2017-10-11 Planning Board Packet�1 o� NJI Agenda
Edmonds Planning Board
"" Ixyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
OCTOBER 11, 2017, 7:00 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Approval of Draft Minutes of September 27, 2017
3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
A. Development Services Director Report
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Low Impact Development Code Update Public Hearing
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Presentation of the Proposed 2018 - 2023 Capital Facilities Plan/Captial Improvement Plans
9. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
A. Planning Board Extended Agenda
10. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
12. ADJOURNMENT
Edmonds Planning Board Agenda
October 11, 2017
Page 1
2.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/11/2017
Approval of Draft Minutes of September 27, 2017
Staff Lead: N/A
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve draft minutes.
Narrative
Draft minutes are attached.
Attachments:
PB170927d
Packet Pg. 2
2.A.a
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
September 27, 2017
Chair Rubenkonig called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 250 — 5"b Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Carreen Rubenkonig
Alicia Crank
Todd Cloutier
Daniel Robles
Mike Rosen
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Nathan Monroe, Vice Chair (excused)
Matthew Cheung (excused)
Phil Lovell (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Kernen Lien, Senior Planner
Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager
Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder
Karin Noyes, Recorder
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 13, 2017 BE APPROVED AS
CORRECTED. BOARD MEMBER ROSEN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
No one in the audience indicated a desire to comment during this portion of the meeting.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Chair Rubenkonig referred the Board to the written report that was provided by the Development Services Director. Board
Member Crank requested additional information about the Health Summit that Ms. Hope attended. Ms. Hope said the actual
date of the summit was September 18"'. The event covered a broad range of topics related to health, and it was exciting to see
so many different organizations and interests represented. There were a variety of sessions on a wide range of topics, and the
event was well attended. She attended a session that focused on local government policy and what can and has been done to
encourage healthy, active communities. There was also a presentation by the Puget Sound Regional Council about growth
trends in the area and the factors that go into providing for healthy communities. A representative from the City of Seattle
talked about what is being done in Seattle, particularly related to providing walkable and transit -oriented housing. She
presented on things Edmonds is doing, particular in the Highway 99 Subarea to encourage and promote housing
opportunities. Lastly, she said the Mayor of Mukilteo provided a report on what is taking place in his city.
Packet Pg. 3
2.A.a
PUBLIC HEARING ON REZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9601 EDMONDS WAY FROM WESTGATE
MIXED USE (WMU) TO COMMUNITY BUSINESS — EDMONDS WAY (BC-EW)
Chair Rubenkonig reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing and then opened the hearing. She reminded the
Board and public of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, which requires that the hearing be fair in form, substance and
appearance. She asked whether any member of the Board had engaged in communication with opponents or proponents
regarding the issues in the rezone application outside of the public hearing process. All members answered no. Next, she
asked if any member of the Board had a conflict of interest or believed he/she could not hear and consider the application in a
fair and objective manner. All Board Member responded no. She asked if anyone in the audience objected to any of the
Board Members' participation as a decisionmaker in the hearing, and no one in the audience voiced a concern. Lastly, she
asked everyone planning to testify during the hearing to stand, raise their right hand, and affirm that the testimony they would
give would be the truth.
Mr. Lien advised that the applicants, CDA and Pirscher Architects, Inc. have requested a rezone on property located at 9601
Edmonds Way (eastern edge of the WMU zone). As requested, the rezone would change the zoning of the property from
WMU to BC-EW. He noted that the property owner, Columbia State Bank, has signed the land -use application for the
rezone.
Mr. Lien advised that, prior to 2007, the site was zoned Multi -Family Residential (RM-1.5), with a density of one dwelling
unit for every 1,500 square feet of lot area. In 2007, the site was rezoned (along with two properties directly to the east) to
BC-EW zoning, which is intended to recognize and accommodate the unique nature and physical constraints of the Edmonds
Way entryway to the City and to accommodate additional and more flexible development requirements for the Edmonds Way
Corridor. In 2010, Columbia State Bank received a conditional use permit to construct a bank with a drive -through on the
site. However, the project was never constructed and the building permit has expired.
Mr. Lien further reviewed that in 2015, the property was rezoned to WMU, along with other commercially -zoned properties
in the Westgate area, but the site has remained undeveloped. He explained that the WMU zone has some specific design
standards that, when applied to the subject property, make it extremely challenging to develop. Planning staff has discussed
the subject property with a number of potential developers since the WMU zone was adopted, but the same constraints have
come up with each proposal. The primary issues limiting development are the amenity space requirement and the contour
line that is intended to protect the steep slope.
