Loading...
2019-10-09 Planning Board PacketOp E D o Agenda Edmonds Planning Board snlynyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 OCTOBER 9, 2019, 7:00 PM LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Approval of Draft Minutes: September 25, 2019 3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS A. Development Services Director Report 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Joint Meeting with the Architectural Design Board: Design Review Roles and Process 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Presentation of the Proposed 2020 - 2025 Capital Facilities Plan/Captial Improvement Plans B. Comprehensive Plan Amendment regarding Housing implementation (referred from the City Council) 9. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA A. Review Planning Board Extended Agenda 10. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS 11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS 12. ADJOURNMENT Edmonds Planning Board Agenda October 9, 2019 Page 1 2.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/9/2019 Approval of Draft Minutes: September 25, 2019 Staff Lead: N/A Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Rob Chave Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and approve the draft minutes Narrative Draft minutes are attached Attachments: Attachment 1: September 25, 2019 Minutes Packet Pg. 2 2.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Meeting September 25, 2019 Chair Cheung called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 51 Avenue North. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Matthew Cheung, Chair Daniel Robles, Vice Chair Alicia Crank (left at 7:50 p.m.) Nathan Monroe Roger Pence Mike Rosen Conner Bryan, Student Representative BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Todd Cloutier (excused) Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Manager Kernen Lien, Environmental Program Manager Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER MONROE MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2019 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER CRANK SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA BOARD MEMBER ROSEN MOVED TO AMEND THE AGENDA TO ADD A REVIEW OF THE JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING BOARD MEETING. BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The remainder of the agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Ken Reidy, Edmonds, advised that Page 37 of the Planning Board's meeting packet discusses Ordinance No. 3729, which is the main reason he is so interested in the proposed street vacation amendments. He referred to the comment section at the bottom of Page 37, which states that a temporary construction easement was reserved for the construction of a retaining wall that was a private improvement built on private property to the north of the easement and had nothing to do with public Packet Pg. 3 utilities or any public use whatsoever. In fact, the City had no need to construct, repair or maintain anything, yet the City Council reserved a temporary construction easement. At the August 14r' meeting, the City Attorney stated that the City may decide to give only some of the sticks back and hold onto others for some type of public use, but that was not his experience. In his case, the temporary construction easement on his property was reserved specifically for a private developer. The City Council never passed a Resolution of Intent to Vacate, and the temporary construction easement was not a condition to the street vacation. There were no conditions and the easement was forced on him against his will. He never granted the easement, and no easement was recorded at Snohomish County. The City Council even tied the life of the easement to the private developer's preliminary plat approval (5 years). Mr. Reidy said he has researched the issue for over 10 years and is very confident that Edmonds is the only City in the history of the United States to ever perform the act of establishing a public temporary construction easement solely for a private developer's use. The private developer never even used the easement. Despite this, City staff issued multiple code enforcement orders requiring him to remove portions of his building so that it was setback 5 feet from the temporary construction easement. Although temporary construction easements have nothing to do with where setbacks are measured from, the City did it anyway. Mr. Reidy said the situation got even worse. During the City's code enforcement efforts, staff discussed an ordinance that could have grandfathered his setbacks. They knew that under Ordinance No 3696, specific to his actual building, "Setbacks will be grandfathered by Planning if, at minimum, a letter from neighbor states it was there prior to 1981. " (Note: Mr. Reidy will submit a copy of the related staff notes when he emails a copy of his public comments to the City staff) He commented that City staff chose not to tell him or the Hearing Examiner that Ordinance No. 3696 applied to his building. He said that a neighbor signed a statement under penalty of perjury that he had seen his building in 1968, but even that didn't stop the City. He now has a 12.5-foot setback where only a 5-foot setback is normally required. In his case, no setback at all was required because his setbacks were grandfathered. Mr. Reidy said he is trying to do everything possible to prevent something like what happened to his family from happening to another Edmonds property owner in the future. His hope is that the horrible treatment he experienced can lead to something good —a better appreciation of servient estate rights and consideration of such rights in City code. He asked that the Board use care when reviewing the street vacation amendments initiated by the City Attorney, who made it very clear that he believes his responsibility is to advance the interest of the City and not individual property owners. He questioned why the City Attorney and staff was allowed more than a year to work on the proposed amendments before the public was allowed to see what they were doing. He expressed his belief that everyone's motivation should be to have a Street Vacation Code that is fair and works well for the City and property owners —a code that allows the City to provide a high level of service to the public. He said he believes the current Street Vacation Code is far better than much of City code, but he agreed it would be better if the appraisal requirement was moved to a later stage in the process. Mr. Reidy suggested it would be wise to specifically prohibit conditions that require property owners to grant easements to third parties. This should not be necessary because State Law only allows the City to retain, but he raises the issue because of the City's past behavior. He explained that a principle that underlies the use of all easements is that the owner of the easement cannot materially increase the burden of the servient estate or impose thereon a new and additional burden. He expressed his belief that this principle is the main reason RCW 35.79.030 uses the word "retain." As it relates to utilities, he suggested it is best to do what the code allows, which is to reserve for the City any easements or rights needed for the construction, repair and maintenance of public utilities and services. He questioned why third -party utility companies should be granted rights superior to what they have under their franchise contracts. Mr. Reidy observed that the proposed provision for a 25-year step up to full market value compensation is a great example of an arbitrary law. He questioned what 25 years has to do with anything related to unopened easements. He said it doesn't make sense that compensation for the vacation of an unopened easement should double overnight at the 25-year mark. He emphasized that there is a clear need to consider whether the Street Vacation Code should be different for opened versus unopened easements. Mr. Reidy commented that State Law allows compensation for easements, but such is permissive. That means it is option, not required. Because Edmonds is a Home Rule Code City, the broad powers afforded it allows the City Council to adopt a policy that it will not sell or bargain legislation as a means of obtaining revenue. He asked the Board to appreciate that no Planning Board Minutes September 25, 2019 Page 2 Packet Pg. 4 2.A.a sticks are transferred back to the fee title owner when an easement is vacated. What the City gets is an easement, and a fee title owner does not need that easement transferred back to him because he doesn't need an easement to use his own land. Mr. Reidy suggested the City Council adopt policy that the City does not charge compensation when streets and alleys that are no longer needed for public use are vacated. He noted that compensation has not been required on many occasions in the past, and the City should adopt a policy that makes that precedent the consistent standard practice. After all, the City never paid a penny for the easements when they were dedicated. He noted that the general public often has no legal standing when it comes to street vacations. He questioned why those with no legal standing should benefit from the City demanding and receiving payment for its legislative act. If that is too big a step, he suggested the City Council could simply use its broad powers to leave the either/or policy in place as it has been for many years. At least property owners required to grant utility easements to the City would not have to also pay compensation. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Cheung referred the Board to the Development Services Director's Report that was provided in the packet. There were no comments or questions from the Board. AMENDMENTS TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) 20.70 (NEW 18.55) — STREET VACATIONS Ms. McConnell reviewed that the proposed amendments were presented to the Board previously, once as an introduction and again as a public hearing. She explained that the proposed amendments are intended to address the following: • Reorganize and clarify various code sections and add a definition section to make the process and requirements clearer. • Revise the appraisal process and the timing for appraisal submittals. • Revise the applicability of the monetary compensation piece of the code. • Revise the timeframe to satisfy the conditions placed on the Resolution of Intent to Vacate. • Move the Street Vacation Code from Title 20 to Title 18, which is the Public Works section of the code. Ms. McConnell reviewed that, at the public hearing, different aspects of the code were discussed in detail, and the Board asked staff to come back with optional code language related to five specific items. She advised that the Staff Report includes both a red -lined and clean version of the proposed amendments. It also includes a table that lists each of the items and outlines the existing code language, a summary of the issue, staffs recommendation and optional language for the Board to consider. Board Member Monroe asked how the Board's recommendation would be presented to the City Council. Would all of the options considered (staff recommendation and all Planning Board options) be presented? Ms. McConnell answered that both the staff recommendation and Planning Board recommendation would be presented to the City Council. Mr. Chave added that the full record of the Board's discussions, including staffs recommendations, is always attached to recommendations that are forwarded to the City Council. Ms. McConnell presented each of the items to the Board. The Board discussed each one and took action as follows: Item 1— Monetary Compensation and/or Easement. The existing code allows the City to either accept monetary compensation or an easement. Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 35.79.030 allows the City to receive compensation and retain an easement or the right to exercise and grant easements in respect to the vacated land. Staff is proposing a right to reserve easements and the ability to accept monetary compensation. In addition, language was added to the proposed code that states that "the appraisal shall take into account any reduction in fair market value associated with the conditions imposed on the Resolution of Intent to Vacate. " For example, if an easement is reserved, it could bring lesser value to the property. Option 1 would be consistent with the existing code and limit conditions to either monetary compensation or a grant of an easement to the City in exchange for the vacated easement. Option 2 would also be consistent with the existing code and limit conditions to either monetary Planning Board Minutes September 25, 2019 Page 3 Packet Pg. 5 2.A.a compensation or a grant of easement to the City or a third party in exchange for the vacated easement, provided that any grant of an easement to a third party must be for access or utility purposes. Board Member Pence asked the rationale and public policy purpose behind the current either/or provision. While it provides a lot of compensation potential in some respects, compensation would be zero if there is any type of utility on the ground. City Attorney Taraday said he does not know the rationale behind the provision. He said it doesn't make sense that any retained easement would zero out the value of the property being vacated. That is why staff is recommending that the either/or provision be changed. Board Member Monroe questioned why a property owner should be required to compensate the City for an easement that it no longer has a purpose for. The land belongs to the property owner, first and foremost, and the City needs to prove a use for it. If it cannot prove that use, the easement should default back to the property owner and the City wouldn't be damaged at all. Vice Chair Robles asked what the term "utility purposes" encompasses. Ms. McConnell responded that when a utility easement is retained in a street vacation it is because there is an existing utility. The City does not reserve easements for future utilities to be there. In the vacation process, the City chooses not to ignore the fact that there are other utilities that exist within the area, whether they be City utilities or third -party utilities. In practice, the City has required easements to be retained for specific utilities as a condition of the Resolution of the Intent to Vacate. Vice Chair Robles asked what recourse a property owner would have if something new happens within an easement that he/she doesn't approve of or want. Ms. McConnell clarified that the City would not retain easements for something in the future, and the underlying property owner should already know what exists on the property well in advance of a street vacation application going before the City Council. When a property owner comes forward with a potential street vacation application, staff discusses the existing conditions on the site and requires them to contact utility companies for more specific information about existing utilities within the easement. Board Member Monroe clarified that easements would only be reserved for existing utilities and not proposed utilities. Ms. McConnell agreed, but with some exceptions. For example, the City might have a capital project that requires the future use of a right-of-way. These things are looked at early in the review of a street vacation application to determine if a street vacation would make sense from a public perspective. If it is deemed feasible, the City would then identify the types of easements needed to uphold public needs for that land. Board Member Crank asked if Edmonds is the only jurisdiction statewide that has an either/or provision for street vacations. Ms. McConnell responded that a review was done of a handful of local jurisdictions, which found that the City of Edmonds is the only one that has an either/or provision. Staff did not review all jurisdictions within the State. Board Member Crank observed that, sometimes, being the only one isn't necessarily bad. She asked staff to explain how the proposed amendment to require both compensation and the reservation of easements would be better. Ms. McConnell responded that State Law allows for reservation of easements and monetary compensation, and the proposed amendment would be consistent with State Law. The either/or provision limits the City's ability with regard to public lands. Chair Cheung asked if staff's review looked at whether or not the other jurisdictions previously had either/or clauses but then changed them at some point. City Attorney Taraday answered that they looked at current street vacation codes from several cities that were considered relevant comparisons, but they didn't go back to previous versions. Chair Cheung asked if any jurisdictions have switched from requiring both compensation and reservation of easements to an either/or provision. City Attorney Taraday said he does not know of any, and he hasn't seen any indication that this would be a potential trend. In his opinion, the absence of other cities' company suggests that the either/or clause is an oddity in the City's code that could be dispensed with. However, he acknowledged there are instances where the City does things its own way. Vice Chair Robles voiced concern that there seems to be a roadblock that nothing new can happen in the City unless it has been done somewhere else first. City Attorney Taraday noted that there are other aspects of the proposed amendments that, if approved, would be outliers. He cautioned against taking the position that the City can't ever be Planning Board Minutes September 25, 2019 Page 4 Packet Pg. 6 2.A.a an outlier. However, if the City is going to be an outlier, it should be able to articulate reasons for it. In this case, he is unable to do so. Board Member Monroe said he sees Edmonds as being primarily built out, and all of the necessary easements have already been identified. He suggested that it is time to give unnecessary easements back to the land owners. They should make it easier for property owners to regain ownership and get the land back on the taxable roles. The either/or language would be the easiest way to do that, and it would allow the City to get out of the business of holding a bunch of unopened rights -of -way. City Attorney Taraday agreed this is a fair policy question, and the Board should feel free to disagree with his opinion on the matter. The City could adopt a blanket rule that it is no longer going to accept compensation for street vacations, period. If they don't need them, they will give them away for free. However, he is not recommending this policy choice because he believes it is important for the City to maximize its resources so the value can be spent on other goods and services that benefit the public. City Attorney Taraday said that, in his opinion, the either/or language unfairly treats one street vacation applicant from another. For example, one applicant, by virtue of the fact that the City needs to retain an easement, would get his/her property for free, and another applicant, by virtue of the fact that the City doesn't need an easement, would have to pay. That seems unfair to him. One of the goals of the proposal is to treat all street vacation applicants fairly. The City Council could adopt a policy that all of the unnecessary street vacations would be given away for free, and that would treat all applications fairly. However, the either/or language would not accomplish this goal. Vice Chair Robles asked City Attorney Taraday to explain maximizing social value versus optimizing social value. City Attorney Taraday said that, from his perspective, easements are valuable property rights that are controlled by the City. The City doesn't ordinarily give things away for free. If the City requires fair market value for these valuable rights, the money can be used for other transportation -related purposes that benefit the public. Board Member Crank said she would support Planning Board Option 1. She observed that staff s recommendation to require both monetary compensation and the reservation of easement is prompting a lot of unnecessary questions and confusion. Board Member Monroe voiced support for the either/or language (Option 1). It hasn't been a problem in the past, and he doesn't see a reason to change it. The role of the City is to serve its citizens and not to optimize its value from citizens. The price of land continues to increase, and it does not behoove the City to make street vacations too difficult. As long as the City can retain its rights and there is an encumbrance on the land that allows for the City's needs, both the City and the property owner should be made whole. Board Member Pence said he can't see where one pipe in the ground should zero out the City's ability to require compensation. The City Council outlined the inequities that would exist between two equivalent property acquirers. The one with the pipe in the ground would get the property for free and the one without the pipe in the ground would pay the full amount. That is a fundamental unfairness. He suggested that the value of the retained easement could be and would be accommodated in the appraisal process. Appraisers are trained to examine properties and come up with a monetary value, and that would be the fair way to go, setting aside the issue of more or less revenue to the City. He said he supports the staff recommendation. Chair Cheung said he understands the argument for capitalizing on the monetary value of the rights -of -way. On the other hand, if the City doesn't have a need for a particular right-of-way, perhaps the policy should be to use it or give it away. Board Member Rosen commented that all land has value, regardless of how it was acquired. He is having a hard time with the idea of simply giving City land away without compensation. In some cases, rights -of -way have significant value. Board Member Robles agreed that the land has value, but the appraisal and assessment components included in the draft amendment help address the concerns. He doesn't believe it is absolutely necessary to change the language, and he would be inclined to stick with the current either/or policy. Planning Board Minutes September 25, 2019 Page 5 Packet Pg. 7 2.A.a Board Member Pence suggested that the Board is mixing up the issues. The question is not whether or not a proposed vacation involves a value to the City. The question is, does that value, whatever it is, suddenly turn to zero just because there is a pipe left in the ground and the City retains an easement to maintain that pipe. You can argue how big the compensation should be based on an appraisal, but he hasn't heard an adequate explanation that would allow him to get from whatever that number is to zero merely because there's a pipe in the ground. Board Member Monroe suggested the Board recommend Option 1, which would leave both options on the table for City Council discussion. If they simply go with the staff recommendation, then the alternative option may not even be considered by the City Council. Chair Cheung commented that the City Council would see both options, whether the Board recommends Option 1 or the staff recommendation. He said he doesn't have a strong inclination to support either option at this time. Vice Chair Robles agreed and said he would fall back on what has been tried and experienced by the citizens the Board represents. Again, Board Member Monroe expressed his belief that the either/or language is the right way to go. If the City is damaged, they should be compensated. If they can retain the necessary easements and setbacks, they shouldn't be able to collect compensation money, as well. Board Member Pence reminded him that the value of any easement would be accounted for in the appraisal. Board Member Monroe commented that the either/or provision has worked well for a number of years, and he can't see a reason to change it now. VICE CHAIR ROBLES MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND OPTION 1 FOR ITEM 1. BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED 3-1-1, WITH BOARD MEMBER PENCE VOTING IN OPPOSITION AND CHAIR CHEUNG ABSTAINING. Item 2 — Monetary Compensation — Fair Market Value/Dollar Amount. The existing code requires that monetary compensation be paid to the City "in the amount of up to one-half the fair market value for the street, alley, or part thereof to be vacated unless acquired at `public expense" then full appraised value shall be paid. " To be consistent with State Law, staff is proposing the following language, "Payment to the City, prior to the effective date of the ordinance, in an amount of up to one-half the fair market value for the subject property unless the subject property was acquired at `public expense" or has been part of a dedicated public right-of-way for 25 years or more, in which case full fair market value shall be paid. " She advised that the Planning Board did not request staff to provide alternative language for this item. Board Member Monroe asked staff to explain why they are proposing the change. Mr. Lien responded that when the City's Street Vacation Ordinance No. 2493 was originally passed in 1985, it was consistent with the State Law in place at the time. The legislature later amended State Law in 2001 to add the language related to property that is acquired at public expense or dedicated public right-of-way for 25 years or more, and subsequent updates of the City code failed to bring this section into concurrence with the updated State Law. City Attorney Taraday said the intent of this amendment is to conform City code to State Law. Board Member Monroe commented that it would be helpful to understand why the State Law was changed. City Attorney Taraday responded that he doesn't know why the State Law was changed. Board Member Monroe suggested that perhaps the reasoning was that if the City purchases a piece of property at full public expense, it should get full price when it is sold back. City Attorney Taraday agreed that might have been the reasoning behind the phrase, "unless the subject property was acquired at `public expense. " However, the language, "or has been part of a dedicated public right-of-way for 25 years or more, " could apply to a case where the City didn't pay anything. Board Member Monroe suggested that the phrase, "or has been part of a dedicated public right-of-way for 25 years or more should be deleted from the staff's recommended language. Board Member Pence observed that the purpose of the public expense caveat is to distinguish between rights -of -way that were dedicated to the City when subdivisions were platted and rights -of -way the City had to pay to acquire in order to build a street. In the case of subdivisions, the rights -of -way were gifted to the City as part of an approved subdivision. The City didn't pay anything for them. However, when the City needed to acquire rights -of -way to build streets, it had to condemn properties and pay full market value, and that's a public expense. City Attorney Planning Board Minutes September 25, 2019 Page 6 Packet Pg. 8 2.A.a Taraday agreed with this distinction, but said it is still not clear why State Law treats public expense acquisitions the same as dedications of 25 years or more. City Attorney Taraday said that, when preparing the proposed amendment, he didn't focus on the "why" part because his perspective isn't to delve too deeply into why that particular law was changed by the legislature. His responsibility is to maximize the public's value. Board Member Pence commented that, having worked for the legislature earlier in his life, the 25-year provision has the look and feel of a number plucked out of the air or some handshake between interests. At some point, he would like to make a distinction between unopened alleys and public rights -of -way that have been improved and put into use to provide public access. He took issue with the City requiring compensation for vacating unopened alleys that have never provided any public access or benefit. Vice Chair Robles voiced concern about applying fair market value, and questioned if a market of two could ever be fair. Unless anyone can bid on the easement property, it won't be possible to identify fair market. He suggested the best way to resolve this concern would be to specify the appraiser as being a licensed appraiser, and hopefully, a market will be created for appraisers that specialize in easements. He would like to see fair market articulated in either the selection of the appraisers or the way the process flows. Board Member Rosen asked if the current language would lock street vacations to just adjacent property owners. City Attorney Taraday explained that for each proposed vacation, there is an underlying fee owner that is a known person or entity. The title, upon vacation, will always go to the underlying fee owner. When dealing with appraisals, the question isn't whether one person can outbid another person. The question is, how much, if anything, the underlying fee owner should pay to have those valuable property rights titled in their name. Board Member Rosen asked what happens if the City decides to vacate an easement, but none of the adjacent property owners want to pay for the land. City Attorney Taraday answered that, if it was a City -initiated vacation with the finding that the public benefit accruing from the vacation alone is sufficient, no compensation would be required. He said council -initiated street vacations are rare, and he would assume the City Council would only do so if it would provide a public benefit. If a petitioner initiates a vacation, it is presumed the petitioner is interested in the value of the property. Chair Cheung asked if staff has a rough estimate of what the fair market value of an easement might be. Mr. Lien provided a history of past vacation ordinances approved by the City (See Attachment 5 of the Staff Report): o Ordinance No. 3188 was initiated by the City in 1998. The City Council found that the public benefit be derived from the vacation outweighed the need for requiring compensation. o Ordinance No. 3189 was initiated by the City in 1998. The vacated right-of-way was adjacent to the cemetery and was vacated to support the construction of the columbarium. o Ordinance Nos. 3197 through 3208 were initiated by the City in 1998 at the urging of the City Engineer. They were all located in the Meadowdale area and most contained slopes in excess of 40%. No compensation was required for any the vacations due to the public benefits derived. The easements were rights -of -way the City did not want and had no plans to develop into streets. o Ordinance No. 3255 was privately initiated in 1999. The vacation would have allowed one additional building lot with a value ranging from $30,000 to $65,000. However, the abutting property owners agreed to waive the subdivision rights created by the vacation via a covenant recorded with the ordinance. The City Council reduced the required value to $3,562. o Ordinance No. 3260 was privately initiated in 1999, and the City received compensation equal to half of the appraised value. o Ordinance No. 3463 was initiated by both the City and a private citizen in 2003. It appeared to be a cleanup of a past vacation that should have happened with a subdivision in 1987. The City Council considered three compensation options: 1) using the current (2003) land valuation for a total of $31,050, 2) using the 1993 assessed valuation (when the current property owner purchased the property for a total of $18,468; or 3) using the original 1987 calculation for a total of $5,454. Since it appeared to be a City oversight that the vacation did not occur, the Council chose the 1987 valuation. Planning Board Minutes September 25, 2019 Page 7 Packet Pg. 9 o Ordinance No. 3470 was initiated by the City in 2003. The City had sold the adjacent property at 805 Bowdoin Way as surplus. As part of the sale, the City indicated it would vacate the right-of-way. It was determined that adequate compensation was received from the sale of the property and no additional compensation was required for the right-of-way. o Ordinance No. 3520 was initiated by the City in 2004. This vacation appeared to be a cleanup of some license agreement from 1973. One-half of the appraised value would have been $8,000, but the City Council accepted the reduced payment because the subject property was burdened with access rights, the prior property owner refused to purchase the site, returning the property to the tax rolls would compensate the City through additional tax revenue, and the owners would occur additional costs. o Ordinance No. 3543 was initiated by a private citizen in 2005. The City received half of the appraised value ($3,750) for the right-of-way that was vacated. o Ordinance No. 3551 was initiated by a private citizen in 2005. The City received half of the appraised value ($62,500) for the right-of-way that was vacated. o Ordinance No. 3565 was initiated by a private citizen in 2005. The