The URL can be used to link to this page

2014-09-24 Planning Board PacketMEETING AGENDA PLANNING BOARD Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North September 24, 2014 7:00 PM 1. Call to Order and Roll Call 2. Reading / Approval of Minutes: a. Approval of Planning Board minutes of September 10, 2014. 3. Announcement of Agenda 4. Audience Comments: (3 Minute Limit Per Person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings 5. Development Services Director Report to Planning Board a. Director Report. 6. Public Hearings: (Public participation is welcome) a. Public Hearing on Capital Facilities Plan Element update for 2015-2020 to City's Comprehensive Plan and the Capital Improvement Program for 2015-2020. The proposal updates the city's capital facilities plan to include improvements, additions, upgrades or extensions of City infrastructure such as transportation, parks, and stormwater along with other public facilities necessary to implement the City's Comprehensive Plan. (File No. AMD20140006) 7. Unfinished Business: (No public participation) a. Continued discussion of Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Update. 8. New Business: (No public participation) a. Presentation on Development Projects and Activities. 9. Administrative Reports: Review Extended Agenda 10. Planning Board Chair Comments: 11. Planning Board Member Comments: 12. Adjournment PARKING AND MEETING ROOMS ARE ACCESSIBLE FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (Contact the City Clerk at 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations) AI-7160 2. a. Planning Board Agenda Meeting Date: 09/24/2014 Department: Planning Initiated By: City Staff Information Subject/Purpose Approval of Planning Board minutes of September 10, 2014. Staff Recommendation Approve the draft minutes (attached). Previous Board Action N/A Narrative Attachments Attachment 1: Draft 9/10/2014 Minutes CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 10, 2014 Chair Cloutier called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5"b Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Todd Cloutier, Chair Neil Tibbott, Vice Chair Bill Ellis Daniel Robles Careen Rubenkonig Valerie Stewart BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Philip Lovell (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Karin Noyes, Recorder VICE CHAIR TIBBOTT MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 27, 2014 BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER STEWART SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS No one in the audience indicated a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Cloutier referred the Board to the Director's Report, which was disseminated to Board members via email. The report provided an update on the Shoreline Master Program, Highway 99 area zoning amendments, legal lot zoning amendments, Sunset Avenue walkway, Five Corners roundabout, 2015 Comprehensive Plan update, Westgate zoning code proposal, changes to the City Council's meeting format, and a community calendar. Mr. Chave noted that, in addition to the items listed on the community calendar, Council Member Bloom has scheduled a Town Hall Meeting on Monday, September 15'h, to discuss the Westgate zoning code proposal. Information regarding the meeting is available on the City's website. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT Mr. Chave referred the Board to the updated version of the Sustainability Element. He noted that, as discussed at the last meeting, a new section that incorporates an action and performance measure was inserted at the end of the element. In addition, recommended changes submitted by Board Member Stewart were inserted into the document and identified in red. Board Member Stewart reported that she attended a recent meeting of the Mayors Climate Protection Committee, and asked the members to review and comment on the current Sustainability Element. The comments she received were forwarded to staff. The Board reviewed the document as follows: Background on Page 18. Board Member Robles observed that, currently, the term "sustainability' is defined as "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." He questioned what is meant by the word "future." He suggested the word opens the door to a very well- known concept called Pareto Efficiency, which is a state of allocation of resources in which it is impossible to make any one individual better off without making at least one individual worse off. He noted that a huge body of education is dedicated to this concept. He suggested a definition of sustainability could include an account of those who win and those who lose based on a decision the City makes. While he recognized it would be difficult, he felt the definition should be adjusted to lend itself to more main stream analysis. Board Member Stewart responded that the current definition is widely accepted throughout the world and refers to environmental, social and economic sustainability. While Board Member Robles' recommendation has merit, she questioned if it would be appropriate to insert additional language at this point in time. Chair Cloutier suggested that the concept would be more appropriately discussed when the Board talks about methods for implementing the goals and policies contained in the Sustainability Element. Board Member Robles commented that climate change is very relevant to global sustainability. Sustainability at the micro level is also important. He questioned if changes are needed to address the City remaining sustainable if transportation is cut off for an extended period of time in the future. Other potential concerns are whether there would there be enough food and water to sustain citizens in an emergency and if it is possible to generate as much solar power as the City would need? • Last paragraph on Page 18. Board Member Stewart advised that Barbara Tipton, a member of the Mayor's Climate Protection Committee, felt strongly that the Edmonds Marsh is a significant asset that should be specifically mentioned in this paragraph. The Board Members agreed. • Sustainability Goal A on Page 19. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that the words "in a sustainable way" in Item A.I should be removed from the first sentence. Chair Cloutier advised that using the term "sustainable" implies that the City will consider outside things when maintaining the City's character and charm. The Board agreed to leave this paragraph as written. Sustainability Goal F on Pages 21 and 22. Board Member Stewart advised that Barbara Tipton requested an additional item should be added to Sustainability Goal F that "all citizens should be within walking distance of a park." Chair Cloutier explained that this would be more of a metric for measuring how well the City has implemented Sustainability Goals F.2 and F.3 or the specific goals called out in the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. Mr. Chave agreed that the Board could discuss this as a potential performance measure when reviewing the PROS Plan, which is a separate element of the Comprehensive Plan. The Board agreed, particularly if it is already called out as a goal in the PROS Plan. • Sustainability Goal D on Page 20 and Climate Change Goal E on Page 26. The Board discussed that perhaps Sustainability Goal D could be expanded to place more emphasis on the need for energy -efficient development. Concern was expressed that including the word "in city facilities" might unnecessarily limit the goal's application. The Board agreed that improving energy efficiency should be a citywide goal. Board Member Stewart pointed out that Ms. Tipton Planning Board Minutes September 10, 2014 Page 2 also commented on the need to make energy efficiency a citywide goal. Mr. Chave pointed out that Climate Change Goal E calls for developing mitigation strategies that could be used by the both public and private sectors. He also noted that the word "city" is not capitalized, which means it is intended to apply to all facilities and not just those owned and operated by the City. The Board agreed not to eliminate the words "in city facilities." Climate Change Goal E on Page 26. While it is well known that multi -family housing is more energy efficient than single-family housing, Board Member Rubenkonig noted that the fact is not specifically called out in the Sustainability Element. Board Member Stewart pointed out that the issue is specifically called out in the Climate Protection Plan. Chair Cloutier agreed that, typically, multi -family housing is more energy efficient, but there are techniques for making single-family housing energy efficient, as well. Mr. Chave referred to Climate Change Goal E.3, which talks about developing programs and incentives that encourage existing land use, buildings and infrastructure to reduce their carbon footprint. While this is a general statement, the idea is that the entire City is included in the effort. Vice Chair Tibbott asked if it would be appropriate to include multi -family residential development as a specific example of energy efficient development. Mr. Chave cautioned against singling out a specific use, as it could be interpreted that energy efficiency is less important for other types of uses. Mr. Chave explained that, if the goal is to reduce green house gases, the best approach would be to start with the highest users and work backwards. Available data indicates that the treatment plant is the City's highest user, followed by grocery stores and large commercial establishments. Chair Cloutier pointed out that data on energy use is available on the Mayor's Climate Protection Committee's website. Vice Chair Tibbott asked how much solar energy is produced in the City, and Chair Cloutier said it is next to zero at this time. Vice Chair Tibbott said it is not clear to him that the language in Climate Change Goal E applies to buildings. Mr. Chave pointed out that Goal E.3 specifically calls out existing land use, buildings and infrastructure. To make it clearer, he suggested that the first sentence could be changed by adding "and increase energy efficiency." The Board agreed that would be appropriate. Vice Chair Tibbott noted that the goal does not point to any specific type of use. Again, Mr. Chave said it is intended to apply to all types of land uses, buildings and infrastructure, and adding examples may limit its application. Chair Cloutier reminded the Board that the goal is to reduce the carbon footprint and not to change the land use. He cautioned that broad statements are more appropriate for the goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan, which will be implemented by the more specific Development Code regulations. Vice Chair Tibbott said it is not clear that the term "development" applies to buildings. Mr. Chave explained that the term was carefully chosen and applies to the arrangement of buildings, pedestrian connections, bikeways and other things associated with the development such as retaining trees, clearing and grading, mitigation programs, reducing footprint and incentives for buildings that are energy efficient. • Climate Change Goal D on Page 20. Board Member Rubenkonig said she would still like "energy efficiency" to be addressed as a Sustainability Goal rather than a Climate Action Goal. The Board agreed that the second sentence should be changed to specifically call out the need to improve energy efficiency. • Climate Change Goal B on Pages 24 and 25. Board Member Stewart suggested that the language no longer reference the 1990 and 2012 pollution level numbers. Mr. Chave explained that this references an historic policy that the City agreed to when joining the United States Mayors' Climate Protection Committee. It is not the City's current policy, and that is why it is not stated as a goal. What the City has actually agreed to do is called out in Climate Change Goal B. Climate Change Goal E on Page 26. Board Member Stewart suggested that the words "and potential sea level rise," should be added at the end of Climate Change Goal E. Mr. Chave pointed out that sea level rise is just one of the affects of climate change. Specifically calling it out could imply that it is the most important issue. Board Member Stewart commented that sea level rise must be addressed when planning for development and Best Available Science must be considered. The City should at least acknowledge sea level rise somewhere in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chave noted that Page 34 of the Sustainability Element calls for the City updating its Hazard Mitigation Plan by 2017 to reference emerging risks and hazards related to climate change. This update will include a discussion about sea level Planning Board Minutes September 10, 2014 Page 3 rise. Chair Cloutier added that sea level rise is called out in the broader term, "mitigating the affects of climate change." The question is whether it should be called out as a particular concern for which the City is vulnerable. He cautioned that calling it out specifically could muddy the issue because people will narrow the policy to the example provided. Again, he reminded the Board that the Comprehensive Plan is not code; it is intended to be a high-level vision. He cautioned against adding details that will constrain future decisions. All code changes must be balanced against the sustainability element. If they keep it narrow, the results will be narrow. If it is kept broad, it will not be constrained to what the City thinks is important today. He urged the Board to keep the Sustainability Element as broad as possible. As an example, Mr. Chave said he views ocean acidification as a far more threatening problem than sea level rise. The impacts of this will be much more drastic in the near term before you ever see significant impacts from sea level rise. If the City focuses on just one specific thing, it may lose site of the other issues that might be more important. Board Member Stewart also suggested the green house gases and ocean acidification should be called out specifically in the Sustainability Element, but she is not sure the best place to do it. The Board agreed not to add "and potential sea level rise" to Climate Change Goal E. Board Member Robles cautioned that Edmonds cannot stop all sea level rise, but it can look at Edmonds as a sustainable unit for which sea level rise is a significant threat. He noted that there are documents that address both local and global sustainability, and he suggested it might be appropriate to add a new element that addresses sustainability for just Edmonds, as he discussed earlier. • Action 1 on Page 34. Chair Cloutier commented that no matter how much the City does to address rising sea levels and ocean acidification, they will not impact the overall situation. However, they can prepare to mitigate the impacts. The City must have a plan in place to adapt to all the impacts of climate change. The Board agreed that rising sea levels is a hazard that will impact Edmonds and it should be addressed in the Hazard Mitigation Plan. They agreed to change Action 1 to read, `By 2017, update the City's Hazard Mitigation Plan to reference emerging risks and hazards related to climate change such as rising sea levels and ocean acidification. • Paragraph 3 on Page 27. Board Member Stewart referred to her proposed language and clarified that the 2nd sentence should read, "The percentage of young people who are overweight has more than doubled in the last twenty years, and childhood obesity is a potential precursor to obesity in adults." While obesity is a current health problem, Board Member Ellis cautioned against calling it out as a specific example. He suggested that some of Board Member Stewart's proposed language should be eliminated and the paragraph should read, "Transportation systems, development patterns, community design and planning decisions can have profound effects on health and well being. All citizens should be able to live, work and play in environments that facilitate physical activity and offer healthy choices." This would allow the City to address all health problems, including obesity, aging population, safe pedestrian access, etc. Mr. Chave cautioned that the danger is that health concerns tend to go in cycles and various issues rise to the top. Board Member Stewart pointed out that obesity is a national trend that results in a number of other health issues such as diabetes and heart disease. The City should recognize this as an issue that needs to be addressed for the long term. Consistent with keeping the Sustainability Element broader, the Board agreed to incorporate only the last two sentences of Board Member Stewart's recommended language. • Community Health Goal B on Page 28. Board Member Rubenkonig said she supports the first sentence in Item B.6, which talks about increasing access to health -promoting foods and beverages in the community. However, she questioned what incentives are in place to have locally -sourced produce available in the City. Chair Cloutier pointed out that encouraging locally -sourced food is a possible solution for implementing Community Health Goal B. Again, he reminded the Board that the goals in the Comprehensive Plan, including the Sustainability Element, are intended to guide the City's future. They are intended to call out the problems, but not offer solutions. They are used as a guide when considering future Development Code amendments, which must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. • Environmental Quality Goal A on Page 30. Board Member Stewart asked that the word "natural" be changed to "native" in Item A.I. She explained that native vegetation supports native wildlife and natural vegetation does not necessary do that. Mr. Chave commented that the term "native" has a very different meaning than "natural," especially Planning Board Minutes September 10, 2014 Page 4 as it relates to climate change. Board Member Stewart pointed out that certain species of native plants should be present in riparian areas along streams. Native plants have been bread in the community and support wildlife. If the City simply requires natural vegetation rather than native vegetation, the ecosystem could be altered. Mr. Chave agreed but pointed out that the concern is addressed in Item A.2, which calls for the retention and enhancement of wildlife habitat areas. Introducing native species might not accomplish this goal. He said he views "natural" as a much broader term that will allow the City to implement appropriate development codes to protect and enhance wildlife habitat areas. The Board agreed not to change "natural" to "native." Board Member Ellis asked how the City would determine which species are native and which are not. Board Member Stewart answered that there are lists available to make this determination. Non-native species are usually invasive and compete against the native species. Board Member Ellis stressed the importance of educating property owners about the difference between non-native and native species. Mr. Chave said most people know the obvious invasive, non-native species, and there are lists available from various agencies. Environmental Quality Goal A on Page 30. Board Member Stewart advised that Ms. Tipton suggested that Item A.1 be amended to include private residential properties as potential wildlife habitat in addition to urban forests, wetlands, etc. Board Member Stewart pointed out that wildlife habitat is not just in public spaces, but in private yards, too. The City's goal should be to increase wildlife habitat. Once again, Mr. Chave pointed out that the word "city" is not capitalized, which means it is intended to apply to all wildlife habitat areas and not just those owned by the City. He advised that urban forests include more private lands than public lands, and the goal is intended to be very broad to encompass all wildlife habitat areas. The Board agreed that the goal was broad enough as written. DISCUSSION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Mr. Chave referred to the current Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit 1) and invited the Board members to share their comments and questions in preparation for their September 241h review and discussion on the draft Housing Element update. He reported that the Executive Director of the Housing Coalition of Snohomish County and Everett made a presentation (Exhibit 2) to the City Council on August 26th about countywide housing needs, especially related to affordability and the region's growing population. The presentation also included important countywide data related to the need for affordable housing. Mr. Chave also reported that the City is partnering with other cities and Snohomish County in the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA), a group formed from Snohomish County Tomorrow. Through this effort, an affordable housing profile has been created for each of the participating jurisdictions. A copy of the draft Edmonds Affordable Housing Profile was attached to the Staff Report as Exhibit 3. The final profile should be very similar and ready for the Board's September 241h meeting, and Kristina Gallant from the AHA will be present at that time to walk the Board through the details. He explained that the profile contains extensive data on housing in Edmonds and looks at housing affordability mostly from the perspective of the entire metropolitan region, including Seattle. On the other hand, Exhibit 2 from the Housing Coalition looks at housing affordability based just on the Snohomish County area, not including Seattle. Both documents will be useful when updating the Housing Element. Board Member Stewart asked when the Board would discuss potential performance measures and action items. Mr. Chave said this topic would be part of the Board's September 241h discussion. He encouraged Board Members to forward their thoughts and additional comments to him via email. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Mr. Chave reviewed that in addition to the Board's continued discussion of the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element, the September 241h meeting would include a public hearing on proposed updates to the Capital Facilities and Capital Improvement Plans for 2015-2020. The Development Services Director would also provide an overview of the development projects and activities that are currently taking place in the City, as well as data and statistics on how the City is doing in terms of valuation of construction. He said he anticipates the Board will need one more opportunity to discuss the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element on October 8th. The October 8"' agenda would also include a discussion on the Planning Board Minutes September 10, 2014 Page 5 Comprehensive Plan General Introduction Section, as well as the Land Use Element. The Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director will present a quarterly report to the Board on November 121h. Vice Chair Tibbott advised that would present the Board's quarterly report to the City Council on September 161h PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Cloutier thanked the Board for their patience as he frequently reminded them about what a comprehensive plan is and is not supposed to include. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Ellis thanked Board Member Stewart for her review and thoughtful comments regarding the Sustainability Element. He appreciates all of her effort. Board Member Stewart thanked the Board Members for their comments and Chair Cloutier for leading the discussion. Board Member Stewart announced that she kicked off her citizen project earlier in the day, meeting with about 20 students and teachers from Edmonds Woodway High School. After discussions with the students, it was decided that the title of the project would be "Students Saving Salmon." Her role is to keep the students in tune with what documents are being reviewed and when public hearings are being held so they can prepare their comments, articles, etc. She invited the students to participate in a tour of the marsh and shoreline on October 4th from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. The tour will be led by Keeley O'Connell from Friends of the Edmonds Marsh and a representative from the Tribes. Members of the City Council, Planning Board and Mayor's Climate Protection Committee will be invited to attend, as well. Participants will meet in front of the Harbor Square Athletic Club. Vice Chair Tibbott expressed frustration that the names for exhibits in the Staff Report often do not match the titles on the actual documents. He suggested they create consistent names to help the Board Members navigate to the various documents. The Board discussed the problem, and it was suggested that the best solution would be for Board Members to download the exhibits and then give them a more descriptive name. Mr. Chave said one of the Development Services Director's goals is to create a more uniform naming system, but it will be geared towards the date a document is created and not necessarily tied to a particular agenda item. Board Member Robles announced that he submitted a proposal to the American Planning Association National Conference that will be held in Seattle in 2015. The title of his proposal is "Reorganizing Communities for the Pear -to -Peer Economy." He explained that new peer -to -peer platforms allow people to create, store and exchange value without any broker or intermediary. This places responsibility on urban planning to accommodate collaborative society and decentralized production of goods and services. Board Member Rubenkonig reported that she participates in the Waste Warrior Program, which is group of volunteers sponsored by the University of Washington and Snohomish County Sustainable Community Stewards. Last year in Edmonds, the group siphoned off 1,000 pounds of compostable waste from the Edmonds Waterfront Festival. This year they attended the Mukilteo Lake House Festival and collected 900 pounds of compostable waste. She advised that an event is scheduled for September 15th at Yost Park. Mr. Chave reported that the Mayor's Climate Protection Committee has been working to sign up businesses for the "Clean Business Pledge Program." So far about two dozen businesses have signed up to participate, and they will be provided a sticker for their window and information on how to collaborate and share practices. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Planning Board Minutes September 10, 2014 Page 6 AI-7163 Planning Board Agenda Meeting Date: 09/24/2014 Director Report Staff Lead/Author: Shane Hope Department: Initiated By: Planning City Staff Information Subject/Purpose Director Report. Staff Recommendation N/A Previous Board Action N/A Narrative The Director Report is attached. Any questions are welcome. Attachments Attachment 1: Director Report MEMORANDUM Date: September 24, 2014 To: Planning Board From: Shane Hope, Development Services Director Subject: Director/Planning Manager Report Planning Board Presentation Vice Chair Neil Tibbott presented information to the City Council on September 16 about the Planning Board's recent activities. His report noted key subjects that the Board has worked on during the past several months. (See attachment.) Citizens Economic Development Commission (CEDC) The region's economic future was a topic for the September 18 CEDC meeting. It began with a presentation by Matt Smith from the Economic Alliance of Snohomish County, pointing out that population in our county is expected to expected to grow by more than 7% during the next 6 years and employment growth by 8% in the same period. The Economic Alliance is a county -wide organization of public and private entities that focus on key economic issues and projects for our region. Shoreline Master Program Updating the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) was the subject of a public hearing by the City Council on September 16. The proposed SMP is similar to what was recommended by the Planning Board last year. A few changes and clarifications have been made since the Planning Board's last recommendation. Later in October, the City Council will consider adopting a resolution to finalize the SMP and submit it to the state Department of Ecology for approval. Ecology will then approve it or request changes. Once the SMP is approved by Ecology, the City would formally adopt it and may also incorporate portions of it into specific development regulations. Westgate Zoning Meetings on the Planning Board's recommended Westgate zoning changes are continuing. A town hall meeting on the subject was held by Commissioner Joan Bloom on September 15. The City Council will have further discussion at its September 23 meeting. On October 7, a public hearing by the City Council is planned. The Council may vote on the proposal that night or may defer it. [Note: The front page of the City website has been updated with Westgate information: http:/ /www.edmondswa.gov/.] Other Zoning Code Proposals ❑ The Planning Board's recommendation for a zoning code amendment to modify allowed uses and parking requirements in the commercial area of Highway 99 was the subject of a City Council public hearing September 16. After discussion, the Council directed that an ordinance be drafted to remove the second story commercial requirement in this zone, while maintaining a requirement for first floor commercial. The proposed ordinance would not include a change to the existing parking requirements. Adoption will be considered by the City Council on October 7. ❑ An amendment to the zoning code to clarify "legal lot" definitions and criteria for determining an "innocent purchaser" was the subject of a City Council public hearing September 16. The Council directed that an ordinance be drafted for consideration on October 7. Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) The PSRC Regional Staff Committee met September 18 to consider the following topics: ❑ Long-range transportation planning ❑ Industrial lands ❑ City of University Place application for "Regional Growth Center" designation ❑ Work program for major data and technical items ❑ Planning for military facilities ❑ Arlington -Marysville letter of intent to apply for "Regional Manufacturing -Industrial Center" designation Community Calendar Community events include: ❑ Marsh Tour - October 4 (Saturday, 10:30 a.m.): A tour of Edmonds Marsh is being led by Keeley O'Connell, Restoration Ecologist, and is open to the public. It will focus on the nearshore environment and what our community should do to restore native salmon populations. Invited groups include the Planning Board. To attend, meet at Harbor Square Athletic Club by Edmonds Marsh and dress for the weather and walking. AI-7159 Planning Board Agenda Meeting Date: 09/24/2014 Public Hearing on Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement Program for 2015-2020. Department: Initiated By: Subject/Purpose Planning City Staff Information 6. a. Public Hearing on Capital Facilities Plan Element update for 2015-2020 to City's Comprehensive Plan and the Capital Improvement Program for 2015-2020. The proposal updates the city's capital facilities plan to include improvements, additions, upgrades or extensions of City infrastructure such as transportation, parks, and stormwater along with other public facilities necessary to implement the City's Comprehensive Plan. (File No. AM D20140006) Staff Recommendation Forward the CFP and CIP to the City Council for approval. Previous Board Action This is a new item for 2015; the CFP and CIP are normally updated each year. Narrative The City's Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Element is a document updated annually and identifies capital projects for at least the next six years which support the City's Comprehensive Plan. 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 not included in the CFP. These preservation projects are identified within the six -year capital improvement program (CIP) along with capital facility plan projects which encompass the projected expenditure needs for all city capital related projects. CIP vs. CFP The CFP and CIP 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 to City level of service standards. 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. The proposed 2015-2020 CFP is attached as Exhibit 1. The CFP has three project sections comprised of General, Transportation and Stormwater. The proposed 2015-2020 CIP is attached as Exhibit 2. The CIP is organized by the City's financial fund numbers. Exhibit 3 is a comparison that shows added, deleted and changed projects between last year's CFP/CIP to the proposed CFP/CIP for 2015-2020. Following the Planning Board's public hearing and recommendation the City Council will also hold a public hearing prior to final approval. Attachments Attachment 1: Draft CFP Attachment 2: Draft CIP Attachment 3: CFP-CIP Comparison CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENT 2015-2020 Kxr-9 DRAFT CFP GENERAL w V N O LL d 6 O_ c R o c a a' ,aa y N w = Lh p 'v o T m N r LL R c,iRN r � 'Q N l0 � l0 a O N r2 r2 O O N O tR M Cy N � t9 C ❑ C 7 O M � a � C 7 N N W O O O O O O O O O N � � fA W O O O O O O O O O O O O O n O O C O O N O O O 0 0 0 O O O 7 0 r 0 top O N O O O O O O O O O O 7 7 O O O O O O O O O O N O O O ^ f� RR NM M W c � � � N N m i O w m m o o A Z m m 0 o A o r C LL A m u m o H E m w o m f U 00 0 p f °° o p H O o a f U w m o 0~ t c, m o p H o °° a o p«~ o f @ o (7 f a C07' U y c� a w c� a o w U m EL U w U m U a d a LL 0 o° N V N O O O O V3 EA EA M O O O O EA EA EA N O O O O EA EA EA M o 0 0 O O O O EA O O O O O EA M EA M 0 0 0 0 c O O O (5 O O fA O O O O EA fn EA IA O O O O fA M fA to O O O fA EA M O O EH to R o � M O W ^ COD- w c u m > > > > > > > > d J U W j U a a 0 0 o o o o o o O o U U U U U U U U U U ° �r o o o a o o o o o f7 a c c c c c c V) c a > > > > O p U N N N o O @ N - > m Q E N U > -ia LT C N N O C « O O > N cl U _ wp_ E @ C w > a a; m > a C y N C a N L w E C C °- C N Y 2• V E N U O U O f6 O E� a rn c c°i cg E 20¢ wU 2Ua wU W E o ° o m � Z m C U O C @ O ❑ C m a j a J U ¢ " O Y = AD m .N ❑ T � `-' U oD a o E 2�° w `o o _E EY IJ ¢ r a O m > 'O w 5 Uo @ J am @ (on 'O @ wLL J a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Aquatic Facility ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000 — $23,000,000 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Implement recommendations of the Aquatics Feasibility Study completed in 2009. Six scenarios were presented and the plan recommended by the consultants was a year round indoor pool with an outdoor recreational opportunity in the summer. The project is dependent upon a public vote. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The current Yost Pool, built in 1972, is nearing the end of its life expectancy. The comprehensive study done in 2009 assessed the needs and wants of Edmonds citizens in regard to its aquatic future as well as the mechanical condition of the current pool. SCHEDULE: 2014-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $5m - $23m 'all or part of this Project may quality for 1% for the Arts 7 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Art Center / Art Museum ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000 I r-r-- 3 • E J � 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A new Art Center/Museum facility will provide and promote Cultural / Arts facilities for the City of Edmonds. The need for visual and performing arts facilities is a high priority stated in the adopted updated Community Cultural Arts Plan 2001 and in the 2008 update process. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The City of Edmonds desires to secure and provide for public Cultural Arts facilities in the community. The emphasis on the arts as a high priority creates the need to determine feasibility for and potentially construct new visual arts related facilities. SCHEDULE: 2014-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $5,000,000 'all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 8 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Boys & Girls Club Building ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Build new Boys & Girls Club facility to accommodate the growing and changing needs of this important club. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The current Boys & Girls Club was constructed as a field house by the Edmonds School District decades ago and is in need of major renovation or replacement. It is inadequate in terms of ADA accessibility and does not meet the needs of a modern club. SCHEDULE: 2014-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $5,000,000 *all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 9 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Civic Playfield Acquisition ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $6.3M and/or Development 6'' Street N. 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 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire or work with the School District to develop this 8.1 acre property for continued use as an important community park, sports tourism hub and site of some of Edmonds largest and most popular special events in downtown Edmonds. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Gain tenure and control in perpetuity over this important park site for the citizens of Edmonds. SCHEDULE: 2014-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019-2025 Acquisition $20,000 $31VI Planning/Study 100,000 Eng. & Admin. Construction $31VI 1 % for Art TOTAL $20,000 $3M $100,000 $3M * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 10 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Edmonds/Sno-Isle Library ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Expand building/parking to accommodate additional library needs and programs. Library improvements identified in Sno-Isle Libraries Capital Facility Plan: 2007-2025 PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improvements will better serve citizens needs requiring additional space and more sophisticated technology. SCHEDULE: 2014-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL Unknown * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 11 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Community Park / Athletic ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $11,535,000 Complex at the Former Woodway High School FORMER wOODwAY HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC FIELD IMPROVEMENTS PREPARED FOR THE EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRdCT MAY 701 a Cry. HOGAN PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop community park and regional athletic complex with lighted fields and recreational amenities in partnership with Edmonds School District, community colleges, user groups, and other organizations. Development dependent upon successful regional capital campaign. $10m - $12M project. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The site is currently an underutilized and undermaintained facility with great potential as community multi -use active park. Site has existing controlled access, greenbelt, parking and 4-court tennis facility with substandard fields. Highly urbanized area with 150,000 residents within 5-mile radius. Future maintenance supported by user fees. SCHEDULE: 2014-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020- COST 2025 Planning/Study $655000 300,000 40000 150,000 Engineering & 175,000 150,000 175,000 Administration Construction $3,930,000 3,390,000 400,000 2,700,000 1 % for Art 125,000 TOTAL $655000 $3,750,000 40000 $3,690,000 $400,000 $3,000,000 $10m $12m all or a portion of this project may quality for 1 % for the Arts 12 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Parks & Facilities ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3-$4 Million Maintenance & Operations Building Existing Building Outline Yard Fu o l o M11 42 '�.. New One St ullding 1,1500 sf - 6,600 sf i 4 �rwewway 15,800 S Yard Functions d 11. 0 1 f Perimeter zone - 4.200 si Existing f=enca Line G PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The 40 year old maintenance building in City Park is reaching the end of its useful life and is in need of major renovation or replacement. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Parks and Facilities Divisions have long outgrown this existing facility and need additional work areas and fixed equipment in order to maintain City parks and Capital facilities for the long term. SCHEDULE: Contingent on finding additional sources of revenue from general and real estate taxes. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $3m - $4m all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 13 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Senior Center Building ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4 — 10 mil. I eo 0 � s 49 O� Y i EDMONDS s ai w w SHOPPING OTR l 3D5 I)AYT S-VAddFassad aff Dayton} - R MP i PARKING x 0 4 v �S LEDM❑ D8 mUND I r!1 DAYTON ST � PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Replace and enlarge deteriorating Senior Center building complex on the City waterfront. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This facility is at the end of its useful life. The floors are continuing to settle which poses significant renovation costs. In addition, the facility requires structural reinforcement to withstand a major earthquake. SCHEDULE: Contingent on procuring the necessary funding from grants and other sources. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $4m -$10m * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 14 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Crossing ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown WSDOT Ferry / Multimodal Facility PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Edmonds Crossing is multimodal transportation center that will provide the capacity to respond to growth while providing improved opportunities for connecting various forms of travel including rail, ferry, bus, walking and ridesharing. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To provide an efficient point of connection between existing and planned transportation modes. SCHEDULE: 2014-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020- 2025 Engineering & Administration Right of Way Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL Unknown all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 15 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Public Market (Downtown ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown Waterfront) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with community partners to establish a public market, year around, on the downtown waterfront area. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The project will help to create a community gathering area, boost economic development, bring tourists to town, and will be a valuable asset to Edmonds. SCHEDULE: This project depends on the ability to secure grant funding, and community partners willing to work with the city to establish this. This potentially can be accomplished by 2017. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL *all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts.16 CFP TRANSPORTATION 17 U. W U N � . N c O d d N E w c o -O N O N W = r O LL CL .. Vl V R c Y L U N O N O N o 0 V V 0 0 N N » w O N N o O O O N N O o O O N N o m vs di O O O O O O o 0 F» w � O N 0 0 0 0 M ai fO O 0 0 0 0 mi e aMo m V H 0 0 0 0 o 0 N vei 7 a O N 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 N N 0 0 0 0 N O N vs i» w ss w i o v o rn o M N N V 7 m v � N O r o L' c � � o mi O 7 W M t7 to W p o@ a J m a o m m a J m a o@ N C a J m a o m N a J m a o@ N a J m a o@ N a J m a o m N a J m a o@ N c a J m a o@ N c a J m a y m y R m @@ J J 5 m @@ J O m @p O m O m @p OF m OF («°q m p « « NLLU ° « LLU « LLU «@ Nc LLm (mnp Nc LLJmU «°m ° ° mv ° mv m vNc ° m mmp yNc ° °JU m v 2m0 lL a d d o a d d o 2 a d m n 2 a d m n a d m a a d m n @ a d m a 2m a d m n 2@ a d m n O O N o o o 0 C 0 0 o n 0 �n u°pi o e o C o e 0 o N o 0 o 0 N 0 0 °? f» f» M O N O O N <» e� fn O O O O O v> v> » o_ o w 0 0 N O O O V N O O 06 cl ar O O O O O fn oo e3 e» o 0 0 0 0 0 fn fn v3 f» w 0 0 0 0 0 u3 » fn f» w V V3 M fA V3 IR M W fR W y� p p p -,a u m o 5 J m J m J m J m J J � a d ° 1 10i 1i 1i U U U 0U O a"i O U U m m m co 0 .a R L' p a @ a m @ a @ @ a @ m a N 'y y 0' ° a a Oa° a a a° C co O C m C p p w 9 m L O C °T o Z@@ 3 am az o amy N 3— O N @ ^'=Hmo E2 � O d T— TO .y. m J D y« ENa cm '. mmOJ @ NVN @ N «d cm@m '.anJ aNmm N�£rno «E@ QML @0 o C° ry m CmO ' T: 'O) ad o co @@ NNEm m m° d.iOm UC((pp2�m m 3 _ mE y U m o L m 0 O u) J> L N d 2O m 0 ° U O o O m y L O N S a E n m O O O K o a c .m. N S a co O2 N w a m a @ �. O K B o o = E c E E c E m a m c m > p L u) « m ¢« Z Q c E N c) E Q E E o L@ N`` L m 'O m (( V> L Gl 'p Q UU3� W m O u) rn NE UaE `O U m O OE N d 0 — n U' 3 — 2' o to o a? E >LD .o R L N N u) O Q y L y a> io N Nff N ..co— O C N C N E O C 7 N 19 cliN O N N o c o o rn a w w 0 c rn m o O 0 c rn m o O w O 04 O N O o O O N N t°O too (V N w w O o O O N N NW W M eh w w O o O O W D c7 OOi M eh fA w ch N O O O O N 0 w w O O O O r r w w O O O O N f» w t0 N O o 0 c t» w 0 0 C c V V v3 w 0 0 C c N N v3 w r` O N O O N O N � 0 a d co w y a "O d J d a d m m m a -p d J d a d co w m a -p d J d C a d co w m C a a d J d C a d co w m C a a d J d C a d co w ^ m C a a d J d C V) N J J j0 y U LL O N J J j0 �p U LL O N J �p U LL O N J O N J O N J m U LL O C (n y N m F U) N (n m F (n O (n m F N O (n m F `O C U N O (n m F `O C U N O (n m F `O C U c LL m° m a d m a m° m d m a m° m m a m° m m a m° m m a m° m m a 0 y o 0 0 0 o e N U o C O N O O N to FA Hi o C O c0 O O N Hi Fri to o C O N O O N EA EA to O O O O O EFi EA to Hi w O O O O O to to Hi Hi w O O O O O to to Hi Hi w ^ ^ o C N N w y m J m J m J m J m J cc N N N U N U N U N U L t a` d C O o 0 0 0 0 U L) U L) L) L) C 7 m 0 m (7 m U' p a a h a h a m O- O O a O a O a c L ° n mNO 'o c m m a y .O a co m m a d m N N N N VJ ° > C NN C C @ >«p m m d N O O O. > O > L N > m `� pCp of U N CCp U N d (n C to J N L u) L m 0 m° m .� N N t f6 £ a m m w L m m 3 E N a N C N o @ J In ,CO_ U N O O U U N O O U C (p ° m a m C ° m mm_ am O m C O L O dam°. Y o m mdE2 r m m m >L"E r m 0 m m >L"E2 Jo m a�i `O 0 o °3 °? o 0 o C N m N > O U N U m 1° = U) = a) C 3 L 2 d m = z N e L)N _ _ y > j > Q d 'o a L m N C L N« N c N m 0 Q L m L m E E aU E > O �. E y E rn m rn > rn m rn > m m rn > U U .a N '> iq > N g > 20 U. W U N N � . c O d d N E w c o -O N O N W = KY 0 T lM Q V 0 V R c Y L m r R U N N O N N O N O N O N T O N O N r 0 N O O N N o N d U 7 O N c 7 LL O y N O N U N F U N N � Oi L cL a a _T m r O o 7 a E A Z d .O a 0 0 0 0 0 0 In N (D tp H3 EA 0 0 0 0 0 N N N b W 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N W 00 EA M1 0 o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 f0 M Of W 01 OD N O � � N e» W rn o N rn m M M 0 0 0 IQ M O of O vs F» M a d J U a d J U a d J U a d J U a d J U O (n « N LL O p N C U~ p C U~ `0 C co U~ N C co U~ N U~ N O o v N O= ` N O o ` N O o N O j m m a d li N d m a d li N `m m a d LL N d c° a d li N d m a d li N O o 0 o O O O O o e 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 (gyp c0 M m � m U O m V O m to O C N U U U to m d m o O o o U u r r r d Q, u) N s H o ry2 La ai o� pi y d o o w O E N 6 Y Y 6 Y c >i C U O _ @ d N N N N O o Y a> U N Y Y Y C > (/7 C N m U m N m N O �a c0 a v O ,m _ T ¢ m O /n c0 W n N « O dim o a o fn u) > Q E o w w @ s 3 E C E ^ T 6 O O EO N 2 SSA ui >` w co 3 � 2i Q vl co NO ni' �N ❑Q wo 21 N N N N C o o 0 0 O o e» o O o O O 0 o O o � w O O O e 0 0 O N G N O O O O O O N N N MW O O O O O O O O OD CO � 0 0 o � r rn m 0 0 O e o e rn m N N co O O O O Q� O O O O O O O LU N O O O O O O O O O O O O O Its N FA W O N O N N O N V N M O OD OI W OD I� N o uNi � @ a N J U D N J U D N J U D N J U D N J U D N J U D N J U D N J U D N J tJJ O N J N C N J N 9 J d 9 J N D d@ J N D J ry n J N a J N D J d D (nO) UL_.R. @ U L_ @N @(J l_ @J(J lL _ @N @ (J lL _ @ @ IC lC @N @ (@n R@ N o() `U U N p U p C U `U U N15 p C U 0 p C U 0 C U p C U v U v N U j U v U j N o= .-. @ o f N U j N U j 3 LL N @ a d a> D @ N C. a d a> D N @ a d a> D @ @ a a`> a> n R @ @ a a`> a> n N @ a d m a N @ D N m a N @ a m a N @ m n 0 y N o NU p p p p o c6 0 o m O O o p O o o p o q Y1 O O o 0 o p o 0 o O O 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 O O 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 p o p p O p 0 0 0 o ui pMj M ap p) o 06 g o o a6 r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ @ fR O fA fA O M l7 fR O uj fR W M N e3 v3 fA N N M O fR M O � 01 fA O fA fA O OJ OD fA O EA N W N M p EA 1f1 O N fA fA fA fA IR fA fA fA fA M 916 NC4 NW fR v3 fR M M fA H Efi v d3 N F N W V y m @ J f @ J > > > @ J O. a ❑ U U U U U U U U C 7 O U U U U m C7 V O 0 m 4 4 9 a �- a 9 m @ @ (n N 0 m 0 Oa J o a 0 a 0 a a (L O D m L u)o o_ A. 2 Y c n p N 1/1 U p N s O @ _ @ >> O d 4? N a = cL p C= N m O s ✓� C a3i c E y E m d L L Y a 3@ a @ >> N> o o C N N pL t6 o s a E �' N w @ N N N 3o @ C C@ 2 2� D �O d" CZO D@ O O O p O._ p ppU K O N p T Q N Q O N O Z Y 3 K Q Q o@ @ 3 U d @ Y @ V @ M E m E. .o u) N 3 m E E D @ o 3 a w a ry d o` N � d o w E o to m 3 3 n L 0 0 > Q @ D _ >. @ Uy >. @ �y U d d .. > u)� Q mN p_ r0 ink o in< L E nN E .L. as .t.. L u) N .U. > u) > > u) V N In m low WA U. W U m N � . C O d d N E o c O -O N O N W = KY 0 aT+ LL Q .. 0 Q F m U N cli N O N 0 o 0 e» u> 0 0 0 0 - e» � o N O N O O O O o O A M T O N 0 0 O O o 0 N O N O o O O to IR � N O o O O o 0 O O N O o O O O O A N O o O O O O O O M M G N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O �» O J N J N J J J (n cd N J J N- O N J J 'o I-O N d C N J O.�. N d C N J N d C N J o a (7 « 0 U 6« p U w« N LL m F p C U (n m F p C U N± (n m F o C U U j o U j U o U o O= o C u- @ a N @ a N @ a N @ a N @ a N G O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 cli U y m m o Fo J y N f0 O N U N U N U 3 � 0 N U L O a y V U U U U R � (� o. cL c S c Ems« o y r U T c a a m n N «o V oo n o ccl u0i O ° w� E E mp"3 m-o Hs nN m� y— � p « C d m« U N a m U C —jao O o a`L O C (L` @ N y U O C « a p E u) Lu L o N E (n n W O O F- o >� > a O N N m Z Y C 0 T 3 o U E Tm U > S O W n 'Q m o N E N c 'N O w� o_ �s E O N u) >m m 3N o� w ¢ W �> N C U 9 C L a W N N L L Sao @ c O m m nMiQ �U HN U 23 24 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 2121St. SW @ 841Ave. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4,305,000 W (5-Corners) Intersection Improvements A T- a tr6 10 212TH 5T 91N I PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The intersection of 84 th Ave and 212 th is 5 legged, which also includes Main Street and Bowdoin Way approaches. The intersection is stop -controlled for all approaches. A roundabout would be constructed. The project also includes various utility upgrades and conversion of overhead utilities to underground. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #6). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The intersection currently functions at LOS F and delays during the PM peak hour will worsen over time. A roundabout will improve the LOS. SCHEDULE: Construction documentation will be completed in 2015. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW Construction $295,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $295,000 25 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: SR-524 (196t" St. SW)/ 88" ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,115,000 Ave. W Intersection Improvements �\ m i` M r� w 7 0 i 196TH ST SW 1 ' w Z � m C� a r~0 /Edpm 3 w a x m SEVEN DAY ADVENTST CHURCH 196TH ST SW El16 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal at the intersection of 196t St. SW @ 88t Ave. W. The modeling in the 2009 Transportation Plan indicated that restricting northbound and southbound traffic to right -turn -only (prohibiting left -turn and through movements) would also address the deficiency identified at this location through 2025. This is same alternative as one concluded by consultant in 2007 study but not recommended by City Council. This could be implemented as an alternate solution, or as an interim solution until traffic signal warrants are met. The ex. LOS is F (below City Standards: LOS D). (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #8). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve traffic flow characteristics and safety at the intersection. The improvement would modify LOS to A, but increase the delay along 196t" St. SW. SCHEDULE: The intersection LOS must meet MUTCD traffic signal warrants and be approved by WSDOT since 196t" St. SW is a State Route (SR524). No funding is currently allocated to this project pending grant funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & $100,000 $163,000 Administration & ROW Construction $852,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $100,000 $163,000 $852,000 26 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Main St and 9th Ave. S ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000 (interim solution) BELL ST rr w a q J x I ~ ME MA IN ST J _ AR I WADE JAM ES ._�4 THEATER J a x DAYTON ST PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of a mini -roundabout or re -striping of 9t Ave. with the removal of parking on both sides of the street. (not included in the 2009 Transportation Plan project priority chart) PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The intersection is stop -controlled for all approaches and the existing intersection LOS is E (below the City's concurrency standards: LOS D). The re - striping of 9`" Ave. would improve the intersection delay to LOS C or LOS B with the installation of a mini -roundabout. SCHEDULE: 2016 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $1,000 Construction $9,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $10,000 27 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 76" Ave W @ 212 St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $6,191,000 Intersection Improvements J LANE J J _ — J M DICA IINIC NLI J , 1 EDMONaS-WOORWAY HIGH SCHOOL _ ❑FFICE� ARTS j P I I� c 'n Arbor I 'm 'i l la �* JI J 292TH ST SW 212th St Plaza w Apt. Olin -7301 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Add a northbound and southbound left -turn lane to convert the signal operation for those approaches from split phasing to protected -permissive phasing. Add a right - turn lane for the westbound, southbound, and northbound movements. The project also consists of various utility upgrades and conversion of overhead utilities to underground (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #3). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Reduce the intersection delay and improve the existing level of service from LOS D (LOS F by 2015) to LOS C. SCHEDULE: Federal grants have been secured for all project phases. Design started in 2012 and is scheduled for completion in Fall 2015. Right-of-way acquisition is anticipated to be completed in Fall 2015. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2016. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & $711,587 Administration & ROW Construction $5,011,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $711,587 1 $5,011,000 W CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 2201hSt SW @ 76 th Ave W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Intersection Improvements $4,964,000 � � f 219rH sr sw _J 21919 i i� R14 ,a F i J 221STPLSW i I TOP FOODS STARBUCKS J 220TH ST SW I\ Q r f LYN WOO D HONDA PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reconfigure eastbound lanes to a left turn lane and through / right turn lane. Change eastbound and westbound phases to provide protected -permitted phase for eastbound and westbound left turns. Provide right turn overlap for westbound movement during southbound left turn phase. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #11). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Reduce the intersection delay and improve the LOS. The LOS would be improved from LOS E to LOS C. SCHEDULE: Engineering and construction scheduled between 2018 and 2020 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & $500,000 $836,000 Administration Construction $3,628,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $500,000 $836,000 $3,628,000 All or a portion of this project may qualify for 1 % for the arts IWO CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 228 th St. SW Corridor ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $7,300,000 Safety Improvements I I 2Z-;TH ST SW �• � I f I � a I F'RAY tll 96 SUINGAGO OFFW[ F+ f sroexe�r I yu 3a51] I R1IE .UO p�rw * PLAZA 1 I?R4l�p coRr rah f 7RrF � f I LULNE R w t237H F un{ PARK 3 Sr 'ra y 7 3 +�o o- PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 1) Extend 228th St across the unopened right-of-way to 76th Avenue West 2) Signalize the intersection of 228th St SW @ SR99 and 228th St. SW @ 76th Ave. West 3) Construct a raised median in the vicinity of 76th Avenue West. 4) Add illumination between 2241h St SW and 228th St SW on SR 99 5) Overlay of 228th St. SW from 80th Ave. W to — 2,000' east of 76th Ave. W. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #1). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The project will improve access / safety to the 1-5 / Mountlake Terrace Park & Ride from SR99. This east / west connection will reduce demand and congestion along two east - west corridors (220th Street SW and SR104). Roadway safety will also be improved as SR 99/ 228th Street SW will become a signalized intersection. 228th St. SW is being overlaid from 80th PI. W to ~ 1,000 LF east of 72nd Ave. W. as well as 76th Ave. W from 228th St. SW to Hwy. 99. The project consists of various utility upgrades. SCHEDULE: Construction scheduled to begin in 2015 and be completed in 2016. Federal and State grants were secured for the construction phase. This project is combined into one construction contract with the Hwy. 99 (Phase 3) Lighting project. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering, Administration, and ROW Construction $3,950,400 $1,943,500 1 % for Art TOTAL $3,950,400 $1,943,500 'All or a portion of this project may quality for 1 % for the arts 30 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Highway 99 Gateway / ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000,000 Revitalization PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project would include, among other features, wider replacement sidewalks or new sidewalk where none exist today, new street lighting, center medians for access control and turning movements, etc., attractive and safe crosswalks, better stormwater management, targeted utility replacements, potential undergrounding of overhead utilities, as well as landscaping and other softscape treatments to warm-up this harsh corridor and identify the area as being in Edmonds. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve aesthetics, safety, user experience, and access management along this corridor. In addition, economic development would be improved. SCHEDULE: The design phase is scheduled for 2018. The construction phase is scheduled for 2019 and 2020 (unsecured funding for all phases). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & $500,000 Administration & ROW Construction $4,500,000 $5,000,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $500,000 4,500,000 $5,000,000 31 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 76 th Ave. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: W Intersection Improvements $1,431,000 POST F: OFFICE 7��EPSOi+�`5�� ik �c M'AOKET �5rt9 T-- PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal (the intersection currently stop controlled for all movements). (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #9). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The improvement will reduce the intersection delay. By 2015, the Level of Service will be F, which is below the City's concurrency standards (LOS D). The improvement would modify the Level of Service to LOS B. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $286,000 Construction $1,145,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $1,431,000 32 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 84" Ave. W (212t St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $20,422,000 to 238t" St. SW) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 84 th Ave. W to (3) lanes with curb, gutter, bike lanes, and sidewalk on each side of the street. (part of this project was ranked #11 in the Long Walkway list of the 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve overall safety of the transportation system along this collector street: 1) the sidewalk and bike lanes would provide pedestrians and cyclists with their own facilities and 2) vehicles making left turn will have their own lane, not causing any back-up to the through lane when insufficient gaps are provided. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026 (unsecured funding). The project cost is split between Snohomish County and Edmonds since half the project is in Esperance. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & $2,042,000 Administration Construction $8,169,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $10,211,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 33 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 216 1h St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,722,000 intersection improvements r I 21401 21412 2140$ rn Ce } 21420 CDNALD C2143 NISO 215AEGIS 21558 VALUE VILLAGE ST -q W 21405 +n W an {Y r W Iing 216TH ST SW 21600{ 21619 KRUGER *Aq CLINIC 21632 +� � PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 216 th St. SW to add a westbound left turn lane for and an eastbound left turn lane. Provide protected -permissive left turn phases for eastbound and westbound movements. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and reduce delay. SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2018 and 2020. (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & ROW & Administration $341,000 $686,000 Construction $2,695,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $341,000 $686,000 $2,695,000 34 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 220 St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,046,000 intersection improvements TOP FOODS \/ , 19TH ST sw / 21919 STARBII S / / 22 OTH ST SW7514 fill, 221 STPLSW FUNTASIA LYNWOOD HONDA ua s I TRAVELLER'S IN N F' iu 722a0X I 3 A tm uo�el w —2222 x A .D. 7301'H' e wm ~ a i I ¢ oo ,M, r FE: 224TH sT sW [:Z o (IJ rI� E� PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 220 St. SW to add Westbound right turn lane for 325' storage length. Widen SR-99 to add 2nd Southbound left turn lane for 275' storage length. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #10). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve existing intersection delay from 72 seconds (w/o improvement) to 62 seconds (w/ improvement) in 2025. SCHEDULE: All Phases are scheduled between 2018 and 2020 (unsecured funding for all phases). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 COST Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $484,000 $737,000 Construction $3,825,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $484,000 $737,000 $3,825,000 35 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 212 1h St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,235,000 intersection improvements � I e r j o f L Edmonds m Fnmllx[ink y Edff, ds } runt W.. S Ra4 aR .71071 dF a 144 / 2110 1 5` Jfi s� zni sr -SW �C PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 212 th St. SW to add a westbound left turn lane for 200' storage length and an eastbound left turn lane for 300' storage length. Provide protected left turn phase for eastbound and westbound movements. (ROADWAY PROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #13) PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and reduce delay. SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2018 and 2020. (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering, $502,000 $765,000 ROW, & Administration Construction $3,968,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $502,000 $765,000 $3,968,000 36 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 174 Ave. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $906,000 W Intersection Improvements `------------ ' kS a wdalei�lldlPeSchoo� swi 17241D j�If EA03DOC Srha l _ TH Sr ➢" . I�C . � PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen Olympic View Dr. to add a northbound left turn lane for 50' storage length. Shift the northbound lanes to the east to provide an acceleration lane for eastbound left turns. Install traffic signal to increase the LOS and reduce intersection delay. ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #17 PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and safety of drivers accessing either street. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 COST Planning/Study Engineering & $180,000 Administration Construction $726,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $906,000 37 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Main St. @ 9th Ave ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,093,000 Intersection Improvements BELL ST 1 Z I � J: �JLU AhAIN 5T tin: WADE JAMES THEATER - W Q S H DAYTON ST PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal. The intersection is currently stop controlled for all approaches. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #2) PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve the Level of Service, which is currently LOS E (below City's Level of Service standards: LOS D), to LOS B (w/ improvement). SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $220,000 Construction $873,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $1,093,000 W CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Walnut St. @ 9th Ave. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,093,000 Intersection Improvements W T7 ALDER ST rYi tiUj Uj 0 r CEDAR ST EI: I ` WALNUT ST CEDAR ST PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal. The intersection is currently stop controlled for all approaches. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #7). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve the Level of Service. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026 unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $220,000 Construction $873,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $1,093,000 W CITY OF EDMONDS TBD PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 80th Ave W from 188 th St ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,520,000 SW to Olympic View Dr. Walkway and sight distance improvements PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct Walkway on 80th Ave West between 188 th St SW and 180th St SW and on 180th St SW between 80th Ave W and Olympic View Drive (ranked #6 in Long Walkway list in 2009 Transportation Plan). 80th Ave. W will be re- graded north of 184th St. SW, in order to improve sight distance. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Provides safe pedestrian access between Seaview Park, connecting to Olympic View Drive Walkway and Southwest County Park. Would create an additional safe walking route for kids attending Seaview Elementary School (188th St. SW). SCHEDULE: Engineering and construction are scheduled between 2018 and 2020 (unsecured funding for all phases). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 COST Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $125,000 $125,000 Construction $1,270,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $125,000 $125,000 $1,270,000 .e CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 236 th St. SW from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $420,000 Edmonds Way to Madrona Elementary School msiil"l'olllllml TRACK PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a walkway on the south side of 236 th St. SW from SR-104 to Madrona Elementary as well as the addition of sharrows along that stretch. (This is only part of a stretch of Walkway project, which ranked #1 in the Long Walkway list in the 2009 Transportation Plan) PROJECT BENEFITI RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route near Madrona Elementary School and along 236t" St. SW. SCHEDULE: Construction is scheduled to take place in 2015. All project phase costs are 100% grant funded (through Safe Routes to School program). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 COST Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW Construction $392,109 1 % for Art TOTAL $392,109 41 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 2 nd Ave. S from James St. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $65,000 to Main St. Walkway 4 4, * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link (approximately 100') on 2 nd Ave. S between Main St. and James St. (Ranked #1 in Short Walkway Project list in 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: 2018 (Unsecured Funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $65,000 Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $65,000 42 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Maple St. from 7t Ave. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $65,000 S to 8t" Ave. S Walkway MAIN ST z NO -ISLE FRA CESANDERSON0,� y � � 2 660 701 Q DAYTON ST MAPLE ST PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link (approximately 250') on Maple St. between 7t" Ave. S and 8t" Ave. S (ranked #3 in Short Walkway Project list in 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2018 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $65,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $65,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 43 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Dayton St between 7 th Ave. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $82,000 S and 81h Ave. S Walkway MAIN 5T NO -ISLE RA CES ANDERSON m W a � p• x a Q m 660 701 DAYTON ST T-1 w MAPLE ST T-F-F-F-1T� I -FT-F-F-1 F-1 k PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link (approximately 250') on Dayton St. between 7th Ave. S and 8th Ave. S (ranked #2 in Short Walkway Project list in 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2018 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $82,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $82,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Sunset Ave Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,350,000 from Bell St to Caspers St. J aUMM ,�� u'rc7 4ry x 4 uar,x rep+ r' WOL v:auvYnY•« [; YIRL L-D lLj = -- - -- `{ { FL +MYi ITT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Provide a multi -use path on the west side of the street, facing waterfront. (recent project, not included in the 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Design started in 2013 and is scheduled for completion in 2015. The construction phase is scheduled for 2018 (pending grant funding). A federal grant was secured for the design phase. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/StudyPlanning/Study $10,000 Engineering & Administration Construction $2,099,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $10,000 $2,099,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 45 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Dr. Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,306,000 from Main St. to 200" St. SW ■ice i■ IM' Zu .10 PrL SW -iOAG4 :11i• PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct Walkway on Maplewood Dr. from Main St. to 200t St. SW (— 2,700'). A sidewalk currently exists on 200t" St. SW from Main St. to 76t" Ave. W, adjacent to Maplewood Elementary School (rated #2 in the Long Walkway list of the 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Create pedestrian connection between Maplewood Elementary School on 200t" St. SW and Main St., by encouraging kids to use non -motorized transportation to walk to / from school. SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2018 and construction in 2019 (grant application recently submitted to fund design phase / from Pedestrian and Bicycle Program). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & $349,000 Administration Construction $1,957,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $349,000 $1,957,000 all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. .R CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 216 St. SW Walkway from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $215,000 Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave. W 7200 PARK & RIDE F 7309 STEVEN S LU MANOR W UP a_ LU cv 5: 21511 -J J IL 0 211 52 n STEVENS 21500 COURT AEGIS 21527 216 TIi ST S 1N 120 1 R "w :YENS 21600 FILION KRUGER CLINIC 214111 L B&M CONS 21d1021do821d0121d12 {Ir 04 LU 21d20 2id3 iMC�OL�'A . ❑ z 2i50 � iN 21558 , VALUE VILLAGE qV9 216 T1'-H 1 { 21619 G r PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install 300' sidewalk on north side of 216 th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 72"d Ave. W (completing a missing link on north side of stretch). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2018 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $25,000 Construction $190,000 1 % for Art TOTALI 1 $215,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 47 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Meadowdale Beach Rd. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Walkway $1,085,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a walkway on Meadowdale Beach Dr. between 76t Ave. W and Olympic View Dr. (-3,800'). This is one of the last collectors in the City with no sidewalk on either side of the street (ranked #4 in Long Walkway Project list in 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route connecting a minor arterial w/ high pedestrian activity (Olympic View Dr.) to a collector with sidewalk on the east side of the street (76t" Ave. W). Meadowdale Elementary School is directly north of the project on Olympic View Dr. SCHEDULE: Design scheduled for 2020 (unsecured funding) and construction between 2021 and 2026. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 - 2026 COST Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $325,000 $760,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $325,000 $760,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Walnut from 3d Ave. S to 4 th ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $190,000 Ave. S Walkway ARTS W ENTER a UNDOW NEI N ALDER ALDER ST 346 1 414 412 410 1 @irking S S W a z v BAN r W 409 Panca530 as SOUND VIEW 407 540 Hau y 546 a 403 401 w a HOWELL WAY DAYTON ST OLD MILLTOWN MAPLE ST T ALDER ST W a BECK'S z K WALNUT ST --' GREGORY e H 525 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link (approximately 350') on Walnut St. between 3rd Ave. S and 4t" Ave. S (ranked #5 in Short Walkway Project list in 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE; Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2018 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $190,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $190,000 all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts EEO CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Walnut from 6 th Ave. S to 7 th ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $380,000 Ave. S Walkway L J THE MARINER ALDER ST LBECK'S COMMODORE W N a� BANK W �_ WALNUT ST O r Pancake 30 Haus 40 46 v w am HOWELL WAY -F-1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link (approximately 700') on Walnut St. between 6t" Ave. S and 7t" Ave. S (ranked #4 in Short Walkway Project list in 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFITI RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2020 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $380,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $380,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 50 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 4 1h Ave Corridor ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,700,000 Enhancement 629 EDMONOs GLEN Sf ARTS CENTRE EIKE DALEY Sr e SPPAGUE ST i BGY'S & Girls Sk FF00 '~° Club Chic Genter Playfield PUBLIC > SAFETY Grendsten[ COMPLEX [= v BELL Sr E= 529 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Corridor improvements along 4 th Avenue to build on concept plan developed in the Streetscape Plan update (2006). (Project not included in 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The corridor improvements in the public right of way will encourage pedestrian traffic & provide a strong visual connection along 41hAve. Improvements will enhance connectivity as an attractive walking corridor & contribute to the economic vitality in the downtown by encouraging the flow of visitors between the downtown retail & the Edmonds Center for the Arts. Timing for design phase is crucial as the City addresses utility projects in the area & will assist the City in the process of identifying & acquiring funding sources for the project implementation phase. SCHEDULE: Work on identifying grants for engineering services and construction is scheduled for 2018 and 2019(pending additional grant funding and local match). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $1,425,000 $2,900,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $1,425,000 $2,900,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 51 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 238 1h St. SW from 1 001h ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,657,681 Ave. W to 104t" Ave. W Walkway and Stormwater Improvements N _ campHFIFIART r r� 9 E! e 5 EBALL F \ I AIELD t7I r}i rr V+pppvorr rEnK 5MOOL �J L-LF Z36TH PL SW HICKMAN PART{ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of a sidewalk on the north side of 238 th St. SW from 100t" Ave. W to 104t" Ave. W. (ranked #8 in the Long Walkway list of the 2009 Transportation Plan as well as sharrows along this stretch. Stormwater improvements will also be included. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety along that stretch and creating safe pedestrian connection between 100th Ave. W and 104" Ave. W. SCHEDULE Engineering and construction are scheduled between 2014 and 2015. Funding was secured for the completion of the design and construction phases (through Safe Routes to School program). Stormwater improvements will be funded by Fund 422. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Stud Engineering & Administration Construction $1,557,934 1 % for Art TOTAL $1,557,934 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 52 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Olympic Ave. from Main St. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: to SR-524 / 196th St. SW Walkway $1,249,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked #3 in Long Walkway project list in 2009 Transportation Plan. Install new sidewalk on the east side of the street. The ex. sidewalk is unsafe because of rolled curb. (ranked #3 in the Long Walkway list of the 2009 Transportation Plan) PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety and access to Yost Park and Edmonds Elementary. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Stud Engineering & Administration $200,000 Construction $1,049,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $1,249,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 53 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 1 89PI. W from 801hAve. W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $189,000 to 78th Ave. W Walkway a'I I R 3 W N m leans ST SW 190TH ST SW PARE[ 192ND ST SW 3 x a w NOUN 000000000� I dig gpm i I I I I I I 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked # 7 in Short Walkway list from 2009 Transportation Plan. Install 5' sidewalk on either side of the street. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety and create connection to ex. sidewalk on 189th PI. W. This missing link will create a pedestrian connection from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave. W. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $35,000 Construction $154,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $189,000 all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 54 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 841Ave. W between 188 1h St. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $175,000 SW and 186th St. SW Walkway I I 1 1 � I 3 185TH PL SW 4+ 988TH ST SW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked #9 in Short Walkway list from 2009 Transportation Plan. Install 5' sidewalk on the east side of the street to connect to the existing sidewalk to the south. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety and access for school kids walking to Seaview Elementary. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $35,000 Construction $140,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $175,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 55 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 238 th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,050,000 76th Ave. W Walkway A LACE LRA FA WY "741- 239TH sr sw SEOUL {' PLALA Ti[ q Tm f AICAFINSTFR'S I 23537 BRDOR I f % I 'W ' } BURLNG ION J f. RAT fAf uM PAP tOMOND, Az RD PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked #9 in Long Walkway list from 2009 Transportation Plan. Install 5' sidewalk on the north side of 238th St. SW. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety along that stretch and creating safe pedestrian connection between Hwy. 99 and 76th Ave. W. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2021 and 2026 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $210,000 Construction $840,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $1,050,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 56 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Residential Neighborhood ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Varies Traffic Calming PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The 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. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Allows traffic concerns to be addressed consistently and traffic calming measures to be efficiently developed and put into operations. SCHEDULE: Annual program COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 57 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 151St. SW from Edmonds ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $374,000 Way (SR-104) to 8th Ave. S m" s aLU Q x 226TH ST SW 9 5TH ST SW 4 �Q 'rl UJ a a —6Ti-I PL SW Off, ROSEW0OD CT SUNRISE BALLFIELDS SHERWOOD ELEM. SCHOOL PARKING EDMONDS MEMORIAL CEMETERY QUESI BLOCKBUSTER PARKINGtLr Q !KING a QFC z Y LL' a PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk on 15 th St. SW from Edmonds Way to 8th Ave. S. (new project, not included in the 2009 Transportation Plan) PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route for kids attending Sherwood Elementary. SCHEDULE: Construction documentation will be completed in 2015. The project is 100% grant funded (through Safe Routes to School program). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $6,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $6,000 " all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts W. CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Trackside Warning System or ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $350,000 Quiet Zone @ Dayton and Main St. RR Crossing PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install Trackside Warning System or Quiet Zone @ Dayton and Main St. Railroad Crossings. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Reduce noise level throughout the Downtown Edmonds area during all railroad crossings (@ both intersections). SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled for 2015 and 2016. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021-2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration 50,000 Construction $300,000 1 % for Art TOTAL 1 $50,000 $300,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 59 .1 CFP STORMWATER 61 62 - k�I— §toI§ Lu Lh 0 ■o »LTL§� u20 \� 63 64 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Dayton St and Hwy 104 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,961,272 Drainage Improvements g t` * $ EI)IAONOSI r� .J.iXNtar `ib s LL EQM4ND5 _ ern iau SHOP NCCTR 3O? RA MP ' lee * u o F1 DAYTON ST xi. 4 C4 N # i90 120 I zoo j� `! 10 11irE J+ /e IP 4 ARTS r ISO 1 w.. J o CENTER ilk4 HAFtBOFt"� � ❑ 174_ SQUARE .100 0 Zs:rr,u .m�''. I PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Add lift station and other new infrastructure. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To reduce flooding at the intersection of Dayton St and Hwy 104. SCHEDULE: 2015-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/StudyPlanning/Study $100,000 Eng. & Admin. $500,000 $50,000 Construction $1,311,272 1 % for Art TOTAL $100,000 $500,000 $1,311,272 $50,000 65 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Mars h/Shellabarger ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $7,233,000 Cr/Willow Cr — Daylighting Edmonds Marsh as seen from the viewing platform. Previously restored section of Willow Creek. Source: www.unocaledmonds.info/clean-up/galleiy.php PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Build on the feasibility study completed in 2013 that assessed the feasibility of day lighting the Willow Creek channel. The final project may include 23 acres of revegetation, construct new tide gate to allow better connectivity to the Puget Sound, removal of sediment, 1,100 linear ft of new creek channel lined with an impermeable membrane. Funds will be used for study and construction but exact breakdown cannot be assessed at this time. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The daylight of willow creek will help reverse the negative impacts to Willow Creek and Edmonds Marsh that occurred when Willow Creek was piped. It will also help eliminate the sedimentation of the marsh and the transition to freshwater species and provide habitat for salmonids, including rearing of juvenile Chinook. SCHEDULE: 2015-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. $363,000 $750,000 $20,000 Construction $1,100,000 $2,400,000 $2,600,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $363,000 $750,000 $1,100,000 $2,400,000 $2,600,000 $20,000 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Perrinville Creek High Flow ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,270,000 Reduction/Management Project 172ri73 4 I: t � + Talbot Perrinville '9- Creek 11~— Frederick -4 f � l80 i- � leis 7 2nd — 82 nd 17 t74� Perrinville Creek Channel illustrating the channel incision that will be addressed by restoration. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A flow reduction study began in 2013 that will develop alternatives to implement in the basin. Projects are expected to begin the design and/or construction phases in 2014. It is expected that this project will be implemented with the City of Lynnwood (half the Perrinville basin is in Lynnwood) and Snohomish County (owner of the South County Park). Projects will likely be a combination of detention, infiltration, and stream bank stabilization. A $188,722 grant from the Department of Ecology is contributing funds to the 2013-2014 Study. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Urbanization of the Perrinville Creek Basin has increased flows in the creek, incision of the creek, and sedimentation in the low -gradient downstream reaches of the creek. Before any habitat improvements can be implemented, the flows must be controlled or these improvements will be washed away. SCHEDULE: 2015-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 COST Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. $20,000 $50,000 $50,000 $85,000 $20,000 $50,000 Construction $200,000 $450,000 $450,000 $765,000 $130,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $220,000 $500,000 $500,000 $850,000 $150,000 $50,000 67 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2015-2020 Kxr-9 DRAFT CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2015-2020) Table of Contents GENERAL 112 Transportation Public Works 7 113 Multimodal Transportation Community Services 10 116 Building Maintenance Public Works 11 125 Capital Projects Fund Parks & Recreation/ Public Works 13 126 Special Capital / Parks Acquisition Parks & Recreation/ Public Works 15 129 Special Projects Parks & Recreation 16 132 Parks Construction Grant Funding) Parks & Recreation 17 421 Water Projects Public Works 18 422 Storm Projects Public Works 19 423 Sewer Projects Public Works 21 423.76 Waste Water Treatment Plant Public Works 23 PARKS — PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS Capital Parks & Recreation/ 125 Projects Fund Public Works 27 Special Capital / Parks & Recreation/ 126 Parks Acquisition Public Works 54 Parks Construction 132 (Grant Funding) Parks & Recreation 57 CIP GENERAL O N � O N F � O N N O N O O N O N N w Cn O O N N O w N U n a) O O d N O O N Cn O N a1 O N N W a LL U R F N v C LL W Q Z H U W O w a W" cIE O W m E O a In > E m a� EO U fn mQ c L Q 0 0 O O O O 11-0 W 0 l0 O 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 m N O Cn 0 l0 O H O l0 N O O O O O N 00 N LO I-V) h MM h 6,3O CO LO 613N CO N I--O 'ItN O 613O V3 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O NO 00 00 LOLO 0 000M 0 CN9 C moc O 69 co V3 CO N V3 V3 CO LO V3 60 O O C C O C O C O O C C O 0 C O co Cn O CO Cn CO I-- O � m0000 � COO � m V3 V3 V3 V3 V3 V3 � V3 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 COO LO I-- O O CD000700 N �� 00 N CD V3 V3 V3 l0 V3 V3 CO Co V3 V3 -ItV3 l0 69 69 O O O U') O O M O_ V O O V3 ;LO V3 60 O O O V 00 Lq N m N O Ih V3 C V3 V3 Y) LO C O CO LOB O N V co 7 M � V3 � xxx x xx xxx x N C E > O Cl n O 7 n C °1 E a) E y 4 a) — O > . yww C a) a) O a) >m� oca�EEU E a 7 N °� a o i no E E> a) o a) o c 0 C,3 0 0 a)— c> aa°7 a) O O m ` O O O. y a) a) vi 3— m 0 O U E ra) >> N- m . m C O O N 2 N p C > c¢¢ N > c o a) a) '>ur _T O 00 00 CS) C a) C C?> Cep C N N f6 U��.-. Cn �.-.� CvN O>¢ 6 w- CEdL - > L"ONCOCO O(0 >�45 C oco co a) Q' Lv� N COO N >U> V.L.+.L.+72U N >i » C O C O Cl)O a) N N p L ¢ N 1010 N( 0 a1CO L 6 m O O= 0 N 00 NCDQ'Q' .L.. CC-0: O ON< a5- N NI�(n (nMdMN¢222U(A 0 7 0 O M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O l0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O1-- 0 m CON 60).0 700 Cn O m NCO C0 000000 ONO C0 W N C0 N CO oO 0000 O -It �C0 N _7 CO V3 (0 V37 V3 LO V3 V3MM�MV) N V3 V3 6e. V3 V3 N INN V3 V3 63 V3 V3 53 V3 O Cl Cl O O Cl O O 00 Or- co N V3 N co coMVJ O O O O o O Cn N L" V3 EA O H7 O O O O O Coco C. O O O O O O O O O O m N m 7 m N 04 m co O �� N V3 V3 V360).� V3 m O O � O O 7 L N Cl) 61) CO V3 61) O M 0 0 0 0 00 O C. 0 0 0 C C O O 0Cn �mO� d' N V3 Cn 61) C', 62, Cl) V3 613 613 613 M f-CD O O M I-N O N Nfl OV N 0 0 7 0 Cl) N N 0 00 N N V3 611,M 69.6%3� 613 V3 xxxx xxxxxx xxx U c O V) a) N L O N a) O Cn 0d a) C Ca n W U c0 a) d T o m c O C d C O 6 Y C �; O ui U) Np > m p 3 p ¢ CD In c 3 F N co >i Y� c0 a Y c0 yO _co c a) aQ °)� > O o> c0 3 3��a y U L� E O E _ >Y > >j C p �aOU 0 0 rn T O U)C. c o >> a) >OD Q QN O U Cn T N 0) O m co w N 'O fa' M > Ca) 2 y0LCO= E�.. a) y m Q N N -o a) ¢ m E w O Cn Y V co:>> O r W O O n O p C > (n Cn c O y U 22 L 0 00- 0 E" C o O L N p-6 >> 01 a) > > V N O O @�-0w E E00 EE,Q¢ya¢Ya , c Y EW E w w E o QChco my� oLU �j O` �Ca N N E Q y m O O y E O o O T >Cn �Cn C a) in 0 N N`�'~ln Clm <_U) U) 'L ' U) Cn > > °� m > a) (D ai 0 3��a�W� °� o na) N� c (15 ViLO CO ¢ ¢ O¢ ¢ L 2 N O. Co O c fa (a a) c� (a "O c N OLD d � c0 c a (O N ._ O Cl) Cn NLO Cl)�p Cl) E ao—N C �2 ��¢2o D co 7 a ti O O O O O O O O O (OO O O co N O O O O EA O O O O ER O O C. m fA O O O O O O 7 O (00 613,613, O O O O X c _ m c (U E m �' S, a Q C y m N Q (0 .y- N N y O y Oi CO y a U I U W> m Q U E N C y 0 E y0 co n E 00 W y N E O C U m U C ' 0 0° V a o c 19"sdLL Y O N M 7 c N O 7> O N y (n Od' O C (U m`0oo(nEoLLU t -0U c>° �_o y 3 F D E m C N 0 C m y (0 J C E a O C Cp Z U C) W N C mZ C Q y N c0 c0 y > :_ ZA C O Q o O� aV o' y-0 y m' w c w ypY CdO � (0 0 n 0 N (() (() C� O 04 CD M 00 V Q N M O V' y3 N O (D (0 M O O N 64 N M r LO 61) r C9 O 0, p (f) m ') n Csi W V O �NM O fR Cn ON O m0 O LN C., N 00 N7 N j K3 60 r CV (h W NC r 00N M O R to O � r V3 O O 00M LLO O p o0 N o0 N m � W 04 N M O r fR O O N a)7O O N mMO m N W N M W 00 G L d} 0 a (0 0 9 O L) CD O N N > o m Q U 0 00 )o L L L m O O C)L N N 0 n C C C w J J J y C y C 0 0 0 Nddn 4)n) CD D �_000(u oo M O N O O O O O O O 00 O O O O N � (OM (00 7 7 (OM CDV3 H3 d3 d3 CV U3 d3 N U3 O O O O O O O CO O O O O O O 't u2 uu-) uu-) N C) N W 0 0 O O 0 CO O O O 0 O O O r O O O COM C"N (00 m O N N H3 � H3 N 03 Vy EA O O m 0 O O 0 0 O 0 O O O O n �O C,f!T MM(1�(f)(f) 613 Gq N lA U> N3 ef3 O O O O O O O O O O O I� 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) 0 O O O O O O O O O O O C000000 (n CO -It 0) O p �('M N u)u)u)O V S OM V OIL Cfl 1-N 00 69 6q EA � EA EA zq EA 6q 6q EA N O O O O O O O O O O O O M O O O M 0 N O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O CD CD O (O CD CD O O C) C) O O C)m O o 0 0 0 0 O O Cil in M00000 O(0C -,tO Cn O w c0 co V { O N r N LO� N�N��fA�O O O� N 6q H3 EA EA EA Ef3 Ef3 V3 V3 ER 7 0 C) C) C) O O O O O m 0 0 0 0) LO O 0 O O 0 0 O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O 0 0 C R CD OO OO�ON m (ON CO CO O(O M Om'tMO MN V 00 O£ 7 (13 Ef3 M co fA EA coO EA r EA EA U> H3 V3 w ER EA Z,� N V) W y y y > E E E � N N N E E C O NM O O Q 22 N 5 5 >aaaLa O O N E E E 7 7.6 U .6 cc cu 'Gc 'Gc Cn C C O CC O O O -'OOL O O 0C d o E E E NN4)0 >>>O Z Z O N?? >>>> i 4) y "000Qa�a�a�0U y y T c c a O. E E O. E£--- L o a a a) (n (n (D O y '� '� N N N O- N N� y O N: 0 0 0 (n N N N O C N N -- Co Co 00>V>V CIO QQ�y ,'y0 fn [n [n >V�H� V%C) N �001 �o4O1 y N Q F L L L L L Q Q Q L N F F y U L L L U W W w-NN NNN �(0(0(0 M w� N W W-1-1 0 O O O O O O U X C N NM Y NMNu W� N CO N NV NV NVCjN� o V y V C C 0 C LL L C C 7 7 y y C C 7 7 C C 7 7 C 7 0 C C 7 7 C C 7 7 y C LL rL N LL LL U' U LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL U ... U U yp. y t C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C d u E ' C �iw)w)w)w)w)w)www)w)w)w)22w)2 C y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y U > m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m O 00 C fq O N O N 01 O N O O N n 0 N M O O CO O Cn Cfl O O 00 7 p W LO NO CV c- M V3 V3 � 6� OOCO 0 0 7 O COO�O 0 M 0 V W 0 0 O 0 00 CD O LOOOOW00000-0 00 r O OM a0 U) l0 nao M CO rn fR CDNLO V3 O) CD 00 -It N N � �C M• V3 �� V-J V3 d n CO 0 Ol0W NnMmM00 -0 CO M 0 C6 LO Lq n cc� �OMn - — - a) O N N In noo NONV-T fA CO V3 M CO w w NNNM MEA V3 EA EA W 6,D N R c N N w E o, p c n a) W cq n o aa) aEi R c a > 3 ¢ 7 > 2. O R OO O R v 0 E� (0OL co O N O O N> co ,I- co N c as > Ry'6 ac�L¢� Coo E� m N O oLa) L CO O E E•c)pp� > C(n O O>>N (nN9 to 2 m� Cc >N y¢ O o w c O' O E(l (n E> A a C L M> w U ID m L) N_ ¢a c0� a<c TN C >'C �UNY�-O �L C OLC.i coo Z5 >�(J��v<p CL6 E E W O E V O.O U U CO M Vi �� Oi EO c M N R R a OQ 4: L (n 3:-; to W 3 y• O N� L O N ._ N UC�� a0 . o L m () _ � O R L CO M >< 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ) cgOR L N2¢� O R C6 C6 C6 C6 C`6 C`6 C`6 C6 R C C N 0 N N _O _O N N _O _O N _O 'ON _ N 'ON "' _ N "' 'ON 'ON 'N O -O "O R �vVVVVV N N N N N N N�� V(n N (n LL N N LL LL.» O) N 00 O 0000 00 O 0 0 00 00 0 0 0000 0000 00 00 O O O O 0 O N 0O O LO N 00 LO CO mN LO 0 Cl 00 � r- CO N 0 w O O 00M �� Cfl OCO a0O N �� M Cl) H3 O M 613 M N 603 603 MHO 603 69 6 6 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0000 O O O C. O O C. C. 00 O O O O O O O O OCO LON MCOOCO On0M IOCOnO CO 00 MO C.M L2N n LO C. 0 �� EA�� 'i 7 6464 O O CA ffl Yi E9 O O O O 0000000000000 O 0000 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O LO0 LO 00 LO � LO 00 N �00000L0�0 N O O LO SON w 00 O M rflrfl n CA fl CA l00 CA � 100 M �� ItMffl 00� �� V3 co Cl) 6 EN9 EA 60 O O LO N CA u, c d E d > f 0 0 E 0 U U c U co M. (n W 0 � R d Y c w o a a fn Cl) c c L U E d d E u c C Y C d > c o ° 'U5 R c 3 c o d 2' .4 > c O aci d E> N Y co > p R C M N d d M J2 c ♦- R 0 d R u) E d c E 0> > o° E a C, a` D N N > 0 p m > M a O .� C O a d E E E !n N u U R 3 R 3 r !� Q w E c N E-2 k2 N v1 N C c 0 R O R> R Y Y Y 0 O m C d N d O O .� N (n U cl N R> >R >> 3> d -0 U 0C dtM C N '' n d d E> >> O) >= 'a--) d d a d �. c C .d. C N M 00 E>' E- R R > N¢ > O O N 0 E¢__ d Z L w>> �¢¢ c R> c<(.)co 0 w Q �U) R .� Q L r c L .L.. co °D " 0' oo w )0000 >a a 3 .9 3� m o o R E E E N 00 00 a) a; (0�v)v)v)� n L Y � u o; c CO Cu �Y-0 o 70) d L O "Od MNNco L L T> E . O O> E in0�E d"d0R NN E I 2 a) OyC\l O N .MN � L. OO 3 in U)n > j L L L T > ¢Q d 0 L c c c CD C R 7 N C 7 0 p R d R R 7 R R d QSSSM C,.)M Q CO N MW 2i 2i Q 2 0 N Q 0 0 c O O' O M M M' M N N wil 0. O O O O O O LO Ln N N 40 0. O N Mk -4 M a Ni O _ N NLO c ~ c O Y N C O fA O N O N Cl U'T W O N O V3 O N pp Cl N p LA N O N O O Vl U n N 'p O N a` 0 Va to r O N O V7 IC'J O N O VJ N O N N W IL LL x U c H F m O v 0 O CO E W � c Z a U M � F U a` Liof a w F O N cc N7 N Q1 Lo O N Lo V3 T N W LO LO uo of N Lo Va rn LO ui Lo 60 m Ml 00 N Ml V3 LO�LO of of N N In LO E1J V3 c m c U N N N R :9 :° a w 10 O OOOOOOOOo00o00000000000000000000000000000000000 O o 00000000000000000 V)OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ViO V)OOO V)V)O Vi N m 0 N p O O OOOOO MIO O O It C C LO C C O LOM r0 O C C C C)C)M M(ON C C C C C)C)LO (O (O�NN C C LO C LO C C O O OOV)MM C C V) O C C ON C C L0 LOO C C O �co C C LO V ViN O_ C LO ViNNM C C CDLOO C C LO N C C V OO qN C C O w LO F V9 V3 V3 V3 q V) V) V3 V3 V9 V3 V3 V) CO V3 V) V) � V) V3 V3 V3 M C V) V3 V3 V3 V3 V3 V3 V3 V3 V3 V3 V3 V3 V3 V3 V3 Vf O � N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N LO V9 O N LO N O l0 LO N O N O O CDV) V) V) V) V) Vi N 69 O O O O O O O O O 01 LO l0 � V) OD N l0 O � LO LO � O p N V3 V3 V3 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 LO V3 l0 � O O O M LO l0 N C p V) � V) V) VT V) N O O O O O C O O C O O C O O C O O C O O C O O C O O C O O C O O C W) O 0 O 0 O O � O O 04 O O p N V3 V3 V3 V3 O O 000 O O O O 0 00 O 0 O O O O 000 o0o O O O O O O O O O o 00 00 O C O C w ui V3 o ('M ui r ui o_ o V) ui N ui V3 o M o_ v V3 N v V3 o p V) V) V) VT V) V3 V) V) V) EA N O O O O O O O O O O (O M O O O LO O O C LO O � O p N VD (OM V3 69 (OM 69 613 V) N O O O O M cc CO O O O O £ ^ (O O V (O N N W 6'3 CY) V3 613 IL LL V O C C N E C O C O C O1 N E C N C N (6 E N U m U U C N O £ U O y y C N C C m U N c' co `cts C N U O U O N O Q' :6 C m N N C, C cts C E O N O C ctsU L O N (0 O O C O C O N O N O U �-' Vi m O O U N (0 C m N O. a� 9 ¢ T a Om N ) U C. ca a) mu�c r.+ E cl a oho o � 00 M x Q '- E L o � �sda�� `g `g yU ov,-Cy c c o O `m Eo�dO m U c 0 0 d a ac�wa m c a¢i m afc-UWLLoc�m(o2 m E m s a m m U Y1 G1 O m m F> C: O 7 U m O. C y m m C N U N O N O ` C N m O U m y 3 y y 3 3 y T 3 m U N Q' (n W U YQ is c W m x af W m mQLL_UO 0- O W O (� a O N W d N � Vim 2 a �. m m> Q 0.'C m 0.'C O m _ O' m C O �y LL 07 O C `o��M 0 0 �� (n 0 °1 (n' ci cU c o� m c E Q c �� oq._ ��mccccr��000°�c-'c maU20 O SU Sin' a0 F M 70777C ico>°)cq W 3Q O 2 U y� O Z C N N C C N cc C C N N C C N N C C N N C C N N C N 7 c m' �' > N o c C N ._ .� m o (L' 0 3k#3k 3k##3k N N N 3k X Q W (p m ((pp o O�� U 11 U U U 'L a �(� LL T T T T 0 y U Q C C C C C C C C C C C C U W N�� W (n y_> �` a O O O O O O O O N j0000 N (6 m (6 (O O N N W E y °L, °L, °L, °L, °L, °L, °L, °L, y °0 0 10 m m m m (`c— 0� m m m m m m m y Z > Z Z 3 3 3 3 °o °o 3ucncncncn�UU °o `O `O 2222a00 ccnininininininina N N N 2 •C a"O"O"O"O"O"O"O"O"O"O"O"0 E N T T w' w' T T w' w' TUUL w' fn co y N N N N N N N N (Cp � cc cc m m O O m m O O m y99999•C O a C QQ¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢UUUUUUWWLLLLLLLLLLLLU-U- C C C C C C C C C C C -c��-j-j222222ddda-a-ww .- 7 7 7 7 7 N N O O LO N fA O O O N M 0. 11 O O O O O O O O O O � d3 O d3 d3 d3 d3 d3 d3 d3 O N N EA lLO N O N EA O O n co O O 00 Go O O ER EA O O EA EA O O ER ER 0)_ cli UA LLOi O cli N O O O O O O O O O O H3 O V3 V3 V3 V3 V3 V3 V3 O M O O LO _ O EA N 0 0 � fA 0 0 00 EA 0 0 EA EA 0 0 EA EA 0 0 di EA h CO O O U3 � N O O O O O O O O O O ,'I- E!) 00 613 6f1 60 to to 613 EA O r LO O w cq N W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD O 000LO O� CD N EA In ff) ER O � V3 N 0 0 OO �ln 1 0 0 V co Oln 0 0 00EA0 00 0 0 0 0 EA O R O 60 � n O O N_ N £ N O d3 N a0 It EA � W EA V-J W O N O ^� N 7 y U � N � O c 41 �c o m c 16-77- o 0 aS� m 'aN LL m U a W y coLL U 7 N C 61 R coC N N O N C C -p N mU mD3d ' W c c U N 3 UCI w i ' a (7 (7 N N '- +' c y E U' 0 ILL LL co ?� U N a)4% c, EOQ�� =Q M LLM7 7 n N to oil 12 C n C n C n C w v a C G O O O O O O O O O O O 0000 O^ 00000000000 O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O LO LO LO 0000 OOO �_ LO 0 LO 5 N NNnOO In CM M cM EA Td3 cMm EA EA EA CM cc) EA O H3 V3 V3 � ;; 69 � F T O ffi N 0000 0000 0 O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O N ; ; � 64 1.0 O O 64 N 0000 00 00 00 O 0000 O o C C 00 0 C 00 C C 00 C 0 C C ui LO ui o 0 0 in in in o 0 Ol H3 fH fA fA LO EA V fA fA fH N EA O � � N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O O O O O 0 0 00 �ON3 V03 0�06460r-N NA V E fA O V� U7 co N 0000 00000 0 0 0000 O o C C 00000 0 C 0 C C 0 0 0 0 ui0uio 000o0 Ui ui n e» E» v E» E» e» N o � N 0000 0000 00 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 00 0 0 0 0 iri Lri Lri 0 0 0 Sri Sri Sri 0 Sri 0 0 f0 2EA,Zr EA fA d3 V3 EA EH EH In N VH 7 O M O � � N 0000 00 000000 O 0000 O O O O O M O 000000 O O O O O O O O O In O O O O 0 In 0 In O O IC'J O61 Is O O N 0 NN N p fA V3 V3 V3 6q V3 N 0000 0 co co co 0 d o000 o U7 O Ri O N N LO EA EA O_ O O N £ O O N N 6 W a� IL LL X X U E 3 a� m y as c c E > y a) i w r E o E°° N ° >o a c E 3 cn N p aEi > E W cL��>�°=EYC'= _ E2>E Q mNo��>—`md�-Eap C• a E Z m 'c as a) 3 a y U L Y d a o a C C> d -p °o L v ca m c m CO m m Y E p as a U c N `cad y 2 o m m v v ma Y `m O N Y U `m m° m o o a a t aE a c i m m a) m N �. {p C y > M p a5 a5 a5 a) ID C N IL aaCODUU) LLL��222 U)in>O O O Go 0 le O O C. o O 00 O 0 � N O � A V!W o O o o 0 00 0 LO � o � ER � COD) O O O O O O O O OV O5 N m v). � Tff! O fR o O o o O 00 O o �o 0 w v3 yr � 0 0 0 0 C 00 O N O O N 000 � o fA EA fA to O o o 0 O O O O O O N l�lW)O (O O �� N fH fR fR 0 �o� C. 0 O 0 0 00 0 M L6 O t( aD � I N N N N N N � c c c c c c LL W > > > > > F LL LL LL LL LL� y f> al a1 a1 a1 a1 � w IL M m aaaaain y m i 13 Oo m 0 N 64 O T O of V� N � o O o0 0 O N O N 64 EA Q1 O to N W o 00 O O 00 N � O � � N W o O O 63 N 0 00 co O pp <o o rn CD N N W O o co O c °r° v o v Lo coCC! 0 U N N N fA W O O d 0 O c0 :2 £ 00 � ri o . 'O N N cl W N N 7 N O � N N 7 (� C c Co m l6 U U m U N L N C R co o 3 H a N x ° m c m � c mto U'c d m m w C N O N N C w N d 10 i O @ C Y CO Of o C H VILDI:2 14 O^ V) c0 a0 O if) N Iq r" r" r" M M 00 00 R N V CO co Ft Y V3 V3 E!T V3 C. N a0 a0 — O N M 00 Up IV CA h Nco Q) C � U) ZJ N O O N O N p CD0 N TO yj N O N O w N C1 n tN O O O N O O N N O 0 a O n V> O O N O VJ O O O N C O O to Vk O 0 0 N O O O S O V! O O O V) CD 7 7 n � r O n N G N N � 40A V M O M M G M N w w c0 69 c0 N N W � O � N M M m 0) � O � N vi OM f 4 T a co � 10 N � N 09 O) cc 4cn Q) o0 � O T CM M � N � .OM 00 ON W N O OM) y COOM N �NcO @ c�0 O EA c0 £ toW 7 -e CM CM n LO N N y V3 V3 W W O N p CC, N 7 G N N S U ocu d C m m CC L 0 VJ o M U ti O C N N w m U C C N d u) � C c N? 7 R U R U C U C i N U m N N 0 N O cu 'O y N C) m N M to p a) oti m a)U C C p " cc m > cc s >s�'as c N w N > o a` _ > L71 a) 10 C C R f6 c6 c6 a) W a) TA EDof C F 00 >- HHHW 15 � Q Q 0/ to CIA CV m k / G ) a k k a 04 ( g eLn _ 0 § u- k � E ) k Z \ ƒ m 2 / § ) [ 0 $ 2 § \ \ 0 2 a a J ® 2 _ ® 72 § / a ® 2 - cm _ 72 04 - cli § a 2 - 22 G m - J-4 C1404 ~ CD 2 22 / m a 2 22 / ® / ■ - - » 2 }2 _ } cli a 0 ^ a7$ [$ w aE \ a§/ $/ m aW o 04 kCD \ y ( K/ q C) i k _} CL §o v§} - ) -0 2]_ _) § 2E o a §) r_ )f\ } /§ k > 0 wm k} 0 0 C fC 0 a r U) 5 y C d � E V C O L Q E n m C, C i U u 00�0064rn064 00000000 O N m N u� N CO O O O 7 O M O G F O M EA � coLD Vi EA O N Vi 64 N N O CO O 0 N N O O N O O � t» � o N C, 0 o O 6s O O N 0 O OO O N O o O O O O 64M fA cc cc O) Imo* 6D O IOA 00 O 0 6 O E W U A O A 0 CD O 0 O fA 0 OEAO N M 0 0 O O O 0)EA 1 O N V 0 N a LL U m c _m U Ol Y O, cm d 30 LL m c d L t co > m c_ c ad E a 3 co C 0 .N C' 6= O 0 N C W 0 W F m m � m N >,w cc D o Q o o,a go-2 3 Q'c `� Z Q > a U O. m N `a U W (3.0- oo� U `m cm2 a)o c U O o a 2 c m o O Q> Y o m E m d Q' IL 3 vUoUtAULL�3:Wa .> a)O 'O 0 m N C4 V) N W O NW N O N v� co W 0 0 N 0 M O O N d) n C t» r NN m � O C, N OIL- C 0) 64 O N N O O M y� O O Vi E y W O O M N c0 e» O O N fA O O N EA CDO O O O O F» O 00 O N F» O O O N 61� a 0 N U m 2 c r d E > d 25 5 m C a E o J F d F( d d L C O U) C O d C NFF t5 d d N C 03aQ W N >. . .N s O d a, a,d 0 N 2 m O FSmm2U)am U,coa d 0 .d. O C 0 N C.mddm N Y 2 2 Y U 0>0cQ Y U p v L d U s_ 0 N xUt tUo m >� ��iOoQ y Y ODU LL Cm- jULdiN�OONOOO O OE OC �cdi. P;OOP;o00OOLooOOW��2��2--�� m Lcc cdi o R m m N N ma N O c O O c c O O c c O O c c O O c cwO O O O N U m m m LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL o E E E E E E E E E E E E m U U U w w w w w w w w w w w w LL . . d m c c 'U w d > C C O O C N O C N N C C N N C C N N C C N N C C N N C C m 4! C C K m m m F F F F F F F F F F F F F L a C O O L+i M V3 O O O 0 0 00 O O tl3 r.N O C, O O O O V3 U_ O O Y m �`p C a :o mW O_ N Z F U m E c o Q c Z\ a N LL - T Q U o c r Q d a LL l N N» >m C n Q U O W O O 0 o c c 6 E F rnU U c m w .2 m do �n¢(m`D�U�TDw m m y N F d x Co EaU f o and--o 'lp 'lp >. R c m O LL 01 Y d 3 dFFv)dL c a `a c O.