Mr. Lien reviewed the criteria the Board must consider when reviewing rezone applications as follows:
Comprehensive Plan. Whether the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan
designation for the subject property is Edmonds Way Corridor. It is the only property in the Edmonds Way Corridor
designation that was included in the WMU zoning classification. The majority of the property included in the WMU
zone has a Comprehensive Plan designation of Community Commercial, while a few parcels on the west end of the
WMU zone have a Comprehensive Plan Designation of Planned Business or Neighborhood Business, which are also in
the Westgate Corridor overlay. The Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan lists compatible zoning
classifications for the different Comprehensive Plan Map designations, and compatible zoning for the Edmonds Way
Corridor includes Planned Business (BP), Neighborhood Business (NB), Community Business (BC) or similar
commercial and Multi -Family Residential (RM) zones. Staff believes that rezoning the property back to BC-EW is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Zoning Ordinance. Whether the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinances, and whether the
proposal is consistent with the purposes of the proposed zone district. The purpose of the zoning ordinance is to assist in
the implementation of the adopted Comprehensive Plan for the physical development of the City and to protect the
character and social/economic stability of residential, commercial, industrial and other uses within the City. The subject
parcel is located in the Edmonds Way Corridor Comprehensive Plan designation, and the explicit purpose of the BC-EW
zone is to implement the policies of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan for the Edmonds Way Corridor. Staff believes
that rezoning the site to BC-EW is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance.
Planning Board Minutes
September 27, 2017 Page 2
Packet Pg. 4
2.A.a
Surrounding Area. The relationship of the proposed zoning change to the existing land uses and zoning of surrounding and
nearby property. Commercial zoning already exists on the east and west side of the subject property. The two parcels
directly east of the site are zoned BC-EW, and a neighborhood with Single -Family Residential (RS-8) zoning sits above the
site. A Public Utility District (PUD) substation is located south of the site across Edmonds Way, and is zoned RM-1.5. West
of the site is WMU zoning and a variety of commercial developments. The BC-EW zone has specific provisions intended to
minimize impacts to adjacent properties. As per ECDC 16.50.020, properties adjacent to residentially -zoned properties must
be set back 15 feet from the property line and the required setback must be completely landscaped with Type I Landscaping
(the City's most dense of landscaping). Additionally, buildings taller than 25 feet adjacent to single-family zones must
modulate the design to minimize the visual impacts on single-family properties.
Changes. Whether there has been sufficient change in the character of the immediate or surrounding area or in city
policy to justify the rezone. The primary change in the area and the subject property is the establishment of the WMU
zone in 2015. However, applying WMU zoning to the subject property severely limits its development potential. As per
the guidelines in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 22.110, at least 15% of the site in the WMU zone
must be established as amenity space and an additional 15% for open space. In addition, development beyond the
contour line is prohibited. He provided a map to illustrate the 340-foot contour line for the subject parcel, which
prohibits development on approximately a little more than half of the site. While portions of the site above the 340-foot
contour line can count towards meeting the open space requirements, the area cannot be counted towards meeting the
amenity space requirement. He summarized that once a structure is compliant with setbacks (15 feet from Edmonds
Way) and required parking, as well as access in and out of the site, there is not enough room in the limited developable
footprint to also provide for the 15% amenity space.
The subject property was the only property in the Edmonds Way Corridor designation to be included in the WMU zone.
The purposes of the BC zone specifically note that the BC-EW zone is intended to "implement the policies of the
Edmonds Comprehensive Plan for the Edmonds Way Corridor, and staff believes that rezoning the property back to BL-
EW would be more consistent with the City's policies and intent for the Edmonds Way Corridor.
Suitability. Whether the property is economically and physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing zoning
and under the proposed zoning. One factor could be the length of time the property has remained undeveloped
compared to the surrounding area, and parcels elsewhere in the same zone. The BC-EW zone contains many of the
features that were incorporated into the WMU zone. For example, the height limit in the WMU zone is 35 feet, and the
height limit in the BC-EW zone is 25 feet with the potential of up to 40 feet. However, both zones require that
development greater than 25 feet in height must meet the following criteria: include at least three building and site
design techniques of LEED Gold Certification, include affordable housing, provide public amenities of at least 25% of
the length of any required street setback, or include low -impact development (LID) techniques.
Concern has also been expressed about protecting the slope. The WMU zone prohibits development beyond the 340-foot
contour, which further limits the developable area of the site. In the BC-EW zone, the steep slope would be addressed by
the City's Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO). Any development on the site will be required to prepare a geotechnical
report that makes the finding that development would not affect the slope's stability. It was noted that the applicant
submitted a geotechnical report from a previously considered development on the site, demonstrating that the site could
be safely developed without impacting the slope stability (Attachment 12). However, any new development proposal
would be required to prepare a new geotechnical report specific to the proposed development.
Value. The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value
to the property owners. Given the difficulties of developing the property under the WMU design standards, rezoning the
property back to BC-EW would increase or reestablish the economic value of the site. At the same time, public health,
safety and welfare would not be adversely impacted by rezoning the property back to BC-EW. The CAO will ensure
slope stability is not impacted, development standards specific to the BC-EW zone will minimize impacts to adjacent
residentially -zoned properties, and other development regulations will help protect the public health, safety and welfare.
