interurban Trail. He asked if there would be signage to designate a north/south route through neighborhoods without having to go all the way to 220th Street SW. Mr. Hauss answered that, with the exception of the intersection at 100th Avenue West and SR-104 where sharrows will be used, the rest of the corridor will have designated bicycle lanes to provide north/south access for bicyclists. However, he acknowledged that this project is several years down the road. Chair Tibbott said Board Member Robles is concerned that Page 243 of 290 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes July 22, 2015 Page 10 northbound bicyclists may not want to go all the way to 220th Street SW before making a jog to the east. An earlier eastbound route may be more desirable. Board Member Robles commented that there are numerous residential units along the corridor, and many people use the transit system. These are the people who are most likely to use bicycles. He suggested that education and disincentives would probably be all that is needed to get bicyclists to use the alternate routes rather than SR-104. Mr. Hauss said the grant the City received to improve bicycle facilities includes an education element, and the intent is to highlight the major north/south and east/west routes. Board Member Rubenkonig said she finds the analysis to be great information for future policy direction. It is astonishing in its depth and attention to detail. She particularly appreciates the explanation for LOS levels found on Page 19 of the analysis. She also referred to the last paragraph on Page 21 of the analysis and said she appreciates the phrase, “expected to degrade,” which is a starkly descriptive phrase that she finds more understandable than the earlier phrase, “LOS C, increasing to LOS D in 2035.” Board Member Rubenkonig noted that the plan calls for access management near the QFC and McDonalds. She observed that the City lost its opportunity to request frontage improvements as part of the recent McDonald’s remodel. She asked if it is possible that future site redevelopment in this area could be conditioned so that mitigation dollars can be received. Mr. Hauss agreed that is possible. Chair Tibbott asked if the proposed project list includes additional walkways on SR-104. Mr. Hauss said that, with the exception of Pine Street and where SR-104 intersects with Highway 99, there are sidewalks on both sides of the roadway. There is only sidewalk on the west side near Pine Street, and providing sidewalks at the intersection of SR-104 and Highway 99 would be costly and difficult because of the current roadway configuration. Chair Tibbott asked for more information about C curbs, and Mr. Hauss said C curbs are typically used to restrict people from making left hand turns from parking areas. Chair Tibbott recalled that there was a pedestrian fatality on SR-104 near Sherwood Elementary in recent years, but it may have occurred prior to the study’s time period. Mr. Hauss said this accident occurred about seven years ago. However, it involved a motorcyclist and not a pedestrian. The motorcyclist swerved off the roadway and could have hit pedestrians, if present, but there were no sidewalks on 226th Street SW west of the SR-104 intersection at the time of the accident. He advised that this accident was used to support the grant application for a new sidewalk. Chair Tibbott asked if bike lockers could be incorporated into development along the corridor, particularly near bus stop locations. This would allow bicyclists to store bikes and board buses rather than having to take their bikes all the way to downtown Seattle. Mr. Hauss said bike lockers were not noted in the analysis, but the Bicycle Plan identifies locations for bike lockers and bike racks close to SR-104. Chair Tibbott asked if the City or Community Transit/Sound Transit would provide the bike racks and lockers. Mr. Hauss agreed to contact Sound Transit and Community to discuss this concept further. Board Member Cheung asked if there are potential sites for small park and ride lots along the corridor. Mr. Hauss said this option was not studied in detail. However, if SR-104 is going to become a major transit corridor, it would be helpful to provide a place for people to park rather than using neighborhood streets. He noted that there may be opportunities for Community Transit and Sound Transit to work with property owners to provide park and ride options, and he provided examples of where this has occurred. Board Member Cheung recalled that when the Sound Transit service started in Edmonds, many people complained that there was not enough parking. As a result, the trains were underutilized. If people do not have access to the major bus routes the service could be underutilized, as well. Vice Chair Lovell said it appears the photograph from in front of the McDonalds was taken just after a ferry landed because cars are backed up going east on SR-104. He said it appears that McDonalds has received a lot of attention to allow their patrons to exit their lot going either right or left, and the result is longer waits in the left turn lane at the 100th Avenue West and 5th Avenue South intersections. He suggested the City should consider more intensive planning relative to the traffic Page 244 of 290 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes July 22, 2015 Page 11 condition in this location. Mr. Hauss said the designs included in the study are preliminary and a lot more discussion is needed before the projects move forward. Vice Chair Lovell complimented the staff and consultant’s work. The study is very thorough and complete and should be the basis for a lot of planning and implementation in the future. Chair Tibbott said he also appreciates the fact that the analysis sets up Westgate as a gateway with signage. It will become a place of interest for people coming through. The study does an excellent job of not only highlighting the intersection, but the neighborhood, itself. Mr. Hauss invited Board Members to email him their follow up questions. He reminded them that the City Council would continue their discussion relative to the analysis in August. Still under debate is whether the City Council will formally adopt the analysis. Because the projects identified in the plan will be transferred to the Transportation Plan, it is likely the plan will need to be adopted. Chair Tibbott noted that some of the projects have already been identified in the Transportation Plan, and the analysis can be used to inform future updates. The study provides a greater understanding of SR-104, and he appreciates the work done by the staff and consultant. THE BOARD TOOK A SHORT BREAK FROM 9:10 P.M. TO 9:17 P.M. CONTINUED DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL RECOMMENDATION REGARDING CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE (CAO) UPDATE Mr. Lien reminded the Board that this is their sixth opportunity to review the CAO Update, and the Board held a public hearing on July 8th. After the hearing, the Board had some discussion about whether or not an 8-foot paved area was sufficient width for a critical area buffer to be considered physically separated and functionally isolated. The Board discussed that perhaps the separation width should be established at 12 feet, which is the standard width the City currently requires for driveways. He said he discussed this option with the consultant, who agreed that a 12-foot separation would be appropriate. He noted that other jurisdictions that have similar provisions do not specify width criteria. Some require studies and others do not. Since the public hearing, the language that talked about an 8-foot paved area being automatically classified as physically separated and functionally isolated was removed from the definition of buffer. Changes were also made to the language in 23.40.220.C.4, to read: “Development Proposals within Physically Separated and Functionally Isolated Stream or Wetland Buffers. Areas that are physically separated and functionally isolated from a stream or wetland due to existing, legally established roadways, paved trails twelve (12) feet or more in width, or other legally established structures or paved areas twelve (12) feet or more I width that occur between the area in question and the stream or wetland may be considered physically separated and functionally isolated from the stream or wetland. Once determined by the director to be a physically and functionally isolated stream or wetland buffer, development proposals shall be allowed in these areas. The director may require a site assessment by a qualified professional to determine whether the buffer is functionally