- U � W f6 � [n m ca a -2E f6 Z o > o>> a a L N m d a� �UU UUo C Of tAU� O to S a W O O O C C O 0 0 0 rn 01 m N N N V3 fA fA N O O O O O O O O N N N O 64 O 00 O 0 00 O O O C C 00 M o o 0 M M 00 O M N M M fA fA fR fR IM uMY O O O m Z. m c n w a EE u d O a 17 I I I I I C N E O Y N to W O o o o or M LP) o C0 o 000 ER o fR LO o Ln o Ln o 0 0 0 o o Ln rn co rn o co co Ln f.- lzra0 1.0 ('M aO M O N LO Llj 7 MNM0000 It V OEHm I-- Efl f-,-7M—M7 N ONN(M MM61,-7 VN 6361, Qf l V=J 69 EA 64i EiJ 613 O (0 O a 0 LP) C6 M M o v ifl M E9 Eta O V 0 Lfl a0 V h N M 00 V ua N V=) EA LMO O 0 O M co Lfl N_ � N 6q EfJ Eta O 0 0c0 00 N_ Lfl N 7 EfJ 69 N 00 O O O N R O O O � M Oi U V N O M O M C ; � N E9 69 EH Ef) 00 0o 0000 O LO �69 V MNM 000 N 6-� Eta ococC) CD C) O I� O L° 00 O co O O LO I-- O Ln 0 M 00 N EFT oc EA EA Ff3 `, E d to a) 7 C) M ` C C a) oE a) E E E E E E E E E u E ca L6 R L6 R L6 R L6 R 07 CA CA CA 07 CA 07 CA 07 R > C T T a 2 R ° o R o R o° o° o°La) a- 0-LLa)CL. CL C.LJ CL C.LJ CL a. .. a)J °LL E E E m E m E E E E E E :: N a U U= U= U U U U U U R (n N R � R � R R R m 2 R U> u) N Cl) NLV RL a) N N N N N pN N ON N pN N LL� N co to M M N O N fi? co LO M n n M d9 Ln V fo M V M Cl) G9 T I2Y C LC) N M t9 01 01 M 01 O f") fq O n O) M LN m d9 T M Lo co LN V) N4 LO Cf n ao M N T O co O co O n N Lo N Lo vj� O N 60R N M M 409 in Ln V O M V M M E09 Ln C LC) N M O M EA On M M O M O O EA � C) M L29 M O T O M O N a) h Cl) N oc fH U) A d a O CD O O O p N LLi N V co O N V3 � O O M LO O 00 Q) LO (N co N O N O O O O O M co LLB co N O N (N C. O V o0 O n LLB M OGOI N ua O O O O O M M CN O N O O O O O O LO Lo C14 O Lo61> N O O O w O O O N UJ LO V3 00 N y EF3 W c E a`) m CO >, N 4) O oc0 +N > A c N T a) > a)JJ a) O N O O -4` ^ 'C a N a N 7 E E U C R a) LL C C m C R a) a) O a) ap c2 aa))2 a) oa Co 06mLL C ° O N C 7Q� 7 O N C M.O N C LLMLL CN 7 C m >�ca) C a) amU a) O C5C7LLCD64 a) O a) o O O LO O � N O N Lo L29 Oo LM r O N O O 01 O 00 00 O O O O N V 00 O N O O O dj O O M C)O O N Lo EF3 O C O LC) LO � O N O VT O fR O O O � O w LO R LO O Y N rn W U) O = N C O O N 4 c/ a) t C 7 O Co C N O > MU > m � a7 d O U C N a) Y C a) p :) I Z H 0 k§ U. 0 E % IL 4) E k @ CL ° I £ 2 w 3 g 2 FL 0 w j (L k 2 3 / ) - ± a / ) ° - I $ 2 CL ) 2 c 0 k ƒ \ % - A \ ) }�_ 2 $ / k%/ \\\ k}( � {§ /'c 4/ G k // ) 3f £/$ ,o » �} - )% ® \) 2 )/)/ m) )f ( \-3 ƒ7)) )�% ƒ/§/ )} } )$ ®�® I»e /\\ ®ma) a �/ \§E j\ k/ 4�£ cu �kk) ) \ \) Cc ) aE \/2 ®®o :/�- , Cal \ 22/I CL I )§ U)— )05$ LO & 19 01 O N n O N O N 4Y O N O O O O O W 0 0 0 0 O Lq O O O1O W OLO O O � (MELT OD LO � Eri Efi cli O O CN EA O d EA O O O EA O O O O O N O O O EA O 000 q O O D1 EA O cc O coMELJO r- Eri 0 H C9 O �0O � W Ld cc ER O W � O (0 EH EA O O O O O 04 Eri N 01 O O O N 00 O N CD O O N Eri r O N O N O O O N O N O O N O N Eri O O O N O O Eu O CD ClOO O l0 ap 0 0 00 m E O 00 N CDN. fA N EA (fl FA C> Lnr FA r N N Eri EA EA W X y co p (n LL a o c L y U N N E d o > *0 'o 0ca_ 2 E v c d uU ddd� m o m� c m rn 3 O m N N o ❑ LL m CL O c N =-(D L U L3= CO2LL O - �' U) L j Y Co Y O N y O c � ` - m a N N La N m Emj L U "O U c C y 'y0 r0 N N L M m N a)c >'> m C m LL E o t N r� how �oaa� cc U V i 0 i V c ccv, a-0a v c m o J c 2 ).1 0 i mm0Uapi��apiapap m p 7 7 7 ayi 0.0 mmV>v>v> C C a)f0 y y y a) .0 V Cy O 2 : lL T fL fL mmaw(DU)(9(9(9(9 CD O O CT O N EA O O CD O CD O O N O W N cc 4a O O O � Eri O N M Fy O N O L O O N_ O N m r vi 0) O O p O � M O � N O N c EH n O O N O O n W W N N Vi Vi Vi O O C. Ln O O O O O O to N M � Eri N Eri O co N Efl LO CD O O 0 O O � 04 Vi EA N d O . N N W X x x a) V y c E U y d C d > 3 o m o O a a E c d E d rn U m m ccM rn rn m m N m m c ❑ m o� LO O CO ZCO (r n N O LL N > L In Y N y Q `m c � _ O-c °U od NO N m O 0 m � c G7 > C O N "O ip O y E N -p c ` 47 p S m N E o w s a ❑ 0 J ccl,O m > c � N N m N �J UM G1 0 N N 6 0 N a O C U) Z =Zo5 Cq co C D O V N c a) V C 0 Oi lL N c y f6 m c d (L O c p (L O Macr)U)6a)�zC�z O N N W Lr cli w O O N It ww co Lq N N O N N N li lc� H co LO LL J � d N y O o N c O N N t0 N H j C N j J 3 � C N c E2 N N U 6 C c y c C s— dd 3 as N C T IR m O y� ur 3 N N 0 � � U U OI N N E � c J a n N N N N a > O O N W a ti J OI O d N w c c w K : c n > > F N N OI w w 4) 3womm 3 J L D n rn N > N E It E E a c Eu °U JJJ m m m a dNQQQQ 20 O N � O H LO O N O N O N _O O N O N co N O Lf) N T O N O y V T O O N a` 0 N O O N y O N y W O O O O ua IL LL U E 06 R � p cj a a a r c a� U C E a T rn m E > a> OCL W C m N C Z y w M f4 W J O a3 R o In U U- a in J in OOM O ffl OON ffl ffl O'tO O O Ih O N Ln f- V O m EA Ln EiT LQC0C fO M ffl O V r N NU.) 0U.)NOm w ER ER ON T p co 0) C> co 19 N N 6-1 ff3 fA fA fA fff to O M O oc f� N LO M 0 O fD M V Efl EA V) 00 O O 7 O O O V r M f�0 V ER O N fD M co LO O O N 6q r O O Cl! T O T r N co O N V <A e4 V9, o or fLn r O CD rl� CD O 6q ea ER 0 0 co CD O O O CD N M r N Ef3 O eqi O O N O N V3 a,I- O O O O I-- O O r O W aD LO 6-1 co O VJ 69, � N � a) c c c c c c E E E E E E E U O O O O O O O CL f1 O_ Q f1 O_ O_ E EEEEEE a ! c m a) — C - U U L L L L L L L ME R R m a) a) a) 0 a) a> CD m co C C C C C C C CL N EU EU EU EU EU�- 0 W aL W33EfE U 33>0 a d d d d d R N N (n IL �aa R - R N d N N N N N N a N a U�� a7 R CD y CD(ncnu)u)u)u)u)u) y O O CD I-- 00 0) O T M O O O O O O O O O N IL a N N N N N N N N N U N to NON W UN. 0 co N O Cl M M It fA T��mmmow-_- 00 0 co r r Ln Ln N N 6ik tf O O O O ER O 77 co W W fp N N 6R 6R aO O aO 100 0 1 aD aD M M cli C%l co O IIII�O O O N N N N In � Ln v v_ O Ln 2 2 N N fR fR M O O C M 00 O N O M fn V). M E9 fR O O O M O O O M M O O O M 0 co co N Ff3 Ff3 EA N E y > y y 0 F- d �axs ic; t 3 U a)U 6 O W 04 N o NN m d a 3 c v H ��, Eat w C � Y a7 7 LL 7 a a O 2 3 m i 7 0 0 0 R 2 C C C y u E E E J u C O- . c i 7 7 7 i 0 O R -r-cn CO aD a �' a J Y J R O C 0 0 0 m w O O 21 O o c o c O O 00 N C4 ClN3 O 6s N O co) EA N N O O O O O O 00 O O r N 6G N r O O U) O EA N N O O O Ci O O O O 00 N O co O p 04 p N EA N O O cc') ER O O O O O O f� OD 00 1� r En N r O U> O N N O O O O O O O O 00 W 'I, r O En N U> r O O O N N W L6 O es O O O O O W 00 ul r O � � r O O EH N N O 69 O UT O O O O O O 69 O E!4 O O O O O CO N v> O � O y f0 69 r O ff? N +' Ef3 y W N o a N C: O O N N r C: O N N 0 N C N a c i 0) 3 � U H 3 C () :) Z 22 c oCDI-- N AN LOOc+)C) rGONIQ O 1n es3 H � � O N ER 00 00 O O 00 O O W W W N NEf3 N N EA K) N N O O M M M O O Cl N O Of O r LO Cl) O 00 04 N N N W O O O) 0) 0) O O O V It N O O O 7 O N O 0M M N 0) 000 N En Lo H) LO N EA fR 1A O N `o ni. O On w y O O C) O W U N N a It O O N �� 4a� ILN O O O V 00 ONO) OVN NN nW1 O O�(O LO m I- It O 00 N 6')0N C\f 6'�' Oi0 NWT MM On(O O N V I O N N (O 00 W) 00 0) LO Ln O 69- - 6 N ff3 to R O fq C N E F O Q fa E n M N Y v C R U U. 0000 L0 O O N CD d O O n c 1 a m 00 Cl) M In O £ �EA �� N N W a LL U N U) 'O 7 U C O N 2 _0 C O O N � U � E y y O. W U N N C QQ O O a Z 0) a a � C U c D y y It 0 O O 0 a Of000 M M � Q1 M N Mk Vk 603 M N Cl)CD V b9 Vk M U 23 24 CIP PARKS PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS 25 1 PROJECT NAME: Anderson Center ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $145,000 Field/Court/Stage 700 Main Street, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits 2.3 acres; zoned public neighborhood park/openspace field PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Upgrades to youth sports field, picnic and playground amenities and children's play equipment. Replacement and renovation of amphitheater in 2015 with improved courtyard area and drainage. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: As a neighborhood park, the Frances Anderson Center serves the community with various sports, playground and field activities including various special events. Upgrade and additions essential to meet demand for use. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $20,000 $100,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $20,000 $100,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 * all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 27 PROJECT NAME: Brackett's Landing ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $125,000 Improvements South: Main Street and Railroad Avenue south of Edmonds Ferry Terminal on Puget Sound North: 2.7 acres with tidelands and adjacent to Department of Natural Resources public tidelands with Underwater Park South: 2.0 acres with tidelands south of ferry terminal. Regional park/Zoned commercial waterfront. Protected as public park through Deed -of -Right; partnership funding IAC/WWRC/LWCF /DNR-ALEA & Snohomish Conservation Futures PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Landscape beautification, irrigation, furnishings/bench maintenance, exterior painting, repairs, jetty improvements/repair, north cove sand, habitat improvement, fences, interpretive signs, structure repairs, sidewalk improvements, restroom repairs. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Retention of infrastructure for major waterfront park, regional park that serves as the gateway to Edmonds from the Kitsap Peninsula. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $2,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $100,000 $5,000 $5,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $2,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $100,000 $5,000 $5,000 all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts PROJECT NAME: City Park Revitalization ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,530,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Revitalize City Park play area with new play equipment and addition of a spray park amenity to be used in the summer. Spray parks have become very popular in many communities as replacements for wading pools that are no longer acceptable to increased health department regulations. These installations create no standing water and therefore require little maintenance and no lifeguard costs. Staff will seek voluntary donations for construction costs. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project combines two play areas and the completion of the master plan from 1992. This is very competitive for State grant funding, as it will be using a repurposing water system. This will be a much valued revitalization and addition to the City's oldest and most cherished park. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $5,000 $100,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $5,000 $100,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 *all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the arts We PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Complex ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $700,000 Improvements 61h Street N. 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 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Park Development Bleacher/stadium repairs, infield mix, baseball/softball turf repair, retaining wall, fence and play structure replacement, skate park and facility amenities, tennis and sports courts repair and resurfacing, irrigation. Landscape and site furnishing improvements. Master Plan in 2016, development improvements based on Master Plan in 2020. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Overall capital improvements for Civic Center Field. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 10,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 10,000 *all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 30 PROJECT NAME: Sunset Avenue Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,876,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Provide a sidewalk on the west side of Sunset Ave with expansive views of the Puget Sound and the Olympic Mountains. The sidewalk will connect the downtown business district, surrounding neighborhoods, water access points, and the existing parks and trails system. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This sidewalk has been a priority for the City of Edmonds for several years. It is included in 5 different City plans, the Transportation Improvement Plan, Non -Motorized Section; the Parks Recreation and Open Plan; the City comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities Plan; the Capital Improvement Plan; and the Shoreline Master Program. Specifically, the Parks Recreation and Open Space Plan identified Sunset Avenue Overlook priorities, namely improved connectivity and multi -modal access, complete the bicycle and pedestrian route system, identify scenic routes and view areas, and landscape improvements. SCHEDULE: COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $200,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $200,000 31 PROJECT NAME: Fishing Pier & Restrooms ESTIMATED COST: $1,350,000 ;fr I-N LWCF/IAC Acquisition and Development Project PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Fishing pier parking lot landscape improvements. Re -tile and renovate restroom facilities. Electrical upgrade, rail and shelter replacements / renovations. Work with WDFW on structural repairs of concrete spalling on pier subsurface. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Capital improvements to retain capital assets and enhance western gateway to the Puget Sound. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $10,000 $1,300,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $10,000 $1,300,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 32 PROJECT NAME: Community Park / Athletic ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,830,000 Complex at the Former Woodway High School MOW 17'1 FORMER WOODWAY HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC FIELD IMPROVEMENTS PREPARED FOR THE EDMONDS SCHOOL OISTRICi MAY 74i7 HOGAN PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop community park and regional athletic complex with lighted fields and recreational amenities in partnership with Edmonds School District, community colleges, user groups, and other organizations. Development dependent upon successful regional capital campaign. $10m - $12M project. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The site is currently an underutilized and undermaintained facility with great potential as community multi -use active park. Site has existing controlled access, greenbelt, parking and 4-court tennis facility with substandard fields. Highly urbanized area with 150,000 residents within 5-mile radius. Future maintenance supported by user fees. SCHEDULE: 2013-2019 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $500,000 $40,000 $440,000 $400,000 $450,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $500,000 $ 1 $40,000 $440,000 $400,000 $450,000 all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 33 PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Park ESTIMATED COST: $15,000 Improvements J 3 89th Place West and 197th Street SW, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County 12.7 acres (10.7 acres Open Space & 2 acres Neighborhood Park) Zoned Public PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements to the picnic, roadway, parking, play area and natural trail system to Maplewood Park. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset to the neighborhood park system. SCHEDULE: 2013, 2016 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $5,000 $5,000 $5000 1 % for Art TOTAL $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 34 PROJECT NAME: Marina Beach Park ESTIMATED COST: $130,000 Improvements South of the Port of Edmonds on Admiral Way South, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County 4.5 acres / Regional Park / Zoned Commercial Waterfront, marina beach south purchased with federal transportation funds. WWRC / IAC Acquisition Project; Protected through Deed -of -Right RCW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Expand parking area. Portable restroom upgrades. Repair and improvements to off -leash area. Replace play structure and install interpretive sign. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset to the regional waterfront park system. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $100,000 $5,000 $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $100,000 $5,000 $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 35 PROJECT NAME: Mathay Ballinger Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $30,000 781h Place W. & 241". St. at Edmonds City Limits. 1.5 acres/Neighborhood Park/Zoned Public PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install path from Interurban Trail spur terminal to parking lot. Replace play structure and improve picnic area. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset in the neighborhood park system. SCHEDULE: 2013 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $20,000 $5,000 $5,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $20,000 $5,000 $5,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 36 PROJECT NAME: Meadowdale Clubhouse ESTIMATED COST: $90,000 Grounds 6801 N. Meadowdale Road, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County 1.3 acres / Neighborhood Park / Zoned RS20 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements to the parking area, wooded area, trail system and landscaping of exterior clubhouse at Meadowdale Clubhouse site. Replace playground. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset with installation that provides community use of the facility and north Edmonds programming for day care, recreation classes and preschool activities. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $75,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $75,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts 37 PROJECT NAME: Meadowdale Playfields ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,000,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Partnerships with City of Lynnwood and Edmonds School District to renovate Meadowdale Playfields, installation of synthetic turf for year around play. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Partnership to leverage funds and increase field use for Edmonds citizens. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Engineering & Administration Construction 250,000 $250,000 $0 $0 1 % for Art TOTAL $250,000 $250,000 $0 $0 PROJECT NAME: Pine Ridge Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $15,000 Improvements 20 1)3 2U NJ J - �2!1V 20 J, 2a .20' f08TH ST SW [� 2a�208TH PL PI nRi 7 873 871 83`a Avenue West and 204th St. SW, Edmonds City Limits, within Snohomish County 22 acres (20 acres zoned openspace/2 acres neighborhood park) Zoned Public; Adopted Master Plan PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Forest improvements, habitat improvements, tree planting, wildlife habitat attractions, trail improvements, signs, parking. Natural trail links under Main Street connecting to Yost Park. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Retention of natural open space habitat site and regional trail connections. SCHEDULE: 2015 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 New additions meet the 1 % for the Arts Ordinance requirements 39 PROJECT NAME: Seaview Park ESTIMATED COST: $35,000 Improvements 801h Street West and 186th Street SW, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits 5.5 acres; Neighborhood Park/ Zoned Public; Purchased and developed with LWCF funds through IAC; protected with Deed - Of -Right PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Annual repair and upgrade to facilities and fields. Re -surface tennis courts, pathway improvements, and play area maintenance. Renovate restrooms. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Site serves as neighborhood park with children's play area, open lawn, softball/baseball fields and soccer fields, restroom facilities, basketball court, parking and tennis courts. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $20,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $10,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $20,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $10,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts .e PROJECT NAME: Sierra Park Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $110,000 LACKLEA-F }AP,kM MR MAKE 0' JA;—F-bY.m ah -Nm4 rAW40JVW� Arch At M�6„}rrw j4_..4 pi, Ii h P—A --7 N =-Ad 4 Mn aaw�" W ylVer . a! 00,d— W Ira-....r t i. a 1�1YM 4 h..V 4 F.. #-1. rxi hIr OrpmA► wilan. tnl ramrk""4n� -..hN1x 7� 40"t A44 INtol far ixd,M. dhow bees a'imd hw qm m+r+iaR r.`w* nw na hr 4r s is rnhk a.Jarc..e .. h.i r-.... sv •\JM.S 801h Street West and 1911h Street SW, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits 5.5 acres; Neighborhood Park/ Zoned Public PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improve pathways and interpretive braille signs. Field renovation to include field drainage for turf repair. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Site serves as neighborhood park with children's play area, open lawn, softball/baseball fields and soccer fields, portable restroom facilities, basketball hoops, parking and Braille interpretive trail for the blind. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $40,000 $70,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $40,000 $70,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 41 PROJECT NAME: Yost Park/Pool ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $605,000 Improvements PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pool replastering, tile work, and annual anticipated and unanticipated repairs. Add in -pool play amenities. Park site improvements and repairs to trails and bridges, picnicking facilities, landscaping, parking, tennis/pickleball courts and erosion control. ADA improvements. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Beautiful natural area serves as upland area for environmental education programs as well as enjoyable setting for seasonal Yost Pool users. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Stud Engineering & Administration Construction $120,000 $120,000 $100,000 $25,000 $20,000 $120,000 $100,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $120,000 1 $120,000 1 $100,000 $25,000 $20,000 $120,000 $100,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 42 PROJECT NAME: Citywide Beautification ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $73,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Beautification citywide to include library, Senior Center, outdoor plaza, city park, corner parks, irrigation, planting, mulch, FAC Center, vegetation, tree plantings, streetscape/gateways/street tree planting, flower basket poles. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve beautification citywide and provide comprehensive adopted plan for beautification and trees. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 After 2016, this expense will no longer be eligible out of REET. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $30,000 $21,000 $22,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $30,000 $21,000 $22,000 Not Eligible 43 PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Paving ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $31,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: improvements citywide. Includes miscellaneous small paving and park walkway PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Capital improvement needs citywide in park system. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $1,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $1,000 $10,000 $0 1 $10,000 $0 $10,000 * all or a portion of these projects may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 44 PROJECT NAME: Citywide Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $400,000 Improvements / Misc Small Projects 41 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Citywide park facility and public landscaping improvements including signage, interpretive signs, buoys, tables, benches, trash containers, drinking fountains, backstops, bike racks, lighting, small landscaping projects, play areas and equipment. Landscape improvements at beautification areas and corner parks, public gateway entrances into the city and 4t" Avenue Corridor from Main St. to the Edmonds Center for the Arts, SR 104, street tree and streetscape improvements. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Overall capital improvements for citywide park facilities and streetscape improvements in public areas. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering / Administration Construction $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 70000 45 PROJECT NAME: Sports Field Upgrade / ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $100,000 Playground Partnerships PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Partnerships with local schools, organizations, or neighboring jurisdictions to upgrade additional youth ball field or play facilities or playgrounds to create neighborhood park facilities at non -City facilities. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Annual partnerships with matching funds to create additional facilities. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Engineering & Administration Construction $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 M. PROJECT NAME: Aquatic Center ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000 at Yost Park $23,000,000 TIN PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Implement recommendations of the Aquatics Feasibility Study completed in 2009. Six scenarios were presented and the plan recommended by the consultants was a year round indoor pool with an outdoor recreational opportunity in the summer. The project is dependent upon a public vote. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The current Yost Pool, built in 1972, is nearing the end of its life expectancy. The comprehensive study done in 2009 assessed the needs and wants of Edmonds citizens in regard to its aquatic future as well as the mechanical condition of the current pool. SCHEDULE: COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 47 PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Unpaved ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $ 30,000 Trail/Bike Path/Improvements PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Complete portions of designated trail through public parks to meet the goals of the Bicycle Plan and Pathway Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Walking and connections was listed as a high priority in the comprehensive Park Plan from public survey data. Creating trails, paths and bike links is essential to meet the need for the community. Provides for the implementation of the citywide bicycle path improvements and the elements and goals of the citywide walkway plan. Linked funding with engineering funding. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Stud Engineering & Administration Construction 0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 1 % for Art TOTAL 1 0 1 $10,000 1 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 * all or part of these projects may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. PROJECT NAME: Cultural Arts Facility ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $unk Needs Study PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Initiate feasibility study of providing and promoting Cultural / Arts facilities for the City of Edmonds. The need for visual and performing arts facilities is a high priority stated in the adopted updated Community Cultural Arts Plan 2001 and in the 2008 update process. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The City of Edmonds desires to secure and provide for public Cultural Arts facilities in the community. The emphasis on the arts as a high priority creates the need to study performance, management and long term potential for arts related facilities. SCHEDULE: COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL 'all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh/Hatchery ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $295,000 Improvements South of Dayton Street and Harbor Square, east of BSNF railroad, west of SR 104, north of UNOCAL 23.2 acres; Natural Open Space / Zoned Open Space PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Using strategies and recommendations identified in the comprehensive management plan, protect site from adjacent development and storm water impacts. Continue to support day -lighting of Willow Creek to Puget Sound. Sidewalk / pathway repairs and continuation of walkway / viewing path to the hatchery if environmentally feasible. Hatchery repairs as needed. Work with Friends of the Edmonds Marsh, People for Puget Sound and others in the rejuvenation and management of the marsh. This also includes planning for the outfall of Willow Creek into Marina Beach Park. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The Edmonds Marsh is a unique urban salt and fresh water marsh with abundant habitat / wildlife species. It is a designated and protected bird sanctuary. Protection is vital. Co -fund the completion of a master plan using Storm Water Utility funds as defined in the comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan. As well as grant funds available through various agencies and foundations. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2018 2020 Planning/Study 35,000 $45,000 Engin. & Admin. Construction $25,000 $25,000 $60,000 $75,000 $10,000 $20,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $60,000 $70,000 $60,000 $75,000 $10,000 $20,000 50 PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Cemetery ESTIMATED COST:$ 100,000 Mapping PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Edmonds Memorial Cemetery was deeded to the City in 1982. The City has been operating the cemetery with no markings, rows, aisles, or surveyed mapping. It is essential that the City survey/map/and mark the cemetery so as to effectively manage the plots. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Operations of a public cemetery, with effective and accurate stewardship. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study $100,000 Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $100,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 51 PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Complex ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $700,000 Improvements 61h Street N. 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 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Park Development Bleacher/stadium repairs, infield mix, baseball/softball turf repair, retaining wall, fence and play structure replacement, skate park and facility amenities, tennis and sports courts repair and resurfacing, irrigation. Landscape and site furnishing improvements. Master Plan in 2016, development improvements based on Master Plan in 2020. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Overall capital improvements for Civic Center Field. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 10,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 10,000 *all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 52 PROJECT NAME: Pine Ridge Park Forest ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $50,000 Management Study PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Hire consultant to develop a plan for best forest management practices in Pine Ridge Park. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This forest park is under stress from over -mature trees especially alder and others. This study will give the Parks Division necessary guidance to better manage this park to become a more healthy forest and open space. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study $50,000 Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $50,000 53 PROJECT NAME: Debt Service on Approved ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,006,059 Capital Projects and Acquisitions PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Approximate annual debt service payments on: City Hall: Debt retired end of 2014 Marina Beach / Library Roof: $ $82,261 PSCC (Edmonds Center for the Arts): $55,631 Anderson Center Seismic Retrofit: $29,784 PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Debt service to pay for approved capitol projects SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $592,564 $171,400 $169,383 $171,947 $164,766 $162,656 165,907 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts 54 PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Open ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,000,000 Space/Land PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquisition of properties when feasible that will benefit citizens that fit the definitions and needs identified in the Parks Comprehensive Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Fulfills needs of citizens for parks, recreation and open space. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $0 0 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 200,000 200,000 55 PROJECT NAME: Waterfront/Tidelands ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,400,000 Acquisition PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire waterfront parcels and tidelands wherever feasible to secure access to Puget Sound for public use as indentified in the Parks, Recreation & Open Space Comprehensive Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Public ownership of waterfront and tidelands on Puget Sound. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 56 PROJECT NAME: 41" Avenue ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4,325,000 Corridor Enhancement W Fr PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Begin 4 th Avenue site development with temporary and/or moveable surface elements and amenities to begin drawing attention and interest to the corridor and create stronger visual connection between Main Street and the Edmonds Center for the Arts. Possible projects may include surface art, interpretive signage and wayfinding, or low level lighting. The Cultural Heritage Walking Tour project, funded in part with a matching grant from the National Park Service Preserve America grant program, will be implemented in 2011-12. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The corridor improvements in the public right of way will encourage pedestrian traffic & provide a strong visual connection along 4t" Ave. Improvements will enhance connectivity as an attractive walking corridor & contribute to the economic vitality in the downtown by encouraging the flow of visitors between the downtown retail & the Edmonds Center for the Arts. Timing for 30% design phase is crucial as the City addresses utility projects in the area & will assist the City in the process of identifying & acquiring funding sources for the total project implementation phase. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $1,425,000 $2,900,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $194259000 $299009000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 57 PROJECT NAME: Cultural Heritage Tour and ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $7015 Way -Finding Signage EDMONDS DOWNTOWN CULTURAL HERITAGE TOUR (Proposed sites) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create a downtown Edmonds walking tour highlighting a dozen historic sites with artist made interpretive markers, and add way -finding signage for the downtown area. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Promote tourism and economic development in the core downtown. The walking tour and interpretive signage focuses on local history and as unique artist made pieces also reflect the arts orientation of the community. Improved way -finding signage which points out major attractions and services/amenities such as theaters, museums, beaches, train station, shopping, dining and lodging promotes both tourism and economic vitality in the downtown /waterfront activity center. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $7015 1 % for Art TOTAL $7015 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts W PROJECT NAME: Dayton Street Plaza ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $168,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Renovate small park and plaza at north end of old public works building, 2nd & Dayton Street. Improve landscaping, plaza, and accessibility. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Capital improvements to public gathering space and creation of additional art amenities and streetscape improvements in downtown on main walking route. Financial support from Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation, Hubbard Foundation and Edmonds in Bloom. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $60,000 $108,000 1 % for Art TOTAL 1 $60,000 1 $108,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 59 PROJECT NAME: Civic Playfield Acquisition ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $6.1 M and/or Development 6'' Street N. 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 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire or work with the School District to develop this 8.1 acre property for continued use as an important community park, sports tourism hub and site of some of Edmonds largest and most popular special events in downtown Edmonds. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Gain tenure and control in perpetuity over this important park site for the citizens of Edmonds. SCHEDULE: 2014-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019-2025 Acquisition $20,000 $31VI Planning/Study 100,000 Eng. & Admin. Construction $31VI 1 % for Art TOTAL $20,000 $3M $100,000 $3M * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts .1 PROJECT NAME: Senior Center Parking ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $500,000 Lot/Drainage PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Rehabilitate South County Senior Center parking lot including pavement re -surfacing, storm water/drainage management, effective illumination and landscaping. Seek grant opportunities and partnership opportunities. This project is grant dependent. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improvements to retain capital assets and provide safety and better accessibility for Seniors. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 61 PROJECT NAME: City Park Revitalization ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,335,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Revitalize City Park play area with new play equipment and addition of a spray park amenity to be used in the summer. Spray parks have become very popular in many communities as replacements for wading pools that are no longer acceptable to increased health department regulations. These installations create no standing water and therefore require little maintenance and no lifeguard costs. Staff will seek voluntary donations for construction costs. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project combines two play areas and the completion of the master plan from 1992. This is very competitive for State grant funding, as it will be using a repurposing water system. This will be a much valued revitalization and addition to the City's oldest and most cherished park. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $372,100 $854,900 1 % for Art TOTAL $372,100 $854,900 *all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the arts 62 PROJECT NAME: Community Park / Athletic ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $11,535,000 Complex at the Former Woodway High School �J ()A HOGAN .-. - - f------------- F~- Amo- y ... i - I i 0KMLR WODUWAY HIGH SLHOUL ATHLETIC FIELD IMPROVEMENTS PREPARED FOR THE EOMONDS SCHOOL OISTRJCi MAY 10V PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop community park and regional athletic complex with lighted fields and recreational amenities in partnership with Edmonds School District, community colleges, user groups, and other organizations. Development dependent upon successful regional capital campaign. $10m - $12M project. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The site is currently an underutilized and undermaintained facility with great potential as community multi -use active park. Site has existing controlled access, greenbelt, parking and 4-court tennis facility with substandard fields. Highly urbanized area with 150,000 residents within 5-mile radius. Future maintenance supported by user fees. SCHEDULE: 2014-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020- COST 2025 Planning/Study $655,000 Engineering & Administration Construction 1 % for Art TOTALI $655,000 x all or a portion of this project may quality for 1 % for the Arts 63 PROJECT NAME: Waterfront Acquisition, ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $900,000 demolition, rehabilitation of land PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire waterfront parcel, demolish existing structure, and restore beachfront to its natural state. This has been a priority in the Parks, Recreation & Open Space Comprehensive Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Public ownership of waterfront and tidelands on Puget Sound, restoration of natural habitat. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL 900,000 64 PROJECT NAME: Wetland Mitigation ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $12,517 - `k r' �t' • -. Jam'_: "� PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Using strategies and recommendations identified in the comprehensive management plan, protect site from adjacent development and storm water impacts. Continue to support day -lighting of Willow Creek to Puget Sound. Sidewalk / pathway repairs and continuation of walkway / viewing path to the hatchery if environmentally feasible. Work with Friends of the Edmonds Marsh, People for Puget Sound and others in the rejuvenation and management of the marsh. This also includes planning for the outfall of Willow Creek into Marina Beach Park. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The Edmonds Marsh is a unique urban salt and fresh water marsh with abundant habitat / wildlife species. It is a designated and protected bird sanctuary. Protection is vital. Co -fund the completion of a master plan using Storm Water Utility funds as defined in the comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan. As well as grant funds available through various agencies and foundations. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $12,517 1 % for Art TOTAL $12,517 all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 65 PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh/Willow ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $200,000 Creek Daylighting MENIPWO PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Using strategies and recommendations identified in the comprehensive management plan, protect site from adjacent development and storm water impacts. Continue to support day -lighting of Willow Creek to Puget Sound. Sidewalk / pathway repairs and continuation of walkway / viewing path to the hatchery if environmentally feasible. Work with Friends of the Edmonds Marsh, People for Puget Sound and others in the rejuvenation and management of the marsh. This also includes planning for the outfall of Willow Creek into Marina Beach Park. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The Edmonds Marsh is a unique urban salt and fresh water marsh with abundant habitat / wildlife species. It is a designated and protected bird sanctuary. Protection is vital. Co -fund the completion of a master plan using Storm Water Utility funds as defined in the comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan. As well as grant funds available through various agencies and foundations. SCHEDULE: 2014-2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $200,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $200,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. PROJECT NAME: Public Market (Downtown ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown Waterfront) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with community partners to establish a public market, year around, on the downtown waterfront area. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The project will help to create a community gathering area, boost economic development, bring tourists to town, and will be a valuable asset to Edmonds. SCHEDULE: This project depends on the ability to secure grant funding, and community partners willing to work with the city to establish this. This potentially can be accomplished by 2017. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 67 UP / CIP COMPARISON (2014 TO 2015) ADDED PROJECTS FUND PROJECT NAME I CFP I DESCRIPTION 112 220th St. SW Overlay from 76th Ave to 84th Ave. 2" pavement grind and overlay with ADA curb ramp upgrades 112 Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW Intersection Improvements Widen 216th St. SW to add a WB and EB left turn lane. Provide protective / X permissive left turn phasing for both movements. 112 Re -striping of 76th Ave. W from 220th to OVD Re -striping of 76th with addition of bike lanes on both sides of the street 112 216th St. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave. W X Installation of 300' of sidewalk on north side of 216th St. SW. 112 Trackside Warning System / Quiet Zone (Dayton and Installation of trackside warning system or Quiet Zone system at Main RR crossings) g) X (2) railroad crossings (Main St. and Dayton St.) 116 Anderson Center Roofing Project Subject of a DP for 2015 funding 116 Anderson Center Accessibility CDBG Grant application coming in 2014 for wheelchair lift. 116 City Hall Security Measures Subject of a DP for 2015 funding. 116 Grandstand Exterior and Roof Repairs If deemed necessary per on -going investigation. 125 Sunset Avenue Walkway X Alignment with Fund 112 CIP. 125 Fishing Pier Rehab In partnership with WDFW, contingent upon grant funds. 125 Pavement Preservation Program 125 REET Parks and 125 REET Transportation combined into one spreadsheet titled 125 Capital Projects Fund. Added transfer to the 112 Street Fund. 125 Meadowdale Playfields Intalling turf fields, in partnership with Lynnwood and Edmonds School District, and contingent upon grant funds. 132 1 Civic Center Acquisitoin I X I Purchase of Civic Center from the School District 421 2021 Replacement Program Estimated future costs for waterline replacements. 421 2015 Waterline Overlays Estimated future costs for road repairs due to waterline replacements. This project was in 2012-2017 CIP but removed the following year. Advanced maintenance by the Public Worls Crews worked for a few years, but now the 422 105th/106 Ave SW Drianage Improvements system needs to be replaced. 423 2021 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Imprvmnts Estimated future costs for sewerline replacements/rehab/impr. 423 2015 Sewerline Overlays Estimated future costs for road repairs due to sewerline repl/rehab/impr. 423 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study Estimated cost for Study to determine how to replace/rehab/improve trunk sewerline located directly west of Lake Ballinger. Preliminary costs for this project will be generated under this task. Page 1 of 4 9/19/2014 CFP / CIP COMPARISON (2014 TO 2015) DELETED PROJECTS FUND PROJECT NAME CFP I DESCRIPTION 112 Type 2 Raised Pavement Markers 113roject removed from list to accommodate higher priorities. 112 Main St. from 5th to 6th X lCompleted in 2013. 112 School zone flashing beacons lCompleted in 2013. 116 Anderson Center Countertop Replacement Delayed until 2016. 116 Anderson Center Radiator Replacement Delayed until 2017. 116 City Hall Exterior Cleaning/Repainting Delayed another year. 116 Meadowdale Clubhouse Roof Delayed another year. 116 Cemetery Building Gutter Replacement Delayed another year. 125 1 Haines Wharf Park & Walkway Project I lCompleted in 2013. 421 2011 Replacement Program Completed in 2013. 421 2012 Replacement Program Completed in 2013. 421 2012 Waterline Overlays Completed in 2013. 421 224th Waterline Replacement Completed in 2013. Southwest Edmonds Basin Study Project 2 - Connect Project not needed at this point due to upstream improvements by Public 422 Sumps near Robin Hood Lane X Works Crews. New system with detention installed as part of 5 Corners Roundabout project. 422 Goodhope Pond Basin Study/Projects Future need for this project will be assessed. 423 Meter Installations Basin Edmonds Zone Deleted. Discussions with operations and engineering staff were done to prioritize metering needs. It was determined that the metering in the Lift Station 1 zone and the Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study are more pressing in their need to be completed. 423 Smoke Test in Basin Edmonds Zone Deleted. Discussions with operations and engineering staff were done to prioritize smoke testing. It was determined that the Lift Station 1 study and the Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study are more pressing in their need to be completed. Page 2 of 4 9/19/2014 UP / CIP COMPARISON (2014 TO 2015) CHANGED PROJECTS FUND PROJECT NAME I UP I CHANGE 112 Citywide - Signal Improvements Combined w/ Citywide Safety Impr.- Signal Cabinet / Ped. Countdown Displ. 112 Citywide Bicycle Connections Combined with Bicycle Route Signing 116 1 ESCO IV I ITo be done in 2015. No streetlights. FAC steam system component. 421 Five Corners 3.0 MG Reservoir Recoating Project merged into one project called Five Corners Reservoir Recoating. 421 Five Corners 1.5 MG Reservoir Recoating Project merged into one project called Five Corners Reservoir Recoating. Storm Drainage Improvement Project: Dayton St. Now called: Dayton St. between 3rd & 9th. More extensive improvements are 422 Between 6th & 8th needed to reduce the frequency of flooding. Removed from CFP. Culvert/Bridge projects constructed by City of Mountlake X Terrace. No additional capital projects currently planned. Project will remain in 422 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects the CIP to work with neighboring jursidictions on policy and other issues. 423 2012 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Impr Renamed to Phase 1 Sanitary Sewer Replacement 423 2013 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Impr Renamed to Phase 2 Sanitary Sewer Replacement 423 Meter Installation Basin LS-01 Project merged into one project called Lift Station 1 metering and flow study 423 Smoke Test Basin LS-01 Project merged into one project called Lift Station 1 metering and flow study Page 3 of 4 9/19/2014 423.76 Repair and Replacement Repairs to the Pagoda, Secondary Clarifier #3 and coating projects will be focussed on in late 2014 anf early 2015. 423.76 Upgrades Offsite Flow Telemetry: This project will modify the offsite monitoring stations to solar power in an effort to significantly lower our energy bills. One station was completed in 2014, the remaininig station will be completed in 2015. Control System Upgrade: Replace aging control system equipment, provide for redundancy and upgrade the operating platform. In 2014 PLC 100 will be replaced. In 2015 PLC 500 and PLC 300 will be replaced. This project will be completed in 2016. SSI rpoject: In late 2014 we will purchaes the mercury absortion modules and install them late 2015 or early 2016. Phase 4 energy improvements: in late 2014 we will replace the plant air compressors and in 2015 we will retrofit A basin 2 with fine bubble diffusers and install a new blower. 423.76 Studies and Consulting We will continue to evaluate UV vs. Hypo for disinfection, begin the design for solids sytem enhancements and look at gasification as a future alternative to the SSI. Much of this work will be accomplished under the ESCO model and focuss on energy improvements. Page 4 of 4 9/19/2014 AI-7162 Planning Board Agenda Meeting Date: 09/24/2014 Continued discussion of Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Update. Staff Lead/Author: Shane Hope Department: Initiated By: Planning City Staff Information Subject/Purpose Continued discussion of Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Update. Staff Recommendation No action is needed now. Previous Board Action 7. a. Initial material on the housing element and related affordable housing report was presented at the September 10, 2014 meeting. Narrative This agenda item will include a presentation from Kristina Gallant of the Alliance for Housing Affordability in Snohomish County. Her presentation will provide an overview of the draft housing profile for Edmonds (see Exhibit 3). A major review and update of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan is due to the state by mid-2015. Previously, the City conducted an analysis, based on state guidance, and found that the City's existing Comprehensive Plan was mostly in compliance with Growth Management requirements. The biggest need is to substitute current data for the old data (some of which is 10-15 years old). Because of the short timeline, the Planning Board and City Council have concurred that the update can be basic in nature, focusing primarily on: (a) refreshing the data and supporting materials; (b) considering modest changes to reflect new information and state guidance; and (c) adding performance measures and, as appropriate, action steps --generally one of each for each major Plan element. (Note: The new information will need to include updated population and job forecasts through the year 2035.) Each major element is being considered for updating on a schedule previously reviewed by the Planning Board and City Council. While preliminary direction can be provided by the Board and Council after reviewing each draft element, a final decision on the entire Comprehensive Plan update is expected in mid-2015. Public hearings and other public information will be part of the process. "Housing" comprises a major element of the Comprehensive Plan. (See attached Housing Element, as excerpted from the existing Comprehensive Plan —Exhibit 1). The Housing Element features data from the 2000 Census and makes some comparisons to 1990. It also includes goals and policies. The Planning Board's September 10 discussion on the Housing Element will focus on any questions about the existing Housing Element and the status of new data for the update. Then at the September 24 meeting, a draft Housing Element update can be reviewed and discussed. On August 26, the Executive Director of the Housing Coalition of Snohomish County and Everett made a presentation to the City Council about countywide housing needs, especially related to affordability and our region's growing population. (See the attached slide presentation —Exhibit 2.) This includes important countywide data related to the need for affordable housing. Our city is also partnering with other cities and Snohomish County in the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA), a group formed from Snohomish County Tomorrow. Through AHA, work is being wrapped up on an" affordable housing profile" for each participating jurisdiction.. A DRAFT Edmonds Affordable Housing Profile is attached as Exhibit 3. (The final Profile should be very similar and ready for the September 24 Planning Board meeting.) The Profile has extensive data on housing in Edmonds. (NOTE: The Profile looks at housing affordability mostly from the perspective of theentire metropolitan region, which includes Seattle, while the information in Exhibit 2 from the Housing Coalition looks at housing affordability based just on the Snohomish County area --not including Seattle.) The key take -away from both reports is that Edmonds --like other cities in our region --needs more housing units over the next 20 years AND more affordable housing that will serve a broad spectrum of future needs. Attachments Exhibit 1: Current Housing Element Exhibit 2: Housing Coalition Presentation Exhibit 3: Draft Edmonds Housing Profile Housing Element A. General Background Housing Stock and Type According to the Office of Financial Management (OFM), there were an estimated 13,054 housing units within the City of Edmonds in 1994. This represents an increase of less than one percent in the city's housing stock since 1990, when there were 12,945 dwelling units (1990 US Census). In comparison, over the period 1980-1990, the city's housing stock grew 21 percent, or approximately 1.9 percent per year. Housing stock declined (less than 1%) between 1990 and 1992, but grew (approximately 1%) between 1992 and 1994. Table 9 summarizes recent growth trends and forecasts for the City of Edmonds. Of the total stock of housing in 1994, 8,675 (66 percent) were single family units, 4,229 (32 percent) were multi -family units, and 150 (2 percent) were mobile homes or trailers. Compared with Snohomish County as a whole, Edmonds has a higher percentage of single-family homes and a lower proportion of multi -family and mobile homes/trailers. Between 1990 and 1994, the City annexed three parcels of land totaling approximately .059 square miles. The parcels included 64 housing units and 146 residents. These units accounted for most of the growth (57%) in the city's housing stock since 1990. Household Characteristics In 2000, there were 17,508 housing units in Edmonds. This was an increase of over 35% in the number of housing units in the city compared to 1990 (12,945). As noted earlier, this increase can largely be explained by annexations. Over the same period, the average number of persons per housing unit declined from 2.59 persons in 1980 to 2.37 persons in 1990, with a further decline to 2.26 persons in 2000 (US Census). The average household size showed a similar trend, falling to 2.32 persons per household by 2000. Compared with Snohomish County as a whole, Edmonds had fewer people per household in 1990 (2.37 vs. 2.68, respectively) and in 2000 (2.32 vs. 2.65). Average Table 8 City of Edmonds Housing Growth Housing Increase Percentage Average Units Increase Annual Increase Census: 1980 10,702 1990 12,945 2,243 21.0% 1.9% 2000 17,508 4,563 35.2% 3.1 % Growth Target: 2025 20,587 3,079 17.6% 0.7% Source: US Census; OFM, Snohomish County Tomorrow. 166 Housing household size within the city is expected to decrease to approximately 2.26 people by 2025 (City of Edmonds, 2004). Based on Census data, residents of Edmonds are older than those of Snohomish County, taken as a whole. In 1990, the median age of Edmonds residents was 38.3 years, compared with 32.2 years countywide. By 2000, the median age in Edmonds had increased to 42.0 years. Within the city, a large percentage of retired and elderly persons 62-years old and over reside in the downtown area (census tracts 504 and 505). Household Income: In general, residents of Edmonds earn relatively more income than residents of Snohomish County as a whole. Median 1990 household income in Edmonds was $40,515, nearly 10 percent higher than the county's median level of $36,847 for the same period (1990 US Census). By the 2000 census, Edmonds' median household income had increased to $53,552, but this was nearly equivalent to the County median of $53,060 (Edmonds was less than 1% higher). This is in contrast to per capita income, which is substantially higher in Edmonds compared to Snohomish County ($30,076 vs. $23,417, respectively). These figures reflect Edmonds' relatively smaller household sizes. Housing Ownership: According to the 1990 Census, 65.3 percent of the housing units within the city were owner -occupied and 32.1 percent were renter -occupied. This represented a decline in owner - occupancy from the 67.1 percent reported in the 1980 Census. By 2000, this trend had reversed, with 68.1 percent of the City's housing occupied by owners. The direction of the trend in housing occupancy is similar for Snohomish County as a whole, although ownership rates countywide were slightly higher in 1990, at 66 percent. Within Edmonds, ownership patterns vary significantly between neighborhoods; between 85 and 92 percent of homes along the waterfront were owner - occupied in 1990, compared with just over 50 percent east of Highway 99. Housing Values: According to the 1990 Census, housing values are considerably higher in the City of Edmonds than in Snohomish County as a whole. In 1990, the median value of owner -occupied units in Edmonds was $160,100, approximately 26 percent higher than the countywide median of $127,200. By 2000, the median value of owner -occupied housing had increased to $238,200 in Edmonds and $196,500 in Snohomish County, with Edmonds approximately 21 percent higher than the countywide median. Within Edmonds, median housing values vary considerably between neighborhoods; the highest valued homes are found along the waterfront, while the lowest values are found within interior neighborhoods and east of Highway 99. Housing Affordability: State Housing Policy Act — In 1993, Washington State enacted a Housing Policy Act (SB 5584) which is directed toward developing an adequate and affordable supply of housing for all economic segments of the population. The Act establishes an affordable housing advisory board that, together with the State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development (DCTED), is required to prepare a five-year housing advisory plan. The plan must document the need for affordable housing in the state; identify the extent to which the needs are being met through public and private programs; facilitate development of plans to meet affordable housing needs; and develop strategies and programs for affordable housing. DCTED is directed to provide technical assistance and information to local governments to assist in the identification and removal of regulatory barriers to the development of affordable housing. The Act also requires that by December 31, 1994, all local governments of communities with populations over 20,000 must adopt regulations that permit accessory units in residential zones. The Act also requires that communities treat special needs populations in the same manner as other households living in single family units. Edmonds has updated its development regulations to comply with both of these requirements. Housing 167 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy — Jurisdictions receiving financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are required to prepare a Consolidated Housing and Community Development Plan. The plan must identify the community's housing, social service and community development needs for the next five years. The plan describes how HUD funds will be used to address the identified needs. In addition, the plan must be updated annually to include the most recent spending program and demonstrate that funding decisions respond to the strategies and objectives cited in the five-year plan. The Snohomish County Consortium, which includes Edmonds and 18 other cities and towns along with unincorporated Snohomish County, is responsible for the plan, and through Snohomish County's Department of Housing and Community Development, also prepares a yearly report called the Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER). This catalogs and analyzes the status of Consolidated Plan goals and is published for public review on a yearly basis. Key goals of the consolidated housing plan include: 1) Provide decent housing, including • assisting homeless persons to obtain affordable housing; • retaining affordable housing stock; • increasing the availability of permanent housing that is affordable and available without discrimination; and • increasing supportive housing that includes structural features and services to enable persons with special needs to live in dignity. 2) Provide a suitable living environment, including • improving the safety and livability of neighborhoods; • increasing access to quality facilities and services; • reducing the isolation of income groups within areas by deconcentrating housing opportunities and revitalizing deteriorating neighborhoods; • restoring and preserving natural and physical features of special value for historic, architectural, or aesthetic reasons; and • conserving energy resources. 3) Expand economic opportunities, including • creating jobs for low income persons; • providing access to credit for community development that promotes long-term economic an social viability; and • assisting residents of federally assisted and public housing achieve self-sufficiency. 168 Housing The main purpose of the Consolidated Plan is to develop strategies to meet the identified housing needs. These strategies are implemented through funding decisions which distribute HUD funds to local housing programs. Strategies to achieve the goals and needs identified in the Consolidated Plan include: • Increase the number of subsidized rental apartments affordable to households with incomes of up to 50% of area median income through (1) new construction, (2) acquisition and/or rehabilitation of existing units, (3) provision of rent subsidies, and (4) preservation of HUD Section 8 or similar subsidized housing in non-profit ownership where there is the risk of converting these units to market -rate housing. • Provide support for operation of existing homeless shelters and construction of needed shelters in under -served areas and for under -served populations. Increase the inventory of transitional housing for households needing assistance to move from homelessness to self-sufficiency. • Provide support for the operation and development of transitional and permanent housing and service programs for people with special needs. • Help low-income people to stay in their homes and maintain current housing stock through home repair, rehabilitation, and weatherization services. • Increase the incidence of home ownership using self-help construction, manufactured housing, homebuyer education, and mortgage assistance programs. • Improve the processes for utilizing grant funds allocated to the county. • Enhance the resources that can be used for housing production. • Utilized the expertise of housing providers who will create a stable and well - maintained low-income housing stock to expand the subsidized housing inventory in the community. • Address the unmet public facility needs of low-income households and neighborhoods. • Address the unmet basic infrastructure needs of low-income households and neighborhoods. • Support programs that provide for the well-being of youth by providing services such as case management, life -skills training, health care and recreation. • Support programs that assist low-income elderly citizens, where appropriate and cost- effective, to remain in their homes by providing housing repairs and reasonable modifications to accommodate disabilities and by supporting provision of supportive services. • Support services which address the most urgent needs of low-income and moderate - income populations and neighborhoods. Housing 169 • Support eligible local planning and administration costs incident to operation of HUD grant programs. Housing Needs: Snohomish County calculates housing needs based on households earning less than 95 percent of the county median income and paying more than 30 percent of their incomes for gross housing costs. Gross housing costs include rent and utility costs for renters and principal, interest, taxes, insurance, and any homeowner -fees for owners. Countywide, in 1990, 36,888 households countywide met the criteria for households in need; by 2000, this had increased to 55,361 households. There are expected to be an additional 28,557 low- and moderate -income households with housing needs by 2025 throughout the County. There were 2,601 households with need in Edmonds in 1990, and this had increased to 3,951 by 2000. It is anticipated that this will increase to 4,395 by 2025. The following chart shows how segments of the household population — and the relative cost burden of housing — are changing over time. Low- and moderate -income households have increased in number, and are a slightly higher proportion of Edmonds' households compared to 1990. The implication is that affordable housing will continue to be an important issue throughout the planning horizon. Edmonds 25,000 20,000 1.371 El Fair Share Differential 4,395 ❑ LowtMod U nmet Need 75,000 3,951 (Unadjusted} a ❑LowlMod Needs Met 4,252 2,647 3,737 ❑Middle & Upper Income 7G,000 40 2,T74 O 2 5,000 9.248 7 G,387 Tr290 0 1990 2000 2025 (Projected) Source: 2004 Supplement to Technical Report Fair Share Housing Allocation, Snohomish County Tomorrow Snohomish County and its cities, through countywide planning policies, has used an allocation model to elaborate on the indicated level of need for affordable housing in the county. The county applies two factors to the number of households in need to give areas credit for their existing stock of low- cost housing and assign them responsibility to house a portion of low -wage employees in the 170 Housing jurisdiction. The purpose of these factors is to provide indicators of the relative housing need for jurisdictions based on the model's assumptions. In 2000, Edmonds' adjusted number of households in need was 5,322 households; this is projected to increase to 5,885 by 2025 — an increase of 564 households. Therefore, Edmonds has a continuing need to provide affordable, low-cost housing within the city. Assisted Housing Availability: In 1995 there were two HUD -assisted developments providing a total of 87 units for low-income, elderly residents within the City of Edmonds. This was more than doubled by a new development approved in 2004 for an additional 94 units. Since 1995, 167 assisted care living units have been built in the downtown area, specifically targeting senior housing needs. Although the Housing Authority of Snohomish County did not operate any public housing units within Edmonds prior to 1995, it purchased an existing housing complex totaling 131 units in 2002. The Housing Authority continues to administer 124 Section 8 rent supplement certificates and vouchers within the city. In addition, there are currently 36 adult family homes providing shelter for 187 residents. This is a substantial increase from the 13 adult family homes providing shelter for 66 residents in 1995. Growth Management