Based on the findings of fact, analysis, conclusions in the Staff Report, Mr. Lien proposed that the Board forward a
recommendation of approval to the City Council to rezone the subject parcel from WMU to BC-EW.
Planning Board Minutes
September 27, 2017 Page 3
Packet Pg. 5
2.A.a
Board Member Crank asked why the acronyms for business zones are backwards. Mr. Lien said he has wondered this same
thing. His thought is that the acronyms for all business zones start with `B." Board Member Crank asked if the Columbia
State Bank's proposal triggered the rezone request. Mr. Lien responded that Columbia State Bank is the current property
owner, but CDA and Pirscher Architects, Inc. are the applicants. Regardless of whether the property is rezoned or not, any
decision made regarding the zoning will apply to the current and all future property owners.
Carl Pirscher, Pirscher Architects, Inc., Edmonds, noted that his business office is actually located in the WMU zone, so
he is very familiar with the development and design standards for the zone. For the past few years, he has studied the
development limitations associated with the contour lines that were established for the WMU zone. In fact, he has studied
the subject parcel for several different potential owners in the recent past. The site is currently for sale. Although Columbia
State Bank received a permit to develop a bank on the site, it was never built. Columbia State Bank is now looking to
transact a sale, and he is working with potential owners who are interested in developing a project consistent, in large
measure, with the current zoning, with the exception of the 340-foot contour line. After carefully reading the WMU zoning
and development guidelines, it is clear that the contour lines are very restrictive. He advised that the contour lines and
limitations were reviewed at a recent meeting at which adjacent property owners were informed of what the is being
considered for the site.
Mr. Pirscher shared an image to illustrate the contour line. He explained that, not only is the 340-foot contour line difficult to
manage, the site also has other constraints, including a permanent 50-foot easement on the east portion of the site, and a 16-
foot permanent easement on the Edmonds Way frontage. As per the City's code, development of any type is prohibited
beyond the contour line. As indicated in the report, the contour line eliminates approximately 50% of the site from any
further development. When the easements are added, only about 33% of the site is available for development. Again, he said
he has reviewed the development potential of the site with previous clients, but all have abandoned progress because of the
severe limitations imposed by the contour line.
Mr. Pirscher said the applicants would like to construct a project the City can be proud of. However, under the current
zoning, development of the site would be severely limited to uses such as a coffee shop or some other type of drive -through
business. The applicants would like to construct a quality, mixed -use development that is consistent with the BC-EW zoning
standards. He noted that the development standards for the WMU and BC-EW zones are very similar, but the rezone would
allow them to work jointly with planning staff to explore economically feasible options for the property. If the rezone is
approved, a much longer process of evaluating the technical merits of a project could be undertaken. He emphasized that a
lot more work must be done, including soil studies. He referred to the soil study that was done by Columbia State Bank as
part of a previous development proposal that expanded beyond the current 340-foot contour line. There would be numerous
design and technical issues to resolve, and he would like the opportunity to work with the City staff to design a quality
mixed -use project that will be fully -engineered and responsive to protecting the slope and surrounding neighborhoods.
Mr. Pirscher said he supports the findings of fact, conclusions and analysis provided in the Staff Report, and he asked the
Board to recommend approval of the rezone application as presented.
Board Member Crank asked if the applicant is at liberty to provide details about what is planned for the site. Chair
Rubenkonig cautioned that the issue before them is a rezone request, without an attached development proposal. Mr.
Pirscher agreed that the proposal is for a non -project -specific rezone. He explained that the rezone application is the first step
in the process. Because of significant site constraints, the applicants would like to know they will have an opportunity to
proceed on the basis of the rezone before moving forward into more detailed geotechnical, engineering and design work.
However, given the cost of the subject parcel, some type of mixed -use development with housing and commercial uses will
be the highest and best use of the site.
Board Member Robles commented that it would be helpful to have dimensional information on the possible uses of the site
based on both the current and proposed zoning. Mr. Lien explained that before developers can start planning for site
development, they need to know what regulations the property falls under. A lot of people have looked at the site under the
current WMU zoning, but they all determined they could not fit an economically feasible project on the site. The BC-EW
zone would allow more flexibility. He reminded the Board that the Columbia State Bank project was proposed under the
BC-EW zone, and it is not appropriate to consider a specific development proposal when reviewing a non -project -specific
rezone application.
Planning Board Minutes
September 27, 2017 Page 4
Packet Pg. 6
2.A.a
Rachel Ross, Edmonds, said her property is adjacent to the subject parcel and would be directly impacted. She said she was
interested in learning the differences between the two zones. She was particularly interested in how the rezone would change
the contour line and how the additional height would impact her property. Would people in the new building be able to look
down on her property? She also noted that traffic is already a problem in the area, given the curve in SR-104. There are
frequent accidents, and she would like the Board to consider whether or not the rezone would exacerbate the problem.