City received half of the appraised value ($67,731) for the right-of-way that was vacated. o Ordinance No. 3647 was initiated by a private citizen in 2007. The fair market value of the property was appraised at $22,500. The City Council reduced the compensation below 50% to reflect the costs associated with obtaining an appraisal and the other associated costs of the vacation process, as well as the required lot line adjustment and the cost of tree removal. A compensation of $7,500 was required. o Ordinance No. 3662 was privately initiated in 2007. A compensation of $1,400 was required, which was more than half of the appraised value that was submitted with the application. Two appraisals were submitted. The first had an assumed value of $1,350 and another appraisal was for $1,620. The appraisals were based on the differential values of similarly -sized and valued properties. The City Council did not feel that the appraisals appropriately reflected the value of the property. The applicant had offered to pay the City $1,400 for the vacated right-of-way, and the City Council accepted that offer as adequate compensation. o Ordinance No. 3729 was initiated by the City Council in 2008. This is the vacation referred to by Mr. Reidy during his comments. o Ordinance No. 4028 was initiated by the City Council in 2016 after the City acquired Civic Field from the school district. Because the City was the property owner, no compensation or easements were required as part of the vacation. o Ordinance No. 4061 was privately initiated in 2017. The City received compensation of $92,610, which was half of the appraised value. The property was zoned multifamily, and the vacated property would give the owner more square footage to develop more units. o Ordinance No. 4114 was privately initiated in 2018. The required compensation was $28,800 or half of the appraised value. o Ordinance No. 4143 was privately initiated in 2019 and no compensation was required because the City retained easements. Mr. Lien summarized that the value of the appraisal and required compensation depends on the size of the property, the zone it is located in, and other circumstances that vary site -by -site. Vice Chair Robles said it makes sense that negotiations happen between the City and private parties. If a developer needs additional land in order to increase the number of units, the City should be compensated appropriately. He said a fair market is defined as something where both sides have the same information and there is no asymmetric information. The minute the City places constraints on who can do an appraisal, the results are stacked in favor of one side or the other and the appraisal can no longer be considered fair market. He asked if it is too expensive to continue the City's current process or is the amendment intended to streamline the negotiation process and make it more uniform. City Attorney Taraday said the idea behind wanting to limit which appraisers can be used is to create some uniformity and fairness between one street vacation petitioner and another. Historically, applicants have simply submitted an appraisal as part of the vacation application. Sometimes the appraisals are straight up and fair, but other times applicants present appraisals that appear result -oriented and low. He is concerned that some parties will take advantage if the City leaves it completely to the discretion of the applicant to select the appraiser. There will be some disparity in how fairly street vacation applicants are treated. The optional language provided by staff would Planning Board Minutes September 25, 2019 Page 8 Packet Pg. 10 2.A.a allow the City to provide an extensive list of appraisers. This would provide some quality control and also allow the applicant some input on who does the appraisal. He explained that an appraiser's primary job is to determine fair market value, and fair market value is defined as the price that a willing but not obligated buyer would pay and a willing but not obligated seller would sell. The most common way is via a comparable sales approach. Appraisers are trained to render an opinion as to what fair market value is, and the City wants to make sure it is dealing with appraisers who do it in a way that is above board. Appraisers are licensed by a Board and have different qualification designations. The main thing the City would look at when compiling the list would be whether or not an appraiser has experience with street vacation appraisals. Board Member Rosen said he leans towards Option 1, which calls for an approved list of appraisers that meet all of the qualifications. The market will decide if there is any pious going on. A frequency of certain appraisers generating more appeals than others will provide another safety net. Chair Cheung concurred and suggested that having a larger list would be better. The Board discussed that the list should include at least six appraisers. Board Member Robles asked if the compensation required would be the same for a developer who will gain enormously from a street vacation as opposed to a homeowner who just needs a corner for a detached accessory dwelling unit. City Attorney Taraday said his general understanding is that most appraisers doing this kind of work would take into account the highest and best use of the property before and after the street vacation. If a street vacation results in additional lots or units, the additional development potential would be reflected in the fair market value. Board Member Monroe asked that the phrase, "or has been part of a dedicated public right-of-way for 25 years or more" be eliminated from the proposed amendment. Since Edmonds was primarily platted and built in the 1950s and 1960s, the provision would include almost all right-of-way. He said he cannot think of a logical reason why an applicant would be required to pay double the price after the 251 year. Chair Cheung said it appears that the provision was added to be consistent with State Law, but there is no clear explanation as to where the number came from. Mr. Lien explained that, when the State legislature adopted the provision, they didn't specifically spell out the intent. However, the testimony that was given by the City of Tacoma and the Association of Washington Cities was that allowing cities to sell vacated streets and alleys for their appraised value allows more responsible management of public access and avoids the potential gift of public lands. The law was voted out of the house 93-0 and out of the senate 40-6. City Attorney Taraday commented that Edmonds is so old that the vast majority of the streets will fall in the 25- year-and-over category. The real policy choice is whether you want to maximize market value or sell the rights -of - way for half price. The Board discussed that, if the 25-year provision is not eliminated, the majority of the City's rights -of -way would be subject to full market value upon vacation. Board Member Monroe suggested that, at the very least, the Board should make the Council aware that accepting the staff s recommendation would basically double the price of all street vacations. BOARD MEMBER MONROE MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR ITEM 2, WITH ONE MODIFICATION TO REMOVE THE PHRASE, "OR HAS BEEN PART OF A DEDICATED PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR 25 YEARS OR MORE." BOARD MEMBER ROBLES SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Item 3 — Appraisals — Applicability and Waiver. The existing code requires an appraisal to be submitted upfront with the application, and staff is proposing clarifying language that an appraisal is not required if a utility easement only is proposed to be vacated. In response to Planning Board feedback at the last meeting, the staff recommendation was updated to include applicability and waiver sections. The applicability section states, "where the Resolution of Intent to Vacate includes a compensation requirement, an independent appraisal shall be required. " With regard to the appraisal fee, some additional language was added to state that, `for street vacations initiated by City Council, the City shall be responsible for any associated appraisal fees. " A waiver section was added that states, "the requirement for an appraisal and subsequent monetary compensation will be waived if a Planning Board Minutes September 25, 2019 Page 9 Packet Pg. 11 street vacation initiated by City Council by resolution includes a finding that the public benefit accruing from the vacation alone is sufficient to justify the vacation without monetary compensation to the City. " If the Planning Board determines the granting of an easement and/or substitute right-of-way negates the ability to collect monetary compensation and therefore the appraisal becomes unnecessary, then Option 1 would amend the waiver section to allow for the appraisal and monetary compensation requirement to be waived if, "a) the resolution for a City Council initiated street vacation includes a finding that the public benefit accruing from the vacation alone is sufficient to justify the vacation without any monetary compensation to the City, " and "b) the resolution conditions the street vacation upon the reservation and/or granting of a public easement or substitute public right-of-way to the City of Edmonds (or a third party). " Board Member Robles said he likes the concept of waivers. If the City is going to maximize its benefit, the public should have the rights and tools available to maximize their own benefit, as well, through a negotiation process. Board Member Monroe requested clarification of the term "third party." Does it refer only to utilities or can private developers obtain third -party rights. Ms. McConnell said a reference was made to a recent street vacation where the school district had a storm utility pipe that ran through the property. An easement was retained for the school district as a condition of approval. The condition was placed on the vacation to address an existing utility. Board Member Monroe requested additional information about Ordinance No. 3729, which was a temporary construction easement for a street vacated for approval of a 3-lot short plat. Ms. McConnell said she wasn't involved with this street vacation, which involved a short plat adjacent to the alley. In the process of vacating the alley, the City acknowledge that the development of the short plat was intending to utilize the alley for access to their construction project. A temporary construction easement was retained in that case for the developer to complete the improvements. Other than the circumstances surrounding Ordinance No. 3729, Board Member Monroe asked if "third party" refers to existing utilities or if the City would maintain a corridor for future utility installations. Ms. McConnell said the intention is not for third party future use, but there may be City future uses considered. Chair Cheung said he supports recommending the additional language outlined in Option 1 if the City Council adopts the Board's recommendation to retain the either/or language (Item 1). CHAIR CHEUNG MOVED THAT THE BOAD RECOMMEND OPTION 1, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WOULD ONLY APPLY IF THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTS THE PLANNING BOARDS RECOMMENDATION OF OPTION 1 FOR ITEM 1. BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. City Attorney Taraday clarified that the Board's recommendation for Item 3 would follow suit for whatever results with Item 1. If the City Council takes a different action on Item 1, then Option 1 for Item 3 would no longer apply. Item 4 — Selecting an Appraiser. The existing code requires an appraisal at the time of application, and the applicant pays for and provides his/her own appraisal. The City has no regulations beyond the language that requires a qualified land appraiser with an MAI designation. Staffs proposal states, `If the City Council adopts a Resolution of intent to Vacate the subject property, the director shall be authorized to obtain an appraisal of the fair market value of the subject property from a qualified appraiser, taking into account any reduction in fair market value associated with the conditions imposed in the Resolution of Intent, including but not limited to a condition requiring the dedication of an alternative right-of-way. " As a Planning Board Option 1, the words, `from a qualified appraiser" could be eliminated and language could be added that states, "the appraiser will be selected by the applicant from a city -approved list. " Chair Cheung asked how the City would define the term "qualified appraiser.". Ms. McConnell said the intent is for the City to have a contract in place with an appraiser consulting firm. The process of selecting a specific consultant would involve a review of qualifications to confirm applicability and experience related to street vacations. Board Member Rosen clarified that the difference between the staff s recommendation and Option 1 is a sole source versus Planning Board Minutes September 25, 2019 Page 10 Packet Pg. 12 2.A.a a roster. Chair Cheung summarized that, as per the staff s recommendation, there would only be one qualified appraiser. Under Option 1, the City would provide a list of qualified appraisers for applicants to choose from. Board Member Monroe recalled that, at the last meeting, the Board agreed that the appraisal should be moved to the end of the street vacation process rather than requiring an appraisal at the time of application. Ms. McConnell said this change was included in the proposed code amendments, but was not listed on the table because the Board was in agreement that it should be moved to a later point in the process. This change will be pointed out when the amendments are presented to the City Council. BOARD MEMBER ROSEN MOVED THAT BOARD RECOMMEND OPTION 1 FOR ITEM 4, WITH THE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE, "NO FEWER THAN SIX." BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. • Item 5 — Challenging a Condition. There is no existing code language that details how an applicant may appeal a condition. Language with regard to challenging conditions imposed in the Resolution of Intent to Vacate would provide the applicant clarity on the appeal process where none is provided in the State code. It would also provide certainty to the City that the ordinance passed by the City Council would not be challenged once the vacation becomes effective. The staff recommendation includes language providing a 30-day appeal period, which is longer than the usual 21-day appeal period for land -use decisions. If the Board feels that a longer appeal period is necessary, Option 1 would add a clause to make sure that the street vacation is dealt with appropriately, depending on when an appeal comes in. The majority of the Board indicated support for an appeal period longer than 39 days, and most felt that 60 days would be a more appropriate option. BOARD MEMBR ROSEN MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND OPTION 1 FOR ITEM 5. BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. At the request of City Attorney Taraday, the Board confirmed that the motion includes the red text provided in the table for Item 5. REVIEW OF THE JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING BOARD MEETING Board Member Rosen reviewed the City Council's suggestions for items the Board should add to its extended agenda. The list included: o Implementation of code update for the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) o Implementation of code update for the climate goals o Implementation of code update for the Washington State Roadmap o Low -impact development code review o Five Corners code update o Sustainable construction code review o Stormwater handling code review o Identifying nonconforming buildings and areas under performing o Subdivision code review Board Member Rosen said he sensed some frustration by City Council Members who felt they had been asking for subdivision code review for several years. He suggested that the listed items should be added to the Board's agenda, with some parameters around scheduling. The Board acknowledged that available staff time would need to be considered when scheduling the items on the extended agenda. Mr. Chave explained that some of the items will be longer term, and others shorter term. There are also pending items on the Board's agenda that weren't mentioned at the joint meeting. Planning Board Minutes September 25, 2019 Page 11 Packet Pg. 13 2.A.a The Board asked staff to identify a target date for each of the items to come before the Board. Mr. Chave said staff would do their best to estimate a timeline for each of the items, but it won't be possible to identify specific dates for all of them. He said there have been a couple of different drafts of the subdivision code, and it may be ready to present to the Board soon. Board Member Rosen said the second part of the joint meeting was focused on how the Board communicates with the City Council. The following menu of options was created: 1. The Council can review the meeting minutes or watch the video recording of the meeting. 2. A report on Planning Board activities could be included in the Development Services Director's Report. 3. Staff can provide feedback and updates to the Council on Planning Board activities. 4. Board Members can attend City Council meetings and participate during the citizen comment period. 5. The Board can request time on the City Council's agenda to present recommendations and/or thoughts. 6. The Council President and Planning Board Chair could meet regularly. 7. The Board could present a quarterly report to the City Council. 8. In an effort to stay informed of the housing discussions, the Council President, Planning Board Chair, Architectural Design Board Chair and Housing Commission Chair could meet regularly to collaborate. 9. Establish an ongoing method for tracking Planning Board recommendations to the City Council and actions that are taken. This would not only allow the Board to monitor its effectiveness and/or things that need feedback, but the City Council could also provide specific responses to actions that were counter to the Board's recommendations. Board Member Rosen reviewed that it was suggested that, at the end of every meeting, the Board could identify which options they would like to use to convey the results of their discussions and actions to the City Council. He suggested that the Board start taking advantage of this opportunity as soon as possible, recognizing that Option 9 would take some time to implement. Student Representative Bryan said he doesn't have a specific recommendation, but he could imagine the City Council would be frustrated if the Planning Board communicates in a different manner after each meeting. He suggested that consistency is important to consider. Board Member Monroe suggested that consistency should be mixed with understanding the importance of each topic. If the topic is mundane, the meeting minutes can serve that purpose. But some issues may warrant the use of some of the other options. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Cheung reviewed that the October 91 meeting agenda will include a joint discussion with the Architectural Design Board regarding their role in design review, an update on the Vision 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies, and a presentation on the 2020 — 2025 Capital Improvement and Capital Facilities Plans. The October 23rd agenda will include an update from the Housing Commission and a public hearing on the 2020 — 2025 Capital Improvement and Capital Facilities Plans. Mr. Chave announced that, at the request of the Economic Development Commission, the November 13t' meeting will include a discussion about potentially adding a provision to the Commercial Waterfront Zone that allows lodging and/or hotels. Chair Cheung asked for an update about parking. Mr. Chave responded that the City Council opted not to go forward with the parking study, so it is on hold at this point. Mr. Chave agreed to work with the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director to schedule a report on a future Planning Board agenda. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Cheung commented that the Board had a good discussion, and it was a good exercise on how to forward their thoughts to the City Council in the most effective manner. Planning Board Minutes September 25, 2019 Page 12 Packet Pg. 14 2.A.a PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Monroe agreed that the Board's discussion regarding the street vacation amendments was good. Vice Chair Robles commented that the City Council watches the video recordings of their meetings and reads their minutes. This invigorates him and gives the Board license to be creative. The joint meetings with the City Council are productive and helps them get to the core of the issues quickly and accurately. Board Member Pence said anything the Board can do to increase the visibility of their work is to their advantage. He said he supports having some mechanism to report to the City Council in a more visible way beyond just relying on them to read the minutes. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Planning Board Minutes September 25, 2019 Page 13 Packet Pg. 15 5.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/9/2019 Development Services Director Report Staff Lead: Shane Hope, Director Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Rob Chave Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative Development Services Director Shane Hope provides an update on local and regional news of planning interest. Attachments: Attachment 1: Director. Report.10.04.19 Packet Pg. 16 5.A.a of I;, 0,V MEMORANDUM Date: October 4, 2019 To: Planning Board From: Shane Hope, Development Services Director Subject: Director Report A goal without a plan is just a wish. (Unknown) Next Planning Board Meeting The Planning Board is scheduled on October 9. Hope you can be there! STATE & REGIONAL NEWS Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) ❑ PSRC's Transportation Board met September 12 with an agenda that included: o Selection Process for Rural Town Centers and Corridors Program o Regional Intelligent Transportation System Inventory ❑ PSRC's Regional Staff Committee met September 19 regarding: o Puget Sound Partnership activities for ecosystem recovery o Comments to date for VISION 2050 Plan o Draft Regional Growth Strategy —Targets and Consistency Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) ❑ SCT held its general assembly, an annual event, on September 25. The main presentation topic was an update on the HART project (see below). Officials from around the county attended and discussed aspects of improving housing affordability. Snohomish County HART Project L The Snohomish County Housing Affordability Regional Task Force (HART) was organized by The Snohomish County Executive to bring local government representatives together to develop a five-year action plan to improve the region's ability to meet affordable 11Pag�_ Packet Pg. 17 5.A.a housing needs. Over the summer, HART has been exploring resources, challenges, and opportunities. Ll HART's September 12 meeting included agreement on the following draft regional goals: o More housing, more housing types, greater affordability at all income levels o Preservation of existing affordable housing o Increased in density on transit corridors and in job centers o Community outreach & education o Ongoing regional collaboration & tracking of progress Li HART's October 3 meeting included discussion of strategies to implement the above regional goals. LOCAL PROJECTS Housing Commission The Housing Commission's first meeting was on September 26. It was introductory in nature and included: (a) Identification of topics of interest to the Commission; and (b) agreement on a monthly meeting schedule. Commissioners expressed interest in learning more about and having a common understanding of housing terminology, applicable laws, comprehensive plans, demographic data, and much more. The meeting was video -recorded and can be seen on the City's agenda webpage at: http://edmondswa.igm2.com/Citizens/default.aspx. Regular monthly meetings will be on the second Thursday of each month, starting at 6:30 pm. The next meeting is on October 10 (6:30-8:30 pm) at the Brackett Room of City Hall. (Note: Currently, the City is experimenting with whether to have future Commission meetings in the Brackett Room or in the Council Chambers. Besides monthly Commission meetings, other events and public engagement opportunities will be held to provide information and get community input on housing. The Commission is charged with recommending policy options, by the end of 2020, to expand the range of housing in Edmonds. For general information about the project, see: https://www.citizenshousingcommission.org/. Marsh Study Information on the Edmonds Marsh Study, prepared by Windward, was the focus of a public open house on September 30. The study documented details of the Marsh's baseline conditions. It also determined that planned improvements to the Marsh, such as the daylighting of Willow Creek, were highly likely to improve the quality of the Marsh. OTHER LOCAL NEWS Architectural Design Board (ADB) The ADB met on Oct. 2. Items of discussion included: 21Pane Packet Pg. 18 5.A.a ❑ Continuation of the September 4 public hearing regarding the Main Street Commons project. The continuation provided the applicant additional time to prepare materials for resubmittal. ❑ Continued discussion of ADB roles and design review process Citizens' Housing Commission (HQ The HC met on Sept 26. Items of discussed included: ❑ Topics of Interest for future meetings ❑ Schedule future meetings ❑ Updates on Consultant Assistance and Community Outreach The next meeting will be held October 10 and include background information on state laws related to housing, highlights of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, and a timeline for achieving the Commission's mission. Diversity Commission The Diversity Commission met on Oct. 2. Items of discussed included: ❑ Update from the city ❑ "1 Am Edmonds" updates ❑ Letter to Snohomish Co. Prosecutor re: Harvey's Tavern ❑ Subgroup reports ❑ Recognition of Indigenous Peoples Day ❑ Arts and Youth Commission partnerships Economic Development Commission (EDC) The EDC met on September 18 and discussed: ❑ SAP memo update ❑ Work group updates on: o Development feasibility o Arts/tourism o Business attraction Economic Downtown Alliance (ED!) ED will meet next on October 10. An agenda will be posted online when available. Hearing Examiner The Hearing Examiner is scheduled next for a meeting on Oct. 24. An agenda will be posted online when available. Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) The HPC meets next on Oct. 10. An agenda will be available online when available. Mayors Climate Protection Committee The Climate Protection Committee met on Oct. 3. Items discussed included: ❑ Climate Goals Project, GHG Target Tool 3 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 19 5.A.a ❑ Priorities for next six months Tree Board The Tree Board met on Oct. 3. Items discussed included: ❑ Wrap up of Farmer's Market Event ❑ Arbor Day plans, Street Tree List Update, Tree City Report preparation ❑ Tree Board class to be taught at FAC on Oct. 12 ❑ 2020 Tree Board projects Youth Commission The Youth Commission's October 2 meeting included: ❑ Plaza Room Walkthrough ❑ Youth Forum Run-Through/Practice ❑ What Still Needs to be Done for Forum City Council The September 24 City Council meeting included: ❑ A joint discussion with the Planning Board —focusing on ideas for the Planning Board's work plan and on increasing communication between the City Council and Planning Board ❑ Agreement for the Council President to appoint two Council members to the Housing Commission on a rotating basis each month through 2019 and for two "permanent' liaisons to be appointed after the first of the year. The Council's October 1 meeting included: ❑ Marsh Study presentation and discussion ❑ Introduction to the Street Vacation Code Update COMMUNITY CALENDAR • October 1— 15: Registration for 71h Annual Scarecrow Festival (Edmonds Historical Museum) • October 5: Summer Market (last day for 2019) • October 7: Candidates Forum, City Council Chambers, begins at 7 pm • October 16 — November 1: Voting on 7th Annual Scarecrows What happened on this day in History (October 9)? 1919 - The Black Sox Scandal was a Major League Baseball match fixing incident in which eight members of the Chicago White Sox were accused of intentionally losing the 1919 World Series against the Cincinnati Reds in exchange for money from a gambling syndicate led by Arnold Rothstein. The fallout from the scandal resulted in the appointment of Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis as the first Commissioner of Baseball, granting him absolute control over the sport in order to restore its integrity. 1941 - US President Franklin D. Roosevelt approves an atomic program that would become the Manhattan Project. 4 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 20 7.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/9/2019 Joint Meeting with the Architectural Design Board: Design Review Roles and Process Staff Lead: Staff Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Michael Clugston Background/History The Planning Board discussed revisions to the Architectural Design Board's roles and involvement in project reviews at a joint meeting on July 24 (Attachment 4). The Planning Board discussed revisions to the ADB's roles and processes at a joint meeting with City Council on September 24, 2019 (Attachment 3). Staff Recommendation Using the ADBs preferred activities and design review process proposal (Attachments 1 and 2), direct staff to draft revisions to relevant Edmonds City and Community Development codes. Narrative This is a continued discussion about the ADB's changing roles in developing the guidance and standards necessary to influence design in Edmonds and its specific role in the project design review process. Documents for discussion include: 1) A summary of the ADB's current codified powers and duties compared with desired roles (Attachment 1). While focusing entirely on the quasi-judicial role in the past, the Board missed the opportunity to participate in the recent design work for the Westgate Mixed Use and General Commercial zones. There remain a number of opportunities for future design work, however, including for multifamily zones, 5 Corners, the 4th Avenue Arts Corridor, etc. Post -hoc reviews of completed projects would allow Board to see how projects age into sites and whether what was envision by the design standards and guidance needs to be revised to ensure the community is getting the designs it wants. 