goals and policies contained in the City's Comprehensive Plan encourage availability of resources to insure basic community services and ample provisions made for necessary open space, parks and other recreation facilities; preservation of light (including direct sunlight), privacy, views, open spaces, shorelines and other natural features, and freedom from air, water, noise and visual pollution; and a balanced mixture of income and age groups. Land Use policies encourage strategic planning for development and redevelopment that achieve a balanced and coordinated approach to economic development, housing and cultural goals; and encourage a more active and vital setting for new businesses supported by nearby residents, downtown commercial activity and visitors throughout the area. Policies encourage identification and maintenance of significant public and private social areas, cultural facilities, and scenic areas; and maintenance and preservation of historical sites. Commercial Land Use policies encourage identification and reservation of sufficient sites suited for a variety of commercial uses. Housing goals are directed toward providing housing opportunities for all segments of the city's households; supporting existing neighborhoods and preserving/rehabilitating the housing stock; maintaining high quality residential environments; and providing assistance to developing housing for elderly, disabled and low-income households. These goals are supported by policies which include review of regulatory impediments to control of housing costs and affirmative measures to support construction of housing for protected groups; encouraging expansion of the types of housing available, including accessory dwelling units, mixed use, and multi -family housing; flexible development standards; and review and revision of development regulations, including assessing the feasibility of establishing time limits for permitting; consolidating permitting; implementing administrative permitting procedures and instituting preapplication hearings. Other measures to mitigate potential housing impacts include determining whether any public land is available which could be used to help meet affordable housing targets; development of a strategy plan, including target number of units and development timeline; technical assistance programs or information to encourage housing rehabilitation and development of accessory units; and a strong monitoring program with mid -course correction features (see the discussion below). B. Strategies to Promote Affordable Housing. Housing 171 In order to respond to the continuing need to provide affordable housing for the community, the City has undertaken a series of reasonable measures to accomplish this goal, consistent with the policy direction indicated by Snohomish County Tomorrow and the Countywide Planning Policies. These reasonable measures or strategies to promote affordable housing include: Land Use Strategies • Upzoning. The City has upzoned a substantial area of previously large lot (12,000+ square foot lots) zoning to ensure that densities can be obtained of at least 4.0 dwelling units per acre. The City has also approved changes from single family to multi family zoning in designated corridor areas to provide more housing units at reduced cost to consumers. • Density Bonus. A targeted density bonus is offered for the provision of low income senior housing in the City. Parking requirements are also reduced for this housing type, making the density obtainable at lower site development cost. • Cluster Subdivisions. This is accomplished in the city through the use of PRDs. In Edmonds, a PRD is defined as an alternate form of subdivision, thereby encouraging its use as a normal form of development. In addition, PRDs follow essentially the same approval process as that of a subdivision. • Planned Residential Development (PRD). The City has refined and broadened the applicability of its PRD regulations. PRDs can still be used to encourage the protection of environmentally sensitive lands; however, PRDs can also now be used to encourage infill development and flexible housing types. • Infill Development. The City's principal policy direction is aimed at encouraging infill development consistent with its neighborhoods and community character. This overall plan direction has been termed "designed infill" and can be seen in the City's emphasis and continued work on streamlining permitting, revising codes to provide more flexible standards, and improving its design guidelines. • Conversion/Adaptive Reuse. The City has established a new historic preservation program intended to support the preservation and adaptive reuse of existing buildings, especially in the historic downtown center. Part of the direction of the updated plans and regulations for the Downtown Waterfront area is to provide more flexible standards that can help businesses move into older buildings and adapt old homes to commercial or mixed use spaces. An example is the ability of buildings on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places to get an exception for parking for projects that retain the historic character of the site. Administrative Procedures • Streamlined approval processing. The City generally uses either a Hearing Examiner or staff to review and issue discretionary land use decisions, thereby reducing permitting timelines and providing some degree of certainty to the process. The City continues to provide and improve on an extensive array of information forms and handouts explaining its permitting processes and standards. The City has also established standards for permit 172 Housing review times, tailored to the type and complexity of the project. For example, the mean processing time for processing land use permits in 2003 was 39 days, less than one-third of the 120-day standard encouraged by the State's Regulatory Reform act. • Use -by -Right. The City has been actively reviewing its schedule of uses and how they are divided between uses that are permitted outright vs. permitted by some form of conditional use. The City has expanded this effort to include providing clearer standards, potentially allowing more approvals to be referred to staff instead of the Hearing Examiner hearing process. • Impact mitigation payment deferral. The City's traffic mitigation impact fees are assessed at the time of development permit application, but are not collected until just prior to occupancy. This provides predictability while also minimizing "carrying costs" of financing. Development Standards • Front yard or side yard setback requirements. Some of the City's zones have no front or side yard setback requirements, such as in the downtown mixed use zones. In single family zones, average front setbacks can be used to reduce otherwise required front yard setbacks. • Zero lot line. This type of development pattern can be achieved using the City's PRD process, which is implemented as an alternative form of subdivision. • Street design and construction. Street standards are reviewed and updated on a consistent basis, taking advantage of new technologies whenever possible. • Alleys. The City has an extensive system of alleys in the downtown area and makes use of these in both mixed use and residential developments. • Off-street parking requirements. The City has substantially revised its off-street parking standards, reducing the parking ratios required for multi family development. The City also simplified and streamlined its parking requirements for the downtown mixed use area, thereby encouraging housing downtown. • Sanitary Sewer, Water, and Stormwater systems. Innovative techniques are explored and utilized in both new systems and in the maintenance of existing infrastructure. Low -Cost Housing Types • Accessory dwellings. The City substantially revised its accessory dwelling regulations, providing clearer standards and streamlining their approval as a standard option for any single family lot. Cottage housing developments. The City is exploring this option, although it would be expected to have limited application. Housing 173 Mixed -use development. The City has strengthened and expanded its mixed use development approach. Downtown mixed use development no longer has a density cap, and this — combined other regulatory changes — has resulted in residential floor space drawing even with commercial floor space in new developments in the downtown area. Mixed use zoning was applied in the Westgate Corridor, and revised mixed use development regulations are being prepared for application in the Hospital/Highway 99 Activity Center as well as along Highway 99. • Mobile/manufactured housing. The City's regulation of manufactured homes has been revised to more broadly permit this type of housing in single family zones. Housing Production & Preservation Programs • Housing preservation. The City provides strict enforcement of its building codes, intended to protect the quality and safety of housing. The City has also instituted a historic preservation program intended to provide incentives to rehabilitate and restore commercial, mixed use, and residential buildings in the community. • Public housing authority / Public and nonprofit housing developers. The City supports the Housing Authority of Snohomish County, as evidenced by its approval of the conversion of housing units to Housing Authority ownership. For -profit housing builders and developers. Many of the strategies outlined above are aimed at the for -profit building market. The City's budget restrictions limit its ability to directly participate in the construction or provision of affordable housing, so it has chosen instead to affect the cost of housing by reducing government regulation, providing flexible development standards, and otherwise minimize housing costs that can be passed on to prospective owners or renters. Housing Financing Strategies • State / Federal resources. The City supports the use of State and Federal resources to promote affordable housing through its participation in the Snohomish County Consortium and the Community Development Block Grant program. These are important inter jurisdictional efforts to address countywide needs. There will be difficulty meeting affordability goals or significantly reducing the current affordable housing deficit. The city is nearly fully developed and has limited powers and resources to produce subsidized housing. However, participation in joint funding projects (such as non-profit organizations funded by the cities of Kirkland, Redmond and Bellevue) would help to mitigate these impacts. C. Goal - Housing I - Discrimination and Fair Housing - Goal 1. There should be adequate housing opportunities for all families and individuals in the community regardless of their race, age, sex, religion, disability or economic circumstances. 174 Housing D. Goal - Housing I - Discrimination and Fair Housing - Goal 2. Insure that past attitudes do not establish a precedent for future decisions pertaining to public accommodation and fair housing in accordance with the following policy: E. Goal - Housing II - Low Income, Elderly and Disabled Housing. A decent home in a suitable living environment for each household in accordance with the following policies: E.1. Encourage the utilization of the housing resources of the federal government to assist in providing adequate housing opportunities for the low income, elderly and disabled citizens. E.2. The City should work with the Washington Housing Service and other agencies to: E.2.a. Provide current information on housing resources; E.2. b. Determine the programs which will work best for the community. E.2.c. Conduct periodic assessments of the housing requirements of special needs populations to ensure that reasonable opportunities exist for all forms of individual and group housing within the community. F. Goal - Housing III - Housing Rehabilitation. Preserve and rehabilitate the stock of older housing in the community in order to maintain a valuable housing resource in accordance with the following policies: F.1. Program should be developed which offers free or low cost minor home maintenance service to low income, elderly or handicapped persons. F.2. Building code enforcement should be utilized to conserve healthy neighborhoods and encourage rehabilitation of those that show signs of deterioration. F.3. Ensure that an adequate supply of housing exists to accommodate all households that are displaced as a result of any community action. FA Evaluate City ordinances and programs to determine if they prevent rehabilitation of older buildings. G. Goal. Provide affordable (subsidized housing, if need be) for elderly, disadvantaged, disabled and low income in proportion to the population of Edmonds in accordance with the following policies: G.1. The City should aggressively pursue funds to construct housing for elderly, disabled and low income. Units should blend into the neighborhood and be designed to be an asset to area and pride for inhabitants. [Ord. 2527 §3, 1985.1 Housing 175 G.2. City zoning regulations should expand, not limit, housing opportunities for all special needs populations. H. Goal: Provide a variety of housing for all segments of the city that is consistent and compatible with the established character of the community. H.1. Expand and promote a variety of housing opportunities by establishing land use patterns that provide a mixture of housing types and densities. H. I.a. Provide for mixed use, multifamily and single family housing that is targeted and located according to the land use patterns established in the land use element. H.2. Encourage infill development consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. H.2.a. Within single family neighborhoods, encourage infill development by considering innovative single family development patterns such as Planned Residential Developments (PRDs). H.2. b. Provide for accessory housing in single family neighborhoods that addresses the needs of extended families and encourages housing affordability. H.2. c. Provide flexible development standards for infill development, such as non -conforming lots, when development in these situations will be consistent with the character of the neighborhood and with the goal to provide affordable single family housing. I. Goal: Provide housing opportunities within Activity Centers consistent with the land use, transportation, and economic goals of the Comprehensive Plan. I.1. Promote development within Activity Centers supports the centers' economic activities and transit service. I.I.a. Provide for mixed use development within Activity Centers. 11.b. Plan for housing that is located with easy access to transit and economic activities that provide jobs and shopping opportunities. 11.c. Consider adjusting parking standards for housing within Activity Centers to provide incentives for lower -cost housing when justified by available transit service. J. Goal: Government should review and monitor its permitting processes and regulatory structures to assure that they promote housing opportunities and avoid, to the extent possible, adding to the cost of housing. J.1. Provide the maximum amount of certainty and predictability in government permitting processes. 176 Housing J.I.a. Consider a wide variety of measures to achieve this objective, including such ideas as: ..establishing time limits for permitting processes; ..developing consolidated permitting and appeals processes; .. implementing administrative permitting procedures; ..using pre -application processes to highlight problems early. J.2. Establish monitoring programs for permitting and regulatory processes. J.2.a. Monitoring programs should be established to review the types and effectiveness ofgovernment regulations and incentives, in order to assess whether they are meeting their intended purpose or need to be adjusted to meet new challenges. K. Goal: Opportunities for increasing the affordability of housing have the best chance for success if they are coordinated with programs that seek to achieve other community goals as well. Housing affordability should be researched and programs developed that address multiple Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives. K.1. Develop housing programs to encourage housing opportunities that build on linkages between housing and other, complementary Comprehensive Plan goals. K.I.a. New programs that address housing affordability should be coordinated with programs that address development of the arts, encourage historic preservation, promote the continued development of Activity Centers and transit friendly development, and that encourage economic development. L. Goal: In addition to traditional height and bulk standards, design is an important aspect of housing and determines, in many cases, whether or not it is compatible with its surroundings. Design guidelines for housing should be integrated, as appropriate, into the policies and regulations governing the location and design of housing. L.1. Provide design guidelines that encourage flexibility in housing types while ensuring compatibility of housing with the surrounding neighborhood. L.I.a. Incentives and programs for historic preservation and neighborhood conservation should be researched and established to continue the character of Edmonds' residential and mixed use neighborhoods. L. Lb. Design guidelines for housing should be developed to ensure compatibility of housing with adjacent land uses. Housing 177 22.1000 by 2035 Affordable Housing in Snohomish County Presentation to Edmonds City Council August 26, 2014 What is "Affordable" No more that 30% of income goes to the cost of housing, including utilities. AFFORDABLE HOUSING: In general, housing for which the occupant(s) is/are paying no more than 30 percent of his or her income for gross housing costs, including utilities. Please note that some jurisdictions may define affordable housing based on other, locally determined criteria, and that this definition is intended solely as an approximate guideline or general rule of thumb.' lhttp://www.huduser.org/portal/glossary/glossary_a.htmI Calculations for Affordable Housing Snohomish County Area Median Income for all households = $67,777 (2011)1 Affordable housing for households at 100 percent AMI $67,777 x 100 percent = $67,777 / 12 months = $5648/mo. x 30 percent = $1694/mo. max. housing cost Affordable housing for households at 80 percent AMI $67,777 x 80 percent = $54,221 / 12 months = $4518/mo. x 30 percent = $1356/mo. max. housing cost Affordable Housing for households at 50 percent AMI: $67,777 x 50 percent = $33,888 / 12 months = $2824/mo. x 30 percent = $847/mo. max. housing cost Affordable Housing for households at 30 percent AMI: $67,777 x 30 percent = $20,333 / 12 months = $1694/mo. x 30 percent = $508/mo. max. housing cost 1 Source: American Communities Survey, 2011 5-year estimate Income in Snohomish County Snohomish County Household Area Median Income (AMI) _ $67,777 30% and below AMI (extremely low income) $20,333 and less 11% 30-50% of AMI (very low income) 50-80% of AMI (low income) $20,334 - $33,888 $33,889 - $54,221 Subject Edmonds, Washington Estimate Percent INCOME AND BENEFITS (IN 2012 INFLATION -ADJUSTED DOLLARS) Total households 17,396 100.00% Less than $10,000 671 3.90% $10,000 to $14,999 488 2.80% $15,000 to $24,999 1,326 7.60% $25,000 to $34,999 1,4191 8.20% Total 3,904 22.50% 1 Source: ACS, 2011 5-year estimates zSource: ACS, 2012 5-year estimates 11% 17% 221000 by 2035 Housing needed by 2035 to accommodate projected population growth Sno Col 971128 101684 101684 161512 Edmonds' 21790 307 307 474 'Source: 2013 Housing Characteristics & Needs in Snohomish County Report, p59 22.0000 by 2035 How Do We Get There? Reduce Poverty • Better Education Outcomes for More Students • Job Training • Address Income Inequality 221000 by 2035 How Do We Get There Create More Affordable Housing (New/Acquisition & Rehab) • 2015 Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Updates - Strategies, goals & policies to meet housing need at 30% AM I, 30-50% AM I & 50-80% AM I • Incentivize Affordable Housing - Density bonuses, multi -family tax exemption, fee waivers, reduced parking requirements, etc • Support Policies that Increase Public Funding - WA State Housing Trust Fund - Local Housing Levy 221000 by 2035 Why? • Quality of Life in Our Communities - Our communities and neighborhoods are better when our people are housed - Higher density, attractive and affordable housing promotes community • Economic Advantages - Each dollar of public funds invested in affordable housing generally attracts/leverages an additional S dollars of private equity - People who are in housing they can afford have more disposable income to spend in the community - Safe, stable, affordable housing for special needs populations significantly reduces contact with and cost to cities public safety services and emergency medical services • Common Humanity I 4ttentfon to Desig S. I _ � tom. {.� - �•-71. -•r•'; F.T I1 k J •. � � _'• I L t- r • r r _ . • r- }r• JI .1 • � � Z F1 ~ Y I1 1 �yr 1f.1 Y -1 I •LI I L—�JL 5 — �1 •� .I — r ". --NOW Pay Attention to Des-ig 4 Pay Attention to Design King County Housing Authority, Greenbridge Apts, Seattle Artspace Everett Lofts, Everett, WA Resources • Alliance for Housing Affordability Kristina Gallant, kgallant@hasco.org, 425-293- 0601 • Municipal Research Services Council, http://www.mrsc.org/subiects/planning/housing/ords.aspx#waivers • Housing Characteristics and Needs in Snohomish County Report, http://snohomishcountywa.gov/1585/Housing-Characteristics-Needs-Report • Snohomish County Demographic Trends & Initial Growth Targets, http://www.co.snohomish.wa.us/documents/Departments/PDS/Planning Commis ion/DemogTrends PIng ommission Feb-25-2014.pdf • Housing Consortium of Everett & Snohomish County Mark Smith, Executive Director 425-339-1015 HOUSING mark@ housingsnohomish.org CONSORTIUM Of EVERETT AND SNOHOMISH COUNTY Housing Profile: City of Edmonds Prepared for the City of Edmonds by the Alliance for Housing Affordability September 2014 Acknowledgements Special thanks to all those who helped prepare this profile. City Staff Rob Chave, Planning Director Shane Hope, Development Services Director Alliance for Housing Affordability Kristina Gallant, Analyst Will Hallett, Intern Table of Contents ExecutiveSummary........................................................ iv Maps, Figures, & Tables ................................................. vi Introduction............................................................................. 1 Population and Community............................................3 HouseholdProfiles.................................................................................................................. 8 Existing Housing Stock.................................................10 Subsidized Housing Units: Permanent and Transitional.............................................12 MarketRate Rental Units....................................................................................................13 SharedRental Housing........................................................................................................19 Current Challenges and Opportunities ..........................20 Maps........................................................................................ 22 Appendices.................................................................... 40 Appendix A: Multifamily Rent Comparables by Property, City of Edmonds .......... A 1 Appendix B: Assisted Units by Property, City of Edmonds ........................................... B 1 Appendix C. Single Family Home Sales, 2008-2012......................................................CI Appendix D: Affordable Housing Glossary.................................................................... D 1 AppendixE. Methodology..................................................................................................... 1 Executive Summary The City of Edmonds, currently home to 39,950 people, is projected to accommodate nearly 6,000 new residents by 2035, a dramatic change over the stable population levels the City has seen over the past 20 years. Housing in Edmonds is currently mostly comprised of single family homes, though most growth will have to be accommodated in multifamily development.The City's median income is relatively high compared to other cities in the region, and home values are generally higher as well. Homes are diverse in age, with a significant concentration of units built between 1950 and 1969 compared to the County overall. Currently 38% of Edmonds households are estimated to be cost burdened, meaning they spend more than 30% of their monthly income on rent or home ownership costs. Cost burden is most challenging for those with low incomes, who may have to sacrifice other essential needs in order to afford housing. Other summary statistics are provided below. A Summary of Edmonds by the Numbers Population 39,9501 Total Households 17,3962 Family Households with Minor Children 4,054 Cost -Burdened Households 6,672 Households Earning Less than 50%AMI1 5,322 2012 Median Household Income $73,072 Minimum Income to Afford 2012 Median Home $75,796 Total Homes 17,396 Single Family Homes, Detached or Attached 12,047 Multifamily Homes 6,471 Manufactured Homes 126 Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers 195 Other Dedicated Subsidized Housing 125 Transitional Units 16 Workforce Housing 201 Total Renter -Occupied Housing Units 5,000 Total Owner -Occupied Housing Units 12,396 Total Vacant Housing Units 1,248 According to 2013 Dupre and Scott data, Edmonds'rental housing market is generally affordable to households earning at least 80% AMI. Households earning between 50 and 80% AMI will find the majority of homes smaller than five bedrooms affordable as well. A limited supply of small units is affordable to those earning between 30 and 50% AMI (Area Median Income for the Seattle -Bellevue metropolitan area). Market rents are not affordable to iv extremely low income households, though this is expected in almost all communities, due to the costs of construction and maintenance in today's market. Shared rental housing is a market rate option for these households, though it will not work for all households, particularly families. A lack of affordable rental housing for extremely low and very low income households is very common, as, in order to operate a property and keep rents low enough in today's housing market, some kind of financial assistance is typically required. Assistance can be ongoing, to make up the difference between 30% of tenants' income and market rents (such units are considered'subsidized' in this report), or be provided as capital funding, reducing overall project costs and making it possible to keep rent levels down (con sidered'workforce' units). Edmonds currently has 320 units of subsidized housing and 201 units of workforce housing. In addition, the City has 16 units of transitional housing. However, with 5,322 households earning less than 50% AMI, there is still a need to increase this supply. The City is pursuing a number of strategies to address this challenge. In 2012, the median sale price for a single family home in Edmonds was $339,975. The estimated monthly payment for this home would be $1,895, including debt service, insurance, taxes, and utilities. For a family to afford this payment without being cost burdened, they would require an annual income of at least $75,796, which is just above the City's median income.' Affordability for 2013 cannot be calculated at this time, but average assessed values suggest that home prices are rising as the housing market continues to recover following the recession, and affordability is retreating. Edmonds has the third highest average assessed 2014 home value in Snohomish County behind Woodway and Mukilteo respectively, at $351,100, which represented a 10.7% increase over 2013.2 Snohomish County Assessor, 2014 Snohomish County Assessor, "Snohomish County Assessor's Annual Report for 2014Taxes , 2014. V Maps, Figures, & Tables Figure 1.1. Total Population, City of Edmonds, 1990-2013.................................................................................3 Figure 1.2. Population Share by Housing Tenure, City of Edmonds & Snohomish County....................4 Table I.I. Cost Burden by Income and Housing Tenure, City of Edmonds & Snohomish County ....... 5 Figure 1.3. Household Share by Income Level, City of Edmonds and Snohomish County....................5 Figure 1.4. Estimated Housing &Transportation Costs as a Share of Income, City of Edmonds & SnohomishCounty....................................................................................................................................................................6 Figure 1.5. Population Pyramid, 2000-2010, City of Edmonds..........................................................................7 Figure 2.1. Age Distribution of Housing Stock, City of Edmonds & Snohomish County......................10 Figure 2.2. Units in Structure by Housing Tenure, City of Edmonds............................................................10 Figure 2.3. Net Newly -Permitted Units, City of Edmonds & Snohomish County.....................................11 Source: Puget Sound Regional Council................................................................................................ 11 Figure 2.4. Newly Permitted Units by Type, City of Edmonds........................................................................11 ..............................................................................................................................................................................................11 Table 2.1. Assisted Units by Income Level Served, City of Edmonds...........................................................12 Table 2.2. Permanent Subsidized Units by Funding Source, City of Edmonds........................................12 Table 2.3. Workforce Units by Funding Source, City of Edmonds.................................................................13 Table 2.4. Renter -Occupied Units by Rent and Unit Size, City of Edmonds (Without Utilities) .......... 14 Table 2.5. Average Rent and Affordability by Size, City of Edmonds (Including Utilities)....................14 Table 2.6. Distribution of Rent Affordability by Size, City of Edmonds.......................................................15 Table 2.7. Average Rents by Size, Single- and Multifamily, City of Edmonds...........................................15 Table 2.8. Affordable Home Sales by Size, City of Edmonds, 2012...............................................................16 Figure 2.5. Home Sale Affordability Gap, 2012, City of Edmonds.................................................................17 Figure 2.6. Home Sale Affordability, 2008-2012, City of Edmonds...............................................................17 Table 2.9.2012 Affordable Home Sales by Type, City of Edmonds ........................................................................................................................................................................................................18 Table 2.10. Size of Homes Sold by Type, 2012, City of Edmonds...................................................................19 Figure 3.1. Income allocation of projected new housing units, City of Edmonds .................................. 20 Map 1.1.Total Population (Block Groups)............................................................................................................. 23 Map 1.2. Average Family Size (Block Groups)...................................................................................................... 24 Map 1.3. Average Household Size (Block Groups).............................................................................................. 25 Map 1.4. Renter -Occupied Housing Units............................................................................................................. 26 Map 1.5.Vacant Housing Units (Block Groups)...................................................................................................27 Map 1.6. Homeowners with Mortgages................................................................................................................ 28 Map 1.7. Very Low -Income Households................................................................................................................. 29 Map1.8. Cost -Burdened Renters.............................................................................................................................. 30 Map1.9. Cost -Burdened Owners.............................................................................................................................. 31 Map 1.10. Housing &Transportation, Percent of Low HH Income...............................................................32 Map 2.1. Voucher Location and Transit Access.................................................................................................... 33 Map2.2. Age of Housing Stock................................................................................................................................. 34 Map 2.3. Condition of Housing Stock..................................................................................................................... 35 Map2.4. Housing Density........................................................................................................................................... 36 Map 2.7. New Single Family Permits by Census Tract, 2011........................................................................... 37 Map 2.8. New Multifamily Permits by Census Tract, 2011............................................................................... 