isolated.” Mr. Lien pointed out that the previous language automatically classified buffers that were separated by 8 feet or more as physically separated and functionally isolated. The new language states that buffers that are separated by 12 feet may be considered physically separated and functionally isolated. Once determined by the Director to be physically separated and functionally isolated, development proposals can be allowed. The Director can require a site assessment to make the determination. Mr. Lien recalled that he provided some examples at the last meeting to illustrate the proposed new requirements for development in frequently flooded areas. He reminded the Board that development in the flood zones is guided by building code requirements: ECDC 19.00.025, the International Residential Code (IRC) for residential development, and the International Building Code (IBC) for commercial development. While the IRC does not require single-family residences to be elevated above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE), the first floor must be constructed to at least the BFE. The IBC requires structures to be constructed at or up to two-feet above BFE, depending on the category of the structure. He reminded the Board of staff’s recommendation that the City require the elevation of the lowest floor to be constructed a minimum of 2 feet above the BFE for all new construction within the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones. He referred to Attachment 4, which outlines the proposed changes. As discussed by the Planning Board previously, the Building Code Page 245 of 290 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes July 22, 2015 Page 12 would be amended to read, “For buildings in all structure categories located in the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones, the elevation of the lowest floor shall be a minimum of two feet above the base flood elevation, as determined from the applicable FEMA Flood Hazard Map.” The Board also recommended that, rather than adding a footnote to each zone impacted by the new provision for frequently flooded areas, the best approach would be to amend the definition for height in ECDC 21.40.030 to read, “For all properties located within the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones, height is measured from the elevation that is two feet above base flood elevation as identified from the applicable FEMA Flood Hazard Map.” Chair Tibbott asked if the BFE would be identified by the then applicable FEMA Flood Hazard Map. Mr. Lien said that rather than identifying a specific map, staff is recommending that the language be changed to say, “The City will use the most currently adopted FEMA maps in determining whether a property is located in a frequently flooded area.” This change will allow the City to use the most current map. Vice Chair Lovell noted that the IRC does not require that residential development be elevated two feet above the BFE. Mr. Lien said that, with the proposed amendment, even single-family residential structures would be required to build at least two feet above the BFE within the Coastal Flood Hazard Area. To clarify a question from the Board, Mr. Lien advised that, when applicable, structures would still have to meet the American’s with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. Mr. Lien recalled that, at the Board’s last meeting, Board Member Monroe asked for more information about non-conforming buildings and if they could be reconstructed within a critical area or not. He explained that there is existing language in the code with regard to permanent alterations to structure within the critical areas. ECDC 23.40.220.C.3 reads, “This provision shall be interpreted to supplement the provisions of the ECDC relating to non-conforming structures in order to permit the full reconstruction of legal, non-conforming buildings within its footprint.” He further pointed out that ECDC 17.40.020 establishes a 75% replacement cost threshold. If a structure is destroyed more than 75%, then redevelopment would be required to conform to the current code. To illustrate how these two provisions would be applied, Mr. Lien explained that if a house located within a stream buffer were to burn down, ECDC 23.40.220.C.3 would allow the house to be reconstructed within its previous footprint. However, if someone wants to remodel or rebuild a home but retain the non-conforming aspect, ECDC 17.40.020 would limit the remodel or redevelopment to the 75% replacement cost threshold. A property owner within a stream buffer could tear down and replace up to 75% of an existing home and still redevelop within the existing footprint. Mr. Lien recommended that the Board discuss any remaining concerns and then forward a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the CAO Update as contained in Attachments 3 and 4. Chair Tibbott said it appears that the definition for “Footprint of Development” has been changed from the “border of a foundation” to include some of the landscaping around the facility. Mr. Lien reviewed that “Footprint of Existing Development” is defined as “the area of a site that contains legally established buildings; concrete, asphalt or gravel paved roads, parking lots, storage areas or other paved areas; driveways; walkways; outdoor swimming pools; and patios.” He explained that developed lawns are not considered part of the footprint of existing development. However, crushed gravel around a structure would be considered part of the footprint of development. Although gravel is considered impervious material, theoretically, a property owner could pave over that section of crushed gravel and not expand the footprint of existing development. The Board Members had questions about whether or not all gravel areas, even those that are established in place of lawns, would be considered part of the footprint of existing development. Mr. Lien emphasized that the definition would require that the footprint of development only includes areas that have been legally established. Board Member Stewart commented that the CAO Update has evolved into a good document, and she thanked Mr. Lien for his hard work. However, she voiced concern about ECDC 23.90.040.D.8.c, which allows stormwater dispersion outfalls, bioswales and bioretention facilities anywhere within stream buffers. She recalled that when the Board first started discussing the CAO update almost two years ago (September 24, 2013), a civil engineer representing the SnoKing Watershed Council attended the Board’s meeting to talk about this particular point. He said, “No drainage structures or other improvements should be allowed in any critical area or the buffer of any critical area. Critical areas should not be used for stormwater treatment. Rather stormwater should be treated for proper flow control before it enters any critical area.” A follow up comment, this same engineer said, “The City has the option to adopt more requirements more stringent than the stormwater manual, if it so chooses, to protect local streams and wetlands.” Board Member Stewart reminded the Board that buffers are supposed to be vegetated. They perform habitat functions for streams and wetlands, and they should not be used Page 246 of 290 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes July 22, 2015 Page 13 for stormwater dispersion, outfalls, etc. Mr. Lien clarified that this section deals only with streams, which are allowed based on the hierarchy of conditions outlined in ECDC 23.90.040.D.8. He reviewed the conditions and emphasized that stormwater facilities are only allowed in streams if no other location is feasible. He reminded the Board that the City’s current stormwater system is tied to streams. Mr. Lien advised that the City’s Stormwater Engineer reviewed the CAO Update and proposed changes to make the language consistent with the stormwater requirements. For example, ECDC 23.90.040.D.8.c, which applies to streams, and ECDC 23.50.040.F.8, which applies to wetlands, were added to address the requirements of the Phase II Stormwater Permit the City is currently working on. Board Member Stewart recalled the Stormwater Engineer’s earlier comment that the City is working to make the requirements stronger and even better than what is required. VICE CHAIR LOVELL MOVED THAT THE PLANNING BOARD FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE (CAO) UPDATE AND ASSOCIATED FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREA AMENDMENTS (ECDC CHAPTERS 23.40 THOUGH 23.90) AS OUTLINED IN ATTACHMENTS 3 AND 4 OF THE PLANNING BOARD PACKET DATED JULY 22, 2015. BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Vice Chair Lovell commended the staff and consultant for their invaluable work. The documents presented to the Board were first rate. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Tibbott reviewed that the August 12th meeting agenda will include a discussion on the Highway 99 Subarea Planning Process and an update on the Development Code Update Process. It will also include a public hearing on the Marina Beach Park Master Plan. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Tibbott reminded the Board Members of the City-sponsored volunteer picnic on August 9th. He also announced that he and Vice Chair Lovell would provide an update to the City Council on Planning Board activities. He encouraged the Board Members to review their contact information that that was provided in a recent email to make sure it is accurate. Chair Tibbott reported on his attendance at the July 21st City Council meeting, where the City Council conducted a public hearing relative to the turf fields at the Old Woodway High School site. He recalled that the project has been in the planning phase for approximately four years and is now being disrupted just as it is being put into motion. He encouraged the Planning Board Members to carefully review park projects that come before them in the future and attempt to avoid these types of conflicts by providing the public early notification of issues that need to be addressed. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Vice Chair Lovell reported on his attendance at the July 15th Economic Development Commission Meeting, at which the discussion focused on tourism, downtown business enhancement, and implementation of the Strategic Action Plan (SAP). It was reported that the Tourism Committee is proposing to take a hiatus for a time. They have made a number of studies and believe they have gone as far as they can for the time being. They made some recommendations, some of which are moving forward and others that are more long term. There was significant discussion about the SAP, particularly how to keep the public informed as to the status of the action items contained in the plan. Commissioner Haug has been working with the City’s Economic Development Director to develop software to track the status of each of the action items for the public’s information. The SAP Committee is working on ideas for increasing media attention and communication with the public. Board Member Stewart said she listened to the video recording of the City Council’s July 21st meeting, particularly the public hearing relative to the interlocal agreement with the Edmonds School District. Without offering her opinion on the matter, she expressed her belief that synthetic fields are needed and have been part of the plan for a long time. Unfortunately, none of the City Council Members or Planning Board Members were involved in the decision making process. The decision was Page 247 of 290 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes July 22, 2015 Page 14 made by the school district, without any input from the City representatives. She noted that there is significant community pressure for the school district to look again at the alternatives. Board Member Rubenkonig announced that the Waste Warriors will be present at the Taste of Edmonds on August 15th and 16th to raise awareness for recycling. She invited Board Members to participate, and members of the group would instruct them how to recycle food and paper products. She summarized that this is a great opportunity to learn about what can be put in the yard waste and recycling containers and what must go to the landfill. Vice Chair Lovell advised that he was a judge at the City-sponsored sand castle contest. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Page 248 of 290 AM-7944 5. C. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:08/25/2015 Time:15 Minutes Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Type: Information Information Subject Title Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8 Interlocal Agreement Recommendation Previous Council Action Narrative This is a renewal of the WRIA8 Interlocal Agreement that has already been approved by the City Attorney. Attachments Attach 1: WRIA_8_ILA_2016-2025_FINAL Attach 2: WRIA 8_ILACostShare_201 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 08/20/2015 08:24 AM Mayor Dave Earling 08/20/2015 08:44 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 08/20/2015 09:49 AM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 08/17/2015 11:25 AM Final Approval Date: 08/20/2015 Page 249 of 290 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT For the Watershed Basins within Water Resource Inventory Area 8 PREAMBLE THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW by and among the eligible county and city governments signing this agreement that are located in King and Snohomish Counties, lying wholly or partially within the management area of Watershed Resource Inventory Area ("WRIA") 8, which includes all or portions of the Lake Washington, Cedar River, and Sammamish River basins, all political subdivisions of the State of Washington (individually for those signing this Agreement, “party”, and collectively “parties”). The parties share interests in and responsibility for addressing long-term watershed planning and conservation. WHEREAS, the parties share interests in and responsibility for addressing long-term watershed planning and conservation of the aquatic ecosystems and floodplains for purposes of implementing the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan (“WRIA 8 Plan”) and improving watershed health for the watershed basins in WRIA 8 and wish to provide for funding and implementation of various activities and projects therein; and WHEREAS, Puget Sound Chinook salmon, including the WRIA 8 Cedar and Samm amish populations, were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1999; and WHEREAS, the parties recognize their participation in this Agreement demonstrates their commitment to proactively working to address the ESA listing of Chinook salmon; and WHEREAS, the parties recognize achieving WRIA 8 salmon recovery and watershed health goals requires a recommitment to, and acceleration of, the collaborative implementation and funding of salmon recovery actions, and WHEREAS, the parties have participated in an Interlocal Agreement for the years 2001- 2005 to develop the WRIA 8 Plan, contributed to the federally-approved Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan, and desire to continue providing efficient participation in the implementation of such plans; and WHEREAS, the parties took formal action in 2005 and 2006 to ratify the WRIA 8 Plan, and WHEREAS, the parties have participated in an extension of the 2001-2005 Interlocal Agreement and an Interlocal Agreement for the years 2007-2015 to implement the WRIA 8 Plan; and WHEREAS, the parties seek information on watershed conditions and salmon conservation and recovery needs to inform local decision-making bodies regarding actions in response to listings under the ESA; and 1 Final WRIA 8 Interlocal Agreement 2016-2025 July 16, 2015 Attachment 1 Page 250 of 290 WHEREAS, the parties have prioritized and contributed resources and funds for implementing projects and programs to protect and restore salmon habitat; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to monitor and evaluate implementation of the WRIA 8 Plan through adaptive management; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to continue to use adaptive management for identifying, coordinating and implementing basin plans and water quality, flood hazard reduction, water quantity, and habitat projects in the watersheds; and WHEREAS, the parties recognize climate change is likely to affect watershed ecosystem function and processes, and salmon habitat restoration actions are a proactive approach to making the watershed ecosystem more resilient to changing conditions, which supports watershed health for human communities and salmon populations; and WHEREAS, the parties have an interest in participating on the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council and other groups associated with Puget Sound recovery because of the contributions of the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed to the overall health of Puget Sound and to collectively seek funding to implement the WRIA 8 Plan; and WHEREAS, the parties have an interest in participating on the Washington Salmon Coalition and other groups associated with the Salmon Recovery Funding Board to collectively seek funding to implement the WRIA 8 Plan; and WHEREAS, the parties have an interest in supporting implementation of the Puget Sound Partnership Action Agenda to restore the health of Puget Sound as it relates to salmon recovery and WRIA 8 priorities; and WHEREAS, the parties recognize the importance of efforts to protect and restore habitat for multiple species in the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish Watershed, including Lake Sammamish kokanee, and will seek opportunities to partner and coordinate Chinook recovery efforts with these other efforts where there are overlapping priorities and benefits; and WHEREAS, the parties have an interest in achieving multiple benefits by integrating salmon recovery planning and actions with floodplain management, water quality and agriculture; and WHEREAS, the parties recognize that identification of watershed issues, and implementation of salmon conservation and recovery actions may be carried out more efficiently if done cooperatively than if carried out separately and independently; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, benefits and covenants contained herein, the parties hereto do mutually covenant and agree as follows: 2 Final WRIA 8 Interlocal Agreement 2016-2025 July 16, 2015 Page 251 of 290 MUTUAL COVENANTS AND AGREEMENTS 1. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Agreement, the following terms shall have the meaning provided for below: 1.1. ELIGIBLE JURISDICTIONS: The governments eligible for participation in this Agreement as parties are the Counties of King and Snohomish; the cities of Bellevue, Bothell, Brier, Clyde Hill, Edmonds, Everett, Issaquah, Kenmore, Kent, Kirkland, Lake Forest Park, Lynnwood, Maple Valley, Medina, Mercer Island, Mill Creek, Mountlake Terrace, Mukilteo, Newcastle, Redmond, Renton, Sammamish, Seattle, Shoreline, Woodinville; the towns of Beaux Arts, Hunts Point, Woodway and Yarrow Point; and other interested public agencies and tribes. 1.2. WRIA 8 SALMON RECOVERY COUNCIL: The WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council created herein is the governing body responsible for implementing this Agreement and is comprised of members who are designated representatives of eligible jurisdictions who have authorized the execution of and become parties to this Agreement. In addition, the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council includes members who are not representatives of the parties and are comprised of a balance of stakeholder representatives and any other persons who are deemed by the parties to this Agreement to be appropriate for the implementation and adaptive management of the WRIA 8 Plan. The appointed representatives of parties will appoint the mem bers who are not representing parties, using the voting provisions of Section 5 of this Agreement. 1.3. LAKE WASHINGTON/CEDAR/SAMMAMISH WATERSHED (WRIA 8) CHINOOK SALMON CONSERVATION PLAN, JULY 2005: WRIA 8 Plan as referred to herein is the three volume document, and any subsequent updates adopted in accordance with the procedures provided for in Section 6 below, developed in partnership with stakeholder representatives and ratified by the parties to this Agreement for the purposes of preserving, protecting, and restoring habitat with the intent to recover listed species, including sustainable, genetically diverse, harvestable populations of naturally spawning Chinook salmon. 1.4 MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE: Management Committee as referred to herein consists of five (5) elected officials or their designees which elected officials are chosen by the party members of the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council, according to the voting procedures in Section 5, and charged with staff oversight and administrative duties on the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council’s behalf. 1.5 SERVICE PROVIDER(S): Service Provider(s), as used herein, means that agency, government, consultant or other entity which supplies staffing or other resources to and for the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council, in exchange for payment. The Service Provider(s) may be a party to this Agreement. 3 Final WRIA 8 Interlocal Agreement 2016-2025 July 16, 2015 Page 252 of 290 1.6 FISCAL AGENT : The Fiscal Agent refers to that agency or government which performs all accounting services for the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council, as it may require, in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 39.34 RCW. 1.7 STAKEHOLDERS: Stakeholders refers to those public and private entities within the WRIA who reflect the diverse interests integral for planning, implementation, and adaptive management for the recovery of the listed species under the Endangered Species Act, and may include but are not limited to environmental and business interests. 2. PURPOSES. The purposes of this Agreement include the following: 2.1 To provide a mechanism and governance structure for the implementation and adaptive management of the implementation of the WRIA 8 Plan 2.2 To share the cost of the WRIA 8 Service Provider team to coordinate and provide the services necessary for the successful implementation and management of the WRIA 8 Plan. The maximum financial or resource obligation of any participating eligible jurisdiction under this Agreement shall be limited to its share of the cost of the Service Provider staff and associated operating costs. 2.3 To provide a mechanism for securing technical assistance and funding from state agencies or other sources. 2.4 To provide a mechanism for the implementation of other multiple benefit habitat, water quality and floodplain management projects with local, regional, state, federal and non- profit funds as may be contributed to or secured by the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council. 2.5 To annually recommend WRIA 8 salmon recovery programs and projects for funding by the King County Flood Control District through the District’s Cooperative Watershed Management grant program. 2.6 To serve as the salmon recovery “Lead Entity” as designated by state law (Chapter 77.85 RCW ) for WRIA 8, The Lead Entity is responsible for developing a salmon recovery strategy, working with project sponsors to develop projects, convening local technical and citizen committees to annually recommend WRIA 8 salmon habitat restoration and protection projects for funding by the State of Washington Salmon Recovery Funding Board, and representing WRIA 8 in Puget Sound region and state wide salmon recovery forums. 2.7 To provide a framework for cooperation and coordination among the parties on issues relating to the implementation and management of the implementation of the WRIA 8 Plan and to meet the requirement or a commitment by any party to participate in WRIA- based or watershed basin planning in response to any state or federal law which may require such participation as a condition of any funding, permitting or other program of state or federal agencies, at the discretion of such party to this Agreement. 4 Final WRIA 8 Interlocal Agreement 2016-2025 July 16, 2015 Page 253 of 290 2.8 To .develop and articulate WRIA-based positions on salmon habitat, conservation and funding to state and federal legislators. 2.9 To provide for the ongoing participation of citizens and other stakeholders in such efforts and to ensure continued public outreach efforts to educate and garner support for current and future ESA efforts. 2.10 To provide information for parties to use to inform land use planning, regulations, and outreach and education programs. 2.11 To provide a mechanism for on-going monitoring and adaptive management of the WRIA 8 Plan as defined in the Plan. It is not the purpose or intent of this Agreement to create, supplant, preempt or supersede the authority or role of any individual jurisdiction or water quality policy bodies such as the Regional Water Quality Committee. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM. This Agreement shall become effective on January 1, 2016 provided it has been signed by that date by at least nine (9) of the eligible jurisdictions within WRIA 8 representing at least seventy percent (70%) of the affected population, as authorized by each jurisdiction’s legislative body, and further provided that after such signatures this Agreement has been filed by King County and Snohomish County in accordance with the terms of RCW 39.34.040 and .200. If such requirements are not met by January 1, 2016, then the effective date of this Agreement shall be the date on which such requirements are met. This Agreement provides the mechanism and governance structure for implementation of the WRIA 8 Plan from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2025. Once effective, this Agreement shall remain in effect through December 31, 2025; provided, however, that this Agreement may be extended for such additional terms as the parties may agree to in writing, with such extension being effective upon its execution by at least nine (9) of the eligible jurisdictions within WRIA 8 representing at least seventy per cent (70%) of the affected population,. 