2) A flowchart outlining revised ADB involvement in project reviews (Attachment 2). As noted previously, quasi-judicial decision making at the end of the project review cycle is not the best use of Board member time and expertise. The City Council recognized this too, passing Resolution 1367 which states their intent to remove volunteer boards like the ADB from the quasi-judicial decision making role. As envisioned, the Board would have two touches of larger projects during the design review cycle. The first would be at the pre -application phase when an applicant is still in the early stages of project development. The second would be during application review as a recommendation to the final decision maker on a larger project (likely the Hearing Examiner). The first touch would allow the Board to provide guidance on elements like massing, site context, and open space. The recommendation piece Packet Pg. 21 7.A would allow the Board to take second look at a project to see if it addressed the Board's design vision from the pre -application phase and propose design conditions if it did not. Attachments: Attachment 1 - ADB Role Recommendations Attachment 2 - Proposed Design Review Process Flowchart Attachment 3 - Joint Council-PB minutes September 24, 2019 Attachment 4 - Joint PB-ADB minutes July 24, 2019 Attachment 5 - Design review summary slides Packet Pg. 22 7.A.a Recommendations from the Architectural Design Board (ADB) on Design Review Introduction The Architectural Design Board (ADB) has served in Edmonds for several decades. Over the years, the ADB has observed certain concerns about design in Edmonds. Notably, the ADB believes that design standards are incomplete and, in some cases, are not necessarily yielding the results either the Board or the Edmonds Community would like to see. In general, the Board feels it has spent too much time "approving" already -designed projects without being able to influence design decisions early in the development process, particularly before applications have been submitted. This can be accomplished in two ways, by having a role earlier in the process (at the pre -application stage before a design solution has been arrived at), and by having a role in the review and development of design standards that are the principal drivers of general design and development in the City. Current ADB Powers and Duties (adopted in ECC 10.05) The board is empowered to advise and make recommendations to the mayor, city council, planning commission and the planning department on matters hereinafter enumerated and on such matters as may be specifically referred to the board by the mayor, city council, planning commission or the planning department: A. To study and prepare a recommendation for a comprehensive architectural design plan including the recommendation of establishment of specific design districts which shall be a part of the comprehensive plan. B. To review and study land use within the city of Edmonds from a design standpoint. C. To establish goals, objectives and policies for design districts. D. To recommend legislation to effectuate the implementation of the comprehensive architectural design plan and the goals, objectives and policies for each established design district. E. And for such other matters as shall be referred to the board for review and recommendation by the mayor, city council, planning commission or the planning department. [Ord. 1683 § 1, 1973]. Desired roles expressed by ADB (2019) • Develop and recommend city-wide design guidelines and standards (e.g. for landscape treatments, multifamily development), as well as context -sensitive standards for special design districts (e.g. Downtown, Westgate, Five Corners, Highway 99) Packet Pg. 23 7.A.a • Review projects post -hoc to evaluate whether what was constructed reflects the intent of c what was approved and, if not, recommend refinements to adopted design guidelines and f° standards 0 • Do pre -application meetings for certain "significant" projects and provide recommendations 3 to the Hearing Examiner when quasi-judicial decision -making is required (similar to how > consolidated permit reviews operate now) • Review public projects and provide recommendations to City Council ,LM m • Provide decision support to staff (which may relate to various design -related topics) 0 Recommendations To implement these desired roles, the ADB recommends that its meetings change in emphasis, focusing more on: • Mandatory pre -application meetings with prospective applicants, before designs are completed and applications submitted (see separate flow chart for an example); • Periodic reviews of completed projects, comparing approved designs to completed projects (both at completion and at, for example, 3-5 years after the project has been built); • Review City codes and policies related to design, making recommendations to the City Council on adjustments or, when appropriate, new standards or design guidance. To implement this role effectively, the code should be clarified so that the sections of the code relevant to design are identified and the ADB's role made clear. Packet Pg. 24 Projects that Require SEPA Projects > 75' Projects that (Outside HWY 991 0 in Height Within Do Not Require Planned Area) HWY 99 Planned Area SEPA Review Meeting With ADB (Not a Public Hearing) ' Preapplication ' Meeting With ADB (Not a Public Hearing) Development Application to City (May include Building Permit) Staff Report SEPA / Public Hearing Notice Public Hearing Type III -A Hearing Examiner Hearing Examiner Decision Optional Preapplication Meeting With City Staff Development Application to City (May include Building Permit) Type I Design review by Staff Staff Decisio esign Review may coincide with Building Permit Approval Building Permit Approval 7.A.c EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES September 24, 2019 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President Michael Nelson, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember (via phone) Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Zach Bauder, Student Representative 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Phil Williams, Public Works Director Shane Hope, Development Services Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Rob English, City Engineer Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Teitzel read the City Council Land Acknowledge Statement: "We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water." 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER WITH THE ADDITION OF "CLARIFICATION OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT REGARDING COUNCIL LIAISONS TO THE CITIZENS HOUSING COMMISSION" AS AGENDA ITEM 8.2. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. JOINT DISCUSSION 1. DISCUSSION WITH THE EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD 3 m Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q September 24, 2019 Page 1 Packet Pg. 26 7.A.c Planning Board Members introduced themselves: Roger Pence (Alternate), Nathan Monroe, Matt Cheung 3 (Chair), Daniel Robles (Vice Chair), Alicia Crank, Mike Rosen and Conner Bryan (Student Representative). 2 (Planning Board Members Todd Cloutier and Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig were not present.) c Chair Cheung listed topics the Planning Board has been working on since the last update: • Non -Conforming Building Code amendments p • Street Map amendments • Update from the Parks & Recreation Department • Vision 2050 • Development activities • Comprehensive Plan • Climate Goals • Sustainability • Ruckelshaus Center RoadMap project • Urban Forest Management Plan • ECDC 20.70 Street Vacation amendment • Joint discussions with the Architectural Design Board (ADB) about their role in the design review process • Indigenous Peoples Land Acknowledgement Statement Vice Chair Robles reported the Planning Board enjoyed meeting with the ADB which is comprised of incredibly talented people. Meeting with them was very productive and the Board welcomes future collaboration with the ADB. Chair Cheung identified two topics they wanted to discuss with Council, 1) housing, including housing concepts the Planning Board can work on when the Housing Commission begins their work, and 2) communication between the City Council and boards and commission. With regard to housing, Chair Cheung said the Planning Board was interested in exploring detached accessory dwelling units (ADU) and has enjoyed collaborating with the ADB and Economic Development Commission (EDC) and was interested in future collaboration with them as well as with the Housing Commission. Board Member Monroe expressed interest in the Council's input regarding detached AUDs with regard to code requirements, setbacks, parking, etc. and things the Board can do to allow organic growth to occur in the community on a parallel path with the Housing Commission. Councilmember Johnson recalled past Planning Board presentations have included discussions about the Board's extended agenda and she requested an update on the extended agenda. For example, she recalled code amendments for the Five Corners area were referred to the Planning Board years ago and when the City Council indicated it was a lower priority, it was put on the extended agenda and nothing has happened. She asked when the Planning Board intended to consider that topic. Development Services Director Shane Hope said Planning Manager Rob Chave and she have discussed that; it is on the extended agenda, but will not be considered this year. Councilmember Johnson asked if the process would begin next year. Ms. Hope answered it will depend, she will report back to the Council. Councilmember Mesaros thanked the Planning Board for the work they do on behalf of the City, commenting most citizens would find it difficult to explain what the Planning Board does. With regard to the opportunity for detached tiny houses, he attends worship in a small church in the Madrona neighborhood of Seattle that put in a tiny house and have one resident living there who was previously homeless and who the church anticipates will live there 12-18 months. The church community has helped this person get settled, consistency in their work and help them feel part of a community with no obligation to attend church services. The church acknowledges they cannot solve homelessness but can help this one individual. He Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q September 24, 2019 Page 2 Packet Pg. 27 7.A.c discussed this with a couple of Seattle City Councilmembers, pointing out there are 300 houses of worship in Seattle and the possibility of each one building one tiny house on their property and providing support to that individual or family. It would reduce the issues the government is dealing with because there would be a network of people helping their fellow citizens. Councilmember Mesaros suggested the Planning Board look at how many houses of worship there are in Edmonds and whether there was an opportunity to encourage them to offer this opportunity on their property with infrastructure provided by the religious community. Board Member Monroe agreed that was an appropriate use of a detached ADU. Where he sees his friends using detached ADUs is they purchased their parent's home, and the parents downsize to a smaller unit behind which provides multiple benefits such as built-in babysitter, parents remaining in the same community, etc. Board Member Crank expressed appreciation for Councilmember Mesaros' idea, particularly as she works in downtown Seattle for an organization trying to eliminate homelessness. The challenge she sees is Edmonds is a smaller community, and does not have the space to accommodate that type of thing. She was hopeful when discussion begin about detached ADUs that the City looks at Santa Cruz's model, similar to Board Member Monroe's example, additional housing for existing family. Santa Cruz only allows one attached or detached ADU on a property and it must be occupied by a family member. She was also concerned that Councilmember Mesaros' example puts pressure on houses of worship's resources and suggested that would require consideration of what resources the City was willing to provide houses of worship. Councilmember Tibbott said he was very interested in variations of detached ADUs that are seen around the country. One of the variations is a family member which is becoming more difficult to define and whether to require owner occupied or allow non -owner occupied. Other considerations are how much of the property could be occupied, impervious surfaces, architectural design, what size lots could accommodate a detached ADU, etc. He suggested that would be a valuable discussion for the Planning Board to have to pave the way for the Housing Commission's discussion. He reported on an ADU he saw this weekend that was attached by a breezeway and had a beautiful view of the backyard landscaping and was a very nice living arrangement for the property owner's mother. He noted some tiny houses are built so poorly that they become disposable over 15-20 year and questioned whether that would be acceptable in Edmonds. Councilmember Teitzel thanked the Planning Board for their work and echoed Councilmember Mesaros' comments, finding the Planning Board a very insightful, well informed group whose work helps the City Council make better decisions. He referred to the comment about the Planning Board doing work in parallel with the Housing Commission on detached ADUs and expressed his preference to allow the Housing Commission to get some traction and the Planning Board work in an advisory capacity. When interviewing candidates for the Housing Commission, he heard concerns from several applicants about detached ADUs including additional parking in residential areas, the height of structures, additional density, etc. He preferred to let the community air those concerns before going too far in the discussion about codes. Vice Chair Robles commented the ADB is a hidden gem; individuals with extraordinary intellect and creativity. There are many variations of ADUs, detached, attached, split levels with two units, etc. The issues associated with ADUs are things that the ADB can address including impervious surface, security issues, parking, codes, etc. that need to be addressed before going forward with a viable strategy for aging in in place, family reunification, and affordable housing. The ADB will be an important part of that discussion. He would like the Planning Board to work closely with the ADB and the Housing Commission. 3 m Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q September 24, 2019 Page 3 Packet Pg. 28 7.A.c Board Member Crank said the Planning Board was seeking clear direction from the City Council regarding the Planning Board's role in housing and who should be doing what and when so there is no stepping on toes. Vice Chair Robles suggested the Planning Board could help coordinate oversight. Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested after the Housing Commission received training, developing a subcommittee with representatives from the Housing Commission, Planning Board, ADB, City Council and staff to vet some of these issues. She relayed attached ADUs are allowed in Edmonds and there are approximately 7-9 permitted per year. In her conversations with community members about detached ADUs, issues include providing onsite parking, ensuring the owner lives on property, and determining how many ADUs are allowed on a property. She did not feel it was time to talk about housing the homeless in detached ADUs in Edmonds because clear direction with regard to the homeless has not be established. That may be a future discussion and she wanted to ensure there was adequate citizen input. Council President Fraley-Monillas commented on the Planning Board and the ADB coordinating their efforts, noting there have not been any ADB-related code changes in many years. She relayed citizens' concern with the box building look and suggested that was something the Planning Board could consider in coordination with the ADB, maintaining the look and feel of Edmonds while allowing for new and unique design. Chair Cheung said the primary reason for the focus on detached ADUs is aging in place. Recent housing data shows there are a lot of 1-2 person households in Edmonds, many living in 4-5 bedroom houses. Detached ADUs would increase the diversity of housing options available and allow an owner to live in the detached ADU and rent the house. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she has heard from citizens interested in doing that, building a detached ADU, moving into it and renting their house. The bigger concern is everything on the property being a rental and how that can impact the neighborhood. Chair Cheung said the Planning Board is interested in hearing residents' concerns such as parking, safety, etc. Council President Fraley-Monillas summarized it is doable, it is just a matter of planning and who is involved in the planning to ensure it is successful. Vice Chair Robles said definition is important so that citizens have the same opportunities as developers such as the ability to finance construction of a detached ADU or divide their house to create an attached ADU. The code needs to be clear so that the bank will loan money, the insurance company will insure it and the asset can be capitalized. Councilmember Mesaros clarified his comments were not advocating only for housing for the homeless. To Board Member Crank's comment about the City's obligation to help support houses of worship, in the instance of his church, they have no expectation that the City of Seattle will provide any support. With regard to separate water and electricity, his church decided that was part of their ministry to provide that for the tiny house. He summarized the tiny house his church provided is just one option of many. His small church which has 77 members with 35 regular donors made a thoughtful commitment to do this. It was not always easy, the building was red -tagged by the City. Interestingly, the neighbors who do not attend the church rallied around this idea and became advocates. The church building is 100 years old and located on three city lots; one small parcel is occupied by the tiny house. He summarized it can be done although he knew of only one other church in Seattle doing it. Councilmember Nelson expressed his appreciation for all the Planning Board does and the question about detached ADUs and which board/commission is doing what. He said it was helpful to read the Housing Commission's mission, "To develop for Council consideration diverse housing policy options designed to expand the range of housing available in Edmonds." The question was not whether or not detached or attached ADUs or opportunities to age in place were needed, everyone would argue there is a need, but he did not want to step on the toes of newly formed Citizens Housing Commission whose job is to provide 3 m Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q September 24, 2019 Page 4 Packet Pg. 29 7.A.c policy recommendations to Council. He cautioned the Planning Board about delving into that before the Housing Commission has had first meeting and suggested waiting to see where it makes sense. He agreed with the Planning Board partnering with the ADB but was hesitant about them taking up ADUs. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed her appreciation for the Planning Board's work, commenting she thoroughly enjoys reading their minutes and watching the video of their meetings. She thanked City Clerk Passey posting the videos. She echoed Councilmembers Teitzel and Nelson's comments about not jumping into the ADU arena. She recalled Board Member Cloutier cautioned the Planning Board about being directly involved with Housing Commission because it was just starting and their role was assigned by the City Council. She expressed interest in code updates, specifically new code related to the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP). She referred to the Planning Board's August 2019 minutes, and agreed there needed to be incentives to prevent clear cutting. She suggested the Planning Board could also concentrate on the Roadmap to Washington's Future. She summarized people do not realize how much work the Planning Board does, they are very thoughtful and thorough and make the City Council's job easier. Councilmember Tibbott commented there is a lot of work still to be done on the code update especially related to low impact development which can help maintain open space. The Board could also look at sustainable construction codes, handling of stormwater, nonconforming development on property that was previously in Snohomish County including where those transition zones exist and whether there conflicts between areas zoned for multi -family that are developed with single family or nonconforming uses. Those areas would be profitable for the City and lend to future discussion regarding housing strategies. Councilmember Johnson also appreciated the hard work the Planning Board does, commenting Councilmembers Tibbott, Nelson and she previously served on the Planning Board. She was concerned about the extended agenda, commenting some things have been discussed but never get done such as the subdivision code review. She recommended getting the code update on the schedule, noting it has been a sore subject for Council President Fraley-Monillas and Councilmember Buckshnis who have been on the Council for nine years. Chair Cheung asked what was the most effective way for boards, commissions and City Council to communicate and for the Planning Board to provide feedback to the City Council whether it should be a formal written motion with recommendation or comments in the minutes. Board Member Rosen thanked the City Council for their service. He commented the Planning Board serves at the City Council's pleasure; it is the Planning Board's understanding their role is to share their opinions and that can be done either independently or as group. Sometimes board members have strong opinions and sometimes they have a lot of opinions; comments in the minutes make it difficult for the reader to judge the weight or consensus. The Planning Board wants to ensure they are providing information to the Council in a format they can use. Councilmember Mesaros anticipated there would be seven different answers to that question. There are multiple ways to communicate; part of the issue is what message the Planning Board is trying to deliver. The Planning Board minutes are one opportunity to communicate; the Planning Board has an obligation to produce minutes and the City Council has an obligation to read them. Staff is another method for communication. Planning Board members can also ask to be on the agenda or to speak at a Council meeting. He summarized intentionality was always a good thing. Council President Fraley-Monillas commented the Council used to have stronger communication with the Planning Board including periodic reports. She agreed the City Council has an obligation to read the Planning Board minutes, but it may be worthwhile to discuss how to have more frequent dialogue between the Planning Board and the City Council. She suggested perhaps a monthly or quarterly report, and suggested discussing with staff what had been done in the past. 3 m Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q September 24, 2019 Page 5 Packet Pg. 30 7.A.c Councilmember Tibbott appreciated that the Planning Board minutes reflect the deliberations and multiple points of view which helps broaden his thoughts when making decisions. If there is a heated topic, it is helpful for the Council to hear from Planning Board even if it is during Audience Comments. Councilmember Nelson recalled when he was on the Planning Board, forwarding a recommendation to City Council and the City Council changed it. He suggested an informal quarterly meeting between the Planning Board Chair and the Council President to discuss topics and reasons for recommendations and to maintain regular open lines of communication. He agreed with having an additional way of communicating besides the minutes. Councilmember Johnson explained when a recommendation is forwarded by the Planning Board, it is usually a written formal recommendation and includes all the minutes regarding the topic. That gives the City Council an opportunity for review prior to discussion at the City Council. She suggested more time for review would be helpful and invited the Planning Board to make a presentation to the Council on their recommendations. Councilmember Buckshnis said adding the Planning Board videos to the website was very helpful. She recalled items on which the Planning Board did a lot of work and it did not go anywhere or the City Council did not follow the Planning Board's recommendation. She concluded the Planning Board minutes are very thorough and capture commissioners' input. Board Member Crank appreciated the City Council's appreciation of the diversity of thought and ideas on the Planning Board. She recognized Board Member Rosen for recapping everything that was discussed. Vice Chair Robles said ADB members are licensed professionals. There are safety and other considerations related to ADUs. Once the technical issues are settled, it opens door for the Housing Commission to do their work. He asked about boundaries for what board members say, social media policy, and the science on crumb rubber and 5G and vaping that has not come to the surface. Chair Cheung advised the Planning Board planned to have a follow-up discussion with the ADB. The ADB expressed concern that their contribution occurs at the end of projects and they would like to be more involved at the beginning and to contribute to the design standards. The Planning Board will be discussing an amendment to the ECDC to allow lodging uses in the CW zone. Mayor Earling thanked the Planning Board for their work. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Ken Reidy, Edmonds, thanked the Planning Board for their public service; he has attended several meetings and they do a fantastic job. He relayed the City of Edmonds government knows it has operated with a flawed code for at least 19 years, both the Edmonds City Code (ECC) and the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). On October 25, 2005, former Development Services Director Duane Bowman said he had been describing the need to update the zoning code since he was hired in 2000. A comment was made that the City's code dated to the 1980s and piecemeal amendments made it difficult to use and administer. In September 2007, a former Hearing Examiner stated that several code revisions failed to provide adequate guidance because of the use of the phrase, "and so forth" which creates ambiguities within various criteria for approval. Twelve years later, use of the phrase "and so forth" is still found in the City's code, ECDC 20.75.085 for example. Mr. Reidy relayed former City Attorney Scott Snyder stated in his November 2007 annual report that the biggest issue at the start of 2007 was the code rewrite. Mr. Snyder stated the intent was to begin the rewrite 3 m Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q September 24, 2019 Page 6 Packet Pg. 31 7.A.d CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Meeting July 24, 2019 Chair Cheung called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5' Avenue North. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Matthew Cheung, Chair Daniel Robles, Vice Chair Nathan Monroe Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig Mike Rosen Conner Bryan, Student Representative PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Todd Cloutier (excused) Alicia Crank (excused) ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Maureen Jeude Cary Guenther Joe Herr Bruce Owensby Kim Bayer ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Tom Walker Lauri Strauss STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Development Services Manager Mike Clugston, Planner Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder Ken Reidy, Edmonds, said he was present to follow up on the comments he made at the July loth meeting. He observed there seemed to be some confusion between a term he used (unopened easements) and a term the City used (unopened alleys). As per Page 63 of the July loth Planning Board Packet, the term subject property means the "street, alley, easement or portion thereof sought to be vacated." It is important for the Board to understand that the photograph staff displayed that evening as an "unopened alley" is the same thing he was referring to as an "unopened easement." Mr. Reidy reported that there have been three street vacations over the last 3 years. The I't easement started in 2016 and involved the vacation of an easement that was used by the City to open a street. The City Council required the reservation of multiple easements and maximum compensation of $92,610. One of the easements that was required was to Olympic View Water and Sewer District despite the fact that the franchise contract had expired in 2014. The 2nd easement was a vacation of another easement the City had used to open a street and involved no payment in compensation but multiple easements. The 31 easement was vacation of an easement the City had never used. In that case, the City Council required the property owner to grant an easement to the Edmonds School District, who had put a pipe in the easement area with a permit. They also made the property owner pay $28,800 in compensation. Mr. Reidy pointed out that, in the great majority of cases, title to the property underlying a street or alley belongs to the abutting property owner. The City has an easement right to use that property. While there are times when the City does own the property that a street or alley is on, these instances are rare. It is even rarer for those types of streets to be vacated Packet Pg. 32 7.A.d because the City owns title to the property. The law in Washington State is well settled that the fee title to the streets and alleys rests in the possession of the abutting property owners. City staff mentioned title transferring back to the abutting property owners, but this is not what happens when an easement is vacated because the property owners already own the title. A question was raised about what an appraisal was used for, and staff indicated the compensation was paid to have the right- of-way transferred over to the adjacent private property owner. Again, there is no transfer, the City is simply releasing its easement interest in the property. Staff also said that if an appraiser determined that the property had value, the City would not be able to gift public land to an adjacent property owner. That is not an issue because the adjacent property owner already owns the title and there is nothing to gift. Mr. Reidy said City staff also represented that it is not the property owner's property if there is an unopened alley behind your home. Staff stated this is not property you are able to use because it is under the City's jurisdiction. However, if the City is not using its easement rights, the owner of the property can use the property. For example, the Washington State Supreme Court stated in Nystrand vs. O'Malley that the use by the fee title owner in extending his garage into the area, planting trees and hedge and constructing a bulkhead was not inconsistent with the public's easement since the right to open a street for the public's use had not been asserted by the City of Seattle. Mr. Reidy encouraged the Planning Board to ask staff to provide an overhead photograph at the August 14' public hearing of the same unopened alleyway that they showed last time, but just one block to the east. The Board will see multiple uses of that unopened easement, including buildings, in that photograph. In conclusion, he asked that the Board consider having staff correct the information that was presented to them on July loth. This code section is very important, and the citizens should have an opportunity to be involved in the rewrite. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Cheung referred the Board to the Development Services Director's Report that was provided in the packet. There were no comments or questions from the Board. JOINT MEETING WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD (ADB): DISCUSSION ON ADB ROLES AND DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS Mr. Chave recalled that the Planning Board met with the ADB in December of 2017 to discuss design review and how the ADB process works. As a result of this discussion, the ADB had a few discussions at subsequent meetings about design review, what they saw their role being going forward, and how the design review process could be adjusted to reflect some of their ideas. He referred to the materials provided in the packet, which included information that was presented during the ADB's discussions. Mr. Chave reviewed that design review has occurred in Edmonds for at least four decades. At one time, it was pretty open ended. There were guidelines, but there were no standards in the code to guide design. At that time, the ADB felt it had a lot of discretion on how to approach project approval. That changed in 1993 with the Washington State Court of Appeals Case Anderson vs. Issaquah. Issaquah was using a design review process based on the Edmonds model and the problem the court saw was that applicants really didn't know how their projects would be approved. They had no certainty or predictability, and they often ended up going back and forth before a project could be approved because the language used in the codes was quite vague and subject to multiple interpretations. The court saw that as arbitrary and capricious decision making, which was not something a City was able to do. Mr. Chave said that, once that case was decided, Edmonds realized it needed to change its approach to design review. Going forward, the City first adopted a set of design guidance as a stop gap, but the ultimate solution was to put more specificity into the codes, including clearer design standards and information about how a project would be measured and decided. Over the years, design standards have been adopted for specific zones and/or areas. Before Anderson Vs. Issaquah, the ADB design professionals talked to project proponents and there was a fair amount of give and take. The ADB felt it had some control over the ultimate design that resulted. Because of Anderson vs. Issaquah, that control eroded for the reasons stated by the court and came back in the form of standards in the code. The product of that, however, has been that when the ADB sees a project proposal, the applicant has already done due diligence to review the codes and standards and arrived at a design Planning Board Minutes July 24, 2019 Page 2 Packet Pg. 33 7.A.d solution. When the design is presented to the ADB, the ADB ends up simply doing a checklist review and there is very little give and take in the process at that point. Mr. Chave advised that, based on ADB discussions, the ADB really wants to influence design in a few ways. First, they would like to have input at the beginning of the process before the applicant has settled on a design, and the place to do that is at the pre -application process before an applicant has applied for project approval. That's the point where an applicant is still trying to figure out what codes and standards apply and their design hasn't been solidified yet. The City has two different pre -application processes, and both are typically manned by staff from different departments. One idea is that perhaps a few ADB members could sit in on the pre -application meetings, particularly the ones where design is significant enough to have an impact on a block or location. Mr. Chave said the ADB also talked about being the design standards board. The City needs to have more standards in the code, particularly related to multifamily projects, and there are a few districts that do not have design guidelines, either. Going along with that is the ADB's desire to have a post review of projects to test whether or not the design standards in place result in good projects. This review would allow the ADB to gauge whether or not the design standards do what they are intended to do. Perhaps the ADB could propose changes to make the standards better. It would be great to do an initial review post development, but also five years out. When a project is first built, the landscaping is immature and the project will look entirely different five years later after the landscaping has grown up and the site has matured. From staff s perspective, there are a number of examples where a project looked stark when first developed, but blended into the environment over time. It is helpful, at that point, to not only look at the building design, but also the site work to determine if the landscaping was appropriate. Perhaps the landscaping standards need to be changed to improve the site setting of buildings. This kind of review would be a very valuable role for the ADB to take on. Mr. Chave advised that the Planning Board is scheduled to meet jointly with the City Council on September 241h to talk about items they are working on. This would be the golden opportunity to seek Council feedback on the design review process and the recommended improvements. Mr. Chave explained that the City currently has two different design review processes, one for district -based review and another that is general. The City implemented a 2-phase design approach as a way to improve its design review process and move design review earlier in the project development phase. The 2-phase approach involves a 2-part hearing. Phase I is supposed to occur when an applicant is scoping out a project, and Phase 2 is the final design review. However, this approach hasn't really worked because the proponents usually have their designs settled during the Phase I review and design review simply doesn't come early enough in the process. He advised that the City never intended to have two different design processes long term. Once there were adequate standards in the code, everything was supposed to fold into the 2-phase review, and that was supposed to become the standard process. However, the City has not yet established design review standards for all of the City, notably, multifamily projects, Five Corners and other small commercial areas. A single design review process would be less complicated and more consistent. Mr. Chave reemphasized that staff does not believe the 2-part design review process works, and he believes the ADB concurs. It doesn't do what it was intended to do and it doesn't make sense to continue. Board Member Herr reviewed that the ADB discussed this issue a few meetings ago, and that is when it became clear that projects are usually too far along by the time the Board gets involved in the review. While the ADB wants to offer constructive criticism and feedback to a design, the current review process stymies this opportunity. Typically, a design is already set by the time a project is presented to the ADB for design review. While the Board can offer comments, they are not often able to change the outcome of a project that meets all of the code requirements and design standards. The ADB would like the ability to offer design feedback earlier in the process when an applicant is still just thinking about a vision for development. Usually, by the time a project comes before them for review, it is ready for approval and the ADB is simply checking boxes. Board Member Monroe commented that it seems that the ADB's skills and expertise are being misused with the current process. He asked the ADB to share ideas for how to allow them more discretion and leeway. He questioned if the City might have overreacted to the Anderson vs. Issaquah decision. He also asked what the consequence of the court ruling was to the City. Mr. Chave emphasized that the City was unable to enforce its codes and had to make changes to be consistent Planning Board Minutes July 24, 2019 Page 3 Packet Pg. 34 7.A.d with the court ruling. The end result was the adoption of standards and codes that were significantly more specific. Board Member Monroe asked if it would be possible for the City to find some middle ground between the vague codes that were in place before the court decision and the very specific codes that are in place now. Mr. Chave said it extremely difficult to be specific with language yet allow flexibility. However, there are ways to allow some discretion or degree of choice. For example, the code could require an applicant to choose a certain number of design solutions from a list. Another option would be to allow design departures. This would allow the ADB to approve alternative designs as long as they achieve the intent of the standard. However, the code would have to provide guidance and criteria for evaluating the departures. The design standards would be undermined if the departure provision was too open ended. Board Member Monroe said he assumes that other jurisdictions are dealing with this same challenge. Mr. Chave said most City's have chosen to put more standards in their codes, and the City of Edmonds has not gone to the degree of specificity that some jurisdictions have done. The City has tried to create specificity for the things that are most important rather than specify everything about a building. Board Member Monroe said that makes sense. The City doesn't want to become a Redmond or Ballard where every building looks the same. Mr. Chave said the trick is to figure out which things the City wants to regulate and which things it wants to leave to the discretion of the professional. Board Member Monroe invited the ADB members to share their thoughts on what defines the character of Edmonds that needs to be protected and where the codes can allow for more creativity. Board Member Guenther responded that it is difficult to describe the character of Edmonds because it is a hodgepodge of different styles. It is hard for the ADB to assign a specific type of architecture to a project that comes before them. Creating design standards requires a balance between making them real specific so that anyone can follow them and making them more vague to allow flexibility in design. Experience has shown that the standards cannot be too vague. Some specificity is needed for consistency and predictability. The more specific the standards, the less likely the City's decisions will be disputed. The City has good design standards in place and when projects come before them, the Board simply checks off the boxes. Staff could do this same thing as an administrative approval. Board Member Herr recalled a recent project that came before the Board and voiced concern that there was no chance for creative thinking. While the standards were clear, they didn't really work for the intended new purpose of the building. One simple idea to move a door to make the project work better could have been approved if the ADB was allowed some discretion, but that option was not available. The hands of both the developer and the ADB were tied, and the applicant now has to come up with a solution that will not benefit anyone in the end. He summarized that, although the design standards are good, there needs to be a way by which the ADB can utilize the expertise of its members and compromise with an applicant to get a better design. Currently, there is no departure provision built into the design review process. Board Member Monroe asked if the ADB supports amending the code to allow for variations or code departures. Board Member Becker said she is new on the ADB and attended her first meeting in July. She was surprised that by the time the ADB had a chance to provide input, the project was too far along. Board Member Owensby commented that the proposal that came before the ADB at their last meeting was a really good one, and the applicant was trying to do some nice things that you don't normally see in little communities like Edmonds. However, the applicant was being tied down by certain restrictions he couldn't get past. For example, his engineers indicated that more than 30% of the wall must be sheer in order for the building to stand up, but the City's code requires that 70% of the fagade must be transparent (window). A lot of urban design standards in place now are too specific. Just because a project provides a base, middle and top doesn't mean it is a good building design. A building might be well designed even if it doesn't have those elements. There needs to be a certain amount of leeway. Board Member Owensby suggested it would be good for the ADB to become involved in design review in the diagrammatic phase of a project where an architect could come in with little more than a general plan for massing, etc. Edmonds is defined by building facades along the street, and what goes on behind is less important. The character of Edmonds is basically a consistency of inconsistencies. Allowing for this inconsistency is important. What they need to focus on is how the building addresses the street and sidewalk. Some of the rules and regulations related to modulation have resulted in step backs that create too much push/pull going down the street. This takes away from the street feel that you have when store windows are placed along the sidewalks. Mr. Chave agreed and commented that he can date buildings based on modulation. Planning Board Minutes July 24, 2019 Page 4 Packet Pg. 35 7.A.d Again, Board Member Owensby suggested that the ADB should have two opportunities to meet with applicants. Once before they get into their working drawings and again when they are preparing schematic designs to see that they are incorporating the ADB's recommendations from the first meeting. When design review happens early, it is much easier and less costly for developers to change their designs, if needed. The first meeting could be a brainstorming meeting between the applicant, staff and ADB. Board Member Owensby said it would also be good for the ADB to review all of the code requirements and design standards. Some seem to be blanket requirements that limit the ability for creative design. Blanket standards do not work for every situation. For example, a restaurant will need a different storefront than a museum. There must be some leeway that allows for flexibility so that good projects are not hamstrung by the standards. He voiced concern that the City can end up with lesser projects when the standards are too specific. Board Member Rubenkonig reviewed that she served on the ADB after the color police and after the Anderson vs. Issaquah decision and at a time when many wanted to remove the Board from quasi-judicial decisions. She said she was not happy with this change because it lessened the ability of the professionals on the ADB to have input into a project. She felt it was important for the ADB to ask questions of the applicant relative to a proposed project and how it fits into the neighborhood design. She also asked applicants to explain how various components of design were used to make the building fit into the fabric of Edmonds. She said she has not seen a predictive design program that embraces an approach that allows for flexibility and discretion on behalf of the Board. You don't want to try to regulate the design mind. When she served on the ADB, the Board had the discretion to waive certain standards as long as the proposed project met the intent of the regulation. It sounds like that is no longer possible. They no longer have that authority, which is upsetting to her. She voiced concern that the excitement of good design has been lost with the current process. Board Member Rubenkonig said she understands the concept of allowing a few ADB members to participate in pre - application meetings, but many of them take place during daytime hours when a lot of the members are at work. In addition, they will need to be careful not to have too many members in attendance. If a quorum is present, then the meeting must be advertised and open to the public. She voiced concern that if the ADB goes into a more informal setting (pre -application meeting) where they are just part of a larger group that reviews an application, they will be giving up their quasi-judicial authority. While the Board Members can provide good comments relative to the proposal, the applicant will not be required to incorporate their recommendations. It will all come down to what the City requires that gives the muscle that drives the design. She cautioned against the ADB giving away their muscle. Mr. Chave responded that the court already took away much of the ADB's authority via Anderson vs. Issaquah. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that the ADB operated for several years after the court decision, making sure that their decisions were consistent with the Development Regulations. They made effective decisions during that time period and the Board built a good reputation. The current ADB is now dealing with regulations that have been cut down. Further minimizing the ADB's authority concerns her. She understands wanting to get involved in design review earlier in the process, but she is not sure the ADB will get what they want out of it because they won't have any authority. Board Member Rubenkonig remarked that she likes the transparent process that the ADB provided while she served. The discussions that take place during an administrative decision are not part of the public record. She understands that the checklist will be part of the public record, but the public record should also provide information about why certain decisions were made. It is also important to allow citizens and the design professionals on the ADB to express their concerns related to proposed projects. She summarized that she wants the ADB to have some control over the ultimate design of a project, and she wants certainty that their recommendations will have some teeth and be incorporated into the project. Board Member Owensby voiced support for Board Member Rubenkonig's recommendation. The checklist needs to be specific for each project. Rather than generic and vague comments for the ADB to check off, the checklist could outline all of the comments and recommendations the ADB provided at the preliminary design stage. Projects can only be approved by the Board if all of their recommendations have been incorporated. Chair Cheung asked how the City would screen to make sure that people who are bringing projects forward for pre - application review are serious and not just wasting the ADB and staff s time. He voiced concern that a developer will request Planning Board Minutes July 24, 2019 Page 5 Packet Pg. 36 7.A.d a pre -application meeting to obtain free advice from a professional without any intention of moving forward with the project. Mr. Chave explained that there is a fee for the formal pre -application process and applicants are required to provide certain submissions. This shows that applicants are interested in moving their projects forward and have done some thought process. However, the City cannot require an applicant to pursue a project following a pre -application meeting. The intent is to require enough information to work with, but they don't want applicants to sink so much time and money into the project that they have already reached conclusions as to design. The City simply needs enough information to understand the parameters of the project and the characteristics of the site. Board Member Owensby said he does not believe that the ADB and staff would be wasting their time in a preapplication meeting if the applicant chooses not to move a project forward. While the current owner may decide not to move the project forward, the lot will still be there and the information from the pre -application meeting can be given to a future owner as a heads up. Mr. Chave noted that the information from the pre -application meeting would be public information. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that most applicants have paid money as part of a formal application before a project comes forward for a pre -application meeting. Mr. Chave clarified that there are two different types of pre -application meetings, one requires a fee and the other does not. Formal pre -application meetings require a fee, but the informal pre - application discussions do not. An applicant doesn't have to supply a lot of information for an informal pre -application discussion. Rather than someone coming to the counter to ask questions about a project and not having the appropriate staff present to respond, the City tries to set up a specific time where three or four staff members are available at the same time to answer their questions. There is no written record of these discussions and they are free of charge. Most of the larger projects do formal pre -application meetings and there is a cost. However, some of the cost can be put toward later permit applications. Board Member Rubenkonig observed that there would be no ADB presence at gatherings where City planners speak casually at the counter with developers and/or architects. Mr. Chave said it is very rare that someone will come before the ADB for a pre -application meeting. When projects are presented to the ADB for a Phase 1 review, they are usually too far along. Because there is already a pre -application process in place, he suggested that perhaps a few members of the ADB could be incorporated into that process. Mr. Chave said the City Attorney has indicated that the City can make the pre -application meeting mandatory for certain projects based on the location, size, etc. The pre -application meeting would come before any formal public input, but at least the ADB would have an opportunity to work face-to-face with the applicant and City staff to talk about the project. Board Member Herr remarked that the ADB members can make all the recommendations they want, but they have no authority. Applicants can choose whether or not to accept and incorporate the changes. As long as a project meets the design standards, the Board has no authority to deny it. He can understand how the ADB wants to have a greater role, but without the accompanying authority, he doesn't believe that is possible. He likes the idea of the ADB at least participating in the pre - application meetings to get their ideas out there in the beginning. Many applicants will accept these ideas in an initial meeting if they know that down the line their project won't get as much push back. While the ADB can push back, they cannot deny a project because they don't like it. Board Member Guenther pointed out that the ADB rarely denies a project, and their decisions are usually unanimous. Regarding Chair Cheung's concern that developers will request pre -application meetings just to get free advice, he said he can think of two or three projects that were approved by the ADB, but haven't been built yet. Board Member Monroe asked if the ADB would support a provision that allows for a departure process or a process that allows a developer to choose a certain number of design solutions from a list. He suggested that projects that simply meet all of the design standards could be approved through an administrative decision. However, if a departure is requested, the ADB could be the decision maker through a public hearing process. Board Member Guenther recalled that the last project that came before the ADB was an exceptional building for an exceptional site. The applicant was looking for a departure route, which the Board could not provide. Board Member Monroe voiced surprised that there is no appeal or departure process. Board Member Guenther explained that the ADB wanted to offer the applicant a departure, but it was not allowed by the code. Board Member Monroe pointed out that the Planning Board Minutes July 24, 2019 Page 6 Packet Pg. 37 7.A.d departure option was not included on the ADB's list of potential amendments. Board Member Herr responded that the list was formulated before their last meeting and before they realized how valuable a departure provision would be in some situations. Board Member Owensby expressed his belief that the ADB should have the ability to approve deviations from the design standards. In the most recent case, a departure would have made the project better. Forcing applicants into a one -size -fits -all design standard can end up hurting projects. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that allowing the ADB to approve code departures would be similar to the discretion the ADB used to have to approve design departures if they met the intent of the regulation. Guenther said there is a risk for the owner and/or architect who would be at the mercy of the ADB as to whether a code departure would be allowed. Mr. Chave cautioned that the code cannot be so vague that the Board is allowed to come up with two different solutions for two different projects. If this approach is used, it will be important to describe the parameters under which a deviation or departure could be granted. Board Member Monroe asked if the ADB would feel comfortable working with staff to come up with potential parameters to implement a departure provision. Board Member Guenther felt the ADB and staff could come up with a process to provide for deviation with specificity. They cannot open the door for the ADB to allow departures for whatever reason. There must be some guidelines in place. Mr. Chave suggested they suggested that there could be two different processes. The standard design review process could be used for projects that meet all of the design standards and code requirements. These situations could be a staff decision. However, applications that include code departure requests could be go before the ADB for review and approval. Mr. Chave agreed that staff could work with the ADB to come up with draft code language. However, before they go too far down that road of creating a firm proposal, he suggested that the Board seek feedback from the City Council at their joint meeting in September. If the City Council's response is positive, a draft proposal could be finalized and brought to the Board for a public hearing and recommendation to the City Council. In the meantime, he agreed to work with the ADB on a preliminary proposal that could be reviewed by the Planning Board at their September I I' meeting prior to presenting the concept to the City Council on September 24t1i Board Member Rubenkonig said she is hearing that the ADB would like to have more standards in place when reviewing projects. They also expressed concern that they haven't formally reviewed the built projects to determine how well the standards work. She is also hearing interest in having two ways to approach the ADB. An applicant could go before the ADB with the checklist that shows how the project meets all of the standards, or they could use a different process that allows the ADB to consider departures to the design standards. Board Member Monroe observed that the standards are evolving and changes are needed as new codes are developed. The checklist should evolve, as well. The checklist sometimes fails to address unusual site conditions and other times there are opportunities to improve design through a deviation. There should be a separate path for applicants who want to depart from the design standards. This would require changes to give the ADB the appropriate level of control and involvement to leverage their professionalism to make decisions. He voiced concern that without these changes, the experts may lose interest in serving on the ADB. Mr. Chave summarized that most of the Board Members are unhappy with the current design review process. It would be great to have ADB influence as early in the process as possible in the pre -application phase. If an applicant goes through the pre -application process and receives guidance and then chooses to do a standard building that meets all of the code and design standards, there is not much the ADB can do at that point to influence the project. There is no point in having a public hearing since the ADB will have to approve the project. However, in some cases an applicant will want a departure because the site is unique, the standards do not work, etc. In these cases, the ADB could weigh in on the final decision and there would be some discretion in determining whether or not a departure request is appropriate and meets the intent of the code. He summarized that requiring a different process for projects that are different than the standard would be appropriate. If developers repeatedly request departures from a specific standard, the ADB would be a great body to consider whether or not Planning Board Minutes July 24, 2019 Page 7 Packet Pg. 38 7.A.d a code change is needed. It is extremely important to have a body doing post construction review to determine which standards are working and which are not. Board Member Herr explained that, for the most part, the standards have worked for new projects. However, the most recent case was an adaptive reuse of an existing building. Applying modern standards to an existing building doesn't always work, and that is where the City is more likely to receive departure requests so that discretionary decisions can be made by the ADB. He said he would like a process to be in place that allows developers to get past requirements that are impossible to meet in the design for a variety of reasons. Mr. Chave agreed and said it will be important to describe situations where the letter of the law, in terms of design standards, runs up against other standards like engineering and building standards. When standards start to conflict, which is common with existing buildings, a departure process would be an appropriate solution. Board Member Owensby said it would also be helpful if the ADB could grant departures when an applicant is trying to do something that benefits the public but runs up against conflicting design standards. In the most recent case, the applicant was trying to give something back to the community, but he was hamstrung by the current standards and there was no process in place by which the ADB could negotiate a departure. Board Member Rosen said he supports the changes that have been discussed. However, if the Board is going to present a recommendation to the City Council, they should outline the problems that would be solved by the proposed changes. These problems might include: 1) ensuring excellence of design, both for function as well as for the community, 2) protecting the integrity and character of the community and the neighborhoods, 3) protecting residents by making better use of experts, and 4) identifying the standards that make absolutely no sense and correcting them. He it is important to position their recommendation to the City Council by pointing out the things that can be done better. The second part will to identify areas where the proposed changes could be vulnerable. For example, what are the worst things people might say about the proposed changes. People already complain that the City's processes take too long. Will the proposed changes add more time, resulting in push back? Will inserting the ADB in multiple steps make it harder for a developer to project the potential costs of a project? It will be good to hear the problems that the proposed changes might create so they can be anticipated and a process can be created to mitigate or overcome these problems. Board Member Owenby observed that most projects do not come to the ADB until they are very far along in the design process. It upsets developers and it is costly when changes are requested late in the process. As an architect, he said he would not be upset if the ADB reviewed his project early to identify the items that are important to the City and what he needed to address as part of his design. He would like an opportunity to present his design again to the Board when it is further along to confirm that it addresses what they are looking for. The ADB needs to participate a lot earlier in the process in order to have an impact. Vice Chair Robles asked if it would be possible for the City to offer an accelerated design review process for applicants who consult with the ADB during the early phase of design. Board Member Owensby said he likes the idea of providing an incentive to developers to encourage them to participate in pre -application meetings. Vice Chair Robles expressed his belief that creating an incentive would promote proactive design. Mr. Chave cautioned against offering an accelerated design review process to applicants who participate in a pre -application meeting. Allowing an opportunity for departures would provide incentive and give developers options to achieve better design, which in turn can save money. Board Member Rosen summarized that the recommendation to the City Council should include a provision for departures, as well as a mandated pre -application meeting. Board Member Guenther commented that the current checklist process works well for multifamily projects for the most part. It is a matter of how may units will fit per acre, what is the height limit, etc. However, the checklist doesn't work well for commercial projects where the City wants to require more design elements. He would anticipate more departure requests for commercial development. Planning Board Minutes July 24, 2019 Page 8 Packet Pg. 39 7.A.d Chair Cheung asked how the City's design standards and review process compares to other cities. Board Member Herr responded that the City of Redmond's design standards are so strict that they are very cumbersome. He said he does not want Edmonds to go to that extreme because it will stymy development. Vice Chair Robles asked if reducing the risk that a project will get hung up in the design review process could be quantified. He suggested it is important to understand the consequences of the proposed changes. For example, they need to identify the risk of exposure and understand the likelihood of whether or not the proposed changes will cause a distraction. Mr. Chave explained that, over time, the number of projects that go before the ADB have decreased substantially. This was a natural outgrowth of the move towards standards and a conscious decision that small projects really don't need design review. The ADB's agendas used to include a few dozen items, and now there are just one or two significant projects. He suggested that they are heading in the right direction, with fewer but more important projects. Going forward, defining the projects that need to go to the ADB, such as departures, makes a lot of sense. But projects that comply with all of the code requirements and produce the result the City wants do not need to come before the ADB. The trick will be coming up with the right standards, the right mix, and providing a departure path. Board Member Monroe agreed there is a risk that Edmonds loses itself and part of its identify, but there is also a risk of losing good projects. The proposed changes offer an opportunity to address both risks. He asked the staff and the ADB to work together to prepare potential amendments for the Board to present to the City Council at their joint meeting. His understanding is that the ADB would like to have early involvement via a pre -application meeting requirement. They would also like to have a process for considering departures from the design standards. Again, Mr. Chave agreed to prepare some potential language for the ADB to consider. These ideas could be presented to the Planning Board on September 111 prior to their joint meeting with the City Council on September 241. Vice Chair Robles advised that the Planning Board will soon be considering potential amendments to the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) regulations as a component of affordable housing. He pointed out that there are both good and bad examples of ADUs, and the Planning Board could use the ADB's help to create design standards for both detached and attached ADUs. He explained that allowing ADUs will grant citizens the same opportunity for economic gain as developers so property owners won't be forced to sell to developers to build tract development. ADU's provide opportunities for reunification of families, as well as opportunities for citizens to age in place as long as possible. He felt it would be helpful to consult with the ADB as the discussion moves forward. Board Member Herr pointed out that a code amendment would be needed to change the ADU regulations and asked if the Planning Board influences zoning. Vice Chair Robles answered that zoning code amendments come before the Planning Board for review, a public hearing and a recommendation to the City Council. Board Member Herr commented that there are a lot of components to consider when reviewing the ADU provisions, and the ADB would like to be part of the conversation. Board Member Owensby cautioned that the success of the proposed amendments will depend on how well they are sold to the public as a benefit. ADU's could potentially result in more traffic, but in many situations, the children have moved away and only one or two people are living in the main home. ADU's can provided an opportunity for extra income so that these individuals can stay in their homes as they age. Quite often, ADU's do not even require any additional services such as water, sewer or parking. Board Member Rubenkonig acknowledge that the ADB does not do design review for single-family development. However, it would be helpful for them to provide information about design elements that might be appropriate for ADU's. The remainder of the Planning Board Members agreed that future discussions with the ADB relative to ADUs would benefit the process. Board Member Rubenkonig recalled that when she served on the ADB in 2002 and 2003, they had a great desire to be part of the pre -application process, but that hasn't happened yet. One question to consider moving forward is at what point the ADB would give up its authority to participate in quasi-judicial decisions if Board members attend pre -application meetings. She questioned who and how many ADB members would attend the daytime preapplication meetings, and how many could be present with out it constituting a quorum. She cautioned against the ADB giving up its quasi-judicial authority. Mr. Chave said this may selectively occur upon further discussion with the ADB. Planning Board Minutes July 24, 2019 Page 9 Packet Pg. 40 7.A.d c Board Member Pence said he is new on the Planning Board, and he knows very little about the topic at hand. He came from d Seattle where he participated as a citizen in a few design review projects at the neighborhood level. He recalled that, with the 0 most recent project, the first unveiling to the community was a set of massing options early in the design process. The 3 citizens were invited to express their opinions, along with the design board. He is very supportive of early involvement of design consideration, whether from a board of professionals or at a public hearing involving citizens. Seattle did, and probably still does, have a design departure process where they are able to fine tune a project to make it better for the proponent and the surrounding neighborhood. It sounds like the discussion tonight is moving in that direction for the City of Edmonds, which would be great. d C Board Member Pence said that, in terms of having a standard path for getting a cookie cutter building versus a more complex path involving departures and the like, he suggested that perhaps the City could offer developers some incentives to enhance the project an encourage them to go the more difficult route rather than the standard cookie cutter project. Board Member Pence observed that, as a newcomer to Edmonds, he sees a great variety of building aesthetics. He would not like to see some of the buildings replicated, beginning with City Hall. He has a concern that someone will want to duplicate this building someplace else in Edmonds, and the ADB apparently would have no ability to deny the project if it meets the code and design standards. He said he hopes these potential unfortunate outcomes can be avoided with whatever tweaking of the code they do as a result of this conversation. Mr. Chave pointed out that City Hall does not meet code. Board Member Becker agreed with Board Member Pence, and that is one reason she joined the ADB. They have the same purpose and mission in regards to this issue. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Cheung reviewed that the August 14' meeting agenda will include an update on the RoadMap Project (Ruckelshaus Center Report) and a public hearing on the Street Vacation Code amendments (ECDC 20.70). The August 28t' Meeting agenda will include an update on the Vision 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies and an update on the Urban Forest Management Plan. The Board's September I I' meeting will include a review of potential amendments related to the ADB's role in design review in preparation for the joint meeting with the City Council on September 25t1i PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Cheung did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Rosen asked staff to provide the Board a written response to each of the questions raised by Mr. Reidy earlier in the meeting regarding street vacations. He asked that the response be provided prior to the public hearing on August 14' Board Member Monroe reported that he attended a recent City Council meeting where they discussed how to pay for future operations and maintenance costs. There is a reaction to some rising utility rates, and the Council is looking at everything from deferring maintenance to bonding maintenance, which is the same thing as putting a mortgage on a credit card. He cautioned that the City needs to be very careful with this approach. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Planning Board Minutes July 24, 2019 Page 10 Packet Pg. 41 * 0V EDO Design Review and the ADB AUGUST 21, 1UIY 7.A.e ► To encourage the realization and conservation of a desirable and aesthetic environment in the city of Edmonds; ► To encourage and promote development which features amenities and excellence in the form of variations of siting, types of structures and adaptation to and conservation of topography and other natural features; ► To encourage creative approaches to the use of land and related physical developments; ► To encourage the enhancement and preservation of land or building of unique or outstanding scenic or historical significance; ► To minimize incompatible and unsightly surroundings and visual blight which prevent orderly community development and reduce community property values. [ECDC 20.10.000 — Purposes] Packet Pg. 43 7.A.e "...any improvement to real property open to exterior view, including but not limited to buildings, structures, fixtures, landscaping, site screening, signs, parking lots, lighting, pedestrian facilities, street furniture, use of open areas (including parks, junk yards, riding academies, kennels and recreational facilities), mobile home and trailer parks, whether all or any are publicly or privately sponsored." [ECDC 20.10.020.A - Scope] Packet Pg. 44 7.A.e 1. Parks developed under a master plan approved by the Edmonds city council. 2. Permitted primary and secondary uses in IRS - single-family residential districts. 3. Detached single-family homes or duplexes in RM - multiple residential districts. 4. Additions or modifications to structures or sites on the Edmonds register of historic places which require a certificate of appropriateness from the Edmonds historic preservation commission. 5. Fences that do not require a separate development permit. 6. Signs that meet all of the standards contained in Chapter 20.60 ECDC. 7. Underground utilities. [ECDC 20.10.020.13 - Scope] Packet Pg. 45 7.A.e A. To study and prepare a recommendation for a comprehensive architectural design plan including the recommendation of establishment of specific design districts which shall be a part of the comprehensive plan. B. To review and study land use within the city of Edmonds from a design standpoint. C. To establish goals, objectives and policies for design districts. D. To recommend legislation to effectuate architectural design plan and the goals, established design district. the implementation of the comprehensive objectives and policies for each E. And for such other matters as shall be referred to the board for review and recommendation by the mayor, city council, planning commission or the planning department. [ECC 10.05.040, Ord. 1683 § 1, 1973] Packet Pg. 46 7.A.e ► District -based design review in BD & CG zones (ECDC 20.12) ► General design review in all other zones (ECDC 20.11) ► ADB quasi-judicial decisions ► Projects where Environmental Determination (SEPA) is required (except Hwy 99) ► Public hearing w/notice (Type III -A) ► Staff decisions ► All other projects (including Hwy 99 buildings under 75 feet in height) ► No notice (Type 1) Packet Pg. 47 7.A.e The ADB has basically functioned as a strictly quasi-judicial decision making body. The ADB has very rarely dealt with design standards and how design has - or has not - worked within the community. Packet Pg. 48 7.A.e ► ADB has noticed that it has less meaningful input at the decision -making level; there is a desire to participate much earlier in the project review cycle where it can have more influence on building design. The board would also like to review and influence the development of design guidance and standards that are the primary drivers of how buildings are designed ► Council Resolution 1367 (2016): update codes with the general goal to remove quasi-judicial decision making from city council and other volunteer boards ► Council revised their quasi-judicial participation in July 2019 Packet Pg. 49 7.A.e ► Review public projects and provide recommendations to City Council. ► Provide decision support to staff. ► Establish guidelines and standards city-wide and for special design districts. ► Review selected projects post -hoc to evaluate whether what was constructed reflects the intent of what was approved and recommend refinement of design guidelines and standards to ensure Edmonds is getting the designs it wants. ► Provide review and recommendation on projects as assigned. Packet Pg. 50 7.A.e ► Review existing policy guidelines (in Comprehensive Plan) and standards (ECDC) and update as necessary ► Create multifamily guidelines and standards ► Develop or modify special district design standards as needed Packet Pg. 51 8.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/9/2019 Presentation of the Proposed 2020 - 2025 Capital Facilities Plan/Captial Improvement Plans Staff Lead: Rob English, City Engineer Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Rob Chave Background/History See Narrative below. Staff Recommendation Hold public hearing on October 23, 2018. 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 that 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 2020-2025 CFP is attached as Exhibit 1. The CFP has four project sections comprised of General, Transportation and Stormwater. The proposed 2020-2025 CIP is attached as Exhibit 2. The CIP has two sections related to general and parks projects and each project list is organized by the City's financial fund numbers. 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 10.4.2019 Attachment 2: Draft CIP 10.4.2019 Packet Pg. 52 8.A Attachment 3: CIP-CFP Comparison Matrix (2020-2025) Packet Pg. 53 8.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2020-2025 � O-V ECM 0 U N DRAFT Packet Pg. 54 8.A.a c a r c a� E a� O L Q E Q m U c to d N a� r .v U- r Q m U LO N O N r a Packet Pg. 55 8.A.a CFP GENERAL c R a r c a� E a� O L Q 76 m U- 76 .Q U LO N O N O N O N d N O 0. O L L O O L CD r N O V- d LL U ca L 0 r E L c.i Q r E V r r Q Packet Pg. 56 8.A.a c a r c a� E a� O L Q E Q m U c to d N a� r .v U- r Q m U LO N O N r a Packet Pg. 57 8.A.a N U N 0 LL a U m 0 C r m o d 13 N E y � O 'a N N W « C O _ CcN O U _ N T lL m „ U � d 'Q N (9 � U m a o � p N N � fR O � O � N N N N N N N N N N N N N O r N 0 0 0 ONi O V l0 0 0 0 0 M �O O O O Ol O � O � N O O fR E9 rM E9 fR N a y d U ! > h o O m y LL O g N y D y O C o d F LL c o m w n �ry o U w m o ._ m o 0 i Y m o r ¢ o o r t �( r 0 O m LL m a c7 a Ci a` U O U G rn O r N 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 r N N O I� N O O O V r M O 0 o N O O O O O po f9 f9 f9 f9 69 N O O O po f9 f9 f9 N N O NN � fA fA �'f MM � C U O v y N P N 2 fl o y IL O ILo U �j c i i a N O Y ¢ a o m 0 o c ro�nom w� a -�T. i Oo N t t0 N Y IL IL o C Y > A d U E $I? ro c o o. E y o o. E c °� 0 0 a o _d o f o. m m a am > aE o amour �E Sroo aCa N N N Ea o a ro N o E Z E d t t m m o ¢s grn ai > s= ya d A 3 m j o o E3M LL ao ) sd U o O m a 0 O O R9 W N 0 0 O O Cr 0 0 � W O O O O O O O Cr N N Lq fA N b a d E LL w m y Y � fR t9 t9 Ny �o d E o m o a U a o Lu 3 E Q o ¢ o f/1 N 't > ro a c$ y o O odro oo.6 co .. d .6 y m- m o o os o mo o E a'� E �68E 2E,' o ao�moUropo o m� ro R o 3 s s ' o o. Ety oro.. Ec N rn�oSo oi3 000 U O m� N Y'o ou'.Cm`e ._, d d d U` l6 C U N U l6 12 U D w N 3 0 d 2'm C -5 E 0 0 E o 3ir0 O N O N d N O 0. 0 IL CD t O C 4-- c0 C L IL O� O N 14 O r a U- c.i R L T CD s M Q d t C,1 a Packet Pg. 58 8.A.a c R a r c a� E a� O L Q E 76 Q R U N U m U- 76 .Q R U LO N O N r Q Packet Pg. 59 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Park I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $13,100,000 IMM M91 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Civic Park master plan is complete and has been adopted, funds (including carryover, grants, bonds, REET, Park Impact Fee's and General Fund) have been allocated and we are prepared to go to bid in February with ground breaking in April or May of 2020. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The Civic Master plan was adopted in 2017. Funds have been set aside, and grant funds secured. With the approved bonding we are ready to begin the project. This is a high priority in the PROS plan. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 COST Planning and $395,000 Design Engineering $140,000 Construction $11,937,092 1 % Art $88,000 TOTAL 12,560,092 Packet Pg. 60 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Community Park / Athletic ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $6-8 M Complex at the Former Woodway High School ra CIA HOGAN - --------- - ... - _ -- f I rC)R lER wOODWAY HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC FIELD IMPROVEMENTS PRE PAnto fOX THE E DMON DS SCHOOL DISH ICT MAY FOV 8.A.a PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop community park and regional athletic complex with lighted or unlighted 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 for all 3 phases. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The site is currently an underutilized and under maintained 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. Phase 1 was completed in 2015 for $4.2M, Phases 2 & 3 will be completed in the future for an additional $6-8M. SCHEDULE: 2020-2039 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026- COST 2039 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $6-8P " all or a portion of this project may quality for 1 % for the Arts 8 Packet Pg. 61 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: Parks & Facilities ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3-$4 Million Maintenance & Operations Building Existing Building Outline Yard Fu Mo 4 0 0 �,Ikw — 100 Ldading r New One 1, 00 Sf 6,600 Sf Building Driveway — 15,600—sf-- L)L--- -- Yard Functions � 11,910 If Pedmeter zone — 4,200 Sf Existing Fence Line 4 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 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2039 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $3m - $4m 'all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 9 Packet Pg. 62 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: Waterfront Redevelopment ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $6,280,198 / Waterfront Walkway Completion r • 1hY�d 1\IW 11� I ------------------- AccvM•ov R..p lA�6Ui.»l 2o� Propmod Edmwids Wam(from Garver ;r�urs; sr-v. - .au •al Isw45m0,: .— r .• __ M9gwed Tbrnpi�ti' bn b •.. •Y.grOn JN� yyetln W ran p•ur� o . PMcFW.4 Pw� PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with Sr. Center to renovate surrounding park, parking lot, frontage improvements and walkway. Remove creosote pier, reintroduce habitat for fish and wildlife. Increase access to the waterfront to accommodate increased growth. Connect waterfront walkway from Brackett's Landing South to Olympic Beach, including completion in front of the Ebb tide condominiums. This project includes the City's support for the parking lot and frontage improvements. 2021 and 2022 are for the over water walkway in front of the Ebb Tide. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Public access of waterfront and tidelands on Puget Sound. Provide a new Senior and Community Center and provide a new beachfront walkway. One of the top priorities in the PROS plan is to open up beachfront access. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/StudyPlanning/Study $100,000 Engineering $67,500 Construction $2,588,645 $150,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 1 % for Art $24,920 TOTAL $2,681,065 $250,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 10 Packet Pg. 63 8.A.a c R a r c a� E a� O L CFP 76 U TRANSPORTATION .Q U Lo N O N O N O N d N O 0. O L L O O L r N O V- d LL U ca L 0 r E L c.i Q r E V r r Q Packet Pg. 64 8.A.a c a r c a� E a� O L Q E Q m U c to d N a� r .v U- r Q m U LO N O N r a 12 Packet Pg. 65 8.A.a a LL y U y N y C' C EL N y c o a W O N W = '� o Or O N r LL CL f1�c r y W ~ <.i N N N N v d .O IL ets ets N C N N C N J O J O 11 « N lL « n _o n.__o O N O~ O C2 U~ o O 0 O O 8 0 8 8 8 A Oo N OOCD n n aomn m C6 fR zi OF f0 J C O. O) C N o � U E o y Ta a d � o N a 0 a Q U (mn m a O 0 c N m U N o d O T N Co m > d E E a N d E E c T N N « C N > N a O m L E mm0 N N N N 0 0 0 0 M N U N 'O N itl N U N O N N iq U N 'O N iC N U N O N T6 O o O 0 y3 O N o W O N O 6% O W O O O LO LO O O 8 O O pp (A O O O O O 0 O O pp fR 0 0 0 :� 0 nnN �»� f0 w n r: .9 O O a a w w M p N « > N CC N .�� > N m N _« > N m N « > N m O O O c o o O O O N M N n v O O O O O O O O N N O O O O O O O O r A O O O O O O r w .4 tA, 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C C M h 0 n N� N O 6% m rn m rn ets w it) in ets w 2 2 2 2 ow c U E U c U c U 0 0 0 0 000O ZZMNe0 fA fA fA W C N U C N U C N U C N U O O O 00 o 00 O O O U N O a U m O a` U y o a` U m O a` O M (M9 a u� w � w 4 o» w d g J U d g J U d g J U d g J U d g J U d g J U d g J U d g J U d g J U d g J U U N N N N C N U N N N C N U N N N N C N U N y N N C N U N N N N C N U N N N N C N U N N N N C N U N y N N C N U N N N N C N U N N N N C N N c N J LL« N J N LL« N J LL« N J LL« N J LL« N J N LL« N J LL« N J LL« N J N LL« N N J LL« m _ o (n NH 0 (n _ o n yF `o in _ o (n NF 0 (n _ o n yF `o � _ o (n NH 0 U) _ o n yF `0 in _ o (n NH M. 0 rn _ o m yF `0 rn _ o n yF `O C) _ o (n mH 0 0 0 N 0 0 N_J, 0 0 f0—" 0 0 N_J, 0 0 f0—" 0 0 N J 0 f0—" 0 0 N_J, 0 0 N_J 0 0 f0—" —" �lL LL'LL �lL LL'IL �lL v LL'LL �lL LL'IL v LL'LL N� �lL 0 0 0 O 0 O O O O O 8 O O O O NyL00 N 0000 1p O O O N O W N N OOOo N O O O Or OCD 0000 Ey 7 in 2 fR MD - m u� O o o in r fR fR rn m fR n M M N iy E9 fR E9 (R m in 6% f0 J C U l0 J C U a J C U l0 J C U f0 J C U l0 J C U f0 J C U l0 J C U l0 J C U f0 J C U m (7 n m (7 a m (7 n m (7 a m (7 n m (7 a m rn d m (7 a m (7 a Vl O IL N O a N O a N O a Vl O a N O a J N (n N O a N O a NN 'O N N >�.` >N i0 2 > lN «E N'NJL mm �JEmN NUO`Ca Co N (n O>0 N j E N> O "nNO O N C O ocN E Ed m«NmyOU (n c d u) E (n co E._ O 0m0 0 i ( a�roNn NCOcy � N o o i°,m C TJ 6 o mo 0x 0> Ln E >>(n N _O O ->r N 20 C .0 -a U N co N m O "O N C . W O Q `O y O C c Co UiNE~N N Eq E r`raw > > O «N« CO Ca mU L 0aT> 0.E S .S m y UO> c E5 N 3 aci (nE �0 �aci 3 m o 3-6 U N in L N d 3E N 3d UE n N (n >O _E y _E N > (n (n U y > Q O N N N (n >O C �% O L a a o a L CO N L qNC L a L a Q U N N N C C c N C C� O_C N� C m mN Oy 2N —N Nr rn > 0 > >0 >y Cr a 0 > a m _ m >` > a 2 2 2 2H W (nc0 E tD nm fn m UQ E 13 Packet Pg. 66 8.A.a a LL y U y N y C' C 0. 4 N y cc o a w o N W = r T p N r LL a" f1�c « y W ~ U 0 0 0 0 00 a a a 0 0 0 * o O o O o0 oa 0 0 N a o o co e a a 16 ti v2 cn w cn vi O N � � O V! U) O V! O V! O !A O V! O V! O O O O O O m N O O o O O O N N M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M M 0 0 0 000 C 0 0 O N N O 49 NO N O O iA N � W sA N (9 A N fA ' {p a a Vi fR O O O o00 O O 0 o O O O in ino O O 0 0 O O O 000 N n Gr�pp: o uS vi o o" � co ai ri e+i o 0 0" N Vi N! � fR N � � fR V! fA fR (A f9 !A fR E9 !A O di O O o O OO H p fR O1°i o o eD O OO H p fR OO H p fR p fA O O o O pp f9 N N a m o O N in» fnw in N N N N O V! O M O V! O M O !A O V! O M O V! O M O V! O M O V! N N 0 vi 0 ur 0 vi 0 w 0 w 0 w 0 ur 0 vi 0 w 0 w 0 w 0 0 ^ n ° p O N d hi d d d d d d d d d d d C1 U N N ^y U N y y ^y U N N ^y U N N ^y U N m y ^y U N N y ^y U N y y ^y U N N y ^y U N m y ^y U N y y ^y U N N y ^y U N N ^y l�N Ol�OOLL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL lL_yc°i n y o U `U o o U. o oy . o ~o � o `U o (� ~o o `U o (� ~o o C`O -m O° O° O° F. O° oUc O° F. O° O° F. O° O° O° OC co `l ttl 0 N O ttl 0 ttl 0 R lL N LL N N LL N N LL N N LL N N LL N N LL N N LL N N LL N N LL N N LL N N LL N N LL N N OD 00 O O O O O O O O O N V_ O O O pp E9 fR f9 O 1 0 E9OE9O O O O pp fR E9 fR f9 O O O pp E9 fR E9 (R 0 0 0 O V3�V3M N 0 1 n 0 0 0 L° N ViN OM O O O O Via Vim O p O t p O O O, O O O O �O�O O O A N �fJi � ��pf t�D c1°OM N 10 l0 f0 l0 f0Co f6 l0 a Co 0 Co d y lO O a N a N a N a N a y a N a N a N a N a N a N a N Z d a U o U 0 U 0 U 0 N U 0 U 0 U 0 U 0 U 0 U 0 U 0 U U U U U U U U U U U C 7 (7 m U 2 (7 (7 (7 m (7 m (7 m (7 rn C7 O L y y y- c ° O a N n V a N n N a N n N d y O a O U y O y O y O y O y O y O U N O a � o a a a a a a cn a a a a N c C L N i 0 NQ o m lCm o y o ttl ro a?) E> hm3 oEONm a0 1NN0 E a t33 -Qm3cd m�yo« my N 0YN c=NNVrya c_NNryO 0) hi a N L(«3°n d R CN '.y00 o C E Cy ?=00E a O7 d- N c° tetl > md `Uy E -U- Co i NNL mN O a a° cOT 3° � . 3rC�L-N 4 m � 3 -0 f d yd o 0 YU NOyUm � U�O a IJ > O_L R 3 O Q Q C O y O y O O U) O O O0 O E iaN O� `,wa m w EN IL a ai�E 3 mo o 0 Na o LN M yL3O LnE3> ° N ° E2 oo E N EL U mT ` QnN T3 LZ a a d N o Ev�3 d�?i"_ O 3 L Ki ?L U O2� Obi ?i O d> in L (d� o U U o U j c E N O Q o cn o U M N N O fn U Cl y O y U— i _ yfn C� C L > O > L� N cQ Gi CQ L M 7 N E(n O M> E m N L V ij L >O O> O> N L f0 L M (n C m OfnE (n Co NQ N W m(n Mm NQ 14 Packet Pg. 67 8.A.a a LL a U y N y C' C O.4 N Eye o a w o N W = r T O N r LL CL f1�c r y W ~ U S o o 0 0 0 0 0 N o o e c0 vi w N N U) O V! o N! O O 00 OO n o !9 O V! o N! O V! o V! o V! O V! o V! O � N fA O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 N HO ON O u2 N 1� A 7 a N N W aD a O N N 7N O M O t0 E9 1� t0 10 W aD M OI NM N 1� M t0 M fA R N 4ifR fA fR V! fR !A E9 N! fR !A f9 V! O O O c O O O O O O O O O O .5OO O OO OO O O O O O O O OO OO OO OO OO O� N% N coo rl OfA M N12 000 r, O N t2m O O w 1p M O O O O '.0 MH MN 9N 000 O O O O oO O O O O w ONM Mf fA Ok fR Ok fR !A fA Ok RN fR Ok N fR � A fA fA O OO OO OO OO N N NNO V O VO! O VO! NN0O! VN0O! NW0O! VWoo! VVOO!! O! NWo NO Ok o O Ok O NN m rn 0 N N d d d d d d d d d d d i U N N y ^y U N y y y U N y y ^y U N N y y U N y y ^y U N y y ^y U N y ^y U N N y y U N N y y U N 0 y ^y U N N y y y O"O'll� m O'O"ll «� y O'O'll� m �'O" 11 «� y O'O'll m �'O"ll «� y O'O'll� m N B C O'O"ll «R y w- C O'O-'ll «� y y O'0 . y N B C O'O"ll5 y C U _O U.F `o U.._O (�c�i~ o U.__O U.F `o U.._O (�. o U.__O U.F `o U.._O (�. o U.__O U.F `o U.._O (�.F 0 U.._O (�c�i~ 0 U.__O UHF `o U.._O (��F 0 '6 _ 0 0 O `O O O `O O O `O O O O `O OZ5O R ty R N R E!ti ti R titl LL LL y LL N LL N LL 0 LL N LL 0 LL N LL 0 LL 0 LL N LL 0 N Np o w Q O O 010 O O O O O O o O O O O O O O a7 O p p O O O O O O O O M 0 N O O N N N O O O O O O O O N L-W-HE O p p O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 O -0 O O O 0 O O ON .� y M N A fR M fR M fR E9 M O) V fR f0 O N fA O fA O N N E9 tMO pM�pp tO0NF� fR E9 fR fA fA iA f9 N w J u 0 w J Cu Cu > j a d • {a a N a N a N a N a N a N a N a N a N a N d a O O O = O O O O O O O U U U 0 U U U U U U U O C7 CL N N N O N N V a N a NCL n N a a a a a a a a aO dm o� O c3 o a y o an � /yy7 U O y m C � o C3L'om� LU 3 la OO N ¢LmUUL�w�a>i o Cn o Y> o oC.,3E CL �nZ, Eca d E o cL E _ Eo o E O 00a p o 0 o m K NO O O O •cos 0 o f a O 3U3 CoO. E 0E cm swEL 3>o Y ` R y�00 Q i > -O'y at Y w > O ai > V y ` d E o E 5Q vas L E_ X 26 ��>N Q> L O E c IL w cc oE a -o s >ao° o E E o U U E� o U z c 3¢ x (qU Q d �3 ai > t 3 E c o E> ¢' E t v 3 m a r a Q ro> LL CO _o d> N EO 0 O M O L O pU$ TU os y > U� ECO d M Nm �E U no L_ E 0 _ O O �Nm O)a O a lu5 ti 0-2 rn(n ¢ U o aiv�° UE r� 15 Packet Pg. 68 8.A.a a LL y U y m y C' 00. y cc o a m o N W = � r Or O N r LL a" f1�c r y W ~ U O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 O O o O w o 0 w o O w o 0 O O 0 0 N 1f1 w Fn vi F» w � � N N N N N W N W N N N OO H O di pp fR pp f9 pp fR o O 0 O O O OO H m p pp f9 N e fR fR O di pp fR pp f9 pp fR 0 0 0 O O O OO H N O N O M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N d g d g d g d g d g d g d g O U m m y U m m y U m m m U m m y U m m m U m m m U m m LL LL «� LL y LL «� LL y LL «� LL c (n.--O nmf inr-O cn mH in.--O nmf inr-O cn mH in.--O wmf inr-O T mH in.--O Tmf 'p C o o m_�, m o o m—`. o o co —0 m o o m—`. g o co —0 m o o -a —0 m o o o 0 LL LL'LL LLlL LL'IL LLlL LL'IL LLlL LL'LL N o 0 O O O O O 0 )O�oaONr pp pp pp pp pp 00 0 pp N NH fA�W m z d O O L d a d 0 U 0 d 0 U 0 d 0 d 0 d 0 U U U U U U U C = 7 c m � 0 �. OCL a y y CL O o a 03 03 0 c � 03 yC/) N(n O� C N(n r L Y �- m L m omE m L m T m T m K C mo-m o0 N CN>c N O 0� 03 =E 03 =f C) 0 E c Y O c, oC E Oc O oC O 0 o f p 9QNY 3 E 0 3: 3 y 2 3: m w N y 3 NC a > cLrn Q 03.: �_ � 3 �Co d�wa y ai y O« y Qj y N� y N y m min > a N m > 3 3 y Q Cs�L � Q0 'LsOE Oa0i E_LN 55 O3� O p E E p °E amoa aN wU aa m io d R L L sO L o3 oni fr on E� E o E 0 E> EZ _ o _ yai _ U �i E >N (6 U)¢ L Q O Q O >U Q O a^ OJ� �m W m (n N 0 N M fR a m Q U U a 10 16 Packet Pg. 69 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: 228th St. SW from Hwy. 99 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $11,700,000 to 95th PI. W PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 228th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 95th Pl. W to three lanes (with two-way left turn lane), with curb and gutter, sidewalk, and bike lanes. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve active transportation safety and traffic flows along this corridor. Community Transit would also look into creating a new east -west bus route along 228th St. SW if this project moves forward (connecting Edmonds Transit Station to Mountlake Terrace Transit Station). SCHEDULE: The design phase is scheduled to begin in 2023 (pending funding). More than half the project is within Esperance / Snohomish County. A Sound Transit System Access grant was submitted in May '19 to fully fund this project but the grant wasn't secured. Sound Transit also has funding available through ST3 to improve accessibility to the Sound Transit Station. Mukilteo and Edmonds have $40 Million in combined funding to complete projects improving access to the Sound Transit Station (for all modes of transportation). The City indicated to Sound Transit that this project should to be considered by Sound Transit and it is currently being evaluated. A final response from Sound Transit whether this project is funded or not is scheduled for late 2019. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026- 2040 Planning/Study Engineering, $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Admin., & ROW Construction $9,700,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $9,700,000 17 Packet Pg. 70 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: Highway 99 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $175,000,000 Gateway/Revitalization rn c R a c E a� O L Q E 76 Q �R♦ V N U M U- 76 .Q R U LO N O N O N O N d N O PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project would include, among other features, wider replacement 0 L sidewalks or new sidewalk where none exist today, new street lighting, center medians for access contro and turning movements, etc., attractive and safe crosswalks, better stormwater management, targeted utility replacements, potential undergrounding of overhead utilities, landscaping and other softscape 0 treatments to identify the area as being in Edmonds. c PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve aesthetics, safety, user experience, and access management along this corridor. In addition, economic development would be improved. i a SCHEDULE: The conceptual phase began in September 2017 and was completed in December 2018. o, An interim project has been identified with the addition of raised median along the entire corridor from N 244t" St. SW to 212t" ST. SW (to address safety issues along the corridor). The design phase is scheduled to begin in November 2019. The addition of a traffic signal at Hwy. 99 @ 234t" St. SW is also,, o priority project, adding a pedestrian crossing between 238t" St. SW and 228t" St. SW (— 1 mile distance UQ_- with no crossing). $10M from a Connecting Washington allocation has been secured, with $91VI not available prior to 2021. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-204( COST E Planning/Study Engineering & $60,000 $500,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $24,000,OC a Administration & ROW Construction $858,000 6,300,000 $138,000,OC 1 % for Art TOTAL $918,000 $500,000 $2,000,000 $6,300,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $162,000,Of a 18 Packet Pg. 71 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 212t" St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,806,000 intersection improvements Paul I 21 5T 7 P—.—C a z 7313 n 3 Edmonds Edmonds Family Clinic =` Public 17-ks Q Hoot KENNEL m Nlla 212TH ::�T 212th St W Plaxa 7307,.5• CUPIC a 7303 T' ^ n n Pool 7-4 "1 7M2 "2" PARK & RIDE W 215TH U W 0 a PJqT —EN WUW AEGIS .,DISH EDMDNNS CRM shop / Shop P.11.6 / 7 / 21114 / 7 / 109 / ck / g / ALLIED / ROOFING / / / B&M / CON ST 21414 / 21448 / / / NCOONALP / 1ALUE / PILLAGE / 16TH ST/SW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 21211 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 2015 Transportation Plan: #4). The cost for the intersection improvements are included within the Hwy. 99 Revitalization / Gateway project costs. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and reduce delay. SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2023 and 2025 (unsecured funding).The project cost is split between Lynnwood and Edmonds since half the project is within Lynnwood. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering, $175,000 $1,091,000 ROW, & Administration Construction $1,540,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $175,000 $1,091,000 $1,540,000 19 Packet Pg. 72 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 216t" St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,335,000 intersection improvements W 21410 c^ w 21d021d0 21412 21405 04 w W> 2120 < MC�UHAL6' 2i43� wn � anz 150 215 AEGIS 21558 to VALUE VILLAGE ST SIN 21 B Tli 21600 {� 21619 KRUGER CLINIC f "'01 r 21632 � � - ��I16e 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 216t" St. SW to add a westbound left turn lane and an eastbound left turn lane. Provide protected -permissive left turn phases for eastbound and westbound movements. This project ranked #3 in the Roadway Project Priority in the 2015 Transportation Plan. The cost for the intersection improvements are included within the Hwy. 99 Revitalization / Gateway project costs. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and reduce delay. SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2023 and 2025 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & ROW & Administration $204,000 $334,000 Construction $1,837,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $204,000 $334,000 $1,837,000 20 Packet Pg. 73 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,215,000 intersection improvements TOP FOODS v �, 19TH sr SW / 21919 STARBU S / / 220TH ST SW I I I I 1221 I I I I I 13 _I � � l4 n III •0. 7301 W U O e S C m .M. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 220th 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 PROJECT PRIORITY in 2015 Transportation Plan: #2). The cost for the intersection improvements are included within the Hwy. 99 Revitalization / Gateway project costs. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Reduce intersection delay and improve traffic flow and safety. SCHEDULE: All Phases are scheduled between 2023 and 2025 (unsecured funding for all phases). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 COST -Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $175,000 $1,085,000 Construction $1,955,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $175,000 $1,085,000 $1,955,000 21 Packet Pg. 74 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 234th St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,300,000 intersection improvements ESPE&ANCE F] — 1i711 21202 17 S-IMO PL W i «n �• �I 21]31 233RD PLy� 1 • 71J7C'. _ - : i321 ff -- �34TFS ST.SW _.