38 Map 2.9. Average Renter Household Size.............................................................................................................. 39 Table E.I. Maximum Monthly Housing Expense by Household Size, Seattle -Bellevue HMFA 2012...I Vi Introduction In Snohomish County's Countywide Planning Policies, Housing Goal 5 states that"the cities and the county shall collaborate to report housing characteristics and needs in a timely manner for jurisdictions to conduct major comprehensive plan updates and to assess progress toward achieving CPPs on housing" Building on the County's efforts in preparing the countywide HO-5 Report, this profile furthers this goal by providing detailed, local information on existing conditions for housing in Edmonds so the City can plan more effectively to promote affordable housing and collaborate with neighboring jurisdictions. This profile will present the full spectrum of its subsidized and market rate housing stock. Permanent settlement in present day Edmonds dates back to 1890, making Edmonds the oldest incorporated city in Snohomish County. Edmonds was born out of homesteading and logging operations in the late 1800's and, through the years, built economic foundations on a host of platforms including milling, shingle splitting, and manufacturing, among others. Today, Edmonds has almost 40,000 residents and over 17,000 households. Edmonds' growth has been modest in recent years (less than 1 % annually), and this trend is expected to continue.The majority of the City's neighborhoods are composed of single family homes, though future growth is likely to follow recent trends emphasizing more multifamily development. Existing multifamily residential developments are focused on major arterials, downtown, and near Highway 99.The Downtown/Waterfront and Highway 99 corridor areas are considered the primary commercial centers of Edmonds, with one smaller but significant center at Westgate (located at the intersection of Edmonds Way and 100th Avenue West). Smaller neighborhood commercial centers are located in several neighborhoods, such as Five Corners, Firdale, and Perrinville. Several affordable housing -specific terms and concepts will be used throughout the profile. Income levels will be defined by their share of"Area Median Income, or AMI. For this report, median income for the Seattle -Bellevue HUD Metro Fair Market Rent Area (HMFA) will be used for AMI because it is the measure HUD uses to administer its programs. Housing agencies typically define income levels as they relate to AMI. These are: • Extremely Low Income - up to 30% AMI • Very Low Income - up to 50% AMI • Low Income - up to 80% AMI • Moderate Income - up to 95% AMI • Middle Income - up to 120% AMI When a household spends more than 30% of their income on housing, it is considered to be "cost burdened", and, if lower income, will likely have to sacrifice spending on other essentials like food and medical care. "Costvburden" is used as a benchmark to evaluate housing affordability. Population and Community In 2013, Edmonds was home to an estimated 39,950 people, only slightly higher than its 2000 population of 39,544.3The City's population has been stable since the mid-1990s, when there were several large jumps due to annexations in south and southwest Edmonds. The City is projected to grow at a modest rate moving forward, accommodating an estimated 5,841 additional residents by 2035.This increase would require 2,790 additional housing units, which is near its estimated capacity of 2,646 additional units. Of the current capacity, the vast majority is in multifamily properties, with a high portion through redevelopment 4 Figure 1.1. Total Population, City of Edmonds, 1990-2013 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 O N M '�t Ln �O r� W ON O N M � Ln %O r` O Ch O � N M ON d\ M ON M ON ON M ON ON O O O O O O O O O O ON d> O CDO O O O CD CD CD CDO O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N Source: Washington State Office of Financial Management, 2013 The 20121 population includes 17,396 households with an average household size of 2.3 people, compared to 2.6 for the County. Of these, 10,997, or 63%, are family' households. Overall, 23.3% of households have children. In Snohomish County overall, 68% of households are families, and 32.5% of households have children.The average family size in Edmonds is 2.8, compared to 3.12 for the county. The average Edmonds renter household is smaller than the average owner household - 2 people per renter household versus 2.4 per owner household.' The share of foreign born residents in Edmonds is similar to the County overall - 13.9% 3 Washington State Office of Financial Management, 2013 4 Snohomish County Tomorrow Planning Advisory Committee,"Housing Characteristics and Needs in Snohomish County", 2014 5 2012 data is used as, at time of writing, it is the most recent ACS 5-year data available 6 Based on the US Census Bureau's definition of family, which "consists of two or more people (one of whom is the householder) related by birth, marriage, or adoption residing in the same housing unit" 7 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012 R1 versus 14.1 % for the County. The population of foreign born residents who are not U.S. citizens is lower in Edmonds than the County - 44% of foreign born residents versus 51 % of foreign born County residents. Residents born in Asia constitute 47% of the foreign born Edmonds population while European residents make up 20% of foreign born residents. 16% of Edmonds residents speak a language other than English in the home and 6% of residents speak English "less than very well", both proportions are lower than the County's numbers.' The share of the population living in rented homes is similar to the share Countywide. 31 % of Edmonds residents and 33% of Snohomish County residents currently live in rented homes. As shown in Figure 1.2, the proportion of homeowners remained relatively constant between 2000 and 2010, increasing slightly from 68% to about 69%.1 36% of Edmonds' population lives in multifamily homes, compared to 31 % across the County (renters and owners combined). The City's vacancy rate is 6.7% compared to 6.4% for the County as a whole.10 Figure 1.2. Population Share by Housing Tenure, City of Edmonds & Snohomish County 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Edmonds Snohomish County 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2000 2010 2000 2010 ■ Owners Renters Owners Renters Source: US Census Bureau, 2000,• US Census Bureau, 2010 The 2012 HMFA AMI for Seattle -Bellevue, which is referenced in this report as a standard for AMI, is $88,000, higher than the County's overall 2012 median income of $68,338. Edmonds 2012 median income is higher than the County AMI at $73,072. However, some economic segments of the City's population could be at risk of being housing burdened. Compared to HUD HMFA AMI and based on 2012 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates: • 2,638 households, or 15%of Edmonds'total, are considered to be extremely low income, earning less than 30% of area median income (AMI), • 2,684, or 15%, are considered very low income, earning between 30 and 50% of AMI, • 2,604, or 15%, are considered low income, earning between 50 and 80% of AMI, and • 1,773, or 10%, are considered moderate income, earning between 80 and 90% of AMI 8 Ibid. 9 US Census Bureau, 2000; US Census Bureau, 2010 10 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012 4 A comparison of income distribution in the City and County is presented graphically in Figure 1.3. As shown, Edmonds has a higher percentage of very low income households and households earning higher than middle income than the County as a whole, but lower percentages of every other income group. The combined percentage of extremely low, very low, and low income households is approximately 46%, compared to about 21 % moderate and middle income and 33% above middle income. Note that these percentages are not adjusted for household size due to data constraints. Here, a household consisting of two adults with an income level equal to another household consisting of two adults and three children would both be placed at the same percentage of AMI, even though the larger family would likely be more constrained financially. HUD's AMI calculations include ranges for households sized 1-8 people, and, in this report, sensitivity for household size is used wherever possible, as detailed in Appendix E. Maps 1.8 and 1.9 show the percentages of renter and owner households in each census tract that are cost burdened, meaning that they spend more than 30% of their income on housing. Overall, 38% of households in Edmonds are cost burdened, renters and owners combined. Table 1.1 shows the percentage of each income group that is cost burdened in Edmonds and Snohomish County by Figure 1.3. Household Share by Income Level, City of Edmonds and Snohomish County 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Extremely Very Low Low Moderate Middle Above Low Middle ■ Edmonds ■ Snohomish County Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2008-2012 housing tenure. According to this data, the City's renters are all less likely to be cost burdened compared to renters Countywide, except low income renters. While owners earning less than 50% AMI in the City are more likely to be cost burdened, this relationship reverses above that income level. For both renters and owners, there is a significant drop in cost burden above 50% AMI. This table does not address differences in degrees of cost burden — for example, a household that spends 31 % of its income on housing would be considered cost burdened along with a household that spends 80% of its income on housing." Table 1.1. Cost Burden by Income and Housing Tenure, City of Edmonds & Snohomish County Renters owners All Income Snohomish Snohomish Snohomish Level Edmonds Edmonds Edmonds County County County Extremely 79% 80% 82% 73% 82% 78% Low Very Low 81% 85% 86% 80% 63% 64% Low 29% 28% 46% 72% 47% 65% Moderate 13% 18% 43% 48% 38% 40% 11 Ibid �i Middle 7% 1 5% 1 26% 1 32% 22% 25% Source: US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008 - 2012 HUD's Location Affordability Index uses a number of variables to estimate the affordability of a location including both housing and transportation costs. According to the index, a "regional typical household '2"could expect to spend 49% of its income on housing and transportation if renting or owning in Edmonds. 45% is proposed as a targeted maximum percentage of income to be spent on housing and transportation combined to be affordable according to HUD standards. A low income household,13 however, could expend to spend 71 % of their income on housing and transportation. A regional moderate family may have to devote up to 57% of their income on housing and transportation.14 Housing and transportation affordability estimates for a number of different household types are presented in Figure 1.4. In general, estimates for Edmonds residents are very close to those for the Figure 1.4. Estimated Housing & Transportation Costs as a Share of Income, City of Edmonds & Snohomish County 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% All Households Renters Owners Source: US Dept. of Housing & Urban Development, • Location Affordability Portal, 2013 Median Income HH Moderate Income HH ■ Very Low Income HH ■ Median Income Individual County overall. In either case, it is estimated that owners will generally spend more on housing and transportation than renters, regardless of jurisdiction or household type. The 2012 unemployment rate was 4.2% in Edmonds, compared to 5.9% for the County. For employed Edmonds residents, the mean commute time is 27 minutes, compared with 29 for the County. 71 % of City residents drive to work alone compared with 74% of all County workers. The most common occupations for Edmonds residents are in management, business, science and arts occupations, at 12 Defined as a household with average household size, median income, and average number of commuters in Seattle -Bellevue HUD HMFA 13 Defined as a household with 3 individuals, one commuter, and income equal to 50% AMI 14 US Department of Housing & Urban Development; Location Affordability Portal, 2013 M 49% of the employed population, followed by sales and office occupations, with 25% of the employed population. The two most dominant industry groups employing City residents are educational services, healthcare and assistance industries with 23% of workers, and the professional, scientific, management, administrative and waste industries, with 13% of workers.15 According to the Puget Sound Regional Council, Edmonds is home to 12,449 jobs. The majority of these jobs are in the services sector, with 8,540jobs. 4,918 of those jobs are in healthcare and social assistance and 1,369 jobs are in the accommodation and food service fields.16 Edmonds has 0.7 jobs for every occupied home compared to 1.2 employed people per home. Even assuming all of these people only have one job and only local people are employed locally, this means that a significant portion of the population must commute to work. In actuality, 80% of employed Edmonds residents work outside the City. More than half of these commuters work outside Snohomish County, most likely in King County. Across Snohomish County, there are only .9jobs per occupied home compared to 1.3 employed people per home." The shape of the City's population pyramid, shown in Figure 1.5, offers additional insight into its housing needs and how they may be changing. As shown, between 2000 and 2010 the population of older residents grew and the population of younger residents shrank. As the baby boomer generation continues to retire, every community will see an increase in the share of elderly people, but in Edmonds the effects may be particularly strong - the City's 2012 median age was 46, compared to Figure 1.5. Population Pyramid, 2000-2010, City of Edmonds 90 + 85-89 80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15 - 19 10 - 14 5-9 0-4 LI'IJ 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 Source: US Census Bureau, 2000; US Census Bureau, 2010 ■ 2010 2000 15 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012 16 Puget Sound Regional Council; Covered Employment Estimates, 2012 17 US Census; American Community Survey, 2008-2012; Puget Sound Regional Council; Covered Employment Estimates, 2012 7 37 across the County. Out of all age groups, the greatest increases from 2000-2010 was in residents between the ages of 55 and 65, while the greatest decrease was in residents between 35 and 40. The number of young children is also decreasing. Household Profiles These are the stories of several actual Edmonds households who receive some kind of housing assistance from the Housing Authority of Snohomish County. All names and many nonessential details have been changed to respect their privacy. Beth Beth lives in a two bedroom apartment in Edmonds with her two children. She works full time at a grocery store and makes a total annual income of $21,079, or about $1,757 per month. This translates to an hourly wage just under $11 per hour. With Assistance With her voucher administered through the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO), Beth pays $462 in rent and $163 in utilities for her two bedroom apartment. After rent and utilities are paid, Beth has $1,132 left over per month to support her family. Without Assistance Without a voucher, Beth's monthly rent obligation would be $1,088, including utilities, more than 60% of her total monthly income. The average rent for a two bedroom unit in Edmonds is $1,066, so finding a significantly more affordable unit could be challenging. Beth could look for a shared living arrangement as a cheaper alternative, however, it would be difficult to find a living situation that would accommodate her and her children. Having two children, downsizing from a two bedroom unit is not a feasible option either. In order to afford her current apartment, Beth would need to find a job that pays more than double her current income —about $43,520 a year, or $21 per hour. Jamie Jamie is an elderly disabled woman living in a one bedroom apartment in Edmonds. Jamie's sole source of income is Social Security payments that provide $8,672 a year, or about $723 a month. With Assistance Jamie receives a voucher through HASCO for $550 toward her monthly rent. The market rent for her one bedroom apartment is $705 per month plus $62 in utilities. After her voucher is applied to her rent, Jamie pays $155 plus $62 in utilities per month. This leaves Jamie with $506 per month to support herself. Without Assistance The market rent for Jamie's home is $767 including utilities, more than her monthly income. If Jamie had to look for an apartment she could afford without a voucher, the most affordable studio apartment she could expect to find would rent for around $550, including utilities, which would still be 76% of her income. Without the means to acquire a job or family or friends who could help, Jamie would have few options without a housing voucher. Dave 8 Dave and his wife live in a two bedroom apartment in Edmonds. Dave works in a local warehouse and his wife receives income from Social Security payments due to a disability. Together, they receive employment and Social Security income totaling $18,044 per year, or $1,504 per month. With Assistance With his voucher, Dave and his wife pay $581 in rent plus $193 in utilities per month. This leaves Dave and his wife with $730 left over for the month. Without Assistance If Dave did not receive a Section 8 Voucher, he would have to pay $1,068 per month for rent and utiIities.This would leave the couple with only $436 per month to spend on food and other essentials. At this rate, Dave would be spending about 70% of his family's income on rent alone. The average rent for a two bedroom unit in Edmonds is $1,097, so finding a market rate apartment of the same size but at a cheaper price than his current apartment could be challenging. At the time of this report, two bedroom apartments for rent in the area range from $777 to $1,916 per month. If Dave were able to rent the cheapest two bedroom apartment in Edmonds, without a voucher he and his wife would still be paying 52% of their monthly income on rent, making them significantly cost burdened. As the most they could afford with their current income would be $450, there are not even any studio units that would be affordable. n Existing Housing Stock The City of Edmonds is located in southwest Snohomish County, bounded to the west by the Puget Sound, east by the cities of Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood, south by King County, and north by Mukilteo. Edmonds' primary commercial centers are the Highway 99 corridor and the Downtown/Waterfront area.The southern portion of the Waterfront area houses a concentration of businesses as well as the Port of Edmonds, where the Washington State Ferry provides service to the Kitsap Peninsula. The City's neighborhoods are mostly composed of single family homes, which make up 66% of the total housing stock. Multifamily residential developments are located just south and north of the downtown area. As shown in Figure 2.1, the City has a high concentration of homes constructed between 1950 and 1969 compared to the County, and fewer constructed after 1990.11 The number of units projected to accommodate population growth over the next 20 years isjust overthe City's current capacity.The majority of this potential will be in multifamily properties, and nearly half of all potential is in redevelopable parcels.19 Figure 2.2 shows the distribution of renters and owners among different types of housing, with owners in the inner ring and renters in the outer ring. As shown, 85% of homeowners live in single family homes. While 24% of renters also live in single family homes, the next largest group of renters, 22% of the total, live in properties with 20 to 49 units 20 Figures 2.3 and 2.4 provide information on newly permitted units in the City in recent years. Figure 2.3 shows the total number of net newly permitted residential units per year from 2001 to 2012 for both the City and County, with the City on the left axis and the County on the right. Figure 2.4 shows the share of the City's new units composed of single- and multifamily units. Figure 2.1. Age Distribution of Housing Stock, Figure 2.2. Units in Structure by City of Edmonds & Snohomish County Housing Tenure, City of Edmonds 50% 40% 30% 20% 100/ 0% • , Before 1949 1950-1969 1970-1989 1990 or Later ■ Edmonds ■ Snohomish County ■ 1 ■ 2 ■3or4 ■5to9 ■ 10 to 19 ■ 20 to 49 Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey Source: US Census Bureau, American 2008-2012 Community Survey 2008-2012 18 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012 19 Snohomish County Tomorrow Planning Advisory Committee,"Housing Characteristics and Needs in Snohomish County", 2014 20 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012 10 Figure 2.3. Net Newly -Permitted Units, City of Figure 2.4. Newly Permitted Units by Type, City Edmonds & Snohomish County of Edmonds 250 200 150 100 50 Edmonds Snohomish County 7,000 250 6,000 200 5,000 150 4,000 3,000 100 2,000 50 1,000 0 0 -50 Single Family Multi -family Source: Puget Sound Regional Council Source: Puget Sound Regional Council, 2012 As shown, newly permitted units peaked in 2004 in the City, just before the County did, and crashed during the recession. While newly -permitted units began to recover across the County in 2010, as of 2012 Edmonds had not yet begun to recover at the same pace. As shown in Figure 2.4, newly permitted units in Edmonds since 2001 have primarily consisted of multifamily units.21 For the purposes of this report, Edmonds'housing stock is divided into subsidized rental units, workforce rental units, market rate rental units (both single- and multi -family), and home ownership. Subsidized rental units are targeted toward households with the lowest incomes, typically less than 30% AMI. Populations targeted for subsidized rental units often include the disabled, elderly, and other populations living on fixed incomes with special needs. A subsidized property is one that receives funding, perhaps rental assistance or an operating subsidy, to insure that its residents pay rents that are affordable for their income level. Some properties only apply their subsidy to select units. It is also common for subsidized units to be restricted to certain groups like families, the elderly, or homeless. A subsidized property may have also benefited from workforce -type housing subsidies, and it is also common for just a portion of a property's units to receive an ongoing subsidy. Workforce rental units are targeted to working households that still cannot afford market rents. Workforce rental units and subsidized rental units are both considered "assisted', but differ in several areas.The key difference between subsidized and workforce units is that workforce units have a subsidy "built in"through the use of special financing methods and othertools, allowing (and typically requiring) the landlord to charge less for rent. An example of this would be when a private investor benefits from low income housing tax credits when building a new residential development. In exchange for the tax credit savings, the property owner would have to restrict a certain number of units to a certain income level for a certain period of time. When the owner is a for -profit entity, this often means that rents on restricted units will become market rate units when the period of restriction has ended. While nonprofit owners may also utilize workforce tools for capital funding, they are more likely to preserve restrictions 21 Puget Sound Regional Council, Residential Building Permit Summaries 2012 11 on units longer than required. The distribution of Edmonds'assisted units by income level served, both subsidized and workforce, is presented in Table 2.1. Market rate rental units are the stock of all housing units available for rent in the open market. These are units that are privately owned and whose rents are determined by market supply and demand pressures. A market rate rental unit can also be a subsidized rental unit, as is the case with the Federal Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program. Section 8 vouchers can be used to rent any unit, as detailed below. Table 2.1. Assisted Units by Income Level Served, City of Edmonds Extremely Low 233 Very Low 79 Low 194 Moderate 2 Total 508 Homeownership units include all single family homes for sale Sources: HASCO, 2014, EHA, 2014 — detached and attached single family homes, condominiums, and manufactured homes. Subsidized Housing Units: Permanent and Transitional Edmonds has 303 units of subsidized housing with a range of rental assistance sources including Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs), HUD Supportive Housing Program, Section 8 Project - Based Vouchers, and the Sound Families Initiative. As of July 2014, there were 195 HCVs in use in Edmonds administered by the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) and the Everett Housing Authority (EHA).22 All assisted units and buildings are listed in Appendix B.Table 2.2 shows the distribution of permanent subsidized units by funding source. Families making up to 50% of AMI are eligible for Section Table 2.2. Permanent Subsidized Units 8 housing vouchers; however, 75% of these vouchers are by Funding Source, City of Edmonds limited to those making no more than 30% of AMI. Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) receive federal funds from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to administer the HCV program. HUD sets Fair Market Rents (FMRs) annually and PHAs determine their individual payment standards (a percentage of FMR) by unit bedroom size. The tenant identifies a unit, then the PHA inspects the unit to make sure it meets federal Housing Quality Standards Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher 195 Section 8 Project -Based 98 Voucher HUD Supportive Housing 10 Program Sound Families Initiative 12 and determines if the asked rent is reasonable. If the unit Source: HASCO, 2014 is approved, the tenant pays rent equal to 30-40% of their income, and the PHA pays the difference directly to the landlord. While the voucher amount is set up so that a family does not need to spend more than 30% of their income on housing, including an allowance for utilities, a family may choose to spend up to 40% of their income on housing. This happens most often when the family chooses a home that is larger than the size approved for their voucher. The two PHAs that administer the HCV program in Snohomish County are HASCO and the Everett Housing Authority (EHA). Vouchers issued by both PHAs can be used in Edmonds. Because the number of vouchers a PHA can distribute is limited by the amount of federal funding they receive, the wait for a new applicant to receive an HCV can be extremely long and is usually 22 Housing Authority of Snohomish County, 2014; Everett Housing Authority, 2014 12 dependent on existing voucher holders leaving the program. Until recently, the wait to receive an HCV from HASCO had been about 6 years. Federal funding for the HCV program was frozen during the 2013 budget sequester, at which time HASCO had to close its waitlist. Workforce Housing Edmonds is home to 201 units of workforce housing distributed across 3 properties, all listed in Appendix B. Assisted workforce housing units are defined by the fact that they received some form of one-time subsidy in exchange for rent restrictions. Workforce funding types do not involve ongoing rental assistance, and rents are not tailored to individual household incomes. These subsidies can include: Capital Financing - Low -interest -rate mortgages, mortgage insurance, tax-exempt bond financing, loan guarantees, and pre -development cost reduction financing. Table 2.3. Workforce Units by Funding Source, City of Edmonds Tax Credit 92 Bond 200 Housing Trust Fund 1 Low -Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) —Tax credits tRate and Co provided to developers that can be sold for the Source: HASCO, 2014 purposes of up front debt reduction. Federal, State, and County Grant Programs — Grants provided to local governments from the federal government for construction or renovation of below -market -rate units. Community Development Block Grants and HOME grants are two popular examples Workforce housing in Edmonds has been funded through a variety of sources, including low-income housing tax credits (LIHTC), tax-exempt bonds, and State and County Housing Trust Fund dollars. While the name may suggest otherwise, it is common for developers to use workforce funding sources to funding housing for populations like seniors. Table 2.3 shows the number of workforce units funded per major source in Edmonds, with full information provided in Appendix B. Table 2.3 only includes units that do not have additional rental assistance (Considered'subsidized' in this report), which often also use workforce subsidies as part of their financing. As most workforce properties use more than one funding source, there are units counted multiple times in the different funding categories listed in Table 2.3. Financing for any affordable housing project is often very complicated and can involve an array of public, nonprofit, and private entities. While not currently the case in Edmonds'workforce properties, many workforce housing properties only dedicate a portion of their units for lower income tenants. This is typical of properties developed or rehabilitated by private entities using tax credits or tax-exempt bond financing in exchange for income restrictions on the properties. In those cases, affordable housing requirements are limited to a certain period of time, typically 20 to 30 years, after which time the property owners can increase rents to market rates. Some properties feature both subsidized and workforce units. Market Rate Rental Units There are an estimated 5,000 rental units in Edmonds of every type, from single family homes to large 13 apartment buildings. According to American Community Survey estimates, 3,739 out of 5,000 renter - occupied housing units are in multifamily properties. This compares to 1,904 multifamily units out of 12,396 owner -occupied homeS.23 Table 2.4 summarizes ACS data on the number of units available at certain rent levels by bedroom size in Edmonds. No evidence was found of any market rents below $500, despite ACS data to the contrary.This could be because the ACS Sample may include subsidized units and less formal rent arrangements, such as renting rooms or mother-in-law suites in single family homes or renting from family members that could be more affordable. ACS rent data also does not include utility allowances. Table 2.4. Renter -Occupied Units by Rent and Unit Size, City of Edmonds (Without Utilities) No Bedrooms i Bedroom Units 2 Bedroom Units 3+ Bedroom Less than $zoo 0 18 0 $200 to $299 0 52 10 $300 to $499 0 104 0 27 $500 to $749 101 237 110 $750 to $999 103 786 652 $1,000 or more o 186 1486 Source: US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012 To provide a better idea of what a household looking for a home today could expect to pay in rent and utilities in Edmonds, rent data was obtained from Dupre and Scott. This data, which includes both multifamily and single family rental units, is summarized in Table 2.5 and presented in full in Appendix A. Table 2.5 lists the minimum full time wage to afford each average rent in hourly and annual terms as well as the number of hours one would have to work per week earning Washington State's minimum wage to afford the unit. Table 2.5. Average Rent and Affordability by Size, City of Edmonds (Including Utilities) Average Rent (w/ Utilities) Minimum Income Required Lowest Rent Highest Rent Per Hour Annual Studio $ 833 $ 16.02 $33,320 $ 546 $ 1,187 1 Bedroom $ 887 $ 17.06 $35,480 $ 662 $ 1,521 2 Bedroom $ 1,097 $ 21.10 $43,880 $ 777 $ 1,916 3 Bedroom $ 1,679 $ 32.29 $67,160 $ 1,094 $ 4,215 4 Bedroom $ 2,545 $ 48.94 $101,800 $ 1,947 $ 4,347 5 Bedroom $ 2,844 $ 54.69 $113,760 $ 2,276 $ 3,771 Source: Dupre & Scott 2013, National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2014 Table 2.6, on the following page, shows the affordability distribution of average rents in Edmonds by size. In this table, "Yes" means that the average rent is affordable to a household at that income level, adjusting for household size, "Limited" means that the average rent is not affordable but there are lower end affordable units, and "No" means that the entire rent range is not affordable. As shown, the City's rental housing is generally affordable to households earning at least 80% AMI — the moderate 23 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012 14 Table 2.6. Distribution of Rent Affordability by Size, City of Edmonds Number of Bedrooms Income Level Studio i 3 4+ Extremely Low No No No No No Very Low Limited Limited Limited Limited No Low Yes Yes Yes Limited No Moderate Yes Yes Yes Yes Limited Middle Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Source: Dupre and Scott, 2013 income level and above. Average units two bedrooms or less in size are also affordable to low income renters, with a limited supply affordable to very low income renters.There is also a limited supply of three bedroom units affordable to this group. The difference in minimum required income by size between single- and multifamily units is shown in Table 2.7. As shown, multifamily units tend to be more affordable than single family homes. As multifamily units also tend to be smaller than single family homes, there is a lack of larger affordable units. Table 2.7. Average Rents by Size, SIngle- and Multifamily, City of Edmonds Multifamily Ave. Rent 0 Minimum Income Single Family Ave. Rent Minimum Income Studio $833 Low n/a n/a 1 Bedroom $887 Low $1,521 Moderate 2 Bedroom $1,070 Low $1,548 Moderate 3 Bedroom $1,336 Low $1,992 Moderate 4 Bedroom n/a n/a $2,545 Middle 5 Bedroom n/a n/a $2,844 Middle Source: Dupre and Scott, 2013 Even after accounting for the fact that utility allowances are not included in ACS data, the range of rents available in the conventional market is generally higher than that reported in the ACS. Again, this could be explained by the ACS sample including subsidized units and informal rent arrangements. While ACS data is important as it shows what Edmonds renters are actually paying, it does not give an accurate indication of what a typical renter searching for a market rate unit can expect to pay. Home Ownership Between 2008 and 2012,61 % of single family homes sold in Edmonds were three bedrooms in size. 24% of homes sold were four bedrooms in size, meaning that three and four bedroom homes together represented 85% of sales. 9% were two bedrooms and 6% were five bedrooms or larger. This includes freestanding single family homes, common wall single family homes (townhouses), manufactured homes, and condominiums24. 