4. ORGANIZATION AND NATURE OF WRIA 8 SALMON RECOVERY COUNCIL. The parties hereby establish a governing body for WRIA 8 and the Lake Washington-Cedar and Sammamish watershed basins and associated Puget Sound drainages (hereinafter the “WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council") the precise boundaries of which are established in Chapter 173-500 WAC, or as determined by the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council, to serve as the formal governance structure for carrying out the purposes of this Agreement in partnership with non-party members. Each party to this agreement shall appoint one (1) elected official to serve as its representative on the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council. The WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council is a voluntary association of the county and city governments, and other interested public agencies and tribes, located wholly or partially within the management area of WRIA 8 and the Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish watershed basins and associated Puget Sound drainages who 5 Final WRIA 8 Interlocal Agreement 2016-2025 July 16, 2015 Page 254 of 290 choose to be parties to this Agreement. Representatives from stakeholder entities who are selected under the voting provisions of Section 5.2 of this agreement are also part of this association. 4.1 Upon the effective execution of this agreement and the appointment of representatives to the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council, the party members of the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council shall meet and choose from among its members, according to the voting provisions of Section 5, five (5) elected officials or their designees, to serve as a Management Committee to oversee and direct the funds and personnel contributed under this Agreement, in accordance with the adopted annual budget and such other directions as may be provided by the party members of the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council. Representatives of the Fiscal Agent and Service Provider may serve as non- voting ex officio members of the Management Committee. The Management Committee shall act as an executive subcommittee of the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council, responsible for oversight and evaluation of any Service Providers or consultants, for administration of the budget, and for providing recommendations on administrative matters to the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council for action, consistent with the other subsections of this section. 4.1.1 Services to the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council for the term of this agreement shall be provided by King County Department of Natural Resources which shall be the primary Service Provider unless the party members pursuant to the voting provisions of Section 5 choose another primary Service Provider. The Management Committee shall prepare a Memorandum of Understanding to be signed by an authorized representative of King County and an authorized representative of WRIA 8, which shall set out the expectations for services to be provided. Services should include, without limitation, identification of and job descriptions for dedicated staff in increments no smaller than .5 FTE, description of any supervisory role retained by the Service Provider over any staff performing services under this Agreement, and a method of regular consultation between the Service Provider and the Management Committee concerning the performance of services hereunder. 4.1.2 The Management Committee shall make recommendations to the party members of the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council for action, including decisions related to work program, staffing and service agreements, and budget and financial operations, annually for each year of this Agreement. All duties of the Management Committee shall be established by the party members of the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council. 6 Final WRIA 8 Interlocal Agreement 2016-2025 July 16, 2015 Page 255 of 290 4.2 The party members of the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council shall have the authority and mandate to establish and adopt the following: 4.2.1 By September 1 of each year, establish and approve an annual budget, establishing the level of funding and total resource obligations of the parties which are to be allocated on a proportional basis according to the average of the population, assessed valuation and area attributable to each party to the Agreement, in accordance with the formula set forth in Exhibit A, which formula shall be updated every third year by the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council, as more current data become available, and in accordance with Section 2.2. Individual party cost shares may change more frequently than every three years for parties involved in an annexation that changes the area, population, and assessed value calculation of such party to the extent that the cost shares established by the formula set forth in Exhibit A would be changed by such annexation. For parties that are not county or city governments, the level of funding and resource obligation will be determined in communications with the Management Committee, which will develop a recommendation for review and approval by, the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council. 4.2.2 Review and evaluate annually the duties to be assigned to the Management Committee hereunder and the performance of the Fiscal Agent and Service Provider(s) to this Agreement, and provide for whatever actions it deems appropriate to ensure that quality services are efficiently, effectively and responsibly delivered in the performance of the purposes of this Agreement. In evaluating the performance of any Service Provider(s), at least every three (3) years, the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council may retain an outside consultant to perform a professional assessment of the work and services so provided. Evaluations of the Service Provider(s) shall occur in years 3, 6, and 9 of the Agreement 4.2.3 Oversee and administer the expenditure of budgeted funds and allocate the utilization of resources contributed by each party or obtained from other sources in accordance with an annual prioritized list of implementation and adaptive management activities within the WRIA during each year of this Agreement. 4.3 The WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council through the primary Service Provider may contract with similar watershed forum governing bodies or any other entities for any lawful purpose related hereto, including specific functions and tasks which are initiated and led by another party to this Agreement beyond the services provided by the primary Service Provider. The parties may choose to create a separate legal or administrative entity under applicable state law, including without limitation a nonprofit corporation or 7 Final WRIA 8 Interlocal Agreement 2016-2025 July 16, 2015 Page 256 of 290 general partnership, to accept private gifts, grants or financial contributions, or for any other lawful purposes. 4.4 The party members of the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council shall adopt other rules and procedures that are consistent with its purposes as stated herein and are necessary for its operation. 5. VOTING. The party members on the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council shall make decisions; approve scope of work, budget, priorities and any other actions necessary to carry out the purposes of this Agreement as follows: 5.1 No action or binding decision will be taken by the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council without the presence of a quorum of active party members. A quorum exists if a majority of the party members are present at the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council meeting, provided that positions left vacant on the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council by parties shall not be included in calculating the quorum. In addition, positions will be considered vacant on the third consecutive absence and shall not be included in calculating a quorum until that time in which the party member is present. The voting procedures provided for in 5.1.1 through 5.1.2 are conditioned upon there being a quorum of the active party members present for any action or decision to be effective and binding. 