Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2009.12.15 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA Edmonds City Council Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds ______________________________________________________________ DECEMBER 15, 2009 6:45 p.m. - Interview candidates for the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Board. The interviews will be held in the Jury Meeting Room and are open to the public. 7:00 p.m. - Call to Order and Flag Salute 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Approval of Consent Agenda Items A. Roll Call B. AM-2673 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of December 1, 2009. C. AM-2675 Approval of correction to the City Council Meeting Minutes of November 2, 2009. D. AM-2683 Approval of claim checks #115584 through #115605 dated November 24, 2009 for $42,169.66, #115606 through #115801 dated December 3, 2009 for $628,698.00 and #115802 through #115936 dated December 10, 2009 for $577,575.76. Approval of kelly day buy back checks #48790 through #48820 dated November 20, 2009 for $33,005.84, and approval of holiday buy back checks #48821 through #48913 dated November 23, 2009 for $224,035.00. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #48914 through #48954 for the period November 16 through November 30, 2009 for $914,791.67. E. AM-2640 Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Eric Thuesen Custom Homes ($47,393.00), and Eleanor Corner ($588.00). F. AM-2667 Approval of list of businesses applying for renewal of their liquor licenses with the Washington State Liquor Control Board, December 2009. G. AM-2663 Reappointment of Lodging Tax Advisory Committee members for 2010. H. AM-2670 List of retiring board members, commissioners, and committee members. I. AM-2623 Authorization for Mayor to sign agreement for the SeaShore Transportation Forum. J. AM-2662 Authorization for Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement 4 with KPFF Consulting Engineers, Inc. for Underground Utilities Upgrades with respect to the BNSF Double Track Project. K. AM-2671 2010 Hourly Positions by Pay Grade, Title and Wage. L. AM-2672 2010 Non-Represented Employee Pay Schedule. Packet Page 1 of 1136 M. AM-2674 2010 Addendum to Prisoner Detention Agreement with the City of Lynnwood. N. AM-2677 Kenneling Services contract between Adix's Bed and Bath and the City of Edmonds. O. AM-2678 Woodway Interlocal Agreement for Police Services. P. AM-2676 Subscriber Agreement with Public Safety Testing, Inc. for Service Years 2010 - 2012. Q. AM-2668 2009-2010 Fire Department Work Plan Update #1. R. AM-2681 Ordinance amending the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan to update the “Edmonds School District Capital Facilities Plan.” S. AM-2680 Ordinance adopting a new Community Sustainability Element. T. AM-2684 Ordinance amending the Comprehensive Transportation Plan in order to update the Transportation Element and the incorporated Walkway and Bikeway Plans. U. AM-2689 Ordinance changing the zoning designation from Multiple Residential (RM-2.4) to Single-Family Residential (RS-8) along a portion of 215th Street SW. V. AM-2597 Resolution thanking Councilmember Ron Wambolt for his service on the City Council. W. AM-2669 Confirmation of new Historic Preservation Commission member. 3. AM-2636 (30 Minutes) Presentation of Resolution to Councilmember Ron Wambolt, followed by a reception. 4. AM-2686 (15 Minutes) Resolution regarding the Council values and direction regarding temporary homeless shelters. Public comment will be received on this matter. 5. AM-2682 (5 Minutes) Interim Zoning Ordinance related to temporary homeless shelters and encampments. 6. AM-2660 (15 Minutes) Resolution on renaming Kairez Drive. 7. AM-2658 (20 Minutes) Public hearing on an application for a development agreement in order to implement a change in zoning for the properties known as “Firdale Village” from "Neighborhood Business" (BN) to the “Firdale Village Mixed Use” (FVMU) zone and establish a tree retention buffer. 8. AM-2610 (15 Minutes) Public hearing on the final Ordinance amending the 2009 Budget: Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 3711 as a result of unanticipated transfers and expenditures of various funds. 9. AM-2611 (15 Minutes) Public hearing on the mid-biennial budget review and modification: Ordinance modifying the 2010 budget as adopted by Reference in Ordinance No. 3711. 10. AM-2661 Public hearing regarding the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Packet Page 2 of 1136 10. AM-2661 (30 Minutes) Public hearing regarding the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board final decision and order of Ordinance No. 3717, the Edmonds City Council adoption of the updated 2001 Parks, Recreation & Open Space Comprehensive Plan. •Public Hearing regarding the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner's report related to the abandonment of a portion of the Old Woodway Elementary school facility. •The 2008 Plan revises and updates the City's park land inventory to reflect acquisitions and delete expired or terminated interlocal agreements. 11. AM-2679 (30 Minutes) Continued public hearing on the Capital Facilities Plan Element Update for 2010-2015 to the City's Comprehensive Plan. The proposal updates the City's Capital Facilities Plan to include improvements, additions, upgrades or extensions of City infrastructure such as transportation, parks, stormwater, sewer and water systems along with other public facilities necessary to implement the City's Comprehensive Plan; incorporates projects from the recently updated Transportation and Parks Plan Elements; adds additional capital projects which extend beyond 2015, and separates the maintenance, replacement and preservation projects from the Capital Facilities Plan Element and into a separate Capital Improvements Plan. 12. AM-2687 (5 Minutes) Ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan to update the Capital Facilities Element for 2010-2015. 13.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings. 14. AM-2685 (15 Minutes) Report on City Council Committee Meetings of December 8, 2009. 15. (5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments 16. (15 Minutes)Council Comments Adjourn Packet Page 3 of 1136 AM-2673 2.B. Approve 12-01-09 City Council Minutes Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/15/2009 Submitted By:Sandy Chase Time:Consent Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of December 1, 2009. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the draft minutes. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attached is a copy of the draft minutes. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: 12-01-09 Draft City Council Minutes Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/09/2009 03:45 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/09/2009 03:47 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/09/2009 04:14 PM APRV Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 12/09/2009 03:43 PM Final Approval Date: 12/09/2009 Packet Page 4 of 1136 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2009 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES December 1, 2009 At 6:15 p.m., Mayor Haakenson announced that the City Council would be meeting in executive session to receive legal advice regarding pending or threatened litigation. He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 30 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Haakenson, Councilmembers Orvis, Wambolt, Plunkett, Bernheim, Peterson and Wilson. Others present were City Attorney Scott Snyder, Attorney Mark Bucklin, Attorney Jaime Allen, Public Works Director Noel Miller and City Clerk Sandy Chase. At 6:45 p.m., Mayor Haakenson announced to the public that an additional 15 minutes would be needed in executive session. The executive session concluded at 6:58 p.m. The regular Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor D. J. Wilson, Council President Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Steve Bernheim, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Ron Wambolt, Councilmember Strom Peterson, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Police Chief Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Ann Bullis, Building Official Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Eng. Program Mgr. Rob English, City Engineer Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Gina Coccia, Planner Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Mgr. I Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mayor Haakenson advised Agenda Item 3 (Presentation by WSDOT Ferries Division Assistant Secretary David Mosley - Update on Vehicle Reservations Pre-Design Study) would be rescheduled in January because Mr. Mosley was not available tonight. Mayor Haakenson also relayed Council President Wilson’s request to pull Item G from the Consent Agenda, place it on the agenda as Item 3 and to accept public comment on that item. COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Packet Page 5 of 1136 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2009 Page 2 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (Item G was removed from the Consent Agenda and placed on the agenda as Item 3.) COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 17, 2009. C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #115435 THROUGH #115583 DATED NOVEMBER 19, 2009 FOR $1,428,904.30. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #48754 THROUGH #48789 FOR THE PAY PERIOD NOVEMBER 1, THROUGH NOVEMBER 15, 2009 FOR $844,394.67. D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM DOUGLAS HALL (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), RICKY ARNTSEN (CLAIM NO. 2, AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), AND TIMOTHY J. GLASS (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED). E. APPROVAL OF LIST OF BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF THEIR LIQUOR LICENSES WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD, NOVEMBER 2009. F. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE 2010 EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WITH JANA SPELLMAN, SENIOR EXECUTIVE COUNCIL ASSISTANT. H. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A CONTRACT FOR SERVICES WITH SUSTAINABLE EDMONDS. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A CONTRACT FOR SERVICES WITH THE CASCADE LAND CONSERVANCY TO BECOME A "CASCADE AGENDA LEADERSHIP CITY." Council President Wilson explained one of the items on the Council’s six point Sustainability Agenda, adopted following the February retreat, was to become a Cascade Agenda Leadership City. The City will enter into a contract with Cascade Land Conservancy for services to assist the City in becoming more livable. Jeff Aken, Cities Program Manager, Cascade Land Conservancy (CLC), explained the Cascade Agenda was a vision of the CLC. Two main goals were developed during a stakeholder outreach process that begin in 2004, 1) protecting 1.3 million acres of forest and farm land, city parks, and shorelines, and 2) creating great cities. The Cascade Agenda Leadership City Program focuses on working with cities to make them more livable as they grow such as providing park space, stormwater benefits, innovative planning policies to protect rural and city lands, and improving walkability and livability. The Cascade Agenda includes 16 cities in the region; Edmonds became a member city in April 2008. Becoming a leadership city will allow CLC to partner with Edmonds as well as conduct a livability assessment that considers the City’s policies and programs and compares them to other leadership cities to identify things Edmonds is doing that could work in other cities and to share things other cities are doing with Edmonds. Mr. Aken explained becoming a Cascade Agenda Leadership City provided for 25 hours of staff time to work with the Council and staff to identify projects. In addition it will provide a Community Stewards Packet Page 6 of 1136 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2009 Page 3 Program, citizen engagement in the planning process. Cascade received a grant from the Washington Women’s Foundation for an annual Livability Conference; membership and leadership cities receive passes to the conference. Cascade will also work with the City on policy memos or other support. He described assistance they have provided to other cities such as in Tukwila they jointly applied for an EPA grant for funding around the transit station; in Tacoma they partnered on open space, transfer of development rights and neighborhood outreach; in Issaquah they developed tours for the Council of mixed use development and brought in Mark Hinshaw, LMN Architects, to review codes that made that possible; and in Kent they assisted with identifying King County grant funds for a green cities program. Responding to Council President Wilson’s questions, Mr. Aken stated there were 16 cities in the program, 12 were member cities and 4 were leader cities and there are no leadership cities in Snohomish County. Council President Wilson asked Planning Manager Rob Chave about the assistance CLC could provide to the City. Mr. Chave responded there was enough flexibility in the agreement to determine where their assistance would be the most helpful. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the grant partnerships Mr. Aken referenced would only be available as a membership city. Mr. Chave answered CLC may have information about grants and partnerships that the City is not aware of. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the cities received the grants because they were leadership cities. Mr. Aken answered no, explaining their goal is to partner with cities to determine how CLC can add value such as engaging other partners and funding agencies. Councilmember Plunkett observed for the $5,000 cost, CLC would provide 25 hours of staff time. Mr. Aken explained the 25 hours of staff time would be directed toward a project identified by the City and CLC. CLC will also conduct a livability assessment which is a policy analysis that reviews parking, open space, and other policies. Councilmember Plunkett asked Robert Freeman, President, Sustainable Edmonds, whether Sustainable Edmonds was conducting a sustainability analysis. Mr. Freeman answered they were not doing a specific study/report; their mission was sustainability through public outreach. He commented Sustainable Edmonds would be happy to work with CLC. Councilmember Plunkett inquired about the tours Mr. Aken referenced. Mr. Aken stated CLC arranged Smart Growth tours with Issaquah to Old Bellevue and Mercer Island Town Center. The goal of the tours was to show Councilmembers, Planning Commissioners, and interested citizens examples of mixed use development, codes and civic investments that would be needed, etc. Councilmember Plunkett asked if the cities could have arranged the tours themselves. Mr. Aken agreed they could but often did not due to staffing limitations. Also having CLC facilitate discussions may allow a more free-flowing conversation. Councilmember Bernheim asked whether the contract proposed for Edmonds was the same as the other leadership cities. Mr. Aken answered it was the same as Kirkland, Issaquah and Tukwila; Tacoma has an expanded contract that includes a Green Tacoma Partnership that focuses on restoration and stewardship of open space and policy assistance on transfer development rights. Councilmember Bernheim asked whether the livability assessments from those cities were available. Mr. Aken advised they were available as well as a database that compare each city’s efforts. Public Comment Bob Stephenson, Edmonds, a citizen volunteer with CLC since 2004, commented they do great projects in wilderness areas, working farms, working forests, preserving sensitive areas, etc. He was concerned with CLC being involved in Edmonds as the City did not have a great deal of land to preserve. He was Packet Page 7 of 1136 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2009 Page 4 uncomfortable with an outside agency determining whether Edmonds was livable or not livable and preferred the planning staff and Planning Board make those determinations. He referred to the four topics on which CLC would focus, urban design, transit oriented development, street policy development and long term visibility around the Comprehensive Plan process, commenting the assistance of an outside agency was not necessary for those issues. He concluded the agreement did not place an upper limit on the amount of City staff time to work with CLC and there were greater needs in the City for this $5,000 expenditure. Lora Petso, Edmonds, commented although she appreciated the Council removing this item from the Consent Agenda and allowing public comment, she would have liked the same opportunity on Item H. She urged the Council to utilize the Consent Agenda for routine items and items previously reviewed by the Council, pointing out the proposed $5,000 expenditure from the Council Contingency Fund to become a Cascade Agenda Leadership City was not routine nor had it been previously reviewed by Council. She pointed out that because Mayor Haakenson and Councilmember Bernheim and possibly others are members of CLC, it would have been better to ask Mr. Freeman to provide a presentation and for staff to describe how the $5,000 could be used. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented the City had a budget problem and both small and large expenditures come from the taxpayers. He acknowledged CLC has done great things but Edmonds did not need their assistance when there were citizens already involved with sustainability who could assist the City without a $5,000 expenditure. He suggested there were greater issues in the State such as radioactive materials leaking from tanks in Hanford and the possible contamination of the Columbia River. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN A CONTRACT FOR SERVICES WITH THE CASCADE LAND CONSERVANCY TO BECOME A “CASCADE AGENDA LEADERSHIP CITY” AND ALLOCATE $5,000 FROM THE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUNDS TO PAY THE ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP FEE FOR THE FIRST YEAR’S MEMBERSHIP. Council President Wilson recalled on April 28 Sustainable Edmonds described their efforts and CLC made a presentation to the Council at least once during the past year. He anticipated the return on investment of the funds to become a Cascade Agenda Leadership City would be significant. CLC staff has extensive regional and national expertise to bring in outside funds and assist in areas where City staff does not have time. CLC’s assistance would also allow the City to manage its existing assets. He recalled in December 2007 when large amounts of water that entered the City’s sewer system following snow and rain which nearly exceeded the capacity of the City’s treatment plant. He explained the way to avoid that was stormwater planning, increasing permeable surfaces, etc. He anticipated CLC could assist the City in obtaining grants, noting Edmonds had the duty to be a regional leader in smart growth, stormwater planning, transit oriented development, etc. Councilmember Plunkett expressed concern with the process, explaining this item was scheduled on the Consent Agenda although it had not been reviewed by a Council Committee. It was then removed from the Consent Agenda and placed on the agenda for a public hearing without public notice. He summarized although he had strong opinions with regard to becoming a Leadership City, the scheduling of an ad hoc public hearing prevented him from supporting it. Councilmember Bernheim commented although he was sympathetic to Councilmember Plunkett’s concerns with the public hearing, he would support the motion. He did not consider $5,000 a “bank breaking” appropriation, noting if the expenditure was larger, he would be willing to delay approval to allow for additional public input. He viewed this a wise expenditure because the objectives supported the Packet Page 8 of 1136 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2009 Page 5 Council’s goals; however, not enough has been done to achieve them. He concluded neither staff nor the Council had done as much as they should to promote sustainability concepts. This was a one-year contract and if CLC’s assistance did not prove to be beneficial, the City could simply not renew the contract. He recognized Sustainable Edmonds for their efforts. Councilmember Peterson pointed out this was not a new item, the Council discussed becoming a Leadership City during the February retreat as well as at subsequent Council meetings. Edmonds’ physical location on Puget Sound gives the City the opportunity and the obligation to take a leadership role with other Snohomish County cities in the area of environmentalism. He agreed with Mr. Hertrich’s comment regarding Hanford, noting the City needed to be concerned with environmental issues throughout the State as well as upstream to ensure all waters entering Puget Sound are clean. This was a great opportunity to utilize CLC’s expertise as well as the expertise of other cities for a minimal expenditure. Councilmember Plunkett expressed concern that Councilmembers Bernheim and Peterson appeared to support an ad hoc public hearing because of the limited expenditure, the importance of the subject, because they liked the issue and because it had been discussed in the past. Council President Wilson commented there had not been a public hearing which was a legal process; there had been opportunity for public comment. He recalled there had been opportunity for public comment when the Council’s Sustainability Agenda was presented in February and when Sustainable Edmonds made their presentation in May and again when CLC made a presentation to the Council. He explained removing this item from the Consent Agenda and allowing public comment was in response to Mr. Stephenson’s request, there was never an intent to circumvent the process or exclude the public. Councilmember Wambolt explained that Mr. Stephenson called him to express concern with this item and suggested Mr. Stephenson contact Council President Wilson which he did. He acknowledged Councilmember Plunkett’s concern with the process, noting the Council was unlikely to have scheduled a public hearing on this issue. Mr. Stephenson’s request to provide input had been accomplished, the Council has discussed the matter and he supported the motion. MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS AND PLUNKETT VOTING NO. 4. ANNUAL REPORT - HEARING EXAMINER Sharon Rice, Toweill Rice Taylor LLC, commented this had been a slower year for them due to decreased development. They held 11 hearings; the names and dispositions are provided in Attachment A. The majority were Conditional Use Permits, a few variances, one shoreline permit, one request for exception from stormwater provisions and an administrative appeal of an encroachment permit. A hearing was held recently regarding the termination of an Interlocal Agreement for which a decision has not yet been issued. She commended City staff for their professionalism and thoroughness, commenting they provide citizens an excellent level of service. LeAnna Toweill, Toweill Rice Taylor LLC, thanked the Council for amending the Code by adopting new procedural sections including changes to the reconsideration ordinances. The changes have been clear and easy to apply; the reconsideration ordinance has criteria regarding when a reconsideration should be granted, what evidence should be considered and the effect on parties’ appeal rights. However, in cases involving Public Works permits which are covered by Title 18 (procedural changes were made to Title 20), they found the Title 18 sections referenced repealed Hearing Examiner ordinances. In one case a jurisdictional question arose because Title 20 suggested the Hearing Examiner no longer had Packet Page 9 of 1136 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2009 Page 6 jurisdiction but the Code section said the matter was heard by the Hearing Examiner. She suggested staff identify areas of the code that need to be updated to reflect the new procedures. Councilmember Orvis commented when reviewing the Hearing Examiner’s decisions, he found a variance had been approved to allow a generator and a propane tank in the setback of a 4 acre flat lot. He asked them to ensure the variance criteria were met, noting the special exception criteria did not allow granting a special exception based on expense. He questioned why there was no adequate space on a 4- acre flat lot to have those uses outside the setback. He was concerned with the safety of locating a propane tank in a side setback in a residential area. Ms. Rice responded she was disappointed her findings did not convey that the variance criteria had been met, recalling she was convinced the criteria had been met. She assured variances were required to meet the criteria and it was her professional goal to be very strict with regard to variance criteria. She would ensure in the future that her findings reflected that the evidence supported granting a variance. Council President Wilson recognized Mukilteo Councilmember Kevin Stoltz in the audience. He relayed an interest from Mukilteo, Mountlake Terrace and Edmonds Councils to attend each other’s Council meetings to observe how meetings are conducted. Swearing In Councilmember Peterson City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the Continuity of Office Provisions in RCW 42.12 provides that when the election results are certified, an individual serving a short term should be sworn in to fulfill the remainder of the term and the following term. If someone else had been elected, that person would be required to be sworn in; it was not clear whether someone serving in the position and sworn in to fulfill the term through the end of the year needed to be sworn in. However, Snohomish County sent the City Clerk the forms and was expecting Councilmember Peterson to be sworn in. Mayor Haakenson swore in Strom Peterson to Council position 2. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised the previous votes were valid as Councilmember Peterson had been sworn in at the beginning of his term. 5. ANNUAL REPORT - PROSECUTOR Jim Zachor, Zachor & Thomas, commented they have been providing prosecutor services to Edmonds since 2005, prosecuting misdemeanors, gross misdemeanors, certain contested infractions, appeals to Superior Court, and special drug and felony forfeitures as well as representing the South Snohomish County Narcotic’s Task Force. He commented there were no situations like the unique motions being filed last year by creative attorneys; therefore, their DUI conviction rate has increased substantially. There has been an increase in domestic violence cases and they have been successful in prosecuting those cases, due in part to the Domestic Violence Coordinator who acts as a liaison between the Police Department and the Prosecutor’s office. They continue to provide 24 hours service to assist the Police Department as well as keep the Police Department updated on changes in the law. Their firm, located in Edmonds, has a total of six attorneys after hiring three attorneys over the past year. He introduced the three new attorneys, Elena Stock, Peter Halabicky and James Zachor and briefly described their backgrounds. Mr. Zachor explained the number of cases increased substantially between 2007 and 2008. This year they are down slightly but the intensity of the DUI cases has increased as defense attorneys learn how to defend DUI cases. Packet Page 10 of 1136 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2009 Page 7 Melanie Thomas Dane, Zachor & Thomas, advised their firm also hired Rachel Hunter who will take the bar exam in February. She explained in 2010 the courts will implement the video-in-custody calendar. This is a cost savings to the City to prosecute cases while the defendant is in jail and avoids transport costs. It will also allow processing of other cases more efficiently without the disruption of an in-custody calendar. She explained for the video-in-custody hearings, the prosecutor will be in the Edmonds courtroom with the Judge and Court Clerk and the defendant will be at the jail with their counsel present. Ms. Dane commented on the County’s decision, for budget reasons, not to process some felony filings as felonies and to send them to the cities for review. That increased their property crime statistics tremendously and required them to deal with a different caliber of defendant; for example a person involved in identify theft versus shoplifting. She commented this also increased the jail budget when a person that should be charged as a felony was prosecuted in misdemeanor court. Ms. Dane commented on the number of jury trials this year, the last a pair of no-contact order violations. Although the number of jury trials are increasing but she did not anticipate a third monthly jury trial day. Although filings are down slightly from 2008, their criminal cases such as theft, weapon charges, etc. have increased which she anticipated was due to issues previously charged as felonies. Councilmember Bernheim asked whether there was any data to support their statements. Ms. Dane offered to provide the filings from the Court Clerk. Councilmember Bernheim recalled during his investigation of the municipal court filings last year, 50% of the non-criminal traffic cases were Driving with License Suspended in the third degree (DLS3). Ms. Dane responded there was a large influx of Driving with License Suspended charges last year because the State reinstated DLS3 as a crime. Councilmember Bernheim recalled 20% of the criminal non-traffic cases were misdemeanor charges for marijuana or paraphernalia. His interest in obtaining the data was to determine if the increase in filings and the need for more attorneys was to assist with the prosecution of adults for misdemeanor possession of marijuana or paraphernalia or DLS3. He recognized the importance of DUI and domestic violence prosecution but did not feel prosecution of misdemeanor amounts of marijuana or paraphernalia was as important. He asked about the number of DUI cases prosecuted over the last year. Ms. Dane answered thee were 139 DUI filings in Edmonds in 2008. Councilmember Bernheim asked about the number of misdemeanor marijuana and paraphernalia filings. Ms. Dane answered they were categorized under criminal non-traffic. She pointed out there were a number of DLS charges filed in Edmonds; it is a crime for which the officers cite defendants and for which they are required to prosecute. The same is true for drug paraphernalia, possession of marijuana, minor in possession, trespass, etc. charges. The Prosecutor is not allowed to select what to prosecute; they must prosecute what the Legislature has determined is a crime and what is presented to their office. For Councilmember Bernheim, Ms. Dane explained prosecutorial discretion means they have the ability to charge or dismiss cases as they see fit; however, if the facts prove a defendant committed a possession of marijuana charge, they are required to prosecute the crime because the legislature determined it was a crime. Councilmember Bernheim asked when they would decide not to prosecute. Ms. Dane answered she would not prosecute a charge that she could not prove. Councilmember Bernheim requested in the future the prosecutor’s presentation include data regarding the caseload. If the increase in cases was due to non-violent, victimless crimes, he may be interested in urging the State Legislature not to burden cities with the obligation of spending money to jail people for non-violent, victimless crimes. Ms. Dane suggested the court may be able to provide that data. Packet Page 11 of 1136 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2009 Page 8 Mr. Zachor commented they also represent the South Snohomish County Narcotics Task Force. He recalled a few years ago the federal government significantly reduced marijuana transports from Canada. The result was an increase in the number of grow operations, particularly in Lynnwood. He recalled three houses were seized and two murders occurred due to disputes between the growers and the owners. Councilmember Bernheim relayed the comment by John McKay, Federal Prosecutor for Western District of Washington, that when so many people violate the law and no one is murdering anyone under the influence of marijuana, the only reason murders are being committed in marijuana growing operations is that marijuana growing is a high dollar operation because it is illegal. 6. REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING THE THUESEN SUBDIVISION, ALLEY WAY VACATION AND REIDY ENFORCEMENT ACTION. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained on November 2, 2009, a series of allegations were made by Mr. and Mrs. Reidy, Ms. Bloom, Ms. Mallory and others in the neighborhood. There are a number of Superior Court actions, pending civil claims by Mr. Thuesen, Mr. Reidy’s attorney has raised civil rights violation claims in briefing, a criminal allegation is pending against a City employee and there is a pending enforcement action against the Reidys. Because of those claims, he explained this would not be a legal report and he would not discuss the claims raised by Mr. Reidy or Mr. Thuesen; those could be addressed in court or before the City’s Hearing Examiner. The purpose of this report was to review the historical basis for staff actions and provide the public a response via public documents and information the Council has been provided in the past. Mr. Snyder explained an independent review of Mr. Reidy’s civil claims and allegations has been made by independent counsel. He requested that review several months ago when an issue of whether he had a conflict of interest arose. That report was provided to the Council. The staff members involved in this matter since 2006, former Development Services Director Duane Bowman, Building Official Ann Bullis, Engineering Program Manager Jeanie McConnell, City Engineer Rob English, Public Works Director Noel Miller, and Planning Manager Rob Chave, are all present in the audience. Mr. Snyder summarized the statements made by Ms. Reidy on November 2 that he had directed staff to speak only through their attorney or to respond to public records requests, that he had been curt to her husband and why staff had not responded to countless emails her husband provided. Mr. Snyder summarized the statements made by Mr. Reidy on November 2, that he had failed his duty to the Council, had intervened in the vacation process, provided bad advice and that his role was not to become involved. Mr. Reidy also stated Mr. Snyder’s advice led to the granting of a private benefit on public property and was illegal under the City’s ordinances. Mr. Snyder summarized the statements made by Ms. Bloom on November 2, that his and his firm’s incompetence have cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars. Ms. Moore asked on November 2 whether he was ashamed of himself. Mr. Snyder explained he was not ashamed and viewed Ms. Moore’s statements as a desire to influence the next day’s election. Mr. Snyder explained he did not respond to the audience’s concerns that evening because 1) it was not appropriate, 2) because the Council decided not to review their decision regarding the vacation and 3) these were serious allegations that deserved a serious response from the public record. He agreed with the assertion by Ms. Reidy and one other speaker that he forwarded all responses from Mr. Reidy to Mr. Thuesen’s attorney. He also forwarded Mr. Thuesen’s attorney’s response to Mr. Reidy’s attorney. He also instructed staff to limit their response to written responses through the attorney Packet Page 12 of 1136 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2009 Page 9 or to respond to written public records requests. In the past the City was involved in a Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) appeal of the Thuesen subdivision. The City is currently engaged with Mr. Thuesen on an appeal of a vacation action. Mr. Thuesen has filed a damage claim with the City and Mr. Reidy’s attorney in briefing to the Hearing Examiner has alleged civil rights violations. Mr. Reidy has also alleged criminal behavior and the City is pursuing a code enforcement action against Mr. Reidy. For those reasons, he instructed staff and the Council to limit their discussions and he copied both attorneys on communications with the other. When claims are filed, the City is required by its insurance to limit communication or attempts to resolve claims. Mr. Snyder explained when the original town of Edmonds was created in 1890, streets and 15-foot alleyways were platted. Mr. Reidy’s and his neighbors’ properties were located on the boundary of Edmonds at that time and only a 7.5-foot alley was dedicated, assuming the adjacent properties would dedicate the other 7.5 feet. He displayed an aerial map, identifying Mr. Reidy’s and Mr. Thuesen’s properties. In 2006 Mr. Thuesen filed an application to subdivide his property; there was a wetland on that property. Although it has been stated over the years that the wetland was drained, in reality there was a drain on that property that was damaged and ceased to function. When Mr. Thuesen tried to repair the drain in the process of subdivision, a stop work order was issued until the viability of the wetland could be assessed. A third party contract was entered into and experts retained to assess the size of the wetland. The wetland report indicated the wetland was 1,997 square feet or 3 feet less than the regulated wetland size. The neighbors raised concerns with the size calculation and the placement of the survey stakes and appealed to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner attempted to respond to their concerns by giving conditional approval to a 2-lot subdivision and ordering further assessment of the property. Mr. Thuesen appealed to Superior Court. In response to Ms. Bloom’s allegation that his incompetence in the process resulted in the loss of the case and that the City spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, Mr. Snyder explained the City spent approximately $70,000 over a 4-year period on the Thuesen subdivision and the Reidy enforcement action. The majority was spent during the Thuesen subdivision process in an attempt to defend the Hearing Examiner’s decision in Superior Court. He was one of three legal counsels representing the Hearing Examiner’s decision; he represented the City along with an appointed insurance counsel and the Mallory’s were represented by an attorney. He explained appeals to Superior Court of Hearing Examiner decisions are determined on the basis of the record. The record in this case consisted of expert opinions and neighbor’s questions. The appointed insurance counsel and he discussed the matter and took the unusual step of meeting with Ms. Bloom and Mr. Reidy at the Mallory’s home on several occasions to discuss the case and gather the neighborhood’s input. The problems with the case were highlighted and it was suggested consideration be given to a settlement. He also discussed the matter with Mr. Thuesen’s attorney and proposed a settlement that would have preserved the wetland but acknowledged Mr. Thuesen’s right to vest to three lots with use of the alleyway as access for the subdivision. The neighbors rejected that settlement and the matter proceeded to court. Superior Court Judge Lucas found the record contained substantial and competent evidence to support Mr. Thuesen’s position and that the neighbor’s questions were not evidence. The end result was a 3-lot subdivision that vested in Mr. Thuesen the right to use the alleyway to access the subdivision. Ironically, the only reason the alley is in that configuration was the existence of a wetland that no longer exists. Mr. Thuesen’s vested right to use this configuration has been the source of many of the problems that have occurred for Mr. Reidy. Packet Page 13 of 1136 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2009 Page 10 In 1962 Mr. Reidy’s predecessor in title obtained a building permit to build a tool shed and provide a 5- foot setback from the right-of-way. After the Judge’s ruling, both Mr. Thuesen and the City appealed to the Court of Appeals. At that time, when Mauri Moore was a Councilmember, the insurance counsel and he met with the Council and with Council input decided to settle the case, pay a portion of Mr. Thuesen’s costs and accept the configuration. At that point, the configuration became a legal fact that staff has been forced to enforce. He displayed a photograph identifying the property line and the tool shed, noting over the years the tool shed became a garage and later converted to a home office, all without permits. There was also an extension built on the tool shed that extends over the right-of-way and onto Mr. Thuesen’s property. After the Council settled the case, two things occurred nearly simultaneously, first Mr. Thuesen filed a complaint asking that the tool shed blocking the public right-of-way be removed. Mr. Bowman wrote to Mr. Reidy requesting he move the shed. During this same time, Mr. Bowman began meeting with the neighbors including Mr. Reidy regarding a vacation of the right-of-way. He pointed out the 7.5-foot right-of-way served no public purpose other than to fulfill the City’s obligation to Mr. Thuesen for a short period of time. Over the years Mr. Thuesen altered his subdivision application so that the access road was not in the right-of-way but immediately adjacent to the right-of-way. Mr. Thuesen needs to use the right- of-way only to construct a retaining wall. According to Mr. Thuesen, the tool shed interferes with his ability to do so. Mr. Snyder clarified the Reidys had done nothing wrong and were not criminals; they were involved in a very emotional situation, a boundary line dispute with a neighbor, and both parties think they are right. The City’s position was clear as soon as Mr. Thuesen’s rights were vested. The vacation was initiated by the City Council, not by the neighbors or Mr. Reidy as they did not own sufficient property. The Council passed a resolution and held a public hearing. With regard to the allegation by Mr. Reidy that there was no basis to reserve a utility easement, he referred to RCW 35.79.030 that states the ordinance may provide that the city retain an easement or the right to exercise and grant easements in respect to the vacated land for the construction, repair and maintenance of public utilities and services. The City’s ordinance has similar language. He explained one of the services was encroachment permits and right-of-way use permits, temporary ability to use the right-of-way for a variety of purposes. The City regularly grants right-of-way use permits for construction purposes, food vendor carts, outdoor dining, art, mailboxes, fences, etc. The City has the ability to reserve easements to fulfill its obligation to Mr. Thuesen. In response to Mr. Reidy’s statement that the City Attorney’s role was to answer questions, Mr. Snyder explained he viewed his role differently. The Council was faced with a difficult situation; an easement that the City has virtually no use for and an obligation to Mr. Thuesen that needs to be fulfilled. Rather than deny the vacation, he pointed out the Council had the ability to reserve a construction easement to allow Mr. Thuesen to construct the retaining wall and when that was completed, the easement would expire. He explained the Council had to provide Mr. Thuesen the access granted by Superior Court and by offering an alternative he was fulfilling his obligation to provide legal advice regarding a legal alternative. During his comments on November 2, Mr. Reidy stated he felt this alternative was made out of the blue with no ability for him to respond. However, the record indicates Mr. Reidy did comment. He pointed out at the July 22, 2008 Council public hearing, a number of property owners at the other end of the alley requested the Council delay passage of the ordinance to give them an opportunity to meet and trade easements. The ordinance was not returned to the Council until March 17, 2009. During that eight month period Mr. Bowman and he met with Mr. Reidy, with Mr. Reidy’s attorney, with Mr. Thuesen, with Mr. Thuesen’s attorney and other neighbors in an attempt to resolve their dispute. During that time Mr. Reidy Packet Page 14 of 1136 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2009 Page 11 did not approach the Council to request a reconsideration. Once the ordinance was passed and became effective, Mr. Reidy did not appeal the ordinance. Mr. Thuesen appealed the ordinance to ensure the public right-of-way was retained in the event there was a problem with the easement. Under Washington State law it is a public nuisance to obstruct a public right-of-way and a municipality has the obligation to remove obstructions in the public right-of-way. Mr. Snyder displayed a map of the area provided by Mr. Reidy, identifying the 7.5 foot right-of-way and the tool shed structure that extends across the public right-of-way and onto Mr. Thuesen’s property. He pointed out a person cannot adversely possess against the City, Mr. Thuesen has the right to use the right- of-way, and Mr. Reidy is obstructing the right-of-way with a building that does not conform to permit. Mr. Reidy has an adverse possession claim pending against Mr. Thuesen which is the jurisdiction of Snohomish County Superior Court. After two years, the City issued a Notice to Correct. During those two years Mr. Bowman and he warned Mr. Reidy that this would happen and urged him to request a stay in his quiet title action from Superior Court. Ultimately this issue would be decided by the court. At this time the Reidys have: Failed to assert adverse possession claim in first subdivision action Failed to request Council reconsideration during the eight months this matter was pending before the Council passed a vacation ordinance Failed to appeal the vacation ordinance Failed to appeal the first Order to Correct Withdrew appeal of second Order to Correct Instituted quiet title action but did not request a Stay of Enforcement proceeding. Mr. Snyder reviewed the Reidy’s remedies: Pursue their quiet title action Request a stay of the pending enforcement action; the City has indicated its willingness not to oppose such an order Remove the shed extension Mr. Snyder summarized: Mr. Thuesen has a vested right to construct his subdivision in its current configuration using the alley for access. Any attempt by a political body to interfere with a vested period opens the Council to significant legal liability (Mission Springs v. City of Spokane). The Reidy’s tool shed was not constructed in accordance with the 1962 permit and is within the public right-of-way. The City must honor Thuesen’s vested rights; municipalities have a duty to remove obstructions in the public right-of-way and are exposed to liability if they fail to do so. He concluded staff was walking a narrow line; attempting to honor Mr. Thuesen’s vested rights to the least extent necessary with the least impact on the Reidys as possible. Staff has not requested the structure be removed and have not asked why/when it was converted to a habitable use from a tool shed. Staff was only asking that the portion of the structure in the public right-of-way be removed. He welcomed Mr. Reidy’s pursuit of a quiet title action and has indicated the City will not oppose a stay of the enforcement proceedings. Mr. Bowman and he have repeatedly offered solutions to resolve the matter and he has offered to bring to the Council a request to pay the cost of mediation. Although staff ceased their discussions when the lawsuits were filed, Mayor Haakenson has continued to pursue discussions between the parties. Mr. Snyder assured all the information provided were exhibits from the code enforcement action. Packet Page 15 of 1136 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2009 Page 12 Council President Wilson referred to the photograph of the Thuesen subdivision wetland; Mr. Snyder advised the wetland was determined to be 1,997 square feet and 2,000 was the regulated size. Council President Wilson asked how the size of the wetland was determined. Mr. Snyder answered it was determined by a wetland biologist and survey. The developer paid for the study via a third party agreement, the obligations were outlined in a contract prepared by the City and the developer paid for the report. He noted although the neighbors had legitimate questions, in the analysis by the Judge, they were only questions versus the experts’ opinions. Council President Wilson referred to the Thuesen subdivision drawings, recalling some surveys did not identify the drain pipe, others did identify the drain pipe but none of them indicated it connected to the wetland. Mr. Bowman identified the location of the drain with a crushed pipe, explaining the neighbors contacted him when the developer began digging in that area. He explained the drain was connected into the property. Council President Wilson clarified if the wetland had no drainage, the wetland should still exist. Mr. Snyder responded that was not at issue as the Snohomish County Superior Court decided Mr. Thuesen’s wetland analysis was accurate. Council President Wilson was surprised the Reidys would not have asked for a reconsideration of the ordinance when it was passed with the easement. He anticipated Mr. Reidy would say he did request reconsideration. He asked whether the City informed Mr. Reidy of the steps he could have taken during that eight month period such as requesting reconsideration. Mr. Snyder did not recall whether Mr. Bowman or he suggested Mr. Reidy request reconsideration. Council President Wilson agreed the court would ultimately make the decision. He expressed his confidence in Mr. Snyder’s skills and advice. Mr. Snyder commented one of the difficulties was there were multiple legal proceedings. He cautioned if the Council asked a question regarding those matters, he would recommend the Council convene in Executive Session. To Mr. Reidy’s statement that he has not received an administrative hearing in response to the Notice of Violation and Order to Correct, Council President Wilson asked about an administrative hearing. Mr. Snyder advised Mr. Reidy had a right to an administrative hearing before the Hearing Examiner after he filed an appeal. He advised Bio Park of his office had responded to Councilmember Bernheim’s question regarding that matter. Councilmember Plunkett asked the process for asking the Council for reconsideration. Mr. Snyder responded it could have been done via email or letter to any Councilmember. Councilmember Plunkett asked what obligation the Councilmember had to make a motion for reconsideration. Mr. Snyder answered any Councilmember on the prevailing side could bring it forward but was not obligated to do so. Councilmember Plunkett clarified if Mr. Reidy sent an email or letter to a Councilmember, it is his obligation to find a Councilmember willing to pursue reconsideration. Mr. Snyder agreed the person would need to identify a Councilmember willing to make a motion for reconsideration and for a majority of the Council to support reconsideration. Councilmember Plunkett concluded an email or letter asking for reconsideration did not guarantee reconsideration, only an effort for reconsideration. Mr. Snyder agreed. Councilmember Orvis asked for clarification regarding the 1962 permit. Mr. Snyder explained a permit was issued in 1962 to construct a tool shed of unspecified dimensions and to maintain a 5-foot setback. Staff has not asked the Reidys to remove the tool shed; staff has only asked that the portion in the public right-of-way be removed. Staff has also not asked that the 5-foot setback be maintained because it will be via the vacation. Packet Page 16 of 1136 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2009 Page 13 Councilmember Bernheim inquired about the independent counsel who reviewed the matter. Mr. Snyder explained he asked WCIA to do pre-litigation review of Mr. Reidy’s claims. Councilmember Bernheim asked if that was the same person who participated in the Thuesen lawsuit settlement. Mr. Snyder answered Ms. Kroll was the co-counsel appointed by WCIA. Councilmember Bernheim commented he was not aware that the independent counsel had previous involvement and advocacy in this case. He was surprised to learn that the attorney selected to conduct the independent review had been an active participant in the Thuesen settlement agreement. Mr. Snyder explained he applied to WCIA for pre-litigation review and WCIA assigned the attorney. He did not feel it appropriate to designate an attorney or challenge the person they appointed. Councilmember Bernheim expressed concern that her previous role had not been disclosed and with the appearance of non- objectivity. Councilmember Bernheim recalled when he made the motion to vacate the right-of-way without a construction easement, Mr. Bowman stated vacation without a construction easement would not impair Mr. Thuesen’s access to the property. He asked how that statement comported with Mr. Thuesen’s vested right. Mr. Snyder responded that statement was made in the context of his general right of access would not be impaired as he has access from both north and south as well as street frontage. However, his specific vested right of access would have been impaired. Mr. Bowman was addressing one aspect of access; he was addressing the other. Councilmember Bernheim recalled the issue before the Council at that meeting was the vacation of the right-of-way and one of the criteria was whether the property owner’s access would be rendered impossible. That was the reason he proposed vacating the right-of-way without a construction easement. Mr. Snyder responded there were two separate issues at that meeting. Washington law recognizes a general right of access as well as specific vested rights of access. For example a store with two driveway entrances; closing one entrance still allows them access but reduces their access which was a compensable injury under Washington law. Councilmember Bernheim referred to the administrative hearing in ECDC 20.110.040 which also states there is a $100 day penalty while the violation continues. The section states the Order to Correct shall include a statement that the monetary penalty shall be assessed for each day the violation continues following the administrative hearing. He clarified the code did not require the Order to Correct violation to inform the recipient there would be an administrative hearing. Mr. Snyder responded an administrative hearing was provided by appeal. Upon filing an appeal, the fines cease until the hearing is concluded. Mr. Snyder referred to the written explanation that Mr. Park provided Councilmember Bernheim and offered to discuss this matter before the Hearing Examiner. Councilmember Bernheim asked whether in future Orders to Correct the City would not mention that an administrative hearing would follow. Mr. Snyder answered staff planned to continue using that form. He noted that language needed to be revised as a result of the Post v. Tacoma decision. He summarized the Order complies with the ordinance. Councilmember Bernheim asked whether construction of the retaining wall was in the vicinity of the shed. Mr. Snyder answered it was. Councilmember Bernheim observed the shed needed to be moved to allow construction that is authorized by the construction easement. Mr. Snyder responded the City does not regulate the design of the wall nor the setback area. In 2007, Mr. Thuesen’s first complaint was based on the shed extension blocking the City’s right-of-way. Access has since been moved adjacent to the right-of-way and the sole need to use the right-of-way is for construction purposes. Mr. Thuesen contends he needs the area clear to meet OSHA requirements based on the burden on the soil above the work area. Councilmember Bernheim concluded the wall would not be constructed where the shed extension was located. Mr. Snyder agreed it would not. Packet Page 17 of 1136 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2009 Page 14 Councilmember Bernheim referred to ECDC 20.70.030, City Easement Rights for Public Utilities and Services, which states in vacating a street, alley or easement, the city council may reserve for the city any easement or the right to exercise and grant any easement for public utilities and services. He asked whether Mr. Thuesen’s easement was an easement for public utilities and services. Mr. Snyder answered it was a public service. ECC 18.70.000, Permits Required, is the basis for the City granting right-of-way use permits for construction and a variety of other services. He summarized the City had the right under both ordinance and statute to grant easements or reserve easements for public utilities or public services. An example of a public service is a right to use the right-of-way for construction purposes. Councilmember Bernheim asked whether Mr. Snyder would object to allowing Mr. Reidy and Mr. Thuesen an opportunity to present their point of view. Mr. Snyder noted that was permitted at any time during audience comment. The intent of this item was to provide a historical explanation. Councilmember Bernheim reiterated his concern with the WCIA attorney selected to do an independent review of the case. Mr. Snyder responded that person would logically do pre-litigation review of a claim against the City. Councilmember Bernheim agreed this was an emotional boundary line issue with a great deal of history and some neighbor animosity. His intent with this review was to avoid this situation in the future. Mr. Snyder explained with every month that passed, the City’s options were reduced. Had this issue been raised in the first subdivision, staff could have forced the road design in a different location or had Mr. Reidy’s ownership rights been asserted before the Council settled the case. He recalled if the Council did not want to reserve the easement, his advice was to deny the vacation to allow staff to address Mr. Thuesen’s rights. He concluded opportunities for appeal have been frequent but they have not been exercised. Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. 7. PUBLIC HEARING ON CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENT UPDATE FOR 2010 – 2015 TO CITY’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE PROPOSAL UPDATES THE CITY'S CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN TO INCLUDE IMPROVEMENTS, ADDITIONS, UPGRADES OR EXTENSIONS OF CITY INFRASTRUCTURE SUCH AS TRANSPORTATION, PARKS, STORM WATER, SEWER, AND WATER SYSTEMS ALONG WITH OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; INCORPORATES PROJECTS FROM THE RECENTLY UPDATED TRANSPORTATION AND PARKS PLAN ELEMENTS; AND, SEPARATES THE MAINTENANCE, REPLACEMENT AND PRESERVATION PROJECTS FROM THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENT AND INTO A SEPARATE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN. Mayor Haakenson referred to updated documents provided to the Council regarding Parks and the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Public Works Director Noel Miller explained the CFP was part of an annual Plan update that integrates the capital facilities into other annual plans that the City Council reviews and approves. He provided a drawing of the coordination schedule and how the CFP is integrated. He reviewed changes to the CFP: Focuses on Capital Improvement Projects that support the City’s Comprehensive Plan; Focuses on projects that have a longer planning and implementation horizons of more than 6 years; Packet Page 18 of 1136 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2009 Page 15 Capital preservation and maintenance projects remain in the 6 year CIP but are not part of the CFP; Schedule corresponds to the City budget process He explained the CFP is organized into three categories, Transportation Projects, Stormwater and other Utility Projects and Parks, General and Regional Projects. He reviewed the status of other Comprehensive Plan elements related the CFP: Transportation - final adoption by City Council on October 20, 2009 Stormwater - currently being revised to comply with NPDES Phase II Clean Water Act Regulations Drinking Water - currently being revised to comply with the most current Department of Health regulations Sanitary Sewer - study underway to address excessive inflow and infiltration concerns Park & Recreation - updated and adopted in December 2008. He highlighted projects of significance in the CFP including the WSDOT Ferry/Multimodal Facility. According to Page 93 of the WSDOT Ferries Division Final Long Range Plan (June 30, 2009), the Plan “assumes that the Edmonds terminal will remain in its current location”, at least through 2030. Also according to Page 93 of the Plan, “one improvement project is scheduled to be completed at Edmonds in the 2029-2031 biennium and will total $26.0M ($08).” Other significant capital facilities projects include the following: 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor Aquatic Center Art Center/Art Museum Boys & Girls Club Building Civic Playfield Acquisition Downtown Street Lighting Improvements Edmonds Library Addition Former Woodway High School Playfields Parks & Facilities Maintenance Building Replacement Senior Center Building Replacement The Planning Board held a public hearing on November 4. The Planning Board’s discussion identified the following: A significant need for additional funding for transportation projects Importance of identifying transportation projects that connect the downtown to the waterfront An interest in moving forward on projects that protect and enhance the Edmonds Marsh and Daylight Willow Creek to the Sound The Planning Board recommends approval of the Plan with particular attention given to elements in the Plan that fit into the broad public transportation facilities and sustainability issues in the City. The Council packet includes updated exhibits for the Multimodal Transportation Fund 113 that include the projected annual expenditures from the State and Federal government. He noted Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh also provided descriptions of the park projects in the 2009-2015 CIP. Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton, Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh, City Engineer Rob English, and Stormwater Program Manager Jerry Shuster as well as members of the Citizens Advisory Committee on Transportation are present to answer questions. Packet Page 19 of 1136 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2009 Page 16 Councilmember Plunkett read from email sent by Lora Petso that the new CIP format would seem to prevent any city expenditure of REET money for any property acquisition other than the civic fields. She referenced RCW 82.46.010 that states jurisdictions must spend the first ¼ of their REET receipts solely on capital projects that are listed in the Capital Facilities Plan and the only acquisition in the CFP is the civic playfields. City Attorney Scott Snyder responded the Plan could be amended should an opportunity arise. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the only potential acquisition in the CFP was the civic fields and did not include the Skipper’s property, additional Sherwood Park property, Safeway site, etc. Mr. Miller agreed the civic playfields were identified in the CFP and the projects Councilmember Plunkett identified were not. If the Council wanted the ability to fund those projects, they needed to be in the CFP at some point. He advised the CFP was updated annually. Mr. Snyder noted the Council could also adopt a finding of an emergency and amend the CFP at any time. He acknowledged the process to amend the CFP may take up to six weeks. Planning Manager Rob Chave pointed out the CFP could also be amended at the time a budget amendment was adopted. Councilmember Plunkett asked if the CFP needed to identify a specific site such as Skipper’s or if it could include a broad acquisition category. Mr. Snyder answered a need must be identified which could include multiple sites. The projects must also be consistent with the available funds. Councilmember Wambolt commended Neil Tibbots for his Guest View in the Edmonds Beacon publicizing tonight’s meeting and the need for more funds for transportation improvements. He recalled the Planning Board has admonished the Council for the past few years for not adequately funding CIP projects. He commented it was clear when the economy improved there would be a need for a transportation levy, noting there were sidewalk projects in the Plan costing $62,000 that would not be done for over six years. He pointed out Fund 125 shows $430,000 and Fund 126 shows $430,000 however, it was really only half of that amount as the entire REET collection was projected to be $430,000. Mr. McIntosh answered there were two REET collections, the first ¼ and the second ¼, each was projected to be $430,000. Councilmember Wambolt responded that was not consistent with the information provided to the Finance Committee Council President Wilson commented a recent Washington Budget Policy Center presentation showed REET funds for the past 20 years were essentially flat; they spike obscenely in the last 2-3 years. The decline in REET actually brings collections to approximately the level they were at before the spike. He pointed out projects planned in the first three years must have identified funds, projects in the later years do not have to have identified funds. Mr. Snyder read from the Growth Management Act, a capital facilities plan consisting of an inventory of existing facilities, forecast of future needs, proposed location and capacities of the new or extended capital facilities and at least a six year plan to finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes. Mr. Snyder agreed the numbers become less specific in future years. Council President Wilson explained the CFP would be formally adopted along with the other Comprehensive Plan amendments at the end of the year. Mr. Snyder explained the Council could docket emergency amendments for this Plan as opportunities arose or amend the Plan at the time of a budget amendment. Council President Wilson asked when the CFP assumed there would be Transportation Benefit District (TBD) vehicle license fee of $100 versus the currently adopted $20 per vehicle. Mr. Miller advised the first three years did not assume any funds from the TBD. City Engineer Rob English answered the fourth year and beyond assumed a $40 voter approved TBD vehicle license fee in addition to the current $20. Councilmember Bernheim inquired about the deadline to adopt the CFP. Mr. Snyder answered it needed to be adopted this year. At this point in the process there was not enough time to make a significant Packet Page 20 of 1136 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2009 Page 17 amendment because notice and another public hearing would be required. Councilmember Bernheim asked how a substantive amendment could be made in the future. Mr. Snyder answered there was ample time next year for notice and another public hearing for an emergency amendment or in conjunction with a budget amendment. He advised the Council could delete a project but adding a substantive project would be nearly impossible unless the Council held a special meeting during the holidays. Councilmember Bernheim commented the Plan included $25 million for professional services for the Edmonds Crossing project and $11 million for right-of-way acquisition and mitigation. He asked if any of these funds were from Edmonds’ budget. Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton clarified Fund 113 was a pass through account. Although $3.1 million in revenue expenditures was budgeted in 2009 and $3 million in 2010, they were for budgetary purposes and the funds may or may not be spent. The federal government via federal appropriations pays 80% of expenditures and the State pays approximately 20% as a local match. Other than his time, Edmonds has had no expenditures on that project this year. He pointed out there were no funds in this budget for construction in the period 2000 - 2015, versus last year’s Plan that anticipated construction would begin in 2012. Those construction funds have been removed from the Plan. Councilmember Bernheim suggested deleting the $25 million for professional services for Edmonds Crossing. Mr. Clifton explained the professional services budget was approximately $12.3 and right-of- way acquisition of $12 million. The right-of-way acquisition is related to the lower Unocal yard. The City, along with WSF negotiated a purchase and sale agreement with Unocal and Washington State budgeted approximately $10 million in 2003 for right-of-way acquisition. When the Department of Ecology certifies the lower yard as clean at the end of 2010, the title will transfer from Unocal to Washington State Ferries. Councilmember Bernheim referred to page 169 of the Council packet which contained a project entitled professional services/design and an estimated project cost of $24,377,000. Mr. Clifton advised the Council had been provided updated information. Councilmember Bernheim questioned the $200,000 budget for a skate park. Mr. McIntosh answered that project was projected to be funded from REET Fund 125. The location of the park had not yet been determined but it would fulfill a need. Councilmember Bernheim inquired about the $5 million cost of the Boys & Girls Club building and asked if the building would be located on the civic playfield property. Mr. McIntosh answered the Boys & Girls Club has wanted a new building for several years somewhere in Edmonds. Their present location is owned by the Edmonds School District and subleased by the Boys & Girls Club. Councilmember Bernheim inquired about the $1.6 - $1.9 million projected for a fire training facility, now that the City planned to contract for fire service with Fire District 1. Mr. Miller answered there was an asterisk on that line stating it was not needed if the City contracted with Fire District 1. Councilmember Bernheim anticipated the School Board would have a huge incentive to sell the civic playfield property to a private developer and asked what the City’s plan was to avoid that. Mr. McIntosh answered there was no specific plan at this time; when staff attempted to talk with the School District about the property a few years ago, they were not interested in discussing the sale of the property. The current lease extends to 2021. Mr. Snyder explained the City has tried to negotiate an option on the property several times and been rejected. Council President Wilson expressed frustration with receiving the CFP tonight and being told the Council could not make any substantive changes because the Plan needs to be adopted by the end of the year to be in compliance with GMA. He recalled on three occasions during this year he asked staff when the CFP would be presented to the Council. He was also frustrated that Councilmember Wambolt had to raise the Packet Page 21 of 1136 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2009 Page 18 question about REET funding. In addition, the Plan changes policy; the Council’s policy has been to devote REET funds over $750,000 to overlays. However, the proposed plan divides $863,000 in REET between park acquisition and park improvement. He was also concerned the Council had been provided additional information tonight. He anticipated the public would be frustrated with commenting on a Plan they had not had adequate time to review. He suggested continuing the public hearing to answer the questions the Council raised. With regard to the allocation of REET funds over $750,000 to overlays, Mr. McIntosh explained that was only for Fund 125. Council President Wilson agreed. Mr. McIntosh explained the City had been receiving 30-40% of historical high REET collections. When REET collections reached historical highs in 2004-2006, the amount in each REET was over $1 million and collectively $2 - $2.5 million. He was confident the $430,000 was collected in each REET fund. Councilmember Wambolt recalled the information presented to the Finance Committee was total REET in 2007 was $1.4 million. Mr. McIntosh reiterated that was the amount collected by each REET. Mr. Miller commented staff was also frustrated by the inability to complete the CFP due to limited staff. He had hoped to present the CFP to the Council on November 15 but other factors intervened. Council President Wilson recognized the City was staffed very lean. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Lora Petso, Edmonds, commented she did not receive the updated packet and expressed concern with a process where the Council was unable to make substantive changes. She asserted that was a violation of the GMA, more so than being late adopting the Plan. She explained the concern she relayed in her email was that there was apparently a difference between a CFP and a CIP and urged the City to proceed cautiously when making that distinction. With regard to the ability to amend the Plan on an emergency basis, she asserted that was only the CIP, not the CFP and the CFP was what allowed the City to spend REET 1 funds. She questioned whether tonight’s public hearing was for the CFP, CIP or both. With regard to specific projects, she recommended eliminating the fire training facility and removing the 100 year flood study for the Edmonds Marsh intended to assist property owners with strategies for new development or redevelopment. She also questioned the $300,000 park acquisition expenditure in 2009, the vehicle wash station that had been in the Plan since 2002, why all the funding for the vehicle wash station was from the Stormwater Utility, and the previous plan to locate parks maintenance in the old Public Works facility. She urged the Council not to take action tonight to allow her additional time to review the Plan. Neil Tibbot, Edmonds, a member of the Citizens Advisory Transportation Committee, relayed the Committee’s interest in finding solutions to making Edmonds a great place to walk and to connect parks and other sites. He identified several areas in need of sidewalks including near Madrona Elementary; the street that connects City Park, Seaview Elementary and Olympic View Drive; and the street that connects Olympic View Drive and 76th. He also identified streets in need of repair and improvements listed in the Transportation Plan including Five Corners and 228th. He noted the Plan had identified funding of $40 million and a shortfall of approximately $60 million. He relayed the Committee’s request not to fund all 53 projects in the Plan but to focus on the top 13, many of which are walkways in front of schools, connections between parks, the waterfront and businesses. The Committee compared Edmonds to Mountlake Terrace who has $663,000 or $11,000 per mile to fund transportation compared to $316,000 or $2000 per mile in Edmonds. He pointed out the discrepancy in the way the two cities funded transportation and suggested Edmonds reconsider their priorities. He displayed funding scenarios if the TBD vehicle license fee were increased. Packet Page 22 of 1136 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2009 Page 19 Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Edmonds, a member of the Citizens Advisory Transportation Committee, reiterated the Committee’s support for the new Transportation Comprehensive Plan. However, the 2010- 2015 CFP falls short of the Plan’s recommendations and there is a huge funding gap that needs priority attention. The current funding program equates to an 80 year overlay cycle which does not provide minimum service levels for emergency services or citizens. Optimum sustainability in Edmonds cannot be achieved if citizens are forced to drive to leave their neighborhoods because collector roads do not have sidewalks. Promoting safe walkways to schools also assists with combating obesity. She summarized a poorly funded program results in deferred maintenance and delays construction improvements which results in emergency projects at a much higher cost, accidents, litigation and liability, a less attractive city, inability to accomplish projects on short notice, inability to obtain grants due to lack of local match, and inability to construct projects when construction costs are low. The Committee urged the City to prioritize the development of a solid funding plan for the transportation system that met the objectives outlined in the Transportation Comprehensive Plan. The Committee urged the City to proceed with a transparent process and to examine all available revenue sources to fund transportation capital improvements. The Committee will work with staff to develop such a plan. COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 11:00 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Brian Harding, Director of Facilities, Edmonds School District, relayed the School District’s interest in the safety of students traveling to and from school and the District’s support for any pedestrian improvements the City can afford. Angela Michael, Edmonds, a parent whose two children attend Maplewood K-8, described a situation where her child was almost hit while crossing the street. She relayed vehicles routinely drive too fast on 200th. She explained there was a sidewalk in front of Maplewood but there was no sidewalk on the other side of the street and therefore there was no crosswalk. The City installed additional school zone signs recently. She suggested installing a flashing school zone light. Roy Chappel, Edmonds, representing the Edmonds Bicycle Group, explained they were an advocacy group promoting safe bicycling in Edmonds. Their advocacy efforts include working with the City planners to consider the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians, planning and assisting with bicycle rodeos and donating bicycle helmets to youth receiving bicycles from charitable organizations. The Transportation Plan identifies over 50 projects between 2010 and 2025, many of which include bicycle improvements for example the 220th & 84th project. He recommended Council explore additional funding sources such as voter approval of additional TBD vehicle fees and change the distribution of REET funds. Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, commented he was glad to see the Plan included funding for the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor which he viewed as a critical downtown project for economic development, enhances quality of life and helps brand the downtown area to potentially attract high end art galleries and the sales tax they generate. He was surprised to see only $5,000 allotted in 2009-2012 for Edmonds Marsh Hatchery improvements, an inadequate amount due to the importance of the marsh to storm drainage and its role in attracting tourists. He pointed out the Marsh was the site of the annual Bird Festival. He expressed concern that the Edmonds Marsh Master Plan was not funded until 2011 and suggested that occur in conjunction with the Port’s Master Plan for the Harbor Square site. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, preferred the Council extend the public hearing and adoption if necessary to ensure the document was complete. He suggested the City maintain the civic playfields as a public use classification and direct the Planning Board to reclassify all public school playgrounds as public use to ensure they remained public use in the future. He expressed concern that the revenue sources were not adequately identified in the document such as specific grants. He was concerned the Council was Packet Page 23 of 1136 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2009 Page 20 continually asked to accept unreasonable plans, recalling a previous Plan that included $850,000 for three signals on 9th Avenue and $2 million for a roundabout. He urged the Council to give direction to staff to remove those projects from the Plan. He urged the City to make it clear to Edmonds School District that the City and School District needed to work together on a combined pool at the Woodway High School site. He also suggested the City identify a cost for the civic playfield. He was pleased the Plan included $4-10 million for the Senior Center building replacement, but suggested a plan for that project need to be identified. He recommended no further funds be spent on a ferry terminal at Unocal. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Mr. Snyder pointed out one of Ms. Petso’s questions highlighted the change in this year’s plan between the CFP and the CIP. In the past the City has combined capital facilities and capital improvements. The GMA requires a Capital Facilities Plan, a 6-year plan to finance capital facilities. That is particularly important with regard to the RCW Ms. Petso referenced with regard to REET because REET funds can only be used to acquire or build new capital facilities; they cannot be used for improvements. Dividing the plan into a CFP for the acquisition or construction of new improvements and separating out maintenance projects was staff’s intent. In response to Ms. Petso’s inquiry whether the Plan was already late, Mr. Snyder clarified the 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan was late; the CFP and CIP were not late. The Transportation Improvement Plan and the CFP need to be consistent and will be passed simultaneously at the end of the year. He commented a substantive amendment would be an addition to the Plan that the public had not had an opportunity to comment on. The Council was free to make adjustments within the range of alternatives considered. If the public had not had an opportunity to see or review information that was provided to the Council, he suggested continuing the public hearing. Council President Wilson noted the City had a 6-year plan in place; if this Plan was not adopted, would that Plan still be in effect? Mr. Snyder stated the risk was the plans need to be consistent. If there is a project in the Parks or Transportation Plan, it needs to also be in the CFP. At a minimum, he recommended the CFP be updated to reflect changes in other plans to avoid invalidating one of the other plans. Mr. Miller clarified the information distributed by Mr. McIntosh were the CIP descriptions, capital improvements for existing facilities that are not included in the CFP. Council President Wilson observed the CFP included the CIP. Mr. Snyder reiterated the City has mixed capital facilities and capital improvements in the past. The CIP is an optional element; the CFP is a mandatory element. He summarized it was an amendment to the CFP to delete the CIP projects. Mr. Miller stated the CIP was included for information only. The narrative in the agenda memo explains the CIP projects are being separated from the CFP; in the past the CIP was included as part of the CFP. Mayor Haakenson suggested continuing the public hearing until December 15 to allow staff to clarify the information provided. He offered to have staff email the Council regarding the REET funds tomorrow. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL DECEMBER 15, 2009. MOTION CARRIED (5- 0). Councilmember Plunkett was not present for the vote. Packet Page 24 of 1136 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2009 Page 21 8. PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED REZONE (FILE #PLN20090019) TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL (RM-2.4) TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-8) ALONG A PORTION OF 215TH STREET SW. ALL PROPERTIES WERE SUBJECT TO A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT THAT WAS APPROVED LAST YEAR (FILE #AMD20070014). Mayor Haakenson asked if Councilmembers had any disclosures. Councilmember Plunkett reported Jim Underhill, who is associated with this rezone, wrote several letters to the editor in support of his campaign and he used one of his quotes in his campaign materials. Councilmember Orvis reported Mr. Underhill also supported his campaign. Mayor Haakenson asked if there were any challenges to Councilmember Orvis or Plunkett’s participation. There were no challenges voiced and Mayor Haakenson advised all Councilmembers would participate in this item. Planner Gina Coccia clarified Mr. Underhill was not the applicant; the City Council initiated the rezone. She explained the rezone referred to properties along 215th Street SW east of 76th Avenue West. The same 19 parcels were the subject of a Comprehensive Plan map amendment in 2008 that changed the Comprehensive Plan map from “Mixed Use Commercial” to “Single Family – Urban 1.” Each parcel is approximately ¼ acre in size, approximately equivalent to the R8 zoning designation and developed with single-family homes built in the 1950s and 1960s. Two owners along 76th have objected to the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed rezone. The site is located within the Multiple Residential (RM- 2.4) zone. The neighborhood is situated near Highway 99 to the east, Stevens Hospital to the south, Edmonds Woodway High School to the west, and multi-family to the north. The Planning Board made a recommendation to deny the proposed rezone of this neighborhood. She referred to Exhibit 2, minutes of the Planning Board meeting that contain their findings. She explained the City Council needed to review the record and determine if a rezone of the area was appropriate. Pursuant to ECDC 20.40 (rezones), 6 factors shall be considered: Comprehensive Plan consistency, zoning consistency, relationship to nearby property, changes in the surrounding area or in policy to justify the rezone, economic and physical suitability, and the relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase/decrease in value to the property owners. Councilmember Wambolt clarified the criteria needs to be considered but do not have to be met. Ms. Coccia agreed. She explained the Council initiated the amendment and staff recommends approval; however, the Planning Board recommended the Council not approve the rezone and consider the area during next year’s Comprehensive Plan amendment process. The Planning Board also discussed omitting the two properties on 76th from the rezone. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Susana Martinez, Edmonds, property owner on the corner of 76th Avenue West & 215th Street, explained she did not support the proposed rezone. When she purchased her house in 1986 she was aware it was in a multi-use zone. She pointed out her house was not in a single family residential zone and there is a great deal of traffic on 76th Avenue. She anticipated her home’s value would be reduced and would Packet Page 25 of 1136 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2009 Page 22 be difficult to sell if it were rezoned to single family residential. She referred to the proximity of Stevens Hospital and a condominium complex as well as the deteriorating condition of many of the houses. COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 11:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Jim Underhill, Edmonds, recalled the Council voted 5-2 to amend the Comprehensive Plan to a single family residential designation and 7-0 to have the current zoning changed to support the Comprehensive Plan. He explained all the criteria have been met. On October 14, the Planning Board reviewed the rezone request. The record of their meeting indicates they understood the task, agreed with staff’s findings and agreed the rezone satisfied the criteria. He referred to inaccurate statements made at the Planning Board meeting by the residents on 76th, Alden Peppel and Ms. Martinez. Ms. Martinez gave the impression the neighborhood was deteriorating. He pointed out two homes on 215th had recently sold for the asking price, indicative of a solid neighborhood on the rise. Ms. Martinez indicated the homes were old and of poor quality; he pointed out several homes had been upgraded in recent years. They are a neighborhood of affordable, quality homes. The concerns cited by Mr. Peppel and Ms. Martinez regarding traffic noise and noise from Stevens Hospital are shared by all the residents on 215th; the homes on the south side of 215th are adjacent to the Stevens Hospital parking lot and several are in close proximity to the Stevens Hospital power plant. He concluded the homeowners on 215th support the proposed rezone and the rezone protected the stock of affordable, quality housing. Councilmember Bernheim asked whether he would support retaining the existing zoning for the two lots on 76th. Mr. Underhill commented it may be more appropriate to ask the residents adjacent to those homes. The goal was to protect the entire street and all the homes share the issues Mr. Peppel and Ms. Martinez cite as reasons to be excluded. Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, recalled when the Council first discussed changing the Comprehensive Plan designation and during the deliberation there was discussion about this providing affordable housing. After that meeting he visited the neighborhood and his perception was that it was an oasis. He noted for some people the ability to live in a family residence close to Stevens Hospital was a positive feature and may be the reason houses in that neighborhood have sold quickly in this market. Another feature of this neighborhood was it was a walkable community; residents can walk to schools, restaurants, stores, etc. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Bernheim asked Ms. Coccia to review why this was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code. Ms. Coccia responded the Comprehensive Plan designation was changed from commercial to single family last year and a rezone from multi family to single family was consistent with that change. With regard to consistency with the Zoning Code, she explained the lots were developed as single family and the lot sizes were consistent with R-8 zoning. Another issue to consider was the relationship to nearby property, she explained there was a mix of uses in this area although it was primarily commercial and multi family. With regard to whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing zoning and under the proposed zoning, Ms. Coccia referred to the Planning Board’s discussion that the neighborhood was not indicative of the City as a whole and should be considered during next year’s Comprehensive Plan amendments. With regard to the relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value, Ms. Coccia commented the current RM-2.4 zoning would allow up to four dwelling units and the proposed RS-8 zoning would only allow one single-family dwelling unit per lot. Packet Page 26 of 1136 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2009 Page 23 With regard to the relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value, Mr. Snyder explained in Washington there was no vested right to zoning. Changes could be made without incurring liability. The purpose of the criteria was to ensure the greatest good for the greatest number; whether the rezone achieves something positive for the overall community that would offset damage to the property owner. Mayor Haakenson clarified the Planning Board recommended denial so that it could be considered as part of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan amendments rather than rezoning one small area. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the Council initiated the rezone. In preparing the staff report, staff relied on the 2008 Comprehensive Plan amendment. The Planning Board recommended denial of the Comprehensive Plan amendment last year and requested the Council refer this back for reconsideration of the Comprehensive Plan designation. The Council’s options were to approve the rezone, remand to the Planning Board for review during the Comprehensive Plan amendment process or approve the rezone for the houses on 215th and refer the zoning of the properties on 76th to the Planning Board. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE ZONING CHANGE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE TWO PROPERTIES ON 76TH. Councilmember Bernheim recalled he supported the change to the Comprehensive Plan designation. He viewed this neighborhood as an oasis. He found value in preserving affordable, single family areas but was persuaded that excluding the two properties on 76th would not harm the character of the other properties and it would be beneficial to allow multi family residential on 76th. Councilmember Wambolt recalled Councilmember Olson and he opposed changing the Comprehensive Plan designation. He pointed out the existing zoning allowed for more affordable housing than the rezone as multi family dwellings were typically more affordable than single family homes. He disagreed that the rezone was compatible with the surrounding area, pointing out there was no single family development nearby. He agreed with the Planning Board’s recommendation to consider this as part of next year’s Comprehensive Plan amendments. He did not support the motion. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out staff believed all six criteria were met and the Council at one time believed the criteria were met. He pointed out the Planning Board Chair who voted against the change for other reasons believed all the criteria were met. He summarized the Planning Board wanted to change the legislative process for amending the Comprehensive Plan designation and the zoning. He expressed his support for the rezone under certain conditions. Council President Wilson asked about the status of the properties on 76th if the proposed motion passed. Mr. Chave responded the two properties on 76th would be reviewed by the Planning Board due to inconsistency between the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THE TWO PROPERTIES ON 76TH. Councilmember Plunkett expressed concern with the impact on the adjacent property owners of excluding the properties on 76th. Council President Wilson pointed out the rights of the adjacent property owners should not be more important than the rights of the property owners on 76th. Packet Page 27 of 1136 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2009 Page 24 THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT FAILED (2-4), COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT AND COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS VOTING YES. THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT VOTING NO. 9. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Lora Petso, Edmonds, thanked the Council for their efforts to respond to public comment. She requested the Council revise the PRD ordinance so that the building setback did not overlay the perimeter buffer. There was legislative history indicating that was the intent when the PRD ordnance was adopted. Recent information indicated the City will allow the setback to overlay the buffer. The result is the homeowner believes they have a 15-foot backyard and later discovered they cannot place a shed, patio or play structure in that space because it is also the buffer area. She emphasized the need to address this to prevent the creation of useless backyards. Vivian Olsen, Edmonds, thanked Mr. Snyder for the historical account of the Reidy’s situation. In response to Mr. Snyder’s question why there was no appeal of the original subdivision by Mr. Reidy, she clarified there was no notice to Mr. Reidy. Although a survey was conducted and all infringements of the property line were to be disclosed in the survey, they were not and as a result there was no follow-on requirement that it be resolved prior to approval of the subdivision. To the point that there was no appeal by Mr. Reidy of the alley vacation and the construction easement, Mr. Reidy requested a meeting which she attended along with Mr. Snyder and several staff members. If an appeal was a possibility, staff could have suggested that to Mr. Reidy at that meeting. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, expressed concern with the Cascade Land Conservancy’s Agenda, which refers to complete, compact and connected development, basically transit oriented development. It was his understanding the City was interested in commercial redevelopment on Hwy. 99 rather than residential. He recalled the Council’s discussion at the November 17 meeting that it was the Council President’s responsibility to review claim checks before approval on the Consent Agenda. He referred to the narrative on tonight’s claims that 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. He expressed concern that Council President Wilson was not aware this was his responsibility. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, thanked the Council for their service to the City. He recalled Councilmember Plunkett’s comments about the importance of public notice and public hearings, wishing he had felt the same about the public hearing he requested to discuss the temporary construction easement reserved over his property on September 16, 2008. He explained the people who attended the November 2, 2009 Council meeting did not intend to make an emotional presentation, they were here because the item was finally on the agenda and they hoped there would be an opportunity for a public hearing where oral and written comments about the temporary construction easement could be provided. He asserted there were several inaccurate statements in Mr. Snyder’s presentation and he planned to prepare a public rebuttal to some of the information he presented. He explained he was never aware that his existing structure extended through the alley. That information was required to be on Mr. Thuesen’s development surveys but it was not. Had he known, he would have pursued his rights long ago. Joan Bloom, Edmonds, disagreed with Mr. Snyder’s comments that she had called him and his firm incompetent, assuring the word incompetent was not used. She agreed she had said the entire short plat application has probably cost the City hundreds of thousands of dollars and that she requested an accounting of the cost and the amount paid to Ogden Murphy Wallace. She cited inaccuracies in Mr. Packet Page 28 of 1136 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2009 Page 25 Snyder’s presentation, explaining the regulated wetland at the time Mr. Thuesen vested was 2,500 square feet not 2,000 square feet and the delineation of the wetland was 2,291 square feet by LSA, the same firm that did not show the Reidy’s shed on the survey. The omission of the shed on the survey should have made the application incomplete. The third party who originally assessed the wetland was Pentac; their original delineation determined it was a Class 2 wetland over 2,500 square feet but less than an acre and subject to City of Edmonds, State Department of Ecology and Army Corp of Engineer for verification. Mr. Thuesen had LSA do their own delineation which reduced the size to under 2,500 square feet. The Hearing Examiner ruled in favor of the citizens surrounding the property who questioned the wetland delineation and recommended the property owner have the wetland re-delineated which Mr. Thuesen did not do. The State Department of Ecology has never been allowed on the property even though the wetland is subject to DOE delineation. She planned to continue to provide further explanation regarding this issue during public comment, noting the wetland was filled improperly. Finis Tupper, Edmonds, commented Mr. Snyder’s presentation was an obvious, blatant misrepresentation. The first misrepresentation was that the August Notice of Violation was the second Notice of Violation. He urged the Council to read the code, specifically Chapter 20.110, enforcement of civil violations. He pointed out the only person with the authority to issue a code enforcement violation was Community Services Director Stephen Clifton, who Mr. Snyder did not identify as one of the staff members involved in this matter. He asserted Mr. Snyder was in the background ordering staff to issue five different Orders to Correct. Anyone receiving a Notice of Violation was entitled to an administrative hearing and did have to pay $350 which Mr. Reidy did for the first Notice of Violation or $750 to appeal a civil violation. He suggested the Council consider interviewing other law firms because although Ogden Murphy Wallace is one of the lowest billing law firms in the downtown Seattle area, they cost their clients a great deal of money. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 12:00 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Wilson asked for Council direction regarding scheduling this on a future Council agenda to allow Mr. Reidy and Mr. Thuesen to make a presentation to the Council. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO SCHEDULE FURTHER DISCUSSION ON DECEMBER 15, JANUARY 5 OR JANUARY 19 AND TO INVITE MR. REIDY AND MR. THUESEN TO MAKE A PRESENTATION. Councilmember Plunkett asked Mr. Snyder’s opinion regarding Council President Wilson’s motion. Mr. Snyder responded it was always appropriate for the Council to hear from citizens. He remarked Ms. Bloom may be correct regarding the square footage of the wetland. He commented the difficulty with having a presentation by Mr. Reidy and Mr. Thuesen was where the Council expected to go with that information. The administrative remedy was to provide the information to the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Reidy can also request a stay from Superior Court. He reiterated the vacation was final although the Council could initiate a vacation of the temporary construction easement. However, there was still a pending action with Mr. Thuesen on the vacation ordinance. Councilmember Plunkett commented what some people may consider a remedy could have serious downsides to the city. Mr. Snyder referred to the Mission Springs v. City of Spokane case that resulted in millions in liability when the Council pulled a vested permit. His concern was this looked like a backdoor way to attack the Thuesen permit which has been to court and regardless of what was missed, the record was closed. If Council wished to hire a third attorney to review the matter, he encouraged them to do so. Packet Page 29 of 1136 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2009 Page 26 Councilmember Orvis commented he had no problem with listening to Mr. Reidy or Mr. Thuesen’s side but he was uncertain what the Council would do with the information. Councilmember Bernheim suggested Mr. Reidy and/or Mr. Thuesen describe their proposed course of action. He commented there was a great deal to be learned including continued sensitivity to the concerns of large numbers of people who believe they have been wronged and if the Council investigated and determined that mistakes had been made, the City could learn from those mistakes. He was eager to give Mr. Reidy and Mr. Thuesen a limited amount of time to present their argument, discussion and exhibits. Mayor Haakenson advised Mr. Thuesen was out of the country for the entire month of December. Mr. Snyder pointed out there was a claim pending with Mr. Thuesen. If the Council wanted pre-litigation review from WCIA and wanted it conducted by someone other than Ms. Kroll, he suggested the Council request that review. Councilmember Bernheim commented he was not interested in another legal opinion. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON RESTATED HIS MOTION AS FOLLOWS: TO SCHEDULE A PRESENTATION BY MR. REIDY AND MR. THUESEN AT A MEETING IN JANUARY FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED AN HOUR TOTAL, 30 MINUTES FOR EACH. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. ANNUAL REPORT - CITY ATTORNEY Due to the late hour, it was the consensus of the Council to reschedule this item. 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson had no report. 12. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmembers made no comments. 13. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:53 p.m. Packet Page 30 of 1136 AM-2675 2.C. Approve Correction to 11-02-09 City Council Minutes Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/15/2009 Submitted By:Sandy Chase Time:Consent Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Approval of correction to the City Council Meeting Minutes of November 2, 2009. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff It is recommended that the City Council approve the corrected minutes. Previous Council Action The November 2, 2009 City Council Minutes were approved on November 17, 2009. Narrative On November 2, 2009, the City Council met in Executive Session beginning at 6:30 p.m. Additional detailed information concerning that Executive Session should have been included in the minutes for that meeting. On page one, at the top of the page, the minutes currently read: Following a Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m. for an Executive Session regarding pending or threatened litigation, the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:29 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. I recommend that the minutes be corrected to read as follows: "At 6:30 p.m., Mayor Haakenson announced that the City Council would be meeting in executive session to receive legal advice regarding pending or threatened litigation. He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 30 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Haakenson, Councilmembers Orvis, Wambolt, Plunkett, Bernheim, Peterson, Olson and Wilson. Others present were City Attorney Scott Snyder, Attorney Stephanie Croll, and City Clerk Sandy Chase. At 7:00 p.m., Mayor Haakenson announced to the public that an additional 15 minutes would be needed in executive session. At 7:15 p.m., Mayor Haakenson again announced to the public that an additional 15 minutes would be needed in executive session. The executive session concluded at 7:25 p.m. The regular Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:29 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag Packet Page 31 of 1136 salute." --------------------------- The attached minutes include the corrected language. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: 11-02-09 Corrected City Council Minutes Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/09/2009 04:11 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/09/2009 04:12 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/09/2009 04:14 PM APRV Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 12/09/2009 04:04 PM Final Approval Date: 12/09/2009 Packet Page 32 of 1136 CORRECTED 12-15-09 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2009 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES November 2, 2009 At 6:30 p.m., Mayor Haakenson announced that the City Council would be meeting in executive session to receive legal advice regarding pending or threatened litigation. He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 30 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Haakenson, Councilmembers Orvis, Wambolt, Plunkett, Bernheim, Peterson. Olson and Wilson. Others present were City Attorney Scott Snyder, Attorney Stephanie Croll, and City Clerk Sandy Chase. At 7:00 p.m., Mayor Haakenson announced to the public that an additional 15 minutes would be needed in executive session. At 7:15 p.m., Mayor Haakenson again announced to the public that an additional 15 minutes would be needed in executive session. The executive session concluded at 7:25 p.m. The regular Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:29 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor D. J. Wilson, Council President Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember Steve Bernheim, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Ron Wambolt, Councilmember Strom Peterson, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief Mark Correira, Assistant Fire Chief Al Compaan, Police Chief Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Lorenzo Hines, Finance Director Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA, REMOVING ITEM 9 FROM THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27, 2009. C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #114982 THROUGH #115132 DATED OCTOBER 29, 2009 FOR $518,862.77. Packet Page 33 of 1136 CORRECTED 12-15-09 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2009 Page 2 D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM RANDALL BAIRD (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), K. FRED BRESKE ($500,000), DONNA L. BRESKE ($500,000), 9330 LLC ($500,000), AND SCOTT CONAHAN ($686.27). E. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN FUNDING AGREEMENTS WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE GENERAL ADMINISTRATION FOR AN ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT. F. AUTHORIZATION TO SURPLUS SEIZED VEHICLE Council President Wilson commented on the recent attack on two uniformed Police Officers in Seattle and requested the audience observe a moment of silence. 3. REPORT FROM COMMUNITY TRANSIT ON BUS RAPID TRANSIT. Joyce Eleanor, Community Transit, reported Swift Bus Rapid Transit would be operational in 26 days. She recognized Edmonds as an outstanding partner in this project. She invited the public to a community celebration on Sunday, November 29 at 2:00 p.m. and the Council to the invitation-only sponsored lunch preceding the celebration at 11:30 a.m. at the Everett Station. The private lunch is a thank you to the stakeholders and partners in the project; invited guests will take an inaugural ride of a Swift bus down the corridor to Lynnwood where they will be met by Swift buses from the south filled with area residents. The Swift buses will meet at the Crossroads station at 196th & Highway 99 where the community celebration will be held. The community celebration will include family-oriented activities, dedication of the line, launching the first buses into service, music and celebration. Swift is an important service for Edmonds, Community Transit and Snohomish County. Swift is a major transit improvement, greatly improving frequency of bus service on Highway 99 all day and providing a much needed, single seat ride between Everett Station and South Snohomish County. Swift began with a Board resolution in December 2005 and service will be launched less than four years later in November 2009. She expressed her gratitude to Edmonds, Lynnwood, Snohomish County and Everett for working with Community Transit on this project. She reported Swift was on time and under budget by approximately $2.5 million. Although Community Transit had a great year in 2009 with the opening of the Mountlake Terrace Transit Center, construction of the Marysville Cedar Grove Park & Ride and the start of Swift, Community Transit has also felt the sting of the economy. Community Transit relies heavily on sales tax revenue and this year’s revenues are down approximately 18% compared to 2007 levels. Community Transit believes sales tax revenues have bottomed out but anticipate a slow recovery and protections to service via the use of reserves and shifting federal grants are not sustainable over multiple years. Community Transit is preparing its 2010 budget and it assumes continued lower revenue levels, transit service efficiencies that will not be restored and likely service reductions which they hope can be restored when economic conditions improve. The Board will approve a budget in December and they will seek public input on proposed service reductions in January. The decline in the economy and the resulting loss of sales tax revenue also severely limited Community Transit’s ability to fund capital needs such as bus and van replacement, a loss projected to total $180 million through 2013. Over the past two years Community Transit has borrowed from its reserves to keep services intact. Community Transit will continue to seek ways to replenish its capital budget to ensure quality service in the future. Packet Page 34 of 1136 CORRECTED 12-15-09 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2009 Page 3 To those who may question why Community Transit was implementing Swift when they were facing challenges to their capital and operating budget, she explained Swift was underway before the budget crisis occurred. Over half of Swift’s capital funding came from other sources including federal, state and local and via a partnership with Everett. A series of grants, partnership funds and fare revenues will pay approximately 90% of Swift’s operating costs through 2012. She explained Swift is Community Transit’s future; not only a major transit improvement on Highway 99, Community Transit’s busiest corridor, this higher frequency service is what they intend to bring to Snohomish County’s other congested corridors via a network of Swift lines in the future. Council President Wilson commented he found it an honor to be appointed to the Community Transit Board and regretted that time devoted to the City’s budget and his day job had affected his ability to participate. 4. PUBLIC HEARING ON FIRE DISTRICT 1 CONTRACT, OPTION 4. IN ADDITION TO CONTRACTING FOR SERVICES WITH FIRE DISTRICT 1, THIS OPTION INCLUDES SELLING APPARATUS (ENGINES, AID CARS, AND EQUIPMENT), AND KEEPING FIRE STATIONS, LAND AND TRANSPORT FEES. Mayor Haakenson suggested staff respond to questions submitted yesterday and today by a Councilmember and a citizen. Councilmember Bernheim asked why response times were identified in minutes and seconds in Edmonds’ contract with Fire District 1 for fire service to Esperance but in the proposed contract for fire service, Fire District 1 was required only to maintain the current level of service. Fire Chief Tom Tomberg answered the Esperance contract was between the City and Fire District 1 for the City of Edmonds Fire Department to provide fire service to Esperance, an unincorporated area in Fire District 1. Under the proposed contract, Fire District 1 would provide fire service to Edmonds. The standards referred to by Councilmember Bernheim addressed how the City provided service to Esperance under four levels of service. The proposed contract with Fire District 1 references RCW 35.103, codification of Senate House Bill 1756, that requires Fire Departments in the State of Washington to adopt standards of response. The Edmonds City Council adopted the 11 standards in RCW 35.103 in November 2006. Staff has provided three reports to the Council regarding the Fire Department’s performance in meeting those standards. He summarized RCW 35.103 was referenced in Section 2.4, 2.5 and 2.8 and the contract actually referenced 11 standards. Mr. Snyder commented this had been a subject of some negotiation between Fire District 1 counsel and himself. One of the main reasons this contract was different was because the State statute was adopted after the Esperance contract was approved and prior to the date the proposed contract was drafted. His intent was to ensure the Council would retain its ability to set the standards and not be locked in by contract. For example, if the Council wanted to amend the standards by increasing or decreasing levels of service, the Council would have that right independent of the contract. Fire District 1 wanted the ability to recover the cost if additional staffing was required to meet the amended response time. Councilmember Bernheim questioned whether requiring Fire District 1 to meet current levels of service was too vague and whether the 11 response time standards should be stated instead. Mr. Snyder reiterated his intent for the Council to retain the legislative discretion to amend the standards as they wished rather than establish them as a contract term that would be subject to renegotiation. Councilmember Bernheim pointed out the response times referred to current levels of service and he questioned what the current levels of service were. Mr. Snyder responded they were the levels the Council had adopted as the City’s service standards. Packet Page 35 of 1136 CORRECTED 12-15-09 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2009 Page 4 Councilmember Orvis commented that in addition to specifying levels of service, deployment was also identified as three firefighters at each fire station, a battalion chief and two dedicated medics. Chief Tomberg agreed. Staff responded to the following questions posed via email from George Murray: 1. Litigation – If there should be some law suits in relation to fire operations, who is responsible? Is the town of Edmonds liable and in what ways? I remember the litigation after the warehouse fire in Seattle when several firemen lost their lives and their families sued Seattle. Chief Tomberg responded the employer would be responsible in the event of litigation; the firefighters’ employer would be Fire District 1 under the proposed contract. Items 16, 17 and 18 on page 15 and 16 of the Interlocal Agreement states the City and District are independent municipal governments, and addresses insurance and dispute resolution. Mr. Snyder explained claims by former City employees relating to actions taken while the individuals were City employees were the City’s responsibility; once transferred, employees’ claims would be defended by the entity that employed them. If the contract were terminated and the employees transferred back, the City would be responsible for claims after they transferred back and Fire District 1 would indemnify the City from claims made prior to that date. He summarized the entity employing and directing the employee was responsible for liability. 2. Personnel – Why does the city need a fire marshal and a fire inspector when the Fire District is taking on responsibility for fire service? Do towns in the Fire District have these two positions on their town staffs? (e.g. MLT & Brier) Are they essential? Chief Tomberg responded Fire Marshal responsibilities in the unincorporated area of Snohomish County were the responsibility of the Snohomish County Fire Marshal’s office, not Fire District 1. If Fire District 1 did not serve cities under contracts for service such as Brier and Mountlake Terrace, it would not have a Fire Marshal. Fire District 1 has a Fire Marshal to serve Mountlake Terrace and Brier because like Edmonds, they were served by a Fire Marshal before they joined the District and cities require fire marshal services. Mountlake Terrace and Brier pay Fire District 1 for fire marshal services. In the Fire District 1/Edmonds Interlocal Agreement, Edmonds pays via the contract for a ¾ time Fire Marshal and a full-time Fire Inspector. Currently the City pays for two full-time positions. 3. Contract – (See attached numbers) Are the numbers shown for the “Contract” projections for “Option 4” the ones which will be billed to Edmonds? The attached numbers were taken from a page given me entitled, “Fire District 1 Contract Proposal – City Operational Savings”, lines named Fire Budget and Fire Contract. Finance Director Lorenzo Hines responded the amounts listed in the spreadsheet Option 1 v Option 4 are the amounts that are projected to be the contract payment to Fire District 1 that will be billed to Edmonds. 4. Uneven growth rates. The attached numbers grow at different growth rates (see attachment). I had thought the expense growth rates would be the same over the years. Why are they different? Mr. Hines responded the analysis compared 2007 actuals to the 2008 budget. With regard to expense growth rates being the same over the years, Mr. Hines responded growth rates would be generally the same but rarely were they the same year-to-year. For example growth in the Edmonds Fire Department budget was projected to be 3.15% in 2011, 3.87% in 2012, and 3.93% in 2013. Councilmember Bernheim commented lower growth rates were projected under the proposed contract than for the Edmonds Fire Department. Mr. Hines answered the contract was based on salaries, overtime and benefits; the City’s Fire Department budget was composed of many other variables in addition to labor such as uniforms, protective clothing, supplies, small equipment, professional Packet Page 36 of 1136 CORRECTED 12-15-09 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2009 Page 5 services, communication, travel, rental and lease, rental and maintenance, etc. Councilmember Bernheim pointed out in the proposed contract both overhead and equipment were pegged to labor increases per Exhibit C. Mr. Hines pointed out another variable was Fire District 1’s actions to keep the price down; Fire District 1 may be artificially reducing the price to get the City’s business. 5. Annexation – What are the criteria for establishing and changes in billing if annexations occur? I understand Edmonds has had over 60 and there is one underway now. Chief Tomberg responded annexations were addressed in Section 4.6 on page 5 of the Interlocal Agreement. Mr. Snyder explained if property was annexed by the City, the cost of the contract would be recalculated based on the additional population. 6. Deannexation – How will reductions be treated? Chief Tomberg was unclear how deannexation would occur. 7. Technology – Every 5 years it’s a new world in Technology. This can be a savings and/or expensive. Today Edmonds deals with it in consultation with other fire departments How will this be handled in future? Chief Tomberg answered technology would continue to be addressed with other Fire Departments and in Snohomish County as it is today. The Fire Department participates in many coordinated technology efforts including the SnoCom CAD system, the records management system, patient care reporting, radio purchases, etc. via SERS, SnoCom and ESCA. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented most citizens felt this should be decided via a public vote. He expressed concern with the participation of some Councilmembers, questioning whether they were parties of interest. He commented on an area that was interested in annexing to Mountlake Terrace. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. 5. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON THE FIRE DISTRICT 1 CONTRACT, OPTION 4. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, FOR APPROVAL OF OPTION 4 (CONTRACTING FOR SERVICES WITH FIRE DISTRICT 1, SELLING APPARATUS [ENGINES, AID CARS, AND EQUIPMENT], AND KEEPING FIRE STATIONS, LAND AND TRANSPORT FEES, AND SIGNING THE CONTRACT WITH FIRE DISTRICT 1. Councilmember Orvis commented the initial proposal was to sell the land and via discussion the Council decided although contracting with Fire District 1 was a good idea, selling the land was not. He clarified under Option 4 the City retained the land and fire stations, sold the apparatus and contracted for fire service personnel with Fire District 1. He was satisfied the service levels were guaranteed because deployment was identified in the contract and in addition to meeting the City’s service requirements, fire stations must continue to be staffed in the manner they are today. The savings in 2010 will be over $900,000. He was impressed with the improvements in service such as fewer holes in service due to fire training, overhead that was service-related rather than administrative-related, the availability of CPR classes and car seat checks, and the availability of a public liaison officer. With regard to increasing costs, he felt the proposed contract had more restrictions on cost control than the City’s own Fire Department. He summarized the cost of fire service would increase regardless of whether the City had its own Fire Department or contracted with Fire District 1. Packet Page 37 of 1136 CORRECTED 12-15-09 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2009 Page 6 Mayor Haakenson clarified the contract, if approved, would be effective January 1, 2010. Councilmember Peterson echoed Councilmember Orvis’ comments, noting Edmonds was taking an important step in regionalization. Edmonds was part of a larger community with regard to public safety and other services. The contract would provide better service to the community and save the City money as well as allow the City to work more closely with neighboring cities and jurisdictions on important issues. Councilmember Olson’s aid read a statement from Councilmember Olson that stated she was voting for Option 4 because it made the most sense after listening to all the experts. This seemed like a great opportunity for the City. Councilmember Wambolt commented he had been involved in the Fire District 1 discussions since they began in May including meetings with Fire District 1, City staff, the Firefighters Union as well as several discussions and public hearings at the City Council. He also spent a considerable amount of time analyzing the numbers on his own. The questions he has raised since May have been satisfactorily answered. He expressed support for Option 4 for two primary reasons; first it will reduce the City’s deficit over the next 7 year planning period by $10 million. Under Option 1 expenses will exceed revenues by $21.1 million over 7 years; under Option 4 expenses will exceed revenues by only $10.4 million or $10.7 million less. The City’s budget will still be in deficit and a levy lid lift will be required in 2010. Second, service levels will be maintained and he believed gradually enhanced over the coming years because firefighters would be better trained and morale would improve. He pointed out the compound annual growth rate of expenses over the 7 year period under Option 1 was 4.08% versus 3.86% with Option 4. Council President Wilson commented he would support the motion. He commented the service level issue was not compelling enough; the primary increase was eliminating holes in service due to training. With regard to the financial benefit, he acknowledged the numbers pointed in a positive direction, noting the numbers had varied over the past several months and he was hopeful the recent numbers were accurate. The primary reason he supported the contract for service was to increase the morale of the Fire Department employees. This was also an opportunity to place fire service on stable footing; in the future any budgets cuts would be made to parks or police or a levy would be necessary. He concluded this was not his ideal situation; he preferred to consider either a Fire District or reverse annex into Fire District 1. He was hopeful the City did not regret this decision in 10 years. Councilmember Bernheim commented there had been a lot of questions asked and answered, it had been a great process and he was satisfied everyone was reaching a well-considered decision. He was confident the level of service for residents would remain the same, a top priority even above the morale of the Fire Department employees. With regard to regionalization, he was not convinced about the importance of regionalization; he felt the City had an obligation to provide fire and police services. He expressed concern that citizens lost complete voting power over the Fire District 1, a philosophical issue that had not been adequately addressed. The City’s fire service was being turned over to a contractor and voters in the unincorporated areas of Snohomish County would elect Commissioners that would interpret the contract. Councilmember Bernheim acknowledged fire service cost a great deal and annual increases have been substantial. He pointed out much of the City’s fiscal crisis was because tax income had not kept pace with the cost of providing fire service. He preferred to keep the fire service in-house and continue to manage it. He pointed out the firefighters union’s primary reason for supporting the contract with Fire District 1 was to stabilize funding. He noted the contract pegs overhead, equipment maintenance and purchase of new equipment to labor costs which he feared would increase more than it would otherwise. Packet Page 38 of 1136 CORRECTED 12-15-09 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2009 Page 7 He expressed concern that Fire District 1 may be artificially holding the price down, comparing it to the FIOS offer of $29.95 for six months which obligated consumers without a guarantee regarding future prices. He feared the City would be in dire straits in 10 years, worrying how to pay for the fire service because the cost of the contract had increased. Councilmember Bernheim concluded this issue originated due to the fiscal crisis and as an alternative to the levy, not the need to improve the City’s fire service. In his view the City was giving up control of its fire service, a fundamental city responsibility to a Fire District whose Commissioners were elected by voters outside the City without any guarantee of price control and it was only a stop gap measure. VOTE ON THE MOTION: MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM VOTING NO. Tim Hoover, President, Edmonds Firefighters Local 1828, applauded the Council for vetting this issue well. He commented regionalizing fire service had been 20 years in the making, an effort that had been halted at the political level in the past. He commended the Council for putting politics aside, considering the issue, doing their due diligence and reaching a decision. To the Edmonds citizens, Mr. Hoover commented they did not take the Fire Department’s 105 year history lighting. He expressed the Fire Department’s appreciation for the citizens’ support over those 105 years. He thanked everyone who provided public comment and looked forward to serving the community as a regional Fire Department for the next 105 years. 6. REPORT TO WASHINGTON CONSORTIUM REGARDING THE TRANSFER OF CONTROL OF VERIZON NORTHWEST INC. TO FRONTIER COMMUNICATION CORPORATION – WORKSHOP. Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained tonight’s meeting was one of two scheduled meetings regarding the transfer of control from Verizon Northwest Inc. to Frontier Communications Corporation. Tonight’s public workshop was an opportunity for the Council to ask questions and learn about the proposed franchise transfer. On November 2 the public will have an opportunity to speak and the City Council will have an opportunity to take action. He introduced Verizon representatives Raymond Deed, Doug Steading, and Milt Gomad and Frontier Communications Chairman Ann Burr. Mr. Clifton reviewed the history of the transfer: In August, 2008 - City authorized and granted a Franchise Agreement to Verizon Northwest Inc. May 13, 2009 - Verizon announced plans to divest its local wireline communications system to Frontier Communications Corporation. May 19, 2009 - City received a Request for Transfer of Control (Verizon to Frontier). Set in motion certain federal requirements and deadlines: o City (Franchise Authority) has 30 days in which to review Form 394 to determine whether all necessary information has been provided and is complete. o City Council has 120 days to take action on request. o Determine if the Transferee is legally, technically, and financially capable to operate a Franchise. Next he reviewed transfer request actions: June, 2009 – A Multi-Jurisdictional Consortium was formed. o Share in legal and technical expertise to analyze transfer of the franchise. Packet Page 39 of 1136 CORRECTED 12-15-09 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2009 Page 8 o Edmonds City Council authorized contracting with River Oaks Communications Corporation and Ogden Murphy Wallace. The Council packet contains an August 21, 2009 report from Ogden Murphy Wallace and a template transfer ordinance. Consortium requested and reviewed extensive legal, technical and financial information from Verizon Northwest and Frontier Communications Corporation. Due to the amount of information under review, the decision deadline was extended to November 30, 2009. Under the transfer: Frontier Communications Corporation will acquire Verizon NW Inc. Control of Cable Franchisee will transfer from Verizon Communications to Frontier Communications Corporation. Completion of the transaction is expected in April 2010. The local jurisdiction’s request to transfer control of cable franchise is one piece of the transaction. Waiting authorization from local, state and federal regulatory authorities. He provided facts related to financing of the transaction: Total Cost of Transactions $8.6 billion. o Financed through transfer of stock and debt issuance. o Sell unsecured notes, less than 9.5% interest. Transfer does not include increasing cable rates to the customers; subject to future changes based on market conditions. Regarding the Commitment to Implement Terms of Existing Franchise Agreement, Mr. Clifton explained franchise commitments and obligations will be met by Frontier Communications Corporation. Calculation of Gross Revenues will remain the same. With regard to build out requirements, the installation of fiber within the City is more than 85% complete. Government and Education channels will remain (Edmonds Government Channel 39). Mr. Clifton reviewed Frontier’s commitment to customer service: Will appoint multiple General Managers to Washington State. Empowers local supervisors and general managers with authority to resolve issues to the customer’s satisfaction. Maintain Call and Customer Dispatch Center in Everett. Retain most Verizon customer service personnel. Hire additional personnel to handle customer service. With regard to technical capabilities: Signals will be transported from Florida to Illinois. A transport network will be launched from Illinois to Indiana. From Indiana the signal will be transported to Washington and Oregon. o Lease existing transport capacity from third party providers. o Configure network-install off the shelf equipment to transport video. Retain most of Verizon Personnel. Unknowns include the following: Programming: Process of securing content agreements is still being completed. Although Frontier is determined to make this transaction successful, there are risks: Packet Page 40 of 1136 CORRECTED 12-15-09 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2009 Page 9 o Transport and content agreements are not for the length of franchise agreement. o Frontier has not secured financing. Frontier Communications shareholders approve acquisition of Verizon Wireline operations in 14 states. Could scale back business or cease business. No guarantees. Frontier does not currently operate a cable system. The consortium and the City Attorney’s Office recommends the following: Consent be given to the transfer of control of Verizon Northwest Inc. to Frontier subject to a mutually acceptable Transfer Resolution or Ordinance. o Frontier’s and Verizon Northwest Inc.’s responsibility to make this transfer of control and acquisition successful from a business, technical, financial and customer standpoint. o By consenting to the transfer of control, local governments are not opining as to whether Frontier will ultimately be successful from a financial, technical or business standpoint. Ann Burr, Chairman, Frontier Communications, was pleased the City was considering Frontier as its new cable TV, telephone, data and internet provider. She explained Frontier was in 24 states and had 2.5 million customers. Frontier is a mid-sized carrier that serves small and mid-sized cities, many fast growing, sophisticated cities that are providing advanced technology solutions. Frontier places a high emphasis on customer service; general managers live and work in those markets and are involved in the community such as participating in the Chamber of Commerce and Rotary. Frontier prides itself on first call resolution and customer first policies. Ms. Burr advised Frontier was acquiring the rights to programming content and building their video networks to complete the long haul transport. They have resolved all agreements between Verizon and Frontier for distribution and transport of content. They have an employee-matters agreement with employees to ensure job protection. They plan to bring employees and systems across to Frontier to provide business continuity to customers. Frontier’s shareholders approved the merger agreement last week. Councilmember Wambolt expressed concern that the implementation of FIOS in Edmonds had come to a halt or slowed due to the announcement. He was concerned that FIOS service was not available in Edmonds-area condominiums. With regard to Frontier’s emphasis on customer service, he pointed out currently calls made to Verizon reached a representative in India. If they were unable to resolve an internet service problem, it was referred to a representative in Canada. If they were unable to resolve the problem, it was referred to a representative in Everett. He asked whether Frontier planned to utilize a similar system. Ms. Burr answered implementation of FIOS had been moving forward diligently; Frontier was willing to assume all the obligations of the franchise including all build out requirements. Councilmember Wambolt relayed a Verizon representative informed him that implementation of FIOS had been delayed until the second quarter of 2010. Ms. Burr offered to research. Raymond Deed, Franchise Manager, Verizon, commented multi-dwelling unit buildings were different than single family homes and they must work with building managers for access, etc. In this case, they were experiencing difficulty reaching the building manager to schedule the work. Councilmember Wambolt disagreed, advising he was the building manager in his condominium. Mr. Deed offered to work with Councilmember Wambolt. With regard to customer service, Ms. Burr advised they had multiple call centers and would be transferring the customer service representatives at the Everett Call Center who are currently servicing Packet Page 41 of 1136 CORRECTED 12-15-09 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2009 Page 10 FIOS and Verizon customers to Frontier. They do not have an arrangement to handle calls outside the United States. Although a call center may not be in the same city, the same group of representatives served each city. She assured first call resolution was their objective. Councilmember Wambolt was pleased with her response, noting that was the way the company he retired from handled customer service. Councilmember Bernheim asked whether Frontier supported allowing consumers the option to purchase only the television stations they wanted and not require them to pay for stations they did not want. Ms. Burr answered the more people that watched the channels resulted in a lower rate. Rather than offer al a carte, Frontier effectively prices bundles in order to allow customers to customize their choices. Councilmember Bernheim commented this required customers to pay for channels they did not want. Ms. Burr responded they try to provide something for everyone. Mayor Haakenson urged the Verizon representatives to hasten the development of anti-virus software that worked with Windows 7. He was told that software will not be available until November 18 or 19. He advised second and final reading would be November 17. Mr. Snyder reported River Oakes Communications performed the analysis and review. He invited the Council to provide staff with any questions with regard to the legal, technical and financial capability of the transferee to fulfill the terms of the franchise. 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented on the City’s budget and expressed concern that this Thursday’s Hearing Examiner meeting had been cancelled. Mr. Snyder clarified the meeting had been postponed. He invited Mr. Rutledge to speak with him after the Council meeting. Mauri Moore, Edmonds, advised several of the audience members were here to speak about an easement attached to an alley vacation. She explained the biggest issue was ensuring the public had an opportunity to speak. In this case, the public was not allowed to testify regarding the easement. The Council held a public hearing on the alley vacation and attached a construction easement to benefit a private party over the public good. A citizen asked for a public hearing via emailing the Council but received no response because the Council was told by the City Attorney they should not talk to the citizen. She remarked the citizen had no legal action against they City, thus the Council was able to talk to him. The citizen was looking for due process and an opportunity for the public to speak to the Council about the easement. She commented although the Council may have the right not to speak to the citizen, it was not the right thing to do. She was ashamed of the Council for not being open minded and shocked that the Council had not allowed the public an opportunity to speak. Cam Gillis, Edmonds, a friend of Ken Reidy, explained he was a quality individual and an asset to the community. He expressed concern with Mr. Reidy’s experience and that he was not allowed a fair hearing. He agreed with Ms. Moore’s comments, that the public should be provided an opportunity to speak to the Council. He urged the Council to listen to Mr. Reidy’s and the neighborhood’s concerns. Anne (& Mike) Meiers, Edmonds, commented Mr. Reidy’s property was very close to their children’s school and their friends were his neighbors. She was surprised that the average citizen was getting stepped on by the City. They were present to show their support for Mr. Reidy. Ken Kettel, Edmonds, a friend of Ken Reidy, agreed the City had received bad advice from their City Attorney. He expressed his support of Mr. Reidy and his interest in a due process hearing. Packet Page 42 of 1136 CORRECTED 12-15-09 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2009 Page 11 Jean Marty, Edmonds, voiced their support for the Reidy’s and looked forward to their having a hearing and the Council’s response to his request. Dave Marty, Edmonds, agreed with his wife’s comments, commenting they were perplexed why the Council would not consider Mr. Reidy’s concerns and have a public discussion. Ronald Quinton, Edmonds, a friend of the Reidy family, questioned why due process was not being followed. He anticipated if the City had an issue with the Reidy’s there would have been due process. He was concerned the Reidy’s were not allowed to voice their concerns and that the City Attorney’s voice was held in higher regard than an average citizen. Robert (& Judy) Custello, Edmonds, asked why the City Attorney gave advice regarding the easement through Mr. Reidy’s property that made Mr. Reidy feel he did not receive due process. Noting he had heard that the Council was 6-1 against hearing Mr. Reidy’s concerns, he asked the Councilmember who was in favor to explain why. He voiced his support for the Reidy’s. Chris Johnson, Edmonds, voiced his support for his friend and neighbor Ken Reidy. He acknowledged being biased, noting his bias was not necessarily for Mr. Reidy but for the process. He was concerned that Mr. Reidy was at the whimsy of the Council. He questioned Mr. Snyder’s expertise to provide advice regarding an easement. Maria Mallory, Edmonds, a neighbor of Mr. Reidy, commented the most important issue was for the Council to do the right thing. She urged the Council to consider this as if it was their family, commenting on the expense and stress that the City and Reidy’s have experienced. She urged the Council to listen to Mr. Reidy’s concerns and reach the right conclusion. Vivian Olson, Edmonds, commented she had two major issues, 1) concern with a citizen sending a request to the Council and receiving no response and the City Attorney advising the Council not to discuss the matter, and 2) within an hour of Mr. Reidy’s request, the attorney representing the other side had the information. She questioned whether the problem was Councilmember Plunkett elevating the issue to the City Attorney or the City Attorney providing the information to the opposing side while advising Councilmembers not to respond to Mr. Reidy. She suggested the Council consider whether they were receiving bad advice from the City Attorney on this and other issues. Lisa Barhoum, Edmonds, spoke in support of due process and urged the Council to hear the Reidy’s case. Richard McKay, Edmonds, expressed his support of Mr. Reidy. Vera Reidy, Edmonds, expressed disappointment in the City, Mayor Haakenson, Mr. Snyder and the City Council. She appreciated Council President Wilson taking the time to speak to them this evening. She explained her husband had sent countless emails to the Council. She expressed concern with Mr. Snyder’s curt replies to her husband that this was a legal issue. She was concerned with the amount of money they had spent on errors the City has made were only resolved by their attorney speaking with Mr. Snyder. Although she preferred to settle this outside the court, she felt the City was pushing them toward court. She asked the Council to do the right thing and to act with integrity. Joan Bloom, Edmonds, referred to the exchange between Mayor Haakenson and Dr. Senderoff and Mayor Haakenson’s comment that citizens elected a Mayor and Council because life gets in the way. She recalled speaking to the Council four years ago regarding a wetland near her home that was subsequently filled despite the Critical Areas Ordinance that governed the land, an issue similar to the Reidy’s. She Packet Page 43 of 1136 CORRECTED 12-15-09 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2009 Page 12 pointed out the Council had not enforced the code for the past four years which required citizens to watchdog the property near their homes. She questioned why the property owner was allowed to vest under the old Critical Areas Ordinance, a huge error that should never have happened. She recalled Councilmember Plunkett suggested the construction easement during Council discussion, pointing out it was not on the agenda and the public was provided no notice. She requested an accounting regarding the amount this short plat application has cost the City including how much had been paid to Ogden Murphy Wallace. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, commented he had approached the City with a willingness to resolve the problem and has never sued the City and hoped that would not be necessary. He explained this situation began with an improper delay in a Critical Areas Ordinance of 79 days which opened the door for an individual to invest under an old law. He commented Mayor Haakenson’s job was to ensure the City’s laws and ordinances were enforced and Mr. Snyder’s job was to advise the Council regarding the legal status of their decisions. With regard to the temporary construction easement over his property, he explained Mr. Snyder interceded in a Council meeting and recommended a temporary construction easement for a private party, an action that was not on the agenda, was outside the role of the City Attorney to advise the Council regarding the legal status of their decisions and violated due process. He enumerated the errors that were made, 1) no public notice was provided regarding the temporary construction easement which did not allow his neighbors or him to prepare oral or written comment, 2) no public hearing was held to discuss the appropriateness of a temporary construction easement, and 3) Chapter 27 was not enforced. He urged the Council to hold a public hearing at a City Council meeting to allow his neighbors and him to discuss the legality of reserving a temporary construction easement over private property and the lack of public benefit of that easement. He urged the Council to work with him to avoid further expense to Edmonds taxpayers. George Murray, Edmonds, requested his questions and charts regarding Fire District 1 be included in the minutes. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented on the number of people speaking to the Council regarding the injustice that had occurred. He relayed that he had reached the same conclusion after speaking with Mr. Reidy; the Council needed to have an opportunity to hear his concerns. He urged the Council to listen to the citizens as much as they listened to the City Attorney. Next, he referred to a DVD of the October 13 meeting that shows Mayor Haakenson assaulting him at the podium. Councilmember Plunkett asked Mr. Custello when the 6-1 vote was taken. Mr. Custello answered he overheard that it had occurred at a Council meeting. He remarked a true injustice had occurred and the rules and laws had been broken. Councilmember Plunkett advised the minutes reflect that the Council’s vote on the vacation and the construction easement was unanimous. Council President Wilson explained he spoke with Mr. Reidy and his friends and neighbors during tonight’s meeting and explained to them that the Council held an Executive Session to discuss this matter and that he had agreed to remove it from the agenda. He had explained to them that if the Council had voted to remove it from the agenda, he anticipated the vote would be 6-1 in favor of removing it. Council President Wilson explained because this issue spanned 4 years and the paperwork was voluminous, he asked staff for a recommendation. Staff urged caution in speaking to Mr. Reidy as there may be a time when the Council must act in a quasi judicial capacity on this matter. Any Councilmember who has spoken with Mr. Reidy or Mr. Thuesen would be required to withdraw from the deliberations. Council President Wilson explained he met with Mr. Reidy last week; the information he provided was very compelling and it seemed there may be opportunity for Council discussion. He discussed this with Mr. Snyder, noting he had a great deal of respect for Mr. Snyder’s advice. Mr. Snyder explained he asked Packet Page 44 of 1136 CORRECTED 12-15-09 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2009 Page 13 an outside law firm to provide an independent perspective. The Council had an opportunity tonight during Executive Session to review pending and threatened litigation regarding this matter. He felt there were some things in this matter that warranted Council review. Acknowledging the voluminous amounts of paper regarding the matter, he was not certain how that could be accomplished but was willing to spend the time to determine how a partial political decision could be reached on an issue that has become a 4-year legal problem. He pointed out to take that action required the agreement of at least four Councilmembers. Councilmember Bernheim pointed out any concerns should have been appealed within a certain timeframe of the Council’s action. However, he agreed the easement arose at the last minute and Mr. Reidy had voiced his objection to the construction easement. He recalled asking Development Services Director Duane Bowman whether adoption of a construction easement would be detrimental to any property owner to which Mr. Bowman replied no. He was sympathetic with the Reidy’s situation, noting incorrect information has caused a great of problems in the City and wasted a great deal of money including Bauer v. Edmonds that cost his neighbor and him $20,000; the pool study that included consideration of the old Woodway High School, a site that was never an option; the delay in implementing the Critical Areas Ordinance; the 555 Main Street debacle in the BD1 zone; lack of enforcement of the Street Tree Plan; violation of the height ordinance by Rob Michel; the Burnstead lawsuit, and the Park Comprehensive Plan lawsuit. Councilmember Bernheim recalled he proposed adoption of the ordinance without the construction easement because testimony indicated the easement was unnecessary because Mr. Thuesen had access to his property. He regretted that he went along with adoption of the temporary easement. However, he did not feel the remedy was to request reconsideration a year later. To those who said the Council should be ashamed for not responding to Mr. Reidy, Councilmember Wambolt advised he prided himself on responding to all emails he received. If it was an email directed to all Councilmembers, he would have responded. If it was sent to one Councilmember and cc’d to him, he would not have responded. He requested Mr. Reidy provide the emails to which he did not respond. 8. CITY OF EDMONDS WEBSITE - CITY COUNCIL WEB PAGES. Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained over the last several months, City staff had been updating the City’s website and web pages in an attempt to provide more effective and useful information to website visitors. The City does not employ a webmaster but utilizes the services of a contractor to assist with website maintenance. Existing staff are responsible for updating web pages and format; website development is ever evolving and is a product of numerous contributions by individuals throughout the City. Increasing the accessibility of information contained on the City’s website is a primary goal of City administration. At the request of Council President Wilson, City staff focused their efforts on City Council web pages. Visitors can now find an updated City Council web page and information regarding the 2009 Sustainability Agenda, meeting schedule, general contact information and associated web links to individual Councilmember web pages. He referred to City Attorney Scott Snyder’s September 3, 2009 memorandum to the City Council (attachment 2 in the Council packet) prepared in response to the numerous emails regarding the City Council web pages and the Council’s interest in reviewing the use of Council biographical materials. According to Mr. Snyder’s memorandum, the Council has several options regarding their web pages including, 1) only listing names, dates, places and basic factual biographical information with no statements of philosophy, references to pending legislative issues; 2) permitting each Councilmember to state his/her general philosophy and addressing pending issues in the Edmonds community; and/or 3) a limited forum approach for Council consideration - placing Packet Page 45 of 1136 CORRECTED 12-15-09 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2009 Page 14 photographs and voters pamphlet information on the City’s website to provide the public information related to candidates for public office and other issues on the Edmonds ballot. In a September 22, 2009 letter, the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) stated RCW 42.17.130 does not prohibit elected officials from communicating with the public concerning the issues they are working on or their goals while in office. The letter stated it was important that this information not be used to campaign for reelection and it would be prudent for the City to establish standards for biography pages. The City does not currently have policies related to the content of City Councilmember web pages. City staff contacted several cities to request their policies; the Council packet includes a sampling of web pages from Bellevue, Kent, Federal Way, Everett, Kirkland, Lynnwood, Mukilteo, Redmond, Renton and Shoreline. Mr. Clifton briefly reviewed Bellevue’s content policy that states all content on the City’s website will be sponsored or cosponsored by the City or directly linked to the City’s policy objectives or departmental activities. Content will accurately reflect City Council and management policy decisions and political advocacy by individuals or interest groups, including current or former elected officials is not appropriate material. He advised Edmonds had link policies for its website but no policies regarding City Councilmember web pages. With regard to links, Bellevue does not provide links to candidate sites, sites advocating positions on ballot propositions or individual personal home pages. With regard to fair campaign practices, Bellevue’s policy states to avoid the appearance of endorsement of political content, links will not be made to sites associated with, sponsored by or serve a candidate for elected office, any political party or organization supporting or seeking to impeach a candidate for elected office or any ballot proposal. Bellevue does allow links to factual information prepared by the City or other public organization such as King County’s Voters Guide, Municipal League, League of Women Voters, etc. Shoreline’s link policies are similar to Bellevue’s. With regard to the City Council web pages, staff compared existing City Councilmember web pages with the ten cities. Based on staff’s review, Edmonds Councilmember web pages align most closely with Option 1 - names, dates, committee assignments, and basic factual biographical information with limited philosophical narrative or reference to pending legislative issues. Eight of the ten cities reviewed also closely align with Option 1. Renton and Lynnwood include statements that could be interpreted to relate to Options 1 and 2. Renton’s Councilmember web pages include links to newspaper articles they have written in the Renton Reporter, information that could be considered subjective and open to interpretation. None of the ten cities provided information related to Option 3, political campaign brochures. Edmonds website linkage policies were discussed at the 2002 retreat. Staff is in the process of updating the City’s website and consideration is being given to the formation of a Website Standards Coordinating Committee to maintain and monitor information on the City’s website. Staff plans to address this issue further when the committee is formed. Until a Website Standards Coordinating Committee is formed to further examine policies for Council web pages, staff proposes the following interim measures, utilizing Bellevue’s policy that content will accurately reflect City Council policy positions, utilizing the City’s existing link policies, and utilizing Option 1 in Mr. Snyder’s memorandum. Information could include Council name, position number and contact information, year elected, number of terms served, current Council committees/appointments, former Council assignments, regional representations, community service, employment, education and factual biographical information. If the council wishes to expand on Option 1, Option 2 would include the above information in addition to general Councilmembers goals. Mr. Clifton briefly reviewed Bellevue’s general Council web page and a sampling of Councilmembers web pages. Packet Page 46 of 1136 CORRECTED 12-15-09 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2009 Page 15 Councilmember Orvis asked whether Option 3, providing a link to all candidates, was a possibility. Mr. Snyder answered the reason cities’ standards were so strict was to avoid their websites becoming an open public forum where the City had no control. In view of Councilmember Orvis’ interest in an equal playing field for candidates and seated Councilmembers, one way to accomplish that would be to adopt a source such as Municipal League or League of Women Voters pamphlet. Another reason cities limit the content is for budget reasons. Use of a website as a tool for Councilmembers to hear from and communicate with their constituents was appropriate; the issue was having rules that allow the City to control maintenance costs. Councilmember Orvis commented the reason he maintained a private website was the ability to say whatever he wanted on that site. Mr. Clifton commented the information contained on Bellevue, Federal Way and Everett Councilmember web pages was in a consistent format which would avoid challenges to the content. Council President Wilson suggested the Council direct staff to develop policies similar to Option 2. He wanted the web page to be a useful a tool for Councilmembers to communicate with the public about Council business. He did not support links to personal sites that may contain campaign materials and suggested only links related to Council business such as the Marine Research group that made a presentation to the Council early this year and to his Edmonds Beacon columns. Councilmember Peterson commented greater limitations were imposed on State Legislators’ web pages 6 months prior to elections. Mr. Clifton stated staff did not research the State Legislator’s web pages. The PDC recommended the City adopt policies. Bellevue and Federal Way’s web pages adhered to the PDC regulations. Councilmember Peterson expressed support for Option 2 which would allow Councilmembers to use their web pages as a communication tool. He found it appropriate for the public to have an idea what a Councilmember planned to do in the future. He suggested a more limited content 6 month prior to an election or after the filing deadline. He summarized the Council’s web pages were an important tool for communicating with the public. Councilmember Plunkett commented if materials should not be on the web page after the filing deadline, they likely were not appropriate for the web page at all. He questioned who would act as the gatekeeper with regard to links and pointed out editorials were not necessarily factual. Mr. Snyder referred to “not right” versus “not legal.” The PDC’s position was the communications on the web pages were legal under the campaign financing statute but recommended the Council adopt rules. There was nothing wrong with Councilmembers expressing their opinions as well as facts. To the perception that a seated Councilmember had an unfair advantage during the election season, he emphasized it was impossible to separate the Council’s actions from campaign issues. Mr. Clifton explained he currently served as the gatekeeper. The reason staff supported Option 1 was to avoid his reviewing every article or editorial to ensure it was not campaign related. Councilmember Orvis commented if the Council was not interested in Option 3, he preferred Option 1. He did not support placing Mr. Clifton in the position of determining what was political. He suggested Councilmembers who wanted the public to have access to their articles develop their own website. Council President Wilson suggested the PDC exists to determine whether material on City web pages was appropriate. The Council President could be responsible for contacting a Councilmember regarding inappropriate material on a web page. He agreed with Councilmember Peterson’s suggestion to limit content for Councilmembers running for office. Packet Page 47 of 1136 CORRECTED 12-15-09 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2009 Page 16 Councilmember Bernheim suggested the web page content be limited by law rather than the City developing its own policies and any complaints could be resolved by the PDC. He wanted the freedom to provide links to materials related to Council business. Councilmember Wambolt commented that including a great deal of information on Councilmembers web pages would require a great deal of administration. He inquired how many hits Councilmember web pages receive. Mr. Clifton explained the reason staff was proposing restrictions on content was the flack the City received recently regarding Councilmember web pages including a PDC complaint that one contained campaign materials. He commented it would be difficult to monitor the content of Councilmember web pages. Councilmember Bernheim suggested complaints be directed to the Council President or the PDC. Mr. Snyder suggested obtaining a quote from the City’s webmaster regarding the cost of administering an open forum. Council President Wilson suggested the Office of the Mayor be the gatekeeper, questions/concerns be directed to the Council President and Senior Executive Council Assistant Jana Spellman could manage the content of Council web pages. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO ASK STAFF TO BRING BACK POLICIES FOR AN OPTION 2+ THAT ALLOWS FOR AS WIDE A DISTRIBUTION OF INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE WITHOUT ANY CAMPAIGN OR PERSONAL MATERIAL OR LINKS. Councilmember Plunkett commented an important consideration was the cost. Councilmember Bernheim questioned why a City policy was necessary and why the existing PDC laws were not sufficient. He preferred to rely on the responsibility of individual Councilmembers. Council President Wilson agreed in general, noting to whom questions/concerns are directed should be determined. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS WAMBOLT AND ORVIS OPPOSED. 9. REVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT RESERVED BY ORDINANCE NO. 3729. THE EASEMENT INVOLVES THE VACATED RIGHT OF WAY OF A PLATTED BUT UNBUILT PUBLIC ALLEY LYING BETWEEN THE 700 BLOCK OF 8TH AVE. N AND 9TH AVE. N AND PARALLEL TO AND NORTH OF DALEY STREET. THE RESERVED CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT IS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A DRIVEWAY AND RETAINING WALL ON PROPERTY LYING NORTH OF THE ALLEY AND EAST OF 8TH AVE. N. This item was removed from the agenda via motion under Agenda Item 1. 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson reported Development Services began accepting online single family plumbing and mechanical permits, single family reroofing permits and critical area permits today. All the contractors in the City have been notified of the availability of online permits. Mayor Haakenson wished good luck to all the candidates in tomorrow’s election. 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Wilson asked whether the Council wanted to schedule a meeting on November 24. City Clerk Sandy Chase advised Wednesday, November 25 was a furlough day and the Thanksgiving Packet Page 48 of 1136 CORRECTED 12-15-09 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2009 Page 17 Holiday was November 26 and 27. It was the consensus of the Council to cancel the November 24 Council meeting. Councilmember Wambolt expressed concern that no progress was being on the sidewalks on Dayton. He was also concerned with the construction disarray on 212th. He anticipated the contractors had too many projects underway. Mayor Haakenson offered to confer with the City Engineer. Councilmember Bernheim announced Rick Steves and the ACLU will have a public conversation about potential reforms in marijuana laws on November 16 at the Edmonds Center for the Arts. He urged the public to attend, noting enforcement of marijuana laws was very expensive for the City and State. 12. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:08 p.m. Packet Page 49 of 1136 AM-2683 2.D. Claim Checks, Kelly Day, Holiday Buy Back Checks; Payroll Direct Deposit & Checks Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/15/2009 Submitted By:Debbie Karber Submitted For:Lorenzo Hines Time:Consent Department:Finance Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action:Approved for Consent Agenda Information Subject Title Approval of claim checks #115584 through #115605 dated November 24, 2009 for $42,169.66, #115606 through #115801 dated December 3, 2009 for $628,698.00 and #115802 through #115936 dated December 10, 2009 for $577,575.76. Approval of kelly day buy back checks #48790 through #48820 dated November 20, 2009 for $33,005.84, and approval of holiday buy back checks #48821 through #48913 dated November 23, 2009 for $224,035.00. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #48914 through #48954 for the period November 16 through November 30, 2009 for $914,791.67. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approval of claim checks, kelly day buy back and holiday buy back checks and payroll direct deposit and 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:2009 Revenue: Expenditure:$2,420,275.93 Fiscal Impact: Claims: $1,248,443.42 Payroll: $1,171,832.51 Attachments Link: Claim cks 11-24-09 Link: Claim cks 12-3-09 Packet Page 50 of 1136 Link: Claim cks 12-10-09 Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Finance Lorenzo Hines 12/10/2009 11:48 AM APRV 2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/10/2009 12:16 PM APRV 3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/10/2009 12:37 PM APRV 4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/10/2009 02:02 PM APRV Form Started By: Debbie Karber Started On: 12/10/2009 11:10 AM Final Approval Date: 12/10/2009 Packet Page 51 of 1136 11/23/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 11:17:38AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115584 11/24/2009 073020 BENTON, KIM BENTON1110 REFUND REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT FOR PLAZA ROOM 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 500.00 Total :500.00 115585 11/24/2009 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY BROCKMANN11508 YOGA CLASSES YOGA #11508 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 563.92 YOGA #11513 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 646.80 Total :1,210.72 115586 11/24/2009 073022 CERTIFIABLE TRAINING LLC Linda Thornquist Permit technician training for Linda Permit technician training for Linda 001.000.620.524.100.490.00 120.00 Total :120.00 115587 11/24/2009 071308 COLELLA, TERESA COLELLA1119 VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTENDANT VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTENDANT @ EDMONDS CC~ 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 126.00 Total :126.00 115588 11/24/2009 070676 EFFICIENCY INC 208448 FTR GOLD SUPPORT AGREEMENT EDMONDS COURT FTR GOLD SUPPORT AGREEMENT EDMONDS COURT 001.000.230.512.500.480.00 366.46 FTR GOLD SUPPORT AGREEMENT PLANNING 001.000.620.558.600.490.00 366.46 FTR GOLD SUPPORT AGREEMENT CITY CLERK 001.000.250.514.300.480.00 366.46 Total :1,099.38 115589 11/24/2009 072796 GIPPERT, WINFIELD GIPPERT1113 BASKETBALL SCOREKEEPER BASKETBALL SCOREKEEPER @ ANDERSON CENTER 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 66.00 Total :66.00 1Page: Packet Page 52 of 1136 11/23/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 11:17:38AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115590 11/24/2009 071391 GRAY & OSBORNE INC 06713.00-26 E6DA.Services thru 07/25/09 E6DA.Services thru 07/25/09 125.000.640.594.750.410.00 440.96 E6DA.Services thru 08/22/0906713.00-27 E6DA.Services thru 08/22/09 125.000.640.594.750.410.00 331.43 Total :772.39 115592 11/24/2009 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1042398 PW - 5x4 Reducer PW - 5x4 Reducer 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.32 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.60 Sr Center - Door Hardware1045721 Sr Center - Door Hardware 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.86 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.08 Water - Supplies1090515 Water - Supplies 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 62.92 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 5.98 Wade James - Repair Supplies1560596 Wade James - Repair Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 108.69 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 10.33 Fac Maint - Unit 5 - Mini Mag, Hexset,2037652 Fac Maint - Unit 5 - Mini Mag, Hexset, 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 19.69 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.87 2Page: Packet Page 53 of 1136 11/23/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 11:17:38AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115592 11/24/2009 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES City Hall - Bath Faucet2095870 City Hall - Bath Faucet 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 64.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.08 Sewer LS 1 - Buckets, Supplies2560308 Sewer LS 1 - Buckets, Supplies 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 7.95 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 0.76 Sewer LS 1 - Supplies2573645 Sewer LS 1 - Supplies 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 15.71 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 1.49 City Hall - P-Trap2580429 City Hall - P-Trap 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.44 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.33 Fac Maint Shop - Supplies3035059 Fac Maint Shop - Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 42.93 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.08 Yost Pool Office - Framing Supplies3035161 Yost Pool Office - Framing Supplies 001.000.640.574.200.310.00 13.29 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.200.310.00 1.26 Water - Supplies3092559 Water - Supplies 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 85.80 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 8.15 3Page: Packet Page 54 of 1136 11/23/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 11:17:38AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115592 11/24/2009 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Fac Maint Truck Stock Supplies3103121 Fac Maint Truck Stock Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 15.42 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.46 Parks - Supplies3565887 Parks - Supplies 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.44 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.33 Yost - Nails, Staple/Nail gun42638 Yost - Nails, Staple/Nail gun 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 133.29 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 12.66 Fac Maint Unit 5 - Pulls44242 Fac Maint Unit 5 - Pulls 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 12.45 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.18 Sewer - LS 1 - Supplies4571196 Sewer - LS 1 - Supplies 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 8.90 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 0.85 Yost - Supplies45895 Yost - Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 27.96 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.66 Parks - Supplies5024236 Parks - Supplies 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 18.71 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.78 4Page: Packet Page 55 of 1136 11/23/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 11:17:38AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115592 11/24/2009 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES FAC - Exterior Door Sweeps5034535 FAC - Exterior Door Sweeps 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 12.58 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.20 MCH - Door Sweep, Vinyl Sill, Supplies5038891 MCH - Door Sweep, Vinyl Sill, Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 35.91 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.41 Fac Maint Unit 5 - Supplies5043483 Fac Maint Unit 5 - Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 11.25 FAC - Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 5.99 Sr Center - Shingle 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.73 Parks - Supplies5046731 Parks - Supplies 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 37.89 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.60 Fac Maint - Moss Roof5046740 Fac Maint - Moss Roof 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 33.96 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.23 FS 20 - Supplies5113938 FS 20 - Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 28.61 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.72 5Page: Packet Page 56 of 1136 11/23/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6 11:17:38AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115592 11/24/2009 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Fac Maint Unit 5 - Supplies6036848 Fac Maint Unit 5 - Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 12.91 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.23 Fac Maint - Unit 95 - Bits Stock6038704 Fac Maint - Unit 95 - Bits Stock 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 27.44 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.61 Sewer - LS 1 - Supplies6043335 Sewer - LS 1 - Supplies 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 25.94 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 2.46 FAC - Entry doors sweeps6043362 FAC - Entry doors sweeps 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 25.16 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.39 Wade James - Repair Supplies6044788 Wade James - Repair Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 64.19 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.10 FAC - Roof Repair Supplies6046525 FAC - Roof Repair Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 17.88 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.70 FAC - Supplies6567825 FAC - Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 9.88 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.94 6Page: Packet Page 57 of 1136 11/23/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7 11:17:38AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115592 11/24/2009 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES PW Fleet -Radiant Heater Repair Supplies7043089 PW Fleet -Radiant Heater Repair Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 30.30 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.88 City Park - Gutter Hangers7044666 City Park - Gutter Hangers 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 21.89 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.08 Wade James - Hole Saw7103737 Wade James - Hole Saw 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 34.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.32 Yost - Returns Staple Gun, supplies7251837 Yost - Returns Staple Gun, suppliesg 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 -43.41 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 -4.13 Fac Maint - Staple Gun & Supplies7567533 Fac Maint - Staple Gun & Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.350.00 107.61 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.350.00 10.22 MCH - Bags8010802 MCH - Bags 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.92 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.37 Parks - Supplies8570333 Parks - Supplies 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 12.18 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.16 7Page: Packet Page 58 of 1136 11/23/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 8 11:17:38AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115592 11/24/2009 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Fac Maint - Moss Roof9046109 Fac Maint - Moss Roof 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 67.92 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.45 City Park - Repair Supplies90848 City Park - Repair Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 9.08 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.86 Wade James - Bags, Supplies9560928 Wade James - Bags, Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 5.94 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.56 Sewer LS 1 - Bucket, Tray Liner96464 Sewer LS 1 - Bucket, Tray Liner 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 2.18 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 0.21 Svc FeesFCH-003476682 Svc Fees 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 20.00 Total :1,394.14 115593 11/24/2009 069355 KLEINFELDER INC 611607 E6DB.Services thru 10/11/09 E6DB.Services thru 10/11/09 112.200.630.595.330.410.00 2,084.00 Total :2,084.00 115594 11/24/2009 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 25655 E6DA.Services thru 09/19/09 E6DA.Services thru 09/19/09 125.000.640.594.750.410.00 500.00 Total :500.00 8Page: Packet Page 59 of 1136 11/23/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 9 11:17:38AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115595 11/24/2009 072223 MILLER, DOUG MILLER1118 GYM MONITOR GYM MONITOR FOR 3 ON 3 BASKETBALL LEAGUE 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 60.00 Total :60.00 115596 11/24/2009 072492 MOLINA, NILDA MOLINA11557 ZUMBA CLASSES ZUMBA #11557 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 400.40 Total :400.40 115597 11/24/2009 073021 OLSON, HEIDI OLSON1118 REFUND REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT FOR PLAZA ROOM 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 500.00 Total :500.00 115598 11/24/2009 069944 PECK, ELIZABETH PECK11383 PILATES STRETCH & SCULPT PILATES STRETCH & SCULPT~ 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 132.30 Total :132.30 115599 11/24/2009 063951 PERTEET ENGINEERING INC 20090047.000-1 E9CA.Const Review thru 06/28/09 E9CA.Const Review thru 06/28/09 112.200.630.595.330.410.00 7,080.96 E9CA.Const Review thru 08/30/0920090047.000-2 E9CA.Const Review thru 08/30/09 112.200.630.595.330.410.00 118.45 E9CA.Const Review thru 08/30/0920090047.002-1 E9CA.Const Review thru 08/30/09 112.200.630.595.330.410.00 5,308.64 E9CA.Const Review thru 09/27/0920090047.002-2 E9CA.Const Review thru 09/27/09 112.200.630.595.330.410.00 1,152.50 E9CA.Const Admin thru 09/27/0920090060.000-2 E9CA.Const Admin thru 09/27/09 112.200.630.595.330.410.00 10,141.00 9Page: Packet Page 60 of 1136 11/23/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 10 11:17:38AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115599 11/24/2009 (Continued)063951 PERTEET ENGINEERING INC E9CA.CONST ADMIN THRU08/30/0920090090.000-1 E2DB.Const Admin thru08/30/09 112.200.630.595.330.410.00 1,585.19 Total :25,386.74 115600 11/24/2009 031500 REID MIDDLETON & ASSOC INC 0907079 E6DB.Services thru 08/14/09 E6DB.Services thru 08/14/09 112.200.630.595.330.410.00 2,288.40 E9CA.Services thru 08/28/090908102 E9CA.Services thru 08/28/09 112.200.630.595.330.410.00 206.00 E6DB.Services thru 09/18/090909069 E6DB.Services thru 09/18/09 112.200.630.595.330.410.00 2,237.78 E6DB.Services thru 10/23/090910074 E6DB.Services thru 10/23/09 112.200.630.595.330.410.00 1,774.74 Total :6,506.92 115601 11/24/2009 072521 SAVAGE, JENNIFER SAVAGE11542 CARDIO KICKBOXING CARDIO KICKBOXING #11542 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 56.00 Total :56.00 115602 11/24/2009 072802 SCIENCE EXPRESS LLC SCIENCE11590 PRESCHOOL SCIENCE CLUB PRESCHOOL SCIENCE CLUB~ 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 92.40 Total :92.40 115603 11/24/2009 072146 TRUAX, BREANNE 11182009 MONITOR FOR ECONOMIC DEV COMMISSION Monitor for Economic Dev Commission 001.000.240.513.110.490.00 36.00 Total :36.00 115604 11/24/2009 062693 US BANK 1000 Stamps - mailing for CT. 10Page: Packet Page 61 of 1136 11/23/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 11 11:17:38AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115604 11/24/2009 (Continued)062693 US BANK Stamps - mailing for CT. 001.000.610.519.700.420.00 484.00 Pizza for Planning Board on Wed. 001.000.620.558.600.490.00 96.68 Pizza for Planning Board Meeting on 001.000.240.513.110.310.00 193.36 Ink cartridges for payment manager from 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 89.83 Steel card cabinet for Building dept. 001.000.620.524.100.350.00 62.40 Total :926.27 115605 11/24/2009 067393 WWCCPPGROUP 10/14/09 Class Water - 2009 Cross Connection Control & Water - 2009 Cross Connection Control & 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 200.00 Total :200.00 Bank total :42,169.6621 Vouchers for bank code :front 42,169.66Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report21 11Page: Packet Page 62 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115606 12/1/2009 069297 BANK OF AMERICA 0910295554 CUSTOMER # 16-657082 Phone System Principal Pmt #26 001.000.390.591.730.790.00 10,851.10 Phone System Principal Pmt #26 411.000.652.582.391.790.00 1,020.00 Phone System Principal Pmt #26 411.000.654.582.391.790.00 2,502.99 Phone System Principal Pmt #26 411.000.655.582.391.790.00 1,511.92 Phone System Principal Pmt #26 411.000.656.582.391.790.00 2,199.15 Phone System Interest Pmt #26 001.000.390.592.730.830.00 596.46 Phone System Interest Pmt #26 411.000.652.592.391.830.00 56.07 Phone System Interest Pmt #26 411.000.654.592.391.830.00 137.58 Phone System Interest Pmt #26 411.000.655.592.391.830.00 83.11 Phone System Interest Pmt #26 411.000.656.592.391.830.00 120.88 Total :19,079.26 115607 12/3/2009 072627 911 ETC INC 167548 NOV-09 DATABASE MAINT Nov-09 database maint 001.000.310.518.880.480.00 101.50 Total :101.50 115608 12/3/2009 070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC JUN & JUL 2009 INTERPRETER FEE FOR PUBLIC DEFENDER INTERPRETER FEE FOR PUBLIC DEFENDER 001.000.390.512.520.410.00 174.20 INTERPRETER FEE FOR COURT 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 2,150.06 Total :2,324.26 1Page: Packet Page 63 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115609 12/3/2009 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 275605 1-13992 PEST CONTROL 411.000.656.538.800.410.23 63.25 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.410.23 6.01 Total :69.26 115610 12/3/2009 066054 ADIX'S BED & BATH FOR DOGS AND DECEMBER 2009 ANIMAL BOARDING EDMONDS - DEC 2009 ANIMAL BOARDING DECEMBER 2009 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 2,032.66 Total :2,032.66 115611 12/3/2009 071177 ADVANTAGE BUILDING SERVICES 09-610 JANITORIAL SERVICE JANITORIAL SERVICE 411.000.656.538.800.410.21 334.00 Total :334.00 115612 12/3/2009 065568 ALLWATER INC 111809024 COEWASTE DRINKING WATER 411.000.656.538.800.310.11 26.80 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.11 0.67 Total :27.47 115613 12/3/2009 065709 ALPINE SPECIALITY CLEANING 56584 Plaza Rm - Blind Cleaning Plaza Rm - Blind Cleaning 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 139.90 City Hall - Blind Cleaning 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 98.02 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 22.60 Total :260.52 115614 12/3/2009 072997 ANTIONET-BLASCOA, MARIE 110609 JURY FEE JURY FEE 001.000.230.512.540.490.00 15.50 2Page: Packet Page 64 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :15.5011561412/3/2009 072997 072997 ANTIONET-BLASCOA, MARIE 115615 12/3/2009 065378 APPLIED INDUSTRIAL TECH 40351694 Fleet Shop - Lubricator Fleet Shop - Lubricator 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 178.60 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 11.76 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 18.08 Total :208.44 115616 12/3/2009 069751 ARAMARK 655-4594130 UNIFORM SERVICES PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 34.04 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 3.23 UNIFORM SERVICES655-4606309 PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 34.04 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 3.23 Total :74.54 115617 12/3/2009 069751 ARAMARK 655-4606313 21580001 UNIFORM SERVIE 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 92.51 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 8.79 Total :101.30 115618 12/3/2009 069751 ARAMARK 655-4561991 Fleet Uniform Svc Fleet Uniform Svc 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 18.90 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 1.80 3Page: Packet Page 65 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115618 12/3/2009 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK Fleet Uniform Svc655-4574089 Fleet Uniform Svc 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 34.40 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 3.27 PW Mats655-4586413 PW Mats 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.75 PW Mats 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 6.65 PW Mats 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 6.65 PW Mats 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 6.65 PW Mats 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 6.65 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.17 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.63 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.63 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.63 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.63 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.64 PW Mats 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 6.65 4Page: Packet Page 66 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115618 12/3/2009 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK Street/Storm Uniform Svc655-4586414 Street/Storm Uniform Svc 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 3.51 Street/Storm Uniform Svc 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 3.51 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.34 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.33 Fleet Uniform Svc655-4586415 Fleet Uniform Svc 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 15.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 1.43 Fac Maint Uniform Svc655-4594131 Fac Maint Uniform Svc 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 40.94 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.89 5Page: Packet Page 67 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115618 12/3/2009 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK PW Mats655-4598623 PW Mats 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.75 PW Mats 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 6.65 PW Mats 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 6.65 PW Mats 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 6.65 PW Mats 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 6.65 PW Mats 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 6.65 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.17 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.63 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.63 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.63 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.63 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.64 Street/Storm Uniform Svc655-4598624 Street/Storm Uniform Svc 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 3.51 Street/Storm Uniform Svc 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 3.51 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.34 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.33 6Page: Packet Page 68 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115618 12/3/2009 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK FLEET UNIFORM SVC655-4598625 Fleet Uniform Svc 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 15.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 1.43 Fac Maint Uniform Svc655-4606310 Fac Maint Uniform Svc 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 40.44 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.84 7Page: Packet Page 69 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 8 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115618 12/3/2009 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK PW Mats655-4610906 PW Mats 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.75 PW Mats 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 6.65 PW Mats 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 6.65 PW Mats 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 6.65 PW Mats 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 6.65 PW Mats 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 6.65 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.17 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.63 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.63 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.63 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.63 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.64 Fleet Uniform Svc655-4610908 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 1.43 Fleet Uniform Svc 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 15.00 8Page: Packet Page 70 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 9 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115618 12/3/2009 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK Fac Maint Uniform Svc655-4618579 Fac Maint Uniform Svc 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 40.44 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.84 Total :371.42 115619 12/3/2009 070251 ASHBROOK SIMON-HARTLEY 108280 BFP BEARING SEALS BFP BEARING SEALS 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 1,788.16 BEARING SEAL108377 BEARING SEAL 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 240.00 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 11.01 Total :2,039.17 115620 12/3/2009 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0020512-IN 01-7500014 DIESEL FUEL 411.000.656.538.800.320.00 2,875.85 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.320.00 273.20 Total :3,149.05 115621 12/3/2009 069451 ASTRA INDUSTRIAL SERVICES 00108301 EDM040 BALL VALVES 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 87.00 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 6.76 Total :93.76 115622 12/3/2009 064343 AT&T 7303860502001 425-744-6057 PUBLIC WORKS 9Page: Packet Page 71 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 10 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115622 12/3/2009 (Continued)064343 AT&T Public Works Fax Line 001.000.650.519.910.420.00 1.86 Public Works Fax Line 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 7.06 Public Works Fax Line 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 7.06 Public Works Fax Line 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 7.06 Public Works Fax Line 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 7.06 Public Works Fax Line 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 7.05 Total :37.15 115623 12/3/2009 064343 AT&T 425-771-0152 STATION #16 FAX STATION #16 FAX 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 35.90 Total :35.90 115624 12/3/2009 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 53091 ONE TIME CHARGE BARCODES PROGRAMMING One time charge for prgramming for 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 33.30 One time charge for prgramming for 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 33.30 One time charge for prgramming for 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 33.40 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 3.16 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 3.16 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 3.18 Total :109.50 115625 12/3/2009 061659 BAILEY'S TRADITIONAL TAEKWON BAILEY'S12117 TAEKWON-DO CLASSES 10Page: Packet Page 72 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 11 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115625 12/3/2009 (Continued)061659 BAILEY'S TRADITIONAL TAEKWON TOT TAEKWON-DO #12117 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 96.20 TOT TAEKWON-DO #11711 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 240.50 TAEKWON-DO #11365 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 414.19 TAEKWON-DO #11361 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 555.80 Total :1,306.69 115626 12/3/2009 070992 BANC OF AMERICA LEASING 011274026 COPIER RENTAL COPIER RENTAL 001.000.230.512.501.450.00 154.40 Total :154.40 115627 12/3/2009 072998 BEIRNE, KRISTA 110609 JURY FEE JURY FEE 001.000.230.512.540.490.00 15.50 Total :15.50 115628 12/3/2009 072999 BELL, JUSTIN 110609 JURY FEE JURY FEE 001.000.230.512.540.490.00 15.50 Total :15.50 115629 12/3/2009 073000 BENTON, DAVID 110609 JURY FEE JURY FEE 001.000.230.512.540.490.00 15.50 Total :15.50 115630 12/3/2009 071633 BLACK ROCK CABLE INC 14235 Dec-09 Fiber Lease - 7100 210th St SW Dec-09 Fiber Lease - 7100 210th St SW 001.000.310.518.870.450.00 470.00 Dec-09 Franchise fee on Fiber Lease 001.000.310.518.870.450.00 23.50 11Page: Packet Page 73 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 12 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :493.5011563012/3/2009 071633 071633 BLACK ROCK CABLE INC 115631 12/3/2009 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 771556 INV#771556 - EDMONDS PD - ROSSI SS DEL-TROP SHIRTS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 121.41 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 11.53 INV#771556-80 EDMONDS PD - ROSSI771556-80 RECEIVED WRONG SS SHIRTS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 -121.41 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 -11.53 INV#773378 - EDMONDS PD - DAWSON773378 SS SHIRTS 001.000.410.521.700.240.00 80.94 CORP CHEVRONS 001.000.410.521.700.240.00 5.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.700.240.00 8.16 INV#775005 - EDMONDS PD - BROMAN775005 MENS METRO SHOES 001.000.410.521.110.240.00 115.95 WOMENS METRO SHOES 001.000.410.521.110.240.00 115.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.110.240.00 22.03 INV#775005-80 EDMONDS PD - BROWMAN775005-80 RETURNED MENS METRO SHOES 001.000.410.521.110.240.00 -115.95 RETURNED WOMENS METRO SHOES 001.000.410.521.110.240.00 -115.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.110.240.00 -22.03 12Page: Packet Page 74 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 13 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115631 12/3/2009 (Continued)002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC INV#775956 - EDMONDS PD - PAULSON775956 WOOL NAVY PANTS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 217.00 ATAC 8" BOOT W/SIDE ZIP 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 85.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 28.69 INV#775957 - EDMONDS PD - MOORE775957 SERVICE BARS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 7.80 MOCK TURTLENECK SHIRTS 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 39.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 4.53 INV#776589 - EDMONDS PD - PLOEGER776589 ATAC 8" BOOT SHIELD W/P 001.000.410.521.210.240.00 139.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.210.240.00 13.30 INV#779830 - EDMONDS PD - MILLER779830 BOOT, 21210 WSP 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 207.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 19.76 INV#780912 - EDMONDS PD - BROWMAN780912 WMS OXFORD/KC METRO SHOE 001.000.410.521.110.240.00 104.35 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.110.240.00 9.91 Total :972.28 115632 12/3/2009 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY BROCKMANN11500 YOGA & PILATES CLASSES 13Page: Packet Page 75 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 14 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115632 12/3/2009 (Continued)072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY YOGA #11500 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 816.20 PILATES STRETCH & SCULPT~ 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 543.90 YOGA #11505 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 779.10 YOGA #11497 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 354.90 Total :2,494.10 115633 12/3/2009 069295 BROWN, CANDY BROWN1112 BIRD NATURALIST CLASSROOM VISITS BIRD NATURALIST CLASSROOM VISIT~ 001.000.640.574.350.410.00 38.50 Total :38.50 115634 12/3/2009 061966 CAMP FIRE BOYS & GIRLS CAMPFIRE11481 BABYSITTING BASICS BABYSITTING BASICS #11481 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 210.00 Total :210.00 115635 12/3/2009 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 9445883 INV#9445883 CUST# 572105 EDMONDS PD 4 COPIERS RENTAL - AUGUST 09 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 581.60 4 COPIERS RENTAL - SEPTEMBER 09 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 581.60 4 COPIERS RENTAL - OCTOBER 09 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 581.60 4 COPIERS RENTAL - NOVEMBER 09 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 581.60 4 COPIERS RENTAL - DECEMBER 09 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 581.60 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 276.25 Total :3,184.25 14Page: Packet Page 76 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 15 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115636 12/3/2009 003330 CASCADE TROPHY 30170 ADMIN PROF SERVICES recognition plaques 001.000.510.522.100.410.00 203.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.100.410.00 19.33 Total :222.83 115637 12/3/2009 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY150551 ALS SUPPLIES medical oxygen 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 51.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 4.93 ALS SUPPLIESLY150552 medical oxygen 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 102.19 Freight 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 17.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 11.37 ALS SUPPLIESLY150555 medical oxygen 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 22.98 Freight 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 17.