Mr. Lien explained that with the BC-EW zone, there would be no contour line. However, any development on the site would
be required to have a geotechnical report. As per the CAO, the geotechnical report would establish the appropriate buffer or
setback for a landslide hazard area, and specific finding must be made that the development would not impact slope stability.
At a minimum, the setback from a residentially -zoned property would be 15 feet, and he doubts that development would get
that close given the slope. Again, he said the CAO would ensure slope stability is maintained. Chair Rubenkonig
commented that, if the rezone is approved, the 340-foot contour line would no longer be a reference for the subject parcel.
This particular requirement, which is intended to protect the steep slope, would no longer apply if the property is rezoned to
BC-EW. She understands that other City and State regulations would still protect the critical area, but that particular criteria
would not.
Mr. Lien said the 35-foot height limit in the WMU zone will accommodate three-story buildings. Height in the WMU zone
is measured from the elevation at Edmonds Way. The base height in the BC-EW zone is 25 feet, but development can go up
to 40 feet if three of the four listed criteria can be met. He summarized that difference in maximum height between the two
zones is five feet.
Chair Rubenkonig referred to the map that was provided to illustrate the 340-foot contour line. She commented that it is easy
to calculate the potential height of development in the WMU zones by adding 35 feet to the elevation measured at Edmonds
Way. She suggested this same calculation could be done to estimate the potential height of a structure in the BC-EW zone.
Mr. Lien explained that height in the BC-EW zone is measured differently. In the BC-EW zone, height is measured by
drawing a rectangle around the proposed building and measuring the elevation at the four corners and dividing by four to get
an average height.
Chair Rubenkonig voiced concern that the Staff Report did not address how the difference in height could impact adjacent
residential properties. She felt this should have been addressed as part of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
review. Mr. Lien responded that, absent a development proposal, it is impossible to predict exactly how tall a proposed new
building would be. Chair Rubenkonig said she would have liked the SEPA Report to address differences between the two
zones as far as height and impacts to adjacent properties. Mr. Lien reminded the Board, that in addition to height, the zoning
code also requires buffers between the BC-EW and RS zones. The 15-foot buffer would have to be fully landscaped with
Type I Landscaping, which is the City's most dense type. Regardless of whether a building is 35 feet (WMU) or 40 feet
(BC-EW), this vegetative barrier would be required to screen the development from the properties on top of the slope.
Board Member Cloutier noted that the elevation at the top of the slope is about 365 feet and the elevation at the bottom is
about 340 feet, which is a difference of about 25 feet. A 35-foot building would be 10 feet above the top of the slope, and a
40-foot building would be 15 feet above the top of the slope. The height of the new building could be no taller than the
height of the existing homes. Again, Chair Rubenkonig voiced concern that the SEPA Report did not address how height
could impact the surrounding neighborhood. Board Member Cloutier pointed out that SEPA is intended to protect the
environment and not neighborhood character. Chair Rubenkonig voiced concern that simply stating that height would be
addressed as part of a future development proposal for the site is not a sufficient SEPA response. There are still many
unanswered questions.
Board Member Robles asked if the applicant has a business model to illustrate what could potentially be developed on the
subject parcel. If he were a developer, he would want to maximize the amount of building, which means identifying what the
maximum height would be. Mr. Lien commented that maximum height is difficult to calculate without a development
proposal. A geotechnical report will be required to say if, and how far, a building can be located behind the 340-foot contour
line. It is likely that a good portion of the site will be avoided, but this cannot be confirmed without a development proposal.
There are a number of ways to configure development on the site, and without a specific proposal, it is not possible to know
how tall it will be.
Planning Board Minutes
September 27, 2017 Page 5
Packet Pg. 7
Board Member Robles said he remembers going through the process of changing the zoning of the subject parcel to WMU.
There was a finite number of properties included in the WMU zone. He asked if, prior to the rezone, City staff looked
closely at each property to see what the impact of WMU zoning would be. He also asked if current property owners were
notified that their property values could be impacted. Mr. Lien said that a variety of notices were sent to property owners
within the rezoned areas, as well as adjacent property owners. There were also a number of public meetings at which
property owners and the public were invited to comment. While he does not know if representatives from Columbia State
Bank attended any of the public meetings, they were made aware of the proposed zoning changes. He cannot say if the
property owner evaluated what the zoning change would mean for the property. However, it is not unusual to discover issues
that arise after a zoning or code change. People do not really start applying the new zoning to a property until after it has
been formally adopted. That is when you discover unintended consequences.
Board Member Robles recalled that residents living near the Bartell's property were active in talking about the proposed
rezone, and they were able to get concessions to meet their concerns. Both parties were attentive during that process. He
expressed his belief that the subject parcel was zoned to WMU for a reason, following several public meetings. He is
hesitant to change it back to BC-EW without an equally thorough review process. Mr. Lien explained that when the contour
lines were established, a view study was done showing how tall a building could potentially be compared to the properties
above. Buildings on the lower properties would not be able to peer down into adjacent RS neighborhoods.