24 Snohomish County property use codes 111, 112, 116, 117, 118, 119, 141, 142, 143 15 In 2012, the median sale price for a single family home in Edmonds was $339,975. Assuming a 20% down payment and using average rates of interest, property taxes, utilities and insurance as determined by the Federal Housing Funding Board, the monthly payment for this home would be $1,895. For a family to afford this payment without being cost burdened, they would require an annual income of at least $75,796, which is just above the City's median income.21 Appendix C provides statistics on sales of single family homes from 2008-2012, as well the minimum income necessary to afford the median sale home by year. During that time period, median home sales prices declined by 17%. In 2012 dollars this translates to a difference of more than $33,000 in minimum income required to afford the median home 26The housing market across the region has since begun to recover from the recession. While home sale affordability for 2013 cannot be calculated at this time, Edmonds currently has the County's third highest average assessed residential value. The 2014 average assessed value of $351,100 represented a 10.7% increase over 2013.27 Table 2.8 lists the percentage of 2012 sales of homes of different sizes that are affordable to each income level by home size."Not affordable" means that the minimum income required is higher than the middle income upper cutoff. All of the percentages specify the portion of homes of that size that someone in the particular income group could afford, adjusting for household size as detailed in Appendix E. As shown, there is decreasing affordability as size increases, though moderate and middle income households could theoretically afford the monthly cost of most of the homes sold in 2012. Moderate income is recommended as the minimum ideal household income for home ownership to be a reasonable option. Table 2.8. Affordable Home Sales by Size, City of Edmonds, 2012 Low ery ow ow oderate iddle Not Affordable Total Sales 71-2 12% 17% 57% 73% 85% 15% 60 0% 7% 46% 74% 87% 13% 405 3 0% 4% 21% 54% 78% 22% 165 5+ 0% 3% 23% 49% 69% 31% 35 Source: Snohomish County Assessor, 2014 The"affordability gap" describes situations where there are more households at a given income level than there are housing options affordable to those households. Figure 2.5 displays the percentage of households in Edmonds at each income level compared with the percentage of all home sales in 2012 that each income level could afford. As Figure 2.5 compares the overall income distribution of the City with the affordability distribution of one year, this is a rough approximation, and other factors should be considered in examining home ownership affordability. As shown, there were plenty of sales theoretically affordable for households earning at least 80% AMI in 2012, which is the minimum income required for home ownership. (Moderate income and above) This analysis does not consider 25 Snohomish County Assessor, 2014 26 Ibid 27 Snohomish County Assessor, "Snohomish County Assessor's Annual Report for 2014Taxes , 2014 16 Figure 2.5. Home Sale Affordability Gap, 2012, City of Edmonds 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Extremely Very Low Law Moderate Middle Low us ❑ Households ■ Sales whether or not these income groups are able to access financing, including a down payment, or other barriers to home ownership. There is also sufficient supply for the City's low income households, though home ownership may only be a good choice for certain households in this group. Further, this does not include competition from households above middle income, which comprise 33% of the City's total. Figure 2.6 shows how the percentage of sales affordable to each income level has changed from 2008 to 2012. As shown, affordability improved dramatically for moderate income households during this period, and all other income groups as well. As the housing market continues Figure 2.6. Home Sale Affordability, 2008-2012, City of Edmonds to improve following the recession, affordability for this 100% group may retreat again. While 909% there are affordable options 809% for low income households, 70g° and ownership may be a good 60% ■ 2008 option for certain low income 50% 02009 households (those earning 403% ■ 2010 between 50 and 80% AMI), these 30O° ❑ 2611 households are considered the 2�, exception rather than the rule. 10go ❑ 2612 0% 4- Many of the most affordable Extremely Very Low Low Moderate Middle Low sales were likely only so affordable because they were Source: Snohomish County Assessor, 2014 foreclosed homes sold by banks. 517 Paradise Lane, for example, is a three bedroom home that Wells Fargo Bank sold for $240,000 in 2012. At that price, a household with a minimum income of $46,216 could afford the monthly debt service of around $1,155.This same home sold for $378,000 in 2004, which is well out of reach to the household with the minimum income necessary to afford it in 2012. While low priced foreclosed homes can put home ownership within reach for more households, this is accomplished at the expense of previously displaced homeowners. Additionally, these sales contribute to ongoing uncertainty about market home values. Low income home buyers could also become cost burdened by higher property taxes on these"bargain" homes. Figure 2.7, on the following page, shows how sales have been divided between single family homes, condominiums, and manufactured homes between 2008 and 2012. In Edmonds, condominiums 17 Figure 2.7. Home Sales by Type, 2008-2012, City of Edmonds 1000/0 MENEEMENEV- 9WO 96❑/❑ 94% 9 2❑/❑ 90❑/❑ 88% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 ■ Condo ■ Mfg. Home ■ Single Family Source: Snohomish County Assessor, 2014 represent a larger portion of the market than in other cities in Snohomish County. Table 2.9 shows how many sales of each of these three types were affordable to each income level in 2012. Manufactured homes were most likely to be affordable to lower income households, with a dramatically lower median sale price, though there was still a significant number of single family and condominium sales affordable to very low and low income households. The median home sale prices for single family homes and condominiums were also very close to each other in 2012. Table 2.10 shows how many homes were sold in 2012 by type and number of bedrooms. Table 2.9. 2012 Affordable Home Sales by Type, City of Edmonds Single Manufactured Condo Family Home Extremely Low 1 6 0 Very Low 37 0 2 Low 208 0 9 Moderate 171 0 17 Middle 104 0 3 Not 108 0 0 Affordable Median Sale $ 339,975 $8,150 $341,705 Price Source: Snohomish County Assessor, 2014 18 Table 2.10. Size of Homes Sold by Type, 2012, City of Edmonds Bedrooms Single Family Mobile Home Condo Source: Snohomish County Assessor, 2014 Shared Rental Housing A popular market rate affordable housing option is to split housing costs with other roommates. These arrangements include renting a room, suite, or accessory dwelling unit (ADU) from a homeowner living on site. For 8 shared rooms advertised on Craigslist in the City, the monthly cost ranged from $500 to $650, including utilities. While they were more rooms advertised, they did not include an address or cross streets, so it could not be verified that they were actually located within the City. Their rents were generally not outside this range, however. Rents in this range are easily within reach for very low income single individuals, and possibly even extremely low income couples. Individuals seeking roommates are able to discriminate in who they choose to share their housing, however, and often stipulate a preferred gender or bar couples from sharing a room. It may be difficult for families with children and households with disabilities or other special needs to find a suitable shared housing situation. In these cases, a household's ability to find shared housing will likely depend on whether or not they have local connections to help them find understanding roommates. 19 Current Challenges and Opportunities The City of Edmonds is faced with the challenge of accommodating greater growth over the next 20 years than it has seen in the past, requiring an additional 2,790 additional housing units, when the current capacity is only 2,646 additional units. Of the current capacity, the vast majority is in multifamily properties, with a high portion to come through redevelopment.28 In general, the City will see a shift toward more multifamily housing if growth continues as predicted. Edmonds enjoys a higher median income compared to other areas in the County. All the same, assuming that the City's income mix stays constant, it is estimated that 1,257 units, or 55% of the total projected increase, will serve households at or below 50% AMI. The share of projected units by income level is shown in Figure 3.1. According to 2013 Dupre and Scott data, Edmonds'rental housing market is generally affordable to households earning at least 80% AMI. Households earning between 50 and 80% AMI will find the majority of homes smaller than five bedrooms affordable as well.There is a limited supply of small units affordable to those earning between 30 and 50% AMI. Market rents are not affordable to extremely low income households, though this is expected in almost all communities, due to the costs of construction and maintenance in today's market. Cost burden data Figure 3.1. Income allocation of projected new housing units, City of Edmonds 1,535 or 2,000 55% 1,500 1,000 41 % � rr 419 or 15% Projected New Homes Moderate + Above AM I ■ Low AMI ■ Very Low AMI ■ Extremely Low AMI 55%, or 1,257 u nits, at or below 80%AMI supports these conclusions, with a significant reduction in cost burden for both renters and owners at income levels above 50% AMI. Overall, 38% of Edmonds households are cost burdened. Renters and owners earning less than middle income are all less likely to be cost burdened in Edmonds when compared to the County, with the exception of homeowners below 50% AMI who are more likely to be cost burdened.29 In 2012, the median sale price for a single family home in Edmonds was $339,975. The estimated monthly payment for this home would be $1,895, including debt service, insurance, taxes, and utilities. For a family to afford this payment without being cost burdened, they would require an annual income of at least $75,796, which is just 28 Snohomish County Tomorrow Planning Advisory Committee,"Housing Characteristics and Needs in Snohomish County, 2014 29 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012 m above the City's median income.30 Affordability for 2013 cannot be calculated at this time, but average assessed values suggest that home prices are rising and affordability is retreating. At $351,100, Edmonds has the third highest average assessed 2014 home value in Snohomish County after Woodway and Mukilteo, and it represented a 10.7% increase over 2013.31 The age of units in Edmonds is a possible contributing factor to affordability, as the City features a significant stock of homes constructed between 1950 and 1969. As properties are redeveloped to build the denser housing the City needs to accommodate growth, it is likely that a portion of these naturally affordable older units will be replaced with higher priced new units. While preservation of older housing is an effective strategy for affordability, preservation must be balanced with the need to accommodate growth. In addition, the higher priced new units of today will be the quality affordable older units of tomorrow. Edmonds has one of the highest percentages of elderly residents among all Snohomish County cities. According to the ACS estimates, almost 25% of households in Edmonds have individuals 65 years or older.32 In addition to having generally lower incomes, seniors will require different types of housing and services if they desire to age in place. Additionally, as the "baby boomer" generation continues to move into retirement, there will be an increase in the number of people with disabilities as well. To respond to the continuing need to provide affordable housing for the community, the City has undertaken a series of measures and strategies to promote affordable housing including: • Land Use Strategies: upzoning from single family to multifamily zoning, offering density bonuses for low income and senior housing provision, clustering subdivisions, planned residential developments to protect the environment, encouraging infill developments, and promoting conversion/adaptive reuse programs. • Administrative Procedures: streamlined approval processes, updated use -by -right policies, and updated impact mitigation payment deferral. • Development Standards: installed front and side yard setback requirements, zero lot line development, improved street design and construction, off-street parking requirements, and innovative sanitary, sewer, water and storm water systems. • Low -Cost Housing Types: encourage the use of accessory dwellings, cottage houses, mixed -use developments and mobile/manufactured housing. In addition to promoting, adjusting, and providing incentives for these policies where appropriate, the City should continue to monitor their use and evaluate policies to make sure there are not unnecessary regulatory barriers to affordable housing. Additionally, the City could consider adopting a multifamily tax abatement program for certain locations and, when opportunities arise, the City could partner with nonprofit organizations developing housing for households earning below 30% AMI, the income group generally not served by the traditional housing market. 30 Snohomish County Assessor, 2014 31 Snohomish County Assessor, "Snohomish County Assessor's Annual Report for 2014Taxes , 2014 32 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012 21 Maps 22 Map 1.1. Total Population (Block Groups) Sources: American Community Survey, 2008-2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013 I j I / j I / I I Z �- GJ / < 196thStS J IN 196th St SW 196th St SW i' i i Main Street j > _ 41 Qmi r--------------i - I � cj I I Population (Block Groups) - r: MUGA City Limits j 10s, I 0-464 465 - 958 j 959 - 1284 I 1285-1553 ------v------- 1554-2040 - 0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles Map 1.2. Average Family Size (Block Groups) Sources: American Community Survey, 2008-2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013 'uget Drive Street Family Size 0.00 0.01 - 2.15 2.16 - 2.95 2.96 - 3.34 3.35 - 4.12 - I-J City Limits MUGA I I S§th St SW i i i i i i Z� I I r--j Lry I I-_ i 196th St SW 0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles Map 1.3. Average Household Size (Block Groups) Sources: American Community Survey, 2008-2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013 .r- I• I I I I % I i" � I i' 1 I j 96thstSbv 194th St SW 196th St SW / I � I i Main Street i a % i, a L------------ Qm :/ I i I I--- I Household Size 0.00 - 1.70 I d I 1.71 - 2.30 I I._ 2.31 - 2.77 I i 2.78 - 3.42 _ I r City Limits --f-------L --- --- - — - — - — - — - — - — r MUGA — -- 25 i I I I i I I i 0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles Map 1.4. Renter -Occupied Housing Units Sources: American Community Survey, 2008-2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013 r� Main Street Renter -Occupied Homes (By Block Group) 0% - 7% 8% - 17% 18% - 27% 28%-41% _ 42% - 72% L r• City Limits r MUGA 196t6StSIV 196th St SW 196th St SW 0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles Map 1.5. Vacant Housing Units (Block Groups) Sources: American Community Survey, 2008-2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013 I I I I I I j I � I I"- 7 i" i I i " 1 i � Z •1 .19 i sthStsW 19�th St SW 196th St SW i i i" Main Street I L" CA " �1 I Vacant Homes j (By Block Group) Fq, 0% - 2% F i 3% - 7% I s 1 8% - 10% I j 11%- 19% 20% - 25% j 1 r ' City Limits I \ r MUGA - ------------------- 0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles Map 1.6. Homeowners with Mortgages Sources: American Community Survey, 2008 - 2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2073 19¢th St SW Mortgaged Homes 0% 1%-64% 65% - 73% 74% - 79% 80% - 95% City Limits -_t MUGA 196th St SW 0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles Map 1.7. Very Low -Income Households Sources: American Community Survey, 2008 - 2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013 Households <50%AMI 0% - 12% 13% - 20% 21%-33% 34% - 46% 47% - 68% City Limits MUGA 196th St SW 196th St SW r-- i i main greet � v Q I I I I d I I I � 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles Map 1.8. Cost -Burdened Renters Sources: American Community Survey, 2008 - 2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2073 P Cost -Burdened Renters 0% 1%- 35% 36% - 52% 53% - 78% _ 79% - 100% r_r City Limits r MUGA I I j I j / I -----------/ I I I �1 I 1721Pth St SW 196th St SW 4 I I I I Q�/ 0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles Map 1.9. Cost -Burdened Owners Sources: American Community Survey, 2008 - 2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013 I-- � i z 1 / > I i 796th S i tsIV IP-6th St SW 196th St SW i Main Street I L� Q I I Cost -Burdened I i Owners — -I — - — 'co I-Q 0% - 10% 11%-28% 29% - 36% I I 37% - 48% j 1 49% - 65% -r_!- City Limits — �.�_------------- MUGA 31 0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles Map 1.10. Housing & Transportation, Percent of Low HH Income Sources: US Housing & Urban Developme nt, 2013; Snohomish County Information Services, 2012 I I 1 I 1 �l I 196th St SW r-' 1 I Percent of Income 51% - 58% 59% - 65% 66% - 73% dM 74%-81% 82% - 100% City Limits MUGA I 196th St SW 0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles Map 2.1. Voucher Location and Transit Access Sources: HASCO 2014; Snohomish County Community Transit, 2014; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013 • • • • the t � i • • 1 66th St SW • • • •1 0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles Map 2.2. Age of Housing Stock Sources: Snohomish County Assessor, 2012, Snohomish County Information Services, 2012 n 196th St SW Year Built 1872 - 1904 1905 - 1918 1919-1934 1935 - 1948 1949 - 1957 1958 - 1964 1965 - 1972 1973 - 1983 1984 - 1997 1998 - 2013 i;r City Limits MUGA 0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles Map 2.3. Condition of Housing Stock Sources: Snohomish County Assessor, 2014, Snohomish County Information Services, 2013 196th St SW 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles Map 2.4. Housing Density Sources: American Community Survey, 2008 - 2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2073 Areet Housing Units/Acre (By Block Group) 0.0 - 1.4 1.5 - 3.0 3.1 - 4.3 4.4 - 6.6 6.7 - 11.7 r City Limits -_f r MUGA -_f — i Cn I I I I I I I I I 196th St SW I l �l I 196th St SW r-- i 196th St SW 0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles Map 2.5. Net Single Family Permits by Census Tract, 2011 Sources: Snohomish County Information Services, 2012; PSRC, 2011 o, Street I96tb St SW I I 19�th St SW I I I I I / si Qm/ 196th St SW 0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles Map 2.6. Net Multifamily Permits by Census Tract, 2011 Sources: Snohomish County Information Services, 2012; PSRC, 2011 I j I j I I � I IN L---------- 7 i• % % I � I --i i i �• I /• l % s Ih StS r W 196th St SW g6 196th St SW / I i Main Street I / L_ r; ----------------� v i o� I I Net Newly- j I Permitted Units by--� j F �- Tract -4 q� / d -3-0 I j I � 2-8 J City Limits MUGA 0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles Map 2.7. Average Renter Household Size Sources: American Community Survey, 2008 - 2012, Snohomish County Information Services, 2013 I I I I I I j I � I — •" I-- ' I------- i� i7� I Z •1 Igs r hstsW 19�th St SW 196th St SW � I � I i Main Street I L" a' 3A.%" I Cn mac, k I Average H H Size - I Renters -- O 0.00 - 1.65 I r I a j 1.66 - 2.18 f 2.19 - 2.68 I I 2.69 - 3.73 3.74 - 7.42 I 1 r City Limits I \ _-_ --' r M__—_ UGA 39 0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles Appendices 40 Appendix A: Multifamily Rent Comparables by Property, City of Edmonds Units in Minimum Units in Minimum Units in Minimum Units in Minimum Units in Minimum Units in Minimum Units in Minimum Units in Minimum Aqe Studio Rent Utilities Total _ Aqe 1Bd-Rent Utilities Total _ Aqe 2/1-Rent Utilities Total _ Aqe 2/2-Rent Utilities Total _ Aqe 3/1-Rent Utilities Total _ _ .. Aqe 3/2-Rent Utilities Total _ _ _ Aqe 4Be -Rent Utilities Total qe 6 - ent Utilities Total 4:20+ 2010 $1,035 $ 152 $1,187 Low 420+ 1975 $682 $ 152 $834 Low 4:20+ 1975 $690 $ 152 $842 Low 4:20+ 1975 $685 $ 152 $837 Low 420+ 1965 5425 S 152 5577 Very Low 4:20+ 1985 $793 $ 152 $945 Low 3:4-19 1975 S850 S 46 S896 Low Iim 19fi5 $fi89 $ 965 $850 $ 1965 $785 S 1945 $810 $ 1965 5775 $ 1945 :650 $ 945 619 $ 1965 $670 $ 1985 5800 $ 1985 5725 $ 975 $760 $ 2010 $1,207 $ 1985 $710 $ 985 $825 S 1975 5744 $ 965 $695 $ 975 $78fi $ 975 $700 $ 1975715 $ 19755 $705 $ 1975 5735 $ 965 $710 $ 1985 $860 $ 1900 $1,350 $ 1975 $755 $ 945 $750 $ 1965 $710 $ 1945 $800 $ 1945 $631 $ $860 Low 5912 Low $956 Low $981 Low S837 Low $712 Very Low $681 Very Low $732 Very Low $971 Low $787 Very Low $931 Low $1,378 Moderate 5881 Low $887 Low $915 Low $757 Very Low 5957 Low $871 Low $886 Low $876 ow $797 Very Low $881 Low $1,031 Low $1,521 Moderate $817 Very Low 5812 Very Low $772 Very Low $862 Low S693 Very Low 4:20+ 196S $770 420+ 1965 $950 4:20+ 196 $1,050 4:20+ 1945 $795 420+ 1945 5725 4:20+ 1945 $845 3:4-19 1975 $810 4:20+ 1985 $955 3:419 1975 $925 4:20+ 1975 $820 420+ 2010 $1,325 4:20+ 1985 $770 420+ 1975 $932 4:20+ 1975 $891 4.20+ 1975 $750 420+ 1975 5795 4:20+ 1975 $885 420+ 1965 $795 4:20+ 1985 $957 1:SF 1945 $1,150 3:4-19 1945 $850 3:419 1965 $840 3:4-19 1945 $985 3:4-19 1945 $900 3:419 1945 $839 2:2-3 1945 5925 191 $961 Very Low 4:20+ 196S $870 $191 $1,061 Low 4:20+ 196S $985 77 $1,027 Low 420+ 1965 5875 $77 $952 Very Low 420+ 1965 51,050 191 $1,241 Low 3:4-19 1985 $1,015 $77 $1,092 Low 4:20+ 1945 $1,000 191 $98fi Very Low 4:20+ 19fi5 $925 $77 $1,002 Low 4:20+ 1975 $976 77 $802 Very Low 4:20+ 1965 $1,025 $191 $1,216 Low 420+ 1965 $875 77 $922 Very Low 4:20+ 2010 $1,431 $191 $1,622 Moderate 1:SF 1945 $1,400 77 $887 Very Low 3:4-19 196 $895 $77 $972 Very Low 1:SF 1945 $1,895 191 $1,146 Low 420+ 1985 $1,050 $191 $1,241 Low 1:SF 1945 $1,595 77 $1,002 Low 420+ 1985 5925 577 $1,002 Low 1:SF 1945 51,650 191 $1,011 Low 4:20+ 1985 5875 577 $952 Very Low 1:SF 1965 $1,375 191 $1,516 Moderate 420+ 1975 $950 $77 $1,027 Low 1:SF 1945 $1,250 191 $961 Very Low 420+ 1965 $880 $77 $957 Very Low 1:SF 1945 $1,395 191 $1,123 Low 4:20+ 1975 5992 $191 $1,183 Low 1:SF 1945 $1,250 191 $1,082 Low 4:20+ 1975 $975 $191 $1,166 Low 3:4-19 1945 $1,400 191 5941 Very Low 4:20+ 1975 $840 $191 $1,031 Low 3:4-19 1945 $1,100 191 $986 Very Low 4:20+ 1975 $850 $77 $927 Very Low 77 $962 Very Low 4:20+ 19. $1,028 $191 51,219 Low 191 $986 Very Low 1:SF 1945 $1,725 $191 $1,916 Middle 191 $1,148 Low 3:419 1975 $700 $77 $777 Very Low 191 $1,341 Low 1:SF 1900 $1,195 $191 $1,386 Low 77 $927 Very Low 3:4-19 1975 $850 $77 $927 Very Low 77 $917 Very Low 2:2-3 1965 51,475 $77 51,552 Moderate 77 $1,062 Low 2:2-3 1945 $1,495 $191 $1,686 Moderate 77 5977 Very Low 2:2-3 1945 $1,200 5191 $1,391 Low 77 $916 Very Low 77 St.002 Low 220 $1,205 Low 94 $1,144 Low 94 51,094 Very Low 220 $1,196 Low 220 $1,095 Very Low 220 $1,620 Low 220 52,115 Moderate 220 $1,815 Moderate 220 $1,870 Moderate 220 $1,595 Low 220 $1,470 Low 220 $1,615 Low 220 S1A 0 Low 94 51,494 Low 94 S1,194 Low 4:20+ 19fi5 $1,06fi $ 220 $1,286 Low 420+ 1965 $1,050 $ 94 $1,144 Low 4:20+ 1985 $1,200 $ 220 51,420 Low 3:4-19 1985 $1,100 $ 94 $1,194 Low 4:20+ 1965 $910 5 220 $1,130 Very Low 4:20+ 1985 $1,293 $ 220 51,513 Low 1:SF 1945 $2,200 $ 220 $2,420 Middle 1:SF 1965 $1,695 5 220 51,915 Moderate 1:SF 1965 $1,800 5 220 52,020 Moderate 1:SF 1945 $3,995 $ 220 $4,215 Not Affordable 1:SF 1945 $1,495 $ 220 $1,715 Moderate 1:5F 1945 $1,395 $ 2' 51,615 Low 1:SF 1945 51,595 $ 220 51,815 Moderate 1:5F 1945 52,400 $ 220 $2,620 Middle 1:5F 1945 $1,395 $ 220 $1,615 Low 3:4-19 1975 51,000 $ 94 $1,094 Very Low 3:4-19 1975 $2, 195 5 94 $2,289 Middle 3:419 1965 51,200 $ 94 51,294 Low 2.2-3 2000 $1,425 $ 220 $1,645 Low 2:2-3 2000 $1,425 $ 220 $1,645 Low 2:2-3 1945 $1,295 $ 94 $1,389 Low 1:SF 2000 $2,250 5 220 $2,470 Middle 1:SF 1975 $1,675 $ 220 51,895 Moderate 1:SF 1975 $1,975 $ 220 $2, 195 Middle 1:SF 1975 $1,995 $ 220 $2,215 Middle 1:SF 1985 $1,400 5 220 $1,620 Low 1:SF 1945 $2,200 $ 247 $2,447 Middle 1:SF 1965 $1,700 $ 247 $1,947 Moderate 1:SF 2000 $2,100 $ 247 $2,347 Moderate 1:SF 1975 $1,995 $ 247 $2,242 Moderate 1:SF 1975 $2,295 $ 247 $2,542 Middle 1:SF 1975 $2,000 $ 247 $2,247 Moderate 1:SF 1990 $1,895 5 247 $2,142 Moderate 1:SF 2000 $4,100 $ 247 $4,347 Not Affordable 1:SF 1945 $2,000 $ 276 $2,276 Moderate 1:SF 2000 53,-5 5 276 $3,771 Not Affordable 1:5F 1975 $2,395 $ 276 $Z671 Middle Al Appendix B: Assisted Units by Property, City of Edmonds PROPERTY NAME ADDRESS EutLeoWely Very Low Low Moderate SUBSIDIZED UNITS WORKFORCE UNITS POPULATION 5ER RIDING SOURCFJ =5TREET Section 8 Housing Choice Various Various 122 33 21 2 178 Public (HASCO) Vaious HUD Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Vouchers (HASCO) Section 8 Housing Choice Various Various 14 2 1 17 Public (EHA) Various HUD Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Vouchers (EHA) Aurora House 20903 70th Ave W 27042000302700 16 16 Public (HASCO) Mentally III Bond Ballinger Court Apts. 22707 76th Ave. W 27042900308400 28 64 92 Private Nonprofit (SHAG) Seniors Tax Credit, Bond Edmonds Highlands 23326 Edmonds Way 00555300100300 108 12 108 Public (HASCO) Family Section 8 Project -Based Vouchers, Bond, Sound Families McKinney House 19515 73rd Ave W 27041700303300 5 5 Private Nonprofit (Compass Mentally III HUD Supportive Housing Program Health) Section 8 Project -Based Voucher, Tax Credit, Olympic View Apartments 303 Howell Way 27032600100300 43 43 Public (HASCO) Seniors Bond, County Housing Trust Fund, State Housing Trust Fund Section 8 Project -Based Voucher, Tax Credit, Sound View Apartments 417Third Ave S 27032600100500 43 43 Public (HASCO) Seniors Bond, County Housing Trust Fund, State Housing Trust Fund Tri-level House 8629196th St SW 27041800309900 5 5 Private Nonprofit (Compass Mentally III HUD Supportive Housing Program Health) Zeigen House 20208 73rd Ave W 00400600001400 1 1 Private Nonprofit (Compass Mentally III State Housing Trust Fund, County Housing Trust Health) I Fund B1 Appendix C: Single Family Home Sales, 2008-2012 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Number of Sales 416 517 577 586 666 Average Sale Price $ 465,736 $ 409,870 $ 404,634 $ 359,465 $ 383,157 Median Sale Price $ 411,000 $ 355,000 $ 346,500 $ 315,000 $ 339,975 Median Sale Price Home Affordability 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Mortgage Amount $ 328,800 $ 284,000 $ 277,200 $ 252,000 $ 271,980 Interest Rate 6.09% 5.06% 4.83% 4.58% 3.66% Monthly PITI Principal + Interest $ 1,990 $ 1,535 $ 1,459 $ 1,289 $ 1,246 Property Taxes $ 343 $ 296 $ 289 $ 263 $ 283 Insurance $ 130 $ 112 $ 110 $ 100 $ 108 Utilities $ 269 $ 269 $ 276 $ 281 $ 258 TOTAL $ 2,463 $ 1,943 $ 1,858 $ 1,651 $ 1,637 Minimum Annual Income $ 98,522 $ 77,730 $ 74,315 $ 66,044 $ 65,468 in 2012 Dollars $ 105,061 $ 83,186 $ 78,247 $ 67,411 First Quartile Sale Price Home Affordability 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Mortgage Amount $ 264,000 $ 240,000 $ 218,305 $ 192,000 $ 200,000 Interest Rate 6.09% 5.06% 4.83% 4.58% 3.66% Monthly PITI Principal + Interest $ 1,598 $ 1,297 $ 1,149 $ 982 $ 916 Property Taxes $ 275 $ 250 $ 227 $ 200 $ 208 Insurance $ 105 $ 95 $ 86 $ 76 $ 79 Utilities $ 269 $ 269 $ 276 $ 281 $ 258 TOTAL $ 2,247 $ 1,911 $ 1,739 $ 1,539 $ 1,462 Minimum Annual Income $ 89,867 $ 76,444 $ 69,566 $ 61,557 $ 58,470 in 2012 Dollars $ 95,832 $ 81,810 $ 73,247 $ 62,831 C1 Appendix D: Affordable Housing Glossary Affordable Housing: For housing to be considered affordable, a household should not pay more than 30 percent of its annual income on housing.This includes all costs related to housing - rent, mortgage payments, utilities, etc. AMI: Area Median Income. The measure of median income used in this report is that of the Seattle -Bellevue HMFA.This measure is used in administering the Section 8 voucher program in Snohomish County. Cost -Burdened: Households that spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing. Extremely Low Income: Households that make up to 30 percent of AMI. Fair Market Rent: HUD determines what a reasonable rent level should be for a geographic area, and sets this as the area's fair market rent. Section 8 voucher holders are limited to selecting units that do not rent for more than fair market rent. HMFA: HUD Metro FMR Area Low Income: Households that make up to 80 percent of AMI. Median Income: The median income for a community is the annual income at which half the households earn less and half earn more. Middle Income: Households that make up to 120 percent of AMI. Moderate Income: Households that make up to 95 percent of AMI. PHA: Public Housing Agency Section 8: HUD's Section 8 Housing Choice voucher program. Qualifying households can take their voucher to any housing unit which meets HUD safety and market rent standards. HUD funds are administered by PHAs. Severely Cost -Burdened: Households that spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing. Subsidized Rental Unit: A unit which benefits from a direct, monthly rent subsidy.This subsidy will vary to ensure that a household does not spend more than 30% of their income on housing. Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers are an example of a direct rent subsidy. Very Low Income: Households that make up to 50 percent of AMI. Workforce Rental Housing: Workforce rental units have rents which are set in order to be affordable to households at certain income levels. While a household may need to have income below a certain level to apply for a workforce rental unit, the rent level does not adjust to their actual income. A property may feature units with rents affordable to households with 50% AMI, D1 but a household earning 30% AMI would still have to pay the same rent F07, Appendix E: Methodology Affordability - Adjustment for Household Size Where it is indicated that housing cost affordability is assessed adjusting for household size, several factors are considered. First, using HUD standards, the appropriate size range that could inhabit the housing unit in question is determined. For example, the appropriate range for a 2 bedroom unit would be 2-4 people. Next, the cutoff income levels are averaged across the household size range, and this average is used for comparison. To assess whether or not a 2 bedroom unit is affordable to extremely low income households using this method, one would first average the extremely low cutoff levels for 2-, 3-, and 4-person households. For 2012, these levels were $21,150, $23,800, and $26,400.Their average is $23,783. A household with this income can afford to spend no more than $595 per month on housing. If the unit in question rents for less than this amount, then one can say that, on average, it is affordable to extremely low income households, adjusting for household size. Table E.1, below, shows the maximum a household at each income level can afford to spend on housing per month by household size. Table E.1. Maximum Monthly Housing Expense by Household Size, Seattle -Bellevue HMFA 2012 HMFA Overall Extremely Low $455 $520 $585 s650 $703 $755 s8o6 $859 $650 Very Low $759 s868 $976 si,o84 $1,171 $1,258 $1,345 $1,431 si,o84 Low $1,128 $1,289 $1,450 s1,610 $1,740 s1,869 s1,998 $2,126 $1,734 Moderate $1,442 s1,648 s1,855 $2,059 $2,225 $2,389 $2,556 $2,719 $2,059 Moddle $i,821 $2,082 $2,343 $2,601 $2,811 $3,018 $3,228 $3,435 $2,601 Source: US Department of Housing & Urban Development, 2012 Home ownership affordability Home ownership affordability was calculated using similar techniques to the California Association of Realtor's Housing Affordability Index. First, property sale data was acquired from the Snohomish County Assessor, and single family home sales in Everett were separated. Next, the monthly payment for these homes was calculated using several assumptions: • Assuming a 20% down payment, the loan amount is then 80% of the total sale price • Mortgage term is 30 years • Interest rate is the national average effective composite rate for previously occupied homes as reported by the Federal Housing Finance Board • Monthly property taxes are assumed to be 1 % of the sale price divided by 12 • Monthly insurance payments are assumed to be 0.38% of the sale price divided by 12 Using all oftheseassumptions,the month lypaymentisthesurn of principal and interest;taxes;and insurance. Household Income Levels Area Median Income, or AMI, is an important part of many housing affordability calculations. In Snohomish County, HUD uses the Seattle -Bellevue HMFA median income as AMI. This is recalculated every year, both as an overall average and by household size up to 8 individuals. Standard income levels are as follows: • Extremely low income: <30% AMI • Very low income: between 30 and 50% AMI • Low income: between 50 and 80% AMI • Moderate income: between 80 and 95% AMI • Middle income: between 95 and 120% AMI Household Profiles Information on households was gathered from Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher data from both the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) and Everett Housing Authority (EHA). All names have been changed as well as many other nonessential details to protect privacy. rel AI-7161 Planning Board Agenda Meeting Date: 09/24/2014 Presentation on Development Projects and Activities. Staff Lead/Author: Shane Hope Department: Initiated By: Development Services City Staff Information Subject/Purpose Presentation on Development Projects and Activities. Staff Recommendation Consider the information and have any discussion. Previous Board Action N/A Narrative One of the roles of the Development Services Department is to provide assistance to people interested in improving or developing their property. Assistance includes discussions, data, hand-outs, permitting, and inspections. Attached is a set of slides (Attachment 1) about some of the development activities and projects that are underway. At the September 23rd meeting, staff will present the information (this will be a repeat of the same presentation provided to the City Council the night before). The intent is to proactively share highlights of development projects and activities in Edmonds. Attachments Attachment 1: Copy of Council Presentation � OF EDJ10 -4�cj 0 REMAENT PDRI T;l 8 T YT I mr r"3 .7 lopenDevemts ervicei. Building • Engineering YPlannJ • cam Y 4ip gnu! Ll Q910 412�014 15 Oa *>A t� -All .M o •, y yf $0% oass* a to 41 i AIL i f r ar } A Al% k $900,000 $800,000 $700,000 $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 $0 Building Permits and Revenue for January through August periods 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Revenue -# Building Permits i,000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 TYPE OF PERMIT # ISSUED New Single Family 33 Duplex 0 Apartment/ Condo 0 Commercial 2 Mixed Use (Office/condo) 1 Additions/ Alterations Single Family 60 Apartment/ Condo 9 Commercial 43 Other Mechanical/Plumbing 129/133 Demolition 15 Miscellaneous 270 TOTAL 804 Number of Number of Permits Permits Applied for Applied for at Online the Counter 0 3 5 1 23 4 Jacabsen's Marine 0 0 KEY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTSI��i� EDMONDS, WA r� Salish Crossing Post Officer Building w 15th Avenue Animal i Hospital m j d —M EM Pine►riew placelp �11111 �Mmw WODdva14 � M SuhdivisiDW ' 3,300 9661 IIIII■ Feet Fj Eir 0 2 ST SW 1 .prestrest ige IP re Swedish Swedish Hospital r—Hospital Expansion Parking Garage Mrm �4 iW .ilr COmmun� �, iA �IL Shoreshire bdivision r L a - a lq%,ineview Place SubdivisioO Ift=WWW New Post,,,,,Qffj.4 838o sf Home on Hanna Park d 71 r Ow 4, 436 sf S Mobn Ovo ■ lr4 i rig -F --mew z z sf SFR on SunsetAv' ( iL 27 Lot SWaWsion a4a W" iA - 1861. 44 F. nbbj m ~ ' r 414 El _ l� - AAM CH1 Comm O W ,.//"'°`''`'"" �IIIINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIII OMEN III' Pill III II1WIII 7-40 /0 C L.. Ir � °F EDP X00000 0 U~ to TH8N6 YRR