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 3.84 Total :232.28 115638 12/3/2009 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E CHAPUT11581 FRIDAY NIGHT OUT FRIDAY NIGHT OUT #11581 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 53.20 Total :53.20 115639 12/3/2009 003710 CHEVRON AND TEXACO BUSINESS 22112612 INV#22112612 ACCT#7898305185 EDMONDS FUEL FOR NARCOTICS VEHICLE 104.000.410.521.210.320.00 124.77 15Page: Packet Page 77 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 16 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :124.7711563912/3/2009 003710 003710 CHEVRON AND TEXACO BUSINESS 115640 12/3/2009 065682 CHS ENGINEERS LLC 450901-910 E9GA.Services thru 10/30/09 E9GA.Services thru 10/30/09 412.300.630.594.320.410.00 25,693.65 E8JA.Services thru 10/30/09450902-910 E8JA.Services thru 10/30/09 412.100.630.594.320.410.00 1,199.88 Total :26,893.53 115641 12/3/2009 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION 460556180 UNIFORMS Stn 17 - ALS 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 113.19 Stn 17 - OPS 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 113.19 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 10.76 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 10.75 OPS UNIFORMS460556198 Stn. 20 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 103.71 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 9.85 OPS UNIFORMS460558319 Stn. 16 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 139.89 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 13.29 16Page: Packet Page 78 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 17 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115641 12/3/2009 (Continued)066382 CINTAS CORPORATION UNIFORMS460560946 Stn. 17 - ALS 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 113.19 Stn. 17 - OPS 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 113.19 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 10.76 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 10.75 OPS UNIFORMS460560960 Stn. 20 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 103.71 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 9.85 OPS UNIFORMS460563035 Stn. 16 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 139.89 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 13.29 Total :1,029.26 115642 12/3/2009 066070 CIT TECHNOLOGY FIN SERV INC 15580363 COPIER LEASE PW copier lease for PW 001.000.650.519.910.450.00 607.12 Total :607.12 115643 12/3/2009 069457 CITY OF EDMONDS ENG20090360 Odor Control Project ROW Permit Odor Control Project ROW Permit 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 260.00 Total :260.00 115644 12/3/2009 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 7490 OPS MISC County Run Review 001.000.510.522.200.490.00 304.91 17Page: Packet Page 79 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 18 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :304.9111564412/3/2009 019215 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 115645 12/3/2009 035160 CITY OF SEATTLE 100164 1-218359-279832 CITY LIGHT 411.000.656.538.800.471.62 13.34 Total :13.34 115646 12/3/2009 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2129183 0031840 FACIAL TISSUE/PAPER TOWELS 411.000.656.538.800.310.23 98.44 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.23 9.35 Total :107.79 115647 12/3/2009 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2121669-1 Fac Maint - Supplies Fac Maint - Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 149.54 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 14.21 FAC - Rolled TowelsW2132688 FAC - Rolled Towels 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 219.60 Fac Maint - TT, Rolled Towels 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 278.69 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 47.34 Total :709.38 115648 12/3/2009 070323 COMCAST 0721433 CEMETERY BUNDLED SERVICES CEMETERY OFFICE BUNDLED SERVICES 130.000.640.536.200.420.00 113.30 Total :113.30 115649 12/3/2009 068473 COMMERCIAL SOUND & COMM.030372 REPLACE DVD PLAYER IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 18Page: Packet Page 80 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 19 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115649 12/3/2009 (Continued)068473 COMMERCIAL SOUND & COMM. Replace and interface DVD player in 001.000.610.519.700.410.00 1,357.37 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.610.519.700.410.00 128.95 Total :1,486.32 115650 12/3/2009 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING OCTOBER 2009 DRY CLEANING/LAUNDRY 10/09 EDMONDS PD DRY CLEANING FOR OCT 2009 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 1,156.10 Total :1,156.10 115651 12/3/2009 069848 CRAM, KATHERINE CRAM11650 IRISH DANCE CLASSES IRISH DANCE FOR KIDS #11650 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 117.60 IRISH DANCE 13+~ 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 267.76 Total :385.36 115652 12/3/2009 066368 CRYSTAL AND SIERRA SPRINGS 1109 2989771 5374044 INV#1109 2989771 5374044 EDMONDS PD HOT/COLD COOLER RENTAL 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 10.00 5 GALLON BOTTLES OF H20 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 65.52 ENERGY SURCHARGE 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 1.91 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 0.95 Total :78.38 115653 12/3/2009 073001 DEINER-KARR, CHRISTINE 110609 JURY FEE JURY FEE 001.000.230.512.540.490.00 15.50 Total :15.50 115654 12/3/2009 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY 12012009 LEIN/KOHO/AMBURGEY/CLAY/VAN 19Page: Packet Page 81 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 20 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115654 12/3/2009 (Continued)006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY LEIN/KOHO/AMBURGEY/CLAY/VAN 411.000.656.538.800.490.00 270.00 Total :270.00 115655 12/3/2009 029900 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS November 2009 NOVEMBER 2009 DRS November 2009 DRS 811.000.000.231.540.000.00 236,709.80 Total :236,709.80 115656 12/3/2009 029900 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS 00757789 Excess compensation - John LaTourelle Excess compensation - John LaTourelle 001.000.620.558.600.230.00 307.82 Total :307.82 115657 12/3/2009 073002 DEWEESE, JERRY 110609 JURY FEE JURY FEE 001.000.230.512.540.490.00 15.50 Total :15.50 115658 12/3/2009 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 09-3048 MINUTE TAKING 11/17 Council Minutes 001.000.250.514.300.410.00 210.00 Total :210.00 115659 12/3/2009 068591 DOUBLEDAY, MICHAEL 112009 STATE LOBBYIST FOR NOVEMBER 2009 State lobbyist charges for November 2009 001.000.610.519.700.410.00 2,391.25 Total :2,391.25 115660 12/3/2009 007253 DUNN LUMBER 02351666 Fac Maint - Work Jacket and Pants for D Fac Maint - Work Jacket and Pants for D 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 91.28 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 8.67 Total :99.95 20Page: Packet Page 82 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 21 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115661 12/3/2009 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 16111 Sewer LS 4 - Lube Oil Sewer LS 4 - Lube Oil 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 17.80 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 1.69 FAC Rm 209 - Cleats16144 FAC Rm 209 - Cleats 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 17.98 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.71 Total :39.18 115662 12/3/2009 062883 EDMONDS LANDSCAPING INC 71821 OLD PUBLIC WORKS BLACKBERRY REMOVAL REMOVAL OF BLACKBERRIES @ OLD PUBLIC 125.000.640.576.800.480.00 3,444.27 9.5% Sales Tax 125.000.640.576.800.480.00 327.21 Total :3,771.48 115663 12/3/2009 070683 EDMONDS MAIL & PARCEL 17557 UPS/MCMASTER-CARR UPS/MCMASTER-CARR 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 14.62 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 1.39 Total :16.01 115664 12/3/2009 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 3-38565 WATER 18410 92ND AVE W 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 23.80 CITY MARINA BEACH PARK6-00025 CITY MARINA BEACH PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 183.52 CITY FISHING DOCK & RESTROOM6-00200 CITY FISHING DOCK & RESTROOM 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 377.95 21Page: Packet Page 83 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 22 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115664 12/3/2009 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH6-00410 BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 203.07 MINI PARK6-00475 MINI PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 563.04 CITY PARK BALLFIELD6-01250 CITY PARK BALLFIELD 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 159.07 CITY PARK PARKING LOT6-01275 CITY PARK PARKING LOT 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 734.15 PINE STREET PLAYFIELD6-02125 PINE STREET PLAYFIELD 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 154.89 CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD - SPRINKLER6-02730 CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD - SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 136.61 ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER (SPRINKLER)6-02900 ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER (SPRINKLER) 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 316.28 CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRINKLER6-03000 CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 258.56 HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK6-03275 HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 116.15 CITY MAPLEWOOD PARK6-03575 CITY MAPLEWOOD PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 161.83 SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER6-04400 SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 483.69 22Page: Packet Page 84 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 23 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115664 12/3/2009 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION WATER6-04425 8100 185TH PL SW 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 300.29 SIERRA PARK6-04450 SIERRA PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 281.21 BALLINGER PARK6-07775 BALLINGER PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 174.09 YOST PARK SPRINKLER6-08500 YOST PARK SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 643.57 YOST PARK POOL6-08525 YOST PARK POOL 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 334.29 Total :5,606.06 115665 12/3/2009 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 6-01127 WWTP WATER WWTP WATER 411.000.656.538.800.473.64 177.40 WWTP WATER6-01130 WWTP WATER 411.000.656.538.800.473.64 25.63 WWTP WATER6-01140 WWTP WATER 411.000.656.538.800.473.64 1,227.02 Total :1,430.05 115666 12/3/2009 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 3-01808 LIFT STATION #11 LIFT STATION #11 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 23.80 MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE3-03575 MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 204.95 23Page: Packet Page 85 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 24 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115666 12/3/2009 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION LIFT STATION #123-07525 LIFT STATION #12 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 52.54 LIFT STATION #153-07709 LIFT STATION #15 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 23.80 LIFT STATION #43-09350 LIFT STATION #4 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 95.41 LIFT STATION #103-09800 LIFT STATION #10 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 29.92 LIFT STATION #93-29875 LIFT STATION #9 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 31.97 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX-POLICE/CRT6-02735 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX-POLICE/CRT 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 1,131.55 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX-FIRE LINE6-02736 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX-FIRE LINE 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 14.65 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX-FIRE6-02737 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX-FIRE 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 142.95 PUBLIC SAFETY IRRIGATION6-02738 PUBLIC SAFETY IRRIGATION 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 367.32 LIBRARY & SPRINKLER6-02825 LIBRARY & SPRINKLER 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,365.66 ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER (FIRE DETECTOR)6-02875 ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER (FIRE DETECTOR) 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 25.63 24Page: Packet Page 86 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 25 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115666 12/3/2009 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER6-02925 ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 1,169.50 Fire Station #166-04127 Fire Station #16 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 685.08 fire sprinkler-FS #166-04128 fire sprinkler-FS #16 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 14.65 Public Works Bldg6-05155 Public Works Bldg 001.000.650.519.910.470.00 131.37 Public Works Bldg 111.000.653.542.900.470.00 499.19 Public Works Bldg 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 499.19 Public Works Bldg 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 499.19 Public Works Bldg 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 499.19 Public Works Bldg 411.000.652.542.900.470.00 499.19 25Page: Packet Page 87 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 26 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115666 12/3/2009 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION Public Works Fire Detector6-05156 Public Works Fire Detector 001.000.650.519.910.470.00 1.83 Public Works Fire Detector 111.000.653.542.900.470.00 6.95 Public Works Fire Detector 411.000.652.542.900.470.00 6.95 Public Works Fire Detector 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 6.95 Public Works Fire Detector 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 6.95 Public Works Fire Detector 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 6.94 Total :9,043.27 115667 12/3/2009 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 050307 ADMIN MAINT copier maint 001.000.510.522.100.480.00 123.46 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.100.480.00 11.73 Total :135.19 115668 12/3/2009 071967 ENG, STEPHEN ENG11369 TAEKWON-DO BEGINNING TAEKWON-DO~ 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 77.70 Total :77.70 115669 12/3/2009 073003 EWOLDT, CAROL 110609 JURY FEE JURY FEE 001.000.230.512.540.490.00 15.50 Total :15.50 115670 12/3/2009 009895 FELDMAN, JAMES A 113009 PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE 001.000.390.512.520.410.00 10,810.00 26Page: Packet Page 88 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 27 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :10,810.0011567012/3/2009 009895 009895 FELDMAN, JAMES A 115671 12/3/2009 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 1632054 17983 ADAPTER/UNION/TUBE/TEE 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 369.22 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 35.08 179831632165 PASTE/FITTING 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 150.58 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 14.30 Total :569.18 115672 12/3/2009 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0229598 Water Inventory - ~ Water Inventory - ~ 411.000.654.534.800.341.00 298.91 Supplies 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 13.74 Freight 411.000.654.534.800.341.00 12.22 Freight 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 0.28 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.341.00 30.21 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 0.69 Water Inventory - ~0231445 Water Inventory - ~ 411.000.654.534.800.341.00 250.00 Freight 411.000.654.534.800.341.00 10.29 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.341.00 24.73 27Page: Packet Page 89 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 28 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115672 12/3/2009 (Continued)009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC Hydrant Replacement - ~0233208 Hydrant Replacement - ~ 411.000.654.534.800.341.00 2,940.89 Water Inventory - ~ 411.000.654.534.800.341.00 472.99 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.341.00 262.87 Water Inventory - w-pipeco-0.75-0110234816 Water Inventory - w-pipeco-0.75-011 411.000.654.534.800.341.00 1,640.76 Water - Supplies 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 140.22 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.341.00 155.88 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 13.32 Water - Hydrant Replacement at 79210235988 Water - Hydrant Replacement at 7921 411.000.654.534.800.341.00 3,833.88 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.341.00 364.22 Hydrant Replacement Parts - OVD at0236545 Hydrant Replacement Parts - OVD at 411.000.654.534.800.341.00 957.85 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.341.00 91.00 Total :11,514.95 115673 12/3/2009 070271 FIRST STATES INVESTORS 5200 263937 TENANT #101706 4TH AVE PARKING LOT RENT Dec-09 4th Avenue Parking Lot Rent 001.000.390.519.900.450.00 300.00 Total :300.00 115674 12/3/2009 070855 FLEX PLAN SERVICES INC 147961 November 2009 - Section 125 plan fees 28Page: Packet Page 90 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 29 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115674 12/3/2009 (Continued)070855 FLEX PLAN SERVICES INC November 2009 - Section 125 plan fees 001.000.220.516.100.410.00 51.10 November 2009 - Section 132 plan fees 001.000.220.516.100.410.00 38.30 Total :89.40 115675 12/3/2009 071562 FORMA 4419 DIRECTIONAL SIGNS SMALL DIRECTIONAL SIGNS FOR MASTER SIGN 125.000.640.576.800.310.00 644.00 9.5% Sales Tax 125.000.640.576.800.310.00 61.18 Total :705.18 115676 12/3/2009 010665 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 935122 MATTER NO. 43 Oct-09 Legal fees for Fiber Optics 001.000.310.518.870.410.00 10,318.48 Total :10,318.48 115677 12/3/2009 072932 FRIEDRICH, KODY FRIEDRICH11658 IRISH DANCE CLASSES IRISH DANCE 13+ #11658 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 286.00 Total :286.00 115678 12/3/2009 073032 GERDON, GLADYS & JOAN 1-02100 RE: 0063-001293822-001 UTILITY REFUND UB Refund Gerdon/Bettinger 411.000.000.233.000.000.00 246.32 Total :246.32 115679 12/3/2009 071945 GILL-ROSE, SUE ROSE11529 WATERCOLOR & DRAWING CLASSES WATERCOLOR BEGINNING/INTERMEDIATE~ 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 616.00 DRAWING BEGINNING/INTERMEDIATE~ 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 554.40 Total :1,170.40 115680 12/3/2009 012068 GLENNS WELDING & MFG 16606 OPS REPAIRS/MAINT 29Page: Packet Page 91 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 30 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115680 12/3/2009 (Continued)012068 GLENNS WELDING & MFG ladders repair 001.000.510.522.200.480.00 163.66 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.480.00 15.55 Total :179.21 115681 12/3/2009 069571 GOBLE SAMPSON ASSOCIATES INC BINV0001947 EDMOC01 PARTS/METERED PUMP 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 1,145.00 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 84.07 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 110.62 EDMOC01BINV0001954 ELEMENTS 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 112.00 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 69.66 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 16.35 Total :1,537.70 115682 12/3/2009 012199 GRAINGER 9122211601 837944131 BRASS UNION 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 114.40 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 10.53 Total :124.93 115683 12/3/2009 012199 GRAINGER 9116972226 Water Dept Tools - 14" Pipe Wrench, Water Dept Tools - 14" Pipe Wrench, 411.000.654.534.800.350.00 112.51 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.350.00 10.70 30Page: Packet Page 92 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 31 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :123.2111568312/3/2009 012199 012199 GRAINGER 115684 12/3/2009 071391 GRAY & OSBORNE INC 09555.00-2 E9FE.Services thru 11/14/09 E9FE.Services thru 11/14/09 412.200.630.594.320.410.00 2,821.72 Total :2,821.72 115685 12/3/2009 012900 HARRIS FORD INC FOCS265002 Unit 680 - Repairs Unit 680 - Repairs 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 688.01 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 65.36 Total :753.37 115686 12/3/2009 073004 HAUGEN, SUSAN 110609 JURY FEE JURY FEE 001.000.230.512.540.490.00 15.50 Total :15.50 115687 12/3/2009 069332 HEALTHFORCE OCCMED 1030-137 Testing services Testing services 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 35.00 Total :35.00 115688 12/3/2009 072647 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL 21210 E8FD.Services thru 10/30/09 E8FD.Services thru 10/30/09 412.200.630.594.320.410.00 4,920.02 E9FB.Services thru 10/30/0921351 E9FB.Services thru 10/30/09 412.200.630.594.320.410.00 12,429.41 Total :17,349.43 115689 12/3/2009 013350 HIGHLAND, SCOTT E3JC.14/15/16 E3JC.Highland thru 11/27/09 E3JC.Highland thru 11/27/09 412.100.630.594.320.410.00 1,559.35 Total :1,559.35 31Page: Packet Page 93 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 32 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115690 12/3/2009 013500 HINGSON, ROBERT 79 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 22.52 Total :22.52 115691 12/3/2009 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1093348 0205 BOWS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 29.82 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.83 02052030344 CRATES, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 73.70 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 7.00 02053030163 SLOTS, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 40.80 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.88 02055031863 TIES, LIGHTS, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 295.79 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 28.10 02056046491 TREE WRAP, FIR, BROOM, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 56.64 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.38 02057031371 STAKES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 11.61 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.10 32Page: Packet Page 94 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 33 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115691 12/3/2009 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 02058031147 BLADE, TOTES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 495.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 47.12 02058094046 PAINT, HINGES, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 51.62 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.90 02059032846 LIGHTS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 53.88 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.12 02059093881 ORNAMENTS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 169.38 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 16.09 Total :1,400.71 115692 12/3/2009 072641 HORNER, ROBERT BRT_01 COMPLETION OF INSTALLATION COMPLETION OF INSTALLATION:~ 117.200.640.575.500.410.00 5,000.00 Total :5,000.00 115693 12/3/2009 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 80832838 INV#80832838 467070-1005305A3 COMBINED COPIER RENTAL 11/13 - 12/12/09 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 340.00 ADDITIONAL IMAGES 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 125.27 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 44.20 33Page: Packet Page 95 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 34 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :509.4711569312/3/2009 070042 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 115694 12/3/2009 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 80852114 COPIER LEASE COPIER LEASE~ 001.000.640.574.100.450.00 495.14 Total :495.14 115695 12/3/2009 006841 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS 5012944035 Meter charges for large copier from Meter charges for large copier from 001.000.620.558.800.450.00 112.37 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.450.00 10.68 Total :123.05 115696 12/3/2009 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS ED3952 INV#3952 - EDMONDS PD ENERGIZER CR2032 BATTERIES 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 16.90 PANASONIC CR123 BATTERIES 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 17.94 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 3.31 Total :38.15 115697 12/3/2009 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 014823 Fleet Shop - Tool Repair Fleet Shop - Tool Repair 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 176.95 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 16.81 Total :193.76 115698 12/3/2009 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 445624 54278825 HYPOCHLORITE SOLUTION 411.000.656.538.800.310.53 3,588.59 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.53 340.92 Total :3,929.51 34Page: Packet Page 96 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 35 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115699 12/3/2009 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 450948 54278825 HYPOCHLORITE SOLUTION 411.000.656.538.800.310.53 3,131.83 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.53 297.52 Total :3,429.35 115700 12/3/2009 073034 JOHNSON, CLIFFORD & HELGA 3-17710 RE: UTILITY REFUND 7320 179TH ST SW UB Refund 7320 179th St SW, Edmonds 411.000.000.233.000.000.00 216.16 Total :216.16 115701 12/3/2009 072199 JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES INC 0066848 E7AD.Services thru 11/01/09 E7AD.Services thru 11/01/09 112.200.630.595.440.410.00 175.90 Total :175.90 115702 12/3/2009 070902 KAREN ULVESTAD PHOTOGRAPHY ULVESTAD11691 BASIC PHOTOGRAPHY BASIC PHOTOGRAPHY #11691 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 156.00 Total :156.00 115703 12/3/2009 071137 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER KLS11482 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER CLASSES 35Page: Packet Page 97 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 36 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115703 12/3/2009 (Continued)071137 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER CLASS #11482 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 491.40 CLASS #11483 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 436.80 CLASS #11484 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 655.20 CLASS #11485 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 600.60 CLASS #11486 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 600.60 CLASS #11487 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 1,365.00 CLASS #11488 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 1,037.40 CLASS #11489 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 1,365.00 CLASS #11490 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 1,747.20 CLASS #11491 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 546.00 Total :8,845.20 115704 12/3/2009 071779 KING SALMON MARINE INC 359E Unit M-16 - Marine Oil, Gear Lube, Oil Unit M-16 - Marine Oil, Gear Lube, Oil 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 263.24 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 24.48 Total :287.72 115705 12/3/2009 016600 KROESENS INC 99709 OPS UNIFORMS Beard boots 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 205.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 19.48 36Page: Packet Page 98 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 37 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :224.4811570512/3/2009 016600 016600 KROESENS INC 115706 12/3/2009 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 11092009-01 INV#11092009-01 EDMONDS PD 16 CAR WASHES @ $5.03 - 10/09 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 80.48 Total :80.48 115707 12/3/2009 006048 L N CURTIS & SONS 2072334-00 Fleet Shop - Field Service Kit Fleet Shop - Field Service Kit 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 245.00 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.61 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 24.38 Unit 474 - Repair Kit2072350-00 Unit 474 - Repair Kit 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 114.00 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.26 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.09 Total :420.34 115708 12/3/2009 060132 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY 1014500637 INV#1014500637 CUST #5560008 -EDMONDS PD EARPLUG CLASSIC SOFT W/O CRD 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 53.56 S&W MAGNUM SAFETY GLASSES 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 35.70 Freight 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 11.12 Total :100.38 115709 12/3/2009 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 25929 E2FA.Geotech services Pak Landslides E2FA.Geotech services Pak Landslides 412.200.630.594.320.410.00 2,444.77 Total :2,444.77 37Page: Packet Page 99 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 38 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115710 12/3/2009 065680 LIFE ASSIST 519435 ALS SUPPLIES regulator, rhino, 2-diss 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 390.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 37.05 Total :427.05 115711 12/3/2009 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 102712 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.230.512.501.310.00 331.26 SUPPLIES102818 SUPPLIES 001.000.230.512.501.310.00 107.29 SUPPLIES102841 SUPPLIES 001.000.230.512.501.310.00 162.06 Total :600.61 115712 12/3/2009 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 102858 ENVELOPES ENVELOPES WITH PARKS & REC RETURN 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 89.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 8.46 Total :97.46 115713 12/3/2009 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 102848 BUSINESS CARDS FOR FINANCE, PD & DEV SER 38Page: Packet Page 100 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 39 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115713 12/3/2009 (Continued)018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS Business Cards~250-00232 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 17.20 Steve Morrison250-00232 001.000.410.521.210.310.00 17.20 T.E. Dreyer250-00232 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 17.20 D.T. Lavely (double sided)250-00232 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 42.20 Theresa M. Umbaugh250-00232 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 17.20 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 1.63 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.210.310.00 1.63 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 5.64 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 1.64 Total :121.54 115714 12/3/2009 073030 LYNNWOOD AUTO AND TRUCK 3933 Unit 304 - New Starter & Labor Unit 304 - New Starter & Labor 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 1,083.62 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 102.95 Total :1,186.57 115715 12/3/2009 071401 MALMSTEN, KATHERINE MALMSTEN11462 CALLIGRAPHY CLASSES CALLIGRAPHY: CONTINUING~ 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 1,253.70 Total :1,253.70 115716 12/3/2009 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 648 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 88.25 39Page: Packet Page 101 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 40 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115716 12/3/2009 (Continued)069362 MARSHALL, CITA INTERPRETER FEE649 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 88.25 INTERPRETER FEE662 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 178.25 Total :354.75 115717 12/3/2009 073028 MATERIALS TESTING & CONSULTING 5153REV Sr Center Entry - Tests, Consulting Sr Center Entry - Tests, Consulting 116.000.651.519.920.410.00 2,560.00 Total :2,560.00 115718 12/3/2009 072986 MCGRATH ESCROW INC 2-37975 RE: 22552 UTILITY REFUND UB Refund Gallaher/Brandjes 411.000.000.233.000.000.00 90.90 Total :90.90 115719 12/3/2009 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 41930035 123106800 GREASE GUN/EYEBLOT/BATTERY/TROUBLE LIGHT 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 184.11 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 7.05 12310680041983623 STEEL KEY 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 8.40 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.14 Total :204.70 115720 12/3/2009 073005 MERZLAK, JOSH 110609 JURY FEE JURY FEE 001.000.230.512.540.490.00 15.50 Total :15.50 115721 12/3/2009 063773 MICROFLEX 00018900 TAX AUDIT PROGRAM FOR AUG-09 40Page: Packet Page 102 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 41 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115721 12/3/2009 (Continued)063773 MICROFLEX Tax audit program for Aug-09 001.000.310.514.230.410.00 201.05 Total :201.05 115722 12/3/2009 072991 MOE, CHELSY MOE1125 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL SUBSTITUTE PRESCHOOL SUB~ 001.000.640.575.560.410.00 36.72 Total :36.72 115723 12/3/2009 069923 MOTION INDUSTRIES INC WA23-234813 101690-01 BFP BEARINGS 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 1,994.64 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 12.05 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 190.63 Total :2,197.32 115724 12/3/2009 072746 MURRAY SMITH & ASSOCIATES 09-1030-7 E8JB.Services thru 10/31/09 E8JB.Services thru 10/31/09 412.100.630.594.320.410.00 10,729.60 Total :10,729.60 115725 12/3/2009 073006 NEAL, THERESA 110609 JURY FEE JURY FEE 001.000.230.512.540.490.00 15.50 Total :15.50 115726 12/3/2009 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0416829-IN Unit 91 - Filter Supply Unit 91 - Filter Supply 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 109.33 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.39 Total :119.72 115727 12/3/2009 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S3101422.001 2092 41Page: Packet Page 103 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 42 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115727 12/3/2009 (Continued)024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY FUSE 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 16.30 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 1.55 2091S3114217.001 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 185.54 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 17.07 Total :220.46 115728 12/3/2009 025217 NORTH SOUND HOSE & FITTINGS 32614 CITYEDMTRE FITTINGS 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 16.84 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 1.55 Total :18.39 115729 12/3/2009 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-041940 HONEY BUCKET CREDIT CREDIT FOR HONEYBUCKET~ 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 -299.47 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-042265 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~ 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 189.87 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-042520 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~ 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 183.47 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-046002 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~ 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 183.47 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-046382 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~ 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 214.47 Total :471.81 42Page: Packet Page 104 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 43 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115730 12/3/2009 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 680 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Historic Preservation Commission Meeting 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 160.00 Total :160.00 115731 12/3/2009 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 017237 INV#017237 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD 43Page: Packet Page 105 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 44 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115731 12/3/2009 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC DESK PADS/RICHARDSON/MILLER 001.000.410.521.210.310.00 22.72 DESK PAD/MACK 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 11.36 MO PLANNER/VERNON/HOVARKA 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 21.06 MO PLANNER/HARDWICK 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 12.34 DAILY DESK CAL REFILL/FRAUSTO 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 3.20 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.700.310.00 1.36 DESK CALENDARS/ANIMAL CONTROL 001.000.410.521.700.310.00 14.32 DESK CALENDAR/MARSH 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 7.16 MONTHLY PLANNER/PROP ROOM 001.000.410.521.910.310.00 10.24 MO DESK PAD/PROP ROOM 001.000.410.521.910.310.00 5.92 MO DESK PAD/PATROL 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 47.36 MO DESK PAD/MORRISON 001.000.410.521.210.310.00 5.92 MO DESK PAD/PROP ROOM 001.000.410.521.910.310.00 12.96 MO DESK PAD/LAWLESS 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 12.96 DESK PADS/THOMPSON/EAGER 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 22.72 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 7.74 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.910.310.00 2.77 44Page: Packet Page 106 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 45 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115731 12/3/2009 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.210.310.00 2.72 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 5.39 INV#237595 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS237595 HANGING BINDERS 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 11.70 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 4.31 9x12 CATALOGUE ENVELOPES 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 33.66 INV#246703 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD246703 HANGING LETTER FOLDERS 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 20.05 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 1.90 INV#246704 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD246704 MANILA LETTER FOLDERS 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 8.39 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 0.81 INV#321854 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD321584 MULTI USE COPY PAPER 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 332.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 31.63 Total :675.57 115732 12/3/2009 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 924160 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.230.512.501.310.00 32.11 SUPPLIES924207 SUPPLIES 001.000.230.512.501.310.00 3.71 45Page: Packet Page 107 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 46 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115732 12/3/2009 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC SUPPLIES953868 SUPPLIES 001.000.230.512.501.310.00 68.79 Total :104.61 115733 12/3/2009 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 291347 CEMETERY OFFICE SUPPLIES TONER 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 84.96 9.5% Sales Tax 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 8.06 OFFICE SUPPLIES299735 TAPE, KLEENEX 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 53.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 5.13 Total :152.14 115734 12/3/2009 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 142474 Storage cubes; coat hook; AAA Storage cubes; coat hook; AAA 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 164.96 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 15.66 Cork board (Nelson)228504 Cork board (Nelson) 001.000.310.518.880.310.00 76.39 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.518.880.310.00 7.26 Mini sorter232304 Mini sorter 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 9.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 0.91 46Page: Packet Page 108 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 47 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115734 12/3/2009 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC ORIGINAL INV #445524250868 Credit for Calendar ordered incorrect 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 -9.63 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 -0.92 ORIGINAL INV #858317250871 Return calculator paper rolls-inferior 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 -22.83 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 -2.17 ORIGINAL INVOICE 142474261753 Mini mesh sorter-OM sent wrong item 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 -9.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 -0.91 16 Ft USB cord; power strip; hand297528 16 Ft USB cord; power strip; hand 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 24.80 16 Ft USB cord; power strip; hand 001.000.310.518.880.310.00 39.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 2.36 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.518.880.310.00 3.70 HP Toner297784 HP Toner 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 223.80 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 21.26 Stapler978226 Stapler 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 30.25 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 2.88 47Page: Packet Page 109 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 48 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :576.7711573412/3/2009 063511 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 115735 12/3/2009 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 080717 OFFICE SUPPLIES Office Supplies 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 183.66 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 17.45 OFFICE SUPPLIES186601 Office Supplies 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 52.59 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 4.99 OFFICE SUPPLIES190486 Office Supplies 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 16.62 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 1.58 Total :276.89 115736 12/3/2009 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 173881 Back ordered calendar for Rob English. Back ordered calendar for Rob English. 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 35.66 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 3.39 Misc. office supplies including268600 Misc. office supplies including 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 816.59 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 77.58 Backorder of hanging frames for Conni.273617 Backorder of hanging frames for Conni. 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 38.80 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 3.68 Total :975.70 48Page: Packet Page 110 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 49 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115737 12/3/2009 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 023280 Office supplies for Council Office Office supplies for Council Office 001.000.110.511.100.310.00 289.19 Total :289.19 115738 12/3/2009 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 240862 ADMIN SUPPLIES Admin office supplies 001.000.510.522.100.310.00 890.92 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.100.310.00 83.61 Total :974.53 115739 12/3/2009 025889 OGDEN MURPHY AND WALLACE 679350 OCT-09 LEGAL FEES Oct-09 Legal Fees 001.000.360.515.100.410.00 12,769.51 OCT-09 RETAINER FEES679351 Oct-09 Retainer fees 001.000.360.515.100.410.00 27,582.88 Total :40,352.39 115740 12/3/2009 025889 OGDEN MURPHY AND WALLACE 679351 Prof Serv- Legislative Legal Fees Prof Serv- Legislative Legal Fees 001.000.110.511.100.410.00 4,702.90 Total :4,702.90 115741 12/3/2009 073019 PARAGON HEATING BLD20090796 Online permit. Applican checked gas Online permit. Applican checked gas 001.000.000.257.620.000.00 20.00 Total :20.00 115742 12/3/2009 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.894758 City Hall - Paint Supplies City Hall - Paint Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 75.30 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.16 Total :82.46 49Page: Packet Page 111 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 50 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115743 12/3/2009 073033 PATRICIA KAPP & LINDA MEEHAN 2-11525 RE: 2092117 UTILITY REFUND UB Refund Drakos/Kapp & Meehan 411.000.000.233.000.000.00 120.20 Total :120.20 115744 12/3/2009 070962 PAULSONS TOWING INC 93819 INV#93819 EDMONDS PD - CASE #09-2146 TOWING SUBARU LEGACY 339RJR 001.000.410.521.220.410.00 237.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.410.00 22.52 Total :259.52 115745 12/3/2009 069944 PECK, ELIZABETH PECK11379 PILATES STRETCH & SCULPT PILATES STRETCH & SCULPT~ 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 392.70 Total :392.70 115746 12/3/2009 007800 PETTY CASH tc petty cash boots-patrick Lawler boots-patrick Lawler 001.000.620.524.100.240.00 80.00 boots-Russel Steinke 001.000.620.524.100.240.00 32.84 vacuum cleaner for DS 001.000.620.558.800.350.00 87.67 training supplies 001.000.510.522.400.310.00 27.64 decorations for holiday breakfast 001.000.220.516.100.490.00 32.78 batteries 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 14.94 scc meeting 11/19/09 001.000.110.511.100.490.00 70.00 mayor mileage reimb 001.000.210.513.100.430.00 114.75 Total :460.62 50Page: Packet Page 112 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 51 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115747 12/3/2009 028400 PITNEY BOWES 746323 POSTAGE METER SUPPLIES EZ Seal and Ink Cartridge 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 320.42 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 30.44 Total :350.86 115748 12/3/2009 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 179927 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Dept of L&I Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Dept of L&I 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.16 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Dept of L&I 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.16 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Dept of L&I 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.16 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Dept of L&I 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.14 Fac Maint - Dept of L&I Safety Film179953 Fac Maint - Dept of L&I Safety Film 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 8.69 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Dept of L&I180130 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Dept of L&I 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.16 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Dept of L&I 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.16 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Dept of L&I 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.16 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Dept of L&I 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.14 51Page: Packet Page 113 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 52 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115748 12/3/2009 (Continued)071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Dept of L&I180277 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Dept of L&I 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.16 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Dept of L&I 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.16 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Dept of L&I 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.16 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Dept of L&I 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.14 Total :34.55 115749 12/3/2009 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 04371 UNIT F1 B1 FUEL Fire Boat - Fuel 511.000.657.548.680.320.00 121.59 Total :121.59 115750 12/3/2009 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 7918807004 YOST POOL YOST POOL 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 147.70 Total :147.70 115751 12/3/2009 070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE 09-736 COURT SECURITY COURT SECURITY 001.000.230.512.500.410.00 2,720.00 Total :2,720.00 115752 12/3/2009 073007 QUENTIN, JAMES 110609 JURY FEE JURY FEE 001.000.230.512.540.490.00 15.50 Total :15.50 115753 12/3/2009 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 104098 MARKER MARKER: YOST 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 149.00 52Page: Packet Page 114 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 53 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115753 12/3/2009 (Continued)030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC INSCRIPTION104099 INSCRIPTION: KERR 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 80.00 Total :229.00 115754 12/3/2009 063452 RADIO SHACK CORPORATION 405672 0004605060005 BATTERIES 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 30.47 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 2.89 Total :33.36 115755 12/3/2009 031500 REID MIDDLETON & ASSOC INC 0911040 E9MA.Services thru 11/06/09 E9MA.Services thru 11/06/09 125.000.640.594.750.410.00 5,865.00 Total :5,865.00 115756 12/3/2009 073023 REYNOLDS, LORI BLD20090784 Duplicate Permit. Duplicate Permit. 001.000.000.257.620.000.00 75.00 Total :75.00 115757 12/3/2009 072254 RIVER OAKS COMMUNICATIONS CORP 11242009 VERIZON/FRONTIER TRANSFER CONSORTIUM NEG Verizon/Frontier transfer consortium 001.000.610.519.700.410.00 112.54 Total :112.54 115758 12/3/2009 064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC 1-693543 Unit 477 - New 42 Mt 12V Unit 477 - New 42 Mt 12V 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 359.93 Total :359.93 115759 12/3/2009 069062 RONGERUDE, JOHN 7377 PUBLIC DEFENDER PUBLIC DEFENDER 001.000.390.512.520.410.00 800.00 53Page: Packet Page 115 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 54 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :800.0011575912/3/2009 069062 069062 RONGERUDE, JOHN 115760 12/3/2009 061482 SEA-WESTERN INC 138871 OPS SUPPLIES screws 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 28.32 Freight 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 7.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 3.45 Total :39.76 115761 12/3/2009 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC 03-016085 Unit 134 - Supplies Unit 134 - Supplies 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 55.76 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.30 Unit 413 - Rotor, Pad Kit03-018044 Unit 413 - Rotor, Pad Kit 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 129.12 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.27 Unit 36 - Filter03-018678 Unit 36 - Filter 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 25.88 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.46 Unit 40 - Filters, and Filter Kit03-018768 Unit 40 - Filters, and Filter Kit 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 46.64 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.43 Unit 40 - Disc Pad Kit03-019416 Unit 40 - Disc Pad Kit 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 103.88 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.87 54Page: Packet Page 116 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 55 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115761 12/3/2009 (Continued)066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC Unit 40 - G Belt03-019434 Unit 40 - G Belt 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 29.98 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.85 Unit G-12 - Spark Plugs03-020304 Unit G-12 - Spark Plugs 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.52 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.09 Unit 5 - Front Rotor03-020797 Unit 5 - Front Rotor 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 332.40 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 31.58 Unit 75 - Pad Kit, Front Rotor03-020956 Unit 75 - Pad Kit, Front Rotor 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 371.74 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 35.32 Fleet- Returns - Supplies, and Core fees05-323357 Fleet- Returns - Supplies, and Core fees 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -291.88 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -27.73 Total :892.48 115762 12/3/2009 073008 SIVERSON, ADRIAN 110609 JURY FEE JURY FEE 001.000.230.512.540.490.00 15.50 Total :15.50 115763 12/3/2009 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC 14-208829 Unit 476 - Wheel Nuts 55Page: Packet Page 117 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 56 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115763 12/3/2009 (Continued)036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC Unit 476 - Wheel Nuts 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 93.72 9.2% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.62 Unit 476 - Studs14-208838 Unit 476 - Studs 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 28.60 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.72 Unit 476 - Wheel Nuts1-681040 Unit 476 - Wheel Nuts 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 37.98 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.49 Fleet - Returns - Brake Adjusters19-025997 Fleet - Returns - Brake Adjusters 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -32.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -3.04 Unit 476 - Studs19-026041 Unit 476 - Studs 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 155.40 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 14.76 Unit 476 - Wheel Inner Nuts19-026042 Unit 476 - Wheel Inner Nuts 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 73.40 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.97 Unit 476 - Outer Wheel Nuts19-026054 Unit 476 - Outer Wheel Nuts 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.05 56Page: Packet Page 118 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 57 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115763 12/3/2009 (Continued)036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC Unit 476 - Studs5-548168 Unit 476 - Studs 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 29.08 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.76 Total :434.51 115764 12/3/2009 060889 SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL ARV/11458813 Shop - Tool Shop - Tool 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 537.38 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 51.05 Total :588.43 115765 12/3/2009 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 3430013627 OLYMPIC BEACH FISHING PIER OLYMPIC BEACH FISHING PIER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 487.58 IRRIGATION CONTROL3850013073 IRRIGATION CONTROL 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 30.97 UTILITY BILLING3890014081 750 15TH ST SW~ 130.000.640.536.500.470.00 240.91 UTILITY BILLING4120014156 750 15TH ST SW~ 130.000.640.536.500.470.00 16.17 SPRINKLER SYSTEM4160017333 SPRINKLER SYSTEM 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 131.98 UTILITY BILLING5040011628 750 15TH ST SW~ 130.000.640.536.500.470.00 148.02 Total :1,055.63 115766 12/3/2009 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 819004356 958-001-000-8 57Page: Packet Page 119 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 58 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115766 12/3/2009 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 WWTP ELECTRICITY 411.000.656.538.800.471.61 28,807.42 Total :28,807.42 115767 12/3/2009 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2060018765 LIFT STATION #8 LIFT STATION #8 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 100.25 SIGNAL LIGHT2330012283 SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.41 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE2440024129 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 174.05 200 Dayton St-Vacant PW Bldg2480017397 200 Dayton St-Vacant PW Bldg 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 705.11 LIFT STATION #42540012560 LIFT STATION #4 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 412.88 ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER2670022181 ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 3,471.56 SIGNAL LIGHT2790022228 SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 55.61 SIGNAL LIGHT3350014902 SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 45.94 SIGNAL LIGHT3710011507 SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 55.77 LIBRARY3720012057 LIBRARY 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,192.61 58Page: Packet Page 120 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 59 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115767 12/3/2009 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 LIFT STATION #123850011440 LIFT STATION #12 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 279.34 LIFT STATION #154070022027 LIFT STATION #15 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 29.92 LIFT STATION #114130026596 LIFT STATION #11 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 30.70 SIGNAL LIGHT4210013902 SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 57.02 STREET LIGHT4320012174 STREET LIGHT 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 511.30 SIGNAL LIGHT4330014129 SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 188.92 Public Works4840011953 Public Works 001.000.650.519.910.470.00 88.48 Public Works 111.000.653.542.900.470.00 336.20 Public Works 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 336.20 Public Works 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 336.20 Public Works 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 336.20 Public Works 411.000.652.542.900.470.00 336.21 SIGNAL LIGHT5360023807 SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 16.17 59Page: Packet Page 121 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 60 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115767 12/3/2009 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX5390028164 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 5,250.01 CITY HALL5410010689 CITY HALL 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,777.59 LOG CABIN5500019350 LOG CABIN 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 227.30 Total :18,382.95 115768 12/3/2009 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE I000237821 INV#I000237821 CUST#SSH00010/ EDMONDS PD SCSO RANGE USAGE/9 HRS 11/3/09 001.000.410.521.400.410.00 450.00 SCSO RANGE USAGE/11 HRS 11/4/09 001.000.410.521.400.410.00 550.00 INV#I000238199 CUST#SSH00095/EDMONDS PDI000238199 SCSO RANGE USAGE/10 HRS 11/16/09 001.000.410.521.400.410.00 500.00 Total :1,500.00 115769 12/3/2009 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 43697 Engineering date stamp for Pam. Engineering date stamp for Pam. 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 46.29 Engineering date stamp for Jaime.43709 Engineering date stamp for Jaime. 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 46.29 Total :92.58 115770 12/3/2009 067609 SNOHOMISH COUNTY CITIES 11/30/09 Associtation of Sno. Co. Cities and Associtation of Sno. Co. Cities and 001.000.210.513.100.490.00 35.00 Total :35.00 115771 12/3/2009 038500 SO COUNTY SENIOR CENTER INC Nov-09 11/09 RECREATION SERVIES CONTRACT FEE 60Page: Packet Page 122 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 61 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115771 12/3/2009 (Continued)038500 SO COUNTY SENIOR CENTER INC 11/09 Recreation Servies Contract Fee 001.000.390.519.900.410.00 5,000.00 10/09 RECREATION SERVIES CONTRACT FEEOct-09 10/09 Recreation Servies Contract Fee 001.000.390.519.900.410.00 5,000.00 Total :10,000.00 115772 12/3/2009 069599 SOUTH COUNTY PLUMBING INC 74191 Water Dept - Repair Flange to install Water Dept - Repair Flange to install 411.000.654.534.800.480.00 210.00 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.480.00 19.95 Total :229.95 115773 12/3/2009 060371 STANDARD INSURANCE CO December 2009 DECEMBER 2009 STANDARD INSURANCE December 2009 Standard Insurance 811.000.000.231.550.000.00 19,717.64 Total :19,717.64 115774 12/3/2009 065298 STEVENS HEALTHCARE 10/21/09 10/21/09 Flu Shots 10/21/09 Flu Shots 001.000.220.516.100.490.00 1,170.00 Total :1,170.00 115775 12/3/2009 068619 SWENSON, LINDA 1202 JAN - APRIL 2010 CRAZE EDMONDS PORTION OF 2010~ 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 1,330.00 Total :1,330.00 115776 12/3/2009 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 10877189 Fleet Shop Supplies Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.657.548.680.311.00 116.38 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.311.00 11.06 Total :127.44 61Page: Packet Page 123 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 62 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115777 12/3/2009 073009 TALLMAN, TRACY 110609 JURY FEE JURY FEE 001.000.230.512.540.490.00 15.50 Total :15.50 115778 12/3/2009 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1672674 NEWSPAPER AD 11/17 Hearing (Comm. Sustain.) 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 75.88 NEWSPAPER AD1672683 Ordinance 3760 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 31.60 NEWSPAPER AD1673945 Ordinance 3759 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 31.60 NEWSPAPER ADS1674747 12/01 Hearing (CFP) 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 75.88 NEWSPAPER AD1674748 12/01 Hearing (Rezone) 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 203.08 NEWSPAPER ADS1674792 11/17 Hearing (Prop. Tax) 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 74.24 Total :492.28 115779 12/3/2009 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1671048 City/AMD200914 Legal Notice. City/AMD200914 Legal Notice. 001.000.620.558.600.440.00 48.00 City/STF200924 Legal Notices.1673252 City/STF200924 Legal Notices. 001.000.620.558.600.440.00 59.48 Total :107.48 115780 12/3/2009 071852 TIGER PUBLISHING CO 2009-104 SR CENTER COMMUNITY TRANSIT SURVEY 62Page: Packet Page 124 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 63 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115780 12/3/2009 (Continued)071852 TIGER PUBLISHING CO Senior Center/Community Transit Survey 001.000.610.519.700.490.00 576.25 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.610.519.700.490.00 54.74 Total :630.99 115781 12/3/2009 071852 TIGER PUBLISHING CO 2009-085 I-1033 Flyer (Edmonds residents) I-1033 Flyer (Edmonds residents) 001.000.110.550.100.490.00 2,734.27 Total :2,734.27 115782 12/3/2009 073010 TURK, JUDITH 110609 JURY FEE JURY FEE 001.000.230.512.540.490.00 15.50 Total :15.50 115783 12/3/2009 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY 8363950 Water Quality - Watts Repair Kits 3/4" Water Quality - Watts Repair Kits 3/4" 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 84.96 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 8.07 Water Quality - Relief Repair Kits8376829 Water Quality - Relief Repair Kits 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 88.40 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 8.40 Total :189.83 115784 12/3/2009 062693 US BANK 3462 CITY CLERK PURCHASE CARD Recording of Utility Liens 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 341.00 Recording of Utility Liens 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 341.00 Total :682.00 115785 12/3/2009 062693 US BANK 3363 Cables To Go - Cables 63Page: Packet Page 125 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 64 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115785 12/3/2009 (Continued)062693 US BANK Cables To Go - Cables 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 106.30 Ace Hardware - Fasteners for Unit 489 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.57 Car Toys - Unit 40 - Supplies 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 98.54 Norton Elect - Unit 425 - Supplies 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 67.16 Auto Nation Wholesale Parts - Unit 791 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 92.86 Fisheries Supply - Unit 5 - Hvy Duty 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 59.51 Total :430.94 115786 12/3/2009 044300 US POSTAL SERVICE 25000234 POSTAGE FOR METER Postage for City Meter250-00234 001.000.250.514.300.420.00 8,000.00 Total :8,000.00 115787 12/3/2009 069592 USA MOBILITY WIRELESS S0298897K INV#S0298897K EDMONDS PD PAGER SERVICE 11/27-12/26/09 001.000.410.521.100.420.00 167.29 Total :167.29 115788 12/3/2009 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-AB8-1176 CITY PARK T1 LINE City Park T1 Line 11/16-12/15/09 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 409.72 POLICE T1 LINE425-AB8-2844 Police T1 Line 11/10-12/9/09 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 375.97 Total :785.69 115789 12/3/2009 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-206-7147 LIBRARY SCAN ALARM LIBRARY SCAN ALARM 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 14.96 64Page: Packet Page 126 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 65 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115789 12/3/2009 (Continued)011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST MEADOWDALE COMMUNITY CLUB-SCAN ALARM425-206-8379 MEADOWDALE COMMUNITY CLUB-SCAN ALARM 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 14.96 FLEET MAINTENANCE FAX LINE425-672-7132 FLEET MAINTENANCE FAX LINE 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 93.80 TELEMETRY STATIONS425-712-0417 TELEMETRY STATIONS 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 27.48 TELEMETRY STATIONS 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 27.47 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES425-712-8251 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES 001.000.650.519.910.420.00 14.22 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 71.08 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 58.28 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 58.28 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 82.44 TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS425-775-1534 TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 160.37 TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 297.84 PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM425-775-2455 PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 49.63 Radio Line between Public Works & UB425-775-7865 Radio Line between Public Works & UB 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 52.61 65Page: Packet Page 127 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 66 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115789 12/3/2009 (Continued)011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST FRANCES ANDERSON FIRE ALARM SYSTEM425-776-3896 FRANCES ANDERSON FIRE ALARM SYSTEM 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 113.31 LS8 -107 RAILROAD AVE425-778-5983 LS 8 - New Service Line Installation 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 182.10 PUBLIC WORKS CPNNECTION TO 911425-RT0-9133 Public Works Connection to 911 001.000.650.519.910.420.00 5.48 Public Works Connection to 911 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 20.81 Public Works Connection to 911 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 20.81 Public Works Connection to 911 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 20.81 Public Works Connection to 911 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 20.81 Public Works Connection to 911 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 20.78 Total :1,428.33 115790 12/3/2009 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-774-0944 FS #20-FAX LINE FS #20-FAX LINE 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 51.44 FS #20 PHONE SERVICE425-778-2153 FS #20 PHONE SERVICE 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 49.70 FS #16 FRAME RELAY425-FLO-0017 FS #16 FRAME RELAY 001.000.510.528.600.420.00 356.85 FRAME RELAY FOR FS #20 & SNOCOM425-NW4-3726 FRAME RELAY FOR FS #20 & SNOCOM 001.000.510.528.600.420.00 247.00 Total :704.99 66Page: Packet Page 128 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 67 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115791 12/3/2009 073011 VORDAHL, GLADYS 110609 JURY FEE JURY FEE 001.000.230.512.540.490.00 15.50 Total :15.50 115792 12/3/2009 006284 W S DARLEY AND CO AP658217 Unit 476 - Amber Light Unit 476 - Amber Light 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 25.00 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.57 Total :34.57 115793 12/3/2009 070186 WA ST FIREFIGHTERS TRAINING &7503 ALS MISC TH,JS medic refresher 001.000.510.526.100.490.00 850.00 Total :850.00 115794 12/3/2009 045515 WABO 19149 Code books and tabs for Building Dept. Code books and tabs for Building Dept. 001.000.620.524.100.490.00 655.47 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.620.524.100.490.00 62.27 2009 IECC Fundamentals Workbook for19163 2009 IECC Fundamentals Workbook for 001.000.620.524.100.490.00 30.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.620.524.100.490.00 2.85 Total :750.59 115795 12/3/2009 045912 WASPC 100199 ELECTRONIC MONITORING ELECTRONIC MONITORING 001.000.230.523.200.510.00 419.75 Total :419.75 115796 12/3/2009 045912 WASPC INV022207 INV# INV022207 EDMONDS PD - ANDERSON FALL CONFERENCE REGISTRATION 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 300.00 67Page: Packet Page 129 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 68 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115796 12/3/2009 (Continued)045912 WASPC INV# INV022248 EDMONDS PD - COMPAANINV022248 FALL CONFERENCE REGISTRATION 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 300.00 INV# INV022316 EDMONDS PD - LAWLESSINV022316 FALL CONFERENCE REGISTRATION 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 300.00 Total :900.00 115797 12/3/2009 048100 WEINZ, JACK D 80 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 617.000.510.522.200.230.00 214.09 Total :214.09 115798 12/3/2009 049500 WEST PUBLISHING 819231888 COURT MANUALS COURT MANUALS 001.000.230.512.501.490.00 355.33 Total :355.33 115799 12/3/2009 049905 WHITNEY EQUIPMENT CO INC 0031906-IN EDMO CI DO CARTRIDGE 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 1,370.00 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 8.81 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 130.98 Total :1,509.79 115800 12/3/2009 071136 WORLDWIDE WATER UTILITY SERV WA-0910-23 Water Dept - Leak Detection Services Water Dept - Leak Detection Services 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 7,250.00 Total :7,250.00 115801 12/3/2009 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 911 NOV-09 MONTHLY RETAINER Monthly Retainer 001.000.360.515.230.410.00 11,330.00 68Page: Packet Page 130 of 1136 12/03/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 69 1:05:54PM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :11,330.0011580112/3/2009 070432 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC Bank total :628,698.00196 Vouchers for bank code :front 628,698.00Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report196 69Page: Packet Page 131 of 1136 12/10/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 10:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115802 12/10/2009 041695 3M XAM3522 TP84922 Street - Yellow EG Prismatic SHTG 30" x Street - Yellow EG Prismatic SHTG 30" x 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 465.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 44.19 Total :509.19 115803 12/10/2009 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 275487 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE RODENT CONTROL RODENT CONTROL @ MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 001.000.640.576.800.480.00 75.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.480.00 7.12 RODENT CONTROL275513 CITY WIDE RODENT CONTROL 001.000.640.576.800.480.00 85.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.480.00 8.08 Total :175.20 115804 12/10/2009 064615 AIR COMPRESSOR SERVICE 32805 SEPARATOR KIT/COOLANT/LUBRICANT SEPARATOR KIT/COOLANT/LUBRICANT 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 1,204.00 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 60.20 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 120.10 Total :1,384.30 115805 12/10/2009 001057 ALMY, DON ALMY1208 VOLLEYBALL LEAGUE SUPERVISION VOLLEYBALL LEAGUE SUPERVISION~ 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 918.00 Total :918.00 115806 12/10/2009 069751 ARAMARK 655-4618578 UNIFORM SERVICES 1Page: Packet Page 132 of 1136 12/10/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 10:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115806 12/10/2009 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 34.04 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 3.23 UNIFORM SERVICES655-4630873 PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 34.04 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 3.23 Total :74.54 115807 12/10/2009 069751 ARAMARK 655-4618582 21580001 UNIFORM SERVICE 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 93.13 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 8.85 Total :101.98 115808 12/10/2009 064343 AT&T 425-776-5316 PARKS FAX MODEM PARKS FAX MODEM 001.000.640.576.800.420.00 44.93 Total :44.93 115809 12/10/2009 001777 AURORA PLUMBING & ELECTRIC 164027 Fac Maint & Sr Center - Plumbing Parts Fac Maint & Sr Center - Plumbing Parts 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 158.06 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 15.02 Total :173.08 115810 12/10/2009 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 52928 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS 2Page: Packet Page 133 of 1136 12/10/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 10:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115810 12/10/2009 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER UB Outsourcing area #500 Printing 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 37.20 UB Outsourcing area #500 Printing 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 37.20 UB Outsourcing area #500 Printing 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 37.31 UB Outsourcing area #500 Postage 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 119.71 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 3.55 UB Outsourcing area #500 Postage 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 119.70 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 3.53 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 3.53 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS53053 UB Outsourcing area #600 Printing 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 32.41 UB Outsourcing area #600 Printing 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 32.51 UB Outsourcing area #600 postage 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 108.78 UB Outsourcing area #600 postage 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 108.78 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 3.08 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 3.08 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 3.09 UB Outsourcing area #600 Printing 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 32.41 3Page: Packet Page 134 of 1136 12/10/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 10:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115810 12/10/2009 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS53139 UB Outsourcing area #300 Printing 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 150.90 UB Outsourcing area #300 Printing 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 150.90 UB Outsourcing area #300 Printing 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 151.34 UB Outsourcing area #300 Postage 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 482.87 UB Outsourcing area #300 Postage 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 482.86 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 14.34 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 14.34 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 14.37 Total :2,147.79 115811 12/10/2009 001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO 11736 BURIAL SUPPLIES BURIAL SUPPLIES: DROVDAHL 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 388.00 Total :388.00 115812 12/10/2009 069076 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS INC COE1109 Background check services Background check services 001.000.220.516.100.410.00 10.00 Total :10.00 115813 12/10/2009 070992 BANC OF AMERICA LEASING 011274027 Canon 5870 copier lease - 1/1/10 - 4Page: Packet Page 135 of 1136 12/10/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 10:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115813 12/10/2009 (Continued)070992 BANC OF AMERICA LEASING Canon 5870 copier lease - 1/1/10 - 001.000.610.519.700.450.00 101.35 Canon 5870 copier lease - 1/1/10 - 001.000.220.516.100.450.00 101.32 Canon 5870 copier lease - 1/1/10 - 001.000.210.513.100.450.00 101.33 Supply charge 001.000.610.519.700.450.00 25.01 Supply charge 001.000.220.516.100.450.00 25.00 Supply charge 001.000.210.513.100.450.00 24.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.610.519.700.450.00 12.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.220.516.100.450.00 12.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.450.00 12.00 Total :415.00 115814 12/10/2009 072581 BARK TIME BLOWER TRUCK SERVICE 10862 Storm - Dump Fees Storm - Dump Fees 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 132.65 Storm Dump Fees10863 Storm Dump Fees 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 132.65 Storm Dump Fees10864 Storm Dump Fees 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 132.65 Storm Dump Fees10865 Storm Dump Fees 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 132.65 Storm Dump Fees10868 Storm Dump Fees 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 151.60 5Page: Packet Page 136 of 1136 12/10/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6 10:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115814 12/10/2009 (Continued)072581 BARK TIME BLOWER TRUCK SERVICE Storm Dump Fees10880 Storm Dump Fees 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 151.60 Storm Dump Fees10881 Storm Dump Fees 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 151.60 Storm Dump Fees10882 Storm Dump Fees 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 151.60 Total :1,137.00 115815 12/10/2009 073041 BECK & ASSOCIATES PLLC 2009-EDM-11 Prof Serv /Bld Div Plan Review Grout Prof Serv /Bld Div Plan Review Grout 001.000.620.524.100.410.00 954.10 Total :954.10 115816 12/10/2009 071633 BLACK ROCK CABLE INC 13943 Nov-09 Fiber Lease - 7100 210th St SW Nov-09 Fiber Lease - 7100 210th St SW 001.000.310.518.870.450.00 470.00 Nov-09 Franchise fee on Fiber Lease 001.000.310.518.870.450.00 23.50 Total :493.50 115817 12/10/2009 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 775008 INV#775008 - EDMONDS PD - COLLINS, AMY WMS OXFORD SHOE 9.5 001.000.410.521.110.240.00 115.95 WMS OXFORD SHOE 10.0 001.000.410.521.110.240.00 115.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.110.240.00 22.03 INV#775008-80 - EDMONDS PD - COLLINS775008-80 RETURN WMS OXFORD SHOE 001.000.410.521.110.240.00 -231.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.110.240.00 -22.03 6Page: Packet Page 137 of 1136 12/10/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7 10:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115817 12/10/2009 (Continued)002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC INV#783100 - EDMONDS PD - BARKER783100 NAVY WOOL PANT 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 108.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 10.31 Total :118.81 115818 12/10/2009 073042 BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF SNO CO Refund REIMB FOR OVERPMT OF UTILITY BILLS Reimb overpmt of utility bills 6-02975 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 1,200.00 Total :1,200.00 115819 12/10/2009 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY BROCKMANN11586 YOGA CLASSES YOGA PILATES FUSION~ 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 84.70 Total :84.70 115820 12/10/2009 067947 BROWNELLS INC 05667724.00 INV#05667724.00 EDMONDS PD QD-SS-BL SWIVEL SET 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 28.50 .22 CAL RIFLE BORE SNAKE 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 31.98 .40 CAL PISTOL BORE SNAKE 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 49.08 6 RD SHELL HOLDER 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 73.11 MAGAZINE BUTT PLATE 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 2.68 Freight 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 11.50 Total :196.85 115821 12/10/2009 071434 BRUNETTE, SISSEL BRUNETTE11539 PRENATAL YOGA PRENATAL YOGA #11539 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 207.90 7Page: Packet Page 138 of 1136 12/10/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 8 10:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :207.9011582112/10/2009 071434 071434 BRUNETTE, SISSEL 115822 12/10/2009 071510 BUCK, ALICIA BUCK11389 ART FOR KIDZ DOODLE DOTS #11389 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 340.20 MINI MARKERS #11391 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 275.34 Total :615.54 115823 12/10/2009 003001 BUILDERS SAND & GRAVEL 290337 Traffic Control/Water/Sewer - Crushed Traffic Control/Water/Sewer - Crushed 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 420.32 Traffic Control/Water/Sewer - Crushed 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 420.32 Traffic Control/Water/Sewer - Crushed 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 840.64 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 39.93 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 39.93 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 79.86 Total :1,841.00 115824 12/10/2009 072988 BUNTTING INC C198 Pmt 2 Sr Ctr Entry Repair Pmt 1 thru Sr Ctr Entry Repair Pmt 1 thru 116.000.651.519.920.480.00 23,084.00 Sr Ctr Entry Repair Pmt 2 12/01/09 116.000.000.223.400.000.00 -1,154.20 9.5% Sales Tax 116.000.651.519.920.480.00 2,192.98 Total :24,122.78 115825 12/10/2009 072717 CALVIN JORDAN ASSOC INC 10805.3 SR Center - Prof Svcs SR Center - Prof Svcs 116.000.651.519.920.410.00 1,759.56 8Page: Packet Page 139 of 1136 12/10/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 9 10:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :1,759.5611582512/10/2009 072717 072717 CALVIN JORDAN ASSOC INC 115826 12/10/2009 071942 CAMPBELL, JULANN CAMPBELL11412 OIL PAINTING OIL PAINTING #11412 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 554.40 OIL PAINTING #11413 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 369.60 Total :924.00 115827 12/10/2009 069458 CASCADE CONTROLS CORP 320791 E8GC.Electriacl feeder breaker for clay E8GC.Electriacl feeder breaker for clay 412.300.630.594.320.650.00 4,140.10 9.5% Sales Tax 412.300.630.594.320.650.00 393.31 Total :4,533.41 115828 12/10/2009 073038 CAVANAUGH, TIFFANY 8-38650 RE #2092130 UTILITY REFUND #2092130 Cavanaugh/Winsor 411.000.000.233.000.000.00 19.40 Total :19.40 115829 12/10/2009 068484 CEMEX 9418213477 Roadway Repair Maint Street/Storm Roadway Repair Maint Street/Storm 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 22.65 Roadway Repair Maint Street/Storm 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 22.65 Asphalt 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 250.75 Asphalt 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 250.75 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 23.07 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 23.07 9Page: Packet Page 140 of 1136 12/10/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 10 10:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115829 12/10/2009 (Continued)068484 CEMEX Storm - Dump Fees9418329200 Storm - Dump Fees 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 41.86 Roadway - Asphalt9418337648 Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 140.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 13.30 Roadway - Asphalt9418357079 Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 428.40 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 40.70 Storm - Dumped Asphalt9418376789 Storm - Dumped Asphalt 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 37.35 Roadway -Prv Cold Mix Asphalt9418376790 Roadway -Prv Cold Mix Asphalt 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 618.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 56.86 Street - Washed Sand9418376791 Street - Washed Sand 111.000.653.542.660.310.00 130.94 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.660.310.00 12.05 Street - Washed Sand9418376792 Street - Washed Sand 111.000.653.542.660.310.00 124.85 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.660.310.00 11.49 Total :2,248.74 115830 12/10/2009 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN11091021 HELIUM FOR GYMNASTICS BALLOONS 10Page: Packet Page 141 of 1136 12/10/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 11 10:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115830 12/10/2009 (Continued)003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY HELIUM FOR BIRTHDAY BALLOONS 001.000.640.575.550.450.00 16.60 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.575.550.450.00 1.58 Total :18.18 115831 12/10/2009 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN11091020 ALS RENTAL ALS cylinder rental 001.000.510.526.100.450.00 33.20 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.450.00 3.15 Total :36.35 115832 12/10/2009 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E CHAPUT11582 FRIDAY NIGHT OUT FRIDAY NIGHT OUT #11582 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 78.40 Total :78.40 115833 12/10/2009 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION 460565707 OPS UNIFORMS Stn. 20 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 103.71 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 9.85 Total :113.56 115834 12/10/2009 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 7518 E3JB.Sidewalk Cont for OVD project with E3JB.Sidewalk Cont for OVD project with 112.200.630.595.330.650.00 37,470.92 E3JB.Waterline Contr for OVD project 412.100.630.594.320.650.00 13,277.51 E3GB.Sewer Contr for OVD project with 412.300.630.594.320.650.00 1,429.16 Total :52,177.59 115835 12/10/2009 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 7521 POSTAGE FOR MAILING OF JAN - APRIL CRAZE 11Page: Packet Page 142 of 1136 12/10/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 12 10:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115835 12/10/2009 (Continued)019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD EDMONDS PORTION OF CRAZE MAILING~ 001.000.640.574.200.420.00 5,053.14 Total :5,053.14 115836 12/10/2009 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 7514 MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SEWER COSTS MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SEWER COSTS 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 13,800.83 Total :13,800.83 115837 12/10/2009 035160 CITY OF SEATTLE 2-533584-460571 WATER USEAGE FOR THE MONTH OF Nov 09 WATER USEAGE FOR THE MONTH OF Nov 09 411.000.654.534.800.330.00 503.55 Total :503.55 115838 12/10/2009 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2134667 005302 PAPER TOWELS/BIGFOLD TOWELS 411.000.656.538.800.310.23 158.52 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.23 15.06 Total :173.58 115839 12/10/2009 004095 COASTWIDE LABS w2135879 FAC & Fac Maint Cleaning supplies, and FAC & Fac Maint Cleaning supplies, and 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2,229.22 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 211.78 Fac Maint - Ice Away, Seat Covers,w2135907 Fac Maint - Ice Away, Seat Covers, 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 513.47 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 48.78 Total :3,003.25 115840 12/10/2009 071680 CODE 4 LLC 9127 INV#9127 - EDMONDS PD 12Page: Packet Page 143 of 1136 12/10/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 13 10:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115840 12/10/2009 (Continued)071680 CODE 4 LLC S&W M&P9, 17 ROUND MAGAZINE 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 189.00 Freight 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 8.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 17.96 Total :214.96 115841 12/10/2009 073031 COLUMBIA BASIC RELOADING 352 INV#352 - EDMONDS PD Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 288.84 .223 CAL 55g FMJ RANGE AMMO (NET) 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 3,480.00 Trade in 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 -772.80 Total :2,996.04 115842 12/10/2009 063519 CUZ CONCRETE PRODUCTS INC 186104 Storm - Concrete Catch Basins (Shorty) Storm - Concrete Catch Basins (Shorty) 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 1,416.84 Fuel Surcharge 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 17.50 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 136.26 Total :1,570.60 115843 12/10/2009 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 16 145904 OPS COMMS PM & align modems 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 895.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 85.03 Total :980.03 115844 12/10/2009 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY 5627 NORDQUIST/OPERATOR CERTF. RENEWAL 13Page: Packet Page 144 of 1136 12/10/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 14 10:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115844 12/10/2009 (Continued)006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY NORDQUIST/OPERATOR CERTF. RENEWAL 411.000.656.538.800.490.00 30.00 Total :30.00 115845 12/10/2009 072646 DIACON TECHNOLOGIES INC 2052 POLYMER POLYMER 411.000.656.538.800.310.51 1,072.50 Total :1,072.50 115846 12/10/2009 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 09-3050 MINUTE TAKING 12/01 Countil Minutes 001.000.250.514.300.410.00 468.00 Total :468.00 115847 12/10/2009 070244 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES INC 09-1640.1 E5MC.Services thru 11/15/09 E5MC.Services thru 11/15/09 125.000.640.594.750.410.00 1,198.85 Total :1,198.85 115848 12/10/2009 068803 EAST JORDAN IRON WORKS 3221870 Storm Drain - 12 Frames, 12 Grates, Storm Drain - 12 Frames, 12 Grates, 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 6,534.00 Freight 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 50.00 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 625.48 Total :7,209.48 115849 12/10/2009 007550 ECONOMY FENCE CENTER 0016539-IN HICKMAN PARK FENCE INSTALLATION HICKMAN PARK FENCE INSTALLATION 125.000.640.576.800.480.00 15,545.00 9.5% Sales Tax 125.000.640.576.800.480.00 1,476.78 Total :17,021.78 115850 12/10/2009 073037 EDMONDS ACE HARDWARE 001006/1 Fac Maint Shop - Pipe Supplies 14Page: Packet Page 145 of 1136 12/10/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 15 10:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115850 12/10/2009 (Continued)073037 EDMONDS ACE HARDWARE Fac Maint Shop - Pipe Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 57.44 FAC - Shelf Bracket 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.98 SR Center - Repair Supplies001007/1 SR Center - Repair Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 41.44 Total :105.86 115851 12/10/2009 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 16502 SUPPLIES BATTERY 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 47.99 9.5% Sales Tax 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 4.56 Total :52.55 115852 12/10/2009 071969 EDMONDS CENTER FOR THE ARTS COE-HUD002 REIMB HUD GRANT B-08-SP-WA-0097 Reimbursement of expenses to ECA/PFD 001.000.610.519.700.410.00 4,706.67 Total :4,706.67 115853 12/10/2009 070683 EDMONDS MAIL & PARCEL 17575 UPS/DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRIES UPS/DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRIES 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 49.43 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 4.69 Total :54.12 115854 12/10/2009 065789 ESTES, KEN 83 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 816.00 Total :816.00 115855 12/10/2009 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 1640764 17983 15Page: Packet Page 146 of 1136 12/10/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 16 10:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115855 12/10/2009 (Continued)009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC WATER HEATER ELEMENT 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 501.23 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 47.62 179831640764-1 CONVERTER KIT 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 21.70 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 2.06 Total :572.61 115856 12/10/2009 010660 FOSTER, MARLO 81 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 319.20 Total :319.20 115857 12/10/2009 012199 GRAINGER 9131163595 PAINTBRUSHES PAINTBRUSHES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 105.95 Freight 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.27 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 10.85 Total :125.07 115858 12/10/2009 012355 GRCC/BAT ROMERO APPLICATION FOR BAT EXAMINATION APPLICATION FEE FOR RICHARD ROMERO FOR 001.000.640.576.800.490.00 145.00 Total :145.00 115859 12/10/2009 071417 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS LTD 9848159 Storm - 6x100' ADS Solid Tubing Storm - 6x100' ADS Solid Tubing 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 132.00 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 10.16 16Page: Packet Page 147 of 1136 12/10/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 17 10:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115859 12/10/2009 (Continued)071417 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS LTD Storm - PVC Pipe, Flex, Supplies9855205 Storm - PVC Pipe, Flex, Supplies 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 3,554.39 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 337.67 Total :4,034.22 115860 12/10/2009 070896 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 8941 PW - Lk Ballinger Forum Meeting - PW - Lk Ballinger Forum Meeting - 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 22.99 Fac Maint- Supplies - Gloves, Paper 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 402.92 Fac Maint- Emergency Food & Supply Kits 001.000.651.519.920.490.00 228.28 Total :654.19 115861 12/10/2009 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 20629 E9CA.Services thru 10/31/09 E9CA.Services thru 10/31/09 112.200.630.595.330.410.00 10,176.00 E4GA.Services thru 11/28/0920667 E4GA.Services thru 11/28/09 412.300.630.594.320.410.00 1,229.40 Total :11,405.40 115862 12/10/2009 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 80880976 COPIER LEASE PARK MAINTENANCE COPIER LEASE 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 27.55 Total :27.55 115863 12/10/2009 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 80880972 C/A 467070-1003748A4 17Page: Packet Page 148 of 1136 12/10/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 18 10:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115863 12/10/2009 (Continued)070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES Finance Copier Rental 11/22-12/21/09 001.000.310.514.230.450.00 454.07 Additional image cost 10/2-11/28/09 001.000.310.514.230.450.00 284.37 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.450.00 70.15 Total :808.59 115864 12/10/2009 006841 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS 5013057526 INV#5013057526 CUST #4204686 EDMONDS PD CANON IR5020I ADD IMGS 7/1-7/31/09 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 72.78 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 6.91 INV#5013057576 CUST#4204686 EDMONDS PD5013057576 CANON IR400 ADD IMAGES 5/23-6/22 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 86.89 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 8.25 INV#5013057577 CUST#4204686 EDMONDS PD5013057577 CANON IR400 ADD IMAGES 6/23-7/22 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 41.73 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 3.96 INV#5013070345 CUST#4204686 EDMONDS PD5013070345 CANON IR5020I ADD IMGS 6/1-6/30/09 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 93.93 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 8.92 Total :323.37 115865 12/10/2009 006841 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS 5012983036 Copies DSD Reception copier 10/12 to Copies DSD Reception copier 10/12 to 001.000.620.558.800.450.00 8.48 Total :8.48 18Page: Packet Page 149 of 1136 12/10/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 19 10:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115866 12/10/2009 066256 IMSA Member Renewal 2010 2010 Renewals for D Browning #58585, ~ 2010 Renewals for D Browning #58585, ~ 111.000.653.542.900.490.00 180.00 Total :180.00 115867 12/10/2009 068952 INFINITY INTERNET 2873676 PRESCHOOL INTERNET ACCESS MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL INTERNET ACCESS 001.000.640.575.560.420.00 15.00 Total :15.00 115868 12/10/2009 071634 INTEGRA TELECOM 6169124 C/A 768421 PR1-1 City Phone Service thru 11/25/09 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 914.34 Total :914.34 115869 12/10/2009 069179 INTERWEST CONSTRUCTION INC E3JC.Pmt 4 E3JC.Pmt 4 thru 11/30/09 E3JC.Pmt 4 thru 11/30/09 412.100.630.594.320.650.00 324,812.75 E3JC.Retainage Pmt 4 412.100.000.223.400.000.00 -14,831.63 Total :309,981.12 115870 12/10/2009 073040 JSH PROPERTIES INC, AS CUSTODIAL RECEIVERENG07-0078 Old Milltown-Refund-Meter Downsize Old Milltown-Refund-Meter Downsize 001.000.000.257.620.000.00 4,434.00 Total :4,434.00 115871 12/10/2009 016600 KROESENS INC 100113 PREV UNIFORM FM belt 001.000.510.522.300.240.00 17.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.300.240.00 1.70 OPS UNIFORMS99287 boots, pants, etc. 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 457.70 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 43.48 19Page: Packet Page 150 of 1136 12/10/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 20 10:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :520.7811587112/10/2009 016600 016600 KROESENS INC 115872 12/10/2009 069634 LEXISNEXIS RISK & INF ANLY GRP 1201641-20091130 INV#1201641-20091130 - EDMONDS PD SEARCHES/REPORTS FOR NOV 2009 001.000.410.521.210.410.00 69.92 Total :69.92 115873 12/10/2009 065680 LIFE ASSIST 520086 ALS SUPPLIES Rhino regulator 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 390.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 37.05 Total :427.05 115874 12/10/2009 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 102745 Office supplies - L. Carl Office supplies - L. Carl 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 20.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 1.95 Total :22.45 115875 12/10/2009 061900 MARC 0403463-IN 00-0902224 CUT N TAP CUTTING & TAPPING/SAF-SOLV 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 359.00 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 34.11 Total :393.11 115876 12/10/2009 019920 MCCANN, MARIAN 82 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.290.00 6,041.25 Total :6,041.25 115877 12/10/2009 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 42266540 123106800 20Page: Packet Page 151 of 1136 12/10/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 21 10:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115877 12/10/2009 (Continued)020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO GREASE FITTING/SPRAY NOZZLE/PIPE FITTING 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 228.24 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 11.09 12310680042404862 HOSE/SANDING BELT 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 264.41 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 17.91 Total :521.65 115878 12/10/2009 067694 NC POWER SYSTEMS CO.PSW O0082839 0071490 INSPECTION 411.000.656.538.800.410.21 398.46 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.410.21 37.85 Total :436.31 115879 12/10/2009 065315 NEWCOMB, TRACY NEWCOMB11460 FUN FACTORY FUN FACTORY #11460 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 648.00 Total :648.00 115880 12/10/2009 023800 NFPA 2216686 PREVENTION MISC Westfall codes subscrptn 001.000.510.522.300.490.00 810.00 Total :810.00 115881 12/10/2009 023800 NFPA 4704741X PREVENTION MISC Westfall renewal thru 12/31/10 001.000.510.522.300.490.00 150.00 Total :150.00 115882 12/10/2009 072032 NORR, JULIE NORR11628 GINGERBREAD HOUSE GINGERBREAD HOUSE #11628 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 224.00 21Page: Packet Page 152 of 1136 12/10/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 22 10:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :224.0011588212/10/2009 072032 072032 NORR, JULIE 115883 12/10/2009 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S3110328.001 2091 SWITCH SELECTOR 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 79.35 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 17.56 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 9.21 Total :106.12 115884 12/10/2009 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 7047 260 SODIUM BISULFITE 411.000.656.538.800.310.54 1,995.92 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.54 189.61 Total :2,185.53 115885 12/10/2009 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-051167 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~ 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 189.87 Total :189.87 115886 12/10/2009 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 341612 INV#341612 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD PHOTO PAPER - GLOSS 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 26.78 MEMO BOOKS - PATROL 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 11.04 STENO BOOKS 6x9 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 5.76 HIGHLIGHTERS - PINK 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 8.20 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 4.93 Total :56.71 115887 12/10/2009 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 303555 Office supplies - HR 22Page: Packet Page 153 of 1136 12/10/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 23 10:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115887 12/10/2009 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC Office supplies - HR 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 28.40 Copy paper 001.000.610.519.700.310.00 13.26 Copy paper 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 13.26 Copy paper 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 13.26 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 3.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.610.519.700.310.00 1.26 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 1.26 Office Supplies - HR555640 Office Supplies - HR 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 44.44 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 4.22 Total :123.31 115888 12/10/2009 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 391434 OFFICE SUPPLIES MAGENTA INKJET CARTRIDGE 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 35.10 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 3.34 OFFICE SUPPLIES397106 LIME PAPER 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 29.06 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 2.76 23Page: Packet Page 154 of 1136 12/10/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 24 10:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115888 12/10/2009 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC OFFICE SUPPLIES442166 MARKERS, PENS, FILE POCKET 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 27.09 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 2.57 Total :99.92 115889 12/10/2009 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 325746 520437 MEMO 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 86.86 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 8.25 Total :95.11 115890 12/10/2009 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 442071 OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 328.12 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 31.17 Total :359.29 115891 12/10/2009 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 179928 PW Admin - Office Supplies PW Admin - Office Supplies 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 57.92 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 5.50 PW - Calandars, Pencils, Planners,201738 PW - Calandars, Pencils, Planners, 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 119.58 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 11.36 24Page: Packet Page 155 of 1136 12/10/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 25 10:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115891 12/10/2009 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC PW Admin - Correction Pens289918 PW Admin - Correction Pens 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 20.46 Fleet - HP Ink 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 151.52 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 1.94 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 14.40 Total :382.68 115892 12/10/2009 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 225506 DSD Office Supplies DSD Office Supplies 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 85.94 Total :85.94 115893 12/10/2009 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0054671 WATER WATER - HICKMAN PARK~ 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 755.37 WATER0060860 23700 104TH AVE W 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 68.16 Total :823.53 115894 12/10/2009 066817 PANASONIC DIGITAL DOCUMENT COM 011274024 COPIER CONTRACT COPIER CONTRACT 411.000.656.538.800.450.41 145.22 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.450.41 13.45 Total :158.67 115895 12/10/2009 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.896771 PAINT SUPPLIES 25Page: Packet Page 156 of 1136 12/10/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 26 10:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115895 12/10/2009 (Continued)027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC. BLACK PAINT 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 18.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.80 Total :20.70 115896 12/10/2009 070962 PAULSONS TOWING INC 93674 INV#93674 EDMONDS PD - CASE #09-4392 TOWING CHEV SILVERADO B42026H 001.000.410.521.220.410.00 316.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.410.00 30.02 INV#93817 EDMONDS PD - CASE #09-439293817 TOWING CHEV SILVERADO B42026H 001.000.410.521.220.410.00 197.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.410.00 18.76 Total :562.28 115897 12/10/2009 073043 PENNINGTON, WILLIAM LID 215-120 Ref Refund overpmt of payroll lid 215-120 Refund overpmt of payroll lid 215-120 001.000.000.111.100.000.00 173.99 Total :173.99 115898 12/10/2009 063951 PERTEET ENGINEERING INC 20090047.002-3 E9CA.Const Review thru 10/25/09 E9CA.Const Review thru 10/25/09 112.200.630.595.330.410.00 1,049.68 E7CB.Services thru 09/27/0927096.000-22 E7CB.Services thru 09/27/09 112.200.630.595.440.410.00 900.00 Total :1,949.68 115899 12/10/2009 008350 PETTY CASH - PARKS & REC PCASH1209 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 26Page: Packet Page 157 of 1136 12/10/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 27 10:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115899 12/10/2009 (Continued)008350 PETTY CASH - PARKS & REC BALLOONS FOR BACKYARD WILDLIFE HABITAT 001.000.240.513.110.310.00 22.57 BROCHURE CASE FOR BACKYARD WILDLIFE 001.000.240.513.110.310.00 10.35 PRINTS OF PHOTOS FOR DISPLAY FOR 001.000.240.513.110.310.00 7.19 VELCRO FOR DISPLAY/WILDLIFE HABITAT TOUR 001.000.240.513.110.310.00 12.03 PLASTIC DROPCLOTH FOR DISCOVER THE 001.000.640.574.350.310.00 4.36 INLAYS 117.200.640.575.500.310.00 5.78 PRESCHOOL PICTURES 001.000.640.575.560.490.00 7.54 CLASSROOM PICTURES 001.000.640.575.560.490.00 8.26 STICKERS/PRESCHOOL 001.000.640.575.560.310.00 3.92 CALENDARS & HOOKS 117.100.640.573.100.310.00 29.84 GLUE & FOIL 001.000.640.575.560.310.00 5.09 PARKING 117.100.640.573.100.430.00 4.00 WRITE ON THE SOUND SUPPLIES 117.100.640.573.100.310.00 58.37 HOOKS & LABELS 117.100.640.573.100.310.00 5.37 STICKERS, COLLAGE MATERIALS 001.000.640.575.560.310.00 21.59 Total :206.26 115900 12/10/2009 069065 PIONEER RESEARCH CORP 214549 GRAFFITI WIPES 27Page: Packet Page 158 of 1136 12/10/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 28 10:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115900 12/10/2009 (Continued)069065 PIONEER RESEARCH CORP GRAFFITI WIPES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 349.00 Freight 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 15.61 Total :364.61 115901 12/10/2009 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 180104 INV#180104 ACCT#2772 - EDMONDS PD MAIL TASERS FOR REPAIR 001.000.410.521.100.420.00 9.76 INV#180336 ACCT#2772 - EDMONDS PD180327 MAIL HELMUT TO SUPER SEER 001.000.410.521.100.420.00 14.35 Total :24.11 115902 12/10/2009 071184 PROCOM 2009-1311 NOV-09 PROF SERV FIBER OPTIC PROJ Nov-09 Prof Serv Fiber Optic Proj 001.000.310.518.870.410.00 281.25 Total :281.25 115903 12/10/2009 030400 PUGET SOUND CLEAN AIR AGENCY 20100400 14063 REGISTRATION FEE 411.000.656.538.800.510.00 6,250.00 Total :6,250.00 115904 12/10/2009 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 120709 084-904-700-6 WWTP PUGET SOUND ENERGY 411.000.656.538.800.472.63 473.79 Total :473.79 115905 12/10/2009 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 0101874006 LIBRARY LIBRARY 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 336.99 PARK & BUILDING MAINTENANCE SHOP0230757007 PARK & BUILDING MAINTENANCE SHOP 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 326.06 28Page: Packet Page 159 of 1136 12/10/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 29 10:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115905 12/10/2009 (Continued)046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY LIFT STATION #71916766007 LIFT STATION #7 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 33.81 PUBLIC SAFETY-POLICE,CRT & COUNCIL2753166004 PUBLIC SAFETY-POLICE,CRT & COUNCEL 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 470.13 Public Works2776365005 Public Works 001.000.650.519.910.470.00 23.24 Public Works 111.000.653.542.900.470.00 88.31 Public Works 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 88.31 Public Works 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 88.31 Public Works 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 88.31 Public Works 411.000.652.542.900.470.00 88.29 200 Dayton St-Vacant PW Bldg3689976003 200 Dayton St-Vacant PW Bldg 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 411.33 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE5254926008 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 286.78 Fire Station # 165322323139 Fire Station # 16 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 717.40 SEWER LIFT STATION #95672895009 SEWER LIFT STATION #9 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 35.29 FLEET5903085008 Fleet 7110 210th St SW 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 318.39 29Page: Packet Page 160 of 1136 12/10/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 30 10:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115905 12/10/2009 (Continued)046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY PUBLIC SAFETY-FIRE STATION6439566008 PUBLIC SAFETY-FIRE STATION 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 721.78 ANDERSON CENTER6490327001 ANDERSON CENTER 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,253.96 LIFT STATION #88851908007 LIFT STATION #8 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 54.94 FIRE STATION #209919661109 FIRE STATION #20 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 301.52 Total :6,733.15 115906 12/10/2009 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 104509 INSCRIPTION INSCRIPTION: PERSON 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 80.00 INSCRIPTION104510 INSCRIPTION: SCHLAMEUS 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 103.00 INSCRIPTION104511 INSCRIPTION: HUNT 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 80.00 MARKER104700 MARKER: LAGERSTROM 130.000.640.536.200.340.00 544.00 Total :807.00 115907 12/10/2009 072736 RECONNECTIONS 1221 REPLACES LOST CK 111907 3 - 18" Cord Neckloops 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 124.95 Freight 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 9.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 11.87 30Page: Packet Page 161 of 1136 12/10/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 31 10:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :145.8211590712/10/2009 072736 072736 RECONNECTIONS 115908 12/10/2009 068483 RH2 ENGINEERING INC 50781 E3JC.Services thru 09/27/09 E3JC.Services thru 09/27/09 412.100.630.594.320.410.00 8,678.04 E3JC.Services thru 10/25/0950918 E3JC.Services thru 10/25/09 412.100.630.594.320.410.00 8,232.17 Total :16,910.21 115909 12/10/2009 033550 SALMON BAY SAND & GRAVEL 2246864 Storm - (60) 50lb Fastrack Storm - (60) 50lb Fastrack 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 1,170.00 Freight 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 81.00 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 118.85 Total :1,369.85 115910 12/10/2009 067802 SAN DIEGO POLICE EQUIP CO 590818 INV#590818 - CUST#0001733 - EDMONDS PD .308 WIN 168GR BTHP MATCH 001.000.410.521.230.310.00 1,752.60 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.230.310.00 166.50 Total :1,919.10 115911 12/10/2009 072521 SAVAGE, JENNIFER SAVAGE11546 BOOT CAMP BOOT CAMP #11546 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 196.00 Total :196.00 115912 12/10/2009 060855 SILVER LAKE TROPHY &17277 Retirement Plaques Retirement Plaques 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 296.55 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 28.17 31Page: Packet Page 162 of 1136 12/10/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 32 10:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :324.7211591212/10/2009 060855 060855 SILVER LAKE TROPHY & 115913 12/10/2009 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2110016462 IRRIGATION CONTROL IRRIGATION CONTROL 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 32.55 IRRIGATION SYSTEM5070014260 IRRIGATION SYSTEM 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 32.05 Total :64.60 115914 12/10/2009 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 701077808 463-001-867-1 9805 EDMONDS WAY WESTGATE 411.000.656.538.800.471.62 29.22 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.471.62 1.75 Total :30.97 115915 12/10/2009 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2260043795 SIGNAL LIGHT SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 52.47 SIGNAL LIGHT3050047152 SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 59.39 SIGNAL LIGHT3800017489 SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 53.88 School Crosswalk4010359802 School Crosswalk 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 52.32 TRAFFIC SIGNAL4510017488 TRAFFIC SIGNAL 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 32.05 STREET LIGHTING6000013000 STREET LIGHTING 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 13,800.95 32Page: Packet Page 163 of 1136 12/10/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 33 10:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115915 12/10/2009 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 STREET LIGHTING6100013306 STREET LIGHTING 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 184.24 STREET LIGHTING6200013008 STREET LIGHTING 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 596.97 Total :14,832.27 115916 12/10/2009 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 035871109 WASTE DISPOSAL PARK MAINTENANCE WASTE DISPOSAL 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 569.64 Total :569.64 115917 12/10/2009 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 03583 garbage & recycle for PS garbage & recycle for PS 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 550.74 garbage & recycle for FAC03585 garbage & recycle for FAC 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 674.47 garbage & recycle for Library03586 garbage & recycle for Library 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 555.23 garbage & recycle-City Hall03588 garbage & recycle-City Hall 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 495.66 Total :2,276.10 115918 12/10/2009 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 2002654 Traffic Control - Omistrip Tool Traffic Control - Omistrip Tool 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 66.26 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 6.29 Total :72.55 115919 12/10/2009 070837 SUNBELT RENTALS INC 23072101-001 LIFT FOR CHRISTMAS TREE DECORATING 33Page: Packet Page 164 of 1136 12/10/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 34 10:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115919 12/10/2009 (Continued)070837 SUNBELT RENTALS INC LIFT FOR DECORATION OF CHRISTMAS TREE 125.000.640.576.800.450.00 1,204.00 9.5% Sales Tax 125.000.640.576.800.450.00 114.39 Total :1,318.39 115920 12/10/2009 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 101415 NEWSPAPER ADS Council & Plan Brd Agendas 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 1,598.63 NEWSPAPER AD1675805 Ordinance 3763 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 34.88 NEWSPAPER ADS1675809 Ordinance 3762 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 38.16 Ordinance 37611675810 Ordinance 3761 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 34.88 Ordinance 37641675811 Ordinance 3764 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 36.52 NEWSPAPER ADS1676710 12/15 Hearing (2010 Budget) 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 61.12 NEWSPAPER AD1676711 12/15 Hearing (2009 Budget) 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 61.12 Total :1,865.31 115921 12/10/2009 065459 THE HERALD SUBSCRIPTION 120709 10925948 HERALD SUBSCRIPTION 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 168.00 Total :168.00 115922 12/10/2009 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR 334321 MUSEUM MAINT 34Page: Packet Page 165 of 1136 12/10/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 35 10:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115922 12/10/2009 (Continued)038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR monthly elevator maint-museum~ 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 182.93 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 17.38 PUBLIC SAFETY334322 quarterly elevator monitoring-PS 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 39.68 SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE342640 SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 146.76 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 13.94 SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR Monitoring~342641 SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR Monitoring~ 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 11.94 Total :412.63 115923 12/10/2009 070182 UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES INC 710150403299 OPS REPAIRS/MAINT test ground ladders 001.000.510.522.200.410.00 375.00 Total :375.00 115924 12/10/2009 063398 US IDENTIFICATION MANUAL 162382 INV#162382 CUST#11429 - EDMONDS PD ID MANUAL UPDATES THRU 02/11 001.000.410.521.210.310.00 79.50 Freight 001.000.410.521.210.310.00 3.00 Total :82.50 115925 12/10/2009 073039 VANNOY, JACQUELINE 2-24650 RE: #7-0910-031 UTILITY REFUND #7-0910-031 Vannoy/Ames 411.000.000.233.000.000.00 66.24 Total :66.24 115926 12/10/2009 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-712-0647 IRRIGATION SYSTEM 35Page: Packet Page 166 of 1136 12/10/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 36 10:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115926 12/10/2009 (Continued)011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST IRRIGATION SYSTEM 001.000.640.576.800.420.00 42.68 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL425-745-5055 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL 001.000.640.575.560.420.00 56.99 Total :99.67 115927 12/10/2009 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-DH0-0667 DEDICATED LINE FS #17 TO SNOCOM Dedicated Line FS #17 to Snocom 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 375.97 Frame Relay for Snocom & Internet425-NW2-0887 Frame Relay for Snocom & Internet 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 280.00 Total :655.97 115928 12/10/2009 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-206-1108 TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 145.47 TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 270.16 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR425-206-1137 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 26.50 TELEMETRY LIFT STATION425-206-1141 TELEMETRY LIFT STATION 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 18.53 TELEMETRY LIFT STATION 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 34.41 TELEMETRY LIFT STATION425-206-4810 TELEMETRY LIFT STATION 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 42.32 TELEMETRY LIFT STATION 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 78.58 36Page: Packet Page 167 of 1136 12/10/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 37 10:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115928 12/10/2009 (Continued)011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST PT EDWARDS SEWER PUMP STATION MONITOR425-640-8169 Phone line for Sewer Lift Station at Pt 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 35.99 LIFT STATION #1425-673-5978 Lift Station #1 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 49.63 PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG ELEVATOR PHONE425-712-8347 PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG ELEVATOR PHONE 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 56.32 FS # 16425-771-0158 FS #16 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 225.28 Lift St 7425-775-2069 Lift St 7 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 192.72 CITY HALL FIRE ALARM SYSTEM425-776-6829 CITY HALL FIRE ALARM SYSTEM 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 113.31 VACANT PW BLDG 200 DAYTON ST425-778-3297 VACANT PW BLDG 200 DAYTON ST 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 18.64 VACANT PW BLDG 200 DAYTON ST 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 34.61 Total :1,342.47 115929 12/10/2009 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-771-0152 FS #16-FAX LINE FS #16-FAX LINE 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 52.61 Total :52.61 115930 12/10/2009 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 0815142885 C/A 671247844-00001 37Page: Packet Page 168 of 1136 12/10/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 38 10:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115930 12/10/2009 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS Cell Service-Bldg 10/13-11/12/09 001.000.620.524.100.420.00 119.57 Cell Service-Eng 10/13-11/12/09 001.000.620.532.200.420.00 172.23 Cell Service Fac-Maint 10/13-11/12/09 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 181.80 Cell Service-Fire OPS 10/13-11/12/09 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 180.02 Cell Service-Fire Admin 10/13-11/12/09 001.000.510.522.100.420.00 35.56 Cell Service-Parks Discovery Program 001.000.640.574.350.420.00 13.17 Cell Service Parks Maint 10/13-11/12/09 001.000.640.576.800.420.00 57.07 Cell Service-PD 10/13-11/12/09 001.000.410.521.220.420.00 532.83 Cell Service-Planning 10/13-11/12/09 001.000.620.558.600.420.00 26.34 Cell Service-PW Street 10/13-11/12/09 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 26.34 Cell Service-PW Storm 10/13-11/12/09 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 27.34 Cell Service-PW Water 10/13-11/12/09 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 137.88 Cell Service-PW Fleet 10/13-11/12/09 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 13.17 Cell Service-WWTP 10/13-11/12/09 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 39.53 Total :1,562.85 115931 12/10/2009 061485 WA ST DEPT OF HEALTH 007358 22500U WATERWORKS OPERATOR CERTF. RENEWAL 411.000.656.538.800.490.00 42.00 Total :42.00 38Page: Packet Page 169 of 1136 12/10/2009 Voucher List City of Edmonds 39 10:56:11AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 115932 12/10/2009 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL I10003983 I10003983 EDM301 BACKGROUND CHECKS 11/09 001.000.000.237.100.000.00 77.00 Total :77.00 115933 12/10/2009 045912 WASPC 2009-00275 INV#DUES 2009-00275- ANDERSON/EDMONDS PD ASSOCIATE DUES/ANDERSON 001.000.410.521.100.490.00 75.00 Total :75.00 115934 12/10/2009 061395 WASTE MANAGEMENT NW 5893292-2677-5 201-0170717-2677-6 ASH DISPOSAL 411.000.656.538.800.474.65 3,423.96 Total :3,423.96 115935 12/10/2009 067465 WOOD, JULIA WOOD11665 GYROKINESIS GYROKINESIS #11665 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 65.00 Total :65.00 115936 12/10/2009 066678 WSDA PESTICIDE MGMT DIVISION 2010RENEWALS 2010 PESTICIDE RENEWAL APPLICATION 2010 PESTICIDE LICENSE RENEWALS FOR: 001.000.640.576.800.490.00 198.00 Total :198.00 Bank total :577,575.76135 Vouchers for bank code :front 577,575.76Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report135 39Page: Packet Page 170 of 1136 AM-2640 2.E. Claim for Damages Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/15/2009 Submitted By:Linda Hynd Submitted For:Sandy Chase Time:Consent Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Eric Thuesen Custom Homes ($47,393.00), and Eleanor Corner ($588.00). Recommendation from Mayor and Staff It is recommended that the City Council acknowledge receipt of the Claims for Damages by minute entry. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Eric Thuesen Custom Homes 509 9th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 ($47,393.00) Eleanor Corner 18803 Sound View Place Edmonds, WA 98020 ($588,00) Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Thuesen Claim for Damages Link: Corner Claim for Damages Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/09/2009 10:59 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/09/2009 11:01 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/09/2009 11:01 AM APRV Form Started By: Linda Started On: 11/30/2009 04:46 Packet Page 171 of 1136 Form Started By: Linda Hynd Started On: 11/30/2009 04:46 PM Final Approval Date: 12/09/2009 Packet Page 172 of 1136 Packet Page 173 of 1136 Packet Page 174 of 1136 Packet Page 175 of 1136 Packet Page 176 of 1136 Packet Page 177 of 1136 AM-2667 2.F. WSLCB List - December Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/15/2009 Submitted By:Linda Carl Submitted For:Gary Haakenson Time:Consent Department:Mayor's Office Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Approval of list of businesses applying for renewal of their liquor licenses with the Washington State Liquor Control Board, December 2009. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action Narrative The City Clerk's Office, the Police Department, and the Mayor's Office have reviewed the attached list and have no concerns with the WSLCB renewing the liquor licenses for the listed businesses. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: WSLCB List Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/09/2009 10:59 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/09/2009 11:01 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/09/2009 11:01 AM APRV Form Started By: Linda Carl Started On: 12/09/2009 10:52 AM Final Approval Date: 12/09/2009 Packet Page 178 of 1136 Packet Page 179 of 1136 AM-2663 2.G. LTAC Reappointment Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/15/2009 Submitted By:Linda Carl Submitted For:Gary Haakenson Time:Consent Department:Mayor's Office Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Reappointment of Lodging Tax Advisory Committee members for 2010. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action Narrative All positions for the LTAC expire at the end of each calendar year and reappointment by the City Council is required. (There are no term limits.) The six members of the committee have all requested reappointment. The seventh member is a City Council representative who's appointed by the Council president at the beginning of each year. The list of current members is attached. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Membership list Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/09/2009 10:59 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/09/2009 11:01 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/09/2009 11:01 AM APRV Form Started By: Linda Carl Started On: 12/09/2009 10:15 AM Final Approval Date: 12/09/2009 Packet Page 180 of 1136 Lodging Tax Advisory Committee 121 5th Ave. N. 425.771.0220 Not for public distribution Updated 1/09 POSITION NO. NAME Date of appointment Term expiration 1 (Tax provider) Jan Conner, Harbor Inn 1/00 12/09 2 (Tax provider) Chris Burdett, Colliers International Hotels 1/03 12/09 3 (Tax provider) Hellon Wilkerson, Maple Tree B&B 1/00 12/09 4 (Tax user) Frances Chapin, Edmonds Parks & Rec Cultural Program 1/00 12/09 5 (Tax user) Roberta (Bobby) McBride, Cascade Symphony 1/03 12/09 6 (Tax user) Joe McIalwain, Edmonds Center for the Arts 7/07 12/09 7 Council appointment Michael Plunkett 1/09 12/09 Positions 1 through 3 represent generators/providers of lodging tax dollars; positions 4 through 6 represent users of lodging tax dollars. There must be at least two members representing each and equal representation. All positions expire at the end of the calendar year; Council confirmation is required for reappointment (except Council appointment, which is determined by the Council president). There are no term limits. Staff liaison: Linda Carl, Sr. Executive Assistant to the Mayor – 425.771.0247 Other staff: Cindi Cruz, Community Services Executive Assistant – 425.775.7742 Deb Sharp, Accountant, Finance Department Packet Page 181 of 1136 AM-2670 2.H. Retiring Board Members Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/15/2009 Submitted By:Linda Carl Submitted For:Gary Haakenson Time:Consent Department:Mayor's Office Type:Information Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title List of retiring board members, commissioners, and committee members. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action Narrative Attached is a list of the people who recently retired from their positions on the City's volunteer boards, commissions, or committees. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: List of retirees Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/09/2009 03:13 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/09/2009 03:43 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/09/2009 04:14 PM APRV Form Started By: Linda Carl Started On: 12/09/2009 11:26 AM Final Approval Date: 12/09/2009 Packet Page 182 of 1136 List of retiring commissioners, board members, and committee members ~ 2009 Dan Kerege Historic Preservation Commission 2007 – 2009 Jim Young Planning Board 2002 – 2009 Judith Works Planning Board 2002 – 2009 Dianne Borchert Library Board 2005 – 2009 Kristiana Johnson Transportation Committee 2006 – 2009 Barbara Tipton Transportation Committee 2008 – 2009 Adrienne Fraley-Monillas Transportation Committee 2008 – 2009 Stacy Gardea Transportation Committee 2005 – 2009 Joan Bloom Transportation Committee 2007 – 2009 Packet Page 183 of 1136 AM-2623 2.I. Seashore Transportation Forum Agreement (2009-2012) Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/15/2009 Submitted By:Conni Curtis Submitted For:Robert English Time:Consent Department:Engineering Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Authorization for Mayor to sign agreement for the SeaShore Transportation Forum. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Council authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement for the SeaShore Transportation Forum. Previous Council Action On January 16, 2007, Council authorized the Mayor to sign the previous SeaShore Transportation Forum Agreement. Narrative The Seashore Transportation Forum is comprised of a group of public agencies representing the West King County sub-area for the purpose of information sharing, consensus building and coordination to provide advice on regional transportation issues. The City has been a member of the Forum since 2001 and Councilmember Peterson currently represents the City at their monthly meetings. The Agreement for the SeaShore Transportation Forum approved by Council in January 2007 has expired. Attached is a new agreement for the period from 2009 thru 2012. The agreement has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. The agreement establishes the Forum’s activities through 2012, as well as clarifying the roles and voting procedures. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: SeaShore Forum Agreement (2009-2012) Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Engineering Robert English 12/09/2009 01:38 PM APRV 2 Public Works Noel Miller 12/09/2009 02:47 PM APRV 3 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/09/2009 03:13 PM APRV 4 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/09/2009 03:43 PM APRV 5 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/09/2009 04:14 PM APRV Form Started By: Conni Curtis Started On: 11/19/2009 10:38 AM Final Approval Date: 12/09/2009 Packet Page 184 of 1136 Final Approval Date: 12/09/2009 Packet Page 185 of 1136 Packet Page 186 of 1136 Packet Page 187 of 1136 Packet Page 188 of 1136 Packet Page 189 of 1136 Packet Page 190 of 1136 Packet Page 191 of 1136 Packet Page 192 of 1136 Packet Page 193 of 1136 Packet Page 194 of 1136 AM-2662 2.J. Supplemental Agreement for Utilities Upgrades - BNSF Double Track Project Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/15/2009 Submitted By:Conni Curtis Submitted For:Robert English Time:Consent Department:Engineering Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Authorization for Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement 4 with KPFF Consulting Engineers, Inc. for Underground Utilities Upgrades with respect to the BNSF Double Track Project. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Council authorize the Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement 4 with KPFF Consulting Engineers, Inc. for Underground Utilities Upgrades with respect to the BNSF Double Track Project. Previous Council Action On June 17, 2008, Council authorized the Mayor to sign a professional services agreement with KPFF Consulting Engineers, Inc. for design services for replacement and/or encasement of existing underground utilities that will be affected by construction of the BNSF second main track project. On November 18, 2008, Council authorized the Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement No. 1 to the agreement for the Underground Utilities Upgrade portion of the BNSF Double Track Project. On July 28, 2009, Council authorized the Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreements 2 and 3 for Underground Utilities Upgrades with respect to the BNSF Double Track Project. Narrative In June 2008, the City entered into a contract with KPFF to design the improvements to the City's utility crossings within the BNSF right-of-way for the future second track along the waterfront. The utility crossings are being improved to withstand the additional weight imposed by the second track. This amendment will allow the consultant to incorporate as-built information into the construction drawings from the recently completed construction work on Lift Stations 7 and 8. Additional work is needed to design a new water service to Lift Station 8 and revise the preliminary construction documents to address the City’s revisions to the plans. Additional services and budget are also included in this addendum so the consultant can assist the City by performing shop drawing reviews and limited field inspection during the construction phase. The additional fee for Supplemental Agreement 4 is $25,145 and will be funded by the Combined Packet Page 195 of 1136 412 Utility Fund. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: KPFF Addendum 4 Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Engineering Robert English 12/10/2009 12:40 PM APRV 2 Public Works Noel Miller 12/10/2009 12:53 PM APRV 3 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/10/2009 02:02 PM APRV 4 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/10/2009 02:27 PM APRV 5 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/10/2009 02:38 PM APRV Form Started By: Conni Curtis Started On: 12/09/2009 08:29 AM Final Approval Date: 12/10/2009 Packet Page 196 of 1136 P a c k e t P a g e 1 9 7 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 9 8 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 9 9 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 2 0 0 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 2 0 1 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 2 0 2 o f 1 1 3 6 AM-2671 2.K. 2010 Hourly Positions by Pay Grade, Title and Wage Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/15/2009 Submitted By:Debi Humann Time:Consent Department:Human Resources Type:Action Review Committee:Finance Committee Action:Approved for Consent Agenda Information Subject Title 2010 Hourly Positions by Pay Grade, Title and Wage. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff To approve the updated 2010 Hourly Positions by Pay Grade and Title (Exhibit A) and the 2010 Hourly Employee Wage Schedule (Exhibit B). Previous Council Action This material went to Finance Committee on Tuesday, December 8, and was approved to move forward for full Council consent agenda. Narrative Annually, the Hourly Positions by Pay Grade and Title chart (Exhibit A) is reviewed and updated to reflect the changing needs of the Edmonds work force as well as the applicable market rate for these positions. This year several positions were downgraded, including the seasonal laborer positions from H11 to H6 along with several positions in the Recreation Department, to reflect the economic changes in the market. No positions were promoted to a higher grade. In addition, the Hourly Employee Wage Schedule (Exhibit B) was reviewed. Typically, any increase in this schedule is driven either by an increase in CPI and/or an increase in the State's minimum wage (which is H1/Step 1 on our chart). With a negative CPI and no increase in the State minimum wage, there is no need to increase the wage schedule from the 2009 rates therefore the 2010 rates will hold stable with no increase over last year. It is requested that the City Council review the materials and approve them as part of the consent agenda with an effective date of January 1, 2010. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: 2010 Hourly Positions by Grade and Title Link: 2010 Hourly Wage Schedule Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status Packet Page 203 of 1136 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/09/2009 03:13 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/09/2009 03:43 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/09/2009 04:14 PM APRV Form Started By: Debi Humann Started On: 12/09/2009 12:37 PM Final Approval Date: 12/09/2009 Packet Page 204 of 1136 Exhibit A Updated 11.23.09 *When the current tennis instructor is no longer with the City, we would like to move the position to an H9. This is the correct grade, but this position was moved in 2004 to an H13 (which became an H12 in 2008). 2010 HOURLY POSITIONS BY PAY GRADE AND TITLE GRADE TITLE DEPARTMENT H01 Summer Preschool Assistant Recreation Gymnastics Assistant Recreation Day Camp Assistant Leader Recreation H02 H03 Clerical Assistant General Clerk Typist General Lifeguard I (steps 1-3) Recreation Lifeguard II (steps 3-5) Recreation Pool Office Staff Recreation H04 Mechanics Helper PW File Clerk General Day Camp Leader Recreation Senior Leader (steps 3-5) Recreation Recreation Aide Recreation Swim Instructor Recreation Assistant Swim Coach Recreation H05 Front Desk Receptionist General Gymnastics Instructor 1 Recreation Preschool Assistant Recreation Senior Guard Recreation H06 Seasonal Laborer Parks Beautification Program Worker Parks Water/Sewer Laborer PW Street/Stormwater Seasonal Laborer PW H07 Clerk General Ranger/Naturalist Recreation Crime Prevention Officer Assistant Police Crime Prevention Volunteer Coordinator Police Aquatic Lead Recreation Dive Coach Recreation Swim Team Coach Recreation H08 Junior Counselor Advisor Recreation Gymnastics Instructor II Recreation H09 Intern General H10 Summer Preschool Supervisor Recreation Assistant Pool Manager Recreation H11 Secretary General Gymnastics Coach Recreation Bailiff Court Pool Manager Recreation Tennis Instructor* Recreation WWTP Laborer WWTP H12 Day Camp Supervisor Recreation H13 Gymnastics Supervisor Recreation H14 Special Commission/Security Police HPO Police Reserve ($12.00) Police H21 Pro Tem Judges Municipal Court Packet Page 205 of 1136 Exhibit B 1st YEAR 2nd YEAR 3rd YEAR 4th YEAR 5th YEAR STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 H1 $8.55 $8.98 $9.43 $9.90 $10.39 H2 $9.18 $9.63 $10.12 $10.62 $11.15 H3 $9.63 $10.11 $10.62 $11.15 $11.70 H4 $10.35 $10.87 $11.41 $11.98 $12.58 H5 $11.05 $11.60 $12.18 $12.79 $13.43 H6 $11.76 $12.35 $12.97 $13.62 $14.30 H7 $12.50 $13.12 $13.78 $14.47 $15.19 H8 $12.96 $13.61 $14.29 $15.00 $15.75 H9 $13.92 $14.62 $15.35 $16.11 $16.92 H10 $14.64 $15.37 $16.14 $16.95 $17.80 H11 $15.49 $16.27 $17.08 $17.94 $18.83 H12 $17.90 $18.79 $19.73 $20.72 $21.76 H13 $20.58 $21.61 $22.69 $23.83 $25.02 H14 $22.64 $23.77 $24.96 $26.21 $27.52 H15 $24.91 $26.15 $27.46 $28.83 $30.27 H16 $27.40 $28.77 $30.20 $31.71 $33.30 H17 $30.14 $31.64 $33.22 $34.89 $36.63 H18 $33.15 $34.81 $36.55 $38.37 $40.29 H19 $36.46 $38.29 $40.20 $42.21 $44.32 H20 $40.11 $42.12 $44.22 $46.43 $48.75 H21 $65.00 the employee occupied the previous year based on performance. Advancement cannot go beyond step 5 of the pay grade. STEP ADVANCEMENT: Hourly employees are eligible for step advancement following each completed year of service or return to the same seasonal position 2010 HOURLY EMPLOYEE WAGE SCHEDULE No step increase in 2010; based on State Minimum Wage at H1/Step 1 GRADE Titles and Wages.2010 hourly employee wage schedule. xls 12/11/2009 4:33 PM Packet Page 206 of 1136 Exhibit B ALTERNATE PAY GRADES: H12 Step 6 - Scott Highland H15 Step 6 - Conrad Baker Titles and Wages.2010 hourly employee wage schedule. xls 12/11/2009 4:33 PM Packet Page 207 of 1136 AM-2672 2.L. 2010 Non-Represented Employee Pay Schedule Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/15/2009 Submitted By:Debi Humann Time:Consent Department:Human Resources Type:Action Review Committee:Finance Committee Action:Approved for Consent Agenda Information Subject Title 2010 Non-Represented Employee Pay Schedule. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Each year, per the Non-Represented Compensation Policy (NRC), the HR Department performs a salary survey of the Police Chief position and that of the HR Assistant position comparing our salary ranges with those of the surrounding comparable cities. The results of the survey show that only a minor change to the HR Assistant position band should be made. It is recommended that City Council review and approve the materials provided. Previous Council Action The materials were reviewed by the Finance Committee on December 8 and were approved to move forward for full Council review and approval. Narrative As stated above, the annual non-rep salary survey for the Police Chief and HR Assistant position have been completed. Per the NRC Policy, our positions were compared against like cities by population in King, Snohomish and Pierce Counties (see attachments). For the Police Chief position, while the salaries at all other municipalities increased, the City's placement (at L-5) did not change. As a result, it would seem that the current salary range (2009)for Band A (Police Chief) does not require an adjustment for 2010. For the HR Assistant position, several cities either eliminated this position or promoted it to a higher level job. As a result, we went to SeaTac and Mercer Island to complete our comparables. The result of this survey is that the overall band lowered annually by $336. Given that the results of the annual survey show that little change is required at this time, I recommend that Band H (HR Assistant) be lowered by $336 and all other bands reflect no change from 2009 to 2010 (see Exhibit A). Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: NRC Pay Schedule and Survey Packet Page 208 of 1136 Link: NRC Pay Schedule and Survey Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/09/2009 03:13 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/09/2009 03:43 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/09/2009 04:14 PM APRV Form Started By: Debi Humann Started On: 12/09/2009 01:18 PM Final Approval Date: 12/09/2009 Packet Page 209 of 1136 Packet Page 210 of 1136 Packet Page 211 of 1136 Packet Page 212 of 1136 Packet Page 213 of 1136 AM-2674 2.M. 2010 Addendum to Prisoner Detention Agreement with the City of Lynnwood Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/15/2009 Submitted By:Gerry Gannon Submitted For:Al Compaan Time:Consent Department:Police Department Type:Action Review Committee:Public Safety Committee Action:Approved for Consent Agenda Information Subject Title 2010 Addendum to Prisoner Detention Agreement with the City of Lynnwood. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Council authorize the Mayor to sign the addendum with the City of Lynnwood. Previous Council Action This item was heard at the Public Safety Committee meeting on December 8, 2009. Committeee members approved the item for the consent agenda. Narrative The City of Lynnwood and the City of Edmonds originally signed a Prisoner Detention Agreement in January 1998. The agreement sets forth the terms and conditions of our utilization of Lynnwood jail services. Since that time, there have been several addenda to the agreement regarding remuneration issues. Lynnwood has presented us with an addendum effective January 1, 2010, covering our portion of the Whatcom County cooperative prisoner transport service. Our share of the fee for 2010 is $14,739, an increase of $759.67. Our portion of the transport fee for 2009 was $13,979.33. Whatcom County provides daily prisoner transportation service along the I-5 corridor from Bellingham to Seattle. The total costs of Whatcom County's NW Mini-chain are divided proportionately among participating agencies based on the number of prisoners transported. This is a "pass through" amount charged to Lynnwood and then billed to us by Lynnwood. Funds are already allocated in the approved 2009-2010 budget in Police (general fund) prisoner care. All other terms and conditions of the Prisoner Detention Agreement with the City of Lynnwood remain unchanged. Fiscal Impact Attachments Packet Page 214 of 1136 Link: 2010 Lynnwood Transport Addendum Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/10/2009 09:21 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/10/2009 10:04 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/10/2009 11:23 AM APRV Form Started By: Gerry Gannon Started On: 12/09/2009 04:01 PM Final Approval Date: 12/10/2009 Packet Page 215 of 1136 Packet Page 216 of 1136 Packet Page 217 of 1136 Packet Page 218 of 1136 Packet Page 219 of 1136 Packet Page 220 of 1136 Packet Page 221 of 1136 Packet Page 222 of 1136 Packet Page 223 of 1136 Packet Page 224 of 1136 Packet Page 225 of 1136 Packet Page 226 of 1136 Packet Page 227 of 1136 AM-2677 2.N. Kenneling Services for the City of Edmonds Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/15/2009 Submitted By:Gerry Gannon Submitted For:Al Compaan Time:Consent Department:Police Department Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action:Approved for Consent Agenda Information Subject Title Kenneling Services contract between Adix's Bed and Bath and the City of Edmonds. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Staff recommends approval of this item, authorizing the Mayor to sign the contract. The City Attorney has approved as to form and content. Previous Council Action This item was heard at the Public Safety Committee meeting on December 8, 2009. Committee members approved the item for the consent agenda. Narrative The current contract with the city’s vendor for animal kenneling services, Adix’s Bed and Bath for Dogs and Cats, expires December 31, 2009. The Police Department feels it is in the best interest of city operations to continue a contractual relationship with Adix’s. The annual fee for animal kenneling services for 2010 will be $24,391.92, which is the same amount as in 2009. There are no increases based on the June 2009 Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton CPI-U which was -0.4%. Any increases for years 2011 and 2012 will be based on June Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton CPI-U. This contract places a cap on any increases at 5%. The term of the contract is for three years. The contract has been approved as to form by the City Attorney. Kristin Adix, representing Adix Bed and Bath has reviewed the contract and agrees to the terms and conditions. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Kenneling Contract Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/10/2009 09:22 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/10/2009 10:04 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/10/2009 11:23 AM APRV Form Started By: Gerry Gannon Started On: 12/10/2009 06:52 AM Final Approval Date: 12/10/2009 Packet Page 228 of 1136 Final Approval Date: 12/10/2009 Packet Page 229 of 1136 City of Edmonds 121 FIFTH AVENUE N. ● EDMONDS, WA 98020 ● 425-771-0251 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Gary Haakenson Mayor {BFP750734.DOC;1\00006.900160\ } 1 ANIMAL KENNELING SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into between the City of Edmonds, hereinafter referred to as the “City”, and Adix’s Bed and Bath for Dogs and Cats, Inc., hereafter referred to as “Adix” or “Contractor”; WHEREAS, the City has determined by ordinances to regulate animals within the city limits, including the licensing and preventing the running at large of animals and preventing animals from becoming nuisances, and WHEREAS, Adix is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Washington, and WHEREAS, the City has no animal kenneling services of its own, and WHEREAS, the City and Adix desire to enter into a contract defining the rights and responsibilities of Adix and the City with respect to animal kenneling, NOW, THEREFORE, In consideration of mutual covenants herein contained, ADIX and the City have mutually agreed and do hereby agree as follows: 1. Scope of work. The Scope of Work shall include all services and material necessary to accomplish the above-mentioned objectives in accordance with the specifics noted below. A. General Description. The Specific Scope of Works can be found in Exhibit A., incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. B. Term. This agreement shall be effective from January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2012. In the event that the period covered by this contract shall expire without the benefit of a new agreement, the rate scheduled then in effect as of the date of contract expiry shall continue until such time as Adix and the City agree to an amended rate schedule, provided that either party may, upon one hundred eighty days advance written notice, issue notice of termination, which shall not require cause, and after expiry of notice, the contract shall be of no further force or effect. Either party may terminate this agreement immediately for cause upon the deposit of written notification in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the regular mailing address of each party. Packet Page 230 of 1136 Services Agreement, Page 2 2. Payments. The Contractor shall be paid by the City for completed work for services rendered under this Agreement as provided hereinafter. Such payment shall be full compensation for work performed or services rendered and for all labor, materials, supplies, equipment and incidentals necessary to complete the work. A. Amount. Payment for work accomplished under the terms of this Agreement shall be as set forth in Exhibit A. B. Process. All vouchers shall be submitted by the Contractor to the City for payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The City shall pay the appropriate amount for each voucher to the Contractor. The Contractor may submit vouchers to the City as set forth in Exhibit A for services performed and accepted by the City. Billing shall be reviewed in conjunction with the City’s warrant process. No voucher / billing shall be considered for payment that is not sufficiently detailed to verify validity thereof, and that has not been submitted to the City three days prior to the scheduled cut-off date. Such late vouchers will be checked by the City and payment will be made in the next regular payment cycle. C. Record Retention. The costs, records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement are to be kept available for inspection by representatives of the City for a period of three (3) years after final payment. Copies shall be made available upon request. 3. Ownership and use of documents. All research, tests, surveys, preliminary data and any and all other work product prepared or gathered by the Contractor in preparation for the services rendered by the Contractor under this Agreement shall be and are the property of Contractor and shall not be considered public records, provided, however, that: A. Final Document. All final reports, presentations and testimony prepared by the Contractor shall become the property of the City upon their presentation to and acceptance by the City and shall at that date become public records. B. Copies. The City shall have the right, upon reasonable request, to inspect, review and, subject to the approval of the Contractor, copy any work product. C. Default. In the event that the Contractor shall default on this Agreement, or in the event that this contract shall be terminated prior to its completion as herein provided, the work product of the Contractor, along with a summary of work done to date of default or termination, shall become the property of the City and tender of the work product and summary shall be a prerequisite to final payment under this contract. The summary of work done shall be prepared at no additional cost. 4. Hold harmless agreement. In performing the work under this Agreement, Contractor agrees to protect, indemnify and save the City harmless from and against any and all injury {BFP750734.DOC;1\00006.900160\ } 2 Packet Page 231 of 1136 Services Agreement, Page 3 or damage to the City or its property, and also from and against all claims, demands, and cause of action of every kind and character arising directly or indirectly, or in any way incident to, in connection with, or arising out of work performed under the terms hereof, caused by the tortious or illegal actions or breach of any obligation under this Agreement by the Contractor, its agent, employees, representatives or subcontractors. Contractor specifically promises to indemnify the City against claims or suits brought under Title 51 RCW by its agent, employees, representatives or subcontractors and waives any immunity that the Contractor may have under that title with respect to, but only to, the City. Contractor further agrees to fully indemnify City from and against any and all costs of defending any such claim or demand to the end that the City is held harmless therefrom. The provisions of this paragraph shall prevail over any other conflicting provision in this Agreement; however they shall not apply to damages or claims resulting from the sole negligence of the City; however, it shall apply to damages or claims resulting from concurrent negligence of the parties to the extent of the Contractor’s tortious or illegal actions or breach of any obligation under this Agreement, or those of its agent, employees, representatives or subcontractors. 5. General and professional liability insurance. The Contractor shall secure and maintain in full force and effect during performance of all work pursuant to his contract a policy of business general liability insurance providing coverage of at least $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate for personal injury; and $1,000,000 per occurrence and aggregate for property damage. Insurance policies shall name the City as a named insured, and shall include a provision prohibiting cancellation of said policy, except upon thirty (30) days written notice to the City. Certificates of coverage shall be delivered to the City within fifteen (15) days of execution of this Agreement. Coverage limit provided herein is neither intended nor shall it cap Contractor’s liability resulting from breach of contract, warranty, negligence or any other act of tort. 6. Discrimination prohibited. Contractor shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, age, sex, national origin or physical handicap. 7. Contractor is an independent Contractor. The Parties intend that an independent Contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. No agent, employee or representative of the Contractor shall be deemed to be an agent, employee or representative of the City for any purpose. Contractor shall be solely responsible for all acts of its agents, employees, representatives and subcontractors during the performance of this contract. 8. City approval of work. Notwithstanding the Contractor’s status as an independent Contractor, results of the work performed pursuant to this contract must meet the approval of the City. 9. Termination for lack of appropriation. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement, this agreement shall terminate if the Legislative body at its discretion does not appropriate the funds necessary for the City to perform its obligations under or provide the services for which it has entered into this Agreement. {BFP750734.DOC;1\00006.900160\ } 3 Packet Page 232 of 1136 Services Agreement, Page 4 10. Changes/Additional work. The City may engage Contractor to perform services in addition to those listed in this Agreement, and Contractor will be entitled to additional compensation for authorized additional services or materials. The City shall not be liable for additional compensation until and unless any and all additional work and compensation is approved in advance in writing and signed by both Parties to this Agreement. If conditions are encountered which are not anticipated in the Scope of Works, the City understands that a revision to the Scope of Work and fees may be required. Provided, however, that nothing in this paragraph shall be interpreted to obligate the Contractor to render or the City to pay for services rendered in excess of the payments discussed in Section 2.A, unless or until an amendment to this Agreement is approved in writing by both Parties. 11. Standard of care. Contractor represents that Contractor has the necessary knowledge, skill and experience to perform services required by this Agreement. Contractor and any persons employed by Contractor shall use their best efforts to perform the work in a professional manner consistent with sound practices, in accordance with the usual and customary professional care required for services of the type described in the Scope of Work. 12. Supervision of employees. Contractor is responsible for the direct supervision of its employees, and a supervisor shall be available at all reasonable times to confer with the City in regards to services. Contractor commits that its services will be performed by careful and efficient employees trained in the best practice and highest standards imposed by Contractor. 13. Non-waiver. Waiver by the City of any provision of this Agreement or any time limitation provided for in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision. 14. Non-assignable. The services to be provided by the Contractor shall not be assigned or subcontracted without the express written consent of the City. 15. Covenant against contingent fees. The Contractor warrants that he has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Contractor, to solicit or secure this contract, and that he has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Contractor, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts or any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award of making this contract. For breach or violation of this warranty, the City shall have the right to annul this contract without liability or, in its discretion to deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. 16. Compliance with laws. The Contractor in the performance of this Agreement shall comply with all applicable Federal, State or local laws and ordinances, including regulations for licensing, certification and operation of facilities, programs and {BFP750734.DOC;1\00006.900160\ } 4 Packet Page 233 of 1136 Services Agreement, Page 5 accreditation, and licensing of individuals, and any other standards or criteria as described in the Agreement to assure quality of services. The Contractor specifically agrees to pay any applicable business and occupation (B & O) taxes which may be due on account of this Agreement. 17. Potential conflicts. During pendency of this agreement, Contractor (1) shall not, without written notification to the City and the City’s prior written consent, perform work for any party with respect to any project or property located within the city of Edmonds that is subject to the administrative or quasi-judicial review of the City; and (2) shall not advocate or promote any legislative objectives on behalf of existing or potential clients that are determined by the City to be in conflict with City’s legislative objectives. 18. Notices. Notices shall be sent to the following address, with receipt of any notice being deemed effective three days after deposit of written notice. City of Edmonds Adix’s Bed and Bath for Dogs and Cats, Inc. c/o Sandra Chase _____________________ City of Edmonds _____________________ 121 Fifth Avenue North _____________________ Edmonds, WA 98020 _____________________ 425-775-2525 _____________________ Chase@ci.edmonds.wa.us _____________________ 19. Severability. This Agreement shall be read and interpreted as a whole, except that the capitalized and underlined headings for each numbered paragraph are for descriptive purposes and shall not prevail over the provision which they head. In the event that any provision herein shall be struck down, particularly those contained in paragraph 7 (Contractor is an independent Contractor), this Agreement shall be at an immediate end. 20. Integration. The Agreement between the Parties shall consist of this document and the Exhibits attached hereto. These writings constitute the entire Agreement of the parties and shall not be amended except by a writing executed by both parties as provided in paragraph 10 (Changes/Additional Work). In the event of any conflict between this written Agreement and any provisions of Exhibits attached hereto, this Agreement shall control. 21. Venue and jurisdiction. Any action to interpret or enforce this Agreement shall be brought before the Superior Court of Snohomish County, Washington, and the Parties agree that, as between them, all matters shall be resolved in that venue. 22. Force Majeure. Parties shall not be liable for failure to perform or delay in performance due to fire, flood, strike or other labor difficulty, act of God, act of any governmental authority, riot, embargo, fuel or energy shortage, car shortage, wrecks or delays in transportation, or due to any other cause beyond Parties reasonable control. In the event of delay in performance due to any such cause, the date of delivery or time for completion {BFP750734.DOC;1\00006.900160\ } 5 Packet Page 234 of 1136 Services Agreement, Page 6 will be extended by a period of time reasonably necessary to overcome the effect of such delay. DATED THIS ________ DAY OF _____________________, 20____. CITY OF EDMONDS By: Mayor Gary Haakenson ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: W. Scott Snyder ADIX’S BED AND BATH FOR DOGS AND CATS, INC. By: It’s: {BFP750734.DOC;1\00006.900160\ } 6 Packet Page 235 of 1136 Services Agreement, Page 7 Exhibit A 1. Undertakings of Adix. 1.1 Adix will furnish animal kenneling services to the City. Animal kenneling services shall include kenneling and holding animals at the facility operated by Adix, releasing animals to owners, cooperating with the temporary transfer of animals to a veterinarian designated by the City for the purpose of spaying or neutering, and disposing of animals in a responsible and lawful manner, including adoption of animals not claimed by owners after the period prescribed by ordinance and this agreement. Adix shall maintain established hours of operation for the general public pursuant to the terms of this contract. Hours are Monday through Saturday 9 AM to 5 PM and Sunday 2 PM to 5 PM, excluding previously designated holidays being observed by Adix. In addition, Adix is closed for lunch between 12:30 PM and 1:30 PM Monday through Saturday. 1.2 In addition to animals brought in by the City, Adix agrees to accept animals brought to Adix by Lynnwood Animal Control under mutual aid when Edmonds has no Animal Control on duty. Mutual Aid for the purposes of this contract means only those animals that have been picked-up in Edmonds by Lynnwood Animal Control. 1.3 Unclaimed and unadoptable animals will be humanely euthanized and disposed of off-site. To provide proper paper trail, requests by Adix pursuant to this section for euthanasia of unclaimed and unadoptable animals will be made in writing. The disposal fee is the responsibility of the City. Disposal within the terms of this contract also includes disposal of dead animals that are picked up by the City as part of its animal control services or animals that die in Adix’s care. 1.4 Adix agrees to abide by and strictly follow any and all procedures of Chapter 5.05 of Edmonds Municipal Code, as now and hereafter amended, regulating animals, particularly as they relate to the length of impoundment before disposing of any animals. Adix and the City agree that Chapter 5.05, as now or hereafter amended, shall be incorporated by reference herein and shall be part of this contract as if set forth in full herein. 1.5 Adix agrees not to release any kenneled animal to any person until Adix is reasonably satisfied that the person has paid all applicable license, kenneling, and other fees to the appropriate agency, including the City. The City shall be responsible for the preparation of all reporting, fee collection and any accounting relating to such reporting and collecting. 1.6 Except as provided in paragraph 1.4 above, Adix agrees not to dispose of any animal before seventy-two hours upon receipt of receiving said animal from the City, excluding previously designated holidays being observed by Adix, nor shall Adix release any animal which has not been either spayed or neutered by a veterinarian in accordance with procedures established by the City or has been designated by an agent of the City or such veterinarian as an inappropriate candidate for surgery, as such term is defined in Chapter 5.05. Licensed, tagged, or identifiable animals will be held for ten days by Adix. Animals held under RCW 16.52.085 will be held for fifteen business days. {BFP750734.DOC;1\00006.900160\ } 7 Packet Page 236 of 1136 Services Agreement, Page 8 1.7 If not claimed by an owner during the applicable holding period, an animal shall immediately become the property of Adix. Disposition of the animal is then at Adix’s discretion provided, however, that: 1.7.1 Adix shall not dispose of the animal while any legal proceedings are pending or in contravention of any court order. 1.7.2 Any animal designated as an inappropriate candidate for surgery which is released for adoption shall be released subject to the payment of a $50 deposit. Such deposit shall be remitted to the City and a receipt provided to the adopter, who shall present the receipt to Adix at the date of release of the adopted pet. The purpose of such deposit is to ensure that the animal will be spayed or neutered by a veterinarian in accordance with Chapter 5.05. 1.7.3 Any animal which has been spayed or neutered at the cost of the City shall be subject to payment of a fee of $50 when sold by Adix. Any charge for adoption by Adix shall be in addition to this amount. The purpose of this fee is to partially reimburse the City for the cost of spaying or neutering. The Parties acknowledge that spaying and neutering enhances the value of the animal which has become the property of Adix. Upon payment of the fee to the City, a receipt shall be provided to the adopter, who shall present the receipt to Adix at the date of the release of the adopted pet. 1.8 Adequate records of all fees and deposits charged pursuant to paragraphs 1.6.2 and 1.6.3 above shall be kept by the City. All funds shall be remitted by the adopter to the City. 1.9 The Parties have stipulated that the annual fee set forth in paragraph 2 below is intended to provide for ten dog runs, inclusive of both the impounds of the City and of Mountlake Terrace impounds with the understanding that up to two dogs may be kenneled per run at any given time. The City agrees to compensate ADIX for any additional runs utilized to kennel dogs for the City at the rate of $15 per day, such rate to be charged in addition to the annual fee set forth in paragraph 2. 1.10 Adix and the City agree to work collaboratively on promoting adoptions of those animals brought to Adix by the City. Adoptions shall be made in as timely a manner as possible and an animal’s time in shelter shall be kept to a minimum. 2. Undertakings of the City. In consideration of the services performed, the city shall pay to Adix the sum of $2,032.66 per month, adjusted in 2011 and 2012 by an amount equivalent to the June Seattle-Tacoma- Bremerton CPI-U for the preceding year not to exceed 5%, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that the renewal of the Agreement is subject to an appropriation of funds by the Edmonds City Council for future annual terms. If the City Council fails to appropriate funds for kenneling services, this Agreement shall expire at the end of the last term for which an appropriation has been made. This charge is based upon certain assumptions regarding the number of dogs and cats to be {BFP750734.DOC;1\00006.900160\ } 8 Packet Page 237 of 1136 Services Agreement, Page 9 {BFP750734.DOC;1\00006.900160\ } 9 kenneled and the recovery time necessary following spaying or neutering before an animal may be adopted or otherwise released. Packet Page 238 of 1136 AM-2678 2.O. Woodway Interlocal Agreement for Police Services Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/15/2009 Submitted By:Gerry Gannon Time:Consent Department:Police Department Type:Action Review Committee:Public Safety Committee Action:Approved for Consent Agenda Information Subject Title Woodway Interlocal Agreement for Police Services. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Staff recommends approval of this item, authorizing the Mayor to sign the contract. The City Attorney has approved as to form and content. Previous Council Action This item was heard at the Public Safety Committee meeting on December 8, 2009. Committee members approved the item for the consent agenda. Narrative In 1997, the City of Edmonds entered into an interlocal agreement with the Town of Woodway to provide first response police services when a Woodway Police Officer is not on duty or is unavailable to respond. Interlocal agreements between Edmonds and Woodway for police services have been in effect continuously since then. Edmonds Police Department and Woodway wish to sign a new three year interlocal agreement for police services effective January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2012. The main changes in the interlocal agreement are the cost for services. The cost per call has increased from $125 to $137.50. Also, the Town of Woodway will be billed for any additional officer's time while assisting with a Woodway incident. The rate of pay for each additional officer is based on a flat fee of $42.82 per hour starting after the first 15 minutes each officer is on scene in Woodway. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Woodway Interlocal Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/10/2009 02:40 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/10/2009 02:41 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/11/2009 08:32 AM APRV Form Started By: Gerry Started On: 12/10/2009 07:28 Packet Page 239 of 1136 Form Started By: Gerry Gannon Started On: 12/10/2009 07:28 AM Final Approval Date: 12/11/2009 Packet Page 240 of 1136 AGREEMENT FOR POLICE SERVICES PURSUANT TO THE INTERLOCAL COOPERATION ACT CHAPTER 39.34 RCW WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds, Washington is an optional code city constituted in accordance with the provisions of Title 35A the Revised Code of Washington; and WHEREAS, the Town of Woodway is a Town organized pursuant to certain provisions of Title 35 of the Revised Code of Washington; and WHEREAS, Chapter 39.34 of the Interlocal Cooperation Act authorizes public agencies, including municipal corporations to exercise their respective powers and any power capable of being exercised by either party pursuant to an interlocal agreement; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Edmonds and the Town Council of the Town of Woodway deem it to be in the public interest to enter into an interlocal agreement for the provision of police services in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth therein; and NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION in consideration for the promises set forth in this Agreement and the mutual benefits to be derived, the City of Edmonds, Washington, (hereinafter "Edmonds") and the Town of Woodway, (hereinafter "Woodway") have entered into this Agreement in accordance with the provisions set forth below: I. TERM THIS AGREEMENT shall have a three year term commencing on January 1, 2010 and expiring on December 31, 2012. 1.1 This Agreement may be terminated by either party without cause by the provision of ninety days written notice addressed to the respective City or Town Clerk, at his/her regular business address. 1.2 This Agreement may be terminated by either party for cause if, but only if: 1.2.1 Prior written notice of an alleged breach of the terms of the Agreement is provided to City or Town Clerk; and 1.2.2 The breach is not cured within 48 hours of the actual receipt of the written notification of breach. 1.3 This Agreement may be extended for future calendar terms or such other terms as the parties may deem appropriate upon the approval of the parties. {WSS478377.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 1 Packet Page 241 of 1136 II. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED THIS AGREEMENT does not create a separate entity for the provision of services. Rather it is the intent of the parties that Edmonds shall provide back-up police services as described herein when a Woodway officer is not on duty or is otherwise unavailable to respond to the call. In such event, SNOCOM shall dispatch an Edmonds officer in or on an appropriate vehicle and with appropriate back-up when needed for: 2.1 All priority one (1) in-progress calls which currently includes abduction, bank alarm, robbery hold-up alarm, assault, assault with weapon, burglary, fight with weapon, hostage situation, prowler, rape, robbery and strong-arm robbery; and/or 2.2 Priority two (2) calls in progress which involve, but are not limited to theft, threats to life or property, including residential alarms, panic alarms, suspicious persons, suspicious circumstances, traffic accidents, and 911 hang-up calls. 2.3 Priority one and priority two calls shall be defined in accordance with the definition established for such calls by SNOCOM, such definitions to be incorporated by this referenced as fully as if herein set forth. The determination of SNOCOM regarding the characterization of any call shall be final and determinative. 2.4 If a Woodway police officer is on regular scheduled duty and back-up is required, the Edmonds police department will continue to assist if an officer is available at no charge, in accordance with other existing mutual aid agreements. III. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES 3.1 The Edmonds Police Department shall: 3.1.1 Conduct an initial investigation of incidents; 3.1.2 Assist victims and witnesses at the crime scene; 3.1.3 Preserve crime scenes; 3.1.4 Take reports on minor incidents; 3.1.5 Provide a written report on every dispatched call; and 3.1.6 As required, attend and testify at any prosecution arising from the call. 3.2 The Woodway Police Department shall: 3.2.1 Provide any follow-up investigation, report or action required relative to an assault, burglary or crime with possible suspects by call-out of a Woodway police officer. {WSS478377.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 2 Packet Page 242 of 1136 3.2.2 Woodway, through its police officers, shall provide crime scene investigation regarding burglaries, multiple property crimes, serious accidents, or similar events of a serious or felonious nature. 3.2.3 Woodway shall call out an officer to provide service in the event that arrest and booking of a suspect is required. Woodway police department citation forms shall be used and an "assist other agency" report and statement prepared. If no Woodway police department officer is reasonably available, an Edmonds citation form may be used. In such event, the Edmonds police department policy regarding issuance of citations on state charges shall be followed. 3.2.4 Evidence shall be retained by the Woodway police department. 3.2.5 Juvenile referrals will be referred to the Woodway police department for processing, including appropriate report and referral. 3.3 Report Process. 3.3.1 A written report shall be provided regarding all calls to which an Edmonds officer is dispatched. 3.3.2 The original shall remain with the Edmonds police department. 3.3.3 Copies shall be sent immediately to the Woodway police department. 3.3.4 A copy shall be provided to the Edmonds Assistant Chief for the Police Support Services division. 3.4 Emergency Situations; No Special Duty or Third Party Right Created. The parties understand and agree that in the event of an emergent situation in Edmonds, services under this Agreement may be delayed or suspended. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to create any third party right, nor is any special duty to any third party, private party, person or entity created as a result of this Agreement. IV. BILLING PROCESS Woodway shall pay to the City of Edmonds $137.50 per dispatched call. If a call requires more than one Edmonds officer to respond, and that additional officer(s) is on the Woodway call in excess of 15 minutes from time of arrival, an additional cost will be assessed for police services at the flat rate of $42.82 for the additional officer(s) time based on the nearest 15 minute increment. The individual officer’s unit history will be used for the record for time spent in Woodway. Edmonds shall provide a detailed quarterly billing which shall include at a minimum the Edmonds police department case number and the date of the incident. Payment shall be remitted within 30 days of billing. In the event of a dispute regarding billing, the parties {WSS478377.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 3 Packet Page 243 of 1136 agree to submit the dispute to binding arbitration or such other form of alternative dispute resolution (mediation) as the parties shall approve. V. SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT Edmonds shall provide services through use of its own vehicles and equipment and be responsible for all costs associated therewith, including but not limited to damage from any kind or nature and normal wear and tear. Edmonds shall also utilize its own reports and forms with the exception of citations as herein provided. Edmonds citations shall only be used when no Woodway citations are reasonably available. VI. LIABILITY AND INDEMNITY 6.1 Edmonds shall indemnify and hold harmless Woodway, its officers, agents and employees from any claim, cause or liability of any kind or nature whatsoever arising from or out of the negligence or wrongful tortious act of an Edmonds officer or employee in the provision of services under this Agreement by Edmonds officers. This promise to indemnify and hold harmless shall include a waiver of the immunity provided by Title 51 RCW, to, but only to the extent necessary to fully effectuate its promise. 6.2 Woodway shall indemnify and hold harmless Edmonds, its officers, agents and employees from any claim, cause or liability of any kind or nature whatsoever arising from or out of the negligence or wrongful tortious act of a Woodway officer or employee in the provision of services under this Agreement by Woodway officers. This promise to indemnify and hold harmless shall include a waiver of the immunity provided by Title 51 RCW, to, but only to the extent necessary to fully effectuate its promise. 6.3 In the event of a claim, loss or liability based upon the alleged concurrent or joint negligence or tortious act of the parties, the parties shall bear their respective liability, including cost, in accordance with an assignment of their respective liability established in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. {WSS478377.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 4 Packet Page 244 of 1136 {WSS478377.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 5 VII. ENTIRE AGREEMENT - AMENDMENT This is the entire agreement between the parties. Any prior understanding, written or oral, shall be deemed merged with its provision. This Agreement shall not be amended except in writing with the express written consent of the City Council and Town Council of the respective parties. EXECUTED this ______ day of _____________________, 2009. CITY OF EDMONDS TOWN OF WOODWAY By: By: Mayor Gary Haakenson ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED By: By: Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk (Town Clerk) APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY: By: By: Packet Page 245 of 1136 AM-2676 2.P. Subscriber Agreement with Public Safety Testing, Inc. Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/15/2009 Submitted By:Debi Humann Time:Consent Department:Human Resources Type:Action Review Committee:Public Safety Committee Action:Approved for Consent Agenda Information Subject Title Subscriber Agreement with Public Safety Testing, Inc. for Service Years 2010 - 2012. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approve contract allowing for continuing services for years 2010, 2011, and 2012. Previous Council Action This service agreement was approved on December 8 by the Public Safety Committee and is being forwarded to the full Council via consent agenda. Narrative The City of Edmonds has contracted with Public Safety Testing, Inc. for police entry level testing services for many years. Our current subscriber agreement expires December 31, 2009. The new agreement (attached) will continue this valuable service beginning January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2012. This three year renewal reflects a 25% reduction in costs for service year 2010 and 2009 rates for both years 2011 and 2012. It is requested that the City Council review the agreement and approve it. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Subscriber Agreement Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/10/2009 09:22 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/10/2009 10:04 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/10/2009 11:23 AM APRV Form Started By: Debi Humann Started On: 12/09/2009 04:45 PM Final Approval Date: 12/10/2009 Packet Page 246 of 1136 Packet Page 247 of 1136 Packet Page 248 of 1136 Packet Page 249 of 1136 Packet Page 250 of 1136 Packet Page 251 of 1136 AM-2668 2.Q. 2009-2010 Fire Department Work Plan Update #1 Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/15/2009 Submitted By:Tom Tomberg Time:Consent Department:Fire Type:Action Review Committee:Public Safety Committee Action:Approved for Consent Agenda Information Subject Title 2009-2010 Fire Department Work Plan Update #1. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approve. Previous Council Action On March 17, 2009 Council approved the 2009-1010 Fire Department Work Plan. Narrative Attached is the first, and final, update to the 2009-2010 Fire Department Work Plan. This status is created by the November 2 Council approval of the City-Fire District #1 contract for service Interlocal Agreement. Normally, Council would have received a work plan update earlier in the year; however, the almost complete submersion of Fire Administration in the review and revise process surrounding the City-District negotiations made this impossible. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2009 Revenue: Expenditure: Fiscal Impact: None. Attachments Link: 2009-2010 FD Work Plan Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/09/2009 03:13 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/09/2009 03:43 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/09/2009 04:14 PM APRV Form Started By: Tom Tomberg Started On: 12/09/2009 10:55 AM Final Approval Date: 12/09/2009 Packet Page 252 of 1136 Packet Page 253 of 1136 EDMONDS FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM Date: December 8, 2009 To: Public Safety Committee From: Thomas J. Tomberg, Fire Chief Subject: 2009-2010 Fire Department Work Plan Update #1, Final Below is the first, and final, update to the 2009-2010 Fire Department Work Plan approved by the City Council on March 17, 2009. This status was created by Council approval of the City-Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 contract for service Interlocal Agreement on November 2, 2009, and the almost complete submersion of Fire Administration into that review and revise process that began in early April and will continue through the end of 2009. The update status to each item appears below in bold. Administration 1. Align the annual work plans of the Fire Chief, Assistant Chief, Fire Marshal, Battalion Chiefs, and Executive Assistant with the Mayor’s annual goals and objectives, policies that emerge from the annual Council Retreat, and majority policy directives received from elected officials through the Mayor. #1 Completed. 2. Align the Fire Work Plan with other City departments and pertinent outside agency work plans. #1 Completed. 3. Inculcate the workplace safety ethic into every aspect of Department operations. Complete list of outstanding safety programs in Department standard operating procedure format. #1 Revised two and added three new Health & Safety Standard Operating Procedures: Revised SOP 602.01 Pre-Burn/Training Checklist Revised 603.01 Fire Station Inspection Programs New SOP 604.04 Fall Prevention Program New SOP 604.05 Hearing Conservation Program New SOP 604.06 Post-Fire Atmospheric Monitoring. OFFICE OF THE FIRE CHIEF Packet Page 254 of 1136 4. Develop and distribute a Fire Department Customer Service Survey. Evaluate 1 Customer service surveys were distributed to every patient transported 5. omplete negotiations with Snohomish County Fire District 1 on a new contract #1 Approved by the City Council on April 21, 2009. 6. rovide internal and external stakeholders with information about Council- e determined. #1 Participated in the 2009 property tax levy lift process. Council decided ract 7. cquire a site to construct a Fire Administration building consistent with City on s it #1 Negotiation with the owners of the property adjacent to Fire Station 16 8. Work with the Mayor, Council, Directors, and appropriate outside others on city- e #1 Department efforts consisted of working with Facilities Staff to conserve 9. Through City and fire service channels, advise lobbyists and industry n and Fire #1 The Department was active in financing and health and safety initiatives responses and implement changes to improve Department operations as appropriate. # by the Edmonds Fire Department. To date, 14 have been returned, all contained positive comments. C to provide Fire/EMS services to Esperance. P approved initiative(s) that will improve and/or stabilize the City’s long-term financial future to include a levy lid lift, internal city reorganization, regionalization, consolidation, elimination, or others means yet to b not to place a levy on the 2009 ballot (for 2010) for several reasons to include the possible passage of Initiative 1033, the potential for a cont for service with Fire District #1, and due to the difficult economic times. A Council intent when the voters passed the 1996 Public Safety Bond. Located the third floor of City Hall since 1997, Fire Administration is the only City department administration not located with the primary group of employee leads and manages. ended with no response to a City offer to purchase the property. wide environmental stewardship and energy conservation issues through the Fir Department Conservation Program Committee. electricity, and balance the various heating and cooling zones in City fire stations. spokespersons on legislation that improves the City’s financial conditio Department employees’ health and safety, respectively. through the City, the Snohomish County Fire Chiefs Association, and the Washington Fire Chiefs. 2 Packet Page 255 of 1136 10. Perform an internal evaluation and consult with the City Attorney on whether to #1 A Department member with a bachelor’s degree in Safety and Health 11. Implement the peer-driven and self-governing career development plan for ss s #1 The Assistant Fire Chief completed the National Fire Academy Executive d 12. ork on the long-term plan to purchase a single, shared SNOCOM-SNOPAC #1 The SNOCOM and SNOPAC Boards entered a joint contract with New 13. Work on the long-term plan to purchase a single, shared SNOCOM-SNOPAC #1 The SNOCOM and SNOPAC Boards entered a joint contract with New 14. plement the Mandatory Physical Fitness Program (SOP 503.01). #1 Completed. 15. prove the City’s Washington State Rating Bureau rating, over time and within #1 Ongoing. 6. Work with the Snohomish County law enforcement and fire consortium to #1 Ongoing through the SNOCOM-SNOPAC consortium. 17. Actively seek grant opportunities. #1 Ongoing. invite Washington Labor & Industries to conduct a Voluntary Protection Program inspection of safety and health management inside the Department. Management was conducting a year-long study of the advisability of making such a request prior to consulting the City Attorney in 2010. interested employees under International Fire Service Accreditation Congre (IFSAC) auspices. Company Officers and acting Company Officers will certify a Fire Officer I in Year One (2009) of the program; Battalion Chiefs and acting Battalion Chiefs (Fire Officer II) will certify in Year Two (2010). Fire Officer Program; 12 members completed Fire Officer I training; two members certified as Acting Company Officers; and one member certifie as an Acting Battalion Chief. W Computer-Aided Dispatch System (CAD). World to purchase a Computer-Aided Dispatch System (CAD). Fire Records Management System (RMS). World to purchase a Fire Records Management System (RMS). Im Im budget, from Class 4 to Class 2. 1 implement a wireless network. 3 Packet Page 256 of 1136 18. 2010, negotiate a new collective labor agreement with IAFF Union Local 1828. #1 Obviated by the contract for service with Fire District #1 that begins in perations and Training In 2010. O 19. Acquire Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for use in fire suppression rd on #1 Limited acquisition due to budget constraints. 20. eplace the Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) compressor that t and #1 No action due to budget constraints. 21. eplace fire hoses in three diameters – 4 inches, 2½ inches, and 1¾ inches and #1 Limited acquisition due to budget constraints. 22. Acquire sufficient tools and equipment to equip Engine 20 and Ladder 20 the #1 No action due to budget constraints. 23. evelop a fund program to replace expensive individual or in aggregate tools and #1 No action due to budget constraints. 24. ork with Public Works to develop a fire hydrant acquisition program, and an #1 Provided Public Works with a draft standard operating procedure 25. cquire a training site that allows on-duty crews to remain in the City. See #7 #1 Negotiation with the owners of the property adjacent to Fire Station 16 operations consistent with National Fire Protection Standard 1971, Standa Protective Ensembles for Structural Firefighting and Proximity Firefighting. R provides breathing air for Firefighters wearing personal protective equipmen a SCBA during interior fire suppression operations. R three lengths – 100 feet, 50 feet, and 25 feet. same, obviating the need to move equipment from one apparatus to the other. The vehicles are cross-staffed by the same crew. D equipment that exceed their useful life. W installation policy. addressing how fire hydrants are placed, funded, and maintained. A above. ended with no response to a City offer to purchase the property. 4 Packet Page 257 of 1136 Emergency Medical Services 26. Acquire electronic Patient Care Reporting hardware and software as identified in #1 Nearing completion. 27. rovide Advanced Life Support (Paramedic) equipment for the back-up vehicle. #1 No action due to budget constraints. 28. valuate January 1, 2009 implementation of EMS Transport User Fees program. #1 To date, no citizen complaints received. Prior to approval of the contract Fire Prevention and Public Education the EMS Transport User Fees White Paper presented to the Mayor and Council on September 12, 2008. P E for service with Fire District #1, no changes to the program were contemplated. 29. Add one staff person to the Fire Prevention Division to perform fire inspector and #1 No action due to budget constraints. 30. ork with local Fire Marshals – Edmonds, Snohomish County Fire District 1, #1 The Edmonds Fire Marshal is and has been an active participant in this e public educator duties. Address vehicle and space needs. The Department has long sought to bring the Daytime staff up to the 7.5 positions recommended by the Council-commissioned Ewing & Company Study published in 1997. The Department currently has six daytime staff. W Lynnwood, and Mukilteo – to establish safe and temporary Cold Weather Shelters in area churches that comply with life and safety codes. South County-wide discussion for the past three years. As of this date, there are no churches in Edmonds that meet the requirements of the cod that would permit this temporary use. It is our understanding that the City Attorney has scheduled a Council item for discussion on this subject. 5 Packet Page 258 of 1136 6 Packet Page 259 of 1136 AM-2681 2.R. Edmonds School District Capital Facilities Plan Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/15/2009 Submitted By:Rob Chave Time:Consent Department:Planning Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Ordinance amending the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan to update the “Edmonds School District Capital Facilities Plan.” Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approve the proposed ordinance (Exhibit 1). Previous Council Action The City Council approved the School District's capital facilities plan update on December 2, 2008. Narrative After a public hearing, the City Council approved the School District's capital plan update on December 2, 2008. Formal adoption could not be completed because the state had not yet completed its review of the proposal. Formal adoption by ordinance can now be done along with the other proposed plan amendments (on this evening's agenda). The City Attorney has prepared an ordinance to implement the action (Exhibit 1). Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1: Proposed Ordinance Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/10/2009 11:23 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/10/2009 11:24 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/10/2009 12:16 PM APRV Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 12/10/2009 10:34 AM Final Approval Date: 12/10/2009 Packet Page 260 of 1136 {WSS752572.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 1 - 0006.900000 WSS/gjz 12/3/09 ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO UPDATE THE “EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN” AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, public participation programs were adopted for the 2009 Comprehensive Plan, and WHEREAS, public hearings were held regarding the Edmonds School District Capital Facilities Plan before the Planning Board on November 12, 2008 and the Edmonds City Council on December 2, 2008; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that both individually and collectively, the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan (including the adoption of the Community Sustainability element as a new element to the Plan): Are consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and are in the public interest. Would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the City; Would not impact or do not affect the appropriate balance of land uses within the City. The City Council further finds that because the amendments do not amend the map, the findings required by ECDC 20.01.001(D) are not applicable; Packet Page 261 of 1136 {WSS752572.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 2 - NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Edmonds Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended by the adoption of the 2009 Edmonds School District Capital Facilities Plan, replacing the prior Edmonds School District Capital Facilities Plan: Section 2. A copy of the amendment is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi- cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY W. SCOTT SNYDER FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Page 262 of 1136 {WSS752572.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 3 - SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ____ day of ___________, 2009, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO UPDATE THE “EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN” AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2009. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 263 of 1136 Packet Page 264 of 1136 Packet Page 265 of 1136 Packet Page 266 of 1136 Packet Page 267 of 1136 Packet Page 268 of 1136 Packet Page 269 of 1136 Packet Page 270 of 1136 Packet Page 271 of 1136 Packet Page 272 of 1136 Packet Page 273 of 1136 Packet Page 274 of 1136 Packet Page 275 of 1136 Packet Page 276 of 1136 Packet Page 277 of 1136 Packet Page 278 of 1136 Packet Page 279 of 1136 Packet Page 280 of 1136 Packet Page 281 of 1136 Packet Page 282 of 1136 Packet Page 283 of 1136 Packet Page 284 of 1136 Packet Page 285 of 1136 Packet Page 286 of 1136 Packet Page 287 of 1136 Packet Page 288 of 1136 Packet Page 289 of 1136 Packet Page 290 of 1136 Packet Page 291 of 1136 Packet Page 292 of 1136 Packet Page 293 of 1136 Packet Page 294 of 1136 Packet Page 295 of 1136 Packet Page 296 of 1136 Packet Page 297 of 1136 AM-2680 2.S. Ordinance Adopting a new Community Sustainability Element Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/15/2009 Submitted By:Rob Chave Time:Consent Department:Planning Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Ordinance adopting a new Community Sustainability Element. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approve the proposed ordinance (Exhibit 1). Previous Council Action Council held a public hearing on the proposed amendment on November 17, 2009, and voted to approve the draft Community Sustainability Element. Narrative The City Attorney has prepared an ordinance to implement the Council's action (see Exhibit 1). Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1: Proposed Ordinance Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/10/2009 11:23 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/10/2009 11:24 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/10/2009 12:16 PM APRV Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 12/10/2009 10:27 AM Final Approval Date: 12/10/2009 Packet Page 298 of 1136 {WSS752573.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 1 - 0006.900000 WSS/gjz 12/3/09 ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A NEW COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, public participation programs were adopted for the 2009 Comprehensive Plan amendments by: Adoption of a public participation plan for the transportation plan as a part of the City Council’s approval of consultant contracts and scope of work; By Resolution 1206 adopting a public participation program for the Sustainability and Capital Facilities Elements. WHEREAS, hearings were held regarding the Community Sustainability Plan before the Planning Board on October 14, 2009 and before the Edmonds City Council on November 17, 2009; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that both individually and collectively, the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan (including the adoption of the Community Sustainability element as a new element to the Plan): Are consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and are in the public interest. Would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the City; Packet Page 299 of 1136 {WSS752573.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 2 - Would not impact or do not affect the appropriate balance of land uses within the City. The City Council further finds that because the amendments do not amend the map, the findings required by ECDC 20.01.001(D) are not applicable; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Edmonds Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended by the adoption of a new Community Sustainability Element. Section 2. A copy of the amendment is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi- cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 300 of 1136 {WSS752573.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 3 - APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY W. SCOTT SNYDER FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Page 301 of 1136 {WSS752573.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 4 - SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ____ day of ___________, 2009, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A NEW COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2009. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 302 of 1136 Exhibit A Community Sustainability Element 1 Adopted 12.15.2010 Comprehensive Plan Community Sustainability Element Background: Climate Change, Community Health, and Environmental Quality Introduction. A relatively recent term, “sustainability” has many definitions. A commonly cited definition is one put forward by the Brundtland Commission1 in a report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (December 11, 1987). The Commission defined sustainable development as development that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Not focused solely on environmental sustainability, the Commission’s report emphasized the inter-related nature of environmental, economic, and social factors in sustainability. One of the keys to success in sustainability is recognizing that decision-making must be based on an integration of economic with environmental and social factors. The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan contains a number of different elements, some mandated by the Growth Management Act, and others included because they are important to the Edmonds community. A requirement of the Growth Management Act is that the various comprehensive plan elements be consistent with one another. This Community Sustainability Element is intended to provide a framework tying the other plan elements together, illustrating how the overall plan direction supports sustainability within the Edmonds community. A key aspect of this approach is also to provide more direct linkages between long term planning and shorter-term strategic planning and policy review which guide the use of city resources and programs, especially budgeting. For example, a new emphasis on life cycle efficiency may take precedence over simple least-cost analytical methods. The City of Edmonds is gifted with unique environmental assets, such as the shoreline on Puget Sound, urban forests, diverse streams and wetlands, Lake Ballinger and a range of parks and open spaces. In addition, the city has the benefit of an established, walkable downtown served by transit, a framework of neighborhood commercial centers providing local access to business services, and the potential to see significant economic development in the Highway 99 activity center. Recently, the City has also experienced the beginnings of new economic initiatives, such as a new fiber-optic infrastructure and locally-based businesses and organizations supporting local sustainability and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction approaches. Combined with local government initiatives, such as the Mayor’s Citizens Committee on U.S. Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement and a series of resolutions adopted by the Edmonds City Council, there is a growing recognition and harnessing of the power of citizen knowledge to encourage and support changes in City policies and operations which are making the City a leader in environmental stewardship. Given this combination of assets and knowledge, the City of Edmonds has a compelling responsibility to utilize these capabilities to address the challenges of climate change, community health and environmental quality. Packet Page 303 of 1136 Community Sustainability Element 2 Adopted 12.15.2010 Sustainability Framework This section describes the general goals and principles underlying the City’s approach to community sustainability. Three important guiding principles central to a successful approach are: Flexible – In an environment where what we understand and can predict is still developing and will be uncertain for some time to come, providing ways to monitor, assess, adapt, and to be flexible in our responses will be critical. Climate change is but one example; the uncertainties acknowledged in that subject area should be instructive in helping us understand that a flexible approach is necessary when addressing all areas of sustainability. Holistic – The components of sustainability – in terms of both its inputs and outputs –are complex and synergistic. No single action will result in a sustainable result, and sustainable initiatives taken in one area don’t necessarily lead to sustainability in another. For example, sustainable land use practices don’t necessarily result in a sustainable transportation or health system. A holistic approach is required that includes all levels of governance and encompasses planning, funding, evaluation, monitoring, and implementation. Long-term – Focusing on short-term, expedient solutions will only make actions necessary to support sustainability more difficult to take in the future. For example, in the areas of environmental issues and climate change, deferred action now will only make the cumulative effects more difficult to resolve in the future. The familiar GMA-based 20-year planning timeframe will not be sufficient – planning for sustainability must take an even longer view. Sustainability Goal A. Develop land use policies, programs, and regulations designed to support and promote sustainability. Encourage a mix and location of land uses designed to increase accessibility of Edmonds residents to services, recreation, jobs, and housing. A.1 Adopt a system of codes, standards and incentives to promote development that achieves growth management goals while maintaining Edmonds’ community character and charm in a sustainable way. Holistic solutions should be developed that employ such techniques as Low Impact Development (LID), transit-oriented development, “complete streets” that support multiple modes of travel, and other techniques to assure that future development and redevelopment enhances Edmonds’ character and charm for future generations to enjoy. A.2 Include urban form and design as critical components of sustainable land use planning. New tools, such as form-based zoning and context-sensitive design standards should be used to support a flexible land use system which seeks to provide accessible, compatible and synergistic land use patterns which encourage economic and social interaction while retaining privacy and a unique community character. Packet Page 304 of 1136 Community Sustainability Element 3 Adopted 12.15.2010 A.3 Integrate land use plans and implementation tools with transportation, housing, cultural and recreational, and economic development planning so as to form a cohesive and mutually-supporting whole. A.4 Use both long-term and strategic planning tools to tie short term actions and land use decisions to long-term sustainability goals. City land use policies and decision criteria should reflect and support sustainability goals and priorities. Sustainability Goal B. Develop transportation policies, programs, and regulations designed to support and promote sustainability. Take actions to reduce the use of fuel and energy in transportation, and encourage various modes of transportation that reduce reliance on automobiles and are supported by transportation facilities and accessibility throughout the community. B.1 Undertake a multi-modal approach to transportation planning that promotes an integrated system of auto, transit, biking, walking and other forms of transportation designed to effectively support mobility and access. B.2 Actively work with transit providers to maximize and promote transit opportunities within the Edmonds community while providing links to other communities both within and outside the region. B.3 Explore and support the use of alternative fuels and transportation operations that reduce GHG emissions. B.4 When undertaking transportation planning and service decisions, evaluate and encourage land use patterns and policies that support a sustainable transportation system. B.5 Strategically plan and budget for transportation priorities that balances ongoing facility and service needs with long-term improvements that support a sustainable, multi-modal transportation system. B.6 Strategically design transportation options – including bike routes, pedestrian trails and other non-motorized solutions – to support and anticipate land use and economic development priorities. Sustainability Goal C. Promote seamless transportation linkages between the Edmonds community and the rest of the Puget Sound region. C.1 Take an active role in supporting and advocating regional solutions to transportation and land use challenges. C.2 Local transportation options should be designed to be coordinated with and support inter-city and regional transportation programs and solutions. C.3 Advocate for local priorities and connections and the promotion of system- wide flexibility and ease of use in regional transportation decisions. Packet Page 305 of 1136 Community Sustainability Element 4 Adopted 12.15.2010 Sustainability Goal D. Develop utility policies, programs, and maintenance measures designed to support and promote sustainability. Maintain existing utility systems while seeking to expand the use of alternative energy and sustainable maintenance and building practices in city facilities. D.1 Balance and prioritize strategic and short-term priorities for maintenance and ongoing infrastructure needs with long-term economic development and sustainability goals. D.2 Strategically program utility and infrastructure improvements to support and anticipate land use and economic development priorities. D.3 Explore and employ alternative systems and techniques, such as life-cycle cost analysis, designed to maximize investments and/or reduce ongoing maintenance and facilities costs. D.4 Include sustainability considerations, such as environmental impact and GHG reduction, in the design and maintenance of facilities and infrastructure. Sustainability Goal E. Develop economic development policies and programs designed to support and promote sustainability. Encourage the co-location of jobs with housing in the community, seeking to expand residents’ ability to work in close proximity to their homes. Encourage and support infrastructure initiatives and land use policies that encourage and support home-based work and business activities that supplement traditional business and employment concentrations. E.1 Economic development should support and encourage the expansion of locally-based business and employment opportunities. E.2 Land use policies and implementation tools should be designed to provide for mixed use development and local access to jobs, housing, and services. E.3 Regulatory and economic initiatives should emphasize flexibility and the ability to anticipate and meet evolving employment, technological, and economic patterns. E.4 Land use and regulatory schemes should be designed to encourage and support the ability of local residents to work, shop, and obtain services locally. E.5 Land use and economic development programs should provide for appropriate scale and design integration of economic activities with neighborhoods while promoting patterns that provide accessibility and efficient transportation options. Sustainability Goal F. Develop cultural and recreational programs designed to support and promote sustainability. Networks of parks, walkways, public art and cultural facilities Packet Page 306 of 1136 Community Sustainability Element 5 Adopted 12.15.2010 and events should be woven into the community’s fabric to encourage sense of place and the overall health and well being of the community. F.1 Cultural and arts programs should be supported and nourished as an essential part of the City’s social, economic, and health infrastructure. F.2 Recreational opportunities and programming should be integrated holistically into the City’s infrastructure and planning process. F.3 Cultural, arts, and recreational programming should be an integral part of City design and facilities standards, and should be integrated into all planning, promotion, and economic development initiatives. Sustainability Goal G. Develop housing policies, programs, and regulations designed to support and promote sustainability. Support and encourage a mix of housing types and styles which provide people with affordable housing choices geared to changes in life style. Seek to form public and private partnerships to retain and promote affordable housing options. G.1 Land use and housing programs should be designed to provide for existing housing needs while providing flexibility to adapt to evolving housing needs and choices. G.2 Housing should be viewed as a community resource, providing opportunities for residents to choose to stay in the community as their needs and resources evolve and change over time. G.3 Support the development of housing tools, such as inclusionary zoning incentives and affordable housing programs, that promote a variety of housing types and affordability levels into all developments. 1 Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future, U.N. General Assembly Plenary Meeting, December 11, 1987. Packet Page 307 of 1136 Community Sustainability Element 6 Adopted 12.15.2010 Climate Change Introduction. The quality of the environment we live in is a critical part of what people often describe as the “character” of Edmonds. Even if it is not something we overtly think about, it is an intrinsic part of our everyday experience, whether at work, at rest or at play. Until relatively recently, environmental quality has often been thought of in terms of obvious, easily observable characteristics – such as the visible landscape, the quality of the air, the presence and variety of wildlife, or the availability and character of water in its various forms. However, recent evidence on climate change2 points to the potential fragility of our assumptions about the environment and the need to integrate and heighten the awareness of environmental issues as they are inter-related with all community policies and activities. Recognizing the importance of addressing the issues surrounding the environment and climate change, in September 2006, the City of Edmonds formally expressed support for the Kyoto Protocol3 and adopted the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement4 by Resolution No. 1129, and joined the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI)5 by Resolution No. 1130. Scientific evidence and consensus continues to strengthen the idea that climate change is an urgent threat to the environmental and economic health of our communities. Many cities, in this country and abroad, already have strong local policies and programs in place to reduce global warming pollution, but more action is needed at the local, state, and federal levels to meet the challenge. On February 16, 2005 the Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement to address climate change, became law for the 141 countries that have ratified it to date. On that day, Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels launched an initiative to advance the goals of the Kyoto Protocol through leadership and action by at least 141 American cities. The State of Washington has also been taking steps to address the issues surrounding climate change. For example, in March, 2008, the state legislature passed ESSHB 2815, which included monitoring and reporting mandates for state agencies along with the following emission reduction targets: Sec. 3. (1)(a) The state shall limit emissions of greenhouse gases to achieve the following emission reductions for Washington state: (i) By 2020, reduce overall emissions of greenhouse gases in the state to 1990 levels; (ii) By 2035, reduce overall emissions of greenhouse gases in the state to twenty-five percent below 1990 levels; (iii) By 2050, the state will do its part to reach global climate stabilization levels by reducing overall emissions to fifty percent below 1990 levels, or seventy percent below the state's expected emissions that year. The City of Edmonds has formally approved the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement which was endorsed by the 73rd Annual U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting, Chicago, 2005. Under the Agreement, participating cities committed to take three sets of actions: Packet Page 308 of 1136 Community Sustainability Element 7 Adopted 12.15.2010 1. Urge the federal government and state governments to enact policies and programs to meet or beat the target of reducing global warming pollution levels to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012, including efforts to: reduce the United States’ dependence on fossil fuels and accelerate the development of clean, economical energy resources and fuel- efficient technologies such as conservation, methane recovery for energy generation, waste to energy, wind and solar energy, fuel cells, efficient motor vehicles, and biofuels. 2. Urge the U.S. Congress to pass bipartisan greenhouse gas reduction legislation that 1) includes clear timetables and emissions limits and 2) a flexible, market-based system of tradable allowances among emitting industries 3. Strive to meet or exceed Kyoto Protocol targets for reducing global warming pollution by taking actions in our own operations and community. Given this background, the City of Edmonds recognizes that global climate change brings significant risks to our community as a shoreline city. At the same time, the City understands that we have a responsibility to play a leadership role both within our own community as well as the larger Puget Sound region. To that end, the City establishes the following goals and policies addressing climate change. Climate Change Goal A. Inventory and monitor community greenhouse gas emissions, establishing carbon footprint baselines and monitoring programs to measure future progress and program needs. A.1 Establish baselines for greenhouse gas emissions and carbon footprint for both Edmonds city government and the broader Edmonds community. A.2 Establish a monitoring program for consistently updating estimates on City and community greenhouse gas emissions. The monitoring program should be designed so as to enable a comparison between measurement periods. A.3 The monitoring program should include assessment measures which (1) measure progress toward greenhouse gas reduction goals and (2) evaluate the effectiveness of or need for programs to work toward these goals. Climate Change Goal B. Establish targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting sustainability for both city government and the Edmonds community. Regularly assess progress and program needs, identifying opportunities and obstacles for meeting greenhouse gas emission targets and sustainability. B.1 City government should take the lead in developing and promoting GHG emissions reduction for the Edmonds community. B.2 Establish and evaluate targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions for both Edmonds city government and the broader Edmonds community. Targets should be set for both short- and long-range evaluation. Packet Page 309 of 1136 Community Sustainability Element 8 Adopted 12.15.2010 B.2.a. By 2020, reduce overall emissions of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels; B.2.b. By 2035, reduce overall emissions of greenhouse gases to twenty- five percent below 1990 levels; B.2.c. By 2050, Edmonds will do its part to reach global climate stabilization levels by reducing overall emissions to fifty percent below 1990 levels, or seventy percent below the expected emissions that year. B.3 Establish measures for evaluating the degree of sustainability of Edmonds city government and the broader Edmonds community. B.4 Annually assess the status and progress toward emissions reduction goals. Climate Change Goal C. Assess the risks and potential impacts on both city government operations and on the larger Edmonds community due to climate change. The assessment of risk and potential responses – both in terms of mitigation and adaptation – should evaluate the full range of issues, paying particular attention to those arising from the city’s location on Puget Sound. C.1 Develop a climate change risk assessment and impact analysis for city government facilities and operations. C.2 Develop a climate change risk assessment and impact analysis for the Edmonds community which considers the potential long-term impacts to economic, land use, and other community patterns as well as the risks associated with periodic weather or climate events. Climate Change Goal D. Work with public and private partners to develop strategies and programs to prepare for and mitigate the potential impacts of climate change, both on city government operations and on the general Edmonds community. D.1 Develop a strategic plan that will help guide and focus City resources and program initiatives to (1) reduce greenhouse gas production and the carbon footprint of City government and the Edmonds community, and, (2) reduce and minimize the potential risks of climate change. The strategic plan should be coordinated with and leverage state and regional goals and initiatives, but Edmonds should look for and take the lead where we see opportunities unique to the Edmonds community. D.2 Build on and expand the strategic action plan to include programs that can involve both public and private partners. D.3 Undertake a policy review of City comprehensive, strategic and specific plans to assure that City policies are appropriately targeted to prepare for and mitigate potential impacts of climate change. These reviews may be done to correspond with scheduled plan updates, or accelerated where Packet Page 310 of 1136 Community Sustainability Element 9 Adopted 12.15.2010 either a higher priority is identified or the next update is not specifically scheduled. Climate Change Goal E. Develop mitigation strategies that can be used by both the public and private sectors to help mitigate the potential impacts of new and ongoing development and operations. Develop programs and strategies that will encourage the retrofitting of existing development and infrastructure to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change. E.1 Develop policies and strategies for land use and development that result in reduced greenhouse gas emissions for new development as well as redevelopment activities. E.2 Develop mitigation programs and incentives that both public and private development entities can use to reduce or offset potential greenhouse gas emissions associated with both new development and redevelopment. E.3 Develop programs and incentives that encourage existing land use, buildings, and infrastructure to reduce their carbon footprint. Demonstration programs and other cost-efficient efforts that do not rely on long-term government subsidies are preferred, unless dedicated funding sources can be found to sustain these efforts over time. 2 For example, see the Fourth Assessment Report; Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, February 2007. 3 The Kyoto Protocol was adopted at the third Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Kyoto, Japan, on 11, December 1997, and established potentially binding targets and timetables for cutting the greenhouse-gas emissions of industrialized countries. The Kyoto Protocol has not been ratified by the U.S. government. 4 The U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement is as amended by the 73rd Annual U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting in Chicago in 2005. 5 ICLEI was founded in 1990 as the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives following the World Congress of Local Governments for a Sustainable Future, held at the United Nations in New York. Packet Page 311 of 1136 Community Sustainability Element 10 Adopted 12.15.2010 Community Health Introduction. Community health as it is used here means the overall aspects of public facilities and actions that can have an effect on the health and welfare of the community’s citizens. The focus here is on the public realm, understanding that public actions and policies can have an impact on the well-being of Edmonds citizens. The idea is that whenever possible, government should be an enabler, supporting the expansion of opportunities for people so that they can be as self-sustaining as possible, thereby reducing the potential need for intervention from government, community-based or privately-derived services – services which are becoming increasingly costly and difficult to provide. Community health is closely linked to land use, transportation, public service delivery, and environmental quality. Clean water and clean air are a basic necessity when seeking to keep people healthy. In addition, there are certain land use and other actions that Edmonds can take to help foster healthy lifestyles throughout the community. Government also has a role in providing basic services, such as police and fire protection, while encouraging access to affordable housing and opportunities to live, work, and shop close to home. Community Health Goal A. Develop a reporting and monitoring system of indicators designed to assess Edmonds’ progress toward sustainable community health. A.1 Develop community indicators designed to measure the City’s progress toward a sustainable community. A.2 Use these community indicators to inform long-term, mid-term (strategic), and budgetary decision-making. Community Health Goal B. Develop and maintain ongoing City programs and infrastructure designed to support sustainable community health. B.1 Promote a healthy community by encouraging and supporting diversity in culture and the arts. B.2 Promote a healthy community by encouraging and supporting access to recreation and physical activity. B.3 Promote a healthy community by planning for and implementing a connected system of walkways and bikeways which will provide alternative forms of transportation while also encouraging recreation, physical activity and exposure to the natural environment. B.4 Promote a healthy community by seeking to protect and enhance the natural environment through a balanced program of education, regulation, and incentives. Environmental programs in Edmonds should be tailored to and reflect the unique opportunities and challenges embodied in a mature, sea-side community with a history of environmental protection and awareness. Packet Page 312 of 1136 Community Sustainability Element 11 Adopted 12.15.2010 B.5 Develop and encourage volunteer opportunities in community projects that promote community health. Examples of such programs include beach clean-ups, walk-to-school groups, and helpers for the elderly or disabled. B.6 Increase access to health-promoting foods and beverages in the community. Form partnerships with organizations or worksites, such as health care facilities and schools, to encourage healthy foods and beverages. Community Health Goal C. Promote a healthy community by encouraging and supporting a diverse and creative education system, providing educational opportunities for people of all ages and all stages of personal development, including those with special needs or disabilities. C.1 City regulatory and planning activities should be supported by education programs which seek to explain and encourage progress toward desired outcomes rather then relying solely on rules and penalties. C.2 The City should partner with educational and governmental organizations to encourage community access to information and education. Examples include the Edmonds School District, Edmonds Community College, Sno- Isle Library, the State of Washington (including the Departments of Ecology and Fish and Wildlife), and the various private and public educational programs available to the Edmonds community. C.3 Encourage and support broad and flexible educational opportunities, including both traditional and new or emerging initiatives, such as technology-based solutions. Education should be flexible in both content and delivery. Community Health Goal D. Promote a healthy community through supporting and encouraging the development of economic opportunities for all Edmonds’ citizens. D.1 Sustainable economic health should be based on encouraging a broad range of economic activity, with an emphasis on locally-based businesses and economic initiatives which provide family-supporting wages and incomes. D.2 Encourage the provision of a variety of types and styles of housing that will support and accommodate different citizens’ needs and life styles. The diversity of people living in Edmonds should be supported by a diversity of housing so that all citizens can find suitable housing now and as they progress through changes in their households and life stages. D.3 Encourage the development and preservation of affordable housing. D,4 Develop programs and activities that promote and support a diverse population and culture, encouraging a mix of ages and backgrounds. Packet Page 313 of 1136 Community Sustainability Element 12 Adopted 12.15.2010 Community Health Goal E. Support a healthy community by providing a full range of public services, infrastructure, and support systems. E.1 Recognize the importance of City services to local community character and sustainability by planning for and integrating public safety and health services into both short- and long-term planning and budgeting. Strategic planning should be a regular part of the decision-making process underlying the provision of these services to the community. E.2 Reduce energy consumption and maximize energy efficiency by promoting programs and educational initiatives aimed at a goal to “reduce, re-use, and recycle” at an individual and community-wide level. E.3 Future planning and budgeting should be based on full life-cycle cost analysis and facility maintenance needs, as well as standards of service that best fit clearly articulated and supported community needs. Community Health Goal F. Support a healthy community by providing for community health care and disaster preparedness. F.1 Plan for and prepare disaster preparedness plans which can be implemented as necessary to respond effectively to the impacts of natural or man-induced disasters on Edmonds residents. F.2 Prepare and implement hazard mitigation plans to reduce and minimize, to the extent feasible, the exposure of Edmonds citizens to future disasters or hazards. F.3 Promote food security and public health by encouraging locally-based food production, distribution, and choice through the support of home and community gardens, farmers or public markets, and other small-scale, collaborative initiatives. F.4 Support food assistance programs and promote economic security for low income families and individuals. F.5 Promote and support community health by supporting national, state and local health programs and the local provision of health services. Packet Page 314 of 1136 Community Sustainability Element 13 Adopted 12.15.2010 Environmental Quality Introduction. The environmental quality and beauty of the City of Edmonds is largely reflected through its natural resources, and especially its location on the shores of Puget Sound. The city’s watersheds – including Lake Ballinger, a well-known landmark – and streams that flow into the Sound provide a rich and diverse water resource. The beaches, wetlands, and streams provide habitat for diverse wildlife including many species of migrating and resident birds which adds to the aesthetic and pleasing quality of the environment. As Edmonds has grown and developed, what were once abundant native forest and wetland habitats have now become increasingly scarce. Nonetheless, our parks, open spaces, and the landscaped areas of our neighborhoods integrate pleasing vistas and differentiation necessary to provide relief in a highly developed landscape. Throughout the city, woodlands, streams, wetlands and marine areas contain native vegetation that provide food and cover for a diverse population of fish and wildlife. Preserving and restoring these natural resources through environmental stewardship remains a high priority for the Edmonds community. Healthy ecosystems are the source of many less tangible benefits that humans derive from a relationship with nature such as providing a sense of well-being and sites for nature trails and other educational and recreational opportunities. Some ecological services that native plants and trees provide are stabilizing slopes and reducing erosion, replenishing the soil with nutrients and water, providing barriers to wind and sound, filtering pollutants from the air and soil, and generating oxygen and absorbing carbon dioxide. Our city beaches and the near- shore environment also represent unique habitats for marine organisms. So interconnected are the benefits of a functioning ecosystem, that non-sustainable approaches to land development and management practices can have effects that ripple throughout the system. The combination of marine, estuarine, and upland environments should be seen as an integrated and inter-dependent ecosystem supporting a variety of wildlife valuable to the entire Edmonds community. Environmental Quality Goal A. Protect environmental quality within the Edmonds community through the enforcement of community-based environmental regulations that reinforce and are integrated with relevant regional, state and national environmental standards. A.1 Ensure that the city’s natural vegetation associated with its urban forests, wetlands, and wildlife habitat areas are protected and enhanced for future generations. A.2 City regulations and incentives should be designed to support and require sustainable land use and development practices, including the retention of urban forest land, native vegetation, and wildlife habitat areas. Techniques such as tree retention and low impact development methods should be integrated into land use and development codes. Packet Page 315 of 1136 Community Sustainability Element 14 Adopted 12.15.2010 A.3 Provide for clean air and water quality through the support of state and regional initiatives and regulations. A.4 Coordinate land use and transportation plans and implementation actions to support clean air an water. Environmental Quality Goal B. Promote the improvement of environmental quality within the Edmonds community by designing and implementing programs based on a system of incentives and public education. B.1 The City should promote and increase public awareness and pride in its natural areas and wildlife heritage. Special emphasis should be directed toward preserving natural areas and habitats (forests, wetlands, streams and beaches) that support a diversity of wildlife. B.2 Education and recreation programs should be designed and made available for all ages. B.3 Environmental education should be coordinated and integrated with other cultural, arts, and tourism programs. B.4 To encourage adherence to community values and goals, education programs should be designed to help promote understanding and explain the reasons behind environmental programs and regulations. Environmental Quality Goal C. Develop, monitor, and enforce critical areas regulations designed to enhance and protect environmentally sensitive areas within the city consistent with the best available science. C.1 Critical areas will be designated and protected using the best available science pursuant to RCW 36.70A.172. C.2 In addition to regulations, provide incentives that encourage environmental stewardship, resource conservation, and environmental enhancement during development activities. Environmental Quality Goal D. Develop, implement, and monitor a shoreline master program, consistent with state law, to enhance and protect the quality of the shoreline environment consistent with the best available science. D.1 Adopt a Shoreline Master Program that meets the requirements of state law and is consistent with community goals while being based on the best available science Packet Page 316 of 1136 Community Sustainability Element 15 Adopted 12.15.2010 Implementing Sustainability Introduction. One of the reasons for adopting this Community Sustainability Element as part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is to provide a positive conceptual framework for coordinating and assessing the community’s progress toward sustainability. For that to happen, there must be a tie between long-range comprehensive planning, mid-range strategic planning, and short-term implementation decisions embodied in budgeting and operations. There are a number of important principles to keep in mind when linking these sets of plans and actions. Engage and educate. Connect with the community and provide ways to access and share information and ideas. Integrate. Be holistic in approach, recognizing linkages and seeking to expand problem- solving and solutions beyond traditional or institutional boundaries. Innovate. Go beyond conventional approaches; be experimental. Be adaptive. Be flexible, discarding or modifying approaches that don’t work and shifting resources where or when needed. Rigid rules will not always work or result in the most effective solution. Be strategic. Target and prioritize actions to be effective and gain community support and momentum. Acknowledge limitations, but be creative and persistent in seeking solutions. Be a leader. Lead by example, and by forming partnerships that effect decision-making while providing ways to address differing views and perspectives. Measure and assess. Set benchmarks to monitor progress and provide feedback to policy development and decision-making. A key to being successful in applying these principles to sustainability will be the need to apply an adaptive management approach to planning and resource allocation. A passive approach can emphasize predictive modeling and feedback, with program adjustments made as more information is learned. A more active approach will emphasize experimentation – actively trying different ideas or strategies and evaluating which produces the best results. Important for both approaches is (a) basing plans and programs on multi-scenario uncertainty and feedback, and (b) integrating risk into the analysis. Either of these approaches can be used, as appropriate in the situation or problem being addressed. Implementation Goal A. Develop benchmarks and indicators that will provide for measurement of progress toward established sustainability goals. Packet Page 317 of 1136 Community Sustainability Element 16 Adopted 12.15.2010 A.1 Benchmarks and indicators should be both understandable and obtainable so that they can be easily explained and used. A.2 Establish both short- and long-term benchmarks and indicators to tie long- term success to interim actions and decisions. A.3 Develop a reporting mechanism and assessment process so that information can be gathered and made available to the relevant decision process at the appropriate time. Implementation Goal B. Provide mechanisms to link long-range, strategic, and short- term planning and decision-making in making progress toward community sustainability. A.1 Schedule planning and budgeting decision processes to form a logical and linked progression so that each process builds on and informs related decisions. A.2 Long-range, strategic, and short-term planning should acknowledge the other time frames, decisions, and resources involved. For example, short- term budgetary and regulatory decisions should be designed to effect strategic and long-term goals. Figure ##: Example of process coordination Packet Page 318 of 1136 AM-2684 2.T. Ordinance Amending the Comprehensive Transportation Plan Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/15/2009 Submitted By:Robert English Time:Consent Department:Engineering Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Ordinance amending the Comprehensive Transportation Plan in order to update the Transportation Element and the incorporated Walkway and Bikeway Plans. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approve the proposed Ordinance (Exhibit 1). Previous Council Action Council held public hearings on August 4, September 22 and October 20, 2009 and voted to approve the draft 2009 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update at the October 20, 2009 Council meeting. Narrative The City Attorney has prepared an Ordinance to amend the Comprehensive Transportation Plan in order to update the Transportation Element and the incorporated Walkway and Bikeway Plans. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1: Proposed Ordinance Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Engineering Robert English 12/10/2009 11:58 AM APRV 2 Public Works Noel Miller 12/10/2009 12:53 PM APRV 3 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/10/2009 02:02 PM APRV 4 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/10/2009 02:27 PM APRV 5 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/10/2009 02:38 PM APRV Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 12/10/2009 11:35 AM Final Approval Date: 12/10/2009 Packet Page 319 of 1136 {WSS752589.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 1 - 0006.900000 WSS/gjz 12/3/09 ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN IN ORDER TO UPDATE THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT AND THE INCORPORATED WALKWAY AND BIKEWAY PLANS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, public participation programs were adopted for the 2009 Comprehensive Plan amendments by: Adoption of a public participation plan for the transportation plan as a part of the City Council’s approval of consultant contracts and scope of work; By Resolution No. 1206 adopting a public participation program for the sustainability and capital facilities elements. WHEREAS, amendments to the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (plan update) and incorporated elements were preceded by open houses conducted on June 19, 2008, March 5, 2009 and June 30, 2009 and by public hearings before the Edmonds Planning Board on June 10, 2009 and the Edmonds City Council on August 4, September 22 and October 20, 2009, and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that both individually and collectively, the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan (including the adoption of the Community Sustainability element as a new element to the Plan): Are consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and are in the public interest. Packet Page 320 of 1136 {WSS752589.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 2 - Would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the City; Would not impact or do not affect the appropriate balance of land uses within the City. The City Council further finds that because the amendments do not amend the map, the findings required by ECDC 20.01.001(D) are not applicable; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Edmonds Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended by the adoption of an updated and amended Comprehensive Transportation Plan which include the Walkway and Bikeway plans as amended. Section 2. A copy of the amendment is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi- cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 321 of 1136 {WSS752589.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 3 - APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY W. SCOTT SNYDER FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Page 322 of 1136 {WSS752589.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 4 - SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ____ day of ___________, 2009, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN IN ORDER TO UPDATE THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT AND THE INCORPORATED WALKWAY AND BIKEWAY PLANS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2009. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 323 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan November 2009 C I T Y O F E DM O N D S Inc. 1 8 9 0 Packet Page 324 of 1136 Packet Page 325 of 1136 City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan 121 5th Avenue N Edmonds, WA 98020 Prepared by: 710 Second Avenue, Suite 550 Seattle, WA 98104 With support from: 8060 165th Avenue NE, Suite 220 10230 NE Points Drive, Suite 400 Redmond, WA 98052 Kirkland, WA 98033 November 2009 Packet Page 326 of 1136 This document should be cited as: City of Edmonds. 2009. Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Prepared by ICF Jones & Stokes. 710 Second Avenue, Suite 550, Seattle, WA 98104. November. Packet Page 327 of 1136 November 2009 i Table of Contents Chapter 1.Introduction ...................................................................... 1-1 Purpose of the Transportation Comprehensive Plan ........................................ 1-1 Plan Background .............................................................................................. 1-2 Reports, Plans and Records .................................................................. 1-2 Land Use Review ................................................................................... 1-3 Regulatory Framework ...................................................................................... 1-4 Growth Management Act ....................................................................... 1-4 Washington Transportation Plan ............................................................ 1-4 PSRC Plans ........................................................................................... 1-5 VISION 2040 .............................................................................. 1-5 Destination 2030 ......................................................................... 1-6 Transportation 2040 ................................................................... 1-7 Snohomish County Countywide Planning Policies ................................. 1-7 Edmonds Comprehensive Plan .............................................................. 1-8 Public Participation ........................................................................................... 1-9 Original 1995 Transportation Plan ......................................................... 1-9 2002 Transportation Plan Update .......................................................... 1-9 2009 Comprehensive Transportation Plan ............................................1-10 Public Open Houses ..................................................................1-10 Citizen Advisory Transportation Committee ...............................1-11 Walkway Committee ..................................................................1-11 Edmonds Bike Group ................................................................1-11 Intergovernmental Coordination ................................................1-11 Overview of the Transportation Plan Elements ................................................1-12 Chapter 2.Goals, Objectives, and Policies ...................................... 2-1 15.25.000 State and Regional Context ........................................................ 2-2 15.25.010 Streets and Highways ................................................................. 2-2 15.25.020 Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation ........................................ 2-7 15.25.030 Public Transportation .................................................................2-11 15.25.040 Streetscape ................................................................................2-14 15.25.050 Capital Facilities, Transportation ................................................2-15 15.25.060 Traffic Calming ...........................................................................2-19 15.25.070 Air Quality and Climate Change .................................................2-20 Packet Page 328 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds ii Chapter 3.Street System ................................................................... 3-1 Roadway Functional Classification ................................................................... 3-1 Existing Classifications........................................................................... 3-1 Evaluation of Road Functional Classifications ....................................... 3-5 Street System Inventory ...................................................................................3-10 State Highways .....................................................................................3-10 City Streets ...........................................................................................3-10 Speed Limits .........................................................................................3-12 Traffic Control .......................................................................................3-14 Traffic Calming Devices ........................................................................3-16 Parking ................................................................................................3-17 Street Standards ..............................................................................................3-20 Road Conditions ..............................................................................................3-24 Existing Operating Conditions ...............................................................3-24 Traffic volumes ..........................................................................3-24 Level of Service .........................................................................3-24 Future Operations .................................................................................3-30 Travel Demand Forecasting Model ............................................3-30 2015 Conditions without Improvements .....................................3-33 2025 Conditions without Improvements .....................................3-36 Safety Assessment ...............................................................................3-39 Collision History .........................................................................3-39 SR 99 Traffic and Circulation Study ...........................................3-42 Residential Neighborhood Issues ..............................................3-42 Recommended Road Projects and Programs ..................................................3-43 Capital Improvement Projects ...............................................................3-43 Concurrency Projects ................................................................3-43 State Highway Projects..............................................................3-43 Safety and Other Projects ..........................................................3-43 2015 Operating Conditions with Improvements ....................................3-47 2025 Operating Conditions with Improvements ....................................3-49 Road Project Priority .............................................................................3-51 Traffic Calming Program .......................................................................3-53 Preservation and Maintenance Programs and Projects ........................3-53 Chapter 4.Non-Motorized System .................................................... 4-1 Comprehensive Walkway Plan ......................................................................... 4-1 Walkway Inventory ................................................................................. 4-1 Packet Page 329 of 1136 Table of Contents November 2009 iii Recommended Walkway Improvements ........................................................... 4-5 Walkway Prioritization Process .............................................................. 4-5 Curb Ramp Upgrade Program ..............................................................4-11 Bikeway Comprehensive Plan .........................................................................4-11 Bicycle Facility Inventory .......................................................................4-12 Recommended Bikeway Improvements ...........................................................4-14 Small Bikeway Projects .........................................................................4-14 Bicycle Loops ............................................................................4-14 Shared Use Lanes .....................................................................4-15 Bicycle Parking ..........................................................................4-15 Large Bicycle Projects ..........................................................................4-17 Interurban Trail ......................................................................................4-17 Chapter 5.Transit and Transportation Demand Management ....... 5-1 Existing Transit Service .................................................................................... 5-1 Community Transit ................................................................................. 5-1 Fixed Route Bus Service ............................................................ 5-1 Rideshare Services .................................................................... 5-7 DART Paratransit ....................................................................... 5-7 King County Metro Transit ..................................................................... 5-7 Sound Transit Express Bus .................................................................... 5-7 Park-and-Ride Facilities ......................................................................... 5-8 Rail Service ....................................................................................................... 5-8 Sounder Commuter Rail ......................................................................... 5-9 Amtrak Service ....................................................................................... 5-9 Amtrak Cascades ....................................................................... 5-9 Empire Builder ............................................................................ 5-9 Washington State Ferries ................................................................................. 5-9 Transportation Demand Management .............................................................5-10 Future Transit Improvements ...........................................................................5-11 Bus Shelters and Benches ....................................................................5-11 Transit Emphasis Corridors ...................................................................5-12 Swift Bus Rapid Transit .........................................................................5-12 Additional Fixed Route Transit Service .................................................5-13 Edmonds Crossing Multimodal Facility .................................................5-13 Chapter 6.Implementation and Financial Plan ................................ 6-1 Project Costs .................................................................................................... 6-1 Revenue Sources ............................................................................................. 6-6 Packet Page 330 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds iv Current Sources of Revenue .................................................................. 6-6 Other Potential Financing Options ......................................................... 6-8 Project Prioritization .......................................................................................... 6-9 Program Priority ..................................................................................... 6-9 Implementation Plan ........................................................................................6-10 Transportation Improvement Plan 2010-2025 .......................................6-10 Interjurisdictional Coordination ..............................................................6-13 Contingency Plan in Case of Revenue Shortfall ..............................................6-13 Chapter 7.References ........................................................................ 7-1 Packet Page 331 of 1136 Table of Contents November 2009 v Tables Table 1-1.Land Use Summary .............................................................................................................. 1-3 Table 3-1.Miles of Roadway by Existing Federal Functional Classification .......................................... 3-5 Table 3-2.Summary of Existing and Recommended Federal Functional Classifications ...................... 3-7 Table 3-3.Miles of Roadway by Recommended Federal Functional Classification ............................... 3-8 Table 3-4.Inventory of City Streets ..................................................................................................... 3-10 Table 3-5.Inventory of Existing Traffic Calming Devices ..................................................................... 3-17 Table 3-6.Typical Roadway Cross Sections ....................................................................................... 3-21 Table 3-7.Typical Roadway Level of Service Characteristics ............................................................. 3-24 Table 3-8.Level of Service Criteria for Intersections ........................................................................... 3-25 Table 3-9.Level of Service Standards ................................................................................................. 3-26 Table 3-10.Existing PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS ........................................................................... 3-28 Table 3-11.2015 Intersection Level of Service – without Improvements ............................................... 3-34 Table 3-12.2025 Intersection Level of Service – without Improvements ............................................... 3-37 Table 3-13.High Collision Locations ..................................................................................................... 3-40 Table 3-14.Recommended Capital Roadway Improvements through 2025.......................................... 3-44 Table 3-15.2015 Level of Service – with Recommended Improvements .............................................. 3-47 Table 3-16.2025 Level of Service – with Recommended Improvements .............................................. 3-49 Table 3-17.Prioritization Criteria for Roadway Projects ........................................................................ 3-51 Table 3-18.Roadway Project Priority .................................................................................................... 3-52 Table 4-1.Prioritization Criteria for Walkway Projects ........................................................................... 4-5 Table 4-2.Recommended Walkway Projects ........................................................................................ 4-7 Table 5-1.Community Transit Local Bus Routes .................................................................................. 5-3 Table 5-2.Community Transit Commuter Bus Routes .......................................................................... 5-4 Table 5-3.Park-and-Ride Facilities Serving Edmonds .......................................................................... 5-8 Table 5-4.Top Priority Locations for Bus Shelters and Seating .......................................................... 5-11 Table 6-1.Costs of Transportation Projects .......................................................................................... 6-2 Table 6-2.Potential Revenue ................................................................................................................ 6-7 Table 6-3.Potential Revenue from Additional Optional Sources ........................................................... 6-9 Table 6-4.Transportation Improvement Plan 2010–2025 .................................................................... 6-11 Packet Page 332 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds vi Figures Figure 3-1.Access and Mobility Characteristics of Road Functional Classifications .............................. 3-3 Figure 3-2.Existing Federal Functional Classifications ........................................................................... 3-4 Figure 3-3.Recommended Federal Functional Classifications ............................................................... 3-9 Figure 3-4.Speed Limits on City Streets .............................................................................................. 3-13 Figure 3-5.Existing Traffic Control Devices .......................................................................................... 3-15 Figure 3-6.Existing Traffic Calming Devices ........................................................................................ 3-18 Figure 3-7.Downtown Parking .............................................................................................................. 3-19 Figure 3-8.Typical Roadway Cross-Sections ....................................................................................... 3-22 Figure 3-9.Downtown Sidewalk Area ................................................................................................... 3-23 Figure 3-10.Existing Level of Service ..................................................................................................... 3-29 Figure 3-11.Transportation Analysis Zones ........................................................................................... 3-31 Figure 3-12.2015 Level of Service without Improvement ....................................................................... 3-35 Figure 3-13.2025 Level of Service without Improvement ....................................................................... 3-38 Figure 3-14.High Collision Locations ..................................................................................................... 3-41 Figure 3-15.Recommended Capital Road Improvements ...................................................................... 3-46 Figure 3-16.2015 Level of Service with Improvement ............................................................................ 3-48 Figure 3-17.2025 Level of Service with Improvement ............................................................................ 3-50 Figure 4-1.Pedestrian Intensive Land Uses ........................................................................................... 4-3 Figure 4-2.Existing Walkways ................................................................................................................ 4-4 Figure 4-3.Recommended Walkway Projects ...................................................................................... 4-10 Figure 4-4.Existing Bicycle Facilities .................................................................................................... 4-13 Figure 4-5.Recommended Signed Bicycle Loops ................................................................................ 4-16 Figure 4-6.Recommended Bicycle Facilities ........................................................................................ 4-18 Figure 5-1.Fixed Route Bus Service ...................................................................................................... 5-2 Figure 5-2.Access to Local and Commuter Transit ................................................................................ 5-5 Figure 5-3.Access to Local Transit ......................................................................................................... 5-6 Packet Page 333 of 1136 Table of Contents November 2009 vii Appendices Appendix A – Public Participation Materials Appendix B – Traffic Calming Program Appendix C – ADA Ramp Inventory and Upgrade Priority Appendix D– Walkway Projects Acronyms ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ADT Average Daily Traffic BRT Bus Rapid Transit CAC Citizens’ Advisory Committee CIP Capital Improvement Program CTR Commute Trip Reduction DART Dial-A-Ride Transit ECDC Edmonds Community Development Code FHWA Federal Highway Administration FTE full time equivalent GMA Growth Management Act LID Local Improvement District LOS level of service mph miles per hour PRSC Puget Sound Regional Council RID Roadway Improvement District SEPA State Environmental Policy Act Packet Page 334 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds viii SP Sidewalk Program SR State Route STP Surface Transportation Program TAC Technical Advisory Committee TAZ transportation analysis zone TBD Transportation Benefit District TIB Transportation Improvement Board TDM Transportation Demand Management TIP Transportation Improvement Program TSM Transportation System Management UAP Urban Arterial Program UCP Urban Corridor Program WAC Washington Administrative Code WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation WSF Washington State Ferries WTP Washington Transportation Plan Packet Page 335 of 1136 Table of Contents November 2009 ix Glossary Access The ability to enter a freeway or roadway via an on-ramp or other entry point. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) A federal act that 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. Deficiencies in any of these areas could render a sidewalk or sidewalk ramp to be unsafe or inaccessible for the handicapped, or those who generally have difficulty walking. Arterial A major street that primarily serves through traffic, but also provides access to abutting properties. Arterials are often divided into principal and minor classifications depending on the number of lanes, connections made, volume of traffic, nature of traffic, speeds, interruptions (access functions), and length. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) The average number of vehicles that travel on a roadway on a typical day. Capacity The maximum sustained traffic flow of a transportation facility under prevailing traffic and roadway conditions in a specified direction. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) A long-range plan established by a city or county that encompasses its vision and future needs for capital facilities, including fire, police, utilities, and transportation. The CIP also establishes the jurisdiction’s project priorities and funding methods. Commute trip reduction (CTR) Efforts related to reducing the proportion of trips made in single- occupancy vehicles during peak commuting hours. CTR efforts may include carpooling, telecommuting, compressed work weeks, or using alternative modes to get to work (e.g. walking or biking). Washington State’s CTR efforts are coordinated through WSDOT and local governments in counties with the highest levels of automobile-related air pollution and traffic congestion. Qualified employers in these counties are required by law to develop a commuter program designed to achieve reductions in vehicle trips. Packet Page 336 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds x concurrency A requirement established by the Washington State Growth Management Act that adequate infrastructure be planned and financed to support a jurisdiction’s adopted future land use plan. For transportation, adequacy is measured by the impact on a jurisdiction’s roadway and/or intersection LOS. If an impact is anticipated to cause the adopted LOS standard to be exceeded, then the jurisdiction must have a strategy in place to increase capacity or manage demand (or a financial plan to put that strategy in place) within 6 years of the transportation impact. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) A major agency of the United States Department of Transportation responsible for ensuring that America’s roads and highways continue to be the safest and most technologically up-to-date. Functional classification A roadway category that is based on the types of trips that occur on the roadway, the roadway’s basic purpose, and the level of traffic that the roadway carries. The functional classification of a roadway can range from a freeway to principal arterial to minor arterial to collector to local access. Growth Management Act (GMA) Adopted by the Washington State Legislature in 1990, and subsequently amended to require all cities and counties in the state to do some long-range comprehensive planning. Requirements are more extensive for the largest and fastest-growing counties and cities in the state. Such comprehensive plans must address several required topics, including but not limited to land use, transportation, capital facilities, utilities, housing, etc. The GMA requirements also include guaranteeing the consistency of transportation and capital facilities plans with land use plans. Highways of Statewide Significance Highways identified by the Washington State Transportation Commission that provide significant statewide travel and economic linkages. Level of service (LOS) A measure of how well a roadway or local signalized intersection operates. For roadways, LOS is a measure of traffic congestion based on volume-to-capacity ratios. For local intersections, LOS is based on how long it takes a typical vehicle to clear the intersection. Other criteria also may be used to gauge the operating performance of transit, non-motorized, and other transportation modes. Local Improvement District (LID) Special assessment district in which infrastructure improvements, such as water, sewer, stormwater, or transportation system improvements, will benefit primarily the property owners in the district. Packet Page 337 of 1136 Table of Contents November 2009 xi Traffic calming The combination of physical measures and educational efforts to alter driver behavior and improve conditions for non-motorized street users. Physical measures may include bulb-out curb extensions, chicanes, or traffic circles, among other things. Educational efforts may include pavement markings or increased police enforcement. Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) Areas with similar land use characteristics that are used in travel demand models to assess traffic conditions and operations. Transportation Benefit District (TBD) A geographic area designated by a jurisdiction that is a means to funding transportation improvement projects; funding sources can include vehicle license fees, property taxes or sales taxes. The City of Edmonds has already enacted a $20 vehicle license fee. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) A set of strategies intended to maximize the efficiency of the transportation network by reducing demand on the system. Examples of TDM strategies are encouraging commuting via bus, rail, bicycle, or walking; managing the available parking supply; or creating a compressed work week. Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) A long-range (6 years) plan established by a city or county that results from the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) process. The TIP establishes the jurisdiction’s transportation deficiencies, project priorities, and possible funding methods. Transportation System Management (TSM) A coordinated approach to the construction, preservation, maintenance, and operations of the transportation network with the goal of maximizing efficiency, safety, and reliability. These activities include making intersection and signal improvements, constructing turn lanes, improving signage and pavement markings, and collecting data to monitor system performance. Travel Demand Forecasting Methods for estimating the desire for travel by potential users of the transportation system, including the number of travelers, the time of day, travel mode, and travel routes. Washington Transportation Plan (WTP) A long-range (20 years) statewide transportation plan adopted by the Washington Transportation Commission. The WTP describes existing transportation conditions in the state, and outlines future transportation needs. Packet Page 338 of 1136 Packet Page 339 of 1136 November 2009 1-1 Chapter 1. Introduction The purpose of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (Transportation Plan) is to guide the development of multimodal surface transportation within the City of Edmonds (City) in a manner consistent with the City’s adopted transportation goals, objectives, and policies (presented in Chapter 2). The Transportation Plan serves as the transportation element of the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan). It identifies transportation infrastructure and services needed to support projected land use within the city through the year 2025, in compliance with the State of Washington Growth Management Act (GMA) [RCW 36.70A, 1990, as amended]. Based upon existing and projected future land use and travel patterns, the Transportation Plan describes street, walkway, bikeway, and public transportation infrastructure and services, and provides an assessment of existing and projected future transportation needs. It provides a long- range Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that establishes transportation priorities, addresses transportation deficiencies, and guides the development of the six-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The Transportation Plan identifies safety and mobility improvements for streets, walkways, bikeways, neighborhood traffic control, and public transportation, as well as preservation, maintenance; and provides implementation strategies that include concurrency management and financing. The Transportation Plan establishes direction for development of programs and facilities that address the transportation needs for the city through the year 2025. Purpose of the Transportation Comprehensive Plan Based upon the directives of the City’s adopted transportation goals and policies, and the requirements of the GMA, the objectives of the Transportation Plan are as follows: Address the total transportation needs of the city through 2025; Packet Page 340 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 1-2 Identify transportation improvements necessary to provide a system that will function safely and efficiently through the year 2025; Ensure consistency with the land use defined in the current adopted Comprehensive Plan; Contribute to economic growth within the city through an efficient transportation system; Provide cost-effective accessibility and mobility for people, goods, and services; Provide travel alternatives that are safe and have convenient access to employment, education, and recreational opportunities for urban and suburban residents in the area; Identify funding needs for identified transportation improvements and the appropriate contribution by the public and private sectors of the local economy; Comply with the requirements of the GMA and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA); and Support improvements to major transportation routes outside the city that will reduce through-traffic in the community. Plan Background Reports, Plans and Records This Transportation Plan integrates the analysis and results of numerous plans and prior reports that have been completed for the City. Information was obtained from the following sources: City of Edmonds Transportation Element. 2002. Previous transportation plan that established citywide transportation goals and policies and infrastructure and service needs, which was updated for this Plan. City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. 2008. Current GMA plan that presents the City’s planned future land use through 2025, and plans and policies established by the City to support that land use. Snohomish County Buildable Lands Report. 2008. Identifies where capacity exists to accommodate future planned land use within cities and unincorporated areas located within Snohomish County, including the City of Edmonds. City of Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). December 1980, as amended. Codifies City zoning and other land use regulations. SR 99 Traffic and Circulation Study. 2006. Assesses traffic conditions on State Route (SR) 99, and recommends safety and mobility improvements to be included in the City TIP. City of Edmonds Walkway Comprehensive Plan. 2002. Evaluates existing sidewalks and pedestrian facilities throughout the City and proposes comprehensive improvements to the walkway system. The updated Walkway Plan is incorporated into Chapter 4 of this Plan. Packet Page 341 of 1136 Introduction November 2009 1-3 City of Edmonds Bikeway Comprehensive Plan. 2000. Evaluates existing bikeways throughout the City, and proposes comprehensive improvements to the bikeway system. The updated Bikeway Plan is incorporated into Chapter 4 of this Plan. Olympic View Drive / 176th Street SW: Intersection Traffic Analysis. 2001. Evaluates traffic flow operations and pedestrian safety and access for the intersection, and makes recommendations for operational and safety improvements. Land Use Review The Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and ECDC guides development and growth within the city. Future transportation infrastructure and service needs identified in this Transportation Plan were established by evaluating the level and pattern of travel demand generated by planned future land use. Future population and employment projections for the region are established by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). Snohomish County works with local jurisdictions to determine the expected distribution of population and employment between cities and unincorporated county. The transportation analysis presented in this Transportation Plan is based upon these future population and employment projections. Table 1-1 summarizes the existing and projected future land use growth, based upon these assessments. Within the City, the allocation of future housing and jobs growth was based upon the County’s “buildable lands” assessment (Snohomish County 2008), which estimates available land capacity for future development, according to the amount of vacant and under-developed (based upon zoning) land. Table 1-1. Land Use Summary Analysis Year Land Use Type Unit Existing (2008) 2015 2025 Single Family Dwelling Units 11,099 11,312 11,919 Multi-Family Dwelling Units 6,496 7,059 8,668 Retail Jobs 2,507 2,748 3,105 Finance, Insurance, Real Estate Jobs 1,191 1,245 1,321 Services and Government Jobs 6,244 6,675 7,290 Wholesale, Transportation, Utilities Jobs 32 34 39 Manufacturing Jobs 69 75 84 Construction Jobs 49 51 57 Education Students 5,755 6,159 6,733 Park Acres 202 202 202 Marina Slips 668 668 668 Park-and-Ride Spaces 484 484 484 Packet Page 342 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 1-4 Regulatory Framework Growth Management Act Transportation planning at the state, county and local levels is governed by the GMA, which contains requirements for the preparation of the transportation element of a Comprehensive Plan. In addition to requiring consistency with the land use element, the GMA requires that the following components be included in transportation elements: Inventory of facilities by mode of transport; Level of service assessment to aid in determining the existing and future operating conditions of the facilities; Proposed actions to bring these deficient facilities into compliance; Traffic forecasts, based upon planned future land use; Identification of infrastructure needs to meet current and future demands; Funding analysis for needed improvements, as well as possible additional funding sources; Identification of intergovernmental coordination efforts; and Identification of demand management strategies as available. [RCW 36.70A.070(6)] In addition to these elements, GMA mandates that development cannot occur unless adequate supporting infrastructure either already exists or is built concurrent with development (the concurrency timeframe is defined as the 6-year period from the time the need for improvement is triggered). In addition to capital facilities, infrastructure may include transit service, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, or Transportation System Management (TSM) strategies. Under the GMA, local governments and agencies must annually prepare and adopt six-year TIPs. These programs must be consistent with the transportation element of the local comprehensive plan, and other state and regional plans and policies as outlined below. Washington Transportation Plan The Washington Transportation Plan (WTP) presents the State’s strategy for developing budgets and implementing improvements over a 20-year planning horizon. The current WTP was adopted by the Transportation Commission in 2006 and covers the period 2007 to 2026. The WTP contains an overview of the current conditions of the statewide transportation system, and an assessment of the State’s future transportation investment needs. The WTP policy framework sets the course for meeting those future needs. Packet Page 343 of 1136 Introduction November 2009 1-5 The WTP Prioritized Investment Guidelines are: 1. Preservation 2. Safety 3. Economic Vitality 4. Mobility 5. Environmental Quality and Health PSRC Plans The PSRC is the Regional Transportation Planning Organization for the area that includes Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Kitsap counties, and is responsible for overseeing six-year TIPs within the region. The PSRC works with local jurisdictions to establish regional transportation guidelines and principles, and certifies that the transportation-related provisions within local jurisdictions’ comprehensive plans are consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan and conform to GMA requirements. VISION 2040 VISION 2040 is comprised of the following four parts, developed to help guide the region as it experiences population and employment growth: Part I: Sustainable environment framework – Provides the context for planning, development, and environmental management in the region. This framework describes the role that the environment plays – along with the benefits, challenges, and opportunities it provides – and how it affects prosperity and quality of life. Part II: Regional Growth Strategy – Identifies an approach to promote a focused regional growth pattern. It builds on current growth management plans, and recommits the region to directing future development into the urban growth areas, while focusing new housing and jobs in cities and within a limited number of designated regional growth centers. Focusing growth in urban areas helps to protect natural resources and sensitive environmental areas, encourages a strong economy, provides more housing opportunities for all economic segments of the population, improves regional jobs-housing balance, and minimizes rural residential growth. The Regional Growth Strategy describes the roles of all communities in implementing VISION 2040. Part III: Multicounty planning policies – Adopted under the GMA, the policies are divided into six major sections: Environment, Development Patterns, Housing, Economy, Transportation, and Public Services. The policies are designed to help achieve the Regional Growth Strategy and address region-wide issues within a collaborative and equitable framework. They provide guidance and direction to regional, county, and local governments on such topics as setting priorities for transportation investment, stimulating economic development, planning for open space, making city and town centers more hospitable for Packet Page 344 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 1-6 transit and walking, and improving transportation safety and mobility. Multicounty planning policies lay the foundation for securing the necessary funding for services and facilities, and provide direction for more efficient use of public and private investments. Each policy section contains actions that lay out steps the region will need to take to achieve VISION 2040. Part IV: Implementation – Describes several programs and processes, including a monitoring program that includes tracking action on agreed-upon steps, measuring progress over time, and determining whether the region is achieving desired results. This section includes specific measures that relate to the multicounty planning policies. The multicounty planning policies provide direction and guidance for maintenance, safety, clean transportation, supporting the regional growth strategy, and optimizing travel options. Policies are provided that relate to safety and security, reducing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, increasing energy efficiency and the use of alternative energy, developing roadways as “complete streets” that accommodate different modes of travel, and advancing alternatives to driving alone. (Puget Sound Regional Council 2008) The City’s next major update to the Comprehensive Plan (due in 2011) will need to demonstrate how it is aligning with the VISION 2040 Regional Growth Strategy, including expanded provisions for addressing health and the built environment, design, and environmental planning (including climate change). The transportation element will be revisited at that time, to ensure consistency with the City’s update to its future land use plan and the VISION 2040 provisions. However, the updates reflected in this Transportation Plan, particularly the increased emphasis on non-motorized elements and alternative transportation modes, are consistent with the policy direction that VISION 2040 provides. Destination 2030 The central Puget Sound region’s current long-range plan, Destination 2030, addresses long-term transportation strategies and investments in King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Kitsap Counties. Adopted in 2001, Destination 2030 was developed to maintain and expand the regional vision of a growth management strategy, supporting compact urban areas connected by a high capacity transportation system. Destination 2030 focuses on preserving and managing the existing transportation system and ensuring the development of a balanced multi-modal transportation system that includes choices for private vehicles, public transit, ride sharing, walking and bicycling, and freight modes. Destination 2030 coordinates the diverse ambitions of the region’s counties, cities, towns, and neighborhoods, and emphasizes the connection between land use and transportation to reduce long-term infrastructure costs and provide better links between home, work, and other activities. Destination 2030 meets requirements governing Regional Transportation Plans in central Puget Sound. Destination 2030 was updated in 2007, satisfying new requirements and preparing for more extensive plan updates in 2010. The updates address emerging transportation trends and enhance the safety, security and special needs transportation aspects of Destination 2030. The Packet Page 345 of 1136 Introduction November 2009 1-7 improvements also add provisions related to congestion management, commute trip reduction, and environmental mitigation. Transportation 2040 PSRC is updating the current regional transportation plan, Destination 2030. The new plan, Transportation 2040, will extend the region’s long-range transportation vision to the year 2040 and respond to the recently updated regional growth strategy, VISION 2040. The plan is expected to be adopted in 2010. (Puget Sound Regional Council 2009) Six alternatives—the baseline plus five action alternatives—have been created during the initial planning process and each includes a funding strategy. The alternatives consider two related approaches to transportation investment: improving efficiency and strategic expansion. Improving efficiency means making better use of the system to move people and goods; and reducing the demands on the system during peak hour travel. Efficiency also depends on better use of land to reduce the need to drive and to increase bicycle and pedestrian options. The updated plan will continue to meet federal and state transportation planning requirements. (Puget Sound Regional Council 2009) Snohomish County Countywide Planning Policies The Snohomish County Countywide Planning Policies are written policies used to establish a countywide framework from which the county and cities’ comprehensive plans are developed. The Countywide Planning Policies were originally adopted in 1994 and were last amended in 2008. Future amendments will be in response to changes in the countywide growth strategy, changes in the GMA, decisions of the Growth Management Hearings Board, and issues involving local plan implementation. Countywide Planning Policies include the following: Policies to implement urban growth areas; Policies for the promotion of contiguous and orderly development and provision of urban services; Policies for rural land use; Policies for housing; Policies for the siting of public capital facilities of a countywide or statewide nature; Policies for economic development and employment; Fiscal impact analysis; Policies for transportation. Transportation policies are intended to guide transportation planning by the county and cities within Snohomish County and to provide the basis for regional coordination with WSDOT and Packet Page 346 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 1-8 transportation operating agencies. The policies ensure that the countywide transportation systems are adequate to serve the level of land development that is allowed and forecasted. Edmonds Comprehensive Plan The most current update of the City’s Comprehensive Plan was adopted in December 2008. The Comprehensive Plan has the following purposes: To serve as the basis for municipal policy on development and to provide guiding principles and objectives for the development of regulations. To promote the public health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity and the general welfare and values of the community. To anticipate and influence the orderly and coordinated development of land and building use of the city and its environs, and conserve and restore natural beauty and other natural resources. To encourage coordinated development and discourage piecemeal, spot or strip zoning and inharmonious subdividing. To facilitate adequate provisions for public services such as transportation, police and fire protection, water supply, sewage treatment, and parks. (City of Edmonds 2008) The Comprehensive Plan serves as the City’s primary growth management tool. A community such as Edmonds, with attractive natural features, a pleasant residential atmosphere and proximity to a large urban center, is subject to constant growth pressures. Growth management is intended to provide a long-range strategy guiding how the City will develop and how services will be provided. GMA requires that jurisdictions plan to accommodate housing and employment forecasts for the next 20 years within Urban Growth Areas. The City of Edmonds’ share of regional growth by the year 2025 is 5,420 additional residents (approximately 3,079 residential units) compared to 2000. By 2025, total population is expected to reach 44,880 residents. An extensive public process was conducted for the 2004 comprehensive plan update. It included numerous public workshops, open houses, and televised work sessions both at the Planning Board and City Council. Three public hearings were held at the Planning Board and two public hearings were held at the City Council. The Comprehensive Transportation Plan serves as the transportation element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. As discussed in the VISION 2040 discussion above, the City’s next major update to the Comprehensive Plan is due in 2011, and will demonstrate alignment with the VISION 2040 Regional Growth Strategy, including expanded provisions for addressing health and the built environment, design, environmental planning and climate change. Packet Page 347 of 1136 Introduction November 2009 1-9 Public Participation The Comprehensive Transportation Plan has included a significant amount of community involvement at all stages of the planning and development process, starting with the original Plan development in 1995, and continuing in the major Plan updates that have been completed in 2002 and 2009. Original 1995 Transportation Plan When the Transportation Element was initially created in 1995, citizens were encouraged to participate through completion of questionnaires and involvement in public open houses. In addition, a six-member Citizen Advisory Committee was established to oversee all aspects of the plan as it was developed. The project was launched with a brochure mailed to each of the approximately 14,000 residences and businesses in the city. The brochure explained the purpose of the Transportation Plan, the planning process, the components of the plan, and public participation opportunities. The brochure also contained a mail-back questionnaire through which respondents could identify problems with congestion, speeding and safety, as well as any other traffic problems that they perceived. Approximately 150 citizens provided input by returning the questionnaires. 2002 Transportation Plan Update For the 2002 update of the Transportation Plan, the City implemented a community involvement strategy that included public open houses and the participation of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Citizens’ Advisory Committee (CAC). Two public open houses provided a forum for the citizens to identify high priority transportation issues, and to review and provide comments on various components of the proposed Transportation Plan. Participants in the open houses provided suggestions for improving roadway infrastructure (i.e. signals, pavement marking, roadway width), transit, and pedestrian access; and identified issues related to roadway connectivity, speeding and cut-through traffic (with support for traffic calming), and access issues for disabled citizens. Two advisory committees, the TAC and CAC, were formed to oversee the 2002 Transportation Element Update. The TAC was made up in part by representatives from various City departments, including Engineering, Planning, Public Works, Parks, Fire, Police, and the School Districts. In addition, the TAC membership included representatives from WSDOT, Snohomish County, Washington State Ferries, Community Transit, Sound Transit, and the neighboring City of Lynnwood. Membership in the CAC included representatives from Bicycle Facilities, Parking, Development, as well as a wide variety of neighborhoods and corridors throughout the city. Packet Page 348 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 1-10 In addition to the jurisdictions represented on the TAC, the following agencies reviewed the Transportation Plan: the City of Mountlake Terrace, the City of Shoreline, the Town of Woodway, and PSRC. 2009 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Feedback obtained from open houses, citizen committee involvement, and intergovernmental coordination was very useful to the initial development and subsequent revision of the Transportation Plan, greatly enhancing its effectiveness. These efforts led to more realistic assessments of existing conditions and impacts of forecasted growth, as well as the identification of appropriate measures to address both current and future conditions. Public Open Houses Three public open houses were held at Edmonds City Hall to inform the community about the Comprehensive Transportation Plan and gather comments on transportation improvement priorities. The first open house was held on June 19, 2008. The purpose of this meeting was to introduce the project to citizens, share the existing transportation inventories and existing conditions analyses that had been completed, and gather input from participants on the transportation issues they felt are most important. The second meeting was held on March 5, 2009. The purpose of this meeting was to share the results of future conditions analyses, present the preliminary list of recommended transportation projects, present that preliminary cost and revenue projections, and solicit citizen input on project funding priorities. The third meeting was held on June 30, 2009. The purpose of this meeting was to share the recommended transportation projects, which had been refined to incorporate the feedback gathered on the preliminary list, and also to discuss the financial outlook for transportation capital projects and solicit citizen input on potential funding strategies. Each meeting began with a presentation by project staff, providing an overview of project objectives, and specifics such as the existing conditions assessment, potential transportation improvement projects, anticipated costs and available revenues, and potential funding opportunities. Following each presentation, participants were invited to view display boards and fact sheets, talk with project staff, and submit comment cards. Citizen comments helped guide the city staff in identifying project priorities and viable funding sources, and finalize the recommended Transportation Plan. The public open houses were publicized through notice in the City newsletter, City website, advertisement on the local government channel, and meeting notification in the local newspaper. Public participation materials used for this update process are included in Appendix A. Packet Page 349 of 1136 Introduction November 2009 1-11 Citizen Advisory Transportation Committee The City of Edmonds Citizen Advisory Transportation Committee is comprised of eight citizens who meet monthly with City engineering staff. The purpose of the Committee is to: Monitor and make recommendations relating to motorized and non-motorized transportation issues, systems, and funding; Contribute input to updates of the City Comprehensive Transportation Plan and monitor the City’s efforts to implement the improvements detailed in the Plan; and Enhance communication with the public with regard to transportation needs. The Transportation Committee provided transportation recommendations for updates reflected in this Transportation Plan. City staff worked with Transportation Committee members throughout the Plan development to update the City’s transportation goals and policies, discuss Plan elements, and determine how best to produce a balanced multimodal plan. Walkway Committee The Edmonds Walkway Committee is comprised of 12 citizen volunteers, who walk frequently and live throughout the city. Their role is to evaluate criteria such as safety and access to schools and parks; prioritize proposed sidewalk project based on the criteria; and to provide feedback and recommendations related to the City Comprehensive Walkway Plan. The Walkway Committee met monthly from March 2008 through September 2008 and provided walkway recommendations presented in Chapter 4 of this Transportation Plan. Edmonds Bike Group The long-standing group meets monthly to discuss bicycle transportation issues. Membership includes over 50 residents, with about 10 members who regularly attend monthly group meetings. Members represent Edmonds and Woodway, and are interested in improving citywide bicycle infrastructure and conditions for bicycle travel. The Bike Group helped establish three bicycle loop trails as well as a bike map indicating existing local bicycle lanes and where lanes should be added as part of future roadway improvement projects. The Bike Group’s recommendations are also presented in Chapter 4 of this Transportation Plan. Intergovernmental Coordination The following agencies reviewed this Comprehensive Transportation Plan: WSDOT, PSRC, Community Transit, Snohomish County, the City of Mountlake Terrace, the City of Shoreline, and the Town of Woodway. Packet Page 350 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 1-12 Overview of the Transportation Plan Elements This Comprehensive Transportation Plan includes the following elements: Chapter 2: Goals, Objectives, and Policies – Presents the transportation goals, objectives, and policies that guide the assessments of existing and future conditions, and the development of the Recommended Transportation Plan. Chapter 3: Street System – Provides an inventory of existing streets, existing and projected future traffic volumes, assessment of existing and projected future roadway operations, safety assessment, standards for different street types, and recommended improvements to address safety and mobility needs. Chapter 4: Non-Motorized System – Provides an inventory of existing walkways and bikeways, assessment of needs, strategy for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and recommended improvements to address pedestrian and bicycle mobility and safety. Chapter 5: Transit and Transportation Demand Management – Provides an inventory of existing transit facilities and service, including buses, rail and ferries; and presents strategies to support transit and commute trip reduction. Chapter 6: Implementation and Financial Plan – Provides a summary of the projects, project prioritization, total costs, and financial strategies and projected revenue for recommended improvements through 2025. Packet Page 351 of 1136 November 2009 2-1 Chapter 2. Goals, Objectives, and Policies Assessments of existing and future conditions, as well as development of the Transportation Plan, are guided by transportation goals, objectives, and policies developed by the City. A major update of the goals, objectives, and policies took place as part of the 2002 update of the Transportation Element, under the direction of the Citizen Advisory and Technical Advisory Committees. The goals, objectives, and policies were further refined as part of the 2009 Transportation Plan, under the direction of the Citizen Advisory Transportation Committee. Goals, objectives and policies are defined under the following major categories: State and Regional Context Streets and Highways Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Public Transportation Streetscape Capital Facilities Traffic Calming Air Quality and Climate Change Under each category, the following information is provided: A.General consists of a general discussion of the context, issues and priorities behind the development of the goals, objectives and policies for that category. B.Goals are generalized statements which broadly relate the physical environment to values, but for which no test for fulfillment can be readily applied. C.Objectives are specific measurable statements related to the attainment of goals. Packet Page 352 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 2-2 D. Under each objective,Policies are listed that provide specific direction for meeting the objectives. The transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan is guided by the following transportation goals and policies, initially developed for the 1995 Transportation Element and updated in 2002 and 2009. Inevitably, conflict will occasionally arise between a transportation policy and real- world constraints and opportunities, or even between two policies. After the specifics of the situation and the purpose of the policies are fully understood, the conflict will be resolved using the best judgment of the City Council, as advised by City staff and the Citizen Advisory Transportation Committee. The following sub-sections define each of the Transportation Policies to guide the development of transportation in the city, within the broader framework of the Goals and Objectives. 15.25.000 State and Regional Context A.General: The combination of an increasing population, demand for transportation, and ever tightening limits on funding has led to a need to plan for future transportation systems that are more efficient movers of people and goods. Public transportation is expected to play an increasing role in the transportation system, and state and regional priorities are being shifted to encourage this goal. For this strategy to work, however, it also requires a commitment to maintaining existing transportation networks and investments, and to providing connections between different modes of travel. B.State Goal: Encourage efficient multi-modal transportation systems that are based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans. Regional Goal: Strategically invest in a variety of mobility options and demand management to support the regional system of activity centers. 15.25.010 Streets and Highways A.General. The street system in Edmonds is established on the Official Street Map and Arterial System Map. New right-of-way additions occur primarily in subdivisions. Within the city, three state highways, rail, and ferry facilities serve regional travel. A significant challenge facing the City is to bring substandard streets to City standards by providing such facilities as underground utilities, sidewalks, bikeways and landscaping. Key intersections that are operating at or beyond capacity must be improved. Feedback from citizens who participated in public meetings has clearly indicated concern about the types of potential transportation improvements, and the impact of improvements on existing neighborhoods. By placing an emphasis on providing facilities for bicycles, pedestrians, and buses, streetscapes can become a friendlier environment for all users. Packet Page 353 of 1136 Goals, Objectives, and Policies November 2009 2-3 Speed and noise can be problems where arterial streets adjoin residential neighborhoods. Land use changes frequently occur where major arterial streets are improved. B.Goal I: Develop transportation systems that complement the land use, parks, cultural, and sustainability elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Goal II: Provide transportation services that enhance the safety of the community, maximize the use of the existing street system, and maintain the unique character of the city and its neighborhoods. Goal III: Implement transportation improvements in a way that minimizes adverse impacts on the natural environment, air quality, climate change, and energy consumption. Goal IV: Develop transportation improvements that support commuting in a way that discourages the use of local streets. Goal V: Prioritize and finance transportation improvements for the greatest public benefit, emphasizing transit, demand management, and maintenance of current facilities. Goal VI: Take a leadership role in coordinating the transportation actions of both local and non-local agencies. Seek to promote creative, coordinated solutions that do the following: Meet transportation service needs; Link local transportation networks with regional, state and national transportation systems; Increase use of public transit and non-motorized transportation; Reduce congestion; Reduce energy consumption; Provide solutions consistent with the City’s land use and cultural goals, and sustainability initiatives. C.Objective 1: Community Standards. The goals of the Comprehensive Plan, the needs and desires of its citizens, the integrity of its neighborhoods, shopping areas, parks, recreation facilities, schools and other public facilities are the criteria for measuring the effectiveness and success of transportation programs and improvements. Policy 1.1 Locate and design streets and highways to meet the demands of both existing and projected land uses as provided for in the Comprehensive Plan. Policy 1.2 Locate and design street and highway improvements to respect the residential character of the community and its quality living environment. Policy 1.3 Minimize the adverse impact of street and highway improvements on the natural environment. Packet Page 354 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 2-4 Policy 1.4 Design streets to minimize environmental impacts on established neighborhoods. Policy 1.5 Develop roadway design standards with sufficient flexibility to reflect the differences in character and function of different roadways. Objective 2: Conservation. Streets, sidewalks and bikeways should be located, designed and improved in a manner that will conserve land, materials and energy. New streets must meet minimum City standards and code requirements. Streets and highways should be integrated into the total transportation system to facilitate the development of public transportation and increase mobility while reducing travel time and costs of construction and maintenance, in accordance with the following policies: Policy 2.1 Design streets with the minimum pavement areas needed, to reduce impervious surfaces. Policy 2.2 Include pedestrian and bicycle elements in roadway improvements to encourage energy conservation. Policy 2.3 Utilize innovative materials where feasible to reduce impervious surfaces. Policy 2.4 Design arterial and collector streets as complete streets that serve automobile, transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel. Objective 3: Design Standards. Design requirements for streets and alleys should be related to needs and desires of the local community within reasonable guidelines for safety, function, aesthetic appearance and cost. Each new street improvement should be scaled to the density, land use, and overall function that the roadway is designed to serve, in accordance with the following policies: Policy 3.1 Design local residential streets to prevent or discourage use as shortcuts for vehicle through-traffic. Coordinate local traffic control measures with the affected neighborhood. Policy 3.2 Periodically review functional classifications of city streets, and adjust the classifications when appropriate. Policy 3.3 Provide on-street parking as a secondary street function, only in specifically designated areas such as in the downtown business district and in residential areas where onsite parking is limited. Streets should not be designed to provide on-street parking as a primary function, particularly in areas with frequent transit service Policy 3.4 Encourage parking on one side rather than both sides of streets with narrow rights-of-way. Packet Page 355 of 1136 Goals, Objectives, and Policies November 2009 2-5 Policy 3.5 Design streets to accommodate vehicles that use the street most frequently; rather than large vehicles that may use the street only occasionally. Policy 3.6 Relate required street widths to the function and operating standards for the street. Policy 3.7 Include analyses of geological, topographical, and hydrological conditions in street design. Policy 3.8 Encourage landscaping on residential streets to preserve existing trees and vegetation, increase open spaces, and decrease impervious surfaces. Landscaping may be utilized to provide visual and physical barriers but should be carefully designed not to interfere with motorists’ sight distance and traffic, pedestrian, bicycle, and wheel chair safety. Landscaping improvements should take maintenance requirements into consideration. Policy 3.9 Encourage underground placements of utilities at the time of extensive street improvement. Policy 3.10 Encourage placement of underground conduit for future installation of fiber optic cable at the time of extensive street improvement. Policy 3.11 Design street improvements so as not to impair the safe and efficient movement of pedestrians and bicycle traffic. Policy 3.12 Restrict access between non-arterial streets and the SR 99 commercial corridor to the extent necessary to prevent nonresidential traffic from entering residential areas, and to maintain efficient traffic flow and turning movements on SR 99. Policy 3.13 Design street improvements to encourage downtown traffic circulation to flow in and around commercial blocks, promoting customer convenience and reducing congestion. Separate through-traffic from local traffic circulation to encourage and support customer access. Policy 3.14 Carefully review parking requirements for downtown development proposals; to promote the development while still ensuring adequate balance between parking supply and demand. Policy 3.15 Provide access between private property and the public street system that is safe and convenient, and incorporates the following considerations: a. Limit and provide access to the street network in a manner consistent with the function and purpose of each roadway. Encourage the preparation of comprehensive access plans and consolidation of access points in commercial and residential areas through shared driveways and local access streets. Packet Page 356 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 2-6 b. Require new development to consolidate and minimize access points along all state highways, principal arterials, and minor arterials. c. Place a high priority on consolidating existing access points onto all arterial streets in the city. This effort should be coordinated with local business and property owners in conjunction with improvements to the arterial system and redevelopment of adjacent land parcels. d. Design the street system so that the majority of direct residential access is provided via local streets. e. For access onto state highways, implement Chapter 468-52 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC), Highway Access Management -- Access Control Classification System and Standards. Policy 3.16 Encourage underground parking as part of new development. Objective 4: Circulation. Circulation and connectivity throughout the city should be provided via the system of arterial and collector streets, bikeways and pedestrian paths. Local streets should be utilized for local property access and designed in a manner to discourage cut-through vehicular traffic. Policy 4.1 Encourage the efficient movement of people and goods through an effective and inter-connected collector and arterial street system. Policy 4.2 The use of dead end streets and culs-de-sac should be avoided. When unavoidable, the length of a dead end street, including cul-de-sac, should be limited to 600 feet, with a minimum 35-foot radius to back of curb on the cul-de-sac. Policy 4.3 Complete the arterial sidewalk system according to the following priority list: a. Arterial roadways without sidewalks or shoulders on which transit service is provided; b. Arterial roadways without sidewalks or shoulders on which transit service is not provided; c. Arterial roadways with shoulders too narrow or in or poor walking condition for pedestrians; d. Arterial roadways with adequate shoulders for pedestrians but without sidewalks; and e. The remainder of the arterial roadway system (e.g. roads with sidewalks along one side, or roads with sidewalks in disrepair). Policy 4.4 Design streets to accommodate emergency service vehicles. Packet Page 357 of 1136 Goals, Objectives, and Policies November 2009 2-7 Policy 4.5 Coordinate traffic signals located within ½ mile of each other to decrease delay and improve operations. Objective 5: New Development. Improve traffic safety and reduce congestion through appropriate street design and site layout during the development process. Policy 5.1 Require new development to dedicate adequate street rights-of-way for public streets as specified by City Standards. Policy 5.2 Use public rights-of-way only for public purposes. The private use of a public right-of-way is prohibited unless expressly granted by the City. Policy 5.3 Acquire easements and/or development rights in lieu of rights-of-way for installation of some smaller facilities such as sidewalks and bikeways. Policy 5.4 Convert private streets to public streets only when: a. The City Council has determined that a public benefit would result. b. The street has been improved to the appropriate City public street standard. c. The City Engineer has determined that conversion will have minimal effect on the City’s street maintenance budget. d. In the case that the conversion is initiated by the owner(s) of the road, that the owner(s) finance the survey and legal work required for the conversion. 15.25.020 Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation A.General. Walking and bicycling are beneficial forms of recreation, transportation, and a means of maintaining physical fitness, in addition to an excellent means of exploring the community. Carefully targeted investments in the city’s non-motorized network have the potential to provide an enhanced level of accessibility and mobility to residents at a relatively low cost. With geographically strategic investments in facilities such as sidewalks, crosswalks, bicycle paths and bicycle lanes, many short trips that are currently taken by car could be shifted to walking or bicycling trips. Recreational walkways are discussed in the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Walkway Plan (summarized in Chapter 4 of this Transportation Plan) and incorporate existing sidewalks and natural trails. Sidewalks exist on many major streets but some improvements are needed as well as addition of these facilities on several important routes. Although bicycling has rapidly expanded as a recreational activity in the community, it is also an important means of transportation. For many people, it provides the only available form of local transportation. The Bikeway Comprehensive Plan (summarized in Chapter 4 of this Transportation Plan) provides guidance and prioritizes bicycle improvements throughout the city. Packet Page 358 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 2-8 Planning for and implementing a connected system of walkways and bikeways is a way to promote community health, as recognized in the “Community Sustainability Element” of the Comprehensive Plan currently being developed by the City. B.Goal VII: Improve non-motorized transportation facilities and services. C.Objective 6: Sidewalks. Provide safe, efficient and attractive pedestrian facilities as an essential element of the city circulation and recreation system. Safe walkways must be an integral part of the City’s street and recreation plans to encourage and promote walking for both transportation and recreational purposes. Policy 6.1 Construct pedestrian facilities on all streets and highways, interconnecting with other modes of transportation. Policy 6.2 Design sidewalks for use by people at all mobility levels. Sidewalks and curb cuts should meet the requirements of the ADA. Policy 6.3 Construct sidewalks with durable materials. Policy 6.4 Construct sidewalks in an ecologically friendly manner, encouraging the use of pervious paving materials where feasible. Policy 6.5 Locate sidewalk amenities, including but not limited to poles, benches, planters, trashcans, bike racks, and awnings, so as to not obstruct non- motorized traffic or transit access. Policy 6.6 Place highest priority on provision of lighting on sidewalks and crosswalks that regularly carry non-motorized traffic at night. Policy 6.7 Locate sidewalks to facilitate community access to parks, schools, neighborhoods, and shopping centers. Policy 6.8 Locate sidewalks along transit routes to provide easy access to transit stops. Policy 6.9 Implement a curb ramp retrofit program to upgrade existing sub-standard pedestrian ramps and curb cuts to meet the requirements of the ADA. Policy 6.10 Maintain existing public sidewalks. Policy 6.11 Place highest priority on pedestrian safety in areas frequented by children, such as near schools, parks, and playgrounds. Provide walkways in these areas at every opportunity. Policy 6.12 Periodically review and update walkway construction priorities in the Transportation Plan. Policy 6.13 Design pedestrian improvements to include curbs, gutters and sidewalks, in accordance with the Edmonds Streetscape Plan (City of Edmonds 2006), including the Street Tree Plan. Provide tree grates between the curb and sidewalk, where appropriate, with adequate levels of Packet Page 359 of 1136 Goals, Objectives, and Policies November 2009 2-9 illumination and low water requirements. The landscape buffers must not obstruct minimum sight distances. Policy 6.14 Require sidewalk construction along street frontages to complete missing links, increase pedestrian safety, and provide linkages to key destinations, as a condition of development approval in accordance with ECDC 18.90 and Transportation Policies 7.1 through 7.4. Policy 6.15 Conduct pedestrian safety studies at locations where regular pedestrian crossings are observed along unstriped stretches of road. Install crosswalks at locations where the study indicates they are warranted, and where a minimum sight distance between pedestrians and drivers are met. Policy 6.16 Encourage the use of innovative crosswalk treatments, such as pedestrian actuated flashing signals or pedestrian crossing flags. Policy 6.17 Encourage collaboration between the Engineering and Parks departments to develop a network of walkways throughout the city. This network could include but not be limited to signed loop trails in neighborhoods, park-to-park walkways, and theme-related walks. Policy 6.18 Encourage separation of walkways from bikeways, where feasible. Policy 6.19 Provide a complete sidewalk network in commercial areas, especially downtown, as an element of public open space that supports pedestrian and commercial activity. Objective 7: Sidewalk Construction Policy. Require sidewalks to be constructed as a condition of development, for those projects that increase the number of residential units, or include commercial development or other uses that generate pedestrian activity. Policy 7.1 The City Engineer will determine whether sidewalks are required as a condition of approval for development projects. If they are required, the developer shall construct sidewalks along the street(s) fronted by the project, including new streets constructed as part of the development. If one or a combination of the following criteria is applicable to a project, sidewalks will be required as a condition of approval: a. Sidewalks are required by ECDC 18.90.030; b. Any sidewalks presently exist within 1,000 feet of the proposed development project on the street(s) on which the project fronts; c. The current Walkway Plan (chapter 4) indicates sidewalks/walkways are proposed at the project location (see Figure 4.3); Packet Page 360 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 2-10 d. The current Bikeway Plan (chapter 4) indicates a designated or proposed designated bikeway at the project location (see Figure 4-6); and/or e. The project is located within 1,000 feet and on a street leading to facilities such as parks, schools, churches, shopping/commercial establishments, etc., that generate pedestrian traffic. Policy 7.2 Require sidewalks on both sides of the street inside the designated Downtown Sidewalk Area (see Figure 3-9). Policy 7.3 Sidewalks will not be required as a condition of approval if: a. The City Engineer makes an affirmative determination that none of the above criteria apply to the project, and that sidewalks are not necessary and will not be necessary for the foreseeable future; and/or b. The City Engineer, with the approval of the Planning Manager, determines that, in accordance with ECDC 18.90.030.B, special circumstances exist related to topography, insufficient right-of-way, or other factors making construction of sidewalks economically unfeasible or physically impossible. Policy 7.4 When the City Engineer determines that sidewalks are required as a condition of approval, payment-in-lieu of construction will be allowed only if: a. The City’s six-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes a specifically identified City project for sidewalks at the location of the development project, and b. The City Engineer determines that it will be in the best interest of the City to construct sidewalks at the development project location as part of and concurrently with the City’s identified capital project. Objective 8: Bicycle Facilities. Provide safe and efficient bicycle facilities as an essential element of the city circulation and recreation system. Safe bicycle facilities must be an integral part of the City’s street and recreation plans to encourage and promote bicycling for both transportation and recreational purposes. Policy 8.1 Seek opportunities to improve safety for those who bicycle in the city. Policy 8.2 Place highest priority for improvements to bicycle facilities near schools, commercial districts, and transit facilities. Policy 8.3 Provide connections to bicycle facilities in adjacent jurisdictions. Policy 8.4 Provide bicycle lanes on arterial streets, where feasible, to encourage the use of bicycles for transportation and recreation purposes. Policy 8.5 Identify bicycle routes through signage. Packet Page 361 of 1136 Goals, Objectives, and Policies November 2009 2-11 Policy 8.6 Provide bicycle racks or bicycle lockers in commercial, school, multi- family residences, and recreational areas. Policy 8.7 Ensure that existing public bicycle facilities are maintained, and upgraded when feasible. 15.25.030 Public Transportation A.General. The City is well served by public transportation providers including Community Transit, Sound Transit, Amtrak, Washington State Ferries and the Edmonds School District. Transportation options include bus, van, ferry, and rail. Public transportation provides a range of benefits for our community: Primary mobility for those who cannot drive, including many of our youth, seniors, and citizens with disabilities. Mobility options for people who choose not to drive – either to avoid congestion, save money, or support the environment. Preserves the quality of our environment by conserving energy, supporting better air quality, and reducing congestion on our roadways. Community Transit is the primary public transit provider in Edmonds, offering local and commuter bus services, specialized door-to-door transportation for persons with disabilities, commuter vanpools, carpool matching, park-and-ride lots, transportation consulting for employers, training programs for youth, seniors and persons with disabilities, and overall customer assistance. Sound Transit (Commuter Rail Station) provides rail and bus service between Everett, Seattle, and Tacoma. King County Metro does not provide local service within the city, but connections are available between Community Transit and Metro routes at the Aurora Village Transit Center. Additionally, the Washington State Ferry system provides ferry service between Edmonds and the City of Kingston on the Olympic Peninsula; and Amtrak provides intercity rail service. The Edmonds School District provides bus service to schools. Additionally, some school bus service is provided by Community Transit. The location of the city along Puget Sound with the convergence of the state ferry terminal, passenger rail service, a highway of statewide significance SR 104, bus service, and a pedestrian and bicycle network, offers unique opportunities for coordinated service as the hub of a public transportation network. The potential for multi-modal transportation facilities should continue to be examined and evaluated. B.Goal VIII: The public transportation system should provide alternatives for transportation that enable all persons to have reasonable access to locations of employment, health care, education, and community business and recreational facilities. Packet Page 362 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 2-12 Goal IX: Enhance the movement of people, services and goods. Transportation system improvements should encourage the use of travel alternatives to the single occupancy vehicle. C.Objective 9: Operations. Enhance public transit options and operations to provide alternatives to the automobile and as a means of reducing air pollution, conserving energy, and relieving traffic congestion in accordance with the following policies: Policy 9.1 Work with transit providers to ensure that transit service within the city is: a. Convenient and flexible to meet community needs; b. Dependable, affordable, and maintains regular schedules; c. Provides adequate service during evening hours, weekends, and holidays; and d. Comfortable and safe for all users. Policy 9.2 Work with transit providers to ensure that public transit is accessible within reasonable distance of any address in the system area. A desirable maximum distance is 0.25 mile. Policy 9.3 Work with transit providers to serve designated activity centers with appropriate levels of transit service. Transit stops should be properly located throughout the activity center, and designed to serve local commuting and activity patterns, and significant concentrations of employment. Policy 9.4 Design new development and redevelopment in activity centers to provide pedestrian access to transit. Policy 9.5 Works with transit providers to coordinate public transit with school district transportation systems to provide transportation for school children. Policy 9.6 Integrate existing ferry terminal, urban design and feasibility studies into the City planning process for the planned relocation of the ferry dock to serve future transportation needs while maintaining the community’s character. Policy 9.7 Coordinate and link ferry, rail, bus, auto, and non-motorized travel to form a multi-modal system providing access to regional transportation systems while ensuring the quality, safety, and integrity of local commercial districts and residential neighborhoods. Policy 9.8 Develop a multi-modal transportation center along the downtown/waterfront of the city that is the focal point for increasing the capacity, interconnectivity, and efficiency of moving people and goods along state and interstate highway routes, intercity passenger and Packet Page 363 of 1136 Goals, Objectives, and Policies November 2009 2-13 commuter railroad systems, public transit system, and local and regional bikeways and bike routes. Policy 9.9 Locate and design a multi-modal transportation center and terminal to serve the city’s needs with the following elements: A ferry terminal that meets the operational requirements to accommodate forecast ridership demand and that provides proper separation of automobile, bicycle and walk-on passenger loading; A train station that meets intercity passenger service and commuter rail loading requirements, and provides the requisite amenities such as waiting areas, storage and bicycle lockers; A transit center that meets the local and regional transit system requirements; A linkage between stations/terminals that meets the operational and safety requirements of each mode, including a link between the multi-modal station terminal to the business/commerce center in downtown Edmonds; Safety features that include better separation between train traffic and other modes of travel, particularly vehicle and passenger ferry traffic as well as the general public; and Overall facility design that minimizes the impact to the natural environment, in particular the adjacent marshes. Policy 9.10 Encourage joint public/private efforts to participate in transportation demand management and traffic reduction strategies. Policy 9.11 Work with other government agencies that cause additional transportation impacts or costs to the City, so that the agencies mitigate the impacts and/or defray the costs. Policy 9.12 Explore future funding for a city-based circulator bus that provides local shuttle service between neighborhoods (Firdale Village, Perrinville, Five Corners, Westgate) and downtown. Objective 10: Coordination. Coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions, state and regional transportation agencies, Community Transit, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Washington State Ferries, and Amtrak in the development and location of transportation facilities. Policy 10.1 Participate in local and regional forums to coordinate strategies and programs that further the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Policy 10.2 Work with neighboring jurisdictions and regional and state agencies to coordinate transportation system improvements and assure that funding requirements are met. Packet Page 364 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 2-14 Policy 10.3 Encourage public transportation providers within the city to coordinate services to ensure the most effective transportation system possible. Policy 10.4 Coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions and regional and state agencies to encourage their support of the City’s policies and planning processes. Policy 10.5 Participate on the boards of Community Transit and other public transit providers, and regularly share citizen and business comments regarding transit services to the appropriate provider. Objective 11: Access. Provide safe and convenient pedestrian access to bus stops, and inter-modal transfer locations, the rail station, and the ferry terminal. Policy 11.1 Place priority on coordinating bus routes and bus stop sites in City plans for street lighting improvements. Policy 11.2 Place priority on corridors served by transit for sidewalk improvements, especially in locations that connect neighborhoods, parks, schools and businesses to bus stops. Sidewalks should also be a priority on connecting roads within 0.25 mile of a transit corridor. Policy 11.3 Include boarding pads at bus stop sites as part of sidewalk construction projects, to allow for shelters. Policy 11.4 Work with Community Transit to provide additional passenger shelters and benches at bus stops sites within Edmonds. Objective 12: Roadway Infrastructure. Provide a roadway network that supports the provision of public transportation within the city. Policy 12.1 Design Arterial and Collector roadways to accommodate buses and other modes of public transportation (including the use of high occupancy vehicle priority treatments, transit signal priority, queue bypass lanes, boarding pads and shelter pads, and transit-only lanes where appropriate). Policy 12.2 Coordinate with local public transit agencies and private transit providers regarding road closures or other events that may disrupt normal transit operations in order to minimize impacts to transit customers. 15.25.040 Streetscape A.General. The City is a place with unique character and beauty. The street system has a tremendous impact on the scenic quality of our community and should complement our setting, while supporting our neighborhoods. B.Goal X: Incorporate streetscape design in the development and redevelopment of city streets to enhance the scenic beauty of, and help preserve, our neighborhoods. The Edmonds Packet Page 365 of 1136 Goals, Objectives, and Policies November 2009 2-15 Streetscape Plan (City of Edmonds 2006), including the Street Tree Plan, shall guide the development of these design standards, which need to also recognize the unique neighborhood characteristics. C.Objective 13: Design Standards. Develop design standards that result in an attractive street system consistent with the character of the city. Policy 13.1 Crosswalks should be eight feet wide. Policy 13.2 Streetlights should be the main light source for public streets, with the following minimum standards: a. The intersection of arterial and collector streets should have a minimum of two standard street lights with additional street lights placed at a maximum of 250-foot spacing between intersections. b. The intersection of residential local streets should have at least one standard street light. c. Streetlights and poles should be of a high design quality, with specifications guided by the Edmonds Streetscape Plan. Policy 13.3 Street trees should be installed at 50-foot intervals or one per lot whichever is greater. Plant materials should be specified by the City Parks Department and maintained in conformance with City policies. Care should be taken in both the selection and placement of landscaping materials to protect existing scenic views and vistas. 15.25.050 Capital Facilities, Transportation A.General. The following goals, objectives and policies address capital facility planning and financing for projects contained in the transportation element of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. These criteria will serve to guide agencies planning public capital facilities and services in Edmonds. B.Goal XI: Provide adequate transportation facilities concurrent with the impact of new development. Goal XII: Coordinate the City’s transportation element plans with state, county, and local agencies. Goal XIII: Maintain a six-year TIP as part of the capital facilities plan of the Comprehensive Plan. Goal XIV: Prepare and maintain a TIP that is financially feasible and financially constrained. Goal XV: Ensure development pays a proportionate cost of transportation improvements required to mitigate impacts associated with the development. Packet Page 366 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 2-16 Goal XVI: Locate and design transportation facilities in keeping with the community character, and to be compatible with surrounding land uses and the environment. C.Objective 14: Inventory. Identify and define the transportation facilities in the city. Policy 14.1 Maintain an inventory of existing transportation facilities owned or operated by the City and State within Edmonds; include the locations and capacities of such facilities and systems. Objective 15: Level of Service. Establish level of service (LOS) standards for City owned transportation facilities in Edmonds and coordinate with the State on LOS standards for state owned facilities. Policy 15.1 The Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, Special Report 209) is the City’s recognized source for roadway LOS definition and analysis techniques. The quality of traffic operation is graded into one of six LOS designations, A through F, with LOS A representing the free flow traffic operation and LOS F representing the worst levels of traffic congestion. Policy 15.2 Establish LOS standards which (1) measure the LOS preferred by city residents, (2) that can be achieved and maintained for existing development and growth anticipated in the land use plan, and (3) are achievable with the TIP and Comprehensive Plan. Policy 15.3 Minimum LOS standards are established as follows. LOS is measured at intersections during a typical weekday PM peak hour, using analysis methods outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board 2000). For intersections of roads with different functional classifications, the standard for the higher classification shall apply. Facility Standard City Streets Arterials: LOS D or better (except state routes); Collectors: LOS C or better. State Routes1 SR 99 north of SR 104; SR 524: LOS E or better. 1. State routes for which a standard is designated are Highways of Regional Significance, and are subject to City concurrency requirements. State routes designated as Highways of Statewide Significance (SR 104; and SR 99 south of SR 104) are not subject to concurrency and thus no City standard is defined for these facilities. However, to monitor operations on Highways of Statewide Significance, the City identifies existing or potential future deficiencies if LOS D is exceeded. Policy 15.4 When a lower order roadway intersects with one of higher order, apply the LOS standard for the higher order roadway (e.g., when a collector and arterial street intersect, the LOS for the arterial street will apply). Policy 15.5 Use LOS standards to (1) determine the need for transportation facilities, and (2) test the adequacy of such facilities to serve proposed Packet Page 367 of 1136 Goals, Objectives, and Policies November 2009 2-17 development. In addition, use LOS standards for City-owned transportation facilities to help develop the City’s annual budget and 6- year transportation improvements program. Policy 15.6 Reassess the TIP annually to ensure that transportation facilities needs, financing, and levels of service are consistent with the City’s land use plan. The annual update should be coordinated with the annual budget process, and the annual amendment of the Comprehensive Plan. Policy 15.7 Work toward development of a multi-modal LOS standard that considers transit and non-motorized operations as well as automobile operations. Objective 16: Transportation System Efficiency. Implement a variety of strategies that respond to the demands of growth on transportation facilities while maximizing the efficiency of the existing infrastructure. Policy 16.1 Ensure city transportation facilities and services are provided concurrent with new development or redevelopment to mitigate impacts created from such development. Road improvements may be funded with mitigation fees, and provided at the time of or within six years of development. Policy 16.2 Maximize efficiencies of existing transportation facilities, using techniques such as: Transportation Demand Management Encouraging development to use existing facilities Other methods of improved efficiency. Policy 16.3 Provide additional transportation facility capacity when existing facilities are used to their maximum level of efficiency consistent with adopted LOS standards. Policy 16.4 Encourage development where adequate transportation facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. Prioritize location of large trip generators (e.g. community centers, recreation facilities, shopping, entertainment, public facilities, etc.) within 0.25 mile of Transit Emphasis Corridors as identified in Community Transit’s Six Year Transit Development Plan and Long Range Transit Plan. Policy 16.5 Work with Community Transit to encourage ridesharing at employment centers. Objective 17: Coordination. Coordinate transportation planning and programming with state, regional, county, and local agencies Packet Page 368 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 2-18 Policy 17.1 Coordinate with non-City providers of transportation facilities and services on a joint program for maintaining adopted LOS standards, funding, and construction of capital improvements. Work in partnership with non-City transportation facility providers to prepare functional plans consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan. Policy 17.2 Regularly coordinate with WSDOT, Washington State Ferries, Community Transit, King County Metro, Snohomish County, the Town of Woodway, and the Cities of Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood, Shoreline, and Mukilteo, to ensure levels of service for transportation facilities are compatible. Objective 18: Financing. Establish mechanisms to ensure that required transportation facilities are financially feasible. Policy 18.1 Base the financing plan for transportation facilities on estimates of current local revenues and external revenues that are reasonably anticipated to be received by the City. Policy 18.2 Finance the six-year TIP within the City's financial capacity to achieve a balance between available revenue and expenditures related to transportation facilities. If projected funding is inadequate to finance needed transportation facilities, based on adopted LOS standards and forecasted growth, the City should explore one or more of the following options: Lower the LOS standard Change the Land Use Plan Increase the amount of revenue from existing sources Adopt new sources of revenue Policy 18.3 Encourage Neighborhood planning to afford neighborhoods the opportunity to form Local Improvement Districts (LIDs) to develop locally based improvements that exceed City standards (e.g. for parking, median strips, landscaping, traffic calming, walkways or other locally- determined projects). Policy 18.4 Seek to balance funding to support multimodal solutions to transportation needs. Objective 19: Revenue. Establish mechanisms to ensure that required transportation facilities are fully funded. Policy 19.1 Match revenue sources to transportation improvements on the basis of sound fiscal policies. Packet Page 369 of 1136 Goals, Objectives, and Policies November 2009 2-19 Policy 19.2 Revise the TIP in the event that revenue sources for transportation improvements, which require voter approval in a local referendum, are not approved. Policy 19.3 Ensure that ongoing operating and maintenance costs associated with a transportation facility are financially feasible prior to constructing the facility. Objective 20: Concurrency. Ensure existing and future development pays for the costs of needed transportation improvements. Policy 20.1 Ensure that existing development pays for transportation improvements that reduce or eliminate existing deficiencies, and pays for some or all of the cost to replace obsolete or worn out facilities. Existing development may also pay a portion of the cost of transportation improvements needed by future development. Existing development's payments may take the form of user fees, charges for services, special assessments, and taxes. Policy 20.2 Ensure that future development pays a proportionate share of the cost to mitigate impacts associated with new facilities. Future development may also pay a portion of the cost to replace obsolete or worn-out facilities. Future development's payments may take the form of voluntary contributions for the benefit of any transportation facility, impact fees, mitigation payments, capacity fees, dedications of land, provision of transportation facilities, and future payments of users fees, charges for services, special assessments, and taxes. Objective 21: Partnerships. Seek to mitigate disproportionate financial burdens to the City due to the location of essential transportation facilities. Policy 21.1 Through joint planning or inter-local agreements, the City should seek to mitigate disproportionate financial burdens that result from the location of essential transportation facilities. Policy 21.2 Seek amenities or incentives for neighborhoods in which the facilities are located, to compensate for adverse impacts. 15.25.060 Traffic Calming A.General. Speeding is the single most received complaint regarding traffic. Locations include arterials, local access and commercial access streets, and in residential neighborhoods. Citizens have expressed concern about the safety of children walking along roadways or playing near the street, vehicles entering streets from driveways or at intersections, and cut- through traffic. The City should establish a systematic and consistent way of responding to requests for action, while respecting the City’s limited finances and staff resources. The City Packet Page 370 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 2-20 must also remain cognizant of the transportation system’s need to carry vehicles efficiently and effectively. B.Goal XVII: Respond to citizen requests concerning traffic speed and pass through traffic in a consistent, systematic and responsive manner, while maintaining the basic function of the Edmonds street system. C.Objective 22: Traffic Calming. Maintain a response system to citizen requests concerning traffic calming procedures by implementing the Traffic Calming program described in this Transportation Plan (see Appendix B). Policy 22.1 Use a formal written procedure for traffic calming requests, and an acknowledgement procedure for receipt of request. Policy 22.2 Use field investigation procedures that include short-term solutions. Policy 22.3 Use neighborhood speed watch program. Policy 22.4 Publicize the formal procedure for traffic calming requests (Policy 22.1) and neighborhood speed watch program (Policy 22.3). Policy 22.5 Use permanent traffic calming request procedures and evaluation procedures. Policy 22.6 Use permanent traffic calming design criteria. Policy 22.7 Use a permanent traffic calming authorization procedure. Policy 22.8 Use a permanent traffic calming implementation procedure. Policy 22.9 Traffic calming measures should be located and designed so as not to interfere with bus operation, travel speed, or on-time performance. 15.25.070 Air Quality and Climate Change A.General. The Washington State Clean Air Conformity Act establishes guidelines and directives for implementing the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments. The Washington Administrative Code requires local transportation plans to include policies that promote the reduction of criteria pollutants that exceed national ambient air quality standards. Environmental quality is recognized as a critical part of what people often describe as the “character” of Edmonds. In the “Community Sustainability Element” of the Comprehensive Plan, the City recognizes that global climate change brings significant risks to the community, and that appropriate transportation policies are required. B.Goal XVIII: Comply with Federal and State air quality requirements. Goal XIX: Promote transportation options such as bicycle trails, commute trip reduction programs, incentives for car pooling and public transit, in an effort to meet or exceed Kyoto protocol targets for reducing global warming pollution. Packet Page 371 of 1136 Goals, Objectives, and Policies November 2009 2-21 C.Objective 22: Air Quality. Participate in efforts by Puget Sound agencies to improve air quality as it is affected by the movement of people and goods through and around the city. Policy 23.1 Strive to conform to the Federal and State Clean Air Acts by working to help implement the Metropolitan Transportation Plan of the PSRC and by following the requirements of Chapter 173-420 of the WAC. Policy 23.2 Support transportation investments that advance alternatives to driving alone, as a measure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and in turn reduce the effect of citywide transportation on global climate change. Packet Page 372 of 1136 Packet Page 373 of 1136 November 2009 3-1 Chapter 3. Street System This chapter provides an inventory of the existing street system, assessment of existing and projected future roadway operations, safety assessment, design standards for different street types, and recommended projects and programs to address safety and mobility needs. Roadway Functional Classification Existing Classifications All streets in the city have a designated functional classification. The functional classification of a street depends on the types of trips that occur on it, the basic purpose for which it was designed, and the relative level of traffic volume it carries. The different classifications of roadways serve different stages of a trip: Traveler accesses roadway system from origin (access), Traveler travels through roadway system (mobility), and Traveler accesses destination from roadway system (access). The different types of roads that serve these functions are classified as follows. Freeway – Multi-lane, high-speed, high-capacity road intended exclusively for motorized traffic. All access is controlled by interchanges and road crossings are grade-separated. No freeways pass through Edmonds, though Interstate-5 (I-5) runs to the east of the city limits. Principal Arterial – Road that connects major activity centers and facilities, typically constructed with limited direct access to abutting land uses. The primary function of principal arterials is to provide a high degree of vehicle mobility, but they may provide a minor amount of land access. Principal arterials serve high traffic volume corridors, carrying the greatest portion of through or long-distance traffic within a city, and serving inter-community trips. Packet Page 374 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 3-2 On-street parking is often limited to improve capacity for through-traffic. Typically, principal arterials are multi-lane facilities and have traffic signals at intersections with other arterials. Regional bus routes are generally located on principal arterials, as are transfer centers and park-and-ride lots. Principal arterials usually have sidewalks and sometimes have separate bicycle facilities, so that non-motorized traffic is separated from vehicle traffic. Minor Arterial – Road that connects centers and facilities within the community and serves some through-traffic, while providing a greater level of access to abutting properties. Minor arterials connect with other arterial and collector roads, and serve less concentrated traffic- generating areas, such as neighborhood shopping centers and schools. Provision for on-street parking varies by location. Although the dominant function of minor arterials is the movement of through-traffic, they also provide for considerable local traffic with origins or destinations at points along the corridor. Minor arterials also carry local and commuter bus routes. They usually have sidewalks and sometimes have separate bicycle facilities, so that non-motorized traffic is separated from vehicular traffic. Collector – Road designed to fulfill both functions of mobility and land access. Collectors typically serve intra-community trips connecting residential neighborhoods with each other or activity centers, while also providing a high degree of property access within a localized area. These roadways “collect” vehicular trips from local access streets and distribute them to higher classification streets. Additionally, collectors provide direct services to residential areas, local parks, churches and areas with similar uses of the land. Typically, right-of-way and paving widths are narrower for collectors than arterials. They may only be two lanes wide and are quite often controlled with stop signs. Local bus routes often run on collectors, and they usually have sidewalks on at least one side of the street. Local Access – Road with a primary function of providing access to residences. Typically, they are only a few blocks long, are relatively narrow, and have low speeds. Local streets are generally not designed to accommodate buses, and often do not have sidewalks. Culs-de-sac are also considered local access streets. All streets in Edmonds that have not been designated as an arterial or a collector are local access streets. Local access streets make up the majority of the miles of roadway in the city. Figure 3-1 illustrates the basic tradeoffs that occur between mobility and access among the different functional classifications of roadways. Higher classes (e.g. freeways and arterials) provide a high degree of mobility and have more limited access to adjacent land uses, accommodating higher traffic volumes at higher speeds. Lower classes (e.g., local access streets) provide a high degree of access to adjacent land and are not intended to serve through traffic, carrying lower traffic volumes at lower speeds. Collectors generally provide a more balanced emphasis on traffic mobility and access to land uses. Cities and counties are required to adopt a street classification system that is consistent with these guidelines (RCW 35.78.010 and RCW 47.26.090). Figure 3-2 shows the existing road functional classifications for city streets. Packet Page 375 of 1136 City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan Figure 3-1. Access and Mobility Characteristics of Road Functional Clasifications FREEWAY COLLECTOR CULDESAC LOCAL MINOR ARTERIAL PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL LAND ACCESS MOBILITY Road Functional Classification Increasing access to land uses In c r e a s i n g mo b i l i t y o n r o a d w a y No local access traffic No through traffic Complete access control Unrestricted access Source: Federal Highway Administration 1989 November 2009 Packet Page 376 of 1136 Main St 76 t h A v e W 75 t h P l W Oly m pic V i e w D r 208th St SW 9 5t h P l W 212th St SW 220th St SW Fisher R 68 t h Av e W F i r d a l e A v e Dayton St 7t h A v e N 10 0 t h A ve W 76 t h A v e W Oly m p i c V i e w D r 238th St SW 80 t h A v e W 96 t h A v e W 176th St SW Bow d oin W ay 180th St SW Walnut St 3r d A v e S 244th St SW 5 th A v e S 236th St SW 3rd Av e N 84 t h Av e W 9t h A v e S 238th St SW 200th St SWCaspers St 76 t h A v e W Pug et Dr E d m o n d s W y Ma p l e w o od D r 22 8th St SW 9t h A v e N 52 n d A v e W Meado w d a l e B e a c h R o a d Oly mpic Vie w Dr 80 t h A v e W 88 t h A v e W 196th St SW S u ns e t A v e 104 99 524 Snohomish County King County City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan November 2009 Figure 3-2. Existing Federal Functional Classifications 00.51 Miles Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008); Snohomish County (2008) City Boundary Railroad Water Feature Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Local Street Packet Page 377 of 1136 Street System November 2009 3-5 Table 3-1 summarizes the total miles of roadway located within the city by existing functional classification. The table compares the miles of roadway to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines (FHWA 1989). The table shows that miles of minor arterial are slightly lower than FHWA guidelines, and miles of all other classifications are within guidelines. The total miles of principal and minor arterial are within guidelines for total amount of arterial. Table 3-1. Miles of Roadway by Existing Federal Functional Classification Functional Classification Miles of Roadway in Edmonds Proportion of Total Roadway Typical Proportion based on FHWA Guidelines1 Principal Arterial 12 7.6% 5% – 10% Minor Arterial 12 7.6% 10% – 15% Collector 14 9.0% 5% – 10% Local Access 119 75.8% 65% – 80% Total 157 1. Source: Federal Highway Administration 1989. Evaluation of Road Functional Classifications Over time, changes in traffic volumes and shifts in land use and traffic patterns may cause the function of a road to change. Thus, it is important to periodically review the functions city roads serve, and evaluate whether any changes in classification are warranted. The following guidelines are used for evaluating the classifications. 1.Average Daily Traffic (ADT) – Roadways with higher functional classifications typically carry higher traffic volumes. On high volume roadways, the demand for traffic mobility is more likely to outweigh the need for access to abutting land. Conversely, where volumes are lower the access function of the street will generally be more important than mobility for traffic. Traffic volumes alone do not provide the basis for classification, but are used in conjunction with the other criteria listed below. However, the following ranges are used as guidelines: - Minor Arterial Street: 3,000 to 15,000 ADT - Collector Street: 1,000 to 5,000 ADT 2.Non-motorized use – The accommodation of non-automobile modes, including walking, bicycling, and transit use is another important measure of a road’s function. Roads with higher classifications tend to serve more modes of travel. The more travel modes that a street accommodates, the greater the number of people that street serves, and the more important that street is to the movement of people, goods, and services throughout the city. 3.Street length – A street that is longer in length tends to function at a higher classification. This is due to the fact that longer (continuous) streets allow travelers to move between distant attractions with a limited number of turns, stops, and other distractions that discourage them Packet Page 378 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 3-6 from using streets of lower classification. Longer streets generally supply a higher level of mobility, compared to other streets that provide more access. 4.Street spacing – Streets of higher classification usually have greater traffic carrying capacity and fewer impediments to travel. Fewer facilities are needed to serve the traffic mobility demands of the community due to their efficiency in moving traffic. This typically means that fewer streets of higher classification are needed, so there will be greater distances between them. The farther the distance of a street from a higher classification street, the more likely it is that the street will function at a similar classification. A greater number of streets of lower classification are needed to provide access to abutting land. Therefore, they must be spaced more closely and there must be many more of them. It is considered most desirable to have a network of multiple lower classification streets feeding into progressively fewer higher classified streets. Based on these guidelines, typical spacing for the different classifications of roadways are as follows: - Principal Arterials: 1.0 mile - Minor Arterials: 0.3 to 0.7 mile - Collectors: 0.25 to 0.5 mile - Local Access: 0.1 mile 5.Street connectivity – Streets that provide easy connections to other roads of higher classification are likely to function at a similar classification. This can be attributed to the ease of movement perceived by travelers who desire to make that connection. For example, state highways are generally interconnected with one another, to provide a continuous network of high order roadways that can be used to travel into and through urban areas. Urban arterials provide a similar interconnected network at the citywide level. By contrast, collectors often connect local access streets with one or two higher-level arterial streets, thus helping provide connectivity at the neighborhood scale rather than a citywide level. Local streets also provide a high degree of connectivity as a necessary component of property access. However, the street lengths, traffic control, and/or street geometry are usually designed so that anyone but local travelers would consider the route inconvenient. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 requires the use of functional highway classification to update and modify the Federal-aid highway systems. Thus, the FHWA and WSDOT have adopted a federal functional classification system for city roadways. Allocation of funds, as well as application of local agency design standards, is based on the federal classification. Federal funds may only be spent on federally classified routes. Based upon the guidelines provided above, the following changes to functional classifications are recommended: Apply for the following federal functional classification upgrade from collector to minor arterial for the following two road segments: - 220th Street, 9th Avenue S – SR 99 Packet Page 379 of 1136 Street System November 2009 3-7 - 76th Avenue W, 244th Street SW – 212th Street SW Apply for the following federal functional classification upgrade from local access to collector for the following six road segments: - Dayton Street, 5th Avenue S – 9th Avenue S - 200th Street SW, 88th Avenue W – 76th Avenue W - 7th Avenue N, Main Street – Caspers Street - 80th Avenue W / 180th Street SW, 200th Street – Olympic View Drive - 80th Avenue W, 212th Street SW – 220th Street SW - 96th Avenue W, 220th Street SW – Walnut Street Apply for the following federal functional classification downgrade from collector to local access for the following road segment: - Admiral Way, south of W Dayton Street Table 3-2 summarizes existing and recommended functional classifications for city streets. Table 3-2. Summary of Existing and Recommended Federal Functional Classifications Road Location Existing Recommended No Recommended Changes SR 104 (Main Street, Sunset Avenue, Edmonds Way, 244th Street SW) Edmonds-Kingston Ferry Dock – East City Limits Principal Arterial --- 244th Street SW SR 99 – SR 104 Principal Arterial --- SR 99 244th Street SW – 208th Street SW Principal Arterial --- SR 524 (3rd Avenue N, Caspers Street, 9th Avenue N, Puget Drive, 196th Street SW) Main Street – 76th Avenue W Principal Arterial --- 3rd Avenue S Pine Street – Main Street Principal Arterial --- Pine Street Sunset Avenue – 3rd Avenue S Principal Arterial --- Main Street Sunset Avenue – 84th Avenue W Minor Arterial --- Olympic View Drive 76th Avenue W – 168th Street SW Minor Arterial --- 212th Street SW 84th Avenue W – SR 99 Minor Arterial --- 220th Street SW SR 99 – East City Limits Minor Arterial --- 228th Street SW 95th Place W – East City Limits Minor Arterial --- 228th Street SW SR 99 – East City Limits Minor Arterial --- 238th Street SW Edmonds Way – SR 99 Minor Arterial --- 244th Street SW Firdale Avenue – SR 99 Minor Arterial --- 5th Avenue S Edmonds Way – Main Street Minor Arterial --- 100th Avenue W, Firdale Avenue, 9th Avenue S, 9th Avenue N 244th Street SW – Caspers Street Minor Arterial --- 76th Avenue W 212th Street SW – Olympic View Drive Minor Arterial --- Meadowdale Beach Road 76th Avenue W – Olympic View Drive Collector --- Packet Page 380 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 3-8 Road Location Existing Recommended Olympic View Drive Puget Drive – 76th Avenue W Collector --- Walnut Street, Bowdoin Way 9th Avenue S – 84th Avenue W Collector --- W Dayton Street, Dayton Street Admiral Way - 5th Avenue S Collector --- 208th Street SW 76th Avenue W – SR 99 Collector --- 76th Avenue W, 95th Place W Olympic View Drive – North City Limits Collector --- Olympic Avenue Puget Drive – Olympic View Drive Collector --- Maplewood Drive, 200th Street SW Main Street – 88th Avenue W Collector --- 84th Avenue W 212th Street SW – 240th Street SW Collector --- 88th Avenue W 200th Street SW - Olympic View Drive Collector --- 95th Place W Edmonds Way – 220th Street SW Collector --- 226th Street SW 108th Avenue W – Edmonds Way Collector --- 3rd Avenue S Elm Street – Pine Street Collector --- Recommended Higher Classification 220th Street SW 9th Avenue S – SR 99 Collector Minor Arterial 76th Avenue W 244th Street SW – 212th Street SW Collector Minor Arterial Dayton Street 5th Avenue S – 9th Avenue S Local Street Collector 200th Street SW 88th Avenue W – 76th Avenue W Local Street Collector 7th Avenue N Main Street – Caspers Street Local Street Collector 80th Avenue W, 180th Street SW 200th Street SW – Olympic View Drive Local Street Collector 80th Avenue W 212th Street SW and 220th Street SW Local Street Collector 96th Avenue W 220th Street SW – Walnut Street Local Street Collector Recommend Lower Classification Admiral Way South of W Dayton Street Collector Local Street Table 3-3 summarizes the miles of roadway by recommended classification. The table shows that under the recommended classifications, the total proportion of minor arterial would increase slightly, and the proportion of local access street would decrease slightly, compared to existing conditions. Figure 3-3 shows the recommended roadway functional classifications. Table 3-3. Miles of Roadway by Recommended Federal Functional Classification Functional Classification Miles of Roadway in Edmonds Proportion of Total Roadway Typical Proportion based on FHWA Guidelines1 Principal Arterial 12 7.6% 5% – 10% Minor Arterial 15 9.6% 10% – 15% Collector 15 9.6% 5% – 10% Local Access 115 73.2% 65% – 80% Total 157 1. Source: Federal Highway Administration 1989. Packet Page 381 of 1136 Main St 76 t h A v e W 75 t h P l W Oly m pic V i e w D r 208th St SW 9 5t h P l W 212th St SW 220th St SW Fisher R 68 t h Av e W F i r d a l e A v e Dayton St 7t h A v e N 10 0 t h A ve W 76 t h A v e W Oly m p i c V i e w D r 238th St SW 80 t h A v e W 96 t h A v e W 176th St SW Bow d oin W ay 180th St SW Walnut St 3r d A v e S 244th St SW 5 th A v e S 236th St SW 3rd Av e N 84 t h Av e W 9t h A v e S 238th St SW 200th St SWCaspers St 76 t h A v e W Pug et Dr E d m o n d s W y Ma p l e w o od D r 22 8th St SW 9t h A v e N 52 n d A v e W Meado w d a l e B e a c h R o a d Oly mpic Vie w Dr 80 t h A v e W 88 t h A v e W 196th St SW S u ns e t A v e 104 99 524 Snohomish County King County City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan November 2009 Figure 3-3. Recommended Road Functional Classifications 00.51 Miles Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008); Snohomish County (2008) City Boundary Railroad Water Feature Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Local Street Packet Page 382 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 3-10 Street System Inventory State Highways There are three Washington state routes located within the city. SR 104 (Edmonds Way) runs roughly east-west between the Edmonds-Kingston Ferry dock and I-5. SR 524 (Puget Drive/196th Street SW) runs east-west connecting SR 104 to SR 99, I-5, and ultimately SR 522. SR 99 runs north-south on the east side of the city, and is the highest traffic-carrying arterial in Edmonds. From Edmonds, it runs north to Everett, and south through Shoreline to Seattle and the Tacoma metropolitan area. In 1998, the Washington State Legislature passed Highways of Statewide Significance legislation (RCW 47.06.140). Highways of Statewide Significance promote and maintain significant statewide travel and economic linkages. The legislation emphasizes that these significant facilities should be planned from a statewide perspective, and thus they are not subject to local concurrency standards. (WSDOT 2007) In Edmonds, SR 104 between the Edmonds-Kingston Ferry Dock and I-5, and SR 99 between the south city limits and SR 104 have been designated as Highways of Statewide Significance. The Edmonds-Kingston ferry route is considered to be part of SR 104, and is also identified as a Highway of Statewide Significance. (Washington State Transportation Commission 2006) City Streets The city street system is comprised of a grid of principal arterials, minor arterials, collectors, and local streets. Table 3-4 summarizes the city roadways currently classified as principal arterial, minor arterial, or collector. The table shows the existing functional classification, speed limit, number of lanes, and walkway/bikeway characteristics for each of the roadways. Table 3-4. Inventory of City Streets Existing City Classification Street1 Location Speed Limit (mph) Number of Lanes Sidewalk Bikeway Principal Arterial Edmonds Way Pine Street – 244th Street SW 35 – 40 4 – 5 2 sides None SR 99 244th Street SW – 212th Street SW 45 7 2 sides None Sunset Avenue Pine Street – Dayton Street 40 4 – 5 2 sides None Packet Page 383 of 1136 Street System November 2009 3-11 Existing City Classification Street1 Location Speed Limit (mph) Number of Lanes Sidewalk Bikeway Sunset Avenue Dayton Street – Main Street 25 3 2 sides None Main Street Sunset Avenue – Ferry Terminal 25 4 – 5 2 sides None 244th Street SW SR 99 – East City Limits 40 4 2 sides None Minor Arterial Caspers Street 3rd Avenue N – 9th Avenue N 30 2 – 3 2 sides 2 None Firdale Avenue 244th Street SW – 238th Street SW 35 2 2 sides None Main Street Sunset Avenue – 84th Avenue W 25 – 30 2 2 sides Bike route Olympic View Drive 76th Avenue W – 168th Street SW 30 2-3 2 sides 2 None Puget Drive/196th Street SW 9th Avenue N – 76th Avenue W 30 – 35 2 – 4 2 sides mostly 2 None 3rd Avenue N Main Street – Caspers Street 25 – 30 2 2 sides None 5th Avenue S Edmonds Way – Main Street 25 2 2 sides None 9th Avenue 220th Street SW – Caspers Street 25 – 30 2 2 sides Bike route 9th Avenue N Caspers Street – Puget Drive 30 3 2 sides 2 None 76th Avenue W 244th Street SW – SR 99 30 2 2 sides None 76th Avenue W SR 99 – 212th Street SW 30 2 – 4 2 sides None 76th Avenue W 212th Street SW – Olympic View Drive 30 2 2 sides None 100th Avenue W South City Limits – 238th Street SW 35 2 2 sides None 100th Avenue W 238th Street SW – Edmonds Way 30 – 35 4 2 sides None 100th Avenue W Edmonds Way – 220th Street SW 30 2 – 4 2 sides Bike route 212th Street SW 84th Avenue W – 76th Avenue W 30 2 – 3 2 sides Bike route 212th Street SW 76th Avenue W – SR 99 30 4 2 sides None 220th Street SW 9th Avenue S – 84th Avenue W 30 2 2 sides Bike lanes 220th Street SW 84th Avenue W – SR 99 30 2 – 3 2 sides None 228th Street SW SR 99 – East City Limits 25 2 2 sides None Packet Page 384 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 3-12 Existing City Classification Street1 Location Speed Limit (mph) Number of Lanes Sidewalk Bikeway 238th Street SW Edmonds Way – SR 99 30 2 2 sides partially None 244th Street SW Firdale Avenue – SR 99 35 2 2 sides None Collector Dayton Street Admiral Way – 9th Avenue S 25 2 2 sides Bike route Maplewood Drive Main Street – 200th Street SW 25 2 None None Meadowdale Beach Road 76th Avenue W – Olympic View Drive 25 2 None None Olympic View Drive Puget Drive – 76th Avenue W 25 2 1 side None Walnut Street, Bowdoin Way 9th Avenue S – 84th Avenue W 25 – 30 2 2 sides Bike route 3rd Avenue S Edmonds Way – Main Street 25 2 2 sides mostly Bike route 7th Avenue N Main Street – Caspers Street 25 2 2 sides mostly None 76th Avenue W, 75th Place W Olympic View Drive – North City Limits 25 – 30 2 1 side 2 None 80th Avenue W 212th Street SW – 220th Street SW 25 2 1 side None 84th Avenue W 238th Street SW – 212th Street SW 25 2 Very short 2 sides None 88th Avenue W 200th Street SW - Olympic View Drive 25 2 1 side None 95th Place W Edmonds Way – 220th Street SW 25 2 1 side None 96th Avenue W 220th Street SW – Walnut Street 25 2 None None 200th Street SW Maplewood Drive – 76th Avenue W 25 2 1 side None 208th Street SW 76th Avenue W – East City Limits 30 2 None Bike lane 228th Street SW 95th Place W – SR 99 25 2 Very short 2 sides None 1. All other city streets not listed in this table are local access streets. 2. Under construction as of summer 2009. Speed Limits Figure 3-4 shows speed limits on collectors and arterials in Edmonds. The speed limits range from 25 miles per hour (mph) to 45 mph. The speed limit on local access streets is 25 mph. Packet Page 385 of 1136 Main St 76 t h A v e W 75 t h P l W Oly m pic V i e w D r 208th St SW 9 5t h P l W 212th St SW 220th St SW Fisher R 68 t h Av e W F i r d a l e A v e Dayton St 7t h A v e N 10 0 t h A ve W 76 t h A v e W Oly m p i c V i e w D r 238th St SW 80 t h A v e W 96 t h A v e W 176th St SW Bow d oin W ay 180th St SW Walnut St 3r d A v e S 244th St SW 5 th A v e S 236th St SW 3rd Av e N 84 t h Av e W 9t h A v e S 238th St SW 200th St SWCaspers St 76 t h A v e W Pug et Dr E d m o n d s W y Ma p l e w o od D r 22 8th St SW 9t h A v e N 52 n d A v e W Meado w d a l e B e a c h R o a d Oly mpic Vie w Dr 80 t h A v e W 88 t h A v e W 196th St SW S u ns e t A v e Snohomish County King County 524 99 104 City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan November 2009 Figure 3-4. Speed Limits on City Streets 00.51 Miles Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008); Snohomish County (2008) City Boundary Railroad Water Feature Speed Limits on Collectors and Arterials 25 mph 30 mph 35 mph 40 mph 45 mph Note: Local streets have speed limit of 25 mph. Packet Page 386 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 3-14 Traffic Control Traffic signals and stop signs are used to provide traffic controls at intersections with high traffic volume. These devices aid in control of traffic flow. In addition, these devices help to minimize accidents at intersections. Figure 3-5 shows the city intersections controlled by traffic signals and those controlled by all-way stop signs. There are 29 signalized intersections, two emergency signals, and 43 all-way stop controlled intersections in the city. Intersections located on Highways of Statewide Significance are maintained by WSDOT while others are maintained by the City. Packet Page 387 of 1136 Main St 76 t h A v e W 75 t h P l W Oly m pic V i e w D r 208th St SW 9 5t h P l W 212th St SW 220th St SW Fisher R 68 t h Av e W F i r d a l e A v e Dayton St 7t h A v e N 10 0 t h A ve W 76 t h A v e W Oly m p i c V i e w D r 238th St SW 80 t h A v e W 96 t h A v e W 176th St SW Bow d oin W ay 180th St SW Walnut St 3r d A v e S 244th St SW 5 th A v e S 236th St SW 3rd Av e N 84 t h Av e W 9t h A v e S 238th St SW 200th St SWCaspers St 76 t h A v e W Pug et Dr E d m o n d s W y Ma p l e w o od D r 22 8th St SW 9t h A v e N 52 n d A v e W Meado w d a l e B e a c h R o a d Oly mpic Vie w Dr 80 t h A v e W 88 t h A v e W 196th St SW S u ns e t A v e 104 99 524 Snohomish County King County City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan November 2009 Figure 3-5. Existing Traffic Control Devices 00.51 Miles Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008); Snohomish County (2008) City Boundary Railroad Water Feature Traffic Signal All-Way Stop Emergency Signal Packet Page 388 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 3-16 Traffic Calming Devices Traffic calming devices are physical devices installed on neighborhood residential streets, to discourage speeding, reduce cut-through traffic, and/or improve safety. Traffic calming devices are currently in place at many locations throughout Edmonds. These measures have been installed as part of capital improvement projects, as opportunities were presented, and occasionally in response to citizen requests. The following types of traffic calming devices are currently present within the city: Bulb-outs – curb extensions that are used to narrow the roadway either at an intersection or at mid- block along a street corridor. Their primary purpose is to make intersections more pedestrian friendly by shortening the roadway crossing distance and drawing attention to pedestrians via raised peninsula. Additionally, a bulb-out often tightens the curb radius at the corner, which reduces the speeds of turning vehicles. Chicane – series of curb extensions that alternate from one side of the street to the other, which narrows the roadway and requires drivers to slow down to travel through the chicane. Typically, a series of at least three curb extensions is used. Partial closure – involves closing down one lane of a two-lane roadway along with a “Do Not Enter” or “One Way” sign, in order to reduce cut-through traffic. Raised pavement markers – 4-inch diameter raised buttons placed in design sequence across a road, causing a vehicle to vibrate and alert the motorist to an upcoming situation. Raised pavement markers may be used in conjunction with curves, crosswalks, pavement legends and speed limit signs. They are most effective when used to alert motorists to unusual conditions ahead, and are most commonly used on approaches to stop signs, often in situations where the visibility of a stop sign is limited. Speed hump – rounded raised area placed across the roadway that is approximately 3 to 4 inches high and 12 to 22 feet long. This treatment is used to slow vehicles by forcing them to decelerate in order to pass over them comfortably. The design speeds for speed humps are 20 to 25 mph. Traffic circle – raised island placed in the center of an intersection which forces traffic into circular maneuvers. Motorists yield to vehicles already in the intersection and only need to consider traffic approaching in one direction. Traffic circles prevent drivers from speeding through intersections by impeding straight-through movement. Table 3-5 summarizes traffic calming devices located throughout the city. Figure 3-6 shows the locations of these traffic calming devices. Packet Page 389 of 1136 Street System November 2009 3-17 Table 3-5. Inventory of Existing Traffic Calming Devices Location Traffic Calming Device Dayton Street, between 2nd Avenue S and 7th Avenue S Bulb-Out Main Street, between 2nd Avenue and 5th Avenue Bulb-Out Main Street, between 6th Avenue and 8th Avenue Raised Pavement Markers 5th Avenue S, between Main Street and Walnut Street Bulb-Out 238th Street SW, between SR 99 and 78th Avenue W Chicane; Speed Hump 240th Street SW, between SR 99 and 78th Avenue W Chicane; Speed Hump Caspers Street and 2nd Avenue N Partial Closure (one-way outlet) 76th Avenue W, approaching 216th Street SW Raised Pavement Markers City Park Access Roads Speed Hump 7th Avenue S, between Birch Street and Elm Street Speed Hump 78th Avenue W, between 238th Street SW and 236th Street SW Speed Hump 166th Place SW, between 74th Place W and 72nd Avenue W Speed Hump 191st Street SW, between 80th Avenue W and 76th Avenue W Speed Hump 215th Street SW, between 76th Avenue W and 73rd Place W Speed Hump 238th Place SW, between 78th Avenue W and 76th Avenue W Speed Hump Dayton Street and 8th Avenue S Traffic Circle Main Street and 5th Avenue Traffic Circle Parking On-street parking is available throughout most of the city. Parking is accommodated on the street and in private parking lots associated with existing development. Public parking is provided throughout the city at no charge to drivers. In the downtown area, parking is limited to three hours along most of the downtown streets, with certain stalls designated for handicapped parking, one-hour parking, and loading/unloading. The City has established an employee permit parking program to provide more parking to the general public in high demand parking areas by encouraging Edmonds' business owners and employees to park in lower demand parking areas. The permit authorizes permit employees to park for more than three hours in three-hour parking areas if the parking is part of a commute to work. A three-hour public parking lot is provided at the Edmonds Police Department/Fire Department. Supply is currently adequate to accommodate parking demand. The City will continue to monitor parking demand and supply and make adjustments as needed. Figure 3-7 shows the downtown streets on which three hour parking, one hour parking, and handicapped parking are located. Packet Page 390 of 1136 Main St 76 t h A v e W 75 t h P l W Oly m pic V i e w D r 208th St SW 9 5t h P l W 212th St SW 220th St SW Fisher R 68 t h Av e W F i r d a l e A v e Dayton St 7t h A v e N 10 0 t h A ve W 76 t h A v e W Oly m p i c V i e w D r 238th St SW 80 t h A v e W 96 t h A v e W 176th St SW Bow d oin W ay 180th St SW Walnut St 3r d A v e S 244th St SW 5 th A v e S 236th St SW 3rd Av e N 84 t h Av e W 9t h A v e S 238th St SW 200th St SWCaspers St 76 t h A v e W Pug et Dr E d m o n d s W y Ma p l e w o od D r 22 8th St SW 9t h A v e N 52 n d A v e W Meado w d a l e B e a c h R o a d Oly mpic Vie w Dr 80 t h A v e W 88 t h A v e W 196th St SW S u ns e t A v e 104 99 524 Snohomish County King County City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan November 2009 Figure 3-6. Existing Traffic Calming Devices 00.51 Miles Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008); Snohomish County (2008) City Boundary Railroad Water Feature Bulb-Out Chicane One-Way Outlet Traffic Circle Speed Hump Raised Pavement Markers Packet Page 391 of 1136 SR 1 0 4 Main St SR 5 2 4 3r d A v e S Dayton St 5t h A v e S Su n s e t A v e Ed m o n d s W a y 3rd A v e N 6t h A v e N Walnut St 2n d A v e N Bell St 4th A v e N 4t h A v e S Alder St Daley St 2n d A v e S Maple St 6t h A v e S Su n s e t A v e N Ed m o n d s S t 5th A ve N Hemlock Way Holly Dr Glen St Dayton St W Rai l r o a d A v e S Jam e s St Howell Way Homeland Dr Seamont Ln Sprague St Erben Dr Rai lro a d S t Carol Way Du r b i n D r U n i o n O i l C o m p a n y R d Su n s e t A v e S Magnolia Ln Access Rd Rai l r o a d A v e N Aloha Way Rai l r o a d A v e SR 1 0 4 6t h A ve S 4t h A v e S Alder St A c c e s s R d City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan November 2009 Figure 3-7. Downtown Parking 0 500 1,000 Feet Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008); Snohomish County (2008) City Boundary Railroad Water Feature 15-Minute/5-Minute Loading/Unloading Parking Handicapped Parking 1-Hour On-Street Parking 3-Hour On-Street Parking Employee Permit Parking Public Parking Lot Packet Page 392 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 3-20 Street Standards The City has adopted street design standards for residential, business and commercial access roads, and follows established design guidelines for other streets. The Goals and Objectives of the Transportation Plan relate street design to the desires of the local community, and advise that design be at a scale commensurate with the function that the street serves. Guidelines are therefore important to provide designers with essential elements of street design as desired by the community. Essential functions of streets in Edmonds include vehicle mobility, pedestrian access, bicycle access and aesthetics. Street design guidelines for the City are based on the State of Washington Local Agency Guidelines for roadway design (WSDOT 2008) and ECDC Title 18. These guidelines specify that lane widths should be 11 to 12 feet depending on the location of curbs and percentage of truck traffic. Left-turn lanes increase capacity, reduce vehicular accidents, and improve access to adjacent property. Bicycle lanes should be provided along major traffic corridors, and when striped, should be a minimum of 5 feet in width. Sidewalk widths should be a minimum of 5 feet in low pedestrian volume areas, and a minimum of 7 feet in high pedestrian volume areas. Landscaped medians are especially important to soften wide expanses of pavement, to provide a haven for crossing pedestrians, and to provide aesthetic treatment to streets. The adoption of design guidelines is advantageous over the adoption of standards in that it allows a needed flexibility in design that may not be permitted by strict standards. Often when designing streets obstacles are encountered that require modification in design approach. Impediments might include topographic features that make road construction difficult or very expensive; inadequate available right-of-way to allow for all desired features; or environmentally sensitive areas that require modification to avoid adverse impacts. Additionally, funding or grant sources may require specific features or dimensions. Table 3-6 summarizes typical guidelines applied to the design of different types of roads in Edmonds. Figure 3-8 illustrates typical cross sections for each functional classification of road. Figure 3-9 illustrates the downtown area which sidewalks are required on both sides of the street. Packet Page 393 of 1136 Street System November 2009 3-21 Table 3-6. Typical Roadway Cross Sections I tem Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Local Street Access Control Controlled Partial Partial Partial Posted Speed (mph) 35 – 50 30 – 35 25 – 30 15 – 25 Number of Lanes 4 – 7 2 – 4 2 – 3 2 Lane Width Interior (feet) 11 11 11 8 – 111 Lane Width Exterior (feet) 12 12 12 N/A Minimum right of way (feet) 60 60 55 33 Curb and Gutter Yes, vertical Yes, vertical Yes, vertical Yes, vertical Sidewalk Width (feet) 5 – 7 5 – 7 5 – 7 5 – 7 Right-of-Way Width (feet) 60 – 100 60 min. 60 min. 20 min. Parking Lane None 8-foot lanes, when required 8-foot lanes, when required 8-foot lanes, when required Pavement Type By design By design By design By design Design Vehicle City Bus City Bus City Bus City Bus Bike Lane 5-foot lanes, when required 5-foot lanes, when required 5-foot lanes, when required 5-foot lanes, when required Landscaping Strip2 5 3 As required As required Drainage By design By design By design By design 1. Local roads that are 16-feet wide are not striped as two lanes. 2. Can be fully planted strip or full-width sidewalks with tree grates. Packet Page 394 of 1136 Typical cross sections may be modified to include low impact development design features. 5’–7’ 5’–7’ 5’–7’ 5’–7’ 5’–7’ right-of-way right-of-way right-of-way right-of-way Packet Page 395 of 1136 Pine St SR 524 Main St 5t h A v e S 3r d A v e S SR 1 0 4 9t h A v e N Dayton St 9t h A v e S Bell St Fir St Walnut St Alder St Daley St Ed m o n d s W a y Maple St 8t h A v e S 7t h A v e S 7t h A v e N 3rd A ve N Su n s e t A v e 2n d A ve N Caspers St 6t h A v e N Adm ira l W a y Elm St Su n s e t A v e N Cedar St Ma k a h R d 4th A v e N 4t h A v e S 6t h A v e S C A ve S Hi g h l a n d D r B A v e S Aloha St A A v e Ca r y R d Elm Pl 8 t h A v e N No o t k a R d Bella Coola Rd Un o co R d Glen St 5th A v e N Hemlock Way Holly Dr Hindley Ln A A v e S Elm Way Laurel St Dayton St W Rai l r o a d A v e S Spruce St Sprague St Forsyth Ln Ja m es S t Howell Way Hemlock St Brookmere Dr Melody Ln 2n d A v e S Homeland Dr Vista Pl Access Rd Whitcomb P l Seamont Ln Puget Way Giltner Ln Fir Pl N D o g w o o d W a y Sater Ln Point Edwards Pl Carol Way Du r b i n D r Su n s e t A v e S Edmonds St Elm P l W Aloha Way Ha n n a h P a r k R d Laurel Way B e a c h P l Al o h a P l Access Rd 2n d A v e S 8t h A ve S Edmonds St Alder St 4t h A v e S Elm St 6t h A v e S Ed m o n d s S t 2n d A v e S 6t h A v e S Elm Way Elm Pl Fir Pl City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan November 2009 Figure 3-9. Downtown Sidewalk Area 0 500 1,000 Feet Source: City of Edmonds (2008) Downtown Sidewalk Area- City Boundary Railroad Water Feature Sidewalks required on both sides of street as part of new development Packet Page 396 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 3-24 Road Conditions Existing Operating Conditions Traffic volumes Daily traffic counts and PM peak hour traffic counts were taken at numerous locations throughout the city in April 2008. The analysis of existing operating conditions on city roadways is based on this data. 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 3-7 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. Table 3-7. 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. Packet Page 397 of 1136 Street System November 2009 3-25 Level of Service Characteristic Traffic Flow 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, then be required to stop in a cyclical fashion. Source: Transportation Research Board 2000 Level of Service Criteria Methods described in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board 2000) are used to calculate the LOS for signalized and stop-controlled intersections. Table 3-8 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. Table 3-8. 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 2000 Packet Page 398 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 3-26 The Highway Capacity Manual methodology does not provide methods for analyzing delay, queues, or LOS of roundabouts. Therefore, LOS analysis for roundabouts is calculated using methods presented in a FHWA report that provides an approach for estimating the average vehicle delay at each entry point along the rotary (FHWA 2000). Utilizing this method, the LOS of the rotary is based upon the average vehicle delay at its most congested entry point. Because LOS thresholds for roundabouts are not provided in the FHWA report, the Highway Capacity Manual criteria for stop-controlled intersections (see Table 3-8) is applied, because drivers’ expectations for delay at a roundabout more closely resemble expectations at a stop sign than at a signal (e.g. a lower level of delay is considered acceptable). Concurrency and Level of Service Standard Under GMA, concurrency is the requirement that adequate infrastructure be planned and financed to support the City’s adopted future land use plan. LOS standards are used to evaluate the transportation impacts of long-term growth and concurrency. In order to monitor concurrency, the jurisdictions adopt acceptable roadway operating conditions that are then used to measure existing or proposed traffic conditions and identify deficiencies. The City has adopted LOS standards for city streets and state routes in the city that are subject to concurrency. Table 3-9 shows the City LOS standards. Table 3-9. Level of Service Standards Facility Standard City Streets Arterials: LOS D or better (except state routes); Collectors: LOS C or better. State Routes1 SR 99 north of SR 104; SR 524: LOS E or better. 1. State routes for which a standard is designated are Highways of Regional Significance, and are subject to City concurrency requirements. State routes designated as Highways of Statewide Significance (SR 104; and SR 99 south of SR 104) are not subject to concurrency and thus no City standard is defined for these facilities. However, to monitor operations on Highways of Statewide Significance, the City identifies existing or potential future deficiencies if the WSDOT standard of LOS D is exceeded. LOS is measured at intersections during a typical weekday PM peak hour, using analysis methods outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board 2000) and discussed in the previous section. For intersections of roads with different functional classifications, the standard for the higher classification shall apply. Intersections that operate below these standards are considered deficient under concurrency. Deficiencies are identified either as existing deficiencies, meaning they are occurring under existing conditions and not as the result of future development, or as projected future deficiencies, meaning that they are expected to occur under future projected conditions. Concurrency management ensures that development, in conformance with the adopted land use element of the Comprehensive Plan, will not cause a transportation facility’s operations to drop below the adopted standard. Transportation capacity expansion or demand management strategies must be in place or financially planned to be in place within six years of development use. Packet Page 399 of 1136 Street System November 2009 3-27 Transportation concurrency is a term that describes whether a roadway is operating at its adopted LOS standard. The adopted standard indicates a jurisdiction’s intent to maintain transportation service at that level, which has budgetary implications. If a city adopts a high LOS standard, it will have to spend more money to maintain the roadways than if it adopts a low LOS standard. On the other hand, a standard that is too low may lead to an unacceptable service level and reduce livability for the community or neighborhood. Under the GMA, if a development would cause the LOS to fall below the jurisdiction’s adopted standard, it must be denied unless adequate improvements or demand management strategies can be provided concurrent with the development. The key is to select a balanced standard—not so high as to be unreasonable to maintain, and not so low as to allow an unacceptable level of traffic congestion. Highways of Statewide Significance (in Edmonds, SR 104, and SR 99 south of SR 104) are not subject to local concurrency standards. However, WSDOT has established a standard of LOS D for these facilities. The City monitors Highways of Statewide Significance, and coordinates with WSDOT to address any deficiencies that are identified. Existing Level of Service Table 3-10 presents existing PM peak hour LOS for 24 intersections throughout the city. Existing intersection LOS is also shown in Figure 3-10. The analysis indicates that the following four stop- controlled intersections are currently operating below the City’s adopted LOS standard: Puget Drive and 88th Avenue W 212th Street SW and 84th Avenue W Main Street and 9th Avenue N Walnut Street and 9th Avenue S The intersection of 238th Street SW and Edmonds Way is operating at LOS F during the PM peak hour. It is located on SR 104, which is a Highway of Statewide Significance, and thus is under WSDOT jurisdiction and is not subject to City concurrency standards. However, the City still considers exceeding LOS E to be an operational deficiency, and will work with WSDOT to address issues at this location. Packet Page 400 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 3-28 Table 3-10. Existing PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Intersection Traffic Control Existing LOS Average Delay (sec/veh) LOS Standard Juris- diction 1 174th Street SW and Olympic View Drive Eastbound Stop-Control C 21 D Edmonds 2 Olympic View Drive and 76th Avenue W All-Way Stop-Control D 27 D Edmonds 3 196th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Signal D 37 D Edmonds 4 Puget Drive (SR 524) and 88th Avenue W Northbound/ Southbound Stop-Control C/F1,2 24/52 E Edmonds 5 Puget Drive and Olympic View Drive Signal B 16 D Edmonds 6 Caspers Street and 9th Avenue N (SR 524) Northbound Stop-Control C 24 E Edmonds 7 208th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Signal B 11 D Edmonds 8 212th Street SW and SR 99 Signal D 51 E Edmonds 9 212th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Signal D 50 D Edmonds 10 212th Street SW and 84th Avenue W All-Way Stop-Control F2 110 D Edmonds 11 Main Street and 9th Avenue N All-Way Stop-Control E2 48 D Edmonds 12 Walnut Street and 9th Avenue S All-Way Stop-Control E2 44 D Edmonds 13 Main Street and 3rd Avenue N (SR 5524) Signal A 7 E Edmonds 14 220th Street SW and SR 99 Signal D 45 E Edmonds 15 220th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Signal D 48 D Edmonds 16 220th Street SW and 84th Avenue W Signal A 7 D Edmonds 17 220th Street SW and 9th Avenue S Signal B 13 D Edmonds 18 Edmonds Way (SR 104) and 100th Avenue W Signal C 31 (3) Edmonds/ WSDOT 19 238th Street SW and SR 99 Signal B 18 E Edmonds 20 238th Street SW and Edmonds Way (SR 104) Eastbound/ Westbound Stop-Control F/D1 80/31 (3) Edmonds/ WSDOT 21 244th Street SW (SR 104) and 76th Avenue W Signal D 48 (3) Edmonds/ WSDOT 22 244th Street SW (SR 104) and SR 99 Signal D 42 (3) Shoreline/ Edmonds/ WSDOT 23 238th Street SW and 100th Avenue W Signal B 12 D Edmonds 24 238th Street SW and Firdale Avenue Signal B 16 D Edmonds 1. For two-way stop controlled intersections, the LOS and average delay is presented for each stop-controlled movement. 2. LOS exceeds standard. 3. State routes designated as Highways of Statewide Significance are not subject to concurrency and thus no City standard is defined for these facilities. However, to monitor operations on Highways of Statewide Significance (SR 104, and SR 99 south of SR 104), the City identifies existing or potential future deficiencies if LOS D is exceeded. Packet Page 401 of 1136 Main St 76 t h A v e W 75 t h P l W Oly m pic V i e w D r 208th St SW 9 5t h P l W 212th St SW 220th St SW Fisher R 68 t h Av e W F i r d a l e A v e Dayton St 7t h A v e N 10 0 t h A ve W 76 t h A v e W Oly m p i c V i e w D r 238th St SW 80 t h A v e W 96 t h A v e W 176th St SW Bow d oin W ay 180th St SW Walnut St 3r d A v e S 244th St SW 5 th A v e S 236th St SW 3rd Av e N 84 t h Av e W 9t h A v e S 238th St SW 200th St SWCaspers St 76 t h A v e W Pug et Dr E d m o n d s W y Ma p l e w o od D r 22 8th St SW 9t h A v e N 52 n d A v e W Meado w d a l e B e a c h R o a d Oly mpic Vie w Dr 80 t h A v e W 88 t h A v e W 196th St SW S u ns e t A v e 104 99 524 Snohomish County King County City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan November 2009 Figure 3-10. Existing Level of Service 00.51 Miles Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008); Snohomish County (2008) City Boundary Railroad Water Feature Level of Service (LOS) Designation Meets LOS Standard Exceeds LOS Standard Highway of Statewide Significance (Not subject to Local LOS Standard) Packet Page 402 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 3-30 Future Operations This section presents the methodology used to forecast roadway operating conditions through 2025, and provides an assessment of those future traffic conditions if no additional improvements are made to the transportation system. Travel Demand Forecasting Model For this Transportation Plan, a travel demand forecasting model was developed to analyze future travel demand and traffic patterns for the weekday PM peak hour, which is typically the hour in which the highest level of traffic occurs, and is the time period in which concurrency assessment is based. The major elements of the model include: Transportation network and zone development Existing land use inventory Trip generation Trip distribution Network assignment Model calibration Model of future traffic conditions These elements are described in the following sections. Transportation Network and Zone Development The analysis roadway network is represented as a series of links (roadway segments) and nodes (intersections). Road characteristics such as capacity, length, speed, and turning restrictions at intersections are coded into the network. The geographic area covered by the model is divided into transportation analysis zones (TAZs) that have similar land use characteristics. Figure 3-11 shows the TAZs that were developed for the Edmonds model. The PSRC regional transportation model was used as the basis for both transportation network and TAZ definitions. For the more detailed Edmonds model, some larger TAZs from the regional model were subdivided into smaller TAZs, and the roadway network was analyzed in greater detail. Consistency with the regional model allows land use and roadway information that was updated in the development of the Edmonds model to be easily transferred to PSRC for the next update of the regional model. Existing Land Use Inventory Existing land use was based on a citywide land use inventory completed for this project in 2008. In order to establish an accurate base map of existing land use, land use was confirmed using assessor records, supplemental aerial photos, and field verification. For the model area outside the city limits, land use was based on regional population and employment inventory provided by the PSRC. The land use is summarized by TAZ, as shown in Figure 3-11. Packet Page 403 of 1136 Main St 76 t h A v e W 75 t h P l W Oly m pic V i e w D r 208th St SW 9 5t h P l W 212th St SW 220th St SW Fisher R 68 t h Av e W F i r d a l e A v e Dayton St 7t h A v e N 10 0 t h A ve W 76 t h A v e W Oly m p i c V i e w D r 238th St SW 80 t h A v e W 96 t h A v e W 176th St SW Bow d oin W ay 180th St SW Walnut St 3r d A v e S 244th St SW 5 th A v e S 236th St SW 3rd Av e N 84 t h Av e W 9t h A v e S 238th St SW 200th St SWCaspers St 76 t h A v e W Pug et Dr E d m o n d s W y Ma p l e w o od D r 22 8th St SW 9t h A v e N 52 n d A v e W Meado w d a l e B e a c h R o a d Oly mpic Vie w Dr 80 t h A v e W 88 t h A v e W 196th St SW S u ns e t A v e 104 99 524 Snohomish County King County 55 58 62 46 36 27 31 11 57 9 59 22 30 53 37 40 49 24 32 50 54 3515 45 56 43 21 60 52 39 29 47 48 17 34 7 44 25 16 20 51 28 61 42 4 14 23 10 33 26 38 6 3 1 41 8 12 18 13 52 19 City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan November 2009 Figure 3-11. Transportation Analysis Zones 00.51 Miles Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008); Snohomish County (2008) City Boundary Railroad Water Feature City TAZ Boundaries Packet Page 404 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 3-32 Trip Generation The trip generation step estimates the total number of trips produced by and attracted to each TAZ in the model area. The trips are estimated using statistical data on population and household characteristics, employment, economic output, and land uses. Trips are categorized by their general purpose, including: Home-based-work, or any trip with home as one end and work as the other end; Home-based-other, or any non-work trip with home as one end; Non-home-based, or any trip that does not have home at either end. The trip generation model estimates the number of trips generated per household and employee during the analysis period for each of these purposes. The output is expressed as the total number of trips produced in each TAZ and the total number of trips attracted to each TAZ, categorized by trip purpose. Trip Distribution The trip distribution step allocates the trips estimated by the trip generation model to create a specific zonal origin and destination for each trip. This is accomplished using the gravity model, which distributes trips according to two basic assumptions: (1) more trips will be attracted to larger zones (the size of a zone is defined by the number of attractions estimated in the trip generation phase, not the geographical size), and (2) more trip interchanges will take place between zones that are closer together than the number that will take place between zones that are farther apart. The result is a trip matrix for each of the trip purposes specified in trip generation. This matrix estimates how many trips are taken from each zone (origin) to every other zone (destination). The trips are often referred to as trip interchanges. Network Assignment The roadway network is represented as a series of links (roadway segments) and nodes (intersections). Each roadway link and intersection node is assigned a functional classification, with associated characteristics of length, capacity, and speed. This information is used to determine the optimum path between all the zones based on travel time and distance. The trips are distributed from each of the zones to the roadway network using an assignment process that takes into account the effect of increasing traffic on travel times. The result is a roadway network with traffic volumes calculated for each segment of roadway. The model reflects the effects of traffic congestion on the roadway network. Model Calibration A crucial step in the modeling process is the calibration of the model. The modeling process can generally be described as defining the existing roadway system as a model network and applying trip patterns based on existing land use. The model output, which consists of estimated traffic volumes on each roadway segment, is compared to existing traffic counts. Adjustments are made to the model inputs until the modeled existing conditions replicate actual existing conditions, Packet Page 405 of 1136 Street System November 2009 3-33 within accepted parameters. Once the model is calibrated for existing conditions, it can be used as the basis for analyzing future traffic conditions and the impacts of potential improvements to the roadway network. Model of Future Traffic Conditions Future travel demand is based on projections of future land use patterns and community growth. Based on population and employment forecasts, the City provided these growth assumptions for the next 20 years. The growth assumptions represent the higher end of possible ranges, resulting in a more conservative assessment of the impact of future land use on traffic conditions. For the model area outside the city limits, future land use projections were based on PSRC forecasts. Using the same general process described for modeling existing conditions, the forecasted land use data is used to estimate the number of trips that will be generated in future travel. These trips are then distributed among the TAZs, and assigned to the roadway network. The result is a model of projected future traffic conditions, under the projected future land use scenario. For future analysis under 2015 conditions, a straight-line growth between existing and projected 2025 traffic volumes was assumed. This is based on the assumption that steady growth between existing and planned 2025 land uses will occur. 