Board Member Robles said the Walgreen site was cited as a case study on how not to manage a slope. If they leave it to the
market, they may end up with a similar situation on the subject parcel. Mr. Lien noted that, at the Walgreen site, the existing
retaining wall was extended, but the development proposal was reviewed by a geotechnical engineer, who found that slope
stability would not be impacted. Board Member Robles agreed, but commented that the solution does not seem very
"Edmonds."
Board Member Robles pointed out that pedestrian crossings along SR-104 are controlled by the State, and no more additional
crosswalks can be added. Development in this location could add additional strain on an already difficult and dangerous
situation. Mr. Lien commented that there would be no difference in the traffic impacts regardless of whether the property is
zoned WMU or BC-EW. Any development of the site, regardless of the zoning, would require a review by the Engineering
Division to look at traffic impacts. The City will also require a traffic impact fee to help mitigate traffic concerns.
Board Member Robles recalled that the traffic rating for Edmonds Way is already at Level of Service (LOS) D because of
congestion and wait times. He asked if a traffic study would be required as part of the rezone request or if it would wait until
after a development proposal has been submitted. Mr. Lien said a traffic study was done for Edmonds Way at the time of the
WMU zoning, and certain improvements were identified and called out in the City's Transportation Plan. A new traffic
study will be required as part of any development application that triggers SEPA review. He clarified that LOS D still meets
the City's standard. Again, he emphasized that the traffic impacts would be the same regardless of whether the site is zoned
WMU or BC-EW.
Mr. Pirscher added that any project that is proposed subsequent to the zoning decision, even if the decision is to deny the
rezone, would be subject to SEPA review. The SEPA review would include documentation as to the exact building size and
anticipated occupancy, traffic studies, stormwater, etc. The neighborhood and City staff would have another opportunity, via
the SEPA process, to address issues and concerns with a specific design proposal.
Chair Rubenkonig said she can understand how responding to SEPA review as part of a rezone application can be
challenging, but she finds that the SEPA Report presented does not provide her with enough information to support the
request for a rezone.
Board Member Crank asked how the small parcel identified on the map as 9624 is currently developed. Mr. Lien said this is
a vacant parcel that is part of the gas station property. Board Member Crank asked if the proposed rezone would impact this
property, as well. Mr. Lien answered that the rezone would only apply to the 9601 parcel. Board Member Crank asked if the
parcel has been for sale for quite some time, and Mr. Lien replied affirmatively. Mr. Lien noted that the site is difficult to
develop under the WMU zone. Many developers have tried to squeeze something in there, but the WMU guidelines
prevented them from moving forward with a feasible plan.
Planning Board Minutes
September 27, 2017 Page 6
Packet Pg. 8
2.A.a
Chair Rubenkonig noted that, as per the Staff Report, no development proposals have come forward since the property was
rezoned to WMU in 2015 because there is an insufficient amount of developable land due to the 340-foot contour line.
However, a development proposal was submitted prior to 2015 when the property was zoned BC-EW. Mr. Lien clarified that
Columbia State Bank received a development permit to construct a bank on the subject parcel, but the building was never
constructed. Since the property was zoned WMU, at least five developers have tried unsuccessfully to design a project that is
economically feasible based on the WMU zoning requirements because of the 340-foot contour line and the required amenity
space. Again, he reviewed that the contour line results in at least 50% of the property being undevelopable, and the amenity
space requirement is based on the entire parcel. The WMU zone requires 15% open space, which can be easily met by
counting the area above the contour line. However, it is much more difficult to meet the required 15% amenity zone because
the area beyond the contour line cannot be counted. In addition, an applicant must meet the parking and setback
requirements, which further limit the developable land.
Chair Rubenkonig asked what relief an applicant could seek from the amenity space requirement. Mr. Lien answered that
there is no relief. The amenity zone requirement is in the design chapter of the code (ECDC 22.110). While a developer can
request a variance from the zoning requirements, it is not possible to obtain a variance from the design standards. Chair
Rubenkonig voiced concern that this was not made clear in the Staff Report.
Chair Rubenkonig asked why the 13-year-old soil study was attached to the Staff Report. Mr. Lien explained that the report
was provided as information about the geology of the site and slope stability. The geography of the site has not changed
much since the report was prepared. The report was included as part of the applicant's submittal to demonstrate that the site
could be developed to retain the slope stability. It was included in the Staff Report because it was part of the information
submitted by the applicant. Chair Rubenkonig asked how the soil study would impact the proposed rezone. Mr. Lien
recalled that there has been a lot of discussion about slope stability, and the report addressed this issue as part of a previous
development proposal. Any new development would require another geotechnical report. Again, Chair Rubenkonig said she
does not see how the report supports the proposed rezone and why it was included in the Staff Report.