-. } l3 a'•• 3]406■�� 1 DIM ]l1 1 1712 1� 2341� r3111 "2141f 23+17 :b ul w Y3Q€ 7i.ti1, I 7i WOOL PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal at the intersection of Hwy. 99 @ 234th St. SW to provide safer crossing of Hwy. 99 for vehicles and non -motorized transportation (project identified in Hwy. 99 Sub Area Plan). These intersection improvements are included as part of the Hwy. 99 Revitalization / Gateway project. The cost for the intersection improvements are included within the Hwy. 99 Revitalization / Gateway project costs. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection safety and pedestrian conditions along the corridor. SCHEDULE: All Phases are scheduled between 2023 and 2025 (unsecured funding for all phases). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $300,000 $300,000 Construction $1,200,000 $1,500,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $300,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 22 Packet Pg. 75 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: 196th St. SW (SR-524) @ ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $903,000 88th Ave. W Intersection Improvements 1em 3 ILU _ a_ .~a I m :VEN DAY WENTIST :HURCH 4 1eeTM sr sw PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal at the intersection of 196th St. SW @ 88th Ave. W. The modeling in the 2009 Transportation Plan indicated that restricting northbound and southbound traffic to right -turn -only (prohibiting left -turn and through movements) would also address the deficiency identified at this location through 2025. This is same alternative as one concluded by consultant in 2007 study but not recommended by City Council. This could be implemented as an alternate solution, or as an interim solution until traffic signal warrants are met. The ex. LOS is F (below City Standards: LOS D). This project was ranked #6 in the Roadway Project Priority in the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve traffic flow characteristics and safety at the intersection. The improvement would modify LOS to A, but increase the delay along 196th St. SW. SCHEDULE: All project phases are scheduled between 2023 and 2025 (unsecured funding). In order to allow the installation of a traffic signal, the MUTCD traffic signal warrants must be met and the installation must be approved by WSDOT (since 196th St. SW is a State Route / SR-524). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & $193,000 $175,000 Administration Construction $535,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $193,000 $175,000 $535,000 23 Packet Pg. 76 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: Main St and 9t" Ave. S ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $896,000 N Q x J __J1 MH__JI __�, BELL ST UJ a I - � P MAIN ST A WADE JAMES V _P1 i TH EATE R L � W� a r H oavraN n PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of a traffic signal or mini -roundabout. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The existing intersection is stop -controlled for all approaches and the projected intersection LOS in 2035 is LOS F (below the City's concurrency standards: LOS D). The installation of a traffic signal would improve the intersection delay to LOS B. The project ranked #4 in the Roadway Project Priority of the 2015 Transportation Plan. In Fall 2018, turn lanes will be added to the intersection to improve safety and traffic flow through the intersection. SCHEDULE: The design phase is scheduled to begin in 2023 and construction in 2024. unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering, $120,000 Administration & ROW Construction $776,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $120,000 $776,000 24 Packet Pg. 77 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: 7611 Ave. W @ 22011 St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Intersection Improvements $8,109,000 S STARBU KS J 220TH Sr 5w 14 zz� sr Pt sw LYNWOOD 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 #1 in 2015 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Reduce the intersection delay and improve the LOS. The projected LOS in 2035 would be improved from LOS F to LOS D. SCHEDULE: A STP Federal grant was secured in 2018 for the Design Phase (funds not available until 2021). The ROW and construction phases are currently unfunded. The design phase and ROW phases are scheduled to be completed in 2022 and construction in 2024 (pending additional grant funds). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & ROW $533,000 $876,000 Administration Construction $6,700,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $533,000 $876,000 $6,700,000 . All or a portion of this project may quality for 1 % for the arts 25 Packet Pg. 78 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 95t" PI. W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $495,000 Intersection Improvements W H r ST S a CC rn cl WESTGATE CHAPEL PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Upgrade all ADA Curb Ramps; and add C-Curb for access management. This project was identified in the SR-104 Complete Streets Corridor Analysis completed in 2015). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection safety for pedestrians and vehicles. SCHEDULE: 2023-2024 unsecured funding COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $75,000 Construction $420,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $75,000 $420,000 26 Packet Pg. 79 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 238t" St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,338,000 Intersection Improvements AD i 10 to 0 ■ To Hwy 99 F 41� 239TH ST SW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal. The warrants are met for such an installation. This project was identified in the SR-104 Complete Street Corridor Analysis (completed in 2015). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve vehicular and pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2023-2024 unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $200,000 Construction $1,138,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $200,000 $1,138,000 27 Packet Pg. 80 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 76t" Ave. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: W Intersection Improvements $1,183,000 F N SEAVIEW PARK 3 a x F n PLSW 186TH ST SW ml I m-I POST I OFFICE `¢ f= I I I I I TOLEFSON'S --- ccr,�p�c MARKET 7519 PERRI VILLE PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal (the intersection currently stop controlled for all movements). (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2015 Transportation Plan: #11). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The improvement will reduce the intersection delay. The projected Level of Service is LOS F in 2035, which is below the City's concurrency standards (LOS D). The project will improve the Level of Service to LOS B. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2026 and 2040 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2040 Planning/Study Engineering, Administration, & ROW $200,000 Construction $983,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $1,183,000 28 Packet Pg. 81 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: 84th Ave. W (212th St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $15,441,000 to 238th St. SW) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 84th Ave. W to (3) lanes with curb, gutter, bike lanes, and sidewalk on each side of the street. (part of this project was ranked #6 in the Long Walkway list of the 2015 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: All project phases are scheduled between 2026 and 2040 (unsecured funding). The project costs would be split between Snohomish County and Edmonds since half the project is located within Esperance. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2040 Planning/Study Engineering, $2,000,000 Administration, & ROW Construction $13,441,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $15,441,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 29 Packet Pg. 82 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 100t" Ave. W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,017,468 Intersection Improvements / Access Management EDMONDS WAY ME � M -a 0L I r PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Implement Westgate Circulation Access Plan, install mid -block pedestrian crossing along 100t" Ave. W, improve safety to access the driveways within proximity to the intersection, and re -striping of 100t" Ave. W with the potential addition of bike lanes. This project was identified in the SR-104 Completed Streets Corridor Analysis completed in 2015). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve access and safety at the intersection and improve non -motorized transportation safety. SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2023 and 2024 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2040 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $150,000 Construction $867,468 1 % for Art TOTAL $150,000 $867,468 30 Packet Pg. 83 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 76t" Ave. W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,017,000 Intersection Improvements *T-4 240iA PL SYY. 'l o'ISI S1 sw LT r�:au I ietluvnLsw ' f I 141111, 1i SW �y LY4Y ai F J LAKE BALLINGEA HAY— - — - —. — MP EMA(MI)S WAY PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Add a 2nd left turn lane along SR-104. This project was identified in the SR-104 Complete Street Corridor Analysis (completed in 2015). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve access and safety at the intersection and improve non -motorized transportation safety. SCHEDULE: 2026-2040. The project costs would be split between Shoreline and Edmonds since half the intersection is located within Shoreline. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2040 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $453,000 Construction $2,564,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $3,017,000 31 Packet Pg. 84 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 17411 St. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $610,000 SW Intersection Improvements L+ 4 + — Meadowdale Middle School — — — J-/, Parking L_ b 6WI St. Thomas Moore —� a e I Catholic School B Ilfield y / SanctuarY 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 2015 Transportation Plan: #13) PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and safety of drivers accessing either street. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2026 and 2040 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2040 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $100,000 Construction $510,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $610,000 r Q 32 Packet Pg. 85 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: Sunset Ave Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,050,000 from Bell St to Caspers St. s UHDVIEwavrs ♦ ♦ �� I■� 11111■0 I ��' IIIIIII :M1■S■1 ■ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Provide a walkway on the west side of the street, facing waterfront (— 112 mile / more recent project). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Temporary improvements were installed in 2017 through striping, in order to evaluate the alignment of the proposed walkway and parking alternatives The design phase is scheduled to be completed in 2023. Construction isn't scheduled to occur until 2024 when utility improvements are scheduled to be completed along this stretch. No grant funding has been secured for the construction phase. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 COST Planning/Study Engineering & $295,000 Administration Construction $2,595,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $295,000 $2,595,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 33 Packet Pg. 86 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: 23211d St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,305,000 from 100th Ave. W to SR-104 EDMONDS WAY W SAME iwnRs LLI L ! Ell 2 . ■ ■ Qy - 1 �i IF Al. 10 UUT H ' CHURCH, (jr ■ ■ ■ , Uj 7 , ■ AW �I o �0 c� 2 ODW' ' I ESTATES AY OLy I _ PR RK \29 9 Dorn 98 7 6 5 ' 30 2 15 3 14 7• J \32 45 32 ■ r jr ■ 7 1 nm (0) 1 � ■ � e PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 232nd St. SW from 100th Ave. W to SR-104. This project ranked #3 in the Long Walkway List of 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2024-2025 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $200,000 Construction $1,105,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $200,000 $1,105,000 34 Packet Pg. 87 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: 2361" St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,395,000 from Madrona Elementary to 97t" Ave. W 2j= O v, �! A 6TH ST SVh� _ -- PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk with curb and gutter along 236nd St. SW from Madrona Elementary to 97t" Ave. W. This project ranked #4 in Long Walkway list of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2024-2025 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $213,000 Construction $1,182,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $213,000 $1,182,000 35 Packet Pg. 88 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: 84th Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $585,000 From 238th St. SW to 234th ST. SW L PARK LL EonnoNos SALGALL APTS m w w LL CH RIST LNTH E RAN CH N RCH O PARK & RIDE OFFICE 236:1 4SUHSET 23603 SAFEWAY $23605 WH L KJIHG R23607 23619 0 P ���R AURORAS MARKETPLACET N 239TH ST SW W SEOUL 23821 PLAZA 2 23827 TRAVEL LODGE 0" NORTH ry HAVEN z n MANOR w a � R p r~ } n•1L LO'N 13ROCK PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 84th Ave. W from 238th St .SW to 234th St. SW, with curb and gutter. This project ranked #5 in the Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: Begin design in 2025 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2040 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $90,000 Construction $495,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $90,000 $495,000 36 Packet Pg. 89 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: 801h Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,996,000 from 206th St. SW to 212th ST. SW I PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 80th Ave. W from 206th St. SW to 212th St. SW with curb and gutter. This project ranked #1 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The improvements will improve non -motorized transportation safety including for school kids due to proximity of several schools). SCHEDULE: 2024-2025 (funding unsecured). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $333,000 Construction $1,663,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $333,000 $1,663,000 37 Packet Pg. 90 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: 21811 St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,305,000 from 76th Ave. W to 84th Ave. W ■■■■N� ���■■ mom r- �A ■■ oil OENT ER Ira&, U1 E PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 218th St. SW from 76th Ave. W to 84th Ave. W with curb and gutter. This project ranked #2 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The improvements will improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2024-2025 unsecured funding COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $200,000 Construction $1,105,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $200,000 $1,105,000 38 Packet Pg. 91 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: Walnut St. Walkway from 3rd ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $105,000 Ave. S to 4t" Ave. S ARTS W ENTER a Z UNDOW NEI N ALDER ALDER ST 346 414 412 410 arking 5 5 LA UJ o SOUND VIEW o: HOWELL WAY W a x v DAYTON ST tMILLTOWN MAPLE ST RICC ALDER ST N W a BECK'S z BAN K T- 409 530Pancak 407 540 Hau s 4003 546 0 401 w a WALNUT Sr --F GREGORY e H 525 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 350') on Walnut St. between 3rd Ave. S and 4t" Ave. S (ranked #3 in Short Walkway Project list in 2015 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2023 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $10,000 Construction $95,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $105.000 all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 39 Packet Pg. 92 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: 216th St. SW Walkway from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $157,000 Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave. W 21400 � JJ 7200 B&M PARK & RIDE CONS E ar- w 21410 21408 0. MAN J � o � 21401 21412 � v M1 2140 U v 214G7 W � �507 w � W / 21511 j 21431 M DONAL6' { IL y o Y N 0 21521 N I M STEVEN 21500 E T AEGIS 215587 VALUE VILLAGE 21BTH $T Z 120 16 TJ1 :VEN5 21600 { 21619 ci' tILION KRUGER *Aq CLINIC , .01 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install 150' sidewalk on north side of 216th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave. W (completing a missing link on north side of stretch). This project ranked #3 in the Short Walkway List (from 2015 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2023 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $30,000 Construction $127,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $157,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 40 Packet Pg. 93 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: Elm Way Walkway from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $830,000 8tn Ave. S to 9t" Ave. S IR L ■ P, PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along Elm Way from 8t" Ave. S to 9t" Ave. S. This project ranked #6 in the Short Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2023-2024 (funding unsecured). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $175,000 Construction $655,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $175,000 $655,000 41 Packet Pg. 94 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Dr. Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,330,000 from Main St. to 2001h St. SW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct sidewalk on Maplewood Dr. from Main St. to 200th St. SW (- 2,700'). A sidewalk currently exists on 200th St. SW from Main St. to 76th Ave. W, adjacent to Maplewood Elementary School (rated #18 in the Long Walkway list of the 2015 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Create pedestrian connection between Maplewood Elementary School on 200th St. SW and Main St., by encouraging kids to use non -motorized transportation to walk to / from school. SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2024 and construction in 2024 / 2025 (funding unsecured). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & $436,000 Administration Construction $947,000 $947,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $436,000 $947,000 $947,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 42 Packet Pg. 95 8.A.a PROJECT NAME:95th PI. W Walkway from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $585,000 224th St. SW to 220th St. SW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 95th PI. W from 224th St. SW to 220th St. SW with curb and gutter. This project ranked #8 in the Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: Engineering is scheduled for 2023 and construction in 2024 (funding unsecured) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $100,000 Construction $485,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $100,000 $485.000 43 Packet Pg. 96 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: Railroad Ave. Sidewalk from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $862,000 Dayton St. to SR-104 bt. 4� fi �tio-P W NAYTON 5T P❑ a ? Fo �ONn. ea a 4k DAYTON ST PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install new and wider sidewalk along Railroad St. from Dayton St. to SR-104. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve non -motorized transportation safety along Railroad St. from Dayton St. to SR-104, key stretch since connects to various destination points such as Senior Center, Port of Edmonds, Downtown Edmonds... . SCHEDULE: All Phases are scheduled in 2023 and 2024 (unsecured funding for all phases). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $160,000 Construction $702,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $160,000 $702,000 44 Packet Pg. 97 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 76th Ave. W non- I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: motorized transportation safety improvements $1,210,000 mr— Ra In a. IqN r� w MS. -V ��19 ka,jdN95 WAraFFRq .. _ � LAKE BA LINGER WAY ----- - Tm0F 0N0S WAY PLO a ,.fir r s� sw zr Nla V --�dND5 RFLIIVF LAKi iiAL1.IN PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Extend bike lanes within proximity of the intersection in northbound and southbound directions. Install APS on all corners and new ADA curb ramps. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve non -motorized transportation safety along this section of the Interurban Trail. SCHEDULE: All Phases are scheduled in 2023 and 2024 (unsecured funding for all phases). This intersection is shared with Shoreline and they own the traffic signal. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $224,000 Construction $986,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $224,000 $986,000 45 Packet Pg. 98 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: 191th St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $630,000 from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave. W 1� 192ND PL 5W PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 191th St. SW from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave., with curb and gutter. This project ranked #8 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2026-2040 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2040 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $90,000 Construction $540,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $630,000 46 Packet Pg. 99 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: 10411 Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $990,000 from 238th St. SW to 106th Ave. W PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 104th Ave. W from 238th ST. SW to 106th Ave. W, with curb and gutter. This project ranked #10 in the Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2026-2040 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2040 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $150,000 Construction $840,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $990,000 47 Packet Pg. 100 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: 801h Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $315,000 from 218th St. SW to 220th St. SW ----7--7-1-77 T----------------220TH STSW— PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 80th Ave. W from 218th ST. SW to 220th ST. SW, with curb and gutter. This project ranked #7 in the Short Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2026-2040 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2040 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $55,000 Construction $260,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $315,000 48 Packet Pg. 101 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: 84th Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $315,000 from 188th St. SW to 186th St. SW r`T rucq� 5■■ i i .} '■ ��lW r ri 186TH ST W i ■-d6 NP'` ` ,7 �� ■ w F■ 18 TH 5 5W ■ L A - F A 188TH 5T 5W LE . 4 ■r7 ■ P L 7 ' L ' U r .; a _ L r ■ o J r ir , r SFAMF W PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 84th Ave. W from 188th St. SW to 186th St. SW., with curb and gutter. This project ranked #5 in Short Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2026-2040 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2040 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $60,000 Construction $255,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $315,000 49 Packet Pg. 102 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: 23611 St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $765,000 from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W ■ PARK & RIDE 236TH ST SN 2367 2303 SAFEN 235 JI 23607 NON PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 236th St. SW from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W. This project ranked #10 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2026-2040 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2040 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $115,000 Construction $650,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $765,000 50 Packet Pg. 103 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: 23811 St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,170,000 from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W 1 PARK r .•nrIRL NA LN ' , ■ ' EOMONOs APTS BALL ' • • 1 ��r� W w Ov NORTH m CH RIST LH THE RAN CHURCH S N PARK & RIDE R n - 2 TH T OFFICE ■ d `� ,4 , W r SAFEWAY � L KJIHG FC,� I ' L • . SUNSET '•n•1L LO•n: CEj BROOK ■ AURORA- MARKETPLACE FAMILYPANCAKEr j7' � 1 ■ 238TH ST SW "' ■ ■ ■ 23827 seouL PLAZA ' ■ ► 1 23827, TRAVEL LODGE 2397 ■ -MISISON TACO TIM ■ ST. FRA NCIS MOTEL WHSE ■ME . . . - ■ ■ ■ _+ K&EMOTEL 1 1 ■ ■ � I, 1:11 RIl RIl III F 1 ■ ■ ■ � , IN ■ ■ :yA PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 238th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W This project ranked #10 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2026-2040 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2040 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $175,000 Construction $995,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $1,170,000 51 Packet Pg. 104 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: 801h Ave. W / 180th St. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,135,000 SW Walkway from 188th St. SW to OVD PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 80th Ave. W from 188th St. SW to OVD. This project ranked #13 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2023-2024 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 20200 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2040 Planning/Study Engineering, ROW, & Administration $440,000 Construction $1,695,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $440,000 $1,695,000 52 Packet Pg. 105 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: 189th PI. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $585,000 from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave. W PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 189th PI. SW from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave. W. This project ranked #14 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2026-2040 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2040 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $115,000 Construction $470,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $585,000 53 Packet Pg. 106 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: Ferry Storage ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $357,000 Improvements from Pine St. Dayton St. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Modify existing lane channelization on SR104 to add vehicle storage for ferry users. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Reduce conflicts between ferry storage and access to local driveways. SCHEDULE: 2023 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $50,000 Construction $307,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $357,000 54 Packet Pg. 107 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: Citywide Bicycle ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000 Improvements x a T.,.,I�-.-- - -- - Pnpo dBke Pekng �Bke ur.e �Exsug � b:te ® fw Vy 63x PaMNlLader � t k��ta _. . _ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation bike lanes and sharrows along various stretches as identified on the Proposed Bike Facilities map of 2015 Transportation Plan PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project will create new bike connections to various destination points throughout the City (such as schools, parks, Downtown, Sound Transit Station...). The intent of this project is to get more people riding their bikes and feel more comfortable riding their bikes on the roadway (with safety improvements). SCHEDULE: 2026-204 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2040 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $750,000 Construction $4,250,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $5,000,000 55 Packet Pg. 108 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: Dayton St. Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $205,000 between 7th Ave. S to 8th Ave. S < 0 MAIN ST � Frances Anderson Center m , bf i D navTn" IT LU > sTj _ =1rd, V. MAP' EST - PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along Dayton St between 7th Ave. S and 8th Ave. S. This missing link was identified as #1 in Short Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project will improve pedestrian safety along this stretch. SCHEDULE: The Design was completed in 2019 and construction is scheduled for 2020. The project will be built with the Dayton St. Utility Replacements project (from 3rd Ave. S to 9th Ave. S). The funding source is a 2019 TIB Complete Street grant. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction 192,290 1 % for Art TOTAL $192,290 56 Packet Pg. 109 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: Downtown Lighting ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,500,000 Improvements PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of street lights along various streets within Downtown Edmonds. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project will improve lighting along various stretches within Downtown where street light poles / PUD pole don't currently exist. Those improvements will improve night-time safety for all transportation system users. More users will be encouraged to use active transportation to reach their destination during those hours Sound Transit Station and many other destinations within Downtown). SCHEDULE: The design and construction phases are scheduled to take place in 2023 (unsecured funding). Sound Transit has funding available through ST3 to improve accessibility to the Sound Transit Station. Mukilteo and Edmonds have $40 Million in combined funding to complete projects improving access to the Sound Transit Station (for all modes of transportation). The City submitted this lighting project to be considered by Sound Transit and it is currently being evaluated. A final response from Sound Transit regarding the projects that will be selected is scheduled for late 2019. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering, $100,000 Administration & ROW Construction $1,400,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $1,500,000 57 Packet Pg. 110 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: SR-104 Walkway from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $600,000 HAWK signal to Pine St. / Pine St. Walkway from SR-104 to 3rd Ave. S CITY PARK l f c'ER13EN DRAIL J .o 0mum Y o� A � PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of sidewalk with ADA curb ramps along SR-104 from the HAWK signal to Pine St. and along Pine St. from SR-104 to 3rd Ave. S PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project will improve pedestrian connectivity between the residential areas along 3rd Ave. S to Downtown Edmonds and City Park. SCHEDULE: The design and construction phases are scheduled to take place in 2023 and 2024 (unsecured funding). A TIB grant was submitted for this project, with a response scheduled for late 2019. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering, Administration & ROW $135,000 Construction $465,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $135,000 $465,000 58 Packet Pg. 111 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: Walnut St. from 6th Ave. S ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $57,710 to 7th Ave. S Ma, Fm ;7 F 0 120 In M 9 NQ dA , N i a — tia, a . ... . — rT ALDER 5T -- .� ,1 -- PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk on the south side of Walnut St. from 6th Ave. S to 7t1 Ave. S. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project will improve pedestrian safety along this stretch. SCHEDULE: The Design and construction phases are scheduled to be completed in 2020. The funding source is a 2019 TIB Complete Streets grant. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $5,710 Construction $52,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $57,710 59 Packet Pg. 112 8.A.a c R a r c a� E a� O L Q E 76 Q R U N U m U- 76 .Q R U LO N O N r Q 60 Packet Pg. 113 8.A.a CFP STORMWATER 61 Packet Pg. 114 8.A.a c a r c a� E a� O L Q E Q m U c to d N a� r .v U- r Q m U LO N O N r a 62 Packet Pg. 115 / 4\\ -z2 K(naq _ ! 