2015 Conditions without Improvements Table 3-11 presents projected PM peak hour LOS for city intersections by 2015, with existing transportation infrastructure in place. Projected 2015 LOS at the analysis intersections is also shown in Figure 3-12. The following locations are projected to operate below the City’s adopted LOS standards under the 2015 conditions, if no additional improvements are made to the transportation system: Olympic View Drive and 76th Avenue W Puget Drive and 88th Avenue W (deficient under existing conditions) 212th Street SW and 76th Avenue W 212th Street SW and 84th Avenue W (deficient under existing conditions) Main Street and 9th Avenue N (deficient under existing conditions) Walnut Street and 9th Avenue S (deficient under existing conditions) 220th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Analysis indicates that the intersection of 238th Street SW and Edmonds Way will operate at LOS F in 2015. As it is located along a Highway of Statewide Significance, this intersection is not subject to City concurrency standards. However, the City still considers exceeding LOS D to be an operational deficiency, and will work with WSDOT to address it. Packet Page 406 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 3-34 Table 3-11. 2015 Intersection Level of Service – without Improvements Intersection Existing Traffic Control 2015 LOS Average Delay (sec/veh) LOS Standard Juris- diction 1 174th Street SW and Olympic View Drive Westbound Stop-Control D 33 D Edmonds 2 Olympic View Drive and 76th Avenue W All-Way Stop-Control F2 93 D Edmonds 3 196th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Signal D 42 D Edmonds 4 Puget Drive (SR 524) and 88th Avenue W Northbound/ Southbound Stop-Control F/F1,2 55/236 E Edmonds 5 Puget Drive and Olympic View Drive Signal B 16 D Edmonds 6 Caspers Street and 9th Avenue N (SR 524) Northbound Stop-Control E 37 E Edmonds 7 208th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Signal B 15 D Edmonds 8 212th Street SW and SR 99 Signal E 77 E Edmonds 9 212th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Signal F2 81 D Edmonds 10 212th Street SW and 84th Avenue W All-Way Stop-Control F2 172 D Edmonds 11 Main Street and 9th Avenue N All-Way Stop-Control F2 89 D Edmonds 12 Walnut Street and 9th Avenue S All-Way Stop-Control F2 80 D Edmonds 13 Main Street and 3rd Avenue N (SR 524) Signal A 8 E Edmonds 14 220th Street SW and SR 99 Signal E 72 E Edmonds 15 220th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Signal E2 55 D Edmonds 16 220th Street SW and 84th Avenue W Signal A 9 D Edmonds 17 220th Street SW and 9th Avenue S Signal B 13 D Edmonds 18 Edmonds Way (SR 104) and 100th Avenue W Signal D 36 (3) Edmonds/ WSDOT 19 238th Street SW and SR 99 Signal C 24 E Edmonds 20 238th Street SW and Edmonds Way (SR 104) Eastbound/ Westbound Stop-Control F/F1 371/56 (3) Edmonds/ WSDOT 21 244th Street SW (SR 104) and 76th Avenue W Signal E 57 (3) Edmonds/ WSDOT 22 244th Street SW (SR 104) and SR 99 Signal D 50 (3) Shoreline/ Edmonds/ WSDOT 23 238th Street SW and 100th Avenue W Signal B 15 D Edmonds 24 238th Street SW and Firdale Avenue Signal C 21 D Edmonds 1. For two-way stop controlled intersections, the LOS and average delay is presented for each stop-controlled movement. 2. LOS exceeds standard. 3. State routes designated as Highways of Statewide Significance are not subject to concurrency and thus no City standard is defined for these facilities. However, to monitor operations on Highways of Statewide Significance (SR 104, and SR 99 south of SR 104), the City identifies existing or potential future deficiencies if LOS D is exceeded. Packet Page 407 of 1136 Main St 76 t h A v e W 75 t h P l W Oly m pic V i e w D r 208th St SW 9 5t h P l W 212th St SW 220th St SW Fisher R 68 t h Av e W F i r d a l e A v e Dayton St 7t h A v e N 10 0 t h A ve W 76 t h A v e W Oly m p i c V i e w D r 238th St SW 80 t h A v e W 96 t h A v e W 176th St SW Bow d oin W ay 180th St SW Walnut St 3r d A v e S 244th St SW 5 th A v e S 236th St SW 3rd Av e N 84 t h Av e W 9t h A v e S 238th St SW 200th St SWCaspers St 76 t h A v e W Pug et Dr E d m o n d s W y Ma p l e w o od D r 22 8th St SW 9t h A v e N 52 n d A v e W Meado w d a l e B e a c h R o a d Oly mpic Vie w Dr 80 t h A v e W 88 t h A v e W 196th St SW S u ns e t A v e 104 99 524 Snohomish County King County City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan November 2009 Figure 3-12. 2015 Level of Service Without Improvement 00.51 Miles Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008); Snohomish County (2008) City Boundary Railroad Water Feature Level of Service (LOS) Designation Meets LOS Standard Exceeds LOS Standard Highway of Statewide Significance (Not subject to Local LOS Standard) Packet Page 408 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 3-36 2025 Conditions without Improvements Table 3-12 presents projected PM peak hour LOS for city intersections by 2025, with existing transportation infrastructure in place. Projected 2025 LOS at the analysis intersections is also shown in Figure 3-13. The following locations are projected to operate below the City’s adopted LOS standards under the 2025 conditions, if no additional improvements are made to the transportation system: 174th Street SW and Olympic View Drive Olympic View Drive and 76th Avenue W (deficient under 2015 conditions) Puget Drive and 88th Avenue W (deficient under existing conditions) Caspers Street and 9th Avenue N 212th Street SW and SR 99 212th Street SW and 76th Avenue W (deficient under 2015 conditions) 212th Street SW and 84th Avenue W (deficient under existing conditions) Main Street and 9th Avenue N (deficient under existing conditions) Walnut Street and 9th Avenue S (deficient under existing conditions) 220th Street SW and SR 99 (deficient under 2015 conditions) 220th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Analysis indicates that the intersections of 238th Street SW / Edmonds Way and 244th Street SW / 76th Avenue W will operate at LOS F by 2025. As they are located along a Highway of Statewide Significance, these intersections are not subject to City concurrency standards. However, the City still considers exceeding LOS D to be operational deficiencies, and will work with WSDOT to address them. Packet Page 409 of 1136 Street System November 2009 3-37 Table 3-12. 2025 Intersection Level of Service – without Improvements Intersection Traffic Control 2025 LOS Avg Delay (sec/veh) LOS Standard Juris- diction 1 174th Street SW and Olympic View Drive Westbound Stop-Control F2 75 D Edmonds 2 Olympic View Drive and 76th Avenue W All-Way Stop-Control F2 180 D Edmonds 3 196th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Signal D 47 D Edmonds 4 Puget Drive (SR 524) and 88th Avenue W Northbound/ Southbound Stop-Control F/F1,2 ECL3 E Edmonds 5 Puget Drive and Olympic View Drive Signal B 20 D Edmonds 6 Caspers Street and 9th Avenue N (SR 524) Northbound Stop-Control F2 74 E Edmonds 7 208th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Signal B 19 D Edmonds 8 212th Street SW and SR 99 Signal F2 129 E Edmonds 9 212th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Signal F2 136 D Edmonds 10 212th Street SW and 84th Avenue W All-Way Stop-Control F2 204 D Edmonds 11 Main Street and 9th Avenue N All-Way Stop-Control F2 132 D Edmonds 12 Walnut Street and 9th Avenue S All-Way Stop-Control F2 131 D Edmonds 13 Main Street and 3rd Avenue N (SR 524) Signal A 9 E Edmonds 14 220th Street SW and SR 99 Signal F2 120 E Edmonds 15 220th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Signal E2 68 D Edmonds 16 220th Street SW and 84th Avenue W Signal B 11 D Edmonds 17 220th Street SW and 9th Avenue S Signal B 14 D Edmonds 18 Edmonds Way (SR 104) and 100th Avenue W Signal D 44 (4) Edmonds/ WSDOT 19 238th Street SW and SR 99 Signal C 33 E Edmonds 20 238th Street SW and Edmonds Way (SR 104) Eastbound/ Westbound Stop-Control F/F1 ECL3/142 (4) Edmonds/ WSDOT 21 244th Street SW (SR 104) and 76th Avenue W Signal F 90 (4) Edmonds/ WSDOT 22 244th Street SW (SR 104) and SR 99 Signal D 55 (4) Shoreline/ Edmonds/ WSDOT 23 238th Street SW and 100th Avenue W Signal B 18 D Edmonds 24 238th Street SW and Firdale Avenue Signal C 27 D Edmonds 1. For two-way stop controlled intersections, the LOS and average delay is presented for each stop-controlled movement. 2. LOS exceeds standard. 3. ECL = Exceeds calculable limits 4. State routes designated as Highways of Statewide Significance are not subject to concurrency and thus no City standard is defined for these facilities. However, to monitor operations on Highways of Statewide Significance (SR 104, and SR 99 south of SR 104), the City identifies existing or potential future deficiencies if LOS D is exceeded. Packet Page 410 of 1136 Main St 76 t h A v e W 75 t h P l W Oly m pic V i e w D r 208th St SW 9 5t h P l W 212th St SW 220th St SW Fisher R 68 t h Av e W F i r d a l e A v e Dayton St 7t h A v e N 10 0 t h A ve W 76 t h A v e W Oly m p i c V i e w D r 238th St SW 80 t h A v e W 96 t h A v e W 176th St SW Bow d oin W ay 180th St SW Walnut St 3r d A v e S 244th St SW 5 th A v e S 236th St SW 3rd Av e N 84 t h Av e W 9t h A v e S 238th St SW 200th St SWCaspers St 76 t h A v e W Pug et Dr E d m o n d s W y Ma p l e w o od D r 22 8th St SW 9t h A v e N 52 n d A v e W Meado w d a l e B e a c h R o a d Oly mpic Vie w Dr 80 t h A v e W 88 t h A v e W 196th St SW S u ns e t A v e 104 99 524 Snohomish County King County City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan November 2009 Figure 3-13. 2025 Level of Service Without Improvement 00.51 Miles Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008); Snohomish County (2008) City Boundary Railroad Water Feature Level of Service (LOS) Designation Meets LOS Standard Exceeds LOS Standard Highway of Statewide Significance (Not subject to Local LOS Standard) Packet Page 411 of 1136 Street System November 2009 3-39 Safety Assessment Citywide efforts to provide safe transportation include enforcement of traffic regulations, provision of crosswalks and sidewalks for pedestrians, and provision of well-designed streets for safe driving. Safety also involves ongoing coordination with emergency service providers to ensure access for their emergency equipment. Recommendations to address safety issues are based on assessment of historical collision data, focused sub-area or corridor safety studies, or on citizen feedback. These assessments are described in the following sections. Collision History For this Transportation Plan update, historical collision data provided by WSDOT for the years 2005 through 2007 was compiled and evaluated (WSDOT 2008). All locations at which an average of five or greater collisions occurred per year were evaluated more closely. Table 3-13 presents the three most recent years of collision data for locations at which collision incidents averaged more than five per year (WSDOT 2008). The table shows that the five highest collision intersections are all located along SR 99, with the highest number occurring near the intersection of 220th Street SW and SR 99. An intersection that carries higher traffic volumes is more likely to experience a higher level of collisions. To account for this, and to allow collision data to be more accurately compared, the rate of collisions per million entering vehicles was calculated for all locations that had averaged five or greater collisions per year. Typically, a collision rate at or greater than 1.0 collision per million entering vehicles raises indicates that further evaluation may be warranted. Table 3-13 presents the collision rate per million entering vehicles at high collision locations. The locations with the rates at or above 1.0 collision per million entering vehicles are as follows (from the highest rate to the lowest rate): 220th Street SW and SR 99 Main Street and 3rd Avenue 244th Street SW and SR 99 238th Street SW and 84th Avenue W 76th Avenue W and SR 99 212th Street SW and SR 99 SR 104 and 100th Avenue W 220th Street SW and 84th Avenue W 216th Street SW and SR 99 212th Street SW and 76th Avenue W These locations are shown in Figure 3-14. Packet Page 412 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 3-40 Table 3-13. High Collision Locations Intersection Total Collisions in 3-Year Analysis Period1 Average Number of Collisions per Year2 Average Collisions per Million Entering Vehicles3 220th Street SW and SR 99 90 30 1.8 244th Street SW and SR 99 70 23 1.6 212th Street SW and SR 99 55 18 1.3 SR 99 and 76th Avenue W 54 18 1.5 216th Street SW and SR 99 40 13 1.1(4) Edmonds Way and 100th Avenue W 39 13 1.2 224th Street SW and SR 99 32 11 0.9(4) 212th Street SW and 76th Avenue W 26 9 1.0 238th Street SW and SR 99 26 9 0.7 244th Street SW and Edmonds Way 20 7 (5) Main Street and 3rd Avenue 20 7 1.7 236th St SW and Edmonds Way 18 6 0.7(6) Edmonds Way and SR 99 Ramps 18 6 (5) 220th Street SW and 84th Avenue W 17 6 1.2 244th Street SW and 76th Avenue W 17 6 0.4 238th Street SW and 84th Avenue W 16 5 1.6(7) 220th Street SW and 76th Avenue W 15 5 0.7 236th Street SW and SR 99 14 5 0.4(4) 240th Street SW and SR 99 14 5 0.4(4) Dayton Street and Sunset Avenue 14 5 0.9 1. Based on data collected from January 2005 through December 2007. 2. Totals that are equal or greater than average 5 collisions per year are included in the table. 3. Totals that exceed threshold of 1.0 collision per million entering vehicles are indicated in bold. 4. Data not available. Intersection entering volume is assumed the same as the intersection of 238th Street SW and SR 99. 5. Data not available. 6. Data not available. Intersection entering volume is assumed the same as the intersection of 238th Street SW and Edmonds Way. 7. Data not available. Use traffic volume along 238th Street SW and 84th Avenue W. Source: WSDOT 2008. At high collision locations that are also concurrency locations, capacity improvement projects designed to address operational deficiencies should also serve to improve safety conditions. Packet Page 413 of 1136 Main St 76 t h A v e W 75 t h P l W Oly m pic V i e w D r 208th St SW 9 5t h P l W 212th St SW 220th St SW Fisher R 68 t h Av e W F i r d a l e A v e Dayton St 7t h A v e N 10 0 t h A ve W 76 t h A v e W Oly m p i c V i e w D r 238th St SW 80 t h A v e W 96 t h A v e W 176th St SW Bow d oin W ay 180th St SW Walnut St 3r d A v e S 244th St SW 5 th A v e S 236th St SW 3rd Av e N 84 t h Av e W 9t h A v e S 238th St SW 200th St SWCaspers St 76 t h A v e W Pug et Dr E d m o n d s W y Ma p l e w o od D r 22 8th St SW 9t h A v e N 52 n d A v e W Meado w d a l e B e a c h R o a d Oly mpic Vie w Dr 80 t h A v e W 88 t h A v e W 196th St SW S u ns e t A v e 104 99 524 Snohomish County King County City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan November 2009 Figure 3-14. High Collision Locations 00.51 Miles Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008); Snohomish County (2008) City Boundary Railroad Water Feature Collisions per Million Entering Vehicles 1.00 - 1.49 1.5 or Higher Packet Page 414 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 3-42 SR 99 Traffic and Circulation Study The City conducted a focused assessment of the SR 99 corridor in 2006. (Perteet 2006) Collaborating with community, business, and agency stakeholders, the study sought to evaluate current and future transportation needs along the corridor, identify multi-modal solutions, and identify high priority projects for incorporation into the City’s TIP. Two high priority improvement projects were identified, that are incorporated into this Plan: SR 99 at 228th Street SW and 76th Avenue W – Construct connection of 228th Street SW between SR 99 and 76th Avenue W (three lanes with curb, gutter, bike lanes and sidewalk). Install traffic signals at 228th Street SW/SR 99 and 228th Street SW/76th Avenue W. Install median on SR 99 to prohibit left turn movements at 76th Avenue W. SR 99 at 216th Street SW – Widen to allow one left turn lane and one through lane in eastbound and westbound directions, with 100-foot storage length for turn lanes. Residential Neighborhood Issues Residents periodically express concerns about speeding or a high level of cut-through traffic on residential streets. Cut-Through Traffic – Over time, drivers will tend to find the most efficient route between their origin and destination. When congestion occurs on arterials and collector routes motorists begin to use local access streets as cut-thorough routes. Maintaining the efficiency of arterial and collector routes is the most effective way to avoid or reduce cut-through traffic. However, even with optimally designed and managed road networks, there are times when drivers will use residential streets as shortcuts. Speeding Traffic – Vehicles traveling well above the speed limit on residential streets reduces safety and is of concern to residents. Although some motorists will typically drive above the posted speed limit, the deviation above the limit is typically 5 to 10 mph. This deviation is anticipated and routinely reflected in the safety design of streets and posted speed limits. Speeding more than 10 mph over the speed limit sometimes occurs on older residential streets that have wide travel lanes and an abundance of vehicle parking, which can encourage speeding because the motorist perceives the street is safe and intended for higher speeds. When cut-through traffic becomes a significant portion of the overall volume on a residential street, traffic calming measures may be effective in directing traffic to another route. The speed of motorists along residential streets can also be addressed by traffic calming. Traffic calming devices are physical devices installed on neighborhood residential streets, to reduce cut-through traffic, and/or discourage speeding. Traffic calming devices are currently in place at many locations throughout Edmonds (see Figure 3-5). These measures have been installed as part of capital improvement projects, as opportunities were presented, and occasionally in response to citizen requests. However, the City does not currently have a formal traffic calming program. Packet Page 415 of 1136 Street System November 2009 3-43 Recommended Road Projects and Programs Capital Improvement Projects Proposed improvements are presented in Table 3-14, and illustrated in Figure 3-15. Projects are categorized as concurrency projects, state highway projects, or safety projects. Concurrency Projects Capital roadway improvement projects were developed to address intersection deficiencies under existing conditions and under 2015 and 2025 projected conditions. These projects are needed to improve operation and capacity at intersections that currently operate or are projected to operate at levels below the City’s LOS standards. Concurrency projects applied to the 2015 conditions are those needed to address existing and 2015 deficiencies. Under the 2025 conditions, all recommended concurrency projects are applied to intersections that are expected to exceed the LOS standards. State Highway Projects Intersections located on SR 104 are not subject to City’s LOS standards; however, capital roadway improvement projects were developed to address intersections operations at the following locations: 238th Street SW / Edmonds Way 244th Street SW / 76th Avenue W The City will work with WSDOT for implementation of these improvements, or alternative projects to meet the same mobility objectives. Safety and Other Projects Capital roadway improvement projects were also developed to address vehicular and pedestrian safety on city streets. The City has conducted the circulation and safety analysis for SR 99. According to the study, improvement projects were recommended at the following locations, which are expected to improve the vehicular and pedestrian safety at these locations. 228th Street SW / SR 99 / 76th Avenue W SR 99 / 216th Street SW Improvements are also recommended on the following streets to improve the vehicle and pedestrian safety. 238th Street SW, between Edmonds Way and 84th Avenue W 84th Avenue W, between 212th Street S and 238th Street SW SR 99 illumination Packet Page 416 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 3-44 Shell Valley Main Street and 3rd Avenue In addition, the City considers improvement to all modes (bicycle, pedestrian, and transit) in the design of road projects; so all proposed road improvements, even those that are listed primarily as concurrency improvements, will also include elements to support and promote alternative mode operations and safety. Table 3-14. Recommended Capital Roadway Improvements through 2025 Location Trigger Year1 Improvement Jurisdiction Concurrency Projects by 2015 4 Puget Drive and 88th Avenue W 2009 Install traffic signal.2 Edmonds 10 212th Street SW and 84th Avenue W 2009 Install a single-lane roundabout. Edmonds 11 Main Street and 9th Avenue N 2009 Install traffic signal.3 Edmonds 12 Walnut Street and 9th Avenue S 2009 Install traffic signal.3 Edmonds 2 Olympic View Drive and 76th Avenue W 2015 Install traffic signal. Widen 76th to add a westbound left turn lane for 175-foot storage length. Edmonds 9 212th Street SW and 76th Avenue W 2015 Widen 76th to add a northbound left turn lane for 250-foot storage length and a southbound left turn lane for 125-foot storage length. Provide protected left turn phase for northbound and southbound movements. Widen 212th to add a westbound right turn lane for 50-foot storage length. Edmonds 15 220th Street SW and 76th Avenue W 2015 Reconfigure eastbound lanes to a left turn lane and a through-right lane. Change eastbound and westbound phase to provide protected-permitted phase for eastbound left turn. Provide right turn phase for westbound movement during southbound left turn phase. Edmonds Concurrency Projects by 2025 1 174th Street SW and Olympic View Drive 2025 Widen Olympic View Dr to add a northbound left turn lane for 50-foot storage length. Shift the northbound lanes to the east to provide an acceleration lane for eastbound left turns. Edmonds 6 Caspers Street and 9th Avenue N 2015 Install traffic signal. Edmonds 8 212th Street SW and SR 99 2025 Widen 212th to add a westbound left turn lane for 200-foot storage length and an eastbound left turn lane for 300-foot storage length. Provide protected left turn phase for eastbound and westbound movements. Edmonds 14 220th Street SW and SR 99 2025 Widen 220th to add westbound right turn lane for 325-foot storage length. Widen SR 99 add second southbound left turn lane for 275-foot storage length. Edmonds Packet Page 417 of 1136 Street System November 2009 3-45 Location Trigger Year1 Improvement Jurisdiction State Highway Improvement Projects 20 238th Street SW and Edmonds Way 2008 Install a signal and provide protected left turn phase for northbound and southbound. Edmonds/ WSDOT 21 244th Street SW and 76th Avenue W 2025 Widen 244th to add second westbound left turn lane for 325-foot storage length. Provide right turn phase for northbound movement during westbound left turn phase. Edmonds/ WSDOT Safety Projects 228th Street SW, at SR 99 and 76th Avenue W Construct connection of 228th Street SW between SR 99 and 76th Avenue W (three lanes with curb, gutter, bike lanes and sidewalk). Install traffic signals at 228th Street SW / SR 99 and 228th Street SW / 76th Avenue W. Install median on SR 99 to prohibit southbound left turn movements at 76th Avenue W. Edmonds SR 99 at 216th Street SW Widen to allow one left turn lane and one through lane in eastbound and westbound directions, with 100-foot storage length for turn lanes. Edmonds 238th Street SW, between Edmonds Way and 84th Avenue W Widen to three lanes with curb, gutter, bike lanes, and sidewalk. Edmonds 84th Avenue W, between 212th Street S and 238th Street SW Widen to three lanes with curb, gutter, bike lanes and sidewalk. Edmonds/ Snohomish County SR 99 illumination Improve roadway safety with illumination. Edmonds Shell Valley New road to improve emergency vehicle access and non-motorized access. Edmonds Main Street and 3rd Avenue Upgrade signal to reduce conflicts with trucks. Edmonds 1. Trigger year is the year by which travel demand forecasts indicates that the location will operate below adopted LOS standards, and thus be in violation of concurrency. Under the GMA, improvements must be in place within six years of the year that a concurrency violation is triggered. 2. Analysis indicates that restricting northbound and southbound traffic to right-turn-only (prohibiting left-turn and through movements) would also address the deficiency identified at this location through 2025. This could be implemented as an alternate solution, or as an interim solution until traffic signal warrants are met. 3. Analysis indicates that identified deficiencies could also be addressed by removal of parking along the entire length of 9th Avenue between the northbound approach of Walnut and the southbound approach of Main, and restriping and signing so that this section of 9th would be 4 lanes wide. This would result in two lanes of traffic at the northbound and southbound stop-controlled approaches of both intersections. This could be implemented as an alternate solution, or as an interim solution until traffic signal warrants are met. Packet Page 418 of 1136 Main St 76 t h A v e W 75 t h P l W Oly m pic V i e w D r 208th St SW 9 5t h P l W 212th St SW 220th St SW Fisher R 68 t h Av e W F i r d a l e A v e Dayton St 7t h A v e N 10 0 t h A ve W 76 t h A v e W Oly m p i c V i e w D r 238th St SW 80 t h A v e W 96 t h A v e W 176th St SW Bow d oin W ay 180th St SW Walnut St 3r d A v e S 244th St SW 5 th A v e S 236th St SW 3rd Av e N 84 t h Av e W 9t h A v e S 238th St SW 200th St SWCaspers St 76 t h A v e W Pug et Dr E d m o n d s W y Ma p l e w o od D r 22 8th St SW 9t h A v e N 52 n d A v e W Meado w d a l e B e a c h R o a d Oly mpic Vie w Dr 80 t h A v e W 88 t h A v e W 196th St SW S u ns e t A v e 104 99 524 Snohomish County King County City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan November 2009 Figure 3-15. Recommended Capital Road Improvements 00.51 Miles Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008); Snohomish County (2008) City Boundary Railroad Water Feature Improvement Types Install New Signal Upgrade Existing Signal Install Roundabout Add Lane/Intersection Approach Widen Road Project Category Concurrency Safety Highway of Statewide Significance Packet Page 419 of 1136 Street System November 2009 3-47 2015 Operating Conditions with Improvements Projected intersection LOS under 2015 conditions, with recommended improvements in place, is summarized in Table 3-15 and illustrated in Figure 3-16. The table shows that recommended projects are expected to address deficiencies identified through 2015. Table 3-15. 2015 Level of Service – with Recommended Improvements Intersection Traffic Control 2015 LOS Average Delay (sec/veh) LOS Standard Juris- diction 1 174th Street SW and Olympic View Drive Westbound Stop-Control D 33 D Edmonds 2 Olympic View Drive and 76th Avenue W Signal B 12 D Edmonds 3 196th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Signal D 42 D Edmonds 4 Puget Drive (SR 524) and 88th Avenue W Signal A 7 E Edmonds 5 Puget Drive and Olympic View Drive Signal B 16 D Edmonds 6 Caspers Street and 9th Avenue N (SR 524) Signal A 9 E Edmonds 7 208th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Signal B 15 D Edmonds 8 212th Street SW and SR 99 Signal E 77 E Edmonds 9 212th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Signal D 38 D Edmonds 10 212th Street SW and 84th Avenue W Single-lane Roundabout B 12 D Edmonds 11 Main Street and 9th Avenue N (SR 524) Signal B 13 E Edmonds 12 Walnut Street and 9th Avenue S Signal A 8 D Edmonds 13 Main Street and 3rd Avenue N Signal A 8 D Edmonds 14 220th Street SW and SR 99 Signal E 72 E Edmonds 15 220th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Signal C 35 D Edmonds 16 220th Street SW and 84th Avenue W Signal A 9 D Edmonds 17 220th Street SW and 9th Avenue S Signal B 13 D Edmonds 18 Edmonds Way (SR 104) and 100th Avenue W Signal D 36 (1) Edmonds/ WSDOT 19 238th Street SW and SR 99 Signal C 24 E Edmonds 20 238th Street SW and Edmonds Way (SR 104) Signal B 10 (1) Edmonds/ WSDOT 21 244th Street SW (SR 104) and 76th Avenue W Signal D 43 (1) Edmonds/ WSDOT 22 244th Street SW (SR 104) and SR 99 Signal D 50 (1) Shoreline/ Edmonds/ WSDOT 23 238th Street SW and 100th Avenue W Signal B 15 D Edmonds 24 238th Street SW and Firdale Avenue Signal C 21 D Edmonds 1. State routes designated as Highways of Statewide Significance are not subject to concurrency and thus no City standard is defined for these facilities. However, to monitor operations on Highways of Statewide Significance (SR 104, and SR 99 south of SR 104), the City identifies existing or potential future deficiencies if LOS D is exceeded. Packet Page 420 of 1136 Main St 76 t h A v e W 75 t h P l W Oly m pic V i e w D r 208th St SW 9 5t h P l W 212th St SW 220th St SW Fisher R 68 t h Av e W F i r d a l e A v e Dayton St 7t h A v e N 10 0 t h A ve W 76 t h A v e W Oly m p i c V i e w D r 238th St SW 80 t h A v e W 96 t h A v e W 176th St SW Bow d oin W ay 180th St SW Walnut St 3r d A v e S 244th St SW 5 th A v e S 236th St SW 3rd Av e N 84 t h Av e W 9t h A v e S 238th St SW 200th St SWCaspers St 76 t h A v e W Pug et Dr E d m o n d s W y Ma p l e w o od D r 22 8th St SW 9t h A v e N 52 n d A v e W Meado w d a l e B e a c h R o a d Oly mpic Vie w Dr 80 t h A v e W 88 t h A v e W 196th St SW S u ns e t A v e 104 99 524 Snohomish County King County City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan November 2009 Figure 3-16. 2015 Level of Service With Improvement 00.51 Miles Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008); Snohomish County (2008) City Boundary Railroad Water Feature Level of Service (LOS) Designation Meets LOS Standard Exceeds LOS Standard Highway of Statewide Significance (Not subject to Local LOS Standard) Packet Page 421 of 1136 Street System November 2009 3-49 2025 Operating Conditions with Improvements Projected intersection LOS under 2025 conditions, with recommended improvements in place, is summarized in Table 3-16 and illustrated in Figure 3-17. The table shows that recommended projects are expected to address deficiencies identified through 2025. Table 3-16. 2025 Level of Service – with Recommended Improvements Intersection Traffic Control 2025 LOS Average Delay (sec/veh) LOS Standard Juris- diction 1 174th Street SW and Olympic View Drive Westbound Stop-Control D 33 D Edmonds 2 Olympic View Drive and 76th Avenue W Signal B 12 D Edmonds 3 196th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Signal D 47 D Edmonds 4 Puget Drive (SR 524) and 88th Avenue W Signal A 8 E Edmonds 5 Puget Drive and Olympic View Drive Signal B 20 D Edmonds 6 Caspers Street and 9th Avenue N (SR 524) Signal B 13 E Edmonds 7 208th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Signal B 19 D Edmonds 8 212th Street SW and SR 99 Signal E 80 E Edmonds 9 212th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Signal D 54 D Edmonds 10 212th Street SW and 84th Avenue W Single-lane Roundabout B 12 D Edmonds 11 Main Street and 9th Avenue N Signal B 16 D Edmonds 12 Walnut Street and 9th Avenue S Signal A 9 D Edmonds 13 Main Street and 3rd Avenue N (SR 524) Signal A 9 E Edmonds 14 220th Street SW and SR 99 Signal E 62 E Edmonds 15 220th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Signal D 52 D Edmonds 16 220th Street SW and 84th Avenue W Signal B 11 D Edmonds 17 220th Street SW and 9th Avenue S Signal B 14 D Edmonds 18 Edmonds Way (SR 104) and 100th Avenue W Signal D 44 (1) Edmonds/ WSDOT 19 238th Street SW and SR 99 Signal C 33 E Edmonds 20 238th Street SW and Edmonds Way (SR 104) Signal B 11 (1) Edmonds/ WSDOT 21 244th Street SW (SR 104) and 76th Avenue W Signal D 52 (1) Edmonds/ WSDOT 22 244th Street SW (SR 104) and SR 99 Signal D 55 (1) Shoreline/ Edmonds/ WSDOT 23 238th Street SW and 100th Avenue W Signal B 18 D Edmonds 24 238th Street SW and Firdale Avenue Signal C 27 D Edmonds 1. State routes designated as Highways of Statewide Significance are not subject to concurrency and thus no City standard is defined for these facilities. However, to monitor operations on Highways of Statewide Significance (SR 104, and SR 99 south of SR 104), the City identifies existing or potential future deficiencies if LOS D is exceeded. Packet Page 422 of 1136 Main St 76 t h A v e W 75 t h P l W Oly m pic V i e w D r 208th St SW 9 5t h P l W 212th St SW 220th St SW Fisher R 68 t h Av e W F i r d a l e A v e Dayton St 7t h A v e N 10 0 t h A ve W 76 t h A v e W Oly m p i c V i e w D r 238th St SW 80 t h A v e W 96 t h A v e W 176th St SW Bow d oin W ay 180th St SW Walnut St 3r d A v e S 244th St SW 5 th A v e S 236th St SW 3rd Av e N 84 t h Av e W 9t h A v e S 238th St SW 200th St SWCaspers St 76 t h A v e W Pug et Dr E d m o n d s W y Ma p l e w o od D r 22 8th St SW 9t h A v e N 52 n d A v e W Meado w d a l e B e a c h R o a d Oly mpic Vie w Dr 80 t h A v e W 88 t h A v e W 196th St SW S u ns e t A v e 104 99 524 Snohomish County King County City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan November 2009 Figure 3-17. 2025 Level of Service With Improvement 00.51 Miles Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008); Snohomish County (2008) City Boundary Railroad Water Feature Level of Service (LOS) Designation Meets LOS Standard Exceeds LOS Standard Highway of Statewide Significance (Not subject to Local LOS Standard) Packet Page 423 of 1136 Street System November 2009 3-51 Road Project Priority The road improvement projects presented in this Transportation Plan were identified to address a variety of mobility and safety issues. The projects were prioritized according to five criteria presented in Table 3-17. Table 3-17. Prioritization Criteria for Roadway Projects Criteria Weight Description Points Concurrency 3 Is the project required to meet concurrency? 3 Existing concurrency deficiency 2 Concurrency deficiency identified by 2015 1 Concurrency deficiency identified by 2025 0 Does not address a concurrency deficiency Safety 3 Does the project address identified safety issues? 3 High collision location 1.5 collisions per million entering vehicles 2 High collision location 1.0 - 1.5 collisions per million entering vehicles 1 <1.0 collisions per million entering vehicles 0 No historical vehicle safety issues identified Grant Eligibility 2 Does the project include elements, such as strong safety and/or non-motorized components, which would make it more attractive for state or federal grant funding? 3 High eligibility 2 Medium eligibility 1 Low eligibility 0 No eligibility Magnitude of Improvement 2 At how many locations will the project improve travel conditions? 3 Improve LOS at 2 or more intersections 2 Improve LOS in all directions at an intersection; and/or significantly improve pedestrian safety 1 Improve LOS in 1 or 2 directions at an intersection Multimodal Elements 1 Does the project include elements that improve safety or mobility for pedestrians, bicyclists, and/or transit? 3 Improves transit and non-motorized travel 2 Improves non-motorized travel 1 Improves transit mobility 0 Does not include multimodal elements Table 3-18 lists the roadway projects in ranked order, based upon the criteria described in Table 3-17. Projected costs of the recommended roadway projects are provided in Chapter 6 (Implementation and Financial Plan) of this Transportation Plan. Packet Page 424 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 3-52 Table 3-18. Roadway Project Priority Criteria Concurrency Safety Grant Eligibility Magnitude Multimodal Elements Weight 3 3 2 2 1 Weighted TotalRank Project Raw Wtd Raw Wtd Raw Wtd Raw Wtd Raw Wtd 1 228th Street SW, SR99 - 76th Avenue W 0 0 3 9 3 6 3 6 3 3 24 2 Main Street / 9th Avenue N 3 9 1 3 2 4 2 4 3 3 23 3 212th Street SW / 76th Avenue W 2 6 2 6 2 4 2 4 1 1 21 4 Main St / 3rd Ave signal upgrade 0 0 3 9 3 6 2 4 2 2 21 5 84th Avenue W, 212th Street SW - 238th Street SW 0 0 3 9 2 4 2 4 3 3 20 6 212th Street SW / 84th Avenue W 3 9 1 3 1 2 2 4 1 1 19 7 Walnut Street / 9th Avenue S 3 9 1 3 1 2 1 2 3 3 19 8 Puget Drive / 196th St SW / 88th Avenue W 3 9 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 18 9 Olympic View Drive / 76th Avenue W 2 6 1 3 1 2 2 4 2 2 17 10 220th Street SW / SR 99 1 3 3 9 1 2 1 2 1 1 17 11 80th Avenue Sight Distance 0 3 3 9 2 4 1 2 2 2 17 11 220th Street SW / 76th Avenue W 2 6 1 3 1 2 2 4 1 1 16 12 Caspers Street / 9th Avenue N 2 6 1 3 1 2 1 2 3 3 16 13 212th Street SW / SR 99 1 3 2 6 2 4 1 2 1 1 16 14 SR 99 Illumination 0 0 3 9 1 2 1 2 3 3 16 15 238th Street SW / Edmonds Way (SR 104) 0 0 1 3 1 2 2 4 3 3 12 16 216th Street / SR 99 0 0 2 6 1 2 1 2 2 2 12 17 174th Street SW / Olympic View Drive 1 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 0 0 10 18 238th Street SW, SR104 - 84th Avenue W 0 0 1 3 1 2 1 2 3 3 10 19 Shell Valley 0 0 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 9 20 244th Street SW (SR 104) / 76th Avenue W 0 0 1 3 1 2 1 2 1 1 8 Wtd = Weighted = raw score X criterion weight Packet Page 425 of 1136 Street System November 2009 3-53 Traffic Calming Program The recommended Edmonds Neighborhood Traffic Calming program is described in detail in Appendix B of this Transportation Plan. The program is designed to assist residents and the City staff in responding to neighborhood traffic issues related to speeding, cut-through traffic, and safety. Implementation of a traffic calming program allows traffic concerns to be addressed consistently and traffic calming measures to be efficiently developed and put into operation. In establishing a neighborhood traffic calming program, the City must take into account the restriction that no deviation from WSDOT design standards is permitted on principal arterials, minor arterials and collector streets without express approval of the WSDOT local programs engineer (RCW 35.78). This limitation does not apply to local access streets, which are defined by RCW 35.78.010 as streets “…generally limited to providing access to abutting property… tributary to major and secondary thoroughfares… generally discouraging through traffic…” Therefore, only local access streets are generally eligible for traffic calming programs. The two main purposes of traffic calming techniques are to: Reduce the use of residential streets for cut-through traffic, and Reduce overall speeds along residential roadways. A key component of any successful traffic calming program is citizen initiation and ongoing resident involvement. The traffic calming process begins when residents gather eight or more signatures on a petition, requesting that the City initiate a study. The City then undertakes a comprehensive traffic study, gathering data on vehicle speeds, traffic volumes, collision history, and nighttime lighting conditions. If the study reveals a need for traffic calming per the criteria set forth in the Edmonds Traffic Calming program (Appendix B), a three-phase approach to remediate traffic issues is used. Phase 1 is the start of the process, with the residents filing a petition and the City reviewing whether or not the application qualifies. Phase 2 focuses on solutions that can be quickly deployed, including education, signage, striping modifications, and more police enforcement. If a follow up study indicates that these solutions are not sufficiently effective, Phase 3 traffic calming measures are considered. Phase 3 measures, which are generally more costly and require more time to deploy, might include physical devices such as curb bulbs, chicanes, and traffic circles. The need for citizen involvement greatly increases in Phase 3, because each potential solution requires resident approval prior to implementation. Preservation and Maintenance Programs and Projects The City’s transportation infrastructure is comprised primarily of streets with pavements, sidewalks, illumination, and traffic control, including traffic signals, signs, and pavement marking. Transportation infrastructure requires maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, updating, and replacement to maintain serviceability, reliability, and safety, and to protect the public’s investment. Maintenance of existing infrastructure enables efficiency of transportation operations, and reduces the need for more expensive capital improvements. Packet Page 426 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 3-54 Maintenance of the City’s transportation infrastructure is provided primarily by the City’s Public Works Department. Activities include the following. Annual Street Overlays – The projects include spot repairs of failed pavement, full surface and taper grinding of pavement, curbing and sidewalk repairs, and minor storm water system modifications. The projects also incorporate traffic calming measures. In coordination with this transportation plan, future projects will include retrofit of curb ramps for ADA compliance, and may include delineating bike lanes and other bike route improvements (see Chapter 4 for a more detailed discussion). Selection of projects includes reviewing the capital improvement plans for water, sewer, and storm to determine if utility improvements are programmed within the roadway segment under consideration. If there are, the projects schedules will be coordinated. The Principal Arterial, Minor Arterials, and Collectors are all rated once every 2 years as part of the WSDOT Pavement Condition Survey. Those streets are assigned a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) ranging from 0-100: -71 – 100: Excellent (only routine maintenance necessary: activities are performed to maintain a safe traffic condition and include pothole patching, patching around utility structures, and crack sealing). -50 – 70: Fair (Repair activities are done within the initial 10 year life of a new pavement helps to prevent potholes from occurring. These activities may mean placing a new surface (2 inches or less) on an existing road way to provide a better all weather surfaces, a better riding surface, and to extend or renew the pavement life). -25 – 49: Poor (Rehabilitation work generally consists of the preparatory work activities and either thin or thick overlay. Preparatory work may involve digging out defective asphalt, base and sub base. A rehab project typically extends the roadway life between 10 –15 years). -Less than 25: Fail (Reconstruction is required as a majority of the pavement or underlying base course has failed and can no longer serve as competent foundation for flexible pavements like asphalt). Under existing conditions, 70% of city arterials and collectors are in Excellent to Fair condition, based upon these guidelines. The remaining 30% are in Poor to Fail condition. Under the ideal cycle, roads with functional classification of collector or above receive an overlay once every 20 years; and local roads receive an overlay once every 25 years. Citywide Street Improvements – The City implements minor maintenance projects to increase roadway life. Projects may include spot repairs of failed pavement, curbing and sidewalk repairs, and minor storm water system modifications. Citywide Signal Improvements – As traffic signals age, their functionality becomes more limited and they become more difficult to maintain. The City regularly upgrades traffic signals to maintain functionality, and to incorporate new technology. Packet Page 427 of 1136 Street System November 2009 3-55 Citywide Cabinet and Controller Upgrades – A signal controller is located in a controller cabinet at each traffic signal, and determines phases and cycle length for the signal it operates. Signal controllers are comprised of many types and many manufacturers, and as they age, their functionality becomes more limited and they become more difficult to maintain. The City regularly upgrades signal controllers to maintain functionality, and to accommodate modern traffic control equipment. Arterial Street Signal Coordination Improvements – Coordinate traffic signals located within 1/2 –mile of each other, to maximize the operating efficiency of the overall roadway system. The following specific maintenance projects are also currently planned: -Puget Drive/Olympic View Drive Signal Upgrades – Rebuild signal -238th Street SW/100th Avenue W Signal Upgrades – Rebuild complete signal system and install video detection Packet Page 428 of 1136 Packet Page 429 of 1136 November 2009 4-1 Chapter 4. Non-Motorized System This chapter provides an inventory of existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities and an assessment of existing deficiencies and improvement needs. The chapter also highlights strategies for compliance with ADA, and provides recommendations for other improvements to address pedestrian and bicycle mobility and safety. Comprehensive Walkway Plan In 2002, the City of Edmonds completed its Comprehensive Walkway Plan. The plan included goals and objectives for non-motorized transportation in the city, in addition to a walkway inventory, a review of facility standards, and recommendations for walkway projects. The goals and objectives include: Goal: Improve non-motorized transportation facilities and services. Objective: Sidewalks. Safe and attractive pedestrian facilities should be provided as an essential element of the City’s circulation and recreation system, as established in the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Walkway Plan. Objective:Sidewalk Construction Policy. Clarify when sidewalks should be constructed as a condition of development. The following inventory has been updated from the 2002 Walkway Plan, and the existing facilities have been evaluated for ADA compliance. Walkway Inventory Pedestrian facilities within the city include sidewalks, walkways, roadway shoulders, and off-road trails. Those facilities are typically more concentrated in areas with high pedestrian activity, such as the downtown area, commercial and business centers, near schools and other public facilities. Figure 4-1 illustrates the locations within Edmonds that have pedestrian-intensive land uses. Packet Page 430 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 4-2 Figure 4-2 illustrates the existing sidewalks and walkways within the city. The figure shows that the sidewalk system is most complete inside the core area bounded by SR 104, 92nd Avenue W, and SR 524. 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. The federal 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 city’s sidewalk ramps were constructed in the 1980s or later. As pedestrian improvements are made along roadway corridors, the City has upgraded sidewalk ramps or installed new ones in accordance with current standards. Packet Page 431 of 1136 00.51 Miles School Downtown Park Business Government/ Community Hospital Main St 76 t h W ev A 75 t h P l W Oly m p i c V i e w D r 208th St SW P h t 5 9W l 212th St SW 220th St SW Fisher 68 e vA h tW F i r d a l e A v e Dayton St 7t h A e N t0 0 1A h ve W W 7e vA h t 6 Oly m p i c V i e w D r 238th St SW 176th St S W Bow d o i n W a y 180th S t S W Walnut St rA 3d v e S 244th St SW 5e vA h tS 236th St SW 3rd A v e N ev A h t 4 8 W t9 hS ev A 238th St SW 200th St SWCaspers St t6 7h W ev A Puget Dr E d m o n d s W y M ap r D d o o w e l 228th St SW 9h N A te v dn 2v A 5W e Meado w d a l e B e a c h R o a d Ol ympic V i e w D r W e v A h t 0 8 8e vA h tW 8 196th St SW Su n s e t e v A 104 99 524 Snohomish County King County Packet Page 432 of 1136 Main St 76 t h A v e W 75 t h P l W Oly m pic V i e w D r 208th St SW 9 5t h P l W 212th St SW 220th St SW Fisher R 68 t h Av e W F i r d a l e A v e Dayton St 7t h A v e N 10 0 t h A ve W 76 t h A v e W Oly m p i c V i e w D r 238th St SW 80 t h A v e W 96 t h A v e W 176th St SW Bow d oin W ay 180th St SW Walnut St 3r d A v e S 244th St SW 5 th A v e S 236th St SW 3rd Av e N 84 t h Av e W 9t h A v e S 238th St SW 200th St SWCaspers St 76 t h A v e W Pug et Dr E d m o n d s W y Ma p l e w o od D r 22 8th St SW 9t h A v e N 52 n d A v e W Meado w d a l e B e a c h R o a d Oly mpic Vie w Dr 80 t h A v e W 88 t h A v e W 196th St SW S u ns e t A v e 104 99 524 Snohomish County King County City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan November 2009 Figure 4-2. Existing Walkways 00.51 Miles Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008); Snohomish County (2008) City Boundary Railroad Water Feature Sidewalk on One Side Sidewalk on Both Sides Unpaved Walkway Packet Page 433 of 1136 Non-Motorized System November 2009 4-5 All city intersections where sidewalks exist were inventoried to document where sidewalk ramps are present. Sidewalk ramps were assessed to determine if landing areas and detection warning meet current ADA guidelines. The curb ramp inventory is provided in Appendix D. Of approximately 350 intersections in Edmonds, 42 intersections were found to fully meet ADA standards, and 24 intersections partially met ADA standards. Recommended Walkway Improvements This section presents recommended walkway improvements, which consist of new sidewalk connections to improve pedestrian mobility and safety, and upgrades of curb ramps to conform to ADA standards. Walkway Prioritization Process Major gaps in the city walkway system were identified by the Walkway Committee. To address those gaps, the Committee developed criteria to evaluate and prioritize walkway improvement projects. These criteria were used to prioritize improvements to walkway sections that were identified based on input from public meetings, Walkway Committee meetings, and deficiencies determined from a review of the existing city walkway inventory. The criteria were weighted according to their importance. A system of points was developed to evaluate each proposed project against each criterion. The result was a weighted average score that helps to compare and prioritize proposed projects. Table 4-1 describes the walkway prioritization criteria and their relative weights and point systems. Table 4-1. Prioritization Criteria for Walkway Projects Criteria Weight Description Points Pedestrian Safety 5 How safe is the route for pedestrians? Does this improvement: Separate pedestrians from vehicular traffic, especially in high traffic areas? Improve width of walkway and surface conditions? Address potential conflicts at road crossings? 3 Strong concerns for pedestrian safety along this route 2 Some concerns for pedestrian safety along this route 1 This route is very similar to other routes in Edmonds 0 Not a safety concern Connectivity to Services and Facilities 4 Does this route connect to facilities or services such as schools, parks, churches, community centers, businesses or transit routes? Does this improvement: Provide direct access to facilities or services? Ensure that the route links to a safe direct access to facilities or services? 3 Route provides significant access to 3 or more services and facilities 2 Route provides access to services and facilities 1 Route provides access to 1 service or facility 0 Route does not provide access to services or facilities Packet Page 434 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 4-6 Criteria Weight Description Points Continuity to Other Walkway Links 3 Does this route complete gaps in the city’s walkway system? Does this improvement: Complete important pedestrian routes? Make important destinations more accessible to users? Ultimately develop a web of walkways? 3 Location is a missing link in a very important pedestrian route 2 Location is a missing link in a pedestrian route 1 Location is one of several missing links in a route and important 0 Not a missing link in the city walkway system Pedestrian Level of Activity 3 Is this a well-traveled route, or would it be, if improved? Level of activity may be determined by: Measured counts Identification by the public and staff, through observation and experience 3 Route is utilized by a significant number of pedestrians 2 Route is utilized consistently by pedestrians 1 Route is occasionally used by pedestrians 0 Route is not utilized by pedestrians Public Support 2 Does the public support the development of this route? 3 A support petition has been filed with a large number of signatures from abutting and nearby property owners and the general public 2 Route has been the subject of a number of citizen letters along with testimony at public meetings in support of walkways 1 Route has been the subject of some negative concern, expressed at public meetings 0 Route has been the subject of major negative concern, expressed at public meetings Compatibility with Goals and Policies 1 Is this route consistent with the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Goals, Policies, and Objectives? Is this route compatible with the surrounding land uses? 3 Route would enhance the nearby properties and complete a portion of the City’s Walkway Plan 2 Route would enhance the nearby properties 1 Route is in a rural area which serves pedestrians well 0 Surrounding land uses do not generate pedestrian traffic Environment al Impacts 1 Will the development of the route have any impacts on the environment? Environmental impacts include: Wetlands Shorelines Wildlife habitat Aesthetics 3 Route has no negative environmental impact and aesthetically improves the area 2 Route has some negative environmental impact but aesthetically improves the area 1 Route has some negative environmental impact 0 Route will have major negative impact on the environment Packet Page 435 of 1136 Non-Motorized System November 2009 4-7 Criteria Weight Description Points Distance from Schools 1 Is this route within a mile of a public school? 3 Route is an Elementary school route or close proximity to school 2 Route provides access to High school students 1 Route is within 0.5 mile of school Connectivity with Transit Services 1 Is this route also a route for transit or provide access to transit? 3 This route is on a public transit route with transit stops 2 This route is within 650 feet from a public transit route with transit stops 1 This route provides a principal pedestrian access corridor to public transit where sidewalks do not exist on adjacent pedestrian routes. (Beyond 650 feet from a public transit route.) Availability of Existing Infrastructure 1 Is there existing infrastructure along this route that will significantly reduce project costs? 3 There is existing curb and gutter 2 There is partial curb and gutter 1 There is no curb and gutter Walkway sections were analyzed separately depending on the section length. Walkway sections longer than 1,000 feet are defined as “long walkways” and walkway sections shorter than 1,000 feet are defined as “short walkways”. Using the weighted and scoring criteria, projects with more than 50 points were designated as Priority 1, and projects with 50 points or less were designated as Priority 2. Table 4-2 summarizes the walkways that were considered for walkway improvements by the type of projects (i.e., short walkway or long walkway). The projects are listed in ranked order by the total points and by priority level. Figure 4-3 shows the locations of the walkway projects. Projected costs of the recommended walkway projects are provided in Chapter 6 (Implementation and Financial Plan) of this Transportation Plan. A more detailed summary of each project’s limits, existing conditions, and point tally is provided in Appendix D. Table 4-2. Recommended Walkway Projects ID Street Name From To Street Side¹ Total Points Priority Short Walkway Projects S1 2nd Avenue Main Street James Street East 63 1 S2 Dayton Street 7th Avenue S 8th Avenue S South 63 1 S3 Maple Street West of 6th Avenue S 8th Avenue S South 62 1 S4 Walnut Street 6th Avenue S 7th Avenue S Either 54 1 S5 Walnut Street 3rd Avenue S 4th Avenue S South 53 1 S6 226th Street SW 106th Avenue S SR 104 South 50 1 Packet Page 436 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 4-8 ID Street Name From To Street Side¹ Total Points Priority S7 189th Place SW 80th Avenue W 78th Avenue W Either 45 2 S8 8th Avenue Walnut Avenue South of Walnut Stairway or trail 43 2 S9 84th Avenue W 188th Street SW 186th Street SW East 43 2 S10 190th Place SW 94th Avenue W Olympic View Drive Either 42 2 Long Walkway Projects L1 236th Street SW/ 234th Street SW SR 104 97th Place W South 65 1 L2 Maplewood Drive Main Street 200th Street SW West 64 1 L3 Olympic Avenue Puget Drive Main Street East 62 1 L4 Meadowdale Beach Road Olympic View Drive 76th Avenue W North 60 1 L5 Pine Street 9th Avenue W SR 104 South 59 1 L6 80th Avenue W/ 180th Street SW 188th Street SW Olympic View Drive West 58 1 L7 80th Avenue W 206th Street SW 212th Street SW Either 58 1 L8 238th Street SW 104th Avenue W 100th Avenue W North 57 1 L9 238th Street SW Highway 99 76th Avenue W North 56 1 L10 232nd Street W 100th Avenue W 97th Avenue W South 54 1 L11 84th Avenue W 238th Street SW 234th Street SW East 54 1 L12 176th Street SW 72nd Avenue W Olympic View Drive Either 53 1 L13 188th Street SW 92nd Avenue W 88th Avenue W South 49 2 L14 Andover Street/ 184th Street SW 184th Street SW/ 88th Avenue W Olympic View Drive/ Andover Street Either/ North2 49 2 L15 72nd Avenue W Olympic View Drive 176th Street SW Either 47 2 L16 236th Street SW SR 104 East of 84th Avenue W North 47 2 L17 92nd Avenue W 189th Place SW 186th Place SW Either 47 2 L18 191st Street SW 80th Avenue W 76th Avenue W Either 47 2 L19 218th Street SW 80th Avenue W 84th Avenue W Either 44 2 L20 192nd Street SW 88th Avenue W 84th Avenue W Either 42 2 L21 104th Street SW/ Robin Hood Drive 238th Street SW 106th Avenue W West 42 2 L22 186th Street SW Seaview Park/ 80th Avenue W 8608 185th Place SW North 37 2 Packet Page 437 of 1136 Non-Motorized System November 2009 4-9 ID Street Name From To Street Side¹ Total Points Priority L23 216th Avenue SW 86th Avenue W 92nd Avenue W South 31 2 L24 92nd Avenue W Bowdoin Way 220th Street SW Either 26 2 1. Indicates where proposed walkway improvement is located 2. Project L12 is an L-shaped project in which sidewalks are proposed on either side of Andover Street (the north-south leg), and on the north side of 184th Street SW (the east-west leg). Pedestrian access to transit stops is a critical element of the walkway improvement program. The City will continue to work with Community Transit to ensure that access to transit stops is as convenient and safe as possible. Community Transit offers its support in securing funds related to improving access to the existing transit system and transit facilities. In addition to the projects listed in Table 4-2, a variety of non-motorized enhancements are scheduled as part of the 4th Avenue Corridor Enhancement project. The City also plans to make improvements to pedestrian lighting throughout the city, with a project currently planned on Main Street between 5th Avenue and 6th Avenue. Additionally, the City is planning to update all pedestrian signals to the “countdown” signals, in accordance with the standards set forth in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (FHWA 2001) by 2013. Packet Page 438 of 1136 Main St 76 t h A v e W 75 t h P l W Oly m pic V i e w D r 208th St SW 9 5t h P l W 212th St SW 220th St SW Fisher R 68 t h Av e W F i r d a l e A v e Dayton St 7t h A v e N 10 0 t h A ve W 76 t h A v e W Oly m p i c V i e w D r 238th St SW 80 t h A v e W 96 t h A v e W 176th St SW Bow d oin W ay 180th St SW Walnut St 3r d A v e S 244th St SW 5 th A v e S 236th St SW 3rd Av e N 84 t h Av e W 9t h A v e S 238th St SW 200th St SWCaspers St 76 t h A v e W Pug et Dr E d m o n d s W y Ma p l e w o od D r 22 8th St SW 9t h A v e N 52 n d A v e W Meado w d a l e B e a c h R o a d Oly mpic Vie w Dr 80 t h A v e W 88 t h A v e W 196th St SW S u ns e t A v e 104 99 524 Snohomish County King County L4 L12 L15 L14 L22S9 L13 L17 S10 S7 L18 L20 L3 L2 L7 L11 L16 L1 L10 L8L21 S6 L5 S1 S2 S3 S8 S4 S5 L6 L9 L19 L23 L24 City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan November 2009 Figure 4-3. Existing Walkways and Recommended Walkway Projects 00.51 Miles Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008); Snohomish County (2008) City Boundary Railroad Water Feature Recommended Walkway Project Existing Paved Walkway Existing Unpaved Walkway 84th Ave W Safety Project (includes walkway component) Project IDXX (see also Appendix D) Packet Page 439 of 1136 Non-Motorized System November 2009 4-11 Curb Ramp Upgrade Program In an effort to upgrade the sidewalk ramps and meet ADA requirements, the City has developed a Curb Ramp Upgrade Program that prioritizes future sidewalk ramp improvements at sub-standard locations. Citizen request for curb ramps should be addressed as they occur, and should be accommodated close to the time of the request unless there are circumstances which would cause them to be deferred, such as a pending construction project that would provide the ramps in a short time frame. Priorities for future sidewalk new ramp installations or ramp upgrades are determined based on the following priority order: 1. Downtown intersections receive priority over other locations; 2. Arterial streets receive priority over local access streets; 3. Intersections receive higher priority if they are near: a. Community centers, senior centers, or health facilities b. Transit stops, schools, or public buildings c. Commercial areas and parks. Implementation of the curb ramp upgrade program will need to occur over time, due to the costs of those upgrades. As part of asphalt overlay projects, all ramps adjacent to the paving work must be upgraded to meet ADA standards and new ramps installed where none exist. Sidewalk ramps will also be installed as part of street reconstruction and sidewalk construction projects. Private redevelopment will also fund some ramp upgrades as part of required frontage improvements. Appendix C provides a complete list of the intersection locations and the prioritization criteria. Bikeway Comprehensive Plan The City updated its comprehensive Bikeway Plan in 2009. The Bikeway Plan outlines a list of improvement projects for the bikeway system; and prioritizes bikeway projects, bicycle parking, and bikeway signage. Before signing the routes, problem catch basin grates are replaced, sight distance problems are addressed, and potholes and other safety hazards are corrected. Additionally, the Bikeway Plan includes maintenance of bicycle facilities. Per RCW 35.75.060 and 36.82.145, all bicycle facilities must comply with Chapter 1020 of the WSDOT Design Manual (WSDOT 2009) which is consistent with the Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (AASHTO 1999). In addition to making project recommendations, the Bikeway Plan states several goals for the bicycle network in Edmonds. These goals are: Goal 1: To promote more bicycling. Goal 2: To provide safer streets and paths for those who bicycle in Edmonds. Packet Page 440 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 4-12 Goal 3: To provide better access to recreational opportunities for those who bicycle. Goal 4: To provide better access to schools for those who bicycle. Goal 5: To provide better access to businesses for those who bicycle. Goal 6: To provide better access to transit for those who bicycle. Goal 7: To provide access to bicycling opportunities in other jurisdictions. Goal 8: To consider bicycle facilities and program in all City transportation programs and funding. Goal 9: To provide enhanced parking facilities for those who bicycle, making the mode more convenient. Goal 10: To provide maintenance provisions for City bicycle facilities. The following inventory and recommended bicycle network improvements may be considered as complements to the Bikeway Comprehensive Plan. Bicycle Facility Inventory Figure 4-4 shows existing bicycle facilities within the city, which include bicycle routes, bicycle lanes, trails, and bicycle parking facilities. Bicycle routes are designated along vehicle travel lanes that are shared between bicycles and motor vehicles with signing. Bicycle lanes are dedicated lanes within the traveled roadway that are reserved solely for bicyclists and distinguished through the use of pavement markings. Bicycle lanes may be located adjacent to the curbs or parking lanes. Trails are physically separated from vehicular traffic, and are shared with pedestrians and other non-motorized users. The Interurban Trail, which links the cities of Seattle, Shoreline, Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood, and Everett, runs through the southeastern portion of Edmonds. Upgrades to the trail are included in the City’s capital improvement program. Trails are also located along the city’s beaches and within city parks. 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 (relative to motorized vehicle fares) for bicycles, Sound Transit provides bike racks, and all Community Transit vehicles have bike racks. Packet Page 441 of 1136 Main St 76 t h A v e W 75 t h P l W Oly m pic V i e w D r 208th St SW 9 5t h P l W 212th St SW 220th St SW Fisher R 68 t h Av e W F i r d a l e A v e Dayton St 7t h A v e N 10 0 t h A ve W 76 t h A v e W Oly m p i c V i e w D r 238th St SW 80 t h A v e W 96 t h A v e W 176th St SW Bow d oin W ay 180th St SW Walnut St 3r d A v e S 244th St SW 5 th A v e S 236th St SW 3rd Av e N 84 t h Av e W 9t h A v e S 238th St SW 200th St SWCaspers St 76 t h A v e W Pug et Dr E d m o n d s W y Ma p l e w o od D r 22 8th St SW 9t h A v e N 52 n d A v e W Meado w d a l e B e a c h R o a d Oly mpic Vie w Dr 80 t h A v e W 88 t h A v e W 196th St SW S u ns e t A v e 104 99 524 Snohomish County King County In t e r u r b a n T r a i l City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan November 2009 Figure 4-4. Existing Bicycle Facilities 00.51 Miles Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008); Snohomish County (2008); King County (2009) City Boundary Railroad Water Feature Bike Lockers Bike Parking Bike Lanes Bike Routes Trails/Paths Interim Trail/Path Interim Route on Roadway (76th Ave W) Packet Page 442 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 4-14 Recommended Bikeway Improvements The 2009 Bikeway Comprehensive Plan outlines a list of improvement projects for the bikeway system. The Bikeway Plan prioritizes bikeway projects, bicycle parking, and bikeway signage. The types of bikeway facilities that are recommended projects range from shared-use paths to bike lanes to bicycle parking. Shared-use or multiuse paths are physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic. They are designed and built primarily for use by bicycles, but are also used by pedestrians, joggers, skaters, wheelchair users (both non-motorized and motorized), equestrians, and other non-motorized users. The desirable width of a shared-use path is 12 feet; the minimum width is 10 feet. Bike lanes are established along streets in corridors where there is current or anticipated bicycle demand and where it would be unsafe for bicyclists to ride in the travel lane. Bike lanes delineate the rights of way assigned to bicyclists and motorists and provide for movements that are more predictable by each. The minimum width for a bike lane is 4 feet. However, when parking is permitted along the bike lane, an additional width of 1 to 2 feet is recommended if parking is substantial or the turnover of parked cars is high. With curb, guardrail, or barrier, the minimum bike lane width is 5 feet. Signed shared roadways are shared roadways that have been identified as preferred bike routes by posting bike route signs. A signed shared roadway bike route is established by placing the Bicycle Route signs or markers along the roadways according to guidelines set forth in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. (FHWA 2001) The Bikeway Plan categorizes bikeway projects into small bikeway projects and large bikeway projects. The distinction between these two categories is the funding sources. The small bikeway projects can be funded entirely through dedicated City funding; large bikeway projects will require grant funding and may be tied to a major roadway transportation project. Projected costs of the recommended bikeway projects are provided in Chapter 6 (Implementation and Financial Plan) of this Transportation Plan. Small Bikeway Projects Bicycle Loops Figure 4-5 shows three bicycle loops of various difficulties and lengths that are recommended along roads that have low speeds and low vehicle volumes. The Edmonds Bike Group helped establish these three bicycle loops. The short bicycle loop has an easy level of difficulty and a distance of 5 miles. The medium bicycle loop is a medium level of difficulty route; it follows a similar route as the short bicycle loop, but has an additional 2 miles for a total length of 7 miles. Packet Page 443 of 1136 Non-Motorized System November 2009 4-15 The long bicycle loop is a scenic route designed for experienced cyclists. The total distance for the long bicycle loop is 20 miles with a portion located in the Town of Woodway. Shared Use Lanes Shared use lanes, or “sharrows,” are commonly used to indicate where on the roadway a cyclist should ride, and also to remind motorists to share the lane with bicycles when present. Sharrows consist of a roadway striping treatment, with chevron arrows and a bicycle symbol placed on the outside portion of the travel lane. Approved by FHWA as an experimental treatment (Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center 2009) and expected to be included in the next edition of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, sharrows are a way for jurisdictions to create low- cost and safe bicycle facilities. The City intends to install sharrows as necessary as it completes roadway projects. Bicycle Parking In planning for bicycle parking, both public and private property needs must be considered. The recommended standard for new commercial developments is one bicycle rack for every 12 vehicle spaces provided. The City considers the following criteria when reviewing the suitability of new bicycle racks: The bicycle racks shall be as convenient as the majority of automobile parking spaces provided. All racks shall be securely anchored to the ground or building structures. Bicycle racks shall be in a visible location, close to the building entrances. Bicycle racks must be designed to accommodate U-shaped locks. (U-shaped locks are designed to allow the lock both wheels and the bicycle frame to a stationary object.) Figure 4-6 shows the proposed bicycle parking locations identified in the City’s Bikeway Plan. Packet Page 444 of 1136 Main St 76 t h A v e W 75 t h P l W Oly m pic V i e w D r 208th St SW 9 5t h P l W 212th St SW 220th St SW Fisher R 68 t h Av e W F i r d a l e A v e Dayton St 7t h A v e N 10 0 t h A ve W 76 t h A v e W Oly m p i c V i e w D r 238th St SW 80 t h A v e W 96 t h A v e W 176th St SW Bow d oin W ay 180th St SW Walnut St 3r d A v e S 244th St SW 5 th A v e S 236th St SW 3rd Av e N 84 t h Av e W 9t h A v e S 238th St SW 200th St SWCaspers St 76 t h A v e W Pug et Dr E d m o n d s W y Ma p l e w o od D r 22 8th St SW 9t h A v e N 52 n d A v e W Meado w d a l e B e a c h R o a d Oly mpic Vie w Dr 80 t h A v e W 88 t h A v e W 196th St SW S u ns e t A v e 104 99 524 Snohomish County King County City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan November 2009 Figure 4-5. Recommended Signed Bicycle Loops 00.51 Miles Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008); Snohomish County (2008) City Boundary Railroad Water Feature Bike Routes Short Loop (5 miles) Medium Loop (7 miles) Long Loop (20 miles) Steep Grade/Long Hill Packet Page 445 of 1136 Non-Motorized System November 2009 4-17 Large Bicycle Projects Figure 4-6 shows the locations of the proposed bicycle routes and bicycle lanes. The large bikeway projects include bicycle lanes or bicycle routes that can be added as part of future roadway improvement projects. The large bikeway projects are concentrated around two major efforts: creating a north-south bicycle connection between downtown Edmonds and the Interurban Trail, and creating an east-west bicycle connection between the northern and southern portions of Edmonds. The north-south bicycle projects include: 84th Avenue W, 238th Street SW - 212th Street SW 80th Avenue W, 220th Street SW - 206th Street SW 76th Avenue W, 224th Street SW - N Meadowdale Beach Drive The east-west bicycle projects include: Edmonds Way/Sunset Avenue, Edmonds Street - city limits 224th Street SW, 100th Avenue W - the Interurban Trail Other large bikeway projects include: Olympic View Drive, Puget Drive - 76th Avenue W (less steep route) 3rd Avenue N, Main Street - Caspers Street Caspers Street, 3rd Avenue N - 9th Avenue N 9th Avenue N, Caspers Street - Puget Drive Interurban Trail The City is planning to complete the 1.4-mile link of the Interurban Trail between the cities of Shoreline and Mountlake Terrace. The planned alignment runs roughly parallel to 76th Avenue W, south of 228th Street SW. The “interurban corridor” is a former inter-city rail line, part of a nationwide system of similar lines that operated from the 1890’s to the 1930’s. This vital project is significant because it is the “missing link” north and beyond to Everett and south through the recently completed Shoreline Interurban Trail to Seattle and beyond. Locally and regionally this community supported trail will provide safe passage and a healthy alternative to connect homes, work, services, recreation sites and other modes of transportation. The trail lies along view corridors of Lake Ballinger with waterfront access and a respite stop with shelter and information kiosk at 76th Ave and McAleer Way. For consistency in style, the City’s proposed design follows the lead of surrounding communities matching them in 12-foot width, design, historical elements, signage and landscaping. Shared road portions along busy 76th Avenue West and the quieter residential 74th Avenue West will be reconfigured and improved to add dedicated bicycle lanes. Traffic calming techniques will be installed at road crossings as well as appropriate signage. Packet Page 446 of 1136 Main St 76 t h A v e W 75 t h P l W Oly m pic V i e w D r 208th St SW 9 5t h P l W 212th St SW 220th St SW Fisher R 68 t h Av e W F i r d a l e A v e Dayton St 7t h A v e N 10 0 t h A ve W 76 t h A v e W Oly m p i c V i e w D r 238th St SW 80 t h A v e W 96 t h A v e W 176th St SW Bow d oin W ay 180th St SW Walnut St 3r d A v e S 244th St SW 5 th A v e S 236th St SW 3rd Av e N 84 t h Av e W 9t h A v e S 238th St SW 200th St SWCaspers St 76 t h A v e W Pug et Dr E d m o n d s W y Ma p l e w o od D r 22 8th St SW 9t h A v e N 52 n d A v e W Meado w d a l e B e a c h R o a d Oly mpic Vie w Dr 80 t h A v e W 88 t h A v e W 196th St SW S u ns e t A v e 104 99 524 Snohomish County King County In t e r u r b a n T r a i l City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan November 2009 Figure 4-6. Recommended Bicycle Facilities 00.51 Miles Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008); Snohomish County (2008) City Boundary Railroad Water Feature Existing Bike Lockers Existing Bike Parking Proposed Bike Parking Bike Lanes Existing Proposed Bike Routes Existing Proposed Trails/Paths Existing Interim Proposed Interim Route on Roadway (76th Ave W) Bike Lanes Bike Routes Trails/Paths Packet Page 447 of 1136 November 2009 5-1 Chapter 5. Transit and Transportation Demand Management This chapter provides an inventory of existing transit facilities and services, including buses, rail and ferries. Strategies to increase transit use including Transportation Demand Management and other transit improvements are then presented. Existing Transit Service Community Transit Community Transit, the major provider of public transit for Snohomish County, operates three types of transit service in the city: Fixed bus route service Rideshare services Dial-A-Ride Transit (DART) paratransit service Fixed Route Bus Service Fixed bus routes are local or commuter services that operate on a standardized schedule. Figure 5- 1 shows the bus routes that serve the city. Table 5-1 summarizes local bus routes serving the city, which provide two-way service between destinations in the city and surrounding areas, from morning through evening. Table 5-2 summarizes commuter bus routes serving the city, which provide service to major employment destinations in Snohomish and King Counties. Commuter routes typically operate only during the weekday morning and evening peak commute periods. Every Community Transit bus is equipped to accommodate wheelchairs. All buses are also equipped with bicycle racks. Packet Page 448 of 1136 Main St 76 t h A v e W 75 t h P l W Oly m pic V i e w D r 208th St SW 9 5t h P l W 212th St SW 220th St SW Fisher R 68 t h Av e W F i r d a l e A v e Dayton St 7t h A v e N 10 0 t h A ve W 76 t h A v e W Oly m p i c V i e w D r 238th St SW 80 t h A v e W 96 t h A v e W 176th St SW Bow d oin W ay 180th St SW Walnut St 3r d A v e S 244th St SW 5 th A v e S 236th St SW 3rd Av e N 84 t h Av e W 9t h A v e S 238th St SW 200th St SWCaspers St 76 t h A v e W Pug et Dr E d m o n d s W y Ma p l e w o od D r 22 8th St SW 9t h A v e N 52 n d A v e W Meado w d a l e B e a c h R o a d Oly mpic Vie w Dr 80 t h A v e W 88 t h A v e W 196th St SW S u ns e t A v e 104 99 524 Snohomish County King County 119 112 130 114 114114 131 118 116 131 115 116115 118 131 130 112 130 112 110 110 100 110 190 119 110 131 119 131 190 101 114 115 118 110 408 405 401 406 411 416 404 405 435 421 412 416 410 417 422 425 413 406 477 404 414 441 414 441 408 415 402 404 477 404 406 416 513 510 511 851 871 855 870 810 810 812 821 871 880 860 870 870 885 870 810 851 871 871 870 Ed m o n d s - K i n gst o n To / F r o m E v e r e t t T o / F r o m S e a t t l e City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan November 2009 Figure 5-1. Fixed Route Bus Service 00.51 Miles Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008); Snohomish County (2008) City Boundary Railroad Water Feature Train Station/Park & Ride Lot Park & Ride Lot Existing Bus Routes Community Transit Commuter Route Community Transit Local Route Sound Transit Express Route Swift Bus Rapid Transit Route Ferry Route Commuter Rail Route Packet Page 449 of 1136 Transit and Transportation Demand Management November 2009 5-3 Table 5-1. Community Transit Local Bus Routes Route Number Route Description Days of Operation Hours of Operation (approximate) 2008 Average Weekday Daily Boardings 101 Aurora Village (Shoreline) to Everett Daily 5:00 am – 1:30 am (Weekdays); 5:00 am -12:30 am (Saturdays); 6:00 am- 12:30 am (Sundays) 4,007 110 Lynnwood Transit Center to Edmonds Senior Center Daily 5:40 am- 9:40 pm (Weekdays); 6:45 am- 8:40 pm (Weekends) 525 112 Lynnwood Transit Center to Edmonds Community College Daily 5:20 am-11:40 pm (Weekdays); 6:40 am-10:40 pm (Saturdays); 6:40 am- 8:40 am (Sundays) 1,225 114 Mill Creek/Silver Firs to Edmonds Senior Center Daily 5:00 am-10:30 pm (Weekdays); 6:30 am-11:00 pm (Saturdays); 6:30 am- 9:00 pm (Sundays) 729 115 Mays Pond/Mill Creek to Edmonds Senior Center Weekdays and Saturdays 5:20 am- 12:00 am (Weekdays); 8:00 am-7:30 pm (Saturdays) 1,698 116 Mill Creek/Silver Firs to Edmonds Senior Center Weekdays 5:00 am-11:30 pm (Weekdays) 726 118 Aurora Village (Shoreline) to Ash Way Park-and-Ride (Lynnwood) Daily 5:30 am-11:45 pm (Weekdays); 6:45 am-10:40 pm (Saturdays); 6:45 am- 8:40 pm (Sundays) 1,849 131 Aurora Village (Shoreline) to Edmonds Community College Transit Center Daily 5:00 am-10:00 pm (Weekdays); 6:00 am-9:00 pm (Weekends) 702 Source: Community Transit 2009 Packet Page 450 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 5-4 Table 5-2. Community Transit Commuter Bus Routes Route Number Route Description Days of Operation Hours of Operation (approximate) 2008 Average Weekday Daily Boardings 100 Shoreline to Everett Weekdays 5:00 am- 8:45 am (northbound only) and 3:00 pm-7:00 pm (southbound only) 515 190 Edmonds Community College to Mukilteo Weekdays 6:30 am-10:00 am (southbound only) and 11:30 am-8:20 pm (northbound only) 221 404/405 Edmonds to Downtown Seattle Weekdays 5:15 am-8:45 am (southbound only) and 3:15 pm-7:30 pm (northbound only) 383 406 Seaview (Edmonds) to Downtown Seattle Weekdays 6:00 am-9:00 am (southbound only) and 3:30 pm-7:00 pm (northbound only) 244 416 Edmonds to Downtown Seattle Weekdays 5:30 am-8:45 am (southbound only) and 3:30 pm-7:15 pm (northbound only) 352 441 Edmonds Park-and-Ride to Redmond Weekdays 6:15 am-8:00 am (southeast bound only) and 4:30 pm-6:20 pm (northwest bound only) 99 810 Everett to University District (Seattle) Weekdays 9:15 am-1:20 pm (both directions) and 6:30 pm-10:45 pm (northbound only) 296 870/871 Edmonds to University District (Seattle) Weekdays 6:00 am-10:20 am (southbound only) and 12:30 pm-6:40 pm (northbound only) 415 Source: Community Transit 2009 Accessibility to fixed route transit is considered to be ideal when transit stops are located within 0.25 mile of residents. Figure 5-2 shows the proportion of Edmonds within 0.25 mile of a fixed- route local or commuter transit service; and Figure 5-3 shows the proportion of Edmonds within 0.25 mile of fixed-route local bus service. The figures show that approximately 64% of the Edmonds population lives within 0.25 mile of local bus service; and approximately 81% of the Edmonds population lives within 0.25 mile of either local or commuter service. Packet Page 451 of 1136 Main St 76 t h A v e W 75 t h P l W Oly m pic V i e w D r 208th St SW 9 5t h P l W 212th St SW 220th St SW Fisher R 68 t h Av e W F i r d a l e A v e Dayton St 7t h A v e N 10 0 t h A ve W 76 t h A v e W Oly m p i c V i e w D r 238th St SW 80 t h A v e W 96 t h A v e W 176th St SW Bow d oin W ay 180th St SW Walnut St 3r d A v e S 244th St SW 5 th A v e S 236th St SW 3rd Av e N 84 t h Av e W 9t h A v e S 238th St SW 200th St SWCaspers St 76 t h A v e W Pug et Dr E d m o n d s W y Ma p l e w o od D r 22 8th St SW 9t h A v e N 52 n d A v e W Meado w d a l e B e a c h R o a d Oly mpic Vie w Dr 80 t h A v e W 88 t h A v e W 196th St SW S u ns e t A v e 104 99 524 Snohomish County King County Ed m o n d s - K i n gst o n To / F r o m E v e r e t t T o / F r o m S e a t t l e City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan November 2009 Figure 5-2. Access to Local and Commuter Transit 00.51 Miles Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008); Snohomish County (2008) City Boundary Railroad Water Feature Train Station/Park & Ride Lot Park & Ride Lot Community Transit Bus Stop Existing Bus Routes Ferry Route Commuter Rail Route 1/4-Mile Bus Stop Zone Approximately 81% of 2000 population located within 1/4 mile of a transit stop. Packet Page 452 of 1136 Main St 76 t h A v e W 75 t h P l W Oly m pic V i e w D r 208th St SW 9 5t h P l W 212th St SW 220th St SW Fisher R 68 t h Av e W F i r d a l e A v e Dayton St 7t h A v e N 10 0 t h A ve W 76 t h A v e W Oly m p i c V i e w D r 238th St SW 80 t h A v e W 96 t h A v e W 176th St SW Bow d oin W ay 180th St SW Walnut St 3r d A v e S 244th St SW 5 th A v e S 236th St SW 3rd Av e N 84 t h Av e W 9t h A v e S 238th St SW 200th St SWCaspers St 76 t h A v e W Pug et Dr E d m o n d s W y Ma p l e w o od D r 22 8th St SW 9t h A v e N 52 n d A v e W Meado w d a l e B e a c h R o a d Oly mpic Vie w Dr 80 t h A v e W 88 t h A v e W 196th St SW S u ns e t A v e 104 99 524 Snohomish County King County Ed m o n d s - K i n gst o n To / F r o m E v e r e t t T o / F r o m S e a t t l e City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan November 2009 Figure 5-3. Access to Local Transit 00.51 Miles Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008); Snohomish County (2008) City Boundary Railroad Water Feature Train Station/Park & Ride Lot Park & Ride Lot Community Transit Bus Stop- Local Route Existing Bus Routes Ferry Route Commuter Rail Route 1/4 mile Local Route Bus Stop Approximately 64% of 2000 population located within 1/4 mile of a local bus stop. Packet Page 453 of 1136 Transit and Transportation Demand Management November 2009 5-7 Rideshare Services For citizens who are disinclined or unable to use fixed-route bus service, the following rideshare services are available: Commuter Vanpools – Community Transit provides vehicles, driver orientation, vehicle maintenance, and assistance in forming vanpool groups. Community Transit currently manages nine vanpools originating in Edmonds that serve the following employment destinations: - Amgen in Seattle - Bangor (2 vans) - Boeing Everett (2 vans) - Department of Defense in Keyport - Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in Renton - Holmes Electric in Bellevue - Raytheon in Keyport Carpools – Community Transit provides ride-matching services for people seeking carpool partners. DART Paratransit DART is a specialized bus service provided by Community Transit for those who are unable to use regular bus service due to a disability. Service is available to all origins and destinations within 0.75 mile of local, non-commuter bus routes. King County Metro Transit King County Metro does not provide local service within Edmonds, but connections are available between Community Transit and Metro routes at the Aurora Village Transit Center just south of the city. Sound Transit Express Bus Sound Transit provides regional bus service to the urban portions of Snohomish, King, and Pierce counties, but does not have an established express bus stop in Edmonds. Sound Transit express bus service is available at transit centers and park-and-ride lots in the vicinity of Edmonds (Swamp Creek, Lynnwood Transit Center, Mountlake Terrace Transit Center) and can be accessed by Community Transit. Packet Page 454 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 5-8 Park-and-Ride Facilities The primary commuter parking facility in the city is the Edmonds park-and-ride lot located at 72nd Avenue West and 213th Place SW. This facility, which has a capacity for 255 cars, is owned by WSDOT and operated by Community Transit. This facility offers bus service to Lynnwood, downtown Seattle, Redmond, Everett, Shoreline and Seattle’s University District. The average utilization rate of this facility is 71%. (Community Transit 2008) Many routes also serve the Edmonds Senior Center, Edmonds Station and Edmonds Ferry Terminal. Parking available in the vicinity of these facilities includes a total of 220 spaces near the ferry terminal and 179 spaces at the Edmonds Station. Edmonds Community College also serves as a transit hub, but no public parking is available at this location. Table 5-3 summarizes the park-and-ride lots that serve Edmonds. Table 5-3. Park-and-Ride Facilities Serving Edmonds Lot Name Location Routes Parking Capacity Edgewood Baptist Church 20406 76th Avenue W 112, 406 10 Edmonds Lutheran Church 8330 212th Street SW 118, 131, 404, 870 10 Westgate Chapel 22901 Edmonds Way 416 9 Edmonds Lutheran Church 23525 84th Avenue W 118 21 Korean United Presbyterian Church 8506 238th Street SW 416 64 Edmonds Park-and-Ride 21300 72nd Avenue W 110, 404, 405, 406, 441, 810, 870, 871 255 Mountlake Terrace Transit Center 236th Street SW and I-5 Northbound Ramp 130, 408, 414, 810, 851, 871, King County Metro 880 Edmonds Ferry Terminal SR 104 WSF 220 Edmonds Station 210 Railroad Avenue Sounder, Amtrak 179 Source: Community Transit, Sound Transit and WSF Outside of the city, the Lynnwood Transit Center and Aurora Village Transit Center are the major hubs for transferring between Community Transit local routes. Other transfer hubs include Edmonds Community College and Mountlake Terrace Transit Center. These Community Transit routes connect with King County Metro service at Aurora Village, Mountlake Terrace, and Bothell; Everett Transit in the City of Everett; the Washington State Ferry at the Edmonds and Mukilteo Terminals; with Sound Transit at various park-and-ride lots in the south Snohomish County; and Island Transit in the City of Stanwood. Rail Service Passenger rail service in Edmonds is provided by Sound Transit’s Sounder commuter rail and Amtrak’s intercity rail. The rail station is located at 211 Railroad Avenue and can be accessed by Community Transit. Packet Page 455 of 1136 Transit and Transportation Demand Management November 2009 5-9 Sounder Commuter Rail Operated by Sound Transit, the Sounder commuter rail line operates between Seattle and Everett, with stops in Edmonds and Mukilteo. Through a partnership with Amtrak, Amtrak trains are also available for commuters along this route. Sounder operates four southbound trains during the morning commute period and four northbound trains during the evening commute period. Amtrak operates one additional train in each direction during both the morning commute period and the evening commute period. Amtrak Service Amtrak operates two routes with stops in Edmonds: the Amtrak Cascades and the Empire Builder. Amtrak Cascades Edmonds serves as a stop along the Seattle – Vancouver route. Service is daily, with two northbound trains (8:07 am and 7:07 pm) and two southbound trains (10:21 am and 9:19 pm) stopping in Edmonds per day. From Edmonds, one of the two northbound trains terminates in Bellingham while the other terminates in Vancouver, British Columbia. One southbound Cascades train originates in Bellingham while the other begins in Vancouver, BC. The Cascades route’s northbound service provides connections to Everett, Mount Vernon, and Bellingham in Washington State, and Surrey, Richmond, and Vancouver in British Columbia. Southbound service terminates in Seattle. Travelers who wish to take rail south to destinations between Seattle and Portland are best served by traveling to Seattle to take the Seattle–Portland route. Empire Builder The Empire Builder provides cross-country service between Seattle and Chicago. Its route traverses the states of Washington, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois. Service is daily, with one eastbound train departing from Edmonds each evening (5:17 pm). One westbound train arrives in Edmonds each morning (9:05 am). 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 75 minutes. In 2006, the Edmonds-Kingston route carried 4.3 million people, at an average of 12,200 passengers per day. A 2006 survey indicates that in-vehicle boardings were the most prevalent, Packet Page 456 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 5-10 with about 87 percent of passengers boarding in this manner on the average weekday. Walk-on passengers constituted 13 percent of all passengers on an average weekday. The survey indicates that during the PM peak period (3 PM to 7 PM), approximately two-thirds of the total passengers on the Edmonds-Kingston route are traveling west to the Kitsap / Olympic Peninsulas from Edmonds, and about one-third are traveling eastbound to Edmonds from the west. (Washington State Ferries 2006) Transportation Demand Management TDM consists of strategies that seek to maximize the efficiency of the transportation system by reducing demand on the system. The results of successful TDM can include the following benefits: Travelers switch from driving alone to high-occupancy vehicle modes such as transit, vanpools, or carpools. Travelers switch from driving to non-motorized modes such as bicycling or walking. Travelers change the time they make trips from more congested to less congested times of day. Travelers eliminate trips altogether either through means such as compressed work weeks, consolidation of errands, or use of telecommunications. Within the State of Washington, alternative transportation solutions are necessitated by the objectives of the Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Law. Passed in 1991 as a section of the Washington Clean Air Act (RCW 70.94), the CTR Law seeks to reduce workplace commute trips. The purpose of CTR is to help maintain air quality in metropolitan areas by reducing congestion and air pollution. This law requires Edmonds to adopt a CTR plan requiring private and public employers with 100 or more employees to implement TDM programs. Programs provide various incentives or disincentives to encourage use of alternative transportation modes other than the single-occupant vehicle. The City promotes TDM through policy and/or investments that may include, but are not limited to, the following: Parking management; Trip reduction ordinances; Restricted access to facilities and activity centers; and Transit-oriented and pedestrian-friendly design. The City can support the CTR Law and regional vehicle trip reduction strategies by working with employers to encourage the reduction of commuter single-occupant vehicle use. Community Transit assists employers in developing plans that meet specific trip reduction needs as required by the CTR Law. Flex time, parking management, vanpooling, and carpooling are some of the Packet Page 457 of 1136 Transit and Transportation Demand Management November 2009 5-11 available options. Community Transit offers free Employee Transportation Coordinator Training Workshops for employers affected by CTR. Transportation consulting services are also available to interested employers not affected by CTR. Community Transit also conducts community outreach programs that fall within the realm of TDM. There are three employers in Edmonds that participate in the CTR program: the City of Edmonds, Stevens Hospital, and Edmonds Family Medicine Clinic. Each employer measures its progress toward its goal of reducing single-occupant vehicle trips by conducting an employee survey every other year. Community Transit assists in this effort, and reviews the results to see if the employers are in compliance with CTR goals. Future Transit Improvements Chapter 2 of this Transportation Plan identifies a number of specific goals, objectives and policies aiming at enhancing transit options and operations in the City. One of the City’s goals is to “prioritize and finance improvements for the greatest public benefit, emphasizing transit, demand management, and maintenance of current facilities”. Bus Shelters and Benches Providing additional shelters and benches at bus stops has been identified as a high priority for the City. At all appropriate locations, sidewalk improvement or construction projects will include the creation of boarding pads to allow for shelters. The City will continue to work with Community Transit to ensure that bus stops and shelters fit in with the local street design. Community Transit is also committed to expanding the number of locations with stop shelters, adding 25 new locations each year (on the entire system) in addition to maintaining and replacing existing shelters. Table 5-4 lists the top priority locations identified by the City for bus shelters and seating. Table 5-4. Top Priority Locations for Bus Shelters and Seating Ranking Location Shelter Bench Simme Seat1 Comments 1 7901 212th Street SW X X Located across from Edmonds High School fence right behind back sidewalk. Additional right of way needed. 2 123 3rd Avenue S X 3 1675 220th Street SW X X 4 126 3rd Avenue S X X 5 3rd Avenue N at Edmonds Street (NB) X X Packet Page 458 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 5-12 Ranking Location Shelter Bench Simme Seat1 Comments 8 Dayton Street (in front of Old Milltown) X X Additional right of way needed. 7 220th Street SW in front Top Foods X X Additional right of way needed. 9 7805 220th Street SW X 10 8330 212th Street SW X 11 7407 212th Street SW X 12 12810 76th Avenue W X 13 12827 76th Avenue W X 14 Dayton Street at 5th Avenue N (WB) X Existing shelter with bank roofing 15 233 3rd Avenue N X Existing shelter with complex roofing 16 533 5th Avenue S X Limited space for bus shelter because building structure 17 1054 Bowdoin Way X 18 1051 Walnut Street X 19 8415 238th Street SW X 1. A Simme-Seat is a double seat that is attached to a bus stop pole. Transit Emphasis Corridors Community Transit’s Six Year Transit Development Plan and 20 Year Long Range Plan describe a network of Transit Emphasis Corridors on arterial streets and highways connecting urban centers in Snohomish County. SR 99 and 196th Street SW are Transit Emphasis Corridors in Edmonds. The long-term vision for these corridors is coordinated land use, infrastructure, and transit planning that will encourage transit market development and will enable effective service by Community Transit. The Transit Development Plan calls for increasing the frequency and span of local service providing east-west connections across south Snohomish County between Mill Creek, Lynnwood and Edmonds including the 164th St SW and 196th St SW transit emphasis corridors. Swift Bus Rapid Transit A Transit Emphasis Corridor is moving forward on SR 99 with the implementation of Swift Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), which will begin service in fall 2009. Swift will operate throughout the day, seven days a week, providing service between Shoreline and Everett. Swift will operate with 10- minute frequency from 5:00 am to 7:00 pm, and with 20-minute frequency from 7:00 pm to midnight and on weekends. Swift BRT will serve landmark stations located at approximately one Packet Page 459 of 1136 Transit and Transportation Demand Management November 2009 5-13 mile intervals along the route. The City worked closely with Community Transit on the Swift BRT alignment and station locations. There are two stations located along SR 99 in Edmonds: at 238th St SW and at 216th St SW. Local service on Route 101 will continue to operate in the corridor. Additional Fixed Route Transit Service The City will continue to coordinate with Community Transit regarding additional bus transit service on Olympic View Drive or east of 76th Avenue N. In addition, the City has adopted a policy (see Policy 8.12 in Chapter 2) to explore future funding for a city-based circulator bus that provides local shuttle service between neighborhoods (Firdale Village, Perrinville, Five Corners, Westgate) and downtown. Edmonds Crossing Multimodal Facility The City is also a partner in the Edmonds Crossing multimodal ferry, bus, and rail facility. Sound Transit is planning to relocate Edmonds station as part of the larger Edmonds Crossing Multimodal project being led by WSDOT. The location of the preferred alternative for the multimodal project in the Final Environmental Impact Statement would relocate the station south of Edmonds marina, near Point Edwards. The project would also improve traffic circulation in downtown Edmonds by eliminating at-grade railroad crossings. The Washington legislature approved $4 million for the project during the 2007-2009 biennium. However, funding for the remaining $122 million is not secured. Packet Page 460 of 1136 Packet Page 461 of 1136 November 2009 6-1 Chapter 6. Implementation and Financial Plan This chapter provides a summary of the projects, project prioritization, total costs, projected revenue, and implementation strategies for recommended improvements through 2025. Project Costs Preliminary costs for proposed transportation projects were estimated at a planning level, based on 2009 dollars. Estimates were based on typical unit costs, as applied to each type of improvement, and are not the result of preliminary engineering. Annual programs such as asphalt street overlay show projected expenditures beginning in 2010. These planning-level estimates of probable cost were the basis for the financial plan. Table 6-1 summarizes the estimated costs for the recommended transportation projects and programs through 2025. The table shows that the cost of fully funding all operations, safety, and maintenance projects and programs through 2025, as presented in this Transportation Plan, is $103,046,300. Packet Page 462 of 1136 Co m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n Im p l e m e n t a t i o n a n d F i n a n c i a l P l a n Ci t y o f E d m o n d s No v e m b e r 2 0 0 9 6- 2 Ta b l e 6 - 1 . C o s t s o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P r o j e c t s ID L o c a t i o n I m p r o v e m e n t Co s t Co n c u r r e n c y P r o j e c t s - b y 2 0 1 5 2 Ol y m p i c V i e w D r i v e / 7 6 t h A v e n u e W I n s t a l l t r a f f i c s i g n a l . W i d e n 7 6 t h t o a d d a w e s t b o u n d l e f t t u r n l a n e f o r 1 7 5 - f o o t st o r a g e l e n g t h . $1 , 1 4 6 , 8 0 0 4 Pu g e t D r i v e / 1 9 6 t h S t S W / 8 8 t h A v e n u e W I n s t a l l t r a f f i c s i g n a l . 1 $8 7 9 , 0 0 0 9 21 2 t h S t r e e t S W / 7 6 t h A v e n u e W W i d e n 7 6 t h t o a d d a n o r t h b o u n d l e f t t u r n l a n e f o r 2 5 0 - f o o t s t o r a g e l e n g t h a n d a so u t h b o u n d l e f t t u r n l a n e f o r 1 2 5 - f o o t s t o r a g e l e n g t h . P r o v i d e p r o t e c t e d l e f t t u r n ph a s e f o r n o r t h b o u n d a n d s o u t h b o u n d m o v e m e n t s . W i d e n 2 1 2 t h t o a d d a we s t b o u n d r i g h t t u r n l a n e f o r 5 0 - f o o t s t o r a g e l e n g t h . $2 , 3 1 3 , 8 0 0 10 21 2 t h S t r e e t S W / 8 4 t h A v e n u e W I n s t a l l a s i n g l e - l a n e r o u n d a b o u t . $1 , 9 1 0 , 1 0 0 11 Ma i n S t r e e t / 9 t h A v e n u e N I n s t a l l t r a f f i c s i g n a l . 2 $8 7 4 , 4 0 0 12 Wa l n u t S t r e e t / 9 t h A v e n u e S I n s t a l l t r a f f i c s i g n a l . 2 $8 7 4 , 4 0 0 15 22 0 t h S t r e e t S W / 7 6 t h A v e n u e W R e c o n f i g u r e e a s t b o u n d l a n e s t o a l e f t t u r n l a n e a n d a t h r o u g h - r i g h t l a n e . C h a n g e ea s t b o u n d a n d w e s t b o u n d p h a s e t o p r o v i d e p r o t e c t e d - p e r m i t t e d p h a s e f o r ea s t b o u n d a n d w e s t b o u n d l e f t t u r n s . Pr o v i d e r i g h t t u r n p h a s e f o r w e s t b o u n d mo v e m e n t d u r i n g s o u t h b o u n d l e f t t u r n p h a s e . $1 3 8 , 3 0 0 Su b T o t a l $8 , 1 3 6 , 8 0 0 Co n c u r r e n c y P r o j e c t s - b y 2 0 2 5 1 17 4 t h S t r e e t S W / O l y m p i c V i e w D r i v e W i d e n O l y m p i c V i e w D r t o a d d a n o r t h b o u n d l e f t t u r n l a n e f o r 5 0 - f o o t s t o r a g e l e n g t h . Sh i f t t h e n o r t h b o u n d l a n e s t o t h e e a s t t o p r o v i d e a n a c c e l e r a t i o n l a n e f o r e a s t b o u n d le f t t u r n s . $7 2 4 , 2 0 0 6 Ca s p e r s S t r e e t / 9 t h A v e n u e N I n s t a l l t r a f f i c s i g n a l . $8 1 8 , 0 0 0 Packet Page 463 of 1136 Co m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n Im p l e m e n t a t i o n a n d F i n a n c i a l P l a n Ci t y o f E d m o n d s No v e m b e r 2 0 0 9 6- 3 ID L o c a t i o n I m p r o v e m e n t Co s t 8 21 2 t h S t r e e t S W / S R 9 9 W i d e n 2 1 2 t h t o a d d a w e s t b o u n d l e f t t u r n l a n e f o r 2 0 0 - f o o t s t o r a g e l e n g t h a n d a n ea s t b o u n d l e f t t u r n l a n e f o r 3 0 0 - f o o t s t o r a g e l e n g t h . P r o v i d e p r o t e c t e d l e f t t u r n ph a s e f o r e a s t b o u n d a n d w e s t b o u n d m o v e m e n t s . $3 , 2 6 5 , 5 0 0 14 22 0 t h S t r e e t S W / S R 9 9 W i d e n 2 2 0 t h t o a d d w e s t b o u n d r i g h t t u r n l a n e f o r 3 2 5 - f o o t s t o r a g e l e n g t h . W i d e n S R 99 a d d s e c o n d s o u t h b o u n d l e f t t u r n l a n e f o r 2 7 5 - f o o t s t o r a g e l e n g t h . $3 , 1 4 7 , 3 0 0 Su b T o t a l $7 , 9 9 5 , 0 0 0 Hi g h w a y o f S t a t e w i d e S i g n i f i c a n c e ( H S S ) O p e r a t i o n I m p r o v e m e n t P r o j e c t s 20 23 8 t h S t r e e t S W / E d m o n d s W a y ( S R 1 0 4 ) In s t a l l a t r a f f i c s i g n a l a n d p r o v i d e p r o t e c t e d l e f t t u r n p h a s e f o r n o r t h b o u n d a n d so u t h b o u n d m o v e m e n t s . C o s t a s s u m e s c o r r e c t i o n o f m i n o r s t r e e t s k e w . $5 , 4 4 4 , 6 0 0 21 24 4 t h S t r e e t S W ( S R 1 0 4 ) / 7 6 t h A v e n u e W W i d e n 2 4 4 t h t o a d d s e c o n d w e s t b o u n d l e f t t u r n l a n e f o r 3 2 5 - f o o t s t o r a g e l e n g t h . Pr o v i d e r i g h t t u r n p h a s e f o r n o r t h b o u n d m o v e m e n t d u r i n g w e s t b o u n d l e f t t u r n ph a s e . $3 , 3 2 1 , 6 0 0 Su b T o t a l $8 , 7 6 6 , 2 0 0 Sa f e t y P r o j e c t s 25 22 8 t h S t r e e t S W , S R 9 9 - 7 6 t h A v e n u e W Co n s t r u c t c o n n e c t i o n o f 2 2 8 t h S t r e e t S W b e t w ee n S R 9 9 a n d 7 6 t h A v e n u e W ( t h r e e la n e s w i t h c u r b , g u t t e r , a n d s i d e w a l k ) . I n s t a l l t r a f f i c s i g n a l a t 2 2 8 t h S t r e e t S W a n d SR 9 9 . I n s t a l l m e d i a n o n S R 9 9 t o p r o h i b it s o u t h b o u n d l e f t tu r n m o v e m e n t s a t 7 6 t h Av e n u e W . $3 , 9 4 8 , 2 0 0 26 21 6 t h S t r e e t / S R 9 9 Wi d e n t o a l l o w o n e l e f t t u r n l a n e a n d o n e t h r o u g h l a n e s i n e a s t b o u n d a n d we s t b o u n d d i r e c t i o n s , w i t h 1 0 0 - f o o t s t o r a g e l e n g t h f o r t u r n l a n e s . $7 1 9 , 8 0 0 27 23 8 t h S t r e e t S W , S R 1 0 4 - 8 4 t h A v e n u e W Wi d e n t o t h r e e l a n e s w i t h c u r b , g u t t e r , a n d s i d e w a l k ( a s p e r P i n e S t r e e t F e r r y Ac c e s s S t u d y ) $2 , 5 1 9 , 7 0 0 28 84 t h A v e n u e W , 2 1 2 t h S t r e e t S W - 2 3 8 t h S t r e e t S W Wi d e n t o t h r e e l a n e s w i t h c u r b , g u t t e r , b i k e l a n e s , a n d s i d e w a l k . $1 6 , 3 5 5 , 5 0 0 80 t h A v e n u e Si g h t d i s t a n c e i m p r o v e m e n t s f o r v e h i c l e s , b i c y c l e s , a n d p e d e s t r i a n s 29 2 , 0 0 0 SR 9 9 I l l u m i n a t i o n I m p r o v e r o a d w a y s a f e t y w i t h i l l u m i n a t i o n $4 0 0 , 0 0 0 Packet Page 464 of 1136 Co m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n Im p l e m e n t a t i o n a n d F i n a n c i a l P l a n Ci t y o f E d m o n d s No v e m b e r 2 0 0 9 6- 4 ID L o c a t i o n I m p r o v e m e n t Co s t Ma i n S t / 3 r d A v e s i g n a l u p g r a d e U p g r a d e s i g n a l t o r e d u c e c o n f l i c t s w i t h t r u c k s $1 3 8 , 0 0 0 Su b T o t a l $2 4 , 3 7 3 , 2 0 0 No n - M o t o r i z e d P r o j e c t s In t e r u r b a n T r a i l $1 , 5 3 5 , 0 0 0 Ci t y w i d e W a l k w a y P r o j e c t s $1 4 , 6 9 9 , 0 0 0 AD A T r a n s i t i o n P l a n $4 , 1 8 9 , 5 0 0 Ci t y w i d e P e d e s t r i a n L i g h t i n g $8 0 , 0 0 0 Bi k e R o u t e S i g n i n g $2 5 , 0 0 0 Ci t y w i d e B i k e w a y P r o j e c t s $1 2 0 , 0 0 0 Ci t y w i d e U p g r a d e t o C o u n t d o w n Pe d e s t r i a n S i g n a l s $4 3 , 0 0 0 Ma i n S t r e e t P e d e s t r i a n I m p r o v e m e n t s $5 3 3 , 0 0 0 Su b T o t a l $2 1 , 2 2 4 , 5 0 0 Pr e s e r v a t i o n a n d M a i n t e n a n c e P r o g r a m s a n d P r o j e c t s An n u a l S t r e e t O v e r l a y s 20 1 0 - 2 0 1 5 G r i n d p a v e m e n t , o v e r l a y $9 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 20 1 6 - 2 0 2 5 $1 5 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ci t y w i d e S t r e e t I m p r o v e m e n t s 20 1 0 - 2 0 1 5 M a i n t e n a n c e t o i n c r e a s e r o a d w a y l i f e $9 0 , 0 0 0 20 1 6 - 2 0 2 5 $1 5 0 , 0 0 0 Ci t y w i d e S i g n a l I m p r o v e m e n t s 20 1 0 - 2 0 1 5 U p g r a d e s t o e x i s t i n g s i g n a l s , f o r m a i n t e n a n c e a n d t e c h n o l o g y $3 0 , 0 0 0 20 1 6 - 2 0 2 5 $5 0 , 0 0 0 Packet Page 465 of 1136 Co m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n Im p l e m e n t a t i o n a n d F i n a n c i a l P l a n Ci t y o f E d m o n d s No v e m b e r 2 0 0 9 6- 5 ID L o c a t i o n I m p r o v e m e n t Co s t Ci t y w i d e C a b i n e t a n d C o n t r o l l e r Up g r a d e s 20 1 0 - 2 0 1 5 U p g r a d e s t o e x i s t i n g t r a f f i c s i g n a l c a b i n e t s e l e m e n t s f o r m a i n t e n a n c e a n d te c h n o l o g y $3 0 , 0 0 0 20 1 6 - 2 0 2 5 $5 0 , 0 0 0 Pu g e t & O l y m p i c V i e w D r i v e S i g n a l r e b u i l d $1 9 8 , 0 0 0 Do w n t o w n B i c y c l e P a r k i n g Ad d b i c y c l e p a r k i n g a t d i f f e r e n t l o c a t i o n s c i t y w i d e $6 0 , 0 0 0 23 8 t h / 1 0 0 t h A v e S i g n a l U p g r a d e s R e b u i l d c o m p l e t e s i g n a l s y s t e m a n d i n s t a l l v i d e o d e t e c t i o n $2 3 6 , 0 0 0 Su b T o t a l $2 4 , 8 9 4 , 0 0 0 Ot h e r P r o j e c t s Ci t y w i d e T r a f f i c C a l m i n g P r o g r a m $1 6 0 , 0 0 0 Op e r a t i o n a l E n h a n c e m e n t s $2 4 0 , 0 0 0 Fu t u r e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e s $6 0 0 , 0 0 0 De b t S e r v i c e o n 2 2 0 t h S t r e e t S W P r o j e c t $6 1 6 , 6 0 0 4t h A v e n u e C o r r i d o r E n h a n c e m e n t $5 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Sh e l l V a l l e y A c c e s s R o a d $5 3 0 , 0 0 0 Ar t e r i a l S t r e e t S i g n a l C o o r d i n a t i o n $5 0 , 0 0 0 Su b T o t a l $7 , 6 9 6 , 6 0 0 GR A N D T O T A L , 2 0 1 0 - 2 0 2 5 $1 0 3 , 0 4 6 , 3 0 0 1. A n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t r e s t r i c t i n g n o r t h b o u n d a n d s o u t h b o u n d t r a f f i c t o r i g h t - t ur n - o n l y ( p r o h i b i t i n g l e f t - t u r n a n d t h r o u g h m ov e m e n t s ) w o u l d a l s o a d d r e s s t h e d e f i c i e n c y i d e n t i f i e d a t t h i s l o c a t i o n t h r o u g h 2 0 2 5 . T h i s co u l d b e i m p l e m e n t e d a s a n a l t e r n a t e s o l u t i on , o r a s a n i n t e r i m s o l u t i o n u n t i l t r a f f i c s i g n a l w a r r a n t s a r e m e t . 2. A n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t i d e n t i f i e d d e f i c i e n c i e s c o u l d a l s o b e a d d r e s s e d by r e m o v a l o f p a r k i n g a l o n g t h e e n t i r e l e n g t h o f 9 t h Av e n u e b e t w e e n t h e n o r t h b o u n d a p p r o a c h o f W a l n u t a n d t h e s o u t h b o u n d a p p r o a c h o f Ma i n , a n d r e s t r i p i n g a n d s i g n i n g s o t h a t t h i s s e c t io n o f 9 t h w o u l d b e 4 l a n e s w i d e . T h i s wo u l d r e s u l t i n t w o l a n e s o f t r a f f i c a t t h e n o r t h b o u n d a n d s o u t h b o u n d s t o p - c o n t r o l l e d a p p r o a c h e s of b o t h i n t e r s e c t i o n s . T h i s co u l d b e i m p l e m e n t e d a s a n a l t e r n a t e s o l u t i on , o r a s a n i n t e r i m s o l u t i o n u n t i l t r a f f i c s i g n a l w a r r a n t s a r e m e t . Packet Page 466 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 6-6 Revenue Sources Current Sources of Revenue Revenue sources available to the City for financing the transportation improvements are listed below. Grants – State and federal grants may be obtained through a competitive application process. Grant sources include the following: -FHWA – The federal government has funds that are made available to the State of Washington and local agencies from federal gas taxes. The allocations are based on the competitive evaluation of specific projects against other projects within the State and region. To be eligible for funding, a project must be located on a route designated as arterial or collector in the federal classification (see Figures 3-2 and 3-3). Grant programs include Congestion Mitigation Air Quality, Intersection and Corridor Safety, Surface Transportation Program (STP) Regional, Transportation Enhancement Program (statewide), and direct allocations. -Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development – Federal funds are distributed as Community Development Block Grants through Snohomish County. Grants are competitive based on the merits of the projects and are targeted to benefit low income areas. Typically, a project must be located in a census tract or block with a majority of residents with low to moderate income. Through the grant amounts are relatively small they can be used on local streets in residential areas for sidewalk and sidewalk ramp construction. -Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) – The Transportation Improvement Board provides grants using the State’s portion of the gas tax. Projects are selected on a competitive basis and programs vary from sidewalks to corridor improvements. To be eligible a project must be located on an arterial or collector. The TIB is an independent state agency that distributes grant funding, which comes from the revenue generated by three cents of the statewide gas tax, to cities and counties for funding transportation projects. The TIB provides funding to its urban customers through three state-funded grant programs: Urban Arterial Program (UAP) – best suited for roadway projects that improve safety and mobility. Urban Corridor Program (UCP) – best suited for roadway projects with multiple funding partners that expand capacity. Sidewalk Program (SP) – best suited for sidewalk projects that improve safety and connectivity. -Additional State Grants – Other grants available at the state level include, but are not excluded to, Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety and Safe Routes to Schools. Packet Page 467 of 1136 Implementation and Financial Plan November 2009 6-7 Traffic Impact / Mitigation Fees – Impact fees were recently instituted within the City and are paid by developers to mitigate the impacts on the transportation system. Real Estate Excise Tax –This is a tax on all sales of real estate, measured by the full selling price, including the amount of any liens, mortgages and other debts given to secure the purchase at a rate of 1.28 percent. The City is eligible to receive proceeds from the tax if they have planned under the Growth Management Act. The funds must be used for capital improvements. The State and Counties receive 0.78 percent and the City 0.5 percent. Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax – The motor vehicle fuel tax is collected by the State and 2.4 cents per gallon are distributed to cities for roadway construction purposes. The money is distributed based on the population of each city. General Fund – The General Fund includes a broad range of taxes and fees such as sales tax and building permit fees. These revenue sources may be used for all City activities. Joint Agency Funding – Edmonds adjoins unincorporated Snohomish County and several other cities. When projects are located in two more jurisdictions, resources are combined to fund them. General Obligation Bonds – These are bonds issued by the City that are financed through future anticipated tax revenues. Parks Funding – Funding provided through the City Parks Department, to be used jointly with transportation funding for pedestrian and bicycle projects. Table 6-2 summarizes potential revenue projected through 2025, based upon current sources and funding history. Table 6-2. Potential Revenue Source Amount Grants (unsecured) $12,080,650 Traffic Impact / Mitigation Fees 6,353,485 Real Estate Excise Tax 4,000,000 Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax 2,000,000 Transfers from Other Funds 2,062,650 Utility Resurfacing 1,795,488 Joint Agency1 8,000,000 Interest Income 511,331 Development Sidewalks 23,021 Parks Funding – Interurban Trail 1,326,000 Parks Funding - 4th Ave Enhancement 2,365,000 Miscellaneous 193,306 TOTAL $40,710,931 1. Assumes joint funding with Snohomish County for the recommended 84th Avenue improvement. Packet Page 468 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 6-8 Based upon the total costs of recommended projects summarized in Table 6-1, and the potential revenue based upon current sources and funding history, the estimated total revenue shortfall through 2025 is $62,335,369. Other Potential Financing Options The City will continue to explore new options to fund transportation projects and programs that are important to citizens. Options that could be considered include the following: Transportation Benefit District – A Transportation Benefit District (TBD) can fund any transportation improvement contained in any existing state or regional transportation plan that is necessitated by existing or reasonably foreseeable congestion levels. The legislative authority of a city to create a TBD by ordinance is set forth in RCW 36.73. Projects covered by a TBD can include maintenance and improvements to city streets, county roads, state highways, investments in high capacity transportation, public transportation, transportation demand management and other transportation projects identified in a regional transportation planning organization plan or state plan. A variety of revenue options are available. An annual vehicle license fee of up to $20 per license can be passed by the City of Edmonds TBD, and is not subject to voter approval. The legislation also allows a TBD the ability to collect additional annual vehicle license fees up to a total of $100 per license per year in addition to sales and property taxes, subject to voter approval. The City has already enacted the $20 per year vehicle license fee, which is slated to fund City Street Operations only. Additional TBD funding above the amount of the TBD in Edmonds would be subject to voter approval. If additional TBD funding were implemented, the City would work with PSRC to incorporate projects into the regional transportation so that they would be eligible for funding. The regional and state plans have already identified a broad range of local transportation improvements as priorities, and the multi-modal mobility and safety projects presented in this Transportation Plan are consistent with those priorities. Local Improvement District/Roadway Improvement District –LIDs, enabled under RCW 35.43, are a means of assisting benefitting properties in financing needed capital improvements. A special type of LID is a Roadway Improvement District (RID). LIDs may be applied to water, sewer and storm sewer facilities, as well as roads; but RIDs may only be applied to street improvements. LIDs and RIDs are special assessment districts in which improvements will specially benefit primarily the property owners in the district. They are created under the sponsorship of a municipal government and are not self governing special purpose districts. To the extent and in the manner noted in the enabling statutes, they must be approved by both the local government and benefited property owners. Additional Grants – Revenue projections summarized in Table 6-2 assume that the City will be able obtain future grant funding at levels consistent with what has been obtained historically. It may be possible for the City to obtain higher levels of grant funding than what has been historically obtained. However, state and federal grants are obtained through a Packet Page 469 of 1136 Implementation and Financial Plan November 2009 6-9 highly competitive process, and other municipalities are also likely to increase their requests for grant funding to address their own revenue shortfalls, so it is likely that only a small portion of the City’s revenue shortfall could be covered through additional grant funding. Business License Fee for Transportation – Cities have the option of including a fee to fund transportation projects, as part of business license fees. This is typically an annual fee that is charged per full time equivalent (FTE) employee. In order for this type of fee to be successful, cities typically collaborate very closely with business owners, to identify projects and programs for funding that would be of most benefit to local businesses. Table 6-3 summarizes potential levels of revenue that could be obtained by these additional sources, if they were approved by the City Council and by citizens. The table shows that the transportation funding shortfall could be covered by a combination of these optional revenue sources. Table 6-3. Potential Revenue from Additional Optional Sources Source Amount TBD license fee at $80 per license per year1 $ 46,592,000 Local Improvement District / Roadway Improvement District2 15,743,369 Additional grants3 Additional joint agency funding4 Business license fee for transportation $62,335,369 1. Assumes 36,000 vehicles (40,000 population x 0.91 vehicles per capita) for 16 years. The total amount shown is that portion above the $20 portion that has already been passed and committed to fund transportation operations. 2. Enacted to pay for specific projects with the district that is defined. Any funding obtained through an LID or RID would lower the fees needed from the other optional sources. 3. Obtained through application process for specific projects. Any funding obtained through additional grants would lower the fees needed from the other optional sources. 4. Obtained from adjacent jurisdictions in which specific projects are co-located. Several recommended projects are located in areas also under the jurisdiction of the cities of Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood, Shoreline, Snohomish County, and/or WSDOT. Project Prioritization Program Priority Although all projects and programs presented in this Transportation Plan are important to the City, they can only be implemented as funding becomes available. Guided by feedback from citizens, and also by state laws, the following priority order has been established. 1.Maintenance and Preservation – The City is committed to maintaining existing transportation facilities in which substantial public investment have been made, and which are critical to maintaining transportation mobility and safety. This has also been identified as the top priority by citizens. Packet Page 470 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 6-10 2.Safety Improvements on City Streets – Road safety projects are also identified as a high priority by citizens. Some concurrency projects also address safety issues; however, additional safety projects will be a high priority if additional funding is obtained from alternative sources. 3.Concurrency – GMA requires that projects needed to maintain concurrency must be in place within six years of the time that they are triggered by development. If concurrency projects are not implemented, new development that those projects would support cannot be approved. Thus, concurrency projects must be implemented to support planned land use identified in the Comprehensive Plan. 4.Walkway Connections – Completion of walkway connections is consistent with the City’s policies to support a strong pedestrian network, and has also been identified as a high priority by citizens. Completing walkway connections will be a high priority if additional funding is obtained from alternative sources. 5.Curb Ramp Upgrades – ADA requires that the City have a program in place to retrofit curb ramps that do not meet ADA standards. The City will continue to implement curb ramp upgrades in conjunction with street construction and maintenance projects, but completion of the Curb Ramp Upgrade Program by 2025 will require additional funding over current projections. 6.Bicycle Route Signing and Facility Upgrade – The City will continue to incorporate bikeways into street improvement and maintenance projects where feasible, whether they consist of separate bicycle lanes, or marking for shared bicycle/vehicle lanes. However, completion of the Bike Plan, including signing and provision of bicycle parking, will require additional funding over current projections. 7.Improvements on SR 104 (Edmonds Way) – Operational deficiencies have been projected for SR 104. As a Highway of Statewide significance, this road is not subject to local concurrency rules. The City will continue to coordinate with WSDOT to address problems as they are identified, but will not be able to fund improvements on this road unless additional sources of funds over current projections are obtained. 8.Traffic Calming Program – The City will continue to address neighborhood traffic safety issues on a case by case basis as they are identified; however, implementation of the full Traffic Calming Program will require additional funding over current projections to be obtained. Implementation Plan Transportation Improvement Plan 2010-2025 The Comprehensive Transportation Plan serves to guide the development of surface transportation within the City, based upon evaluation of existing conditions, projection and Packet Page 471 of 1136 Implementation and Financial Plan November 2009 6-11 evaluation of future conditions that result from the City’s adopted future land use plan, and priorities stated by Edmonds citizens. A six-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is prepared each year, which identifies transportation projects needed to respond to planned growth of the community, and to meet safety and mobility objectives. The TIP integrates City transportation improvement projects and resources with other agencies in order to maximize financing opportunities such as grants, bonds, city funds, donations, impact fees, and other available funding. The TIP is maintained as follows: 1. Provide for annual review by the City Council as part of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) contained in the Comprehensive Plan capital facilities element. 2. Ensure that the TIP: Is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; Defines a project’s need, and links it to LOS and facility plans; Includes construction costs, timing, and funding sources; and considers operations and maintenance impacts where appropriate; and Establishes project development priorities. Table 6-4 summarizes the recommended Transportation Improvement Plan, 2010 through 2025, which is a comprehensive multimodal plan that is based on extensive public input and reflects a major update of the 2003 Plan. The table also identifies which projects are recommended for inclusion in the 2010-2015 TIP. Table 6-4. Transportation Improvement Plan 2010–2025 Project 2010 – 2015 2016 – 2025 Total Annual Street Overlays $ 9,000,000 $ 15,000,000 $ 24,000,000 Citywide Street Improvements 90,000 150,000 240,000 Citywide Signal Improvements 30,000 50,000 80,000 Citywide Cabinet and Controller Upgrades 30,000 50,000 80,000 Puget & Olympic View Drive 198,000 198,000 Downtown Bicycle Parking 22,500 37,500 60,000 238th / 100th Ave Signal Upgrades 236,000 236,000 Puget Drive / 196th St SW / 88th Avenue W 879,000 879,000 Main Street / 9th Avenue N 874,400 874,400 Walnut Street / 9th Avenue S 874,400 874,400 212th Street SW / 84th Avenue W 1,910,100 1,910,100 Packet Page 472 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 6-12 Project 2010 – 2015 2016 – 2025 Total Caspers Street / 9th Avenue N 818,000 818,000 212th Street SW / 76th Avenue W 2,313,800 2,313,800 Olympic View Drive / 76th Avenue W 1,146,800 1,146,800 220th Street SW / SR 99 3,147,300 3,147,300 220th Street SW / 76th Avenue W 138,300 138,300 228th Street SW, SR99 - 76th Avenue W 3,948,200 3,948,200 84th Avenue W, 212th Street SW - 238th Street SW 16,355,500 16,355,500 80th Avenue Sight Distance 292,000 292,000 SR 99 Illumination 400,000 400,000 Main St / 3rd Ave signal upgrade 138,000 138,000 Shell Valley Access Road 530,000 530,000 212th Street SW / SR 99 3,265,500 3,265,500 216th Street / SR 99 719,800 719,800 174th Street SW / Olympic View Drive 724,200 724,200 238th Street SW / Edmonds Way (SR 104) 5,444,600 5,444,600 238th Street SW, SR104 - 84th Avenue W 2,519,700 2,519,700 244th Street SW (SR 104) / 76th Avenue W 3,321,600 3,321,600 Interurban Trail 1,535,000 1,535,000 Citywide Upgrade to Countdown Pedestrian Signals 43,000 43,000 Citywide Walkway Projects 5,512,125 9,186,875 14,699,000 ADA Transition Plan 1,571,063 2,618,438 4,189,500 Citywide Pedestrian Lighting 30,000 50,000 80,000 Bike Route Signing 25,000 25,000 Citywide Bikeway Projects 45,000 75,000 120,000 Citywide Traffic Calming Program 60,000 100,000 160,000 Operational Enhancements 90,000 150,000 240,000 Future Transportation Plan Updates 225,000 375,000 600,000 Debt Service on 220th Street SW Project 231,225 385,375 616,600 4th Avenue Corridor Enhancement 5,500,000 5,500,000 Main Street Pedestrian Lighting 533,000 533,000 Arterial Street Signal Coordination 50,000 50,000 TOTAL $30,541,812 $72,504,488 $103,046,300 Projected Revenue $15,266,599 $25,444,332 $40,710,931 Shortfall, unless alternative funding identified 15,275,213 47,060,156 $62,335,369 Packet Page 473 of 1136 Implementation and Financial Plan November 2009 6-13 Interjurisdictional Coordination The City will coordinate with the following agencies to implement projects and strategies presented in this Transportation Plan: Apply to the FHWA to implement recommended updates to the federal functional classification of some city streets, as summarized in Table 3-2. Coordinate with WSDOT on projects to address future operational deficiencies on SR 104. Coordinate with Snohomish County for joint agency funding of the proposed 84th Avenue improvement. If a higher funding level of TBD is put forward and approved by voters, coordinate with PSRC to include projects in the regional transportation plan so that they will be eligible for funding. Coordinate with WSDOT and the FHWA to move forward with the Edmonds Crossing Multimodal Project. Coordinate with Community Transit to implement transit investments that are consistent with the City’s priorities; including construction of additional bus shelters and benches, and new transit routes. Contingency Plan in Case of Revenue Shortfall Some revenue sources are very secure and highly reliable. However, other revenue sources are volatile, and therefore difficult to predict with confidence. To cover the shortfall identified in the previous section, or in the event that revenue from one or more of these sources is not forthcoming in the amounts forecasted in this Transportation Plan, the City has several options: Change the LOS standard, and therefore reduce the need for road capacity improvement projects. Increase the amount of revenue from existing sources. Find new sources of revenue which could include additional federal and state grants, additional TBD funding, business license fee for transportation, and/or LID/RIDs. Require developers to provide such facilities at their own expense. Change the Land Use Element in the Comprehensive Plan to reduce the amount of development, and thus reduce the need for additional public facilities; or to further concentrate growth along higher capacity roads that are served by transit. Packet Page 474 of 1136 Packet Page 475 of 1136 November 2009 7-1 Chapter 7. References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 1999. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. Association of Washington Cities. 2002. Tax & User Fee Survey, Part II Land Use Fees. Association of Washington Cities. 2007. Transportation Benefit District Fact Sheet. September. http://www.awcnet.org/documents/TBDFactSheet0907.pdf CH2M Hill. 2001. Edmonds Crossing: Pine Street Ferry Traffic Study. Prepared for the City of Edmonds. October 10. Community Transit. 2009. System Performance Report Year 2008. Produced by Research and Statistics Section, Strategic Planning and Grants Division. Edmonds, City of. 2008. Comprehensive Plan. Ewing, Reid. 1999. Traffic Calming: State of the Practice. Report No. FHWA-RD-99-135. Prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers for the US Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. 1999. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1989. Highway Functional Classification: Concepts, Criteria and Procedures. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/fcsec1_1.htm Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2000. Roundabouts: An informational Guide. Publication No. FHWA-RD-00-067. June. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2001. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). US Department of Transportation. Publication No. MUTCD-1. Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE). Traffic Engineering Handbook. 5th Edition, James L. Pline, editor. Publication No. TB-010A. Washington, DC. 1999. Packet Page 476 of 1136 Comprehensive Transportation Plan City of Edmonds 7-2 JHK and Associates. City of Edmonds Bikeway and Walkway Plan. June 4, 1992. Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC) of Washington. 2003. Washington State Local Improvement District Manual. Fifth Edition. Report No. 52. Prepared with the American Public Works Association, Washington chapter. October. Parsons Brinkerhoff. Washington State Ferry (WSF) 1999 Travel Survey: Edmonds – Kingston Route. 1999. Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center. How are "Sharrows" or shared-lane markings used to improve bicyclist safety? Accessed May 4, 2009. http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/faqs/answer.cfm?id=972 Perteet. 2007. SR 99 Traffic and Circulation Study. Prepared for the City of Edmonds. November. Puget Sound Regional Council. 2008. VISION 2040. Puget Sound Regional Council, 2009. PSRC Transportation 2040 Working Group. May. http://www.psrc.org/boards/advisory/T2040working_group.htm Snohomish County. 2008. Buildable Lands Report. Snohomish County. 2000. General Policy Plan – Transportation Element. Sound Transit. Sound Move – The 10-Year Regional Transit System Plan. Adopted May 31, 1996. http://www.soundtransit.org/stnews/publications/soundmove/pubsSMTOC.htm State of Washington. Growth Management Act. RCW 36.70A. 1990. The Transpo Group. Report to City of Edmonds on State “Level of Service Bill” Impact on the City’s Comprehensive Plan. August 2001. Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual. Special Report 209. National Research Council. Washington, DC. (1997 and 2000 updates). Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2007. Washington State Highway System Plan: 2007 – 2026. Olympia, WA. Prepared by the WSDOT Planning Office. December 2007. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2008. Local Agency Guidelines Manual. Prepared by the Highways and Local Programs Division. October. Washington State Ferries. 2006. Origin-Destination On-Board Survey. Washington State Transportation Commission (WSTC). 2006. Transportation Commission List of Highways of Statewide Significance. Passed by Resolution 660. June 7. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/6C953258-50A4-419E-AD79- BDE4EF775845/0/HSSlist2008.pdf Packet Page 477 of 1136 Implementation and Financial Plan November 2009 7-3 Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2008. Collision Data (1/1/2005 – 12/31/2007) within the City of Edmonds. Collected and compiled by the WSDOT Collision Data and Analysis Branch. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2009. Design Manual. Publication Number M 22-01. Prepared by the Design Office, Engineering and Regional Operations Division. January. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Publications/Manuals/M22-01.htm Washington State Transportation Commission (WSTC). 1998. Transportation Commission List of Highways of Statewide Significance. Passed by Resolution #584. December. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/ppsc/hsp/HSSLIST.pdf Packet Page 478 of 1136 Packet Page 479 of 1136 Appendix A Public Participation Materials Packet Page 480 of 1136 Packet Page 481 of 1136 CityofEdmondsComprehensiveTransportationPlanUpdate OpenHouse#1 June19,2008 EdmondsCityHall Packet Page 482 of 1136 Packet Page 483 of 1136 M a i n S t 7 6 t h A v e W 7 5 t h P l W O l y m p i c V i e w D r 2 08 t h St SW 9 5 t h P l W 21 2 t h S t S W 2 20 th S t S W Fi s h e r 6 8 t h A v e W F i rda l e A ve Da y t o n S t 7 t h A e N 1 0 0 t h A v e W 7 6 t h A v e W O l y m p i c V i e w D r 2 38 t h S t S W 17 6 t h S t S W B ow do i n W a y 18 0 t h S t S W Wa l n u t S t 3 r d A v e S 24 4 th S t S W 5 t h A v e S 2 3 6t h S t S W 3 r d A v e N 8 4 t h A v e W 9 t h A v e S 23 8 t h St SW 20 0 t h S t S W C as p er s S t 7 6 t h A v e W Pu g e t D r E dmo nd s W y M a p l e w o o d D r 2 2 8 t h S t S W 9 t h A v e N 5 2 n d A v e W M e a d o w d a l e B e a c h R o a d O l y m p i c V i e w D r 8 0 t h A v e W 8 8 t h A v e W 19 6 t h S t S W S u n s e t A v e 10 4 99 52 4 00 .51 Mi l e s So u r c e : C i t y o f E d m o n d s ( 2 0 0 8 ) ; W S D O T ( 2 0 0 8 ) ; Sn o h o m i s h C o u n t y ( 2 0 0 8 ) Co u n t y B o u n d a r y Ci t y B o u n d a r y Ra i l r o a d Wa t e r F e a t u r e Bu l b - O u t s Bu l b - O u t s a n d T r a f f i c C i r c l e Sp e e d B u m p s Sp e e d B u m p s a n d D i v e r t e r Ex i s t i n g T r a f f i c C a l m i n g D e v i c e s Ci t y o f E d m o n d s C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e M a i n S t 7 6 t h A v e W 7 5 t h P l W O l y m p i c V i e w D r 2 08 t h St SW 9 5 t h P l W 21 2 t h S t S W 2 20 th S t S W Fi s h e r 6 8 t h A v e W F i rda l e A ve Da y t o n S t 7 t h A e N 1 0 0 t h A v e W 7 6 t h A v e W O l y m p i c V i e w D r 2 38 t h S t S W 17 6 t h S t S W B ow do i n W a y 18 0 t h S t S W Wa l n u t S t 3 r d A v e S 24 4 th S t S W 5 t h A v e S 2 3 6t h S t S W 3 r d A v e N 8 4 t h A v e W 9 t h A v e S 23 8 t h St SW 20 0 t h S t S W C as p er s S t 7 6 t h A v e W Pu g e t D r E dmo nd s W y M a p l e w o o d D r 2 2 8 t h S t S W 9 t h A v e N 5 2 n d A v e W M e a d o w d a l e B e a c h R o a d O l y m p i c V i e w D r 8 0 t h A v e W 8 8 t h A v e W 19 6 t h S t S W S u n s e t A v e 10 4 99 52 4 00 .51 Mi l e s So u r c e : C i t y o f E d m o n d s ( 2 0 0 8 ) ; W S D O T ( 2 0 0 8 ) ; Sn o h o m i s h C o u n t y ( 2 0 0 8 ) Co u n t y B o u n d a r y Ci t y B o u n d a r y Ra i l r o a d Wa t e r F e a t u r e Ex i s t i n g P a v e d W a l k w a y Si d e w a l k o n O n e S i d e Si d e w a l k o n B o t h S i d e s Un p a v e d W a l k w a y Ex i s t i n g S i d e w a l k a n d W a l k w a y S y s t e m Ci t y o f E d m o n d s C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e Packet Page 484 of 1136 M a i n S t 7 6 t h A v e W 7 5 t h P l W O l y m p i c V i e w D r 2 08 t h St SW 9 5 t h P l W 21 2 t h S t S W 2 20 th S t S W Fi s h e r 6 8 t h A v e W F i rda l e A ve Da y t o n S t 7 t h A e N 1 0 0 t h A v e W 7 6 t h A v e W O l y m p i c V i e w D r 2 38 t h S t S W 17 6 t h S t S W B ow do i n W a y 18 0 t h S t S W Wa l n u t S t 3 r d A v e S 24 4 th S t S W 5 t h A v e S 2 3 6t h S t S W 3 r d A v e N 8 4 t h A v e W 9 t h A v e S 23 8 t h St SW 20 0 t h S t S W C as p er s S t 7 6 t h A v e W Pu g e t D r E dmo nd s W y M a p l e w o o d D r 2 2 8 t h S t S W 9 t h A v e N 5 2 n d A v e W M e a d o w d a l e B e a c h R o a d O l y m p i c V i e w D r 8 0 t h A v e W 8 8 t h A v e W 19 6 t h S t S W S u n s e t A v e 2 1 19 25 3 5 14 4 22 13 21 12 7 26 27 17 9 16 6 15 10 11 29 28 4 20 8 23 18 24 10 4 99 52 4 00 .51 Mi l e s So u r c e : C i t y o f E d m o n d s ( 2 0 0 8 ) ; W S D O T ( 2 0 0 8 ) ; Sn o h o m i s h C o u n t y ( 2 0 0 8 ) Co u n t y B o u n d a r y Ci t y B o u n d a r y Ra i l r o a d Wa t e r F e a t u r e Bi k e R o u t e s Bi k e w a y R o u t e Bi k e w a y R o u t e Bi k e w a y R o u t e Of f - R o a d R o u t e Co l o r s d i f f e r e n t i a t e b i k e ro u t e n u m b e r s . Ex i s t i n g B i k e w a y N e t w o r k Ci t y o f E d m o n d s C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e M a i n S t 7 6 t h A v e W 7 5 t h P l W O l y m p i c V i e w D r 2 08 t h St SW 9 5 t h P l W 21 2 t h S t S W 2 20 th S t S W Fi s h e r 6 8 t h A v e W F i rda l e A ve Da y t o n S t 7 t h A e N 1 0 0 t h A v e W 7 6 t h A v e W O l y m p i c V i e w D r 2 38 t h S t S W 17 6 t h S t S W B ow do i n W a y 18 0 t h S t S W Wa l n u t S t 3 r d A v e S 24 4 th S t S W 5 t h A v e S 2 3 6t h S t S W 3 r d A v e N 8 4 t h A v e W 9 t h A v e S 23 8 t h St SW 20 0 t h S t S W C as p er s S t 7 6 t h A v e W Pu g e t D r E dmo nd s W y M a p l e w o o d D r 2 2 8 t h S t S W 9 t h A v e N 5 2 n d A v e W M e a d o w d a l e B e a c h R o a d O l y m p i c V i e w D r 8 0 t h A v e W 8 8 t h A v e W 19 6 t h S t S W S u n s e t A v e 10 4 99 52 4 11 0 11 8 11 5 11 4 10 1 19 0 13 1 11 9 13 1 13 1 11 0 11 9 19 0 11 0 10 0 11 0 11 0 11 2 13 0 11 2 13 0 13 1 11 8 11 5 11 6 11 5 13 1 11 6 11 8 13 1 11 4 11 4 11 4 13 0 11 2 11 9 41 6 40 6 40 4 47 7 40 4 40 2 41 5 40 8 44 1 41 4 44 1 41 4 40 4 47 7 40 6 41 3 42 5 42 2 41 7 41 0 41 6 41 2 42 1 43 5 40 5 40 4 41 6 41 1 40 6 40 1 40 5 40 8 51 1 51 0 51 3 87 0 87 1 87 1 85 1 81 0 87 0 88 5 87 0 87 0 86 0 88 0 87 1 82 1 81 2 81 0 81 0 87 0 85 5 87 1 85 1 00 .51 Mi l e s So u r c e : C i t y o f E d m o n d s ( 2 0 0 8 ) ; W S D O T ( 2 0 0 8 ) ; Sn o h o m i s h C o u n t y ( 2 0 0 8 ) Co u n t y B o u n d a r y Ci t y B o u n d a r y Ra i l r o a d Wa t e r F e a t u r e Pa r k & R i d e L o c a t i o n s Ex i s t i n g T r a n s i t R o u t e s Co m m u n i t y T r a n s i t L o c a l R o u t e s Co m m u n i t y T r a n s i t I n t e r - C o u n t y C o m m u t e r R o u t e s Co m m u n i t y T r a n s i t U n i v e r s i t y D i s t r i c t R o u t e s So u n d T r a n s i t E x p r e s s R o u t e s Ex i s t i n g T r a n s i t S e r v i c e Ci t y o f E d m o n d s C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e Packet Page 485 of 1136 M a i n S t 7 6 t h A v e W 7 5 t h P l W O l y m p i c V i e w D r 2 08 t h St SW 9 5 t h P l W 21 2 t h S t S W 2 20 th S t S W Fi s h e r 6 8 t h A v e W F i rda l e A ve Da y t o n S t 7 t h A e N 1 0 0 t h A v e W 7 6 t h A v e W O l y m p i c V i e w D r 2 38 t h S t S W 17 6 t h S t S W B ow do i n W a y 18 0 t h S t S W Wa l n u t S t 3 r d A v e S 24 4 th S t S W 5 t h A v e S 2 3 6t h S t S W 3 r d A v e N 8 4 t h A v e W 9 t h A v e S 23 8 t h St SW 20 0 t h S t S W C as p er s S t 7 6 t h A v e W Pu g e t D r E dmo nd s W y M a p l e w o o d D r 2 2 8 t h S t S W 9 t h A v e N 5 2 n d A v e W M e a d o w d a l e B e a c h R o a d O l y m p i c V i e w D r 8 0 t h A v e W 8 8 t h A v e W 19 6 t h S t S W S u n s e t A v e 10 4 99 52 4 00 .51 Mi l e s So u r c e : C i t y o f E d m o n d s ( 2 0 0 8 ) ; W S D O T ( 2 0 0 8 ) ; Sn o h o m i s h C o u n t y ( 2 0 0 8 ) Co u n t y B o u n d a r y Ci t y B o u n d a r y Ra i l r o a d Wa t e r F e a t u r e Ex i s t i n g L e v e l o f S e r v i c e LO S A LO S B LO S C LO S D LO S E LO S F Ex i s t i n g L e v e l o f S e r v i c e Ci t y o f E d m o n d s C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e L ev e l of S er v i c e ( L O S ) , gr a d e d A t h ro u g h F , is t h e pr i m a r y me a s u r e m e n t us e d to de t e r m i n e t h e op e r a t i n g q ua l it y of a ro a d w a y se g m e n t or in t e r s e c t i o n LO S Ch a r a c t e r i s t i c T r a f f i c F l o w A F re e fl ow , l it t l e or no re s t r i c t i o n on sp e e d or ma n e u v e r a b i l it y ca u s e d by t h e pr e s e n c e of ot h er ve h ic l es . B S ta b l e fl ow , op e r a t i n g sp e e d is be g i n n i n g to be re s t r i c t e d by ot h er tr a ffi c. C S ta b l e fl ow , vo l um e an d de n s i t y l ev e l s ar e be g i n n i n g to re s t r i c t dr i v e r s in t h ei r ma n e u v e r a b i l it y . D S ta b l e fl ow , sp e e d s an d ma n e u v e r a b i l it y c l os e l y co n t r o ll ed du e to h ig h er vo l um e s . E A pp r o a c h in g un s t a b l e fl ow , l ow sp e e d s , fr e e d o m to ma n e u v e r is di ffi cu l t. F F or c e d tr a ffi c fl ow , ve r y l ow sp e e d s , l on g de l ay s wi t h st o p an d go tr a ffi c. Th e C it y of E dm o n d s h as ad o p t e d t h e fo ll ow i n g L O S S ta n d a r d s fo r in t e r s e c t i o n s wi t h in t h e ci t y : A rt e r i a l s : L O S D C o ll ec t o r s : L O S C L oc a l s : L O S E I nt e r s e c t i o n s t h at do no t me e t t h es e st a n d a r d s ar e co n s i d e r e d de fi ci e n t . Le v e l o f S e r v i c e Ci t y o f E d m o n d s C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e Packet Page 486 of 1136 M a i n S t 7 6 t h A v e W 7 5 t h P l W O l y m p i c V i e w D r 2 08 t h St SW 9 5 t h P l W 21 2 t h S t S W 2 20 th S t S W Fi s h e r 6 8 t h A v e W F i rda l e A ve Da y t o n S t 7 t h A e N 1 0 0 t h A v e W 7 6 t h A v e W O l y m p i c V i e w D r 2 38 t h S t S W 17 6 t h S t S W B ow do i n W a y 18 0 t h S t S W Wa l n u t S t 3 r d A v e S 24 4 th S t S W 5 t h A v e S 2 3 6t h S t S W 3 r d A v e N 8 4 t h A v e W 9 t h A v e S 23 8 t h St SW 20 0 t h S t S W C as p er s S t 7 6 t h A v e W Pu g e t D r E dmo nd s W y M a p l e w o o d D r 2 2 8 t h S t S W 9 t h A v e N 5 2 n d A v e W M e a d o w d a l e B e a c h R o a d O l y m p i c V i e w D r 8 0 t h A v e W 8 8 t h A v e W 19 6 t h S t S W S u n s e t A v e 10 4 99 52 4 00 .51 Mi l e s So u r c e : C i t y o f E d m o n d s ( 2 0 0 8 ) ; W S D O T ( 2 0 0 8 ) ; Sn o h o m i s h C o u n t y ( 2 0 0 8 ) Co u n t y B o u n d a r y Ci t y B o u n d a r y Ra i l r o a d Wa t e r F e a t u r e Pr i n c i p a l A r t e r i a l Mi n o r A r t e r i a l Co l l e c t o r Lo c a l S t r e e t Ex i s t i n g R o a d w a y F u n c t i o n a l C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s Ci t y o f E d m o n d s C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e M a i n S t 7 6 t h A v e W 7 5 t h P l W O l y m p i c V i e w D r 2 08 t h St SW 9 5 t h P l W 21 2 t h S t S W 2 20 th S t S W Fi s h e r 6 8 t h A v e W F i rda l e A ve Da y t o n S t 7 t h A e N 1 0 0 t h A v e W 7 6 t h A v e W O l y m p i c V i e w D r 2 38 t h S t S W 17 6 t h S t S W B ow do i n W a y 18 0 t h S t S W Wa l n u t S t 3 r d A v e S 24 4 th S t S W 5 t h A v e S 2 3 6t h S t S W 3 r d A v e N 8 4 t h A v e W 9 t h A v e S 23 8 t h St SW 20 0 t h S t S W C as p er s S t 7 6 t h A v e W Pu g e t D r E dmo nd s W y M a p l e w o o d D r 2 2 8 t h S t S W 9 t h A v e N 5 2 n d A v e W M e a d o w d a l e B e a c h R o a d O l y m p i c V i e w D r 8 0 t h A v e W 8 8 t h A v e W 19 6 t h S t S W S u n s e t A v e 10 4 99 52 4 00 .51 Mi l e s So u r c e : C i t y o f E d m o n d s ( 2 0 0 8 ) ; W S D O T ( 2 0 0 8 ) ; Sn o h o m i s h C o u n t y ( 2 0 0 8 ) Co u n t y B o u n d a r y Ci t y B o u n d a r y Ra i l r o a d Wa t e r F e a t u r e Tr a f f i c S i g n a l Al l - W a y S t o p Em e r g e n c y S i g n a l Ex i s t i n g T r a f f i c C o n t r o l D e v i c e s Ci t y o f E d m o n d s C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e Packet Page 487 of 1136 M a i n S t 7 6 t h A v e W 7 5 t h P l W O l y m p i c V i e w D r 2 08 t h St SW 9 5 t h P l W 21 2 t h S t S W 2 20 th S t S W Fi s h e r 6 8 t h A v e W F i rda l e A ve Da y t o n S t 7 t h A e N 1 0 0 t h A v e W 7 6 t h A v e W O l y m p i c V i e w D r 2 38 t h S t S W 17 6 t h S t S W B ow do i n W a y 18 0 t h S t S W Wa l n u t S t 3 r d A v e S 24 4 th S t S W 5 t h A v e S 2 3 6t h S t S W 3 r d A v e N 8 4 t h A v e W 9 t h A v e S 23 8 t h St SW 20 0 t h S t S W C as p er s S t 7 6 t h A v e W Pu g e t D r E dmo nd s W y M a p l e w o o d D r 2 2 8 t h S t S W 9 t h A v e N 5 2 n d A v e W M e a d o w d a l e B e a c h R o a d O l y m p i c V i e w D r 8 0 t h A v e W 8 8 t h A v e W 19 6 t h S t S W S u n s e t A v e 10 4 99 52 4 00 .51 Mi l e s So u r c e : C i t y o f E d m o n d s ( 2 0 0 8 ) ; W S D O T ( 2 0 0 8 ) ; Sn o h o m i s h C o u n t y ( 2 0 0 8 ) Co u n t y B o u n d a r y Ci t y B o u n d a r y Ra i l r o a d Wa t e r F e a t u r e Nu m b e r o f A c c i d e n t s 11 - 1 5 16 - 2 0 21 - 3 0 31 + 20 0 5 - 2 0 0 7 H i g h C o l l i s i o n L o c a t i o n s Ci t y o f E d m o n d s C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e Packet Page 488 of 1136 Packet Page 489 of 1136 City of Edmonds Transportation Plan Update What is a Transportation Plan? The Transportation Plan establishes direction for development of programs and facilities that address the transportation needs for the City of Edmonds both now and across a 20-year future-planning horizon. Based upon existing and projected future land use and travel patterns, the Transportation Plan: describes existing roadway facilities and operating conditions; and existing walkway, bikeway, and transit facilities and services; describes the methods used to forecast and analyze future transportation conditions, based upon future land use; identifies existing and future transportation needs, and projects to address those needs; provides cost estimates for identified projects, and identifies available funding and revenue sources; identifies intergovernmental coordination priorities and efforts; presents policies and prioritization criteria by which project funding and project tradeoff decisions are made; and presents a financially constrained 20-year System Plan, designed to address identified transportation needs. The System Plan includes street improvements, bicycle and walkway plans, transportation demand management, neighborhood traffic control, public transportation, and implementation strategies. What are the objectives of the Transportation Plan? Based upon the City’s adopted transportation goals and policies, the objectives for the Transportation Plan are as follows: Address the total transportation needs of the City. Identify transportation improvements necessary to provide a system that will function safely and efficiently through the year 2025. Ensure consistency with the land use of local comprehensive plans. Provide an efficient transportation system. Contribute to economic growth. Provide cost-effective accessibility for people, goods, and services. Provide travel alternatives that are safe and have convenient access to employment, education, and recreational opportunities for urban and suburban residents in the area. Identify funding needs for identified transportation improvements and the appropriate participation by both the public and private sectors of the local economy. Comply with the requirements of Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and Growth Management Act. Support improvements to major transportation routes outside the City that will reduce through-traffic in the community. Packet Page 490 of 1136 What information can I provide that would be most helpful to the Transportation Plan update? Please consider the following questions: Do you find maintenance of the City’s street pavements adequate? Are there streets or intersections within the City where you feel traffic congestion is at an unacceptable level? Are there locations within the City where sidewalks should be constructed? Are there streets or intersections where you have traffic safety concerns? What additional transit measures should the City pursue, new transit routes, additional service along existing routes, transit shelters for users waiting at transit stops? Are you aware of residential streets where the City should consider implementing traffic calming measures? Do you have a vision for the City’s transportation system that you would like to share? Please provide your input on these questions to the City by Thursday, July 3, 2008, at 5pm. Your feedback can be dropped off, mailed, or emailed to the addresses provided at the bottom of this page. What are the next steps in the Transportation Plan development? Activity Date Public Meeting to review potential projects August – September 2008 Complete Draft Transportation Plan January 2009 Public Meeting to review Draft Plan January 2009 Planning Commission meetings to review Draft Plan February – March 2009 City Council Review of Draft Plan April – May 2009 City Council consideration of revised traffic impact fees May 2009 How do I contact the City if I have feedback or questions regarding the Transportation Plan? Bertrand Hauss, Project Manager City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue N Edmonds, WA 98020 Phone: (425) 771-0220 Email: Hauss@ci.edmonds.wa.us Packet Page 491 of 1136 CityofEdmondsComprehensiveTransportationPlanUpdate OpenHouse#2 March5,2009 EdmondsCityHall Packet Page 492 of 1136 Packet Page 493 of 1136 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e We l c o m e Pl e a s e s i g n i n h e r e . Me e t i n g O b j e c t i v e s R ev i e w D ra f t T ra n s p o r t a t i o n P l an P ot en t i a l pr o j ec t s an d pr o g r a m s C os t s an d r ev e n u e pr o j ec t i o n s P r ov i d e in p u t on pr o j ec t pr i o r i t i e s fo r T ra n s p o r t a t i o n P l an R ev i e w an d c om m e n t on pr e l im i n a r y de s i g n of SR - 9 9 / W 7 6 t h A ve n u e I nt e r s e c t i o n I mp r o v e m e n t Me e t i n g A g e n d a 5: 0 0 – 5 : 3 0 p. m . S ig n in . 5: 3 0 – 5 : 4 5 p. m . P re s e n t a t i o n 5: 4 5 – 6 : 3 0 p. m . V is i t st a t i o n s , ta lk to pr o j ec t te a m me m b e r s P ro v i d e co m m e n t s 6: 3 0 – 6 : 4 5 p. m . P re s e n t a t i o n 6: 4 5 – 7 : 3 0 p. m . V is i t st a t i o n s , ta lk to pr o j ec t te a m me m b e r s P ro v i d e co m m e n t s 7: 3 0 p. m . E nd of me e t i n g LO S Ch ar a c t e r i s t i c T r a f f i c F lo w A ve r a g e D el a y (se c o n d s p er ve h ic l e ) S ig n a l i z e d S to p C on t r o l l e d A F re e f l o w, li t t l e or no re s t r i c t i o n on s p ee d or ma n e u v e r a b i l i t y ca u s e d by t h e p re s e n c e o f ot h er ve h ic l e s . ≤ 1 0 ≤ 1 0 B S ta b l e f l o w, o p er a t i n g s p ee d is be g i n n i n g to be re s t r i c t e d by ot h er tr a ffi c . > 1 0 –20 > 1 0 –1 5 C S ta b l e f l o w, vo l u m e an d de n s i t y le v e l s ar e be g i n n i n g to re s t r i c t dr i v e r s in t h ei r ma n e u v e r a b i l i t y . > 20 –3 5 > 1 5 – 2 5 D S ta b l e f l o w, s p ee d s an d ma n e u v e r a b i l i t y cl o s e l y co n t r o l l e d du e to h ig h er vo l u m e s . > 3 5 – 5 5 > 2 5– 3 5 E A p p ro a c h in g un s t a b l e f l o w, lo w s p ee d s , f re e d o m to ma n e u v e r is di ffi cu l t . > 5 5 – 8 0 > 3 5 – 5 0 F F or c e d tr a ffi c f l o w, ve r y lo w s p ee d s , lo n g de l a y s w it h st o p- an d -go tr a ffi c . > 8 0 > 5 0 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e In t e r s e c t i o n O p e r a t i o n a t 2 1 2 t h S t r e e t S W a n d 7 6 t h A v e n u e W L ev e l o f S er v i c e (L O S ) m e a s u r e s t h e o p e r a t i n g q ua l i t y o f a r o a d . LO S i s g r a d e d A (fr e e f l o w ) t h ro u g h F (gr i d l o c k) . F Av e r a g e D e l a y 13 8 s e c o n d s / v e h ic l e Av e r a g e D e l a y 1 66 s e c o n d s / v e h ic l e F Av e r a g e D e l a y 94 s e c o n d s / v e h ic l e F Av e r a g e D e l a y 13 1 s e c o n d s / v e h ic l e F 20 2 5 WI T H O U T IM P R O V E M E N T S Av e r a g e i n t e r s e c t i o n L O S = F Av e r a g e i n t e r s e c t i o n d e l a y = 13 6 s e c o n d s / v e h ic l e Av e r a g e D e l a y 53 s e c o n d s / v e h ic l e Av e r a g e D e l a y 6 1 s e c o n d s / v e h ic l e Av e r a g e D e l a y 58 s e c o n d s / v e h ic l e D E E Av e r a g e D e l a y 3 7 s e c o n d s / v e h ic l e D 20 2 5 WI T H IM P R O V E M E N T S Av e r a g e i n t e r s e c t i o n L O S = D Av e r a g e i n t e r s e c t i o n d e l a y = 5 4 s e c o n d s / v e h ic l e 21 2 th St r e e t SW 7 6 t h A v e n u e W 21 2 th St r e e t SW 7 6 t h A v e n u e W No t e : O pe r a t i o n s a r e s i m i l a r a t 2 1 2 t h S tr e e t SW / S ta t e R ou t e 99 a n d 2 2 0 t h S tr e e t SW / 7 6 t h A ve n u e W . Le v e l o f S e r v i c e Packet Page 494 of 1136 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e L e v e l o f S e r v i c e wi t h a n d w i t h o u t I m p r o v e m e n t s Sn o h o m i s h C o u n t y Ki n g C o u n t y Sn o h o m i s h C o u n t y Ki n g C o u n t y M ai n S t 7 6 t h A v e W 7 5 t h P l W 20 8 t h S t S W 9 5 t h P l W 21 2 t h S t S W 2 20 t h S t S W 6 8 t h A v e W Da y t o n S t 7 t h A e N 1 0 0 t h A v e W 7 6 t h A v e W O l y m p i c V i e w D r 2 38 t h S t S W 17 6 t h S t S W B o wd oin W a y 1 8 0 t h St SW W a ln u t S t 3 r d A v e S 2 4 4 th S t S W 5 t h A v e S 2 36 t h S t S W 3 r d A v e N 8 4 t h A v e W 9 t h A v e S 23 8 t h S t SW 20 0 t h S t S W C as p e rs S t 7 6 t h A v e W P ug e t D r Ed mo n d s W y M a p l e w o o d D r 2 28 t h S tS W 9 t h A v e N 5 2 n d A v e W M e a d o w d a l e B e a c h R o a d O l y m p i c V i e w D r 8 0 t h A v e W 8 8 t h A v e W 19 6 t h S t S W S u n s e t A v e 10 4 99 52 4 O l y m p i c V i e w D r Le v e l o f S e r v i c e ( L O S ) K e y me e t s L O S s t a n d a r d ex c e e d s L O S s t a n d a r d no t s u b j e c t t o L O S s t a n d a r d no i m p r o v e m e n t s r e c o m m e n d e d LO S S t a n d a r d s C it y a r t e r i a l s = L O S D S ta t e R o u t e 9 9 = L O S E C DF D D F F B B D D D D F F B B F F F B A C E F B A B B B A A A D F F B B E F F B B D F F B B E F F A A B B B D F F B B D E F E D F F B B F F F B B B B B C D D D F F B B D F F D D D F F B B D E F E D F F B B D E E D C A A B B C C B C C D F F B B F F F B B D D E D F F B D E F D 00 .51 Mi l e s wi t h o u t im p r o v e m e n t s wi t h im p r o v e m e n t s B 20 15 20 2 5 B w it h ou t im p ro v e m e n t s ex i s t i n g FF D 0 0 .5 1 M i l e s y y y y mi s mi s h C o u n t y sh C o u n t mi s Sn o h o m no h o m mi s h t h u y y u u u u o o oh o oh o sh C o u n t sh C o u n t S S h C o u n h C o u n h h h h h h i i i i i i m m m m m m no h o m no h o m o Sn o h o i i S S n o h o m m m m m i i i i s s s h h h h h C o u u n t t t ty y y y y i o ou n t y t y y y y u t Ki n g C o u Ki n g g u u u u u u u u o o o o Co Co t t t t n n n n n n Ki n Ki n o o Ki i K i n g C o o o o o u u u u u n n n t t t t y y y y y y y y ty y y y y Ma in S t 7 6 t h A v e W 7 5 t h P l W 20 8 th S t S W 9 5 t h P l W 21 2 t h S t S W 22 0 t h S t S W 6 8 t h A v e W Da y t o n S t 7 t h A e N 1 0 0 t h A v e W 7 6 t h A v e W O l y m p i c V i e w D r 23 8 th S t S W 17 6 t h S t S W B o wd oi n Wa y 1 8 0 th S t S W W al n u t S t 3 r d A v e S 2 4 4 th S t SW 5 t h A v e S 23 6 t h S t S W 3 r d A v e N 8 4 t h A v e W 9 t h A v e S 2 3 8 th S t S W 20 0 t h S t S W C a sp er sS t 7 6 t h A v e W P ug e t D r E dm o nds W y M a p l e w o o d D r 22 8 th S t S W 9 t h A v e N M e a d o w d a l e B e a c h R o a d O l y m p i c V i e w D r 8 0 t h A v e W 8 8 t h A v e W 19 6 t h S t S W S u n s e t A v e 10 4 99 52 4 O l y m p i c V i e w D r Ci t y o f E d m o n d s C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e Re c o m m e n d e d R o a d w a y P r o j e c t s I mr o v e m e n t T y p e s I ns t a l l s i g n a l I ns t a l l r o u n d a b o u t A dd l a n e o n i n t e r s e c t i o n a p p r o a c h W id e n r o a d P ro j ec t C at e g o r y C on c u r r e n c y S af e t y H i g h wa y o f S ta t e w i d e S ig n i f i c a n c e 0 0 .5 1 M i l e s C it y b o u n d a r y R ai l r o a d W at e r f e a t u r e Packet Page 495 of 1136 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e Dr a f t T r a f f i c C a l m i n g P r o g r a m Ph a s e 1 Re s i d e n t s Pe t i t i o n f or lo c a l st r e e t tr a ffi c co n c e r n s : cu t -t h ro u g h, tr a v e l s p ee d , sa f et y (mi n i m u m o f 8 si g n a t u r e s ) St a ff Re v i e w s q ua l i fi ca t i o n f or tr a ffi c ca l m i n g p ro g r a m • 2 5% or 1 5 cu t -t h ro u g h p er h ou r , or • 8 5 t h p er c e n t i l e s p ee d > 5 m ph ov e r s p ee d li m i t , or • 3 co l l i s i o n s in p as t 3 ye a r s an d • mi n i m u m av e r a g e da i l y tr a ffi c o f 5 00 ve h ic l e s Qu a l i f i e s D oe s N o t Q u a l i f y Ph a s e 2 St a ff an d Re s i d e n t s De v e l o p Le s s Re s t r i c t i v e So l u t i o n s br u s h tr i m m i n g , ed u c a t i o n a l ca m p ai g n , p av e m e n t ma r k in g s , p ol i c e en f or c e m e n t , p or t a b l e ra d a r tr a i l e r , si g n i n g , s p ee d w at c h p ro g r a m Im p l e m e n t an d Ev a l u a t e Le s s Re s t r i c t i v e So l u t i o n s L es s R es t r i c t i v e S ol u t i o n s A re No t E ff e c t i v e L es s R es t r i c t i v e S ol u t i o n s A re E ff e c t i v e Ph a s e 3 St a ff Re v i e w s Tr a ffi c Ca l m i n g De v i c e s f un d i n g , p ri o r i t y , te c h ni c a l f ea s i b i l i t y St a ff De v e l o p s Tr a ffi c Ca l m i n g So l u t i o n s w it h Po l i c e an d Fi r e fi gh t e r Ap p r o v a l bu l b -ou t s , c h ic a n e s , di a g o n a l di v e r t e r s , f ul l cl o s u r e , me d i a n s , p ar t i a l cl o s u r e , tr a ffi c ci r c l e s Re s i d e n t s V ot e on Ap p r o v a l o f Tr a ffi c Ca l m i n g De v i c e 60 % o r Gr e a t e r R es i d e n t s A pp r o v e In s t a l l Tr a ffi c Ca l m i n g De v i c e F ew e r t h an 60 % R es i d e n t s A pp r o v e Bu l b Ou t Ch i c a n e Pa r t i a l Cl o s u r e Tr a ffi c Ci r c l e En d En d En d T h is p r o g r a m a p p l i e s t o n e i g h bo r h oo d r e s i d e n t i a l t h ro u g h- st r e e t s . 6– 1 2 mo n t h s la t e r St a ff Ev a l u a t e s E ff ec t i v e n e s s o f De v i c e No t e : T h is i s a r e c o m m e n d e d f u t u r e p r o g r a m . N o f u n d i n g i s c u r r e n t l y a v a i l a b l e . 10 4 99 52 4 Sn o h o m i s h C o u n t y Ki n g C o u n t y Ma in S t 7 6 t h A v e W 7 5 t h P l W O l y m p i c V i e w D r 20 8 th St S W 9 5 t h P l W 21 2 t h S t S W 22 0 t h S t S W 6 8 t h A v e W Fir d ale Ave D ay t o n S t 7 t h A e N 1 0 0 t h A v e W 7 6 t h A v e W O l y m p i c V i e w D r 23 8 t h S t S W 17 6 t h S t S W B ow d o in W a y 18 0 th S t SW W al n u t S t 3 r d A v e S 2 4 4 t h St S W 5 t h A v e S 23 6 t hS t S W 3 r d A v e N 8 4 t h A v e W 9 t h A v e S 2 3 8 th St SW 20 0 t h S t S W C a sp e r s St 7 6 t h A v e W Pu g et D r Ed mon d sWy M a p l e w o o d D r 22 8t h S t S W 9 t h A v e N M e a d o w d a l e B e a c h R o a d O l y m p i c V i e w D r 8 0 t h A v e W 8 8 t h A v e W 19 6 t h S t S W S u n s e t A v e 17 6 t h S t S W 18 4 t h S t S W 7 2 n d A v e W 2 n d A v e S Pi n e S t 22 6 t h S t S W 8 t h A v e S Ma p l e S t O l y m p i c A v e 19 0 t h P l S W 9 2 n d A v e W 18 8 t h S t S W 18 6 t h S t S W 19 2 n d S t S W 8 4 t h A v e W A n d o v e r S t 18 9 t h P l S W 19 1 s t S t S W 8 0 t h A v e W R o b i n H o o d D r 23 2 n d S t S W 23 4 t h S t S W 23 6 t h S t S W Ci t y o f E d m o n d s C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e Re c o m m e n d e d W a l k w a y P r o j e c t s Sh or t w a l k wa y p r o j ec t L on g w a l k wa y p r o j ec t 0 0 .5 1 M i l e s C it y b o u n d a r y R ai l r o a d W at e r f e a t u r e Packet Page 496 of 1136 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e Dr a f t C u r b R a m p P r o g r a m Th i s p r o g r a m c o n s i s t s o f u p g r a d e s o f i n t e r s e c t i o n c u r b r a m p s t o me e t t h e r e q ui r e m e n t s o f t h e A me r i c a n s w i t h D is a b i l i t i e s A ct (A D A ) . Of a p p r o x i m a t e l y 3 5 0 i n t e r s e c t i o n s i n E dm o n d s : 4 2 f u l l y m e e t AD A s t a n d a r d s 2 4 p a r ti a l l y m e e t AD A s t a n d a r d s Pr i o r i t y f o r u p g r a d e s of c u r b r a m p s a t s u b -st a n d a r d l o c a t i o n s : 1. D ow n t o w n r e c e i v e s p r i o r i t y o v e r l o c a t i o n s o u t s i d e o f d o w n t o w n 2. A rt e r i a l s t r e e t s r e c e i v e p r i o r i t y o v e r l o c a l a c c e s s s t r e e t s 3 . I nt e r s e c t i o n s r e c e i v e h ig h er p r i o r i t y i f t h ey a r e n e a r : a. C om m u n i t y C en t e r s / S en i o r C en t e r / H e a l t h F ac i l i t i e s b. T r a n s i t s t o p s / S c h oo l s / P ub l i c B u i l d i n g s c. C om m e r c i a l a r e a s a n d p a r k s No t e : T h is i s a f u t u r e r e c o m m e n d e d p r o g r a m a n d i s c u r r e n t l y un f u n d e d . Ma i n S t 7 6 t h A v e W 7 5 t h P l W O l y m p i c V i e w D r 20 8 t h S t S W 9 5 t h P l W 21 2 t h S t S W 22 0 t h S t S W 6 8 t h A v e W F i rda l e A ve D ay t on S t 7 t h A e N 1 0 0 t h A v e W 7 6 t h A v e W O l y m p i c V i e w D r 23 8 t h S t S W 17 6 t h S t S W B o wd o in W a y 1 8 0 t h St S W W al n u t S t 3 r d A v e S 2 4 4 th S t S W 5 t h A v e S 23 6 t h S t S W 3 r d A v e N 8 4 t h A v e W 9 t h A v e S 23 8 th S t SW 20 0 t h S t S W C a s pe r s S t 7 6 t h A v e W P u ge t D r Edm ond s W y M a p l e w o o d D r 22 8 t h S t S W 9 t h A v e N M e a d o w d a l e B e a c h R o a d O l y m p i c V i e w D r 8 0 t h A v e W 8 8 t h A v e W 19 6 t h S t S W S u n s e t A v e 10 4 99 52 4 Sn o h o m i s h C o u n t y Ki n g C o u n t y Ci t y o f E d m o n d s C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e Pr o p o s e d B i c y c l e R o u t e s Sh or t b i c y c l e l o o p (5 m i l e s ) M e d i u m b i c y c l e l o o p (7 m i l e s ) L on g b i c y c l e l o o p (2 0 m i l e s ) 0 0 .5 1 M i l e s C it y b o u n d a r y R ai l r o a d W at e r f e a t u r e Packet Page 497 of 1136 Ma i n S t 7 6 t h A v e W 7 5 t h P l W O l y m p i c V i e w D r 2 0 8t h S t S W 9 5 t h P l W 21 2 t h S t S W 22 0 t h S t S W 6 8 t h A v e W F i r dal eA v e D ay t o n S t 7 t h A e N 1 0 0 t h A v e W 7 6 t h A v e W O l y m p i c V i e w D r 23 8 t h S t S W 17 6 t h S t S W B ow do i nW a y 18 0t hS t S W W al n u t S t 3 r d A v e S 24 4 t h St S W 5 t h A v e S 2 3 6t h S t S W 3 r d A v e N 8 4 t h A v e W 9 t h A v e S 2 3 8t h S tS W 20 0 t h S t S W Ca s p e r s S t 7 6 t h A v e W P ug et D r Ed mon d s Wy M a p l e w o o d D r 22 8 t h S t S W 9 t h A v e N M e a d o w d a l e B e a c h R o a d O l y m p i c V i e w D r 8 0 t h A v e W 8 8 t h A v e W 19 6 t h S t S W S u n s e t A v e 10 4 99 52 4 Sn o h o m i s h C o u n t y Ki n g C o u n t y Ed m o n d s - K i n g s to n T o / F r o m E v e r e t t T o / F r o m S e a t t l e Ci t y o f E d m o n d s C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e Ac c e s s t o T r a n s i t T r a i n s t a t i o n /pa r k- an d -ri d e l o t P ar k- an d -ri d e l o t C om m u n i t y T r a n s i t b u s s t o p E xi s t i n g b u s r o u t e F er r y r o u t e C om m u t e r r a i l r o u t e 0 .2 5- mi l e b u s s t o p z o n e 0 0 .5 1 M i le s C it y b o u n d a r y R ai l r o a d W at e r f e a t u r e Ap p ro x i m a t e l y 8 1 % o f 20 0 0 p o p ul a t i o n is lo c a t e d w it h in 0 .2 5- mi l e o f a tr a n s i t st o p. Ap p ro x i m a t e l y 70 0 bu s e s se r v e E dm o n d s da i l y Ci t y o f E d m o n d s C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e Ed m o n d s C r o s s i n g P r o j e c t C on s t r u c t n e w m u l t i m o d a l f a c i l i t y a t f e r r y t e r m i n a l , c o n n e c t i n g fe r r y , a u t o m o b i l e , t r a n s i t , b i c y c l e , a n d p e d e s t r i a n t r a f f i c i n do w n t o w n E dm o n d s . Pa v e m e n t M a i n t e n a n c e P r o g r a m P r ov i d e i m p r o v e m e n t s t o m a i n t a i n p a v e m e n t o n c i t y s t r e e t s , s u c h as a s p h al t o v e r l a y s a n d f i l l i n g o f p o t h ol e s . Sp o t I m p r o v e m e n t s o n C i t y S t r e e t s P r ov i d e l o w e r c o s t i m p r o v e m e n t s s u c h a s s i g n a l t i m i n g u p g r a d e s or l o c a l i z e d s t r e e t i m p r o v e m e n t s t o i m p r o v e v e h ic l e s a f e t y an d m o b i l i t y . Sp o t I m p r o v e m e n t s f o r W a l k w a y s a n d B i k e w a y s P r ov i d e l o w e r c o s t i m p r o v e m e n t s s u c h a s p e d e s t r i a n l i g h ti n g a n d bi c y c l e p a r k in g t o i m p r o v e n o n -mo t o r i z e d s a f e t y a n d m o b i l i t y . Ot h e r T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P r o j e c t s Packet Page 498 of 1136 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e Co s t s V e r s e s P r o j e c t e d R e v e n u e th r o u g h 2 0 2 5 Su m m a r y o f P r o j e c t C o s t s th r o u g h 2 0 2 5 T ot a l C os t s t h ro u g h 20 2 5 = $ 1 09 ,04 4 ,5 00 Co s t s a n d R e v e n u e To t a l R e v e n u e I d e n t i i e d t h r o u g h 2 0 2 5 = $ 4 1 , 4 4 3 , 3 0 0 Jo i n t A ge n c y F un d i n g I nt e r e s t I nc o m e R ea l E st a t e E xc i s e T a x D ev e l o p m e n t S id e w a l k s S ou r c e s o f I de n t i f i e d R ev e n u e : Gr a n t s (un s e c u r e d ) Mo t o r V e h ic l e F ue l T a x Tr a f f i c I mp a c t /Mi t i g a t i o n F ee s Tr a n s f e r s f r o m O t h er F un d s U t i l i t y R es u r f a c i n g Id e n t i f i e d Fu n d i n g , $4 1 , 4 3 3 , 3 0 0 Sh o r t f a l l , $6 7 , 6 1 1 , 2 0 0 Co n c u r r e n c y 2 0 1 0 - 2 0 1 5 , $8 , 9 5 4 , 8 0 0 Co n c u r r e n c y 2 0 1 6 - 2 0 2 5 , $7 , 1 3 7 , 0 0 0 HS S O p e r a t i o n a l , $9 , 7 0 6 , 4 0 0 Sa f e t y , $ 2 4 , 0 8 1 , 2 0 0 Wa l k w a y , $ 1 3 , 4 3 5 , 0 0 0 Cu r b R a m p U p g r a d e , $4 , 1 8 9 , 5 0 0 Bi k e w a y , $ 1 4 5 , 0 0 0 Pr e s e r v a t i o n & Ma i n t e n a n c e , $1 6 , 7 7 6 , 0 0 0 Ed m o n d s C r o s s i n g , $1 7 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Tr a f f i c C a l m i n g , $1 6 0 , 0 0 0 Sp o t R o a d w a y En h a n c e m e n t s , $2 4 0 , 0 0 0 Ot h e r , $ 6 , 7 1 9 , 6 0 0 Packet Page 499 of 1136 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n Op e n H o u s e # 2 , M a r c h 5 , 2 0 0 9 Su m m a r y o f P r e l i m i n a r y C o s t s 2 0 1 0 2 0 2 5 Co n c u r r e n c y P r o j e c t s - b y 2 0 1 5 ID L o c a t i o n Im p r o v e m e n t Co s t 2 O l y m p i c V i e w D r i v e / 7 6 t h A v e n u e W I n s t a l l t r a f f i c s i g n a l . W i d e n 7 6 t h t o a d d a w e s t b o u n d l e f t t u r n l a n e f o r 1 7 5 - f o o t s t o r a g e l e n g t h . 1, 1 4 6 , 8 0 0 $ 4 P u g e t D r i v e / 1 9 6 t h S t S W / 8 8 t h A v e n u e W In s t a l l t r a f f i c s i g n a l . 87 9 , 0 0 0 $ 6 C a s p e r s S t r e e t / 9 t h A v e n u e N In s t a l l t r a f f i c s i g n a l . 81 8 , 0 0 0 $ 9 2 1 2 t h S t r e e t S W / 7 6 t h A v e n u e W Wi d e n 7 6 t h t o a d d a n o r t h b o u n d l e f t t u r n l a n e f o r 2 5 0 - f o o t s t o r a g e l e n g t h a n d a s o u t h b o u n d l e f t tu r n l a n e f o r 1 2 5 - f o o t s t o r a g e l e n g t h . P r o v i d e p r o t e c t e d l e f t t u r n p h a s e f o r n o r t h b o u n d a n d so u t h b o u n d m o v e m e n t s . W i d e n 2 1 2 t h t o a d d a w e s t b o u n d r i g h t t u r n l a n e f o r 5 0 - f o o t s t o r a g e le n g t h . 2, 3 1 3 , 8 0 0 $ 10 2 1 2 t h S t r e e t S W / 8 4 t h A v e n u e W In s t a l l a s i n g l e - l a n e r o u n d a b o u t . 1, 9 1 0 , 1 0 0 $ 11 M a i n S t r e e t / 9 t h A v e n u e N In s t a l l t r a f f i c s i g n a l . 87 4 , 4 0 0 $ 12 W a l n u t S t r e e t / 9 t h A v e n u e S In s t a l l t r a f f i c s i g n a l . 87 4 , 4 0 0 $ 15 2 2 0 t h S t r e e t S W / 7 6 t h A v e n u e W Re c o n f i g u r e e a s t b o u n d l a n e s t o a l e f t t u r n l a n e a n d a t h r o u g h - r i g h t l a n e . C h a n g e e a s t b o u n d a n d we s t b o u n d p h a s e t o p r o v i d e p r o t e c t e d - p e r m i t t e d p h a s e f o r e a s t b o u n d l e f t t u r n . P r o v i d e r i g h t t u r n ph a s e f o r w e s t b o u n d m o v e m e n t d u r i n g s o u t h b o u n d l e f t t u r n p h a s e . 13 8 , 3 0 0 $ Su b T o t a l 8 , 9 5 4 , 8 0 0 $ Co n c u r r e n c y P r o j e c t s - b y 2 0 2 5 1 1 7 4 t h S t r e e t S W / O l y m p i c V i e w D r i v e Wi d e n O l y m p i c V i e w D r t o a d d a n o r t h b o u n d l e f t t u r n l a n e f o r 5 0 - f o o t s t o r a g e l e n g t h . S h i f t t h e no r t h b o u n d l a n e s t o t h e e a s t t o p r o v i d e a n a c c e l e r a t i o n l a n e f o r e a s t b o u n d l e f t t u r n s . 72 4 , 2 0 0 $ 8 2 1 2 t h S t r e e t S W / S R 9 9 Wi d e n 2 1 2 t h t o a d d a w e s t b o u n d l e f t t u r n l a n e f o r 2 0 0 - f o o t s t o r a g e l e n g t h a n d a e a s t b o u n d l e f t tu r n l a n e f o r 3 0 0 - f o o t s t o r a g e l e n g t h . P r o v i d e p r o t e c t e d l e f t t u r n p h a s e f o r e a s t b o u n d a n d we s t b o u n d m o v e m e n t s . 3, 2 6 5 , 5 0 0 $ 14 2 2 0 t h S t r e e t S W / S R 9 9 Wi d e n 2 2 0 t h t o a d d w e s t b o u n d r i g h t t u r n l a n e f o r 3 2 5 - f o o t s t o r a g e l e n g t h . W i d e n S R 9 9 a d d se c o n d s o u t h b o u n d l e f t t u r n l a n e f o r 2 7 5 - f o o t s t o r a g e l e n g t h . 3, 1 4 7 , 3 0 0 $ Su b T o t a l 7 , 1 3 7 , 0 0 0 $ Hi g h w a y o f S t a t e w i d e S i g n f i c a n c e ( H S S ) O p e r a t i o n I m p r o v e m e n t P r o j e c t s 20 2 3 8 t h S t r e e t S W / E d m o n d s W a y ( S R 1 0 4 ) In s t a l l a t r a f f i c s i g n a l a n d p r o v i d e p r o t e c t e d l e f t t u r n p h a s e f o r n o r t h b o u n d a n d s o u t h b o u n d mo v e m e n t s . C o s t a s s u m e s c o r r e c t i o n o f m i n o r s t r e e t s k e w . $ 5 , 4 4 4 , 6 0 0 21 2 4 4 t h S t r e e t S W ( S R 1 0 4 ) / 7 6 t h A v e n u e W Wi d e n 2 4 4 t h t o a d d s e c o n d w e s t b o u n d l e f t t u r n l a n e f o r 3 2 5 - f o o t s t o r a g e l e n g t h . P r o v i d e r i g h t tu r n p h a s e f o r n o r t h b o u n d m o v e m e n t d u r i n g w e s t b o u n d l e f t t u r n p h a s e . 3, 3 2 1 , 6 0 0 $ 22 2 4 4 t h S t r e e t S W / S R 9 9 Wi d e n 2 4 4 t h S t r e e t S W t o a d d w e s t b o u n d r i g h t t u r n l a n e f o r a 3 0 0 - f o o t s t o r a g e l e n g t h . 94 0 , 2 0 0 $ Su b T o t a l 9, 7 0 6 , 4 0 0 $ Sa f e t y P r o j e c t s 25 2 2 8 t h S t r e e t S W , S R 9 9 - 7 6 t h A v e n u e W Co n s t r u c t c o n n e c t i o n o f 2 2 8 t h S t r e e t S W b e t w e e n S R 9 9 a n d 7 6 t h A v e n u e W ( t h r e e l a n e s w i t h cu r b , g u t t e r , a n d s i d e w a l k ) . I n s t a l l t r a f f i c s i g n a l a t 2 2 8 t h S t r e e t S W a n d S R 9 9 . I n s t a l l m e d i a n on S R 9 9 t o p r o h i b i t l e f t t u r n m o v e m e n t s a t 7 6 t h A v e n u e W . $ 3 , 9 4 8 , 2 0 0 26 2 1 6 t h S t r e e t / S R 9 9 Wi d e n t o a l l o w o n e l e f t t u r n l a n e a n d o n e t h r o u g h l a n e s i n e a s t b o u n d a n d w e s t b o u n d d i r e c t i o n s , wi t h 1 0 0 - f o o t s t o r a g e l e n g t h f o r t u r n l a n e s . $ 7 1 9 , 8 0 0 27 2 3 8 t h S t r e e t S W , S R 1 0 4 - 8 4 t h A v e n u e W Wi d e n t o t h r e e l a n e s w i t h c u r b , g u t t e r , a n d s i d e w a l k ( a s p e r P i n e S t r e e t F e r r y A c c e s s S t u d y ) $ 2 , 5 1 9 , 7 0 0 28 8 4 t h A v e n u e W , 2 1 2 t h S t r e e t S W - 2 3 8 t h St r e e t S W Wi d e n t o t h r e e l a n e s w i t h c u r b , g u t t e r , a n d s i d e w a l k . $ 1 6 , 3 5 5 , 5 0 0 SR 9 9 I l l u m i n a t i o n Im p r o v e r o a d w a y s a f e t y w i t h i l l u m i n a t i o n $ 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma i n S t / 3 r d A v e s i g n a l u p g r a d e Up g r a d e s i g n a l t o t o r e d u c e c o n f l i c t s w i t h t r u c k s $ 1 3 8 , 0 0 0 Su b T o t a l 24 , 0 8 1 , 2 0 0 $ Pa g e 1 Packet Page 500 of 1136 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n Op e n H o u s e # 2 , M a r c h 5 , 2 0 0 9 Su m m a r y o f P r e l i m i n a r y C o s t s 2 0 1 0 2 0 2 5 No n - M o t o r i z e d P r o j e c t s Ci t y w i d e W a l k w a y P r o j e c t s 13 , 3 5 5 , 0 0 0 $ AD A T r a n s i t i o n P l a n 4, 1 8 9 , 5 0 0 $ Ci t y w i d e P e d e s t r i a n L i g h t i n g 80 , 0 0 0 $ Bi k e R o u t e S i g n i n g 25 , 0 0 0 $ Ci t y w i d e B i k e w a y P r o j e c t s 12 0 , 0 0 0 $ Su b T o t a l 17 , 7 6 9 , 5 0 0 $ Pr e s e r v a t i o n a n d M a i n t e n a n c e P r o g r a m s a n d P r o j e c t s An n u a l S t r e e t O v e r l a y s 20 1 0 - 2 0 1 5 Gr i n d p a v e m e n t , o v e r l a y $ 6 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 20 1 6 - 2 0 2 5 $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ci t y w i d e S t r e e t I m p r o v e m e n t s 20 1 0 - 2 0 1 5 Ma i n t e n a n c e t o i n c r e a s e r o a d w a y l i f e $ 9 0 , 0 0 0 20 1 6 - 2 0 2 5 $ 1 5 0 , 0 0 0 Ci t y w i d e S i g n a l I m p r o v e m e n t s 20 1 0 - 2 0 1 5 Up g r a d e s t o e x i s t i n g s i g n a l s , f o r m a i n t e n a n c e a n d t e c h n o l o g y $ 3 0 , 0 0 0 20 1 6 - 2 0 2 5 $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 Ci t y w i d e C a b i n e t a n d C o n t r o l l e r U p g r a d e s 2 0 1 0 - 2 0 1 5 Up g r a d e s t o e x s i t n g t r a f f i c s i g n a l c a b i n e t s e l e m e n t s f o r m a i n t e n a n c e a n d t e c h n o l o g y $ 3 0 , 0 0 0 20 1 6 - 2 0 2 5 $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 Pu g e t & O l y m p i c V i e w D r i v e Si g n a l r e b u i l d $ 1 9 8 , 0 0 0 Do w n t o w n B i c y c l e P a r k i n g Ad d b i c y c l e p a r k i n g a t d i f f e r e n t l o c a t i o n s c i t y w i d e $ 6 0 , 0 0 0 23 8 t h / 1 0 0 t h A v e S i g n a l U p g r a d e s Re b u i l d c o m p l e t e s i g n a l s y s t e m a n d i n s t a l l v i d e o d e t e c t i o n $ 1 1 8 , 0 0 0 Su b T o t a l 16 , 7 7 6 , 0 0 0 $ Ot h e r P r o j e c t s Ed m o n d s C r o s s i n g P r o j e c t $ 1 7 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ci t y w i d e T r a f f i c C a l m i n g P r o g r a m $ 1 6 0 , 0 0 0 Op e r a t i o n a l E n h a n c e m e n t s $ 2 4 0 , 0 0 0 Fu t u r e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e s $ 6 0 0 , 0 0 0 De b t S e r v i c e o n 2 2 0 t h S t r e e t S W P r o j e c t $ 6 1 6 , 6 0 0 4t h A v e n u e C o r r i d o r E n h a n c e m e n t $ 5 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Mi n i T r a n s p o r t a t i o n M a n a g e m e n t C e n t e r $ 3 , 0 0 0 Su b T o t a l 24 , 6 1 9 , 6 0 0 $ GR A N D T O T A L , 2 0 1 0 2 0 2 5 10 9 , 0 4 4 , 5 0 0 $ Pa g e 2 Packet Page 501 of 1136 Page1 TransportationPlanUpdate–OpenHouse#2 ProjectPriorityQuestionnaire Fromthelistbelow,pleaseidentify fiveprojecttypesthatyoufeelshouldhavehighestfunding priority.Ofthefiveprojecttypesyouchoose,pleaserankthem1through5,with1ashighestpriority and5aslowest.Pleaseassignonlyonerankedvalue perprojecttype,andchoosenomorethanfive . Top5 FundingPriority (Rank1through5) ProjectType BicycleRouteSigning Providesigningforbicyclerouteswithinthecity. CapacityImprovementsonCityStreets Addlanesorimprovetraffic controlatco ngestedintersections. Capacity/SafetyImprovementsonSR104(EdmondsWay) Improvevehiclechannelizationand/ortraffic controlatcongestedintersections– requiresclosecoordinationwiththeWashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation. CurbRampUpgrades Buildorrebuildcurbrampsso thatintersectioncro ssingsmeetthere quirementsofthe AmericanswithDisabilitiesAct. MultimodalFacilityEdmondsCrossingProject Constructnewmultimodalfacilityatferryterminal,connectingferry,automobile, transit,bicycle,andpedes triantrafficindowntownEdmonds. PavementMaintenance Provideimprovementstomaintainpav ementoncitystreets,suchasasphaltoverlays andfillingofpotholes. SafetyImprovementsonCityStreets Addlanesorimprovetrafficcontrolat locationswheresafetyissueshavebeen identified. SpotImprovementsonCityStreets Providelowercostimprovements suchassignaltimingupgr adesorlocalizedstreet improvementstoimprovevehicle safetyandmobility. SpotImprovementsforWalkwaysandBikeways Providelowercostimprovementssuchaspedest rianlightingand bicycleparkingto improvenonmotorizedsafetyandmobility. TrafficCalmingProgram Implementmeasurestoslowdowntrafficand /ordiscouragecutthroughtrafficin neighborhoods,attheneighborhoodresidents’request. Transit–BusShelters Provideadditionalbussheltersand/orimprovementsatexistingshelters–requires closecoordinationwithCommunityTransit. WalkwayConnections Constructnewwalkwaysandwalkwayconnections. Packet Page 502 of 1136 Page2 Arethereanyspecificprojects presentedatthisopenhousethatshouldbeofhighestpriorityfor funding? Arethereanyspecificprojects presentedatthisopenhousethatshouldnotbeimplemented? Arethereanyspecificprojectsorprojecttypesthat shouldbefunded,butarenotonthislist? Anyothercommentsorsuggestions? Name(optional) Address(optional) Phone(optional)Email(optional) Pleasedropthisforminthecommentboxormailyourcommentsby Friday,March20,2009 to: BertrandHauss,CityofEdmonds 1215thAvenueNorth Edmonds,WA98020 Phone:(425)7710220 Fax:(425)6725750 Thankyouforyourparticipation! Packet Page 503 of 1136 CityofEdmondsComprehensiveTransportationPlanUpdate OpenHouse#3 June30,2009 EdmondsCityHall Packet Page 504 of 1136 Packet Page 505 of 1136 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e We l c o m e Pl e a s e s i g n i n h e r e . Me e t i n g O b j e c t i v e s R ev i e w R ec om m e n d e d T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P la n P ot en t i a l p r o j ec t s a n d p r o g r a m s C os t s a n d r ev e n u e p r o j ec t i o n s P r ov i d e i n p u t o n p o t e n t i a l f u n d i n g s t r a t e g i e s f o r Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n P la n Me e t i n g A g e n d a 5: 3 0 –6: 0 0 p . m . S ig n i n 6: 0 0 –6: 3 0 p . m . P re s e n t a t i o n 6: 3 0 –7: 3 0 p . m . V is i t s t a t i o n s , t a l k t o p r o j ec t t e a m m e m b e r s P ro v i d e c o m m e n t s 7: 3 0 p . m . E nd o f m e e t i n g LO S Ch ar a c t e r i s t i c T r a f f i c F lo w A ve r a g e D el a y (se c o n d s p er ve h ic l e ) S ig n a l i z e d S to p C on t r o l l e d A F re e f l o w, li t t l e or no re s t r i c t i o n on s p ee d or ma n e u v e r a b i l i t y ca u s e d by t h e p re s e n c e o f ot h er ve h ic l e s . ≤ 1 0 ≤ 1 0 B S ta b l e f l o w, o p er a t i n g s p ee d is be g i n n i n g to be re s t r i c t e d by ot h er tr a ffi c . > 1 0 –20 > 1 0 –1 5 C S ta b l e f l o w, vo l u m e an d de n s i t y le v e l s ar e be g i n n i n g to re s t r i c t dr i v e r s in t h ei r ma n e u v e r a b i l i t y . > 20 –3 5 > 1 5 – 2 5 D S ta b l e f l o w, s p ee d s an d ma n e u v e r a b i l i t y cl o s e l y co n t r o l l e d du e to h ig h er vo l u m e s . > 3 5 – 5 5 > 2 5– 3 5 E A p p ro a c h in g un s t a b l e f l o w, lo w s p ee d s , f re e d o m to ma n e u v e r is di ffi cu l t . > 5 5 – 8 0 > 3 5 – 5 0 F F or c e d tr a ffi c f l o w, ve r y lo w s p ee d s , lo n g de l a y s w it h st o p- an d -go tr a ffi c . > 8 0 > 5 0 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e In t e r s e c t i o n O p e r a t i o n a t 2 1 2 t h S t r e e t S W a n d 7 6 t h A v e n u e W L ev e l o f S er v i c e (L O S ) m e a s u r e s t h e o p e r a t i n g q ua l i t y o f a r o a d . LO S i s g r a d e d A (fr e e f l o w ) t h ro u g h F (gr i d l o c k) . F Av e r a g e D e l a y 13 8 s e c o n d s / v e h ic l e Av e r a g e D e l a y 1 66 s e c o n d s / v e h ic l e F Av e r a g e D e l a y 94 s e c o n d s / v e h ic l e F Av e r a g e D e l a y 13 1 s e c o n d s / v e h ic l e F 20 2 5 WI T H O U T IM P R O V E M E N T S Av e r a g e i n t e r s e c t i o n L O S = F Av e r a g e i n t e r s e c t i o n d e l a y = 13 6 s e c o n d s / v e h ic l e Av e r a g e D e l a y 53 s e c o n d s / v e h ic l e Av e r a g e D e l a y 6 1 s e c o n d s / v e h ic l e Av e r a g e D e l a y 58 s e c o n d s / v e h ic l e D E E Av e r a g e D e l a y 3 7 s e c o n d s / v e h ic l e D 20 2 5 WI T H IM P R O V E M E N T S Av e r a g e i n t e r s e c t i o n L O S = D Av e r a g e i n t e r s e c t i o n d e l a y = 5 4 s e c o n d s / v e h ic l e 21 2 th St r e e t SW 7 6 t h A v e n u e W 21 2 th St r e e t SW 7 6 t h A v e n u e W No t e : O pe r a t i o n s a r e s i m i l a r a t 2 1 2 t h S tr e e t SW / S ta t e R ou t e 99 a n d 2 2 0 t h S tr e e t SW / 7 6 t h A ve n u e W . Le v e l o f S e r v i c e Packet Page 506 of 1136 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e L e v e l o f S e r v i c e wi t h a n d w i t h o u t I m p r o v e m e n t s Sn o h o m i s h C o u n t y Ki n g C o u n t y Sn o h o m i s h C o u n t y Ki n g C o u n t y M ai n S t 7 6 t h A v e W 7 5 t h P l W 20 8 t h S t S W 9 5 t h P l W 21 2 t h S t S W 2 20 t h S t S W 6 8 t h A v e W Da y t o n S t 7 t h A e N 1 0 0 t h A v e W 7 6 t h A v e W O l y m p i c V i e w D r 2 38 t h S t S W 17 6 t h S t S W B o wd oin W a y 1 8 0 t h St SW W a ln u t S t 3 r d A v e S 2 4 4 th S t S W 5 t h A v e S 2 36 t h S t S W 3 r d A v e N 8 4 t h A v e W 9 t h A v e S 23 8 t h S t SW 20 0 t h S t S W C as p e rs S t 7 6 t h A v e W P ug e t D r Ed mo n d s W y M a p l e w o o d D r 2 28 t h S tS W 9 t h A v e N 5 2 n d A v e W M e a d o w d a l e B e a c h R o a d O l y m p i c V i e w D r 8 0 t h A v e W 8 8 t h A v e W 19 6 t h S t S W S u n s e t A v e 10 4 99 52 4 O l y m p i c V i e w D r Le v e l o f S e r v i c e ( L O S ) K e y me e t s L O S s t a n d a r d ex c e e d s L O S s t a n d a r d no t s u b j e c t t o L O S s t a n d a r d no i m p r o v e m e n t s r e c o m m e n d e d LO S S t a n d a r d s C it y a r t e r i a l s = L O S D S ta t e R o u t e 9 9 = L O S E C DF D D F F B B D D D D F F B B F F F B A C E F B A B B B A A A D F F B B E F F B B D F F B B E F F A A B B B D F F B B D E F E D F F B B F F F B B B B B C D D D F F B B D F F D D D F F B B D E F E D F F B B D E E D C A A B B C C B C C D F F B B F F F B B D D E D F F B D E F D 00 .51 Mi l e s wi t h o u t im p r o v e m e n t s wi t h im p r o v e m e n t s B 20 15 20 2 5 B w it h ou t im p ro v e m e n t s ex i s t i n g FF D Ci t y o f E d m o n d s C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e St r e e t I m p r o v e m e n t P l a n Ma i n S t 7 6 t h A v e W 7 5 t h P l W O l y m p i c V i e w D r 2 08 t hS t S W 9 5 t h P l W 21 2 t h S t S W 2 2 0t h S t S W Fi s h e r 6 8 t h A v e W Fird a le Ave D a y to n S t 7 t h A v e N 1 0 0 t h A v e W 7 6 t h A v e W O l y m p i c V i e w D r 2 38 th S t S W 8 0 t h A v e W 9 6 t h A v e W 17 6 t h S t S W B ow d oi n W a y 18 0 t h S t S W Wa l n u t S t 3 r d A v e S 24 4 th St S W 5 t h A v e S 2 3 6t h S t S W 3 r d A v e N 8 4 t h A v e W 9 t h A v e S 23 8 th S t SW 20 0 t h S t S W C as p er sS t 7 6 t h A v e W Pu g e t D r Ed m o n d s W y M a p l e w o o d D r 2 2 8t h S t S W 9 t h A v e N 5 2 n d A v e W M e a d o w d a l e B e a c h R o a d O l y m p i c V i e w D r 8 0 t h A v e W 8 8 t h A v e W 19 6 t h S t S W S u n s e t A v e 10 4 99 52 4 Sn o h o m i s h C o u n t y Ki n g C o u n t y 00 .51 Mi l e s So u r c e : C i t y o f E d m o n d s ( 2 0 0 8 ) ; W S D O T ( 2 0 0 8 ) ; Sn o h o m i s h C o u n t y ( 2 0 0 8 ) Ci t y B o u n d a r y Ra i l r o a d Wa t e r F e a t u r e Im p r o v e m e n t T y p e s In s t a l l N e w S i g n a l Up g r a d e E x i s t i n g S i g n a l In s t a l l R o u n d a b o u t Ad d L a n e / I n t e r s e c t i o n A p p r o a c h Wi d e n R o a d Pr o j e c t C a t e g o r y Co n c u r r e n c y Sa f e t y Hi g h w a y o f S t a t e w i d e S i g n i f i c a n c e Packet Page 507 of 1136 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e Tr a f f i c C a l m i n g P r o g r a m Ph a s e 1 Re s i d e n t s Pe t i t i o n f or lo c a l st r e e t tr a ffi c co n c e r n s : cu t -t h ro u g h, tr a v e l s p ee d , sa f et y (mi n i m u m o f 8 si g n a t u r e s ) St a ff Re v i e w s q ua l i fi ca t i o n f or tr a ffi c ca l m i n g p ro g r a m • 2 5% or 1 5 cu t -t h ro u g h p er h ou r , or • 8 5 t h p er c e n t i l e s p ee d > 8 m ph ov e r s p ee d li m i t , or • 3 co l l i s i o n s in p as t 3 ye a r s , an d • av e r a g e da i l y tr a ffi c be t w ee n 5 00 an d 3 , 00 0 ve h ic l e s Qu a l i f i e s D oe s N o t Q u a l i f y Ph a s e 2 St a ff an d Re s i d e n t s Ed u c a t i o n an d En f or c e m e n t So l u t i o n s ed u c a t i o n a l ca m p ai g n , p av e m e n t ma r k in g s , p ol i c e en f or c e m e n t , p or t a b l e ra d a r tr a i l e r , si g n i n g , s p ee d w at c h p ro g r a m Im p l e m e n t an d Ev a l u a t e Le s s Re s t r i c t i v e So l u t i o n s E du c a t i o n a n d E nf o r c e m e n t S ol u t i o n s A re E ff e c t i v e Ph a s e 3 St a ff Re v i e w s Tr a ffi c Ca l m i n g De v i c e s f un d i n g , p ri o r i t y , te c h ni c a l f ea s i b i l i t y St a ff De v e l o p s Tr a ffi c Ca l m i n g So l u t i o n s w it h Po l i c e an d Fi r e fi gh t e r Ap p r o v a l bu l b -ou t s , c h ic a n e s , di a g o n a l di v e r t e r s , f ul l cl o s u r e , me d i a n s , p ar t i a l cl o s u r e , tr a ffi c ci r c l e s Re s i d e n t s V ot e on Ap p r o v a l o f Tr a ffi c Ca l m i n g De v i c e 60 % o r Gr e a t e r R es i d e n t s A pp r o v e In s t a l l Tr a ffi c Ca l m i n g De v i c e F ew e r t h an 60 % R es i d e n t s A pp r o v e En d En d En d T h is p r o g r a m a p p l i e s t o n e i g h bo r h oo d r e s i d e n t i a l t h ro u g h- st r e e t s . 6– 1 2 mo n t h s la t e r St a ff Ev a l u a t e s E ff ec t i v e n e s s o f De v i c e No t e : T h is i s a r e c o m m e n d e d f u t u r e p r o g r a m . N o f u n d i n g i s c u r r e n t l y a v a i l a b l e . E du c a t i o n a n d E nf o r c e m e n t S ol u t i o n s A re N o t E ff e c t i v e Ci t y o f E d m o n d s C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e Wa l k w a y P l a n M ai n S t 7 6 t h A v e W 7 5 t h P l W O l y m p i c V i e w D r 2 0 8t h S t S W 9 5 t h P l W 21 2 t h S t S W 2 2 0t h S t S W Fi s h e r 6 8 t h A v e W Fi rda l e Ave Da y to n S t 7 t h A v e N 1 0 0 t h A v e W 7 6 t h A v e W O l y m p i c V i e w D r 2 38 t h S t S W 8 0 t h A v e W 9 6 t h A v e W 17 6 t h S t S W Bo w d oin W a y 18 0 t h S t S W W a ln u t S t 3 r d A v e S 2 4 4 th S t S W 5 t h A v e S 2 3 6 t h S t S W 3 r d A v e N 8 4 t h A v e W 9 t h A v e S 2 3 8 th St SW 20 0 t h S t S W C a s pe r s S t 7 6 t h A v e W Pu g e t D r E d mo nds Wy M a p l e w o o d D r 2 2 8 th S t S W 9 t h A v e N 5 2 n d A v e W M e a d o w d a l e B e a c h R o a d O l y m p i c V i e w D r 8 0 t h A v e W 8 8 t h A v e W 19 6 t h S t S W S u n s e t A v e 10 4 99 52 4 Sn o h o m i s h C o u n t y Ki n g C o u n t y L4 L1 2 L1 5 L1 4 L2 2 S9 L1 3 L1 7 S1 0 S7 L1 8 L2 0 L3 L2 L7 L1 1 L1 6 L1 L1 0 L8 L2 1 S6 L5 S1 S2 S3 S8 S4 S5 L6 L9 L1 9 L2 3 L2 4 00 .51 Mi l e s So u r c e : C i t y o f E d m o n d s ( 2 0 0 8 ) ; W S D O T ( 2 0 0 8 ) ; Sn o h o m i s h C o u n t y ( 2 0 0 8 ) Ci t y B o u n d a r y Ra i l r o a d Wa t e r F e a t u r e Wa l k w a y P r o j e c t Ex i s t i n g P a v e d W a l k w a y Ex i s t i n g U n p a v e d W a l k w a y 84 t h A v e W S a f e t y P r o j e c t (i n c l u d e s w a l k w a y c o m p o n e n t ) Packet Page 508 of 1136 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e Cu r b R a m p R e t r o f i t P r o g r a m Th i s p r o g r a m c o n s i s t s o f u p g r a d e s o f i n t e r s e c t i o n c u r b r a m p s t o me e t t h e r e q ui r e m e n t s o f t h e A me r i c a n s w i t h D is a b i l i t i e s A ct (A D A ) . Of a p p r o x i m a t e l y 3 5 0 i n t e r s e c t i o n s i n E dm o n d s : 4 2 f u l l y m e e t AD A s t a n d a r d s 2 4 p a r ti a l l y m e e t AD A s t a n d a r d s Pr i o r i t y f o r u p g r a d e s of c u r b r a m p s a t s u b -st a n d a r d l o c a t i o n s : 1. D ow n t o w n r e c e i v e s p r i o r i t y o v e r l o c a t i o n s o u t s i d e o f d o w n t o w n 2. A rt e r i a l s t r e e t s r e c e i v e p r i o r i t y o v e r l o c a l a c c e s s s t r e e t s 3 . I nt e r s e c t i o n s r e c e i v e h ig h er p r i o r i t y i f t h ey a r e n e a r : a. C om m u n i t y C en t e r s / S en i o r C en t e r / H e a l t h F ac i l i t i e s b. T r a n s i t s t o p s / S c h oo l s / P ub l i c B u i l d i n g s c. C om m e r c i a l a r e a s a n d p a r k s No t e : T h is i s a f u t u r e r e c o m m e n d e d p r o g r a m a n d i s c u r r e n t l y u n f u n d e d . !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(!. !. !. !. !. !. !. !( Ma i n S t 7 6 t h A v e W 7 5 t h P l W O l y m p i c V i e w D r 2 08 t hS t S W 9 5 t h P l W 21 2 t h S t S W 2 20 t h S t S W Fi s h e r 6 8 t h A v e W Fi rd ale A v e D ay to n S t 7 t h A v e N 1 0 0 t h A v e W 7 6 t h A v e W O l y m p i c V i e w D r 2 38 t h S t S W 8 0 t h A v e W 9 6 t h A v e W 17 6 t h S t S W B o w d oin W a y 18 0 t h S t S W Wa l nu t S t 3 r d A v e S 2 4 4 th St S W 5 t h A v e S 2 3 6 th S t S W 3 r d A v e N 8 4 t h A v e W 9 t h A v e S 2 3 8t h S t SW 20 0 t h S t S W C a s pe r s S t 7 6 t h A v e W Pu g e t D r Edm o n d s W y M a p l e w o o d D r 2 2 8 th S t S W 9 t h A v e N 5 2 n d A v e W M e a d o w d a l e B e a c h R o a d O l y m p i c V i e w D r 8 0 t h A v e W 8 8 t h A v e W 19 6 t h S t S W S u n s e t A v e ¾?@ 10 4 ¾?@ 99 !"` ¾?@ 52 4 Sn o h o m i s h C o u n t y Ki n g C o u n t y I n t e r u r b a n T r a i l 00 .51 Mi l e s So u r c e : C i t y o f E d m o n d s ( 2 0 0 8 ) ; W S D O T ( 2 0 0 8 ) ; Sn o h o m i s h C o u n t y ( 2 0 0 8 ) Ci t y B o u n d a r y Ra i l r o a d Wa t e r F e a t u r e !( Ex i s t i n g B i k e L o c k e r s !( Ex i s t i n g B i k e P a r k i n g !. Pr o p o s e d B i k e P a r k i n g Bi k e L a n e s Ex i s t i n g Pr o p o s e d Bi k e R o u t e s Ex i s t i n g Pr o p o s e d Tr a i l s / P a t h s Ex i s t i n g In t e r i m Pr o p o s e d In t e r i m R o u t e o n R o a d w a y (7 6 t h A v e W ) Bi k e L a n e s Bi k e R o u t e s Tr a i l s / P a t h s Ci t y o f E d m o n d s C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e Bi c y c l e P l a n Packet Page 509 of 1136 Ma i n S t 7 6 t h A v e W 7 5 t h P l W O l y m p i c V i e w D r 2 0 8t h S t S W 9 5 t h P l W 21 2 t h S t S W 22 0 t h S t S W 6 8 t h A v e W F i r dal eA v e D ay t o n S t 7 t h A e N 1 0 0 t h A v e W 7 6 t h A v e W O l y m p i c V i e w D r 23 8 t h S t S W 17 6 t h S t S W B ow do i nW a y 18 0t hS t S W W al n u t S t 3 r d A v e S 24 4 t h St S W 5 t h A v e S 2 3 6t h S t S W 3 r d A v e N 8 4 t h A v e W 9 t h A v e S 2 3 8t h S tS W 20 0 t h S t S W Ca s p e r s S t 7 6 t h A v e W P ug et D r Ed mon d s Wy M a p l e w o o d D r 22 8 t h S t S W 9 t h A v e N M e a d o w d a l e B e a c h R o a d O l y m p i c V i e w D r 8 0 t h A v e W 8 8 t h A v e W 19 6 t h S t S W S u n s e t A v e 10 4 99 52 4 Sn o h o m i s h C o u n t y Ki n g C o u n t y Ed m o n d s - K i n g s to n T o / F r o m E v e r e t t T o / F r o m S e a t t l e Ci t y o f E d m o n d s C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e Ac c e s s t o T r a n s i t T r a i n s t a t i o n /pa r k- an d -ri d e l o t P ar k- an d -ri d e l o t C om m u n i t y T r a n s i t b u s s t o p E xi s t i n g b u s r o u t e F er r y r o u t e C om m u t e r r a i l r o u t e 0 .2 5- mi l e b u s s t o p z o n e 0 0 .5 1 M i le s C it y b o u n d a r y R ai l r o a d W at e r f e a t u r e Ap p ro x i m a t e l y 8 1 % o f 20 0 0 p o p ul a t i o n is lo c a t e d w it h in 0 .2 5- mi l e o f a tr a n s i t st o p. Ap p ro x i m a t e l y 70 0 bu s e s se r v e E dm o n d s da i l y Ci t y o f E d m o n d s C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e Ed m o n d s C r o s s i n g P r o j e c t C on s t r u c t n e w m u l t i m o d a l f a c i l i t y a t f e r r y t e r m i n a l , c o n n e c t i n g fe r r y , a u t o m o b i l e , t r a n s i t , b i c y c l e , a n d p e d e s t r i a n t r a f f i c i n do w n t o w n E dm o n d s . Th i s pr o j ec t is no t in c l u d e d in th e Ci t y ’s fi na n c i a l pl a n ( no pl a n n e d Ci t y e x pe n d i t u r e s ) b ut is st i l l pl a n n e d as a lo n g -ra n g e pr o j ec t . Pa v e m e n t M a i n t e n a n c e P r o g r a m P r ov i d e i m p r o v e m e n t s t o m a i n t a i n p a v e m e n t o n c i t y s t r e e t s , s u c h as a s p h al t o v e r l a y s a n d f i l l i n g o f p o t h ol e s . Sp o t I m p r o v e m e n t s o n C i t y S t r e e t s P r ov i d e l o w e r c o s t i m p r o v e m e n t s s u c h a s s i g n a l t i m i n g u p g r a d e s or l o c a l i z e d s t r e e t i m p r o v e m e n t s t o i m p r o v e v e h ic l e s a f e t y an d m o b i l i t y . Sp o t I m p r o v e m e n t s f o r W a l k w a y s a n d B i k e w a y s P r ov i d e l o w e r c o s t i m p r o v e m e n t s s u c h a s p e d e s t r i a n l i g h ti n g a n d Ot h e r T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P r o j e c t s Packet Page 510 of 1136 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e Co s t s V e r s e s P r o j e c t e d R e v e n u e th r o u g h 2 0 2 5 Su m m a r y o f P r o j e c t C o s t s th r o u g h 2 0 2 5 T ot a l C os t s t h ro u g h 20 2 5 = $ 1 0 5, 2 13 , 3 00 Co s t s a n d R e v e n u e To t a l R e v e n u e I d e n t i i e d t h r o u g h 2 0 2 5 = $ 4 0 , 9 0 6 , 6 1 1 U t i l i t y R es u r f a c i n g Jo i n t A ge n c y F un d i n g I nt e r e s t I nc o m e R ea l E st a t e E xc i s e T a x S ou r c e s o f I de n t i f i e d R ev e n u e : Gr a n t s (un s e c u r e d ) Mo t o r V e h ic l e F ue l T a x Tr a f f i c I mp a c t /Mi t i g a t i o n F ee s * Tr a n s f e r s f r o m O t h er F un d s * U p d a t e d i m p a c t f e e = $ 1 ,0 7 1 p e r t r i p Co n c u r r e n c y , $ 1 6 , 0 9 1 , 8 0 0 Hi g h w a y o f S t a t e w i d e Si g n f i c a n c e , $ 8 , 7 6 6 , 2 0 0 Sa f e t y , $ 2 4 , 6 1 1 , 2 0 0 Wa l k w a y , $ 2 0 , 2 7 9 , 0 0 0 Cu r b R a m p U p g r a d e , $4 , 1 8 9 , 5 0 0 Bi k e w a y , $ 1 , 7 4 0 , 0 0 0 Pr e s e r v a t i o n & Ma i n t e n a n c e , $ 2 7 , 9 1 6 , 0 0 0 Tr a f f i c C a l m i n g , $ 1 6 0 , 0 0 0 Ot h e r , $ 1 , 4 5 9 , 6 0 0 Id e n t i f i e d Fu n d i n g , $4 0 , 9 0 6 , 6 1 1 Sh o r t f a l l , $6 4 , 3 0 6 , 6 8 9 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e Ex a m p l e F u n d i n g S c e n a r i o s Pr o j e c t e d t o t a l r e v e n u e 2 0 1 0 t h r o u g h 2 0 2 5 Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n B e n e i t D i s t r i c t ( T B D ) A dd i t i o n a l v e h ic l e l i c e n s e f e e u p t o $ 8 0 (fo r a t o t a l o f $ 1 00 ) a l l o w e d u n d e r l a w , wi t h v o t e r a p p r o v a l (to e x p l o r e i n 2 0 1 0) A pp r op r i a t e f u n d i n g l e v e l , a n d s p e c i f i c p r o j ec t s t o b e f u n d e d , w o u l d b e de v e l o p e d a s p a r t o f a t o t a l f u n d i n g p a c k ag e , p r i o r t o p u t t i n g t o v o t e Packet Page 511 of 1136 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n Op e n H o u s e # 3 J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 0 9 Su m m a r y o f P r e l i m i n a r y P r o j e c t s a n d C o s t s 2 0 1 0 2 0 2 5 Co n c u r r e n c y P r o j e c t s - b y 2 0 1 5 ID L o c a t i o n Im p r o v e m e n t Co s t 2 O l y m p i c V i e w D r i v e / 7 6 t h A v e n u e W In s t a l l t r a f f i c s i g n a l . W i d e n 7 6 t h t o a d d a w e s t b o u n d l e f t t u r n l a n e f o r 1 7 5 - f o o t s t o r a g e l e n g t h . 1, 1 4 6 , 8 0 0 $ 4 P u g e t D r i v e / 1 9 6 t h S t S W / 8 8 t h A v e n u e W In s t a l l t r a f f i c s i g n a l . 87 9 , 0 0 0 $ 6 C a s p e r s S t r e e t / 9 t h A v e n u e N In s t a l l t r a f f i c s i g n a l . 81 8 , 0 0 0 $ 9 2 1 2 t h S t r e e t S W / 7 6 t h A v e n u e W Wi d e n 7 6 t h t o a d d a n o r t h b o u n d l e f t t u r n l a n e f o r 2 5 0 - f o o t s t o r a g e l e n g t h a n d a s o u t h b o u n d l e f t tu r n l a n e f o r 1 2 5 - f o o t s t o r a g e l e n g t h . P r o v i d e p r o t e c t e d l e f t t u r n p h a s e f o r n o r t h b o u n d a n d so u t h b o u n d m o v e m e n t s . W i d e n 2 1 2 t h t o a d d a w e s t b o u n d r i g h t t u r n l a n e f o r 5 0 - f o o t s t o r a g e le n g th . 2, 3 1 3 , 8 0 0 $ 10 2 1 2 t h S t r e e t S W / 8 4 t h A v e n u e W I n s t a l l a s i n g l e - l a n e r o u n d a b o u t . 1, 9 1 0 , 1 0 0 $ 11 M a i n S t r e e t / 9 t h A v e n u e N I n s t a l l t r a f f i c s i g n a l . 87 4 , 4 0 0 $ 12 W a l n u t S t r e e t / 9 t h A v e n u e S I n s t a l l t r a f f i c s i g n a l . 87 4 , 4 0 0 $ 15 2 2 0 t h S t r e e t S W / 7 6 t h A v e n u e W R e c o n f i g u r e e a s t b o u n d l a n e s t o a l e f t t u r n l a n e a n d a t h r o u g h - r i g h t l a n e . C h a n g e e a s t b o u n d a n d we s t b o u n d p h a s e t o p r o v i d e p r o t e c t e d - p e r m i t t e d p h a s e f o r e a s t b o u n d l e f t t u r n . P r o v i d e r i g h t t u r n ph a s e f o r w e s t b o u n d m o v e m e n t d u r i n g s o u t h b o u n d l e f t t u r n p h a s e . 13 8 , 3 0 0 $ Su b T o t a l 8 , 9 5 4 , 8 0 0 $ Co n c u r r e n c y P r o j e c t s - b y 2 0 2 5 1 1 7 4 t h S t r e e t S W / O l y m p i c V i e w D r i v e Wi d e n O l y m p i c V i e w D r t o a d d a n o r t h b o u n d l e f t t u r n l a n e f o r 5 0 - f o o t s t o r a g e l e n g t h . S h i f t t h e no r t h b o u n d l a n e s t o t h e e a s t t o p r o v i d e a n a c c e l e r a t i o n l a n e f o r e a s t b o u n d l e f t t u r n s . 72 4 , 2 0 0 $ 8 2 1 2 t h S t r e e t S W / S R 9 9 Wi d e n 2 1 2 t h t o a d d a w e s t b o u n d l e f t t u r n l a n e f o r 2 0 0 - f o o t s t o r a g e l e n g t h a n d a e a s t b o u n d l e f t tu r n l a n e f o r 3 0 0 - f o o t s t o r a g e l e n g t h . P r o v i d e p r o t e c t e d l e f t t u r n p h a s e f o r e a s t b o u n d a n d we s t b o u n d m o v e m e n t s . 