Board Member Cloutier commented that although the applicant has started to think about what might be built on the site, it
has nothing to do with the issue currently before the Board, which is the rezone application. The Board should focus its
deliberations on the criteria that must be considered when reviewing rezone applications. He summarized that the BC-EW
zone is a pre-existing zone and it appears that the property was inappropriately rezoned as part of the Westgate Subarea
Planning process. He expressed his belief that the property belongs under BC-EW zoning. Any development -specific
concerns need to be remembered and brought forward as part of the development permit review and not part of the rezone
review. He does not see any issues with the rezone, as proposed. Board Members Crank and Rosen concurred.
Chair Rubenkonig voiced concern about the quality of the Staff Report. She asked if the Board has the ability to add
additional information to the Staff Report. Mr. Lien said the record is being established during this public hearing, and it is
not possible to add or remove information from the record that goes forward to the City Council. Chair Rubenkonig
summarized that the only other option would be for the Board to send the item back to staff to bring back a more complete
packet of information to address their concerns. Mr. Lien commented that he is not sure that the Board's questions can be
adequately addressed because there is not a specific development proposal. Chair Rubenkonig said she found that the SEPA
report was inadequate. Mr. Lien noted that the SEPA determination was issued and there were no appeals. Chair
Rubenkonig said she also does not appreciate that the 13-year-old soil study was attached to the Staff Report. She requested
that it be removed. She also would have liked a more thorough explanation as to why the amenity zone requirement cannot
be altered. Staff provided a clear response, but the information should also have been included in the Staff Report. The Staff
Report made note that the property has remained undeveloped for a number of years. In particular, it makes note that there
have been no development proposals since the property was rezoned to WMU in 2015. This led her to believe that zoning
was the only thing holding the property back from being feasible for development. Without also providing clear information
about the development permit that was approved in 2010, the Staff Report seems to imply that the property was not feasible
for development when it was zoned BC-EW, either. Mr. Lien referred to the 1" Paragraph on Page 2 of the Staff Report,
which makes reference to Columbia State Bank receiving a development permit in 2010. Chair Rubenkonig asked if the City
received any other development proposals for the property while it was zoned BC-EW, and Mr. Lien answered no. However,
there was a development proposal in 2004 when the property was zoned RM-1.5, and that is when the soils report was done.
Planning Board Minutes
September 27, 2017 Page 7
Packet Pg. 9
2.A.a
Board Member Robles summarized that the City Council will ultimately make the final decision, so he is not so worried
about the content of the Staff Report. However, he recognized that the City Council appreciates that the Board digs into
issues that come before them so that the City Council can make informed decisions. He did not feel it was inappropriate for
the Board to ask what the applicant is proposing to build on the property.
Board Member Robles recalled that the Board considered the same criteria when reviewing rezone proposals associated with
the Westgate Subarea Plan. It was determined, at that time, that WMU zoning was the most appropriate for the subject
parcel. When making its recommendation, the Board trusted the City staff to provide information to address their concerns.
Now the Board is being asked to consider a rezone because of an omission that needs to be corrected. He asked if this would
cause other property owners to seek zoning changes, as well. The decision to rezone the property to WMU was made
following a robust public process, and he felt that a change back to BC-EW should require a rigorous process, as well. He
said he is confident that the City Council will afford the request the study it is due. While he supports and encourages good
development, he is concerned that changing the zoning might allow a bad project to be constructed. He cautioned against
making the zoning code too flexible, leaving the City no recourse to address bad proposals. In particular, he asked if there
are sufficient safeguards in place to ensure that traffic issues will be addressed as part of any development proposed for the
site. Mr. Lien answered that there are appropriate constraints in place to address traffic, as well as design issues. He briefly
reviewed the process for reviewing development permit applications, He explained that any future project on the site would
likely trigger a SEPA review to consider the impacts associated with the project. Any project that requires SEPA, also
requires Architectural Design Board review at a public hearing. This would provide another opportunity for the public to
comment on a specific project proposal. The ADB's decision is appealable to the City Council.
Board Member Robles noted that attentive neighbors have participated in the process to voice concern about how
development along Edmonds Way would impact them. However, there is no record that the property owner has been equally
attentive to the process. Because the public has come forward to testify, he asked if their comments would be given more
weight when the final decision is made. Mr. Lien said there will be other opportunities for the public to comment throughout
the process, and adjacent property owners will receive notification of the public hearing. The Architectural Design Board,
like the Planning Board, gives weight to the public comments that come in. Ultimately, a development proposal will be
reviewed as to its consistency with the design and zoning standards, as well as the criteria that needs to be considered. Board
Member Robles suggested that the public's attentiveness should be noted. Chair Rubenkonig pointed out that the Staff
report, as well as minutes from the Planning Board's public hearing will become part of the evident in the record that is sent
to the City Council.