5.1.1 Decisions shall be made using a consensus model as much as possible. Each party agrees to use its best efforts and exercise good faith in consensus decision-making. Consensus may be reached by unanimous agreement of the party members at the meeting, or by a majority recommendation agreed upon by the active party members, with a minority report. Any party who does not accept a majority decision may request weighted voting as set forth below. 5.1.2 In the event consensus cannot be achieved, as determined by rules and procedures adopted by the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council, the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council shall take action on a dual-majority basis, as follows: 5.1.2.1 Each party, through its appointed representative, may cast its weighted vote in connection with a proposed WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council action. 5.1.2.2 The weighted vote of each party in relation to the weighted votes of each of the other parties shall be determined by the percentage of the annual contribution by each party set in accordance with Subsection 4.2.1 in the year in which the vote is taken. 5.1.2.3 For any action subject to weighted voting to be deemed approved, an affirmative vote must be cast by both a majority of the active party members to this Agreement and by a majority of the weighted votes of the active party members to this Agreement. No action shall be valid 8 Final WRIA 8 Interlocal Agreement 2016-2025 July 16, 2015 Page 257 of 290 and binding on the parties to this Agreement until it shall receive majority of votes of both the total number of active party members to the Agreement and of the active members representing a majority of the annual budget contribution for the year in which the vote is taken. A vote of abstention shall be recorded as a “no” vote. 5.2 The party members on the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council may deem it appropriate to appoint to the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council non-party stakeholder representatives and other persons who are appropriate for the implementation and adaptive management of the WRIA 8 Plan. 5.2.1 Nomination of such non-party members may be made by any member of the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council. Appointment to the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council of such non-party members requires either consensus or dual majority of party members as provided in Section 5.1. 5.2.2 The party members on the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council may deem it appropriate to allow non-party members to vote on particular WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council decisions. The party members may determine which issues are appropriate for non-party voting by either consensus or majority as provided in Sections 5.1, except in the case where legislation requires non-party member votes. 5.2.3 Decisions of the entire WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council, both party and non- party members, shall be made using a consensus model as much as possible. Voting of the entire WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council will be determined by consensus or majority as provided in Sections 5.1 and a majority of the non-party members. 6. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT OF THE WRIA 8 CHINOOK SALMON CONSERVATION PLAN. The WRIA 8 Plan shall be implemented with an adaptive management approach. Such an approach anticipates updates and amendments to the WRIA 8 Plan. Such amendments to be effective and binding must comply with the following provisions: 6.1 The WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council shall act to approve or remand any WRIA 8 Plan amendments prepared and recommended by the committees of the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council within ninety (90) calendar days of receipt of the plan amendments, according to the voting procedures described in Section 5. 6.2 In the event that any amendments are not so approved, they shall be returned to the committees of the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council for further consideration and amendment and thereafter returned to the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council for decision. 9 Final WRIA 8 Interlocal Agreement 2016-2025 July 16, 2015 Page 258 of 290 6.3 After approval of the WRIA 8 Plan amendments by the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council, the plan amendments shall be referred to the parties to this Agreement for ratification prior to the submission to any federal or state agency for further action. Ratification means an affirmative action, evidenced by a resolution, motion, or ordinance of the jurisdiction’s legislative body, by at least nine (9) jurisdictions within WRIA 8 representing at least seventy per cent (70%) of the total population of WRIA 8. Upon ratification, the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council shall transmit the updated WRIA 8 Plan to any state or federal agency as may be required for further action. 6.4 In the event that any state or federal agency to which the WRIA 8 Plan or amendments thereto are submitted shall remand the WRIA 8 Plan or amendments thereto for further consideration, the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council shall conduct such further consideration and may refer the plan or amendments to the committees of the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council for recommendation on amendments thereto. 6.5 The parties agree that any amendments to the WRIA 8 Plan shall not be forwarded separately by any of them to any state or federal agency unless it has been approved and ratified as provided herein. 7. OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES; BUDGET; FISCAL AGENT; RULES. 7.1 Each party shall be responsible for meeting its financial obligations hereunder as described in Section 2.2, and established in the annual budget adopted by the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council under this Agreement and described in Section 4.2.1. The maximum funding responsibilities imposed upon the parties during the first year of this Agreement shall not exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit A, which shall be updated every third year as described in Section 4.2.1, or as annexations result in changes to the area, population, and assessed value calculation for those parties involved in the annexation to the extent that the cost shares established by the formula set forth in Exhibit A would be changed for such parties by the annexation 7.2 No later than September 1 of each year of this Agreement, the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council shall adopt a budget, including its overhead and administrative costs, for the following calendar year. The budget shall propose the level of funding and other responsibilities (e.g. staffing) of the individual parties for the following calendar year and shall propose the levels of funding and resources to be allocated to specific prioritized implementation and adaptive management activities within the WRIA. The parties shall thereafter take whatever separate legislative or other actions that may be necessary to timely address such individual responsibilities under the proposed budget, and shall have done so no later than December 1st of each such year. 10 Final WRIA 8 Interlocal Agreement 2016-2025 July 16, 2015 Page 259 of 290 7.3 Funds collected from the parties or other sources on behalf of the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council shall be maintained in a special fund by King County as Fiscal Agent and as ex officio treasurer on behalf of the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council pursuant to rules and procedures established and agreed to by the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council. Such rules and procedures shall set out billing practices and collection procedures and any other procedures as may be necessary to provide for its efficient administration and operation. Any party to this Agreement may inspect and review all records maintained in connection with such fund at any reasonable time. 8. LATECOMERS. A county or city government, or other interested public agency or tribe in King or