3, 2 6 5 , 5 0 0 $ 14 2 2 0 t h S t r e e t S W / S R 9 9 Wi d e n 2 2 0 t h t o a d d w e s t b o u n d r i g h t t u r n l a n e f o r 3 2 5 - f o o t s t o r a g e l e n g t h . W i d e n S R 9 9 a d d se c o n d s o u t h b o u n d l e f t t u r n l a n e f o r 2 7 5 - f o o t s t o r a g e l e n g t h . 3, 1 4 7 , 3 0 0 $ Su b T o t a l 7 , 1 3 7 , 0 0 0 $ Hi g h w a y o f S t a t e w i d e S i g n f i c a n c e ( H S S ) O p e r a t i o n I m p r o v e m e n t P r o j e c t s 20 2 3 8 t h S t r e e t S W / E d m o n d s W a y ( S R 1 0 4 ) In s t a l l a t r a f f i c s i g n a l a n d p r o v i d e p r o t e c t e d l e f t t u r n p h a s e f o r n o r t h b o u n d a n d s o u t h b o u n d mo v e m e n t s . C o s t a s s u m e s c o r r e c t i o n o f m i n o r s t r e e t s k e w . $ 5 , 4 4 4 , 6 0 0 21 2 4 4 t h S t r e e t S W ( S R 1 0 4 ) / 7 6 t h A v e n u e W Wi d e n 2 4 4 t h t o a d d s e c o n d w e s t b o u n d l e f t t u r n l a n e f o r 3 2 5 - f o o t s t o r a g e l e n g t h . P r o v i d e r i g h t t u r n ph a s e f o r n o r t h b o u n d m o v e m e n t d u r i n g w e s t b o u n d l e f t t u r n p h a s e . 3, 3 2 1 , 6 0 0 $ 22 2 4 4 t h S t r e e t S W / S R 9 9 W i d e n 2 4 4 t h S t r e e t S W t o a d d w e s t b o u n d r i g h t t u r n l a n e f o r a 3 0 0 - f o o t s t o r a g e l e n g t h . Su b T o t a l 8, 7 6 6 , 2 0 0 $ Sa f e t y P r o j e c t s 25 2 2 8 t h S t r e e t S W , S R 9 9 - 7 6 t h A v e n u e W Co n s t r u c t c o n n e c t i o n o f 2 2 8 t h S t r e e t S W b e t w e e n S R 9 9 a n d 7 6 t h A v e n u e W ( t h r e e l a n e s w i t h cu r b , g u t t e r , a n d s i d e w a l k ) . I n s t a l l t r a f f i c s i g n a l a t 2 2 8 t h S t r e e t S W a n d S R 9 9 . I n s t a l l m e d i a n o n SR 9 9 t o p r o h i b i t l e f t t u r n m o v e m e n t s a t 7 6 t h A v e n u e W . $ 3 , 9 4 8 , 2 0 0 26 2 1 6 t h S t r e e t / S R 9 9 Wi d e n t o a l l o w o n e l e f t t u r n l a n e a n d o n e t h r o u g h l a n e s i n e a s t b o u n d a n d w e s t b o u n d d i r e c t i o n s , wi t h 1 0 0 - f o o t s t o r a g e l e n g t h f o r t u r n l a n e s . $ 7 1 9 , 8 0 0 27 2 3 8 t h S t r e e t S W , S R 1 0 4 - 8 4 t h A v e n u e W Wi d e n t o t h r e e l a n e s w i t h c u r b , g u t t e r , a n d s i d e w a l k ( a s p e r P i n e S t r e e t F e r r y A c c e s s S t u d y ) $ 2 , 5 1 9 , 7 0 0 28 8 4 t h A v e n u e W , 2 1 2 t h S t r e e t S W - 2 3 8 t h St r e e t S W Wi d e n t o t h r e e l a n e s w i t h c u r b , g u t t e r , a n d s i d e w a l k . $ 1 6 , 3 5 5 , 5 0 0 SR 9 9 I l l u m i n a t i o n Im p r o v e r o a d w a y s a f e t y w i t h i l l u m i n a t i o n $ 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ma i n S t / 3 r d A v e s i g n a l u p g r a d e Up g r a d e s i g n a l t o t o r e d u c e c o n f l i c t s w i t h t r u c k s $ 1 3 8 , 0 0 0 Su b T o t a l 24 , 0 8 1 , 2 0 0 $ Pa g e 1 Packet Page 512 of 1136 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n Op e n H o u s e # 3 J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 0 9 Su m m a r y o f P r e l i m i n a r y P r o j e c t s a n d C o s t s 2 0 1 0 2 0 2 5 No n - M o t o r i z e d P r o j e c t s Ci t y w i d e W a l k w a y P r o j e c t s 14 , 6 9 9 , 0 0 0 $ AD A T r a n s i t i o n P l a n 4, 1 8 9 , 5 0 0 $ Ci t y w i d e P e d e s t r i a n L i g h t i n g 80 , 0 0 0 $ In t e r u r b a n T r a i l 1, 5 3 5 , 0 0 0 $ Bi k e R o u t e S i g n i n g 25 , 0 0 0 $ Ci t y w i d e B i k e w a y P r o j e c t s 12 0 , 0 0 0 $ Su b T o t a l 20 , 6 4 8 , 5 0 0 $ Pr e s e r v a t i o n a n d M a i n t e n a n c e P r o g r a m s a n d P r o j e c t s An n u a l S t r e e t O v e r l a y s 20 1 0 - 2 0 1 5 Gr i n d p a v e m e n t , o v e r l a y $ 1 0 , 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 20 1 6 - 2 0 2 5 $ 1 7 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 Ci t y w i d e S t r e e t I m p r o v e m e n t s 20 1 0 - 2 0 1 5 Ma i n t e n a n c e t o i n c r e a s e r o a d w a y l i f e $ 9 0 , 0 0 0 20 1 6 - 2 0 2 5 $ 1 5 0 , 0 0 0 Ci t y w i d e S i g n a l I m p r o v e m e n t s 20 1 0 - 2 0 1 5 Up g r a d e s t o e x i s t i n g s i g n a l s , f o r m a i n t e n a n c e a n d t e c h n o l o g y $ 3 0 , 0 0 0 20 1 6 - 2 0 2 5 $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 Ci t y w i d e C a b i n e t a n d C o n t r o l l e r U p g r a d e s 2 0 1 0 - 2 0 1 5 Up g r a d e s t o e x s i t n g t r a f f i c s i g n a l c a b i n e t s e l e m e n t s f o r m a i n t e n a n c e a n d t e c h n o l o g y $ 3 0 , 0 0 0 20 1 6 - 2 0 2 5 $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 Pu g e t & O l y m p i c V i e w D r i v e Si g n a l r e b u i l d $ 1 9 8 , 0 0 0 Do w n t o w n B i c y c l e P a r k i n g Ad d b i c y c l e p a r k i n g a t d i f f e r e n t l o c a t i o n s c i t y w i d e $ 6 0 , 0 0 0 23 8 t h / 1 0 0 t h A v e S i g n a l U p g r a d e s Re b u i l d c o m p l e t e s i g n a l s y s t e m a n d i n s t a l l v i d e o d e t e c t i o n $ 1 1 8 , 0 0 0 Su b T o t a l 27 , 9 7 6 , 0 0 0 $ Ot h e r P r o j e c t s Ci t y w i d e T r a f f i c C a l m i n g P r o g r a m $ 1 6 0 , 0 0 0 Op e r a t i o n a l E n h a n c e m e n t s $ 2 4 0 , 0 0 0 Fu t u r e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n U p d a t e s $ 6 0 0 , 0 0 0 De b t S e r v i c e o n 2 2 0 t h S t r e e t S W P r o j e c t $ 6 1 6 , 6 0 0 4t h A v e n u e C o r r i d o r E n h a n c e m e n t $ 5 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Sh e l l V a l l e y A c c e s s I m p r o v e m e n t $ 5 3 0 , 0 0 0 Mi n i T r a n s p o r t a t i o n M a n a g e m e n t C e n t e r $ 3 , 0 0 0 Su b T o t a l 7, 6 4 9 , 6 0 0 $ GR A N D T O T A L , 2 0 1 0 2 0 2 5 10 5 , 2 1 3 , 3 0 0 $ Pa g e 2 Packet Page 513 of 1136 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n Op e n H o u s e # 3 - J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 0 9 Su m m a r y o f C i t y w i d e W a l k w a y P r o j e c t s ID S t r e e t N a m e Fr o m To Le n g t h (f e e t ) Wi d t h (f e e t ) Sh o r t W a l k w a y P r o j e c t s SW 1 2 n d A v e n u e S Ja m e s S t r e e t Ma i n S t r e e t 10 0 8 SW 2 D a y t o n S t r e e t 7t h A v e n u e S 8t h A v e n u e S 25 0 5 SW 3 M a p l e S t r e e t We s t o f 6 t h A v n u e S 8t h A v e n u e S 25 0 5 SW 4 W a l n u t S t r e e t 6t h A v e n u e S 7t h A v e n u e S 70 0 5 SW 5 W a l n u t S t r e e t 3r d A v e n u e S 4t h A v e n u e S 35 0 8 SW 6 2 2 6 t h S t r e e t S W 10 6 t h A v e n u e W SR 1 0 4 70 0 5 SW 7 1 8 9 t h P l a c e S W 80 t h A v e n u e W 78 t h A v e n u e W 70 0 5 SW 8 8 t h A v e n u e S Wa l n u t S t r e e t so u t h o f W a l n u t S t r e e t 15 0 5 SW 9 8 4 t h A v e n u e W 18 8 t h S t r e e t S W 18 6 t h S t r e e t S W 70 0 5 SW 1 0 1 9 0 t h P l a c e S W Ol y m p i c V i e w D r i v e 94 t h A v e n u e W 80 0 5 Lo n g W a l k w a y P r o j e c t s LW 1 2 3 4 t h S t r e e t S W / 2 3 6 t h S t S W 9 7 t h P l a c e W SR 1 0 4 3, 1 0 0 5 LW 2 M a p l e w o o d D r i v e Ma i n S t r e e t 20 0 t h S t r e e t S W 2, 7 0 0 5 LW 3 O l y m p i c A v e n u e Ma i n S t r e e t Pu g e t D r i v e 4, 0 0 0 5 LW 4 M e a d o w d a l e B e a c h R o a d 7 6 t h A v e n u e W Ol y m p i c V i e w D r i v e 3, 8 0 0 5 LW 5 P i n e S t r e e t SR 1 0 4 9t h A v e n u e W 4, 0 0 0 5 LW 6 8 0 t h A v e n u e W / 1 8 0 t h S t r e e t S W 1 8 8 t h S t r e e t S W Ol y m p i c V i e w D r i v e 3, 0 0 0 5 LW 7 8 0 t h A v e n u e W 21 2 n d S t r e e t S W 20 6 t h S t r e e t S W 2, 0 0 0 5 LW 8 2 3 8 t h S t r e e t S W 10 4 t h A v e n u e W 10 0 t h A v e n u e W 1, 4 0 0 5 LW 9 2 3 8 t h S t r e e t S W SR 9 9 76 t h A v n u e W 2, 6 0 0 5 LW 1 0 2 3 2 n d S t r e e t W 10 0 t h A v n u e W 97 t h A v e n u e W 1, 0 0 0 5 LW 1 1 8 4 t h A v e n u e W 23 8 t h S t r e e t S W 23 4 t h S t r e e t S W 1, 3 0 0 5 LW 1 2 1 7 6 t h S t r e e t S W 72 n d A v e n u e W Ol y m p i c V i e w D r i v e 1, 4 0 0 5 LW 1 3 1 8 8 t h S t r e e t S W 92 n d A v e n u e W 88 t h A v e n u e W 1, 0 0 0 5 LW 1 4 1 8 4 t h S t r e e t S W / A n d o v e r S t r e e t 1 8 4 t h S t r e e t S W / 8 8 t h A v e n u e W O l y m p i c V i e w D r i v e / A n d o v e r S t r e e t 3, 5 0 0 5 LW 1 5 7 2 n d A v e n u e W Ol y m p i c V i e w D r i v e 17 6 t h S t r e e t S W 2, 9 0 0 5 LW 1 6 2 3 6 t h S t r e e t S W SR 1 0 4 Ea s t o f 8 4 t h A v e n u e W 2, 1 0 0 5 LW 1 7 9 2 n d A v e n u e W 18 9 t h P l a c e S W 18 6 t h P l a c e S W 1, 0 0 0 5 LW 1 8 1 9 1 s t S t r e e t S W 80 t h A v n u e W 76 t h A v e n u e W 1, 4 0 0 5 LW 1 9 2 1 8 t h S t r e e t S W 80 t h A v e n u e W 84 t h A v e n u e W 1, 4 0 0 5 LW 2 0 1 9 2 n d S t r e e t S W 88 t h A v e n u e W 84 t h A v e n u e W 1, 3 0 0 5 LW 2 1 1 0 4 t h A v e n u e W / R o b i n H o o d Dr i v e 23 8 t h S t r e e t S W 10 6 t h A v e n u e W 2, 2 0 0 5 LW 2 2 1 8 6 t h S t r e e t S W 86 0 8 1 8 5 t h P l a c e S W Se a v i e w P a r k / 8 0 t h A v n u e W 1, 7 0 0 5 LW 2 3 2 1 6 t h S t r e e t S W 86 t h A v e n u e W 92 n d A v e n u e W 2, 4 5 0 5 LW 2 4 9 2 n d A v e n u e W Bo w d o i n W a y 22 0 t h S t r e e t S W 2, 2 5 0 5 Packet Page 514 of 1136 Packet Page 515 of 1136 Appendix B Traffic Calming Program Packet Page 516 of 1136 Packet Page 517 of 1136 Traffic Calming Program The City of Edmonds Traffic Calming Program is designed to assist residents and City staff in responding to neighborhood traffic issues related to speeding, cut-through traffic, and safety. Implementation of a traffic calming program allows local traffic concerns to be addressed consistently, and traffic calming measures to be efficiently developed and put into operation. In establishing a neighborhood traffic calming program, the City must take into account the restriction that no deviation from Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) design standards is permitted on principal arterials, minor arterials and collector streets without express approval of the WSDOT local programs engineer (RCW 35.78). This limitation does not apply to local access streets, which are defined by RCW 35.78.010 as streets “…generally limited to providing access to abutting property… tributary to major and secondary thoroughfares… generally discouraging through traffic…” Therefore, the City’s traffic calming program focuses on local access streets. The Traffic Calming Program consists of a three-phase process: Phase 1 – Petition and Review for Qualification: To begin the process, residents submit a petition for local street traffic concerns, and the City reviews the application and investigates the site to determine if the application qualifies for the Traffic Calming Program. Phase 2 – Education and Enforcement: Focuses on education and enforcement solutions that could include educational flyers, police enforcement, a neighborhood speed watch, signing, and/or striping modifications. If those solutions are not effective in reducing speed or cut-through traffic, then the process moves on to Phase 3. Phase 3 – Installation of Traffic Calming Device: Consists of working with residents to identify the appropriate traffic calming device to be installed. If approved by residents in the affected area, the device is planned for installation. Packet Page 518 of 1136 Exhibit A illustrates the three-phase process. Each phase of the Traffic Calming Program is summarized in the following sections. Due to economic considerations, city streets that are ineligible for the Traffic Calming Program include: 1. Streets classified other than local streets, including dead-end streets. 2. Streets scheduled for resurfacing within the next two years. 3. Streets with grades, curvatures or other physical conditions where addition of any device would create unsafe conditions. 4. Streets not meeting average daily traffic requirements (see Phase 1 Qualification section). Packet Page 519 of 1136 End with notice letter Phase 1 Residents petition for local street traffic concerns (minimum of 8 signatures) Qualifies Does not qualify Phase 2 Qualifies Staff and residents develop education and enforcement solutions Implement education and enforcement solutions 3-6 months later Phase 3 Staff evaluates effectiveness of solutions 85th percentile speed ≤ 8 mph over speed limit Residents vote on approval of traffic calming device ≥ 60% of residents who return ballots approve Design and install traffic calming device < 60% of residents approve 6–12 months later Staff evaluates effectiveness of device Staff reviews and collects data Qualification for traffic calming program and tBOEDVUUIrPVHIQFSIPVr, or tUIQFrcFnUJMFTQFFE NQIovFSTQFFEMJNJt 8 mph < 85th percentile ≤ 10 mph 85th percentile speed > 10 mph over speed limit or Cut-through traffic per hour < 25% and 15 vehiclesEnd with notice letter stating program objectives have been met Review other solutions End with notice letter. Staff reviews traffic calming devices for funding, priority, technical feasibility Staff develops traffic calming solutions with police and fire departments’ approval August 2009 Exhibit A. Traffic Calming Program Process Program applies to neighborhood residential through streets. Packet Page 520 of 1136 Phase 2 – Education and Enforcement Phase 2 of the program focuses on solutions that include education of drivers of existing traffic regulations, and a focus on enforcement of those regulations. During this phase, neighborhood concerns are addressed by informing drivers of safety issues by applying traffic enforcement techniques, or by adding signs or pavement markings to change driver behavior. These solutions can be an effective way to address speeding within neighborhoods by residents themselves. The City can implement these less restrictive solutions more easily and quickly than physical traffic calming devices. It is recognized, however, that these solutions may produce benefits that are only temporary, and that conditions need to be monitored. Phase 2 consists of the following steps. Development of Education and Enforcement Strategies If the application is qualified for the program, then City staff will use the baseline traffic data, along with insights and suggestions from area residents, to determine which solutions will be used to improve the traffic issues. Table 1 provides a summary of potential education and enforcement strategies, and a comparison of their advantages, disadvantages, and potential effectiveness. Implementation Once appropriate education and enforcement strategies are identified, they will be implemented with the assistance of the neighborhood residents. The solutions will be implemented for at least six months to provide a traffic adjustment period and to allow adequate time to evaluate the effectiveness. Evaluation Six to 12 months after the Phase 2 strategies have been implemented, City staff will re-evaluate conditions. The results will be compared with the previous data to measure the effectiveness of these traffic calming solutions, with three possible outcomes: If the daily 85th percentile speed is 8 mph over the posted limit; or if peak hour (AM or PM) cut-through traffic is 25% of the total traffic or < 15 cut-through vehicles, no further action will be taken. If the daily 85th percentile speed is 8 – 10 mph over the posted limit, or cut-through traffic very close but still over the threshold, another Phase 2 solution may be considered for implementation. The City staff will meet with the requestor and neighborhood residents to review if other solutions might be more effective. The application will move to Phase 3 if it meets the following conditions: The daily 85th percentile is 10 mph over the posted limit; or The peak hour (AM or PM) cut-through traffic is >25% of the total traffic and >15 vehicles per hour. Packet Page 521 of 1136 The average daily traffic volume on the subject street must be between 500 and 3,000 vehicles per day; AND One of the following three conditions is present: If the traffic concern is related to cut-through traffic, the peak hour (AM or PM, whatever is higher) cut-through traffic is >25% of total traffic and >15 vehicles per hour; or If the traffic concern is related to speeding, the daily 85th percentile speed (the speed that 85% of the cars are traveling at or below, as determined through a speed study) is >8 mph over the posted speed limit. If the baseline traffic data show that these criteria are not met, process will not move on to Phase 2. The City will notify the requestor by letter that the street does not qualify for the Traffic Calming Program. If the criteria are met, the process will move on to Phase 2. Packet Page 522 of 1136 Exhibit B. Citizen Action Request Form for the Traffic Calming Program Citizen Action Request Form - Traffic Calming Program Contact Name: _______________________________ Day Phone: ___________________ E-mail Address: _____________________________________________________________ Address: __________________________________________________________________ Location of Concern: ________________________________________________________ Neighborhood Traffic Concern (Check applicable concerns): ___ Speeding ___ Cut-Through Traffic ___ Pedestrian/Bicycle/Traffic Safety ____ Other: ________________________________________________________________ What, in your opinion, is the root cause of the problem? __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ Thank you for taking the time to complete the Citizen Action Request Form. Please send the completed form with the Neighborhood Petition Form to: City of Edmonds Attn: Public Works Engineering Department 121 5th Avenue N Edmonds, WA 98020 Once we receive the form, the Public Works Engineering Department will investigate your request. If you have questions or comments, please call Public Works Engineering Department at (425)771-0220. Packet Page 523 of 1136 Exhibit C. Neighborhood Petition Form for the Traffic Calming Program Neighborhood Petition Form - Traffic Calming Program Contact Name: _____________________________ Location of Concern: ________________________________________________________ Eight (8) neighbor signatures, one per household, are required prior to initiate the Traffic Calming Program in our neighborhood. If you agree that the issues stated in the Citizen Action Request Form exist on our residential street, please sign below with your address and phone number. The Traffic Calming Program involves active participation of our community. The decision making process may require us to set and attend neighborhood meetings and conduct further petition campaigns. Name Address Phone Signature ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ Please make additional copies as needed. Packet Page 524 of 1136 Phase 2 – Education and Enforcement Phase 2 of the program focuses on solutions that include education of drivers of existing traffic regulations, and a focus on enforcement of those regulations. During this phase, neighborhood concerns are addressed by informing drivers of safety issues by applying traffic enforcement techniques, or by adding signs or pavement markings to change driver behavior. These solutions can be an effective way to address speeding within neighborhoods by residents themselves. The City can implement these less restrictive solutions more easily and quickly than physical traffic calming devices. It is recognized, however, that these solutions may produce benefits that are only temporary, and that conditions need to be monitored. Phase 2 consists of the following steps. Development of Education and Enforcement Strategies If the application is qualified for the program, then City staff will use the baseline traffic data, along with insights and suggestions from area residents, to determine which solutions will be used to improve the traffic issues. Table 1 provides a summary of potential education and enforcement strategies, and a comparison of their advantages, disadvantages, and potential effectiveness. Implementation Once appropriate education and enforcement strategies are identified, they will be implemented with the assistance of the neighborhood residents. The solutions will be implemented for at least six months to provide a traffic adjustment period and to allow adequate time to evaluate the effectiveness. Evaluation Six to 12 months after the Phase 2 strategies have been implemented, City staff will re-evaluate conditions. The results will be compared with the previous data to measure the effectiveness of these traffic calming solutions, with three possible outcomes: If the daily 85th percentile speed is 8 mph over the posted limit; or if peak hour (AM or PM) cut-through traffic is 25% of the total traffic or < 15 cut-through vehicles, no further action will be taken. If the daily 85th percentile speed is 8 – 10 mph over the posted limit, or cut-through traffic very close but still over the threshold, another Phase 2 solution may be considered for implementation. The City staff will meet with the requestor and neighborhood residents to review if other solutions might be more effective. The application will move to Phase 3 if it meets the following conditions: The daily 85th percentile is 10 mph over the posted limit; or The peak hour (AM or PM) cut-through traffic is >25% of the total traffic and >15 vehicles per hour. Packet Page 525 of 1136 Ta b l e 1 . P o t e n t i a l E d u c a t i o n a n d E n f o r c e m e n t ( P h a s e 2 ) T r a f f i c C a l m i n g S t r a t e g i e s Po s s i b l e So l u t i o n A d v a n t a g e D i s a d v a n t a g e Sa f e t y Im p r o v e m e n t Sp e e d Re d u c t i o n Vo l u m e Re d u c t i o n Cu t - th r o u g h Tr a f f i c Re d u c t i o n C o s t Em e r g e n c y Se r v i c e Ed u c a t i o n a l Ca m p a i g n Lo w c o s t . Ca n b e r e l a t i v e l y e f f e c t i v e . In v o l v e s a n d e m p o w e r s c i t i z e n s . Ma y t a k e t i m e t o b e e f f e c t i v e . Ef f e c t i v e n e s s m a y d e c r e a s e o v e r t i m e . No t l i k e l y t o b e a s e f f e c t i v e o n n o n - l o c a l tr a f f i c . Ca n b e t i m e c o n s u m i n g . (1 ) ( 1 ) N o E f f e c t P o t e n t i a l L o w N o E f f e c t Pa v e m e n t Ma r k i n g s Re m a i n s e f f e c t i v e o n o c c a s i o n a l u s e r s . De l i n e a t i o n o f t h e p a r k i n g a r e a a n d bi c y c l e l a n e c r e a t e s t h e i m p r e s s i o n o f a na r r o w e d r o a d w a y , r e d u c i n g s p e e d . Di s c o u r a g e s v e h i c l e s f r o m d r i v i n g i n o r al o n g t h e p a r k i n g l a n e . Fe w e r l a n e c o n f l i c t s . Mo r e d e f i n e d d r i v i n g p a t t e r n s , r e d u c e d po t e n t i a l f o r a c c i d e n t s o f t h e p e d e s t r i a n , pa s s i n g o n t h e r i g h t , s i d e s w i p e , a n d pa r k e d v e h i c l e v a r i e t y . Po s i t i v e c o m m u n i t y r e a c t i o n . Ef f e c t i v e n e s s m a y d e c r e a s e o v e r t i m e . Ma y r e s u l t i n l e s s p a r k i n g d u e t o d r i v e w a y an d i n t e r s e c t i o n s i g h t d i s t a n c e s . Th e u s e o f r a i s e d b u t t o n s a s s t r i p i n g m a y in t e r f e r e w i t h s n o w r e m o v a l a c t i v i t i e s . In c r e a s e d m a i n t e n a n c e c o s t s f o r s t r i p i n g in s p e c t i o n a n d r e - s t r i p i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s . (2 ) ( 2 ) N o N o t L i k e l y L o w N o E f f e c t Po l i c e En f o r c e m e n t Go o d t e m p o r a r y p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s t o o l . Se r v e s t o i n f o r m p u b l i c t h a t s p e e d i n g i s un d e s i r a b l e b e h a v i o r f o r w h i c h t h e r e a r e co n s e q u e n c e s . Ef f e c t i s n o t p e r m a n e n t . Po t e n t i a l l y e x p e n s i v e . Bu d g e t a n d m a n p o w e r c o n s t r a i n t s . Ye s , Te m p o r a r i l y Ye s , Te m p o r a r i l y No t L i k e l y Y e s , Te m p o r a r i l y Me d i u m to H i g h No E f f e c t Po r t a b l e Ra d a r T r a i l e r He i g h t e n s m o t o r i s t s ’ a w a r e n e s s o f d r i v i n g be h a v i o r a n d i t s i m p a c t o n t h e r e s i d e n t s . Po t e n t i a l l y r e d u c e v e h i c l e s p e e d b y 1 t o 6 mp h i n t h e v i c i n i t y o f t h e s i g n . Ma y t a k e t i m e t o b e e f f e c t i v e . Ef f e c t i v e n e s s m a y d e c r e a s e o v e r t i m e . St a t i o n a r y r a d a r s i g n s m u s t b e n e a r po w e r s o u r c e . Ye s , Te m p o r a r i l y Ye s , Te m p o r a r i l y No Y e s , Te m p o r a r i l y Lo w t o Me d i u m No E f f e c t Ra i s e d Pa v e m e n t Ma r k e r s Re l a t i v e l y i n e x p e n s i v e t o i n s t a l l . Cr e a t e s d r i v e r a w a r e n e s s . Ma y r e d u c e s p e e d s . Ma y a d v e r s e l y i m p a c t b i c y c l i s t s . Ra i s e d p a v e m e n t m a r k e r s a r e n o i s y b y de s i g n , t h e r e f o r e p l a c e m e n t i n f r o n t o f re s i d e n c e s s h o u l d b e c a r e f u l l y (3 ) (3 ) N o t L i k e l y N o t L i k e l y M e d i u m to H i g h No E f f e c t Packet Page 526 of 1136 Po s s i b l e So l u t i o n A d v a n t a g e D i s a d v a n t a g e Sa f e t y Im p r o v e m e n t Sp e e d Re d u c t i o n Vo l u m e Re d u c t i o n Cu t - th r o u g h Tr a f f i c Re d u c t i o n C o s t Em e r g e n c y Se r v i c e co n s i d e r e d . Ma y i n t e r f e r e w i t h s n o w r e m o v a l ac t i v i t i e s . Si g n i n g Ma y p r o v i d e n e e d e d i n f o r m a t i o n t o t h e dr i v e r t h a t w a s n o t p r o v i d e d a l r e a d y o n th e s t r e e t . Ty p i c a l l y s a f e t y i m p r o v e s i n t h e l o n g r u n wh e n u n w a r r a n t e d s i g n s a r e r e m o v e d . Re m o v a l o f t e m p o r a r y s t o p s i g n s i s o f t e n ve r y d i f f i c u l t t o a c c e p t f o r r e s i d e n t s u s e d to h a v i n g t h e m t h e r e , e v e n w h e n t h e si g n s a r e u n w a r r a n t e d . Ov e r - s i g n i n g a n a r e a c a n c r e a t e a l o s s o f ef f e c t i v e n e s s . In c r e a s e d m a i n t e n a n c e c o s t s . Po t e n t i a l P o t e n t i a l N o t L i k e l y N o t L i k e l y L o w N o E f f e c t Sp e e d W a t c h Pr o g r a m Pr o m o t e s n e i g h b o r h o o d i n v o l v e m e n t t o ad d r e s s t r a f f i c i s s u e s ( e x c e s s i v e s p e e d as w e l l a s o t h e r c o m m u n i t y c o n c e r n s ) . He i g h t e n s m o t o r i s t s ’ a w a r e n e s s o f d r i v i n g be h a v i o r a n d i t s i m p a c t o n t h e r e s i d e n t s . Pr o v i d e s t h e P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t w i t h sp e c i f i c t i m e s f o r s e l e c t i v e e n f o r c e m e n t . De t e r m i n e s i f t r a f f i c i s c u t - t h r o u g h . Ti m e c o n s u m i n g f o r n e i g h b o r h o o d re s i d e n t s . Ma y t a k e t i m e t o b e e f f e c t i v e . Ef f e c t i v e n e s s m a y d e c r e a s e o v e r t i m e . (4 ) ( 4 ) N o Y e s , Te m p o r a r i l y Lo w N o E f f e c t (1 ) T e m p o r a r y i m p r o v e m e n t s w i l l o c c u r i f t h e m a j o r i t y o f s p e e d e r s i n t h e n e i g h b o r h o o d a r e n e i g h b o r h o o d r e s i d e n t s . (2 ) I m p r o v e m e n t w i l l d e p e n d o n t h e e x i s t i n g r o a d a n d t h e t y p e o f s t r i p i n g . T h i s w i l l h a v e t o b e d e t e r m i n e d o n a c a s e - b y - c a s e b a si s . (3 ) I m p r o v e m e n t w i l l d e p e n d o n h o w d e v i c e i s u s e d . (4 ) T e m p o r a r y i m p r o v e m e n t s a r e p o s s i b l e w h e n a l l o f t h e s p e e d e r s r e c e i v e l e t t e r s f r o m t h e P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t . Packet Page 527 of 1136 Phase 3 – Installation of Traffic Calming Devices Phase 3 of the program involves modifying the physical geometry of the roadway by installing a traffic calming device. Traffic calming devices are more expensive and more restrictive to local traffic than the Phase 2 education and enforcement strategies. Because of this, traffic calming devices require a much greater level of resident involvement and agreement for implementation. Phase 3 consists of the following steps. City Staff Review City staff will define the study area to ensure it includes all residents who could be affected by a traffic calming device. Staff will conduct a preliminary review and complete the following tasks: Staff will score the petition by using the Scoring Criteria shown in Table 2. Because traffic calming devices are more expensive to implement than Phase 2 solutions, the City will use the score to decide the priority to fund a traffic calming device. Applications will be processed in order of priority, in accordance with available funding. Staff will identify the technical feasibility and constraints of potential traffic calming devices. The following are technical aspects that will be considered when reviewing the proposed placement of a traffic calming device: Traffic rerouting. It must be assured that the problem will not shift to adjacent streets. Adequate provisions should be made for school buses, garbage collection, moving vans, construction equipment, pedestrians, and bicyclists, where traffic calming devices are installed. Emergency response times and access for emergency vehicles must be considered. Staff will coordinate with emergency service providers to ensure that a device does not interfere with adequate access and response times, either by itself or cumulatively with other devices. Drainage. It must be assured that a device will allow adequate drainage. If curbs and gutters are not present, the design of an individual device may need to be modified to restrict drivers from using the shoulders to avoid the device. Proximity to other traffic calming devices and intersections. Roadway surface conditions. Traffic calming devices should be installed on paved roadways with good surface conditions. Roadway grade. Some traffic calming devices should not be used on grades exceeding 8%. Effect of the devices on street sweeping and other maintenance activities. Potential loss of on-street parking. Potential changes to community character. Sight distance obstructions related to landscaping, fences, roadway alignment, grade, etc. Potential impact to residential driveways. Packet Page 528 of 1136 Table 2. Scoring Criteria for Traffic Calming Devices Criterion Points Average Weekday Daily Traffic (AWDT) 500 – 1,000 vehicles/day 1 1,001 – 2,000 vehicles/day 2 2,001 – 3,000 vehicles/day 3 Traffic Speed (85th Percentile) 5.1 – 8.0 mph above posted limit 2 8.1 – 10.0 mph above posted limit 4 More than 10 mph above posted limit 6 Cut-Through Traffic 25% - 49% of AWDT 1 50% - 74% of AWDT 2 More than 74% of AWDT 3 Accident History of Past 3 Years 1 accident/year 3 2 accidents/year 4 3 accidents/year 5 More than 3 accidents/year 7 Parks / Schools Greater than 6 blocks 1 Between 3 and 6 blocks 2 Within 3 blocks 3 Street Conditions Sidewalks on both sides of street 1 Sidewalks on one side of street 2 No Sidewalks 3 Development of Traffic Calming Solutions The City will hold a public meeting for all residents within the study area. In conjunction with neighborhood volunteers, staff will organize the meeting and ensure the neighborhood residents are notified of the meeting. The meeting may include following discussions. Review the effectiveness of Phase 2 strategies. Packet Page 529 of 1136 Discuss the funding and priority of the application among other traffic calming applications within the City. Discuss possible traffic calming devices and advantages, disadvantages, and special concerns related to them. Discuss the entire process for Phase 3 implementation. Establish workgroups to allow residents to work out the solutions with the help of City staff. The workgroups will discuss the problems and alternative solutions with their neighbors and report their findings to the rest of the group and City staff. The City staff will evaluate technical feasibility of the traffic calming devices that are selected by the neighborhood workgroups. The City staff will then determine the preferred traffic calming device with the approval from the Fire and Police Departments. Table 3 provides a summary of traffic calming devices that could be considered, and a comparison of their advantages, disadvantages, and potential effectiveness. Approval for Preferred Device When a preferred traffic calming device is selected, the City staff will send out a voting sheet to each of the affected residents. For a traffic calming device to be implemented, 60% of the households, based on returned ballots, must approve the installation of the proposed traffic calming device. Installation of Traffic Calming Device Once funding is available for the application, the City will begin the design and construction of the approved traffic calming device. This step includes the following elements. Baseline Data Collection Before the installation of the device, City staff will collect baseline traffic data within the study area for future comparison and effectiveness evaluation. This traffic data will be used to evaluate whether traffic shifted from the subject street to adjacent streets and to what extent the traffic shifted after a device was installed. The baseline data will also be used to evaluate the effectiveness of a device by comparison to future traffic data. Possible Installation of Temporary Device A temporary device may be installed for traffic calming measures, such as diverter, full closure, and partial closure. If appropriate, the City will install a temporary device for up to 6 months to provide a trial period. Staff will evaluate the effectiveness of the device and examine whether it results in a shift in traffic from the subject street to adjacent local streets. If it is determined that the device results in a shift of the problem to another street, the City will modify the traffic calming strategy to address this issue before installing a permanent device. Packet Page 530 of 1136 Maintenance of Landscaping Landscaping can be included in the installation of some traffic calming devices. However, neighborhood volunteers must sign up to maintain the landscaping. Otherwise, decorative paving will be used. In some areas of the City, landscaping is provided through the flower program. Evaluation If proposed by the City, 6 to 12 months after the traffic calming device has been installed, City staff will collect traffic data on surrounding streets to ensure the device did not shift traffic from the subject street to adjacent local access streets. Packet Page 531 of 1136 Ta b l e 3 . C o m p a r i s o n o f P o t e n t i a l P h a s e 3 T r a f f i c C a l m i n g D e v i c e s Po s s i b l e So l u t i o n A d v a n t a g e D i s a d v a n t a g e Sa f e t y Im p r o v e m e n t Sp e e d Re d u c t i o n Vo l u m e Re d u c t i o n Cu t - th r o u g h Tr a f f i c Re d u c t i o n C o s t Em e r g e n c y Se r v i c e Bu l b - O u t s Re d u c e s p e d e s t r i a n s ’ c r o s s i n g di s t a n c e . Na r r o w e d l a n e s c a n s l o w v e h i c l e s . Ma y i n c r e a s e s i g h t d i s t a n c e a t in t e r s e c t i o n s . Ma y r e q u i r e r e m o v a l o f s o m e o n - s t r e e t pa r k i n g . Ma y l i m i t m a r k e d b i c y c l e l a n e s . In c r e a s e d m a i n t e n a n c e f o r l a n d s c a p i n g , st r e e t s w e e p i n g , a n d c u r b r e p a i r . Ma y l i m i t p o s s i b l e n e w t r a n s i t r o u t i n g o p t i o n s . Ye s Y e s P o t e n t i a l P o t e n t i a l M e d i u m to H i g h No E f f e c t Di v e r t e r El i m i n a t e s c u t - t h r o u g h t r a f f i c . Re d u c e c o n f l i c t s a t i n t e r s e c t i o n s . Pr o v i d e s a r e a f o r l a n d s c a p i n g . In c r e a s e s p e d e s t r i a n s a f e t y . Pe d e s t r i a n a n d b i k e a c c e s s c a n b e ma i n t a i n e d . Ma y r e d i r e c t t r a f f i c o n t o o t h e r l o c a l s t r e e t s . In c r e a s e d t r a v e l t i m e f o r l o c a l r e s i d e n t s . Re d u c t i o n i n v o l u m e m a y i n c r e a s e s p e e d s . Re d u c e s e m e r g e n c y v e h i c l e s ’ a c c e s s u n l e s s sp e c i a l l y d e s i g n e d . In c r e a s e d m a i n t e n a n c e c o s t s f o r l a n d s c a p i n g . Ye s P o t e n t i a l Y e s Y e s M e d i u m to H i g h Po s s i b l e Pr o b l e m s Fu l l C l o s u r e El i m i n a t e s c u t - t h r o u g h t r a f f i c . Ef f e c t i v e v o l u m e c o n t r o l m e a s u r e . Im p r o v e s a e s t h e t i c q u a l i t y o f t h e st r e e t . Pe d e s t r i a n a n d b i k e a c c e s s c a n b e ma i n t a i n e d . Im p r o v e s s a f e t y f o r a l l t h e s t r e e t us e r s . Ma y r e d i r e c t t r a f f i c t o o t h e r s t r e e t s . Ma y i n c r e a s e t r i p l e n g t h f o r l o c a l d r i v e r s . No t a p p l i c a b l e f o r d e s i g n a t e d e m e r g e n c y re s p o n s e v e h i c l e r o u t e s . Ma y r e s u l t i n d i f f i c u l t t u r n a r o u n d c o n d i t i o n s . In c r e a s e d m a i n t e n a n c e c o s t s f o r l a n d s c a p i n g . Ye s Y e s Y e s Y e s L o w t o Me d i u m Po s s i b l e Pr o b l e m s Me d i a n s Na r r o w e d l a n e s c a n s l o w v e h i c l e s . Pr e v e n t s p a s s i n g . Op p o r t u n i t y f o r l a n d s c a p i n g a n d vi s u a l e n h a n c e m e n t . Se p a r a t e s o p p o s i n g t r a f f i c . Ma y r e d u c e s i g h t l i n e s i f o v e r - l a n d s c a p e d . Ma y r e q u i r e r e m o v a l o f s o m e o n - s t r e e t pa r k i n g . Ma y p r o h i b i t o r l i m i t d r i v e w a y a c c e s s . Ma y a f f e c t e m e r g e n c y r e s p o n s e d u r i n g in c l e m e n t w e a t h e r , i f i n s t a l l e d o n a g r a d e . Ma y l i m i t m a r k e d b i c y c l e l a n e s . In c r e a s e d m a i n t e n a n c e f o r l a n d s c a p i n g , st r e e t s w e e p i n g , a n d c u r b r e p a i r . Sl i g h t P o t e n t i a l S l i g h t S l i g h t M e d i u m to H i g h Po s s i b l e Pr o b l e m s Packet Page 532 of 1136 Po s s i b l e So l u t i o n A d v a n t a g e D i s a d v a n t a g e Sa f e t y Im p r o v e m e n t Sp e e d Re d u c t i o n Vo l u m e Re d u c t i o n Cu t - th r o u g h Tr a f f i c Re d u c t i o n C o s t Em e r g e n c y Se r v i c e Pa r t i a l Cl o s u r e Re d u c e s c u t t h r o u g h t r a f f i c . Pe d e s t r i a n c r o s s i n g d i s t a n c e re d u c e d . La n d s c a p i n g o p p o r t u n i t y . Ma y a f f e c t e m e r g e n c y r e s p o n s e . Ma y r e d i r e c t t r a f f i c o n t o o t h e r l o c a l s t r e e t s . Ma y i n c r e a s e t r i p l e n g t h f o r l o c a l d r i v e r s . Ma i n t e n a n c e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i f l a n d s c a p e d . Ye s P o t e n t i a l Y e s Y e s L o w t o Me d i u m Po s s i b l e Pr o b l e m s Sp e e d Cu s h i o n s Re d u c e s v e h i c l e s p e e d s i n t h e vi c i n i t y o f s p e e d c u s h i o n . . Se l f - e n f o r c i n g . Re l a t i v e l y i n e x p e n s i v e . Ma y d i v e r t t r a f f i c i f a d j a c e n t a r t e r i a l st r e e t e x i s t s . Ma y c r e a t e n o i s e . In c r e a s e s s i g n m a i n t e n a n c e c o s t s . Ma y c a u s e d i v e r s i o n o f t r a f f i c t o a d j a c e n t l o c a l st r e e t s . Po t e n t i a l Y e s Y e s P o t e n t i a l L o w t o Me d i u m Le s s E f f e c t Tr a f f i c Ci r c l e s Sp e e d r e d u c t i o n n e a r i n t e r s e c t i o n . Ma y d i v e r t t r a f f i c i f a d j a c e n t a n ar t e r i a l s t r e e t e x i s t s . Op p o r t u n i t y f o r l a n d s c a p i n g a n d be a u t i f i c a t i o n . Ma y r e d u c e c o l l i s i o n s a t t h e in t e r s e c t i o n . Ma y a f f e c t e m e r g e n c y r e s p o n s e . Ma y c a u s e d i v e r s i o n o f t r a f f i c t o a d j a c e n t l o c a l st r e e t s . Ma y a f f e c t t r a n s i t s e r v i c e . So m e p o t e n t i a l l o s s o f o n - s t r e e t p a r k i n g a t co r n e r s . In c r e a s e d m a i n t e n a n c e f o r l a n d s c a p i n g , st r e e t s w e e p i n g , a n d c u r b r e p a i r . Ye s Y e s P o t e n t i a l P o t e n t i a l L o w t o Hi g h Mi n o r Co n s t r a i n t s No t e : S p e e d h u m p s a n d c h i c a n e s a r e e x c l u d e d f r o m t h e p r o g r a m , b e c a u s e t h e C i t y h a s d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e y a r e o f t e n d e t r i m e n t a l t o e m e r g e n c y v e h i c l e a c c e s s a n d r e s p o n s e t i m e s . Packet Page 533 of 1136 Removal of a Traffic Calming Device An installed device may be removed by the City at no cost to residents if: It is determined to result in a safety issue, It is determined to be ineffective, or It interferes with the installation of future traffic control devices. However, if residents wish to remove a traffic calming device after it is installed, without any of these conditions in place, they must provide a petition that indicates 60% agreement with a removal decision, and pay for the removal. Packet Page 534 of 1136 Packet Page 535 of 1136 Appendix C ADA Ramp Inventory and Upgrade Priority Packet Page 536 of 1136 Packet Page 537 of 1136 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s , C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n AD A R a m p I n v e n t o r y Cr i t . 2 C r i t e r i a 3 Cr i t e r i a 4 Cr i t e r i a 5 Cr i t e r i a 6 ID N o . I N T E R S E C T I O N C O R N E R ( S ) S t r e e t A C l a s s . 1 S t r e e t B C l a s s 1 C o m m . C e n t e r & L i b r a r y S e n i o r C e n t e r S t e v e n s H o s p i t a l B R T / R a i l / F e r r y T r a n s i t R o u t e A d j a c e n t S c h o o l S c h o o l N e a r b y C i t y H a l l / P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t C o m m . Z o n e A d j a c e n t P a r k P a r k N e a r b y N o R a m p S u b - S t a n d a r d R a m p S u b - S t a n d a r d A s p h a l t R a m p N e w R a m p , W i t h o u t D o m e s A s p h a l t R a m p , N o D o m e s N e w R a m p , W i t h D o m e s D O W N T O W N E D M O N D S 3 AD A 1 8 8 Ma i n & S u n s e t A L L 12 X X X AD A 1 9 0 D a y t o n & S u n s e t A L L 13 X X X AD A 2 7 9 SR - 1 0 4 & D a y t o n D U P L I C A T E 13 X X X AD A 1 0 9 3 r d & M a i n A L L 22 X X X AD A 1 8 6 M a i n & 3 r d D U P L I C A T E 22 X X X AD A 1 5t h & M a i n A L L 22 X X X AD A 2 5t h & D a y to n 2 AL L 23 X X X X AD A 1 8 3 M a i n & D u r b i n A L L 24 X X X X X AD A 1 8 4 M a i n & 6 t h A L L 24 X X X X AD A 1 0 6 3 r d & E d m o n d s A L L 24 X X X AD A 1 1 0 3 r d & J a m e s A L L 24 X X X AD A 1 0 8 3 r d & B e l l N W , S E , S W 24 X X X AD A 1 0 7 3 r d & B e l l N E 24 X X X AD A 1 8 5 M a i n & 4 t h A L L 24 X X AD A 1 8 7 M a i n & 2 n d A L L 24 X X AD A 1 1 1 3 r d & D a y t o n A L L 33 X X X AD A 1 9 2 D a y t o n & 3 r d D U P L I C A T E 33 X X X AD A 1 8 9 D a y t o n & R a i l r o a d N W , N E 34 X X X X X AD A 2 7 5 Da y t o n & R a i l r o a d D U P L I C A T E 34 X X X X X AD A 1 9 1 D a y t o n & 2 n d A L L 34 X X X AD A 1 9 3 D a y t o n & 4 t h A L L 34 X X X AD A 1 9 5 D a y t o n & 6 t h S E , S W , N E 34 X X X AD A 1 9 4 D a y t o n & 6 t h N W 34 X X X AD A 1 9 9 B e l l & 6 t h A L L 44 X X X X AD A 1 9 8 B e l l & 5 t h A L L 44 X X X AD A 2 7 3 2n d & E d m o n d s S E , S W 44 X X AD A 2 7 4 2n d & E d m o n d s N E , N W 44 X X AD A 1 9 7 B e l l & 2 n d A L L 44 X X AD A 2 0 2 B e l l & S u n s e t S E 44 X X AD A 2 6 5 4 t h & E d m o n d s A L L 44 X X AD A 2 7 2 2 n d & J a m e s S E , N W 44 X X AD A 2 7 1 2 n d & J a m e s N E , S W 44 X X AD A 2 6 3 4 t h & B e l l S W , N E , S E 44 X X AD A 2 6 4 4t h & B e l l N W 44 X X D O W N T O W N E D M O N D S 3 Se e P a g e 1 2 f o r N o t e s 1 - 3 K: \ p r o j e c t \ 3 1 1 0 0 \ 3 1 1 6 1 \ D a t a \ R a m p s \ R a m p - 2 0 0 9 _ 0 2 2 4 . x l s Sh e e t 1 Pa g e 1 o f 1 2 Ot a k , I n c . Pr i n t e d : 4 / 2 4 / 2 0 0 9 Packet Page 538 of 1136 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s , C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n AD A R a m p I n v e n t o r y Cr i t . 2 C r i t e r i a 3 Cr i t e r i a 4 Cr i t e r i a 5 Cr i t e r i a 6 ID N o . I N T E R S E C T I O N C O R N E R ( S ) S t r e e t A C l a s s . 1 S t r e e t B C l a s s 1 C o m m . C e n t e r & L i b r a r y S e n i o r C e n t e r S t e v e n s H o s p i t a l B R T / R a i l / F e r r y T r a n s i t R o u t e A d j a c e n t S c h o o l S c h o o l N e a r b y C i t y H a l l / P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t C o m m . Z o n e A d j a c e n t P a r k P a r k N e a r b y N o R a m p S u b - S t a n d a r d R a m p S u b - S t a n d a r d A s p h a l t R a m p N e w R a m p , W i t h o u t D o m e s A s p h a l t R a m p , N o D o m e s N e w R a m p , W i t h D o m e s AD A 3 0 5 SR - 9 9 & 2 4 4 t h N W , N E 11 X X X AD A 2 8 3 SR - 1 0 4 & 9 t h A v e / 1 0 0 t h A L L 12 X X X X AD A 2 9 4 SR - 9 9 & 2 1 2 n d N W , S W 12 X X X AD A 2 9 7 SR - 9 9 & 2 2 0 t h N W , N E 12 X X X AD A 2 9 6 SR - 9 9 & 2 2 0 t h S W 12 X X X AD A 3 0 3 SR - 9 9 & 2 3 8 t h A L L 12 X X X AD A 2 9 3 SR - 9 9 & 7 6 t h A v e W 2 AL L 12 X X X AD A 7 1 76 t h & 1 9 6 t h A L L 12 X X AD A 2 8 8 SR - 1 0 4 & 2 3 8 t h A L L 12 X X AD A 2 9 9 SR - 9 9 & 2 2 8 t h A L L 13 X X X AD A 2 8 4 SR - 1 0 4 & 9 5 t h N W , N E 13 X X AD A 2 8 7 SR - 1 0 4 & 2 3 6 t h A L L 1 4 X X X X AD A 2 8 2 SR - 1 0 4 & 1 0 2 n d A L L 14 X X X X AD A 2 8 1 SR - 1 0 4 & 2 2 6 t h A L L 14 X X X AD A 2 8 5 SR - 1 0 4 & 9 7 t h S W , S W 14 X X X AD A 2 9 5 SR - 9 9 & 2 1 6 t h N W , S W 14 X X X AD A 2 9 8 SR - 9 9 & 2 2 4 t h A L L 14 X X X AD A 3 0 2 SR - 9 9 & 2 3 6 t h A L L 14 X X X AD A 3 0 4 SR - 9 9 & 2 4 0 t h N W , N E 14 X X X AD A 3 0 0 SR - 9 9 & 2 3 2 n d N W , N E , S W 14 X X X AD A 3 0 1 SR - 9 9 & 2 3 2 n d S E 14 X X X AD A 2 8 0 SR - 1 0 4 & P a r a d i s e L a n e N W , N E 14 X X AD A 2 8 6 SR - 1 0 4 & 2 3 2 n d A L L 14 X X AD A 2 9 0 SR - 1 0 4 & 2 4 0 t h N W , S W 14 X AD A 2 8 9 SR - 1 0 4 & 2 4 0 t h N E , S E 1 4 X P R I N C I P A L A R T E R I A L S Se e P a g e 1 2 f o r N o t e s 1 - 3 K: \ p r o j e c t \ 3 1 1 0 0 \ 3 1 1 6 1 \ D a t a \ R a m p s \ R a m p - 2 0 0 9 _ 0 2 2 4 . x l s Sh e e t 1 Pa g e 2 o f 1 2 Ot a k , I n c . Pr i n t e d : 4 / 2 4 / 2 0 0 9 Packet Page 539 of 1136 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s , C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n AD A R a m p I n v e n t o r y Cr i t . 2 C r i t e r i a 3 Cr i t e r i a 4 Cr i t e r i a 5 Cr i t e r i a 6 ID N o . I N T E R S E C T I O N C O R N E R ( S ) S t r e e t A C l a s s . 1 S t r e e t B C l a s s 1 C o m m . C e n t e r & L i b r a r y S e n i o r C e n t e r S t e v e n s H o s p i t a l B R T / R a i l / F e r r y T r a n s i t R o u t e A d j a c e n t S c h o o l S c h o o l N e a r b y C i t y H a l l / P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t C o m m . Z o n e A d j a c e n t P a r k P a r k N e a r b y N o R a m p S u b - S t a n d a r d R a m p S u b - S t a n d a r d A s p h a l t R a m p N e w R a m p , W i t h o u t D o m e s A s p h a l t R a m p , N o D o m e s N e w R a m p , W i t h D o m e s AD A 1 6 5 21 2 t h & 7 6 t h AL L 2 2 XX X X X AD A 5 7 21 2 t h & 7 6 t h DU P L I C A T E 2 2 XX X X X AD A 4 9 76 t h & 2 2 8 t h NE , S E 22 X X X AD A 9 5 19 6 t h & O l y m p ic 4 SE , S W 22 X X X X AD A 9 4 19 6 t h & O l y m p ic 2 NE , N W 22 X X X X AD A 3 6 22 0 t h & 7 6 t h S E , S W 22 X X X AD A 3 5 22 0 t h & 7 6 t h N E , N W 22 X X X AD A 1 7 9 M a i n & 9 t h A L L 22 X X X AD A 1 0 1 3r d & C a s p er s 2 NW , S W 22 X X AD A 1 7 22 0 t h & 9 t h A L L 22 X X AD A 1 3 4 2 2 0 t h & 9 t h D U P L I C A T E 22 X X AD A 7 7 76 t h & O l y m p i c V i e w D r N W , S E 22 X X X AD A 7 8 7 6 t h & O l y m p i c V i e w D r S W 22 X X X AD A 7 9 7 6 t h & O l y m p i c V i e w D r N E 22 X X X AD A 1 8 2 M a i n & 7 t h S W , N W , N E 23 X X X X AD A 1 8 1 M a i n & 7 t h S E 23 X X X X AD A 9 6 19 6 t h & O l y m p ic V i e w D r 2 SW , N E , N W 2 3 X X X X X AD A 6 0 76 t h & 2 0 8 t h S W , N W , N E 2 3 X X X X AD A 2 1 22 0 t h & 9 6 t h A L L 2 3 X X X X AD A 9 7 19 6 t h & 9 t h 2 AL L 23 X X X X AD A 6 8 76 t h & 2 0 0 t h A L L 23 X X X AD A 2 2 22 0 t h & 9 5 t h A L L 23 X X X AD A 2 9 22 0 t h & 8 4 t h A L L 23 X X X AD A 9 0 1 9 6 t h & 8 8 t h N W , S E 23 X X X AD A 1 7 1 5 C o r n e r s A L L 23 X X X AD A 1 9 6 D a y t o n & 9 t h A L L 23 X X X AD A 1 7 6 M a i n & M a p l e w o o d A L L 23 X X X AD A 9 1 1 9 6 t h & 8 8 t h N E 23 X X X AD A 1 1 8 9 t h & D a y t o n A L L 23 X AD A 1 2 1 9 t h & W a l n u t A L L 23 X AD A 8 5 1 9 6 t h & 8 0 t h A L L 23 X AD A 1 8 0 M a i n & 8 t h A L L 24 X X X X X AD A 5 5 76 t h & 2 1 6 t h A L L 2 4 X X X X X AD A 5 4 76 t h & 2 1 8 t h A L L 24 X X X X X AD A 6 1 76 t h & 2 0 6 t h N E , N W 2 4 X X X X AD A 6 2 76 t h & 2 0 4 t h A L L 2 4 X X X X A DA 1 4 4 10 0 t h & 2 3 2 n d N E , S E 24 X X X X AD A 1 4 5 1 0 0 t h & 2 3 4 t h AL L 2 4 XX X X AD A 1 6 6 21 2 t h & 7 7 t h AL L 24 X X X X M I N O R A R T E R I A L S Se e P a g e 1 2 f o r N o t e s 1 - 3 K: \ p r o j e c t \ 3 1 1 0 0 \ 3 1 1 6 1 \ D a t a \ R a m p s \ R a m p - 2 0 0 9 _ 0 2 2 4 . x l s Sh e e t 1 Pa g e 3 o f 1 2 Ot a k , I n c . Pr i n t e d : 4 / 2 4 / 2 0 0 9 Packet Page 540 of 1136 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s , C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n AD A R a m p I n v e n t o r y Cr i t . 2 C r i t e r i a 3 Cr i t e r i a 4 Cr i t e r i a 5 Cr i t e r i a 6 ID N o . I N T E R S E C T I O N C O R N E R ( S ) S t r e e t A C l a s s . 1 S t r e e t B C l a s s 1 C o m m . C e n t e r & L i b r a r y S e n i o r C e n t e r S t e v e n s H o s p i t a l B R T / R a i l / F e r r y T r a n s i t R o u t e A d j a c e n t S c h o o l S c h o o l N e a r b y C i t y H a l l / P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t C o m m . Z o n e A d j a c e n t P a r k P a r k N e a r b y N o R a m p S u b - S t a n d a r d R a m p S u b - S t a n d a r d A s p h a l t R a m p N e w R a m p , W i t h o u t D o m e s A s p h a l t R a m p , N o D o m e s N e w R a m p , W i t h D o m e s AD A 1 6 7 21 2 t h & 7 8 t h N W , N E 2 4 X X X X AD A 5 6 76 t h & 2 1 4 t h N E , S E 2 4 X X X X AD A 1 6 3 2 1 2 t h & 7 2 n d A L L 24 X X X X AD A 1 6 4 21 2 t h & 7 4 t h N W , N E 24 X X X X AD A 9 2 1 9 6 t h & 1 2 t h S W , S E 24 X X X X AD A 9 3 1 9 6 t h & 1 1 t h S W , S E 24 X X X X AD A 1 9 22 0 t h & 9 8 t h P l a c e W S W , S W 24 X X X AD A 2 0 22 0 t h & 9 8 t h A v e W A L L 24 X X X AD A 1 4 1 9t h & P u g et W a y 2 AL L 24 X X X X AD A 1 4 6 1 0 0 t h & 2 3 5 t h N E , S E 24 X X X AD A 6 3 76 t h & 2 0 3 r d N W , S W 24 X X X AD A 6 5 76 t h & 2 0 2 n d N E , S E 24 X X X AD A 6 4 76 t h & 2 0 2 n d N W , S W 24 X X X AD A 5 9 76 t h & 2 1 0 t h S E 24 X X X AD A 5 8 76 t h & 2 1 0 t h N E 24 X X X AD A 6 7 76 t h & 2 0 1 s t N E , S E 24 X X X AD A 6 6 76 t h & 2 0 1 s t N W , S W 24 X X X AD A 1 6 8 2 1 2 t h & 8 0 t h A L L 24 X X X AD A 1 6 9 2 1 2 t h & 8 1 s t N W , N E 24 X X X AD A 2 3 22 0 t h & 9 3 r d A L L 24 X X X AD A 1 4 7 1 0 0 t h & 2 3 7 t h N E , S E 24 X X AD A 3 9 76 t h & 2 4 2 n d N E 24 X X X X AD A 3 8 76 t h & 2 4 2 n d S E 24 X X X X AD A 3 7 76 t h & 2 4 2 n d N W , S W 24 X X X X AD A 1 7 7 M a i n & 1 2 t h A L L 24 X X X X AD A 1 7 8 M a i n & O l y m p i c A L L 24 X X X X AD A 1 1 5t h & H o m e l a n d A L L 24 X X X AD A 5 2 76 t h & 2 2 2 t h N W , S W 24 X X X AD A 5 3 76 t h & 2 2 1 s t N E , S E 24 X X X AD A 4 0 76 t h & 2 4 1 s t A L L 24 X X X A DA 4 2 76 t h & M c A l e e r N E , S E 24 X X X AD A 3 5t h & M a p l e N E , S E , N W 24 X X X AD A 4 5t h & A l d e r N E , S E 24 X X X AD A 1 0 5t h & H o w e l l W a y A L L 24 X X X AD A 1 2 5t h & H e m l o c k W a y A L L 24 X X X AD A 5 0 76 t h & 2 2 4 t h A L L 24 X X X AD A 5 1 76 t h & 2 2 3 r d N W , S W 24 X X X AD A 1 0 4 3r d & 4 t h N E , S E 24 X X X M I N O R A R T E R I A L S Se e P a g e 1 2 f o r N o t e s 1 - 3 K: \ p r o j e c t \ 3 1 1 0 0 \ 3 1 1 6 1 \ D a t a \ R a m p s \ R a m p - 2 0 0 9 _ 0 2 2 4 . x l s Sh e e t 1 Pa g e 4 o f 1 2 Ot a k , I n c . Pr i n t e d : 4 / 2 4 / 2 0 0 9 Packet Page 541 of 1136 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s , C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n AD A R a m p I n v e n t o r y Cr i t . 2 C r i t e r i a 3 Cr i t e r i a 4 Cr i t e r i a 5 Cr i t e r i a 6 ID N o . I N T E R S E C T I O N C O R N E R ( S ) S t r e e t A C l a s s . 1 S t r e e t B C l a s s 1 C o m m . C e n t e r & L i b r a r y S e n i o r C e n t e r S t e v e n s H o s p i t a l B R T / R a i l / F e r r y T r a n s i t R o u t e A d j a c e n t S c h o o l S c h o o l N e a r b y C i t y H a l l / P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t C o m m . Z o n e A d j a c e n t P a r k P a r k N e a r b y N o R a m p S u b - S t a n d a r d R a m p S u b - S t a n d a r d A s p h a l t R a m p N e w R a m p , W i t h o u t D o m e s A s p h a l t R a m p , N o D o m e s N e w R a m p , W i t h D o m e s AD A 1 6 2 21 2 t h & 7 0 t h N W , N E 24 X X X AD A 1 4 5t h & P i n e A L L 24 X X X AD A 1 5 5t h & F o r s y t h L a n e N E , S E 24 X X X AD A 1 7 3 M a i n & 8 6 t h A L L 24 X X X AD A 1 7 5 M a i n & H i l l c r e s t A L L 24 X X X AD A 6 5t h & W a l n u t N W , N E , S W 24 X X X AD A 5 5t h & W a l n u t S E 24 X X X AD A 9 5t h & H o l l y D r S W 24 X X X AD A 8 5t h & H o l l y D r N W , S E 24 X X X AD A 7 5t h & H o l l y D r N E 24 X X X AD A 4 1 76 t h & 2 3 9 t h N W , S W 24 X X X AD A 4 3 76 t h & 2 3 8 t h N W , S W 24 X X X AD A 4 4 76 t h & 2 3 6 t h A L L 24 X X AD A 4 5 76 t h & 2 3 4 t h N W , S W 24 X X AD A 4 7 76 t h & 2 3 2 n d S W 24 X X AD A 7 2 76 t h & 1 9 5 t h A L L 24 X X AD A 1 3 5t h & S e a m o n t A L L 24 X X AD A 1 6 5t h & E l m W a y N E , S E 24 X X AD A 3 0 22 0 t h & 8 3 r d N W , N E 24 X X AD A 3 1 22 0 t h & 8 2 n d N W , N E 24 X X AD A 3 2 22 0 t h & 8 0 t h A L L 24 X X AD A 3 3 22 0 t h & 7 8 t h S W , S E 24 X X AD A 3 4 22 0 t h & 7 7 t h S W , S E 24 X X AD A 4 6 76 t h & 2 3 2 n d N W 24 X X AD A 6 9 76 t h & 1 9 9 t h N W , S W 24 X X AD A 7 0 76 t h & 1 9 8 t h N E , S E 24 X X AD A 1 0 2 3r d & G i l t n e r NE , S E 24 X X AD A 1 7 2 M a i n & 2 1 0 t h AL L 24 X X AD A 1 7 0 2 1 2 t h & 8 2 n d SW , S E 24 X X AD A 1 7 4 Ma i n & 8 8 t h AL L 24 X X AD A 1 0 3 3r d & S a t e r NE , S E 24 X X AD A 2 4 22 0 t h & 9 2 n d AL L 24 X X AD A 2 5 22 0 t h & 9 0 t h SW , S E 24 X X AD A 2 6 22 0 & 8 8 t h P l a c e NW , N E 24 X X AD A 2 7 22 0 t h & 8 8 t h A v e AL L 24 X X AD A 2 8 22 0 t h & 8 6 t h NW , N E 24 X X AD A 4 8 76 t h & 2 3 0 t h AL L 24 X X AD A 9 8 Ca s p er s & B r o o k m e r e 2 AL L 24 X X M I N O R A R T E R I A L S Se e P a g e 1 2 f o r N o t e s 1 - 3 K: \ p r o j e c t \ 3 1 1 0 0 \ 3 1 1 6 1 \ D a t a \ R a m p s \ R a m p - 2 0 0 9 _ 0 2 2 4 . x l s Sh e e t 1 Pa g e 5 o f 1 2 Ot a k , I n c . Pr i n t e d : 4 / 2 4 / 2 0 0 9 Packet Page 542 of 1136 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s , C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n AD A R a m p I n v e n t o r y Cr i t . 2 C r i t e r i a 3 Cr i t e r i a 4 Cr i t e r i a 5 Cr i t e r i a 6 ID N o . I N T E R S E C T I O N C O R N E R ( S ) S t r e e t A C l a s s . 1 S t r e e t B C l a s s 1 C o m m . C e n t e r & L i b r a r y S e n i o r C e n t e r S t e v e n s H o s p i t a l B R T / R a i l / F e r r y T r a n s i t R o u t e A d j a c e n t S c h o o l S c h o o l N e a r b y C i t y H a l l / P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t C o m m . Z o n e A d j a c e n t P a r k P a r k N e a r b y N o R a m p S u b - S t a n d a r d R a m p S u b - S t a n d a r d A s p h a l t R a m p N e w R a m p , W i t h o u t D o m e s A s p h a l t R a m p , N o D o m e s N e w R a m p , W i t h D o m e s AD A 9 9 Ca s p er s & 8 t h 2 NE , N W 24 X X AD A 1 0 0 Mi d - b l o c k X - w a l k C a s p e r s e a s t of 8 t h 2 NE , N W 24 X X AD A 1 8 22 0 t h & 9 9 t h P l a c e W S W , S E 24 X X AD A 7 6 76 t h & 1 9 0 t h A L L 24 X X AD A 1 5 0 F i r d a l e & 2 4 1 s t N E , S E 24 X AD A 1 5 1 F i r d a l e & 2 4 2 n d N E , S E 24 X AD A 1 5 2 F i r d a l e & 2 4 3 r d A L L 24 X AD A 2 9 1 22 8 t h & 7 5 t h A v e W S E , S W 24 X AD A 7 3 76 t h & 1 9 4 t h A L L 24 X AD A 7 4 76 t h & 1 9 3 r d A L L 24 X AD A 7 5 76 t h & 1 9 1 s t A L L 24 X AD A 8 7 1 9 6 t h & 8 2 n d A L L 24 X AD A 8 8 1 9 6 t h & 8 4 t h A L L 24 X AD A 8 9 1 9 6 t h & 8 6 t h A L L 24 X AD A 1 4 8 F i r d a l e & 2 3 8 t h A L L 24 X AD A 2 9 2 22 8 t h & 7 4 t h A v e W N E , N W 24 X AD A 1 0 5 3 r d & D a l e y N E , S E 24 X AD A 1 1 9 9 t h & M a p l e A L L 24 X AD A 1 2 0 9 t h & A l d e r A L L 24 X A DA 1 2 2 9t h & C e d a r A LL 24 X AD A 1 2 3 9t h & S p r u c e AL L 24 X AD A 1 2 4 9t h & P i n e AL L 24 X AD A 1 2 5 9t h & F i r AL L 24 X AD A 1 2 8 9 t h & E d m o n d s AL L 24 X AD A 1 2 9 9 t h & S p r a g u e AL L 24 X AD A 1 3 0 9t h & D a l e y AL L 24 X AD A 1 3 5 9 t h & 1 4 t h s t S W NW , S W 24 X AD A 1 3 6 9t h & 2 2 4 t h NE , S E 24 X AD A 1 3 7 9t h & 2 2 5 t h NE , S E 24 X AD A 1 3 8 9t h & 2 2 6 t h AL L 24 X AD A 1 3 9 9t h & 2 2 7 t h NE , S E 24 X AD A 1 4 0 9t h & 1 5 t h AL L 24 X AD A 1 5 3 2 4 4 t h & 9 2 n d NE , N W 24 X AD A 1 5 4 24 4 t h & 9 1 s t NE , N W 24 X AD A 1 5 5 24 4 t h & 9 0 t h NE , N W 24 X AD A 1 5 9 24 4 t h & 9 0 t h DU P L I C A T E 24 X AD A 1 5 6 24 4 t h & 8 9 t h NE , N W 24 X AD A 1 6 0 2 4 4 t h & 8 8 t h ( F r e m o n t ) A L L 24 X AD A 1 5 7 24 4 t h & 8 7 t h NE , N W 24 X M I N O R A R T E R I A L S Se e P a g e 1 2 f o r N o t e s 1 - 3 K: \ p r o j e c t \ 3 1 1 0 0 \ 3 1 1 6 1 \ D a t a \ R a m p s \ R a m p - 2 0 0 9 _ 0 2 2 4 . x l s Sh e e t 1 Pa g e 6 o f 1 2 Ot a k , I n c . Pr i n t e d : 4 / 2 4 / 2 0 0 9 Packet Page 543 of 1136 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s , C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n AD A R a m p I n v e n t o r y Cr i t . 2 C r i t e r i a 3 Cr i t e r i a 4 Cr i t e r i a 5 Cr i t e r i a 6 ID N o . I N T E R S E C T I O N C O R N E R ( S ) S t r e e t A C l a s s . 1 S t r e e t B C l a s s 1 C o m m . C e n t e r & L i b r a r y S e n i o r C e n t e r S t e v e n s H o s p i t a l B R T / R a i l / F e r r y T r a n s i t R o u t e A d j a c e n t S c h o o l S c h o o l N e a r b y C i t y H a l l / P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t C o m m . Z o n e A d j a c e n t P a r k P a r k N e a r b y N o R a m p S u b - S t a n d a r d R a m p S u b - S t a n d a r d A s p h a l t R a m p N e w R a m p , W i t h o u t D o m e s A s p h a l t R a m p , N o D o m e s N e w R a m p , W i t h D o m e s AD A 1 6 1 24 4 t h & 8 7 t h D U P L I C A T E 24 X AD A 1 5 8 2 4 4 t h & 8 9 t h N E , N W 24 X AD A 1 3 2 9 t h & C a r o l N E 24 X AD A 1 3 1 9 t h & C a r o l S E 24 X AD A 1 2 6 9 t h & S e a V i s t a N E , S E 24 X AD A 1 2 7 9 t h & S e a V i s t a N W , S W 24 X AD A 1 4 9 F i r d a l e & 2 4 0 t h N E , S E 24 X AD A 8 0 O l y m p i c V i e w D r & K a i r e z A L L 24 X AD A 8 6 1 9 6 t h & 8 1 s t S W , S E 24 X AD A 1 3 3 9t h & C a s p er s 2 SE , S W 24 X AD A 1 4 2 9t h & H i n d l e y 2 AL L 24 X AD A 1 4 3 Mi d - b l o c k X - w a l k 9 t h s o u t h o f Hi n d l e y 2 SE , S W 24 X M I N O R A R T E R I A L S Se e P a g e 1 2 f o r N o t e s 1 - 3 K: \ p r o j e c t \ 3 1 1 0 0 \ 3 1 1 6 1 \ D a t a \ R a m p s \ R a m p - 2 0 0 9 _ 0 2 2 4 . x l s Sh e e t 1 Pa g e 7 o f 1 2 Ot a k , I n c . Pr i n t e d : 4 / 2 4 / 2 0 0 9 Packet Page 544 of 1136 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s , C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n AD A R a m p I n v e n t o r y Cr i t . 2 C r i t e r i a 3 Cr i t e r i a 4 Cr i t e r i a 5 Cr i t e r i a 6 ID N o . I N T E R S E C T I O N C O R N E R ( S ) S t r e e t A C l a s s . 1 S t r e e t B C l a s s 1 C o m m . C e n t e r & L i b r a r y S e n i o r C e n t e r S t e v e n s H o s p i t a l B R T / R a i l / F e r r y T r a n s i t R o u t e A d j a c e n t S c h o o l S c h o o l N e a r b y C i t y H a l l / P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t C o m m . Z o n e A d j a c e n t P a r k P a r k N e a r b y N o R a m p S u b - S t a n d a r d R a m p S u b - S t a n d a r d A s p h a l t R a m p N e w R a m p , W i t h o u t D o m e s A s p h a l t R a m p , N o D o m e s N e w R a m p , W i t h D o m e s AD A 3 2 8 Bo w d o i n & 9 6 t h S W , S E 33 X X X X AD A 3 3 5 20 0 t h & M a p l e w o o d S E 33 X X AD A 3 3 9 20 0 t h & 8 0 t h S E , S W 33 X X AD A 3 6 6 88 t h & O l y m p i c V i e w D r S E 33 X X AD A 3 3 0 88 t h & 2 0 0 t h S E , S W 33 X AD A 3 8 7 76 t h & M e a d o w d a l e B e a c h 2 SE , N E 33 X AD A 2 4 8 7 t h & D a y t o n N W , S E 34 X X X X X AD A 2 4 7 7 t h & D a y t o n S W 34 X X X X X AD A 2 2 0 8t h & D a y t o n A L L 34 X X X X AD A 3 1 4 20 8 t h & 7 4 t h S E 3 4 X X X X AD A 3 1 3 20 8 t h & 7 4 t h N W , S W 3 4 X X X AD A 8 3 8 4 t h & 2 1 4 t h S W , N W 34 X X X AD A 8 4 8 4 t h & 2 1 4 t h N E , S E 34 X X X AD A 8 1 8 4 t h & 2 1 8 t h N E , S E 34 X X X AD A 8 2 8 4 t h & 2 1 5 t h N E , S E 34 X X X AD A 3 1 2 20 8 t h & 7 2 n d N W , S W , S E 34 X X X AD A 3 3 6 20 0 t h & 8 4 t h S E , S W 34 X X X AD A 2 3 7 7 t h & A l o h a A L L 34 X X X AD A 2 3 8 7 t h & G l e n A L L 34 X X X AD A 3 5 8 18 8 t h & 8 8 t h N E , S E 34 X X X AD A 3 6 8 88 t h & 1 8 9 t h N E , S E 34 X X X AD A 2 1 7 10 t h & W a l n u t A L L 34 X X X AD A 2 7 6 Wa l n u t & 9 5 t h A L L 34 X X X AD A 3 2 9 Wa l n u t & 1 0 t h A v e S A L L 34 X X X AD A 2 4 2 7 t h & E d m o n d s A L L 34 X X X X AD A 2 4 3 7 t h & S p r a g u e A L L 34 X X X X AD A 2 4 4 7 t h & D a l e y A L L 34 X X X AD A 3 2 0 Bo w d o i n W a y & 8 9 t h S W , S E 34 X X AD A 3 2 2 Bo w d o i n & 9 0 t h S W , S E 34 X X AD A 3 2 3 Bo w d o i n & 9 2 n d A v e S W , S E 34 X X AD A 3 2 5 Bo w d o i n & 9 2 n d P l a c e A L L 34 X X AD A 3 2 7 Bo w d o i n & 9 3 r d A v e S W , S E 34 X X AD A 3 5 2 80 t h & 1 8 8 t h SW 34 X X AD A 3 1 8 Bo w d o i n & 8 6 t h P l a c e W N W , N E 34 X X AD A 3 2 1 Bo w d o i n & P i o n e e r W a y N W , N E 34 X X AD A 3 2 4 Bo w d o i n & P a r k R d N W , N E 3 4 X X C O L L E C T O R S Se e P a g e 1 2 f o r N o t e s 1 - 3 K: \ p r o j e c t \ 3 1 1 0 0 \ 3 1 1 6 1 \ D a t a \ R a m p s \ R a m p - 2 0 0 9 _ 0 2 2 4 . x l s Sh e e t 1 Pa g e 8 o f 1 2 Ot a k , I n c . Pr i n t e d : 4 / 2 4 / 2 0 0 9 Packet Page 545 of 1136 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s , C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n AD A R a m p I n v e n t o r y Cr i t . 2 C r i t e r i a 3 Cr i t e r i a 4 Cr i t e r i a 5 Cr i t e r i a 6 ID N o . I N T E R S E C T I O N C O R N E R ( S ) S t r e e t A C l a s s . 1 S t r e e t B C l a s s 1 C o m m . C e n t e r & L i b r a r y S e n i o r C e n t e r S t e v e n s H o s p i t a l B R T / R a i l / F e r r y T r a n s i t R o u t e A d j a c e n t S c h o o l S c h o o l N e a r b y C i t y H a l l / P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t C o m m . Z o n e A d j a c e n t P a r k P a r k N e a r b y N o R a m p S u b - S t a n d a r d R a m p S u b - S t a n d a r d A s p h a l t R a m p N e w R a m p , W i t h o u t D o m e s A s p h a l t R a m p , N o D o m e s N e w R a m p , W i t h D o m e s AD A 3 2 6 Bo w d o i n & 9 3 r d P l a c e S W , S E 34 X X AD A 3 1 9 Bo w d o i n & 8 8 t h S W , S E 34 X X AD A 3 1 7 Bo w d o i n & 8 6 t h A v e W S W , S E 34 X X AD A 3 3 7 20 0 t h & 8 3 r d S E , S W 34 X X AD A 3 3 8 20 0 t h & 8 1 s t S E , S W 34 X X AD A 2 4 6 7 t h & V i s t a P l a c e A L L 34 X X AD A 1 1 4 3 r d & H o w e l l N E , S E 34 X X X AD A 1 1 5 3 r d & E r b e n N E , S E 34 X X X AD A 1 1 6 3 r d & P i n e N E , N W , S W 34 X X X AD A 3 5 1 80 t h & 1 9 0 t h N W , S W 34 X X X AD A 3 8 4 76 t h & S o u n d v i e w D r . S E 34 X X X AD A 3 8 5 76 t h & S o u n d v i e w D r . N E 34 X X X AD A 3 8 2 76 t h & 1 8 0 t h N E , S E 34 X X X AD A 3 8 3 76 t h & 1 7 8 t h N E , S E 34 X X X AD A 1 1 3 3 r d & W a l n u t N E , S E 34 X X AD A 3 4 8 80 t h & S i e r r a N W , S W 34 X X AD A 2 0 1 B e l l & 7 t h N E , N W , S W 34 X X AD A 2 0 0 B e l l & 7 t h S E 34 X X AD A 3 5 0 80 t h & 1 9 2 n d N W 34 X X AD A 3 4 9 80 t h & 1 9 2 n d S W 34 X X AD A 3 7 4 Ol y m p i c V i e w D r & T a l b o t N W , N E 3 4 X X AD A 1 1 7 3 r d & E l m A L L 34 X AD A 1 1 2 3 r d & A l d e r N W , S W 34 X AD A 3 6 0 18 5 t h & 8 8 t h N E , S E 34 X AD A 3 6 1 18 4 t h & 8 8 t h N E , S E 34 X AD A 3 6 7 88 t h & 1 8 2 n d N E , S E 34 X AD A 3 7 6 Ol y m p i c V i e w D r & B l a k e N W , N E 3 4 X AD A 3 7 7 Ol y m p i c V i e w D r & C h e r r y N W , N E 3 4 X AD A 3 7 8 Ol y m p i c V i e w D r & E u c l i d N W , N E 3 4 X AD A 3 5 9 18 7 t h & 8 8 t h N E , S E 34 X AD A 3 6 9 88 t h & 1 9 2 n d NE , S E 34 X AD A 3 7 5 Ol y m p i c V i e w D r & W h a r f N W , N E 3 4 X AD A 3 8 6 76 t h & B r a e m a r NE , S E 34 X AD A 3 8 8 75 t h & 1 6 2 n d S t . S W 2 SE , S W , N W 3 4 X C O L L E C T O R S Se e P a g e 1 2 f o r N o t e s 1 - 3 K: \ p r o j e c t \ 3 1 1 0 0 \ 3 1 1 6 1 \ D a t a \ R a m p s \ R a m p - 2 0 0 9 _ 0 2 2 4 . x l s Sh e e t 1 Pa g e 9 o f 1 2 Ot a k , I n c . Pr i n t e d : 4 / 2 4 / 2 0 0 9 Packet Page 546 of 1136 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s , C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n AD A R a m p I n v e n t o r y Cr i t . 2 C r i t e r i a 3 Cr i t e r i a 4 Cr i t e r i a 5 Cr i t e r i a 6 ID N o . I N T E R S E C T I O N C O R N E R ( S ) S t r e e t A C l a s s . 1 S t r e e t B C l a s s 1 C o m m . C e n t e r & L i b r a r y S e n i o r C e n t e r S t e v e n s H o s p i t a l B R T / R a i l / F e r r y T r a n s i t R o u t e A d j a c e n t S c h o o l S c h o o l N e a r b y C i t y H a l l / P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t C o m m . Z o n e A d j a c e n t P a r k P a r k N e a r b y N o R a m p S u b - S t a n d a r d R a m p S u b - S t a n d a r d A s p h a l t R a m p N e w R a m p , W i t h o u t D o m e s A s p h a l t R a m p , N o D o m e s N e w R a m p , W i t h D o m e s AD A 3 4 7 72 n d & 2 1 6 t h N W , N S W 44 X X X X AD A 3 5 6 18 8 t h & 8 5 t h N E 4 4 X X X X AD A 3 0 6 21 6 t h & 7 8 t h S W , S E 44 X X X AD A 3 5 4 18 8 t h & 8 3 r d S E , S W 44 X X X AD A 3 5 5 18 8 t h & 8 4 t h S E , S W 44 X X X AD A 3 5 7 18 8 t h & 8 6 t h N E 44 X X X AD A 2 0 5 2 2 8 t h & 1 0 6 t h N E , S E 44 X X X AD A 2 0 6 2 2 9 t h & 1 0 6 t h S E 44 X X X AD A 3 1 0 21 0 t h & 7 4 t h N E , N W 44 X X X AD A 3 4 6 72 n d & 2 1 3 t h N W , S W 44 X X X AD A 3 5 3 18 8 t h & 8 1 s t S E , S W 44 X X X AD A 2 1 4 9 7 t h & 2 3 9 t h S E , S W 44 X X AD A 2 1 5 2 3 9 t h & 2 3 8 t h S E , S W 44 X X AD A 3 0 7 21 6 t h & 8 0 t h A L L 44 X X AD A 3 0 8 21 4 t h & 8 0 t h N W , S W 44 X X AD A 3 0 9 21 3 t h & 8 0 t h A L L 44 X X AD A 3 3 3 88 t h & 2 0 4 t h S E , S W 44 X X AD A 3 3 4 88 t h & 2 0 2 n d N E , S E 44 X X AD A 3 4 0 20 6 t h & 7 7 t h N E , N W 44 X X AD A 3 4 1 20 6 t h & 7 8 t h N W , N E 44 X X AD A 3 4 2 20 6 t h & 7 9 t h N W , N E 44 X X AD A 3 6 3 84 t h & 1 9 2 n d N E , S E 44 X X AD A 3 6 4 84 t h & 1 8 7 t h N E , S E 44 X X AD A 3 6 5 84 t h & 1 8 6 t h N E , S E 44 X X AD A 3 7 0 Ol y m p i c A v e & V i e w l a n d W a y N E , S E 4 4 X X AD A 2 1 2 9 6 t h & 2 4 0 t h A L L 44 X X AD A 2 1 3 9 7 t h & 2 4 0 t h N E , N W 44 X X AD A 2 0 3 2 2 6 t h & 1 0 5 t h P l a c e W S W 44 X X AD A 2 0 4 2 2 6 t h & 1 0 6 t h A v e W SE 44 X X AD A 2 0 7 2 3 1 s t & 1 0 6 t h SW 44 X X AD A 2 6 2 6t h & P i n e AL L 44 XX X AD A 3 4 5 20 6 t h & 8 2 n d NE 44 XX AD A 2 6 6 4t h & D a l e y AL L 44 X X AD A 2 7 0 2n d & A l d e r NE , S E , S W 44 X X L O C A L S T R E E T S Se e P a g e 1 2 f o r N o t e s 1 - 3 K: \ p r o j e c t \ 3 1 1 0 0 \ 3 1 1 6 1 \ D a t a \ R a m p s \ R a m p - 2 0 0 9 _ 0 2 2 4 . x l s Sh e e t 1 Pa g e 1 0 o f 1 2 Ot a k , I n c . Pr i n t e d : 4 / 2 4 / 2 0 0 9 Packet Page 547 of 1136 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s , C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n AD A R a m p I n v e n t o r y Cr i t . 2 C r i t e r i a 3 Cr i t e r i a 4 Cr i t e r i a 5 Cr i t e r i a 6 ID N o . I N T E R S E C T I O N C O R N E R ( S ) S t r e e t A C l a s s . 1 S t r e e t B C l a s s 1 C o m m . C e n t e r & L i b r a r y S e n i o r C e n t e r S t e v e n s H o s p i t a l B R T / R a i l / F e r r y T r a n s i t R o u t e A d j a c e n t S c h o o l S c h o o l N e a r b y C i t y H a l l / P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t C o m m . Z o n e A d j a c e n t P a r k P a r k N e a r b y N o R a m p S u b - S t a n d a r d R a m p S u b - S t a n d a r d A s p h a l t R a m p N e w R a m p , W i t h o u t D o m e s A s p h a l t R a m p , N o D o m e s N e w R a m p , W i t h D o m e s AD A 3 1 1 21 0 t h & 7 2 n d N W , S W , S E 44 X X AD A 3 1 6 N. M e a d o w d a l e & 7 5 t h S E , S W 44 X X AD A 2 1 8 8 t h & M a p l e S W , N E 44 X X AD A 2 1 9 8t h & M a p l e S E , N W 44 X X AD A 2 5 2 7 t h & M a p l e N W , S W , N E 44 X X AD A 2 5 3 7 t h & M a p l e S E 44 X X AD A 2 5 9 6 t h & D a l e y A L L 44 X X AD A 2 7 8 Fi r & A A v e A L L 44 X X AD A 3 4 4 20 6 t h & 8 1 s t N W , N E 44 X X AD A 2 6 8 4 t h & H o w e l l N E , S E , N W 44 X X AD A 2 6 9 4 t h & H o w e l l S W 44 X X AD A 3 7 3 Ol y m p i c A v e & E d m o n d s S t N E , S E 4 4 X X AD A 2 4 1 7 t h & E l m P l a c e W A L L 44 X AD A 2 5 7 6 t h & M a p l e A L L 44 X AD A 2 2 7 8 t h & 1 4 t h W a y N E , S E 44 X AD A 2 4 9 7 t h & A l d e r A L L 44 X AD A 2 5 0 7 t h & W a l n u t N E , S E 44 X AD A 2 5 1 7 t h & C e d a r N E 44 X AD A 2 2 9 8 t h & C e d a r S E 44 X AD A 2 3 0 8 t h & S p r u c e N W 44 X AD A 2 3 1 8 t h & L a u r e l S W 44 X AD A 2 3 2 8 t h & E l m N W , S W 44 X AD A 2 3 3 8 t h & F i r N W , S E 44 X AD A 2 2 1 8 t h & A l d e r N E , N W 44 X AD A 2 6 1 6 t h & W a l n u t S W 44 X AD A 2 6 0 6 t h & W a l n u t A L L 44 X AD A 2 3 9 7 t h & E l m S t . S E 44 X AD A 2 4 0 7 t h & E l m S t . S W 44 X AD A 2 5 5 6t h & A l d e r N W 44 X AD A 2 5 4 6 t h & A l d e r S E , N E 44 X AD A 2 5 6 6 t h & A l d e r S W 44 X AD A 2 3 5 8 t h & P i n e S t . N W 44 X AD A 2 3 4 8 t h & P i n e S t . NE 44 X AD A 2 2 3 8 t h & P i n e S t . D U P L I C A T E 44 X AD A 2 2 2 8 t h & P i n e S t . D U P L I C A T E 44 AD A 2 2 8 8 t h & 1 4 t h S t . SE 44 X AD A 2 3 6 7th P l a c e & 1 3 t h W a y N E 44 X L O C A L S T R E E T S Se e P a g e 1 2 f o r N o t e s 1 - 3 K: \ p r o j e c t \ 3 1 1 0 0 \ 3 1 1 6 1 \ D a t a \ R a m p s \ R a m p - 2 0 0 9 _ 0 2 2 4 . x l s Sh e e t 1 Pa g e 1 1 o f 1 2 Ot a k , I n c . Pr i n t e d : 4 / 2 4 / 2 0 0 9 Packet Page 548 of 1136 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s , C o m p r e h e n s i v e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n AD A R a m p I n v e n t o r y Cr i t . 2 C r i t e r i a 3 Cr i t e r i a 4 Cr i t e r i a 5 Cr i t e r i a 6 ID N o . I N T E R S E C T I O N C O R N E R ( S ) S t r e e t A C l a s s . 1 S t r e e t B C l a s s 1 C o m m . C e n t e r & L i b r a r y S e n i o r C e n t e r S t e v e n s H o s p i t a l B R T / R a i l / F e r r y T r a n s i t R o u t e A d j a c e n t S c h o o l S c h o o l N e a r b y C i t y H a l l / P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t C o m m . Z o n e A d j a c e n t P a r k P a r k N e a r b y N o R a m p S u b - S t a n d a r d R a m p S u b - S t a n d a r d A s p h a l t R a m p N e w R a m p , W i t h o u t D o m e s A s p h a l t R a m p , N o D o m e s N e w R a m p , W i t h D o m e s AD A 2 4 5 7t h & B i r c h A L L 44 X AD A 2 5 8 6 t h & E l m S t . A L L 44 X AD A 2 6 7 4 t h & W a l n u t A L L 44 X AD A 2 7 7 Pi n e S t . & C A v e S E , S W 44 X AD A 2 1 0 2 3 7 t h & 1 0 6 t h A L L 44 X AD A 2 1 1 2 3 7 t h & 1 0 7 t h A L L 44 X AD A 2 1 6 Ro b i n H o o d & 1 0 6 t h N E , S E 44 X AD A 2 2 4 8 t h P l a c e & 1 5 t h S E , S W 44 X AD A 3 3 1 88 t h & 2 0 5 t h N W 44 X AD A 3 3 2 88 t h & 2 0 5 t h S W 44 X AD A 3 4 3 20 6 t h & 8 0 t h N W , N E 44 X AD A 3 6 2 84 t h & 1 9 4 t h N E , S E 44 X AD A 2 2 6 8 t h A v e & 1 5 t h S E 44 X AD A 2 2 5 8 t h A v e & 1 5 t h N E 44 X AD A 2 0 9 2 3 7 t h & 1 0 4 t h S W 44 X AD A 2 0 8 2 3 7 t h & 1 0 4 t h N W 44 X AD A 3 7 9 23 7 t h & 1 0 4 t h S W 44 X AD A 3 8 0 23 7 t h & 1 0 6 t h A L L 44 X AD A 3 8 1 23 7 t h & 1 0 7 t h A L L 44 X AD A 3 7 2 Ol y m p i c A v e & D a l e y P l a c e N E , S E 4 4 X AD A 3 7 1 Ol y m p i c A v e & S i e r r a P l a c e N E , S E 4 4 X AD A 3 1 5 N. M e a d o w d a l e & 1 6 4 t h S W , N W 4 4 X No t e 1 : " 1 " = P r i n c i p a l A r t e r i a l , " 2 " = M i n o r A r t e r i a l , " 3 " = C o l l e c t o r , " 4 " = L o c a l S t r e e t No t e 2 : N o t e " 4 " i n d i c a t e s r a m p s t h a t w i l l b e u p g r a d e d t o n e w A D A s t a n d a r d s a s p a r t o f a f u t u r e C i t y p r o j e c t s c u r r e n t l y w o r k i n g o n No t e 3 : C r i t e r i a N u m b e r 1 i s t h e l o c a t i o n w i t h i n D o w n t o w n E d m o n d s . L O C A L S T R E E T S Se e P a g e 1 2 f o r N o t e s 1 - 3 K: \ p r o j e c t \ 3 1 1 0 0 \ 3 1 1 6 1 \ D a t a \ R a m p s \ R a m p - 2 0 0 9 _ 0 2 2 4 . x l s Sh e e t 1 Pa g e 1 2 o f 1 2 Ot a k , I n c . Pr i n t e d : 4 / 2 4 / 2 0 0 9 Packet Page 549 of 1136 Appendix D Walkway Projects Packet Page 550 of 1136 Packet Page 551 of 1136 ID S t r e e t N a m e F r o m T o Le n g t h (f e e t ) D e s c r i p t i o n G ut t e r / Dr a i n a g e / Di t c h P h o t o D e s c r i p t i o n W a l k w a y T y p e Pr o j e c t Co s t Es t i m a t e S1 2 n d A v e S J a m e s S t M a i n S t 1 0 0 C o n c r e t e s i d e w a l k s o n w e s t s i d e w i t h di s c o n t i n u e d s i d e w a l k s o n e a s t s i d e . Ye s , dr a i n a g e . In s t a l l 8 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e s i d e w a l k s o n e a s t si d e o f s t r e e t t o c o n n e c t e x i s t i n g s i d e w a l k s . 8 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e si d e w a l k s w i t h c u r b s a n d gu t t e r s . Ex i s t i n g C o n d i t i o n s R e c o m m e n d e d I m p r o v e m e n t s Sh o r t W a l k w a y P r o j e c t s $2 5 , 0 0 0 S2 D a y t o n S t 7 t h A v e S 8 t h A v e S 2 5 0 C o n c r e t e s i d e w a l k s o n n o r t h s i d e w i t h di s c o n t i n u e d s i d e w a l k s o n s o u t h s i d e . Ye s , dr a i n a g e . In s t a l l 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e s i d e w a l k s o n s o u t h si d e o f s t r e e t t o c o n n e c t e x i s t i n g s i d e w a l k s . 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e si d e w a l k s w i t h c u r b s a n d gu t t e r s . $6 3 0 0 0 $6 3 , 0 0 0 S3 M a p l e S t W e s t o f 6 t h Av e S 8t h A v e S 2 5 0 N a r r o w c o n c r e t e s i d e w a l k s ( 3 - 4 f t ) w i t h di s c o n t i n u e d s i d e w a l k s o n s o u t h s i d e be t w e e n 7 t h a n d 8 t h A v e . No I n s t a l l n e w 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e s i d e w a l k s o n so u t h s i d e o f s t r e e t t o m e e t s t a n d a r d w i d t h . 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e si d e w a l k s w i t h c u r b s a n d gu t t e r s . $5 0 , 0 0 0 S4 W a l n u t S t 6 t h A v e S 7 t h A v e S 7 0 0 C o n c r e t e s i d e w a l k s o n s o u t h s i d e o n t h e we s t e n d . N o s i d e w a l k s o r s t r i p e d sh o u l d e r s f o r t h e r e s t o f s e g m e n t . Ye s , dr a i n a g e . In s t a l l 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e s i d e w a l k s o n e i t h e r si d e o f s t r e e t t o c o n n e c t e x i s t i n g s i d e w a l k s . 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e si d e w a l k s w i t h c u r b s a n d gu t t e r s $1 7 5 , 0 0 0 S5 W a l n u t S t 3 r d A v e S 4 t h A v e S 3 5 0 C o n c r e t e s i d e w a l k s o n n o r t h s i d e . N o si d e w a l k s / s h o u l d e r s o n s o u t h s i d e . Ye s , dr a i n a g e . In s t a l l 8 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e s i d e w a l k s o n s o u t h si d e o f s t r e e t t o c o n n e c t e x i s t i n g s i d e w a l k s t o th e e a s t . 8 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e si d e w a l k s w i t h c u r b s a n d gu t t e r s . $8 8 , 0 0 0 Packet Page 552 of 1136 ID S t r e e t N a m e F r o m T o Le n g t h (f e e t ) D e s c r i p t i o n G ut t e r / Dr a i n a g e / Di t c h P h o t o D e s c r i p t i o n W a l k w a y T y p e Pr o j e c t Co s t Es t i m a t e Ex i s t i n g C o n d i t i o n s R e c o m m e n d e d I m p r o v e m e n t s S6 2 2 6 t h S t S W 1 0 6 t h A v e W S R 1 0 4 7 0 0 N a r r o w u n p a v e d s h o u l d e r s o n b o t h s i d e s wi t h s o m e s i d e w a l k s o n s o u t h s i d e . Ye s , dr a i n a g e on n o r t h si d e . In s t a l l 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e s i d e w a l k s o n s o u t h si d e o f s t r e e t t o c o n n e c t e x i s t i n g s i d e w a l k s . Ap p l i e d f o r f e d e r a l s a f e t y g r a n t i n A u g u s t 20 0 8 . 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e si d e w a l k s w i t h c u r b s a n d gu t t e r s . $1 7 5 , 0 0 0 S7 1 8 9 t h P l S W 8 0 t h A v e W 7 8 t h A v e W 7 0 0 N a r r o w , d i s c o n t i n u e d a s p h a l t s h o u l d e r s mi x w i t h u n p a v e d s h o u l d e r s . No C o n s t r u c t 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e s i d e w a l k s o n ei t h e r s i d e o f s t r e e t . 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e si d e w a l k s w i t h c u r b s a n d gu t t e r s . $1 4 0 , 0 0 0 S8 8 t h A v e S S o u t h o f W a l n u t S t W a l n u t S t 2 5 N o r o a d c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n 8 t h A v e a n d Wa l n u t S t No C o n s t r u c t p e d e s t r i a n s t a i r w a y o r t r a i l b e t w e e n tw o r o a d s . St a i r w a y o r A s p h a l t t r a i l . $5 , 0 0 0 S9 8 4 t h A v e W 1 8 8 t h S t S W 1 8 6 t h S t S W 7 0 0 U n p a v e d , u n s t r i p e d s h o u l d e r s o n b o t h si d e s w i t h v a r i o u s w i d t h s . No I n s t a l l 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e s i d e w a l k s o n e a s t si d e o f s t r e e t t o c o n n e c t e x i s t i n g s i d e w a l k s t o th e s o u t h . A d d e d g e l i n e s o n b o t h s i d e s o f st r e e t . 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e si d e w a l k s w i t h c u r b s a n d gu t t e r s . $1 4 0 , 0 0 0 S1 0 1 9 0 t h P l S W O l y m p i c V i e w Dr 94 t h A v e W 8 0 0 U n p a v e d , u n s t r i p e d s h o u l d e r s o n b o t h si d e s w i t h n a r r o w w i d t h s R o a d i s n a r r o w No Co n s t r u c t 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e s i d e w a l k s o n ei t h e r s i d e o f s t r e e t A d d e d g e l i n e s o n b o t h 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e si d e w a l k s w i t h c u r b s a n d Dr si d e s w i t h n a r r o w w i d t h s . Ro a d i s n a r r o w . ei t h e r s i d e o f s t r e e t . Ad d e d g e l i n e s o n b o t h si d e s o f s t r e e t . si d e w a l k s w i t h c u r b s a n d gu t t e r s . $1 6 0 , 0 0 0 Lo n g W a l k w a y P r o j e c t s Packet Page 553 of 1136 ID S t r e e t N a m e F r o m T o Le n g t h (f e e t ) D e s c r i p t i o n G ut t e r / Dr a i n a g e / Di t c h P h o t o D e s c r i p t i o n W a l k w a y T y p e Pr o j e c t Co s t Es t i m a t e Ex i s t i n g C o n d i t i o n s R e c o m m e n d e d I m p r o v e m e n t s L1 2 3 4 t h S t S W / 23 6 t h S t S W 97 t h P l W S R 1 0 4 3 , 1 0 0 2 3 4 t h S t S W - U n p a v e d , u n s t r i p e d sh o u l d e r s w i t h v a r i o u s w i d t h s . 94 t h A v e W - N a r r o w u n p a v e d s h o u l d e r s . Ro a d i s n a r r o w . 23 6 t h S t S W - N e x t t o s c h o o l w i t h n a r r o w un p a v e d s h o u l d e r s . Ye s , dr a i n a g e . 23 4 t h S t S W - C o n s t r u c t 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e si d e w a l k s o n s o u t h s i d e o f s t r e e t . 94 t h A v e W - C o n s t r u c t 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e si d e w a l k s o n w e s t s i d e o f s t r e e t . 23 6 t h S t S W - C o n s t r u c t 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e si d e w a l k s o n s o u t h s i d e o f s t r e e t ( c o n s i s t e n t wi t h p r o j e c t L 1 4 ) . 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e si d e w a l k s w i t h c u r b s a n d gu t t e r s . $1 , 8 6 0 , 0 0 0 L2 M a p l e w o o d D r M a i n S t 2 0 0 t h S t S W 2 , 7 0 0 U n p a v e d s h o u l d e r s o n b o t h s i d e s w i t h so m e s i d e w a l k s f o r n e w d e v e l o p m e n t s o n we s t s i d e . No C o n s t r u c t 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e s i d e w a l k s o n we s t s i d e o f s t r e e t . 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e si d e w a l k s w i t h c u r b s a n d gu t t e r s . $5 4 0 , 0 0 0 L3 O l y m p i c A v e M a i n S t P u g e t D r 4 , 0 0 0 A sp h a l t s h o u l d e r w i t h r o l l e d c u r b s o n e a s t si d e . Ye s , dr a i n a g e . Re p l a c e e x i s t i n g a s p h a l t s h o u l d e r w i t h 5 f t wi d e c o n c r e t e s i d e w a l k s o n e a s t s i d e o f st r e e t . 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e si d e w a l k s w i t h c u r b s a n d gu t t e r s . $1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 L4 M e a d o w d a l e Be a c h R d 76 t h A v e W O l y m p i c V i e w Dr 3, 8 0 0 N a r r o w u n p a v e d s h o u l d e r s w i t h s o m e si d e w a l k s o n n o r t h s i d e Ye s , d i t c h . C o n s t r u c t 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e s i d e w a l k s o n no r t h s i d e o f s t r e e t t o c o n n e c t e x i s t i n g si d e w a l k s . 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e si d e w a l k s w i t h c u r b s a n d gu t t e r s . $7 6 0 , 0 0 0 L5 P i n e S t 9 t h A v e W S R 1 0 4 4 , 0 0 0 C o n c r e t e s i d e w a l k s o n b o t h s i d e s ( w e s t en d ) o r s o u t h s i d e o n l y ( e a s t e n d ) No In s t a l l 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e s i d e w a l k s o n s o u t h si d e o f s t r e e t t o c o n n e c t e x i s t i n g s i d e w a l k s 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e si d e w a l k s w i t h c u r b s a n d en d) o r s o u th s id e o n l y (ea s t e n d) .s id e o f s t re e tt o c o n n e c t e x i s ti ng s id ew a lk s. s id ew a lk s w it h c u r b s a n d gu t t e r s . $8 0 0 , 0 0 0 Packet Page 554 of 1136 ID S t r e e t N a m e F r o m T o Le n g t h (f e e t ) D e s c r i p t i o n G ut t e r / Dr a i n a g e / Di t c h P h o t o D e s c r i p t i o n W a l k w a y T y p e Pr o j e c t Co s t Es t i m a t e Ex i s t i n g C o n d i t i o n s R e c o m m e n d e d I m p r o v e m e n t s L6 8 0 t h A v e W / 18 0 t h S t W 18 8 t h S t S W O V D 3 , 0 0 0 U n p a v e d s h o u l d e r s o n b o t h s i d e s w i t h si g h t d i s t a n c e i s s u e s . No I n s t a l l 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e s i d e w a l k s o n w e s t si d e o f s t r e e t . 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e si d e w a l k s w i t h c u r b s a n d gu t t e r s . $7 5 0 , 0 0 0 L7 8 0 t h A v e W 2 1 2 n d S t S W 2 0 6 t h S t S W 2 , 0 0 0 U n p a v e d s h o u l d e r s o n b o t h s i d e s w i t h va r i o u s w i d t h s . Ye s , dr a i n a g e . In s t a l l 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e s i d e w a l k s o n e i t h e r si d e o f s t r e e t t o c o n n e c t e x i s t i n g s i d e w a l k s t o th e n o r t h a n d s o u t h 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e si d e w a l k s w i t h c u r b s a n d gu t t e r s . $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 L8 2 3 8 t h S t S W 1 0 4 t h A v e W 1 0 0 t h A v e W 1 , 4 0 0 U n p a v e d a s p h a l t s h o u l d e r s o n b o t h s i d e s wi t h v a r i o u s w i d t h s . No I n s t a l l 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e s i d e w a l k s o n n o r t h si d e o f s t r e e t ( c o n s i s t e n t w i t h p r o j e c t L 1 8 ) . 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e si d e w a l k s w i t h c u r b s a n d gu t t e r s . $8 4 0 , 0 0 0 L9 2 3 8 t h S t S W H w y 9 9 7 6 t h A v e W 2 , 6 0 0 I n t e r m i t t e n t s i d e w a l k o n o n e s i d e , w i t h un p a v e d s h o u l d e r o n o n e s i d e Ye s , d i t c h on s o u t h si d e In s t a l l 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e s i d e w a l k o n n o r t h si d e o f s t r e e t . 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e si d e w a l k s w i t h c u r b s a n d gu t t e r s . $6 5 0 , 0 0 0 L1 0 2 3 2 n d S t W 1 0 0 t h A v e W 9 7 t h A v e W 1 , 0 0 0 W i d e r u n p a v e d s h o u l d e r s o n s o u t h s i d e , N o C o n s t r u c t 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e s i d e w a l k s o n 5 f t wi d e c o n c r e t e , p, an d n a r r o w u n p a v e d s h o u l d e r s o n n o r t h si d e . so u t h s i d e o f s t r e e t . s i d e w a l k s w i t h c u r b s a n d gu t t e r s . $2 0 0 , 0 0 0 Packet Page 555 of 1136 ID S t r e e t N a m e F r o m T o Le n g t h (f e e t ) D e s c r i p t i o n G ut t e r / Dr a i n a g e / Di t c h P h o t o D e s c r i p t i o n W a l k w a y T y p e Pr o j e c t Co s t Es t i m a t e Ex i s t i n g C o n d i t i o n s R e c o m m e n d e d I m p r o v e m e n t s L1 1 8 4 t h A v e W 2 3 8 t h S t S W 2 3 4 t h S t S W 1 , 3 0 0 U n p a v e d s h o u l d e r s o n b o t h s i d e s w i t h so m e s i d e w a l k s f o r n e w d e v e l o p m e n t s o n ea s t s i d e o n t h e s o u t h e n d . No I n s t a l l 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e s i d e w a l k s o n e a s t si d e o f s t r e e t t o c o n n e c t e x i s t i n g s i d e w a l k s t o th e s o u t h . 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e si d e w a l k s w i t h c u r b s a n d gu t t e r s . $2 6 0 , 0 0 0 L1 2 1 7 6 t h S t S W 7 2 n d A v e W O l y m p i c V i e w Dr 1, 4 0 0 U n p a v e d , u n s t r i p e d s h o u l d e r s o n b o t h si d e s w i t h v a r i o u s w i d t h s . N o s h o u l d e r s to w a r d e a s t e n d . Ye s , dr a i n a g e . In s t a l l 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e s i d e w a l k s o n e i t h e r si d e o f s t r e e t t o c o n n e c t e x i s t i n g s i d e w a l k s t o th e e a s t . 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e si d e w a l k s w i t h c u r b s a n d gu t t e r s . $3 5 0 , 0 0 0 L1 3 1 8 8 t h S t S W 9 2 n d A v e W 8 8 t h A v e W 1 , 0 0 0 U n p a v e d s h o u l d e r s o n b o t h s i d e s w i t h va r i o u s w i d t h s . Ye s , d i t c h on n o r t h si d e . In s t a l l 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e s i d e w a l k s o n s o u t h si d e o f s t r e e t t o c o n n e c t e x i s t i n g s i d e w a l k s t o th e e a s t . 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e si d e w a l k s w i t h c u r b s a n d gu t t e r s . g $2 0 0 , 0 0 0 L1 4 1 8 4 t h S t S W / An d o v e r S t 18 4 t h S t S W / 88 t h A v e W Ol y m p i c V i e w Dr / A n d o v e r St 3, 5 0 0 1 8 4 t h S t S W - U n p a v e d s h o u l d e r s o n bo t h s i d e s w i t h v a r i o u s w i d t h s . S o m e si d e w a l k s o n n o r t h s i d e o f 1 8 4 t h S t be t w e e n 8 5 t h P l W a n d 8 4 t h S t W . An d o v e r S t - N a r r o w , u n s t r i p e d , u n p a v e d sh o u l d e r s o n b o t h s i d e s . Ye s , dr a i n a g e . 18 4 t h S t S W - I n s t a l l 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e si d e w a l k s o n n o r t h s i d e o f s t r e e t . An d o v e r S t - C o n s t r u c t 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e si d e w a l k s o n e i t h e r s i d e o f s t r e e t . A d d e d g e li n e s o n b o t h s i d e s o f s t r e e t . 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e si d e w a l k s w i t h c u r b s a n d gu t t e r s . $8 7 5 , 0 0 0 L1 5 7 2 n d A v e W O l y m p i c V i e w Dr 17 6 t h S t S W 2 , 9 0 0 U n p a v e d , u n s t r i p e d s h o u l d e r s o n b o t h si d e s w i t h v a r i o u s w i d t h s . Ye s , dr a i n a g e on w e s t si d e Co n s t r u c t 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e s i d e w a l k s o n ei t h e r s i d e o f s t r e e t . A d d e d g e l i n e s o n b o t h si d e s o f s t r e e t . 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e si d e w a l k s w i t h c u r b s a n d gu t t e r s . $7 2 5 , 0 0 0 Packet Page 556 of 1136 ID S t r e e t N a m e F r o m T o Le n g t h (f e e t ) D e s c r i p t i o n G ut t e r / Dr a i n a g e / Di t c h P h o t o D e s c r i p t i o n W a l k w a y T y p e Pr o j e c t Co s t Es t i m a t e Ex i s t i n g C o n d i t i o n s R e c o m m e n d e d I m p r o v e m e n t s L1 6 2 3 6 t h S t . S W S R 1 0 4 E a s t o f 8 4 t h Av e W 2, 1 0 0 U n p a v e d a n d a s p h a l t s h o u l d e r s o n b o t h si d e s w i t h v a r i o u s w i d t h s . Ye s , dr a i n a g e . In s t a l l 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e s i d e w a l k s o n n o r t h si d e o f s t r e e t ( c o n s i s t e n t w i t h p r o j e c t L 1 ) . 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e si d e w a l k s w i t h c u r b s a n d gu t t e r s . $5 2 5 , 0 0 0 L1 7 9 2 n d A v e W 1 8 9 t h P l S W 1 8 6 t h P l S W 1 , 0 0 0 U n p a v e d , u n s t r i p e d s h o u l d e r s o n b o t h si d e s w i t h v a r i o u s w i d t h s . Ye s , d i t c h on e a s t si d e . Co n s t r u c t 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e s i d e w a l k s o n ei t h e r s i d e o f s t r e e t . A d d e d g e l i n e s o n b o t h si d e s o f s t r e e t . 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e si d e w a l k s w i t h c u r b s a n d gu t t e r s . $2 0 0 , 0 0 0 L1 8 1 9 1 s t S t S W 8 0 t h A v e W 7 6 t h A v e W 1 , 4 0 0 U n p a v e d , u n s t r i p e d s h o u l d e r s o n b o t h si d e s . No Co n s t r u c t 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e s i d e w a l k s o n ei t h e r s i d e o f s t r e e t . A d d e d g e l i n e s o n b o t h si d e s o f s t r e e t . 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e si d e w a l k s w i t h c u r b s a n d gu t t e r s . $2 8 0 , 0 0 0 L1 9 2 1 8 t h S t S W 8 0 t h A v e W 8 4 t h A v e W 1 , 4 0 0 U n p a v e d , u n s t r i p e d s h o u l d e r s o n b o t h si d e s w i t h s i g h t d i s t a n c e i s s u e s . Ye s , d i t c h on n o r t h si d e In s t a l l 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e s i d e w a l k s o n e i t h e r si d e o f t h e s t r e e t . 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e si d e w a l k s w i t h c u r b s a n d gu t t e r s . $3 5 0 , 0 0 0 L2 0 1 9 2 n d S t S W 8 8 t h A v e W 8 4 t h A v e W 1 , 3 0 0 U n p a v e d a n d a s p h a l t s h o u l d e r m i x w i t h id l k f d l t b t Ye s , d i t c h . Co n s t r u c t o r r e a l i g n 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e id l k i t h i d f t t t t 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e id l k i t h b d si d e w a l k s f r o m n e w d e v e l o p m e n t s , b u t sh o u l d e r s d o n o t l i n e u p t o s i d e w a l k s . Ro a d i s u n s t r i p e d . si d e w a l k s o n e i t h e r s i d e o f s t r e e t t o c o n n e c t ex i s t i n g s i d e w a l k s . si d e w a l k s w i t h c u r b s a n d gu t t e r s . $2 6 0 , 0 0 0 Packet Page 557 of 1136 ID S t r e e t N a m e F r o m T o Le n g t h (f e e t ) D e s c r i p t i o n G ut t e r / Dr a i n a g e / Di t c h P h o t o D e s c r i p t i o n W a l k w a y T y p e Pr o j e c t Co s t Es t i m a t e Ex i s t i n g C o n d i t i o n s R e c o m m e n d e d I m p r o v e m e n t s L2 1 1 0 4 t h A v e W / Ro b i n H o o d D r 23 8 t h S t S W 1 0 6 t h A v e W 2 , 2 0 0 A s p h a l t s h o u l d e r s o n w e s t s i d e , a n d na r r o w u n p a v e d s h o u l d e r s o n e a s t s i d e . No I n s t a l l 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e s i d e w a l k s o n w e s t si d e o f s t r e e t t o c o n n e c t e x i s t i n g s i d e w a l k s t o th e p a r k ( c o n s i s t e n t w i t h p r o j e c t L 7 ) . 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e si d e w a l k s w i t h c u r b s a n d gu t t e r s . $4 4 0 , 0 0 0 L2 2 1 8 6 t h S t S W 8 6 0 8 1 8 5 t h P l SW Se a v i e w P a r k / 8 0 t h A v e W 1, 7 0 0 U n p a v e d , u n s t r i p e d s h o u l d e r s o n b o t h si d e s w i t h v a r i o u s w i d t h s . S i d e w a l k s o n no r t h s i d e i n f r o n t o f S e a v i e w p a r k o n t h e ea s t e n d . Ye s , dr a i n a g e . In s t a l l 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e s i d e w a l k s o n n o r t h si d e o f s t r e e t t o c o n n e c t e x i s t i n g s i d e w a l k s t o th e w e s t a n d e a s t . A d d e d g e l i n e s o n b o t h si d e s o f s t r e e t . 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e si d e w a l k s w i t h c u r b s a n d gu t t e r s . $4 2 5 , 0 0 0 L2 3 2 1 6 t h S t S W 8 6 t h A v e W 9 2 n d A v e W 2 , 4 5 0 C u r b o n b o t h s i d e s o f s t r e e t N o I n s t a l l 5 f t c o n c r e t e s i d e w a l k s o n s o u t h s i d e of s t r e e t . 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e si d e w a l k s w i t h c u r b s a n d gu t t e r s . $6 1 3 , 0 0 0 L2 4 9 2 n d A v e W B o w d o i n W a y 2 2 0 t h S t S W 2 , 2 5 0 U n m a r k e d a n d u n p a v e d s h o u l d e r . N o I n s t a l l 5 f t c o n c r e t e s i d e w a l k o n e i t h e r s i d e o f st r e e t . 5 f t w i d e c o n c r e t e si d e w a l k s w i t h c u r b s a n d gu t t e r s . $5 6 3 , 0 0 0 Packet Page 558 of 1136 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s Sh o r t W a l k w a y P r o j e c t S e l e c t i o n M a t r i x Ped estrian Safe ty RATI NG = WF x Pts . Connect iv ity-S ervices and F acilities RATI NG = WF x Pts . Connect iv ity-Lin k RATI NG = WF x Pts . Ac tivit y RATI NG = WF x Pts . Comp atib ilit y RATI NG = WF x Pts . Enviro nme ntal Impact s RATI NG = WF x Pts . Pub lic Sup por t RATI NG = WF x Pts . Dis ta n ce toSc hool RATI NG = WF X Pts Connect iv ity to t ran sit routesa nd facil it ie s RATI NG = WF x Pts . Ex is ting Infr astructure RATI NG = WF x Pts . Ra n k i n g ST R E E T N A M E FR O M TO P S C S & F C L A T C C O M E I P S D S CT E I Ap p r o x i m a t e T O T A L P R I O R I T Y Pt s . P t s . P t s . P t s . P t s . P t s . P t s . L e n g t h P O I N T S 1 2n d A v . Ma i n S t . Ja m e s S t . 31 5 3 1 2 3 9 3 9 3 3 3 3 3 6 1 1 2 2 3 3 10 0 ' 63 1 2 Da y t o n S t . 7t h A v . S 8t h A v . S 31 5 3 1 2 2 6 3 9 3 3 3 3 3 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 25 0 ' 63 1 3 Ma p l e S t . We s t o f 6 t h A v . S 8t h A v . S 31 5 3 1 2 3 9 2 6 3 3 3 3 3 6 2 2 3 3 3 3 25 0 ' 62 1 4 Wa l n u t S t . 6t h A v . S 7t h A v . S 31 5 2 8 2 6 2 6 3 3 3 3 3 6 1 1 3 3 3 3 70 0 ' 54 1 5 Wa l n u t S t . 3r d A v . S 4t h A v . S 31 5 2 8 2 6 2 6 3 3 3 3 3 6 1 1 3 3 2 2 35 0 ' 53 1 6 22 6 t h S t . S W 10 6 t h A v . W SR - 1 0 4 31 5 2 8 2 6 2 6 2 2 3 3 3 6 1 1 2 2 1 1 70 0 ' 50 1 7 18 9 t h P l . S W 80 t h A v . W 78 t h A v . W 21 0 3 1 2 2 6 2 6 3 3 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 70 0 ' 45 2 8 8t h A v . Wa l n u t A v . So u t h o f W a l n u t 21 0 2 8 2 6 2 6 2 2 3 3 1 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 ?? ? ? 43 2 9 84 t h A v . W 18 8 t h S t . S W 18 6 t h S t . S W 15 2 8 3 9 2 6 3 3 3 3 2 4 3 3 1 1 1 1 70 0 ' 43 2 10 19 0 t h P l . S W 94 t h A v . W OV D 31 5 2 8 2 6 1 3 2 2 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 80 0 ' 42 2 Ra n k i n g ST R E E T N A M E FR O M TO Packet Page 559 of 1136 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s Wa l k w a y R o u t e S e l e c t i o n M a t r i x Wa l k w a y S e l e c t i o n C r i t e r i a : We i g h t i n g F a c t o r (W F ) Pe d e s t r i a n S a f e t y ( P S ) 5 Co n n e c t i v i t y - S e r v i c e s a n d F a c il i t i e s ( C S & F ) 4 Co n n e c t i v i t y - L i n k ( C L ) 3 Ac t i v i t y ( A T C ) 3 Pu b l i c S u p p o r t ( P S ) 2 Co m p at i b i l i t y( CO M ) 1 Co m p a t i b i l i t y ( C O M ) 1 En v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t s ( E I ) 1 Di s t a n c e f r o m S c h o o l ( D S ) 1 Co n n e c t i v i t y t o t r a n s i t r o u t e s a n d f a c il i t i e s ( C T ) 1 Ex i s t i n g I n f r a s t r u c t u r e ( E I ) 1 P ede s trian Safety R ATING = WF x Pts.C onnectivit y -Serv i ce s a n d Facilitie s R ATING = WF x Pts.C onnectivit y -Link R ATING = WF x Pts.A c ti vity R ATING = WF x Pts.P ublic Supp o rt R ATING = WF x Pts.C ompatibili ty R ATING = WF x Pts.E nvironmental I mpacts R ATING = WF x Pts.D is t ance to Scho o l R ATING = WF X Pt s C onnectivit y to transi t r o utes a nd facilities R ATING = WF x Pts.E x i sting In fr a structur e R ATING = WF x Pts.P e R A C o R A C o R A A c R A P u R A C o R A E n R A D R A C o R A E x R A Ra n k i n g St r e e t N a m e Fr o m T o P S C S & F C L A T C P S C O M E I D S C T E I Ap p r o x i m a t e T O T A L P R I O R I T Y Pt s . P t s . P t s . P t s . P t s . P t s . P t s . P t s . P t s . P t s . L e n g t h P O I N T S 1 23 6 t h S t . S W / 2 3 4 t h S t . S W SR-10 4 9 7 t h P l . W 3 1 5 3 1 2 3 9 3 9 3 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 31 0 0 ' 65 1 2 Ma p l e w o o d D r . Ma i n S t . 2 0 0 t h S t . S W 3 1 5 3 1 2 39 3 9 3 6 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 27 0 0 ' 64 1 3 Ol y m p i c A v . Pu g e t D r . M a i n S t . 3 1 5 3 1 2 39 3 9 3 6 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 1 1 40 0 0 ' 62 1 4 Me a d o w d a l e B e a c h R d OVD 7 6 t h A v . W 3 1 5 3 1 2 3 9 3 9 3 6 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 38 0 0 ' 60 1 5 Pi n e S t . 9th A v . W S R 1 0 4 3 1 5 3 1 2 3 9 3 9 2 4 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 40 0 0 ' 59 1 6 80 t h A v . W / 1 8 0 t h S t . S W 18 8 t h S t . S W O V D 3 1 5 3 1 2 39 2 6 2 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 2 3, 0 0 0 ' 58 1 Ra n k i n g 7 80 t h A v . W 20 6 t h S t . S W 2 1 2 n d S t . S W 3 1 5 28 3 9 3 9 2 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 20 0 0 ' 58 1 8 2 3 8 t h S t . S W 10 0 t h A v . W 1 0 4 t h A v . W 31 5 3 1 2 3 9 2 6 3 6 2 2 3 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 14 0 0 ' 57 1 9 2 3 8 t h S t . S W Hw y . 9 9 7 6 t h A v . W 31 5 3 1 2 3 9 3 9 1 2 2 2 3 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 2, 6 0 0 ' 56 1 10 2 3 2 n d S t . W 10 0 t h A v . W 9 7 t h A v . W 21 0 3 1 2 2 6 3 9 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 10 0 0 ' 54 2 11 8 4 t h A v . W 23 8 t h S t . S W 2 3 4 t h S t . S W 31 5 3 1 2 1 3 3 9 2 4 2 2 3 3 1 1 3 3 2 2 13 0 0 ' 54 2 12 1 7 6 t h S t . S W 72 n d A v . W O V D 21 0 3 1 2 3 9 2 6 2 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 2 14 0 0 ' 53 2 Packet Page 560 of 1136 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s Wa l k w a y R o u t e S e l e c t i o n M a t r i x Wa l k w a y S e l e c t i o n C r i t e r i a : We i g h t i n g F a c t o r (W F ) Pe d e s t r i a n S a f e t y ( P S ) 5 Co n n e c t i v i t y - S e r v i c e s a n d F a c il i t i e s ( C S & F ) 4 Co n n e c t i v i t y - L i n k ( C L ) 3 Ac t i v i t y ( A T C ) 3 Pu b l i c S u p p o r t ( P S ) 2 Co m p at i b i l i t y( CO M ) 1 Co m p a t i b i l i t y ( C O M ) 1 En v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t s ( E I ) 1 Di s t a n c e f r o m S c h o o l ( D S ) 1 Co n n e c t i v i t y t o t r a n s i t r o u t e s a n d f a c il i t i e s ( C T ) 1 Ex i s t i n g I n f r a s t r u c t u r e ( E I ) 1 P ede s trian Safety R ATING = WF x Pts.C onnectivit y -Serv i ce s a n d Facilitie s R ATING = WF x Pts.C onnectivit y -Link R ATING = WF x Pts.A c ti vity R ATING = WF x Pts.P ublic Supp o rt R ATING = WF x Pts.C ompatibili ty R ATING = WF x Pts.E nvironmental I mpacts R ATING = WF x Pts.D is t ance to Scho o l R ATING = WF X Pt s C onnectivit y to transi t r o utes a nd facilities R ATING = WF x Pts.E x i sting In fr a structur e R ATING = WF x Pts.P e R A C o R A C o R A A c R A P u R A C o R A E n R A D R A C o R A E x R A Ra n k i n g St r e e t N a m e Fr o m T o P S C S & F C L A T C P S C O M E I D S C T E I Ap p r o x i m a t e T O T A L P R I O R I T Y Pt s . P t s . P t s . P t s . P t s . P t s . P t s . P t s . P t s . P t s . L e n g t h P O I N T S Ra n k i n g 13 18 8 t h S t . S W 88 t h A v . W 9 2 n d A v . W 31 5 2 8 2 6 2 6 2 4 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 10 0 0 ' 4 9 2 14 A n d o v e r S t . / 1 8 4 t h S t . S W 18 4 t h S t . S W / 8 8 t h A v . W O V D / A n d o v e r S t . 3 1 5 3 1 2 26 2 6 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 35 0 0 ' 4 9 2 15 7 2 n d A v . W OV D 1 7 6 t h S t . S W 2 1 0 3 1 2 26 2 6 2 4 2 2 2 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 29 0 0 ' 4 7 2 16 2 3 6 t h S t . S W SR-10 4 E a s t o f 8 4 t h A v . W 2 1 0 3 1 2 2 6 2 6 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 21 0 0 ' 4 7 2 17 9 2 n d A v . W 18 9 t h P l . S W 1 8 6 t h P l . S W 2 1 0 3 1 2 26 2 6 2 4 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 0 0 ' 4 7 2 18 1 9 1 s t . S t S W 80th A v . W 7 6 t h A v . W 2 1 0 3 1 2 2 6 2 6 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 14 0 0 ' 4 7 2 19 21 8 t h S t . S W 80th A v . W 8 4 t h A v . W 3 1 5 2 8 1 3 2 6 1 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 14 0 0 ' 4 4 2 20 19 2 n d S t . S W 84th A v . W 8 8 t h A v . W 1 5 2 8 3 9 2 6 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 2 13 0 0 ' 4 2 2 21 1 0 4 t h S t . S W / R o b i n H o o d 23 8 t h S t . S W 10 6 t h A v . W 2 1 0 28 1 3 3 9 2 4 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 22 0 0 ' 4 2 2 22 18 6 t h S t . S W Se a v i e w P a r k 8 6 0 8 1 8 5 t h P l S W 15 2 8 2 6 2 6 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 17 0 0 ' 3 7 2 23 21 6 t h S t . S W 86 t h A v . W 92 n d A v . W 15 2 8 1 3 2 6 0 0 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 2, 4 5 0 ' 31 2 24 92 n d A v . W B o w n d o i n S t . 22 0 t h S t . S W 15 2 8 1 3 1 3 0 0 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2, 2 5 0 ' 26 2 Packet Page 561 of 1136 AM-2689 2.U. Changing the Zoning Designation Along a Portion of 215th Street SW Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/15/2009 Submitted By:Rob Chave Time:Consent Department:Planning Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Ordinance changing the zoning designation from Multiple Residential (RM-2.4) to Single-Family Residential (RS-8) along a portion of 215th Street SW. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approve the proposed ordinance (Exhibits 1 and 2). Previous Council Action Council held a public hearing on the request on December 1, 2009. Narrative The City Council held a public hearing on the Planning Board's recommendation on the referenced rezone of properties along 215th St SW on December 1, 2009. After hearing and deliberation, the Council voted to approve the change in zoning, as recommended by staff, with the exception that the two properties adjoining 76th Ave W were not rezoned and were instead referred back to the Planning Board for review as part of the comprehensive plan amendment process in 2010. The City Attorney has prepared an ordinance to implement the City Council's action (Exhibits 1 and 2). Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1: Rezone Ordinance Link: Exhibit 2: Ordinance Exhibit A Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/11/2009 10:29 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/11/2009 10:37 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/11/2009 11:07 AM APRV Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 12/11/2009 10:00 AM Final Approval Date: 12/11/2009 Packet Page 562 of 1136 0006.90000 WSS/gjz 12/11/09 ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, APPROVING THE REZONE OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN AN APPLICATION KNOWN AS THE UNDERHILL REZONE, DEPICTED IN FILE NO. PLN-2009- 0019 AND LOCATED ALONG A PORTION OF 215th STREET SOUTHWEST FROM MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL (RM-2.4) TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-8), AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT OF THE ZONING MAP, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, certain real property located along 215th Street Southwest east of 76th Avenue West, shown on the attached Exhibit A and consisting of nineteen parcels has been the subject of a request for rezone from Multiple Residential (RM-2.4) to Single-Family Residential (RS-8); and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan was amended in 2008 to designate the nineteen parcels Single-Family - Urban 1; and WHEREAS, the application has been considered by the City’s Planning Board which recommended denial of the proposed rezone and reconsideration of the Comprehensive Plan designation; and WHEREAS, the nineteen parcels comprising the rezone application are approximately one-quarter acre in size and were developed into single-family homes during the 1950s and 1960s; are located within a Multi-Residential (RM-2.4) zone and are situated near Highway 99 on the east, Stevens Hospital to the south, Edmonds Woodway High School to the west and Multi-Family to the north; and {WSS754140.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 1 - Packet Page 563 of 1136 WHEREAS, the rezone area represents an island of stable single-family residential property and affordable housing within a primarily multi-family or commercial area; and WHEREAS, the owner of the one of the properties located on the corner of 76th Avenue West and 215th Street Southwest opposed the rezone, testifying that she purchased the property knowing it was in a multi-use zone, noting the existence of heavy traffic on 76th Avenue West on which her property fronts, noting the proximity of Stevens Hospital and a condominium complex, and asserting that her home’s value would be reduced and become more difficult to sell if rezoned to Single-Family zoning; and WHEREAS, ECDC 20.40.010 lists six factors which should be considered in reviewing a proposed rezone, none of which is conclusive but all of which are relevant; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the rezone as proposed is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the general purposes of the zoning ordinance, and provides affordable housing in a stable residential neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the property is an island of stable single- family residences but is surrounded by multi-family and commercial uses; and WHEREAS, while the bulk of the properties which were proposed to be rezoned are economically and physically suitable for single-family use, but , those houses which border on 76th Avenue West represent a transition from the single-family area to more dense residential and commercial areas and could suffer economic loss or detriment that would not be outweighed by the relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, The City Council finds and concludes that seventeen of the properties were shown in File No. PLN-2009-0019 are suitable for rezoning to a Single-Family {WSS754140.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 2 - Packet Page 564 of 1136 site but that the two properties located on opposing corners of 76th Avenue West and 215th Street Southwest should be excluded from the rezone, thereby serving as a transitional buffer from the Single-Family rezoned area to the denser zoning on 76th Avenue West and surrounding the rezone area, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Seventeen of the nineteen properties shown in File No. PLN 2009- 0019 are hereby approved for rezone from Multi-Family Residential (RM.2.4) to Single-Family Residential (RS-8), excluding the two properties shown in the rezone application on opposing corners of 76th Avenue West and 215th Street Southwest which rezone shall remain RM-2.4. Section 2. The staff is hereby authorized to effectuate this amendment by making appropriate changes to the City’s zoning map. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi- cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE {WSS754140.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 3 - Packet Page 565 of 1136 APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY W. SCOTT SNYDER FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. {WSS754140.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 4 - Packet Page 566 of 1136 {WSS754140.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }- 5 - SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ____ day of ___________, 2009, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, APPROVING THE REZONE OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN AN APPLICATION KNOWN AS THE UNDERHILL REZONE, DEPICTED IN FILE NO. PLN-2009-0019 AND LOCATED ALONG A PORTION OF 215th STREET SOUTHWEST FROM MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL (RM-2.4) TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-8), AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT OF THE ZONING MAP, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2009. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 567 of 1136 213TH PL SW 7 3 R D P L W 72 N D A V E W 212TH ST SW H W Y 9 9 N W T R A C T I O N R /W 216TH ST SW 220TH ST SW 70 T H A V E W 215TH ST SW 7 6 T H A V E W 219TH ST SW 218TH ST SW 74 T H A V E W 7 6 T H P L W 7 2 N D A V E W Legend Properties to be rezoned from RM-2.4 to RS-8 Exhibit A Packet Page 568 of 1136 AM-2597 2.V. Resolution Thanking Councilmember Ron Wambolt Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/15/2009 Submitted By:Jana Spellman Submitted For:Council President Wilson Time:Consent Department:City Council Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Resolution thanking Councilmember Ron Wambolt for his service on the City Council. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action Narrative Resolution thanking Councilmember Ron Wambolt for his service on the City Council. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Wambolt Resolution Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/08/2009 03:06 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/08/2009 03:11 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/09/2009 11:01 AM APRV Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 11/06/2009 10:24 AM Final Approval Date: 12/09/2009 Packet Page 569 of 1136 Resolution A Resolution of the Edmonds City Council thanking Councilmember Ron Wambolt for His Service to the Edmonds City Council No. Whereas, Mr. Ron Wambolt was elected to the Council in November of 2005 and began his term on January 1, 2006, and Whereas, Mr. Wambolt worked tirelessly at becoming and effective and well-informed Councilmember; and Whereas, Councilmember Wambolt, during his 4 years, sat on the following Committees and/or Boards: Finance, Edmonds Economic Development Advisory, Edmonds Crossing Project, Highway 99 Task Force, Port of Edmonds, Harbor Square Redevelopment, Community Technology Advisory, Downtown Edmonds Parking, Disability Board, Long-Range Task Force, Regional Fire Authority, and Levy Work Group. Because of his longevity on the Finance Committee and the Port of Edmonds Committee, he was well-versed in all facets of these committees. He is also to be applauded for his work with the Citizen’s Levy Review Committee; and Whereas, Mr. Wambolt came to each and every meeting erudite on the subjects at hand. He took his Council committee assignments seriously and attended those meetings unfailingly. Councilmember Wambolt is to be commended for all of the time and effort he put into becoming an exemplary Councilmember. He dug into every facet of items presented to him. He came to Council Meetings well-prepared to answer and ask questions and to inform citizens. His dedication and commitment to the work at hand is a fine example of the consummate work ethic. Now, Therefore, Be it Resolved, that Ron Wambolt be commended, thanked, and remembered not only for his immeasurable hours of distinguished service during his term in office, but also recognized for his hard work and dedication to the citizens of Edmonds. Passed, Approved, and Adopted this 15th day of December, 2009. Gary Haakenson, Mayor D. J. Wilson, Council President Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Strom Peterson, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Steve Bernheim, Councilmember Attest: City Clerk Packet Page 570 of 1136 AM-2669 2.W. Confirmation of New HPC Member Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/15/2009 Submitted By:Linda Carl Submitted For:Gary Haakenson Time:Consent Department:Mayor's Office Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Confirmation of new Historic Preservation Commission member. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action Narrative In September, Dan Kerege resigned his position on the HPC. The opening was advertised and several applicants applied. After being interviewed by the HPC, John Dewhirst was recommended for appointment to fill Position #8 and the remaining time on Dan's term (through December 2010). Gary has appointed John to the HPC; confirmation by the Council is required. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Dewhirst application Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/09/2009 03:13 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/09/2009 03:43 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/09/2009 04:14 PM APRV Form Started By: Linda Carl Started On: 12/09/2009 11:03 AM Final Approval Date: 12/09/2009 Packet Page 571 of 1136 Packet Page 572 of 1136 Packet Page 573 of 1136 Packet Page 574 of 1136 AM-2636 3. Presentation of Resolution to Councilmember Ron Wambolt Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/15/2009 Submitted By:Jana Spellman Submitted For:Council President Wilson Time:30 Minutes Department:City Council Type:Information Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Presentation of Resolution to Councilmember Ron Wambolt, followed by a reception. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action Narrative Presentation of Resolution to Councilmember Ron Wambolt for his four years of exemplary service on the Edmonds City Council. Fiscal Impact Attachments No file(s) attached. Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/08/2009 03:06 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/08/2009 03:11 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/09/2009 11:01 AM APRV Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 11/20/2009 10:38 AM Final Approval Date: 12/09/2009 Packet Page 575 of 1136 AM-2686 4. Resolution Regarding Temporary Homeless Shelters Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/15/2009 Submitted By:Jana Spellman Submitted For:Council President D.J. Wilson Time:15 Minutes Department:City Council Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Resolution regarding the Council values and direction regarding temporary homeless shelters. Public comment will be received on this matter. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action Narrative Council President D.J. Wilson asked that this item be placed on the agenda. The purpose is to help guide the work of the Planning Board and staff during the review process of the interim ordinance. Attached: 1. Resolution Regarding Temporary Homeless Shelters 2. Ordinance 3730 3. Cold Weather Shelter Guidelines 4. Seattle Times Article - Tent Cities 5. Department of Justice - Title 42, Ch 21C - Protection of Religious Exercise in Land Use Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Reso Re Temporary Homeless Shelters Link: Ordinance_3730 Link: Cold_Weather Shelter Guidelines Link: Seattle Times Article - Tent Cities Link: Dept. of Justice - Title 42, Ch 21C - Protection of Religious Exercise in Land Use Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/10/2009 02:22 PM APRV Packet Page 576 of 1136 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/10/2009 02:28 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/10/2009 02:38 PM APRV Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 12/10/2009 01:49 PM Final Approval Date: 12/10/2009 Packet Page 577 of 1136 RESOLUTION REGARDING THE COUNCIL VALUES AND DIRECTION REGARDING TEMPORARY HOMELESS SHELTERS Whereas, Edmonds applauds and supports the work of community organizations which administer programs designed to prevent homelessness, provide shelter for the homeless, construct supportive housing for the homeless, and offer essential services to stabilize housing situations and increase levels of self sufficiency; and Whereas, Edmonds recognizes organizations and individuals involved in homelessness prevention services that target persons and families at-risk for homelessness for the future; and Whereas, Edmonds recognizes that poverty is the primary factor contributing to homelessness, however, the recent housing crisis and recession have further added to the nationwide numbers of homeless persons; and Whereas, Edmonds acknowledges that the 2009 Snohomish County annual Point In Time homeless count shows an increase over the 2008 Point In Time homeless count, and included an estimated 625 individuals who were children under the age of 18; and Whereas, a number of faith communities in Edmonds created a coalition to respond to the homeless population in the Edmonds area by providing 474 beds over 34 nights in 2008/2009; Whereas, Edmonds recognizes that exposure to cold temperatures can cause death, and in the past, has caused death for Snohomish County’s homeless population; and Whereas, during winter months, Snohomish County homeless shelters frequently do not have sufficient capacity to provide shelter for all who seek refuge from extreme weather conditions; and Whereas, Ordinance No. 3730 affirms the City’s commitment to support public and nonprofit agencies as they prepare to provide needed services to indigent persons and allows for a compliance permitting process for exemptions to State Building Code; Now, therefore, the Edmonds City Council proclaims that protecting lives from potentially deadly consequences of severe weather constitutes a compelling, countervailing public interest, and Therefore directs staff and the Planning Board to review the existing Ordinance to incorporate the greatest amount of flexibility for proposed temporary shelters as is possible, as has been done in some of our surrounding cities, and Therefore commits the City of Edmonds to join other jurisdictions in taking the most aggressive course available to ensure the safety and shelter of individuals and families during cold weather months or times of calamity or natural disaster through implementation of alternative solutions to the existing Cold Weather Shelters Minimum Safety Guidelines. Passed, Approved, and Adopted this _____ day of December, 2009... ____________________________________ MAYOR, GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: _____________________________________ CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. Packet Page 578 of 1136 Packet Page 579 of 1136 Packet Page 580 of 1136 Packet Page 581 of 1136 Packet Page 582 of 1136 Packet Page 583 of 1136 3/4/2009 The purpose of this document is to provide a guideline for persons wishing to provide temporary sheltering facilities for the homeless in cold and inclement weather. This guideline is not intended to address requirements for permanent facilities constructed for full-time R-1 (transient) uses as addressed in the International Building Code for Congregate Living Facilities. A Compliance Permit is required for cold weather shelters. Contact the Building Division for permit submittal requirements. Guidelines are as follows: 1. The area or space used for sleeping purposes shall be located on the ground floor, not in basements or any area above the ground floor. (IBC 1026.1) 2. At least two exits shall be provided from the room. One exit shall go directly to the outside of the building. (IFC 1015.1) 3. Illuminated exit signs/Emergency lights with two power sources shall indicate the exit pathway. (IFC 1006.1) 4. The occupant load (capacity) of the room shall be clearly posted. (IFC 1004.3) 5. The building shall be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers and monitoring off site. Partial sprinkler protection is not permitted. (IFC 903.2.7) 6. Automatic fire alarm system with smoke detectors shall be monitored. As an alternative, single station smoke detectors may be placed in the sleeping area, but the spacing shall be approved by the authority having jurisdiction. (IFC 907.2.10.1.1) 7. Adequate toilet facilities shall be provided on the same floor as the room approved for sheltering. (IBC Table 2902.1) 8. The authority having jurisdiction shall inspect the facilities prior to occupancy for the purpose cold weather and inclement weather sheltering. (AHJ Requirement) 9. Two attendants who can communicate with 911 shall monitor the shelter when occupied. (AHJ Requirement) Additional Recommendations: 1. Volunteers should have Basic First Aid and CPR training. 2. The approved sites should contact their respective insurance companies to verify coverage for this use. Cold Weather Shelters Minimum Lifesafety Guidelines Packet Page 584 of 1136 Thursday, March 19, 2009 - Page updated at 12:00 AM Permission to reprint or copy this article or photo, other than personal use, must be obtained from The Seattle Times. Call 206-464-3113 or e-mail resale@seattletimes.com with your request. Fewer limits sought on tent cities By Jennifer Sullivan GREG GILBERT / THE SEATTLE TIMES A bill now being considered places fewer restrictions on tent cities hosted on church property. St. Luke's Church in Bellevue hosted a tent city in 2006. Seattle Times staff reporter OLYMPIA — Cities and counties could place fewer restrictions on temporary homeless encampments hosted on church property, under a bill now being considered by the Legislature. But even supporters of the legislation say state and federal laws already limit how much local governments can regulate church activities. Rep. Brendan Williams, D-Olympia, said the proposal he is sponsoring is targeted at cities like Lacey, Thurston County, which last year forbid a homeless camp from being set up outdoors. Court challenges were filed over similar encampments, called tent cities, in Mercer Island and Woodinville. The Woodinville case is still awaiting a ruling by the state Supreme Court. "If we're going to deny the abilities of the faith-based community to serve the homeless, who else is going to service these folks?" Williams asked Wednesday. The measure, House Bill 1956, has passed the House and is expected to be heard before the Senate Committee on Human Services & Corrections on Friday. Neighbors often complain that tent cities are an eyesore and pose a danger to the area. Williams said he also opposed tent cities until his own church hosted a trouble-free homeless camp. Under the proposed legislation, cities and counties couldn't: interfere with church decisions about housing the homeless, regulate tent cities based on their proximity to a school or day-care facility, or require churches to obtain liability insurance to host tent cities. Local governments also couldn't keep churches from hosting homeless encampments outdoors. Bill Kirlin-Hackett, director of the interfaith task force on homelessness, testified in support of Williams' bill last month. Kirlin-Hackett said the proposal has good intentions but isn't necessary to ensure the survival of church-based tent cities. "We haven't put a ton of energy in this bill because we have federal law and we have precedent on our side," Packet Page 585 of 1136 Kirlin-Hackett said. "It's not crucial, but it helps. It simply makes it [federal law and legal precedent] clearer to cities." Seattle attorney Greg Rubstello, who represents the city of Woodinville in the Supreme Court case, believes the bill creates an unnecessary layer of regulations. "We already have our state and federal constitutions that restrict government regulation of religious activity and federal legislation that prohibits cities and counties from putting undue burdens on religious activity on their local regulation," Rubstello said. "How much regulation should there be?" Rubstello said the gist of his argument before the Supreme Court last May was that Northshore United Church of Christ did not have the proper permits to host Tent City 4 in the summer of 2006. Mercer Island residents tried to thwart Tent City 4 from moving into their neighborhood last summer, arguing the camp at the Mercer Island United Methodist Church would be a nuisance and a danger. In July, a King County Superior Court judge said the residents did not establish the facts necessary to win an injunction. In Seattle, a homeless camp made headlines last year with hot-pink tents and the fact that it was dubbed "Nickelsville," after Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels. Initially, the camp illegally pitched its 150 tents on city-owned land; it moved to a church near the University of Washington late last year. The Association of Washington Cities and many Republicans oppose Williams' bill. Rep. Doug Ericksen, R-Ferndale, Whatcom County, said the Legislature shouldn't get in the middle of local property-use issues. "Nobody here is against allowing churches to carry out their missions," Ericksen said. "We should allow local governments to make the decisions that are in the best interests of their people." Jennifer Sullivan: 360-236-8267 or jensullivan@seattletimes.com Copyright © 2009 The Seattle Times Company Packet Page 586 of 1136 Skip to content En Español Go to the Department of Justice Privacy Act Statement Hints... Feedback Form Main Page AAG Thomas E. Perez About Us Section Sites FOIA Press Releases Speeches & Testimony Frequently Asked Questions Special Topics Post 9/11 Backlash H1N1 Response ADA FACE Cases & Briefs Employment Opportunities Contact Us Search Civil Rights From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [Laws in effect as of January 24, 2002] [Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between January 24, 2002 and December 19, 2002] [CITE: 42USC2000cc] TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE CHAPTER 21C--PROTECTION OF RELIGIOUS EXERCISE IN LAND USE AND BY INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS §2000cc. Protection of land use as religious exercise (a) Substantial burdens (1) General rule No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution— (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. (2) Scope of application This subsection applies in any case in which— (A) the substantial burden is imposed in a program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability; Packet Page 587 of 1136 (B) the substantial burden affects, or removal of that substantial burden would affect, commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, or with Indian tribes, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability; or (C) the substantial burden is imposed in the implementation of a land use regulation or system of land use regulations, under which a government makes, or has in place formal or informal procedures or practices that permit the government to make, individualized assessments of the proposed uses for the property involved. (b) Discrimination and exclusion (1) Equal terms No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution. (2) Nondiscrimination No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation that discriminates against any assembly or institution on the basis of religion or religious denomination. (3) Exclusions and limits No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation that— (A) totally excludes religious assemblies from a jurisdiction; or (B) unreasonably limits religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction. §2000cc–1. Protection of religious exercise of institutionalized persons (a) General rule No government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution, as defined in section 1997 of this title, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person— (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. (b) Scope of application This section applies in any case in which— (1) the substantial burden is imposed in a program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance; or (2) the substantial burden affects, or removal of that substantial burden would affect, commerce with foreign Packet Page 588 of 1136 nations, among the several States, or with Indian tribes. §2000cc–2. Judicial relief (a) Cause of action A person may assert a violation of this chapter as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution. (b) Burden of persuasion If a plaintiff produces prima facie evidence to support a claim alleging a violation of the Free Exercise Clause or a violation of section 2000cc of this title, the government shall bear the burden of persuasion on any element of the claim, except that the plaintiff shall bear the burden of persuasion on whether the law (including a regulation) or government practice that is challenged by the claim substantially burdens the plaintiff’s exercise of religion. (c) Full faith and credit Adjudication of a claim of a violation of section 2000cc of this title in a non-Federal forum shall not be entitled to full faith and credit in a Federal court unless the claimant had a full and fair adjudication of that claim in the non-Federal forum. (d) Omitted (e) Prisoners Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to amend or repeal the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (including provisions of law amended by that Act). (f) Authority of United States to enforce this chapter The United States may bring an action for injunctive or declaratory relief to enforce compliance with this chapter. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to deny, impair, or otherwise affect any right or authority of the Attorney General, the United States, or any agency, officer, or employee of the United States, acting under any law other than this subsection, to institute or intervene in any proceeding. (g) Limitation If the only jurisdictional basis for applying a provision of this chapter is a claim that a substantial burden by a government on religious exercise affects, or that removal of that substantial burden would affect, commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, or with Indian tribes, the provision shall not apply if the government demonstrates that all substantial burdens on, or the removal of all substantial burdens from, similar religious exercise throughout the Nation would not lead in the aggregate to a substantial effect on commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, or with Indian tribes. §2000cc–3. Rules of construction Packet Page 589 of 1136 (a) Religious belief unaffected Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to authorize any government to burden any religious belief. (b) Religious exercise not regulated Nothing in this chapter shall create any basis for restricting or burdening religious exercise or for claims against a religious organization including any religiously affiliated school or university, not acting under color of law. (c) Claims to funding unaffected Nothing in this chapter shall create or preclude a right of any religious organization to receive funding or other assistance from a government, or of any person to receive government funding for a religious activity, but this chapter may require a government to incur expenses in its own operations to avoid imposing a substantial burden on religious exercise. (d) Other authority to impose conditions on funding unaffected Nothing in this chapter shall— (1) authorize a government to regulate or affect, directly or indirectly, the activities or policies of a person other than a government as a condition of receiving funding or other assistance; or (2) restrict any authority that may exist under other law to so regulate or affect, except as provided in this chapter. (e) Governmental discretion in alleviating burdens on religious exercise A government may avoid the preemptive force of any provision of this chapter by changing the policy or practice that results in a substantial burden on religious exercise, by retaining the policy or practice and exempting the substantially burdened religious exercise, by providing exemptions from the policy or practice for applications that substantially burden religious exercise, or by any other means that eliminates the substantial burden. (f) Effect on other law With respect to a claim brought under this chapter, proof that a substantial burden on a person’s religious exercise affects, or removal of that burden would affect, commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, or with Indian tribes, shall not establish any inference or presumption that Congress intends that any religious exercise is, or is not, subject to any law other than this chapter. (g) Broad construction This chapter shall be construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter and the Constitution. (h) No preemption or repeal Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to preempt State law, or repeal Federal law, that is equally as protective of religious exercise as, or more protective of religious exercise than, this chapter. Packet Page 590 of 1136 (i) Severability If any provision of this chapter or of an amendment made by this chapter, or any application of such provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this chapter, the amendments made by this chapter, and the application of the provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected. §2000cc–4. Establishment Clause unaffected Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address that portion of the first amendment to the Constitution prohibiting laws respecting an establishment of religion (referred to in this section as the "Establishment Clause"). Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, shall not constitute a violation of this chapter. In this section, the term "granting", used with respect to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions. §2000cc–5. Definitions In this chapter: (1) Claimant The term "claimant" means a person raising a claim or defense under this chapter. (2) Demonstrates The term "demonstrates" means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion. (3) Free Exercise Clause The term "Free Exercise Clause" means that portion of the first amendment to the Constitution that proscribes laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. (4) Government The term "government"— (A) means— (i) a State, county, municipality, or other governmental entity created under the authority of a State; (ii) any branch, department, agency, instrumentality, or official of an entity listed in clause (i); and (iii) any other person acting under color of State law; and (B) for the purposes of sections 2000cc–2 (b) and 2000cc–3 of this title, includes the United States, a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, or official of the United States, and any other person acting under color of Federal law. (5) Land use regulation The term "land use regulation" means a zoning or landmarking law, or the application of such a law, that limits or restricts a claimant’s use or development of land (including a structure affixed to land), if the claimant has an ownership, leasehold, easement, servitude, or other property interest in the regulated land or a contract or option to acquire such an interest. (6) Program or activity The term "program or activity" means all of the operations of any entity as Packet Page 591 of 1136 described in paragraph (1) or (2) of section 2000d–4a of this title. (7) Religious exercise (A) In general The term "religious exercise" includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief. (B) Rule The use, building, or conversion of real property for the purpose of religious exercise shall be considered to be religious exercise of the person or entity that uses or intends to use the property for that purpose. Updated July 25, 2008 Packet Page 592 of 1136 AM-2682 5. Temporary Homeless Shelters and Encampments Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/15/2009 Submitted By:Rob Chave Time:5 Minutes Department:Planning Type:Action Review Committee:Community/Development Services Committee Action:Recommend Review by Full Council Information Subject Title Interim Zoning Ordinance related to temporary homeless shelters and encampments. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approve the proposed interim zoning ordinance (Exhibit 1). Previous Council Action This item was reviewed by the Community Services/Development Services Committee on December 8, 2009, and forwarded to the full Council for approval. Narrative The City Attorney has advised that the City's codes are deficient in providing for temporary homeless shelters and encampments. The City could use its reasonable accommodation process as an interim solution, or an interim zoning ordinance establishing a temporary process could be used as an interim measure while the Planning Board makes a recommendation on the issue. The Council's Commmittee reviewed the issue during its meeting on December 8, 2009, and recommended that an interim zoning ordinance be approved (see Exhibit 1). Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1: Interim Ordinance - Temporary Homeless Shelter Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/10/2009 02:02 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/10/2009 02:27 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/10/2009 02:38 PM APRV Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 12/10/2009 10:43 AM Final Approval Date: 12/10/2009 Packet Page 593 of 1136 0006.90000 BFP/ 12/10/09 ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DEFINING TEMPORARY HOMELESS SHELTER, INDENTIFYING ZONING DISTRICTS WHERE TEMPORARY HOMELESS SHELTERS ARE PERMITTED, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, exposure to cold temperatures can cause death, and in the past, has caused death for Snohomish County’s homeless population; and WHEREAS, during winter months, Snohomish County homeless shelters frequently do not have sufficient capacity to provide shelter for all who seek refuge from extreme weather conditions; and WHEREAS, the City adopted Ordinance No. 3730 affirming its commitment to support public and nonprofit agencies to provide needed services to indigent persons and to allow for a compliance permitting process for exemptions to State Building Code; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to permit temporary homeless shelters at certain zoning districts as a primary or secondary use; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. The City Council hereby makes the following findings in support of this interim Ordinance: a) The findings as set forth in the “WHEREAS” clauses are adopted and incorporated herein by this reference. {BFP753866.DOC;1\00006.900150\ } - 1 - Packet Page 594 of 1136 b) Under the current code, temporary homeless shelters are neither defined nor referenced as an expressly permitted primary or secondary use in any zoning district in the City of Edmonds. Section 2. “Temporary Homeless Shelter” shall be defined as short-term residence for a group of people at a permanent building’s indoor facility that is organized by a sponsor with services provided by a sponsor. Section 3. “Short-term” shall be defined as fourteen days or less during any consecutive thirty day period. Section 4. “Sponsor” shall be defined as a community based organization (A) that is a public agency or nonprofit corporation / organization, and (B) that fulfills its mission, in part, by organizing living accommodations for the homeless. Section 5. Temporary homeless shelters shall be permitted as a primary or secondary use at all zoning districts where Churches or Local Public Facilities are permitted as primary uses. Section 6. Nothing in this interim ordinance shall be interpreted as a waiver of any of the requirements of Ordinance 3730. Section 7. No provision of any ordinance adopted by the City of Edmonds shall be applied or interpreted to prohibit a temporary homeless shelter when the same is specifically allowed under state or federal law under the circumstances. Section 8. Public Hearing. As required by RCW 35A.63.220, this interim Ordinance shall expire six months from the date of adoption, unless sooner repealed or subsequently extended by act of the City Council. In the meantime, as further required by RCW 35A.63.220, the City Clerk is directed to schedule a public hearing on this ordinance within sixty (60) days of its adoption. The City Council may in its discretion adopt additional findings in support of this interim Ordinance at the conclusion of the public hearing. The Planning Board is {BFP753866.DOC;1\00006.900150\ } - 2 - Packet Page 595 of 1136 Section 9. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this interim Ordinance. Section 10. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi- cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY W. SCOTT SNYDER FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. {BFP753866.DOC;1\00006.900150\ } - 3 - Packet Page 596 of 1136 {BFP753866.DOC;1\00006.900150\ } - 4 - SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ____ day of ___________, 2009, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DEFINING TEMPORARY HOMELESS SHELTER, INDENTIFYING ZONING DISTRICTS WHERE TEMPORARY HOMELESS SHELTERS ARE PERMITTED, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2009. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 597 of 1136 AM-2660 6. Resolution on Renaming Kairez Drive Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/15/2009 Submitted By:Jana Spellman Submitted For:Council President Wilson Time:15 Minutes Department:City Council Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Resolution on renaming Kairez Drive. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action N/A Narrative The homeowners on Kairez Drive have requested the Council change the name from Kairez Drive to Vista Del Mar Drive. Adoption of the resolution will initiate a hearing process pursuant to ECDC 18.50.030. Upon passage of the resolution the staff will prepare an ordinance to effectuate the name change for Council consideration. If enacted after the public hearing staff is ready to make the necessary changes to the official street map and update city documents. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Letter Requesting Name Change Link: Resolution Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Engineering Robert English 12/10/2009 11:20 AM APRV 2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/10/2009 11:23 AM APRV 3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/10/2009 11:24 AM APRV 4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/10/2009 12:16 PM APRV Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 12/08/2009 03:44 PM Final Approval Date: 12/10/2009 Packet Page 598 of 1136 18006 Kairez Drive Edmonds WA, 98026 August 12, 2009 Edmonds City Council C/O D.J. Wilson - Council President 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds Washington 98020 RE; Street Name Change Dear President Wilson: This correspondence is to formally request the council to assist and enable the desire of the Kairez Drive home owners who have unanimously voted via the “Vista Del Mar” home owners association to have the street renamed “VISTA DEL MAR”. This is the nomenclature on the Plat descriptions on the town records. There has been some informal discussion with various individuals who indicate the street can only be changed and named by the original number designation. This however, is not the home owner association’s desire. At present there are five homes in the development and all have concurred by vote to have the name changed. Our request appears to us to be reasonable. The names of all of the right handed streets going south from Perrinville are: Taylor, Kairez, Wharf, Blake, Cherry, Euclid, Driftwood, and finally Puget Ln. Much has been done to enhance the street and the curb appeal of the neighborhood, all at the home owner’s and association’s expense. If this request can be accepted and authorized it would be appreciated. Sincerely, Ross Marturano President- Vista Del Mar Home Owners Association EXHIBIT 1 Packet Page 599 of 1136 0006.900000 WSS/gjz 12/10/09 RESOLUTION NO. ______ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, INITIATING THE PROCESS TO RENAME KAIREZ DRIVE.. WHEREAS, the Kairez Drive Homeowners’ Association has requested the Council to rename Kairez Drive to Vista Del Mar Drive and, WHEREAS, this street name had been a previous name of Kairez Drive earlier in its history, and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it to be in the public interest to initiate review of the name change, now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council directs staff to initiate the process established by ECDC 18.65.030 by providing notice of a public hearing on the ordinance on January 19, 2010 notifying all residents on Kairez Drive of the proposed name change and the Public Hearing and preparing an ordinance to rename Kairez Drive to Vista Del Mar Drive for consideration following such public hearing. RESOLVED this ___ day of ________________, 2009. APPROVED: MAYOR, GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: {WSS753535.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 1 - Packet Page 600 of 1136 {WSS753535.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 2 - CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. Packet Page 601 of 1136 AM-2658 7. Firdale Village Development Agreement & Rezone Application Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/15/2009 Submitted By:Gina Coccia Time:20 Minutes Department:Planning Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Public hearing on an application for a development agreement in order to implement a change in zoning for the properties known as “Firdale Village” from "Neighborhood Business" (BN) to the “Firdale Village Mixed Use” (FVMU) zone and establish a tree retention buffer. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff The recommendation is for APPROVAL of both the proposed development agreement and the rezone. Previous Council Action The Comprehensive Plan was updated in 2006 to establish specific goals and policies for the Firdale Village neighborhood. Next, a code amendment was proposed in 2008 to establish a Firdale Village Mixed Use (FVMU) zone as well as specific Firdale Village Design Standards. The FVMU zone and corresponding design standards were approved by the Council on 10/06/2009 and the ordinance was adopted by Council at the 10/27/2009 meeting. Narrative The Council should consider this application as two separate actions, (1) hold a public hearing on the proposed development agreement, and (2) hold a closed record review of the proposed change in zoning from BN to Firdale Village Mixed Use. Together, these actions comprise what Council has formerly considered as part of a 'contract rezone,' but state laws and city codes have replaced that process with the development agreement / rezone procedure. See Exhibits: (1) staff report with 10 attachments, (2) the DRAFT Planning Board minutes from the 12/9/2009 meeting, and (3) the Planning Board made (minor) changes to the proposed development agreement. Also, the proposed development agreement contains three "Exhibits" - A (site map), B (legal description), and C (native growth protection easement), for review. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1: Staff Report & Attachments Link: Exhibit 2: DRAFT Planning Board Minutes 12/09/09 Link: Exhibit 3: Development Agreement & Exhibits Packet Page 602 of 1136 Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Planning Department Rob Chave 12/11/2009 08:39 AM APRV 2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/11/2009 09:18 AM APRV 3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/11/2009 09:49 AM APRV 4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/11/2009 09:51 AM APRV Form Started By: Gina Coccia Started On: 12/08/2009 01:44 PM Final Approval Date: 12/11/2009 Packet Page 603 of 1136 City of Edmonds Planning Board CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS To: DMONDS PLANNINEG BOARD From: __________ Gina Coccia Associate Planner Date Planning Board Meeting of December 9, 2009 : ile: F PLN20090020 Application for a development agreement in order to implement a change in zoning for the properties known as “Firdale Village” from Neighborhood Business (BN) to “Firdale Village Mixed Use” (FVMU) zon r. e and establish a tree retention buffe Hearing Date, Time, and Place: December 9, 2009 at 8:00 PMDecember 9, 2009 at 8:00 PM Edmonds City Council Chambers Public Safety Complex 250 ‐ 5th Avenue North I. INTRODUCTION A. APPLICATION 1. Applicant: A.D. S o ehapir Archit cts, PS. 2. Site Location: 9617 Firdale Avenue (“Firdale Village” shopping center – see Attachment 1). 3. Request: Application for a development agreement in order to implement a change in zoning from “Neighborhood Business” (BN) to “Firdale Village Mixed Use” (FVMU) (Attachment 4). 4. Review Process: A development agreement is a “Type V” Legislative application. The Planning Board conducts an open record public hearing and forwards a recommendation to the City Council for the final decision. The City Council may hold its own hearing (ECDC 20.01.003). A rezone is a “Type IV‐B” application. The Planning Board conducts an open record public hearing and forwards a recommendation to the City Council for the final decision. The Council holds a closed record review of the Planning Board’s application. Packet Page 604 of 1136 5. M joa r Issues: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.01 (TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS). b ELOPMENT AGREEMENTS). . Compliance with ECDC Chapter 20.08 (DEV c. Compliance with ECDC 20.40 (REZONES). d. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATION Based on Statements of Fact, Analysis, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report, staff recommends that the Planning Board make a recommendation to the City Council to APPROVE the requested development agreement which would implement a change in zoning from “Neighborhood Business” (BN) to “Firdale Village Mixed Use” (FVMU) at the Firdale Village property. B. II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development and Zoning a. Facts: (1) Size and Shape: The area under review is comprised of 8 parcels of land along Firdale Avenue known collectively as the “Firdale Village” shopping center. The area as a whole is approximately 3.2 acres or roughly 140,000 square feet (Attachment 3). There is one small sliver of a parcel at the north of this site that is not included in this development agreement as it is owned by another entity (see jog in north property line). That vacant 0.02 acre parcel appears to be owned by “SNOHOMISH CO PROP MGMT” and would remain designated BN. Land Use: The property is developed with the Firdale Village shopping center, constructed in 1942 and comprised of many retail stores and offices. PLN200920_PBStaffReport.doc Page 2 of 10 (2) Zoning: Current zoning of the subject properties is Neighborhood Business (BN) as shown on the vicinity map (Attachment 1). “Firdale Village Mixed Use” (FVMU) is the proposed new zone for this site. Courtesy of Snohomish County (3) Packet Page 605 of 1136 The FVMU zone was recently created through a code amendment (AMD20080010) and the FVMU zone is proposed to be applied to this site through a development agreement. The applicant has submitted a arrative on the proposed new zoning at this site and staff generally n agrees with the statements made in this document (Attachment 6). One distinction between the BN zone and other zones is that the BN zone only permits one dwelling unit per lot as a permitted secondary use. The mixed‐use goal described in the Comprehensive Plan (see section II.D of this report) would have the potential to be realized through the proposed FVMU zone while still providing a neighborhood feel through pedestrian‐oriented development. This would be chieved through the strict design standards set in place by the new VMU zone: ECDC 16.100 and ECDC 22.100 (Attachment 7). a F 2. Neighboring Development and Zoning a. Facts: (1) North: Single‐family development in the RS‐8 zone. (2) East: Multi‐family development in the RM‐1.5 zone (known as the Firdale Village Apartments). (3) South: Shoreline / King County (across 244th Street SW/205th Street SW to the south) which is consistently developed with single‐family homes. (4) West: Single‐family development in the RS‐8 zone (Attachment 1). Courtesy of Bing.com B. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) 1. Fact: A Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on November 20, 2009, for the change in o comments or appeals we zoning and development agreement (Attachment 8). N re received. 2. Conclusion: SEPA requirements have been satisfied for the proposal. PLN200920_PBStaffReport.doc Page 3 of 10 Packet Page 606 of 1136 PLN200920_PBStaffReport.doc Page 4 of 10 CONCURRENT APPLICATION TYPES: REZONE AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This project is comprised of essentially two parts: the rezone and the development agreement. The rezone application proposes to change the zone of the Firdale Village site from its current Neighborhood Business (BN) designation to the recently adopted “Firdale Village Mixed Use” (FVMU) zone. The FVMU zone was created to enhance the neighborhood character by creating a livelier pedestrian friendly environment while reflecting the character of neighborhood through specific design elements (Attachment 7). The recently adopted development agreement process (ECDC 20.08) functions much like the old “contract rezone” process where the owner deliberately enters into an agreement offering up mitigation for the zone change. In this case, the owner has offered to keep a large stand of mature trees along the north property line to ease the transition between the single‐family neighborhood to the north and the proposed mixed‐use site at Firdale Village. The development agreement application and the rezone application are processed through two different “types” of review: “Type V” and “Type IV‐B” which are be explained below. The earing body shall make findings on both the rezone and the development agreement. h DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT REVIEW C. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE 1. ECDC Section 20.01 (TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS) a. Facts: (i) A development agreement is listed as a “Type V” decision. ii) Type V decisions are listed as legislative actions as noted in the table below: ( LEGISLATIVE TYPE V Recommendation by:Planning board Final decision by:City council Notice of application:No Open record public hearing or open record appeal of a final decision: Yes, before planning board which makes recommendation to council Closed record review:Yes, or council could hold its own hearing Judicial appeal: Yes (iii) The City Council shall consider the recommendation by the Planning Board. (iv) The proposal is scheduled to be heard by the Council on December 15, 2009. b. Conclusion: The permitting process for the proposed development agreement to implement the rezone is compliant with the Edmonds Community Development Code. Packet Page 607 of 1136 PLN200920_PBStaffReport.doc Page 5 of 10 2. ECDC Section 20.08 (DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS) a. Facts: (i) On September 23, the applicant submitted a thorough criteria statement that addresses all of the rezone criteria and staff generally agrees with these statements (Attachment 6). Next, a development agreement was received soon after the creation and adoption of the new “Firdale Village Mixed Use” (FVMU) zone. Initially, retention of the tree buffer was a requirement of the proposed new zone. The city attorney questioned the ability of the city to require such a buffer under recent Washington case law due to the lack of adequate legislative record supporting the proportionality of the requirement and suggested that it be contained in a development agreement. (ii) A development agreement is a voluntary offering by a developer made to satisfy rezone criteria rather than governmental imposition. (iii) T e e A 5The DRAF d velopment agreem nt is attached ( ttachment ). (iv) Pursuant to ECDC 20.08.020, the following represents the general provisions of development agreements: EC 20.08.020 General provisions of development agreements. A. DC As applicable, the development agreement shall specify the following: 1. Project components which define and detail the permitted uses, residential densities, nonresidential densities and intensities or building sizes; 2. The amount and payment of impact fees imposed or agreed to in accordance with any applicable provisions of state law, any reimbursement provisions, other financial contributions by the property owner, inspection fees, or dedications; 3. Mitigation measures, development conditions and other requirements of Chapter 43.21C RCW; 4. Design standards such as architectural treatment, maximum heights, setbacks, landscaping, her development features; drainage and water quality requirements and ot e; 5. Provisions for affordable housing, if applicabl common open space preservation; 6. Parks and 7. Phasing; 8. A build‐out or vesting period for applicable standards; and 9. Any other appropriate development requirement or procedure which is based upon a city policy, rule, regulation or standard. B. As provided in RCW 36.70B.170, the development agreement shall reserve authority to impose y i hnew or different regulations to the extent required b a ser ous threat to public healt and safety. [Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. (v) The development agreement proposes the establishment of a native growth protection area within a buffer in order to protect an existing strand of native trees located along the north boundary of the property. (vi) The development agreement contains a concurrent enactment of a new zone at this property, the “Firdale Village Mixed Use” zone. Packet Page 608 of 1136 PLN200920_PBStaffReport.doc Page 6 of 10 b. Analysis: The development strives to mitigate the consequences of the rezone and future development. The development agreement can be seen as addressing rezone criteria such as ECDC 20.40.010(C) and (E) relating to the surrounding area and suitability. c. Conclusion: Based on the facts and analysis contained above, planning staff concludes that he proposal satisfies the general provisions for development agreements. t REZONE APPLICATION REVIEW 3. ECDC Section 20.01 (TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS) a. Facts: (i) A rezone application is listed as a “Type IV‐B” application. (ii) “Type IV‐B” applications are “Development Project Permit Applications” as noted in the table below: PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS (TYPE I – IV) TYPE IVB Recommendation by:Planning board Final decision by:City council Notice of application:Yes Open record public hearing or open record appeal of a final decision: Yes, before planning board which n to council makes recommendatio Closed record review:Yes, before the council Judicial appeal: Yes (iii) The City Council shall consider the recommendation by the Planning Board and hold a closed record review. (iv) The proposal is scheduled for the December 15, 2009 Council meeting. b. Conclusion: The permitting process for the proposed rezone is compliant with the Edmonds Community Development Code. 4. ECDC Section 20.40 (REZONES) a. Facts: (i) The FVMU zoning classification is included in Attachment 7 for reference. This zone is broken up into districts for different uses specific to the site conditions at Firdale Village. Packet Page 609 of 1136 PLN200920_PBStaffReport.doc Page 7 of 10 (ii) The general intent and vision for the FVMU zone in ECDC 16.100.000 states: The design vision for Firdale Village is to create a vibrant neighborhood village form of development that strikes a balance between commercial, retail and residential uses and contributes to the vitality of the neighborhood and area. The project is intended to support a variety of commercial and retail uses along with multi-family residential in an environment that is accessible to the pedestrian, visitor, tenant, motorist, and public transit. (iii) ECDC 16.100.010 states the following purposes of the FVMU zone: “to reserve and regulate areas for a ‘neighborhood center’ type of mixed-use development…” and requires that “the codes contained within this chapter are to be used in conjunction with the Firdale Village Design Standards in Chapter 22.100.000 ECDC.” (iv) Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.40.010 provides that, at a minimum, the following factors shall be considered in reviewing an application for a rezone: (1) Comprehensive Plan. Whether the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and, (2) Zoning Ordinance. Whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance, and whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the proposed zone district; and, (3) Surrounding Area. The relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning of surrounding or nearby property; and, (4) Changes. Whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate or surrounding area or in city policy to justify the rezone: and, (5) Suitability. Whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing zoning, and under the proposed zoning. One factor could be the length of time the property has remained undeveloped compared to the surrounding area, and parcels elsewhere with the same zoning; and (6) Value. The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property owners. b. Analysis: (i) Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as “Neighborhood Commercial” (Attachment 2) and more specifically this site is known as the “Firdale Village Neighborhood.” The proposed new FVMU zone is intended to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation. The intent of the rezone is to make the zoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan by bringing a “neighborhood village” feel to this site as visualized in the Plan (goal D.6.b.i). Packet Page 610 of 1136 PLN200920_PBStaffReport.doc Page 8 of 10 (ii) Zoning Ordinance. The FVMU zone is intended to be the corresponding zone for Neighborhood Commercial at Firdale Village. The purposes of the FVMU zone are given in ECDC 16.100 (Attachment 7) and area listed below: A. To reserve and regulate areas for a “neighborhood center” type of mixed- use development that includes a mix of commercial and multi-residential housing types, and a range of greater densities than are available in the single family residential zone; B. To promote a mix of residential, commercial and other uses in a manner that is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan (i.e.: 25% of heated floor area shall be ‘commercial’ space). C. To provide those additional uses which compliment and are compatible with multiple residential uses. D. The Codes contained within this Chapter are to be used in conjunction with the Firdale Village Design Standards in Chapter 22.100.000 ECDC. The proposed change in zoning would allow for a potential mix of uses on this site with aesthetic requirements. (iii) Surrounding Area. Uses in the subject area are commercial – there is no existing residential on site. The surrounding area contains a mix of uses, including multi-family adjacent to the east, single-family to the north and south, and commercial further north along Firdale Avenue. (iv) Changes. The Comprehensive Plan designation for this neighborhood was amended in 2006 which established “Firdale Village” as a specific neighborhood with its own set of goals and policies. These goals and policies were designed to encourage a mix of uses on this site specific to the neighborhood’s pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use, and transit-friendly goals. The zoning change is consistent with this amendment. (v) Suitability. The neighborhood comprising the subject application was the inspiration for the design of the new Firdale Village Mixed Use zone and the Firdale Village Design Standards. Thus, the site is physically suitable for the proposed rezone. The corresponding development agreement would ensure that any future development would take into consideration the adjacent properties through the tree buffer requirement. The site is physically suitable for the proposed zoning. (vi) Value. According to the applicant, the existing buildings appear to be nearing the end of their natural life span. Constructed 67 years ago and annexed into Edmonds only recently in 1997, a major retrofit would be needed and it would be increasingly difficulty to comply with the BN zone restrictions. Also, the new FVMU zone has taken the adjacent properties into consideration through careful application of expanded setbacks, step-backs, and landscaping to assist with privacy and buffering. The Firdale Village Design Standards encourage the use of “green” technologies (such as rain gardens, courtyards, bio-filtration swales, pervious paving, planting strips, green roofs, gray water recycling, etc.) which provide an environmental value the City and beyond. The proposed new zoning would enhance the aesthetic atmosphere of the neighborhood through carefully applied design standards, which is arguably a value to the neighborhood, tenants, and to passers-by. Packet Page 611 of 1136 PLN200920_PBStaffReport.doc Page 9 of 10 c. Conclusions: (i) The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the subject property. (ii) The proposed rezone is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance. Based on the facts and analysis contained above, planning staff concludes that the proposal satisfies the criteria for a change in zoning. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT APPLICATION – AND – REZONE APPLICATION REVIEW D. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE a. Facts: This site is designated “Neighborhood Commercial.” No specific development proposals have been received for this site. In 2006, new goals specific to this site were added to the Comprehensive Plan’s Commercial Development element. But in general, the Neighborhood Commercial goals are provided in pages 56‐57 of the Comprehensive Plan: Neighborhood commercial areas are intended to provide a mix of services, shopping, gathering places, office space, and housing for local neighborhoods. The scale of development and intensity of uses should provide a middle ground between the more intense commercial uses of the Highway 99 Corridor / Medical area and the Downtown Activity Area. Historically, many of the neighborhood commercial areas in Edmonds have developed as classically autooriented commercial ‘strip malls’ with one and two story developments primarily including retail and service uses. Throughout the region, neighborhood commercial areas are departing from this historical model by being redeveloped as appealing mixeduse clusters, providing attractive new pedestrianoriented development that expands the uses and services available to local residents. Page 58 lists two goals and policies specific to Firdale Village: D.6.b. Firdale Village D.6.b.i. In the Firdale Village commercial area, development should include an attractive mix of uses that create a “neighborhood village” pedestrianoriented environment. Commercial spaces shall be oriented towards the street in order to maximize visibility, and parking should be primarily accommodated either behind or underneath structures. D.6.b.ii. Development shall not be more than four stories in height, and the design should focus on breaking up the mass and bulk of buildings by incorporating such features as setbacks, varying rooflines, and landscaping into the design of the site. The mix of uses should not include less than one quarter commercial space. Packet Page 612 of 1136 PLN200920_PBStaffReport.doc Page 10 of 10 b. Analysis: The Comprehensive Plan goals and policies noted above encourage a mix of uses, and the proposed Development Agreement is intended to implement the new Firdale Village Mixed Use zone which includes a mix of uses as well as design standards to achieve the above goals and policies. Also, allowing more than one dwelling unit per lot as required under the current zoning would help move towards achieving GMA housing and density goals. And, the “green” elements of the FVMU zone appear to be consistent with the new Sustainability Element that is expected to be adopted and incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. c. Conclusion: The proposal is consistent with the policy direction in the Comprehensive Plan. E. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE No substantial comments were received from City departments reviewing the proposal. The Building Division noted “no comments at this time, but highly recommend pre application meeting prior to next phase of development planning.” The Engineering Division noted that “a traffic study shall be submitted at the time of application for Architectural Design Board.” F. PUBLIC COMMENTS No public comment letters have been received to date. III. ATTACHMENTS 1. Zoning Map. ap. 3. nd 1:1200 scale). 2. Comprehensive Plan M 4. Aerial Photo Maps (1:2400 scale a 5. Land Use Application. 6. DRAFT Development Agreement. 7. le Village Design Standards. Applicant’s Rezone Criteria Statement. d Firda 8. ecklist. Firdale Village Mixed Use Zone an SEPA DNS and Environmental Ch 9. Public Notices and Declarations. V. PARTIES OF RECORD Tony Shapiro , PS uite 2 A.D. Shapiro Architects 21705 Highway 99 – S Lynnwood WA 98036 WNS Property Inve 500 Roosevelt Wa eattle WA 98115 stmen y NE t, Inc. 9 S Packet Page 613 of 1136 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 9 5 0 7 9515 93 3 3 95239617 95 2 9 97 1 0 2422 3242 1 9 9722 970 0 9726 23904 23910 23918 23926 23925 23919 23911 96 2 8 96 2 2 23930 23929 23921 23915 23911 960596 1 3 96 2 1 962 7970 1 98229904 9907 9821 98 2 9 98 2 1 98 1 9 9815 9813 98 0 3 98 1 1 24 3 2 0 97 2 0 97 2 8 98 0 89815 9816 9 8 1 9 98 1 1 98 0 3 9 7 2 5 9 7 1 9 24232 24 2 2 8 24224 242202 4 2 1 6 24 2 1 2 2 4 2 0 8 242 0 2 9713 96 3 2 96 2 4 96 1 4 96 0 6 96 0 9 96 1 1 96 2 1 98 2 4 98 1 8 98 1 0 98 0 2 96 2 9 97 0 3 97 1 5 243 0 9 971 3243 0 1 242 3 3 242 3 12422 7 9 7 1 2 96 1 1 96 1 9 96 2 7 9701 9917 9905 9903 9901 9902 24105 242 0 1 2412 9 9820 98 0 4 97 3 0 97 2 0 97 2 3 98 0 1 98 0 9 9 8 1 7 9825 98 2 8 98 2 2 98 1 4 98 0 6 97 3 2 97 2 6 97 1 8 97 1 2 97 0 2 96 3 0 96 2 0 96 1 4 9 6 0 8 24015 24007 96 2 1 96 2 9 97 0 3 97 1 1 97 1 7 97 2 5 97 3 1 98 0 5 98 1 3 98 1 9 98 2 5 99 0 1 24007 24015 24025 24031 24105 24115 24123 2412924130 24122 24114 24104 24032 24024 24014 24006 96 2 6 96 2 4 96 1 6 96 0 4 96 0 3 F I R D A L E A V E 240TH PL SW 241ST P L SW 243RD PL SW 9 6 T H P L W 240TH ST 242ND PL SW 2 3 9 T H ST SW 2 4 2 N D P L 2 4 2 N D S T 9 7 T H P L W 240TH ST SW 244TH ST SW /205TH ST NW 9 5 T H P L W ]A.D. Shapiro AssociatesFirdale Village Rezone and Development AgreementFile Number PLN20090020Firdale Village Shopping Center (BN Zone)0 200100 Feet SITE Attachment 1Zoning & Vicinity Map BNZone RS-8Zone F I R D A L E A V E RM-1.5Zone Packet Page 614 of 1136 9 5 0 7 9515 93 3 3 95239617 95 2 9 97 1 0 24118 2422 3242 1 9 24130 9722 970 0 24011 9726 23904 23910 23918 23926 23925 23919 23911 96 2 8 96 2 2 23930 23929 23921 23915 23911 960596 1 3 96 2 1 962 7970 1 97099715 96 3 0 9620 98229904 9907 9821 9905 98 2 9 98 2 1 98 1 9 9815 9813 98 0 3 98 1 1 24 3 2 0 97 2 0 97 2 8 98 0 89815 9816 9 8 1 9 98 1 1 98 0 3 9 7 2 5 9 7 1 9 24232 24 2 2 8 24224 242202 4 2 1 6 24 2 1 2 2 4 2 0 8 24204 242 0 2 9713 96 3 2 96 2 4 96 1 4 96 0 6 96 0 9 96 1 1 96 2 1 24114 99 0 8 98 3 2 98 2 4 98 1 8 98 1 0 98 0 2 96 2 9 97 0 3 97 1 5 243 0 9 971 3243 0 1 242 3 3 242 3 12422 7 9 7 1 2 96 1 1 96 1 9 96 2 7 9701 9923 991999179911 9909 9905 9903 9901 9902 99 0 4 99 0 6 24105 242 0 1 2412 9 9820 98 0 4 97 3 0 97 2 0 97 2 3 98 0 1 98 0 9 9 8 1 7 9825 99 0 4 98 2 8 98 2 2 98 1 4 98 0 6 97 3 2 97 2 6 97 1 8 97 1 2 97 0 2 96 3 0 96 2 0 96 1 4 9 6 0 8 24015 24007 96 2 1 96 2 9 97 0 3 97 1 1 97 1 7 97 2 5 97 3 1 98 0 5 98 1 3 98 1 9 98 2 5 99 0 1 24007 24015 24025 24031 24105 24115 24123 2412924130 24122 24114 24104 24032 24024 24014 24006 96 2 6 96 2 4 96 1 6 96 0 4 96 0 3 F I R D A L E A V E 240TH PL SW 241ST P L SW 243RD PL SW 9 6 T H P L W 240TH ST 242ND PL SW 2 3 9 T H ST SW 2 4 2 N D P L 2 4 2 N D S T 238TH ST SW 9 7 T H P L W 240TH ST SW 244TH ST SW /205TH ST NW 9 5 T H P L W ]A.D. Shapiro AssociatesFirdale Village Rezone and Development AgreementFile Number PLN20090020Firdale Village Shopping Center (BN Zone)0 200100 Feet SITE Attachment 2Comprehensive Plan Map NeighborhoodCommercial Single FamilyUrban-1 F I R D A L E A V E Multi FamilyHigh Density Packet Page 615 of 1136 9 5 0 7 9515 93 3 3 95239617 95 2 9 97 1 0 2422 3242 1 9 9722 970 0 9726 23904 23910 23918 23926 23925 23919 23911 96 2 8 96 2 2 23930 23929 23921 23915 23911 960596 1 3 96 2 1 962 7970 1 9822 9821 98 2 9 98 2 1 98 1 9 9815 9813 98 0 3 98 1 1 24 3 2 0 97 2 0 97 2 8 98 0 89815 9816 9 8 1 9 98 1 1 98 0 3 9 7 2 5 9 7 1 9 24232 24 2 2 8 24224 242202 4 2 1 6 24 2 1 2 2 4 2 0 8 242 0 2 9713 96 3 2 96 2 4 96 1 4 96 0 6 96 0 9 96 1 1 96 2 1 98 2 4 98 1 8 98 1 0 98 0 2 96 2 9 97 0 3 97 1 5 243 0 9 971 3243 0 1 242 3 3 242 3 12422 7 9 7 1 2 96 1 1 96 1 9 96 2 7 9701 9905 9903 9901 9902 24105 242 0 1 2412 9 9820 98 0 4 97 3 0 97 2 0 97 2 3 98 0 1 98 0 9 9 8 1 7 9825 98 2 8 98 2 2 98 1 4 98 0 6 97 3 2 97 2 6 97 1 8 97 1 2 97 0 2 96 3 0 96 2 0 96 1 4 9 6 0 8 24015 24007 96 2 1 96 2 9 97 0 3 97 1 1 97 1 7 97 2 5 97 3 1 98 0 5 98 1 3 98 1 9 98 2 5 24007 24015 24025 24031 24105 24115 24123 2412924130 24122 24114 24104 24032 24024 24014 24006 96 2 6 96 2 4 96 1 6 96 0 4 96 0 3 F I R D A L E A V E 240TH PL SW 241ST P L SW 243RD PL SW 9 6 T H P L W 240TH ST 242ND PL SW 2 3 9 T H ST SW 2 4 2 N D P L 2 4 2 N D S T 9 7 T H P L W 240TH ST SW 244TH ST SW /205TH ST NW 9 5 T H P L W ]A.D. Shapiro AssociatesFirdale Village Rezone and Development AgreementFile Number PLN20090020Firdale Village Shopping Center (BN Zone)0 200100 Feet Attachment 3Aerial Vicinity Map F I R D A L E A V E Packet Page 616 of 1136 95239617 95 2 9 97 1 0 2422 3242 1 9 9722 970 0 24 3 2 0 97 2 0 97 2 8 9 7 2 5 9 7 1 9 24232 96 1 4 243 0 9 971 3243 0 1 242 3 3 242 3 12422 7 9 7 1 2 96 1 1 96 1 9 96 2 7 970197 3 0 9 7 2 0 24130 96 2 6 96 2 4 96 1 6 96 0 4 96 0 3 243RD PL SW 242ND PL S W 244TH ST SW/205TH ST NW ]A.D. Shapiro AssociatesFirdale Village Rezone and Development AgreementFile Number PLN20090020Firdale Village Shopping Center (BN Zone)0 10050 Feet Attachment 3Aerial Vicinity Map F I R D A L E A V E Packet Page 617 of 1136 P a c k e t P a g e 6 1 8 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 1 9 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 2 0 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 2 1 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 2 2 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 2 3 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 2 4 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 2 5 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 2 6 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 2 7 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 2 8 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 2 9 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 3 0 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 3 1 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 3 2 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 3 3 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 3 4 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 3 5 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 3 6 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 3 7 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 3 8 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 3 9 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 4 0 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 4 1 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 4 2 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 4 3 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 4 4 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 4 5 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 4 6 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 4 7 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 4 8 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 4 9 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 5 0 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 5 1 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 5 2 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 5 3 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 5 4 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 5 5 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 5 6 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 5 7 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 5 8 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 5 9 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 6 0 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 6 1 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 6 2 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 6 3 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 6 4 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 6 5 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 6 6 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 6 7 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 6 8 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 6 9 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 7 0 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 7 1 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 7 2 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 7 3 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 7 4 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 7 5 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 7 6 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 7 7 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 7 8 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 7 9 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 8 0 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 8 1 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 8 2 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 8 3 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 8 4 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 8 5 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 8 6 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 8 7 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 8 8 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 8 9 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 9 0 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 9 1 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 9 2 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 9 3 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 6 9 4 o f 1 1 3 6 DRAFT Subject to January 13th Approval CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES December 9, 2009 Vice Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Philip Lovell, Vice Chair Cary Guenther John Reed Judith Works Kevin Clarke Valerie Stewart BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Michael Bowman, Chair (excused) Jim Young (excused) STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Gina Coccia, Planner Karin Noyes, Recorder READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES BOARD MEMBER REED MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 4, 2009 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER WORKS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA No changes were made to the agenda. AUDIENCE COMMENTS No one in the audience expressed a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting. PRESENTATION BY MAYOR HAAKENSON Mayor Haakenson thanked Board Member Works for her seven years of volunteer service on the Planning Board and presented her with a plaque. He noted that Board Member Young would also retire from the Board at the end of 2009, and he would be present at the Board’s first meeting in January to accept his plaque. Mayor Haakenson thanked the entire Board for their volunteer service on behalf of the City. Mayor Haakenson also advised that he would interview candidates for the vacant Board positions on December 10th and would make a recommendation to the City Council for final approval on December 15th. ELECTION OF PLANNING BOARD CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR FOR 2010 Board Member Guenther advised that he recently spoke with Board Member Bowman, who indicated he would be willing to serve an additional year as chair of the Board. Packet Page 695 of 1136 BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER NOMINATED BOARD MEMBER BOWMAN TO SERVE AS CHAIR OF THE BOARD IN 2010. BOARD MEMBER CLARK SECONDED THE NOMINATION. THERE WERE NO OTHER NOMINATIONS. ALL BOARD MEMBERS VOTED IN FAVOR OF BOARD MEMBER BOWMAN SERVING AS CHAIR IN 2010. BOARD MEMBER WORKS NOMINATED BOARD MEMBER LOVELL TO SERVE AS VICE CHAIR OF THE BOARD IN 2010. BOARD MEMBER CLARK SECONDED THE NOMINATION. THERE WERE NO OTHER NOMINATIONS. ALL BOARD MEMBERS VOTED IN FAVOR OF BOARD MEMBER LOVELL SERVING AS VICE CHAIR IN 2010. PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT A CHANGE IN ZONING FOR PROPERTIES KNOWN AS “FIRDALE VILLAGE” FROM NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS (BN) TO THE “FIRDALE VILLAGE MIXED USE” (FVMU) ZONE AND ESTABLISH A TREE RETENTION BUFFER Board Member Lovell entered a letter from Tamra Ancona dated December 9, 2009, into the record as Attachment 10. In her letter she provided some ideas for what she would like to see developed on the properties known as Firdale Village. Board Member Reed clarified that the public hearing is actually regarding two items, a Development Agreement and a rezone application. He pointed out that the Development Agreement is a Type V Action so the City Council has the option of holding another public hearing before making a final decision. However, the rezone application is a Type 4B Action, and the City Council would have a closed record review on the record that was established at the Planning Board hearing. No additional public hearing would be held on the rezone application. Board Member Reed said it appears the proposed rezone application is requesting a rezone to a designation that has not yet been adopted by the City Council. Mr. Chave clarified that the City Council has already adopted the FVMU zoning ordinance. Board Member Reed observed that it has not been posted on the website as part of the City’s Development Code. Mr. Chave agreed and pointed out that there is a lag time between adoption of an ordinance and when the actual Development Code document is updated. Mr. Chave explained that the applicant is asking for a change in zoning, which is a standard rezone process. In the past, the City has allowed contract rezones that identified specific conditions that would apply to the change. However, State Law supersedes contract rezones with the development agreement option, which is a contract that modifies or adds certain conditions in the change of zoning above and beyond what a simple change of zoning would do. The proposed Development Agreement would require a landscape buffer that would not otherwise be required by a straight change in zoning. The applicant’s intent is to provide certain conditions in the Development Agreement that would improve the compatibility of the proposal with the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Board has the responsibility of conducting a public hearing for both items, but the change in zoning would come before the City Council as a closed record review, and the Development Agreement would be an open record review. He suggested the City Council would likely conduct a public hearing on the Development Agreement first and then conduct their closed record review on the rezone application. He emphasized that both items are quasi-judicial actions, and the Board could forward a separate recommendation for each item, or they could formulate a single recommendation. Board Member Reed summarized that there would be no additional opportunity for the public to comment regarding the rezone application when it comes before the City Council for review. Vice Chair Lovell invited Board Members to disclose any comments they might have received regarding the subject of the hearing outside of the hearing. None of the Board Members disclosed ex parte contacts, and no one from the audience voiced a concern, either. Ms. Coccia referred to the Staff Report and specifically reviewed the rezone criteria the Board must consider when reviewing rezone applications as follows: DRAFT Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2009 Page 2 Packet Page 696 of 1136 1. Comprehensive Plan. Whether the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Coccia pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as “Neighborhood Commercial” and more specifically, the site is known as the “Firdale Village Neighborhood.” The proposed new FVMU zone is intended to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation, and the rezone is intended to make the zoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan by bringing a “neighborhood village” feel to the site as visualized in the plan. 2. Zoning Ordinance. Whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the proposed zone district. Ms. Coccia advised that the FVMU zone is intended to be the corresponding zone for the Neighborhood Commercial at Firdale Village. The purposes of the FVMLU zone are given in ECDC 16.100. 3. Surrounding Area. The relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning of surrounding and nearby property. Ms. Coccia observed that uses in the subject area are commercial, and there is no existing residential development on the site. The surrounding area contains a mixture of uses, including multi-family adjacent to the east, single-family to the north and south, and commercial further north along Firdale Avenue. 4. Changes. Whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate or surrounding area or in City policy to justify the rezone. Ms. Coccia reminded the Board that the Comprehensive Plan designation for the subject property was amended in 2006 to establish “Firdale Village” as a specific neighborhood with its own set of goals and policies, which were designed to encourage a mix of uses on the site specific to the neighborhood’s pedestrian- friendly, mixed-use, and transit-friendly goals. The zoning change would be consistent with this amendment. 5. Suitability. Whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing zoning and under the proposed zoning. One factor could be the length of time the property has remained undeveloped compared to the surrounding area, and parcels elsewhere with the same zoning. Ms. Coccia advised that the neighborhood comprising the subject application was the inspiration for the design of the new FVMU zone, and the Firdale Village Design Standards. Therefore, the site is physically suitable for the proposed rezone. The corresponding Development Agreement would ensure that any future development would take into consideration the adjacent properties through the tree buffer requirement. Staff believes the site is physically suitable for the proposed zoning. 6. Value. The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property owners. Ms. Coccia pointed out that the new FVMU zone has taken the adjacent properties into consideration through careful application of expanded setbacks, step backs, and landscaping to assist with privacy and buffering. In addition, the design standards encourage the use of “green” technologies, which provide an environmental value to the City. The proposed zoning would also enhance the aesthetic atmosphere of the neighborhood through carefully applied design standards, which are arguably a value to the neighborhood, tenants and passers-by. Ms. Coccia summarized that based on the facts and analysis contained in the Staff Report, staff concludes the proposal satisfies the criteria for a change in zoning. She recommended the Board forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council. Vice Chair Lovell asked where tree retention as a buffer is addressed in the Staff Report. Ms. Coccia pointed out that this issue is specifically addressed in the Development Agreement (Attachment 5) Tony Shapiro, A.D. Shapiro Architects, Applicant, explained that the Development Agreement was prepared by the City Attorney in response to his concerns about ensuring that the 20-foot buffer on the north side of the subject property is retained. The City Attorney expressed concern that without the proposed Development Agreement, a future developer could attempt to sidestep the criteria for the 20-foot setback because no where else in the City is such a setback established in a zoning ordinance. He noted that the Development Agreement identifies the buffer area as a “native growth protection easement.” He summarized that the purpose of the agreement is to ensure that the trees remain intact after the development has been completed. DRAFT Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2009 Page 3 Packet Page 697 of 1136 Board Member Clarke asked if the Development Agreement would require the property owner to maintain the quality of the plantings in the buffer area. Mr. Shapiro answered that the City does have penalties if trees are damaged during construction, but the proposed Development Agreement does not specifically state what the result would be if some of the trees are damaged. Mr. Chave explained that the project would require design review, which would ensure the buffer is maintained. Any maintenance requirements would be imposed as part of design review. The property owner would be required to replace any trees that are damaged. Board Member Clarke asked if the property owner would be required to replace any trees that are damaged or fall down during the life of the project. He observed that the buffer is intended to buffer between the existing single-family residential development and the proposed high-density development. Mr. Shapiro reminded the Board that a landscape plan would be required at the time a project is permitted. However, minimal additional landscaping would be required in this area because it is already heavily treed. Board Member Reed suggested that Section 2 of the proposed Development Agreement (Attachment 5) addresses Board Member Clarke’s concern and maintenance. Mr. Chave clarified that the Native Growth Protection Easement would create an obligation for the property owner to maintain the buffer area because the easement would be recorded and considered as part design review. Board Member Reed referred to Section 1.2 on Page 2 of the Development Agreement and asked if new property owner would be bound by the conditions of the Development Agreement if the property were sold in the future. Mr. Chave answered affirmatively. Board Member Reed pointed out that all references to the “Firdale Zone” should be changed to the “Firdale Village Mixed Use Zone.” He also noted that the language in Section 2.3 on Page 2 of the Development Agreement should be updated to indicate that Chapter 16.1000 ECDC has already been adopted by the City Council. Mr. Shapiro referred to Attachment 6, in which he responded to each of the rezone criteria. He briefly reviewed each of the criteria as follows: 1. Comprehensive Plan. Whether the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Shapiro pointed out that all seven properties are classified under the “Neighborhood Commercial” Comprehensive Plan designation. To illustrate how the proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, he referred to the following Goals for Neighborhood Commercial Areas: D. Neighborhood commercial areas are intended to provide a mix of services, shopping, gathering places, office space and housing for local neighborhoods. Mr. Shapiro expressed his belief that the permitted uses in the FVMU Zone would enhance the neighborhood character by reinvigorating the existing commercial development to a livelier, pedestrian environment that reduces the focus on the automobile. D.1. Should be located at major arterial intersections and designed to minimize interference with through. Mr. Shapiro pointed out that the subject property is located on Firdale Avenue and will access the street at the intersection with 3rd Avenue Northwest. The criterion in the zoning language limits the maximum curb cuts to three along Firdale Avenue. D.2. Permit uses in neighborhood commercial areas that are intended to serve the local neighborhood. Mixed-use development should be encouraged within neighborhood commercial areas. Mr. Shapiro again noted that the site is located on Firdale Avenue and the primary access point would be at the intersection with 3rd Avenue Northwest. D.3. Provide for transit and pedestrian access, with the provision of facilities for local automobile traffic. Provide for pedestrian connections to nearby residential neighborhoods. Mr. Shapiro pointed out that the proposed project would be required to provide access to transit facilities by a crosswalk, traffic signals, etc. The commercial buildings and open plazas would be configured towards the street frontage, and a covering over the sidewalk along Firdale Avenue would be required. D.4. Allow a variety of architectural styles while encouraging public art and sustainable development practices that support pedestrian activity and provide for appealing gathering places. Mr. Shapiro pointed out that the adopted design standards for the FVMU Zone would address various aspects of architectural style, etc. D.5. Significant attention should be paid to the design of ground level commercial spaces, which must accommodate a variety of commercial uses, have street-level entrances, and storefront facades that are dominated by transparent windows. Mr. Shapiro pointed out that, prior to adoption of the FVMU Zone language, the City Council expressed concern that the ground floor commercial spaces should be reserved for small scale retail uses, and the upper floors DRAFT Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2009 Page 4 Packet Page 698 of 1136 D.6. Encourage neighborhood commercial areas to reflect the identity and character of individual neighborhoods, thus strengthening their importance as neighborhood centers. Mr. Shapiro pointed out that the commercial uses would be against the street edge, and the residential component would be located along the treed buffer area to address the unique geography of the site and its relationship to Firdale Village. D.6.b.i. In the Firdale Village commercial area, development should include an attractive mix of uses that create a “neighborhood village” pedestrian oriented environment. Commercial spaces shall be oriented toward the street in order to maximize visibility, and parking should be primarily accommodated either behind or underneath structures. Mr. Shapiro pointed out that the zoning language would not allow large retail uses to locate in the proposed development. The definite goal is small-scale retail uses. D.6.b.ii. Development shall be no more than four stories in height, and the design should focus on breaking up the mass and bulk of buildings by incorporating such features as setbacks, varying rooflines, and landscaping in the design of the site. The mix of uses should include not less than one quarter commercial space. Mr. Shapiro observed that development in District 1 would be limited to 30 feet in height, and development in District 2 would be limited to four stories. 2. Zoning Ordinance. Whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the proposed zone district. Mr. Shapiro recalled that one objective of the new FVMU zone is to reserve areas for retail stores, offices, and retail service establishments that offer goods and services needed on an every-day basis by residents of a neighborhood. Another objective is to ensure compact, convenient development patterns by allowing uses that operate chiefly within buildings. He explained that the objective of the proposal it to provide an opportunity for small, retail-type development that would serve the immediate neighborhood. He further advised that because the Neighborhood Business (BN) zone only allows one dwelling unit per lot, it effectively prohibits modern, mixed-use developments. The new FVMU Zone does not limit the number of residential units per site. Instead, it controls density by mandating a parking requirement and a maximum height limit. He expressed his belief that the proposed FVMU Zone would help create a neighborhood-oriented development that would serve the immediate neighborhood, as well as opportunities to house commercial office type uses on the second floor. The location of the site could also augment the regional centers of Westgate Village and Aurora Village. 3. Surrounding Area. The relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning of surrounding and nearby property. Mr. Shapiro explained that one of the challenges of the sites is its adjacency to single-family residential development to the north. However, the topographical changes and the large treed setback area would provide an adequate buffer to address the single-family adjacent to multi-family aspect. The property adjacent to the single-family residential development would be a type of residential (multi-family), as well. 4. Changes. Whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate or surrounding area or in City policy to justify the rezone. Mr. Shapiro summarized that the existing commercial facility is approaching the end of its natural life span and is in need of major renovation or replacement. However, renovating the existing complex would not address the changing life style patterns in the region. Nor would it address the State’s Growth Management Act nor the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. 5. Suitability. Whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing zoning and under the proposed zoning. One factor could be the length of time the property has remained undeveloped compared to the surrounding area, and parcels elsewhere with the same zoning. Mr. Shapiro pointed out that one goal of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is to place higher-density residential uses on major arterials, which is a very good reason to rezone the subject property to allow more than one residential unit per lot. 6. Value. The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property owners. Mr. Shapiro said he does not belief the current zoning represents the highest and best use for the site. The different configuration proposed in the FVMU Zone would be a more suitable response to the current conditions and growth patterns in the area. DRAFT Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2009 Page 5 Packet Page 699 of 1136 Board Member Reed recalled an earlier presentation by Mr. Shapiro in which a property owner expressed concern about the proposed height of development adjacent to her property. He asked if the zoning language was amended to address her concern. Mr. Shapiro clarified that this person actually owns property that is two lots removed from the subject site. However, the zoning language was amended to require a step back along this edge so there would be no three-story structure immediately adjacent to the single-family residential property. He noted that this change resulted in a loss of approximately 12 units. Board Member Reed inquired if the landscaped courtyard is a requirement of the zoning code. Mr. Shapiro answered that the zoning code requires 20% of the property to be retained as open space, and the open space must incorporate certain aspects as outlined in the zoning language. Vice Chair Lovell asked Mr. Shapiro to share the changes that were made to the zoning language prior to City Council adoption. Mr. Shapiro said that in addition to amending the language to require retail space on the ground floor, he met numerous times with a committee of the City Council and most of the “shoulds” were changed to “shall.” Board Member Clarke referred to the zoning language related to “public meeting space” and noted that a 500-foot meeting space would be quite small. Mr. Shapiro pointed out that because the language uses the word “should,” a public meeting space would not be mandatory. Board Member Clarke asked if any of the City Council Members raised a concern about this requirement. Mr. Shapiro answered that they did not. Board Member Clarke expressed concern that a small public meeting room would be underutilized. Mr. Shapiro agreed but reminded the Board that a meeting room would not be a mandatory requirement. Mr. Chave explained that because the word “should” was used in the language, the intent was to point a future developer in that direction, but not make it an absolute requirement. Vice Chair Lovell expressed concern that most of the “shoulds” were changed to “shall.” He asked Mr. Shapiro to share his opinion about how these changes would impact the zoning and future development of the site. Mr. Shapiro said that changing the “shoulds” to “shalls” definitely makes it more challenging for a developer. He noted that the most significant impediments are the requirements for underground parking and 20% open space. He explained that while underground parking is desirable, it is also very costly. The project must be high end in order to make underground parking pencil out. However, he acknowledged that because of the unique topography of the site, not as much excavation would be required as with a typical development. On the other hand, he noted that two utility lines run through the site and would have to be relocated at a significant cost to the developer. He expressed concern that the property might lay dormant for a number of years until the economy significantly improves. Board Member Works pointed out that in her letter to the Board, Ms. Ancona suggests the property owner consider the option of developing affordable housing for senior citizens. However, this is not likely to occur given the challenges of the property. Mr. Shapiro pointed out that one option that has been discussed is an extended care facility for seniors, which would be a fairly expensive project. Board Member Works noted that this type of facility would not provide affordable senior housing, and Mr. Shapiro agreed that the underground parking requirement would not likely allow a developer to provide low-cost housing options. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. NO ONE IN THE AUDIENCE EXPRESSED A DESIRE TO ADDRESS THE BOARD, AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. BOARD MEMBER REED MOVED THE BOARD FORWARD THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE FIRDALE VILLAGE PROPERTY TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL BASED ON THE VERBIAGE CHANGES NOTED EARLIER. BOARD MEMBER WORKS SECONDED THE MOTION. Board Member Reed observed that because the Development Agreement is a Type V Action, the City Council could choose to hold an additional public hearing before making a final decision. Board Member Clarke expressed his belief that the property owner (applicant) has gone the extra mile, recognizing the number of times he has come before the Board and the City Council, to create a proposal that would blend in with the DRAFT Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2009 Page 6 Packet Page 700 of 1136 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes December 3, 2009 Page 7 community. He adequately addressed the concerns raised by the neighbors related to the buffer, and the proposed rezone represents a solid solution for the subject property. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER MOVED THE BOARD FORWARD FILE NUMBER PLN20090020 (REQUEST TO REZONE FIRDALE VILLAGE PROPERTIES TO FVMU) TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT AND THE APPLICANT’S WRITTEN AND ORAL TESTIMONY. Board Member Works voiced concern about the City Council’s decision to change most of the “shoulds” to “shalls.” She questioned whether the change would end up pushing redevelopment of the site further into the future. If the City Council wants to encourage affordable housing, perhaps they should reconsider their decision. If the zoning regulations are too tight, no new redevelopment will occur in Edmonds. Board Member Clarke concurred. Board Member Reed emphasized that because the rezone is a Type 4B action, the item would be forwarded to the City Council for a closed record review based on the record established at the Planning Board Meeting. No additional public input would be accepted. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CLIMATE CONTROL ACTION PLAN DISCUSSION OF STEPS AND PROCEDURES TO NAME THE NEW PARK BEING BUILT AT 162 STREET IN NORTH EDMONDS ISSUES AND CONCEPS TO HIGHLIGHT IN THE JANUARY REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The Commission meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Packet Page 701 of 1136 {WSS742015.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 1 D R A F T (SUGGESTIONS BY THE PLANNING BOARD MADE 12.09.2009) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WHEREAS, RCW 36.70B.170 et seq and Title 20 of the Edmonds Community Development Code authorize Development Agreements between the City of Edmonds and persons having ownership or control over real property regarding the imposition of development standards and other provisions that apply to, govern and vest the development, use and mitigation of the development of real property governed by the agreement, and WHEREAS, the undersigned property owner has applied to the City for the creation of a new zoning district to be known as the Firdale Village Mixed-Use Zone, and WHEREAS, in its proposal, the owner has proposed the establishment of a native growth protection area within a buffer in order to protect an existing stand of native trees located along the north boundary of the property, and WHEREAS, while the owner has voluntarily proposed such an imposition, the parties to this agreement are cognizant of the provisions of RCW 82.02.020 as interpreted by the Washington Court of Appeals in Citizens Alliance for Property Rights v. Sims, 145 Wash. App. 649 (2008), and WHEREAS, jurisdictions are required to show that clearing requirements, native growth set-asides and other similar protections fall within the exception created in RCW 82.02.020 as necessary to “mitigate a direct impact that has been identified as a consequence of a proposed development, subdivision, or plat,” and WHEREAS, the parties wish to enter into this agreement as a part of and as an adjunct to the creation of a new zone in order that the owner can voluntarily create a Native Growth Protection Easement for the protection of an existing stand of trees thereby ensuring the protection and maintenance of such nature trees, and WHEREAS, the City, by the approval of this agreement and a concurrent enactment of a zoning ordinance of even date establishing the Firdale Village mixed Mixed use Use zone, finds that such proposed zoning change, conditioned as set forth in this agreement, meets the criteria of its comprehensive plan and zoning code: [please insert referenced to Comp Plan policies that would be promoted], D.6.b. Firdale Village D.6.b.i. In the Firdale Village commercial area, development should include an attractive mix of uses that create a “neighborhood village” pedestrian-oriented environment. Commercial spaces shall be oriented towards the street in order to maximize Packet Page 702 of 1136 {WSS742015.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 2 visibility, and parking should be primarily accommodated either behind or underneath structures. D.6.b.ii. Development shall not be more than four stories in height, and the design should focus on breaking up the mass and bulk of buildings by incorporating such features as setbacks, varying rooflines, and landscaping into the design of the site. The mix of uses should not include less than one quarter commercial space. NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL BENEFITS TO BE DERIVED, and the authorization of RCW 35.70B.170 et seq, the parties have entered into this Agreement under the terms and conditions set forth herein. 1. Parties. 1.1 “City” shall mean the City of Edmonds, Washington, a municipal corporation. 1.2 “Developer” shall mean the undersigned property owner, _________________ a Washington corporation. 2. Subject Property. 2.1 “Site.” The private property subject to this Agreement is shown on the attached Exhibit A and is legally described on attached Exhibit B. This development agreement relates to the development the establishment on the site of a Native Growth Protection Easement and vesting to the terms of the Firdale Village Mixed Use Zone. 2.2 “Native Growth Protection Easement” in the form shown on the attached Exhibit C shall be established in order to preserve and protect the existing stand of fir trees on the site. The Native Growth Protection Easement shall be preserved and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the attached covenant, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. 2.3 “Firdale Village Mixed Use Zone” shall mean the proposed Chapter 16.100 ECDC as actually adopted by the City. 3. Purposes. The primary purpose of this Agreement is to preserve and protect the stand of native trees on the north boundary of the site and for the Developer to acknowledge that the covenant protecting such trees by Native Growth Protection Easement has been voluntarily created in order to provide evidence of and in furtherance of the Comprehensive Plan goals referenced herein. The establishment of this Native Growth Protection Easement is the voluntary act of the Developer and serves as consideration for the City’s promises as contained herein. 4. Term. Packet Page 703 of 1136 {WSS742015.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 3 4.1 The term of this Agreement shall be five years following the date of approval of this agreement by the Edmonds City Council. No amendment of this agreement may be undertaken without the express written consent of the parties, and following public hearing. The initial approval of this agreement and any amendment thereof are development agreements adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70B.170 et seq. Because such agreement is by its vesting provision (see 5.2 below) linked to the issuance of a development permit, it is subject to review pursuant to RCW 36.70C of the Revised Code of Washington. 4.2 The obligations established by the parties shall be completed within the five year period, provided, however, that nothing herein shall be interpreted to limit the life of the Native Growth Protection Easement created pursuant to this agreement. The Native Growth Protection Easement shall continue in perpetuity until released by the City. 5. Obligations of the Parties. 5.1 The Developer shall, at its cost, within sixty days of the date of approval of this agreement, record the Native Growth Protection Easement in the form shown on the attached Exhibit C in the land records of Snohomish County, Washington. 5.2 Upon recording of the Easement, the Developer shall vest in the right to develop the site in accordance with the terms, standards and requirements set forth in the Firdale Village Mixed-Use Zone, Chapter 16.100 and the Design Standards contained in 22.100 of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Regardless of any change in these provisions of the Code, the Developer shall be vested in the provisions of the Code as it is adopted this date for a period of five years. This vesting right must be exercised by the filing of a fully completed development permit application, with fees fully paid, within the five year period. The development application shall be subject to all requirements of Title 20 of the Edmonds Community Development Code and the procedures and processes established thereunder by such Code as the same exists on the date of this agreement, and shall also be vested for the five year period. 6. Indemnity. 6.1 The Developer agrees to in indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees from any claim, loss or liability of any kind or nature arising from or out of the approval of this Agreement. This promise to indemnify and hold harmless specifically includes the reasonable costs of legal defense by counsel of the City’s choosing of this Agreement, and/or of any other claim, loss or liability arising from the Developer’s actions. The indemnitor Developer also waives any immunity which it may have under Title 51 RCW to, but only to, the extent necessary to indemnify the City, its officers, agents and employees. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to require the Developer to indemnify the City from the intentional wrongful acts of its officers, agents or employees or the concurrent negligence of the City, as determined in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. Packet Page 704 of 1136 {WSS742015.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 4 6.2 The City promises to indemnify and hold harmless the Developer, its officers, agents and employees from any claim, loss or liability arising from the negligence, tortious or intentional wrongful or illegal act of the City in the execution of the City’s obligations under this Agreement. This promise to indemnify and hold harmless shall include the reasonable costs of legal defense by counsel of the Developer’s choosing. The indemnitor City also waives any immunity which it may have under Title 51 RCW to, but only to, the extent necessary to fully indemnify the Developer, its officers, agents and employees. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to require the City to indemnify the Developer from the intentional wrongful acts of its officers, agents or employees, or the concurrent negligence of the Developer as determined in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. 6.3 These indemnity and hold harmless agreements have been mutually negotiated by the parties as a part of this Agreement. 7. Venue. The sole venue for interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement shall be the Superior Court of Snohomish County, Washington. 8. Reservation of Authority. In accordance with the requirements of RCW 36.70B.170, this Development Agreement expressly reserves authority to impose new or different regulations to the extent required by serious threat to public health and safety. 9. Recording. This Agreement shall be recorded with the Snohomish County Auditor at the expense of the Developer. CITY OF EDMONDS By: Mayor Gary Haakenson ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: By: Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: W. Scott Snyder, City Attorney DEVELOPER By: Its: Packet Page 705 of 1136 {WSS742015.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 5 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) 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 ______________________________________ to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. DATED: ___________________ NOTARY PUBLIC Printed Name: My appointment expires: Packet Page 706 of 1136 EXHIBIT A SITE MAP (NOT TO SCALE) Packet Page 707 of 1136 EXHIBIT B LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 13, AND 14, FORSHEE'S FIRDALE VILLAGE, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 14 OF PLATS, ON PAGE 27; EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF SAID LOTS 2, 3, 4, 5, REPLATTED AS FORSHEE'S FIRDALE VILLAGE NO.5, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 20 OF PLATS, ON PAGE 45; EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF LOT 3, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: ALL THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M., DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTH ONE-HALF OF THE NORTH ONE-HALF OF THE ABOVE SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE SOUTH 1-42'29" WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER, 510.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88-26'50" WEST, 75.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 88-26'50" WEST, 104.06 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 72-21 '54" EAST, 108.30 FEET; THENCE NORTH 1-33'10" EAST, 30.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; TOGETHER WITH VACATED CUL-DE-SAC SHOWN ON THE ORIGINAL PLAT AS 243RD PLACE SOUTHWEST. SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. Packet Page 708 of 1136 {WSS742191.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 1 EXHIBIT C NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTION EASEMENT THE GRANTOR, -___________________________________________, for and in consideration of the adoption of a Development Agreement approved by the Edmonds City Council, hereby grants and conveys to the Grantee, the City of Edmonds, a Washington municipal corporation, its successors and assigns, a perpetual native growth protection easement in, on, upon, over, under, across, along and through the real property legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. This easement is established in order to preserve native vegetation for all purposes that benefit the public health, safety and welfare, including controlled surface water erosion, visual and aural buffering, protection of plant and animal habitat, replanting and restocking of plants or animal habitat, and any other actions deemed necessary by the Grantee to preserve and protect the native growth protection area, including, but not limited to, construction of water flow devices or other facilities. The area described on Exhibit A shall remain in a substantially natural state. With the exception of the removal of vegetation which is dead, diseased or hazardous as determined by the Grantee, no clearing, grading, filling, building, construction replacement, fence construction, or road construction of any kind shall occur within or under this area. This easement and the conditions thereof shall be a covenant running with the land and shall be binding on the successors, heirs and assigns of the owners of the land. The Grantee, its successors and assigns, shall have the right but not the obligation without prior institution of any suits or proceeding of law, at any time as may be deemed necessary by the Grantee, to enter upon said easement for the purpose of protecting and preserving the native growth protection area. Nothing in this easement shall obligate the City of Edmonds to perform any activity or to utilize the easement for any purpose. Grantor hereby warrants that it is the owner of the above-described property and has the authority to convey such easement. Dated this _________ day of _____________________, 2009. Grantor Grantor Packet Page 709 of 1136 {WSS742191.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 2 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ____________ ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ___________________________ is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he/she was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as _____________________________ of _________________________________ to be the free and voluntary act and deed of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. DATED: (Signature) (Print Name) NOTARY PUBLIC My appointment expires: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ___________ ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ___________________________ is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he/she was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as _____________________________ of _________________________________ to be the free and voluntary act and deed of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. DATED: (Signature) (Print Name) NOTARY PUBLIC My appointment expires: Packet Page 710 of 1136 AM-2610 8. Final 2009 Budget Amendment Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/15/2009 Submitted By:Lorenzo Hines Time:15 Minutes Department:Finance Type: Review Committee:Finance Committee Action:Approved for Consent Agenda Information Subject Title Public hearing on the final Ordinance amending the 2009 Budget: Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 3711 as a result of unanticipated transfers and expenditures of various funds. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approve the Ordinance. Previous Council Action None Narrative Please review the attached documents for details of the proposed ordinance amendment. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year: Revenue: Expenditure: Fiscal Impact: Various Attachments Link: 2009 Final Budget Ordinance Link: 2009 Other Fund Summary Link: Final 2009 General Fund Summary Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/12/2009 03:11 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 11/12/2009 04:48 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/02/2009 02:46 PM APRV Form Started By: Lorenzo Hines Started On: 11/12/2009 02:49 PM Final Approval Date: 12/02/2009 Packet Page 711 of 1136 Packet Page 712 of 1136 ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3711 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, previous actions taken by the City Council require Interfund Transfers and increases in appropriations; and WHEREAS, state law requires an ordinance be adopted whenever money is transferred from one fund to another; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the amended budget appropriations and information which was made available; and approves the appropriation of local, state, and federal funds and the increase or decrease from previously approved programs within the 2009 Budget; and WHEREAS, the applications of funds have been identified; THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 1. of Ordinance No. 3711 adopting the final budget for the fiscal year 2009 is hereby amended to reflect the changes shown in “Exhibit A” adopted herein by reference. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take L:\PRODUCTIONDB\AGENDA\CCOUNCIL\0068_2610_FINAL 2009 AMENDING ORDINANCE.DOC Packet Page 713 of 1136 effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR, GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY ___ W. SCOTT SNYDER, CITY ATTORNEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. 2 Packet Page 714 of 1136 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ____ day of ___________, 2009, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3711 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this _____ day of ________________,2009. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE 3 Packet Page 715 of 1136 EXHIBIT“A:” BUDGET SUMMARY BY FUND 2009 2009 FUND FUND BEGINNING REVENUE EXPENDITURES ENDING NO. DESCRIPTION CASH CASH 001 GENERAL FUND 987,951 34,247,764 34,183,013 1,052,702 006 EMERGENCY/FINANCIAL RESERVE 1,927,600 0 0 1,927,600 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 574,904 376,598 432,055 519,447 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 183,806 28,500 72,025 140,281 111 STREET FUND 24,876 1,499,626 1,422,195 102,307 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 281,802 2,483,950 2,473,407 292,345 113 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD. 0 3,100,000 3,100,000 0 116 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 249,368 234,081 256,200 227,249 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 330,077 104,050 105,425 328,702 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 17,325 400 0 17,725 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 126,762 67,530 74,883 119,409 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 96,872 27,500 23,862 100,510 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 18,494 3,462 5,000 16,956 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 36,869 17,483 22,100 32,252 125 PARK ACQ/IMPROVEMENT 4,503,803 490,885 4,544,175 450,513 126 SPECIAL CAPITAL FUND 657,147 369,714 956,072 70,789 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 177,188 24,504 48,542 153,150 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROV 96,669 179,767 141,103 135,333 131 FIRE DONATIONS 0 2,800 0 2,800 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION 0 235,000 235,000 0 211 LID FUND CONTROL 9,458 108,000 95,475 21,983 213 LID GUARANTY FUND 49,416 2,000 0 51,416 234 LTGO BOND DEBT SERVICE FUND 0 442,598 442,598 0 411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION 5,081,455 13,647,929 15,039,214 3,690,170 412 COMBINED UTILITY CONST/IMPROVE 2,181,667 9,341,039 10,205,750 1,316,956 414 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS RESERVE 19,099 1,806,852 1,162,124 663,827 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 4,490,515 1,516,675 1,812,133 4,195,057 601 PARKS TRUST FUND 145,823 57,045 58,480 144,388 610 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 739,389 31,223 0 770,612 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 295,108 100,061 130,874 264,295 623 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 17,318 21,400 21,000 17,718 Totals 23,320,761 70,568,436 77,062,705 16,826,492 4 Packet Page 716 of 1136 EXHIBIT “B”: BUDGET AMENDMENTS BY EXPENDITURE ORD. NO. ORD. NO. ORD. NO. 2009 FUND FUND 3711 3757 Amended NO. DESCRIPTION 12/2/2008 10/6/2009 11/17/2009 Budget 001 GENERAL FUND 34,520,728 (898,105) 560,390 34,183,013 006 EMERGENCY/FINANCIAL RESERVE 0 0 0 0 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 432,055 0 0 432,055 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 72,025 0 0 72,025 111 STREET FUND 1,491,530 (67,500) (1,835) 1,422,195 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 1,443,407 0 1,030,000 2,473,407 113 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD. 3,100,000 0 0 3,100,000 116 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 256,200 0 0 256,200 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 105,425 0 0 105,425 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 0 0 0 0 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 74,883 0 0 74,883 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 23,862 0 0 23,862 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 3,400 1,600 0 5,000 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 22,100 0 0 22,100 125 PARK ACQ/IMPROVEMENT 4,558,175 (14,000) 0 4,544,175 126 SPECIAL CAPITAL FUND 956,072 0 0 956,072 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 21,000 22,192 5,350 48,542 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROV 145,074 (2,561) (1,410) 141,103 131 FIRE DONATIONS 0 0 0 0 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 235,000 0 0 235,000 211 LID FUND CONTROL 95,475 0 0 95,475 213 LID GUARANTY FUND 0 0 0 0 234 LTGO BOND DEBT SERVICE FUND 442,598 0 0 442,598 411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION 13,162,872 (107,155) 1,983,497 15,039,214 412 COMBINED UTILITY CONST/IMPROVE 10,205,750 0 0 10,205,750 414 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS RESERVE 1,162,124 0 0 1,162,124 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 2,079,027 (9,098) (257,796) 1,812,133 601 PARKS TRUST FUND 0 91,500 (33,020) 58,480 610 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 0 0 0 0 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 130,874 0 0 130,874 623 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 21,000 0 0 21,000 Totals 74,760,656 (983,127) 3,285,176 77,062,705 5 Packet Page 717 of 1136 EXHIBIT “C”: BUDGET AMENDMENT DETAIL Department Category Debit Credit Description Items Previously Before Council Parks Trust Fund Transfer Out 33,020 Parks Trust Fund Ending Fund Balance 33,020 General Fund Transfer In 33,020 General Fund Ending Fund Balance 33,020 Parks Trust Fund Donations 53,395 Parks Trust Fund Ending Fund Balance 53,395 City Attorney Profession Services 155,000 General Fund Ending Fund Balance 155,000 Non-Departmental Transfer Out 81,000 General Fund Ending Fund Balance 81,000 Capital Street Fund Transfer In 81,000 Capital Street Fund Ending Fund Balance 81,000 Street Fund Grant 1,000,000 Street Fund Ending Fund Balance 30,000 Street Fund Construction 1,030,000 Non-Departmental Hydrant Cost 340,000 General Fund Ending Fund Balance 340,000 Utility Fund Hydrant Reimbursement 340,000 Utility Fund Ending Fund Balance 340,000 New Items for Council to Consider-Amendments Community Services ECA Grant 70,000 General Fund Grant 70,000 Police Overtime 1,377 Police Grant 1,377 Police Small Equipment 11,710 Police Grant 2,000 Police Donation 9,710 Police Small Equipment 2,879 Police Uniforms 381 Police Grants 3,260 Police Small Equipment 28,617 Police Grant 28,617 Police Small Equipment 10,519 Police Uniforms 4,037 Police Grant 14,556 Fire Salaries 205 Fire Supplies 208 Fire EMS Haz Mat Fees 413 Gifts Catalog Fund Transfer-Out 5,350 Gifts Catalog Fund Ending Fund Balance 5,350 REET 2 Ending Fund Balance 5,350 REET 2 Transfer-In 5,350 Street Fund Repair & Maintenance 30,052 Street Fund Insurance Reimbursement 30,052 Litigation costs not included in the budget Fiber optic conduit installed during the OVD Improvement project Purchased automated license plate reader camera & software-WASPC Grant Overlay Project - ARRA (American Recovery Reinvestment Act of 2009 Equipment purchased with money from the 2009 Recovery Act Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Reimbursement by ESCA of haz-mat emergency service fees True up transfer from Parks Trust Fund to General Fund based on the actual pool revenues and expenses Ballistic vests purchased with Department of Justice grant money Lane v. City of Seattle - 2009 Hydrant Costs Visual Statement Software - Washington Traffic Safety Commission and Edmonds Police Foundation Edmonds Center for the Arts pass-through HUD grant Repair and Maintenance due to traffic accidents Hickman Park Basketball Court funded by Tyler Simone Hoops Donation X52 DUI Overtime 6 Packet Page 718 of 1136 Department Category Debit Credit Description New Items for Council to Consider-Amendments Utility Fund Water Utility Tax Rev 240,000 Utility Fund Water Utility Tax Exp 240,000 General Fund Water Utility Tax 240,000 General Fund Ending Fund Balance 240,000 Utility Fund Sewer Utility Tax Rev 200,000 Utility Fund Sewer Utility Tax Exp 200,000 General Fund Sewer Utility Tax 200,000 General Fund Ending Fund Balance 200,000 Utility Fund Storm Utility Tax Rev 120,000 Utility Fund Storm Utility Tax Exp 120,000 General Fund Storm Utility Tax 120,000 General Fund Ending Fund Balance 120,000 Utility Fund Transfer Out 500,000 Utility Fund Ending Fund Balance 500,000 Utility Const. Fund Ending Fund Balance 500,000 Utility Const. Fund Transfer In 500,000 Utility Fund Transfer Out 500,000 Utility Fund Ending Fund Balance 500,000 Utility Const. Fund Ending Fund Balance 500,000 Utility Const. Fund Transfer In 500,000 Utility Fund Transfer Out 500,000 Utility Fund Ending Fund Balance 500,000 Capital Impr Fund Ending Fund Balance 500,000 Capital Impr Fund Transfer In 500,000 Equipment Rental Fund Operations Rental Chrg 256,569 Equipment Rental Fund Salaries 60,000 Equipment Rental Fund Benefits 20,000 Equipment Rental Fund Fuel - Diesel 50,000 Equipment Rental Fund Fuel - Reg. Unleaded 40,000 Equipment Rental Fund Fuel - Premium Unleaded 86,569 Police Interfund Rental 101,859 Fire Interfund Rental 8,146 Community Services Interfund Rental 138 Building Interfund Rental 2,046 Engineering Interfund Rental 4,557 Planning Interfund Rental 447 Recreation Interfund Rental 2,370 Parks Interfund Rental 17,736 Park Maintenance Interfund Rental 492 Public Works Interfund Rental 276 Facilities Interfund Rental 7,476 General Fund Ending Fund Balance 145,543 Street Fund Interfund Rental 31,887 Street Fund Ending Fund Balance 31,887 Cemetery Fund Interfund Rental 1,410 Cemetery Fund Ending Fund Balance 1,410 Utility Fund Interfund Rental 23,646 Utility Fund Interfund Rental 23,166 Utility Fund Interfund Rental 1,008 Utility Fund Interfund Rental 28,683 Utility Fund Ending Fund Balance 76,503 Equipment Rental Fund Interfund Rental 1,227 Equipment Rental Fund Ending Fund Balance 1,227 Reduce Equipment Rental revenue due to fuel cost savings and vacant position. Reduce department interfund rental charges for the last 3 months of 2009. Ending cash higher than budgeted, transfer to capital fund Transfer needed for Edmonds share of capital projects Ending cash higher than budgeted, transfer to capital fund Storm utility tax higher than budgeted due tax increase. Water utility tax higher than budgeted due to dry summer and tax increase. Sewer utility tax higher than budgeted due tax increase. 7 Packet Page 719 of 1136 Fund: Street Fund Amendment to Budgeted Revenues New Insurance Reimbursements 30,052$ Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Revenues 30,052 Amendment to Budgeted Expenditures New Repair & Maintenance cover by insurance reimbursement 30,052 New Eliminate A-Fund Contributions - ERR fund for October, November and December (31,887) Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Expenses (1,835) Total Impact to Street Fund 31,887 Fund: Combined Street Fund Amendment to Budgeted Revenues Heard Interfund Transfer in from the General Fund to cover conduit costs on OVD 81,000 Heard ARRA (American Recovery Reinvestment Act of 2009-Street Overlays 1,000,000 Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Revenues 1,081,000 Amendment to Budgeted Expenditures Heard ARRA (American Recovery Reinvestment Act of 2009-Street Overlays 1,030,000 Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Expenses 1,030,000 Total Impact to REET2 51,000 Fund: REET 2 Amendment to Budgeted Revenues New Transfer in from Gifts Catolog Fund-Hickman Park Basketball Court 5,350 Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Revenues 5,350 Amendment to Budgeted Expenditures None Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Expenses - Total Impact to REET2 5,350 Fund: Gift Program Amendment to Budgeted Revenues None Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Revenues - Amendment to Budgeted Expenditures New Transfer out to REET 2 for Hickman Park Basketball Court 5,350 Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Expenses 5,350 Total Impact to Gift Program (5,350) Fund: Cemetery Fund Amendment to Budgeted Revenues None Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Revenues - Amendment to Budgeted Expenditures New Eliminate A-Fund Contributions - ERR fund for October, November and December (1,410) Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Expenses (1,410) Total Impact to Cemetery Fund 1,410 City of Edmonds Ordinance Amendment 11/17/2009 Packet Page 720 of 1136 City of Edmonds Ordinance Amendment 11/17/2009 Fund: Utility Fund Amendment to Budgeted Revenues New Water tax revenue higher than budgeted 240,000 New Sewer tax revenue higher than budgeted 200,000 New Storm tax revenue higher than budgeted 120,000 Heard Reimburse Hydrant costs incurred by the Utility Fund 340,000 Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Revenues 900,000 Amendment to Budgeted Expenditures New Water tax revenue higher than budgeted-Transfer to General Fund 240,000 New Sewer tax revenue higher than budgeted-Transfer to General Fund 200,000 New Storm tax revenue higher than budgeted-Transfer to General Fund 120,000 New Eliminate A-Fund Contributions - ERR fund for October, November and December (76,503) New Increase Interfund Transfer to Capital Funds 1,500,000 Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Expenses 1,983,497 Total Impact to Utility Fund (1,083,497) Fund: Combined Utility Construction Fund Amendment to Budgeted Revenues New Increase Interfund Transfer to Capital Funds 1,000,000 Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Revenues 1,000,000 Amendment to Budgeted Expenditures None Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Expenses - Total Impact to Utility Fund 1,000,000 Fund: Capital Improvements Reserve Amendment to Budgeted Revenues New Increase Interfund Transfer to Capital Funds 500,000 Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Revenues 500,000 Amendment to Budgeted Expenditures None Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Expenses - Total Impact to Utility Fund 500,000 Fund: Equipment Reserve Amendment to Budgeted Revenues New Eliminate A-Fund Contributions - ERR fund for October, November and December (256,569) Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Revenues (256,569) Amendment to Budgeted Expenditures New Salary and Benefit Savings - vacant position (80,000) New Cost savings due to lower than anticipated fuel costs (176,569) New Eliminate A-Fund Contributions - ERR fund for October, November and December (1,227) Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Expenses (257,796) Total Impact to Equipment Reserve 1,227 Fund: Parks Trust Fund Amendment to Budgeted Revenues Heard Actual Revenues Received in 2009, not included in last amendment 53,395 Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Revenues 53,395$ Amendment to Budgeted Expenses Heard True up Yost Pool Transfer based on actual amounts (33,020) Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Expenses (33,020) Total Impact to Parks Trust Fund 86,415$ Packet Page 721 of 1136 Fund: General Fund Amendment to Budgeted Revenues Status Dept. Item Amount Heard Parks True up Yost Pool Transfer based on actual amounts (33,020)$ New Taxes Increase the Water Tax Revenue received from the Utility Fund 240,000 New Taxes Increase the Sewer Tax Revenue received from the Utility Fund 200,000 New Taxes Increase the Storm Tax Revenue received from the Utility Fund 120,000 526,980 Other Revenues augmentations offset with related Expenses New CS Edmonds Center for the Arts pass-through grant 70,000 New Police WSTSC X52 DUI Grant 1,377 New Police WSTSC & Edmonds Police Foundation-Visual Statement Software 11,710 New Police DOJ Grant - Ballistic Vest Purchase 3,260 New Police WASPC Grant - Automated License Plate Reader 28,617 New Police 2009 Recovery Act Edward Byrne Memorial Grant Purchases 14,556 New Fire Reimbursement by ESCA of Haz-mat Emergency Services Fees 413 129,933 Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Revenues 656,913$ Amendment to Budgeted Expenses Heard Non-Dept Reimburse Fiber Optic costs incurred by the Street Capital Fund 81,000 Heard Non-Dept Reimburse Hydrant costs incurred by the Utility Fund 340,000 New City Attorne Increase attorney budget 155,000 New All Dept. Eliminate A-Fund Contributions - ERR fund for October, November and December (145,543) 430,457 Other Expense augmentations offset with related Revenues New Community Edmonds Center for the Arts pass-through grant 70,000 New Police WSTSC X52 DUI Grant 1,377 New Police WSTSC & Edmonds Police Foundation-Visual Statement Software 11,710 New Police DOJ Grant - Ballistic Vest Purchase 3,260 New Police WASPC Grant - Automated License Plate Reader 28,617 New Police 2009 Recovery Act Edward Byrne Memorial Grant Purchases 14,556 New Fire Reimbursement by ESCA of Haz-mat Emergency Services Fees 413 129,933 Impact of Amendment to Budgeted Expenses Revenues 560,390$ Increase in Beginning General Fund Balance -$ Total impact to General Fund 96,523$ City of Edmonds Ordinance Amendment 11/17/2009 Packet Page 722 of 1136 AM-2611 9. Mid-biennial Budget Review and Modification Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/15/2009 Submitted By:Lorenzo Hines Time:15 Minutes Department:Finance Type: Review Committee:Finance Committee Action:Approved for Consent Agenda Information Subject Title Public hearing on the mid-biennial budget review and modification: Ordinance modifying the 2010 budget as adopted by Reference in Ordinance No. 3711. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approve the ordinance. Previous Council Action None Narrative Please review the attached documents for details of the proposed ordinance amendment. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: 2010 Mid-Biennial Review Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/12/2009 03:11 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 11/12/2009 04:48 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/02/2009 02:46 PM APRV Form Started By: Lorenzo Hines Started On: 11/12/2009 02:56 PM Final Approval Date: 12/02/2009 Packet Page 723 of 1136 ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, MODIFYING THE 2010 BUDGET AS ADOPTED BY REFERENCE IN ORDINANCE NO. 3711, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the City adopted the 2009-2010 Biennial Budget on December 2, 2008; and WHEREAS on November 20, 2007 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3671 that requires a mid-biennium review of the second year of each biennial budget; and WHEREAS, the City has completed its mid-biennium review of the 2009-2010 Adopted Budget; and WHEREAS, the City finds it necessary to adjust anticipated Property Tax Revenue, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 1. of Ordinance No. 3711 adopting the final budget for the 2009-2010 biennium is hereby amended to reflect the changes shown in “Exhibit A” adopted herein by reference. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take L:\PRODUCTIONDB\AGENDA\CCOUNCIL\0072_2611_MID-BIENNIAL ORDINANCE.DOC Packet Page 724 of 1136 effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR, GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY ___ W. SCOTT SNYDER, CITY ATTORNEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. 2 Packet Page 725 of 1136 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ____ day of ___________, 2009, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, MODIFYING THE 2010 BUDGET AS ADOPTED BY REFERENCE IN ORDINANCE NO. 3711, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this _____ day of ________________,2009. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE 3 Packet Page 726 of 1136 4 EXHIBIT“A:” BUDGET SUMMARY BY FUND Beginning Ending Fund Balance Revenue Expenditures Fund Balance GENERAL FUND 1,273,265 36,437,659 34,447,514 3,263,410 EMERGENCY/FINANCIAL RESERVE 1,927,600 0 0 1,927,600 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 519,447 387,566 465,161 441,852 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 140,281 28,500 74,115 94,666 STREET FUND 2,920 1,539,574 1,537,232 5,262 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 241,345 2,172,797 2,332,560 81,582 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD. 0 3,000,000 3,000,000 0 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 227,249 63,438 205,200 85,487 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 307,702 115,540 110,425 312,817 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 17,725 400 0 18,125 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 119,409 67,530 77,883 109,056 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 100,510 27,500 26,086 101,924 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 18,556 3,464 3,400 18,620 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 32,252 17,483 22,100 27,635 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 845,162 775,356 1,190,000 430,518 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 470,789 764,397 956,796 278,390 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 158,500 4,361 750 162,111 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 131,802 208,630 151,289 189,143 FIRE DONATIONS 2,800 2,800 0 5,600 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 0 1,784,000 1,784,000 0 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 21,983 107,500 55,300 74,183 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND 51,416 2,000 0 53,416 LIMITED TAX G.O. BOND FUND, 0 452,160 452,160 0 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION 4,666,512 12,781,473 15,301,171 2,146,814 COMBINED UTILITY CONST/IMPROVE 316,956 6,658,332 6,823,600 151,688 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS RESERVE 163,827 610,000 571,412 202,415 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 4,513,018 2,158,684 1,702,193 4,969,509 PARKS TRUST FUND 149,473 3,760 0 153,233 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 770,612 31,223 0 801,835 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 264,295 103,782 125,048 243,029 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 17,718 21,400 21,000 18,118 TOTALS 17,473,124 70,331,309 71,436,395 16,368,038 Packet Page 727 of 1136 AM-2661 10. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board Final Decision and Order of Ordinance 3717 Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/15/2009 Submitted By:Brian McIntosh Time:30 Minutes Department:Parks and Recreation Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Public hearing regarding the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board final decision and order of Ordinance No. 3717, the Edmonds City Council adoption of the updated 2001 Parks, Recreation & Open Space Comprehensive Plan. •Public Hearing regarding the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner's report related to the abandonment of a portion of the Old Woodway Elementary school facility. •The 2008 Plan revises and updates the City's park land inventory to reflect acquisitions and delete expired or terminated interlocal agreements. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Accept the Hearing Examiner's Advisory Report and Conclusions and confirm by adoption of an ordinance confirming the 2008 Parks Plan and a resolution terminating the 1997 ILA. Previous Council Action October 20, 2009: A public hearing was held in regard to the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board Final Decision and Order to conduct an additional public hearing in regard to the City Council's adoption of the updated Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan December 16, 2008. September 15, 2009: Council adopted Resolution No. 1205 setting a public hearing regarding the adoption of the 2008 Parks Plan for October 20, 2009 and directing staff to publish notice alerting the public to key public policy issues and changes contained in the Plan from the 2001 Parks Plan. December 16, 2008: Council unanimously adopts Ordinance No. 3717 updating the City's Parks, Recreation & Open Space Comprehensive Plan. November 25, 2008; August 18, 2008; May 20, 2008; March 18, 2008: Council reviewed the updated Parks Plan. July 15, 2008 and April 15, 2008: City Council public hearings were conducted regarding the Parks Plan. Narrative With two exceptions the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board found the Packet Page 728 of 1136 With two exceptions the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board found the City's unanimous decision to adopt the 2008 Parks Plan valid and within the Council's legislative discretion. In response to the Board's Final Decision and Order (attached, page 50) the City was remanded to: 1. Conduct an additional public hearing regarding changes to the Parks Plan which was accomplished October 20, 2009 (minutes attached) and 2. Appear before the Hearing Examiner regarding the consistency of the Parks Plan with the City Comprehensive Plan Policy B, page 2, in regard to park abandonment. A hearing was conducted before the Hearing Examiner on November 19, 2009 and the attached Advisory Report to City Council outlines the Hearing Examiner's conclusions that the City has demonstrated consistency with the 2008 Comprehensive Plan (pages 13-14). Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1: Ordinance reaffirming Link: Exhibit 2: Interlocal termination Link: Exhibit 3: Oct 20.09 Council Minutes Link: Exhibit 4: 2008 Parks Plan Link: Exhibit 5: Hearing Examiner's Report Link: Exhibit 6: Hearing Notice Dec 15.09 Link: Exhibit 7: CPSGMHB Final Decision & Order Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/10/2009 02:02 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/10/2009 02:27 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/10/2009 02:38 PM APRV Form Started By: Brian McIntosh Started On: 12/08/2009 05:42 PM Final Approval Date: 12/10/2009 Packet Page 729 of 1136 0006.90000 WSS/gjz 12/10/09 ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REAFFIRMING THE ADOPTION OF THE 2008 PARK PLAN, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, by order of the Growth Management Hearings Board, the 2008 Edmonds Park Plan was upheld, subject to remand to hold an additional public hearing and complete a procedural aspect of Park Plan adoption; and WHEREAS, the City was required pursuant to the Board’s order to re-notice a public hearing describing the changes made by the 2008 Park Plan; and WHEREAS, such hearing was held by the Edmonds City Council on October 20, 2009; and WHEREAS, the City was also required to affirm that the termination of interlocal agreements regarding the use of certain park property was considered by its hearing examiner, pursuant to the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendation of its hearing examiner regarding the termination of certain interlocal agreements and the compliance of such actions with the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City accepts the recommendation of its hearing examiner incorporating by reference all of her findings and conclusions herein; and WHEREAS, the City Council, based upon its previous findings and conclusions, relating to the 2008 Park Plan as contained in the record of its prior review, as well as having {WSS753816.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 1 - Packet Page 730 of 1136 considered the recommendation of its hearing examiner and the information and testimony provided by the public at its recent public hearing, the City Council finds that the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, both individually and collectively when considered with other amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, is: 1. Consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and in the public interest; 2. Would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the City; and 3. Would not impact or effect the appropriate balance of land uses within the City; 4. The City Council further finds because the amendments do not amend the map, the findings required ECDC 20.02.001(B) are not required nor applicable; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The prior amendment of the City’s Comprehensive Plan by the adoption of the 2008 Parks Plan is hereby reaffirmed and confirmed. Section 2. A copy of the 2008 Parks Plan is on file with the City Clerk and is incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. Section 3. A copy of the ordinance, the public hearing notice related to the October 20, 2009 hearing, the recommendation of the City’s hearing examiner and a copy of the resolution approving termination of the 1997 ILA and accepting expiration of the 1999 ILA shall be certified by the City Clerk and forwarded to the Growth Management Hearings Board. The {WSS753816.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 2 - Packet Page 731 of 1136 Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi- cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY W. SCOTT SNYDER FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. {WSS753816.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 3 - Packet Page 732 of 1136 {WSS753816.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }- 4 - SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ____ day of ___________, 2009, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REAFFIRMING THE ADOPTION OF THE 2008 PARK PLAN, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2009. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 733 of 1136 0006.90000 WSS/gjz 12/9/09 RESOLUTION NO. ______ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, TERMINATING A 1997 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGING EXPIRATION OF A 1999 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT. WHEREAS, on March 25, 1997, the City of Edmonds and Edmonds School District No. 15 entered into an interlocal agreement regarding repair, maintenance and the scheduling of play fields at Madrona School and Old Woodway Elementary requiring the City to provide seasonal maintenance and scheduling in exchange for access to the fields “for the use of its citizens and its softball programs for the period specified herein”, and, WHEREAS, the 1997 ILA had an indefinite term and could be terminated by either party upon sixty days notice, and WHEREAS, on June 6, 2006, the school district passed Resolution No. 06-14 which declared the Old Woodway Elementary site to be surplus property and authorized the sale of the property, and WHEREAS, on June 22, 1999, the City of Edmonds, Edmonds School District No. 15 and Snohomish County entered into an ILA (1999 ILA) regarding capital improvements at the Old Woodway Elementary site, AND WHEREAS, the 1999 ILA was to “remain in effect for ten (10) years” and has expired on its terms, and WHEREAS, the Growth Management Hearings Board has remanded the 2008 Parks Plan to the City of Edmonds to obtain the recommendation of its hearing examiner {WSS753355.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 1 - Packet Page 734 of 1136 {WSS753355.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 2 - regarding the termination and expiration of these ILAs under the premise that they are within the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, page 2 Effective Plan, Section B, which requires the recommendation and report to the City Council regarding the abandonment, construction or authorization of any park, and WHEREAS, the City hearing examiner has provided her advisory report to the City Council, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, finding consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the termination and expiration of the 1997 and 1999 ILAs respectively, now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Edmonds City Council hereby acknowledges the expiration of the 1999 ILA, accepts the termination of the 1997 ILA by the School District’s Resolution No. 06-14 and, approves such termination by its approval of the 2008 Comprehensive Parks Plan by contemporaneous action. RESOLVED this ___ day of ________________, 2009. APPROVED: MAYOR, GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. Packet Page 735 of 1136 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 2009 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES October 20, 2009 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor D. J. Wilson, Council President Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember Steve Bernheim, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Ron Wambolt, Councilmember Strom Peterson, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief Mark Correira, Assistant Fire Chief Al Compaan, Police Chief Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Lorenzo Hines, Interim Finance Director Debi Humann, Human Resources Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager Steve Koho, Treatment Plant Manager Rob English, City Engineer Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER, ADDING “AUTHORIZE STAFF TO REMOVE FOUR TREES AT THE NORTH CORNER OF 5TH & DAYTON” AS AGENDA ITEM 8B. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 6, 2009. C. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 13, 2009. D. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #114535 THROUGH #114703 DATED OCTOBER 8, 2009 FOR $820,758.42, AND #114704 THROUGH #114864 FOR $561,991.99 DATED OCTOBER 15, 2009. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #48634 THROUGH #48675 FOR THE PAY PERIOD SEPTEMBER 16 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 FOR $806,648.57. Packet Page 736 of 1136 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 2009 Page 2 E. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM SHEJANA TSANEV AND GERALDINE HEISEY (AMOUNTS UNDETERMINED). F. SURPLUS OF COMPUTERS AND MONITORS AND DONATION TO INTERCONNECTION. G. REPORT ON BIDS OPENED ON OCTOBER 6, 2009 FOR THE PURCHASE OF TREATMENT PLANT CHEMICALS AND AWARD TO JONES CHEMICAL, INC. FOR SUPPLYING SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE AND SODIUM HYDROXIDE. H. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BROWN & CALDWELL FOR THE ODOR CONTROL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR $90,558. I. AUTHORIZATION TO SURPLUS CITY VEHICLE TOTALED IN ACCIDENT. J. APPROVAL OF THE 5 YEAR UPDATE OF THE NORTH KING AND SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTIES REGIONAL MITIGATION PLAN. K. AUTHORIZATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1210 TO SUBMIT GRANT APPLICATION FOR 2010 SNOHOMISH COUNTY CDBG PUBLIC FACILITIES & INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS FUNDING FOR SENIOR CENTER PARKING LOT REHABILITATION. L. ORDINANCE NO. 3758 - AMENDING ECC 8.51.030 AND ECC 8.51.040 RELATING TO EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT CHANGES. 3. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF ARTS & HUMANITIES MONTH, OCTOBER 2009 Mayor Haakenson read a Proclamation in honor of Arts and Humanities Month, October 2009. He presented the Proclamation to Arts Commission Chair Greg Banasek who thanked the Council for recognizing the arts as an integral part of the community and the economy. On behalf of the Arts Commission, he thanked the community members who participate in their programs as well as the Art Commission’s partners in those events. He commented on the very successful Summer Concert Series and record attendance at the Write on the Sound Writers Conference. 4. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF FRIENDS OF THE EDMONDS LIBRARY WEEK, OCTOBER 18 - 24, 2009. Mayor Haakenson read a Proclamation in honor of Friends of the Edmonds Library Week, October 18 - 24, 2009. He presented the Proclamation to Friends of the Edmonds Library Board President Page Gorud. Ms. Gorud relayed the thanks of the approximately 200 members of the Friends of the Edmonds Library. She explained the Friends provide programs for the library as well as this year they provided furniture for the library, provided a scholarship to the University of Washington Information School, and sent one library staff member to continuing education at the Washington Association of Library Employees (WALE) Conference. Funds for these activities are generated by the ongoing book sale at the library and the annual book sale which will take place Saturday, October 24 at the Frances Anderson Center. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE FIRE DISTRICT 1 CONTRACT. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING SCENARIOS AND WILL SELECT A PREFERENCE: (1) WITHOUT FIRE DISTRICT 1 CONTRACT (2) WITH FIRE DISTRICT 1 CONTRACT (3) WITH FIRE DISTRICT 1 CONTRACT (REVENUE REMOVED) (4) WITH FIRE DISTRICT 1 CONTRACT (SELL APPARATUS; KEEP STATIONS, LAND, AND TRANSPORT FEES) (5) WITH FIRE DISTRICT 1 CONTRACT (SELL APPARATUS-REVENUE REMOVED; KEEP STATIONS, LAND, TRANSPORT FEES) (6) WITH FIRE DISTRICT 1 CONTRACT (KEEP STATIONS, LAND, APPARATUS, AND TRANSPORT FEES) Packet Page 737 of 1136 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 2009 Page 3 Mayor Haakenson apologized the scenarios were not available on Wednesday on the City’s website as promised but were made available via the Council packet on Friday. Councilmember Wambolt referred to a question he sent to Finance Director Lorenzo Hines regarding the revision made to expenses and asked Mr. Hines to explain the change. Mr. Hines advised an additional $246,000 was added to the original expenses in Option 1. The change was the result of “re-staking” the Fire District 1 proposal back to the 2010 budget. The 2010 budget for the Fire Department is $7.972 million. Because the modeling spreadsheet is continually updated for CPI, bargaining agreements, etc., he removed all the adjustments in the modeling software for the Fire Department to return to the original budget of $7.972 million. This provides an objective basis from which to measure the savings. He summarized if the 2010 budget is modified as a result of the contract, staff would start with that number. Councilmember Wambolt commented the original budget contained 4.5% for wages but the model reduced it to 2%; that 2.5% reduction was virtually all the change. Mr. Hines agreed, emphasizing that was a fluctuating estimate. When the current forecast is updated, he would consider whether that amount was viable and whether it needed to be raised or lowered. The choice was whether to measure the savings from a fluctuating estimate or a stable base of the original budget. Councilmember Orvis referred to the comparison of Option 1 versus Option 4, which shows the Fire Department budget of $7.9 million, fire contract $6.2 million and 2010 savings of $983,000. One of the differences was the revenue difference because of the loss of the Woodway and Esperance contract which brings the cost to $6.8 million. He asked the reason for the difference. Mr. Hines answered the difference was retaining transport fees of $700,000/year. Councilmember Orvis pointed out transport fees were retained in both Option 1 and 4. Mr. Hines explained this was a comparison of the General Fund subsidy in the current budget with the General Fund subsidy with Option 4. The General Fund subsidy in Option 4 is $983,000 lower than the current situation. The reason it was $983,000 lower was the loss of some overhead costs and transport fees. Councilmember Orvis asked what was included in the $6.2 million. Mr. Hines answered that was the contract amount proposed by Fire District 1 and is based on their estimate of labor costs for 2010. Fire Chief Tomberg explained the $6.2 million was the labor cost to staff stations, plus the overheads, the Fire Marshal and the Fire Inspector, and vehicle replacement. He advised this was detailed in Exhibit C of the original August 24 binder. Council President Wilson referred to Mr. Hines’ response this afternoon to Councilmember Wambolt’s email, observing the previous numbers included the year-to-date actuals and impacted the 2010 outlook based on those actuals and the new numbers did not include any actuals and relied solely on budget numbers. Mr. Hines responded the old numbers factored in estimates, CPI changes, etc. He reversed out those changes to put the Fire budget back to its original state in January to allow measurement of the savings from the original budget in January. In that manner, the 2010 and 2009 budgets are stated using the same budget methodology and rationale and the savings are measured from the budget. Council President Wilson commented these are the budget numbers as of January 2009 and not the actual numbers as of October 20, 2009. He recalled when the budget was developed in August 2008, the outlook changed based on the collapse in September but the final budget was developed in October and approved in November. Mayor Haakenson noted the 4.5% was already factored into the 2009 and 2010 budget. Council President Wilson clarified if the numbers are the January 1, 2009 numbers, those numbers are from a process that began in August 2008 and finalized in October. He reiterated they were not the most recent known numbers. Mr. Hines referred to the 2008 actual column in the current forecast, the actuals as of the end of January 2009, pointing out the spreadsheet was the outlook/forecast but had Packet Page 738 of 1136 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 2009 Page 4 been modified to reflect the Fire Department’s original budget to allow an easier comparison of the impact of the proposal on the Fire budget. His intent was to isolate the Fire budget. Council President Wilson commented the challenge with looking at the budget was recognizing that the budget was very conservative and the budgeted savings could be very different than the actual savings. For example, the EMS transport fees, the budget was $700,000 and he believed the actual amount would far exceed that. He asked whether Mr. Hines had addressed his questions regarding transport fees. Mr. Hines answered he had not. He recalled Council President Wilson anticipated revenue from transport fees would exceed $700,000 in 2009. He explained the City has received $440,000 in transport fees through the end of September 2009 and he anticipated the $700,000 amount would be achieved for 2009. Mayor Haakenson asked whether transport fees were projected to increase in future years. Mr. Hines answered it was projected to increase by 2.5-3% per year. Council President Wilson answered that amount was appropriate for budgeting but he was certain the revenue would exceed $700,000 next year because the year-to-date transport fees for 2009 were short at least 1 month and possibly as much as 3. Council President Wilson expressed concern with the Council selecting a preferred alternative tonight when staff had not had enough time to answer the questions he raised two weeks ago. Mr. Hines responded the questions Council President Wilson’s raised in his PowerPoint had been answered. He suggested Council President Wilson and he meet to determine which questions had not been met. Mayor Haakenson acknowledged transport fees would increase in the future. A modest increase of 2.5-3% was budgeted; he viewed anything more than that as imprudent budgeting. Council President Wilson commented the Council had not had enough time or information to make a decision tonight on a preferred alternative. There were fundamental budgeting differences between the actuals. For example, the City did not receive any transport fees in January, 1/12th of the year or 8%. A 2.5% increase was not the same as an 8% increase. Mayor Haakenson responded staff had prepared the budget and was standing by those numbers. The Council could add 10% or $70,000 to that revenue stream if they wished. \ Councilmember Bernheim recalled Chief Tomberg mentioned he wanted to move his office from the third floor of City Hall to be closer to his men. He asked where Chief Tomberg’s office would be located under the Fire District 1 contract. Chief Tomberg answered if the Council approved the Fire District 1 contract, he would be assigned to the Fire District 1 Administration building southeast of Mariner High School and adjacent to the training tower. Fire Station 11, the largest station Fire District 1 operates with the most personnel, is kitty-corner from the site. Councilmember Bernheim asked how much closer that office would be to the Fire Department than his current office. Chief Tomberg answered it was approximately the same or slightly further but it was a much larger station. Councilmember Bernheim asked whether there were plans under the Fire District 1 contract to abandon the costly training exercises at the North Bend facility and utilize the new Fire District 1 training facility instead. Chief Tomberg answered the only training that was done at North Bend that could not be done locally was live fire exercises where a building similar to the training tower is fire loaded and set on fire under strictly controlled conditions. Every Fire Department on the west side goes to North Bend for that training. Councilmember Bernheim asked whether that training could be conducted at the new Fire District 1 training facility. Chief Tomberg answered it was unlikely the Air Pollution Control District would allow that type of burning at the site. The Fire District 1 training facility does have a smoke room in which non-toxic smoke and conditions similar to an interior structure fire can be simulated. Exercises with actual flames, heat, etc. are conducted at North Bend. Councilmember Bernheim concluded even Fire District 1 went to North Bend for that training. Chief Tomberg agreed. Packet Page 739 of 1136 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 2009 Page 5 Councilmember Bernheim asked whether the Edmonds Fire Department planned to use the Fire District 1 facility for training if the contract were not approved. Chief Tomberg answered there would be opportunities to use it on Fire District 1’s schedule. Councilmember Bernheim commented levels of service for Edmonds residents under the contract would not change. Chief Tomberg answered the response time aspect of level of service would not change much because the fire stations would be in the same locations, staffed by the same personnel and at the current levels. The level of service of all the other services offered by Fire District 1 would increase via the contract such as enhanced career development opportunities for firefighters, improved training, a dedicated Public Education person, a dedicated Public Information person, three Medical Service Officers, a dedicated Safety Officer, as well as other programs that Edmonds could not provide. Councilmember Orvis commented because both Options 1 and 4 included transport fees, the projected revenue from transport fees did not affect the savings. Councilmember Wambolt commented the discussion regarding transport fees was only relevant in the option where the City sold the land and the transport fees were collected by Fire District 1; in the options where the City retained the land and the transfer station, the savings would be greater if the transport fees exceeded the projected $700,000. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing Lora Petso, Edmonds, commented she did not receive the information until today and wanted additional time for review. If the Council chose to select an option tonight, she recommended selecting an option that retained the transport fees and did not require spending down the ending cash balance. However, if that were done, the contract with Fire District 1 no longer solves the City’s budget issues and the Council was likely to approve placing a levy on the ballot. She suggested allowing the public to vote in February whether to contract with Fire District 1 for fire service at the same time as the levy. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented the taxpayers had invested a great deal in the fire station, apparatus and equipment. He agreed with the suggestion to allow the citizens to vote whether to contract with Fire District 1. Diane Buckshnis, Edmonds, thanked firefighters Doug Dahl and Tim Hoover for spending time with Dr. Senderoff and her to review the contract, the RFA concept, and the history of the contract offer. Information provided at last week’s meeting was also very helpful. She recommended slowing down the process and taking another 2-4 weeks to discuss the issue because many citizens were still confused. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. Councilmember Wambolt summarized the options: 1. Without Fire District 1 Contract - business as usual, expenses exceed revenue in 2010; General Fund ending cash balance goes negative in 2011. 2. With Fire District 1 Contract - sell all the Fire Department assets to Fire District 1, place the proceeds in the General Fund to operate the City, lose transport fees of $700,000+/year, expenses exceed revenue in 2013, General Fund ending cash balance goes negative in 2015 3. With Fire District 1 Contract (revenue removed) - sell all the Fire Department assets to Fire District 1, place the proceeds outside the General Fund, lose transport fees of $700,000+/year, expenses exceed revenue in 2011, General Fund ending cash balance goes negative in 2012 4. With Fire District 1 Contract (sell apparatus; keep stations, land, and transport fees) - sell all the depreciating assets and retain all the appreciating assets. Place the proceeds in the General Fund Packet Page 740 of 1136 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 2009 Page 6 to operate the City, retain transport fees, expenses exceed revenue in 2011, General Fund goes negative in 2013. 5. With Fire District 1 Contract (sell apparatus-revenue removed; keep stations, land, transport fees) - sell all the depreciating assets and retain all the appreciating assets, place the proceeds outside the General Fund, retain transport fees, expenses exceed revenue in 2011, General Fund goes negative in 2012. 6. With Fire District 1 Contract (keep stations, land, apparatus, and transport fees) - expenses exceed revenue in 2011 and General Fund ending cash balance goes negative in 2012. Councilmember Wambolt commented regardless of the option the Council chose, the City would still need to take a levy lid lift to the voters next year. This was not a permanent fix. He did not agree with taking the issue of whether to contract with Fire District 1 to the voters, remarking it would be a monumental achievement if everyone in the Council Chambers understood the issue; getting 26,000 voters to understand would be impossible. This was a decision for the Council to make. Council President Wilson commented although he could see how he was going to vote eventually, he did not want to be pushed into it. The service level increases were not enough to justify contracting. For example there would be no change in response times and no change/increase in emergency services. There would be public information benefits and it would be easier to calendar training at a training tower the Fire Department already has access to. The question of finances was the primary issue and the Council was still working on that. Council President Wilson pointed out the Council had not been provided any numbers with regard to the passage of I-1033, which polls currently estimate has a 61% approval rate. He anticipated if the City had to fix its General Fund to inflation, at the end of the first five years of the contract, the City would have a $7 million budget deficit. If the Council did not approve contracting for fire service with Fire District 1, at the end of five years, the City would still have a $7 million deficit. This did not solve the City’s financial problems. The issue of ensuring that fire services were secure had not been addressed. Council President Wilson summarized the information provided did not address I-1033, which the voters would decide on in two weeks, nor did it address how to ensure the stability of fire services into the future. He was unable to vote on a preference until the numbers were provided because the question was not about service, it was about finances. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON, TO CONTINUE FURTHER DISCUSSION UNTIL NOVEMBER 24, 2009 WHEN FINAL NUMBERS WOULD BE AVAILABLE. Councilmember Bernheim agreed this was not a permanent fix. It was a sale of Fire Department assets in order to generate income to cover a short term gap of 3-4 years. He used the analogy of selling one’s home and using the equity to pay rent, concluding that was a short term recipe for disaster. He anticipated the City would get rid of its Fire Department and in 10-12 years when contract rates had increased substantially, citizens would question why the Council sold the Fire Department. He did not view this as an urgent issue, recalling a very successful plan was developed to place a levy on the ballot. He recalled the levy included funds for the Fire Department. If money was an issue, he suggested placing the levy on the ballot rather than selling the City’s assets to generate short term capital. Councilmember Bernheim commented the current fire service was outstanding and questioned why anyone wanted to tinker with it. He objected to the rush to approve the contract by the end of the year, noting the only thing that would achieve was end of the year advantages for employees. He pointed out it was clear the union wanted new management. He referred to the frustration voiced by the firefighters with funding issues in every budget which led to their desire to get out of the current system and under new management. He reminded the firefighters had contracts and if there were give-backs, it was due to the panic in the economy and the alternative of layoffs. Packet Page 741 of 1136 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 2009 Page 7 Councilmember Bernheim summarized the reason he was recommending postponing further discussion was because it was not an urgent financial problem, the Council should be focusing on the levy rather than selling off its assets, the union clearly wants new management, and he wanted time to see the real numbers. He suggested there were alternatives such as working out the management problems. Mayor Haakenson referred to Councilmember Bernheim’s comment that Mr. Hoover had described management problems last week rather than revenue problems and the City’s inability to fund the Fire Department each year. He asked Mr. Hoover if he had mentioned management problems. Tim Hoover, President, Edmonds Firefighters Local 1828, responded he did not talk about management problems; he talked about the annual fight for funding to maintain levels of service. Councilmember Plunkett suggested narrowing the options to a preferred option which would allow the public to learn more about and speak to that option. He did not support a motion to set a date to continue discussion, noting the selection of a preferred option would lead the Council to that. Councilmember Orvis agreed with selecting a preferred option, pointing out staff did not need to continue generating numbers for selling the land if none of the Councilmembers supported that option. Similarly, the projection for transport fees was not relevant unless the Council was interested in selling the stations. He was in favor of retaining the land and the stations. He commented Option 1 was always under consideration and recommended moving forward with discussion on Option 4 which saves the City a significant amount of money operationally. If the Council narrowed the Options to 1 and 4, it was not a final decision but would focus the discussion. He suggested having the contract rewritten to reflect Option 4 and to hold another public hearing on the scenario of Option 1 versus 4 at the next meeting. Councilmember Wambolt agreed with the suggestion to narrow the options. He asked Councilmember Bernheim what new numbers he was waiting for. Councilmember Bernheim responded his understanding was the numbers were not final, referring to an email sent late this afternoon. Mr. Hines explained the email was simply an explanation of why some of the numbers changed; the numbers provided to the Council were final. Councilmember Wambolt commented the fire service contract would not be a solution to I-1033. The solution to I-1033 would be a levy. Council President Wilson responded the question of what the City would do if I-1033 passed and how it affected this decision needed to be addressed. There were other solutions to consider such as creating an independent Woodway-Edmonds Fire District or reverse annex into Fire District 1 rather than contract for fire service with Fire District 1. Mayor Haakenson pointed out if I-1033 passed, the City would be in a better position with a contract with Fire District 1 than its own Fire Department in an amount of approximately $2 million/year. The deficit in 2011 without the contract is $635,000; with the contract it is $2.3 million. He summarized the City would have issues with I-1033 regardless. Councilmember Wambolt clarified Council President Wilson’s point was the City would be worse off with I-1033 and a contract with Fire District 1 because the City would be stuck with a contract payment. Council President Wilson agreed, noting the City would be unable to terminate the contract for five years. He recommended waiting until the outcome of I-1033 was known before entering into a contract that would tie the City’s hands for five years. Mayor Haakenson stated he would prefer a contract for $6.2 million for five years rather than a $9 million Fire Department. Council President Wilson clarified there were many figures in the $9 million that were not direct financial savings such as non-departmental costs. Councilmember Wambolt commented his analysis showed the $6.2 million was definitely less than the City could provide fire service for and less than the Fire Department payroll. Even if the City’s finances Packet Page 742 of 1136 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 2009 Page 8 were in tremendous shape, the City should be evaluating this because it made the Fire Department more efficient. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (1-6), COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM VOTING IN FAVOR; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS, PLUNKETT, OLSON, PETERSON AND WAMBOLT OPPOSED. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO DRAFT AN AGREEMENT FOR OPTION 4 AND PLACE IT FOR PUBLIC HEARING WITH COMPARISON FROM OPTION 4 (WITH FIRE DISTRICT 1 CONTRACT - SELL APPARATUS; KEEP STATIONS, LAND, AND TRANSPORT FEES) TO OPTION 1 FOR THE NEXT MEETING. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. If the Council planned to pursue a contract with Fire District 1, Councilmember Orvis recommended it be via Option 4. Councilmember Peterson supported narrowing the options which would give staff and the public an opportunity to focus on one option. If this wasn’t the preferred option at the end of the discussion, Council could focus on a different option. Councilmember Wambolt asked if the intent was to have the contract rewritten to reflect Option 4. Councilmember Orvis answered yes. Mayor Haakenson explained the contract for service did not change with any of the options. The Interlocal Agreement would change if the stations and land were not part of the sale. Council President Wilson clarified the motion was to schedule this on next week’s agenda. He asked Mayor Haakenson if the updated information would be available for public review by Friday. Mayor Haakenson stated all the information would be available on the City’s website by the end of the week. Council President Wilson asked whether that was enough time for the public to review and comment and for the Council to make a decision next week or if Councilmember Orvis envisioned additional public hearings. Councilmember Orvis responded he was uncertain whether he would be ready to make a decision next week but anticipated he could by the November 2 meeting. Mayor Haakenson restated the motion as follows: TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR OCTOBER 27 ON OPTION 4 (WITH FIRE DISTRICT 1 CONTRACT - SELL APPARATUS; KEEP STATIONS, LAND, AND TRANSPORT FEES). UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON, PLUNKETT, WAMBOLT, ORVIS AND OLSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON AND COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM OPPOSED. (Council President Wilson left the meeting at 8:18 p.m.) 6. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING AN UPDATE OF THE 2002 TRANSPORTATION PLAN. THE AMENDMENTS IN THE PROPOSED 2009 TRANSPORTATION PLAN WOULD: (1) USE A FUTURE PLANNING YEAR OF 2025 INSTEAD OF 2022. (2) BASE CONCURRENCY ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON UPDATED CITYWIDE TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING MODEL AND UPDATED LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS. (3) INCORPORATE RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF SAFETY STUDIES THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED BETWEEN 2002 AND 2009. Packet Page 743 of 1136 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 2009 Page 9 (4) GIVE STRONGER EMPHASIS TO NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROJECTS MAKE UP APPROXIMATELY 25% OF PLAN COSTS INSTEAD OF APPROXIMATELY 5% IN THE 2002 PLAN. (5) UTILIZE PLANNING-LEVEL COST PROJECTIONS BASED ON HIGHER PER UNIT PRICES TO REFLECT TRENDS. (6) ADJUST REFERENCES TO THE EDMONDS CROSSING MULTI-MODAL PLAN. NO CITY EXPENDITURES ARE PROPOSED BUT THE ITEM IS RETAINED AS A LONG-TERM PROJECT. (7) UPDATE THE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE, INCREASING THE FEE FROM $764 PER TRIP TO $1,040 PER TRIP. (8) ADD A TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM AND ADA RAMP TRANSITION PLAN AS ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS. (9) CORRECTION OF THE RECOMMENDED FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF OLYMPIC AVENUE AND ADDITION OF AN ALTERNATIVE ‘NON-SIGNAL’ IMPROVEMENT FOR THE INTERSECTIONS OF MAIN @ 9TH AND WALNUT @ 9TH. (10) UPDATE POLICIES SECTION Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss explained during the September 22 public hearing, speeding concerns along Olympic Avenue were addressed. There was also discussion regarding radar feedback signs as an option to help reduce speeds. Council requested staff obtain information on those signs with regard to their effectiveness, cost, and revenue sources. The speed limit along Olympic Avenue between Main Street and Puget Drive is 25 mph. Several speed studies were conducted in 2005 with following results: 85th percentile speed for northbound movement: 35.2 mph 85th percentile speed for southbound movement: 34.7 mph The 85th percentile represents the speed at which 85% of the vehicles travel at or below the speed limit. In the Traffic Calming Program (Appendix B in 2009 Transportation Plan), a stretch of roadway will be evaluated when the 85th percentile speed is at least 8 mph above the speed limit. He explained radar feedback signs detect the speed of passing vehicles, flashes speeds on a reader board when vehicles exceed the speed limit, and are used as an alternative solution to physical traffic calming devices in the roadway. Drawbacks to physical traffic calming devices in the roadway include delay for emergency vehicles, traffic noise and they are hazardous for bicycles. With regard to the effectiveness of radar feedback signs, he explained staff was unable to do a before/after study of the signs on 220th because one of the signs is out of service. Staff’s research of other jurisdictions found Bellevue has 31 radar feedback signs. Bellevue’s study found the signs resulted in an average speed reduction of 1-5 mph. Kirkland has 6 radar feedback signs and their study also found an average speed reduction of 1-5 mph. He concluded the radar feedback signs were effective in reducing speeds. The cost of the signs per unit is approximately $14,500 (from bids obtained for the Puget Drive Walkway project in 2009). The cost to place signs in both directions on Olympic Avenue would total $29,000. The available funding source is Fund 112. Future funding sources include Fund 125 (REET-2 Transportation), increased vehicle license fee via the Transportation Benefit District (still needs voter approval), and the sign could be included in the grant application for the Olympic Avenue Walkway project. Mayor Haakenson clarified voter approval would be required for a $100 vehicle license fee. If the Council approved the Transportation Plan, they were only approving asking the voters to approve a higher vehicle license fee to fund transportation projects. Packet Page 744 of 1136 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 2009 Page 10 Mr. Hauss provided a map identifying the proposed locations of the signs, northbound at 612 Olympic Avenue and southbound at 747 Olympic Avenue. Councilmember Wambolt questioned the cost, recalling the signs on 220th were $7000-$8000 each. Mr. Hauss responded that was the latest estimate provided for the Puget Drive Walkway project. Councilmember Wambolt asked how the speed reductions of 1-5 mph were measured. Mr. Hauss answered a speed study conducted prior to installation was compared with a speed study conducted a few months after installation and again 6-12 months after installation. Councilmember Wambolt pointed out the signs display drivers’ speed regardless of whether they were exceeding the speed limit. Mr. Hauss advised the signs were adjustable to display a vehicle’s speed only when it was traveling over the speed limit. Councilmember Peterson asked if there were funds available in Fund 112. Mr. Hauss answered there were. Councilmember Peterson asked whether grant applications for future projects were contingent on Olympic Avenue being upgraded to a collector. Mr. Hauss answered if staff applied for a grant for the sidewalk project and Olympic Avenue was a local street, the probability of obtaining the grant was significantly lower than if the street were characterized as a collector street. Councilmember Peterson asked whether installation of the signs would reduce speeds and traffic volumes enough to retain its classification as a local street. Mr. Hauss did not anticipate the volumes would change significantly. Jennifer Barnes, ICF Jones and Stokes, responded there was a chance that volumes could be reduced slightly if drivers felt it was a less fast route but most of the criteria for a collector street would be met even at lower speeds. Councilmember Plunkett referred to Item 9 in the agenda title (Correction of the Recommended Functional Classification of Olympic Avenue), and asked if staff’s recommendation was to reclassify Olympic Avenue as a collector street. Mr. Hauss answered it was. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing Bill McCormick, Edmonds, resident on Olympic Avenue, explained ever since Olympic Avenue was improved, the residents’ concern has been speed. He anticipated that changing the classification from local to collector would result in widening of the street and the sidewalk which would encourage speeding. He was also concerned with the eight narrow, substandard streets that intersect with Olympic Avenue, one that is 18 feet wide that serves 10 homes, as well as 5 unnamed lanes that serve 5+ homes that are as narrow as 10 feet. He disagreed that Olympic Avenue provided access to Yost Park, noting the only access to Yost Park from Olympic Avenue was a steep, unpaved path. Don Hall, Edmonds, submitted a petition with 50 signatures to City Clerk Sandy Chase. He explained they had not encountered anyone who favored reclassifying Olympic Avenue to a collector. He was in favor of the radar feedback signs, noting the temporary radar signs on Olympic Avenue have been effective at reducing speeds. He urged the Council to remove Olympic Avenue as a collector in the Transportation Plan. Lora Petso, Edmonds, reiterated her belief that when levels of service were reduced, the notice of public hearing must state levels of service have been reduced. The level of service has been lowered for several intersections along Hwy. 99 and the level of service standard has been eliminated for local streets. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, expressed concern with the proposed $100 vehicle license fee. Packet Page 745 of 1136 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 2009 Page 11 Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, suggested the statement in the Plan that Olympic Avenue provides a direct connection between Edmonds Elementary and Yost Park was misleading and should be removed. He noted most of the changes were based on the installation of a walkway to replace the existing walkway which required the classification of Olympic Avenue to be changed to a collector. The matrix indicates walkways will be installed on several roadways, of those Olympic Avenue is the only one with an existing walkway. He questioned the expenditure of $1 million to replace 6,000 feet of an existing walkway with a 5-foot wide sidewalk and curb and recommended installing sidewalks other places in the City where there were no sidewalks. He also recommended retaining the local street designation of Olympic Avenue, remarking it was only a device to get money. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. Councilmember Wambolt agreed with Mr. Hertrich’s comment that it appeared the change in the designation of Olympic Avenue was necessary to enhance the probability of obtaining grants. He also agreed with his comment about spending money to widen a sidewalk on a street that already has a sidewalk when there were many streets in the City without sidewalks. He agreed with the comment that Olympic Avenue was not a direct connection to Yost Park. Mr. Hauss responded all the walkway projects in the Walkway Plan were identified by the Walkway Committee who evaluated many different walkways with regard to several criteria including safety and speeding. The sidewalk on Olympic Avenue was identified because it currently has a rolled curb and due to the high speeds, particularly northbound. In regard to upgrading Olympic Avenue to obtain grant funds, Mr. Hauss explained during the last public hearing, staff submitted a report that contained detailed reasons for the upgrade including that it already serves as a collector based on the average daily traffic, high non-motorized usage, street length, street spacing and street connectivity. In 2004 there were 1,920 vehicle trips/day; the typical range for a collector street is 1,000 and 5,000. He summarized there were numerous reasons for the upgrade, not only to enhance the probability of obtaining grant funds. Councilmember Wambolt commented there was more that could be done to slow traffic, pointing out speeding occurred throughout the City because there were not enough resources to control it. In order to make a record regarding Ms. Petso’s comment, City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the advertisement that appeared in the newspaper states as Item 2 of this agenda item, Base Concurrency Analysis and Recommendation on Updated Citywide Travel Demand Forecasting Model and Updated Level of Service Standards. He asked the consultant to explain why that was an accurate description of what occurred. Ms. Barnes responded there was an update to several components of the level of service standards, some higher, some lower. For SR 524, the City received direction from WSDOT to hold the standard to the classification of Highway of Regional Significance, LOS E. Historically the level of service standard on that roadway was D; as part of this update there was a drop in the level of service standard from D to E to comply with WSDOT’s direction. Ms. Barnes explained SR 99 was not held to any standard in the previous Plan. Consistent with WSDOT’s direction, a LOS E was also applied to SR 99 because the portion north of SR 104 is also a Highway of Regional Significance. With regard to local streets, the policy contains a LOS B for local access streets; however, none of the City’s concurrency intersections are local streets, thus the LOS B has never been applied. The Traffic Calming Program proposed as part of the update was a more appropriate way to address traffic volumes and speeds. The result of applying concurrency standards would be a recommendation to increase capacity such as widening the roadway to accommodate increased traffic volumes. Councilmember Orvis recalled he voted against the Transportation Plan in 2002 due to the upgrade of local streets to arterials. He explained homeowners may have purchased their home on a street where Packet Page 746 of 1136 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 2009 Page 12 their children could safely play in the front yard; over time the street became what is effectively an arterial and now their grandchildren cannot safely play in the yard. If he were that homeowner, he would not want the street reclassified so that funds for sidewalks could be obtained, he would want it addressed via traffic calming, even paying more taxes via a vehicle license fee. He voiced his objection to any reclassifications. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE THE 2009 COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND BEGIN AN INVESTIGATION IN 2010 FOR ADDITIONAL REVENUE FROM THE TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT. Councilmember Plunkett commented Olympic Avenue was a long, wide street that encouraged speeding. He was concerned that changing the classification of Olympic Avenue would allow future staffs to widen the roadway, increase the speed limit or add another lane. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO AMEND THE PLAN TO CHANGE OLYMPIC AVENUE FROM THE RECOMMENDED COLLECTOR BACK TO A LOCAL STREET. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Council President Wilson was not present for the vote.) Councilmember Orvis suggested changing the classification of all the proposed arterial upgrades to their existing classification. He advised a list of the proposed upgrades was contained on page 3-8. Mayor Haakenson pointed out that change would affect grant funding. Councilmember Plunkett asked if there had been any public testimony regarding the other street upgrades. Councilmember Orvis questioned whether there would have been if the residents on those streets had been alerted. Mayor Haakenson pointed out this was the third public hearing on the Transportation Plan. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, THAT ALL THE RECOMMENDED HIGHER CLASSIFICATIONS BE CHANGED BACK TO THEIR CURRENT CLASSIFICATION. Councilmember Bernheim commented the Council had not heard the same concerns from residents on the other streets. He pointed out this Plan could be amended in the future if necessary. Councilmember Plunkett commented the Council was not aware of how the residents on those streets felt about the change; some may be in favor of it. Councilmember Peterson clarified there was no plan to increase the speed limit on any of the streets where the classification would be changed from local to collector. Mr. Hauss agreed. Mayor Haakenson advised Council approval was required to increase a speed limit. He did not recall any change in a speed limit in the years he had served on the Council or as Mayor. Councilmember Wambolt emphasized changing the classification did not change how the street was used. For example, the Plan proposes changing Dayton Street between 5th Avenue and 9th Avenue from a local street to a collector. A resident in that area, his observation was that section was a racetrack. THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT FAILED (1-5), COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS VOTING YES. (Council President Wilson was not present for the vote.) THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS VOTING NO. (Council President Wilson was not present for the vote.) Packet Page 747 of 1136 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 2009 Page 13 7. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE 2008 PARKS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT OF THE 2001 PARKS PLAN. IN ADDITION TO A WIDE VARIETY OF MINOR CHANGES, THE 2008 PARKS PLAN WOULD IMPLEMENT THE FOLLOWING CHANGES TO THE 2001 PARKS PLAN: (1) REPLACE RECOMMENDATION TO DEVELOP A YEAR-ROUND 50-METER INDOOR POOL WITH AMENITIES AND RETENTION OF YOST POOL AS A SEASONAL OUTDOOR POOL WITH A FEASIBILITY STUDY TO EXAMINE YOST POOL AND OTHER COMMUNITY OPTIONS FOR AN AQUATICS FACILITY. THE PROPOSED FEASIBILITY STUDY WOULD PROVIDE INFORMATION ON WHICH TO BASE A FUTURE COURSE OF ACTION. (2) “CONNECTIONS” WAS ADDED AS AN UNDERLYING THEME FOR THE PLAN AND A NEW SECTION FOCUSES ON IMPLEMENTING CONNECTIVITY THROUGHOUT THE PLAN. (3) THE 2008 PLAN CONTAINS AN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NOT CONTAINED IN THE 2001 PLAN. THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CONTAINS NEW LANGUAGE STRESSING THE BENEFITS AND IMPORTANCE OF THE PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL RESOURCES AND ASSETS TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PHYSICAL HEALTH AND OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE OF THE CITY. (4) THE PLAN AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INCLUDE POTENTIAL ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTIES FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES IN THE DOWNTOWN WATERFRONT ACTIVITY CENTER IN BOTH THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND AT OTHER PLACES WITHIN THE PLAN. (5) THE 2008 PLAN REMOVES CULTURAL SERVICES TO A SEPARATE ELEMENT IN ORDER TO RECOGNIZE AND BUILD ON EDMONDS’ IDENTITY AS A CULTURAL DESTINATION. CROSS REFERENCES TO THE COMMUNITY CULTURAL PLAN AND STREETSCAPE PLAN ARE INCLUDED. (6) IN ORDER TO RECOGNIZE THE LACK OF LARGE TRACTS OF LAND AND THE EXPENSE OF ACQUIRING NEW LAND WITHIN THE CITY AS IT APPROACHES “BUILD OUT,” THE 2008 PLAN PLACES A STRONGER EMPHASIS ON IMPROVING THE UTILITY OF EXISTING FACILITIES AND WORKING WITH PARTNERS IN OVERLAPPING AND ADJACENT JURISDICTIONS. (7) THE 2008 PLAN CHANGES THE METHODOLOGY AND PRESENTATION OF LEVEL OF SERVICE BY FACILITY TYPE PRESENTED IN THE 2001 PLAN. CHANGES ALSO ADDRESS CURRENT FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS AND STATE THE CITY’S LONG-TERM ASPIRATIONAL GOAL OF REACHING RECOMMENDED NATIONAL STANDARDS. (8) THE 2008 PLAN REVISES AND UPDATES THE CITY’S PARK LAND INVENTORY TO REFLECT ACQUISITIONS AND DELETE EXPIRED OR TERMINATED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) remanded the City Council’s approval of the 2008 Plan in order to have another public hearing and obtain a recommendation from the Hearing Examiner regarding an Interlocal Agreement termination. The matter was remanded to the Council because the prior generic notice did not conform to the GMHB’s requirements. A more compete notice has been provided as shown on page 1 of the Item 7 packet. Mr. Snyder explained the Council’s substantive decisions were upheld by the Board. If the Council wished to make any changes after hearing from the public, the Council was free to do so but was not obligated to change the prior decision. Final action cannot be taken until a recommendation is provided from the Hearing Examiner regarding the Hickman Park, former Sherwood Elementary, Interlocal Agreement ballfield maintenance contract. Final action will need to be taken by early December in order to report to the GMHB. Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh explained although the GMHB found the City Council’s unanimous decision to adopt the Plan valid within the Council’s legislative discretion, the Board concluded that more effective notice of the amendments under consideration should be given. For that reason, notice of this hearing was published on October 4. The updated Parks Plan is a general plan with Packet Page 748 of 1136 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 2009 Page 14 input from citizens, staff, consultant, Planning Board and Council that was collected, analyzed and compiled between April 2007 and November 2008. In addition to a variety of minor changes made between 2001 and the end of the review process in 2008, the Plan implements the eight core changes identified in the agenda item title. He listed the eight changes contained in the agenda title, commenting the list was not inclusive of all the revisions but were the changes staff identified as major changes. For Councilmember Bernheim, Mr. McIntosh advised the study referred to in Item 1 had been completed since the plan was adopted in November 2008. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing Lora Petso, Edmonds, explained she was still concerned about the reduction of level of service in the Park Plan as well as that it was not properly noticed. There was still no notice of a reduction in level of service, only a claimed change in methodology and presentation of level of service. She explained there had been a change; level of service was previously identified via park acreage per 1,000 citizens, that methodology was still used, however now there was less park acreage per 1,000 citizens. She was concerned with giving away the Sherwood Park playfields. With regard to effective notice, she pointed out the GMHB’s footnote contained a specific reference that the Plan generally reduced level of service. When the Council reconsidered the Plan after the Hearing Examiner’s recommendation, she recommended the reduction in the level of service be included in the notice. With regard to the Hearing Examiner meeting, she advised there was a Land Use Sign on the property but it was blank. The GMHB also required the City to demonstrate consistency with its Comprehensive Plan policy on abandonment of public facilities. The policy specifically states no park shall be abandoned until the Hearing Examiner has reviewed and reported to the City Council. She disagreed the Interlocal Agreement was terminated by the City and referenced the March 20, 2007 Council minutes. Paragraph 1.5 of the contract provides the agreement may be terminated only upon written agreement of the parties, executed in the same manner as provided by law for the execution of this agreement. The law requires approval by the legislative body. The Board found by adopting this Plan, the City is abandoning a park; although she preferred the Council not abandon a park, if they were, that should be clearly stated. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, advised the eight changes described by Mr. McIntosh did not include the Hearing Examiner’s decision regarding the lights at Meadowdale High School. He expressed support for a pool. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, expressed concern with Item 6 (In order to recognize the lack of large tracts of land and the expense of acquiring new land within the City as it approaches “build out,” the 2008 Plan places a stronger emphasis on improving the utility of existing facilities and working with partners in overlapping and adjacent jurisdictions), and questioned whether the park acreage to citizen ratio was less than the previous ratio. He recommended as the City became denser, there needed to be more park facilities. He expressed concern that no grant funds were sought for the $500,000 purchase of waterfront property. He advised the Plan did not identify an area in the mid-waterfront, the “blue dot” as a possible future park. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. Councilmember Bernheim asked about the abandonment of Sherwood Park. He recalled in 2007 the Council was presented an opportunity to ratify the cancellation of the Interlocal Agreement and the Council voted unanimously against it. Mr. Snyder clarified the vote was 3-3. He explained the Board found no evidence in the record to show that the procedure in the Comprehensive Plan had been followed. They also noted the term “park” was not defined. The former Park Plan included a need for Neighborhood Parks, an inventory, and an Interlocal Agreement to maintain two playfields on the Sherwood Elementary site. The City Council over a period of years purchased a 5.5 acre park. The Packet Page 749 of 1136 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 2009 Page 15 Interlocal Agreement that obligated the City with Snohomish County to maintain the playfields expired. The County and School District terminated the Interlocal Agreement to maintain the two playfields, letting the City off its obligation and the Council chose not to act with regard to that Interlocal Agreement. The property is no longer owned by the School District, the City met the prior Park Plan’s declaration of need for a Neighborhood Park. The Park Plan that the Council unanimously approved deletes the Interlocal Agreement and inserts the 5.5 acre Hickman Park. Mr. Snyder advised the Plan would be presented to the Council for a final public hearing and ratification of the prior adoption of the Parks Plan with the Hearing Examiner’s recommendation. The Hearing Examiner will provide a recommendation regarding whether the termination of the Interlocal Agreement was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The new Plan has the new Neighborhood Park but the record does not indicate the Hearing Examiner provided a recommendation. Councilmember Bernheim asked why a reduction in the level of service was not announced. Mr. Snyder answered the notice states the 2008 Plan changes the methodology and presentation of level of service by facility type. Level of service as used in the Park Plan was not a concurrency level of service and the Board agreed. This was not a reduction in a level of service that results in a development fee or requirement. Councilmember Bernheim agreed park land should be increased as the City’s population increased. He asked whether adoption of the Plan included an endorsement that parks were less likely to be acquired in the future. Mr. Snyder responded the Plan identifies needs for facilities and parks by acreage but does not designate specific parcels for acquisition. The Council retains the discretion to purchase land as it becomes available. Designating a parcel for park acquisition devalues the property and could force the City into a takings situation. Councilmember Wambolt referred to Item 6 mentioned by Mr. Hertrich, noting that language did not state the City would not purchase more land, it stated there was not a great deal of opportunity to purchase land. Rather than do nothing, the City would improve existing parks and if land became available the priority was to purchase land on the waterfront. Mr. McIntosh answered there were no restrictions on the purchase of property. The “blue dot” Mr. Hertrich referred to was a “starburst” that represents the Downtown Activity Center. Mr. Snyder requested the Council advise if there were any changes to be made to the plan. The Plan will be presented to the Council for a final public hearing and ratification after the Hearing Examiner’s November 4 hearing and recommendation. 8A. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF SECTION 17.35.030, KEEPING OF DOMESTICATED ANIMALS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES, TO ADD A NEW SUBPARAGRAPH D. RELATING TO FEMALE DOMESTIC CHICKENS. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the Planning Board took testimony and considered input from the City Attorney as well as the Police Department. The Planning Board concluded it was appropriate to amend the code to allow keeping of up to three female chickens or hens on properties developed with single family residential uses. The proposed code amendment would accomplish that recommendation. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing Joan Bloom, Edmonds, expressed support for the proposed change. She recalled the origin of the cat ordinance was a complaint about a cat attacking quail that were kept by a neighbor. She anticipated residents would house their chickens in a manner that protected them from predators but feared this would Packet Page 750 of 1136 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 2009 Page 16 result in a complaint about a cat attacking a chicken. She recommended the Council revisit the cat ordinance since it was not being enforced. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3759 – AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 17.35.030 KEEPING OF DOMESTICATED ANIMALS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES, TO ADD A NEW SUBPARAGRAPH D. RELATING TO FEMALE DOMESTIC CHICKENS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. Councilmember Wambolt expressed support for the ordinance, advising the only input he received from citizens was in favor of the ordinance. Councilmember Orvis expressed support for the ordinance, noting citizens were interested in keeping chickens and he had not heard any objection. Councilmember Peterson commented although this was not on the Council’s Sustainability Agenda, it fit with the goal of making Edmonds a progressive thinking, environmentally aware and green city. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Council President Wilson was not present for the vote.) 8B. AUTHORIZE STAFF TO REMOVE FOUR TREES AT THE NORTH CORNER OF 5TH & DAYTON. COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, THAT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE STAFF REMOVE THE FOUR TREES AT THE NORTHWEST AND NORTHEAST CORNERS OF 5TH & DAYTON. Councilmember Wambolt explained he was proposing this motion as a result of the damage that occurred Saturday afternoon when a 20-foot section of tree fell, narrowly missing a car. He noted the tree did not appear to be rotten and there was only a slight wind at the time this occurred. If those trees broke in a slight wind, he was concerned with their stability this winter. He concluded he made a mistake by voting against this action on September 22 and the incident on Saturday resulted in his reconsidering their removal. Councilmember Peterson recalled there had been recommendations from staff as well as from outside consultants regarding these trees. He asked if the City was more liable for ignoring recommendations if another incident occurred and a person was injured or property damaged. City Attorney Scott Snyder answered a property owner typically had no liability for damage caused by a tree if they had no reason to believe it was damaged or diseased. When there was notice, negligence standards applied. With staff’s recommendations regarding the limited area for roots, it was more likely the City would be held liable for damage. The City was provided information from WCIA regarding how they would approach liability in this situation. Councilmember Peterson asked if the City would be at risk for WCIA refusing a claim because the City did not heed the advice of experts. Mr. Snyder answered generally the City had a duty to participate reasonably in its defense. The Council had a great deal of discretion regarding street trees. The City has a solid claims history and it was unlikely this would trigger the City’s expulsion. Councilmember Bernheim advised he would vote against the removal on principle. He was opposed to taking official Council action with inadequate input and sufficient notice. He did not have his materials and the only facts he had regarding the incident was the email from Councilmember Wambolt. He Packet Page 751 of 1136 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 2009 Page 17 referred to Councilmember Wambolt’s comment that the tree did not appear to be diseased, advising tree branches falling in a windstorm were random acts of God and the City could not remove all the trees to avoid that happening. He questioned what would be planted as a replacement. The Street Tree Plan calls for incremental replacement of trees, not wholesale replacement. He was unconvinced that administration or staff recognized the value to the economy and the community of healthy, vigorous, replacement trees. Councilmember Bernheim commented the recently planted trees in front of Bank of America at 3rd & Main were spindly and pathetic looking. He recommended rejecting the principle of pre-emptive maintenance, identifying trees for removal that might become a problem in the future, advising there were other methods of enhancing pedestrian safety. He was in favor of taking care of the trees appropriately and was willing to consider the removal at a future meeting. Councilmember Wambolt advised the trees in front of Bank of America were on the bank’s property. He questioned how many times the Council needed to discuss the trees to understand the issues. The Council was provided information on September 22 and the public provided their input. He recalled the two arborists said the trees were a species that was susceptible to this type of breakage. With regard to the size of the trees, he recalled staff had identified a replacement tree. Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh responded the trees would be replaced with the tree recommended for that intersection, Red October Glory. He advised staff would obtain the largest caliper tree that would fit in the hole. This would provide symmetry at the intersection; the other two corners already have Red October Glory trees. Councilmember Wambolt pointed out the trees planted at the corner near Bank of Washington last year have grown tremendously. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION TIED (3-3), COUNCILMEMBERS WAMBOLT, OLSON AND PETERSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS, BERNHEIM AND PLUNKETT OPPOSED. MAYOR HAAKENSON VOTED YES AND THE MOTION CARRIED. (Council President Wilson was not present for the vote.) 9. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Al Rutledge, Edmonds, reported he attended former Councilmember John Nordquist’s service along with three other former Councilmembers. Mr. Nordquist was a Lake Ballinger area resident for a number of years. Next, he encouraged the public to attend the Friends of the Edmonds Library Book Sale on Saturday at the Frances Anderson Center. He referred to the November 4 Hearing Examiner meeting and questioned whether the same Hearing Examiner could handle this case again. George Murray, Edmonds, commented Option 1 with regard to the Fire District 1 contract was not possible as there was an issue with the firefighters themselves that needed to be resolved. His understanding was Fire District 1 had approached the City; however, in Tim Hoover’s presentation last week, it was apparent the firefighters want to leave Edmonds for Fire District 1. He recommended determining what the firefighters needed and what problem drove them to Fire District 1. He preferred the firefighters be in a neutral position which would allow the Council to make an informed decision. He questioned exactly what the firefighters’ issues were, recalling Mr. Hoover stated Fire District 1 would provide stability for 20 years and better service. He questioned how Fire District 1 could operate cheaper than the Edmonds Fire Department. He recalled the City considered consolidation in 2000 and did not move forward due to cost. Mukilteo rejected Fire District 1’s offer due to cost. The tax rate charged by Fire District 1 is $2.17/$1,000 AV; Mukilteo charges $1.75/$1,000 AV. Mayor Haakenson invited Mr. Murray to meet with him to discuss his concerns. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, advised the turtles he complained about last week had been built and painted. He was awaiting their removal after the first accident. He remarked the interaction with Fire District 1 last week was very mature and interactive. He found Mayor Haakenson’s display last week offensive, Packet Page 752 of 1136 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 2009 Page 18 alleging Mayor Haakenson grabbed his jacket. Mayor Haakenson disagreed he had touched Mr. Hertrich, pointing out he was on the opposite side of the podium. Mr. Hertrich responded Mayor Haakenson was a liar. Mayor Haakenson read a response from Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss regarding the pedestrian refuge island Mr. Hertrich addressed. In 2006 a pedestrian and bicycle safety grant was secured for the Puget Drive Walkway Project. The main purpose of the project was to improve pedestrian safety by adding sidewalks on one side of the street and pedestrian refuge islands in two uncontrolled crosswalks. The pedestrian refuge islands were incorporated into the design and their size and placement was approved by WSDOT in March 2008 since the roadway is a State Route. Pedestrian refuge islands and crosswalks are identified as a pedestrian safety feature in the WSDOT design manual. The benefits of pedestrian refuge islands are, 1) reduces the number of pedestrian-vehicle conflicts by allowing pedestrians to cross one lane at a time and judge conflicts with oncoming vehicles separately, and 2) eliminates the crossing of an open two-lane left turn that may have vehicles entering and turning either direction. The new pedestrian refuge islands do limit the deceleration distance and the storage for left turn vehicles at the Methodist Church parking lot and Hindley Lane. Both left turns have minor left turn demand on a daily basis and left turn queues are minimal due to low traffic volumes and low left turn demand. The location of the refuge islands was selected following a thorough evaluation of existing sight distances and maintaining access to driveways and streets. Mayor Haakenson advised Mr. Hertrich has brought his concerns to staff several times and staff has been unsuccessful in their attempts to reach him to discuss the matter. COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:15 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Council President Wilson was not present for the vote.) Mayor Haakenson objected to Mr. Hertrich’s uncivil behavior, calling him a liar. 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING THE NEGOTIATION OF THE PURCHASE OF REAL ESTATE. At 10:04 p.m., Mayor Haakenson recessed the Council to an Executive Session regarding negotiation of the purchase of real estate. He anticipated the Council would take action at the conclusion of the Executive Session. The meeting was reconvened at 10:10 p.m. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, THAT THE CITY ACQUIRE THE PARCEL AT 939 MAIN STREET FOR THE PRICE OF $39,000 PAYABLE FROM THE 126 FUND. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Council President Wilson was not present for the vote.) Mayor Haakenson explained the Council authorized the purchase of two lots in the Shell Creek Basin off Main Street where the Council has acquired property previously with the hope that someday the City can acquire the entire wetland area. 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson referred to news reports about banks failing and developer foreclosures. He explained last spring when the banking crisis was at its peak, he asked the Finance Director to look at the banks the City was using to ensure the City’s investments were covered by FDIC. At that time the City withdrew most of its money out of one bank and deposited it into another bank. He requested both banks meet with him and the Interim Finance Director regarding how the investments are protected under the new bank industry rules. They met today with Pat Fahey, the Chairman of Frontier Bank, who assured the City’s investments were protected by a number of guarantees. He also planned to meet with the Chairman of Cascade Bank. He happened to be meeting with Councilmember Wambolt, Chair of the Finance Committee, this morning on another matter and asked him to join the meeting with Mr. Fahey. Packet Page 753 of 1136 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 2009 Page 19 Councilmember Wambolt advised this meeting was also prompted by the report in the Everett Herald that Frontier Bank was suing a prominent local developer for $40 million. Mr. Fahey assured that would not be a problem for the bank. Mayor Haakenson next reported the Edmonds Post Office property is on the market for $4.15 million. The lease for the post office runs through August 2010. The Post Office plans to find a location downtown to maintain a retail storefront. The vehicles have already been moved to Perrinville. Mayor Haakenson referred to the Council’s reception with the Finance Director candidates prior to tonight’s meeting and invited Council to forward him any comments. He planned to make a decision by Friday and confirmation of his selection would be on the October 27 agenda. Mayor Haakenson announced the Edmonds Shopping Center application for the waterfront parcel was withdrawn today. The article he wrote will be published next week; however, because it was written last week, it would not reflect that the application had been withdrawn. The applicant plans to reapply and start again. 12. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Peterson referred to the tree removal at 5th & Dayton and the Council authorization to purchase property, reminding the public to see the forest through the trees. Although the City may have lost a couple trees, better trees would be planted for the long term. The parcels that the Council authorized the purchase of will add to the environmental strength of the community, a step to securing that entire stretch of land and a great investment for the future. Councilmember Orvis reminded the Snohomish County Health Board was working with its partners on flu shot clinics on Halloween. He advised the City’s website now had a link to the SnoCoFlu website. Councilmember Bernheim reported he received his flu shot at Bartell’s. He suggested using some of the $97,000 Council contingency that was discovered to fund internet access for the Council and public during meetings. Councilmember Bernheim expressed his sincere appreciation for the process that led to the selection of the three excellent Finance Director finalists. With regard to the trees, he looked forward to having trees on the 5th & Dayton corner that everyone could be proud of. With regard to civility, Councilmember Bernheim explained he was accused via email by the Planning Board Chair of stealing draft Planning Board minutes. He was hopeful such comments would not be repeated. Mayor Haakenson advised Mr. Hines was preparing documentation for the Council with regard to the $97,000 Council Contingency Fund and whether that amount was already included in the budget. Mayor Haakenson commented although he was not a party to the emails Councilmember Bernheim referred to, he urged the Planning Board and the Economic Development Commission to do their jobs and planned to send out an email to that effect. 13. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:23 p.m. Packet Page 754 of 1136 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan City of Edmonds December, 2008 Packet Page 755 of 1136 A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS City of Edmonds Mayor and Council Gary Haakenson, Mayor Michael Plunkett, Council President Steve Bernheim Deanna Dawson Peggy Pritchard Olson David Orvis Ron Wambolt D. J. Wilson Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department Brian McIntosh, Director Frances White Chapin, Cultural Services Manager Renee McRae, Recreation Manager Richard Lindsay, Park Maintenance Manager Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan Advisory Group Mary Lou Block Barbara Chase Lisa Conley Farrell Fleming Leigh Ann Hafford Dale Hoggins Lesley Kaplan Jan Kavadas Charles La Nasa Darlene McLellan Mary Monfort Susan Paine Birgitt Ratchford Steve Shelton Michelle Van Tassell Steve Waite Mary Beth Walsh Jim Weaver Dan White Bruce Witenberg Judith Works Jeff Zimmerman Community Cultural Plan Update Advisory Group Rick Bader David Brewster Marianne Burkhart Jim Corbett Tom Darrah Margaret Elwood Mona Fairbanks Ute Freund Pam Harold Sandi Jeffers Julie Long Lyn Macfarlane Gregory Magyar John McGibbon Ted Neff Joanne Otness Sue Robertson Marykay Sneeringer Marji Stiffler Gretchen Johnston Consultants Hough Beck & Baird, Inc. 4Culture GMA Research Packet Page 756 of 1136 Table of Contents Acknowledgements Executive Summary Existing Facilities Plan Map Proposed Plan – Facilities Map Proposed Plan – Connections Map Chapter 1 Introduction • Purpose of the Plan • Report Organization • Public Involvement • Integration with Other Planning Documents Chapter 2 Community Profile • Planning Area • Natural Features • Demographic Characteristics • Land Use • Cultural Resources • Population Forecast Chapter 3 Facility and Program Inventory • Parks and Open Space • Recreation Facilities and Programs • Cultural Services, Facilities and Programs • Operations and Maintenance Chapter 4 Community Needs Assessment • Parks and Open Space Need • Recreation Facilities and Programs • Cultural Services, Facilities and Programs Chapter 5 Comprehensive Plan Framework: Goals and Objectives • Definitions • Parks and Open Space Packet Page 757 of 1136 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan City of Edmonds • Shoreline Use and Access • Recreation Programs and Activities • Cultural Facilities • Park Operations and Maintenance • Administration and Operations Chapter 6 Action Plan • Parks and Open Space • Recreation Facilities • Maintenance and Operations • Administration Chapter 7 Funding Plan • Capital Projects Appendix A Facility Inventory Worksheets Appendix B Community Survey Results Appendix C Park Descriptions Appendix D Addenda to Parks Comprehensive Plan Community Youth Report, 2001 Bikeway Comprehensive Plan, adopted 2000 Walkway Plan, 2002 Cemetery Master Plan, 2001 City Park Master Plan, adopted 1992 Southwest County Park Master Plan, adopted 1992 Pine Ridge Park Master Plan, adopted 1991 Family Aquatic Center Feasibility Study, 1996, updated 1998 Community Cultural Plan Update, 2008 Packet Page 758 of 1136 City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan Executive Summary The City of Edmonds, the second largest city in Snohomish County, is located 14 miles north of Seattle, only minutes from Interstate 5, and is connected to the Kitsap Peninsula by ferry. Edmonds is known for its waterfront, flowers, art, and historic downtown, all of which make Edmonds a popular destination. The Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department serves as the community’s key resource for providing parks, open space, recreation programs, and cultural arts (the Park System) for the enjoyment of Edmonds citizens and visitors to the community. The Department plays a vital role in many aspects of community life, with staff liaisons for the Edmonds Library Board, the Edmonds Memorial Cemetery Board, the City’s international Sister City Commission programs, the Planning/ Parks Board and the Edmonds Arts Commission. The Mission of the Department is: “To provide Edmonds’ citizens with a balanced system of parks, recreation, open space and cultural services along with their support facilities to ensure quality of life.” BENEFITS OF THE PARKS SYSTEM: ECONOMIC AND HEALTH Unlike many towns and cities that are striving to create more attractive environments and a sense of place, Edmonds is a community that already has a strong and positive identity. Integral to what makes Edmonds both a memorable and economically viable community is the Parks System. Edmonds continues to build on existing assets in the Parks System which create a strong sense of place: an inviting pedestrian environment in the downtown; pedestrian and vehicular connections between parts of town and parks; walkability; a mixed use environment where people can live, work, shop and recreate; and a unique character reflected in streetscape, beautification and gathering spaces, public art and parks. Economic development strategies around the country utilize these same assets to build stronger communities. In Edmonds the economic benefits of the Parks System elements include attracting tourism: the highlighting of cultural elements in the downtown shopping core, the accessibility and pedestrian friendly design of the waterfront parks and public art, and the development of cultural facilities combine to attract visitors. The walkability and mixed use nature of the community attracts retirees and other residents. When people want to live in a place it is attractive for businesses to locate there. Well kept parks and beautification programs attract visitors and contribute to real estate values, diverse recreation programs draw participants from the region who are introduced to the community, and cultural tourism draws from an even broader region as visitors come for festivals and arts events. Healthy lifestyle benefits are another contribution of our Parks System. There is Executive Summary Packet Page 759 of 1136 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan City of Edmonds growing recognition that encouraging healthy lifestyles helps prevent illness that must be treated through the expensive medical system. Edmonds encourages well- being and vitality through involvement in park, recreation and cultural services programs. The emphasis on connections and walkability in this plan focuses on recreational walking as a primary physical activity in the community, providing parks with diverse activities and a variety of recreational programming encourages mental, physical and social activity in people of all ages, and education about our natural environment and healthy practices, such as no smoking in the parks, all help promote healthy lifestyles for our residents and visitors. THE 2008 UPDATE The 2008 update to the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan builds upon work completed through the previous comprehensive planning process. The update incorporates input from an Advisory Group comprised of community members and city staff. The community members represented a wide range of special interests and community groups. The update also includes input from two public workshops and reviews at the Planning/Parks Board. Additional comments and priorities were received through a web survey and a telephone survey of Edmonds households. THE VISION Edmonds is a city that values community, sense of place, a vibrant downtown and the waterfront. Throughout the process three overarching concepts emerged on a consistent basis. These concepts drove the direction of the plan update process and will drive the future of the Edmonds’ Park System. The three concepts are: • Connectivity – Improving multi- modal access to and within the Parks System, including visual and physical connections to the waterfront and downtown. • Diverse Activity – Improving the system with different, new and enhanced types of activities and settings, such as an aquatics center. • Visibility – Improving the accessibility of the system through stronger information systems and marketing. See the table on the following page. MOVING FORWARD From the vision, general priorities for the Edmonds’ park system were developed. In addition, City Council has expressed strong interest in pursuing the possibility of an aquatic center and in the acquisition and development of properties for public purposes in the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center. Executive Summary Packet Page 760 of 1136 Partnerships with schools for neighborhood park sites and park diversity. Connections to the waterfront and downtown. CO N N E C T I V I T Y A multi-modal city by improving the walking and biking trail system. New neighborhood and community parks to provide an even distribution of recreation elements in all parts of Edmonds. Protection and connection of natural areas. DI V E R S E AC T I V IT Y Flexible design to respond to new activities and diverse environments. Improving the website and marketing materials for cultural and recreation programs and for existing and new park elements. VI S I B I L I T Y Ensuring the value of the park system for the economic health of Edmonds and the physical well being of its citizens, which is recognized throughout the city planning processes. Page i Packet Page 761 of 1136 Parks and Open Space 1. City Park 2. Willow Creek Hatchery and Interpretive Center 3. Edmonds Marsh/Walkway 4. SR104 Wetlands (East) 5. SR104 Mini Park 6. Marina Beach Park 7. Fishing Pier 8. Olympic Beach Park/ Waterfront Walkway 9. Brackett’s Landing South 10. Brackett’s Landing North 11. Underwater Park & Higgins Trails 12. Sunset Avenue Overlook 13. Civic Center Playfields & Skatepark 14. Hummingbird Hill Park 15. Yost Memorial Park 16. Pine Street Park 17. 7th & Elm 18. Willow Creek Park 19. Edmonds Memorial Cemetery & Columbarium 20. Chase Lake Env. Education/ ESD Natural Area 21. Esperance County Park 22. Old Woodway Elem. Site 23. Mathay Ballinger Park 24. Ballinger Lake Access 25. Pine Ridge Park 26. Ocean Avenue Viewpoint 27. Maplewood Hill Park 28. H.O. Hutt Park 29. Wharf Street 30. Seaview Reservoir 31. Stamm Overlook Park 32. Sierra Park Existing Plan Edmonds School District Civic Use Sites A. South County Senior Center B. South County Historical Museum/ Log Cabin C. Frances Anderson Center/ Edmonds Library & Plaza D. Wade James Theater E. Yost Pool Existing Walkways Proposed Walkways Existing Bicycle Routes Interurban Trail Existing Hand Carry Boat Launch 33. Lynndale Skate Park 34. Seaview Park 35. Southwest County Park 36. Meadowdale Natural Area 37. 162nd Street Site 38. Meadowdale Playfields 39. Meadowdale Beach County Park 40. Shell Creek Open Space 41. Anderson Center Field 42. Centennial Plaza 43. Dayton Street Plaza 44. Point Edwards Scenic Overlook 45. Olympic View Open Space Edmonds Parks, Recreation & Open Space Comprehensive Plan Update • 2008 F. Edmonds Center for the Arts (ECA) G. Dayton Street Art Complex H. Meadowdale Clubhouse/Park I. Edmonds Conference Center (EdCC) J. Train Station PLANNING AREA (CITY LIMITS) Walnut St 186th St SW 88 t h A v e W Ol y m p i c A v e 96 t h A v e 206th St SW 220th St SW 84 t h A v e W Olympic View D r Talbot Rd Me a d o w d a l e B e a c h R d N M e a d o w d a l e R d 76 t h A v e W Ol y m p i c V i e w D r 80 t h A v e W 76 t h A v e W 238th St SW 234th St SW 226th St SW 212th St SW 216th St SW 218th St SW 224th St SW Ad m i r a l W a y *Water Access Only Packet Page 762 of 1136 Parks and Open Space 1. City Park 2. Willow Creek Hatchery and Interpretive Center 3. Edmonds Marsh/Walkway 4. SR104 Wetlands (East) 5. SR104 Mini Park 6. Marina Beach Park 7. Fishing Pier 8. Olympic Beach Park/ Waterfront Walkway 9. Brackett’s Landing South 10. Brackett’s Landing North 11. Underwater Park/Higgins Trails 12. Sunset Avenue Overlook 13. Civic Center Playfields & Skatepark 14. Hummingbird Hill Park 15. Yost Memorial Park 16. Pine Street Park 17. 7th & Elm 18. Willow Creek Park 19. Edmonds Memorial Cemetery & Columbarium 20. Chase Lake Env. Education/ ESD Natural Area 21. Esperance County Park 22. Old Woodway Elem. Site 23. Mathay Ballinger Park 24. Ballinger Lake Access 25. Pine Ridge Park 26. Ocean Avenue Viewpoint 27. Maplewood Hill Park 28. H.O. Hutt Park 29. Wharf Street 30. Seaview Reservoir 31. Stamm Overlook Park 32. Sierra Park Recommended Plan • Facilities Edmonds Parks, Recreation & Open Space Comprehensive Plan Update • 2008 Edmonds School District Civic Use Sites A. South County Senior Center B. South County Historical Museum/ Log Cabin C. Frances Anderson Center/ Edmonds Library & Plaza D. Wade James Theater E. Yost Pool F. Edmonds Center for the Arts (ECA) Existing Hand Carry Boat Launch Proposed Hand Carry Boat Launch 33. Lynndale Skate Park 34. Seaview Park 35. Southwest County Park 36. Meadowdale Natural Area 37. 162nd Street Site 38. Meadowdale Playfields 39. Meadowdale Beach County Park 40. Shell Creek Open Space 41. Anderson Center Field 42. Centennial Plaza 43. Dayton Street Plaza 44. Point Edwards Scenic Overlooks 45. Olympic View Open Space Proposed Neighborhood Park Proposed Community/Regional Park Proposed Neighborhood Park Service Area (1/2 mi. Radius) Proposed Open Space Corridor Proposed 4th Ave Cultural Corridor G. Dayton Street Art Complex H. Meadowdale Clubhouse/Park I. Edmonds Conference Center (EdCC) J. Train Station PLANNING AREA (CITY LIMITS) Caspers St Walnut St 88 t h A v e W Ol y m p i c A v e 220th St SW 84 t h A v e W Olympic View D r Talbot Rd Me a d o w d a l e B e a c h R d N M e a d o w d a l e R d 76 t h A v e W Ol y m p i c V i e w D r 76 t h A v e W 238th St SW 234th St SW 212th St SW 216th St SW 224th St SW Ad m i r a l W a y Former Woodway HS Sherwood Elem. Woodway Elem. Madrona School Westgate Elem. Chase Lake Elem. Edmonds Woodway HS College Place Schools Maplewood Elem. Edmonds Elem. Seaview Elem.Lynndale Elem. Meadowdale Schools Meadowdale HS *Water Access Only *Location TBD Along Waterfront Packet Page 763 of 1136 Parks and Open Space 1. City Park 2. Willow Creek Hatchery and Interpretive Center 3. Edmonds Marsh/Walkway 4. SR104 Wetlands (East) 5. SR104 Mini Park 6. Marina Beach Park 7. Fishing Pier 8. Olympic Beach Park/ Waterfront Walkway 9. Brackett’s Landing South 10. Brackett’s Landing North 11. Underwater Park/Higgins Trails 12. Sunset Avenue Overlook 13. Civic Center Playfi elds & Skatepark 14. Hummingbird Hill Park 15. Yost Memorial Park 16. Pine Street Park 17. 7th & Elm 18. Willow Creek Park 19. Edmonds Memorial Cemetery & Columbarium 20. Chase Lake Env. Education/ ESD Natural Area 21. Esperance County Park 22. Old Woodway Elem. Site 23. Mathay Ballinger Park 24. Ballinger Lake Access 25. Pine Ridge Park 26. Ocean Avenue Viewpoint 27. Maplewood Hill Park 28. H.O. Hutt Park 29. Wharf Street 30. Seaview Reservoir 31. Stamm Overlook Park 32. Sierra Park Recommended Plan • Connections Edmonds Parks, Recreation & Open Space Comprehensive Plan Update • 2008 Edmonds School District Civic Use Sites A. South County Senior Center B. South County Historical Museum/ Log Cabin C. Frances Anderson Center/ Edmonds Library & Plaza D. Wade James Theater E. Yost Pool 33. Lynndale Skate Park 34. Seaview Park 35. Southwest County Park 36. Meadowdale Natural Area 37. 162nd Street Site 38. Meadowdale Playfi elds 39. Meadowdale Beach County Park 40. Shell Creek Open Space 41. Anderson Center Field 42. Centennial Plaza 43. Dayton Street Plaza 44. Point Edwards Scenic Overlooks 45. Olympic View Open Space Proposed Walkway Identifi cation Proposed Bicycle Connection New Beach Connections - Complete System - Multi-purpose where feasible Existing Walkways Proposed Walkways Existing Bicycle Routes Interurban Trail Proposed Trailhead Marker F. Edmonds Center for the Arts (ECA) G. Dayton Street Art Complex H. Meadowdale Clubhouse/Park I. Edmonds Conference Center (EdCC) J. Train Station Proposed Waterfront Connections (Location TBD) PLANNING AREA (CITY LIMITS) CaspCaspCaspCaCCaCaCaspCCaspCaspCCCCapCaspCasCCappCaspCaspaasaaaspsaspCCaspCaspCaapCasperserserssseerserssersersrsersersersrserserserers StSSttStStttStStStttSttStStStStS WlWlWlWlWlWalnWalnWalnnWalnWWalnWaln StStStSut Sut Sutut SSSut Sut Sttttttt 88 t h 88 t h 88 t h 88 t h 88 t h h 8t 8t 88 t 88 t 88 t 8t 88 t t 88 t 8 8 A v e Av e Av e Av e Av e v v W W W W W y y y p Ol y m Ol y m Ol y m Ol y m Ol y ym l Ol y O pi c i pi c pi c Av e A Av e Av e A A A 220t2220220t220t2220t220thSthSth Sth Sth StSSt SWWWWSW SW SWSWSW SWSW 84 t h 84 t h 4t h 4t h 84 84 A v e Av e Av e Av e A v Av Av Av Av Av W W W W W W W OOOOl m OlymOlyOlymOOOOOlymOOOOlymOlyOyOyyy picpicpic picpicpiccpic pic p VVViewViewViewViewViewVi Dr Dr Dr Dr DrDrDDD lbTalbTlbTaTalbTalbTTalbTTaTaTalbTalbTT RRRRRRRot R ot R ot R ot R Rot R tRRot Rot R dddddddddddddd Mea deadddaddeadadadaddeadadadeadeadaddaadadaddddddow d a oowowoow d a ow d a ow d a ow d a ow d a ow d a ow d a dad oow d a owowow d ow d a ooow d a ooooow d ow d a ow da ow d a owoowowd owowwdwdawdwdaadaaaale Ble Blele Blle Blele Ble Ble Blle lellBlee Bee BBeeBBBBBBBBeac h eac h eac h eac hceeac h eac h eac h eac haeac h eeac h eac hach eachacacacachcchhh RdRR RdRdR Rd RdR RdRdd RdRdddRdRdddRdRd N M NN M e NNNN M e e M e M e N M N M NN M e N M NN M N M N M ead o w ad o w ad o w ad o w do w do w ad o dal e dal e dal e dal e dal elee dal ealdld RRdRdRdRdRdRdRddRdddRRdRdd h 76 t h 76 t h 76 t h th 76 t h 6t h 76 t h 76 h 76 t h 76 t A A A Av e Av e A v e Av Av A A W W W W W W W m m Ol y m Ol y m Ol y m Ol y m m m m m Ol y m m m ym m Ol y m Ol y m m Ol y m Ol y m Ol y m Ol y m Ol y m Ol y m Ol y m Ol y m Ol y m Ol y m Ol y m Ol y m Ol y m Ol y m y l Ol y m l Ol y Ol y O O O O p pic pic pic pic pic pi pi c pic pic pic pic c pic pic pic pic pic pic pic pi pi pi pi p p Vi Vi Vi Vi Vie w Vie w Vie w Vie w Vie w Vie w Vie w Vie Vie w Vie w Vie w Vie w Vi Vie w ew Vie w Vie w Vi w iew Vie w Vi Vie w e w Vie w ew Vie w ew Vie V V Vi V V V V V V V V V Dr D D D D Dr Dr r Dr Dr D Dr D Dr r Dr D r D r Dr Dr D D D D D D D D D D D 76 h 76 t h 6t h 76 t h 7 6h 76 t 7 ve e e e e e e A e e e e e A A v e e e ve v v Av A A W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W 238t238t238t238t238t238t3238thSthSthSthSthSthSth SthStSStStth StSStS SWSWSWSWSWSWSWWSWSWWWSWSWSWSWSWW SWW 234t4234t4t234t234t234t34t234t4t44t34t34t234t234t4t234t2333hSthh Sth SthStStSthhSthStShhSt SWSWSWSWSWSWWSWSWWSWSWSWSWW 212t212t212t212t2tthSthSth SthSth St SW SWSWSW 216th St SW 224224t224t224t224224ttthSthSth St SWWWWSWWW SWW Ad m ra ra a W Wa y W W W W W W W W W W W W W Ad m i Ad m i Ad m Ad m i Ad m i Ad m i Ad m i Ad m Ad m i Ad m i d l al al l l l l l l l al al al ral al ra al ral al a ral ral ra r W W W W W W W Wa y y Wa y Wa W W W Wa y Wa Wa Wa W W Wa Wa W ForForFormmmmmrmFormFormForFormmmrmmFormmmFmmmmeeeeeer reeeeeee WoodWoodWooWoodoooowwwwwwwwwwwaaaayyy y wwwaywwwaawayawwayy HHHHHHSHHSHSHHHHHSHSHSHHHHHHHHHHHHH SherShSherrrrrSherwwwooododdwodd EllleeeeemmmE. WoodWooddWoodWoodWoWoWoWoWWWooWWoway ww y way wwwway wa ElemElemElememmEEmm. Madrdadadonaa SchoSchoScSchSchoochoSolol WWWWestWestWestWestWWWWWestWestWestWestestest ategategatgagateategatagaategaategaga ElemElemllmlemlleEleEEllEllee. Chhhaaaaassssssseee eeeee LakeLakeLakakLakeakeakkeeaeaeEEEEEElElleeeeeeeeEe EEEl EEE m. EEdEdEddddmdmmmmmmoddmmmdnds WWWWWWWWWooooooddddWWWWoWoWoooWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWway w HS Collleeeeggggggee gg Place SScchhhhoohhols MMMMMMMapaaplaplaplaplMMMMMaaMMaplMaplaplapMMMMMMMaaapaplMMMMMMaplapaapapapapMMMMMMaMMaaaaplapplplMMMMMapllMMMMaapaaplappplppppppppppppewooewoowooewooewoeewooewooewoowoowoowoowooewooewooewoowoewoowooewewoowooewoooewdddddddddddddddddddd ElemElEllememEElemElememElemm..... EEEEEEdmodddEEdmEdmoEEEdmoEdmEdmdmmEdmEdmEdmEddEd dndddddddndsndsds nds EleEleEleEleElemElemlemlememmmEleElemmleEmElmmmm... SeavSeeeavavavaeavSSieieieieeeeewiew ieieeieeeieieeewieewwww Elemleml.LynnLynnLynnyyydddddaaalealealedalalelaleaaaleaall ElEElElemElemElemEleElemElemE.... MeMeaMeadddddddddddddddddddeddddddd ddddddawdadowdawdallllllelelele Sccccchhhohohchohhcolso MMMeadMeMMowdawdaleeeeee HHSH Packet Page 764 of 1136 C HAPTER 1 Introduction Packet Page 765 of 1136 City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan Introduction This Plan discusses the findings and recommendations to provide parks, open spaces, recreation and cultural services in Edmonds, referred to collectively in the document as the “Park System”. The Plan in combination with the Community Cultural Plan Update provides policies for developing the Park System and suggests methods of financing improvements and services. The Plan identifies and evaluates the existing park system, assesses the need for Park System facilities and programs, and recommends an approach to fund improvements, including operations and maintenance. PURPOSE OF THE PLAN The purpose of this Plan is to identify the needs for the Park System in Edmonds and to establish policies and implement strategies to meet those needs. This Plan is an update of the city’s 2001 Plan and is consistent with the Growth Management Comprehensive Plan Guidelines. This revision provides an update to the Plan to coordinate with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Capital Improvement Program (CIP). This Plan is also needed to qualify for state and federal grants. The Recreation and Conservation Funding Board (RCFB) administers most state and federal recreation oriented grant programs through the Recreation Conservation Office (RCO). In order to qualify for these grants, Edmonds must maintain an updated Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan. PLAN ORGANIZATION The Plan is organized into an executive summary, seven chapters, and four appendices of technical information. Summary of Contents Chapter 1 – Introduction: A statement regarding the purpose of the Plan, an overview of the Plan organization, a summary of public involvement in the planning process, and a list of relevant planning documents. Chapter 2 – Community Profile: A description of the planning area boundaries, the natural features, demographic characteristics, land use and cultural resources of Edmonds. Chapter 3 – Facilities and Programs Inventory: A general description and inventory of existing parks, recreation, open space and cultural facilities and programs available in Edmonds. Chapter 4 – Community Needs Assessment: A summary of existing conditions found in Edmonds today and what the community would like to see for the future of the Edmonds park system. Includes a summary of survey findings, public meetings, advisory group meetings, and recommended level of service standards. Introduction Page 1-1 Packet Page 766 of 1136 Parks, Recreation and Open Space and Cultural Comprehensive Plan City of Edmonds Chapter 5 – Comprehensive Plan Framework: Goals and Objectives: For each service area of the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department. Chapter 6 – Action Plan: A summary of the assessed need and specific recommended actions related to the future of the Park System in Edmonds, improvements to existing facilities, changes in programs and services and/or new facilities proposed. Chapter 7 – Funding Plan: A description of project priorities and funding sources for capital and non-capital projects. Appendix A – Facility Inventory Worksheets Appendix B – Community Survey Results: The telephone and web surveys with results for each question. Appendix C – Park Descriptions: A one- page description of each facility within the park system owned or leased by the City of Edmonds. The description includes the park name, park type, size, location, list of elements, and a location map. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT In order to reflect the views of the community and build support for the Plan, public participation was an important part of the planning process. It included: Creation of a Parks Comprehensive Plan Advisory Group – The Advisory Group met throughout the planning process to test ideas and provide detailed feedback on the Plan. The committee included representatives from the Edmonds Arts Commission, Edmonds School District, Port of Edmonds, Adult Sports, Edmonds Library, Edmonds Planning/Parks Board, Cemetery Board, Youth Sports, South County Senior Center, Recreation Services, Cultural Services, Edmonds Bicycle Group, and citizens at large. Web Survey – Advertised heavily and distributed through the internet, the web survey sought to evaluate general public perception of the Park System. Telephone Survey – Members of randomly selected Edmonds households were asked to complete a detailed questionnaire about general recreation facilities and services, specific proposed elements and possible funding opportunities. Public Meetings – A public workshop and an open house were advertised and hosted by the Advisory Group and the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department. The purpose of the meetings was to invite citizens to participate in developing a plan for the future of the Edmonds Park System. INTEGRATION WITH OTHER PLANNING DOCUMENTS The planning documents and studies that influence park, recreation, open space and cultural facilities and services within the city were reviewed for policies, guidelines and information relevant to the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan. These documents include: Park, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan, 2001 City of Edmonds 2000 Bikeway Comprehensive Plan City of Edmonds 2002 Comprehensive Walkway Plan City of Edmonds Community Cultural Plan, August 2001 & updated in 2008 City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, 2006 Page 1-2 Introduction Packet Page 767 of 1136 City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan City of Edmonds Streetscape Plan, 2006 Community Youth Report, 2001 US Census 2000 Shoreline Master Plan Port of Edmonds Strategic Plan Introduction Page 1-3 Packet Page 768 of 1136 C HAPTER 2 Community Profile Packet Page 769 of 1136 City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan Community Profile The City of Edmonds is located in south Snohomish County. It is part of a highly developed region that includes north King County and south Snohomish County. Cities adjacent to Edmonds include Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood, Woodway and Shoreline. The community's location on the west-facing slopes of Puget Sound provides extensive access to beaches and waterfront parks. State Routes 104, 524 and 99 provide links to neighboring cities, Interstate 5 and the Edmonds-Kingston Ferry. The Edmonds- Kingston Ferry connects south Snohomish County and north King County with the northern Kitsap Peninsula and points west on the Olympic Peninsula. Community Transit provides bus service with regular bus routes and peak period commuter routes. Metro transit provides direct services to the University of Washington and downtown Seattle. BNSF Railroad tracks run along the Sound and support freight, AMTRAK passenger and Sound Transit rail service. With frequent train travel, the railroad is a significant element in the character of the shoreline and an impediment to movement between downtown Edmonds and the Sound. The potential relocation of the ferry terminal also plays a significant role in the future of Edmonds’ waterfront, including Marina Beach Park. PLANNING AREA The planning area includes the 8.9 square miles within the Edmonds city limits and 1.2 square miles of unincorporated neighborhoods within the overall limits of the city’s boundary. The boundaries of the planning area are formed by Puget Sound on the west, Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace city limits on the east, Woodway city limits and King-Snohomish County line on the south and Meadowdale Beach Park (Lund’s Gulch) on the north. Edmonds has over five miles of saltwater shoreline, fully developed. Of these five miles, less than one mile is available for public use. Community Profile Page 2-1 Packet Page 770 of 1136 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan City of Edmonds The City is primarily a residential community that provides many amenities for residents and visitors. An active arts and cultural community contributes to the strong sense of civic pride widely shared in the community. There are numerous well-kept residential neighborhoods, a viable economic base and an active, involved citizenry. The Edmonds-Kingston Ferry has had a major impact in Edmonds since the terminal was built in 1923. During summer months thousands of visitors and tourists drive to Edmonds to take the ferry to Kingston and other parts of Kitsap County. At busy times, traffic is backed up for more than a mile on SR 104. A feasibility study, The Edmonds Crossing, examined alternative locations for the ferry terminal. Relocating the terminal site to Point Edwards would help resolve existing traffic conflicts and congestion while providing increased terminal capacity. A future multimodal facility is expected to incorporate terminals for rail and bus service, park and ride lots and pedestrian access, with a new ferry terminal. The proposed site is about one mile south of the existing ferry terminal. NATURAL FEATURES Topography/ Terrain Edmonds has two distinct topographic districts. The western two-thirds is a gentle to steeply sloping hillside known locally as “the bowl”. This area overlooks the Sound and affords spectacular views of the water and the Olympic Mountains. The hillside is braided with ravines and streams, some extending a mile inland. The remaining one-third of Edmonds is flat to gently rolling plateau. As Edmonds has urbanized, the natural vegetation has become increasingly scarce. The city’s woodlands, marshes and other areas containing natural vegetation provide an important resource, which should be preserved. Many of the remaining undeveloped areas of the city are located on hillsides or in ravines where steep slopes have discouraged, but not stopped, development. These are frequently areas where natural drainage ways exist and where the second growth forest is still undisturbed. In some areas, soil conditions exist that severely limit urban development. Rivers, Streams, Wetlands and Drainageways The land area of Edmonds drains directly to Puget Sound via pipes and open streams and is part of the Cedar River Drainage Basin Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA 8). Open water bodies include Northstream, Shell Creek, Hindley Creek, Good Hope Pond, Willow Creek, Shellabarger Creek and Edmonds Marsh. The marsh is fed from Shellabarger and Willow Creeks and connects to the Sound through a 1300-foot long pipe that parallels the railroad track south of the Edmonds Marina. It is a designated wildlife sanctuary. Edmonds beaches, breakwaters and pilings represent unique habitats for marine organisms. Streams, lakes and saltwater areas offer habitats for many species of migrating and resident bird life. Undeveloped wooded areas and parks provide habitats for birds and mammals. Page 2-2 Community Profile Packet Page 771 of 1136 City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan Many species utilize both upland and beach areas. The Puget Sound waterfront is one of the most scenic areas of the city and establishes the visual identity of Edmonds. Climate The climate in Edmonds is heavily influenced by its location on Puget Sound. The abundance of moist marine air keeps the temperature mild all year. Average summer temperatures are in the low 60’s. Winter temperatures are generally in the upper 30’s. Winds are often strong and are typically from the southwest in winter and from the northwest in summer. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS Current census data had not yet been released at the time of this Plan update. Demographics are therefore still based on 2000 census information. Age Snohomish County City of Edmonds Under 19 30% 22.8% 20-44 38.8% 32.3% 45-64 22% 28.3% Over 65 9.1% 16.6% Median Age 34.7 42 Young families in Edmonds have increased substantially from 1990.Youth population has risen from 20% to 22.8% in 2000. Edmonds has a growing number of 20-44 age citizens. This reflects the increase of young couples with children and an average median age of 42 years. The elderly population (over 65) has remained constant between 1990 and 2000 at 16%. 87.7% of the community is Caucasian, 5.6% are Asian, 3.3% are Hispanic or Latino and 1.3% are black or African American. 68.1% of the homes are owner-occupied units with 31.9% renter occupied. Ethnicity Ethnicity is important from a recreation participation standpoint. Some ethnic groups have a higher participation level in specific types of recreational activities, which would increase the demand for certain types of facilities. The population is predominantly Caucasian, yet Edmonds is becoming more diverse each year. According to the 2000 census Edmonds is still less diverse than the State as a whole, where 18.2% of the population is an ethnicity other than Caucasian. Income Income levels are used to reveal important demographic characteristics. In general, the higher income groups tend to be more active and participate in more expensive types of activities. Edmonds is an upper-middle income residential community. According to 2001 estimates provided by Puget Sound Regional Council based on traffic analysis zones (TAZ), 31% of Edmonds households are classified as upper income. Upper- middle income households make up 26.2% of the total, 24.3% are in the low- middle range and 18.5% are in the low- income range. Due to the absence of a large industrial and commercial base, the city is heavily dependent on property taxes as the main Community Profile Page 2-3 Packet Page 772 of 1136 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan City of Edmonds funding mechanism to provide services for residents. Property taxes comprise 40% of the city’s General Fund Revenues. LAND USE Land use plays an important role in the location, distribution and availability of park, open space, recreation and cultural facilities. According to the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2006, the total land area of the City of Edmonds encompasses 8.9 square miles (5,700 acres). In 2006, approximately 96% of the city was developed. Commercial activity is concentrated in two major areas – the downtown/waterfront and the Highway 99 corridor. Other vital commercial areas include Westgate, Perrinville, 5 Corners and Firdale Village. Housing The city is primarily residential with single- family and multi-family residential units comprising approximately 59.6% of the total land in the city. In 2007, the median home value was $435,000. Vacant Land Approximately 240 acres within the Edmonds city limits are undeveloped. Of this, approximately 170 acres are zoned for single-family residential development. CULTURAL RESOURCES Edmonds has a strong and long-lived reputation as a cultural community. In 1975 the Edmonds Arts Commission was established “to promote the arts as an integral part of community life.” Edmonds is home to the Edmonds Center for the Arts, a regional symphony, a ballet company, an artist’s cooperative, theater groups, a major arts festival, an historical museum, a sculptor’s workshop, Edmonds Community College ArtsNow program, writer’s groups, galleries, a significant public art collection and ArtWorks a space for artists. The beautiful natural environment of Edmonds has attracted many artists and writers to this area. Since the first Community Cultural Plan was adopted in 1995 and subsequent updates in 2001 and 2008, the City of Edmonds has become even stronger in fostering its cultural resources. POPULATION FORECAST The population of Edmonds was 40,560 in April 2007. The rate of growth has been relatively stable at about 1% per year with major increases occurring primarily as a result of annexations in the 1960s, 1970s and 1990s. Based on forecasted continued growth at 1% per year, the population in 2012 is projected to be 42,629. The moderate rate of growth reflects Edmonds’ status as a mature community with a small supply of vacant, developable land. Page 2-4 Community Profile Packet Page 773 of 1136 C HAPTER 3 Facility and Program Inventory Packet Page 774 of 1136 City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan Facility and Programs Inventory This chapter includes an inventory of resources located within Edmonds. It addresses: Parks and Open Space Recreation Facilities and Programs Cultural Services Facilities and Programs Operations and Maintenance Administration The Existing Conditions Map found in this plan illustrates the parks, recreation, open space and cultural resources available today. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE The most effective and efficient Park System to manage is one made up of different types of parks, each designed to provide a specific type of recreation experience or opportunity. When classified and used properly they are easier to maintain, create less conflicts between user groups, and have less impact on adjoining neighbors. In order to assess the Park System in Edmonds and to address specific park system needs, the parks have been classified as follows. Neighborhood Parks Community Parks Regional Parks Special Use Areas Open Space Gateways/Entrances Connections Beautification Areas Today, almost 450 acres of parkland are available to residents and visitors. They include parks and open space owned by the City of Edmonds as well as parks and open space owned and managed by Snohomish County, Edmonds School District, and other public agencies. A detailed description of each park and open space site is contained in Appendix C. Summary tables of existing facilities is shown on pages 3-17 and 3-18 at the end of this chapter. Properties Owned/Managed by Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS Neighborhood parks are designed for both informal and formal recreation activities. They are generally small in size (one to five acres) and serve an area of approximately a one-half mile radius, or within a typical walking distance. Typically, facilities found in a neighborhood park include a children's playground, picnic areas, trails, open grass areas for passive use, outdoor Facilities, and Programs Inventory Page 3-1 Packet Page 775 of 1136 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan City of Edmonds basketball courts and multi-use sport fields for soccer, and youth baseball. COMMUNITY PARKS Community parks are designed to provide specialized facilities to serve the entire community. Their service area is roughly a 2-mile to 5-mile radius. The optimum size is between 20 acres and 50 acres. Community parks typically have sports fields, open space or similar dedicated uses as the central focus of the park. Because community parks are designed to accommodate large numbers of people, they often require support facilities such as parking and restrooms. REGIONAL PARKS Regional parks are recreational areas serving the city and beyond. They are usually large in size and often include one specific use or feature that makes them special. Typically, they feature unique types of recreational activities, such as swimming, camping, hiking, fishing, boating, picnicking and golfing. Regional parks within urban areas sometimes offer a wider range of facilities and activities. These parks may also include special facilities such as waterfront features, stadiums, cemeteries, zoos, concert halls, and aquariums. SPECIAL USE AREAS Special Use Areas are public recreation facilities used for a special purpose such as cultural activities, educational activities, gathering places and other specialized recreation. They include, for example, Centennial Plaza, the Historic Museum and the SR104 Mini Park. OPEN SPACE Open space is undeveloped land left primarily in its natural state with recreation uses as a secondary objective. It is usually owned or managed by a governmental agency and may or may not have public access. This type of land often includes wetlands, steep hillsides, or other similar areas. In some cases, environmentally sensitive areas are considered as open space and can include wildlife habitats, stream and creek corridors. GATEWAYS / ENTRANCES These are landscaped areas with signage marking both perceived entry “nodes” and actual political boundaries of the community. Edmonds currently has three developed gateways and additional locations and design parameters are outlined in the City of Edmonds Streetscape Plan. One small gateway is located on Edmonds Way at Westgate. Another more prominent gateway at the entrance to downtown Edmonds is on property owned by the Washington Department of Transportation at SR 104 and Fifth Avenue South (.20 acres). Brackett’s Landing is a regional park and the sign at Main and Sunset serves as the western waterway Page 3-2 Parks, Facilities, and Programs Inventory Packet Page 776 of 1136 City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan entrance and gateway into Edmonds. The City of Edmonds Streetscape Plan suggests additional gateway / entrance intersections that could be enhanced. CONNECTIONS Connections include pedestrian, bicycle routes and visual connections through identification markers, scenic corridors, overlooks, beautification areas and linear parks. Pedestrian and bike routes can be a shared roadway without bike lanes, marked bicycle lanes or a shared use, non- motorized path. Connections should be designated with signage and on park maps. Linear parks are part of an overall non- motorized transportation system that provides connectivity throughout the community. They are developed landscaped areas and other lands that follow linear corridors. This type of park often contains trails, walkways, landscaped areas, viewpoints and seating areas. Linear parks contribute to the City’s ability to preserve and protect natural areas, ecological features and cultural assets including historic and public art features. BEAUTIFICATION AREAS Beautification areas include landscaped features located along street right-of-ways, intersections, and medians. One hundred fifty hanging flower baskets are also included in beautification areas. They are as much a part of Edmonds’ identity as its location overlooking Puget Sound and its reputation as a cultural community. The importance of beautification areas, their contribution to creating a pedestrian friendly community, and the potential for integration of public art elements is also addressed in the Streetscape Plan and in the Community Cultural Plan. The following table 3.1 lists the beautification area inventory. Table 3.1 Beautification Areas City of Edmonds Beautification Areas Acres Street Trees on 220th St. .2 5th & Main Intersection .1 9th and Casper .1 9th and Puget .1 Corner Parks 1.0 Dayton Avenue & SR 104 .1 Downtown Street Trees 1.0 Edmonds Historical Museum 0.2 Edmonds Treatment Plant 2.7 Public Safety Civic Complex 4.0 SR 104 / Paradise Lane Medians and Westgate Entry sign .3 Flower Baskets (150) -- TOTAL 9.8 Snohomish County Recreation Resources Snohomish County is also a provider of open space area and trails. The County owns and manages parks within the Edmonds planning area. The parks include Esperance County Park, Meadowdale Beach Park, Southwest County Park, and Chase Lake Environmental Education Site. Both Meadowdale Beach Park and Southwest County Park are intended for passive recreation and, therefore, are relatively undeveloped and included as open space in the overall inventory. Esperance County Park is considered a Facilities, and Programs Inventory Page 3-3 Packet Page 777 of 1136 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan City of Edmonds neighborhood park and the Chase Lake Environmental Education Site is considered a Special Use area. School Recreation Lands EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT Edmonds School District currently serves 22,089 (2007-08) students from an area of 36 square miles that includes four cities, one town, and unincorporated areas in southwest Snohomish County. The district offers sport fields, playground areas, outdoor basketball courts, and gymnasium space. Public access is limited to times when school is not in session and when there are no competing demands from school related activities. The Edmonds School District, Edmonds Community College, the City of Edmonds, and other cities in the southwest county area have formed a coordinating focus team that meets regularly to discuss scheduling, partnership projects, and capital improvement projects. The result has been more efficient use of public facilities, receipt of matching grants for capital improvements and improved working relationships with site staff. The City has developed neighborhood or community park elements in partnership with Edmonds Elementary, Madrona K-8, Sherwood Elementary, Edmonds Woodway High School and the Former Woodway High School. A Conceptual plan has been developed by the School District for a regional athletic facility at the Former Woodway High School site and a committee of District, City and community organizations is exploring funding strategies. COLLEGES Edmonds Community College owns and operates the Edmonds Conference Center in downtown Edmonds. The structure, built by a private investor and donated to the college for public benefit, provides space for arts events, community gatherings and private rentals. Edmonds Community College offers a wide range of indoor and outdoor recreation facilities. These include basketball/volleyball courts, fitness area and baseball fields. In general, the College’s facilities are well designed and have been developed to a very high level, but are not easily accessible to the general public. Central Washington University has a satellite campus at Edmonds Community College. It utilizes the recreational resources owned and managed by other public entities. Other Public Recreation Resources Other public recreation resources include parks or facilities owned by a public agency other than those already mentioned. PORT OF EDMONDS The Port of Edmonds has an extensive marina that provides dry and in-water boat moorage, and public sling boat launching for motorized boats. An additional restroom facility is planned for 2009. A public walkway along the marina connects Olympic Beach and Marina Beach. The Port has an interactive weather station and developed a popular pedestrian plaza at the waterfront. Each year on the first weekend in June, the Port is the site of the Waterfront Festival. The Port and City have Page 3-4 Parks, Facilities, and Programs Inventory Packet Page 778 of 1136 City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan partnered on several joint ventures including the Public Fishing Pier, Marsh boardwalk and sign program, Marina Beach Parking, and Olympic Beach Parking. WASHINGTON STATE FERRIES (WSF) The Edmonds-Kingston Ferry terminal is one of the major ports for the Washington State Ferry system. In addition to transporting commuters and commercial traffic, WSF provides access to recreation resources on the Kitsap and Olympic Peninsulas for tourists and other visitors. The route began in 1923 with an automobile ferry named “The City of Edmonds.” The potential relocation of the ferry terminal plays a significant role in the future of Edmonds’ waterfront. EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT The Edmonds Public Facilities District Center for the Arts includes a large gymnasium that is a rental facility for recreation activities. MUNICIPAL RECREATION RESOURCES Parks or facilities owned by a neighboring municipality, and known to be used by Edmonds residents are listed in the table below. The Cities of Lynnwood, Edmonds and Mountlake Terrace publish the recreational/facilities program brochure jointly. The coordinated cooperation of the three municipalities benefits all the citizens in southwest Snohomish County. Table 3.2 Municipal Recreation Resources Edmonds Vicinity Municipal Recreation Resources City of Lynnwood Interurban Trail Corridor Lynndale Park Lynnwood Golf Course City of Mountlake Terrace Ballinger Park Evergreen Playfields Interurban Trail Corridor Ballinger Lake Boat/Fish Access City of Shoreline Interurban Trail Corridor Town of Woodway Woodway Reserve Facilities, and Programs Inventory Page 3-5 Packet Page 779 of 1136 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan City of Edmonds Private Recreation Resources Privately owned facilities and private programs that are open to the general public for admission and membership contribute to the recreational opportunities in the Edmonds planning area and are listed for reference only. They are not otherwise addressed in this Plan, however they provide important resources benefiting the recreation system. Table 3.3 Private Recreation Resources Edmonds Planning Area Private Recreation Resources Edmonds Boys and Girls Club4 Edmonds Center for the Arts Gymnasium Edmonds Historical Museum4 Mieko’s Fitness - Edmonds Edmonds Theater Funtasia Fun Park Harbor Square Athletic Club Log Cabin Visitor Center4 Robin Hood Lanes Sno-King Youth Club4 South County Senior Center4 Maplewood Rock and Gem Club Klahaya Swim and Tennis Club Model Railroad Club/ Amtrak Train Station Nile Golf Course (18-hole) Lynnwood Municipal Golf Course (18-hole) Ballinger Lake Golf Course (9-hole) 4City facilities that are leased for recreation programs by private non-profit groups. PRIVATE SCHOOLS/CHURCHES Private schools and churches offer limited recreation facilities. Most often these include gymnasium space, playgrounds, outdoor basketball courts and sometimes ball fields. Typically, the facilities of private schools and churches are available only to their patrons, members or students. RECREATION FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS Within the Edmonds planning area there are many sport fields and other recreation facilities. They are managed by the City of Edmonds, the Edmonds School District, private schools, and commercial/private clubs. See Parks Inventory Worksheet for a complete inventory. Yost Pool Yost Pool was built in 1972. The facility is a handicap accessible seasonal pool with a holding capacity of 250,000 gallons of water. The 25 meter x 25 yard pool is L- shaped and has a spa that can accommodate 10 people. The capacity of the City for aquatic programming is limited due to the lack of indoor facilities. Yost Pool is currently open three months/year, Memorial Day through Labor Day. A feasibility study for expanding, covering or replacing the pool is scheduled to begin in 2008. Any further consideration of pool resources in Edmonds is deferred until that study is complete. Frances Anderson Center The Frances Anderson Center is the “home” of the majority of Edmonds Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services programming. The Center has classroom space, a drop-in weight room, a gymnasium (77’ x 53’), and dedicated gymnastics space. Page 3-6 Parks, Facilities, and Programs Inventory Packet Page 780 of 1136 City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER TENANTS The Frances Anderson Center also houses seven tenants who provide a wide range of activities that augment and enhance the Department’s mission. Olympic Ballet Theatre and School is a highly respected regional company providing lessons for all ages and high- caliber performances throughout Puget Sound. Sno-King Youth Club organizes baseball/softball, basketball, soccer, and volleyball for thousands of children annually. Edmonds Montessori has been an excellent starting point for thousands of our community’s children. Sculptors’ Workshop is a 60-member cooperative studio. The Edmonds Arts Festival Museum provides regional artists a venue for monthly exhibits. Main Street Kids is a full-service daycare/preschool serving more than 75 families. Frances Anderson Center tenants are longtime partners in providing cultural and recreational activities in our community. In addition, revenue from leases contributes more than $140,000 annually to the Department’s budget. Programs and Activities The Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department offers a full range of programs for all ages. The Frances Anderson Center is the focus for many of the programs. More than 1,000 people use the center daily. In addition, Edmonds Community College, Edmonds School District facilities, and the City and County parks all provide venues for public recreation programming in the community. Major Programs Recreation participation by major programs is summarized in Table 3.4. The major categories include: Aquatics Environmental Education General Recreation Athletics Fitness Gymnastics/Youth Fitness Preschool Day Camps Special Events AQUATICS During the summer months, Yost Pool offers a full schedule of public swim, lap swim, deep water aerobics and special events, including teen nights and the Cannonball/Bellyflop contest. The pool is also available for rent. The Champs Swim Meet rotates every three years between the cities of Edmonds, Lynnwood and Kirkland. The pool provides summer jobs for more than 30 staff. ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION Environmental education is a learning process that increases knowledge and awareness about the environment. Environmental education enables individuals to weigh various sides of an environmental issue and make responsible Facilities, and Programs Inventory Page 3-7 Packet Page 781 of 1136 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan City of Edmonds decisions about human impacts to the environment. Edmonds Discovery Programs began in the 1980’s as the Beach Ranger Program. The mission is “to provide interpretive and environmental education opportunities for the citizens of Edmonds, our school-age children, and visitors to our parks and beaches; and to promote stewardship of Puget Sound, its shorelines, and the surrounding watershed.” Various environmental education activities and programs are offered to schools, scout groups, community organizations and the general public through the Discovery Programs Office. Programs include Ranger-Naturalist visits to classrooms and low-tide beach walks, Discover the Forest at Yost Park, Earth Day programs, beach cleanups, seasonal nature day camps, and special events such as the Watershed Fun Fair and Puget Sound Bird Fest. Edmonds Discovery Programs are staffed by an environmental education coordinator, one interpretive specialist, and four to six seasonal ranger-naturalists. The Olympic Beach Ranger Station serves more than 100 visitors a day during summer weekends. It is staffed by trained volunteers, and supervised by Ranger- Naturalists who also patrol the beaches daily during the summer. GENERAL RECREATION General Recreation programs include art, special interest, children’s and outdoor recreation classes. Ample recreation opportunities for preschoolers on up are available in the broad range of programs offered. All recreation programs are advertised in the CRAZE, a collaborative publication by the cities of Edmonds, Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace. A sampling of programs in each program area includes: Art: painting, calligraphy, writing, photography, mosaics; Special Interest: belly dance, hula, Irish dance, dog obedience; Children’s: Fun Factory, Wiggles & Giggles, Tune Tales Music, soccer, etiquette, Spanish; Outdoor Recreation: hiking, kayaking, rafting, whale watching. ATHLETICS A variety of interests are served in our athletic programs. Adult leagues include pickleball, volleyball, basketball and softball. A volleyball skills class and tennis lessons give adults an opportunity to improve their skills. Bowling, golf and tennis are offered for children and Skyhawks Sports Academy offers summer sports camps for ages 3-14. FITNESS A variety of fitness programs are offered and include yoga, tai chi, qigong, taekwon do, pilates, jazzercize®, baby boot camp® and prenatal fitness classes. More than 4,700 individuals used the weight room and open gym in 2006. These drop-in facilities give patrons the opportunity to work out at a time convenient to their busy schedule. GYMNASTICS/YOUTH FITNESS All of the classes in the Gymnastics/Youth Fitness Program provide positive social and physical experiences with emphasis Page 3-8 Parks, Facilities, and Programs Inventory Packet Page 782 of 1136 City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan on major motor skills development. Children progress at their own pace through step-by-step methods in a safe, fun and fit environment. Gymnastic classes for children from two years of age into their teens are offered. The competitive team, “Edmonds Illusions”, competes successfully throughout the region. In sport classes, basic skills are taught in soccer, basketball, kickball, volleyball and T-ball. Drop-in play experience is offered with lots of climbing, jumping and assorted games to give children a good dose of fitness and fun on Friday afternoons and Friday nights. Birthday parties continue to be popular with gymnastics instruction, games and party time. The annual “Spring Show” highlights the children’s achievements and provides great photo opportunities for the 1,300 spectators. PRESCHOOL The Meadowdale Preschool, which began in 1992, is based in North Edmonds at the Meadowdale Community Clubhouse and offers programs for ages 3 to 5. In the Pre-K program children enjoy hands-on curriculum in math, science, art, reading and storytelling, writing, music and large motor activities. They also learn social and emotional skills in preparation for kindergarten. In the 3-year old program, children interact with peers and materials to enhance this period of growth in their lives. DAY CAMPS These programs pride themselves on providing traditional summer experiences with crafts, games, swimming, field trips and positive role models every summer. Some of the day campers are third generation. As the world around us continues its trend to high tech, these camps are an oasis of pipe cleaner and egg carton creations, and duck-duck- goose. The programs also provide excellent summer jobs for more than 20 staff, and training for 35 Junior Counselors. SPECIAL EVENTS The Department and City supported or hosted the following special events in 2007: 40th Annual Children’s Carnival Sister City Celebrations Youth Fishing Derby Spring Gymnastics Show Christmas Ship Sing-a-Long Annual Egg Hunt Starlight Beach Walk Twilight Trail Walk Sand Sculpting Contest Puget Sound Bird Fest Watershed Fun Fair Moonlight Beach Adventure Outdoor Movie Nights Edmonds Idol and Edmonds Junior Idol Write on the Sound Writer’s Conference Best Book Poster Contest Reception Edmonds Arts Festival Sculptor’s Workshop Sales Friends of the Edmonds Library Annual Book Sale Summer Concerts in the Park Facilities, and Programs Inventory Page 3-9 Packet Page 783 of 1136 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan City of Edmonds 4th of July Celebrations (Chamber of Commerce) Edmonds Arts Festival (Association) Taste of Edmonds (Chamber of Commerce) Old Oldsmobile Show Hot Autumn Nites Car Show (Chamber) Edmonds Night Out (Police Foundation) Summer Markets (Edmonds-S Cty Hist. Society) Wenatchee Youth Circus (Exchange Club) CULTURAL SERVICES, FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS Cultural facilities are supported by the City in a variety of ways. The largest facility, the Edmonds Center for the Arts, owned by the Edmonds Public Facilities District, was purchased and renovated with financial assistance from the City. The 223-seat Wade James Theatre was built by the Driftwood Players on City land and is owned and maintained by the City. The Edmonds South County Historical Society operates the Edmonds Museum located in the City owned former Carnegie Library building. The South County Senior Center leases a City building and provides a range of cultural programs for seniors. The Edmonds Arts Festival and Arts Festival Foundation lease space from the City for the Gallery in the Frances Anderson Center and for ArtWorks, a space for visual arts, in the former Public Works building. As noted earlier other arts organizations lease space in the Frances Anderson Center. There are two outdoor park venues: Frances Anderson Center has an outdoor amphitheater which is used for a variety of performances in the summer, and City Park has the Rotary Pavilion where the summer Concerts in the Park are performed. Programs In addition to cultural arts programming through the Recreation Division, a number of special programs and events in literary, visual and performing arts are presented by the Edmonds Arts Commission (EAC) through the Cultural Services Division. The Arts Commission is a group of seven volunteers appointed by the Mayor. Programs serve people of all ages and include programs which work with artists in the schools. Revenues and expenses for Cultural Services programming are administered through the 117 and 123 special funds. VISUAL ARTS The EAC curates four exhibit spaces which provide opportunities for regional visual artists: the Frances Anderson Display Case, the Young Artists Display Case, Edmonds Public Library Exhibit, and the Brackett Room Exhibit space in City Hall. An estimated 700 people view these exhibits each month and EAC hosts several receptions and artist talks a year in partnership with the Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation. The Public Art Collection includes over 30 permanently sited works in public areas and over 100 portable works on display in City buildings. Cultural Services implements the One Percent for Art program, facilitating the process of public art selection/installation, and ongoing maintenance of the collection. The collection includes pieces funded through the One Percent for Art Ordinance, works of art funded through donations, and gifts from donors. The Edmonds Arts Page 3-10 Parks, Facilities, and Programs Inventory Packet Page 784 of 1136 City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan LITERARY ARTS Commission makes final recommendations to the Mayor and City Council regarding purchase or acceptance of gifts of artwork.. Write on the Sound is a two day writers’ conference attended by approximately 200 people from all over the country. A half day Pre-conference is presented in partnership with Edmonds Community College. The EAC and the Friends of the Edmonds Library partner to promote visual and literary arts through the annual “Best Book Poster Contest” for third graders. EAC presents an annual Youth Writing Contest for Middle and High School students in the Edmonds School District. PERFORMING ARTS The EAC presents a series of eight free Concerts in the Park on Sundays in July and August, co-sponsored by community businesses. Other performing arts events are presented in partnership with non- profit arts organizations such as Edmonds Center for the Arts. Overall these performing arts events serve over 3,500 people annually. Other Cultural Services programs include the quarterly Arts Bulletin newsletter; Tourism Promotion Awards for local cultural organizations; sale of Edmonds History books and posters; and Technical Assistance workshops for local cultural organizations. Facilities, and Programs Inventory Page 3-11 Packet Page 785 of 1136 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan City of Edmonds Table 3.4 Major Recreation Program Types - City of Edmonds Major Recreation Programs Registrants/ Participants Classes/ Events Offered Fees % of Revenue Aquatics 24,899 724 $129,455 15.4% Swim Classes 1,365 244 $37,200 Swim Team 190 11 $22,800 Open Swims 18,016 339 $54,050 Rentals 5,328 130 $14,700 Lockers $705 Environmental Education 7,539 308 $18,100 2.1% General Recreation 2,885 361 $158,121 18.8% Arts 339 59 $22,467 Special Interest 788 98 $34,500 Children 1,573 159 $96,002 Outdoor Recreation 185 45 $5,152 Athletics 947 1,594 $146,869 17.5% Adult Team Registrations 242 1,539 $90,730 Youth 705 55 $56,139 Fitness 2,006 209 $94,060 11.2% Gymnastics/Youth Fitness 1,180 282 $133,008 15.8% Meadowdale Preschool 78 23 $33,967 4% Summer Day Camps* 832 39 days $127,560 15.2% Special Events 6,670 21 Free Total Recreation Programs & Services 47,036 $841,140 Rentals/Leases/Other $283,929 Leases $122,071 Field Rentals (7 youth org; 13 individuals) 1,790 $31,000 Other Rentals $117,707 Weight Room/Drop-in Gym) 4,876 $13,151 Cultural Services Programs 12,285 48 $22,100 117 &123 Funds Concerts in the Park (series of 8 concerts) 3,000 8 Free Exhibits – 4 venues (145,000- total traffic per year, 8,400 art viewers) 8,400 1 350 days, 32 exhibits Free Special receptions and events 500 6 - 8 Free Sale of Edmonds History books $300 117 Fund Writer’s Conference ( 2 ½ - day conference plus keynote lecture) 235 2 $21,500 117 Fund Best Book Poster Reception 150 1 free Poster Sales $300 123 Fund 1 Estimate based on 28 people per day specifically viewing art exhibits at the four venues. Page 3-12 Parks, Facilities, and Programs Inventory Packet Page 786 of 1136 City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan PARTNERSHIPS Partnerships are an essential element in the success of programs provided by the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department. They reduce expenses by pooling resources. Through partnerships, different viewpoints and ideas are infused into programs and events. Partnerships also expand the appeal of programs. In addition to all City Department and Division partnerships, Public and Private partners currently include: Adopt-a-Beach Brackett’s Landing Foundation City of Lynnwood City of Mountlake Terrace Edmonds Arts Festival Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation Edmonds Bicycle Club Edmonds Boys & Girls Club Edmonds Chamber of Commerce Edmonds Community College Edmonds Daybreakers Rotary Club Edmonds Exchange Club Edmonds Historical Museum Edmonds In Bloom Association Edmonds Police Foundation Edmonds Public Library Edmonds School District Friends of the Edmonds Library Historic Preservation Commission Hubbard Family Foundation Lynnwood Arts Commission Madrona Corps Volunteers National Wildlife Federation. pARTners Coalition – EdCC Pilchuck Audubon Society Rotary Club of Edmonds Snohomish/Camano Nearshore Cooperative Snohomish County Marine Resources Sno-King Youth Club South County Historical Society South County Senior Center Wade James Theatre – Driftwood Players Washington State Arts Commission Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington Dept. of Transportation Washington Water Weeks Willow Creek Hatchery WSU Snohomish County Beach Watchers Cultural Services Partners The Edmonds Arts Commission (EAC) partners with a wide variety of organizations to further its mission of ensuring that the arts are integral to our community’s quality of life, economic vitality, and central identity. Partnerships include direct sponsorship, joint event planning, and other forms of collaboration to promote the arts and cultural tourism. For the Write on the Sound conference, EAC partners with about 10 community businesses who donate to the hospitality and support the writing contest awards and also partner with Edmonds Community College on the pre-conference. The Concert in the Parks series is partially Facilities, and Programs Inventory Page 3-13 Packet Page 787 of 1136 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan City of Edmonds sponsored by Lynnwood Honda, Acura of Lynnwood, and John L. Scott. EAC works with the Edmonds Center for the Arts on a variety of co-sponsored events. Sponsors for other events include the Friends of the Edmonds Library for the Best Book I Ever Read poster contest. EAC works in partnership with the Edmonds School District on a variety of programs including, exhibits of student art in the Young Artists Display Case in the Frances Anderson Center, the Best Book I Ever Read poster contest for third graders, artist in residence programs, and a Youth Writing Contest. EAC partners with the Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation on joint exhibits and artist receptions. The EAC curates a monthly Art Exhibit in the Edmonds Library. The EAC also works in collaboration with the Edmonds Sister City Commission and the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission. Partnerships through grants include the support of the Washington State Arts Commission. The EAC partners with local arts related organizations to promote local events through their program of awarding City Lodging Tax Funds. Local cultural organization partners work with the City in a variety of ways, from leasing space to working to present and/or promote events in the performing, literary and visual arts. The Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation (EAFF) is a non-profit organization that leases gallery space from the City in the Frances Anderson Center for exhibits by regional artists. They also have a scholarship program in the visual arts and school and community grants programs, operate ArtWorks and with the Edmonds Arts Festival sponsor the Edmonds Art Studio Tour. The Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation has been a major partner in the funding of public art for the City. The 223-seat Wade James Theatre was built by volunteers on City land and donated to the City. It is leased from the City by the Driftwood Players, a community theater group that produces a full season of productions that vary from comedy to drama to mystery and musical. Olympic Ballet Theatre and School is a tenant in the Frances Anderson Center and performs at the Edmonds Center for the Arts. The Cascade Symphony Orchestra also performs a full season at the Edmonds Center for the Arts. The Jazz Connection presented by Edmonds Daybreaker Rotary is an annual event utilizing a variety of community venues. South County Historical Museum is a self- supporting non-profit organization (Edmonds South Snohomish County Historical Society) located in the City- owned former Carnegie Library building. There are four temporary exhibits per year, plus a permanent exhibit on the history of Edmonds. More than 7000 people visit the Museum per year, plus 12 school class tours. The Museum’s major fundraiser is the Summer Market held on Saturdays from May through September. The Market averaged 36 vendors in May and June and 119 vendors from July through September in 2007. South County Senior Center Partner In south Snohomish County, the senior citizen population is estimated to reach 40,000 by 2010 (Snohomish County Human Services). Programming for the South County Senior Center responds to participant needs for social, intellectual, Page 3-14 Parks, Facilities, and Programs Inventory Packet Page 788 of 1136 City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan cultural, economic, emotional, and physical services with an emphasis on wellness and prevention. This broad range of services and activities is in compliance with the National Council on Aging Standards of Operation for a multipurpose senior center. The Center and its programs provide a focal point for older adults in South County. The Center operates as a public non-profit with public and private funding to provide needed services. The City of Edmonds through the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department contracts for annual recreation services to meet the needs of the senior citizen population through the South County Senior Center Board of Directors. The City of Edmonds owns the building and leases it for recreational purposes through a twenty-year lease agreement. The SCSC Board of Directors continues to discuss facility options to provide the greatest benefit to the senior population that they serve. Sister City- Hekinan, Japan Partners The Sister City program and the relationship with Hekinan, Japan began in 1987. The Sister City Commission was established in 1988 to promote international communication and understanding through exchanges of people, ideas and culture. To this end, the Commission and its membership have established annual programs of student home stay exchanges, physician and city official exchange visits, and citizen delegations which have totaled approximately 1,000 by the end of 2007. Two Assistant English Teachers (AET’s) selected by the Commission live permanently in Hekinan., E-mail school exchanges, dedications and exchanges of art, participation in parades and the exploration of other partnerships such as the ballet, library and marine resources engage a variety of citizen interests. Youth Club Partners Two major youth clubs exist in Edmonds. Edmonds Boys & Girls Club. This youth club is located in the heart of downtown Edmonds and has been providing programming, sports, and drop-in activities for its 1000+ members since 1968. They are housed in what was the Old Edmonds High School Field House, where lack of space limits the availability to program for older teens. The club also provides on-site daycare at several local elementary schools. Sno-King Youth Club. This club organizes the majority of children’s team athletic activities in Edmonds including baseball/softball, basketball, soccer, and volleyball. It also sponsors special events. Hundreds of teams and thousands of players and families are organized annually through this non-profit organization. Facilities, and Programs Inventory Page 3-15 Packet Page 789 of 1136 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan City of Edmonds OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE Park Maintenance is responsible for 325 acres of parkland at 20 facilities. They maintain more than 3,400 feet of shoreline. In addition to caring for parks and recreation facilities, park maintenance tends all City grounds, flower baskets, and 20,000 square feet of plant beds. ADMINISTRATION The Department has six basic responsibilities (see Department Organization Chart below): Recreation Services Administrative Services Capital Projects Park Maintenance Cemetery Operations Cultural Services In addition, the department serves as liaison to a number of City boards including: Edmonds Arts Commission Edmonds Cemetery Board Edmonds Planning/Parks Board Edmonds Library Board Edmonds Sister City Commission The Parks department also takes an active role in promoting tourism and economic development. Brochures were developed to market the unique and varied public assets that Edmonds offers. They include: Historical Cemetery & Columbarium Discovery Programs Edmonds Flower Program Brackett’s Landing South Edmonds Public Art Walking Tour Cedar Dreams: Public Art and Community History Exploring Edmonds Parks Recreation Manager Parks Maintenance Manager Cultural Services Manager Director Office Supervisor Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department Page 3-16 Parks, Facilities, and Programs Inventory Packet Page 790 of 1136 City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan Annual Budget 2007 The total 2007 actual general fund budget for Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department was $2,980,656. It accounts for approximately 10% of the City of Edmonds’ total General Fund budget. One cost measure of providing services is to base it on a per capita basis. Using a City population of 40,460, the net gross cost per capita is $46.49 which includes all city provided parks, recreation and cultural arts services. This amount is below average for similar communities in the Seattle region which reflects positively for the operations of the department. The net cost per capita is the total cost after revenue from fees and charges are deducted. Of interest is the revenue rate the City produces from its recreation program services. For recreation programs the rate is 91.3% which is higher than most area cities. Table 3.5 illustrates the cost per capita for the department as a whole, and for parks and recreation, less maintenance and cemetery operations (the cemetery is operated as an Enterprise Fund). It also shows the rate of return from fees and charges. Table 3.5 Revenue and Fees Analysis 2007 Budget General Fund Budget Revenue from Fees and Charges Net Cost per Capita % Return on Fees & Charges (fees/budget) Administration $380,251 $9.40 Recreation Service (does not incl. CulturalServ. Admin) $1,202,912 $1,098,960 $2.57 91.3% Park Maintenance $1,256,923 $31.06 Cultural Services Admin. $ 140,570 $3.46 Total $2,980,656 $1,098,960 $46.49 City of Edmonds Table 3.6 Existing Facilities Total Planning Area (See following pages) Facilities, and Programs Inventory Page 3-17 Packet Page 791 of 1136 Pa r k s , R e c r e a t i o n a n d O p e n S p a c e C o mp r e h e n s i v e P l a n Ci t y o f E d m o n d s Ex i s t i n g F a c i l i t i e s i n P l a n n i n g A r e a L a n d ( a c r e s ) D e s i g n a t i o n O w n e r s h i p P i c n i c S h e l t e r s ( e a ) P l a y g r o u n d ( e a ) W a l k i n g T r a i l / P a t h w a y ( m i ) B a s k e t b a l l ( e a ) V o l l e y b a l l - s a n d ( e a ) T e n n i s ( e a ) F o o t b a l l ( e a ) Y o u t h S o c c e r A d u l t ( e a ) S o c c e r Y o u t h ( e a ) B a s e b a l l A d u l t ( e a ) S o f t b a l l A d u l t ( e a ) Y o u t h B a s e b a l l / S o f t b a l l ( e a ) S k a t e P a r k ( e a ) H a n d B o a t L a u n c h ( r a m p ) S w i m m i n g P o o l ( S ) / Wading Pool (W) (sf) Indoor (Y/N) View Corridor/Point (ea) Gymnasium (ea) Restrooms (ea) Restrooms - Portable (ea) Community Center (ea) Ci t y P a r k 14 . 5 Co m m u n i t y Co E 3 2 1 1 1W n 2 Yo s t M e m o r i a l P a r k & P o o l 48 Co m m u n i t y Co E 1 1 1 2 1S n 1 7t h & E l m S i t e 1. 5 Ne i g h b o r h o o d Co E Fr a n c e s A n d e r s o n C e n t e r F i e l d 2. 3 Ne i g h b o r h o o d Co E 1 1 1 Hu m m i n g b i r d H i l l P a r k 2 Ne i g h b o r h o o d Co E 1 1 1 Ma t h a y B a l l i n g e r P a r k 1. 5 Ne i g h b o r h o o d Co E 1 2 Pi n e S t r e e t P a r k 1. 5 Ne i g h b o r h o o d Co E 1 1 1 Se a v i e w P a r k 5. 5 Ne i g h b o r h o o d Co E 1 0. 5 1 2 1 1 1 Si e r r a P a r k 5. 5 Ne i g h b o r h o o d Co E 1 0. 5 1 1 1 1 Be a u t i f i c a t i o n A r e a s ( 1 2 s i t e s ) 9. 8 Op e n S p a c e Co E Ed m o n d s M a r s h / W a l k w a y 23 . 2 Op e n S p a c e Co E 0. 5 1 H. O . H u t t P a r k 4. 7 Op e n S p a c e Co E 0. 5 Ma p l e w o o d H i l l P a r k 12 . 7 Op e n S p a c e Co E 1 0. 5 Me a d o w d a l e N a t u r a l A r e a 2 Op e n S p a c e Co E Ol y m p i c V i e w O p e n S p a c e 0. 5 Op e n S p a c e Co E Pi n e R i d g e P a r k 22 Op e n S p a c e Co E 1 Se a v i e w R e s e r v o i r 3 Op e n S p a c e Co E Sh e l l C r e e k O p e n S p a c e 1 Op e n S p a c e Co E SR 1 0 4 W e t l a n d s ( e a s t ) 9 Op e n S p a c e Co E Wh a r f S t r e e t 0. 2 Op e n S p a c e Co E 1 Wi l l o w C r e e k P a r k 2. 