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS,
ANALYSIS AND ATTACHMENTS IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE BOARD FORWARD A
RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE REQUEST TO REZONE
PROPERTY AT 9601 EDMONDS WAY FROM WESTGATE MIXED USE (WMU) TO COMMERCIAL
BUSINESS — EDMONDS WAY (BC-EW) (FILE NUMBER PLN2170034). BOARD MEMBER CRANK
SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chair Rubenkonig commented that she has done what she can to craft her concerns and make them part of the record. It is up
to the City Council to review the minutes and note her concerns. Board Member Robles encouraged members of the public
to hold the City accountable that the facts and opinions discussed during the Board's hearing are included as part of the
record.
THE MOTION CARRIED 4-1, WITH CHAIR RUBENKONIG VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
Chair Rubenkonig closed the public hearing.
HOUSING STRATEGIES UPDATE
Ms. Hope reviewed that the Comprehensive Plan requires that the City "develop a strategy by 2019 for increasing the supply
of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs. " The goal is to accomplish this task sooner by adopting a housing
strategy by 2018. She summarized that there is significant concern about whether or not there will be sufficient housing in
the City to accommodate all residents, and affordability is also a major concern. Although the Housing Element in the
Planning Board Minutes
September 27, 2017 Page 8
Packet Pg. 10
Comprehensive Plan provides background information and broad policies related to housing, the Housing Strategy will
provide more detailed information about housing options and actions the City could take to address this complex issue. It
will also provide tools, resources, and potential partnerships that the City might participate in to encourage a better housing
supply that provides more options for people in the future.
Ms. Hope said it is anticipated that the City will continue to grow in population, and there needs to be opportunities for
livable housing that fits with the neighborhoods and continues Edmonds as a great community. She noted that the Planning
Board has already provided some input into development of a housing strategy, and it may continue to do so. The Planning
Board will also review the draft Housing Strategy in detail and forward a recommendation to the City Council. In addition,
Mayor Earling has appointed a Housing Task Force to recommend priority approaches for incorporation into the Housing
Strategy. The Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA) has also been a significant source of information, and she
introduced Chris Collier, AHA Program Manager, who was present to provide a report to the Board.
Chris Collier, AHA Program Manager, explained that the AHA was formed in 2013 to support affordable housing for all
in Snohomish County. The AHA assists in planning and policy research, education and outreach. It also provides a shared
housing specialist, facilitates discussion forums for all of its members, and serves as a regional response to housing needs.
Membership includes Snohomish County and 13 different cities within the County, including Edmonds. The AHA focuses
on the following three concepts:
• Cost Burden. When more than 30% of a monthly income goes to housing expenses, a person is considered cost
burdened. Housing expenses include mortgage and insurance, rent, utilities, etc. Costs can go well beyond 30% of
income.
• Area Median Income (AMI). Edmonds' AMI was $75,044 in 2015 compared to Snohomish County at $70,722. AMI
is broken down into categories: 0-30%, 30-50%, 50-80% and 80-110%. AMI is used to target and organize housing
affordability based on the categories, and it is adjusted for household size. A single person with no dependents has a
different affordability range than a single -mother with two children. For reference, 30% AMI is about $22,000 annual
income. When focusing on affordable housing, a city must identify what category of income they are really looking at.
Supply and Demand. The AHA has prepared a chart to illustrate the housing surpluses and deficits on an annual and
aggregate basis. It is based on the number of new households in the city compared to the number of new units sitting
vacant that haven't been occupied by households. While there was a surplus of units each year prior to the recession,
there was a deficit during the recession. There was also a surplus between 2011 and 2013, but a deficit since 2014.
Between 2014 and 2016 there were 16,231 new households in Snohomish County and only 10,469 new units. Currently,
there is only 29 days of single-family house supply in Southwest Snohomish County. For reference, a healthy housing
market would have a 6-month supply. All of this points to the fact that when demand outpaces supply, the price of
goods increases. The cost of housing in Snohomish County has increased about 43% since 2007. Before 2015, AMI
rose faster than rent. In 2015, AMI and rent increased in roughly proportionate amounts. In 2016/17 rent has risen at a
dramatic pace, and it unlikely that AMI has kept pace. It is anticipated that this will continue into the future. The
economic impact of continuing the status quo include:
o More people working good, decent jobs will struggle to make ends meet.
o Local employers will have difficulty hiring and retaining workers.
o Commute times and congestion will increase as more people will work but not live in the community
o Businesses will start to look elsewhere where workers can live for less.
The social impacts of continuing the status quo include:
o Rising level of housing instability, with people living paycheck to paycheck.
o Reduced health as a result of financial stress.
o Lowered education attainment for children.
o Rising homelessness. Many people are just one emergency away from homelessness.
o Higher drug and alcohol use, increased crime, and a greater demand for emergency services.