Snohomish County lying wholly or partially within the management area of WRIA 8 and the Lake Washington-Cedar and Sammamish watershed basins and adjacent Puget Sound drainages which has not become a party to this Agreement within twelve (12) months of the effective date of this Agreement may become a party only with the written consent of all the parties. The provisions of Section 5 otherwise governing decisions of the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council shall not apply to Section 8. The parties and the county, city, or other public agency or tribe seeking to become a party shall jointly determine the terms and conditions under which the county, city, or other public agency or tribe may become a party. These terms and conditions shall include payment by such county, city, or other public agency or tribe to the Fiscal Agent of the amount determined jointly by the parties and the county, city, or other public agency or tribe to represent such county, city, or other public agency or tribe’s fair and proportionate share of all costs associated with activities undertaken by the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council and the parties on its behalf as of the date the county, city, or other public agency or tribe becomes a party. Any county, city, or other public agency or tribe that becomes a party pursuant to this section shall thereby assume the general rights and responsibilities of all other parties to this Agreement. After the inclusion of such entity as a party to this Agreement, the formula for party contribution shall be adjusted for the following year to reflect the addition of this new party.9. TERMINATION. This Agreement may be terminated by any party, as to that party only, upon sixty (60) calendar days' written notice to all other parties. The terminating party shall remain fully responsible for meeting all of its funding and other obligations through the end of the calendar year in which such notice is given, together with any other costs that may have been incurred on behalf of such terminating party up to the effective date of such termination. This Agreement may be terminated at any time by the written agreement of all parties. It is possible that the makeup of the parties to this Agreement may change from time to time. Regardless of any such changes, the parties choosing not to exercise the right of termination shall each remain obligated to meet their respective share of the obligations of the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council as reflected in the annual budget. 11 Final WRIA 8 Interlocal Agreement 2016-2025 July 16, 2015 Page 260 of 290 10. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION. To the extent permitted by state law, and for the limited purposes set forth in this agreement, each party shall protect, defend, hold harmless and indemnify the other parties, their officers, elected officials, agents and employees, while acting within the scope of their employment as such, from and against any and all claims (including demands, suits, penalties, liabilities, damages, costs, expenses, or losses of any kind or nature whatsoever) arising out of or in any way resulting from such party's own negligent acts or omissions related to such party's participation and obligations under this Agreement. Each party agrees that its obligations under this subsection extend to any claim, demand and/or cause of action brought by or on behalf of any of its employees or agents. For this purpose, each party, by mutual negotiation, hereby waives, with respect to the other parties only, any immunity that would otherwise be available against such claims under the industrial insurance act provisions of Title 51 RCW. The provisions of this subsection shall survive and continue to be applicable to parties exercising the right of termination pursuant to Section 9. 11. NO ASSUMPTION OF LIABILITY. In no event do the parties to this Agreement intend to assume any responsibility, risk or liability of any other party to this Agreement or otherwise with regard to any party’s duties, responsibilities or liabilities under the Endangered Species Act, or any other act, statute or regulation of any local municipality or government, the State of Washington or the United States. 12. VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT. This is a voluntary agreement and it is acknowledged and agreed that, in entering into this Agreement, no party is committing to adopt or implement any actions or recommendations that may be contained in the WRIA 8 Plan pursuant to this Agreement. 13. NO PRECLUSION OF ACTIVITIES OR PROJECTS. Nothing herein shall preclude any one or more of the parties to this Agreement from choosing or agreeing to fund or implement any work, activities or projects associated with any of the purposes hereunder by separate agreement or action, provided that any such decision or agreement shall not impose any funding, participation or other obligation of any kind on any party to this Agreement which is not a party to such decision or agreement. 14. NO THIRD PARTY RIGHTS. Nothing contained in this Agreement is intended to, nor shall it be construed to, create any rights in any third party, including without limitation the non-party members, NMFS, USFWS, any agency or department of the United States, or the State of Washington, or to form the basis for any liability on the part of the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council or any of the parties, or their officers, elected officials, agents and employees, to any third party. 15. AMENDMENTS. This Agreement may be amended, altered or clarified only by the unanimous consent of the parties to this Agreement, represented by affirmative action by their legislative bodies. 16. COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts. 12 Final WRIA 8 Interlocal Agreement 2016-2025 July 16, 2015 Page 261 of 290 17. APPROVAL BY PARTIES' GOVERNING BODIES. The governing body of each party must approve this Agreement before any representative of such party may sign this Agreement. 18. FILING OF AGREEMENT. This Agreement shall be filed by King County and Snohomish County in accordance with the provisions of RCW 39.34.040 and .200 and with the terms of Section 3 herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the dates indicated below: Approved as to form: TOWN OF BEAUX ARTS VILLAGE: By: ____________________ By: ______________________ Title: ____________________ Title: ______________________ Date: ____________________ Date: ______________________ 13 Final WRIA 8 Interlocal Agreement 2016-2025 July 16, 2015 Page 262 of 290 Approved as to form: CITY OF BELLEVUE: By: ____________________ By: ______________________ Title: ____________________ Title: ______________________ Date: ____________________ Date: ______________________ 14 Final WRIA 8 Interlocal Agreement 2016-2025 July 16, 2015 Page 263 of 290 Approved as to form: CITY OF BOTHELL: By: ____________________ By: ______________________ Title: ____________________ Title: ______________________ Date: ____________________ Date: ______________________ 15 Final WRIA 8 Interlocal Agreement 2016-2025 July 16, 2015 Page 264 of 290 Approved as to form: CITY OF CLYDE HILL: By: ____________________ By: ______________________ Title: ____________________ Title: ______________________ Date: ____________________ Date: ______________________ 16 Final WRIA 8 Interlocal Agreement 2016-2025 July 16, 2015 Page 265 of 290 Approved as to form: CITY OF EDMONDS: By: ____________________ By: ______________________ Title: ____________________ Title: ______________________ Date: ____________________ Date: ______________________ 17 Final WRIA 8 Interlocal Agreement 2016-2025 July 16, 2015 Page 266 of 290 Approved as to form: TOWN OF HUNTS POINT: By: ____________________ By: ______________________ Title: ____________________ Title: ______________________ Date: ____________________ Date: ______________________ 18 Final WRIA 8 Interlocal Agreement 2016-2025 July 16, 2015 Page 267 of 290 Approved as to form: CITY OF ISSAQUAH: By: ____________________ By: ______________________ Title: ____________________ Title: ______________________ Date: ____________________ Date: ______________________ 19 Final WRIA 8 Interlocal Agreement 2016-2025 July 16, 2015 Page 268 of 290 Approved as to form: CITY OF KENMORE: By: ____________________ By: ______________________ Title: ____________________ Title: ______________________ Date: ____________________ Date: ______________________ 20 Final WRIA 8 Interlocal Agreement 2016-2025 July 16, 2015 Page 269 of 290 Approved as to form: CITY OF KENT: By: ____________________ By: ______________________ Title: ____________________ Title: ______________________ Date: ____________________ Date: ______________________ 21 Final WRIA 8 Interlocal Agreement 2016-2025 July 16, 2015 Page 270 of 290 Approved as to form: KING COUNTY: By: ____________________ By: ______________________ Title: ____________________ Title: ______________________ Date: ____________________ Date: ______________________ 22 Final WRIA 8 Interlocal Agreement 2016-2025 July 16, 2015 Page 271 of 290 Approved as to form: CITY OF KIRKLAND: By: ____________________ By: ______________________ Title: ____________________ Title: ______________________ Date: ____________________ Date: ______________________ 23 Final WRIA 8 Interlocal Agreement 2016-2025 July 16, 2015 Page 272 of 290 Approved as to form: CITY OF LAKE FOREST PARK: By: ____________________ By: ______________________ Title: ____________________ Title: ______________________ Date: ____________________ Date: ______________________ 24 Final WRIA 8 Interlocal Agreement 2016-2025 July 16, 2015 Page 273 of 290 Approved as to form: CITY OF MAPLE VALLEY: By: ____________________ By: ______________________ Title: ____________________ Title: ______________________ Date: ____________________ Date: ______________________ 25 Final WRIA 8 Interlocal Agreement 2016-2025 July 16, 2015 Page 274 of 290 Approved as to form: CITY OF MEDINA: By: ____________________ By: ______________________ Title: ____________________ Title: ______________________ Date: ____________________ Date: ______________________ 26 Final WRIA 8 Interlocal Agreement 2016-2025 July 16, 2015 Page 275 of 290 Approved as to form: CITY OF MERCER ISLAND: By: ____________________ By: ______________________ Title: ____________________ Title: ______________________ Date: ____________________ Date: ______________________ 27 Final WRIA 8 Interlocal Agreement 2016-2025 July 16, 2015 Page 276 of 290 Approved as to form: CITY OF MILL CREEK: By: ____________________ By: ______________________ Title: ____________________ Title: ______________________ Date: ____________________ Date: ______________________ 28 Final WRIA 8 Interlocal Agreement 2016-2025 July 16, 2015 Page 277 of 290 Approved as to form: CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE: By: ____________________ By: ______________________ Title: ____________________ Title: ______________________ Date: ____________________ Date: ______________________ 29 Final WRIA 8 Interlocal Agreement 2016-2025 July 16, 2015 Page 278 of 290 Approved as to form: CITY OF MUKILTEO: By: ____________________ By: ______________________ Title: ____________________ Title: ______________________ Date: ____________________ Date: ______________________ 30 Final WRIA 8 Interlocal Agreement 2016-2025 July 16, 2015 Page 279 of 290 Approved as to form: CITY OF NEWCASTLE: By: ____________________ By: ______________________ Title: ____________________ Title: ______________________ Date: ____________________ Date: ______________________ 31 Final WRIA 8 Interlocal Agreement 2016-2025 July 16, 2015 Page 280 of 290 Approved as to form: CITY OF REDMOND: By: ____________________ By: ______________________ Title: ____________________ Title: ______________________ Date: ____________________ Date: ______________________ 32 Final WRIA 8 Interlocal Agreement 2016-2025 July 16, 2015 Page 281 of 290 Approved as to form: CITY OF RENTON: By: ____________________ By: ______________________ Title: ____________________ Title: ______________________ Date: ____________________ Date: ______________________ 33 Final WRIA 8 Interlocal Agreement 2016-2025 July 16, 2015 Page 282 of 290 Approved as to form: CITY OF SAMMAMISH: By: ____________________ By: ______________________ Title: ____________________ Title: ______________________ Date: ____________________ Date: ______________________ 34 Final WRIA 8 Interlocal Agreement 2016-2025 July 16, 2015 Page 283 of 290 Approved as to form: CITY OF SEATTLE: By: ____________________ By: ______________________ Title: ____________________ Title: ______________________ Date: ____________________ Date: ______________________ 35 Final WRIA 8 Interlocal Agreement 2016-2025 July 16, 2015 Page 284 of 290 Approved as to form: CITY OF SHORELINE: By: ____________________ By: ______________________ Title: ____________________ Title: ______________________ Date: ____________________ Date: ______________________ 36 Final WRIA 8 Interlocal Agreement 2016-2025 July 16, 2015 Page 285 of 290 Approved as to form: SNOHOMISH COUNTY: By: ____________________ By: ______________________ Title: ____________________ Title: ______________________ Date: ____________________ Date: ______________________ 37 Final WRIA 8 Interlocal Agreement 2016-2025 July 16, 2015 Page 286 of 290 Approved as to form: CITY OF WOODINVILLE: By: ____________________ By: ______________________ Title: ____________________ Title: ______________________ Date: ____________________ Date: ______________________ 38 Final WRIA 8 Interlocal Agreement 2016-2025 July 16, 2015 Page 287 of 290 Approved as to form: TOWN OF WOODWAY: By: ____________________ By: ______________________ Title: ____________________ Title: ______________________ Date: ____________________ Date: ______________________ 39 Final WRIA 8 Interlocal Agreement 2016-2025 July 16, 2015 Page 288 of 290 Approved as to form: TOWN OF YARROW POINT: By: ____________________ By: ______________________ Title: ____________________ Title: ______________________ Date: ____________________ Date: ______________________ 40 Final WRIA 8 Interlocal Agreement 2016-2025 July 16, 2015 Page 289 of 290 G:\WRIA8_Team\ILA Documents, Cost Shares\2016 ILA Renewal\ILA\Exhibit_A_WRIA 8_ILACostShare_2016_FINAL.xls Exhibit A Regional Watershed Funding WRIA Based Cost-share: WRIA 8 For 2016 Total :$553,713 WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council approved 3-19-15 WRIA 8 Jurisdiction Population (Pop)Assessed Value (AV)Area (Sq. Mi.)WRIA 8 Jurisdiction Beaux Arts 290 0.0%$104,734,000 0.0%0.08 0.0%0.0%$143 Beaux Arts Bellevue 132,100 9.3%$33,167,992,493 12.5%33.53 7.2%9.7%$53,631 Bellevue Bothell 40,540 2.9%$5,955,222,655 2.2%13.66 2.9%2.7%$14,849 Bothell Clyde Hill 2,980 0.2%$1,714,510,000 0.6%1.06 0.2%0.4%$2,004 Clyde Hill Edmonds 39,950 2.8%$7,512,735,402 2.8%8.99 1.9%2.5%$14,007 Edmonds Hunts Point 395 0.0%$784,473,000 0.3%0.28 0.1%0.1%$709 Hunts Point Issaquah 32,130 2.3%$6,132,631,583 2.3%11.4 2.4%2.3%$12,981 Issaquah Kenmore 21,170 1.5%$2,835,378,679 1.1%6.14 1.3%1.3%$7,169 Kenmore Kent 0 0.0%$1,714,000 0.0%0.45 0.1%0.0%$180 Kent King County (Uninc.)129,665 9.2%$16,265,512,387 6.1%166.03 35.7%17.0%$94,041 King County (Uninc.) Kirkland 81,730 5.8%$14,356,215,877 5.4%17.81 3.8%5.0%$27,719 Kirkland Lake Forest Park 12,680 0.9%$1,844,674,400 0.7%3.51 0.8%0.8%$4,330 Lake Forest Park Maple Valley 2,454 0.2%$357,899,600 0.1%1.3 0.3%0.2%$1,085 Maple Valley Medina 3,000 0.2%$2,822,326,500 1.1%1.41 0.3%0.5%$2,918 Medina Mercer Island 22,720 1.6%$9,132,580,404 3.5%6.21 1.3%2.1%$11,790 Mercer Island Mill Creek 18,600 1.3%$3,048,481,121 1.2%4.68 1.0%1.2%$6,404 Mill Creek Mountlake Terrace 20,160 1.4%$2,269,630,481 0.9%4.17 0.9%1.1%$5,862 Mountlake Terrace Mukilteo 20,440 1.4%$3,843,580,393 1.5%6.00 1.3%1.4%$7,722 Mukilteo Newcastle 10,640 0.8%$1,888,944,600 0.7%4.46 1.0%0.8%$4,471 Newcastle Redmond 55,840 3.9%$11,941,569,998 4.5%16.45 3.5%4.0%$22,123 Redmond Renton 59,193 4.2%$6,961,057,377 2.6%13.81 3.0%3.3%$18,040 Renton Sammamish 48,060 3.4%$8,110,684,304 3.1%17.05 3.7%3.4%$18,675 Sammamish Seattle 435,487 30.7%$92,061,834,922 34.8%53.01 11.4%25.6%$141,950 Seattle Shoreline 53,670 3.8%$7,322,409,100 2.8%11.59 2.5%3.0%$16,693 Shoreline Sno. Co. (Uninc.)159,369 11.3%$20,454,964,615 7.7%55.51 11.9%10.3%$57,030 Snoh. Co. (Uninc.) Woodinville 10,990 0.8%$2,507,893,071 0.9%5.66 1.2%1.0%$5,424 Woodinville Woodway 1,300 0.1%$441,766,909 0.2%1.08 0.2%0.2%$905 Woodway Yarrow Point 1,015 0.1%$838,037,500 0.3%0.36 0.1%0.2%$859 Yarrow Point Totals 1,416,568 100.0%$264,679,455,371 100.0%465.69 100.0%100.0%$553,713 Totals $553,713 NOTE: King County land area excludes the Upper Cedar basin DATA SOURCES: ◦ Parcels with 2013 Assessment data ◦ 2010 Census Tracts ◦ 2013 Population ◦ King County Cities ◦ Snohomish County Cities Cost-Share Amount (Average of Pop, AV, Area) Note: Total reflects WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council decision (March 19, 2015) to provide for an annuall increase in the ILA cost share not to exceed the Consumer Price Index for Wages, which is estimated to be 2.18% in 2016. Jurisdictional area, population, and assessed value is to be recalculated every three years per the WRIA 8 interlocal agreement for 2016-2025. Attachment 2 Page 290 of 290