2 Op e n S p a c e Co E 14 4 R a i l r o a d A v e n u e T i d e l a n d s 1 Re g i o n a l Co E Br a c k e t t ' s L a n d i n g N o r t h 2. 7 Re g i o n a l Co E 0. 5 1 1 Br a c k e t t ' s L a n d i n g S o u t h 2 Re g i o n a l Co E 0. 5 1 Ha i n e s T i d e l a n d s 0. 5 Re g i o n a l Co E Ma r i n a B e a c h P a r k 4. 5 Re g i o n a l Co E 1 0. 5 1 1 1 3 Ol y m p i c B e a c h P a r k / W a t e r f r o n t W a l k w a y 4. 3 Re g i o n a l Co E 0. 5 1 1 So u t h C o u n t y S e n i o r C e n t e r 1 Re g i o n a l Co E 0. 5 1 Ba l l i n g e r L a k e A c c e s s 0. 1 Sp e c i a l U s e Co E 1 Pa g e 3 - 1 8 Pa r k s , F a c i l i t i e s, a n d P r o g r a m s I n v e n t o r y Pa c k e t Pa g e 79 2 of 11 3 6 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s P a rk s , R e c r e a t i o n a n d O p e n S pa c e C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n Ex i s t i n g F a c i l i t i e s i n P l a n n i n g A r e a L a n d ( a c r e s ) D e s i g n a t i o n O w n e r s h i p P i c n i c S h e l t e r s ( e a ) P l a y g r o u n d ( e a ) W a l k i n g T r a i l / P a t h w a y ( m i ) B a s k e t b a l l ( e a ) V o l l e y b a l l - s a n d ( e a ) T e n n i s ( e a ) F o o t b a l l ( e a ) Y o u t h S o c c e r A d u l t ( e a ) S o c c e r Y o u t h ( e a ) B a s e b a l l A d u l t ( e a ) S o f t b a l l A d u l t ( e a ) Y o u t h B a s e b a l l / S o f t b a l l ( e a ) S k a t e P a r k ( e a ) H a n d B o a t L a u n c h ( r a m p ) S w i m m i n g P o o l ( S ) / Wading Pool (W) (sf) Indoor (Y/N) View Corridor/Point (ea) Gymnasium (ea) Restrooms (ea) Restrooms - Portable (ea) Community Center (ea) Ce n t e n n i a l P l a z a 0. 1 Sp e c i a l U s e Co E Da y t o n S t r e e t P l a z a 0. 1 Sp e c i a l U s e Co E Ed m o n d s L i b r a r y & P l a z a 2 Sp e c i a l U s e Co E 1 1 Ed m o n d s M e m o r i a l C e m e t e r y a n d Co l u m b a r i u m 5. 5 Sp e c i a l U s e Co E 1 Fr a n c e s A n d e r s o n C e n t e r 1 Sp e c i a l U s e Co E 1 8 1 Me a d o w d a l e C o m m u n i t y C l u b h o u s e 1. 3 Sp e c i a l U s e Co E 1 1 1 Oc e a n A v e n u e V i e w p o i n t 0. 2 Sp e c i a l U s e Co E 1 Po i n t E d w a r d s S c e n i c O v e r l o o k s 0. 1 Sp e c i a l U s e Co E 1 So u t h C o u n t y H i s t o r i c a l M u s e u m 0. 4 Sp e c i a l U s e Co E SR 1 0 4 M i n i P a r k 0. 3 Sp e c i a l U s e Co E 1 St a m m O v e r l o o k P a r k 0. 4 Sp e c i a l U s e Co E 1 Su n s e t A v e n u e O v e r l o o k 0. 5 Sp e c i a l U s e Co E 0. 5 1 Wa d e J a m e s T h e a t r e 0. 7 Sp e c i a l U s e Co E Wi l l o w C r e e k H a t c h e r y & I n t e r p r e t i v e C e n t e r 1 Sp e c i a l U s e Co E 0. 0 2 Ly n n d a l e S k a t e P a r k 10 Co m m u n i t y Co L 1 1 1 1 Ed m o n d s C e n t e r f o r t h e A r t s 3. 2 Co m m u n i t y PF D Ed m o n d s U n d e r w a t e r P a r k & H i g g i n s T r a il s 26 . 7 Re g i o n a l DN R Ci v i c C e n t e r P l a y f i e l d s & S k a t e Pa r k 8. 1 Co m m u n i t y ES D 1 .2 5 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 Me a d o w d a l e P l a y f i e l d s 27 Co m m u n i t y ES D 1 1 1 1. 5 1 Ch a s e L a k e E n v i r o n m e n t a l E d . / E S D N a t u r a l Ar e a 7. 4 8 Sp e c i a l Us e ES D / Sn o C o 0. 2 Es p e r a n c e C o u n t y P a r k 6 Ne i g h b o r h o o d Sn o C o 1 0. 2 1 1 Me a d o w d a l e B e a c h C o u n t y P a r k 95 Op e n S p a c e Sn o C o 2 So u t h w e s t C o u n t y P a r k 12 0 Op e n S p a c e Sn o C o 2 Ed m o n d s F i s h i n g P i e r 1 Re g i o n a l WD F W 1 Ex i s t i n g C i t y - O w n e d F a c i l i t y S u b t o t a l 20 2 . 3 0 3 12 7. 5 2 6 1 4 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 2 2 12 1 18 6 2 Ex i s t i n g T o t a l F a c i l i t y Su b t o t a l 50 6 . 7 8 3 16 12 . 1 7 10 1 6 1 2 6 0 2. 5 6 2 2 2 12 1 21 8 2 Fa c i l i t i e s , a n d P r o g r a m s In v e n t o r y Pa g e 3- 1 9 Pa c k e t Pa g e 79 3 of 11 3 6 C HAPTER 4 Community Needs Assessment Packet Page 794 of 1136 City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan Community Needs Assessment One of the most important elements of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan is the assessment of need within the parks system. Quantifying these needs is difficult because many different variables influence recreation needs. Personal values, participation patterns and willingness to pay for services and facilities vary widely from city to city. Consequently, what seems right for one community may not be appropriate for another. One of the problems associated with determining the needs is that overstating the demand can result in the development of underutilized facilities. Conversely, under-estimating the needs can result in overused facilities and a lack of available park systems. This chapter discusses the need for Park System facilities, programs and services in the Edmonds Planning Area. This encompasses the area within the current city limits as well as the land within the City’s Urban Growth Area. The process to identify needs was to: Evaluate the existing park system Conduct a random household telephone survey and web survey of Edmonds households Host two public meetings, Advisory Group meetings and public hearings with the Planning / Parks Board and Edmonds City Council Identify current park and facility needs Forecast future need based on the demand standard The needs assessment covers the following areas: Parks and Open Space Recreation Facilities and Programs Cultural Services, Facilities and Programs Community Needs Assessment Page 4-1 Packet Page 795 of 1136 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan City of Edmonds PARKS AND OPEN SPACE NEED Specific needs for each type of park are discussed on the following pages. The categories of parks include: Neighborhood Parks Community Parks Regional Parks Special Use Areas Natural Open Spaces Gateways/Entrances Connections Beautification Methodology of Assessing Park Needs in Edmonds Developing a statement of need for parks and open space is dependent on local values, availability of land, financial resources, and desired service levels. In this plan we are considering only public land or quasi-public land used primarily for recreation or open space use in our needs analysis. Traditionally, need or level of service standards were given as the "existing ratio" or "recommended standard". The existing ratio is the existing amount of parks divided by the existing population within the planning area. It is expressed in terms of acres per 1,000 population. These standards are shown in relation to general national and state standards for comparison only, but each community is unique so those general standards need to be weighed against individual community values and perceptions. The recommended standard, therefore, is derived through the public process and tested against the factors previously discussed, such as availability and financing. It is then expressed in terms of acres per 1,000 population. Existing and Forecasted Population The ratio of parks and open space facilities is based on a comparison with the existing population base. By developing a desired level of service (recommended standard) and applying it to a future population forecast, one can determine future needs. To determine the existing ratio, the population within the planning area was used. To determine population growth projections, figures were extrapolated from the 2000 Census and Snohomish County population data. The target year is 2025. For this plan, we will use the existing and future population forecasts identified below. Table 4.1 Population Forecast Edmonds Planning Area Year Edmonds Planning Area* 2007 44,279 2012 46,537 2025 52,963 *The Edmonds Planning Area includes Edmonds and designated Urban Growth Area (UGA). Projections based on 1%/year average annual growth. Neighborhood Parks EXISTING CONDITIONS Most neighborhood parks are well developed and offer a variety of facilities. Often, joint partnerships with Edmonds School District have resulted in neighborhood park uses available on school property during non-school hours. Page 4-2 Community Needs Assessment Packet Page 796 of 1136 City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan Ideally, neighborhood parks would be available at all times of the day. Neighborhood Park Service Area The service area for a neighborhood park in Edmonds is considered to be a half-mile radius. The service area is also shaped by man-made or natural barriers such as highways, ravines, and waterfront. Assuming this service area, many neighborhoods in the Edmonds Planning Area are being served by this type of park if the joint use school sites are also considered. In most areas, there is little, if any available land for future park development. Maintenance Impacts of Neighborhood Parks Neighborhood parks are not as efficient to maintain and operate as larger community parks. However, neighborhood parks are important in providing convenient access to residents. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND TRENDS REGARDING NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS Survey Results Increased joint use of school and private sites to serve as neighborhood sites was a high priority. Public Process Results The community supported greater neighborhood park diversity, which refers to the types of activities and facilities provided. There was general agreement that the existing quantity of neighborhood parks is adequate, although a few new park areas were identified in general terms. More gathering places and small plazas were identified as a unique need in downtown Edmonds. Trends Most communities in the Northwest have developed a park system centered on the neighborhood park. This balances the issue of convenience with the cost of operation and maintenance. Communities are interested in unique new activities in their neighborhood parks. Residents of all ages are increasingly involved in the entire spectrum of activities within the parks system. Communities are increasingly interested in policies and practices that promote long term sustainability and protect natural resources and open spaces. DETERMINATION OF DEMAND STANDARD FOR NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS 2007 LOS = .58 acres/1,000 population 2025 LOS = .71 acres/1,000 population It is recommended the City develop neighborhood park facilities within walking distance of most residences (one- half mile radius service area.) Based on the need analysis, approximately 6 additional neighborhood park sites are needed to serve all residential areas within the Edmonds planning area. New parks are planned for two identified sites at Old Woodway Elementary and 162nd Street. This may be accomplished through the addition of neighborhood park elements at existing park or school sites or new acquisition of park sites. At an average size of 2 acres each, this is equivalent to 12 additional acres. Community Needs Assessment Page 4-3 Packet Page 797 of 1136 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan City of Edmonds Community Parks EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing community parks are fairly well developed and contain facilities such as group picnicking, sports fields, skateboard park, concert sites, and parking. Some sites are entirely owned by Edmonds while others have been developed, owned, or managed jointly with other jurisdictions. Community Park Service Area The service area for a community park is normally considered to be a two-mile to five-mile radius. Assuming this service area, some parts of Edmonds are not currently served by this type of park. It should be noted there are very few, if any, opportunities to acquire and/or develop parks of this size due to the level of development in the City. Maintenance Impacts of Community Parks On an acre per acre basis, community parks can be the most efficient type of park to maintain. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND TRENDS REGARDING COMMUNITY PARKS Survey Results Developing a new community park was one of the top priorities. Improving existing sports fields was a higher priority than providing additional new fields. Public Process Results The community supported improved connectivity and multi-modal access to community parks. In community parks with natural open spaces, maintenance and preservation was desired. More developed community parks were supported to feature new activities and diverse uses. Athletic facilities should be improved to allow for expanded use, such as synthetic surfaces, improved drainage and/or lights. Trends As land becomes scarce, housing more dense and neighborhood parks become smaller, many communities rely on the city’s parks to serve multiple functions. These include organized, active recreation (i.e. ball fields, soccer), passive neighborhood functions and natural open space. Snohomish County has made a policy decision to focus its resources on community rather than neighborhood parks due to the wide variety of facilities community parks can accommodate, and the lower cost per acre to maintain. DETERMINATION OF DEMAND STANDARD FOR COMMUNITY PARKS 2007 LOS = 2.43 acres/1,000 population 2025 LOS = 2.03 acres/1,000 population It is recommended the City provide community park facilities within 2 to 5 miles for most residents. Based on the need analysis one additional community park is needed to serve the Edmonds planning area. This may likely be accomplished through a joint agreement at the former Woodway High School site. Regional Parks Edmonds regional parks provide a variety of benefits to the area’s residents and visitors. Tidelands are undeveloped and protected as Marine Sanctuaries. Page 4-4 Community Needs Assessment Packet Page 798 of 1136 City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan Waterfront parks are fully developed and provide public access to Puget Sound. All of the sites are owned by Edmonds. Edmonds Memorial Cemetery & Columbarium is an example of this. Regional Park Service Area The regional park service area includes greater southwest Snohomish County and the northern communities of King County. Maintenance Impacts of Regional Parks Depending upon the facilities they contain, regional parks can be expensive to maintain. However, the cost of maintenance is offset in Edmonds by the contribution regional parks make to the local economy and to Edmonds’ identity. They may also attract attention from special interest groups willing to volunteer maintenance hours or dollars, such as at the Underwater Park. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND TRENDS REGARDING REGIONAL PARKS Survey Results A new pool and regional trails were the highest ranking priorities for regional parks. Public Process Results The community supported the establishment of a pedestrian route connecting Edmonds’ regional waterfront parks. Any expansion of public waterfront was favorable and many ideas were offered for the site of the ferry terminal if the terminal is relocated. The South County Senior Center was generally considered as a valuable asset and expansion of its programs was desirable. Trends Most communities do not have the opportunity to develop new regional parks and rely on the county or state for these types of facilities. Often, regional parks have become open space parcels purchased through conservation funds. DETERMINATION OF DEMAND STANDARD FOR REGIONAL PARKS 2007 LOS = .99 acres/1,000 population 2025 LOS = .96 acres/1,000 population It is recommended for the city to provide additional regional facilities where possible, especially along the waterfront and within the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center. If the current off-leash area on the waterfront is displaced a new regional off-leash park should be considered, potentially through a joint partnership with adjacent jurisdictions. Potential for an additional off-leash area located within the City is limited by a lack of available land. The City of Edmonds should continue to pursue opportunities to acquire waterfront properties and properties within the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center and to partner with private owners for public access to the waterfront. It is estimated approximately 7 acres may be provided to accomplish this goal. Special Use Areas EXISTING CONDITIONS Special use areas in Edmonds include indoor as well as outdoor facilities and are owned by the City of Edmonds and Snohomish County. They include facilities such as the library, Frances Anderson Center and Ballinger Lake access. In Community Needs Assessment Page 4-5 Packet Page 799 of 1136 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan City of Edmonds general, they are well programmed and used by the public. Some could be better advertised and may be improved to serve multiple functions. Special Use Service Area There is no defined service area for special use areas. The service area varies widely depending on the function it serves and is often on a more regional scale. Maintenance Impacts of Special Use Areas The level of maintenance varies depending on the site’s function. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND TRENDS REGARDING SPECIAL USE AREAS Survey Results A new hand carry boat launch ranked moderately on the priority list when compared with other proposed facilities. Public Process Results The community generally supported the continued development of special use areas, especially along the waterfront and in the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center. Improved multi-modal connections and better visibility and advertising of these facilities were also supported. An additional hand-carry boat launch site along the waterfront was desired to increase Edmonds’ visibility along the Puget Sound water trail route. DETERMINATION OF DEMAND STANDARD FOR SPECIAL USE AREAS 2007 LOS = .55 acres/1,000 population 2025 LOS = .71 acres/1,000 population It is recommended that additional special use areas and facilities be developed when feasible and as opportunity allows, especially in downtown open spaces and plazas. This may be done primarily through developer agreements, design standards, or other types of partnerships. A new hand-carry boat launch site on Puget Sound should be considered as future funding and opportunity may allow. 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor, Interurban Trail, bike routes and walkway loops may account for an additional 13.3 acres. Opportunities for additional special use sites will likely be limited to part of a larger development resulting in a small amount of additional acreage. Open Space EXISTING CONDITIONS In the Edmonds area, there are several sites that fall under the open space area category. This includes lands that are owned or managed by the city and Snohomish County. Most of the sites are undeveloped or only minimally developed. Development is usually limited to parking areas, trailheads, pathways, and trails. Open Space Service Area There is no defined service area for open space. Service area is determined by its intended purpose such as separation of neighborhoods, preservation of environmentally sensitive areas, and steep hillsides. Maintenance Impacts of Open Space The maintenance of open space areas is relatively low compared to other types of recreational spaces except when invasive species begin to take over otherwise natural sites. Often volunteers can be utilized for “Clean-up Day” events to help Page 4-6 Community Needs Assessment Packet Page 800 of 1136 City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan offset maintenance costs associated with invasive species removal and trail improvements. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND TRENDS Survey Results Protecting existing natural areas and open space systems ranked very high as a community priority. Creek corridor designations, trailheads and walking routes also generated a lot of interest in the survey. Public Process Results The maintenance and protection of existing open spaces was supported by the community. Connecting and providing access to enjoy these natural spaces (while maintaining habitat integrity) was a key point of interest. A new open space corridor along Willow Creek and expanding the corridor along Shell Creek were generally supported. Additional open space “set asides” were favored and a concern for the community. Trends The preservation of open space has become very important in most communities. More and more government resources are becoming available through various grant processes or land use tools (easements, etc.) to support conservation of natural resources. Education about the value and functions of natural open space is increasing across many age groups. DETERMINATION OF DEMAND STANDARD FOR OPEN SPACES 2007 LOS = 6.89 acres/1,000 population 2025 LOS = 5.86 acres/1,000 population It is recommended that the amount of open space be increased to preserve environmentally sensitive areas (wetlands, stream corridors), steep hillsides and maintain a sense of openness in the community. Due to the level of development within the City, very little land is available for open space acquisition. It is assumed that approximately 5 acres of land could be acquired or otherwise preserved through land use (easements, etc.) as open space including new corridors along Willow Creek and Shell Creek. Gateways / Entrances EXISTING CONDITIONS Currently, there are various gateways/entrances in the Edmonds area, the most prominent of which are on SR 104 and at the ferry loading intersection at Brackett’s Landing parks. Gateways/Entrances are opportunities to make an initial visual impression on newcomers and visitors to Edmonds either at the political boundary or key intersections within the city. More detailed discussion of gateways and entrances is contained in the 2006 adopted Streetscape Plan. Maintenance Impacts It is important that gateways/entrances are maintained in attractive condition since they furnish the initial image of the City for visitors. These areas generally require frequent maintenance. Community Needs Assessment Page 4-7 Packet Page 801 of 1136 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan City of Edmonds PUBLIC COMMENTS AND TRENDS Public Process Results Visibility of the city from regional transportation corridors was a concern raised by the community. An international gateway from the east at Highway 99 is a developed concept in the Streetscape Plan that is supported by the community. The City is currently working on an enhancements project in this area which includes signage. Trends Gateways/ Entrances have become a high priority for communities to establish a sense of place and convey the community’s character. DETERMINATION OF DEMAND STANDARD FOR GATEWAYS/ENTRANCES It is recommended that additional land be acquired or right-of-way obtained for gateway/entrance projects, likely in coordination with transportation improvements. In addition improved signage, landscape and other elements should be considered at gateway or entrance areas as outlined in the Streetscape Plan. The existing SR 104 sign should be updated to reflect its role as a “Downtown Entrance” and new signage should coordinate with the City Way- finding Sign Program standards. Connections EXISTING CONDITIONS Connections are created through improved pedestrian and bicycle routes, linear parks, and visual connections that may include scenic corridors or incorporation of public art. Two major connections projects are in the planning stages. Planning for the Interurban Trail, a multi-use pathway, is nearing completion. The 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor is a pedestrian enhancement in the downtown core that is currently in early planning stages. Bicycle and Walkway Plans are included in the transportation element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. There are a number of corridors and routes commonly used, but not necessarily identified throughout Edmonds. View corridors are present, but currently not officially identified. Maintenance Impacts The maintenance of most connections is low compared to other types of recreational facilities. Furthermore, bicycle and pedestrian groups will often volunteer as caretakers at trails and other pathways. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND TRENDS Survey Results Expanded bicycle, walking, multi-use and waterfront walkways were among the most highly rated items in the surveys. Multi-modal connections to all types of parks facilities generated a lot of interest. Public Process Results Some participants felt that street ends that are adjacent to the waterfront should be marked on trail plans as viewpoints. Some thought they should have stairways to water’s edge and be incorporated into the trails plan. Crossing the tracks at any of these street ends is illegal and extremely dangerous. Generally, participants wanted better connections within the existing trail systems, and expansions to meet up Page 4-8 Community Needs Assessment Packet Page 802 of 1136 City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan with other systems and popular locations. The community supported view corridor preservation at the southern entrance to the city via SR 104 and of scenic corridors in general, which provide visibility to the city’s natural assets. A lot of discussion centered on ideas for better connections between the downtown and waterfront areas. Ideas ranged from a pedestrian/bicycle overpass to more pedestrian scale improvements at grade such as lighting, paving and public art. Trends In the Northwest, interest in trail related activities (walking, hiking, bicycling, rollerblading and jogging), has shown a remarkable increase in the last 5 years. Locally, trail related activities and recreational walking are very popular. Annual community events include the: Fall Color Classic. Annual Cascade Bicycle Club event includes ferry ride across Puget Sound and routes of various distances in Kitsap County. Get Your Guts in Gear 3-day ride in support of Crohn’s Disease research. Trek Tri-Island 3-day ride in support of the American Lung Association. Local community sponsored 5k and 10k fun runs. DETERMINATION OF DEMAND STANDARD FOR CONNECTIONS There are only a few opportunities to develop trails, scenic corridors or other linear parks such as the Interurban Trail corridor. However, there are many opportunities to develop interconnecting trails through natural open space areas. Public access into these areas should be encouraged with care where environmentally sensitive areas need protection from public intrusion. Prioritization should be made for completing the existing bicycle and pedestrian route system including loop routes in every community. Completing the Interurban Trail section through Edmonds is essential since trail sections have already been completed north and south of Edmonds through the cities of Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, and Shoreline. The Interurban Trail will benefit both recreational and commuting bicyclists. The 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor project is an example of a pedestrian focused linear park being incorporated into the downtown fabric. Similar projects can be pursued using the land resources the city already owns or can partner with other agencies to implement. Establishment of planned and signed walking routes can assist residents in finding suitable places to exercise and provide safety by notifying vehicular traffic to the presence of pedestrians. A map of these routes and trailheads can be provided through the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services department. Scenic corridors provide visual connections within the city and to surrounding natural features. As the city develops, it is recommended to identify and preserve the most valuable view corridors. Community Needs Assessment Page 4-9 Packet Page 803 of 1136 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan City of Edmonds Providing connections, in general, will take the forms of planning, preserving and developing appropriate routes, sometimes in conjunction with roadway projects in the city. Beautification Areas EXISTING CONDITIONS Beautification areas currently include flower baskets, medians, street trees, corner parks and public art sites, and the grounds of several city buildings. Maintenance Impacts Beautification areas require a significant amount of maintenance. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND TRENDS • The community continues to support the beautification area programs. DETERMINATION OF DEMAND STANDARD FOR BEAUTIFICATION AREAS When additional maintenance is available Beautification Areas should continue to be improved and expanded, especially when partnerships with residents and local businesses can be formed. RECREATION FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS On the following pages, specific needs for each type of facility are discussed. The facility categories include: Children’s Play Areas Pathways/Trails Sports Fields Swimming Pools Tennis and Basketball Courts Recreation Programs and Activities Methodology of Assessing Need for Recreation Facilities Establishing needs for recreation facilities was derived from an analysis of existing conditions, needs expressed in the survey, needs identified in the public process, input from the stakeholders and from national or state trends. On the following pages, the needs for specific types of facilities are discussed. Children’s Play Areas EXISTING CONDITIONS There are 12 children’s play areas in Edmonds’ parks. In addition, there are 6 school sites accessible to the public. Service Area The service area for children’s play areas is the same as that of a neighborhood park, or one-half mile radius. Maintenance Impacts Children’s play areas require frequent maintenance and scheduled replacement. Safety surfacing must be maintained at an appropriate depth and free of foreign objects. Play equipment should be inspected frequently for safety hazards such as loose connections and worn fittings. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND TRENDS Trends An innovative children’s play area can provide quality play experiences for children. Several communities in the Northwest have begun developing imaginative children’s play areas designed to be universally accessible and responsive to children’s developmental needs. The play areas may interpret the area’s history Page 4-10 Community Needs Assessment Packet Page 804 of 1136 City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan or culture and may incorporate art elements and water play. DETERMINATION OF DEMAND STANDARD It is recommended the City provide children’s play areas within a one-half mile radius of all residents. Update play areas as required and continue to meet current safety standards. Sports Fields EXISTING CONDITIONS Edmonds currently owns or controls 6 park-centered sports fields and shares facilities at the Meadowdale Athletic Complex. The City owned fields are irregularly shaped and as a consequence do not generally qualify as “regulation” fields. While some fields are fairly well developed, others are in poor condition. Many of the fields are used as multi-use fields and considered substandard for upper age youth and adult game or tournament play due to their quality of development and/or the field dimensions. In addition, as part of an Edmonds School District levy and bond package, taxpayers provided $10 million in 2004 for 18 playgrounds, play field and outdoor area upgrades and development throughout the District. Several of these projects have been completed including field turf at high schools and drainage and safety improvements at several others. Service Area While the service area of a baseball or softball field is often considered to be a 1/2-mile radius, or the same as a neighborhood park, many communities have favored the development of fields into complexes. In Edmonds, the Meadowdale Athletic Complex meets this definition. The service area for soccer fields is generally considered to be a 1- mile to 2-mile radius, or that of a community park. Maintenance Impacts Unless fields are made of synthetic materials, opposed to natural turf, the maintenance and operation of sports fields is labor intensive. Currently, most sports fields are located on school district property or in city parks. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND TRENDS Survey Results The need for new or improved sports fields ranked moderately compared to other proposed facilities. The upgrading of existing fields ranked much higher than the addition of new fields. Public Process Results The community expressed a need for more availability of fields, especially for adults. Many teams have to drive a long distance for field availability and/or have to play at undesirable times of the day. The community supported development of existing fields to increase use levels (all-weather, lighting, etc.). Relative to other park projects, the development of sports fields only received moderate support. A general support for a field complex was seen, as this allows for larger tournament play. Trends Youth baseball/softball and soccer involvement continues to increase. Community Needs Assessment Page 4-11 Packet Page 805 of 1136 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan City of Edmonds Youth soccer and baseball are especially popular and co-ed adult leagues are also increasing. DETERMINATION OF DEMAND STANDARD FOR FIELDS Additional fields should be provided as new park sites are considered at both the neighborhood and community park levels. An additional 4 soccer fields could be developed for a standard of 0.15. 1 new baseball field could be developed for a standard of 0.02. 1 new youth soccer field could be developed for a standard of 0.13. In addition to new facilities, the improvement of existing fields to all- weather surfacing with lights can improve usability and greatly expand capacity. Swimming Pools EXISTING CONDITIONS – OUTDOOR POOLS Yost Pool was built in 1972. The facility is a handicap accessible seasonal pool with a holding capacity of 250,00 gallons of water. The 25 meter x 25 yard pool is L- shaped and has a spa that can accommodate 10 people. A pool feasibility study has been approved and will take place in 2008. EXISTING CONDITIONS – INDOOR POOLS There are 2 indoor pools in the Edmonds area; both are in private ownership. The existing pool facilities are well developed and at near capacity. Service Area The service area for a swimming pool is 15-minutes to 30-minutes of travel time. Larger pools are often considered to be a more regional facility. Maintenance Impacts The maintenance and operation of a pool facility is high compared to other types of recreation facilities. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND TRENDS Survey Results A regional pool scored as an equal priority to regional trails and came in as a high priority overall. Public Process Results Public meeting participants identified the need for a year round aquatics center, either indoor or outdoor and covered. Trends On a national scale, swimming continues to be a very popular recreation activity. DETERMINATION OF DEMAND STANDARD FOR INDOOR POOLS The level of service should be increased to provide future indoor pool space. Tennis and Basketball Courts EXISTING CONDITIONS The City of Edmonds has 4 tennis courts. and 7 basketball courts. In addition, there are 8 tennis courts and 4 basketball courts on Edmonds School District property available during non-school hours. Service Area Tennis and Basketball courts should be available within a 1-mile to 2-mile radius of residents, or similar to a community park service area. Maintenance Impacts Tennis and Basketball courts require minimal maintenance compared to recreation facilities with soft surfaces. Page 4-12 Community Needs Assessment Packet Page 806 of 1136 City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan PUBLIC COMMENTS AND TRENDS Survey Results Outdoor courts of all types ranked lower in priority than other types of sports facilities Trends Tennis has gone through a number of up and down interest trends in the past. However, recent participation levels and interest has been fairly constant. Basketball remains a popular sport for all ages in most communities. DETERMINATION OF DEMAND STANDARD FOR COURTS It is recommended that an additional three tennis courts be added for a recommended service level of 0.20. It is recommended that an additional five basketball courts be added for a recommended service level of 0.36. Recreation Programs EXISTING CONDITIONS - RECREATION The Department provides a broad range of recreation programs and activities for all ages. See Chapter 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND TRENDS Survey Results The highest ranked recreation programs were summer programs, before/after school activities, teen activities, youth athletic programs, fitness classes, and senior programs. To accommodate future recreation programs, increasing user fees is the most popular form of funding. Public Meeting Results Public meeting participants were interested in additional programs, particularly for teens and seniors. A greater diversity of programs was generally supported, including popular new sporting activities and cultural activities. CULTURAL SERVICES FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS Cultural Facilities The community has expressed an interest in enhanced or new multipurpose arts facilities particularly for the visual arts. Support was also expressed for public gathering spaces that may be used for visual and performing art activities for people of all ages. PUBLIC COMMENT Public Meeting Results The public expressed interest in the City providing support for existing facilities, such as the Edmonds Center for the Arts, and the possibility of expanded and shared uses of existing facilities. Interest in more downtown mixed use cultural venues, possibly addressing visual art needs. Comments suggested that the City be more proactive in design guidelines and code to encourage inclusion of small public spaces in downtown mixed use developments that include public art or support cultural activities. Cultural Services Cultural Services provides a range of programs for varied ages in literary, visual Community Needs Assessment Page 4-13 Packet Page 807 of 1136 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan City of Edmonds and performing arts, and serves as a central information center for the network of artists, art organizations, and art programs in Edmonds. The staffing provided by the City enhances the viability of all the private art organizations in Edmonds. In addition Cultural Services works to ensure that arts and cultural elements are included in general planning initiatives and economic development citywide. Public Meeting Results There was a general interest in seeing more public art in the city, with an emphasis on greater variety and general recognition of growing cultural diversity. Using the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor to strengthen the connectivity of cultural venues such as the South County Historical Museum and Log Cabin and ECA, as well as, the connectivity of the downtown to waterfront was popular with the community. PUBLIC COMMENT Survey Results The highest priority in the cultural facilities category was improvements to the Edmonds Center for the Arts. Page 4-14 Community Needs Assessment Packet Page 808 of 1136 City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan Table 4.2 Level of Service by Facility Type Existing and Proposed Name Land (acres) Ne i g h b o r h o o d P a r k ( a c r e s ) Co m m u n i t y P a r k ( a c r e s ) Re g i o n a l P a r k ( a c r e s ) Sp e c i a l U s e P a r k ( a c r e s ) Op e n S p a c e ( a c r e s ) Existing City-Owned Facility Subtotal 202.30 19.8 62.5 16 13.7 90.3 Existing Total Facility Subtotal 506.78 25.8 107.6 43.7 24.38 305.3 ELOS City-Owned Standard / 1000 4.57 .45 1.41 .36 .31 2.04 ELOS Total Standard / 1000 11.45 .58 2.43 .99 .55 6.89 RCO LOS Standard / 1000 NA NA NA NA NA NA NRPA LOS Standard / 1000 34.45 2.00 8.00 7.00 NA 6.00 Proposed Total Facility Subtotal 31.30 12 0 7 13.3 5 PLOS 2025 Total Standard / 1000 10.16 .71 2.03 .96 .71 5.86 ELOS – existing level of service RCO – Recreation & Conservation Office NRPA – National Recreation and Park Association PLOS – proposed level of service The Parks Department and Council recognize that the current financial constraints of traditional funding sources limit park acquisition, improvement and maintenance to levels below the aspirational goals of the City reflected in the National Recreation & Park Association (NRPA) recommended standards. These aspirational standards reflect the long term goals through the use of grants, bonds, voter approved funding or other enhancements to the City’s traditional revenue base through changes in state law. Community Needs Assessment Page 4-15 Packet Page 809 of 1136 C HAPTER 5 Comprehensive Plan Framework GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Packet Page 810 of 1136 City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan Framework: Goals and Objectives Goals and objectives form the basic framework for the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan. They provide a sense of direction for facilities and services. They also form the basic framework for the Comprehensive Plan and the Community Cultural Plan. DEFINITIONS A goal is a general statement describing a type or quality of service the City wishes to provide. Goals typically do not change over time unless community values or economic conditions make it necessary. Objectives are more precise statements that describe means to achieving the goals. Objectives may change over time The following is a list of recommended goals and objectives for parks, recreation, and open space in the City of Edmonds. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE GOAL Provide a high quality park system that offers a wide variety of recreation opportunities and experiences. OBJECTIVES 1. Through a consultant’s study gather up to date information regarding development of a year round aquatics facility in Edmonds. 2. Develop a well-connected neighborhood park system that is conveniently located to most residents in Edmonds. 3. Develop quality improvements for park areas and facilities. 4. Upgrade existing parks to provide a variety of recreation opportunities that serve the community. 5. Preserve areas with critical or unique natural features such as stream corridors, wildlife habitats, and wetlands. 6. Provide outdoor facilities and opportunities for cultural recreation activities related to visual, performing and literary arts (i.e., amphitheater and sculpture.) 7. Continue to partner to upgrade sports fields on school property for year- round use. 8. Continue to work with school districts, the county and local cities to provide sports fields and regional facilities that serve the community year-round. 9. Continue the flower basket and beautification program. 10. Promote the Parks Trust Fund. 11. Identify existing trail systems in the park inventory. 12. Expand trail systems to increase connectivity. 13. Identify scenic routes and view areas in park inventory. 14. Expand gathering spaces in downtown area or other neighborhoods. SHORELINE USE AND ACCESS GOAL Expand opportunities for public enjoyment of Edmonds’ shoreline. OBJECTIVES 1. Acquire shoreline property whenever the opportunity exists. Comprehensive Plan Framework: Goals and Objectives Page 5-1 Packet Page 811 of 1136 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan City of Edmonds 2. Recognize that the Edmonds waterfront is a unique regional recreation resource. 3. Provide visual access to the water where possible by developing viewpoints where topography, the BNSF Railroad, or other features prevent direct access. 4. Develop and use waterfront parks for activities and interests specifically related to the shoreline, including regional water recreation and walkway connections. 5. Provide opportunities for the public to walk and visit the tidelands where terrain and shore conditions permit access. 6. Work with public and private entities to improve connections between the downtown and the waterfront. 7. Work to redevelop the existing dock site and waiting lanes for maximum public use if the ferry system moves to another location. RECREATION PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES GOAL Provide a wide variety of recreation opportunities and experiences to meet the needs of the community. OBJECTIVES 1. Provide a variety of programs for all ages in response to community interest and recreation trends. 2. Evaluate individual recreation programs in terms of persons served, overall community interests, and costs. 3. Continue to maintain a high ratio of revenue to operating costs for recreation services. 4. Be innovative in offering interesting recreation programs which draw on unique regional features such as the waterfront, cultural groups or gardening community. 5. Provide general and seasonal recreation programs when possible at satellite sites. 6. Expand the recreation program when facilities and staffing levels permit. 7. When possible, provide space and opportunity for private groups and commercial interests to conduct recreation programs. However, the City should not subsidize their operating costs. CULTURAL SERVICES GOAL Promote and sustain a vibrant cultural community through proactive partnerships and civic leadership, a network of successful cultural facilities, effective marketing and outreach strategies, and broad participation in a diverse range of cultural offerings. OBJECTIVES 1. Build Edmonds’ identity as a cultural destination. 2. Encourage effective partnerships between organizations and leaders in arts and heritage, business, education, tourism, recreation, and local government that support cultural opportunities and experiences for residents and visitors and increase Page 5-2 Comprehensive Plan Framework: Goals and Objectives Packet Page 812 of 1136 City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan awareness of cultural assets and their role in economic development. 3. Develop facilities for visual and enhance facilities for the performing arts. 4. Increase the visibility and accessibility of information about cultural events and venues to visitors and Edmonds’ residents. 5. Broaden community involvement and participation in a diverse range of cultural activities. PARK OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE GOAL Provide a high quality and efficient level of maintenance for all park areas and facilities in Edmonds. OBJECTIVES 1. Maintain parks and park facilities in a manner to keep them safe, attractive, healthy and a positive part of the neighborhood. 2. Increase parks fulltime labor as park system expands to ensure park properties are maintained in a safe and attractive manner to support the needs of the community. 3. Continue and increase the use of volunteers for some special park maintenance projects such as city wide trail enhancement. 4. Support a police-sponsored neighborhood block watch program to increase safety in the parks and reduce vandalism. 5. Continue to place emphasis on the safety, comfort and satisfaction of the park users. 6. Integrate sustainable materials, design and operations into the parks system. 7. In development of new parks and renovations of existing parks use low impact development techniques wherever possible. 8. In development and renovation work with other departments to assess non- motorized access to accomplish improved linkages. ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATIONS GOAL Provide a wide range of park, recreation and cultural services for all interests and age groups. OBJECTIVES 1. Maintain an operating budget that reflects what the community needs and can afford. 2. Define a plan to develop the parks as an economic generator for the City. 3. Act as the primary coordinator of all recreation providers in the City. 4. Continue to share facilities, programs and activities with the Edmonds School District, Edmonds Community College and the South County Senior Center. 5. Pursue opportunities to share facilities, programs and activities with other organizations and agencies. 6. Encourage private sector involvement in providing recreation and athletic opportunities for all ages. Comprehensive Plan Framework: Goals and Objectives Page 5-3 Packet Page 813 of 1136 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan City of Edmonds 7. Work with the downtown business community to offer special events that will attract visitors from outside the community. 8. Assist special interest groups to organize and offer their own programs and services. 9. Continue to publish the CRAZE and develop a high quality website to promote parks and recreation assets. 10. Improve public communication for better visibility of the Edmonds Park System. 11. Develop staff growth by encouraging participation in educational classes and training seminars. Page 5-4 Comprehensive Plan Framework: Goals and Objectives Packet Page 814 of 1136 C HAPTER 6 Action Plan Packet Page 815 of 1136 City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan Action Plan This chapter contains a summary of the assessed need and specific recommendations for the development, acquisition and management of the Park System in Edmonds. The following elements are addressed: Parks and Open Space Recreation Facilities & Programs Cultural Services, Facilities and Programs Maintenance and Operations Administration PARKS AND OPEN SPACE Overall Concept The ideal Park System for a community is made up of various park types, each offering certain recreation and/or open space opportunities. Separately, a park type may serve only one basic function, but collectively they can serve the needs of the community. By recognizing this concept, Edmonds can develop an efficient and cost effective Park System that meets most of the community’s needs. In addition, by attaching implementation policies to each park type, where applicable, it is easy to understand how the park is to be developed, maintained, and used. The basic concept is to assure that every neighborhood in the City of Edmonds is served by a neighborhood or community park. Neighborhood and community parks form the core of the Park System for Edmonds. Recommended Plan The Recommended Plan map is a graphic concept for a future park system in Edmonds. It includes the recommended actions from this chapter in a graphic format to show locations and connections. Neighborhood Parks ASSESSED NEED Based on the needs assessment, 6 additional neighborhood parks totaling 12 acres are needed to serve the Edmonds planning area. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS City staff should work with private developers and property owners in the downtown area to encourage public spaces with new or re-developed sites. Cooperating with schools to develop, manage and maintain recreation facilities for use by the public is a cost-effective way to increase the community’s total recreation opportunity. It should supplement, but not necessarily replace, traditional neighborhood parks. Develop additional neighborhood park elements on the following school sites: Westgate Elementary School Madrona Elementary School Develop neighborhood park elements in existing open space areas including: Maplewood Hill Park Acquiring new neighborhood park sites in the one-half mile radius areas surrounding: Puget Drive and Olympic View Drive 76th Ave. W and 180th St. SE 206th St. SW and 80th Ave. W 228th St. SW and Highway 99 Improve existing parks and open space sites as shown on Table 6.1. Action Plan Page 6-1 Packet Page 816 of 1136 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan City of Edmonds IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES General Guidelines Acquisition of land for neighborhood parks should occur in advance of their need. As a built-out community Edmonds should consider acquisition of property in neighborhood park deficit areas. Site Selection Criteria Under most conditions, neighborhood parks should be no smaller than one acre in size, with optimum size being four to seven acres. If the park is located on a school site or within the proposed open space system, optimum park size may be reduced depending upon the school facilities provided or the configuration of the open space area. At least 50 percent of the site should be flat and usable, and provide space for active and passive uses. Where possible, streets should abut the park on at least one side. The site should be reasonably central to the neighborhood it is intended to serve. If possible, the park should have direct access to a sidewalk or trail. Access routes should minimize physical barriers and crossing of major roadways. The site should be visible from adjoining streets. Additional access points via paved Page 6-2 Action Plan Packet Page 817 of 1136 City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan pathways or sidewalks from the adjoining neighborhood should be provided. Design and Development Recommendations Park features may include: Children’s play areas (toddlers, children) Unstructured open play areas Multi-use sports fields, primarily for youth play Tennis courts Basketball courts Picnic areas Shelter building (small) Natural open space Internal trails and/or pathways Site amenities such as picnic tables, benches, bike racks, drinking fountains, trash receptacles, etc.) Other features as appropriate A minimum of one parking space per acre of usable active park area should be provided to accommodate both handicap and standard parking. If on-street parking is available, this standard can be reduced. Design should encourage access by foot or bicycle. Restrooms (permanent or portable) are appropriate for this type of park but must be near and visible from the adjoining street. Summary of Recommendations Table 6.1 summarizes the recommendations for Neighborhood Parks. Action Plan Page 6-3 Packet Page 818 of 1136 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan City of Edmonds Page 6-4 Action Plan Table 6.1 Neighborhood Park System Edmonds Planning Area Key to Facilities Plan Park Name (Alphabetical Order) Acres Action NL Edmonds Elementary School (Edmonds School District) 3.0 Complete partnership program site improvements 21 Esperance Park (County) 6.0 No Action. Field upgrade scheduled for 2008 by county. 41 Anderson Center Field 2.3 Reconstruction of amphitheater and stage 14 Hummingbird Hill Park 2.0 No major change NL Madrona Elementary (Edmonds School District) 3.0 Multi-use field improvements 23 Mathay Ballinger Park 1.5 Replace play area 22 Old Woodway Elementary Site 5.6 Develop park 16 Pine Street Park 1.5 No major change 34 Seaview Park 5.5 Major field renovation. Parking lot improvements NL Sherwood Elementary (Edmonds School District) 3.0 No major change 32 Sierra Park 5.5 Upgrade sports field drainage; Provide lockable concrete surround for portable restrooms. Resurface pathways. NL Westgate Elementary (Edmonds School District) 3.0 Develop neighborhood park element in partnership with School District. 17 7th & Elm Site 1.5 No major changes 37 162nd Street Site 0.4 Develop park 20 Chase Lake Site (County) 7.48 No action NL – Shown on map, but not specifically listed Packet Page 819 of 1136 City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan Community Parks ASSESSED NEED Based on the needs assessment, one additional community park is needed to cover the Edmonds planning area. At an average size of twenty acres, this amounts to roughly twenty additional acres of land. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS Develop an active community park at the Former Woodway High School or other location in the south end planning area. Develop an additional skate facility in the south end planning area. Follow recommendations for existing community parks as shown on Table 6.2. IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES General Guidelines Because of size, the acquisition of community park land should occur in advance of its need. A community park should be constructed when the area it will serve reaches about 50 percent development (measured by either acreage developed, or ultimate service population). Wherever feasible, community parks should be developed adjacent to middle or high school sites. Site Selection Criteria Minimum size should be roughly 10 acres with the optimum about 20 to 30 acres. At least one-half of the site should be available for active recreation use. Adequate buffers should separate active use areas from nearby homes or other uses on the site. If possible, walking or bicycling distance should not exceed 1-mile to 2-miles for the area it serves. The site should be visible from adjoining streets. Access should be via a collector or arterial street. Design and Development Recommendations Appropriate facilities include: Designated lighted sports fields (softball, baseball, soccer, etc.) Tennis courts Outdoor basketball courts Sand or grass volleyball courts Open multi-use grass area Children’s play areas (toddlers, children) Restrooms Picnic areas Picnic shelters (various sizes) Group picnic facilities Natural open space Trails and pathway systems Art elements and outdoor sculpture Covered performance area Site amenities (picnic tables, benches, bike racks, drinking fountains, trash receptacles, etc.) Parking requirements are dependent upon the facilities provided. Permanent restrooms are appropriate for this type of park but should be located in highly visible areas and near public streets. Summary of Recommendations Table 6.2 summarizes the recommendations for existing and future Community Parks. Action Plan Page 6-5 Packet Page 820 of 1136 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan City of Edmonds Table 6.2 Community Park System Edmonds Planning Area Key to Facilities Plan Park Name (Alphabetical Order) Acres Action 1 City Park 14.5 Improve upper parking lot and drainage, ballfield drainage, and play area upgrades Upgrade greenhouses Renovate wading pool and replace perimeter fencing Upgrade park facility building 13 Civic Center Playfields & Skate Park (Edmonds School District) 8.1 Acquire property Develop a master plan Improve irrigation Upgrade or replace stadium following structural analysis Expand recreation facilities Upgrade perimeter fencing Upgrade restroom 33 Lynndale Park/Skate Park* 10.0 No change 38 Meadowdale Playfields* 27.0 No major change; field and fencing improvements NL Former Woodway High School (100th Avenue) (Edmonds School District) 20.0 Develop a multi-purpose active community park. Restore and develop trails leading to site 15 Yost Memorial Park 48.0 Develop a master plan Replace fencing *Jointly managed with City of Lynnwood NL – Shown on map, but not specifically listed Page 6-6 Action Plan Packet Page 821 of 1136 City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan Regional Parks The overall intent should be to develop a continuous public shoreline access so a person could walk from Marina Beach north to Brackett’s Landing and on to Haines Tidelands and Meadowdale Beach during low tide without trespassing on private property. This provides a continuous waterfront link between the Edmonds shoreline and the Washington Water Trails system. ASSESSED NEED Based on the needs assessment fifteen extra acres of land may be available for regional parkland. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS Acquire and develop at least seven additional acres of waterfront property and property in the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center for regional park use. Acquire near shore tidelands whenever feasible. Institute an Adopt-a-Beach program to involve volunteers in keeping the tidelands free of litter and debris. Develop and implement marketing plan to ensure future sustainability. Complete changes shown on Table 6.3. Publicize the tax advantages of donating near shore tidelands to the City. Upgrade restrooms and continue jetty repair at Brackett’s Landing. Connect Olympic Beach Walkway to the Senior Center. Maintain Brackett’s Landing Park at a high level due to its visibility and prominence as the gateway to Edmonds from the Kitsap Peninsula. Take advantage of opportunities to acquire additional parkland for regional parks, particularly on the waterfront. Pursue partnerships with other communities for the development of a tournament level sports complex. IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES General Guidelines Prior to the development of any specialized facility, a detailed cost benefit analysis and maintenance impact statement should be prepared. The minimum size of a site will depend on the function it serves. Sites should be in keeping with the scale of the facilities and large enough to accommodate setbacks and support facilities (e.g., parking, landscaping, etc.) as needed. Summary of Recommendations Table 6.3 summarizes the recommendations for existing and future Regional Parks. Action Plan Page 6-7 Packet Page 822 of 1136 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan City of Edmonds Table 6.3 Regional Park System Edmonds Planning Area Key to Facilities Plan Park Name (Alphabetical Order) Acres Action 10 Brackett’s Landing North 2.7 Renovate restrooms Repair jetty and extend its length westward 9 Brackett’s Landing South 2.0 No change 7 Edmonds Fishing Pier 1.0 Upgrade railings and fish stations Complete recommendations in the 2006 Conditions survey Renovate restrooms and upgrade electrical systems Install interpretive panels 19 Edmonds Memorial Cemetery & Columbarium 6.0 Implement marketing plan 11 Edmonds Underwater Park 26.5 No major change NL Haines Tidelands .5 Acquire adjacent tidelands 6 Marina Beach Park 4.5 Replace playground Upgrades restroom 8 Olympic Beach / Waterfront Walkway 4.3 Complete walkway system NL Downtown Waterfront Activity Center TBD Consider area for inclusion in public levy or bond issue NL – Shown on map, but not specifically listed Page 6-8 Action Plan Packet Page 823 of 1136 City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan Special Use Areas ASSESSED NEED The needs assessment identified a need for downtown gathering areas and a new hand carry boat launch to accommodate the growing demand for specialized recreation activities. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS Provide new off-leash area if existing site is displaced by a new ferry terminal or future development activities. Retain salmon hatchery partnership. Complete seismic retrofit of Frances Anderson Center. Complete Dayton Street Plaza renovation. IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES General Guidelines Prior to the development of any specialized facility, a detailed cost benefit analysis and maintenance impact statement should be prepared. The minimum size of a site will depend on the function it serves. Sites should be in keeping with the scale of the facilities and large enough to accommodate setbacks and support facilities (e.g., parking, landscaping, etc.) as needed. Site Selection Criteria If possible, specialized facilities should be reasonably central to the community or the area they are intended to serve. Facilities that generate significant traffic should be located on a collector or arterial roadway to minimize impacts on residential areas. Design and Development Recommendations Design criteria will depend upon the facilities and activities proposed. Parking requirements are dependent on the activities offered. Summary of Recommendations Table 6.4 summarizes the recommendations for Special Use Areas. Action Plan Page 6-9 Packet Page 824 of 1136 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan City of Edmonds Table 6.4 Special Use Areas Edmonds Planning Area Key to Facilities Plan Park Name (Alphabetical Order) Acres Action 5 SR 104 Mini Park 0.3 No change 24 Ballinger Lake Access 0.1 No change 42 Centennial Plaza 0.1 No change 20 Chase Lake Environmental Education Site/ESD Natural Area (ESD/County) 7.48 No change 43 Dayton Street Plaza 0.2 Complete renovation C Edmonds Library & Plaza 2.0 Continue landscape renovations E Edmonds Center for the Arts (Public Facilities District) 3.2 Encourage development of multipurpose arts facility C Frances Anderson Cultural Center 2.0 Seismic retrofit 38 Meadowdale Community Clubhouse 1.3 No change 26 Ocean Avenue Viewpoint 0.2 No change 44 Point Edwards Scenic Overlooks 0.1 No change 34 Seaview Reservoir 3.0 No change B South County Historical Museum 0.4 No change 31 Stamm Overlook Park 0.4 No change 12 Sunset Avenue Overlook 0.5 Landscape improvements D Wade James Theater 0.7 Landscape and drainage improvements 2 Willow Creek Hatchery & Interpretive Center 1.2 Rebuild stream channel, create trail connections Page 6-10 Action Plan Packet Page 825 of 1136 City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan Natural Open Space ASSESSED NEED An additional 3 acres are needed to meet the needs assessment. The city should continue to work with other organizations or agencies and use a variety of land use tools (easements, etc.) to preserve open space whenever possible. RECOMMENDED ACTION Complete an analysis and develop a master plan for Edmonds Marsh. Willow Creek and Shell Creek stream channel restoration and corridor designation. Improve and expand on volunteer and/or maintenance efforts to remove invasive species and restore native habitat in open space areas. IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES General Guidelines New open space acquisitions should be selected for the following qualities: Wildlife habitat Preservation of environmentally sensitive land Site Selection Criteria Priority for open space acquisitions should be given to those sites that meet one or more of the following criteria: be adjacent to an existing park or open space be part of a planned corridor contain five or more contiguous acres The same criteria should also apply to purchased or gifted land. Action Plan Page 6-11 Packet Page 826 of 1136 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan City of Edmonds Design and Development Recommendations Appropriate facilities include: Trails Interpretive signage Trailhead amenities Summary of Recommendations Table 6.5 summarizes the recommendations for natural open space areas in the Edmonds planning area. Table 6.5 Open Space System Edmonds Planning Area Key to Facilities Plan Park Name (Alphabetical Order) Acres Action 36 Meadowdale Natural Area 2.0 No change 3 Edmonds Marsh / Walkway 23.2 Develop master plan 28 H.O. Hutt Park 4.7 No change 27 Maplewood Hill Park 12.7 Trail development 39 Meadowdale Beach County Park 95.0 No change 45 Olympic View Open Space .5 No change 25 Pine Ridge Park 22.0 Resurface parking lot Forest management study and plan 30 Seaview Reservoir 3.0 No change 40 Shell Creek Open Space 1.0 Continue to acquire wetlands, creek corridor 35 Southwest County Park 120.0 possible acquisition 4 SR 104 Wetlands (east) 9.0 Continue open space habitat protection 29 Wharf Street 0.2 No change 2 Willow Creek Park 2.2 No change 18 Willow Creek Park 3.0 Acquire a continuous open space corridor between SR 104 Wetlands and Willow Creek Park NL – Shown on map, but not specifically listed Page 6-12 Action Plan Packet Page 827 of 1136 City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan Gateways/Entrance Areas ASSESSED NEED Attractive gateways and entrance areas provide a memorable visual image of Edmonds to visitors and travelers passing through. RECOMMENDED ACTION Pursue partnerships with Washington Department of Transportation, Snohomish County, King County, and City of Edmonds Public Works, to create gateways at all major entrances to the City. Implement Gateway/Entrance concepts as developed in the Streetscape Plan. Add or update signs in accordance with City Wayfinding Signage Program Standards. Connections ASSESSED NEED An additional 5.5 miles of walkways and 8.7 miles of bicycle routes are needed to meet the needs assessment. RECOMMENDED ACTION Work with engineering division to update Bikeway and Walkway Plan. Develop a system of on-street marked connections and loop routes with signage, trailheads and distances. Complete the Edmonds section of the Interurban Trail to connect with sections completed by the Cities of Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, and Shoreline. Work with transportation engineering to update the current bicycle route map for route safety and completeness of bikeway routes. Develop multi-use trails, suitable for all ages, primarily along designated loop routes Create trail connections to hatchery. Strengthen connections between downtown and the waterfront through both visual and physical site improvements. Complete the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor. IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES The following guidelines, site selection criteria and development standards apply to trails and pathways. Sidewalks within public street right-of-ways should be developed where they serve as a linkage between the neighborhood and a park or a major trail system. General Guidelines Trails following along stream corridors and drainage ways can provide natural linkages between urban development and recreational areas. Trails should be planned, sized, designed and located to minimize their impacts on the ecological functions of stream corridors and to minimize the impacts of unplanned access in and near these drainage ways. Where there is a narrow band of riparian vegetation along a stream, parallel trails should generally be located outside the riparian area. Continue to provide trail connections, resting points and links to the Washington Waterways Trail System. Encourage developers to provide and build pathways and trail amenities within their proposed developments that link with the City’s overall trail system. Trails easements, dedications, and development need to occur prior to or at the time of development. Action Plan Page 6-13 Packet Page 828 of 1136 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan City of Edmonds The City should be sensitive to private owners when trails are proposed next to them. In previously developed areas, trails shall be sited through purchase or conservation easements from willing property owners and alternative routing may be considered when necessary. As a last resort, the City Council may need to use its authority to condemn private lands to complete sections of a citywide trail system. Support the Port of Edmonds in the provision of viewpoints, waterfront walkways, trail corridors and connections as a part of their Master Plan. The Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department should work with the Engineering Division to update trail standards to reflect additional alternative design concepts for recreation related trails. Site Selection Criteria Wherever feasible, recreation pathways and trails should be located off streets. However, on-street systems (sidewalks, bike lanes, etc.) may be used in order to complete connections, when needed. Trails and walkways should be developed throughout the community to provide linkages to schools, parks and other destination points. Design and Development Recommendations Trail alignments should take into account soil conditions, steep slopes, surface drainage and other physical limitations that could increase construction and/or maintenance costs. Walkways and pedestrian routes should be planned, sized and designed for multiple uses, except for dedicated nature trails and areas that cannot be developed to the standard necessary to minimize potential user conflicts. Design standards for trails should be developed and incorporated into the City’s Development Standards. Where possible, trails should be multi- modal. Some trails should be designed to accommodate children and family cycling. Walkways should be designed per engineering standards as pedestrian friendly corridors. Summary of Recommendations Table 6.6 summarizes the recommendations for connection in the Edmonds planning area. Page 6-14 Action Plan Packet Page 829 of 1136 City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan Table 6.6 Connections Edmonds Planning Area Key to Facilities Plan Connection (Alphabetical Order) Quantity Action NL 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor NA Establishment of cultural corridor NL Beach Walkway NA Complete existing beach walkway NL Bicycle Trails 8.7 MI Improve network of bicycle access through new trails and bicycle lanes NL Downtown to Waterfront NA Improve physical and perceived connections NL Interurban Trail NA Complete Edmonds’ portion of the Interurban Trail System NL Trailhead Location 8 Integrate new trailhead amenities with walking trails NL Walkway Trails 5.5 MI Establish routes and construct walkways and trails throughout the city NL – Shown on map, but not specifically listed Action Plan Page 6-15 Packet Page 830 of 1136 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan City of Edmonds RECREATION FACILITIES Children’s Play Areas ASSESSED NEED Age-appropriate play areas for toddlers and school-age children should be provided within walking distance of all residents. RECOMMENDED ACTION Provide age-appropriate play areas for toddlers and school-age children in each neighborhood and community park. Cooperate with the Edmonds School District to provide play areas on school grounds when parkland is not available. IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES The following guidelines, site selection criteria and development standards apply to children’s play environments. Children’s play environments should be separated from streets by fences, barrier plantings, or other recreation facilities. Separate age-appropriate play areas should be provided for toddlers and school-age children. Play elements should meet current safety standards and be accessible to children with and without disabilities. Sports Fields The community favored the improvement of existing fields, and increased partnerships with school sites to increase play capacity, instead of building new fields. However, there is need for more facilities and any opportunity for new facilities will benefit long-term levels of service as population grows. ASSESSED NEED – BASEBALL FIELDS There is a need for 1 regulation baseball field to support adult league play. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS A baseball field can best be developed as part of a new or redeveloped community park. ASSESSED NEED – SOFTBALL FIELDS There is no additional need for softball fields. ASSESSED NEED – YOUTH BASEBALL/SOFTBALL There is a need for 3 additional youth baseball/softball fields. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS Youth baseball/softball fields can best be developed as part of a new or redeveloped community park. Partnerships and improvements at school sites may also increase levels of play on existing fields. ASSESSED NEED – SOCCER FIELDS There is a need for 1 additional regulation soccer field and 3 additional U6-U14 youth fields. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS Soccer fields can best be developed as part of a new or redeveloped community park or neighborhood park. Partnerships and improvements at school sites may also increase levels of play on existing fields. Swimming Pools ASSESSED NEED There is a need for year-round access to a public swimming pool. RECOMMENDED ACTION Due to the age of Yost Pool (constructed in 1972) and the increasing costs of maintenance, funds are available in the 2008 CIP budget to conduct a feasibility study of Yost Pool or other community options for a pool facility. Alternatives will be examined to determine costs and various options related to this site or Page 6-16 Action Plan Packet Page 831 of 1136 City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan alternate sites. With this up to date information, Council can better determine a preferred approach to finance and manage the selected alternative. Tennis Courts ASSESSED NEED 3 additional tennis courts should be developed to maintain the needs assessment for the growing population. RECOMMENDED ACTION Tennis courts can be developed as part of any community or regional park development and should serve the population in a 1 to 2 mile radius. RECREATION PROGRAMS ASSESSED NEED The current recreation program offered by the City is quite extensive but limited in any further expansion by the lack of indoor facilities or additional sports fields. RECOMMENDATIONS Discovery Programs Expand hours of Beach Ranger Station at Olympic Beach. Develop a full-scale, year-round interpretive center at Willow Creek Hatchery. Youth Programs The 2001 Youth Advisory Committee envisions Edmonds “as a community committed to the positive involvement, safety and growth of all of our youth.” Their goals are: Create and sustain a community-wide sense of common purpose in promoting the positive development of all youth to increase the average number of assets. Help youth feel connected to and valued by the community and help the community to value youth. Increase access to recreational and social opportunities for youth. This vision challenges everyone to support the positive development of youth, one individual at a time, and to accept personal and collective responsibility for his or her growth and development. Youth represent an important resource as current citizens and as future leaders of the community. Ideas/recommendations for what everyone can do to help the youth succeed are contained in the Community Youth Report, which is an element of this plan. Aquatic Programs The City currently provides swim lessons, recreation swimming, and swim team time in an outdoor pool. Based on the experiences of other cities, Edmonds could expect to significantly increase its recreation program with the construction of an indoor pool / recreation center. Cultural Programs Recommendations for Cultural Programs are contained in the Community Cultural Plan Update. Senior Citizens Programs Continue to contract annually for senior citizens services from the South County Senior Citizens Center. The program range of services responds to the services and activities in compliance with the National Council on Aging Standards. CULTURAL SERVICES FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS ASSESSED NEED Promote and sustain a vibrant cultural community through proactive partnerships and civic leadership, a network of successful cultural facilities, effective marketing and outreach strategies, and broad participation in a diverse range of cultural offerings. Action Plan Page 6-17 Packet Page 832 of 1136 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan City of Edmonds RECOMMENDED ACTION Coordinate effective marketing strategies to promote the City’s cultural offerings, and increase awareness and visibility of cultural resources. Support the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor as a City priority for shaping downtown connectivity and cultural vibrancy and move forward with first phase implementation. Undertake an analysis of existing and proposed cultural facilities with an emphasis on better shared uses of existing facilities, expanded and improved facilities, and opportunities to provide more diversified activities for the visual arts, teens and seniors. Commit City resources and encourage private commitment to the acquisition and development of small, shared public spaces with art amenities or public art enhancements. Ensure that the cultural community is represented and considered in all City planning activities, economic development initiatives and capital investments to ensure an arts-friendly community focus. MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS Update play areas as required and continue to meet current safety standards. Upgrade paving in parks. Install portable toilets in parks during months of heaviest use. Provide permanent concrete lockable shells. Replace roofs of Fishing Pier cleaning stations. Replace wood elements of Fishing Pier with stainless and galvanized steel. Replace Frances Anderson Playfields wood stage to reduce maintenance. Renovate restrooms at Brackett’s Landing North and Olympic Beach. Upgrade restrooms at Marina Beach and Civic Center Playfields. Improve trails at Pine Ridge Park. Terrace grass bank at Yost Park near swimming pool to decrease maintenance. Improve trails and bridges at Yost Park. Install curb in parking lot at Yost Park to prevent parking on plant materials and root zones. Complete an inventory of street trees and park trees for purposes of risk management. Install bicycle racks wherever feasible in public parks and at other public facilities. Consider green space and low impact development where feasible. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATIONS Provide additional park maintenance staff as park facilities and public demand warrant. Retain landscape architect / park planner as a consultant for services as needed. Increase volunteer opportunities. Page 6-18 Action Plan Packet Page 833 of 1136 Pa r k s , R e c r e a t i on a n d O p e n S p a c e C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n Ac t i o n P l a n Pa g e 6 - 1 9 Ta b l e 6 . 7 Pr o p o s e d F a c i l i t i e s Ed m o n d s P l a n n i n g A r e a Pr o p o s e d F a c i l i t i e s i n P l a n n i n g A r e a La n d (a c r e s ) De s i g n a t i o n O w n e r s h i p P i c n i c S h e l t e r s ( e a ) P l a y g r o u n d ( e a ) W a l k i n g T r a i l / P a t h w a y ( m i ) B i k i n g T r a i l ( m i ) T r a i l h e a d I m p r o v e m e n t s ( e a ) S i g n a g e / D e s i g n a t i o n ( e a ) B a s k e t b a l l ( e a ) V o l l e y b a l l - s a n d ( e a ) T e n n i s ( e a ) S o c c e r A d u l t ( e a ) S o c c e r Y o u t h ( e a ) B a s e b a l l A d u l t ( e a ) S o f t b a l l A d u l t ( e a ) Youth Baseball/Softball (ea) Hand Boat Launch (ramp) View Corridor/Point (ea) Restrooms (ea) Restrooms - Portable (ea) 16 2 nd S t r e e t P a r k 0. 4 Ne i g h b o r h o o d Co E 1 0. 0 2 1 1 4 th A v e n u e C u l t u r a l C o r r i d o r * * * * n/ a Co n n e c t i o n s Co E Aq u a t i c C e n t e r * * * * n/ a Re g i o n a l Co E Vi e w C o r r i d o r s n/ a Sp e c i a l U s e Co E 3 Tr a i l h e a d s * 2. 2 Co n n e c t i o n s Co E 9 Ha n d C a r r y B o a t L a u n c h 0. 5 Sp e c i a l U s e Co E 1 1 In t e r u r b a n T r a i l * * * 4. 8 Co n n e c t i o n s Co E 1 Ne w B i k e w a y R o u t e s * * 2. 4 Co n n e c t i o n s Co E 3. 9 Wi l l o w C r e e k C o r r i d o r 1 Op e n S p a c e Co E Sh e l l C r e e k O p e n S p a c e 4 Op e n S p a c e Co E Ne w C o m m u n i t y P a r k ( a t F o r m e r W o o d w a y H . S . ) n/ a Co m m u n i t y ES D 2 1 1 3 1 1 Co m p l e t e O l y m p i c B e a c h W a l k w a y 1 Re g i o n a l Co E 0. 1 Ne w P a r k ( n e a r O l y m p i c Vi e w D r a n d 7 6 t h A v e W ) 1 Ne i g h b o r h o o d Co E 1 1 0. 1 1 1 Ne w P a r k ( n e a r P u g e t D r iv e a n d O l y m p i c V i e w D r ) 1 Ne i g h b o r h o o d Co E 1 1 0. 1 1 Ne w P a r k ( n e a r 2 0 6 t h S t S W a n d 8 0 t h A v e ) 2 Ne i g h b o r h o o d Co E 1 1 0. 2 1 1 Ne w P a r k ( n e a r 2 3 4 t h S t S W a n d H w y 9 9 ) 2 Ne i g h b o r h o o d Co E 1 1 0. 2 1 1 Ne w P a r k s ( d o w n t o w n a r e a ) * * * * 7 Re g i o n a l Co E Ol d W o o d w a y E l e m e n t a r y P a r k 5. 6 Ne i g h b o r h o o d Co E 1 1 0. 5 1 1 1 Wa l k i n g L o o p s - N e w s e g m e n t s * * 3. 4 Co n n e c t i o n s Co E 2. 8 Wa l k i n g L o o p s - D e s i g n a t i o n a n d M a r k e r s n/ a Co n n e c t i o n s Co E 27 Ma d r o n a S c h o o l - I m p r o v e m e n t s n/ a Ne i g h b o r h o o d ES D 1 We s t g a t e E l e m e n t a r y - I m p r o v e m e n t s n/ a Ne i g h b o r h o o d ES D 1 Pr o p o s e d T o t a l F a c i l i t y S u b t o t a l 7 8 5. 0 2 4. 9 9 27 4 0 1 4 1 1 0 0 1 4 1 6 * a s s u m e s a v e r a g e 1 / 4 a c r e p e r t r a i l h e a d ** a s s u m e s a v e r a g e 5 f t . w i d e t r a i l ** * a s s u m e s a v e r a g e 1 0 f t . w i d e t r a i l un i q u e c o s t a d d e d t o t o t a l p r o p o s e d f a c i l i t y c o s t Ci t y o f E d m o n d s Pa c k e t Pa g e 83 4 of 11 3 6 C HAPTER 7 Funding Plan Packet Page 835 of 1136 City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan Funding Plan This section outlines strategies for funding improvements of parks, recreation and cultural facilities. CAPITAL PROJECTS This section lists specific recommendations along with potential sources of funding. The summary of this planning process is shown in the 6-year capital improvement plan identified in Table 7.1. Project Priorities The following priorities are recommended for funding capital projects (not in order). HIGH PRIORITY Partner with school district to develop or improve park functions on school property Consider property in the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center for public purposes Acquire waterfront, open space sites and parkland Designate creek corridors and protect natural and open space systems Conduct feasibility study for year- round aquatics facility in Edmonds Develop citywide walking and bicycle routes, connections and trailheads Continue design and development of 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor Complete development of connecting segment of the waterfront bulkhead Develop walkway connections to downtown Develop Interurban Trail MEDIUM PRIORITY Upgrade City-owned sport and Edmonds School District sports fields Complete environmental Master Plan for Edmonds Marsh Continue to develop and upgrade neighborhood and community park sites Continue to upgrade children’s play areas citywide Arts planning LOW PRIORITY Develop new neighborhood parks in underserved neighborhoods Off-leash park, boat launch and skateboard elements Funding Sources The following are possible funding sources for the planning, acquisition, development and maintenance of parks, open space and other recreational areas. 1. General Fund: This source comes from taxes, fees and other charges. It provides money for general operations and maintenance. Capital projects are occasionally funded from this source when the capacity exists, usually via a transfer of funds to the Capital Improvement Fund. 2. Real Estate Excise Tax (REET): This is a tax imposed at the time of a Funding Plan Page 7-1 Packet Page 836 of 1136 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan City of Edmonds real estate sale. There are two components of the tax, Fund 125 and 126. The rate of each is one-fourth of one percent of the property’s sale price. Revenues derived from each of these components are dedicated through City Council action to be used for park,recreation, open space and cultural facility capital purposes. Revenue from this fund should be estimated conservatively as the real estate market can be volatile. Fund 126, the first one-fourth of one percent, can be used for acquisition and development. From 2005 to 2007, it generated about $1,400,000 annually. It pays the debt service for the purchase of City Hall, Marina Beach and Edmonds Center for the Arts as well as Library Plaza improvements and the city portion of the Anderson Center Seismic retrofit. Fund 125, the second one-fourth of one percent, also generated about $1,400,000 from 2005 to 2007. The first $750,000 is used for park development. Additional funds collected are directed to Fund 112 which can be used for transportation improvements including walkways, bikeways, and the Interurban Trail as well as traditional road improvements. Acquisition is not allowed with 2nd Qtr. REET. 3. General Obligation Bond: These are voter-approved bonds with the assessment placed on real property. The money can only be used for acquisition and capital improvements; not maintenance. This property tax is levied for a specified period of time. Passage of a voter-ratified bond requires a 60 percent majority vote. Examples of projects in Edmonds that could be funded with these bonds are: - Former Woodway High School Playfield Development - Senior Center Redevelopment - Aquatics Center - Civic Center Playfield Acquisition - Citywide Sidewalk & Trail Connections - 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor 4. Councilmatic Bonds: These are bonds that require only a majority of the City Council. They are repaid from City funds, usually the REET or the City General Fund, for capital projects. 5. Property Tax Levy: This is a voter- approved levy put in place generally to fund Parks Maintenance and Operations. It is a fixed amount assessed on real property for a specified number of years. 6. Revenue Bonds: These bonds are sold and paid from the revenue produced as a guarantee for the operation of a facility or enterprise. 7. HUD Block Grants: Grants from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development and administered by Snohomish County as Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) are available for a wide variety of projects. Most are distributed in the lower income areas of the community. Grants can be up to 100 percent of project cost. ADA access projects are eligible for this funding. The South County Senior Center 2003-2005 Page 7-2 Funding Plan Packet Page 837 of 1136 City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan capital project awards from this program totaled $480,000. 8. Park Impact Fees: Park Impact Fees are fees imposed on new development to mitigate the impact of new development on the City’s park system. Impact fees can be used only for parkland acquisition and/or development. The City does not utilize this funding mechanism at this time. Because growth is only one percent per year on average, this option may not be worth the effort. Impact fee collection in addition to REET may be seen as double taxation which was not the intent of the state legislation allowing impact fees. 9. Certificates of Participation: This is a lease-purchase approach where a city sells Certificates of Participation (COP's) to a lending institution. The City then pays the loan off from revenue produced by the facility or from its general operating budget. The lending institution holds title to the property until the COP's are repaid. This procedure does not require a vote of the public. 10. Donations: The donation of labor, land, or cash by service agencies, private groups, or individuals is a popular way to raise small amounts of money for specific projects. Such service agencies as the Kiwanis and Rotary often fund, or augment available funding, for projects such as playground improvements. The Rotary Pavilion (completed in 2006) at Edmonds City Park is a good example. Another example would be the Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation funding for public art. 11. Public Land Trusts: Land trusts such as the Trust for Public Land, Inc., and the Nature Conservancy will acquire and hold land for eventual acquisition by a public agency or broker cooperative partnerships. In most cases, they are primarily interested in large blocks of natural open space. As a result, this may not be a viable option for Edmonds. 12. Lifetime Estates: This is an agreement between a landowner and the City where the City buys or receives by donation a piece of land and the City gives the owner the right Funding Plan Page 7-3 Packet Page 838 of 1136 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan City of Edmonds to live on the site after it is sold for the lifetime of the owner (i.e. Hutt Park). 13. Exchange of Property: An exchange of property between a private landowner and the City can occur. For example, the City could exchange an unneeded site for a potential park site currently under private ownership. 14. Joint Public/Private Partnership: The basic approach is for a public agency to enter into a working agreement with a private corporation to help fund, build and/or operate a public facility. Generally, the three primary incentives a public agency can offer is free land to place a facility (usually a park or other piece of public land), certain tax advantages, and access to the facility. While the public agency may have to give up certain responsibilities or control, it is one way of obtaining public facilities at a lower cost. 15. Public Facilities District: In 1999, Chapter 165 of Washington State law provided the ability for cities to establish a public facilities district (PFD). The legislation specifically authorized acquisition, construction, and ownership of regional convention, conference, or special event centers (RCW 35.57.020.) This option was one source used to purchase and construct the Edmonds Center for the Arts. 16. Private Grants and Foundations: Private grants and foundations provide money for a wide range of projects. Many grants are available for environmental protection. In addition, community improvement grants are available through The Hubbard Family Foundation, Rotary, the McDevitt Family Foundation, Friends of the Edmonds Library, and Edmonds Art Festival Foundation among others. 17. Salmon Recovery Grant: The Salmon Recovery Board administers grants to provide funding of habitat protection and restoration projects and related programs and activities that produce sustainable and measurable benefits for fish and their habitat. Eligible applicants include local governments, private landowners, conservation districts, Native American tribes, non-profit organizations, and special service districts. Projects require a minimum of 15% match with no upper limit on the grant amount. Grants may be used for acquisition, in-stream diversion, in- stream passage, in-stream habitat, riparian habitat, and upland habitat, estuarine/marine near shore, and assessments and studies. 18. County, State and Federal Grants: Snohomish County provides grant opportunities through the Conservation Futures funding program, and the County Council’s Neighborhood Fund Awards Program. Washington State provides various grants for public recreation acquisition and development through the Recreation & Conservation Funding Board (RCO Grants), the Page 7-4 Funding Plan Packet Page 839 of 1136 City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the Department of Ecology’s Coastal Zone Management (CZM) programs, and the Washington State Arts Commission Grant programs. On the Federal level, Congress appropriates funds through the Land and Water Conservation Funds, FEMA, National Parks Service, Historic Preservation Congressional Appropriation and the National Endowment of the Arts. Edmonds has been very successful over the past fifteen years in obtaining matching grants to secure and develop substantial parklands for the community. 19. Increase Local Sales Tax: Cities can exercise the option to maximize the collection of sales tax revenue. Projected revenue can be determined by calculating the difference between the current collection and the maximum allowable. Tax amounts fluctuate year to year depending on the economy. 20. Parks Trust Fund 601: Established in March 2003 to receive various types of donations (gift annuities, stocks, etc.) from the citizenry with the intent that the interest earned will be used to assist the cost of operating, maintaining, and improving the Flower Program, Environmental Programs, and Yost Pool. 21. Gifts Program: The City of Edmonds Gifts Program was established in 1988 and is administered in the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department. This program provides a means for individuals, businesses, or organizations to donate funds for site specific amenities in our parks. The majority of donations are given in memory of a loved one, while others are given as gifts or to honor loved ones. Benches, picnic tables, and trees are the most requested memorial item, and the waterfront remains the most popular site for benches. In 2007, three viewing scopes (Olympic Beach, Senior Center, and Brackett’s Landing North) were added to the waterfront through the Gifts Catalog Program. Capital Improvement Plan The following is a funding strategy for implementing the action plan outlined in Chapter 6. Proposed projects, estimated costs, and potential revenue sources are shown in Table 7.1, which matches the most current adopted CIP. It should be noted that, over time, priorities change, new funding sources become available, or opportunities arise to acquire land or develop a project. As a requirement of the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), the City reviews the CIP on an annual basis. The total cost to meet the recreation and facility needs in the near term in Edmonds is placed at approximately $30 million, not including projects listed as unique Funding Plan Page 7-5 Packet Page 840 of 1136 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan City of Edmonds costs in Appendix “A” (Aquatic Center, 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor, New Park(s) Downtown. Several proposed facility improvements are currently funded in the CIP, such as 162nd Street Park, Old Woodway Elementary Park and the Interurban Trail. The key to funding the CIP is the combination of grants, general obligation bonds for large projects approved by the voters (i.e. indoor pool) and the use of the two one-fourth of one percent Real Estate Excise Taxes (REET). City Council approved the dedication of REET (Fund #125 to $750,000/year & #126) be used for park acquisition, development and improvements. Additional CIP funding is provided for non- motorized transportation improvements such as walkway and crosswalk projects in the Transportation Fund 112. Additional CIP funding is provided for community centers and recreation facilities in the Building Maintenance Fund 116. Page 7-6 Funding Plan Packet Page 841 of 1136 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s Pa r k s , R e c r e a t i on a n d O p e n S p a c e C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n Ta b l e 7 . 1 Pa r k s C a p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t P r o g r a m 2 0 0 7 - 2 0 1 3 PR O J E C T N A M E 20 0 7 20 0 8 20 0 9 20 1 0 20 1 1 20 1 2 2013 Pa r k D e v e l o p m e n t / I m p r o v e m e n t P r o j e c t s 16 2 n d S t r e e t P a r k $3 0 0 , 0 0 0 $2 5 , 0 0 0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 16 4 t h S t r e e t W a l k w ay $2 7 0 , 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 76 t h A v e / 7 5 t h P l W e s t W al k w a y $9 4 5 , 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 4t h A v e n u e C u l t u r a l C o r r i d o r * $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 An d e r s o n C e n t e r F i e l d / C ou r t $5 , 0 0 0 $4 0 , 0 0 0 $4 0 , 0 0 0 $2 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 $10,000 Br a c k e t t ' s L a n d i n g $0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 $5 0 , 0 0 0 $5,000 $5,000 Ci t y P a r k $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 2 0 , 0 0 0 $5 0 , 0 0 0 $2 5 , 0 0 0 $2 5 , 0 0 0 $2 5 , 0 0 0 $25,000 Da y t o n St r e e t Pl a z a $5 0 , 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Ci v i c C e n t e r C o m p l e x $7 5 , 0 0 0 $4 0 , 0 0 0 $3 0 , 00 0 $3 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 , 0 0 0 $1 5 , 0 0 0 $15,000 Ed m o n d s M a r s h / H a t c h e r y $0 $4 0 , 0 0 0 $4 0 , 0 0 0 $5 , 0 0 0 $5 , 0 0 0 $5,000 $5,000 Fi s h i n g P i e r / O l y m p i c B e a c h $2 0 , 0 0 0 $5 0 , 0 0 0 $3 5 , 00 0 $2 5 , 0 0 0 $2 5 , 0 0 0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 $10,000 Fo r m e r W o o d w a y H S A t h l e t i c F i e l d s * $0 $1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $6 5 0 , 0 0 0 $2 5 , 00 0 $2 5 , 0 0 0 $5,000 $5,000 Ma p l e w o o d P a r k $4 0 , 0 0 0 $5 , 0 0 0 $5 , 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Ma r i n a B e a c h P a r k $0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 $7 0 , 0 0 0 $2 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 $10,000 Ma t h a y B a l l i n g e r P a r k $6 0 , 0 0 0 $5 , 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Me a d o w d a l e C l u b h o u s e G r o u n d s $0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 $5 , 0 0 0 $5 0 , 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 Ol d W o o d w a y E l e m e n t a r y P a r k $1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $7 0 0 , 0 0 0 $2 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 $10,000 Pi n e R i d g e P a r k $0 $5 , 0 0 0 $4 5 , 0 0 0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 $5 , 0 0 0 $0 $0 Pi n e S t r e e t P a r k $0 $0 $2 0 , 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Se a v i e w P a r k $0 $1 5 , 0 0 0 $5 0 , 0 0 0 $6 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 $0 $0 Sr . C e n t e r P a r k i n g L o t / L a n d s c ap e / D r a i n a g e $1 4 0 , 0 0 0 $0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 $0 $0 Si e r r a P a r k $0 $8 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Un d e r w a t e r P a r k $0 $2 , 0 0 0 $5 , 0 0 0 $5 , 0 0 0 $5 , 0 0 0 $5,000 $5,000 Wa t e r f r o n t W a l k w a y / O l y m p i c B e a c h $2 , 0 0 0 $2 0 , 00 0 $5 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $5 , 0 0 0 $0 $0 Yo s t P a r k / P o o l * $2 5 , 0 0 0 $6 5 , 0 0 0 $1 0 , 00 0 $2 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 $10,000 * ma j o r d e v e l o p m e n t p r o j e c t s d e p e n d e n t u p o n s u c c e s s f u l c a p i t a l c a m p a i g n s a n d p a r t n e r s h i p s Fu n d i n g P l a n Pa g e 7 -7 Pa c k e t Pa g e 84 2 of 11 3 6 Pa r k s , R e c r e a t i o n a n d O p e n S p a c e C o mp r e h e n s i v e P l a n Ci t y o f E d m o n d s Ci t y w i d e P a r k I m p r o v e m e n t s Ci t y w i d e B e a u t i f i c a t i o n $2 0 , 0 0 0 $6 0 , 0 0 0 $4 0 , 00 0 $4 0 , 0 0 0 $4 0 , 0 0 0 $4 0 , 0 0 0 $40,000 AD A I m p r o v e m e n t s $0 $5 , 0 0 0 $5 , 0 0 0 $5 , 0 0 0 $5 , 0 0 0 $5,000 $5,000 Ce n t r a l i z e d I r r i g a t i on $0 $0 $5 , 0 0 0 $5 , 0 0 0 $5 , 0 0 0 $0 $0 Mi s c . P a v i n g $1 0 , 0 0 0 $5 0 , 0 0 0 $2 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 $10,000 Ci t y - w i d e P a r k / M i s c . S m a l l I m pr o v e m e n t s $1 4 5 , 0 0 0 $5 0 , 00 0 $5 0 , 0 0 0 $5 0 , 0 0 0 $5 0 , 0 0 0 $5 0 , 0 0 0 $50,000 Sp o r t s F i e l d s U p g r a d e / P l a y g r o u n d P a rt n e r s h i p $2 5 , 0 0 0 $2 5 , 00 0 $2 5 , 0 0 0 $2 5 , 0 0 0 $3 0 , 0 0 0 $3 0 , 0 0 0 $30,000 Sp e c i a l i z e d P r o j e c t s Sk a t e b o a r d Pa r k $3 3 9 , 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $4 0 0 , 0 0 0 $0 $0 Tr a i l D e v e l o p m e n t In t e r u r b a n T r a i l $4 0 , 00 0 $6 6 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 $5 , 0 0 0 $5 , 0 0 0 $5,000 $5,000 Mi s c . U n p a v e d T r a i l / B i k e P a th $1 0 , 0 0 0 $1 5 , 0 0 0 $1 5 , 0 0 0 $1 5 , 0 0 0 $1 5 , 0 0 0 $1 5 , 0 0 0 $15,000 Pl a n n i n g 4t h A v e n u e C u l t u r a l C o rr i d o r $2 5 , 0 0 0 $2 5 , 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Cu l t u r a l Ar t s $1 5 , 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Co m p r e h e n s i v e Pl a n $4 0 , 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 $5 0 , 0 0 0 $0 Ed m o n d s M a r s h E n v i r o n m e n t a l P l a n $3 0 , 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Yo s t P o o l F e a s i b i l i t y St u d y $4 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 To t a l P a r k P r o j e c t s E x p e n d i t u r e s $3 , 77 1 , 0 0 0 $3 , 1 4 2 , 0 0 0 $1 , 4 5 5 , 0 0 0 $6 3 0 , 00 0 $1 , 0 7 0 , 0 0 0 $3 1 5 , 0 0 0 $265,000 Re v e n u e s a n d C a s h B a l a n c e s 2 0 0 7 - 2 0 1 3 Be g i n n i n g C a s h B a l a n c e $5 , 39 7 , 9 9 7 $2 , 6 1 6 , 5 9 7 $9 5 8 , 59 7 $3 0 3 , 5 9 7 $5 5 3 , 5 9 7 $4 7 3 , 5 9 7 $943,597 Re a l E s t a t e T a x 1 / 4 % $7 5 0 , 0 0 0 $7 5 0 , 0 0 0 $7 5 0 , 00 0 $7 5 0 , 0 0 0 $7 5 0 , 0 0 0 $7 5 0 , 0 0 0 $750,000 In t e r e s t E a r n i n g s $9 0 , 0 0 0 $8 5 , 0 0 0 $5 0 , 00 0 $3 0 , 0 0 0 $4 0 , 0 0 0 $3 5 , 0 0 0 $45,000 Gr a n t s : I n t e r u r b a n T r a i l : F e d e r a l $1 2 5 , 0 0 0 $1 2 5 , 0 0 0 S t a t e $2 5 0 , 0 0 0 D a y t o n S t r e e t P l a z a ( C o m m u n i t y ) $3 0 , 0 0 0 S k a t e p a r k ( C o m m u n i t y & S t a t e ) $2 4 , 6 0 0 $2 0 0 , 0 0 0 4 t h A v e n u e C u l t u r a l C o r r i d o r ( F e d e r a l ) $5 0 , 0 0 0 S e n i o r C e n t e r $1 9 4 , 0 0 0 W a t e r f r o n t W a l k w a y $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 To t a l R e v e n u e s $6 , 3 8 7 , 5 9 7 $4 , 1 0 0 , 5 9 7 $1 , 7 5 8 , 5 9 7 $1 , 1 8 3 , 5 9 7 $1 , 5 4 3 , 5 9 7 $1 , 2 5 8 , 5 9 7 $1,738,597 En d i n g C a s h B a l a n c e $2 , 6 1 6 , 5 9 7 $9 5 8 , 5 9 7 $3 0 3 , 5 9 7 $5 5 3 , 5 9 7 $4 7 3 , 5 9 7 $9 4 3 , 5 9 7 $1,473,597 Pa g e 7 -8 Fu n d i n g P l a n Pa c k e t Pa g e 84 3 of 11 3 6 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s Pa r k s , R e c r e a t i on a n d O p e n S p a c e C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n Ta b l e 7 . 2 Pa r k s A c q u i s i t i o n P r o g r a m 2 0 0 7 - 2 0 1 3 PR O J E C T N A M E 20 0 7 20 0 8 20 0 9 20 1 0 20 1 1 20 1 2 2013 De b t S e r v i c e o n C i t y H a ll $4 1 5 , 5 0 2 $4 1 5 , 5 0 0 $4 1 5 , 50 0 $4 1 5 , 5 0 0 $4 1 5 , 5 0 0 $4 1 5 , 5 0 0 $415,500 De b t S e r v i c e o n L i b r a r y R oo f $2 6 , 0 0 0 $2 6 , 0 0 0 $2 6 , 0 0 0 $2 6 , 0 0 0 $2 6 , 0 0 0 $2 6 , 0 0 0 $26,000 De b t S e r v i c e o n M a r i n a B ea c h $1 5 1 , 8 3 5 $1 5 1 , 8 3 5 $1 5 1 , 8 3 5 $1 5 1 , 8 3 5 $1 5 1 , 8 3 5 $1 5 1 , 8 3 5 $151,835 De b t S e r v i c e o n P S C C P u r c ha s e $7 3 , 8 2 3 $7 3 , 8 2 3 $7 3 , 8 2 3 $7 3 , 8 2 3 $7 3 , 8 2 3 $7 3 , 8 2 3 $73,823 De b t S e r v i c e o n F A C S e i s m i c r e tr o f i t $3 0 , 0 0 0 $3 0 , 00 0 $3 0 , 0 0 0 $3 0 , 0 0 0 $3 0 , 0 0 0 $3 0 , 0 0 0 $30,000 To t a l D e b t S e r v i c e $6 9 7 , 1 6 0 $6 9 7 , 1 5 8 $6 9 7 , 1 5 8 $6 9 7 , 1 5 8 $6 9 7 , 1 5 8 $6 9 7 , 1 5 8 $697,158 Mi s c . O p e n S p a c e / L a n d $2 0 0 , 0 0 0 $2 0 0 , 0 0 0 $2 0 0 , 00 0 $2 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $100,000 Wa t e r f r o n t Ac q u i s i t i o n $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 $500,000 Ti d e l a n d / B e a c h A c q u i s i t i o n $1 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 To t a l P a r k P r o j e c t s $2 1 0 , 0 0 0 $2 1 0 , 0 0 0 $3 0 0 , 0 0 0 $7 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $600,000 Be g i n n i n g C a s h B a l a n c e $2 8 9 , 45 7 $8 5 2 , 2 9 7 $1 , 1 1 5 , 1 3 9 $1 , 2 8 7 , 9 8 1 $1 , 5 6 0 , 8 2 3 $2 , 0 3 3 , 6 6 5 $2,436,507 Re a l e s t a t e T a x 1 / 4 % / 1 s t Q t r % $1 , 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 , 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 , 10 0 , 0 0 0 $1 , 1 0 0 , 00 0 $1 , 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 , 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1,100,000 In t e r e s t E a r n i n g s $7 0 , 0 0 0 $7 0 , 0 0 0 $7 0 , 00 0 $7 0 , 0 0 0 $7 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $120,000 Pr o j e c t e d G r a n t s : St a t e / F e d e r a l ( W a t e r f r o n t Ac q u i s i t i o n ) $5 0 0 , 0 0 0 $500,000 Pr i v a t e D o n a t i o n s ( M i s c O p e n S p a c e ) To t a l R e v e n u e s $1 , 7 5 9 , 4 5 7 $2 , 0 2 2 , 2 9 7 $2 , 28 5 , 1 3 9 $2 , 9 5 7 , 9 8 1 $2 , 7 3 0 , 82 3 $3 , 2 3 3 , 6 6 5 $4,156,507 Ex p e n d i t u r e s To t a l D e b t S e r v i c e $6 9 7 , 1 6 0 $6 9 7 , 1 5 8 $6 9 7 , 15 8 $6 9 7 , 1 5 8 $6 9 7 , 1 5 8 $6 9 7 , 1 5 8 $697,158 To t a l P a r k s P r o j e c t s $2 1 0 , 0 0 0 $2 1 0 , 0 0 0 $3 0 0 , 00 0 $7 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $600,000 To t a l E x p e n d i t u r e s $9 0 7 , 1 6 0 $9 0 7 , 1 5 8 $9 9 7 , 1 5 8 $1 , 3 9 7 , 15 8 $7 9 7 , 1 5 8 $7 9 7 , 1 5 8 $1,297,158 En d i n g C a s h B a l a n c e $8 5 2 , 2 9 7 $1 , 1 1 5 , 1 3 9 $1 , 2 8 7 , 98 1 $1 , 5 6 0 , 8 2 3 $1 , 9 3 3 , 6 6 5 $2 , 4 3 6 , 5 0 7 $2,859,349 Fu n d i n g P l a n Pa g e 7 -9 Pa c k e t Pa g e 84 4 of 11 3 6 A PPENDIX A Facility Inventory Worksheets Packet Page 845 of 1136 Ed m o n d s P a r k s , R e c r e a t i o n a n d O p e n S p a c e C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n U p d a t e Inventory Worksheet for Facilities (updated 7/22/2008) Po p u l a t i o n i n p l a n a r e a Po p u l a t i o n i n E d m o n d s P l a n n i n g A r e a 2 0 0 7 44 , 2 7 9 Po p u l a t i o n i n E d m o n d s P l a n n i n g A r e a 2 0 1 2 46 , 5 3 7 Po p u l a t i o n i n E d m o n d s P l a n n i n g A r e a 2 0 2 5 52 , 9 6 3 Na m e La n d ( a c r e s ) De s i g n a t i o n O w n e r s h i p P i c n i c S h e l t e r s ( e a ) P l a y g r o u n d ( e a ) W a l k i n g T r a i l / P a t h w a y ( m i ) B i k i n g T r a i l ( m i ) T r a i l h e a d I m p r o v e m e n t s ( e a ) S i g n a g e / D e s i g n a t i o n ( e a ) B a s k e t b a l l ( e a ) V o l l e y b a l l - s a n d ( e a ) T e n n i s ( e a ) F o o tball (e a ) Y o u th S o c c e r A d u l t (e a )S o c c e r Y o u th (e a )B a s e b a l l A d u l t (e a )S o f tball A d u l t (e a )Y o u th B a s e b a l l /S o f tball (e a )S k a te P a r k (e a )H a n d B o a t L a u n c h (r a m p )S w i m m i n g P o o l (S ) W a d i n/ g P o o l (W ) (s f )I Ex i s t i n g F a c i l i t i e s i n P l a n n i n g A r e a Ci t y P a r k 14 . 5 Co m m u n i t y Co E 3 2 1 1 1W n Yo s t M e m o r i a l P a r k & P o o l 48 Co m m u n i t y Co E 1 1 1 2 1S n 7t h & E l m S i t e 1. 5 Ne i g h b o r h o o d Co E Fr a n c e s A n d e r s o n C e n t e r F i e l d 2. 3 Ne i g h b o r h o o d Co E 1 1 1 Hu m m i n g b i r d H i l l P a r k 2 Ne i g h b o r h o o d Co E 1 1 Ma t h a y B a l l i n g e r P a r k 1. 5 Ne i g h b o r h o o d Co E 1 2 Pi n e S t r e e t P a r k 1. 5 Ne i g h b o r h o o d Co E 1 1 Se a v i e w P a r k 5. 5 Ne i g h b o r h o o d Co E 1 0. 5 1 2 1 1 Si e r r a P a r k 5. 5 Ne i g h b o r h o o d Co E 1 0. 5 1 1 1 Be a u t i f i c a t i o n A r e a s ( 1 2 s i t e s ) 9. 8 Op e n S p a c e Co E Ed m o n d s M a r s h / W a l k w a y 23 . 2 Op e n S p a c e Co E 0. 5 H. O . H u t t P a r k 4. 7 Op e n S p a c e Co E 0. 5 Ma p l e w o o d H i l l P a r k 12 . 7 Op e n S p a c e Co E 1 0. 5 Me a d o w d a l e N a t u r a l A r e a 2 Op e n S p a c e Co E Ol y m p i c V i e w O p e n S p a c e 0. 5 Op e n S p a c e Co E Pi n e R i d g e P a r k 22 Op e n S p a c e Co E 1 Se a v i e w R e s e r v o i r 3 Op e n S p a c e Co E Sh e l l C r e e k O p e n S p a c e 1 Op e n S p a c e Co E SR 1 0 4 W e t l a n d s ( e a s t ) 9 Op e n S p a c e Co E Wh a r f S t r e e t 0. 2 Op e n S p a c e Co E Wi l l o w C r e e k P a r k 2. 2 Op e n S p a c e Co E 14 4 R a i l r o a d A v e n u e T i d e l a n d s 1 Re g i o n a l Co E Br a c k e t t ' s L a n d i n g N o r t h 2. 7 Re g i o n a l Co E 0. 5 Br a c k e t t ' s L a n d i n g S o u t h 2 Re g i o n a l Co E 0. 5 Ha i n e s T i d e l a n d s 0. 5 Re g i o n a l Co E Ma r i n a B e a c h P a r k 4. 5 Re g i o n a l Co E 1 0. 5 1 1 Ol y m p i c B e a c h P a r k / W a t e r f r o n t W a l k w a y 4. 3 Re g i o n a l Co E 0. 5 So u t h C o u n t y S e n i o r C e n t e r 1 Re g i o n a l Co E 0. 5 Ba l l i n g e r L a k e A c c e s s 0. 1 Sp e c i a l U s e Co E 1 Ce n t e n n i a l P l a z a 0. 1 Sp e c i a l U s e Co E Da y t o n S t r e e t P l a z a 0. 1 Sp e c i a l U s e Co E Ed m o n d s L i b r a r y & P l a z a 2 Sp e c i a l U s e Co E Ed m o n d s M e m o r i a l C e m e t e r y a n d C o l u m b a r i u m 5. 5 Sp e c i a l U s e Co E Fr a n c e s A n d e r s o n C e n t e r 1 Sp e c i a l U s e Co E Me a d o w d a l e C o m m u n i t y C l u b h o u s e 1. 3 Sp e c i a l U s e Co E 1 Oc e a n A v e n u e V i e w p o i n t 0. 2 Sp e c i a l U s e Co E Po i n t E d w a r d s S c e n i c O v e r l o o k s 0. 1 Sp e c i a l U s e Co E So u t h C o u n t y H i s t o r i c a l M u s e u m 0. 4 Sp e c i a l U s e Co E SR 1 0 4 M i n i P a r k 0. 3 Sp e c i a l U s e Co E St a m m O v e r l o o k P a r k 0. 4 Sp e c i a l U s e Co E Su n s e t A v e n u e O v e r l o o k 0. 5 Sp e c i a l U s e Co E 0. 5 Wa d e J a m e s T h e a t r e 0. 7 Sp e c i a l U s e Co E Wi l l o w C r e e k H a t c h e r y & I n t e r p r e t i v e C e n t e r 1 Sp e c i a l U s e Co E 0. 0 2 Ly n n d a l e S k a t e P a r k 10 Co m m u n i t y Co L 1 1 1 Ed m o n d s C e n t e r f o r t h e A r t s 3. 2 Sp e c i a l U s e PF D Ed m o n d s U n d e r w a t e r P a r k & H i g g i n s T r a i l s 26 . 7 Re g i o n a l DN R Ci v i c C e n t e r P l a y f i e l d s & S k a t e P a r k (F u t u r e a c q u i s i t i o n ) 8. 1 Co m m u n i t y ES D 1 0. 2 5 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 Pa c k e t Pa g e 84 6 of 11 3 6 Ed m o n d s P a r k s , R e c r e a t i o n a n d O p e n S p a c e C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n U p d a t e Inventory Worksheet for Facilities (updated 7/22/2008) ) I n o d o r ( Y / N ) V i e w C o r r i d o r / P o i n t ( e a ) G y m n a s i u m ( e a ) R e s t r o o m s ( e a ) R e s t r o o m s - P o r t a b l e ( e a ) C o m m u n i t y C e n t e r ( e a ) N e i g h b o r h o o d P a r k ( a c r e s ) C o m m u n i t y P a r k ( a c r e s ) R e g i o n a l P a r k ( a c r e s ) S p e c i a l U s e P a r k ( a c r e s ) O p e n S p a c e ( a c r e s ) 2 14 . 5 1 4 8 1. 5 2. 3 1 2 1. 5 1 1. 5 1 5. 5 1 5. 5 9. 8 1 23 . 2 4. 7 12 . 7 2 0. 5 22 3 1 9 1 0. 2 2. 2 1 1 1 2. 7 1 2 0. 5 1 3 4. 5 1 1 4. 3 1 1 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1 1 1 2 1 5. 5 1 8 1 1 1 1 1. 3 1 0. 2 1 0. 1 0. 4 1 0. 3 1 0. 4 1 0. 5 0. 7 1 1 1 0 3. 2 26 . 7 2 8. 1 Pa c k e t Pa g e 84 7 of 11 3 6 Ed m o n d s P a r k s , R e c r e a t i o n a n d O p e n S p a c e C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n U p d a t e Inventory Worksheet for Facilities (updated 7/22/2008) Me a d o w d a l e P l a y f i e l d s 27 Co m m u n i t y ES D 1 1 1 1.5 Ch a s e L a k e E n v i r o m e n t a l E d u c a t i o n / E S D N a t u r a l A r e a 7. 4 8 Sp e c i a l U s e ES D / S n o C o 0. 2 Es p e r a n c e C o u n t y P a r k 6 Ne i g hb o r h o o d Sn o C o 1 0. 2 1 1 Me a d o w d a l e B e a c h C o u n t y P a r k 95 Op e n S p a c e Sn o C o 2 So u t h w e s t C o u n t y P a r k (P o s s i b l e a c q u i s i t i o n ) 12 0 Op e n S p a c e Sn o C o 2 Ed m o n d s F i s h i n g P i e r 1 Re g i o n a l WD F W Pr o p o s e d F a c i l i t i e s i n P l a n n i n g A r e a 16 2 n d S t r e e t P a r k 0. 4 Ne i g h b o r h o o d Co E 1 0. 0 2 4t h A v e n u e C u l t u r a l C o r r i d o r * * * * n/ a Co n n e c t i o n s Co E Aq u a t i c C e n t e r * * * * n/ a Re g i o n a l Co E Vi e w C o r r i d o r s n/ a Sp e c i a l U s e Co E Tr a i l h e a d s * 2. 2 Co n n e c t i o n s Co E 9 Ha n d C a r r y B o a t L a u n c h 0. 5 Sp e c i a l U s e Co E 1 In t e r u r b a n T r a i l * * * 4. 8 Co n n e c t i o n s Co E 1 Ne w B i k e w a y R o u t e s * * 2. 4 Co n n e c t i o n s Co E 3. 9 Wi l l o w C r e e k C o r r i d o r 1 Op e n S p a c e Co E Sh e l l C r e e k O p e n S p a c e 4 Op e n S p a c e Co E Ne w C o m m u n i t y P a r k (at F o r m e r W o o d w a y H . S . ) n/ a Co m m u n i t y ES D 2 1 1 3 1 Co m p l e t e O l y mp i c B e a c h W a l k w a y 1 R e g io n a l Co E 0. 1 Ne w P a r k (ne a r O l y mp i c V i e w D r a n d 7 6 t h A v e W ) 1 Ne i g hb o r h o o d Co E 1 1 0. 1 1 Ne w P a r k (ne a r P u g et D r i v e a n d O l y mp i c V i e w D r ) 1 Ne i g hb o r h o o d Co E 1 1 0. 1 1 Ne w P a r k ( n e a r 2 0 6 t h S t S W a n d 8 0 t h A v e ) 2 Ne i g h b o r h o o d Co E 1 1 0. 2 1 Ne w P a r k ( n e a r 2 3 4 t h S t S W a n d H w y 9 9 ) 2 Ne i g h b o r h o o d Co E 1 1 0. 2 1 Ne w P a r k s ( d o w n t o w n a r e a ) * * * * 7 Re g i o n a l Co E Ol d W o o d w a y E l e m e n t a r y P a r k 5. 6 Ne i g h b o r h o o d Co E 1 1 0. 5 1 1 Wa l k i n g L o o p s - N e w s e g m e n t s * * 3. 4 Co n n e c t i o n s Co E 2. 8 Wa l k i n g L o o p s - D e s i g n a t i o n a n d M a r k e r s n/ a Co n n e c t i o n s Co E 27 Ma d r o n a S c h o o l - I m p r o v e m e n t s n/ a Ne i g h b o r h o o d ES D 1 We s t g a t e E l e m e n t a r y - I m p r o v e m e n t s n/ a Ne i g h b o r h o o d ES D 1 Ex i s t i n g C i t y - O w n e d F a c i l i t y S u b t o t a l 20 2 . 3 0 3. 0 0 12 . 0 0 7. 5 2 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 6. 0 0 1. 0 0 4. 0 0 0. 0 0 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 Ex i s t i n g T o t a l F a c i l i t y S u b t o t a l 50 6 . 7 8 3. 0 0 16 . 0 0 12 . 1 7 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 10 . 0 0 1. 0 0 6. 0 0 1. 0 0 2.00 6.00 0.00 2.50 6.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 EL O S C i t y -O w n e d S t a n d a r d / 1 0 0 0 4. 5 7 0. 0 7 0. 2 7 0. 1 7 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 1 4 0. 0 2 0. 0 9 0. 0 0 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.05 0.05 EL O S T o t a l S t a n d a r d / 1 0 0 0 11 . 4 5 0. 0 7 0. 3 6 0. 2 7 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 2 3 0. 0 2 0. 1 4 0. 0 2 0.05 0.14 0.00 0.06 0.14 0.05 0.05 0.05 RC O L O S S t a n d a r d / 1 0 0 0 NA 1. 6 7 0. 5 3 0. 1 3 NA NA NA 0. 0 9 NA 0. 2 2 NA 0.29 NA 0.49 0.49 NA NA NA NA NR P A L O S S t a n d a r d / 1 0 0 0 34 . 4 5 NA NA 0. 5 0 NA NA NA 0. 3 0 0. 3 0 0. 5 0 0. 0 5 0.10 NA 0.30 0.40 NA NA NA 0.05 Pr o p o s e d T o t a l F a c i l i t y S u b t o t a l 38 . 3 0 7. 0 0 8. 0 0 5. 0 2 4. 9 0 9. 0 0 27 . 0 0 4. 0 0 0. 0 0 1. 0 0 0. 0 0 4.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 PL O S 2 0 2 5 T o t a l S t a n d a r d / 1 0 0 0 10 . 2 9 0. 1 9 0. 4 5 0. 3 2 0. 0 9 0. 1 7 0. 5 1 0. 2 6 0. 0 2 0. 1 3 0. 0 2 0.11 0.13 0.02 0.05 0.11 0.04 0.06 0.04 Fa c i l i t y U n i t C o s t 60 0 , 0 0 0 $ 11 4 , 7 6 9 $ 15 1 , 5 6 8 $ 36 8 , 5 8 8 $ 14 3 , 7 7 8 $ 28 , 9 5 9 $ 2, 5 0 0 $ 54 , 3 5 8 $ - $ 10 6 , 6 1 5 $ 74 3 , 5 5 5 $ 1,296,036 $ 938,486$ 949,655$ 874,416 $ 621,650 $ -$ 214,902$ -$ Ex i s t i n g T o t a l F a c i l i t y C o s t 30 4 , 0 6 8 , 0 0 0 $ 34 4 , 3 0 7 $ 2, 4 2 5 , 0 8 8 $ 4, 4 8 5 , 7 1 6 $ - $ - $ - $ 54 3 , 5 8 0 $ - $ 63 9 , 6 9 0 $ 74 3 , 5 5 5 $ 2,592,072 $ 5,630,916$ -$ 2,186,040 $ 3,729,900 $ -$ 429,804$ -$ Ex i s t i n g T o t a l F a c i l i t y C o s t / C a p i t a 6, 8 6 7 $ 8 $ 55 $ 10 1 . 3 1 $ - $ - $ - $ 12 $ - $ 14 . 4 5 $ 17 $ 59 $ 127$ -$ 49 $ 84 $ -$ 10$ -$ Pr o p o s e d T o t a l F a c i l i t y C o s t 16 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 80 3 , 3 8 3 $ 1, 2 1 2 , 5 4 4 $ 2, 3 5 0 , 3 1 2 $ 70 4 , 5 1 2 $ 26 0 , 6 3 1 $ 67 , 5 0 0 $ 21 7 , 4 3 2 $ - $ 10 6 , 6 1 5 $ - $ 5,184,144 $ 938,486$ 949,655$ -$ -$ 214,902$ -$ % E d m o n d s P R O C S h a r e 75 % 75 % 75 % 0% 0% 10 0 % 10 0 % 75 % 75 % 75 % 50 % 50%50%50%50%50%100%50%100% Ot h e r F u n d i n g S o u r c e s Co E P W (tr a i l s ) Gr a n t Gr a n t Co E P W Co E P W Gr a n t Gr a n t Gr a n t ES D Other/Private ESD Other/Private Other/Private ESD Grant/Port Pr o p o s e d P R O C T o t a l F a c i l i t y C o s t 12 , 3 7 5 , 0 0 0 $ 60 2 , 5 3 7 $ 90 9 , 4 0 8 $ - $ - $ 26 0 , 6 3 1 $ 67 , 5 0 0 $ 16 3 , 0 7 4 $ - $ 79 , 9 6 1 $ - $ 2,592,072 $ 469,243$ 474,828$ -$ -$ -$ 107,451$ -$ * A s s u m e s a v e r a g e 1 / 4 a c r e p e r t r a i l h e a d ** A s s u m e s a v e r a g e 5 f t . w i d e t r a i l ** * A s s u m e s a v e r a g e 1 0 f t . w i d e t r a i l ** * * U n i q ue c o s t . P o s s i b l e b o n d i s s u e . N o t i n c l u d e d i n c o s t e s t i m a t e . Pa c k e t Pa g e 84 8 of 11 3 6 Ed m o n d s P a r k s , R e c r e a t i o n a n d O p e n S p a c e C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n U p d a t e Inventory Worksheet for Facilities (updated 7/22/2008) 1 2 7 7. 4 8 6 95 12 0 1 1 1 1 0. 4 3 n/ a 2. 2 1 0. 5 4. 8 2. 4 1 4 1 n/ a 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 7 1 5. 6 3. 4 n/ a n/ a n/ a 12 . 0 0 1. 0 0 18 . 0 0 6. 0 0 2. 0 0 19 . 8 0 62 . 5 0 16 . 0 0 13 . 7 0 90 . 3 0 12 . 0 0 1. 0 0 21 . 0 0 8. 0 0 2. 0 0 25 . 8 0 10 7 . 6 0 43 . 7 0 24 . 3 8 30 5 . 3 0 0. 2 7 0. 0 2 0. 4 1 0. 1 4 0. 0 5 0. 4 5 1. 4 1 0. 3 6 0. 3 1 2. 0 4 0. 2 7 0. 0 2 0. 4 7 0. 1 8 0. 0 5 0. 5 8 2. 4 3 0. 9 9 0. 5 5 6. 8 9 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2. 0 0 8. 0 0 7. 0 0 NA 6. 0 0 4. 0 0 0. 0 0 1. 0 0 6. 0 0 0. 0 0 12 . 0 0 0. 0 0 7. 0 0 13 . 3 0 5. 0 0 0. 3 0 0. 0 2 0. 4 2 0. 2 6 0. 0 4 0. 7 1 2. 0 3 0. 9 6 0. 7 1 5. 8 6 28 , 9 5 9 $ - $ 31 4 , 2 5 7 $ - $ CO S T T O T A L S 34 7 , 5 0 8 $ - $ 6, 5 9 9 , 3 9 7 $ - $ To t a l V a l u e o f E x i s t i n g S y s t e m 33 4 , 7 6 5 , 5 7 3 $ 8 $ - $ 14 9 $ - $ To t a l V a l u e o f E x i s t i n g S y s t e m / C a p i t a 7, 5 6 0 $ 11 5 , 8 3 6 $ - $ 31 4 , 2 5 7 $ - $ To t a l C o s t o f P r o p o s e d S y s t e m 29 , 9 4 0 , 2 0 9 $ 10 0 % 10 0 % 75 % 10 0 % Gr a n t 11 5 , 8 3 6 $ - $ 23 5 , 6 9 3 $ - $ - $ To t a l C o s t o f P R O C S h a r e o f P r o p . S y s t e m 18 , 4 5 3 , 2 3 4 $ Pa c k e t Pa g e 84 9 of 11 3 6 A PPENDIX B Community Survey Results Packet Page 850 of 1136 Packet Page 851 of 1136 What do you think? open space o programs o neighborhood park athletic fields o trails & walkways o regional facilities This is your chance to let us know your opinions and priorities. Please review the enclosed materials and complete the telephone survey to indicate your priorities about park, recreation, open space and cultural opportunities in Edmonds. Help us create a plan for Edmonds’ park system for the next 20 years. Packet Page 852 of 1136 1 C:\Documents and Settings\mcrae\My Documents\WORDATA\RENEE\COMP PLAN\Edmonds Telephone Survey with Results.doc August 2007 Dear Edmonds Survey Participant: Thank you for agreeing to participate in our survey. The City of Edmonds is completing work on the City’s Park, Recreation, Open Space and Cultural Comprehensive Plan. The plan will determine priorities for park, recreation, open space and cultural programs, and financing strategies, for the next six year comprehensive planning period which will impact programs into the foreseeable future. Your opinions will help the City develop a final plan and financing strategy that reflects the desires and values of the Edmonds community. Survey telephone call: Please review the survey questions and the graphic materials enclosed. The telephone survey team will call to discuss your survey responses in about 1 week. In the meantime, please mark this copy to indicate your response to each question. You will greatly assist the telephone survey team, and shorten the length of the phone call, if you have completed the answers and can read your responses to the survey caller. To obtain the survey accuracy desired by the city, telephone surveys must be completed by 200 residents. Therefore, we need your response for the survey to be an accurate reflection of Edmonds resident opinions. We will continue to call the persons participating in the survey until we have completed 200 responses. Consequently, please be prepared so that you may be included within the final sample. Note - please do not mail your survey - this will slow the response time and could also jeopardize survey reliability. The city will notify you in writing once 200 surveys have been completed. Please contact Brian McIntosh, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director at (425)771-0256 or mcintosh@ci.edmonds.wa.us if you have any questions about the plan or this survey. Sincerely, CITY OF EDMONDS Brian McIntosh Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director Packet Page 853 of 1136 2 Telephone Survey Edmonds Park, Recreation, Open Space and Cultural Comprehensive Plan Update SECTION 1: General program and site priorities Program priorities 1-4 Reserved for City Use 5 Have any household members used recreational programs provided by the city, school district, or another public, private or non-profit agency in the last year? [ 64% ] yes [ 36% ] no What recreational programs do you think should be offered or continue to be offered by the city, school district, or another public or private agency on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is the least important and 5 is the most important? importance Recreation programs score OTHER 4.20 SUMMER PROGRAMS 4.05 BEFORE/AFTER SCHOOL AGE KIDS 4.02 TEEN ACTIVITIES 4.01 YOUTH ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 4.00 FITNESS CLASSES 3.83 SENIOR ACTIVITIES 3.80 INDOOR/OUTDOOR ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 3.63 ACTIVITIES FOR PRESCHOOLERS 3.50 ADULT/SENIOR DAY CARE 3.41 ADULT ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 3.31 PERFORMING ARTS 3.30 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION 3.19 ART, GRAPHIC DESIGN 3.11 SELF-HELP CLASSES 3.01 SAILING, ROWING 2.96 If it requires more money than can be budgeted to provide future city recreation programs, how would you prioritize the following methods of paying for those programs? priority Recreation program financing options score INCREASE USER FEES 3.71 REDUCE PROGRAMS OFFERED 2.82 INCREASE CITY TAX REVENUES 2.47 Packet Page 854 of 1136 3 C:\Documents and Settings\mcrae\My Documents\WORDATA\RENEE\COMP PLAN\Edmonds Telephone Survey with Results.doc Park, recreation, open space and cultural site priorities In general, how would you rate the existing inventory of park, recreation, open space and cultural sites provided in Edmonds by the city, school district, and other recreation providers? 25 Quantity – is the number and location of existing park, recreation, open space and cultural sites adequate to serve the existing population? [ 62% ] yes [ 34% ] no 26 Quality – are the maintenance conditions and furnishings including parking, restrooms, playgrounds, and other elements provided in existing park, recreation, open space and cultural sites adequate? [ 79% ] yes [ 17% ] no How would you rate the importance of providing the following additional sites within the city in general whether provided by the city, school district, or another recreation provider? importance Park, recreation, open space and cultural site priorities score OTHER 4.40 WATERFRONT 4.03 TRAILS 4.00 SWIMMING POOL 3.54 PLAYGROUNDS 3.51 PICNIC AREAS 3.42 BASEBALL FIELDS 3.22 SOCCER FIELDS 3.20 TENNIS COURTS 3.03 INDOOR BASKETBALL 3.01 MEETING ROOMS 2.99 HISTORIC BUILDINGS 2.98 OUTDOOR BASKETBALL 2.95 ART GALLERIES 2.91 OFF-LEASH 2.74 KAYAK AND CANOE ROUTES 2.74 SKATEBOARDING AREA 2.41 If it requires more money than can be budgeted to provide future park, recreation, open space and cultural sites, how would you prioritize funding for the following general park, recreation, open space and cultural types? priority Park, recreation, open space and cultural type score WALKING/BICYCLE ROUTES 3.84 NEIGHBOORHOOD PARK 3.57 COMMUNITY PARK 3.49 OPEN SPACE 3.48 REGIONAL PARK 3.16 INDOOR RECREATION SITES 2.93 CULTURAL SERVICES 2.60 SCENIC CORRIDOTS 2.59 SPECIAL USE AREAS 2.49 Packet Page 855 of 1136 4 SECTION 2: Specific development plan proposals Please note that where proposed or existing sites are shown, it does not necessarily imply who would be responsible for providing or enhancing those sites. In many cases, partnerships may be required with other agencies or organizations to jointly develop or enhance park, recreation, open space and cultural sites within the city. In addition, proposals are contingent upon future feasibility and as opportunities may allow. Where proposed sites are shown jointly with the school district or other organizations and agencies, proposals are also contingent upon joint approval of those agencies. How would you prioritize the following proposals – as shown on the attached preliminary Recommended Plan map? Neighborhood Parks – (note there are five potential new park sites proposed for Edmonds) priority score JOINT USE (NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS ON SCHOOL SITES) 4.21 RESTROOMS 4.02 PLAYGROUNDS 3.53 MULTIPURPOSE FIELDS 3.50 NEW PARK NE EDMONDS 3.15 NEW PARK E EDMONDS 3.13 OUTDOOR COURTS 3.10 INFORMAL FIELDS 3.00 NEW PARK N EDMONDS 3.00 NEW PARK SE EDMONDS 2.97 priority Open Space score NATURAL SYSTEMS 3.62 TRAILHEADS 3.58 DESIGNATION WILLOW CREEK 3.57 EDUCATION/INTERPRETIVE 3.18 priority Community Parks score NEW COMMUNITY PARK 3.75 BALL FIELDS – IMPROVE EXISTING 3.23 SOCCER - IMPROVE EXISTING 3.18 SOCCER - PROVIDE ADDITIONAL 2.70 BALL FIELDS – PROVIDE ADDITIONAL 2.66 priority Regional Sites score AQUATIC CENTER 3.68 REGIONAL TRAILS 3.64 OFF-LEASH PARK 2.75 SKATEBORAD ELEMENTS 2.40 Packet Page 856 of 1136 5 C:\Documents and Settings\mcrae\My Documents\WORDATA\RENEE\COMP PLAN\Edmonds Telephone Survey with Results.doc priority Special Use Site score HAND CARRY BOAT LAUNCH 3.12 Connections priority score WATERFRONT 3.86 WALKING ROUTES 3.76 MULTI-USE TRAILS 3.71 BICYCLE ROUTES 3.54 SCENIC CORRIDORS 3.43 LINEAR PARK 2.97 priority Cultural Facilities score EDMONDS CENTER FOR THE ARTS 2.97 MULTIPURPOSE ARTS FACILITY 2.66 ART MUSEUM 2.51 priority OVERALL LIST SECTION 2 score Neighborhood park elements at schools in lieu of new park sites 4.21 Additional restrooms in parks 4.02 Waterfront crossings and connections 3.86 Marked walking routes 3.76 New community park 3.75 Multi-use trails for all ages 3.71 Regional trails 3.64 Aquatic center 3.63 Additional marked bicycle routes 3.54 New and/or improved playgrounds 3.53 Multi-sport fields 3.50 Identify scenic corridors 3.43 Upgrade existing baseball/softball fields 3.23 Upgrade existing soccer fields 3.18 New park in NE Edmonds 3.15 New park in E Edmonds 3.13 Outdoor courts 3.10 Informal fields 3.00 New park in N Edmonds 3.00 New park in SE Edmonds 2.97 4th Ave linear park 2.97 Edmonds Center for the Arts improvements 2.97 Off-leash park 2.75 Additional soccer fields 2.70 Additional baseball/softball fields 2.66 New multipurpose arts facility 2.66 New art museum 2.51 Skateboard elements 2.40 Packet Page 857 of 1136 6 SECTION 3: Financing Options The budget of the Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Cultural Services department is made up of many sources. While most of the budget comes from municipal sources, other resources such as user fees, partnerships, private donations and various grants make up the total available budget. Edmonds strives to always explore new financing opportunities. Growth management According to the US census in the next 20 years the area’s population could increase by another 4,300 people (or approximately 11% more than the existing population of 40,500 persons) as lands are developed or redeveloped for more housing. 87 In your opinion, will existing park, recreation, open space and cultural sites (not including any of the above proposals) within the city, county, and school district systems be enough to serve this population increase? [ 28% ] yes [ 44% ] no [ 28% ] don't know 88 In your opinion, will the proposed park, recreation, open space and cultural sites described in Section 2 in addition to existing sites be enough to provide for this population? [ 58% ] yes [ 13% ] no [ 28% ] don't know 89 In your opinion, will the proposed park, recreation, open space and cultural sites described above improve your access and ability to enjoy the park system in Edmonds even after this population increase occurs? [ 62% ] yes [ 11% ] no [ 27% ] don't know Entrepreneurial Financing The city could support a variety of creative, entrepreneurial opportunities as a means of financing the acquisition and development of additional park, recreation, open space and cultural sites. These opportunities can include conservation easements, access agreements, land lease/trust agreements (i.e., donation or lease of property to city), revenue bonds, foundations (i.e., non-profit organizations), advertising, sponsorships and public or private grants. How would you rate the importance of this option? importance Entrepreneurial Opportunities score ENTREPRENEURIAL OPPORTUNITIES 3.83 VENDORS FOR RENTALS, ETC. AT WATERFRONT, TRAILHEAD, POOL 3.60 SPONSORSHIPS 3.59 VENDORS FOR CONCESSIONS ATHLETIC COMPLEXES 3.40 Packet Page 858 of 1136 7 C:\Documents and Settings\mcrae\My Documents\WORDATA\RENEE\COMP PLAN\Edmonds Telephone Survey with Results.doc General obligation bond City Council could submit a general obligation bond for voter approval as a means of financing the acquisition and development of park, recreation, and open space sites. The bond, which cannot be used for operation and maintenance, would generally be financed over a 20-year period. General obligation bond Amount per year 94 If a bond were to be put on the ballot to finance the highest priority projects listed in Section 2 above, how much, if anything, would your household be willing to pay per year for this source of funding? $122.50 mean Property Tax City Council could submit a property tax levy for voter approval as a means of financing the acquisition, development, operation, and maintenance of all city park, recreation, open space and cultural sites. The property tax levy would provide a dedicated source of funds with which to provide park, recreation, open space and cultural sites and program services for a specified amount of time. Property tax levy Amount per year 95 If a property tax levy were to be put on the ballot to finance the highest priority projects listed above in Section 2 AND operations/maintenance of existing park systems, how much, if anything, would your household be willing to pay per year for this source of funding? $101.30 mean Joint venture opportunities Besides Edmonds - the school district, state, athletic organizations, non-profit organizations and a variety of other public and private agencies own and operate park, recreation, open space and cultural sites and programs within the city. These other agencies can become especially important partners in developing sub-regional sites that serve a larger population beyond city boundaries, such as aquatic centers, tennis centers, and community centers. How would you prioritize joint venture projects with the following agencies? priority Sites score WITH SCHOOL DISTRICTS 4.19 WITH OTHER CITIES 3.85 WITH NON-PROFIT ORG. 3.85 WITH FOR-PROFIT ORG. 3.23 priority Programs score WITH SCHOOL DISTRICTS 4.23 WITH NON-PROFIT ORG. 3.85 WITH OTHER CITIES 3.79 WITH FOR-PROFIT ORG. 3.15 Packet Page 859 of 1136 8 Respondent characteristics 104 Which area of the city do you live in? [ 23% ] North of 196th St. SW [ 31% ] East of 9th between 220th St. SW and 196th St. SW [ 22% ] Downtown, between 220th St SW and 196th St. SW, west of 9th Ave. [ 22% ] South of 220th St. SW 105 How long have you lived in Edmonds? 1% 0-1 9% 2-5 10% 6-10 80% 10+ years 106 What type of housing do you live in? 92% own 8% rent 107 What age group are you in (circle one)? 0% 18-24 2% 25-34 15% 35-49 41% 50-64 40% 65+ 1% Refused 108 How do you like to receive information from the city regarding park, recreation, open space and cultural sites and programs? [ 49% ] Craze guide [ 60% ] Local paper [ 39% ] Direct mail [ 13% ] Channel 21 [ 5% ] Community bulletin boards [ 33% [ City newsletter [ 25% ] City’s web site [ 11% ] Arts Bulletin [ 5% ] Other: ____________________ Packet Page 860 of 1136 Packet Page 861 of 1136 Edmonds Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Comprehensive Plan Update Survey 1. How important do you think the following are to creating tourism in Edmonds? Not important Not very important Somewhat important Important Very important Rating Average Response Count a. Underwater Scuba Diving Park 3.7% (4)4.6% (5)25.0% (27)47.2% (51)19.4% (21)3.74 108 b. Flower Baskets 2.8% (3)3.7% (4)13.8% (15)38.5% (42)41.3% (45)4.12 109 c. Waterfront 0.0% (0)0.0% (0)4.6% (5)13.8% (15)81.7% (89)4.77 109 d. Aquatics/Pool 2.8% (3)15.9% (17)36.4% (39)25.2% (27)19.6% (21)3.43 107 e. Parks 0.0% (0)1.8% (2)13.8% (15)43.1% (47)41.3% (45)4.24 109 f. Cultural Activities 0.0% (0)2.8% (3)4.6% (5)37.6% (41)55.0% (60)4.45 109 g. Festivals 0.9% (1)3.7% (4)8.4% (9)30.8% (33)56.1% (60)4.37 107 h. Other _________________3.6% (1)0.0% (0)3.6% (1)14.3% (4)78.6% (22)4.64 28 Other (please specify)31 answered question 110 skipped question 0 Page 1Packet Page 862 of 1136 Packet Page 863 of 1136 Packet Page 864 of 1136 2. Of the existing facilities in the park system, what does Edmonds need more of? (Choose all that you think apply.) Response Percent Response Count a. Neighborhood parks 38.0%41 b. Year-round swimming pool 58.3%63 c. Recreation/cultural programs 37.0%40 d. Walkways/trails/bike routes 71.3%77 e. Waterfront access (docks, boat launches, etc.)36.1%39 f. Downtown parks/activities 38.0%41 g. Off-leash areas 27.8%30 h. Skate parks 10.2%11 i. Natural open space 58.3%63 j. Tennis courts 15.7%17 k. Other _________________16.7%18 Other (please specify)22 answered question 108 skipped question 2 Page 2Packet Page 865 of 1136 Packet Page 866 of 1136 Packet Page 867 of 1136 3. Are there any new activities that you would like to see in Edmonds? Response Count 50 answered question 50 skipped question 60 4. Based on activities you are involved in, are there enough sports fields to serve each age group of Edmonds residents? Not enough soccer Enough soccer Not enough baseball & softball Enough baseball & softball Response Count a. Age 0-12 38.8% (19)46.9% (23)36.7% (18)49.0% (24)49 b. Age 13-18 52.3% (23)31.8% (14)38.6% (17)43.2% (19)44 c. Age 19-65 39.5% (17)37.2% (16)39.5% (17)48.8% (21)43 d. 65+19.4% (7)47.2% (17)27.8% (10)66.7% (24)36 answered question 60 skipped question 50 Page 3Packet Page 868 of 1136 Packet Page 869 of 1136 Packet Page 870 of 1136 Packet Page 871 of 1136 Packet Page 872 of 1136 Packet Page 873 of 1136 5. Are there enough other activities to serve each age group of Edmonds residents? Not enough Enough Response Count a. Age 0-12 45.8% (27)54.2% (32)59 b. Age 13-18 71.7% (43)30.0% (18)60 c. Age 19-65 51.5% (34)48.5% (32)66 d. 65+48.3% (29)53.3% (32)60 Comments 30 answered question 85 skipped question 25 6. Is it easy to access information about parks, recreation and cultural services? Do not seek information Information not accessible to me Information accessible Information easily accessible Information complete and readily available Rating Average Response Count Please select 1.9% (2)8.5% (9)52.8% (56)27.4% (29)9.4% (10)3.34 106 Comments 16 answered question 106 skipped question 4 Page 4Packet Page 874 of 1136 Packet Page 875 of 1136 Packet Page 876 of 1136 Packet Page 877 of 1136 Packet Page 878 of 1136 Packet Page 879 of 1136 7. How well do you think Edmonds is providing the following Poor Below average Average Good Great Rating Average Response Count a. A range of park, recreation and cultural services for all interests and age groups 3.7% (4)4.7% (5)28.0% (30)56.1% (60)7.5% (8)3.59 107 b. A high quality park system that offers a wide variety of opportunities and experiences 5.7% (6)7.5% (8)29.2% (31)43.4% (46)14.2% (15)3.53 106 c. Opportunities for public enjoyment of Edmonds' shoreline 1.8% (2)10.1% (11)18.3% (20)45.9% (50)23.9% (26)3.80 109 d. A variety of recreation programs and experiences to meet the needs of the community 1.9% (2)3.8% (4)38.5% (40)44.2% (46)11.5% (12)3.60 104 e. Collaboration of the arts, business, and individuals to create a vibrant cultural community 1.9% (2)6.5% (7)21.5% (23)49.5% (53)20.6% (22)3.80 107 f. A high quality and efficient level of maintenance for all park areas and facilities in Edmonds 0.0% (0)4.7% (5)26.4% (28)50.0% (53)18.9% (20)3.83 106 answered question 109 skipped question 1 Page 5Packet Page 880 of 1136 8. If parks and recreation programs are expanded, in which areas of Edmonds would you like to see more programs offered? (Choose all that you think apply.) Response Percent Response Count a. Downtown 58.9%56 b. NE 22.1%21 c. NW 37.9%36 d. SE 24.2%23 e. SW 34.7%33 answered question 95 skipped question 15 9. How interested are you in having Edmonds pursue the following? Not interested Not very interested Somewhat interested Interested Very interested Rating Average Response Count a. Allowing vendors in parks, such as selling food or art and equipment rentals 26.9% (29)14.8% (16)37.0% (40)13.9% (15)7.4% (8)2.60 108 b. Sponsorship of park facilities, such as naming rights for ballfields, pool, etc. 38.7% (41)13.2% (14)21.7% (23)22.6% (24)3.8% (4)2.40 106 answered question 108 skipped question 2 Page 6Packet Page 881 of 1136 10. Are there any other topics related to parks, recreation and cultural services that you would like to comment on? Response Count 40 answered question 40 skipped question 70 11. What is your age? Response Percent Response Count 10-14 2.7%3 15-17 1.8%2 18-24 1.8%2 25-34 6.4%7 35-44 13.6%15 45-54 32.7%36 55-64 22.7%25 65+18.2%20 answered question 110 skipped question 0 Page 7Packet Page 882 of 1136 Packet Page 883 of 1136 Packet Page 884 of 1136 Packet Page 885 of 1136 Packet Page 886 of 1136 Packet Page 887 of 1136 12. What is your gender? Response Percent Response Count Male 33.6%37 Female 66.4%73 answered question 110 skipped question 0 13. What is your zip code? Response Count 110 answered question 110 skipped question 0 Page 8Packet Page 888 of 1136 A PPENDIX C Park Descriptions Packet Page 889 of 1136 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: Focus area on 4th Avenue between Edmonds Center for the Arts to the north and the city parking lot to the south of Main Street, including reference to adjacent areas. May also include connection to Civic Center Playfields. 15,000 sq ft approx City of Edmonds Connections Street right-of-way Road and sidewalks in poor condition, old utilities, lacking landscaping and pedestrian walkability. Create linear park element and cultural amenities to connect core downtown retail with the performing arts center, improve walkability, highlight art and historic assets, and utilize low impact development techniques. The corridor will advance economic development and cultural tourism. The overall project includes roadway, lighting and underground utility improvements and involves several city departments. ECA Packet Page 890 of 1136 7th & Elm Site Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: Elm Street, near 8th Avenue South, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits 1.5 Acre Public Works Department, City of Edmonds Neighborhood Park / Zoned Public Open lawn, views of Puget Sound Small site, minimal neighborhood park benefit Landscaping Serves as a neighborhood passive spot. Illegal tree cutting to provide view benefit to neighborhood continues to be a problem at the site. Packet Page 891 of 1136 SR 104 Mini Park Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: 131 Sunset, within Edmonds City limits Snohomish County 0.3 Acre City of Edmonds Parks and Recreation Special Use/Zoned business commercial Restroom, concessions, lawn, beautification area, along Ferry holding lanes, public art. walkway Small site designed for passive enjoyment Update site plan and add concession sites. Updated landscape plan includes concessionaire pad/hookup. Restroom improvements. Site donated to City of Edmonds by Washington State Dept. of Transportation with improvements to ferry holding lane. Concessions located adjacent in street right-of-way needs to be incorporated into the park. It serves as a resting point for ferry patrons. Needs to reflect “Edmonds” and become a “Brackett’s Landing East” to introduce the visitors to the Edmonds waterfront and aesthetic amenities. Packet Page 892 of 1136 SR 104 Wetlands (east) Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: Second Avenue and SR 104, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County 9.0 Acres City of Edmonds Utility Division Natural Open Space Wetlands, bird and wildlife habitat Access, walkways Leave in natural state This eastern connection to the Edmonds Marsh supports habitat and bird species Packet Page 893 of 1136 144 Railroad Avenue Tidelands Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: 144 Railroad Avenue, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County 1.0 Acres City of Edmonds Parks and Recreation Regional Park / Zoned Commercial Waterfront Tidelands, walkway, public art Property purchased through Snohomish County Conservation Futures Fund Matching Grant. The site is protected as a public park through deed-of-right R AIL R OAD A V E N UE Packet Page 894 of 1136 162nd Street Park Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: 162nd and 75th Place West (near Haines Wharf), Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits 0.4 Acres City of Edmonds Parks and Recreation Neighborhood Park / Zoned RS20 Puget Sound viewpoint, gravel parking, trail Small site, needs to provide neighborhood recreational benefit Overlook mini-park. Resting point. Limited neighborhood park amenities. Construct mini park Packet Page 895 of 1136 Beautification Areas Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Areas: Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County 9.8 Acres City of Edmonds Beautification areas 12 various sites city-wide More sites needed, limited by financial constraints Annual maintenance City-wide beautification is the signature of the City of Edmonds. Annual flower planting brochure available for patrons Beautification Areas Flower Baskets I50 throughout City Street Trees 220th Street 5th and Main Intersection 9th and Casper 9th and Puget Corner Parks Throughout downtown Dayton Avenue & SR 104 Beautification and white gazebo Downtown Street Trees Within the bowl Edmonds Historical Museum 118 Fifth Avenue, North Edmonds Treatment Plant/ Fountain Second and Dayton Public Safety Civic Complex 5th and 6th at Bell Street SR 104 / Paradise Lane Medians and Westgate Entry Sign SR 104 Packet Page 896 of 1136 Ballinger Lake Access Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: McAleer Way and 76th Avenue West, Edmonds City limits within Snohomish County 0.1 Acre City of Edmonds Public Right-of-Way Special Use Area / Zoned Public Boat drop-off, lawn, fresh water lake access, fishing Very small, close to homes Annual Maintenance Only fresh water access in Edmonds Packet Page 897 of 1136 Brackett’s Landing North Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: Main Street and Railroad Avenue, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County 2.7 Acres with tidelands north of ferry terminal, adjacent to DNR Public Waters City of Edmonds Parks and Recreation Regional Park / Zoned Commercial Waterfront Waterfront walkway, step-down bulkhead, interpretive signs and landscape, memorial benches, historic signage, observation jetty with viewing scope, beautification, protected Marine Sanctuary, restroom, parking, showers, scuba diver access, Puget Sound views and access, public art, adopted site design. Parking impacts from ferry patrons Continue annual jetty repair, new restrooms, resurface parking lot 2001 Washington Park & Recreation Landscape Design Award. Serves as northern anchor in linear waterfront park system, view- point for passive recreation and access point to Edmonds Underwater Park. Acquisition and site improvements funded through IAC/LWCF and WWRC grant programs’ DNR/ALEA Enhancement/Interpretive Funds. The site is protected as a public park through deed-of-right. Packet Page 898 of 1136 Brackett’s Landing South Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: 100 Railroad Avenue, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County 2.0 Acres with tidelands south of ferry terminal City of Edmonds Parks and Recreation Regional Park / Zoned commercial waterfront Interpretive area, native vegetation, beach access, bus stop, waterfront trails, bicycle route, swimming, picnicking, Puget Sound views and tidelands access. Marine Protected area, public art, adopted site design. None Annual maintenance 1997 recipient of National League of Cities Urban Enrichment Award. This southern portion of Brackett’s Landing was acquired and developed through partnership grants from the IAC/WWRC account, Snohomish County Conservation Futures funds and Community Transit matching funds. This site is protected as a public park through deed-of-right. R A I L R O A D A V E N U E S U N S E T A V E N U E Packet Page 899 of 1136 Centennial Plaza Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: Fifth Street North and Bell Street, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County 0.1 Acre City of Edmonds Special Use Area Japanese Garden, public flag plaza, memorial bricks, annual living Christmas tree, time capsule placed in 1990 to celebrate 100 years for the City of Edmonds None Annual maintenance Wonderful memorial site adjacent to the City Hall and Maxwell/McGinness Public Safety Complex Packet Page 900 of 1136 Chase Lake Environmental Education/ESD Natural Area Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: 84th Avenue, City of Edmonds, unincorporated UGA in Snohomish County 7.48 Acres Snohomish County Public Works / Edmonds School District Special Use Area Parking, natural trails, wetland habitat, picnicking --- County annual maintenance by Snohomish County Parks Department --- Packet Page 901 of 1136 City Park Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: Third Street South and Howell Way, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County 14.5 Acres City of Edmonds Parks and Recreation Community Park, zoned public Children’s play area (2), picnic area, picnic shelters (3), gazebo shelter, small softball/baseball field, pavilion, open lawn, restrooms (2), wading pool, horseshoe pits, natural area, parking, maintenance compound, Master Plan adopted Complete south parking lot improvements. Complete master plan improvement, replace play areas (2), improve south parking lot, improve ballfield drainage City Park is a vital asset to the Park system, serving as an anchor facility in the City. Community events, picnic rentals, sports, community concerts, wading pool and playground serve the greater community throughout the year. Packet Page 902 of 1136 Civic Center Playfields & Skate Park Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: Sixth Street North and Edmonds Street, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County 8.1 Acres Property owned and leased from Edmonds School District until 2021 Community Park / Zoned Public Track, lit football field, soccer field, stadium, children’s play area, tennis courts (2), skate park, softball/baseball field, basketball court, club facility, portable restroom, City building department storage in stadium building Continue to repair and upgrade stadium. Improve irrigation and develop a master plan for the site. Improve tract drainage and restrooms. Repaint tennis courts. Resurface sports courts. Install new perimeter fence. New playground. The stadium serves as community gathering place. It is used about 12 times per year for circus, fireworks, Taste of Edmonds, school events, track meets, all weather sport events. Clubhouse is leased to Boys and Girls Club. The lease with the school district is of substantial benefit to the City. Packet Page 903 of 1136 Dayton Street Plaza Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: 2nd & Dayton 0.1 Acres City of Edmonds Special Use Area Patio with old fountain and landscaping. Area needs improvement to meet public demands on gathering spaces. Design and construct new plaza area with seating wall, artist designed hardscape, new landscaping and sites for sculpture exhibit. This plaza will provide an attractive public space located on a key walking route and adjacent to spaces in the Old Public Works Building used for art-related activities. Dayton Street Packet Page 904 of 1136 Edmonds Center for the Arts Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: 410 4th Avenue N 3.2 Acres Edmonds Public Facilities District Special Use 700 seat theater with full balcony, lobby and back of house. Gymnasium. Back of house needs renovation. Exisitng Music Building on site needs renovation or replacement for potential use as multipurpose arts facility. Back of house as funding becomes available. Edmonds Center for the Arts 4 TH A V E N Packet Page 905 of 1136 Edmonds Fishing Pier Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: Admiral Way and Dayton Street along Puget Sound, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County 1.0 Acre pier with parking lot along Railroad Avenue at Dayton Street Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife Regional Park / Zoned commercial waterfront Public saltwater fishing pier, restroom, interpretive educational center and signage, parking, viewing area, walkway, bulkhead Future repair needs identified in December 2006 Condition Survey Landscape improvements at parking lot. Continue annual maintenance of fishing pier. Restroom improvements. 2006 Condition Survey – partnership of WDFW and City of Edmonds. This regional recreational facility serves the sports fishing needs in the area. Squid and salmon seasons are popular with the patrons. The site was acquired and constructed through a partnership with the Port of Edmonds, the State Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the City of Edmonds. Funded with IAC/LWCF matching grant funds. This site is protected as a public park through deed-of-right. RA I L R OAD A VE NUE AD M I R AL W AY DAYTON ST Packet Page 906 of 1136 Edmonds Library & Plaza Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: 650 Main Street, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County 2.0 Acres City of Edmonds, managed by Parks and Recreation Special use area / Zoned RS8 Public rental space for special events, such as weddings. Library in street level space is annexed for service to Sno- Isle Library System. Public bus stop. Viewing area from plaza. Continual structural maintenance / flat roof continues to be monitored for leaking. Bonds of construction paid off in 2000. Cost of library services through 2001 voter approved annexation into library district. Park Department serves as liaison to Edmonds Library Board. Friends of Library is local non- profit that supports library programs. Upper rental space vital to community needs. Has spectacular views of the Puget Sound. 6 T H AV E S 8 T H A VE SMAPLE ST ALDER ST DAYTON ST MAIN ST 7 T H AV E S D U R BI N 5 T H A VE S 5 T H OS BC Packet Page 907 of 1136 Edmonds Marsh/Walkway Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: Dayton Street and SR104, Edmonds City limits, with Snohomish County 23.2 Acres City of Edmonds Parks and Recreation Natural Open Space / Zoned Open Space Wetlands, interpretive trails, boardwalk, viewing platform, parking, interpretive signs, habitat, extensive bird population Needs to be protected from adjacent impact and storm water impacts Complete analysis and develop master plan for recreation and stormwater needs. Complete trails to hatchery. Add viewing scopes. The Edmonds Marsh is a unique urban salt and fresh water marsh with abundant habitat/wildlife species. It is a designated bird sanctuary. Packet Page 908 of 1136 Edmonds Memorial Cemetery and Columbarium Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: 820 15th Street SW 5.5 Acres City of Edmonds, managed by Edmonds Memorial Cemetery Board through Parks and Recreation Regional Park, zoned public Grave sites occupied, pre-needs, and available lots. Grave sites and columbariums (2) None Eventual expansion of columarium The Edmonds Memorial Cemetery was given to the City in 1982 by Larry Hubbard. It was an historic IOOF site. The Cemetery Board manages the operations and maintenance of the site, securing funds for long-term and perpetual care. Packet Page 909 of 1136 Edmonds Underwater Park & Higgins Trails Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County 26.7 Acres with adjacent leased DNR inter harbor waters and tidelands Department of Natural Resources Regional Park / Zoned commercial waterfront Extensive underwater scuba diving trails, rest floats, protected marine resource site by City ordinance, DFW WAC codes, and DNR lease agreement None Additional amenities for fish protection, viewing and feeding More than 30,000 divers enjoy the underwater park annually. The protected site provides support for an extensive fish population. The largest ling cod recorded in the Puget Sound was observed at the site. Divers access at Brackett’s Landing North. Diver safety and bulletins are posted on shore. A community volunteer group monitors the site. The site is listed as a facility protected under the State Recreational Immunity Act requiring divers to dive at their own risk. Packet Page 910 of 1136 Esperance County Park Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: 80th Avenue and 224th Street, unincorporated Edmonds, UGA in Snohomish County 6.0 Acres Snohomish County Parks and Recreation Neighborhood Park / Zoned R8400 Ballfield and natural wooded area Parking and play equipment Annual county maintenance, drainage and ballfield upgrades Serves Esperance area neighborhood park needs Packet Page 911 of 1136 Frances Anderson Center Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: 700 Main Street, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County 1.0 Acres City of Edmonds Parks and Recreation Special Use Area / Zoned RS8 64,000 SF community cultural center, park department administrative offices, meeting rooms, daycare, recreation programs, gym, restrooms Limited on-street parking. Seismic retrofit. Replace amphitheater stage. Active recreation center. 1000 people per day use center. Example of current residents include: non-profit pottery coop; ballet company, full-service daycare, Sno- King Youth Club, Montessori School, Art Museum. Facility with adjacent field and library plaza room and courtyard serve as site of annual Edmonds Art Festival. Packet Page 912 of 1136 Frances Anderson Center Field Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: 700 Main Street, Snohomish County, within Edmonds city limits 2.3 Acres City of Edmonds Parks and Recreation Neighborhood park / Zoned Open Space Softball/soccer/volleyball field, amphitheater & covered stage, children’s play area, climbing rock, picnic area, basketball court, restroom, public art, and picnic tables --- Field and drainage improvements. Annual location for Edmonds Art Festival, specialty car show, environmental fairs, day camp, sports and volleyball league play and practice Packet Page 913 of 1136 Haines Tidelands Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: West of 162nd, adjacent to Haines Wharf, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County 0.5 Acres City of Edmonds Parks and Recreation Regional / Zoned commercial waterfront Puget Sound access, natural shoreline tidelands Difficult public access due to BNSF railroad crossing Retain natural state Key public shoreline access in North Edmonds Packet Page 914 of 1136 Hummingbird Hill Park Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: Tenth Street and Edmonds Street, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits: 2.0 Acres City of Edmonds Parks and Recreation Neighborhood Park / Zoned Public Children’s play area, basketball court, picnic area, open lawn area No restrooms. Drainage. Annual maintenance. Resurface sport court. Paved walkway through park. Wonderful neighborhood site in residential neighborhood Packet Page 915 of 1136 H.O. Hutt Park Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: 92nd Avenue and 187th St., SW, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County 4.7 Acres City of Edmonds Parks and Recreation Natural Open Space / Zoned Public Trails, old-growth timber species, natural open space site No parking Leave in natural state This park has virgin forest, beautiful natural area with residential trails. Council adopted site plan that retains site as natural open space. Packet Page 916 of 1136 Lynndale Skate Park Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: Phase III located in Lynnwood on the Edmonds city limits at Olympic View Drive in Perrinville. 10.0 Acres (Phase III) City of Lynnwood Phase III of Lynndale Park, developed jointly by cities of Lynnwood and Edmonds. Community Park Skate bowl/ramp/railings, playground, trails, parking, basketball hoops (2), hard court surface, picnicking, public art, restroom, parking, adopted Master Plan None The City of Edmonds pays 50 percent of annual maintenance costs to a maximum of $5,000. Packet Page 917 of 1136 Maplewood Hill Park Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: 89th Place West and 197th Street SW, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County 12.7 Acres City of Edmonds Parks and Recreation 10.7 acres Open Space / Two acres Neighborhood Park / Zoned Public Unpaved natural trails, picnic area, play area, trees Limited vehicle access, no restroom Upgrade picnic and play areas, annual trail improvements, foot bridge replacement Beautiful natural area in residential neighborhood, pedestrian access off Puget Way (196th) Packet Page 918 of 1136 Marina Beach Park Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: South of the Port of Edmonds on Admiral Way South, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County 4.5 Acres City of Edmonds Parks and Recreation Regional Park / Zoned Commercial Waterfront Picnic area, children’s play area, portable restrooms, sand volleyball, small boat launch, parking, water access, gravel beach, walkway, southern off-lease dog area, Marine Protected Area With the development of Edmonds Crossing this park will be master planned and redeveloped. Vital park / shoreline access on Puget Sound. Packet Page 919 of 1136 Mathay Ballinger Park Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: 78th Place West and 241st Street, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County 1.5 Acres City of Edmonds Parks and Recreation Neighborhood Park / Zoned Public Children’s play area, basketball court (2), open play area, parking Limited access New play area. Sport court improvements. Paved pathway. Beautiful neighborhood park in residential area. Located along the old Interurban Trolley Rail system. Packet Page 920 of 1136 Meadowdale Beach County Park Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: 6026 156th SW, 76th Ave. access, Snohomish County, north of Edmonds City limits 95 Acres Snohomish County Parks and Recreation Natural Open Space Waterfront access, ADA access, road, trails, picnic areas, restrooms, overhead RR Crossing adopted Master Plan Parking limited. Pedestrian access from 75th. Annual maintenance Natural north end open space site acquired in 1968 with 1-1/4-mile nature trail. Stream corridor supports fresh water fish and migrating salmon to Puget Sound. Packet Page 921 of 1136 Meadowdale Natural Area Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: 7227 Meadowdale Beach Road, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County 2.0 Acres City of Edmonds Parks and Recreation Natural Open Space Area / Zoned Public Natural open space, wooded, steep slopes, undeveloped Very steep, undevelopable Retain in natural state North end natural buffer area Packet Page 922 of 1136 Meadowdale Community Clubhouse Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: 6801 N. Meadowdale Rd., Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County 1.3 Acres City of Edmonds Parks and Recreation Neighborhood Park / Zoned RS20 Meeting rooms, community classes, restrooms, parking, children’s playground, trails, North Edmonds preschool Parking limited Improvement to wooded area, additional play equipment. Building repairs and upgrade. Landscaping. Wonderful North Edmonds facility used for rentals and programming Packet Page 923 of 1136 Meadowdale Playfields Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: Located in Lynnwood adjacent to Edmonds City limits on Meadowdale Beach Road 27.0 Acres Edmonds School District Community Park Children’s play area, basketball court, lighted softball fields (3), pond, lit sand soccer fields (2), pathways, parking, restrooms, picnic area, public art, Master Plan Dirt soccer fields. Fifty/fifty shared annual operation, maintenance costs and used for athletic programs. Developed jointly by Edmonds’ School District and Snohomish County, and cities of Lynnwood and Edmonds. Funded in partnership with Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation / Land & Water Conservation Funds Packet Page 924 of 1136 Ocean Avenue Viewpoint Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: Ocean Avenue, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County 0.2 Acre City of Edmonds, street right-of-way Special Use Area / Zoned RS12/ROW Parking, viewpoint of Puget Sound Annual maintenance Site needs to be retained as a public shoreline viewpoint Packet Page 925 of 1136 Old Woodway Elementary Park Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: 23708 104th Avenue West Snohomish County, within Edmonds city limits 5.6 Acres City of Edmonds Neighborhood Park, zoned public Park will be constructed in 2008. The new neighborhood park will include children’s play area, open area soccer field, basketball court, picnic shelter, picnic tables, benches, walkways, parking and portable restrooms. Ideal neighborhood park for this area to serve the community needs. Packet Page 926 of 1136 Olympic Beach Park/Waterfront Walkway Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: West end of Dayton Street at Admiral Way, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County 4.3 Acres City of Edmonds Parks and Recreation Regional Park / Zoned Commercial Waterfront Picnic area, parking, access to fishing pier, public art, viewing scope, restrooms, water access, tidelands, picnicking, Marine Protected Area, walkway, benches. Entrance to site from Dayton. Needs landscape improvements and additional public art Improve existing restrooms. Extend waterfront walkway and bulkhead to complete waterfront connection. Site named in honor of local Olympic athletes. Purchased with LWCF through IAC (Dayton Beach Park). The site is protected as a public park through deed-of-right. R AI L R OAD AVE N U E Packet Page 927 of 1136 Olympic View Open Space Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: Olympic View Drive & Meadowdale Beach Road .5 Acres City of Edmonds Natural Open Space Undeveloped wooded area that borders Olympic View Drive and Meadowdale Beach Road. No parking. Pathways for connection points around busy intersection. Fir, Hemlock, Alder trees along with native vegetation. Packet Page 928 of 1136 Pine Ridge Park Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: 83rd Avenue West and 204th St. SW, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County 22 Acres City of Edmonds Parks and Recreation 22 Acres Open Space / 2 Acres Neighborhood Park / Zoned Public Unpaved trails, parking, wetlands, wildlife habitat, old growth forest. Needs neighborhood play area. Needs paved parking lot. Provide a neighborhood park element (play area). Plant trees, enhance wildlife habitat, improve trails and provide signs per master plan. Natural trail links under Main Street to Yost Park Packet Page 929 of 1136 Pine Street Park Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: 6th Street South and Pine Street, Snohomish County within Edmonds City limits 1.5 Acres City of Edmonds Parks and Recreation Neighborhood Park / Zoned Public Children’s play area with ADA access, open lawn, Meyring Field: youth baseball field, parking, portable restroom Small site Small park but provides youth ball opportunities for the community. 7 T H A V E S FORSYTH LN 6 T H A V E S `A ' AV E 5 T H A V E S Pine Street Fir Street P RS-6 RM-1.5 EDMONDS CITY OF Packet Page 930 of 1136 Point Edwards Scenic Overlooks Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: Nootka Road & Pine Street 0.1 Acres City of Edmonds easement from Point Edwards LLC Special Use Area View pullouts along Pine Street. Excellent view points for vehicles or walkers along sidewalk. Packet Page 931 of 1136 Seaview Park Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: 80th Street West and 186th Street SW, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits 5.5 Acres City of Edmonds Parks and Recreation Neighborhood Park / Zoned Public Tennis courts (2), children’s play area, open lawn, picnic area, restroom, softball/baseball field, soccer field, basketball court, parking --- Annual repair and upgrade to facilities and fields. Resurface tennis courts and pathways. Renovate entire ballfield. Resurface parking lot and improve trails. Site is ideal neighborhood path with combination of amenities to serve community needs. Purchased and developed with LWCF funds through IAC. Protected as a public park through deed-of-right. Packet Page 932 of 1136 Seaview Reservoir Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County 3.0 Acres City of Edmonds Public Works Special Use Area Public Works underground water tank site, open grass field Parking in neighborhood Packet Page 933 of 1136 Shell Creek Open Space Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: 9th & Main 1.0 Acres City of Edmonds Natural Open Space Heavy wooded area with wetlands present. Needs protection from storm water run off. Interpretive kiosk This area must be protected to ensure stream and wildlife habitat. Packet Page 934 of 1136 Sierra Park Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: 80th Street West and 191st Street SW, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County 5.5 Acres City of Edmonds Parks and Recreation Neighborhood Park / Zoned Public Children’s play area, soccer field, softball/baseball field, picnic area, Braille interpretive trail, parking, basketball hoop, portable restrooms Poor drainage Build a lockable concrete surround for portable toilet. Upgrade drainage at sports field. Improve landscaping. Resurface pathways. Improve Braille interpretive pathway. Install new play area. Ideal neighborhood park that serves local and community needs 8 H W L P T0 DELL W O OD DR 7 8 T H A V E W 189TH PL SW 8 0 T H A V E W ST SW 192ND ST SW 8 3 R D A V E W 8 1 S T A V E W 191ST ST SW 8 4 T H A V E W 7 8 T H P L W 8 3 R D P L W SIERRA 190TH ST SW 192ND PL SW 191ST ST SW PP Packet Page 935 of 1136 South County Historical Museum Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: 118 Fifth Avenue North, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County 0.4 Acres City of Edmonds Special Use / Zoned business commercial Old Carnegie Library site, currently leased to South County Historical Museum; log cabin visitor center --- Annual maintenance Historical facility provides valuable historic museum services. Adjacent historic log cabin (120 Fifth Avenue) owned by the City and leased annually to the Chamber of Commerce as a tourist visitor center. In 2000 a community group raised private funds to restore this historic cabin originally owned by the Handley family. Packet Page 936 of 1136 South County Senior Center Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: 220 Railroad Avenue, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County 1.0 Acre Owned by City, leased by South County Senior Citizen Board of Directors Regional Park / Zoned commercial waterfront Senior Center, beach access, walkway, lawn, parking, tidelands, viewing scope Limited parking on site Long-range plan for senior center programming and facility is in progress. Annual facility improvements to structure. Resurface parking lot and improve drainage. Overhead lighting and landscaping. Improve walkways for bus service. The South County Senior Citizen Board has worked on a long range facility plan. Addition of Sound Transit rail services may effect RR Avenue traffic configuration. Purchased with federal Neighborhood Improvement Grant. Packet Page 937 of 1136 Southwest County Park (Olympic View) Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: Olympic View Drive, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County 120.0 Acres Snohomish County Parks and Recreation Natural Open Space / Zoned Public Trails, natural forest, stream corridor the flows to Brown’s Bay, parking, adopted Master Plan Perrinville Creek restoration required Perrinville Creek Restoration, annual maintenance, City obtain ownership Beautiful natural area sold to Snohomish County by the University of Washington in 1971 with IAC/LWCF Grant. Retain as natural open space site. Deed restriction protects site as a passive woodland open space. Largest single parcel of open space within Edmonds city limits. Packet Page 938 of 1136 Stamm Overlook Park Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: Olympic View Drive at High Street, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County 0.4 Acre City of Edmonds Parks and Recreation Special Use Area / Zoned RS12 Viewpoint, parking, benches Residential neighborhood A nnual maintenance Outstanding viewpoint of Puget Sound and Olympic Mountains Packet Page 939 of 1136 Sunset Avenue Overlook Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: Sunset Avenue north of Main Street, within Edmonds City limits and Snohomish County 0.5 Acre Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad with annual lease to the City of Edmonds Special Use Area / Zoned RS6 Picnic area, benches, unpaved walkways, viewpoint of Puget Sound Not in city ownership / illegal access across railroad, needs authorization for more amenities Annual maintenance. Viewing scope. Spectacular views of Puget Sound and Olympic Mountains Packet Page 940 of 1136 Wade James Theatre Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: 950 Main Street, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County Located within Yost Park. 0.7 Acres City of Edmonds land, building private ownership by Driftwood Players Special Use Area / Zoned Public ADA accessible theater, small lobby, 220 seats, light box, dressing room. No area for construction of sets / built on stage. No additional dress rehearsal space. No office, fly loft or orchestra pit Driftwood Players continue to address existing small site. Improve drainage around building. Wonderful community theater. Driftwood Players non- profit, provides annual productions which are key to performing arts in Edmonds. (Note: on map below, Driftwood Theater is shown with darker highlighting to indicate its location within northwest corner of Yost Park) Packet Page 941 of 1136 Wharf Street Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: Wharf Street, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County 0.2 Acre City of Edmonds street end Open Space Area / Zoned RS12/ROW Street end, waterfront view Limited parking, illegal crossing of BSNS railroad Annual improvements Residential benefit for Shoreline view access Packet Page 942 of 1136 Willow Creek Hatchery & Interpretive Center Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: SR104 & Pine Street 1.0 Acre City of Edmonds Special Use Area Salmon egg rearing building along with salmon rearing pond that produces 100,000 Coho salmon each year. Continued maintenance. Continued maintenance of fish hatchery and Willow Creek stream that provides water to operate this wonderful site. Willow Creek Hatchery is the largest hatchery operated by volunteers in the state of Washington under the supervision of the WA Department of Fish & Wildlife. Volunteers provide educational tours and day to day maintenance and upkeep of grounds and facilities. Edmonds Marsh Packet Page 943 of 1136 Willow Creek Park Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: Seventh Avenue south and SR104,Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County 2.2 Acres City of Edmonds Parks and Recreation Natural Open Space Area / Zoned RM1.5 Wetland, natural trail, stream corridor Isolated and heavily vegetated Annual maintenance Leave in natural state, trail improvements and stream restoration. Isolated natural buffer area. Packet Page 944 of 1136 Yost Memorial Park & Pool Location: Size: Ownership: Status: Existing Facilities: Deficiencies: Planned Improvements: Comments: Site Location: 96th Avenue West and Bowdoin Way, within Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County 48.0 Acres City of Edmonds Parks and Recreation Community Park / Zoned Public Swimming pool (outdoor), meeting area, tennis courts (2), unpaved trails, children’s play area, parking, restrooms, natural forest Seasonal pool only Resurface tennis courts. Continue footbridge and trail maintenance. Resurface parking lot. Add slide and/or spray toys. Annual maintenance and upgrades. Beautiful natural area serves as upland area for environmental education programs “Discovery Programs.” Yost Pool active seasonal facility. Serves as only public pool in Edmonds. Packet Page 945 of 1136 Packet Page 946 of 1136 Packet Page 947 of 1136 Packet Page 948 of 1136 Packet Page 949 of 1136 Packet Page 950 of 1136 Packet Page 951 of 1136 Packet Page 952 of 1136 Packet Page 953 of 1136 Packet Page 954 of 1136 Packet Page 955 of 1136 Packet Page 956 of 1136 Packet Page 957 of 1136 Packet Page 958 of 1136 Packet Page 959 of 1136 Packet Page 960 of 1136 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 I 9 l0 ll t2 13 t4 l5 t6 t7 l8 t9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3l 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4l 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 LORA PETSO, Petitioner, CENTRAL PUGET SOI]I\D GROWTH MANAGEMENT IIEARINGS BO STATE OF WASHINGTON Case No. (Peßo II) v. THE CITY OF EDMONDS, Respondent snvoP,s/,s On December 16, 2008, the Cíty of Edmonds adopted Ordinance No. 3717, updatíng íts Parlrs, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensíve Plan, þilowíng a publìc partícipotion process that began ín March 2007. Petitioner Lora Petso /ìled a tímely Petition þr Revíew challenging the Cíty's actíon on a number of grounds. Ms. Petso took issue with the City's reduction of level of service (LOS) standards þr several categorîes of parks or recreatíon faeílities and, especíally, the Cíty's þilure to ffictively address the loss of the Sherwood Park ball fields. In Ms Petso's view, the Plan was fatalþ flawed because it faíled to match identified service de/ìcits wíth plans þr park acquísition or development. The Board found most of Petitíoner's claims to be without merit. The Board þund that the City acted wíthin its legíslative discretion in adopting its 2008 Parks Plan. However, the Board ¡emanded the 2008 Parks Plan to the City to address two clear errors: one concerning notice and another concerning consístency with the Comprehensíve Plan abandonment policy. On all other matters challenged by Petitioner - other notice and participation matters, late amendments, once-a-year amendment process, ídentification of lands useful þr public purposes, consistency wíth the Capital Facilítíes Plan and populatíon targets, the plønning requírementsþr the parks element, planningþr the unincorporated UGA, LOS requirements, and compliance with GMA Planning Goals 9 (Open sperce and recreation), 11 (Citizen participation), and 12 (Publíc facilities and services) - the Board þund that Ms. Petso had -not cørríed the harden of proof,, The Board dcníed her requestfor an order of invalidity. Page I of59 ffi9-3{1005 Petso II v. Cíty of &lnonds Final Decision and Order (lugust 17, 2009) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) EIOEOVE N MURPHY WALLACT PL F'INAL DECISION AI\TD ORDER Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319 ?th Avenue SE, Suite 103, Olympia' \ryA 98504 Tel. (360) s86-0260 Fax (360) 664-8975 AUG 1 B 2OO9 Packet Page 961 of 1136 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 19 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 2',7 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4t 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 I. SROCEDURAL HISTORYT On February 18, 2009, the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (the Board) reóived a Petition for Review from Lora Petso @efitioner or Petso), pro se' challenging the Cþ of Edmonds's (Edmonds or City) adoption of Ordinance No. 3717. Ordinance 3717 amended the City's bomprehensive Plan by updating its Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan (2008 Parks Plan). The Board'held a prehearing Conference and issued its Prehearing Order on March 26,2009. On April 3, Z0Og, the Bo-ard issued a Corrected Statement ıf I.egA Issues.2 The Cþ zubsequentþ provided its document indices and core documents, including its 2007 Comprehenrinô pt* and its parks Plans for 2001 and 2008.3 Petitioner filed a Motion to Supplement the Record which was largely granted by the Board's Order on Motions issued May 11,2009. Brieß and exhibits on the merits were timely filed as follows: r May ZB,20O¡ - Petitioner's Prehearing Briefwith Petso Extribits 1-27 (Petso PI{B) o June ll,200g - Repty Brief of Respondent City of Edmonds with City Exhibits l-12 (City Response) o June 18, 2009 - Petitioner's Reply Brief with Petso Exhibits 28-33 (Petso Reply) In this Final Decision and Order, the Board uses the parties' numbering for the referenced exhibits, e.g., Petso Ex. l, City Ex. 2. presiding Offrcer Margaret Pageler convened the Hearing on the Merits at 10:00 a.m. on June 25,2001, in the Board's offrces at 800 Fifth Avenue, Seattle. Board member David Earling was also present. Petitioner Lora Petso appeared pro se, and was accompanied by Roger Hertrich. Scou Snyder represented the City of Edmonds and was accompanied by Edmonds parks Director Brian Mclntosh and by Carry Porter of Ogden Murphy Wallace P.L.L.C. Court I The complete cbronolory of procedures in this case is attached as Appendix A. 2 The Legal Issues, as corrected, are set forth in ñrll in Appendix B. 3 The core documents are cited herein by their core desigrations as follows: o Core A - Edmonds Comprehensive Plan as amended 2007 o Core B - Edmonds Comprehensive Plan effective l2l08 o Core C - Edmonds Transportation Element, 2002 o Core D - 2000 Bikeway Comprehensive Plan o Core E - Walkway Plan,2002 UPdate o Core F - Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan 2001 o core G - Parks, Recreation and open space comprehensive Plan 2008 Page 2 of59 ru9-34005 Petso IIv. Cþ ofMmonds Final Decision and Order (lugßt 17, 2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319 7th Avenue SE, Suite 103, Olympia' \ryA 98504 Tel. (360)5s6'0260 Fax (360) 664'8975 Packet Page 962 of 1136 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 11 t2 l3 t4 15 16 t7 l8 l9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4t 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 reporting services were provided by Christy Sheppard of Byers & Anderson,Inc. The hearing was adjourned at 12:30 p.m. The hearing provided the Board the opportuniry to ask clariffing questions of the parties and to develop a thorough understanding of the matters at issue. The Board ordered a transcript of the hearing. The transcript was received on June 30,2009, and is cited herein as HOM. rr. STANDARD ANp SCOPE OF REVTEW Upon receipt of a petition challenging a local jurisdiction's GMA actions, the legislature directed that the Boards, "after full consideration of the petition, shall determine whether there is compliance with the requirements of [the GMA]." RCW 36.70A.320(3); see a/so, RCW 36.70A.280, .300(1). The Board is empowered to determine whether county decisions comply with GMA requirements, to remand noncompliant ordinances to counties, and even to invalidate part or all of a comprehensive plan or development regulation until it is brought into compliance. Lewis County v. Western Washington Growth Manøgement Hearings Board (Lewís County), I 57 $/n.2d 488 at 498, ft. 7 , 139 P.3d 1096 (2006). The GMA creates a high threshold for challengers. A jurisdiction's GMA enactment is presumed valid upon adoption. RCW 36.70A.320(l). *The burden is on the petitioner to demonstrate that [the challenged action] is not in compliance with the requirements of [the cMAl.' RCW 36.7 0 A32oQ). In &vinomísh Indian Tribal Community, et al. v V[/'estern Washington Growth Management Hearíngs Board, 16l Wn.2d 415, 423-24, 166 P.3d 1198 (2007), the Supreme Court summarized the Board's standard ofreview: The Board is charged with determining compliance with the GMA and, when necessary, invalidating noncomplying comprehensive plans and development regulations. The Board *shall find compliance unless it detemrines that the action by the state agency, county or city is clearly erroneous in view of the entire record before the board and in light of the goals and requirements of [the GMA]." RCW 36.70A.320(3). An action is "clearly erroneous" if the Board is "left with the firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been committed." "Comprehensive plans and development regulations [under the GMA] are presumed valid upon adoption." RCW 36.704.320(1). Although RCV/ 36.70A.3201 requires the Board to give deference to a ffurisdiction], the [jurisdiction's] actions must be consistent with the goals and requirements of the GMA. 161 \Mn.2d at423-24 (internal case citations omitted). Page 3 of59 ffi9-3{005 PetsoIIv. Cítyof Hnonds Fin¡l Decision and Order (August 17, 2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319 7th Avenue SE, Suite 103, Olympia' WA 98504 Tel. (360)s86-0260 Fax (360) 664'8975 Packet Page 963 of 1136 il sl 6l 7l 8l 9 l0 ll 12 13 l4 15 l6 t7 l8 19 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4l 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 As to the degree of deference to be granted under the clearly erroneous standard, the Sw inomi s h Court stated: The amount [of deference] is neither unlimited nor does it approximate a rubber sømp. It requires the Board to give the fiurisdiction's] actions a ..critical reviãf' and is a 'omore intense standard of revieu¡" than the arbitrary and capricious standard. Id. at435,fn. 8 (internal citations omitted). The scope of the Board's review is limited to determining whether ajurisdiction has achieved compliance with the GMA only with respect to those issues presented in a timely petition for review. RCW 36.7 0 A.290(l). III. BOARD JURISDICTION AI\[D PRELIMINAITY I!ßTTERS À BOARD JURISDICTION The Board finds that the Petition for Review was timely filed, pursuant 36.70A.290(2). The Board finds that Petitioner has standing to gPeT before pursuant to ïCW 36.70A.280(2). The Board finds that it has jurisdiction over mauer of the petition pursuant to RCV/ 36.704.280(1). B. PRELINIINARYMATTERS Cilv Motion to Dismiss Petitioner's Notice Obiections The City moved to dismiss Petitioner's issues regarding improper notige_-on the grounds that petitionãr had failed to raise these objections during the Parks Plan public process' and thus lacked standing to challenge the sufüıiency of notice before the Boa¡d. City Response, at 5- Ms. petso repli-ed that participation standing does not require a petitioner to state all her legal issues duti"Á the public prod"rr, but ratheito participate with respect to the "matter" that is the subject ıf tfr" subseqùent appeal. Petso Reply, at3-4, citing Wells v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearíngs Board,100 Wn. App. 657, at 673 (2000). At the Hearing on the Merits, ttrã City withdrew its motion, indicating that Petitioner's record citations were persuasive. Petitioner's Motion to Strike Citv's ÇecondAmended Indices With its Response Briei the City submitted a set of Second Amended Indices and several additional documents: c 2-Tl - Excerpt City Council Minutes, March 27, 2007 - containing authorization for Mayor to sign a piofessional services agreement with Hough Beck & Baird Inc. for consulting services to update the Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan. to RCV/ the Board, the subject Page 4 of59 #09-3{n05 Petso II v. Cíty of Mmonds Final Decision and Order (Augast 17, 2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319 7th Avenue SE, Suite 103, Olympia' \ryA 98504 Tel. (360) s86'0260 Fax (360) 664'897s Packet Page 964 of 1136 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 13 T4 l5 16 t'l l8 19 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3l 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4l 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 2-tru - Agenda and sign-in sheet for June 20,2007,public workshop' (city Response Ex. 6 and 7). city Response Ex. 5 - Affrdavit of Posting and Publication - Attestation of city of Edmonds Parks and Recreation Directot "g¡* Mclntosh with summary of public involvement prog¿rn regarding the parks comprehensive plan amendment process' authenticating attached nıtices, press releases, and publications' city Response Ex. 12 - Countywide Ptanning Policies,-snohomish county ordinance qf-'00+.Cityr"q.r"stsoffrcialnotice(CityResponse'atzl'fî'6)' Petitioner moved to strike the Second Amended Indices as untimely' Petso Reply at 4-5'.She also moved to strifce City Response E.hibitt 5,6,7, and 12 because they are not part of the record and lack any indiäation of uutrr"ntrcity . ia.' "t' ^s. petitioner in particular objected to the Brian Mclntosh Affidavit and memorandum concerning the parks plan public process' both of which were prepareúJ dated i" "*rvãp.il, some fiie months after rhe council adopted the amended Parks Plan.Id. The Board finds that city Response Exhibit 5 - the Brian Mclntosh Affidavit - usefully authenticate, u rrrr*b", ofättached notices, press releases, and publications that a¡e a part of therecordoftheCity,spublicprocess.nzool.z00s.TheBoardtakesMr.Mclntosh's memorandum summuriäi"g various components olqt public process for what it purports to be - an after-the-fact listing of various elements of the procest' The Board finds this to be a helpfrrl outline when matchãd against specific exhibits in the record' The Board furds that city Response Exhibits 6 and 7 are the Faciliøtor Instructions and sign- in Sheet for the June 20, 2lÏl,pubiic workshop and are properly included in the City's Second Amended Indices as part of the record' pursuant to wAC 242-02-660(4), the Board ofliciauy notices the countywide Pranning Policies for Snohomish County (City Response, Ex' l2)' At the Hearing on the Merits, the Board denied Petitioner's motion to strike' Post-Hearing Filíng WAC 242-02-Sl0provides: o'Unless requested by or auif,orizea by a board' no post hearing evidence, documents, brieß or motions-*itt u" accepted." At the Hearing on the Merits' the presiding Offrcer asked the City to p.ouij" a compleie copy of the cglsutJil' contract for the parks plan amendment pro."rr. the goard receivèd the dıôument - identified as Index 2-G - onJuly 1,2009. C. PrefatorY Note Ms. Petso challenges the city's adoption of the 2008 Parks Plan as violating a number of - -:^^- -o^r¡ìra'ä^iö*ffii. The specific proceãural or substantive issues which she raises require -r - ı¿^¿^-^-+ ^f T o-ol Toarrac inäi'iJiä;iffiË p'ã'i'io"' "f îh' 't"t.t' il *1u.""ï g1s^3T,T:*:*1-*'T1.:i;: ffiirü"ääöiåä trt" presiding ofücer atrempted to¡róvide an outline that would reduce -r ñ-^:-:^- ^-,l ¡.\-zla¡ fnllmr;a theïö';"ïiËni6ä; in the briefing and decision. rnir Final Decision and order follows the Page 5 of59 *Ol-s¡OOs Petso IIv' City of Mmonds Final Decision and Order (Augast 17, 2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319 7th Avenue SE, Suite 103, Otympia, wA 98504 Tel. (360)586-0260 Fax (360) 664'897s Packet Page 965 of 1136 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 1l t2 13 l4 15 16 t7 18 l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4T 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 outline established in the Statement of Legal lssues and in Petitioner's briefing' This results in some redundancy and cross-referencin!,iut t""*ed the most careful method to ensure that each of Petitioner's concems was addressed' IV. FINDINGS OF FACT Having reviewed the brieß and exhibits submitted by the parties, having heard argument' and U"ing älty infonned, the Board makes the following findings of fact' 1. The City of Edmonds began its process to update its Parks Plan in Ma¡ch 2007, City 2. 3. Ex.3. The city of Edmonds has adopted a process 9d deadlines for notice and public p*ti"ipution in connection *ith adoption of -comprehensive plan elements or amendments. The p-""rr it found in Edmonds cımmunity Develgn¡ent code inónCl Chapter ZOIOO4 and the notice requirements are in ECDC l'03'030' The City Council, on March 17,2007, äpproved-a ggntract with Hough Beck and Baird, Inc. for consulting services to ,tpáuæìn" Parks Plan' City Ex' 3, +i þ{ex 2'TT; Index 2-G. The contrai established a public participation process in addition to the code requirements of ECDC 20.00' In March 2007,trt" city council appointed a committee of 22 stakeholders to advise the City in updating the Parks Plan' Core G,atl'2' On June 20 and S"pi"-U"t 16,2007,tne ôity held pïþlic meetings to gather citizen input concerning updating the Parks Plan' Cþ Ex' l; C-ify Response' at 9' To assist it in gatheri"f"ã***ity input to tit" p*tt Plan update, t" City conducted a telephone ,u*"y-oi"300 randomly*elected residents. The City also conducted ân open-ènded web survey. Core G,App' B' The planning Board"was briefed-on the Parks Plan update at-its meetings on November ll, Z0l7, and February 13, 2008. Petso Ex, 6; Index l-X a1d 1-C' On February 27,2008,tt " ft*nitrg Bıard ield apublic hearing and adopted the proposed Parks Pian unanimously. Index 1-I; HOM, at 50' The Cþ staff provided the City Council with responses to two sets of written comments from Ms. i"tro, dated Âpril 15, 2008 and May 2,2008' Petso Ex' 12' City staff also made revisions to the proposed Parks Plan in response-to Ms' Petso's comments *¿ ttigftfigttt"ã those t*itiı* in subsequent copies of the Plan provided to 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Cþ Councíl.Id. at 1956. g. The City Council reviewed the Pa¡ks Plan update on March 18, April 15' May 20' July 15, August 18, and November 25,2008.5 The City Council hetd public hearings on the parks plan on Ãtril 15 and July 15, 2008, receiving comment from 14 citizens on April 15 and 3 "itir"r* on July iS. p"tto Ex. "1,9. Public comment was also taken at ír. fr4uy 20 and May 27 City iouncil meetings. Petso Ex. 8, 10. 10. Councilmember Bernheim offered a numbei of proposed amendments to the Parks Plan at the April 15, 2008, council meeting. Petso Ex' 18' The amendments \¡vere discussed, but not voted on. At the July 15, 2008, Council meeting, after the public a A complete copy is atøched as Appendix C' 5 Minutes of these meetings are at Index 2-8,2'1,2-ß"2-V, and 2-II' Page 6 of59 *OS-¡a00S Petso IIv. Cíty of Hmottds Final Decision and Order (Augttst 17, 2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319 7th Avenue SE, Suite 103, Olympia, \ryA 98504 Tel. (360) s86-0260 Fax (360) 664-897s Packet Page 966 of 1136 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 l3 l4 15 16 t7 18 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3l 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4l 42 43 44 45 hearing, councilmember Bernheim re'offered three of his proposed amendments to the Parks Plan. Petso Ex. 9, atl4-l5.The amendments were voted on and approYedt 11. on July 15, 2008, the city council refened the Parks Plan as amended for fr[ther deliberation at the August f g tp*;icouncil workshop, rgsutting in final text changes submitted *J "ppt"tã¿ ut u Ño""ÁU"t i5,2008, Council meeting' City Ex' 2; Petso Ex.17. 12. Edmonds clty council auows pubric comment at alr of its general meetings. only the meeting of August 18, 2008, ** u Council workshop at which no public testimony was taken. HOM, a172'73' 13. on December 16, 200g, the council took a final vote on ordinance 3717, adopting the 200g parks plan unanimously. Resolution 1185, adopted co-ncurrently, sets forth the findings in t"ppott of Ordinance3TlT'City Ex' 1; HOM' at 50' Further findings of fact are incorporated in the discussion and analysis which follows' V. LEGAL ISSI]ES AI\D DISCUSSION LEGAL ISSUE 1 Notíce and Publíc Partícþatíon ThePrehearingOrderstatesLegallssueNo'lasfollows: Legal Issue 1. Notíce and Public Partícípation' Pid the City's adoption of the Parks Plan amendment [Ordinanc " üûl ruii to "9TP1v *i9 tT-"3:Ï"1*ts of RCV/ 36.70A.010, RcW 36.70'.0zOirri, nCw ¡..?oa.o¡s, RcW 36.704'130, RCw 36.70A.140, Goal B.l or, pugè-í'of the Ge¡9rat Comprehensive Plan' and' as applicable, w¡.c 305-195-60b,-and ECDC 20.00.010-050, as follows: 1(a).significantchangestotheParkamendmentwefeconsideredandadopted withoutproviding*opport-ityforpubticcommentandwithoutprovidingthe additional informáion iequested by council and the public. l(b). rhe City has failed t9 eithq establish 3t bt:-q1-,l,ti:i:"t:-: l:'l;:ilffiffi';'"ö ;;tdt"s ;ry .pd ":l'ilyî 1,*fT::-i1',:::::ää#öö;å;fi, il;; no! foiloJved.for.rhe TTk 1"îtu*, for reasons including failtne to publish notice of the planning board hearing' 1(c). The City failed to prwide meaningful pàssiUifity of abuse) and fairly. representative representative of the communiry) public input amendment. (web input disregarded due to (composition of committee not inìo thl develoPment of the Pa¡k 46 47 48 49 50 petitioner indicates that Issue 6(c) has reference to the pulli9 participation deficiencies identified under r,"gJl*"" i. p"tìó PIIB, at2l.The Board includes Issue 6(c) here' 6(c). The Parks Plan was not correctly amended' Page 7 of59 *oı-s¡oos Petso IIv. City olMmonds Final Decision and Order (Augast 17, 2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319 7th Avenue SE, Suite 103, Otympia, WA 98504 Tel. (360) s86-0260 Fax (360) 664'897s Packet Page 967 of 1136 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 l3 l4 15 l6 l7 l8 19 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4t 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Applicable Law RCW 36.70¡.020(fl) is the GMA planning goal for public participation and intergovernmental coordination: (ll) Citizen participation and coordination. Encourage the involvement of citizens in the planning process and ensure coordination between commtrnities and jurisdictions to reconcile conflicts. RCIV 36.704.035 sets forth the notice requirements for GMA public participation: The public participation requirements of this chapter shall include notice procedures that are reasonably calculated to provide notice to property owners and other affected and interested individuals, tibes, government agencies, businesses, school districts, and organizations of proposed amendments to comprehensive plans and development regulations. Examples of reasonable notice provisions include: a. b. Posting the property for site-specific proposals; Publishing notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the county, city, or general area where the proposal is located or that will be affected by the proposal; Notiffing the public or private groups with known interest in a certain proposal or in the type of proposal being considered; Þtaıing notices in appropriate regional, neighborhood, ethnic or trade journals; and Publishing notice in agency newsletters or sending notice to agency mailing lists, including general lists or lists for specific proposals or subject areas. c. d. RCVy 36.70^.140, the GMA's public participation requirement, provides in relevant part: [Each GMA planning jurisdiction] shall establish and broadly disseminate to the public a public participation progftim identiffing procedures providing for early and continuous public participation in the development and amendment of comprehensive plans and development regulations implementing such plans. The piocedures shall provide for broad dissemination of proposals and alternatives, opporhrnity for written comments, public meetings after effective notice, provision for open discussion, communication programs' information services, and consideration of and fesponse to public comments. V/AC 365-195-600 mirrors the requirements of RCW 36.70A.140 and provides various recommendations that jurisdictions may implement to satisff these requirements. Page 8 of59 ffi9-3{n05 Petso IIv. City of Hmonds Final Decision and Order (lugast 17, 2009) Central Puget Sound Grorvth Management Hearings Board 319 ?th Avenue SE, Suite 103, Otympia' WA 98504 Tet. (360) s86-0260 Fax (360) 664-897s Packet Page 968 of 1136 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 n 12 l3 l4 l5 t6 t7 18 l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 3'l 38 39 40 4t 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 RC\ry 36.204.130(2) continues the GMA's emphasis on public participation as applied to plan updates, annual reviews and amendments to comprehensive plans, providing, in relevant part: [Each GMA planning jwisdiction] shall establish and broadly disseminate to ihe public a public participation program consistent with RCIV 36.704.035 and 36.704.140 thai ideniifies procedures and schedules whereby updates, proposed amendments or revisions of the comprehensive plan are considered üV in governing body of the county or city no more frequently than once every year. RCW 36.704.010 provides legislative findings for the GMA. As such, it does not provide the basis for a compliánce challenge. This section of the Act indicates general legislative intent but does not create specific duties enforceable by this Board. Lítowítz, et al, v. Cíty of Federal Way, CpSGMHB Case No. 96-3-00005, Final Decision and Order (JuIy 22, 1996), at'l'4." Discussion and AnalYsis The Board, from its earliest cases, has stated that the GMA requires an "enhanc€d pgblic participatiort'' process and that public participatio" Þ -ttt" "bedrock of GMA planning." ' As iet forttr above, the GMA "ontuinr ipecific provisions requiring citizen involvement in comprehensive iand use planning - RCW 36.70A.020(11), .035, .140, and .130. V/ith these sections of the GMA, the Legistature has specifically required jurisdictions to develop and amend their comprehensive plans according io procedures that require an e]l9rmous degree of public participation. See Ib00 Friends of Washington v. McFarland, 159 Wn.2d 165 @n batr" ZıOO) (holding King County's critical areas ordinance was not subject to referendum, due in part tothe exiensive provisions for public participation found in the GMA). The Board's discussion that follows is organized around the questions highlighted in petitioner,s prehearing Briet rather than assigning each discussion to a particular sub-issue under Legal Issue l. Findings of fact are incorporated in the discussion. 6 Litou,ítz, at 14: RCW 36.204.010 is not a substantive or even procedural requirement of the Act, and it creates no specific local government duty for compliance apart from the substantive goals and requirement ofthe Act. See also, WHIp II/Moyer v. City of Covington, CPSGMI{B 0l-3-0026 and 03-3-0026, Final Decision and Order ,¡ft lf , 2003); Tahima ¿uaiUon Society v. Pierce Coanty, CPSGMHB 05-3-0004c, Final Decision and Order (July 12,2005), at 18. 