04 wji§ 2 0 ■ @ »LTL@— e)o \° 0 q B: a Packet Pg. 116 8.A.a c R a r c a� E a� O L Q E 76 Q R U N U m U- 76 .Q R U LO N O N r Q 64 Packet Pg. 117 8.A.a o`' 'q0' ,,p O 0� Q� 305 R MP Q #17.4 120 MALL ¢C' 184 R ¢¢y R d 8 �c Ilk u EDMO DS J AND EOMONOS ;� m w SHOPPING CT 180 '200 200 _ Q11A Q -9J 1461 Ni N P DAY TO N S T 0 20Q w BAN et z W 210 LU Q ARTS 222 z a ENTER v 224 NC LU LU N ❑ I JA TUU C/% 3 Q r Z UHDOWN JR _P$0 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Add a lift station in the Beach Place parking lot and supporting stormwater conveyance structures. The scope also includes baffle manholes to divert flows away from Harbor Square and the Edmonds Marsh, and provide a sub -surface connection for overflows. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To reduce flooding at the intersection of Dayton St. and State Hwy 104. The Project is part of a series of projects recommended in the 2013 study of necessary storm water improvements related to Shellabarger Creek, Willow Creek, and Edmonds Marsh. The project is complimentary to the Willow Creek Daylighting project in that the pump is required to manage flood conditions after the daylighting project is completed. SCHEDULE: A construction contract has been awarded and is expected to be substantially complete in 2019. Total cost est. at $2.1 M; 2020 budget shown is intended for project close- out. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 COST Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $15,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $15,000 65 Packet Pg. 118 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh / Willow Creek ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $16,650,000 Daylighting — Design & Construction Aerial photo of Marsh from 2018 General Project Location Marsh as it existed in 1941 Updated project concept PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project will daylight Willow Creek and help begin restoration efforts in the Marsh. The project has three sub -components including (1) daylighting Willow Creek through the Edmonds Marsh and existing Unocal property, (2) daylighting of the Willow Creek through Marina Beach Park and redevelopment of the Park, and (3) excavation/reestablishment of tidal channels within the Marsh. The project includes significant re -vegetation and mitigation within the Marsh to improve habitat conditions and, depending on the final recommended alternative, may also include significant flood wall and/or berms. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The daylighting of Willow Creek and subsequent redevelopment of Marina Beach park will help reverse the negative impacts to Willow Creek and Edmonds Marsh that occurred when Willow Creek was piped in the early 1960s. This project will provide habitat for salmonids, including rearing of juvenile Chinook. The project, along with its companion CIP project "Dayton Street Pump Station", will also help reduce the flooding problem at the intersection of SR-104 and Dayton Street. This project is a priority in the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. SCHEDULE: 2019 - 2023 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. $775,000 $1,875,000 Construction $7,000,000 $7,000,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $775,000 $1,875,000 $7,000,000 $7,000,000 66 Packet Pg. 119 8.A.a PROJECT NAME: Seaview Park Infiltration ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $742,700 Facility Phase 2 \ Proposed Phase 2 Ix !! o 1F IF qp uP Id 172n 1 173 di�0 � o !P iP (� Yalbot IF Frederick 175th ti V ^ o!P IP, 1n N i Seaview 78th 77t 7 ht 1. y Park 791h - n 180 1 Oth fi `y ry815 ❑ Distribution Chamber I 2nd 18 rid Q` Diversion Structure Inspection Port M �i O�� C I© Swirl Concentrator ss L.W 1 4 �a a C iWater goalq ream* Well Cl) Modify exist. flow ` 185th G 85th 0 ~ : c Limits of Phase 1 diversion structure x ,h N 18 th r p. Catch Basin 40 A sketch of the project provided in grant application materials. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City applied for and received a grant from the Department of Ecology to design and construct an additional stormwater infiltration facility in Seaview Park. The proposal will duplicate the system successfully installed during Phase 1 and is tentatively planned for construction in 2022. 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. A flow reduction study for the Perrinville Creek basin was completed in 2015. This study recommended a number of flow control and water quality projects to improve the conditions in Perrinville Creek. Control of the sediment loads in Perrinville Creek must be achieved before proceeding with additional fish habitat improvement and removal of the sediment collection structure the City currently maintains on the creek near Talbot Road. SCHEDULE: Design is anticipated to begin in 2020 with construction planned for 2022 in order to allow ample time to acquire permits and meet grant obligations during the design phase. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 COST Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. $241,000 $6,100 Construction $495,600 1 % for Art TOTAL $241,000 $6,100 $495,600 67 Packet Pg. 120 8.A.a c R a r c a� E a� O L Q E 76 Q R U N U m U- 76 .Q R U LO N O N r Q 68 Packet Pg. 121 8.A.b CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2020-2025 7� DRAFT Packet Pg. 122 8.A.b r a Packet Pg. 123 8.A.b CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2020-2025) Table of Contents GENERAL Building Maintenance Public Works 7 112 Transportation Public Works 9 125 Capital Projects Fund Parks & Recreation/ Public Works 12 126 Special Capital / Parks Acquisition Parks & Recreation/ Public Works 14 332 Parks Construction Grant Funding) Parks & Recreation 15 421 Water Projects Public Works 17 422 Storm Projects Public Works 18 423 Sewer Projects Public Works 20 423.76 Waste Water Treatment Plant Public Works 21 PARKS — PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS Capital Parks & Recreation/ 125 Projects Fund Public Works 25 Special Capital / Parks & Recreation/ 126 Parks Acquisition Public Works 49 Parks Construction 332 Grant Funding) Parks & Recreation 55 Wastewater 423.76 Treatment Public Works 63 Packet Pg. 124 8.A.b r a Packet Pg. 125 8.A.b Cip GENERAL c a r c m E a� O L 0- U c tv d U- U LO N O N Co N O N d N O 0. O L r O O r r L CD r O N O d U r L N C d E t V Q r C d E t V R r a Packet Pg. 126 8.A.b r a Packet Pg. 127 8.A.b N O N 6 O N O N U d 0 a 0000000000000000000 0000000 00000000000000000000000 a0 CDC 0000000613�0000000 0613�00000613�v00000000000000000000 N C C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r- In O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r N Lo 00000 Ef3M 1n OIn InN U') NInN 00 0 In 0 o N NO WOO 00 Nli) a00 Inn 00000 M O N M V In O 00O V NL2 N M CD N 0 00 Nff3NN7 LO)c00 U) Q9r- CO 00 V N V O V Q9 p F H3 N O N 0 c0 V (0 't EA f� U3 O EA 0 M ff3 EA EA EA ER ER EA M Ef3 Ef3 EA r E{3 H3 H3 H3 H3 r E{3 H3 EA r H3 Ef3 H3 H3 H3 EA C4 EA S4 H3 H3 H3 H3 H3 O GG N 0 0 O O O N O 0 0 a o N 0 O N � 0 0 OM 0 O N Ell O 0 O 0 N O O N O U) O Lf) N eD � 000 00 000 O O O 00 O O O p p00 0 0 O N OL U3GO U)u e9 r 0000000000 0 0 0 000 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O CD O CDcoo O O O O 0 O U) 0 0 0 000 r 0 0 O N in O Lc) N C e9 Co In 0 lli lli N O N In O N "T fA N Lo e9 e9 r N fH EA fA Co e9 oa oa EA EA EA EA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O I� 0 In 0 O 00000 O O O O O V 0 Efl O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O Coco O O O O O 0 C C N OOOaO Lf)Lf)a0 a00 00000 N OMOM OO mw omm V V O ONNIn M fA H3 H3 H3 Nln EA EA fH I� Co CO vii EA In EA InO�O EH EH N T " N H3 NH3 EA N7 EA Q9r-- EA 4 ff3 fi> O H3 H3 64 r H3 '4 N a U. U v a) a) Cl Cl N U C a) U En U Co 3 y a) Co -03 C> fC U d j C > m c m E a) C U U u cr) O -Q oO a) 0 _ d vy UCO�CN N a) C 3 0 W U o. (n o W .'N. .� 0 c (5 .� Q N Z U o w a N C= H o Q Eoo. t >a) 2 -[[a)u c -p !n 3 = u - w E ° Via" �Y 3- z a) >> N> a) c— - Co N Y tU U n o u m LL x u v o. w m a$ ;? °° m- 2 a d o F- U �W`vo iC a c 0 v N enmt?w y c = v` mLLLLa '�o¢LLsW� m o3N� ui Co ._ 11 v o oo �°u Uu LL a OE y Qo�voE' c. z O. c w c¢ ¢ vu o o .� a m ¢ =,°ti `uN,o, �wx x yQ c 3 c 3 Lny O 7 N a) 7 C C t�i>wu°=i°.� 4 a) S 3 S S N w>> y a V 2 2 �c`LL x a�3x •�• •�• E y H a Q •�, S a u d Q CC m W m d r d LL m~ 0 N C O a c� G O L Q. E r m C a N O m U- �m♦ V LO N O N O N O N d N O CL O a t O a O y.i m d L IL 01 O N O T- a v m L N t U m Q d t V m 4+ Q Packet Pg. 128 8.A.b 00000000000000000 00000000000000 �3�3�3�3�3�3�3�3�3�3�3�3�3�3 �������������� U'; o u3 v 0 0 0 LO O O cD 00 O O N 60 64 E m nv — w � V LL � w o 0 LL Q o 0 a > u W T � L!J N a E a 0 v3 O 0 0 0 LO M 60T O O C O 0 60T O O C O 0 N 60T :H O tr a0 O tr 60T 00 00 0 C 00 0 N N N N fH 0 0 O O O C O O O CD6� eD N cc O O O C cc O N N� r N O O O O O C Cm O O O O e3 Cl CD CD O O O O 0 O O CDe3 L N Co N O O C N 0 0 O O M N EA U3 O C O O V 0 O> O> O 0 O LO M (0O — V9 M E9 e3 N N O O N N C U 0 N NCr,O> RC,l a) 7 d N N N O U N 01 a LD NlL N NN d LL O CL � U C!n a+Daaai C oU"O d cw E c C 10 c 0 W m E c c � LL m LL LO N E lL C W W C7 ur O W co c U)(DccCr a�ao U�m Co V E E Ea. a � y 0 0 0 c O 0 C c �" d R c c c "6 o E p Y�_ y 0 y ' 0 0 N C 2 C a1 O O 7 0 o o c¢m 6 Cd < 00 0 0 LO M 0 O O (Al O O O (Al O O O N M O O 00 M 69 Packet Pg. 129 8.A.b 0o�o 000(Doo C C OOOvOO O Co M fD W 1: 'o OD r a W Co O Co a M H3 N H3 6969 a0 - fA 09 09 H3 O O O O O O O O M O N 4444 y 0 O O 0 0 0 y O O 0 0 O O O 0 O O O O 00 fD o o O O O O D U U U c o a o o O O o o 0 0 o o^ 0 0 r (DN M O 0 ` H3 H3 w) H3 H3 � 613 03 C C O O C C O O V3 .lc� . N N . N N O O•� •� •� •� 000000 O O O a) a) a) a) M O a) Cm 0 0 0 LOEflN 10 O MCC (0 64 64 0 0 0 0 64 N N N N a Co Co Co UUUU O O D) D) D) D) D) D) D) D) O O C3 3 3 3 n 0 2 2 2 2 00 N C C N N 7 7 D U C C N N 7 7 U U O O O C C C C O � ul ul ul ul M O � 0 0 U U CD a) .O •O 0 0 U U a) a) •O .O �(M O O N fD H3 (D(DLO Cq 61) CO e a M O M 00 H3 X 1111117 X X X X X E E ur m � Q) C ns a) g w aa)) w d u a aa)) ¢ E E E a) E ���� C C C Q) > C °oo C C £EEEt5 E m m m m m c E o a) c0E 00002 P a) Edo QaaaEa)oa>a EEEE-oEEoE Q — >aE 3:CL2 .E o a) o .o .o.o Eao—.c0 _ L y00�Ena�aa rn 0 E.-i a 0 �oaoi T O— i6 m 2 2 d z 5% �U N i d N E C C C OD a) U) E 40i Co W a3 00 T O (n > a)�—L 3 w w w d .--. C U C -DmL N- U) _ E W(n( _: > NQ N U) aL 0 ONr.L.(na w��11a)..cDov @ L�1 LL •. 3: N N NCR N 6 m 3: O 3 m N U U � n5 L L a W W O M M N a 0 0 0 00 N � (3�� -. CC N N N (022222 1-CA2 n(A (A (A 000000000000000000000000 OOOOOOOO� O O O O O O O O O 1� OO3 3OOOmOOOOOOv> O O O N O O O O O O O 0 a O 0 O W W f D W W W o o M O o 11 O V 1, O D Co 1, O Co Co (D N , W Co N O (D O O O LO O O (D O MMfHW N fH H3 H3 H3 fA M�fH� N fA K3 fH H3 W H3 M� H3 M H3 0w fJ3 K) fA K3 �N fA H3 fA O O O O O O O W N(MON O O O O O O O O C 7 64 O m � 64 64 64 64 N f D O Co O O O 00 O C O O I� O O C M 00 00 C C M O MO O O O O C C LO O W O 00 00 00 O 1 Oa 000 000 000 L Co 00 00 00 O 0(D L6 W N fA H3 N H3 M N fA fA fD N fA H3 0 W H3 H3 a H3 r W H3 H3 N of a H3 O O O O I� O O O O O O O 10 O O O O I�- 10 O O 00 O O n (O MMm O 000000 O 007 O(D O O O O Cm O O O O 0010 0LOM O O EA 64EA EA EA EA EA N EA EA L0 H3 Efl O 1� O C W N 1� 0 fA Co Co W EA N W fA Co NN O C M W W W M O N N M H3 H3 (DD W fH Ix 11111XIX X 11 X X X 11 X I �X, U) a) Q ur E a M O m E � v o o a � U u) _o E p- a) 3 as : c U o E o a 0> Y < L\ O �' c d N rn (n (n () � ?) N C 0 a) CD s t t_ U m a) C n V Q (n N O as C g a) o C a Co o U °> Et U5� U o E E in(/- �L 0~ o YO� Uo R M CNNNOaO � fE Ta N a) > >NO as _ V N 9o>Oa a)O Nam.,; > 'U'c N N M— N U o E o 0 0 0 o L L T a N L Cc o yc C m U) O 02 OQ a a 000�5 o m Cl) E N� m> �(n(n(n N oo¢ O N Q� Er oininininQ(n(/� v (p cU E Ez o'oa PO"OLLLLL To 00o DNoo(oQa a) a)`�"O mo[ O Co >�a a) o Q2 E E Co N N �I�"OL Y(n-0 nsU Ca EL T� a) N E Y o o E N E E E o M D m o o n 3 Y a C_O T Cow 0000PEE�w �oo`, E,asLL n3 O 0���"O EOM O?>� a) U) � .(a(a(aa= o c a) as as ate. ai ai ai ai. (4ig. a) TO(A� % 0 a a a a L 7 7 a) a)OMM L_ L L 3: E O d NILf�)'w 0 E 0)0 30 N 7MM7O000 WN N WWW wN N N N 0Occ(n CC O 2(n CCY 00 Packet Pg. 130 8.A.b M r r M n O rn a n y (2 CRI M H3 � N t'1 O � � O N N N M ri O d3 M d! qj t9 Cl) L W O N CM N 7 tO Fil NfA MLn K7 O Vl R O Co (CD O'l L N O) v �Co Co v v "' d! N t9 O M I<) V p N a r M OD Cl)R tD M n 6C,)) n fR c a N O O 01 p M O C n O N Cl) Cl) oil M 64,6 n to D to M N M n O r N O N M a M d3 fH 09 to�m"' nCo NooT a� O N C O Co U (A 2 O y 0 N a)0 Ir U m w 0 in 05 avi t_ L L L O Q. C 555 N N G i co co co Y O J J J C C O O C O N V U U U (n O i' p a O 0 d (aA C (A (A (A m W F A AA H Of N uai CO n O VT Co M O 6q 6) t0 M q V v_ N Oco NE 001 Ln w O N O O O N nj H3 O R O Cli O O N O M Cm M d3 C6 O O O O � O � N nj 619. 0 00 N O 0Lo 00 N (09 � O O 0 O O O N pp C6 Lo (o 0)N N � d! cc cc C C O O O 0 O C a a 0 O O O 0 0 C O OO O Ili M LLiN O O Co W 0) N N M U) m EA U) r E). r w EH O O O O 00 O O O O O 00 00 0000000 (O 7 O 0000 0 0 OOO 0 O O O l0 O N I(7 N 10O n 0 l0(O n n 1171 (O ONOO(O N M n 0 CCi 0 M N V V3 ER O n EA EA m EA 7 r EA r t0 N r V> r ci EA H3 H3 E9 H3 Co) O O O O 0 0 O LLi In n(o O O 0 LLi O O O O 0 0 aaNa OONNOI2r- O O O O 0 0 O O O O 0 0 a a O O O O 0 0 Ili Co N O n�fR n(fl OO��nrfR Cli (6 6,A N Eq N O L' In N � N N O N O N N a> rn E E; N N W a 1L U c E N W Co (fi y (n N C N 2 U C Q (U � L n !n m N c y O U > N E to C O c o T f (tl v; N E E C O O O E L L L 0 E E E N N W M N a E v, N to d C (U > (n O C N 0 E C O U Q O co' N N 0 0 `E (i /�� O V a L O N` N U C L L L C1 Im O N ro O N C E C y 6 y C O N a0 t0 y y a x¢ O x O. rn C> ° > U 5 O O c m E O N N o E E Z b '_ C N E O Z> M C L O Q> a) i r C� � .`F N ro w w In OC/) U) L c� L >� m�Y 3 3 N vl N E O 00 Y Y p d .O „ /O����'NO ., N (n x�cDrniD(djQ000 «; O m 5 @) @) Ui Ui c ? L L a�aUQQ L C C C ro N c m ro L r r r c M L L M O (O 10 Packet Pg. 131 8.A.b 0 o 0 0 64 000 0 C OoO C 00000 C 01, C 0 LoOD 0 0 fD 00 O ON O N (D d3 _ fH d3 LoW 613 a 613 fA (DW fA 613 NM 613 613 O O O O 00000000000 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 7 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 127 0I-n 0 �2 (O Ow �2 00 wm Co EA d3 d3 72 d3 d3 d3 Efl IOn 603,� 61) M Efl EA C0 ai Q> a M O O u! N (n m w E O ° a E p C0 a E N 'a 3 CD 3 u°Ci > Cl) L L M ai O � C L) .Q Q aj G N C O p a L E O > C Q O N_ N Co t6 u O 0 N L h O ai ~ (n 00 0(n 0, (n (n C ul r _O1 (n L N(n L 7 (O D NU� CC 0 a)(D E a)Y U) E E L_ O N 0 O O Q u! E oL Cj o °D i. E �- a= ED f m 2 m o E 3 0 Z E E o a) T f0 3 T 3 ,= Y T Y � > '� >i Y fa N Y >� Co N Ci w ?i Coai > Q C y L ... _° T Co °- Co _> , C0C0 Qi Cl) D d ° Q Q Co L C ct)N L I a D 0 W C W O 0 o E a Lo ns 'R Cr o 3T T CE W ODN� N W 2OCr Cl) 0m U)LL 6�3 w3 6f1 (!3 C. C. 61 O C N O O N3 O O V3 O a ro Co to of O Ln 46 IT v aD n of 'O 3 N U7 Z N y N N N C of Y O C L 3 � r a C m C) 11 Packet Pg. 132 8.A.b O N O N O N O N _O N N O a` E m v tm c O d LL y rty+ V C � y O E a` d O M L m Q E U W � N =- c m U U. 1_ OO OO OO fO ON 0O 0O 0O 0 OEO O 3Ma oO OO fOA EOA UO3 EOR HO30O HO3 N OO OO o O OOO O (C O 0 0 0 E{3 O O O N m I, O 0 Fi) CO 0 O O O O O OD O N O 0 Ef3 FR N H3 Ef3 r, EA FiJ H3 Qg? r COEf3 FR fA ~ 04 _ 63 O N O O O O O O O O N LO In VA 3 f Cmy3 O N CD 00 O 0 O 0 O O CD 0 O 00 O 0 O LO In 613. O O N In In N E9 V9 O Ey N O O 0 CD O 0 O O O 0 O Cl) LO d3 In 63 In O 63 N ll) CVO N y3 O N 0 O 0 o 0 0 C C 03 0 0 C C 0 O 0 O N LO LO o v � LO LO O N 0 Co N V9 O C3 N V9 V 000V90 0 C o V900 O O Lri Itn LO 0 r N Cm f Is � N O fH N 0) CD O O O (= M QD O O O O 00 O O O LO V N O Co r LO 0 � LO � N N V9 V � � O N _ � N {CO o 0 d3 O O o O O O O a0 o O O) CD N 00 O) C 0 0 0 00 0 7 CD EA O O) C LO O N 7 VD m d3 (O E7 O 1- to LO IOA 6.3 H3 N ER N� ER OD ER W T r O N a x x v m 0 �v � (n a) E aa)Cj o a) Y a) Y U o a) U m w 0 c m c m a a c— o 0 o N o m c 0 E aE o o E Y a m a as W amEro> o acY> 9 N O >E°-pad—'9 O 0� a L V a3 (DI a G ll E O C E E m O N� Q ai m _0a a EYaNa�Eao>E$a�'� mCo m a s o a N 0 Z o 0 o cc a E a xf U a 0 rn U Q o m a Y E w a Y> y m N o _m Y c 'o U d U c E n m a c > '- = a as o m c Coa) m a as On d Y Y 3 d yr a y a= LL rn >. N Y Co wU a c E o m ma as to >(�S Y CU $a w '> > c a3 .� 0a ccc, R C w 0 m Co` m a` )i c 0) � `° o L .--'' -Eo � m �' � o d aQm(3 J3(3 i02222amU3iY4U W U>x0¢ L d Y U m 30 F w d C', c" C a C E o N a w 12 Packet Pg. 133 8.A.b N O T O O R 69 O C W O G R N lD Iii N 61i O n M 6. O N f0 O O O co w O O L O N rn LO rn n N n 69 69 O O O O O O O O O LO co Efl 69 69 O O O O O O OLO O O O N Efl (a 4O9 O O O CD 0 O O O O O f0 O O M E9 Ln 0) C. O O C. O O C. O O O O N O O M � Lf) O 69 O I OOOOcn la N f0 O co O O N R O 69 vi n co IN 7 r: uS o N EA N Y O rn � T V Q = � E c o a 9 � N U r E N O m c p U E E d a O Q D O N N Nco - 0 d T O CcY V1 m 0 O M CZS C _ c E m G C) O d m CL Q N ID d N H m F F 13 Packet Pg. 134 8.A.b R N O N O M W N Cl) V3 O N N O N _O O N 00 ; C,00 O N N Cli 00 N O N O N N l0 E .N w rn r 0 N IL LL 0 m a O Y 0 a_ a Cz N R E _V m W c as O a�i ro Q N Z E a) � � U CO i r O_ to U Li m o dt M V OR N VT O O O 0 O N VT O O 0 O O 60 O O O O N VT O O O 0 n VT O O O O O N VT M v v VT M Cl) n to N 0 V► O LO 0 0 V3 0 0 V3 63 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N n O6sN 0 r, 63 0 C 0 cr 0 q Lo 00 C'i V3 N It N 6-1 V3 O O V3 V3 O O 0 0 Cl) 69 N V) O O 0 0 O o O O CO69 NfF? O O O O O O M NV> O O O O O O 0 0 M N69 VD O O C. O O O M N69 V> LO O N OOHOOM mno 7�0 n 63 O 00 O O O O o Lo M N V3 Nt � V; 69 V3 V) O O) N cD O O O 0 N n r O 00 O M V O 0000 O O O CDv_ nornrnro r o0(::0 000 COO n n r,N r 00 V)Nr N O N 0000 NOn� O r, V) V) � V) V) M) EA EA EA V, x x x U N N �6 N U) 0 c O. aj n U Q U O T cod .N U m �s 0m CA °' M a 0 X O E N c= ca. =ca � ❑ U Coo 0U) co os '5 E !2 i� 5 IL o C\J.N O o -,t o O N _ E cC 5F c 2—oCa ! U! E E� '(C w Q E a N Z O U> C c w Ea O O1 �l V 'cC C 2 a 0' CUJ y>oC.ya a) `o N to C OocOOaca'Nc c U' > a N Cu d j T N E V C _0 >+ N 07 E �' m co ❑ U m m0 Na Co AY�� E� (D o0c N Co as > C a �=o aOisdss O N Y �� a`ni c= oo�co85! co i ro iaa Q Co 2 d N oo N❑ F F U r CS C(LD N 7 M CD Co rn O R d! 69 O O 0 O O O VT O 0 O O EOA O O O O 0 609 O O 0 0 E09 O O O O E09 N 0 Co n O VT to Co a M M CD C'1 di M N W Ir V! COD O O O M a ui a a to Co N n rn N n Cl) Cn N 44 LO a n 0 14 Packet Pg. 135 8.A.b N N O N a N O N O N U l9 O a` c c •i c c O U M a N M M a c LL 000000000000000 � N O V3 O O N O (D N O O l0 O N O EA EA O ER O O ER O O 0 ER ER ER (4 NCD YO O CO r� LO Cli Cli (D LO C CO O O O F N Oi r EA EA H3 7 ER O N Ul) N O O O N O N N � cm 00 O O NLO O N N N 64 M eq O O O CO N O N N to N N O O � N O o CD oO O O N 0 Cl C Cl O U) Q9 � N 0 0 C 0 LO cm 0 0 C 0 m C\l V) N 1 O N O N O(D(OO � LO O O (D l00 LO LO O o O N pj r 6s v> GPIO N O 6s 0 0 O 0 0 �p O Cn O O IT (ND (00 l0fi N W LO 6s6s � O) O N a LL x x X U d C C 0 0 N V m N N — — E E L m O O UU mN d -0 co c ', 3 3 Y Y c m m Q m cr, O o '0 `m `m O o a LL 0 N N _ m -0: l.L 3: 3co LL ro rn `o a �oEEE c c 5 Ora) rn - W '2 'o ~ E Cl O N>> o o 0 0 O N c O N c _ c N O tU > d d '2 0 t t p w 5 N b 0 N d «.gam U U 2 s C C C 'E aC9 d W > N >a CC Ut t --N ' E o 2N O O atO— Cym`m a O -CEis- o a L v000 >fQ O 0 a Mn LuLLa0U» O _e N tl) CD O O O Lo O lO O O O O N O O O N V, 0 0 0 0 O N CD Cn CM O) N C00 O CM to a C 0000 OOOOO(OOl00 00 (D H}O EH l00 7 O Ih _O O O ON(o LO I r 6a H3 (�7 EA EA N EA EA ER O O 6a O O � sa O 0 0 d3 a) Z in Y a 0 0 z a) w a E 0. CD E N a O m N U j N Z y OLLa 0 a)E c O a 0 LL 0 a) a Y c r- rn N o ID 3 c c n O u ECD N N c m LL LL ' O E E co 0 U >� G U R O O> 0 0 0 C CD x�+ -0 c Cl �U ID > d cN 0 w E C a)a)oLONa O. O jN ==aU[co O p co "O N O _�L U Y Y Y a.>�c�0C0C� Y Y Y Y C Cn LL �„ L O C6 (6 (6 (6 (6 (O CO V3) c o i i O w C O >aaaaaaa ¢ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 m m -.0 (� o� ev O 10 d v U U U U U U U ii ¢ m H� O� O Nl O Nl 0 6y 40 M CD O O f/! 15 Packet Pg. 136 8.A.b d a S T m r a d m m E 0 V d .O a N C a c m E m O L C. E �m♦ V a N O a+ m U- m 0 LO N O N O N O N d N O CL O L a m O c O m c m d L IL o� 0 N 14 O T- a v m L N C E t c.i m r Q a+ C d E t V Q 16 Packet Pg. 137 8.A.b LO N O N O N O N O E O n 0 0 0 0 0 f D (O T n n a 0 0 0 0 0 O O O SEA O FAOrOTLO�O(DNOY30EA O O T M't Lq n' n O O O OOD 117 MOMN Or Nn CO O O nM CO (q O-It LQ 6s -It T W nMmv Co O (f) U3 m CO Co 6F1 fA r N C'M M ,�i EA U3 69. Hi V3, ffi Hi Qi Hi Co T Cl ' CoO7 CO C') LO FiJ r M r Cl O p �� n CM U3 LO Ej. ER r N O O MLO n 64 EA 6,3 N r (p O 7 O Co (D v N U3 EA LO V O O) N Co -It N ER O OO -ItO OLq O q Nt W O n O O 00� 117 MOO) CO O Cn0 (MO EA U)6s7 CA � r U� Ki FA CD Co NNO I, V) O MCo n NOf)OCO (O O W N Co LO n CO O l(') N 7 O)N ff3 O r OD M^ fA N N 6s U3 r QA fA x xx 0 N O .N... (p y' C C E N O TO r0 N N N N N NNNNNN N N N N E a) >> N yN OQr E a) E m a) (0 (0 (6 (0 (a CO (6 C O W > CO CY O O O O O O O N Eaa a aaaaaa C L a) L v, C C C C C C C C (p 0) W (6 (0 E EEEEEEO C C = a) a)0)a)0)a)m (1)O a) — D O y d CS (C CY (C CY (Co Vn UOd U oOOO606O6a 3 NNL C CcC C C C C C C 0OvO CO a) .(n N m n �— — c c c c c ) 0) a) �Q QQQQQQ a) > IL L<Ir i6r r r L2r E Qn�a) C (a o a a (a C 7 7 a) (n a) a) Co N a) a) N N a) a) N N O ) CD (N M Q a) C p C r 0 CO N CO Cu CO Cu CO Cu C (0 L $ CY C C p L O L L L L L L > 7 L (O Cn oQQ NdNd IL IL IL IL IL LL (nanU n �o O o to C rl N CO CO LIB LO 6q M> LO Ln LO CM M N W) N Vf N � N M M N � N n n NN O N CO VT ffl T O o n � O Co Co VT VT m Co O C n O � n Cn Wk I 1 1 Vi 61) O O O CO W W N N VT ffl Co O m O N O C N M Co m to O of l Vk O R fA R fiT N O) Cl O C Co 69 O) � N Cp M O C M ffl — C la o 0 � J a � L O Cp N U n c ot} otS N E Y V y L N C a) O v) 3 E a) a` S O NO cn E �q r I a` E a F H 0 17 Packet Pg. 138 8.A.b N O N r N O N L() N O N N O N LO N Cl) O N N O O N N O N O U) N N Q O N N O N O N O N 2 _O R O E N N W IL LL V E m 01 O a y c d E d 0 E Q O Z E N r m a O U Li M oeD 0 60 O O r H3 Lo � Ef3 7 N ID 7 oa to d) 7 N (03 O O Oo O n H3 L0f) � A) O a` N a C LL LL m C C aC 18 OOOOOOmaoeo 613, 0 C 0 0 L O 0 0 O V I h v rl NO LO dD D) 0 0 7 r N 0 7 W 1n W d) O O M 613� r r r r N N61, H3 H3 H3 H3 H3 H3 0 00 OD LO O n rn O v O n M 5 'El 6s m O O (00 N V fA O O O O 7 VO On fA N (0 N Co S'3 0 00 O O O CD N n e3. (00 LC Co 619. H3 O O O O O O On fA O LO O P') O O O L Co m C m r N O O r (D LO N CO � 6C? O NCM7 Lf!(0 N N O O N N O O N N O O N O N N N N N N N U U U U U U U y N N N N N N N U O O O O O O O ) a a a a a a a O U E E E E E E E �?>a)ma)ma)ma) O aEia``—°(a�(a�(a� D U U U U U U 9-a Col Col Col Col Col Col Col — a> Cr o[ Cr o[ Cr o[ Cr - U E E E E E E E O O O O O O O O O yin bin bin bin CQ (6 (C (6 tC (6 (C (6 c c c c c c c -UO m r N m V Lo (0 I, 3 a) m a) m a) m 0 Y A y (O (C A y (O (C y y (O (C y Co r 0 L Lo fA O L 64 O M LO O CM � N Ln n O O Cli N O Co Cq a)� N CoP. N N O � 01 N O N v O w l0 y 0 Cm O) N N O O N ro O � N Cl O N 0) LO O O O O N O Co V Cli It a N O R O E N N W y C d E.4 N Q 7 Er It � Packet Pg. 139 :MEM." —§ LO k0LO Ft m a § oCO iz Lo rl LO 61) LO 69, CD CD \ 2 \ w x x x Cu 0 / 0 k / ! § za \ k \CL ) Co Co Cu Cz \) Cl CM (D / } } r-od )) e32 ) § : —#a) \\ )3\0 z AA a ¥ 0. 19 Packet Pg. 140 8.A.b N O N O N O N O C Y 0 a Cn N C d E a` d OY 3 C d E N M � N a a m U d d U a c N E a) Co Q a> 3 a) O OOO 'IT M00(0 n 0 Co It Co 6s O O Ef3 n r M M M r, M 00 00 Cl) 7(O N N 000 N(O 00 nOM Lo 4Co 0p(cr NM (OOmNM-.t r N r N N Co N 6s r N Efl VF- Efl VF- Efl EA EA d3 LO r M (M O 7 Co 00 N C eo LO N fA 6s lu3 O CD 0000 00O n 7 (0 C. m 4 0') H) K3 6s O O N n C N LO 07 C. LO 00 I _ O 00 M 6s (n Ef3 H3 LO L r O U) N (0 (0 N ((00 Cl 00 r fFJ EA 6s o Cov (o r r� (0 Co Co MO CoNt ( (f) EA fA O O r O Co O O 02 Co M H3 Ef3 (I M O 0000 " m Cq 7 Lo 'm (O A a �� � N EA K 00 O r N M I LO W N N N N N N N O 0000000 N N N N N N N N N C C C C C C 0 N C C 0 0 0) N E E 0) N E E O O O O O O O O O Q Q Q Q N c- c- c- c- E E E E L E E E E--- MQ 4 Q a3 OS OS OY C C a3 OY L L 0) N M OY L L 0) 0) L L 0) 0) L L 0) N O O '+ .- aQaQ�� y u CO 0) N O) N L L 0) 0) E E 3 3 3 3 >(� 3333a)a)a)a)a�a� 0 3 N N O) N (n (n (n (n �i 3 is is fn E m 0 0 0 0 N N U) c' CC c' CC (Ld L 2 c C c C c C c C d d 6 > a c C Q Q c C Q Q Q Q o Q Q-- U U r r T T 0) N oUaMOn00M L ONNNNNNN N§ Co Co L Co Co Co CoN0Ldada.a-1 (� 0 08 CO .� O 7 V3 O a CDi LO W CO N V) O 1n Mi Co m O M N Ef) OMO Mi W 00 00 QI M Co Co OI M 0 ER Oo Off? 00 n N N O 0 n n N N ffT fa 0000 � ONO O O �T R Co 00 ' R N N V? ff? v Vj� a N to Co M Co Co ' N N ER fH M O M Cli � 4e) N O CO dr O O fA m O n N 0 C Q E 0) 7 Q E od i N 0) aci c E 2 a� F Q S 'a 2 cc a m m r F 20 Packet Pg. 141 8.A.b mar N Lj ID O N M Co H N N eD O to N N N O N N O N N N O N T N O N O N O N E R m O a C d E 0 CL C f0 .Q m U cc O lA O C1 O V O CO O Oa fA O V O CO O Oa fA N f- N O rn co fA 4) N N O lA O Cq V Cn r (Dw N n N M_ C9 M Co m r, Cl! Cl! O fR fR l0 l0 r V, r O O N (D O CO �O � � C) O (O 0 0 C O CO LO OO R OO EA00 E O In In O y N c�0 Efl ffi W 6,3,N o) Q3 O N N U C) O IL W N CY N O N 01 N C) C CD r o W N O O cc a) m U N -0 C = C N g y C, .O L C C 4 C C N-15 m Lj E E a L) coN C W O C N N c — C C O N U d .0 Cr,m a > a a a OC ) C3 O O O O N N O O O O N N O O O O N N 7 N n N N O O V �O n M_ Cl) 0) V fR �O O WCi ro T N Q u� 0 m m E E N o R Lo o E oM - u7 y Cl) m W r 01 69 O N b 3 C 3 in O � y . O 7�y�(nN O C 70 U Q c E D E F Uw2 ol: `I Packet Pg. 142 8.A.b r a 22 Packet Pg. 143 8.A.b CIP PARKS PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS r a 23 Packet Pg. 144 8.A.b r a 24 Packet Pg. 145 8.A.b CIP PARKS PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS FUND 125 - CAPITAL PROJECTS 25 Packet Pg. 146 8.A.b r a 26 Packet Pg. 147 8.A.b PROJECT NAME: Citywide Beautification I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $126,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Beautification citywide to include Library, outdoor plazas, 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: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 27 Packet Pg. 148 8.A.b PROJECT NAME: Flower Pole Replacement I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $120,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Replacement of Flower Poles in various places as needed throughout City. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Replacement of Flower Poles in various places as needed throughout City. SCHEDULE: 2020 - 2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Construction $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 TOTAL $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 28 Packet Pg. 149 8.A.b PROJECT NAME: Citywide Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $300,000 Improvements / Misc Small Projects 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: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering / Administration Construction $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 29 Packet Pg. 150 8.A.b PROJECT NAME: Sports Field Upgrade / ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $25,000 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: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Engineering & Administration Construction $0 $25000 $0 $0 1 % for Art TOTAL $0 $25000 $0 $0 30 Packet Pg. 151 8.A.b PROJECT NAME: Anderson Center ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000 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. 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: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Professional services Engineering & Administration Construction $5,000 $5,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $5,000 $5,000 * all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 31 Packet Pg. 152 8.A.b PROJECT NAME: Brackett's Landing ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000 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 upgrades. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Retention of infrastructure for major waterfront park, regional park that serves as the gateway to Edmonds from the Kitsap Peninsula. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $5,000 $5000 1 % for Art TOTAL $5,000 $5000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 32 Packet Pg. 153 8.A.b PROJECT NAME: City Park Improvements I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: City Park. Continued pathway, access improvements and ongoing upgrades to PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Make ongoing upgrades to City Park as referenced in the PROS plan. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $5,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $5,000 *all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the arts 33 Packet Pg. 154 8.A.b PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Park I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $13,100,000 IMM M91 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Civic Park master plan is complete and has been adopted, funds (including carryover, grants, bonds, REET, Park Impact Fee's and General Fund) have been allocated and we are prepared to go to bid in February with ground breaking in April or May of 2020. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The Civic Master plan was adopted in 2017. Funds have been set aside, and grant funds secured. With the approved bonding we are ready to begin the project. This is a high priority in the PROS plan. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 COST Planning and $395,000 Design Engineering $140,000 Construction $11,937,092 1 % Art $88,000 TOTAL 12,560,092 34 Packet Pg. 155 8.A.b PROJECT NAME: Fishing Pier & Restrooms I ESTIMATED COST: $30,000 LWCF/IAC Acquisition and Development Project PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Capital improvements maintain this asset as needed. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Capital improvements to retain capital assets and enhance western gateway to the Puget Sound. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $5,000 $10,000 $5,000 $10,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $5,000 $10,000 $5,000 $10,000 all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 35 Packet Pg. 156 8.A.b PROJECT NAME: Community Garden I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $72,000 PRIVATE LIVING AREA FORMS. JOHNSON m PRWACY FENCE h s ,lr 3 I �N z z a w z W a o w I— V m � y O ❑ O z o COMP ~20 ��- i p o ¢ Y 0 ¢ a ACCESS ROAD PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Funds allocated to support the purchase and sale agreement for a 1-acre parcel of land near Yost Park. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: in the community. The community garden has been a long-standing interest SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Professional Services Lease Terms $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 TOTAL $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $0 $0 36 Packet Pg. 157 8.A.b PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Park ESTIMATED COST: $5,000 Improvements 89t" Place West and 197t" 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: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $0 $5000 $0 1 % for Art TOTAL $0 $5000 $0 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 37 Packet Pg. 158 8.A.b PROJECT NAME: Marina Beach Park ESTIMATED COST: $8-10M Improvements ha LY11Mna7 Arvr. • I ti .1 V• l �f` �� IN Anslclr6loa�f} axxn ,pr -1 :4 - __ ri i7 krru i µ. f 7S iuisBw.aav �Ff Port _ —_ �as�nll�l {orrasmn ' — iamcu m'MtiQ�or Shcra 5 i • � sk :mrq ., - R.inrt- - - 3Y- ar erm. Fcn .. k anWaua ' I f� 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 Acauisition Proiect: Protected throuah Deed -of -Right RCW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Begin development of Master plan, daylighting Willow Creek. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset to the regional waterfront park system. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study $30,000 $250,000 Eng. & Admin. Construction $1,000,000 $2,500,000 $500,000 $500,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $30,000 $250,000 $1,000,000 $2,500,000 $500,000 $500,000 . all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 38 Packet Pg. 159 8.A.b PROJECT NAME: Mathay Ballinger Park I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000 781h Place W. & 241" St. at Edmonds City Limits. 1.5 acres/Neighborhood Park/Zoned Public. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements to Mathay Ballinger Park. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset in the neighborhood park system. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $0 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $0 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 39 Packet Pg. 160 8.A.b PROJECT NAME: Pine Ridge Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000 Improvements 83`a Avenue West and 204" 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: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $0 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $0 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 * all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 40 Packet Pg. 161 8.A.b PROJECT NAME: Seaview Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000 Improvements 80" Ave W and 186t' St. SW, Edmonds City Limits, within Snohomish County 6.93-acre neighborhood park; zoned entirely Park. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Trail improvements, habitat improvements, tree planting, athletic field, tennis court and restroom maintenance. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset to the neighborhood park system. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Stud Eng. & Admin. Construction $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 * all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 41 Packet Pg. 162 8.A.b PROJECT NAME: Waterfront Redevelopment ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $6,280,198 / Waterfront Walkway Completion r • 1hY�d 1\IW 11� I ------------------- AccvM•ov R..p lA�6Ui.»l 2o� Propmod Edmwids Wam(from Garver ;r�urs; s+�• w isr�wr ww ..s.o� .+.ra. sr-v. - yu •al Isw45m0,: .— r .• __ M9gwed Tbrnpi�ti' bn b •.. •Y.grOn JN� yyetln W ran p•ur� o . PMcFW.4 Pw� PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with Sr. Center to renovate surrounding park, parking lot, frontage improvements and walkway. Remove creosote pier, reintroduce habitat for fish and wildlife. Increase access to the waterfront to accommodate increased growth. Connect waterfront walkway from Brackett's Landing South to Olympic Beach, including completion in front of the Ebb tide condominiums. This project includes the City's support for the parking lot and frontage improvements. 2021 and 2022 are for the over water walkway in front of the Ebb Tide. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Public access of waterfront and tidelands on Puget Sound. Provide a new Senior and Community Center and provide a new beachfront walkway. One of the top priorities in the PROS plan is to open up beachfront access. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/StudyPlanning/Study $100,000 Engineering $67,500 Construction $2,588,645 $150,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 1 % for Art $24,920 TOTAL $2,681,065 $250,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 42 Packet Pg. 163 8.A.b PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Final design and construction of 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor. Starting from 2009 public process and concept design, develop site design and construction documents for a safe, pedestrian friendly, and art enhanced corridor in the public right of way which provides a strong visual connection along 4th Avenue N between Main Street and Edmonds Center for the Arts. Interim work on this project since the concept was developed includes a 2015 temporary light artwork "Luminous Forest", installed to draw attention and interest to the corridor and enhance the visual connection between Main Street and the Edmonds Center for the Arts. The Cultural Heritage Walking Tour project, funded in part with a matching grant from the National Park Service Preserve America grant program, was implemented in 2011-2014 with 8 artist made historic plaques on 4th Avenue. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The corridor improvements in the public right of way will encourage pedestrian traffic & provide a strong visual connection between the ECA and downtown retail. Improvements will enhance connectivity as an attractive walking corridor & contribute to the economic vitality in the downtown. The project has been supported by the community in the 2014 Community Cultural Plan and in the recently established goals and priorities for the State certified Creative District application. Design completion will assist the City in the process of identifying & acquiring funding sources for the total project implementation phase. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/StudyPlanning/Study $100,000 $250,000 Engineering & Administration Construction $500,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $100,000 $750,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts rn c a r c m E a� 0 L Q E Q U c tv d N d :r .v tv LL r cv V LO N O N O N 0 N a� 0 a 0 L 16 0 c 0 r c a� a� a CD 0 N 0 a U M L N C a� E a c as E r a 43 Packet Pg. 164 8.A.b PROJECT NAME: Yost Park / Pool ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $180,000 Improvements PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Chlorine injector, pool cover, fiberglass drain covers, boiler maintenance and 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: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $75,000 $25,000 $30,000 $25,000 $25,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $75,000 $25,000 $30,000 $25,000 $25,000 all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 44 Packet Pg. 165 8.A.b PROJECT NAME: Outdoor Fitness Zones I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $175,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create outdoor fitness zones by adding fitness equipment within the park system. Zones scheduled for Mathay Ballinger Park and Civic Park. Supported by grant from Verdant. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Provide outdoor places to exercise to improve the health and wellness of citizens and park users, which provides adults the opportunity to exercise while their children play. This is a priority in the PROS plan. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Professional Services Construction $175,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL $175,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 45 Packet Pg. 166 8.A.b PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh /Willow ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: TBD Creek Daylighting PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Daylight Willow Creek through the Edmonds Marsh, across Marina Beach to the Puget Sound, thus increasing connectivity to upstream spawning habitat for salmonid species and other aquatic life. Excavate tidal channels within the marsh and clean out SR104 culverts to improve hydrology and reduce flooding during high flows. Funds used to support grant writing efforts and paid for out of storm water fund 422. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The daylighting of Willow Creek and subsequent redevelopment of Marina Beach park will help reverse the negative impacts to Willow Creek and Edmonds Marsh that occurred when Willow Creek was piped in the early 1960s. This project will provide habitat for salmonids, including rearing of juvenile Chinook. This project, along with its companion CIP projects "Edmonds Marsh Channel Improvements" and "Dayton Street Pump Station," will also help reduce the flooding problem at the intersection of SR-104 and Dayton Street. This project is a priority in the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 COST Professional $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 Services Construction $0 $0 $0 TOTAL $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 46 Packet Pg. 167 8.A.b 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: 2020 - 2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 * all or part of these projects may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 47 Packet Pg. 168 8.A.b r a 48 Packet Pg. 169 8.A.b CIP PARKS PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS FUND 126 - SPECIAL CAPITAL / PARKS ACQUISITION 49 Packet Pg. 170 8.A.b PROJECT NAME: Debt Service on Approved ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $988,118 Capital Projects and Acquisitions Fi-- tiv R R PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Approximate annual debt service payments on: Marina Beach / Library Roof: $80,830 PSCC (Edmonds Center for the Arts): $54,300 Anderson Center Seismic Retrofit: $26,850 PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Debt service to pay for approved capitol projects SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art Principal & Interest $163,120 $165,820 $167,250 $170,080 $167,710 TOTAL $163,120 $165,820 $167,250 $170,080 $167,710 " all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 50 Packet Pg. 171 8.A.b PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Park I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $13,100,000 IMM M91 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Civic Park master plan is complete and has been adopted, funds (including carryover, grants, bonds, REET, Park Impact Fee's and General Fund) have been allocated and we are prepared to go to bid in February with ground breaking in April or May of 2020. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The Civic Master plan was adopted in 2017. Funds have been set aside, and grant funds secured. With the approved bonding we are ready to begin the project. This is a high priority in the PROS plan. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 COST Planning and $395,000 Design Engineering $140,000 Construction $11,937,092 1 % Art $88,000 TOTAL 12,560,092 51 Packet Pg. 172 8.A.b PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Open ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,100,000 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: 2019 - 2024 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Land $300,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $300,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 52 Packet Pg. 173 8.A.b PROJECT NAME: Waterfront Redevelopment ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $6,280,198 / Waterfront Walkway Completion r • 1hY�d 1\IW 11� I ------------------- AccvM•ov R..p lA�6Ui.»l 2o� Propmod Edmwids Wam(from Garver ;r�urs; s+�• w isr�wr ww ..s.o� .+.ra. sr-v. - yu •al Isw45m0,: .— r .• __ M9gwed Tbrnpi�ti' bn b •.. •Y.grOn JN� yyetln W ran p•ur� o . PMcFW.4 Pw� PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with Sr. Center to renovate surrounding park, parking lot, frontage improvements and walkway. Remove creosote pier, reintroduce habitat for fish and wildlife. Increase access to the waterfront to accommodate increased growth. Connect waterfront walkway from Brackett's Landing South to Olympic Beach, including completion in front of the Ebb tide condominiums. This project includes the City's support for the parking lot and frontage improvements. 2021 and 2022 are for the over water walkway in front of the Ebb Tide. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Public access of waterfront and tidelands on Puget Sound. Provide a new Senior and Community Center and provide a new beachfront walkway. One of the top priorities in the PROS plan is to open up beachfront access. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/StudyPlanning/Study $100,000 Engineering $67,500 Construction $2,588,645 $150,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 1 % for Art $24,920 TOTAL $2,681,065 $250,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 53 Packet Pg. 174 8.A.b r a 54 Packet Pg. 175 8.A.b CIP PARKS PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS FUND 332 - PARKS CONSTRUCTION 55 Packet Pg. 176 8.A.b r a 56 Packet Pg. 177 8.A.b PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Final design and construction of 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor. Starting from 2009 public process and concept design, develop site design and construction documents for a safe, pedestrian friendly, and art enhanced corridor in the public right of way which provides a strong visual connection along 4th Avenue N between Main Street and Edmonds Center for the Arts. Interim work on this project since the concept was developed includes a 2015 temporary light artwork "Luminous Forest", installed to draw attention and interest to the corridor and enhance the visual connection between Main Street and the Edmonds Center for the Arts. The Cultural Heritage Walking Tour project, funded in part with a matching grant from the National Park Service Preserve America grant program, was implemented in 2011-2014 with 8 artist made historic plaques on 4th Avenue. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The corridor improvements in the public right of way will encourage pedestrian traffic & provide a strong visual connection between the ECA and downtown retail. Improvements will enhance connectivity as an attractive walking corridor & contribute to the economic vitality in the downtown. The project has been supported by the community in the 2014 Community Cultural Plan and in the recently established goals and priorities for the State certified Creative District application. Design completion will assist the City in the process of identifying & acquiring funding sources for the total project implementation phase. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/StudyPlanning/Study $100,000 $250,000 Engineering & Administration Construction $500,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $100,000 $750,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts rn c a r c m E a� 0 L Q E Q U c tv d N d :r .v tv LL r cv V LO N O N O N 0 N a� 0 a 0 L 16 0 c 0 r c a� a� a CD 0 N 0 a U M L N C a� E a c as E r a 57 Packet Pg. 178 8.A.b PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Park I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $12,600,000 IMM M91 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Civic Park master plan is complete and has been adopted, funds (including carryover, grants, bonds, REET, Park Impact Fee's and General Fund) have been allocated and we are prepared to go to bid in February with ground breaking in April or May of 2020. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The Civic Master plan was adopted in 2017. Funds have been set aside, and grant funds secured. With the approved bonding we are ready to begin the project. This is a high priority in the PROS plan. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 COST Planning and $395,000 Design Engineering $140,000 Construction $11,937,092 1 % Art $88,000 TOTAL 12,560,092 58 Packet Pg. 179 8.A.b PROJECT NAME: Marina Beach Park ESTIMATED COST: $8-10M Improvements ha LY11Mna7 Arvr. • I ti .1 V• l �f` �� IN Anslclr6loa�f} axxn ,pr -1 :4 - __ ri i7 krru i µ. f 7S iuisBw.aav �Ff Port _ —_ �as�nll�l {orrasmn ' — iamcu m'MtiQ�or Shcra 5 i • � sk :mrq ., - R.inrt- - - 3Y- ar erm. Fcn .. k anWaua ' I f� 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 Acauisition Proiect: Protected throuah Deed -of -Right RCW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Begin development of Master plan, daylighting Willow Creek. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset to the regional waterfront park system. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study $30,000 $250,000 Eng. & Admin. Construction $1,000,000 $2,500,000 $500,000 $500,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $30,000 $250,000 $1,000,000 $2,500,000 $500,000 $500,000 . all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 59 Packet Pg. 180 8.A.b PROJECT NAME: Waterfront Redevelopment ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $6,280,198 / Waterfront Walkway Completion r • 1hY�d 1\IW 11� I ------------------- AccvM•ov R..p lA�6Ui.»l 2o� Propmod Edmwids Wam(from Garver ;r�urs; s+�• w isr�wr ww ..s.o� .+.ra. sr-v. - yu •al Isw45m0,: .— r .• __ M9gwed Tbrnpi�ti' bn b •.. •Y.grOn JN� yyetln W ran p•ur� o . PMcFW.4 Pw� PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with Sr. Center to renovate surrounding park, parking lot, frontage improvements and walkway. Remove creosote pier, reintroduce habitat for fish and wildlife. Increase access to the waterfront to accommodate increased growth. Connect waterfront walkway from Brackett's Landing South to Olympic Beach, including completion in front of the Ebb tide condominiums. This project includes the City's support for the parking lot and frontage improvements. 2021 and 2022 are for the over water walkway in front of the Ebb Tide. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Public access of waterfront and tidelands on Puget Sound. Provide a new Senior and Community Center and provide a new beachfront walkway. One of the top priorities in the PROS plan is to open up beachfront access. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/StudyPlanning/Study $100,000 Engineering $67,500 Construction $2,588,645 $150,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 1 % for Art $24,920 TOTAL $2,681,065 $250,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 60 Packet Pg. 181 8.A.b PROJECT NAME: Outdoor Fitness Zones I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $175,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create outdoor fitness zones by adding fitness equipment within the park system. Zones scheduled for Mathay Ballinger Park and Civic Park. Supported by grant from Verdant. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Provide outdoor places to exercise to improve the health and wellness of citizens and park users, which provides adults the opportunity to exercise while their children play. This is a priority in the PROS plan. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Professional Services Construction $175,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL $175,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 61 Packet Pg. 182 8.A.b r a 62 Packet Pg. 183 8.A.b CIP PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS FUND 423.76 WASTEWATER TREATMENT 63 Packet Pg. 184 8.A.b r a 64 Packet Pg. 185 8.A.b PROJECT NAME: Carbon Recovery I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $24,585,000 Belt Dryer F q:IcullLLre 1Q —► B1 e q IRaeriats V 3� ��°6 Printing PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Carbon Recovery project would replace the sanitary sewage incinerator (SSI) and associated equipment. The SSI is 30 years old and must meet stringent EPA and PSCAA regulations which mandate a full replacement after 50% of the original cost in O&M upgrade has been expensed. Cost of regulatory compliance alone is estimated to be >$100,000/year. Many pieces of equipment within the SSI system are beyond their life expectancy and many are not supported by manufacturers. The Design for the proiect is scheduled for completion in earlv 2020. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The replacement technology being proposed in the Phase 6 Carbon Recovery project is a belt dryer, pyrolysis units and odor control system. The pyrolysis equipment will be housed in a new building within the current WWTP footprint and would be fully integrated into the plant control system. Furthermore, the Carbon Recovery project is the single best opportunity for the WWTP to meet the goals and objectives of the Council Resolution 1389 which commits Edmonds to achieving or exceeding the environmental goals established in the Paris Accords by reducing "greenhouse gas" emissions. The project will provide a beneficial use of the end product, referred to as "biochar", while reducing O&M cost in terms of electricity, regulatory compliance, ongoing maintenance, hauling and disposal costs. The project would be shared with our treatment partners as follows: Mountlake Terrace 23.17% $6,423,034 Olympic View Water/Sewer 16.55% $4,587,367 Ronald Sewer District 9.49% $2,629,747 Edmonds 50.79% $14,076,406 SCHEDULE: 2020-2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 COST Design Construction $11,037,000 $16,358,000 500,000 TOTAL 1 11,449,456.15 I $16,358,000 I 500,000 65 Packet Pg. 186 UP / CIP COMPARISON (2019 TO 2020) 8.A.c ADDED PROJECTS FUND PROJECT NAME I UP I DESCRIPTION 112 Walnut St. Walkway from 6th Ave. S to 7th Ave. S Install walkway on south side of Walnut St. from 6th Ave. S to 7th Ave. S (funded X by TIB Complete Street grant) 112 SR-104 Walkway from HAWK signal to Pine St / Pine St. from SR-104 to 3rd Install walkway along SR-104 from HAWK signal to Pine St. and along Pine St. Ave. S X from SR-104 to 3rd Ave. S 112 Citywide Bicycle Improvements X Add bike lanes and sharrows along various stretches throughout the City. 112 Downtown Lighting Improvements Installation of new light poles at various locations throughout Downtown to X improve night-time safety for all modes of transportation. 126 Civic Park design I x longoing, anticipated completion in 2020/2021 126 Waterfront Redevelopment/Ebb tide walkway design I x jongoing, anticipated completion in 2019/2020 421 Phase 15 Annual Replacement Program (2026) jEstimated future costs for waterline replacements. 421 Citywide Pedestrian Enhancements I IPeclestrian enhancements at various locations in the City 421 2020 Waterline Overlays jEstimated future costs for road repairs due to waterline replacements. 422 Phase 7 Annual Storm Replacement Project (2026) jEstimated future cost for Storm pipe replacements 422 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 x Enlargement of infiltration facility to decrease peak flows into Perrinville Creek 423 Phase 13 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements (2026) 1 jEstimated future costs for sewerline replacements/rehab/impr. 423 Lake Ballinger Sewer I jEstimated future costs for sewer project. 0 N O N m N 0 0. 0 a 0 t 4- 0 c 0 :r M c a� N N L IL Page 1 of 3 Packet Pg. 187 8.A.c UP / CIP COMPARISON (2019 TO 2020) DELETED PROJECTS FUND I PROJECT NAME I CFP I DESCRIPTION 112 76th Ave. W @ 212th St. SW Intersection Improvements X Completed in 2019 112 SR-104 @ 226th St. SW / 15th St. SW Intersection Improvements X Completed in 2019 112 2nd Ave. S Walkway from James St. to Main St. X To be installed as part of up -coming development 112 238th St SW. Island and ADA Curb Ramps Completed in 2019 112 Pavement Rating Study lIncluded within Annual Street Preservation Program 125 Audible Pedestrian Signals Completed in 2019 125 Anderson Center playground Completed 125 Civic Stadium removal Completed 125 Veterans Plaza Completed 125 City Park Storage Anticipate completion 126 Trackside Warning System Completed in 2019. 126 220th St. SW Signal Coordination Completed in 2019 126 238th St SW. Island and ADA Curb Ramps Completed in 2019 126 Admiral Way Anticipate completion 126 89th PI Retaining Wall Replacement Completed in 2019 421 2016 Water System Plan Update Completed in 2018. 421 2018 Waterline Overlays Completed in 2018. 421 76th Ave. W @ 212th St. SW Intersection Improvements Completed in 2019. 421 Annual Replacement Program (Phase 8) 2017 Completed in 2019. 421 Annual Replacement Program (Phase 9) 2018 1 lCompleted in 2019. 422 Northstream Culvert Abandonement Completed 422 Seaview Infiltration Facility Phase 1 Completed 422 City-wide Drainage Replacement Projects Project completed at 71st & 174th; funding for out years revised into individual phased annual repalcement proejcts 422 76th Ave @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements (Storm) Completed in 2019 422 2018 Lorian Woods Study IStudy complete 423 Phase 4 Annual Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Impr (2016) lCompleted in 2018 423 Phase 6 Annual Sewer Repl/Rehab/Improvements (2018) 1 I lCompleted in 2019 423 76th Ave. W @ 212th St. SW Intersection Improvements lCompleted in 2019 0 N O N d N O O. O a a� t 4- 0 c O R c a� N N L a LO N O N O N O x •L cU c O T) M 0. E O U d u_ U d U �i c a� E t U M r Q r c a� E t v c� Q Page 2 of 3 Packet Pg. 188 8.A.c UP / CIP COMPARISON (2019 TO 2020) CHANGED PROJECTS FUND I PROJECT NAME I UP I CHANGE 422 IPerrinville Creek Flow Management Projects 1 12020 & 2021 values reduced to provide funding for Seaview Phase 2 0 N O N d N 0 0. 0 L a a) 4- 0 c 0 :r m c a� N N L a N O N O N O .N.. X �L C� G 0 �L m Q E 0 U d u_ U d U tVi c E t U r Q r c a� E t U tc Q Page 3 of 3 Packet Pg. 189 8.B Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/9/2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment regarding Housing implementation (referred from the City Council) Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Rob Chave Background/History The City Council approved Resolution #1420 (attached) on December 11, 2018, docketing a comprehensive plan amendment to be considered in 2019. Staff Recommendation A public hearing on this subject is scheduled before the Planning Board on October 23, 2019. Narrative This is concerning an implementation action regarding housing in the City's Comprehensive Plan. "Implementation actions" are used in the Comprehensive Plan to identify a few specific time -related priorities that will be carried out. This year the City Council established a Housing Commission to study housing policy issues. Because the Commission's work is scheduled to take place during 2019-2020, the Council also felt it was appropriate to modify the related implementation action contained in the Comprehensive Plan; the existing action identified 2019 as the date for developing a 'housing strategy'. Council -adopted Resolution #1420 identified two options to consider as ways to amend the implementation action in the plan. Staff has also identified a third option. Please refer to Attachment 1 for the various options. Attachments: Attachment 1: 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Housing Implementation Options Attachment 2: Resolution 1420 Attachment 3: Council minutes 12-11-2018 Packet Pg. 190 8.B.a 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Options for amending Housing Implementation Action #1 Option #1. (From City Council Resolution) Delete the existing language in its entirety. Option #2. (From City Council Resolution) Amend the existing language as follows: Implementation Action: Develop a strategy by 2019202 for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs. Note: The final amendment will specify a date for completion. Since the Housing Commission is not scheduled to complete its work until the end of 2020, 2021 could be a reasonable date to recommend to complete this implementation action. Option #3. (From City Staff) Amend the existing language as follows: Implementation Action: n,,yelep a strategy by 2019 for increasing the supply of affeF dable heUS*Rg and meeting diverse housing needs Provide housing policy options by the end of 2020 for City Council consideration. Packet Pg. 191 8.B.b RESOLUTION NO. 1420 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DOCKETING TWO PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR CONSIDERATION AND ACTION IN 2019. WHEREAS, the city shall undertake comprehensive plan amendments only once per year; and WHEREAS, all amendments requested by the city or private parties shall be reviewed concurrently to ensure that the integrity of the comprehensive plan is preserved; and WHEREAS, proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan are to be submitted no later than December 31 st of every year to be docketed for consideration in the following year; and WHEREAS, docketing amendments in no way commits the city council to adopt those amendments in the following year; and WHEREAS, after proposed amendments have been docketed, the city council shall consider proposed amendments and may subsequently approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, the housing element of the comprehensive plan, on page 96, currently contains the following language, which is referenced below as the Existing Language: Implementation Action: Develop a strategy by 2019 for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs. WHEREAS, in response to significant public input regarding the housing strategy, the city council would like to conduct further deliberations in 2019 regarding whether the Existing Language should remain in the comprehensive plan, be amended by changing the year, or be deleted from the comprehensive plan in its entirety; now therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The city council hereby dockets the following proposed comprehensive plan amendments for consideration in 2019: Proposed amendment #1: The Existing Language is deleted in its entirety as follows: Packet Pg. 192 8.B.b Proposed amendment #2: The Existing Language is amended to read as follows: Implementation Action: Develop a strategy by 204-9202 1 for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs. Section 2. The administration is requested to take any necessary and appropriate steps to ensure that the above proposed amendments are considered in 2019. RESOLVED this 111i, day of December, 2018. CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR, DAVE EARLING ATTEST: CL K, SC '' PASSEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: December 7, 2018 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: December 11, 2018 RESOLUTION NO. 1420 1 The blank space here should be filled in pursuant to city council motion. Packet Pg. 193 8.B.c comparators could be found. She suggested an annual cost of living increase for the position and a one-time increase to reflect that it had been three years since the last increase. Councilmember Tibbott said it could be beneficial to extend the contract to consider options and to allow the contracts for the Video Recorder and the Legislative Assistant to be approved at the same time. Council President Nelson questioned whether the research of comparators could be completed by the time the Legislative Assistant contract expired; there were comparators available for the Legislative Assistant position. He clarified his motion was for a two -month extension of the Audio Video Recorder contract. He recommended taking action on the Legislative Assistant contract next year. Councilmember Mesaros said if the information regarding comparators for the Video Recorder position is received sooner than two months, the Council could take action on that contract, possibly at the same time as the renewal of the Legislative Assistant contract. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. RESOLUTION RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND HOUSING STRATEGY Council President Nelson read the resolution title, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Edmonds, Washington, Docketing Two Proposed Amendments to the Housing Element of the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan for Consideration and Action in 2019. He explained there are four options: 1) do nothing, 2) support one amendment, 3) support the other amendment, or 4) support the resolution as adopted (consider both amendments in 2019). COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 1420, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DOCKETING TWO PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR CONSIDERATION AND ACTION IN 2019 AS CURRENTLY DRAFTED. For Councilmember Buckshnis, City Attorney Jeff Taraday clarified the resolution simply dockets both options. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. SELECTION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR 2019 Mayor Earling described the process, Councilmembers make nominations, nominations do not need a second. The nominee that receives the most votes is selected. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL NOMINATED COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS FOR COUNCIL PRESIDENT IN 2019. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS NOMINATED COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS FOR COUNCIL PRESIDENT IN 2019. There were no further nominations. COUNCILMEMBERS MESAROS, TIBBOTT AND TEITZEL VOTED IN FAVOR OF COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTED IN FAVOR OF COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q December 11, 2018 Page 24 Packet Pg. 194 9.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/9/2019 Review Planning Board Extended Agenda Staff Lead: N/A Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Rob Chave Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative The current extended agenda is attached. Attachments: Attachment 1: PB Extended Agenda 10-09-2019 Packet Pg. 195 9.A.a Items and Dates are subject to change PLANKNO BOARD Extended Agenda September 25, 2019 Meeting Item OCTOBER, 2019 October 1. Joint Meeting with ADB: Design Review discussion 9 2. Comprehensive Plan Amendment regarding Housing implementation (referred from the City Council) 3. Presentation on CIP/CFP 2020 — 2025 October 1. Housing Commission Update 23 2. Public Hearing on CIP/CFP 2020 — 2025 3. Public Hearing on Comprehensive Plan Amendment regarding Housing Implementation (referred from the City Council) NOVEMBER, 2019 November 1. Presentation on potential amendment to the CW — Commercial 13 Waterfront zone to allow lodging or hotels as a permitted use 2. Presentation on potential amendment to the unit lot subdivision application procedure 3 VISION 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies Update (next steps in PSRC process) November 1. HOLIDAY 27 DECEMBER, 2019 December 1. Public Hearing on potential amendment to the CW — Commercial 11 Waterfront zone to allow lodging or hotels as a permitted use 2. Public Hearing on potential amendment to the unit lot subdivision application procedure December 1. HOLIDAY 25 9.A.a Items and Dates are subject to change Pending 1. Community Development Code Amendments / Re -Organization 2020 2. Further Highway 99 Implementation, including: ✓ Potential for "urban center" or transit -oriented design/development strategies ✓ Parking standards 3. Exploration of incentive zoning and incentives for sustainable development 4. Neighborhood Center Plans & implementation. 5. Highway 99 Implementation Recurring 1. Election of Officers (V meeting in December) Topics 2. Parks & Recreation Department Quarterly Report (January, April, July, October) Packet Pg. 197