7 See pirie v. CW of Lynmrood, CPSGMIIB Case No. 06-3-0029, Final Decision and order (Apr. 9, 2007),-7t 13-14; McNaugitoi r.'snohomish County,cpSGMHB Case No. 06-3-0027, Final Decision and order, (Jan. 29' iOOt¡, at22; íaurelhurst, et aI v. City oiseattte, CPSGMHB Case No. 03-3-0016, Final Decision and Order, çtvtar.'3, 2004); McVittíe V v. Snohomish County, CPSGMI{B Case No. 00-3-0016, Final Decision and Order, iApt. iá, ZOOi); poulsbo, et al v. Kitsap Couniy, CPSGMI{B 92-34009c, Final Decision and Order, (Apr. 6' ìgiZ\; T\r¡" Fails, et al v. Snohomish County, CÞSCpfm Case No. 93-3-0003c, Final Decision and Order, (Sep. 7,1993). Page 9 of59 #09-3{XD5 Petso IIv. City olMnonds Final Decision and Order (August 17, 2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319 7th Avenue SE, Suite 103, Olympia, WA 98504 Tel. (360) 586-0260 Fax (360) 664-897s Packet Page 969 of 1136 I 2 3 4 ) 6 7 8 9 l0 ll l2 l3 t4 l5 16 t7 l8 l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3l 32 33 34 35 36 3't 38 39 40 4t 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Established process for public participatíon. Has the City establßhed and disseminated a p**tt f", *tl*Mo" in comprehensive plan amendments, as required by RCW 36.70A.140 and.130(2)? Ms. petso argues that the City has failed to establish a public participation procedure meeting the requireménts of RCW 36.704.140 and .130(2). Petso PHB, at5-6. The City of Edmonds's public participation prograrn for comprehensive plan amendments is found in ECDC Chapter 20.00-- Changes to the Comprehensive Plan. The chapter requjlgs publication and posti'ng of notices, a pubti" hearing before the Planning Board, and a public hearing before the City Council,t and sets deadlines for these procedures. While the City has clearly adopted the required public participation process, this part of petitioner,s challenge appears io be a collateral attack on whether the adopted process complies with tt¡e CÍtA.-es such, the challenge is untimely.e The lynreme Court has recently clarified that, in response to a comprehensive plan update, a petitioner may challenge only those provisions that were amended. Thurston County v. Western Washington Growth Manaþment Hearings Board,164 \Mn.2d 32g,lg0 P3d 38 (2008). Thuso the Board cannot, in a presãnt actiono rule-that a previously-unchallenged city adoption is non-compliant. The code p-uirionr of ECDC 20.00 were adopted in 1996 under Ordinance 3076, according to the ıode footnotes, and were not amended by Ordinance 3717; the Board cannot now entertain a challenge to their terms. The Board therefore furds no merit in Petitioner's allegation that the City has failed to adopt and disseminate a public participation progfam compliant with the GMA. This portion of Legal Issue 1(b) is dismissed. Early participation. Did the Cíty provide þr "early ... public partícípatíon" ín developing and adopting the Parks Plan amendments? Ms. Petso asserts that the City began public hearing until March 2008, participation. Petso P[IB, at 10. The Cþ points out that, in preparing to update its Parks Plan, the City of Edmonds went well beyond-the notice and hearings required in ECDC 20.00. City Respolse,_a! 8-l0.The City engaged a consultant to design and conduct an outreach program. Index 2-G.This progqm wa! ãdopted by the City Council on March 27,2007, and disseminated on the City's website and Channel 2i TV and through public workshops on June 20 and September 16,2007. City Ex. 3; City Ex. 6; HOM, at64'65. s The procedure allows flexibílity for additional Council meetings or hearings (ECDC 20.00.020), so City staff *cettåinty about possible subsequent hearings is undentandable. See, Petso PHB, at 6; Petso Ex. 5. e See, McVittie I v. Snohomish Counqt, CPSGMIIB Case No. 99-34016c, Final Decision and Order (Feb. % 2000), at15-17. Page 10 of59 #09-3{rc05 Petso IIv. Cíty of ùlmonds Final Decision and Order (August 17,2009) its Pa¡ks Plan review in March 2007 but did not hold a thus violating the requirement for "early'' public Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319 7th Avenue SE, Suite 103, Otympia' \ryA 98504 Tel. (360) 5E6'0260 Fax (360) 664'897s Packet Page 970 of 1136 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 l4 l5 t6 t7 l8 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3l 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4l 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 For the June 20, 2007 workshop, the Cþ's press release stated: *The public is invited to attend a public open house and workshop to provide community input into the needs, future options, and comprehensive planning of all areas of the [Parks] Department." The June 20 meeting was characterized as a'þublic workshop" and the meeting materials instructed the facilitators to welcome all ideas. Index 2-IJ[U. The Board finds and concludes that the City provided "early'' public participation in the Parks Plan amendments. This portion of Legal Issue l(b) is dismÍssed. Meaninçful and representative participation. Did the Cíty fail to provide meaningful (web @ to posÃbtltty of abuse) and fairly representative (compofliory o{ committee not representatiie of the communíty) publíc ínput into the development of the Park amendment? Petitioner argues that City staff gave undue weight to recommendations of an unrepresentative appointed citizen committee and a skewed telephone survey. She states that the staffunfairly disregarded the results ofthe web survey. Petso PIIB at 10-12. The Board reads the record differently. As recommended by V/AC 365-195-600(2Xa)(Ð' the City's Parks Plan amendment process reached out to the "broadest cross-section of the community, so that groups not previously involved.in planning become involved." The program utilized a 2i-member stakeholder committeeru which met monthly from March to becimber 2007. Core G, at l-2. The Board finds no merit in Petitioner's concem that the stakeholder committee was uffepresentative and included a non-resident of the City. The committee members 'owere selected due to the wide range and variety of their interests and backgrounds," not based on geographical representation.rr The City is entitled to hear from persons and organizations with special insight or interest in parks, recreation, and open space' whether or notihey live in the City. Selection of members of such an advisory committee is a matter within the discretion of the elected officials. See, e.g., Fallgatter VI v. City of Sultan, CPSGMIIB Case No. 06-3-0017, Order on Motions (June 29,2006), at 4-5 (composition of Planning Board). The City's outreach program included telephone and web surveys. The results of both the telephone survey and the web survey were made available to the Advisory Committee, to interested Planning Board members, and to the Cþ Council. Petso Ex. 12, at1957:' Petso Ex. 15. Each of these surveys had its strengths and its flaws, which were disclosedto the City Council for its decision, as part of the staff report and citizen input. The telephone survey under-represented residents younger than 34 years ofage and over-represented residents older than 50, compared to the demographics of the City. Petso Ex. 14. The web survey was open- t0 The parks advisory group included representatives from Edmonds School District, Port of Edmonds, Adult Sports, Youth Sports, Éoutir County Senior Center, Edmonds Bicycle Group, Recreation Services, and other interests. Core G, at l-2.In addition to the 22-member parks, recreation and open space advisory group, a 20- member cultural advisory committee was also convened. It Resolution I185, City Ex. l, at 1949. Page ll of59 ffi9-3{n05 Petso IIv. City ofMmonds Final Decision and Order (lugust 17, 2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319 7th Avenue SE, Suite 103, Olympia' WA 98504 Tel. (360) 586-0260 Fax (360) 664'897s Packet Page 971 of 1136 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 I 9 l0 ll l2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3l 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4T 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 ended with no way to control for multiple entries by the same person. See, Petso PHB, at I l- 12. Ms. Petso expressed her view of the telephone and web surveys in testimony to the Cltf Council. Petsı Ex. 16, April 15,2008 minutes. The City Council discussed the age-bias in the telephone survey at lengfh.t2 The meeting minutes of the various Council meetings show that alt of the citizen input was disclosed to and openly critiqued by the City Council. Results of both surveys are included in the Parks Plan as Appendix B. It is well-settled that the weight to be given to public input - whether the result of surveys, advisory committee recommendations, or citizen comments - is left to the discretion of the City Cotrncil.r3 The Board finds no merit in Ms. Petso's objection to the City's appointments to the advisory committee or to its consideration of web and telephone surveys. Legal Issue 1(c) is dismissed. Notice provisíons. Do the City's notice provisions províde notice dístribution methods that are "reasonably calculated to provide notíce"? As recommended by WAC 365-195-600(2XaXix), the City used a variety of dishibution methods for notice of its Parks Plan amendment process. ECDC 20.00.020 and 1.03.030 require newspaper publication (Everett Herøld)ta and posting at tfuee public locations. The Boa¡d notes that Edmonds's code requirement is minimal, but ptobably legally satisfies RCW 36.704.035, which lists "publishing noticg_ in a newspaper of general circulation" as an example of a "reasonable notice provision."ls RC\M 36.70A.035 does not require that the local government use all of the listed methods for notice. The Board has consistentþ consüued the provisions of .035 as setting out a menu of options from which a jurisdiction may choose. See, Pírie v. Lynnwoo4 CPSGMHB Case No. 06-3-0029,Final Decision and Order (Apr. 9, 2007),at17,fri.6. 12 Petso Ex. 15, March 18,2008 meeting, extensive Cþ Council discussion of telephone survey, and Petso Ex. 16, April 15,2008, Council discussion ofvalidþ ofsurveys. t3 See e.g., Seattle-King County Assoc. of Realtors v. King County, CPSGMIIB Case No. 04-3-0028, Final Decision and Order (May 31,2005), at 9; and Hood Canal Erwironmental Council,'et al v. Kitsap County, CPSGMIIB 06-3-0012c, Final Decision and Order (4u9.28,2006), at 13-14. ra The Board officially notices the "notorious fact''that government agencies have traditionally been required to publish public notices in a designated newspaper. While legally sufficien! this may no longer be an effective means oi informlng the general public. The Cþ of Edmonds is to be commended for recogrrizing the limitations of traditional publication and augmenting its legal notices with information on its website, public access TV, and by other means. ¡s Petitioner chastises the City for continuing to publish GMA notices in the Everett Herald. Petso PHB, at 14: *If the public forgets to read the Everett Herald legal notices ... even one day, their opportunity for public participation ... may be lost"; Petso Reply, at7:. "Edmonds hides its notice of public hearings in the legal òhssifieds of the Everett Herald;" Petso Reply, at 8: 'Our public notices are hidden in the legal classifieds of the Everett Herald." Page 12 of59 #09-34005 Petso II v. City of Mnonds X'inal Decision ¡nd Order (August 17, 2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319 ?th Avenue SE, Suite 103, Olympia, \ilA 98504 Tel. (360) s86-0260 Fax (360) 664'897s Packet Page 972 of 1136 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 t3 l4 l5 l6 t7 18 l9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4r 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 The Supreme Court addressed the issue inChevron LISA, Inc. v. Centrol Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board, 156 \Mn.2d l3l, 137, 124 P3d 640 (2005), saying that RCW 36.70Ã.035(l) lists publication in a newspaper of general circulation as an example of reasonable notice. The Court stated that the Town of Woodway, by publishing notice in the Everett Herald,complied with the explicit notice provisions of the GMA. .Id. Thus, the Court has held that compliance with just one example of reasonable notice is adequate to demonsüate compliance with the GMA notice requirements. Nevertheless, for the Parks Plan update, the City of Edmonds augmented the required newspaper notices and postings: fN]otice was provided through a press release in 5 newspapers, disüibution of a public service announcement to the Chamber of Commerce, a direct mailing to approximately 200 members of Cþ boards and commissions and parks department patrons ... and a notice in the spring Arts Bulletin to 1400 citizens. City Response, at 9; Crty Ex. 5. The City also used postings on its website, announcements on Channel-2l TV, and a sign-up system for citizens who wished fiirther individual mailed notices. Cþ Response, at 10; HOM, at65. The Board finds no error here in the City's methods of notice distribution.l6 This portion of the allegations under Legal Issue I is dismissed. EÍfective notice. Díd the City's notíces provide suficient ínþrmation to apprise citízens of the matters be@ considered? RCW 36.70A.140 states that the procedures for public participation in comprehensive plan amendments "shall provide for ... public meetings after effective notice." RCW 36.704.035 states: *The public participation requirements of this chapter shall include nottce reasonably calculated to provide notice ... of proposed amendments to comprehensive plans." (Emphasis supplied.) Ms. Petso contends that the City's notices were ineffective because they failed to alert the public to the matters under consideration. Petso PÍIB, at 8. She asserts that the City's legal notices simply referred to the Parks Plan, or, at most, the Parks Plan'1rpdate," and provided no information on significant policy changes being contemplated by Cþ staff: Each notice failed to advise the public of the reductions in level of service, of the redesignation of the Sherwood Park playfields, and of the fact that the plan would be updated or amended. Id. at8. 16 At some ñrture plan update, the City may wish to update ECDC 20.00.020 and 1.03.30 to better reflect its current practice of broader methods of notice distribution. Page 13 of59 #09-34005 Petso IIv. City of ümonds Final Decision and Order (August 17, 2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319 7th Avenue SE, Suite 103, Olympia' WA 98504 Tel. (360) 586-0260 Fax (360) 664'8975 Packet Page 973 of 1136 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 t0 ll 12 13 l4 l5 l6 t7 l8 19 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3l 32 33 34 35 36 3',1 38 39 40 4I 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 The City responds that the public was fully aware that the Parks Plan was being updated' 1{ that, unãer tlte GMA, "updâte means to review and revise.' City Response, at 15, citing RCW lø.iO¿,.t10(2Xa). ñ paiticutar, the City contends that the Board's cases requiring specific notice of LOS changes are directed at iocal concrurency provisions, which have "profound impact on propefy ãghtr." ln the Edmonds Parks Plan, by contrast, th" C,t¡ uses LOS as a wJy ..to tetp asiess-need," without regulatory or concturency implications that would necessitate more expli cit notice. Id- This Board has long held that the requirement of "effective notice" includes not just the distribution of noticðbut its content. See, e.g., Homebuilders Association of Kitsap County u-. Baínbridge Island, CPSGMHB Case No. 00-l-OO1¿, Final Decision and Order (Feb. 26' 2001), at-10-ll. In the City's record, the Board finds multiple notices of the Parks Plan pro"érr, but, except for mıre detailed press releases and publications,lhe notices simply ä*o*"" meetings "on" the Parks Plan or, perhaps, on the Parks Plan'hpdate"' In the Board's view: A notice that is reasonably calculated to reach the intended public ... must also be measured against whether it is effective in alerting the public to the key questions in plaY. McVittie VI v. Snohomish Coun¡y, CPSGMIIB Case No. 0l-3-0002, Final Decision and Order (July 25, 2001), at 6. In McV¡tt¡ô VI,theCounty providedgeneral "oti9" that it was amending iìs óFp,-wittrout indicating that it was changing the way it measured levels of service for its parks and recreation facilities. The Board found the County's notice non-compliant. ln Orton Farms, et al. v. Pierce County, CPSGMHB Case No. 04-3-0007c, Final Decision and Order (Aug. 2,20}4),atl5-l6,the Board found Pierce County's notice of amendments to its agriculturaidesignati,ons non-compliant because 'othe general nature or magnitude of the proposed amendments is not described." The Board recognizes that the Edmonds Parks Plan update involved many changes, some of which were not apparent prior to the 2007 workshops and advisory committee proces-1. However, by the time notice was required for the Planning Board *q Ctty. Council public hearines in 2008" the primary proposed revisions had been framed. A few of these were site specific;I7 others *"ró *or"-gêneral.l8 Ms. Petso's pleadings focus on-only a few aspects of th" Pl*, and the Board is -not firlly aware of other amendments that might have been highlight€d for public attention. However, the Board does not construe its McV¡ttie VI and Oltolpanøs deãisions as creating *bright line" rules; rather'the general nature or magnitude of the proposed amendments" must be described. tt For exarnple: add skateboard facility at City Center Park; develop neighborhood park at Old Woodway Elementary site; expand Downtown WaterÊont Activity Center. rs For example: incorporate nails and bikeway plan; recalculate needs assessmen! generally reducing LOS; prioritize waterfront opportunities Page 14 of59 #09-34005 Petso IIv. Cíty of ùlmonds Final Decision and Order (August 17, 2009) Centr¡l Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319 ?th Avenue SE, Suite 103, Olympia' \ryA 98504 Tel. (360) 586-0260 Fax (360) 664'897s Packet Page 974 of 1136 I 2 J 4 5 6 ,,Ì 8 9 l0 ll 12 l3 l4 15 r6 T7 t8 t9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3t 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4T 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 The Boa¡d commends the City on its early outreach program for the Parks Plan update. The City cast a broad net througlr- the diverse stakeholders group, telephone s}rvey' wet survg¡ and workshops. Once that early input was compiled and the proposal was scheduled for public hearings, "efrective notice" should have o'alerted the public to the key questions in play.' McVíiie VI, at6. Mere announcement that the Parks Plan amendments or Parks Plan update was on the agenda was insuffrcient.le The Board is "left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made." The Board finds and concludes that the City failed to comply with RCW 36.704.035 and .140 by failing to provide effective notice of the amendments under consideration. The Board will remand ôrdinance 3717 to the City for reconsideration following a public hearing with notice. Dissemination ol alternatives. Did the City's procedure "provide þr broad dissemination of proposals and alternatíves" as required by RCI{ 36.70A.140? Ms. petso argues that ttre City staff failed to provide the City Council and interested citizens with the "altematives" required by RCW 36.70A.140 because the City staffnever produgg$_a concise comparison of the 2001 Parks Plan and the proposed 2008 amendments. Petso PHB, at 7. Such a comparison was requested by a member of the Planning Board, _by Councilmembers \Mißon and Dawson at the Council retreat, and by several citizens.'u In her testimony on May 27,2008,and in her written commentso Ms. Petso herself provided the Cþ Council with a chart of some of the differences between the two versions. Petso Ex. 10. RCW 36.70A.140 requires: "the procedures shall provide for broad dissemination of proposals and altematives..." No particular form is prescribed for "alternatives." The City of -Edmonds contends that, because the Parks Plan update rewrote the Plan "from the bottom up," no tidy comparison of differences was appropriate or necessary. HOM Transcript, at76- 77. Here, the City of Edmonds made both the 2001 Parks Plan (no-action alternative) and the proposed 2008 Parks Plan update available on the City website. The various options were àisôussed in at least three public meetings of the Planning Board and five open public meetings of the City Council.2l The Board notes, for example, the on-going discussion of le The City cites Board decisions stating that a jurisdiction need not ltart its process over again when changes are made to a proposal under consideration. HOV( at6546.In each of those cases, the notices for public hearings and actions in the laüer part of the decision proc€ss in fact indicated the proposed changes. The question the Board addressed was whãther the jurisdictiorneeded to go back and re-start its EIS or communþ advisory or docketing processes. North Everett Neighbor Alliance v. Cíty of Everett, CPSGMHB Case No. 08-3-0005' Final Decision-and Order (Apr. 28,2009); nalmo v. Píerce County, CPSGMHB Case No. 07-3-0004c, Final Decision and Order (Sep. 28, ZIíOT; Cave/Cowanv. City of Renton,CPSGMIIB Case No. 07-3-0012, Final Decision and Order (July 30,2007). 20 petso Ex. 6, Planning Board minutes Nov. 28, 2007; Petso Ex. l, Council workshop Aug. 18, 2008; Peeo Reply, at 2. 2r See Findings of Fact 7 and9, supra. Page 15 of59 ffi9-34005 Petso IIv. Cþof Hmonds Final Decision and Order (August 17,2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319 7th Avenue SE, Suite 103, Otympia' WA 98504 Tel. (360) s86-0260 Fax (360) 664-897s Packet Page 975 of 1136 I 2 J 4 5 6 ,I I 9 10 ll t2 13 t4 l5 16 t7 l8 19 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4t 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 ..1evel-of-service" standards, where a range of alternative solutions were proposed, compared, subject to public testimony, and debated Ùy the City Council.22 ECDC Chapter 20.00 doesn't require that alternatives be dishibuted in hard copy, rather thal electronicaliy, or that side-by-side comparisons be drawn uqly staff. However helpful such provisions *igtrt be, they are not requirèments of the statute. " By unanimolsll approving the Þ1¿n, plannin! Board mèmbers and City Council members presumptively indicated that they had received the information required for their decision. The Board concludes.that Petitioner has not carried her burden of demonstrating CiW's procedure for dissemination of proposals and alternatives was non-compliant RCW ie.lOe,:q0.24 This portion of the allegations under Legallssue I is dismissed. Consideration of public comments. Does the CW's procedure provide "opportunity for written comment, ... provision þr open discussion, ... and consideration of and response to public comments" as required by RCW 36.70A.140? Petitioner Petso assprts that the City has failed to comply with.l40, stating that the City staff or Council's response to a number of her specific comments, written or oral, \ilas not "an interactive dialogue." Petso PI{B, at 12, citing Sþ Yalley v. Snohomish County, CPSGMHB case No. 95-3-0068c, Final Decision and order (March 12,1996) at34. Ms. Petso acknowledges that she was asked to submit comments in writing. Petso PHB, at12. City staff then provided the Cþ Council wittr its responses to two sets of written comments from Ms. Petso, dated April 15, 2008 and May 2,2008. Petso PHB, Ex. 12. Based on Ms. Petso's comments, City staff made several revisions to the proposed Parks Plan, highlighting those revisions in subsequent copies of the Plan provided to City Council. Id at 1956. These revisions added/correcteã references to Old Woodway Elementary and 162"o Park, corrected population numbers and mathematical erïors, recharacterized cþ-owned soccer and softball-ni¿r as meeting 'opractice field" rather than "regulation" standards, and included the Esperance area. Ms. Þetso asserts that "there was no open discussion of the staffresponse" to her concerns. Petso PHB, at12. The Board has previously explained that "consideration and response to public commenf' does not require that the government provide an answer to every question or concern raised by 22 petso Ex. 5 and 19, May 20,2008 Council meeting; Petso Ex.9 and 13, July 15,2008 public hearing and Council meeting. '3 Ms. Petso cites to Ms. McVittie's argument, quoted n McVittie VI v. Snohomish County, CPSGMIIB Case No. 0l-3-0002, Final Decision and Ordei (July 25, 2001), at 7. Ms. McVittie said: "It is true that the infonnation [of the proporéd change] could be obtained by reviewing the CFP and obtaining all the previous CFPs and the itenderson-Young n"po.t and carefirlly comparing the documents ... þoweverl the public should not be expected to expend these heroic levels of energy just to understand what the County is intending to do." The Board in that case did not require side-by-side comparisons. Id. at 10. 2a While the Board does not find a violation of the GMA on this poin! the Board's remand of Ordinance 3717 for reconsideration after effective notice affords the Cþ an opportunity to provide citizens with a more user- friendly comparison of the 2001 Parls Plan and the 2008 update. Page 16 of59 ffi9-3{n05 Petso II v. Cíty ofMnonds Final Decision and Order (lugust 17, 2009) ! the wittr that Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319 ?th Avenue SE, Suite 103, Olympia' WA 98504 Tel. (360) s86-0260 Fax (360) 664'897s Packet Page 976 of 1136 t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 l4 l5 l6 t7 l8 l9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3l 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4t 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 participants. A similar objection was raised in a challenge to King County's update of its ò¡ti"ui areas regulations: Maxine Keesling v. King County, CPSGMHB Case No. 05-3-0001, Final Decision and Order (July 5, 2005). Ms. Keesling attended numerous public meetings leading up to King County's adoption of its CAO and submitted comments and critiques, including materials calling into question the science relied on by the County. King County's record included the materials submitted by Ms. Keesling, summaries of her comments in public meetings, and staffnotes responding to her issues. Nevertheless, Ms. Keesling alleged ã failure to comply with GMA public participation requirements because 'othere was no county response and no apparent consideration given to Petitioner's suggestion." Id. at 5. The Board rejected Ms. Keesling's public process challenge, stating: "The GMA imposes no duty on jurisdictions to respond to specific citizen comments in the public process....""' Id. at 14. Thus, "response to public comments" does not mean that each participant's question must be specifically answered, but rather, the jurisdiction must take citizen input into consideration in its decision-making. In the present matter, it is apparent from the City's record that Ms. Petso's comments (and those of other participants) were considered and analyzed by City staff and Cþ Council, although they were not given the weight to which Ms. Petso believes they were entitled. The Boa¡d finds that Ms. Petso's comments and concerns were discussed by the City Council at several of their meetings.26 With respect to comments of other members of the public, "staff followed up on questions from public testimony and submissions." City Ex. 8,at14. In sum, the record of this matter demonstates that the City included and considered public input in various phases of the development of the 2008 Parks Plan. This consideration inòluded a broad range of surveys and meetings in which interested parties, including the Petitioner, had the opportunity to voice their opinions to the City's representatives and elected offrcials. Both the Petitioner and others testiflred before the Planning Board and the Cþ Council, and submitted wriften comments. The record clearly demonstrates that there was an 25 Citing MacAngus Ranches, Michael Leung and Dennis Daley v. Snohomish County, CPSGMIIB No. 99-3- 0017, Final Decision and Order, (March 23,2000'), at 12 Qlolding that *Respond to" public comments does not mean that counties and cities must react in response to all citizen questions or comments... It means gnly thgt citizen comments and questions must be considered...); See Montlalce Communþ Club v. City of Seattle, CPSGMHB No. 99-3-0002c, Final Decision and Order, (July 30, 1999), at 9 (Petitioner's arguments regarding public participation amounted to a disagreement with the Cþ over the policy choices made by the City Council. Þetitioner's dissatisfaction with the decision made by the Cþ does not mean that the public participation process used by the City...failed to comply with the requirements of RCW 36.704.140). to Muy 20,2008 Council meeting minutes, City Ex. 8, at 16: "Councilmember Wilson understood Ms. Petso's comments that there had been a decrease in park inventory." July 15,2008, Council meeting minutes, Cþ Ex. 2, at 12-13: "Council President Plunkett asked Mr. Mclntosh to address Ms. Petso's comments regarding park level of service." "Councilmember Dawson asked søff to respond to Ms. Petso's comments regarding the adult-sized soccer fields." "Councilmember Wambolt referred to Ms. Petso's comment about REET fr¡nds." August 18, 2008, special Council workshop minutes, Petso Ex. criticisms had not been rebutted." Page 17 of59 #ü-3{X105 Petso IIv. City of Mnonds X'inal Decision and Order (Augtrst 17, 2009) l, at 6. "Concern many of Lora Petso's 319 7th Avenue SE, Suite 103, Olympia' \ilA 98504 Tel. (360) s86-0260 Fax (360) 664'897s Central Puget Sound Growth Management llearings Board Packet Page 977 of 1136 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 l1 l2 l3 t4 l5 t6 t7 l8 l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4t 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 abundance of public input into the Parks Plan and that the City Council and staff expressly considered citizen opinions in their deliberations. In a recent decision, the Board reasoned: ln reviewing the lengthy record of the public process in this matteç the Board is not persuaded that GMA public participation requirements were violated. There were errors in the procedure; however, the City clearly notified its citizens, listened to their concems, and provided opportunities for public input. The lengthy City Council meeting transcripts demonstrate that City Council members genuinely understood the concerns raised by residents on both sides of the dispute and that their decision in adopting the Ordinance was informed by the public process. North Everett Neighbor Alliance v. City of Everett, CPSGMHB Case No. 08-3-0005, Final Decision and Order (Apr. 28, 2009),at20. Here the record reflects that the Council members understood the concems raised by Ms. Petso and others and that their decision was informed by the public process. The Board concludes that Petitioner has not met her burden of demonstrating non-compliance with the RCW 36.70A.140 requirement for open discussion and consideration and response to public comments. This portion ofthe allegations under Legal Issue I is dismissed. Lote amendments. V[rere significant changes to the Parks Plan consídered and adopted without providing an opportuníty for public comment and without providing the additional inþrmation requested by council and the public? Petitioner contends that public participation was not "continuous" in that the Cþ adopted amendments to the Parks Plan after the close of the July 15, 2008 public hearing. She cites the Board's ruling that "when a change is proposed to an amendment to a comprehensive plan, the public must have an opportunity to review and comment on the proposed change before the legislative body votes on the proposed change." Andrus v. City of Bainbridge ßlønd, CPSGMIIB Case No. 98-3-0030, Final Decision and Order (June 31, 1999). Petso PHB, at 13. Ms. Petso identifies three sets of amendments to the Parks Plan proposal as violating this rule: r Bernheim amendments adopted by City Council on July 15, 2008, after the close of the public hearing; o November 25,2008 amendments; o Findings adopted December 16,2008, on final passage of the Ordinance. RCW 36.704.035(2) specifically addresses the requirements for public review of changes to a comprehensive plan amendment introduced after public comment is closed. RCW 36.704.035(2) provides: Page lE of59 #09-3{n05 Petso IIv. City of Hmonds Final Decision and Order (August 17,2009) Central Puget Sound Grorvth Management Hearings Board 319 7rh Avenue SE, Suite 103, Olympia, WA 98504 Tel. (360) s86-0260 Fax (360) 664-8975 Packet Page 978 of 1136 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 tl t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 L7 l8 l9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3l 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4t 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 (a) Except as otherwise provided in (b) of this subsection, if the legislative body for a county or city chooses to consider a change to an amendment to a comprehensive plan or development regulation, and the change is proposed after the opporhmity for review and comment has passed under the county's or city's proCedures, an opportunity for review and comment on the proposed change shall be provided before the local legislative body votes on the proposed change. (b) An additional opportunity for public review and comment is not required under (a) of this subsection if: (ii) The proposed change is within the scope of the alternatives available for public comment; (iii) The proposed change ... cla¡ifies language of a proposed ordinance or resolution without changing its effect; .... ln Burrows v Kitsap County, CPSGMIIB Case No. 99-3-0018, Final Decision and Order (March 29, 2000), at 10, the Board explained why amendments within the scope of alternatives are allowed: [I]f ttre public had the opporturity to review and comment on the changes to the proposed amendments, then the [city] is not required to provide an additional opportunity for public participation. There is no GMA requirement that the [city] must have prepared a document for public inspection specifically proposing all elements of the amendments ultimately adopted by the tcttyl... The Board notes, at the outset, that the klmonds City Council did not take final action on the Parks Plan update until December 16, 2008. City Ex. l. The Edmonds City Council allows citizeninput at all its public meetings, whether or not a matter is on its agenda. HOM, at72- 73. Thus interested citizens had a continuing opportunity to comment on the July 20 and November 25 amendments.2T Neverthelesso ttre Board will review each set of amendments in light of the standards of RCW 36.704.035Q). Bernheim Amendments July 20.2008 Petitioner objects to three amendments first offered by Councilmember Bemheim on April 15, 2008, and voted on by the Cþ Council on July 15, 2008. Petso Ex. 9, July 15, 2008 minutes at 14-16. At the Council meeting on April 15, Councilmember Bemheim presented a set of seven Parks Plan amendments relating to the Downtown Waterfront Activþ Center (D\ilAC). Petso Ex. 18. Support for the DWAC had been expressed by citizens who testified that evening at the City Council's public hearing. Petso Ex. 16 (Larry Pauls, Jan Kavadas, Dick Van Hollebeke). The text of the proposed amendments, which included a map " See, Halmo v. Pierce County, CPSGMHB Case No. 07-3-0004c, Final Decision and Order (Sep. 28, 2007), at 12-13, and 26: "The County Council accepæd written and emailed comments until the day the plan was adopted." Page 19 of59 ffi9.3{n05 Petso IIv. City of Hmonds Final Dccision and Order (August 17,2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319 ?th Avenue SE, Suite 103' Olympia' WA 98504 Tet. (360) s86-0260 Fax (360) 664'897s Packet Page 979 of 1136 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll t2 13 t4 l5 l6 t7 18 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3l 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4t 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 amendment to designate the DWAC with a 'þurple starburst," was made available to the public in the approved minutes of that meeting. Petso Ex. 18. At the May 20,2008 Council meeting, when conceptual approval of the Parks Plan was brought to a vote (for purposes of grant application), Councilmember Bernheim brought forward one of his amendments, recommending provision of regional facilities '\rithin the DWAC." That amendment was adopted. Petso Ex. 19. However, Councilmember Bernheim's amendment to designate the DWAC with a purple starburst representing a proposed regional/community park was discussed and withdrawn. Then, at the July 15 Council meeting, following the second public hearing on the plan, three of Councilmember Bernheim's DWAC amendments were adopted by the City Council. Those three amendments, the Cþ states, (a) moved a clause from one part of a sentence to another, (b) changed'katerfront" to "Downtown Waterfront Activity Center," and (c) designated the proposed regional park with apurple starburst. HOM, at 51; City Response, at 13-14. Thus, contrary to Ms. Petso's recollection, the City's record demonshates that Councilmember Bernheim's various amendments conceming the DWAC were presented in at least two open public meetings of the City Council prior to the July 15 public hearing and Council adoption. By contrast, in Lewis v City of Edgewood, CPSGMHB Case No. 01-3- 0020, Final Decision and Order (Feb. 7, 2002),at 6-10, final drafts of 14 amendments totaling 38 pages were not available until the Council meeting at which the comprehensive plan was adopted. The Board finds that the Bernheim amendments available for public comment" and therefore 36.70A.03s(2xbxii). November 25. 2008- AmendmentE were '\rithin the scope of alternatives fell within the exception of RCW Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319 7th Avenue SE, Suite 103, Olympia' \ryA 98504 Tel. (360) s86-0260 Fax (360) 664-897s At the November 25,2008 Council meeting, the City Council again reviewed amendments to the draft Parks Plan.28 According to the Council meeting minutes, Parks Director Mclntosh introduced two amendments. The first was to incorporate National Recreation and Park Association (NPRA) standards as aspirational goals "in response to the council's desire to 28 In an early case decided before legislative enactment of RCÌW 36.704.035(2), the Board rejected a citizen challenge to a series of comprehensive plan amendments enacted by the County Council during its S-month deliberation afier the close of public testimony. Sþ VaIIey v. Snohomish County, CPSGMIIB Case No. 95-3- 0068c, Final Decision and Order (March 12, 1996) at 28-36. The Board held that the County Council's deliberation and decisions after the close of the record did not violate the "continuous" element, in that their decisions were within the scope of matters that had been discussed inthe public process. Similarly, in the present case, the Edmonds Cþ Council continued to deliberate after the July 15 public hearing. At the July meeting, the Council members agreed to continue deliberation at their August Council workshop, to be followed by final decisions and vote at the end of the year. City Ex. 2, at l6.In particular, "fi¡rther Council discussion regarding level of service as well as more ambitious goals in the Parks Plan" was called for. Id The amendments adopted as a result of this deliberation must now be reviewed under the criteria of RCW 36.70A.035(2)O). Page 20 of59 #0!)-34005 Petso IIv. Cíty of Mnonds Final Decision and Order (August 17,2009) Packet Page 980 of 1136 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 I 9 10 ll l2 l3 l4 t5 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 2L 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4l 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 ensure that the Plan not be any less ambitious than the previous Plan." Petso Ex. 17. The second was to list, in the Funding Plan section, examples of capital and acquisition projects that could be funded with voter-approved general obligation bonds. /d. Ms. Petso objects that these were substantive amendments which required public comment. Petso PHB, at14. Aspirational Goals. Additional public comment is not required if "the proposed change is within the scope of the alternatives available for public comment." RCV/ 36.704.035(2xbxii).The Board understands from the record that the national standards were already included in Table 4.2 "[-evel of Service by Facility Type Existing and Proposed," of the draft 2008 Parks Plan. The November 25 amendment added this explanatory language below the Table: The Parks Deparünent and Council recognize that the current financial consûaints of traditional funding sources limit park acquisition, improvement and maintenance to levels below the aspirational goals of the City reflected in the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) recommended standards. These aspirational standards reflect the long term goals through the use of grants, bonds, voter-approved funding or othet enhancements to the City's traditional revenue base through changes in state law. The record indicates that levels of service had been discussed by the City Council at its May 20, 2008 meeting, where both Councilmembers Bernheim and \Milson expressed an aspirational goal to meet the national standards. City Ex. 8, at 15-16. Further discussions of level-of-service standa¡ds followed in public input, testimony, and Council discussion at the July 15 public hearing and Council meeting (City Ex. 2, at 12-13, 16) and at the August 18 Special Council Workshop (Petso Ex. 1), with national standards as a reference point. The Board finds and concludes that the Council's action amending the proposed Parks Plan to recognize the NPRA standards as "aspirational goals" was well within the scope of altematives that had been available for public comment. General Obligation Bond. Additional public comment is not required if the proposed change "clarifies language of a proposed ordinance or resolution without changing its effect." RCW 36.704.035(2xbxiiÐ. The second November 25 amendment was in the Funding Plan section where 2l possible sources for parks funding are briefly identified. Core G, Chapter 7. Here, the Planning Director proposed to include under "General Obligation Bond" a list of six Edmonds projects that wotild be eligible for voter-approved funding. Core G, at 7-2.2e Tlte text is clear that these are potentiall¡eligible projects, not recommendations or commiünents. The Board fails to see how adding examples of eligible projects changes the effect of the ordinance. Absent a plan or commitment to fund any of the six projects through a ballot measure, this list of examples does no more than "clariff the language" of the proposed ordinance. 2e The six examples are: former Woodway High School playfreld developmenÇ Senior Center redevelopment, Aquatics Center, Civic Center playfield acquisition, citywide sidewalk and tail connections, 4'Avenue Cultural Corridor. Page 2l of59 #09-3{n05 Petso IIv. City of Ednonds Final Decision and Order (lugust 17, 2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearlngs Board 319 ?th Avenue SE, Suite 103, Olympia' \ilA 98504 Tel. (360) 586-0260 Fax (360) 664'8975 Packet Page 981 of 1136 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 n t2 13 t4 l5 16 t7 l8 l9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3l 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4T 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 The Board finds and concludes that the November 25,2008 amendments fell within the exceptions of RCW 36.704.03 5(2Xb). December 16.2008 Findings and Conclusions Findings were added to Ordinance No. 3717 onDecember 16,2}Oï,prior to final adoption.3o Ms. Petso objects that there was no opportunity for public comment and not even any Council 'deliberation" on these findings. Petso PHB, at 14 HOM at 37-38. The City responds that findings are necessarily added to ordinances after the Cþ Council has completed public testimony and deliberation. HOM, at74. The Board dealt with a similar objection to findings tn Halmo v. Pierce County, CPSGMHB Case No. 07-3-0004c, Final Decision and Order (Sep. 28, 2007), at26: CROWD makes much of the fact that the County Council did not insert 'findings' conceming the landfill into its ordinance until the end of the process. The Board understands that an elected body may need to hea¡ and deliberate on a whole range of facts before adopting findings.... The Board ruled that the findings in the Halmo case were within the provision of RCV/ 36.704.035(2xbxiii): "The proposed change ... cla¡ifies language of a proposed ordinance or resolution without changing its effect." By definition, the findings section of an ordinance is a clarification, not a substantive change. The Board concludes that the findings in Edmonds Resolution ll85 simply clarified the ordinance '\rithout changing its effect." Key findings sought to clariff the relationship between the City's aspirational goals and its level of service standards: Whereaso the City recognizes the need for and distinction between long range aspirational goals and operational level of service standards for its parks system and adopts both in its Parks Plan update ... The City Council finds that the proposed plan updates represent both the City's current operational level of service standards achievable within current budget limitations as well as acknowledging and recognizing long-range aspirational goals and levels of serviceo which, as funding becomes available, the City Council will attempt to meet. City Ex. l, at 1950. The fact that these findings were included in the Edmonds Parks Plan Ordinance on a consent agenda does not change the Board's analysis. At the Edmonds City Council meeting of December 16,2008, any Council member who believed the findings drafted by staff did not 'o City Ex. I att¿ches Resolution I185 containing the findings. PageZ2 of59 #09-34005 Petso II v. City of Mmonds Final Decision and Order (luetst 17, 2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319/h Avenue SE, Suite 103, Olympia' 1ry4 98504 Tel. (360) s86-0260 F¿x (360) 664-8975 Packet Page 982 of 1136 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 I 9 t0 ll t2 13 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 L9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4t 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 accurately reflect the Cotmcil's deliberations had the option of requesting that the Ordinance be pulled Som the consent agenda for further discussion or even of voting "no" on the Ordinance." The Board finds no merit in Petitioner's objection to the City's late consideration of findings for the 2008 Parks Plan ordinance. Petitioner has not canied her burden of demonstrating that any of the changes to the Parks Plan were adopted in violation of RCW 36.704.035(2) orthat the City failed to provide "continuous" public participation. Legal Issue l(a) is dismissed."' Conclusions - Legal Issue 1 The Board finds and concludes that the City failed to provide effective notice for public participation in its Parks Plan update process in that its notices lacked information to alert the public to the general nature or key questions of the proposed changes to the Parks Plan. ln this respect, the City's adoption of Ordinance 3717 did not comply wittt RCV/ 36.704.035 and .140. The Board remands Ordinance 3717 to the City for reconsideration afrer a public hearing with effective notice. The Board finds and concludes that the City's adoption of Ordinance 3717 otherwise complied with the notice and public participation requirements of RCW 36.704.035, .130, and.140, and followed the City's code procedures in ECDC 20.00.010-050, as follows: a. The City has established a public participation program for comprehensive plan amendments; b. the Cþ provided for early and continuous public participation, and c. the City's procedures allowed written comment, open discussion, and consideration and response to public comments. The Board finds and concludes that the City was guided by GMA Planning Goal 1l in that the City "encouraged the involvement of citizens in the planning process." Petitioner did not carry her burden of demonstrating that the City's methods of notice, dissemination of altematives, weight given to citizen input, or adoption of "late" amendments were non-compliant with the requirements of the statute. Sub-issues (a), (b), and (c) of Legal Issue 1 are dismissed. LEGAL ISSUE 2 O n c e -P e r-Ye a r A me n dmc nt The Prehearing Order states Legal lssue No. 2 as follows: 'r Earlier insertion of findings would be more respectfrrl of Cþ Council members' need for review time. 32 Ms. Petso's substantive objection to Finding l.C concerning maintaining the land use balance will be dealt with more fully under Issue 3(g) below. Page 23 of59 ff9-3-{n05 Petso IIv. City of &lnonds f inal Decision ¡nd Order (Augttst 17, 2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319 ?th Avenue SE, Suite 103, Olympia' WA 98504 Tel. (360) 586'0260 Fax (360)664'8975 Packet Page 983 of 1136 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll 12 t3 L4 l5 t6 t7 18 l9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4T 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Legal Issue 2. Once-per-year Amendment. Did the City's adoption of the Parks Plan amendment fail to comply with the requirements of RCW 36.704.130(2), RCW 36.704.010, RCV/ 36.70A.020(ll), RCW 36.704.035, RC\M 36.70A.140, Goal B.l on page 3 of the General Comprehensive Plan, \MAC 305-195-630, and ECDC 20.00.010 in that proposed plan amendments were considered more than once per year, and were not considered concurrently so that cumulative effects could be ascertained and the integrity of the comprehensive plan preserved? Applicable Law RC\ry 36.704.130(2Xa) requires a city or county to identiff procedures and schedules whereby updates and amendments to comprehensive plans are considered no more frequently than once per year. Q)@).Each county and city shall establish and broadly disseminate to the public a public participation program ... that identifies procedures and schedules whereby updates, proposed amendments, or revisions to the comprehensive plan are considered Ll*" governing body of the county or city no more frequently than once every year. (b) Except as otherwise provided in (a) of this subsection, all proposals shall be considered by the governing body conctrrently so the cumulative effect of the various proposals can be ascertrained. ... Discussion and Analysis The City of Edmonds has in fact adopted a program for comprehensive plan amendments which Petitioner Petso argues is insufficient. EDCD Chapter 20.00 sets out an annual process requiring notice published in the Everett Herald and posted in various public places, one public hearing before the Planning Board, one public hearing before the Cþ Council, and deadlines for scheduling such hearings. ECDC 20.00.040 requires such changes to be adopted by ordinance, and ECDC 20.00.010 provides that the proposed ordinances are considered cóncurrently.i3 The City states that its comprehensive plan amendment process allows for consideration of various applications individually, with preliminary decisions during the year, culminating in adoption of various comprehensive plan amendments by ordinance at year's end. "Preliminary approval is given at various stages in order to have final drafts available for consideration in cor{unction with each other." City Response, at19-20. During 2008, the City of Edmonds considered and gave preliminary approval to a private amendment for the Underhill project, which was readopted by Ordinance on December 16, 33 ECDC 20.00.010: o'In order to meet the requirements of the [GMA], the city shall undertake comprehensive plan amendments only once per year. All amendments requested by the cþ or private parties shall be reviewed concurrently to ensure that the integrity of the comprehensive plan is preserved." Page 24 of59 *!09-3-{1005 Petso IIv. City of Hmonds Final Decision and Order (August 17, 2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319 ?th Avenue SE, Suite 103, Olympia, WA 98504 Tet. (360) s86-0260 Fax (360) 664-897s Packet Page 984 of 1136 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll 12 l3 t4 15 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3l 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4t 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 2008. Petso Ex. 19. Edmonds considered and rejected ¡ry'o other private amendments during 2008 - site-specific rezone requests for the ZammitltlAD and Gilett/Shapiro properties on July I and July 29 respectively. Petso PIIB, at 15-16. Having decided to deny these rezones, was the City obligated to package those denials for concurrent decision with the Parks Plan amendment and Underhill rezone at the end of the year? Petitioner argues that the City Councit should have had all the proposed comprehensive plan amendments before it in December, including the two private amendments that wererejected in July, in order to ascertain the cumulative effect ofthe proposals. Petso PHB, at 16.'" The Board is not persuaded. In prior cases, the Board has held that deníal of a docket request or private comprehensive plan amendment is not appealable under the GMA. It is well settled that, in the absence of an intervening legislative mandate, a jurisdiction's decision not to amend its adopted planl- or development regulations is generally not subject to GMA procedures or challenges." Thus, Edmonds's mid-year decisions not to amendneed not be re- packaged with proposed amendments in an annual adoption cycle. As the Board noted in SR2/US2 II v. Snohomísh Counry, CPSGMIIB Case No. 08-3-0004, Order of Dismissal (Apr. 19,2009), at 5: A decision not to docket a proposal for further consideration does not result in an amendment to a plan.... There is no evidence that the County has a duty to amend its plan to address ... the proposal. The annual conctrrent review of "the cumulative effect of the various proposals" necessarily looks at the impact of potential changes to the comprehensive plan and may appropriately disregard denials that simply preserve the status quo. In the present case, the City's December 2008 agenda gave the Council its once-a-year opportunity to determine the cumulative effect of approval of the Underhill rezone and of the Parks Plan amendment. The City had no duty to reconsider the denied amendments at that time. The Board finds no violation of RCIW 36.70A.130Q).36 3a Citing, BucHes v. King County, CPSGMIIB Case No. 96-3-0022c, Final Decision and Order (Nov. 12, 1996), at 19; WRECO v. City of Dupont, CPSGMIIB Case No. 98-3-0035, Final Decision and Order (May 19, 1999), at 9. t5 See, Orchard Beachv. City of Firoest, CPSGMIIB Case No. 06-3-0019, Order of Dismissal (July 6, 2006),at 5; Port of Seanle v City oÍ Des Moines, CPSGMIIB Case No. 97-3-0014, Final Decision and Order (Aug. 13, 1999), at 8; AFT II v Snohomish County, CPSGMIIB Case No. 99-3-0004, Order on Dispositive Motion (June 18, 1999), at 4i CoIe v Pierce County, CPSGMHB Case No. 96-3-0009c, Final Decision and Order (July 31, 1996), at2l; Tacoma II v Píerce County, CPSGMIIB Case No. 99-3-0023c, Order on Dispositive Motion (Mar. 10, 2000), at 2; Haney Ai(ìeld v. Snohomish County, CPSGMIIB Case No. 00-3-0008, Order on Dispositive Motion(July 13,2000), at34;BidwellvCityof Bellev¿e, CPSGMHBCaseNo.00-3-0009, OrderonDispositive Motion (July 14,2000), at34. 36 In this matter, as with notice and public process, an update of the Cþ's regulations could provide more clarity. Page 25 of59 flX)-34005 Petso IIv. City ofMnonds Final Decision and Order (August 17,2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319 7th Avenue SE, Suite 103, Olympia, \ryA 98504 Tet. (360) s86-0260 Fax (360) 664'897s Packet Page 985 of 1136 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3t 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4t 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Conclusion - Legal Issue 2 The Board finds and concludes that Petitioner has failed to carry her burden of demonstrating non-compliance with RCW 36.704.130Q)@). Legal Issue 2 is dismissed. LEGAL ISSUE 3 Consístency The Prehearing Order states Legal Issue No. 3 as follows: Legøl Issue 3. Inconsistency.Is the Pa¡ks Plan amendment inconsistent with the GMA, the General Comprehensive Plan and the CFP, and internally inconsistent, in violation of RCW 36.704.010, RCW 36.70A.070 (preamble), RCW 36.70A.070(8), RCW 36.70A.110Q), RCW 36.70A.130, WAC 365-195-070, -500, and ECDC 20.00.050(Ð, as follows: 3(a). The Park amendment does not use the same population projections or the same park acreage as the General Plan and CFP. 3(b). The CFP specifically illustates the playfield at Sherwood Park as an interlocal project to be funded in the CFP, but the Park amendment has dropped reference to the ILA's for park use at Sherwood Park, does not include Sherwood Park as a Park on the Park map, and omits the playfields at Sherwood Park ûom the field inventory. 3(c). The Park amendment does not include the same projects or calendar years as the CFP and is internally inconsistent regarding fi¡nding. 3(d). Park needs are identified, significant funding is identified and available, but the Parks Plan fails to identiff planned acquisitions which would address identified park needs 3(e). Language was added to the Park amendment to suggest that funding is not available, when, in fact, significant funding is available, particularly for park improvement. 3(Ð. The Park amendment was not current when adopted since the plan was adopted in late 2008 but contains a funding plan dating back to 2007 and 2008, and the plan expressly admits that population numbers were deliberately not updated. 3(g). The Park amendment fails to apply EDCD 20.00.050 or meet the standards contained therein. 3(h).The Park amendment maps do not include the Esperance UGA, and the amendment is inconsistent with purpose E on page I of the General Plan, effect B Page 26 of59 ffi9-3{Xn5 Petso II v. City of Mmonds Final Decision and Order (lugust 17, 2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319 7rh Avenue SE, Suite 103, Olympia' WA 98504 Tel. (360)586-0260 Fax (360) 664-897s Packet Page 986 of 1136 I 2 3 4 5 6 'l 8 9 10 ll t2 l3 t4 15 t6 t7 18 l9 20 2T 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3l 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4t 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 on page 2 of the General Plan, LOS goals on page 85 of the General Plan, and concwrency goal4.2. on page 88 of the General Plan. Applicable Law RC\ü 36.70A.070 (preamble) provides, in part: 'oThe comprehensive plan ... shall be an internally consistent document and all elements shall be consistent with the future land use map." RCW 36.70A,070(8) requires, as a mandatory element of a local comprehensive plan, a'þark and recreation element that implements, and is consistent with, the capital facilities plan element as it relates to park and recreation facilities." ECDC 20.00.050(Ð provides that'oamendments to the comprehensive plan may be adopted only if ... the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. . .." Discussion and Anaþsis Ms. Petso asserts a number of inconsistencies internal to the 2008 Pa¡ks Plan update, as well as inconsistencies between the 2008 Parks Plan and other components of Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan, including the capital facilities element. The Board addresses specific assertions by topic, generally following the order in Petitioner's Prehearing Brief. Issue 3(a.l - Population Petitioner asserts that the population numbers in the updated Parks Plan are inconsistent with the numbers in the Comprehensive Plan. She identifies a 29-person discrepancy between the 2000 population of 39,515 in the comprehensive plan and 39,544 from OFM. Second, she notes an annual growth projection rate of .5o/o in the comprehensive plan and a rate of lo/o in the updated Parks Plan. Third, she finds no basis for the reduction of population in the Esperance UGA (comparing 2001 and 2008 Parks Plans). Petso PHB, at 17-18. The Board notes that 2O-year population growth targets for counties a¡e established by OFM. RCW 36.70A.110Q). Snohomish County, through Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT), allocates projected county population to each cþ and unincorporated area. Edmonds's Comprehensive Plan population targets are not set by applying a growth rate to the current population - for either the City or its associated UGA. Rather, the targets are taken from the Countywide Planning Policies. City Ex. 12. The City is required by the GMA to accommodate these targets, at a minimum. RCW 36.704.130(3Xb). In this case, the City explains that calculating back from the allocatedz02s target to its 2007 population yields an average growth rate of .SYo a year. City Response at2l, Corc A, at2. However, in order to craft a more generous and flexible Pa¡ks Plan, the Cþ chose to project an annual 1% population increase, planning to serve the recreation and open space needs of more residents arriving sooner than OFM and SCT predict. Id. at 22. Neither of the parties Page21 of59 ffi9-3{1005 Petso IIv. Cìtyof Mnonds Fin¡l Dccision ¡nd Order (Augast 17, 2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Herrings Board 319 7th Avenue SE, Suite 103, Olympia, WA 98504 Tel. (360)s86-0260 Fax (360) 664-897s Packet Page 987 of 1136 I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 t0 lt t2 l3 l4 l5 t6 l7 18 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3t 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4l 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 cites any authority for the proposition that planning to serve more growth than allocated within a city or designated UGA is a violation of the GMA. Indeed, the Board has held that elements of a city's comprehensive plan that contemplate a'þopulation capacity that exceeds the county's planning population allocations" to that city, do not "create a per se violation of RCW 36.70A.070;' Aagaardv. City of Bothell (Aagaørd I), CPSGMHB Case No. 94-3-0011 (Feb. 21, 1995), at 15. Petitioner has not canied her burden of demonstrating that the device is clearly erroneous. Esperance is an area of unincorporated UGA in the southeast of Edmonds. Esperance is currently under the jtrisdiction of Snohomish County but within the planning scope of the City of Edmonds as an unincorporated mtrnicipal urban growth area (MUGA). The Esperance population target for 2025 is 4A66. The target is taken from Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT), which gives the Esperance area a 2002 population of 3,516. City Ex. 12, at 29. Ms. Petso states that the 2001 Parks Plan provided a planning target of 8,150 residents in the Edmonds unincorporated MUGA. Petso PHB at 18. What happened to more than 4,000 people? The Board may surmise a plain error in 2001, or that the SCT may have chosen to allocate more growth to another part of the County, or perhaps SCT assumed a lower densþ of development in the Esperance area since the 2001 allocation. Whatever errors there might have been in the Esperance population projection in the 2001 Pa¡ks Plan, the Board is not persuaded that Edmonds's 2008 Plan is faulty. The 2008 Parks Plan is based, as it must be, on SCT altocations derived from OFM projections. City Response, at 21, ft. 5. The Board notes that City staff made corrections to the population numbers in the recommended Parks Plan update in response to Ms. Petso's comments in April and May. Petso Ex.12.37 The Board appreciates the confusion sometimes created by the OFM population targets. Nevertheless, tlre Board finds no merit in Ms. Petso's issues on inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan population numbers. GMA planning is not an exercise in mathematical precision! Rather, it creates a reasoned framework for anticipating and accommodating population growth. "Consistency''does not require one-to-one correlation, particularly when dealing with demographic calculations which are, by definition, fluid. The Board concludes that Legal Issue 3(a) is without merit. This conclusion also disposes of a portion of Legal Issue 3(h) and Legal Issue 7. Issue 3(bt - Inconsistencies related to Sherwood Park "sherwood Park" is the conrmon name of the Old V/oodway Elementary School site, 1l-acres of property long owned by Edmonds School District. In June of 1999, the School District entered into a lO-year interlocal agreement (ItA) with the City of Edmonds and Snohomish County that enabled the City to maintain and use two ball fields on the property. In September 37 Ms. Petso states that "tlre math is still wrong," and identifîes a 36-person error in the Esperance population, leading to a 46-person discrepancy in the 2025 population projection. Petso PIIB, at 18. The Cþ acknowledges a "scrivener's efror." Cþ Response, at22, fu,.7 . Page 28 of59 ffi9-34005 Petso IIv. City ofMmonds Final Decision and Order (Augtrst 17, 2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319 ?th Avenue SE, Suite 103, Olympia, \ilA 98504 Tel. (360) s86-0260 Fax (360) 664'897s Packet Page 988 of 1136 I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 n t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 l9 20 2T 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3l 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4t 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 2}06,the School District sold the properly. A residential real estate deveþer acquired half of the land.38 The City purchased and has imqloved 5.6 acres for a park. However, the City Council has not formally terminated the ILA." The 2001 Pa¡ks Plan showed an interlocal asreement to maintain and use two ball fields and a need for a3-acre neighborhood park at the iit".oo The 2008 Parks Plan shows a 5.6 acre city- owned park and drops all reference to the Sherwood Park ball fields or the ILA. Core G, at 6- 4. The 2008 Parks Plan indicates a neu' park was constructed on the site in 2008 and includes a children's play area, basketball court, picnic shelter, soccer field, picnic tables, benches, walkways and parking. Core G, App. C, Old Woodway Elementary Park. Ms. Petso argues that the City remains legally obligated to maintain the Sherwood ball fields and must include them in the 2008 Parks Plan. She points out that the ILA has not been terminated and that the title acquired by the developer is "subject to" the ILA. She asserts that the 2001 Parks Plan showed an intent to acquire the Sherwood playfields and the 2008 Plan abandons that intent - a change which she contends required specific notice. Petso Reply, at ll-12. Petitioner furttrer contends that it is inconsistent to identiff a need for play fields, yet "disregard ILAs providing access to two such fields." Petso Reply, at 18. The Board notes that Section 1.4 of the June 23, I999,ILA provides: This agreement shall commence upon execution by the parties and shall remain in effect for ten (10) years according to its terms. If the term of the agreement has now expired, it seems to the Boa¡d that this dispute may be moot.al In any event, the Board is not persuaded that the City's Pa¡ks Plan amendments present an inconsistency. The ILA has been superseded by subsequent events: the School District has sold the propert¡ with a portion acquired by a developer; the County Council has voted to terminate the ILA; and the City has purchased and developed 5.6 acres for park use. Whatever remaining effect the ILA may or may not have, the Board finds that the City appropriately amended its Parks Plan to reflect the actions the three ILA parties and the new private o\ryner have taken. The City is not required to include the ILA in its updated Parks Plan. Nor is it require$ to purchase the whole property to meet its identified need for youth and adult sports fields.*' The 2008 Parks Plan indicates continued shared use of the Meadowdalc Athletic complex in Lynnwood (Core G, at 4-11) and possible eventual development of a sportsfield 38 See Petso Ex.2l,at 1066-1071. 3e Apparently, the County Council approved the termination of the ILA on December I l, 2006. Supp. Ex. 12. o0 Core F, at 3-8, map following 44 and map following 6-1. or The Board has previously determined that it lacks jurisdiction over the Sherwood Park lLA. Petso I v. Snohomish County, CPSGMI{B Case No. 07-3-0006, Order of Dismissal (Apr. 11,2007). a2 See firther discussion under Legal Issues 3(d),4, 5, and 6. Page 29 of59 #09-3{n05 Petso IIv. City of Mnonds Fin¡l Decision and Order (lugast 17, 2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319 7rh Avenue SE, Suite 103, Olympia, \ryA 98504 Tel. (360)s86-0260 Fax (360) 664'897s Packet Page 989 of 1136 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 t8 l9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4l 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 complex at the Old Woodway High School site to add¡ess the demand for ballfields. Core Go App.A. The Board flrnds and concludes that there is no inconsistency in the City's amendment of the Parks Plan with respect to the ILA for the Sherwood Park ballfields. Issue 3(c.t and (fl - Inconsistenc.v between CFP and Parlcs Plan Ms. Petso identifies a one-yeax mismatch between the City's 2008-2014 CFP, adopted in December 2008, and the Parks Plan amendment, also adopted in December 2008, but showing the capital schedule for 2007-2013. Core G, at7-7. The Cþ responds that the Parks Plan was completed prior to enactment of the 2008 CFP, ild the *last portion of the comprehensive plan to be adopted will have more up-to-date cost estimates." City Response, at23. The Board acknowledges that portions of the GMA planning process are on different adoption cycles established by statute. Additionally, GMA planning processes take time, and often facts change and underlying assumptions are modified while an update or amendment to one portion is under consideration. Achieving one-to-one correlation between different ıomponents is not always practicable.a3 In the present case, the City of Edmonds began its Parks Plan update in March 2007. The City reasonably incoqporated the 2007-2013 CFP when the proposed Parks Plan amendments went forward to the Planning Board and City Council early in 2008. So long as the applicable year of the CFP is clearly labeled, as it is here, and the lag is not extended" the Board is not persuaded that consistency requires last-minute revisions or amendment of another section of the comprehensive plan to incorporate latest projects and numbers.# Issue 3(d.I - Failure to ldenti{v Planned Acquisitions Ms. Petso contends that, for the plan to be internally consistent, the action plan must'obeat some relation to the needs assessment." Petso Reply, at 18. She states that the 2008 Parks Plan documents the need to acquire full-sized athletic fields (Core G, at 4-l l), but, inconsistently, o contains no plan to acquire such fields,. disregards ILA access to two fields,o sizes neighborhood parks at2 acres - too small for fields, a3 The Fallgatter v. City of Sultan cases demonstrate the complexþ that is created when a Cþ doesn't complete key segments of its comprehensive plan and then faces inconsistency challenges in subsequent cycles. See, e.g., Fallgatter V v. Sultan, CPSGMHB Case No. 06-3-0003, Order Finding Partial Compliance [Re: Water Plan, Sewer Plan, and Critical Areas Regulationsl and Finding Continuing Noncompliance [Re: TIP and Failure to Actl (June 18,2007); Fallgatter VIII v. Sultan, CPSGMIIB 06-3-0034, Final Decision and Order (Feb. 13, 2007) (non-compliant Transportation Element and Capital Facilities Element); Fallgatter WII, Order Finding ContinuingNoncompliance and Invalidity [Re: TIP] (Oct. 3,2007). # On remand, the City may (with notice) choose to insert the 2009-2015 CFP, which will be adopted concurrently. Page 30 of59 flD-34005 Petso IIv. Cíty ofMnonds Fin¡l Decision and Order (lugust 17, 2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319/h Avenue SE, Suite 103, Olympia' WA 98504 Tet. (360) 586-0260 Fax (360) 664'897s Packet Page 990 of 1136 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 13 t4 l5 t6 t7 l8 l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3l 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4T 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 o provides an un-needed third skateboard park, and o shows a capital plan for annual "miscellaneous" acquisitions instead of acquisition of property for fields. Petso PHB, at19-21. Petitioner points out that there are no city-owned playfields for adult field sports in Edmonds, Core G at 3-19, and none proposed for acquisition in the next 6 years. Petso PIIB, at 20. Rather the CFP proposes to fund a third skateboard park and to allocate $200,000 yearly to "miscellaneous" acquisitions. The City responds that the City of Edmonds is almost futly built out, and major acquisition of recreational land is unlikely. City Response, at 3. The 2008 Parks Plan adopts a focus on providing unique regional opportunities on the downtown waterfronto while attempting to meet the demand for adult ball fields through interlocal agreement with neighboring cities and school districts. Id. at3l. For potential acquisitions, the City Parks Plan adopts a strategy of estimating park and recreational needs and then assigning "a general location for a potential park site. The actual location will be determined based on land availability, acquisition cost and the property o'wner's willingness to sell." City Response, at 3, citing 2001 Parks Plan, Core F, p. 6-1. Thus the 2008 Parks Plan identifies acquisition zones for various types of park facilities.*' The Board has not found, and Petitioner has not cited, any GMA provision or case law requiring a city or county to serve the specific recreational preferences of its population. The Legislature has made special provisions for playing fields in the GMA, but has not made them a required component of oity or county parks plans.o6 Thus, whether a city provides ball fields or off-leash dog areas, skateboard parks or s\¡/inrming pools, is within the discretion of the elected offrcials. The Edmonds 2008 Parks Plan acknowledges the lack of ball fields for youth and adult play, recognizing that many of the local fields are considered substandard for upper- age youth and adult teams. Core G, at4-11. The need statement is specific: The community expressed a need for more availability of fields, especially for adults. Many teams have to drive a long distance for freld availability and/or have to play at undesirable times of day. But the community priority "ranked moderately compared to other proposed facilities.".Id. ot Co." G, Figure "Recommended Plan Facilities," 3d page after Executive Summary; see also, Table 6-7, Proposed Facilities, at 6-19. 46 See RCW 36.704.030( l4); .17 0l (expired); . I 7 l. Page 3l of59 #09-3{n05 Petso IIv. City of Mmonds Final Decision and Order (lugust 17, 2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319 7th Avenue SE, Suite 103, Olympia' WA 98504 Tel. (360) s86-0260 Fax (360) 664-8975 Packet Page 991 of 1136 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 t0 l1 t2 t3 t4 15 l6 t't l8 19 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3l 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4t 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 The Board notes that the City of Edmonds has a history of acquiring and providing waterfront recreational opportunities.aT The City's public shorelines and dive park provide unique regional recreational opportunities unavailable in other South Snohomish County cities. City Response, at3l. The 2008 Parks Plan contains these acquisition provisions: o Acquire and develop at least seven additional acres of waterfront properly and property in the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center for regional park use. Core G, 6-7.o Acquire nearshore tidelands whenever feasible. Id. 6-7. o Nahral open space ... An additional three acres are needed üocations indicatedl Id.6- 11. r Acquire neighborhood park sites [designating four locations]. Id.6-1. The City has chosen to address the need for youth and adult playfields through interlocal agreements and partnerships with other agencies. City Response, at 3l; see Petso Ex. 6. ln particular, the City has identified inter-local development of sportsfields at the Old Woodway High School site as its preferred strategy to meet the long term demand for more ball fields."' Core G Table 6.7,at6-19. The Board finds and concludes that the Cþ has identified planned acquisitions and that these are consistent with needs identified in the Plan. Is sue 3 (e,t - Incons is tenclt re garding funding æailab ilitv Ms. Petso takes issue with the following statement in the 2008 Parks Plan at 4-15: ooThe current financial constraints of traditional funding sources limit park acquisition, improvement and maintenance to levels below the aspirational goals of the City." The City of Edmonds has traditionally relied on dedicated portions of the Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) to fund parks projects. A portion of REET Fund 125 is dedicated to parks purposes (other than acquisition) with remaining revenues allocated to transportation projects. REET Fund 126 is dedicated first to debt service and fixed capital costs on various municipal properties, with remaining revenues allocated to parks acquisitions. Core G, 7-1 and 2. However, state law does not require allocation of local REET revenues for parks purposes. That is a choice within the City's discretion. a? Edmonds has no public golf courses, for example, but it identifies hand-carry boat launch sites as important public recreational facilities on both fresh water and salt water. Core G, at 4-6; Core G, Executive Summary, maps of Existing Plan and Recommended Plan - Facilities in Executive Summary. a8 Ms. Petso characterizes the CFP allocation to the Old Woodway High School project as "FAKE' and "a red herring." Petso PHB, at 21. The Board assumes good faith on the part of the City, and so does not address these assertions. See, Fallgatter Y. v City of Suhan, CPSGMHB Case No. 06-3-0003, Final Decision and Order (June 29,2006), at2l; Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Agency v. City of Tuhnila, CPSGMHB Case No. 99-3- 0003, Final Decision and Order (Sep. 15, 1999), at7; Pilchuckv. Snohomish County, CPSGMIIB Case No. 95- 3-0047, Final Decision and Order @ec. 6, 1995), at 38. Page 32 of59 flXt-3{005 Petso II v. City of Hnonds Final Decision and Order (August 17, 2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319 7rh Avenue SE, Suite 103, Otympia, \ilA 98504 Tel. (360) s86-0260 Fax (360) 664'897s Packet Page 992 of 1136 I 2 3 4 ) 6 7 8 9 t0 ll 12 t3 t4 15 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3l 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4t 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Petitioner asserts that the language about "financial constraints of traditional funding sources" is inconsistent with the Capital Facilities Plan, o'which shows healthy positive balances in the REET funds." Petso PIIB, at 21. Ms. Petso states that REET Fund 125 and Fund 126, previously dedicated for parks and open space, have been diverted to transportation and other non-parks uses. She estimates ending cash balances of 52,577,000 in Fund 125 and $3.2 million in Fund 126 by the beginning of 2014. She concludes that the "funding shortfall" language is clearly enoneous. Id. at22. Ms. Petso indicates the language - "current financial conshaints of traditional funding sources" - was added to the Parks Plan in late November, 2008. The Boa¡d notes that by late November 2008, the national "housing bubble" had burst.ae The housing market crashed, major mortgage lenders went bankrupt, and prudent local govemments throughout V/ashington had to re-calibrate their revenue forecasts, especially those based on real estate excise taxes. Given the severity of the real estate downtum, the Board does not find the added Parks Plan sentence about "current financial conshaints of naditional funding sources" to be inconsistent with prior revenue assumptions. Indeed, the City's 2009-2010 Budget for REET Fund 126, which is allocated to special capital obligations of the City and parks acquisitions, shows 2008 revenues down by half from 2007 levels, with a similar projection for 2009 and 2010. Supp. Ex. No. 2.\\e City Council discussed this dilemma at the July 15, 2008, public hearing on the Parks Plan, taking note ofthe revenue shortfall. City Ex. 2,at13. The Board finds and concludes that the funding shortfall language of the 2008 Parks Plan is not clearly enoneous. Issue 3(Ð - Criteria of ECDC 20.00.050 The City of Edmonds requires comprehensive plan amendments to satisff the four criteria listed in ECDC 20.00.050: A. Consistent with Edmonds Comprehensive Plan B. Not depimental to public interest, health, safety, and welfare C. Maintains balance of land uses within the city D. If amending the map, the subject parcels are physically suitable to anticipated land use The findings for Ordinance 3717 are contained in Resolution 1185, which recites that the 2008 Parks Plan meets each of the relevant criteria. City Ex. l, at 1950. Ms. Petso challenges the frnding that the Parks Plan amendment maintains the balance of land uses in the City. Petso PHB, at22. The challenged finding states: The proposed amendment would maintain the appropriate balance of land use within the City by recognizing both the current ability of the City to develop ae The Board may take official notice of "notorious frcts." WAC242-02-260. Page 33 of59 ffi9-3{rc05 Petso IIv. City of Mmonds Final Decision and Order (August 17, 2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Borrd 319 ?th Avenue SE, Suite 103, Olympia' WA 98504 Tel. (360) 586-0260 Fax (360) 664'897s Packet Page 993 of 1136 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 t0 ll 12 l3 l4 15 16 t7 l8 l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3l 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4t 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 and maint¿in its parks as well as the City's desire to expand its parks system as funding becomes available. CityEx. l,at1950. Ms. Petso asserts, first, that the land use balance issue was never discussed by the Council and there can be no findings without deliberation. Second, she asserts that the land use balance is not maintained becauseo at Sherwood Park, the Plan'oconverts property from much-needed playfields to not at all needed housing." Petso PHB, at22. The Board reads the record differentþ. It appears to the Board that the City Council thoroughly debated the question of whether the Parks Plan amendments as a whole maintained the appropriate land use balance. For example, at the l:Nlay 20,2008 City Council meetine. Councilmember Wilson raised the concern that the Parks Plan revision had reduced totat p;k acreage.so Parks Director Mclntosh responded that the Parks Plan reflected an increase in total park acreage. Petso Ex. 19. Further discussion of the land use balance took place at the July 15, 2008, Council meeting, where Council members debated where and how the park ratio could be increased as the City's population grows. Petso Ex. 9, at 14-15. The minutes from the Council's special workshop of August 18, 2008, express the issue as "not wanting to scale back the vision for parks," or o'how a realistic plan could also be ambitious." Petso Ex. 1. The Board frnds that the City Council clearly considered maintaining the balance of parks in the City's land use plans and that the finding to this effect was made after deliberation in a series of Council meetings. It appears to the Board that the planned acquisitions in the Parks Plan @WAC, neighborhood parks, and open space) provide ample support for a City Council determination that total parks acreage would remain in balance.t' The Board concludes that Petitioner has not carried her burden of demonshating inconsistency with ECDC 20.00.050. Issue 3(h) - Esperance ond Comp Plan Purposes In this Legal Issue, Ms. Petso's prehearing brief references her concerns about the Esperance population numbers, which the Board has addressed above in Issue 3(c). Then Ms. Petso identifies several policies of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan (Core A) that, in her view, are contravened by the 2008 Parks Plan. s0 The minutes reflecÍ "I\¡[r. Mclntosh clarified the Park Comprehensive Plan reflected an increase in total park acreage. ... Councilmember Wilson understood Ms. Petso's çsmments that there had been a decrease in park inventory. Mr. Mclntosh assured there had not been a decrease in park acreage; the level of service numbers changed slightly due to a difference in classification." Petso Ex. 19, MLay 20,2008 City Council minutes, at 16. 5l Again, "maintaining a balance" of land uses does not require mathematical equivalency. Few comprehensive plan amendments would meet an equivalency standard. Page 34 of59 ffi9-3-m05 Petso IIv. Cityof Hmonds Final Decision and Order (August 17, 2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319 7rh Avenue SE, Suite 103, Olympia, WA 98504 Tel. (360) s86-0260 Fax (360) 664'897s Packet Page 994 of 1136 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 16 t7 l8 r9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3l 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4l 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Adequate Facilitíes. A core purpose of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan is "to facilitate adequate provisions for public services such as ... parks." Core A, p. l. Ms. Petso contends that the needs assessment in the Parks Plan shows lack of adequate playfields for older youth and adults, but no proposal to address the inadequacy, thus contravening the Comprehensive Plan policy. Petso PHB, at 23. The question of adequacy of facilities to address identified needs was resolved by the Board under Legal Issue 3(d) above. Maintaining Level of Service. Ms. Petso points out that the Comprehensive Plan requires development of concurrency management systems in order to achieve and maintain level of service standards. Core A, at 88. Ms. Petso states that the Parks Plan has no concrrrrency shategy but rather "allow[s] level-of-service standards to fall as population increases." Petso PHB, at23. The Board discusses this issue at length under Legal Issue 8, infra. Abandonment of Parks. The Comprehensive Plan provides that no park or other public facility shall be abandoned without a hearing examiner review and determination of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Core A, p.2 - Effect of Plan @) Public Projects (Abandonment Policy). The Abandonment Policy does no! on its face, distinguish between city-owned and other publicly-owned facilities. Since the 2008 Parks Plan abandons the Sherwood Park playfields without the required hearing, Ms. Petso contends that the Pa¡ks Plan is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Petso PHB at 23.Tllre Board notes ttnt 5.6 acres of the I l-acre Sherwood site have been acquired by the City and developed as a neighborhood park. For the remainder of the site, which has been sold for private development, the City has not provided the Board with any information about the required hearing exa¡niner review. The Board is remanding this matter to the City for a re-noticed public hearing. The Board will also require the City, at the Compliance Hearing, to demonsfrate consistency with its Comprehensive Plan Policy on abandònment of public facilities.52 Conclusion - Legal Issue 3 The Board finds and concludes that Petitioner has failed to carry her burden of demonstrating that the 2008 Parks Plan is internally inconsistent, inconsistent with the Edmonds CFP, or inconsistent with the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, except with respect to the policy of a required hearing examiner review before abandonment of a public facility. Legal Issues 3(a) through 3(g) are dismissed. Legal Issue 3(h) is remanded to the City of Edmonds for action to achieve consistency with Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Policy - Effect of Plan (B) Public Projects. 52 The remainder of the site has been purchased by a private developer for residential development. Generally such development requires sub-division and other permits, entailing hearing examiner review to determine, among other criteri4 consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Alternatively, the City might hold the required hearing examiner review at the time that it votes on termination of the ILA or acknowledges its expiration. Page 35 of59 #09-3{Xn5 Petso IIv. City of Mnonds f in¡l Decision and Order (August 17,2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319 ?th Avenue SE, Suite 103, Olympia, WA 98504 Tel. (360) 586-0260 Fax (360) 664'897s Packet Page 995 of 1136 I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 11 12 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3l 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4t 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 LEGAL ISSUE 4 Lønds Usefulfor Public Purposes The Prehearing Order states Legal Issue No. 4 as follows: Legal Issue 4. Lands Useful þr Public Purposes. Does the Parks Plan amendment violate RCW 36.70A.150 by failing to designate parks on properties not owned by the City as "lands useful for public pu4)oses," and failing to plan for acquisition of those properties? RCW 36.70A.150 provides: Applicable Law Each county and city that is required or chooses to prepare a comprehensive land use plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall identiff lands usefirl for public pu{poses such as utilþ corridors, transportation corridors, landfills, sewage treatnent facilities, storm water management facilities, recreation, schools, and other public uses. The county shall work with the state and the cities within its borders to identiff areas of sha¡ed need for public facilities. The jurisdictions within a county shall prepare a prioritized list of lands necessary for the identified public uses including an estimated date by which the acquisition will be needed. The respective capital facilities acquisition budgets for each jurisdiction shall reflect the jointly agreed upon priorities and time schedule. Discussion and Analysis Ms. Petso asserts that the City has failed to identiff lands useful for recreational purposes, failed to prepare a prioritized list and dates for acquisition, and failed to include the necessary moneys in its capital budget - thus failing to comply with GMA Section .150. Petso PHB, at 23. This Board examined the RCW 36.704.150 requirement in Sþ Valley v. Snohomísh County, CPSGMHB Case No. 95-3-0068c, Final Decision and Order (March 12, 1996), at 6l-62. Analyzngthe structure of the statute, the Board concluded that the .150 requirement was not "open-ended;" rather, "cities and counties must complete the identification [of lands useful for public purposesl by the time of adoption of their comprehensive plan." Id. at 62. Finding no such inventory in the Snohomish County plan, the Boa¡d remanded the plan for compliance with the .150 requirements. InAagaard I v. Cíty of Bothell, CPSGMHB Case No. 94-3-001lc, Final Decision and Order @eb. 21, 1995), the Board reviewed the City of Bothell's comprehensive plan to find its inventory of lands useful for recreation. The Board found compliance with Section.l50 in the Page 36 of59 #09-3{n05 Petso IIv. City of Mmonds Final Decision and Order (Augst 17, 2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319 7rh Avenue SE, Sulte 103, Olympia, WA 98504 Tel. (360) s86-0260 Fax (360)664-8975 Packet Page 996 of 1136 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 I 9 l0 ll 12 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 18 19 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3l 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4t 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 "maps and graphic depictions" of public parks, open space, trails, and a proposed trail.s3 Id. at 17-18. In other words, there was no requirement that the city produce a separate document of "lands useful for public purposes." In Piríe v. City of Lynnwoofl CPSGMHB Case No. 06-3-0029, Final Decision and Order (Apr. 9, 2007), the Board looked to a sub-a¡ea plan - the City Center Area Plan - for identification of lands useful for public purposes: The Board notes that the City Center Area Plan includes maps identifying parksþlazas and new ROW, i.¿. LUPP. Although not challenged by Petitioner, the Board additionally notes that the City Center Plan speaks to '?riorities for Public Investrnenf'and contains a section on o'Proposed Strategic Projects and Programs" that require capital investrnent. Additionally, a Comprehensive Plan (as well as subarea plans - the Cþ Center Area Plan) covers a twenty-year plaruring horizon; consequently, my investnents or acquisitions must occur withinthat timeframe. Pírie, at32 (citations omitted). In the Pirie case the Board concluded that the 'tapital facilities acquisition budget" requirement of Section .150 applies only to shared, or jointþ agreed to, public facilities, and is not applicabte to projects wholly vvithin ajurisdiction.'o The Board has long held that Section .150 does not mandate acquisition plans for specific parcels of recreational land. In Aagaard I, supra, Ms. Aagaard urged the City of Bothell to designate a dairy properly for a future park. The Board said: While Aagaard may be dissatisfied with the substantive planning made by the City for the Bill's Dairy property, there is no requirement in the Act that this particular parcel be designated for parks or public purposes. That decision is left to the substantive discretion of the City. Id. at 13. 53 lnthe Aagaarddecision, at 12, the Board said: This section of the Act [Section.l50] does not specifically require the City to identiff land for parks: the reference to "recreation" is not necessarily synonymous with "parks." 5a On a careful reading of Section .150, it appears to the Board that the last tbree sentences must be taken together to refer to facilities addressing "shared need." The county shall work with the state and the cities within its borders to identify areas of shared need for public facilities. The jurisdictions within a county shall prepare a prioritized list of lands necessary for the identified public uses including an estimated date by which the acquisition will be needed. The respective capital facilities acquisition budgets for each jurisdiction shall reflect the jointþ agreed upon priorities and time schedule. Page 37 of59 ú09-3{n05 Petso II v. City of Mmonds Final Decision and Order (lugust 17, 2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319 7th Avenue SE, Suite 103, Olympia, \ryA 98504 Tel. (360)s86-0260 Fax (360) 664-897s Packet Page 997 of 1136 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 I 9 l0 11 t2 13 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3l 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4l 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 The Supreme Court's affrmation of the Board's Green Valley decision tmderscores that RCW 36.704.150 does not require a plan for acquisition of specific parcels of land for parks. In Green Valley v. King County, CPSGMHB Case No. 98-3-0008c, Final Decision and Order (July 29, 1998) at 16, the Board stated: The verb "identi$" in the context of these sections conveys an intent to inventory or take stock of lands that may be useful for recreational purposes. Neither .150 nor .160 creates a duty to do anything with the inventory, such as regulate, protec! conserve, or provide parks facilities. In affirming, the Supreme Court observed that while a county must "identiff" lands usefril for recreation under Section .150,'there is no conservation mandate for recreational use." King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearíngs Board, 142 Wn.2d 543, 562 (2000) In short, RCW 36.704.150 imposes no obligation to acquire particular properties for recreational purposes or to conserve existing parks lands. In the present case, the Board finds that Rlmonds's 2008 Parks Plan cont¿ins an inventory of lands useful for public pu{poses for recreation. Public lands useful for recreation are identified in the maps of the 2008 Parks Plan: Core G, "Recommended Plan - Facilities," and "Recommended Plan - Connections.''55 The Board finds that the Plan also indicates priorities for acquisition, including neighborhood parks, waterfront and downtown areas, and natural open space.tu See Legal Issue 3(d), supra. The Board finds and concludes that the 2008 Parks Plan complies with the applicable provisions of RCV/ 36.704.150. Conclusion - Legal Issue 4 The Board concludes that Petitioner has not carried her burden of demonstrating non- compliance with RCW 36.704.150. The Edmonds 2008 Parks Plan identifies lands useful for public purposes and complies with the applicable requirements of Section .150. Legal Issue 4 is dismissed. LEGAL ISSUE 5 Goal9: Open Spøce and Recreatìon The Prehearing Order states Legal Issue No. 5 as follows: Legal Issue 5. Goal 9 - Open Space and Recreation. Does the Parks Plan amendment faii to comply with RCw1A.lOe,.oz0(9), RCw 36.704.010,tt *d Goal I on page 5 of the General Plann as follows: s5 The City also points to a detailed identification of walkways and bicycle routes, which serve both recreational and transportation needs. Cþ Response, at27; Core C and D. tu 8.g., Core G, at 6-1, 6-7, and 6-l l. 57 As previously noted, RCW 36.704.010 provides legislative findings for the GMA and does not provide the basis for a compliance challenge. Page 38 of59 ffi9-3{n05 Petso IIv. City ofMmonds final Decision ¡nd Order (August 17,2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319 7th Avenue SE, Suite 103, Olympia, WA 98504 Tel. (360) 586-0260 Fax (360) 664-8973 Packet Page 998 of 1136 I 2 5 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll I2 13 t4 15 t6 t7 l8 l9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4t 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 5(a). The Park amendment replaces planned park acquisition with unplanned, "politically convenienf' park acquisition. 5(b). The Park amendment drops an established ILA for park use when the public need for the ILA and the park use remains. RC\ry 36.70A.020(e) is the GMA r,*:i::iffi space and recreation: (9) Open space and recreation. Retain open space, enhance recreational opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks and recreation facilities. Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Goal I (Core A, at 5) restates GMA Goal9: o Open space and recreation: Encourage the retention of open space and development of recreational opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks. Discussion and Analysis Ms. Petso asserts that GMA Goal 9 and Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Goal I are violated by the 2008 Parks Plan "with its 'zero' acquisition for the ease and convenience of staff." Petso PHB, at24. She states: When a Cþ's park plan consists of ignoring an ILA allowing public access to two free playfields, and lists only 'miscellaneous' acquisitions in the CFP, the City is not 'planning.' 'Miscellaneous' is not a plan. Id. ln particular, she criticizes the purchase of Shell Creek Open Spaceo ooan election year purchase of puny park directly across the street from the City's largest park" and not meeting the City's criteria for open space acquisition. .Id. The Board has previously addressed the question of planned acquisitions in the Edmonds Parks Plan under Legal Issue 3(d) Failure to Identiff Planned Acquisition, and Legal Issue 4 Lands Useful for Public Purposes. The Board finds no merit in Petitioner's additional arguments under GMA Open Space and Recreation Goal 9 and Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Goal I. The Board finds many elements in the 2008 Parks Plan that implement Goal 9: o retentionofopenspace,o enhancement of a variety of recreational opporhrnities,o increased access to water, and Page 39 of59 #09-3-0005 Petso IIv. City of Edmonds Final Decision and Order (August 17, 2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319 7th Avenue SE, Suite 103, Olympia, WA 98504 Tel. (360)586-0260 Fax (360) 664-8975 Packet Page 999 of 1136 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1t T2 13 t4 l5 t6 t7 18 l9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4l 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 s0 o development of parks and recreational facilities. These may not be the recreational facilities and opportunities sought by this Petitioner, but the choice is within the discretion of the elected officials. In Gig Harbor et al v. Pierce County, CPSGMIIB Case No. 95-3-0016, Final Decision and Order (Oct. 31, 1995), at 13-14, the Board considered the Goal 9 language: "develop parks." RCW 36.70A.020(9) employs four verbs: encourage, conselve, increase and develop. ... The use of the word "develop" here is one of the more directive requirements. Yet the goal is silent as to what extent development should occur, and when, where and how. ... Because of the Act's vagueness, individual jurisdictions must decide to what extent they will develop additional parks. It also falls within local discretion to ascertain when, where, and how the goal of developing parks will be accomplished. Because the Act imposes no guidelines on the use of this discretion, the Board's review of a jurisdiction's action is limited to ascertaining whether a comprehensive plan was guided by the Act's planning goal to "develop parks." Complaints that insuffrcient numbers of certain types of parks are proposed, or will not be developed soon enough and/or at the proper locations must be addressed locally through the legislative process or at the ballot box. ln the Gig Harbol case, the Board took note of the County's plan to add neighborhood parks and to initiate school playground/Countyparkjoint use agreements. The Board concluded that the County's plan was guided by the Goal 9 requirement to "develop parks.".Id. The Edmonds 2008 Parks Plan also anticipates adding neighborhood parks and relying on interlocal agreements with the school dishicts and others for pþfields and other recreational opportunities. In addition, there a¡e ongoing plans to *deveþ parks" including, for example, an Aquatics Center, the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center, a neighborhood park at the Sherwood ballfield site, and a sportsfield complex at Old Woodway Higb School. Clearly the 2008 Parks Plan was guided by GMA Goal 9. Conclusion - Legal Issue 5 The Board concludes that Petitioner has not carried her burden of demonstrating non- compliance with RCV/ 36.70A.020(9) and Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Goal I. The Board finds and concludes that the City's adoption of the 2008 Parks Plan was guided by Planning Goal9. Legal lssue 5 is dismissed. LEGAL ISSUE 6 Mandotory Comprehensíve Plønníng The Prehearing Order states Legal Issue No. 6 as follows: Page 40 of59 ffi9-34005 Petso IIv. Cigof Hnonds Final Decision ¡nd Order (August 17,2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319 ?th Avenue SEn Suite 103, Olympia, WA 98504 Tet. (360) s86-0260 Fax (360) 664'8975 Packet Page 1000 of 1136 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 l8 L9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4l 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Legal Issue 6. Mandatory Comprehensive Planning. Does the Parks Plan amendment violate RCW 36.70A.070 as follows: 6(a). The Park amendment omits facilities from the inventory, fails to accurately develop level of service standards, and omits thousands of MUGA residents from the level of service calculation. 6(b). The Park amendment fails to include the ILA's for park use at Sherwood Park in the evaluation of intergovernmental opportunities for a regional approach to meeting park needs. 6(c). The Parks Plan was not correctly amended.ss Applicable Law RCIV 36.704.070(8) sets out the requirements for the parks element of a comprehensive plan: (8) A park and recreation element that implements, and is consistent with, the capital facilities plan element as it relates to park and recreation facilities. The element shall include: (a) estimates of park and recreation demand for at least a ten-year period; (b) an evaluation of facilities and service needs; and (c) an evaluation of intergovernmental coordination opportunities to provide regional approaches for meeting park and recreational demand. I)iscussion and Anaþis The GMA has four requirements for the parks element of a comprehensive plan: o Consistency with and implementation of capital facilities plan o Ten-year estimate of park and recreation demand o Evaluation of facilities and service needs o Evaluation of intergovernmental approaches for meeting park and recreation demand RCV/ 36.70A.070(8). On its face, the 2008 Parks Plan meets all four requirements. r The Board has already addressed the question of consistency \ilith the capital facilities plan. See Legal Issue 3(c) and (Ð above. o The Board is satisfied that the 2008 Parks Plan provides a fair estimate of park and recreation demand, both by its use of web and telephone surveys and by its deliberate 58 Legal Issue 6(c) has reference to the public participation process deficiencies discussed above under lægal Issue l. Page 4l of59 #09-34005 Petso IIv. Cíty of Hmonds tr'in¡l Decision and Order (August 17, 2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 3191h Avenue SE, Suite 103, Olympia' WA 98504 Tel. (360) s86-0260 Fax (360) 664-8975 Packet Page 1001 of 1136 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 15 l6 t7 18 t9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4t 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 overstating of the rate of population growth. Petitioner does not challenge the City's estimate of demand so much as the City's response to the demand. The City points out that the statute requires that the City must estimate the demand, not that it must meet it. HOM, at 57.o The Plan clearly evaluates facilities and service needs. Core G, Chapter 4. o Intergovernmental approaches are assessed to meet several areas of demand. See, e.g., Core G, at 3-3 to 3-5; 6-l Q neighborhood parks); 6-7 (tournament-level sports complex); 6-1 3 (connections). However, Petitioner Petso asserts that the 2008 Parks Plan fails due to inaccuracies in population projections, omission of facilities such as the Sherwood Park playfields, and inappropriate counting of other municipal facilities ris open space. Petso PIIB, at 24; Petso Reply, at22-24. The Board has addressed the issue of inaccuracies in population counts in Legal Issue 3(a), above, and the Sherwood playfietds ILA under Legal Issué lçU¡.se Petitioner also questions the City's inclusion of some publicly-owned land in its inventory of o'open space." Petitioner disputes the designation of the historical museum and the sidewalks and parking lots of cert¿in municipal facilities as oþen space." Petso Reply, at 23. She challenges the acreages in the City's Plan accordingly. In reviewing the Edmonds 2008 Parks Plan, the Board finds that "special use areas" and "beautification areas" are significant elements of the City's vision. The Executive Summary speaks to the City's "unique character reflected in streetscape, beautification and gathering spaces." Special use areas are public facilities such as plazas, the Historic Museum, 'Wade James Theater, and Willow Creek Hatchery. Core G, at 3-18. Beautification areas include landscaping along sheet rights-of-way and at public buildings, such as the Edmonds Treatment Plant and the Public Safety Civic Complex. Core G, at 3-3. One hundred fifty hanging flower baskets, street trees, and public art are also integral to the plan. Id. Flowers and decorative landscaping are promoted as atüacting visitors as well as enhancing real estate values and the quahty of life for residents and business people. Core G, Executive Summary. In the Plan's inventory of existing facilities, the beautification areas are lumped into the'bpen space" category. This adds 9.8 acres to the 305-acre total of open sprrce in the inventory. Core G, at 3-18. "Open space" is described in the Parks Plan as "undeveloped land left primarily in its natural state..." Core G, at3-2. As Ms. Petso points out, not all of the beautification areris fit neatly into the *open space" category. Some of them are developed civic properties that might more appropriately be included with the o'special use areas."uu se Further, Petitioner challenges compliance with the requirement to evaluate intergovernmental coordination opportunities. She contends that the City needs to assess the potential downside of relying entirely on intergovernmental parherships for adult soccer and softball fields, particularly under agreements that can be terminated unilaterally on short notice. Petso PHB, at 25. Ms. Petso cites no authority for this interpretation of the statutory standard. * For example, a civic parking lot that hosts the fanners' market. Page42of 59 ffi9-3{n05 Petso IIv. City ofMmonds Final Decision and Order (August 17, 2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319 ?rh Avenue SE, Suite 103, Otympia' WA 98504 Tel. (360) s86-0260 I'ax (360) 664-897s Packet Page 1002 of 1136 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1t t2 l3 t4 15 16 t7 18 t9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3l 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4t 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Petitioner's concern appears to be that any mischa¡acterization will skew the acreage totals that go into the LOS calculations. Thus the facilities assessment and/or evaluation of demand will be flawed and non-compliant with RCW 36.704.070(8). The Boa¡d is not persuaded that the possible mischaracterizatton of one or more of the beautification are¿ß amounts to failure to comply with the statute. In the context of the whole plan, the ¿rcreages in question are insignificant. The 2008 Parks Plan identifies the beautification areas - flower baskets, street trees, landscaped medians and civic properties - as a sþature feature of the City. Whether labeled "open spaces" or "s¡recial use areas,o'they are appropriately included in the City's "estimate of park and recreation demand" and "evaluation of facilities and services needs," as RCW 36.704.070(8) requires. The Board is not *left with a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been committed" in the City's inolusion ofbeautification areas in its 2008 Parks Plan. Conclusion - Legal Issue 6 The Board concludes that Petitioner has not carúed her burden of demonstrating non- compliance with the mandatory planning requirements for the parks and recreation element of RCIW 36.70^.070(8). tægal Issue 6 is dismissed. LEGAL ISSUE 7 Urban G¡owth Areø Planníng The Prehearing Order states Legal Issue No. 7 as follows: Legal Issue 7. Urban Growth Area Planning. Does the Parks Plan amendment violate RCW 36.70A.110 and RCW 36.704.130 by excluding acres and residents of Esperance from the inventory, level of service calculation, and map? Rcw 36.70A.n0 requires """n ""'"l1luåll}îo* growrh areas and to work witrr its cities to designate boundaries and to plan for the provision of urban services. RCW 36.704.130 requires comprehensive plans for UGAs to be updated on a regular cycle'to accommodate the urban growth projected to occur in the county for the succeeding twenty- year period." Page 43 of59 #09-3{n05 Petso IIv. Cíty of ùlnonds Final Decision end Order (Augtrst 17,2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319/h Avenue SE, Sutte 103, Olympla, WA 98504 Tel. (360) 586-0260 Fax (360) 664-8975 Packet Page 1003 of 1136 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 l1 t2 l3 l4 l5 l6 t7 18 19 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4l 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Discussion and Analysis Ms. Petso argues that "the population projection for Esperance] is wrong, and it appears the starting population is also wrong." Petso PHB, at25. The Board discussed and resolved the Esperance population question under Legal Issue 3(a), supra, finding the City's action not clearly enoneous. Petitioner makes no additional arguments regarding acreage, level of service, or mapping for the Esperance area. Conclusion - Legal Issue 7 Petitioner has not carried her burden of demonstrating non-compliance with the requirements for UGA planning in RCW 36.70A.110 and .130. Legal Issue 7 is dismissed. LEGAL ISSUE 8 Goøl 12: Publíc Føcílítìcs and Semíces The Prehearing Order states Legal Issue No. 8 as follows: Legal Issue 8. Goal 12 - Publíc Facílítíes and Services. Does the Parks Plan amendment fail to comply with RCW 36.704.020(12), RCW 36.704.010, 6r RCW 36.704.110, Goal 8.2 on page 3 of the General Plan and Goals I and L on page 5 of the General Plan, as follows: 8(a). The Park a¡nendment does not have adequate parks for current development and to meet development needs for the 2ù-year planning period. 8(b). The Park amendment does not have adequate parks for current development and adopts a z.eÍo level of service for adult baseball, softball and soccer fields and year round pools. RCw 36.70A.020(12) is the cMA r,^ilji';"Juulic Facilities and services: (12) Public facilities and services. Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards, RCIV 36.704.1 10(3) begins: 6r As previously noted, RCW 36.704.010 provides legislative findings for the GMA and does not provide the basis for a compliance challenge. Page 44 of59 ffi9-3{Xn5 Petso IIv. Cityof Hnonds Finel Dccision and Order (Augrtst 17, 2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearlngs Board 319 7th Avenue SE, Suite 103, Olympla, IVA 98504 Tel. (360) s86-0260 Fax (360) 664-8975 Packet Page 1004 of 1136 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1l l2 13 l4 t5 16 t7 18 l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4l 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 (3) Urban growth should be located first in areas already characterized by urban growth that have adequate existing public facilþ and service capacities to serve such development .... Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Goals I and L on page 5 reiterate GMA Goals 9 (Open space and recreation) and 12 @ublic facilities and services), respectively. Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Goal B-2 provides: The Comprehensive Plan and its implementation measures should be developed and maintained in such a manner to guarantee that there are sufficient resources to insure established levels of community services and that ample provisions are made for necessary open space, parks and other recreation facilities. Discussion and Anaþsis Ms. Petso contends that the rec¡mmended demand standards adopted in the 2001 Parks Plan, along with any new assessment of needs, compels a plan to acquire the acreage and fun{ the improvements necessary to meet the standards. Petso PHB, at26. The 2001 Plan called for 4 additional baseball fields, no additional softball fields, and2 additional soccer fields by 2010. Core F, at 4-20 to 4-25. The 2001 plan pointed out that lighting, maintenance, and access to existing fields could improve their availability. Id. However, with the School District's sale of the Sherwood Park site, two adult playfields have been lost. Does the GMA require that Edmonds's 2008 Parks Plan achieve the levels of service for parks that the 2001 Plan adopted? GMA Goal 12 requires the local government to ensure that the public facilities and services necessary to support development will be adequate '\rithout decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards." Petitioner here protests that current service levels for field sports have been decreased and local LOS standards have been reduced. ln McVíttie VI v. Snohomish Counqr, CPSGMIIB Case No. 0l-3-0002, Final Decision and Order (July 25, 2O0l), at 16-17, the Board focused on the Goal 12 phrase, o'those public facilities and services necessary to support developmezr." McVittie challenged the Snohomish County Capital Facilities Plan. Snohomish County had divided its Capital Facilities Plan into facilities oonecessary to support development,'o such as transportation, water and sewer, and 'oother facilities and services," such as law and justice and parks, that are not so directly linked to subdivisions and local development patterns. In a prior McVittie case, the Board had reviewed and sought to harmonize tlte various GMA provisions concerning capital facilities: McVittîe I v. Snohomish Counfl, CPSGMHB Case No. 99-3-0016c, Final Decision and Order (Feb. 9, 2000), at 22. The Board held that the capiøl facilities element must include public facilities such as parks and recreation [RCW 36.704.030(12) and (13)1, and that all such facilities must have minimum service levels IRC\M 36.70A.020(12)1, an inventory, needs assessment, and location and capacity of firture Page 45 of59 #09-34005 Petso IIv. City of ùlnonds Final Decision and Order (lugust 17, 2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearlngs Board 319 7th Avenue SE, Suite 103, Olympia, \ryA 98504 Tel. (360) s86-0260 Fax (360) 664'897s Packet Page 1005 of 1136 I 2 3 4 ) 6 7 8 9 l0 ll 12 l3 l4 l5 l6 t7 l8 19 20 2L 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3l 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4t 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 facilities to meet needs [RCW 36.70A.070(3)1. In addition, the CFP must explicitly state which of the listed public facilities are determined to be "necessary to support development" under Goal 12. The enforcement principles of Goal 12 apply only to those services necessary to support development. ln McVittie I, the Board concluded: *Goal 12 allows local govemments to determine what facilities and services are necessaxy to support development." McVittie I, at30. The Board upheld Snohomish County's determination that parks and recreational facilities were not in that category. Therefore, Goal 12 enables local governments to exercise their discretion in making reasoned deterrrination of which public facilities and services are necessary to support development within the jurisdiction. Id. at28. For facilities and services that a¡e not deemed "necessary to support development," the adopted LOS standards provide planning guidelines, not an enforcement mechanism. Id. at ll -12; McVittie VI, at 12-16. In the present matter, the City of Edmonds cla¡ifies that its parks sfrategy is based on the fact ttrat it is already a built-out clty. Clty Response, at 3. As such, it has chosen not to rely on developer fees or exactions of land to meet parks needs. Id. at 16-17. "Rattler, it identifies perceived needs and looks to meet those needs as opportturities arise within specific zones or service ateas." Id. Thus the Cþ of Edmonds has developed service standards for various types of parks and recreation facilities. These standards inform the City's planning for the future, but they do not compel the Cþ to make specific investnents. In the 2001 Pa¡ks Plan, for each type of park or sports facility, the Cþ calculated a'þresent ratio" of acres or fields per 1000 population and a "recommended demand standard" by 2010. Core F, App. B. In the 2008 Parks Plan, the 'þresent ratio'o is called the "existing level of service" (ELOS) and the "recommended demand standard" is called the 'þroposed level of service" (PLOS) and is projected out to 2025. Core G, Table 4.2 at 4-15.62 The 2008 Plan does not adopt a level-of-service standard for sports fields.63 However, the Facility Inventory Worksheets in Appendix A of the 2008 Parks Plan show ELOS, PLOS, and NPRA LOS calculations. These worksheets show that 62 The 2008 Parks Plan explains, at Core G,4-2: Traditionally, need or level of service standards were given as the 'existing ratio' or 'recommended standard.' The existing ratio is the existing amount of parks divided by the existing population within the planning area. It is expressed in terms of acres per 1000 population.-these standards are shown in relation to general national and state standards for ıomparison only, but each community is uniqug so these general standards need to be weighed against individual community values and perceptions. The recommended standard, therefore, iJderived tl¡ough the public process and tested against ttre factors previously discusse4 such as availability and financing. It is then expressed in terms of acres per 1000 population. ut Some of the acreage for such fields is presumably inctuded in acreage totals for community or regional parks. Page 46 of59 ffi9-3{n05 Petso IIv. City of Hnonds Final Decision and Order (August 17, 2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319 7th Avenue SE, Suite 103, Olympia, WA 98504 Tet. (360) 586-0260 Fax (360) 664-8975 Packet Page 1006 of 1136 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 l1 t2 t3 t4 l5 t6 t7 l8 l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3l 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4l 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 planned development of a sportsfield complex at the Old Woodway High School site will satisff the City's (and NPRA) standards for adult soccer fields.* One of the options for a jurisdiction that determines that it cannot, for wlatever reason, meet its level of sórvice goals,is to amend those goals. McVittîe 1,at36,ft. 50.65 The City has done just that. The Cþ has characterized the changes in LOS as "not significant," explaining: "These are soft goals, not hard concrurency goals, which would be used neither to [impose] developer exactions nor to match growth to these LOS.' Cþ Response, at 17. The Board agrees. The Board finds and concludes that the City's action in adopting the LOS levels and funding sûategies in the 2008 Parks Plan was within its discretion and did not thwart GMA Planning Goal 12. Conclusion - Legal Issue 8 Petitioner has not carried her burden of demonstrating the City was not guided by GMA Planning Goal12, RCW 36.70A.020(12), or failed to comply with RCW 36.704.110. Legal Issue 8 is dismissed. LBGAL ISSUE 9 Actíon in ConformíE wífh the Plan The Prehearing Order states Legal Issue No. 9 as follows: Legal Issue 9. Actíon in Conþrmíty with PIan. Does the CiE's action in adopting the Parks Plan amendment violate RCW 36.70A.120 because the City failed to act in conformity with the General Plan? Applicable Law RCW 36.7 0 ^.120 provides: Each [city] shall perform its activities and make capital budget decisions in conformþ with its comprehensive plan. s As previously noted, Petitioner discounts this item. 65 See also, West Seattle Defense Fundv. City of Seaale, CPSGMIIB Case No. 94-3-0016, Final Decision and Order (Apr. 4, 1995), at 6O; Bennett v. CW of Bellevue, CPSGMIIB Case No. 0l-3-0022c, Final Decision and Order (Apr. 8,2002), at ll.The Board has indicated that setting or lowering LOS levels is within the discretion of the elected officials, and LOS levels are not reviewed by the Board. 1d. Page 47 of59 #09-34005 Petso IIv. Cíty of Hnonds Fin¡l Decision and Order (Augtrst 17, 2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319 7th Avenue SE, Suite 103, Olympia' \ryA 98504 Tel. (360)586-0260 Fax (360) 664'897s Packet Page 1007 of 1136 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll t2 13 t4 l5 16 t7 18 19 20 2T 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4t 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Discussion Petitioner's brief on this issue consists primarily of conclusory statements which this Board need not consider.66 Nevertheless, the Board notes that Petitioner reiterates two concerns which have been addressed above. First, Petitioner asserts that the Parks Plan includes capital decisions not in accord with the Comprehensive Plan, by proposing to use parks funds for "sidewalks, parking lot repair at the senior center, purchases of a city hall, roof repairs or seismic work."o' Petso PHB, at 26. This concem was addressed at I-egal Issue 3(e), supra. Second, she states that *abandoning the [Sherwood Park] playfields without the required hearing" is a capital decision that does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan. /d. This matter was addressed under Legal Issue 3(h), supra, the Board concluding that the matter will be remanded to the City for action consistent with the abandonment policy in the Comprehensive Plan. Conclusion - Legal Issue 9 The Board remands Ordinance 3717 to the City for action consistent with its Comprehensive Plan abandonment policy. Petitioner has not carried her burden of demonstrating the City violated RCW 36.70A.120 in any other respect by failing to act in conformity with its Comprehensive Plan. VI. $rvArIDIrY The Board has previously held that a request for invalidity is a prayer for relief and, as such, does not need to be framed in the PFR as a legal issue. See King County v. Snohomish County, CPSGMHB Case No. 03-3-0011, Final Decision and Order (Oct. 13, 2003), at 18. Here, Petitioner Petso has frarned a request for a deterrrination of invalidity. Petso P[IB, at26-27. * See, e.g., Abbey Road Group v. City of BonnEt Lake, CPSGMHB Case No. 05-34048, Final Decision and Order (May 15, 2006), at 15; MBA/Brink v. Pierce County, CPSGMHB Case No. 02-3-0010, Final Decision and Order (Feb. 4, 2003), at 2l-24; Cave/Cowan v. City of Renton, CPSGMIIB Case No. 07 -3-0012, Final Decision and Order (July 30, 2007), at 15. 67 As indicated, REET Fund 126 is dedicated first to debt service on various municipal properties, with remaining revenues allocated to parks acquisitions. A portion of REET Fund 125 is dedicated to parks purposes (other than acquisition) with remaining revenues allocated to transportation projects. Core G, 7-1 and 2. Re- allocating these revenues is within the City Council's discretion. Page 48 of59 ffi9-34005 Petso IIv. City ofHmonds Fin¡l Decision and Order (August 17, 2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319 7th Avenue SE, Suite 103, Olympia, WA 98504 Tel. (360)s86-0260 Fax (360) 664-8975 Packet Page 1008 of 1136 t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 1l 12 13 t4 l5 16 17 l8 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3l 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4l 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Applicable Law RC\ry 36.704.302,the GMA's invalidity provision, provides in part: (1) A board may determine that part or all of a comprehensive plan or development regulation are invalid if the board: (a) Makes a finding of noncompliance and issues an order of remand under RCW 36.70A.300; (b) Includes in the final order a determination, supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law, that the continued validþ of part or parts of the plan or regtrlation would substantially interfere with the fulfillment of the goals ofthis chapter .... Discussion and Analysis In the discussion of notice and public participation, supra, the Board found and concluded that the City of Edmonds's adoption of Ordinance No. 3717 was clearly erroneous and non- compliant with the effective notice requirements of RC\M 36.70A.035 and .140. In the discussion of the GMA consistency requirement, the Board found an inconsistency with the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan pohcy conceming abandonment of a public facility, in violation of the consistency requirements of RCW 36.70A.070 (prearnble) and RCW 36.70A.120. The Board is remanding Ordinance No. 3717 with direction to the City to comply with the requirements of the GMA. The Board has sometimes held local government actions invalid where the GMA requirements for notice and public participãtion or consistency have been violated.6s Here, however, the Board is not persuaded that "the continued validity of part or parts of the plan tduring the period of remandl would substantially interfere with fulfillment of [GMA] goals." The Board has concluded that the City's adoption of Ordinance3Tl7 was guided by the three GMA goals at issue here: Goal 9 - Open space and recreation, Goal 11 - Citizen participation and coordination, ffid Goal 12 - Public facilities and services. The Board establishes an abbreviated compliance schedule accordingly and declines to enter an order of invalidity. u" See, e.g., Ketb v. Snohomish County, CPSGMIIB Case No. 9743-0012c. Final Decision and Order (July 30, 1997) (County redesipated land as commercial at the last minute at the last meeting); Homebailders v. Bøinbrídge Island, CPSGMHB Case No. 00-3-0014, Final Decision and Order (Feb. 26, 2001) (Cþ notice indicated revision of wetland regulations without more specific information about how wetlands would be affected); WHIP/Moyer v. Covington, CPSGMHB Case No. 03-3-0006c, Final Decision and Order (July 31, 2003) (City adopted last minute rezone). Page 49 of59 ffi9-3{Xn5 Petso IIv. City oîHnonds Fin¡l Decision ¡nd Order (August 17, 2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319 7th Avenue SE, Suite 103, Olympia' WA 98504 Tel. (360) s86-0260 Fax (360) 664-8975 Packet Page 1009 of 1136 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 t2 t3 t4 l5 t6 t7 l8 t9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3t 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4l 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Conclusion The request for a determination of invalidity is denied. VII. ORDER Based upon review of the Petition for Review, the brieß and exhibits submitted by the parties, the GMA, prior Board Orders and case law, having considered the arguments of the parties, and having deliberated on the matter, the Board ORDERS: l. Petitioner has failed to carry her burden of demonstrating that the City's adoption of Ordinance 3717 (a) did not comply with RCW 36.704.010, .1300 .070(8), .ll0(2), .150; (b) violated or \ilas inconsistent with the provisions of ECDC Chapter 20.00 or the cited Edmonds Comprehensive Plan goals and policies (except for the abandonment policy); or (c) was not guided by GMA Plaruring Goals 9, l l, and 12. 2. Legal Issues 1(a) and (c),2,3(a) ttrough (g),4, 5, 6(a) and (b), 7, and 8(a) and (b) are dismissed with prejudice. 3. The City of Edmonds's adoption of Ordinance 3717 was clearly erroneous in two respects: o The City did not comply with RCìy 36.704.035 and .140 by failing to provide effective notice of the proposed a¡nendments to its 2001 Parks Plan. o The Cþ has not demonstrated consistency with Comprehensive Plan Policy B on page 2 (abandonment policy) with respect to the Sherwood Park playfields, thus failing to comply with RCW 36.70{.070(prearnble) and .120. 4. Therefore the Board remands Ordinance 3717 to the City of Edmonds with direction to the City to take legislative action to comply with the requirements of the GMA as set forth in this Order. 5. The Board sets the fotlowing schedule for the City's compliance: o The Board establishes l)ecember 15, 2009, as the deadline for the Cþ of Edmonds to take appropriate legislative action. o By no later than Janutyl 41 2010, the City of Edmonds shall file with the Board an original and three copies of the legislative enacünent described aboveo along with a statement of how the enactnent complies with this Order (Statement of Actions Taken to Comply - SATC). The City shall simultaneously serye a copy of the legislative enactment(s) and compliance statement, with attachments, on Petitioner. By this same date, the City shall also file a "Compliance Index," listing the procedures (meetings, hearings etc.) occurring during the compliance period and materials (documents, reports, Page 50 of59 #09-3{n05 Petso IIv. Cityof Hmonds Final Decision and Order (lugwt 17, 2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management llearings Board 3t9 Zù Avenue SE, Suite 103, Olympia' \ryA 98504 Tel. (360) s86-0260 Fax (360) 664-897s Packet Page 1010 of 1136 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 I 9 t0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 t7 18 l9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3l 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4t 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 analysis, testimony, etc.) considered during the compliance period in taking the compliance action. By no later than January 18r 2010,6e the Petitioner may file with the Boa¡d an original and three copies of Response to the City's SATC. Petitioner shall simultaneously serve a copy of her Response to the City's SATC on the City. By no later than X'ebruary 1, 2010, the City may file and serve a Reply to the Petitioner's Response. Pursuant to RCW 36.704.330(1), the Board hereby schedules the Compliance Hearing in this matter for 10:00 a.m. February 8, 2010, at a location to be announced. If the parties so stipulate, the Board will consider conducting the Compliance Hearing telephonically. If the City of Edmonds takes the required legislative action prior to the December 15,2009, deadline set forth in this Order, the Cþ may file a motion with the Board requesting an adjusûnent to tlis compliance schedule. So ORDERED this 17û day of August,20Og. CENTRAL PUGET SOI.]ND GROWTH MANAGEMENT TIEARINGS BOARD Board Member 4^",rw-A"t^' Margaret-A. Pageler Board Member Note: This order constitutes a final order as specified by RCW 36.704.300 unless a pafy files a motion for reconsideration pursuant to WAC 242-02-832.70 6e January 18, 2010, is also the deadline for a person to file a reguest to participate as a'þarticipanf in the compliance proceeding. .See RCW 36.704.330(2). The Compliance Hearing is limited to determining whether the City's remand actions comply with the lægal Issues addressed and remanded in this FDO. 70 pt nus,t o RCW 36,704300 d¡is is a ñnal order ofllre Board. Recomiderdiqr. Pu¡suæt toVIAC?A2Û2{3Zyouhavetcn(10)daysûomüedæofmailingofùisO¡dertoûleamdionforrcconsideratiott. The original and thrce oopicsofamdio¡r for ¡econside¡atioru togettrerwiürary argummt in $ryportflrercoÊ, shouldbe ûledwith ürcBord by mailing faxing or otrerwise delivøing the original ard three copies ofüre motion for reconsiderdior dL€cdy to úe BoaÍ{ witfi a copy served on all otlrø parties ofrecord. Filing mcms actuat r€ceipt offte doûrnent d thc Board offce. RCW 34.05.010(6), WAC?A242A&,V/AC24,2-û0- 330. The filing of a motion for reoonsideration is not a prerequisite for ûling a petition forjudicial review. Judicial Review. Any party aggrieved by a final decision oflhe Board may appeat tlrc docisiot to stryøior court as prcvided by RCW 36.704300(5). Ploceedings for judicial ¡eview mey be instih¡ted by ûling a paiition in $Ѐrior cout according to üe pocedues sp€cifid in Page 5l of59 fl19-3-{n05 Petso IIv. Cíty of Hnonds Fin¡l Decision and Order (lugust 17, 2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319 ?th Avenue SE, Suite 103, Olympla, \ilA 98504 Tel. (360) 586-0260 Fax (360) 664-8975 Packet Page 1011 of 1136 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 I7 l8 19 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3l 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4l 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 APPENDIX A CHRONOLOGY OF PROCEDI]RES CPSGMHB Case No. 09-3-0005 Peßo II v. Círy of Edmonds On February 18, 2009, the Central Puget Sound Growttr Management Hearings Board (the Board) received a Petition for Review (PFR) from Lora Petso @etitioner or Petso), pro se. The matter was assigned Case No. 09-3-0005, and is hereafter referred to as Petso II v. City of Edmonds. Board member Margaret Pageler is assigned as the Presiding Officer for this matter. Petitioner challenges the City of Edmonds's @espondent or City) adoption of Ordinance No. 3717 amending the City's Comprehensive Plan with regard to the Parks and Recreation Plan. The basis for the challenge is non-compliance with various provisions of the Growth Management Act (GMA or Act). On February 25,2009, the Board received a Notice of Appearance from W. Scott Snyder of Ogden Murphy Wallace, P.L.L.C. on behalf of the City of Edmonds. On February 24, 2009, the Board issued a Notice of Hearing setting the date for the Prehearing Conference and a tentative schedule for the case. On March 18,2009, the Board received Petitioner's First Amended Petition for Review. Presiding Officer Margaret Pageler convened the Prehearing Conference at 10:00 a.m. on March 23,2009, in the Board's offices at 800 Fifth Avenue, Seattle. Board members David Earling and Edward McGuire were also present. Petitioner Lora Petso appearcd pro se. Scott Snyder represented the City of Edmonds and \Mas accompanied by Edmonds Parks Director Brian Mclntosh. Also in attendance was Nina Carter, Board member of the 'Westem Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. The Board discussed with the parties the possibility of settling or mediating their dispute to eliminate or narrów the issues. The Board encourages such efforts and can anange for mediation or settlement assistance by members of the Eastem or Westem Growth Management Hearings Boards. If the parties are pursuing settlement, with or without Board assistance, they may so stþulate in a request for a settlement extension, which must be signed by the Cþ and Petitioners. The Board is empowered to grant settlement extensions for up to ninety days. The Board reviewed its procedures for the Hearing, including the_$ling of the Index to the record below; Core Documents to be provided by Respondent"; briefing and exhibits; chapter 34.05 RCW, Part V, Judicial Review md Civil Enforce¡nent The petition forjudicial rwiew ofthis Order shall bo ñled with lhe appbpriate court and se¡ved on üre Bor4 the Office oftlre Atiomey Gureral, ard all parties wiûrin thfuty days after sen¡ice ofthe final order, æ p}ôuiáø in nCW 34.05-542. Servioe on the Board may be accompiished in person or by mail, but service on rtre Board means açt¡al rcceþt pf ú,rc äocumerit at the Boûrd offc€ within úirty da¡rs after service of the fnal order. A petition forjudicial review may not be s€rved m fie Board by fax or by elecû,onic mail. Service. This O¡der wæ served on you the day it was dcposited in üre United States mai¡. RCW 34.05.010(19) tt The Board identified the following Core Documents to be provided by Respondent Cþ of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, Parks Plan before and after amendment (or line-througb version), CFP' ECDC Chapter Page 52 of59 #0t-34m5 Petso II v. City of Hmonds X'inal Decision and Order (August 17, 2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319 7rh Avenue SE, Suite 103, Olympia' WA 98504 Tel. (360)586-0260 Fax (360)664'8975 Packet Page 1012 of 1136 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 16 t7 l8 19 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3l 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4t 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 dispositive motions; the Legal Issues to be decided; and a final schedule of deadlines. The City submitted three Document Indices: Section I - Planning Board Minutes, Section 2-City Council, and Section 3 - Parks Deparünent. On March 26,2009, the Board issued its Prehearing Order including a restatement of Legal Issues. Petitioner filed a timely Motion to Amend and Objection to Prehearing Order, and on April 3,2009,the Board issued a Corrected St¿tement of Legal Issues. On March 23,2009,the City provided a Document Index in three sections (1) Planning Board Minutes, (2) City Council, and (3) Parks Department. On April T the City submitted Revised Document Indices (in three sections) and the following Core documents: o Core A - Edmonds Comprehensive Plan as amended 2007 o Core B - Edmonds Comprehensive Plan effective 12108 o Core C - Edmonds Transportation Element,2002 o Core D - 2000 Bikeway Comprehensive Plan r Core E - Walkway Plan"2002 Update o Core F - Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan 2001 o Core G - Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan 2008 On April 7, 2009, the Board received the First Stipulation as to Facts, Documents and Procedures, on behalf of both parties. On April 9,2009, Petitioner filed a Motion to Supplement the Record with 14 atüachments. The Cþ filed its Response and Objections to Motion to Supplement on April 23,2009. On April 30,2009, the Board received Petitioner's Rebuttal to Response to Motion to Supplement the Record. The Board issued its Order on Motion to Supplement the Record on May 11,2009. Brieß and exhibits on the merits were timely filed as follows: o May 28,2009 - Petitioner's Prehearing Brief with Petso Exhibits 1-27 @etso PIIB) r June 11,2009 - Reply Brief of Respondent City of Edmonds with City Exhibits l-12 (City Response) o June 18, 2009 - Petitioner's Reply Brief with Petso Exhibits 28-33 (Petso Reply) In conjunction with its response briet the City filed Second Amended Document Indices. Presiding Offrcer Margaret Pageler convened the Hearing on the Merits at 10:00 a.m. on June 25,2009, in the Board's offices at 800 Fifttr Avenue, Seattle. Board member David Earling was also present. Petitioner Lora Petso appeared pro se, accompanied by Roger Hertrich. Scott Snyder represented the City of Edmonds and w¿rs rùccompanied by Edmonds Parks 20.00 or relevant portions. Two copies of each Core Document must be provided to the Board by the daûe indicated in the Final Schedule for filing of motions. Page 53 of59 #09-3-0005 Petso IIv. City of &lnonds Final Decision and Order (lugrrst 17, 2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board ¡tg lh Avenue SE, Sulte 103, Olympia, \ryA 98504 Tel. (360) s86-0260 Fax (360) 664'897s Packet Page 1013 of 1136 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll 12 l3 t4 15 l6 t7 18 r9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4l 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Director Brian Mclntosh and by Carry Porter of the Ogden Murphy law firm. Court reporting services were provided by Christy Sheppard of Byers and Anderson. The hearing was adjourned at li.30 p.m. The hearing provided the Board the opporttrnity to ask clariffing questions of the parties. At the Hearing on the Merits, the presiding officer asked the City to provide a complete copy of the consuliing contract for the Parks Plan amendment process. The Board received the document - identified as Index 2-G - on July 1,20A9. The Board also ordered a transcript of the hearing. The transcript was received on June 30. Page 54 of59 flD-3{n05 Peßo IIv. City ofMmonds Final Decision and Order (lugust 17,2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319 7th Avenue SE, Suite 103, Olympia' WA 98504 Tel. (360) 586-0260 Fax (360)664'8975 Packet Page 1014 of 1136 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll 12 l3 t4 15 l6 l7 l8 19 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3l 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4T 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 APPEIYDIX B Legal Issues in CPSGMHB Case No 09-3-0005 Legal Issue I. Notice and Public Participation.T2 Didthe City's adoption of the Parls Plan amendment fail to comply \¡fith the requirements of RCW 36.704.010, RCW 36.70A.020(11), RCW 36.704.035, RCW 36.704.130, RCW 36.70^.140, Goal 8.1 on page 3 of the General Comprehensive Plan, and, as applicable, \IYAC 305-195-6000 and ECDC 20.00.010-050, as follows: 1(a). Significant changes to the Park amendment were considered and adopted without providing an opportunity for public comment and without providing the additional information requested by council and the public. l(b). The City has failed to either establish or broadly disseminate a public participation progftrm providing early and continuous participation, and, to the extent any program exiJts, it was not followed for the Park amendment for reasons including failure to publish notice of the planning board hearing. l(c). The City failed to provide meaningful (web input disregarded due to possibility of abuse) and fairly representative (composition of committee not representative of the community) public input into the development of the Park amendment. Legal Issue 2. Once-per-year Amendment.T3 Did the City's adoption of the Parks Plan amendment fail to comply with the requirements of RCW 36.704.130, RCW 36.704.010' RCW 36.70A.020(11), RCW 36.704.035, RCV/ 36.70A.140, Goal B.l on page 3 of the General Comprehensive Plan, WAC 305-195-630, and ECDC 20.00.010 in that proposed plan amendments \ilere considered more than once per year, and were-not considered ðoncurrently so that cumulative effects could be ascertained and the integrity of the comprehensive plan preserved. Legal Issue 3. Inconsístency.Ta Is ttre Parks Plan amendment inconsistent with the GMA, thJ General Comprehensive Plan and the CFP, and internally inconsistent, in violation of RCW 36.704.010, Rcw 36.704.070 (preamble), Rcw 36.704.070(8), RC\M 3630A.110(2), RCW 36.704.130, WAC 365-195-070, -500, and ECDC 20.00.050(A)' as follows: 3(a). The Park amendment does not use the same population projections or the same park acreage as the General Plan and CFP. 72 Legal Issue I incoqporates Issues l, 2,3, and 12 from the First Amende.d Petition for Review. 73 Lesal Issue 2 is issue 2 in the First Amended Petition for Review. 7a Ligallssue 3 incorporates Issues 4-9, 15 and 2l from the First Amended Petition for Review. Page 55 of59 fl19-3{X¡05 Petso IIv. City of Hmonds Final Decision and Order (lugust 17, 2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319 7th Avenue SE, Suite 103, Olympia, \ilÄ 98504 Tel. (360) s86-0260 Fax (360) 664-8975 Packet Page 1015 of 1136 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 I 9 l0 ll t2 l3 t4 l5 l6 17 r8 t9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3t 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4t 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 3(b). The CFP specifically illustrates the playfield at Sherwood Park as an interlocal project to be funded in the CFP, but the Park amendment has dropped reference to the itÀ's for park use at Sherwood Park, does not include Sherwood Park as a Park on the Park map, and omits the playfields at Sherwood Pa¡k from the field inventory. 3(c). The Pa¡k amendment does not include the same projects or calendar years as the CFP and is internally inconsistent regarding funding. 3(d). Park needs are identified, significant funding is identified and available, but the Parks Plan fails to identiff planned acquisitions which would address identified park needs. 3(e). Language was added to the Park amendment to suggest that firnding is not available, when, in fact, significant funding is available, particularly for park improvement. 3(Ð. The Park amendment was not current when adopted since the plan was adopted in late 2008 but contains a funding plan dating back to 2007 and 2008, and the plan expressly admits that population numbers were deliberately not updated. 3(g). The Park amendment fails to apply EDCD 20.00.050 or meet the standards contained therein. 3(h).The Park amendment maps do not include the Esperance UGA, and the amendment is inconsistent with purpose E on page I of the General Plan, effect B on page 2 of the General Plan, LOS goals on page 85 of the General Plan, and concwrency goal A.2. onpage 88 of the General Plan. Legat Issue 4. Lands Useful þr Pubtic Purposes.Ts Does the Pa¡ks Plan amendment viılate RCW 36.704.150 by failing to designate parks on properties not owned by the Crty as "lands useful for public puq)oses," and failing to plan for acquisition of those properties? Legat Issue 5. Goat 9 - Open Space and Recreation.T6 Does the Parks Plan amendment faii to comply with RCW 36.70A.020(9), RCW 36.704.010, and Goal I on page 5 of the General Plan, as follows: 5(a). The Park amendment replaces planned park acquisition with unplanned, 'þolitically convenient" pa¡k acquisition. 5(b). The Park amendment drops an established ILA for park use when the public need for the ILA and the park use remains. 7s Lesallssue 4 is Issue 20 from the Fint Amended Petition for Review. tu Lelal Issue 5 incorporates Issues 10 and l1 from the First Amended Petition for Review. Page 56 of59 ffi!r-3{n05 Petso IIv. City ofMnonds Final Decision and Order (August 17,2009) Centr¡l Puget Sound Growth Management llearings Board 319 7th Avenue SE, Suite 103, Olympia, \ilA 98504 Tel. (360) s86-0260 F¡x (360) 664-8975 Packet Page 1016 of 1136 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 1l l2 l3 l4 t5 t6 t7 l8 t9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4L 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Legal Issue 6. Mandatory Comprehensive Planning.z Does the Parks Plan amendment violate RCW 36.70A.070 as follows: 6(a). The Park amendment omits facilities from the inventory, fails to accurately develop level of service standards, and omits thousands of MUGA residents from the level of service calculation. 6(b). The Park amendment fails to include the ILA's for park use at Sherwood Park in the evaluation of intergovemmental opportunities for a regional approach to meeting park needs. 6(c). The Parks Plan was not correctþ amended. Legal Issue 7. Urban Growth Area Planning.Ts Does the Parks Plan arnendment violate RCW 36.70A.110 and RCW 36.70A.130 by excluding acres and residents of Esperance ûom the inventory, level of service calculation, and map. Legal Issue 8. Goal t2 - Public Facilitíes and Servíces.7e Does the Parks Plan amendment faii to comply with RCW 36.70A.020(12), RCW 36.704.010, RCW 36.704.110, Goal 8.2 on page 3 of the General Plan and Goals I and L on page 5 of the General Plan, as follows: 8(a). The Park amendment does not have adequate parks for current development and to meet development needs for the 20-year planning period. S(b). The Park amendment does not have adequate parks for ctrrent development and adopts a zero level of service for adult baseball, softball and soccer fields and year round pools. Legal Issue 9. Action in Conformity with Plan.8o Does the City's action in adopting the Parks Plan amendment violate RC\M 36.70A.120 because the City failed to act in conformity withthe General Plan? 77 Legallssue 6 incorporates Issues 16, 17, and l8 from the First Amended Petition for Review. 78lngallssue ? is issue 19 in the First Amended Petition for Review. 7e lngallssue 8 incorporates Issues 13 and 14 ûom the First Amended Petition for Review. 80 Legal Issue 9 is issue 22 nthe First Amended Petition for Review. Page 57 of59 ffi9-34005 Petso IIv. City of Edmonds Fin¡l Decision and Order (lugust 17, 2009) Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319 7th Avenue SE Suite 103, Olympia' WA 98504 Tel. (360) s86-0260 Fax (360) 664'897s Packet Page 1017 of 1136 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll t2 13 t4 l5 l6 t7 18 l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 JJ 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4l 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 APPENDIXC-ECDC2O.OO tìdnronds Comrnunity Devolopnrent Cttdc ChaPter 20.00 CHANGDSTO TI{Iì COMPIìEI{IìNSIVD PLAN Sections: 20.00.000 Soo¡re' 20.00.010 Subnrittalofanlelrthnents' 20.0A.020 Notice. 20.00.030 lìeceipt by nrayor n¡rcl clerk certificatioll. 20.00.040 Couucil actioll orì amcrrdments' 20.00.050 F'indings. 20.00.000 ScoPe. The rcquircments of tbis chaptcr apply to proposed clranges to tlre existing corìrPrÊheu- sive ¡rlan and to future adoption of any rcw elcrnents to the plan or a trew plarr. [Ord' 30?6 $ I,1996ì. 20.00.010 Submittalofnrnendmcnts' hr otrler to meet flre rcquimrcuts of tltc Waslrington Stâte Glowth Managetnent Act' Chapter 36.?0A'lìCW, the city shall untlertake conr¡rrchetr.sive plau amendments otrly otrce psr year. All ame¡rdrnents requestcd by the city or ¡rrivate p¿utics shall be rcviewed conct¡r- rcntly ttl cusure tbat the iDtegrity of tltc cotn- prchcnsivc ¡rlatr is ¡rreservecl. All conr¡rrchcn- sivc pla[ amendnretrt requcsls al'e to be ¡rnlvicled in writing, on a form provicled by-the ilircctor, attd are to tre subnrittecl no later than I)ccenlber 3 lst ofevery year' or tl¡c first busi- ncss day aftcr l)ecembcr 3l' should that daûe occur on a holiclay or weekcntl- Tlre coutrcil rìray, fot' good cause shown, acccpt applica-- tions aftcr the prescribed cleadline. [Ord' 3278 ti l, 1999; O¡d.3076 $ l, 1996J. 20.00.020 Notice. U¡ron receipt of a conpleted application for a contprelrcnsive plan altrendmcnt, or upon clilectitl¡t ot'the couttcil, and following dc¡rat't- merrt tcview, hearings shall be sct befolc the ¡rlanning board and city council- ln lieu of all othcr ¡ncthotls of giving rrotice, ttotice shall be 20.00.050 givcn for a public heariug on a proposed ãnung" to the conr¡xehe¡rsive plan by publica- tion ãt least l0 days beforc thc hcalitlg in a . news¡ra¡rel of general circulation in ttrc city of [ìclmonãs fls set forth in ECC l'03'030 settit¡g forth the tinre, ¡llace and ¡lurposc of thc hsar- ing. Continucd lrcarings rnay bc held by rhe plãrrning boa¡rl or city council, but ¡ro addi- iional nóticcs need be ¡rublished' [Ord' 3076 $ l, t996J. 20.00.030 tìeceipt by mayor and clerk certllication. Within 20 wolking days following thc adop- tiorr of a lccomnendation by the planning boarcl, the board shall ha¡rsmit a copy of its rccotn¡nendatiolls to tltc city council tbrougb the offrce of thc nrayol', who slrall acknowl- edge rcccipt thereofand direct the city clerk or apfr'opliate deputy clerk to ceüiry tlreleotr ths dàie of rtceipt. [Or d. 3076 $ I , 19961' 20.00.040 Cotrncil action on r¡nendmcnts' Within (r0 days of reccipt of lbc planning boatd's recomtnenclation and tlre conrplction of thc public hcaring rcquired by ECDC 20.00.020, the city council shall consider the reco¡nmcntlation and nray at that tiìne ot'sttb- sequently âPprovc' approvo with r¡lodifica- tions, or ttisa¡r¡love the proposed amelrdlnent bascd upon thc lindings reçired by this clup- ter anã any other ap¡rlicablc provision* Amerldtnetrts to tlre colnp¡olrensive plan shall be ado¡rtetl by ordiuancc. [Old' 3076 $ I' te96l. 20.00.050 Findings. Ame¡ìd!ìlent to the contptehensive plan nray be adopted only if thc follo\lrittg findings arc ¡nrde: A. The proposed antendmettt is consistent with the provisions of the Ed¡nonds Cotn¡:re- hensivc Plan ancl is hr thc public interesf; B. Thc proposed atnetrdntelrt rvould not bc cletrintental to the ¡rublic irrtertst, health, sat'ety or welfare of the r:itY; Page 58 of59 fl19-3{X105 Petso IIv. City olMmottds Final Decision and Order (August 17, 2009) (lì(:vlsÖd 2/001 Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board 319 ?rh Avenue SE, Suite 103, Otympia' \ryA 98504 Tel. (360) s86-0260 Fax (360) 664'897s 20-3 Packet Page 1018 of 1136 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 t0 ll 12 l3 t4 t5 l6 t7 l8 l9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3l 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4l 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 20.05.000 C. 'l'he pro¡rosecl amcudrnent would nrain- tai¡r tlur ap¡rrn¡rriate balancc of land uscs wíthin tlre city; and D. In the casc of an amendment to the com- ¡rrchensive policy plan ma¡r, the sulrject ¡rat- ccls ar.e physictlly suitatrle l'or the lequestecl larxl use dcsignatiorr(s) and the antici¡rated land use clcvelo¡rrnent(s), including, but not lilrrited to) access, provision of'utilities, conr- patibility with adjoining larxluses and absence of ¡:hysical constraints. [Ord. 3076 $ l, 1996J. (Revis(ìd 2-100) rrrr¡tr lr€c¡srt n ¡lru \rrucr \August t t, zuuv) Chapter 20.05 CONDI'TIONAI, T'SE I'I}IìMTTS Sectitlns: 20.05.000 Sco¡re. 20.05.010 û'iteria and findings. 20.05.020 (ìcneral requiretncnl.s. 20.05.000 Sco¡re. A conditional usc pernrit nray lre apptovecl in cascs wherc it is autlrcr'iræ<l lty stâte law alrcl/or city ordinarmes i¡tclt¡dilìg tlìe zoning ordinance (llCDC 'l'itles I6 and l7) and wlten thc fìndings requirecl by this cha¡rter ca¡r trc m¿¡de. 20.05.010 Criteria and fÌn<lings. No co¡rditional use ¡:ermit rnay be approved unless all of the findings in this seotion ca¡r be nrade. A. 'l'bat the proposecl use is consistcnt with the conrprehensíve ¡rlan. [3. Zoning Orclinancc. 'fhat the pro¡rosed use, arlcl its location, is consistcut rvitb the pur- ¡rose.s of tlre zorring ordinance and the ¡rur¡roses of thc zonc clistrict in which the u.sc is to be Iocated, ancl that the pro¡rosed use will rncct all a¡r¡rlicable rcquiremeuts o1' the zonirrg ordi- nance. C. Not Dctrime¡rtal. '[hat thr¡ use, ¿ìs apprr:ved or ct¡uditio¡tally a¡rproved. will not be significantly detr:imental to the public health" salbty and welfärc, and to nearby pri- vate propc[ty or irn¡rroveme¡lts unless the u.se is a public neoessity. D. Transferability. 'I'he lrear:ing examiuer shall determine whethel' the conditional use ¡reurrif shall run with the lanrJ or shall be per- sonal. If it runs with the lalrd ancl the hearing examiner fulds it in the public intet'est, the hearing examiner may lequire that ìt be ¡ecorded in tlre foun of a covenânt witlr the Snohomisb County auditor. 'fhc lrearilrg exauriner tnay als<t clctermiue whetlter tlre cc¡n- clitional use pernrit nray or mày not be usecl by a subsequent user of thc sante p) oì)et'ty. 7t-4 Central Puget Sound Growth Management llearings Board 319 7h Avenue SE, Suite 103, Otympia' WA 98504 Tel.(360)s86-0260 Fax (360) 664'8975 Packet Page 1019 of 1136 CPSGMHB Case No. 09-3-0005 Lora Petso, Petitioner v Cìty of Edmonds, Respondent DECLARATION OF SERVICE: I certiff that I mailed a copy of the Final Decision ¡nd Order to the persons and addresses listed hereon, postage prepaid, in a receptacle for United States mail at Seattle, Washington, on August 17, 2009. Pet. 206/542-7464 phone 206/542-3205fü VotePetso@aol.com Lora Petso 10616 237ú Place S.IV. Edmonds, WA 98020 Resp. 206/447-7000 phone 206/447-0215 lü ssnvder(à.omwlaw.com W. Scott Snyder, Rlmonds CþAttorney Ogden Murphy Wallace P.L.L.C. 1601 FifthAvenueo Suite 2100 Seattlq rüA 98101 Packet Page 1020 of 1136 AM-2679 11. Capital Facilities Plan Element Update for 2010-2015 Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/15/2009 Submitted By:Kim Karas Submitted For:Noel Miller Time:30 Minutes Department:Public Works Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Continued public hearing on the Capital Facilities Plan Element Update for 2010-2015 to the City's Comprehensive Plan. The proposal updates the City's Capital Facilities Plan to include improvements, additions, upgrades or extensions of City infrastructure such as transportation, parks, stormwater, sewer and water systems along with other public facilities necessary to implement the City's Comprehensive Plan; incorporates projects from the recently updated Transportation and Parks Plan Elements; adds additional capital projects which extend beyond 2015, and separates the maintenance, replacement and preservation projects from the Capital Facilities Plan Element and into a separate Capital Improvements Plan. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approve the Capital Facilities Plan Element Update including any Council recommended modifications. Previous Council Action On August 18, 2008, the 2008 - 2014 Capital Facilities Plan Update was approved. Narrative This item is a continuation of the public hearing for the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Element Update to the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. The CFP is required by the Growth Management Act (GMA) to identify and plan for capital projects that support the City’s plans to accommodate population growth. History. The City’s use of a Capital Improvements Program (CIP) to assist in its budget planning can be traced back to at least 1973, when Resolution #284 adopted guidelines for the “establishment and categorization of the capital improvement program for the City of Edmonds.” While not a requirement, the CIP provided a way to link and plan for capital improvements (including new or expanded facilities as well as ongoing maintenance activities) to budget planning and decision-making. The CIP established at that time had a 5-year time frame. With the advent of the Growth Management Act (GMA) in 1990, a new requirement for a “Capital Facilities Element” (CFP) was established. As described in WAC 365-195-315, the Capital Packet Page 1021 of 1136 Facilities Element is a required component of a GMA comprehensive plan, and the CFP must contain at least the following features: (a) An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations and capacities of the capital facilities; (b) A forecast of the future needs for such capital facilities; (c) The proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities; (d) At least a six-year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes; and (e) A requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities plan element, and financing plan within the capital facilities plan element are coordinated and consistent. Park and recreation facilities shall be included in the capital facilities plan element. WAC 365-195-315 also advises that a CFP should be updated at least biennially, but it doesn’t mandate an annual update. When the City was presented with this new requirement, it was decided to basically take the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) that the City was already preparing and adopt that as part of the Comprehensive Plan so as to satisfy the GMA mandate for a 6-year Capital Facilities Plan (CFP). This required extending the CIP from 5 to 6 years, but it meant that another document didn’t have to be produced. In City usage, the CIP and CFP became one-in-the-same, and the acronyms have been used interchangeably ever since. CIP vs. CFP In actual fact, the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) and Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) are not the same thing; they arise from different purposes and are in response to different needs. While the CIP is a budgeting tool that includes capital and maintenance projects, tying those projects to the various City funds and revenues, the CFP is intended to identify longer term capital needs (not maintenance) and be tied explicitly to City levels of service standards. Critically, the CFP is also required to be consistent with the other elements (transportation, parks, etc.) of the Comprehensive Plan, and there are restrictions as to how often a CFP can be amended. There are no such restrictions tied to the CIP. Updating the CFP This year the intent has been to clarify and separate the CIP from the CFP so that each can serve the purpose for which it was intended. Conceptually, you can think of them as containing some unique elements, with some common features (essentially, they share the 6-year capital projects list). The diagram shows this graphically on Exhibit #1. As previously mentioned, part of the reason for separating out the CFP has to do with the relatively restrictive GMA process requirements, and the fact that it need not be redone each year (only every other year). Separating out the CFP from the CIP will also serve to clarify their separate roles (budgetary vs. long-term growth planning), and will make it easier to use the CIP as the budgetary tool it was intended to be. Packet Page 1022 of 1136 As has traditionally been done, the City will continue to develop an annual six-year CIP, but will make it more closely tied to the City budget cycle. The Current CFP Proposal Contained within the City Council packet is a proposed Capital Facilities plan for the 2010-2015 period and is shown along with supporting project documentation. The inventory of existing capital facilities is identified within the various comprehensive plan elements of the City’s transportation, parks, water, sewer and stormwater systems, along with a forecast of future needs and the proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities. The CFP project listing as attached outlines a six-year or greater plan which identifies financing sources that could be used to implement these projects. The CFP contains a list of projects that need to be expanded or will be new capital facilities in order to accommodate the City’s projected population growth in accordance with the Growth Management Act. Thus, capital projects that preserve existing capital facilities are omitted from the CFP. These types of preservation projects are identified within the six-year capital improvement plan (CIP) along with capital facility plan projects which encompass the projected expenditure needs for all city capital related projects. As stated at the December 1, 2009 public hearing, the Capital Facilities Plan Element can be amended on an on-going basis throughout the year as part of an amendment to the City’s budget or as part of an update to other elements of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The recommendation by the City Attorney is to approve the CFP update at tonight’s meeting in order to make it consistent with the changes made from the Transportation Plan Element update approved in October, 2009 and the Parks Comprehensive Plan Update approved in December, 2008. If there are any unresolved concerns, the City Council can continue those discussions into next year as part of the next update cycle. In addition, the City Council will be holding public hearings in 2010 on the updates to the Stormwater and Water Comprehensive Plan Elements. At that time, the six-year capital improvement projects will be revised to support these plans, which in turn, may likely result in amendments to the Capital Facilities Plan. In summary, the Capital Facilities Plan Element is a dynamic document that can be amended periodically to meet the on-going opportunities, needs and desires of the community. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1 - CIP vs. CFP review Link: Exhibit 2 - Capital Facilities Plan Document 2010-2015 Link: Exhibit 3 - CFP Powerpoint Presentation Link: Exhibit 4 - State Requirements under the RCW & WAC Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/10/2009 02:02 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/10/2009 02:27 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/10/2009 02:38 PM APRV Form Started By: Kim Started On: 12/10/2009 08:54 Packet Page 1023 of 1136 Form Started By: Kim Karas Started On: 12/10/2009 08:54 AM Final Approval Date: 12/10/2009 Packet Page 1024 of 1136 Packet Page 1025 of 1136 Packet Page 1026 of 1136 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 2 7 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 2 8 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 2 9 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 3 0 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 3 1 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 3 2 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 3 3 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 3 4 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 3 5 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 3 6 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 3 7 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 3 8 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 3 9 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 4 0 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 4 1 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 4 2 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 4 3 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 4 4 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 4 5 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 4 6 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 4 7 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 4 8 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 4 9 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 5 0 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 5 1 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 5 2 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 5 3 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 5 4 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 5 5 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 5 6 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 5 7 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 5 8 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 5 9 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 6 0 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 6 1 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 6 2 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 6 3 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 6 4 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 6 5 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 6 6 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 6 7 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 6 8 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 6 9 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 7 0 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 7 1 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 7 2 o f 1 1 3 6 Capital Facilities Plan Capital Facilities Plan Element Update 2010 Element Update 2010 --20152015 Edmonds City Council Edmonds City Council Public Hearing Public Hearing December 15, 2009 December 15, 2009 Packet Page 1073 of 1136 Historical Context Historical Context Edmonds’ CIP (Capital Improvements Edmonds’ CIP (Capital Improvements Program) dates from 1973 Program) dates from 1973 GMA required CFP (Capital Facilities GMA required CFP (Capital Facilities Plan) dates from the 1995 Plan) dates from the 1995 Comprehensive Plan, mandated by Comprehensive Plan, mandated by GMAGMA Packet Page 1074 of 1136 CIP vs. CFP CIP vs. CFP The terms CIP and CFP have been The terms CIP and CFP have been used interchangeably used interchangeably However, the reasons for doing them However, the reasons for doing them ––and the requirements and the requirements ––areare differentdifferent Packet Page 1075 of 1136 CIPCIP CIP (Capital Improvements Program) CIP (Capital Improvements Program) dates from 1973 dates from 1973 ––Res. #284 Res. #284 Identified improvements tied to a five Identified improvements tied to a five -- year project & funding schedule year project & funding schedule Budgeting tool, intended to tie budget Budgeting tool, intended to tie budget decisions to 5 decisions to 5 --year project needs year project needs Includes capital and maintenance items, Includes capital and maintenance items, related to various utility and special funds related to various utility and special funds Packet Page 1076 of 1136 CFPCFP CFP (Capital Facilities Plan) dates from CFP (Capital Facilities Plan) dates fromCity’s first GMA comprehensive plan, City’s first GMA comprehensive plan,completed in 1995 completed in 1995 Identified improvements tied to a six Identified improvements tied to a six --yearyearproject & funding plan project & funding plan In response to GMA mandate In response to GMA mandate Since City already had 5 Since City already had 5 --year CIP, “easy” year CIP, “easy”solution was to add another year and solution was to add another year andinclude the CIP as the GMA include the CIP as the GMA --mandatedmandatedcapital facilities plan capital facilities plan Packet Page 1077 of 1136 Packet Page 1078 of 1136 CIP/CFP Comparison CIP/CFP Comparison GMAGMABudgetBudgetReason?Reason? CFPCFPCIPCIP NoNoYesYesMust include Must include Maintenance?Maintenance? YesYesYesYesMust include Must include Capital?Capital? 66--YrYr 2020--YrYr66--YrYrTime Frame? Time Frame? GMAGMANoneNoneMandate?Mandate? Packet Page 1079 of 1136 What’s different this year? What’s different this year? In the past, CFP = CIP In the past, CFP = CIP This year, the CFP is being separated to This year, the CFP is being separated to simply address GMA requirements simply address GMA requirements The CFP now includes long The CFP now includes long --range capital range capital projects in addition to the required 6 projects in addition to the required 6 --yearyear capital funding list capital funding list Preservation & maintenance projects are Preservation & maintenance projects are not part of the CFP, but are still part of not part of the CFP, but are still part of the CIP the CIP Packet Page 1080 of 1136 Why the change? Why the change? GMA Capital Facilities Plan procedures are GMA Capital Facilities Plan procedures are restrictive and provide less flexibility (e.g. restrictive and provide less flexibility (e.g. amend only once per year or with budget amend only once per year or with budget amendment)amendment) GMA only requires updating the CFP GMA only requires updating the CFP biennially (WAC 365 biennially (WAC 365 --195195--315)315) CIP is a financial budgeting tool and CIP is a financial budgeting tool and should logically not be tied to a land should logically not be tied to a land use/GMA schedule use/GMA schedule Packet Page 1081 of 1136 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUL AUGJUN SEP NOV DECOCT Annual Plan Coordination Schedule City Council Retreat CIP Comprehensive Plan Capital Facilities Plan Budget Strategic Plan TBD Preliminary Final Approval Prep / Development ID Issues Input / Feedback Packet Page 1082 of 1136 (1) Requirements. This element shall contain at least the following features: (a) An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations and capacities of the capital facilities. (b) A forecast of the future needs for such capital facilities. (c) The proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities. (d) At least a six-year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes. (e) A requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities plan element, and financing plan within the capital facilities plan element are coordinated and consistent. (2) Recommendations for meeting requirements. The capital facilities element should serve as a check on the practicality of achieving other elements of the plan. The following steps are recommended in preparing the capital facilities element: (a) Inventory of existing capital facilities showing locations and capacities, including an inventory of the extent to which existing facilities possess presently unused capacity. Capital facilities involved should include water systems, sanitary sewer systems, storm water facilities, schools, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection facilities. (b) The selection of levels of service or planning assumptions for the various facilities to apply during the planning period (twenty years or more) and which reflect community goals. (c) A forecast of the future needs for such capital facilities based on the levels of service or planning assumptions selected and consistent with the growth, densities and distribution of growth anticipated in the land use element. (d) The creation of a six-year capital facilities plan for financing capital facilities needed within that time frame. Projected funding capacities, are to be evaluated, followed by the identification of sources of public or private funds for which there is reasonable assurance of availability. The six-year plan should be updated at least biennially so that financial planning remains sufficiently ahead of the present for concurrency to be evaluated. (e) The needs for capital facilities should be dictated by the phasing schedule set forth in the land use element. (f) Provision should be made to reassess the land use element and other elements of the plan periodically in light of the evolving capital facilities plan. If the probable funding for capital facilities at any time is insufficient to meet existing needs, the land use element must be reassessed. At the same time funding possibilities and levels of service might also be reassessed. The plan should require that as a result of such reassessment, appropriate action must be taken to ensure the internal consistency of the land use and capital facilities portions of the plan. The plan should set forth how, if at all, pending applications for development will be affected while such a reassessment is being undertaken. [Statutory Authority: RCW 36.70A.190 (4)(b). 92-23-065, § 365-195-315, filed 11/17/92, effective 12/18/92.] WAC 365-195-315 Capital facilities element. WAC 365-195-315: Capital facilities element. Page 1 of 112/9/2009 Packet Page 1083 of 1136 From Municipal Research: Is a capital facility plan required before expending Growth Management Act real estate excise tax (REET) funds? For the first quarter percent REET money, the initial language in the 1990 Growth Management Act was that these funds could be used primarily for capital projects in a capital facilities plan element for jurisdictions planning under the GMA. The 1992 revisions changed that language to solely for capital projects in a capital facilities plan element. RCW 82.46.010(2). More detailed information on the real estate excise tax is available on a separate Web page. What must be included in a capital facilities plan element? Each comprehensive plan prepared under the GMA must include a capital facilities plan element. RCW 36.70A.070(3) of the GMA states the following: A capital facilities plan element consisting of: (a) An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations and capacities of the capital facilities; (b) a forecast of the future needs of such capital facilities; (c) the proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities; (d) at least a six-year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes; and (e) a requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities plan element, and financing plan within the capital facilities plan element are coordinated and consistent. Park and recreation facilities shall be included in the capital facilities plan element. Packet Page 1084 of 1136 AM-2687 12. Ordinance Amending the Comprehensive Plan to update the Capital Facilities Element for 2010-2015 Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/15/2009 Submitted By:Robert English Time:5 Minutes Department:Engineering Type:Action Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan to update the Capital Facilities Element for 2010-2015. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approve the proposed Ordinance (Exhibit 1). Previous Council Action Council held a public hearing on the proposed amendment on December 1 and the hearing was continued to December 15. Narrative The City Attorney has prepared an Ordinance to amend the Comprehensive Plan and update the Capital Facilities Element for 2010-2015. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1: Proposed Ordinance Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Engineering Robert English 12/10/2009 04:47 PM APRV 2 Public Works Sandy Chase 12/10/2009 04:59 PM APRV 3 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/10/2009 05:29 PM APRV 4 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/11/2009 08:31 AM APRV 5 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/11/2009 08:32 AM APRV Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 12/10/2009 01:55 PM Final Approval Date: 12/11/2009 Packet Page 1085 of 1136 {WSS752594.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 1 - 0006.900000 WSS/gjz 12/3/09 ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO UPDATE THE CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT FOR 2010 - 2015 AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, public participation programs were adopted for the 2009 Comprehensive Plan amendments by: • Adoption of a public participation plan for the transportation plan as a part of the City Council’s approval of consultant contracts and scope of work; • By Resolution No. 1206 adopting a public participation program for the sustainability and capital facilities elements. WHEREAS, the amendment to the Capital Facilities Plan 2010-2015 (CFP) was considered at public hearings before the Planning Board on November 4, 2009 and a public hearing before the City Council on December 1, continued to December 15, and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that both individually and collectively, the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan (including the adoption of the Community Sustainability element as a new element to the Plan): • Are consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and are in the public interest. • Would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the City; Packet Page 1086 of 1136 {WSS752594.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 2 - • Would not impact or do not affect the appropriate balance of land uses within the City. • The City Council further finds that because the amendments do not amend the map, the findings required by ECDC 20.01.001(D) are not applicable; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Edmonds Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended by the adoption of the Capital Facilities Plan as amended. Section 2. A copy of the amendment is attached hereto as Exhibits A and incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi- cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY W. SCOTT SNYDER Packet Page 1087 of 1136 {WSS752594.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 3 - FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Page 1088 of 1136 {WSS752594.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 4 - SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ____ day of ___________, 2009, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO UPDATE THE CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT FOR 2009 - 2015, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2009. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 1089 of 1136 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 9 0 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 9 1 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 9 2 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 9 3 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 9 4 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 9 5 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 9 6 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 9 7 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 9 8 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 9 9 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 1 0 0 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 1 0 1 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 1 0 2 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 1 0 3 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 1 0 4 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 1 0 5 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 1 0 6 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 1 0 7 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 1 0 8 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 1 0 9 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 1 1 0 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 1 1 1 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 1 1 2 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 1 1 3 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 1 1 4 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 1 1 5 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 1 1 6 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 1 1 7 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 1 1 8 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 1 1 9 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 1 2 0 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 1 2 1 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 1 2 2 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 1 2 3 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 1 2 4 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 1 2 5 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 1 2 6 o f 1 1 3 6 P a c k e t P a g e 1 1 2 7 o f 1 1 3 6 AM-2685 14. Report on City Council Committee Meetings Edmonds City Council Meeting Date:12/15/2009 Submitted By:Sandy Chase Time:15 Minutes Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Information Review Committee: Committee Action: Information Subject Title Report on City Council Committee Meetings of December 8, 2009. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff N/A Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attached are copies of the following City Council Committee Meeting Minutes: •12-08-09 Community Services/Development Services Committee •12-08-09 Finance Committee •12-08-09 Public Safety Committee Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: 12-08-09 CSDS Committee Link: 12-08-09 Finance Committee Link: 12-08-09 Public Safety Committee Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/10/2009 02:02 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 12/10/2009 02:27 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/10/2009 02:38 PM APRV Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 12/10/2009 12:20 PM Final Approval Date: 12/10/2009 Packet Page 1128 of 1136 M I N U T E S Community Service/Development Services Committee Meeting December 8, 2009 Elected Officials Present: Staff Present: Council Member Dave Orvis, Chair Rob English, City Engineer Council President DJ Wilson Rob Chave, Planning Manager Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Engineering Program Manager Bio Park, City Attorney The committee convened at 6:05 p.m. B. Briefing on temporary homeless shelters and encampments. Council President Wilson opened the meeting beginning with this item. City Attorney Bio Park explained the need to acknowledge shelters and encampments in the city’s codes, and that it could be done on an interim basis using the existing reasonable accommodation process or by adopting an interim zoning ordinance establishing a procedure and standards for approval. Council President Wilson emphasized that these are appropriate services for institutions such as churches to provide, and that the city should not make it overly cumbersome for them to achieve their mission. It was felt that an interim ordinance would be the best way to proceed. ACTION: The Committee asked the City Attorney’s office to prepare an interim zoning ordinance to address the issue for Council action on December 15, 2009, with the City Attorney to advise Council if this isn’t feasible. A. Continued discussion on regulations concerning bikini barista stands. Councilmember Orvis indicated this was a continuation of the previous (November) meeting on this item. Bio Park provided a short summary of the city’s existing regulations covering adult entertainment, which focuses on regulating conduct that would be considered lewd or defined as being covered under the adult entertainment definitions. Mr. Park felt the existing regulations would also address any issues regarding behavior that would be associated with these new types of businesses, but that there was not a dress code or equivalent regulation that would be applicable so long as the behavior was not considered to be “adult entertainment.” Council member Orvis asked that the specific actions taken by the City of Everett be reviewed to see if there was something ‘missing’ from Edmonds’ codes. ACTION: No action taken at this time; further discussion will be held at the Committee meeting in January. C. Discussion regarding dogs and Sunset Beach. Parks and Recreation Director Brian McIntosh understood that a request had been received asking possible permission if someone was walking south on the beach with their dog toward Brackett’s Landing North Park (where dogs are not allowed) and they were trapped by the incoming tide could they continue through the park to get to the legal Main Street railroad crossing. Mr. McIntosh stated that the north end of the beach is an important Brants geese migratory resting stop where they dine on exposed eel grass at low tide from February to April. He also stated that if people were on the Packet Page 1129 of 1136 CS/DS Committee Minutes December 8, 2009 Page 2 2 beach they had likely crossed the tracks illegally to get there as there is no legal BNSF crossing between Main Street and the Meadowdale Beach underpass north of the City boundary. Granting a request such as this may encourage illegal crossings. In a true emergency returning through the park would not be challenged. ACTION: The CS/DS Committee had no recommendation. D. Discussion about removing colored street markings. Councilmember Orvis reviewed Councilmember Plunkett’s memo in regards to removing colored street markings. Staff expressed concerns about the feasibility of removing the paint marks required by the utility locate laws. The markings could be covered over with black paint on asphalt surfaces. Eventually the black paint wears off which then exposes the original color paint. Black would also not match the concrete surfaces. Pressure washing off the paint usually scars the concrete and asphalt surfaces. The paint usually fades and wears off in a matter of months. The committee decided that more research is needed for this item. ACTION: Continue discussion at the January Committee meeting in order to obtain input from the City Attorney. E. Update of the Stormwater Code (Chapter 18.30). Jerry Shuster presented the information in the agenda memo regarding the reason for the update and the approach that is being used. The “Small Site Projects” section of the code was written specifically for single family homeowners, which are involved in the majority of the development or redevelopment project in Edmonds. This section attempts to provide protection of City infrastructure and the environment without imposing unreasonable burdens on homeowners. This section will include “pre-sized” stormwater management techniques in client handouts that will not require the services of an engineer for design and use. Jerry told the Committee members that during an Open House held on November 19, there was a lot of interest in saving existing trees and replacing new ones to improve stormwater management on parcels; perhaps even a credit for retaining existing or planting new trees. Staff has seen the research that shows that the more trees (or other native vegetation) on a site, the less of an impact that site will have on the environment from stormwater runoff. The new code will encourage the retention of trees and native vegetation on sites by showing applicants that minimizing impervious surfaces (having more vegetated area) will reduce the size of stormwater controls. This can be an incentive for tree planting and retention. It is administratively difficult to count trees for a stormwater credit. The Engineering division does not have the staff or the training to be the “tree police” in town. Also, if a tree is “required” to stay on a property to meet stormwater requirements, and the tree falls and causes damage, the City may have liability. Councilmember Wilson mentioned that the development agreement for Firdale Village has language regarding tree retention and that is a better way to regulate trees. All agreed Councilmember Wilson asked if the code has special regulations for Lake Ballinger, since the City is part of a consortium of jurisdictions working on flooding and water quality issues in the Lake. Jerry said that the code has higher standards for flow control (to help with flooding concerns) in creek and lake basins than it does for direct discharges to Puget Sound. Jerry also added that the illicit discharge code was updated in August 2009 to comply with the Western Washington Phase II municipal Stormwater Permit, from Department of Ecology. This code update facilitates the City in Packet Page 1130 of 1136 CS/DS Committee Minutes December 8, 2009 Page 3 3 picking 3 priority watersheds for investigation of illicit discharges, per the permit. The City has chosen the Hall Creek/Lake Ballinger drainage basin as one of the three. Council member Wilson encouraged staff to bring this to the next Lake Ballinger /McAleer Cree Forum meeting sot eh other cites can follow suit. Councilmember Orvis asked if the FLO-WELL® STORM WATER LEACHING SYSTEM will be one of pre-sized” stormwater management techniques. Jerry responded that that it will not be specifically called out since it is a brand-name item, but dry wells, like this product will be in the pre- sized handouts available to homeowners for use. Jerry mentioned that the next steps are for a review at the state level by the Commerce (formerly CTED) branch for Growth Management Act compliance and an internal SEPA (State Environmental Policy act) review. After these processes are complete, it will go to Council in early 2010. ACTION: No action required. The Committee meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Packet Page 1131 of 1136 FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES December 8, 2009 6:00 PM V:\WORDATA\FINANCE COMM MINUTES\12-08-09 FINANCE COMMITTEE.DOC Present: Mayor Gary Haakenson Councilmember Wambolt Councilmember Plunkett Staff: Lorenzo Hines Jr., Finance Director Debi Humann, Director, Human Resources Public: Roger Hertrich Finnis Tupper Diane Buckshnis Councilmember Wambolt called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. Item A: 2010 Hourly Positions by Pay Grade, Title, and Wage Debi Humann presented this report to the committee and responded to questions. Committee members forwarded this item to the full Council for approval on the Consent Agenda for the 12/15/2009 Agenda. Item B: 2010 Non-Represented Employee Pay Schedule Debi Humann presented this report to the committee and responded to questions. Committee members forwarded this item to the full Council for approval on the Consent Agenda for the 12/15/2009 Agenda. Item C: General Fund Report for the months of November 30, 2009 Lorenzo Hines reviewed the revenue and expenditure trends of the General Fund for month of November 2009, and responded to questions. For information only, no further action required. Item D: Third Quarter Budget Report for 2009 Lorenzo Hines provided the report to the committee. For information only, no further action required. Adjournment - The meeting was adjourned at 6:22 PM. Packet Page 1132 of 1136 Public Safety Committee Meeting December 8, 2009 Page 1 of 4 Minutes Public Safety Committee Meeting December 8, 2009 Elected Officials Present: Council Member Strom Peterson, Chair Council Member Steve Bernheim Mayor Gary Haakenson Staff Present: Fire Chief Thomas J. Tomberg Assistant Police Chief Gerry Gannon The meeting was called to order by Chair Peterson at 6:02 p.m. A. 2010 Addendum to Prisoner Detention Agreement with the City of Lynnwood This item replaces the current addendum, which expires on 12/31/09, to the contract with Lynnwood PD for cooperative inmate transport service. This service provides daily transport services for prisoners along the I-5 corridor. The cost to the City of Edmonds for 2010 will be $14,739, an increase of $759.67. Action: Forward to City Council Consent Agenda with a recommendation to approve. B. Kenneling Services Contract between Adix’s Bed and Bath for Dogs and Cats and the City of Edmonds. ACOP Gannon explained that the current contract with Adix’s Bed and Bath expires on 12/31/09. The major changes from the expiring contract are the addition of insurance language and a change in application of the CPI to set future rates. In 2010 the cost will be the same as in 2009. Any costs changes for 2011 and 2012 will be based on the Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton June CPI-U, with a maximum increase of 5%. The contract was approved as to form by the City Attorney’s Office. Kristin Adix, representing Adix’s Bed and Bath, reviewed the contract and agreed to its terms. Action: Forward to City Council Consent Agenda with a recommendation to approve. C. Woodway Interlocal Agreement for Police Services The current interlocal agreement, under which the City of Edmonds provides police services to the Town of Woodway, expires 12/31/09. The City of Edmonds has proposed a cost per call increase from $125 to $137.50. The City has also added a charge for additional officers responding to Woodway calls. The time in Packet Page 1133 of 1136 Public Safety Committee Meeting December 8, 2009 Page 2 of 4 excess of 15 minutes will be billed based on a flat rate of $42.82 per hour. Mayor Haakenson has discussed the terms of this contract with Woodway Mayor Nichols. The interlocal was approved as to form by the City Attorney’s Office. Action: Forward to City Council Consent Agenda with a recommendation to approve. D. Discussion Regarding Complaint Procedures Related to Barking Dogs Item D was a discussion of the City’s current ordinance on barking dogs, specifically on the need for three petitioners when filing a complaint about a neighbor’s barking dog(s). Council Member Peterson said he had researched ordinances in other jurisdictions and found that Bothell requires two complainants and Lynnwood, like Edmonds, requires three complainants. ACOP Gannon explained that the City has three petitioners to ensure there is an actual complaint in the neighborhood. He also explained that if an officer responds to a complaint of a barking dog and finds the animal barking, the officer can take appropriate enforcement action with the owners. ACOP Gannon recommended to the Public Safety Committee that the City maintain its current ordinance. Both Council Member Bernheim and Peterson agreed. E. 2009-2010 Fire Department Work Plan Update #1 Fire staff reviewed the information contained in Public Safety Committee Agenda Memo AM-2647. This update is the first, and because of the contract for service Interlocal Agreement signed with Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 effective January 1, 2010, the only update to the 2009-2010 Fire Department Work Plan approved by Council on March 17, 2009. As in past updates, the status of each of the 30 items is reported upon. Action: Forward to City Council Consent Agenda with a recommendation to approve. F. Contract for Fleet Services with Snohomish County Fire District #1 Fire staff reviewed the information contained in Public Safety Committee Agenda Memo AM-2648. The contract with Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 authorizes City Fleet Maintenance to service the vehicles and apparatus sold to the District by the City as part of the contract for service Interlocal Agreement approved November 2, 2009. The City Attorney prepared a seven-page, month- to-month agreement that arrived just before the meeting began. Over the next few weeks, the contract will be provided to Public Safety Committee members for their review, approval and authorization to place the contract on a January 2010 City Council Consent Agenda with a recommendation to approve. This approach is required because the Council only meets one more time in December, on Packet Page 1134 of 1136 Public Safety Committee Meeting December 8, 2009 Page 3 of 4 December 15th, and the January 2010 Public Safety Committee Meeting is canceled. After approval of the interim contract, the City and the District will discuss the feasibility of entering into a long-term fleet maintenance agreement. Action: After receipt, review, and approval of the finalized contract, forward to the January City Council Consent Agenda with a recommendation to approve. G. Fire Department Transition Issues Fire staff reviewed the information contained in Public Safety Committee Agenda Memo AM-2549. On November 2, 2009, the Council approved the interlocal agreement for the provision of Fire and EMS services between the City and Snohomish County Fire District No. 1. The November 2nd agreement requires the following housekeeping modifications to one ordinance, one interlocal agreement, and a section of the City Code as described below. All changes will be prepared and approved by the City Attorney. 1. Ordinance 3500, approved by the Council on May 18, 2004, designates the “Edmonds Fire Department” as the provider of Rescue Operations at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. This provision of service needs to be changed to designate “Snohomish County Fire Department No. 1” as the provider. 2. An Interlocal Agreement between the City and Snohomish County Fire District No. 27 approved by the Council on March 18, 2008 is for the provision of EMS services to Hat Island via the public safety boat, Marine 16, operated by the “Edmonds Fire Department”. There are other references to the “Edmonds Fire Department” in the document. This provision of service needs to be changed to designate “Snohomish County Fire Department No. 1” as the provider. 3. Chapter 6.65 of the Edmonds City Code, approved by Ordinance 3350 in 2001, is entitled “Edmonds Fire Department – Provision of Services.” This provision of service needs to be changed to designate “Snohomish County Fire Department No. 1” as the provider. Over the next few weeks, the housekeeping changes to documents described above will be provided to Public Safety Committee members for their review, approval and authorization to place each of the three items individually on a January 2010 City Council Consent Agenda with a recommendation to approve. This approach is required because the Council only meets one more time in December, on December 15th, and the January 2010 Public Safety Committee Meeting is canceled. Packet Page 1135 of 1136 Public Safety Committee Meeting December 8, 2009 Page 4 of 4 Action: After receipt, review, and approval of the changes to the documents described above, forward to the January City Council Consent Agenda with a recommendation to approve. H. Subscriber Agreement with Public Safety Testing, Inc. for Service Years 2010-2012 The contract between the City of Edmonds and Public Safety Testing.com expires on 12/31/09. The Police Department uses Public Safety Testing to test entry level police officer applicants. The service provides the Police Department with a current pool of entry level candidates for further testing and possible hiring as police officer positions become available. The proposed 2010 contract cost is $2,000, a 25% decrease 25% from 2009. The cost for 2011 and 2012 will be $2,800. The contract has been approved as to form by the City Attorney’s Office. Action: Forward to City Council Consent Agenda with a recommendation to approve. The meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m. Packet Page 1136 of 1136