Planning Board Minutes
September 27, 2017 Page 9
Packet Pg. 11
2.A.a
To illustrate his concern related to housing, Mr. Collier shared how two Edmonds residents have been impacted:
Allison works at a construction company in Snohomish County, making $40,000 a year. She has doubled her income
since she started working for the company. She is a single mother of two teenage children and rents a 3-bedroom house
in Edmonds for $1,900 a month. She initially rented in Lynnwood for $900 a month in 2005. She was enrolled at
Edmonds Community College for a time. When her children become adults, she will be taken off of the Section 8
consideration, and she will lose money she is relying on now to support her. There is a good chance she will have to
move out of the City.
• Samuel is a single, disabled man in his 60s. He has doubled his income since 2003 and is now making $30,000 a year at
a travel company. He was initially homeless before getting assistance. He now rents in Edmonds for $1,000. With
assistance from the County and State, Samuel was able to pull himself out of homelessness, but there is no way for him
to get off the program based on his challenges.
Mr. Collier said there is much that cities can do to improve housing opportunities. At the core of the issue is a shortage of
housing units, which means that more units need to be built. To accomplish more housing, units can be smaller and
development can go vertical. However, that does not mean that development needs to be tall, skyscrapers crammed into
small spaces. People tend to think that the only options are single-family, detached homes and mid -rise condominiums, but
there are a lot of other options in between that increase density but are consistent with what already exists in Edmonds and
Snohomish County. He provided a number of examples that included duplex, tri-plex, four-plex, courtyard apartments,
townhomes, multi-plex and live -work units.
Mr. Collier said that when talking about affordable housing, it is important to keep in mind that different housing types
provide different choices and prices. The middle -range options are great for first-time homebuyers, and they allow for a
place to live at every age and life stage. There are tools available to create affordable housing, including code and zoning
that is more flexibility and offers incentives, such as higher density or impact fee waivers, when affordable housing is
included as part of a project. Other tools include multi -family tax exemptions in exchange for affordability, reduced parking
requirements, and planned neighborhoods or downtown/transit corridor subarea planning.
Mr. Collier reviewed that, currently, the City allows attached Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU), but detached ADUs are
prohibited. He suggested the City could review its ADU provisions and consider allowing detached ADU's, too. This
change would not alter the look and feel of the neighborhoods, but it would allow people to live in smaller, more affordable
units. He referred to the Sightline Institute's ADU Comparison for helpful information to consider when reviewing the
provision. He said the City also has a multi -family tax exemption for projects that include affordable housing. In addition,
the Highway 99 Subarea Plan allows for a mixture of higher -density uses, including housing.
In addition to what the City has already done, Mr. Collier suggested the City could consider creating a pre -approved blueprint
book for residential development. The book would provide pre -approved plans that meet all of the City's code standards.
This will speed up development, but maintain the look and feel of the City by having community engagement. This concept
is used across the country for increasing density in a way that is acceptable and amenable to communities. It also reduces
development costs and risks for developers. Another option is to allow smaller single-family lots. Currently, the minimum
lot size in Edmonds is 6,000 feet, and 77% of the City is zoned single-family. Reducing the lot size requirement would
accommodate cottage housing opportunities. Lastly, the City could consider reducing the parking requirements, particularly
around robust transit corridors.
Mr. Collier summarized that supply and demand are at the core of the issue and will inform the solution, as well. Growth can
happen while still maintaining the City's character, and addressing livability is a critical issue for the City because it affects
everyone.
Board Member Robles suggested that, rather than using supply and demand as a basis, the City has talked about the need to
address opportunities for its residents to "Age in Place." Many people want to continue living on their properties, and ADUs
allow this to happen. He commented that there is a large body of evidence to support ADUs, given the City's more affluent
and aging population. While the community might not respond favorably to the concept of cottage housing, they may be
responsive to ADU opportunities.
Planning Board Minutes
September 27, 2017 Page 10
Packet Pg. 12
Board Member Crank reported that she attended the Housing Task Force's first meeting as a member of the public, and she is
hopeful in what the group has been tasked to do. She requested that the Board Members receive an electronic copy of Mr.
Collier's presentation. It is very user-friendly and provides practical information. As the Board moves forward in its
discussion about affordable housing, she encourage them to frontload the discussion with an explanation of what is affordable
by using specific and tangible examples that will further help the conversation.
Board Member Rosen said he really appreciates the comments from Board Members about the need to keep the values and
humanness part of the effort. Of the 21,000 new units that are targeted for Edmonds in the future, he asked how many could
be accommodated based on the current zoning. He also asked if there is a percentage for the number of new units that must
be affordable. Ms. Hope said the City has conducted a Buildable Lands Analysis that indicated there is enough capacity to
accommodate all of the additional units. However, affordability will be based, to a great extent, on the market, as long as the
rules allow developers to move forward. It also depends on the level of affordability.
LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID) CODE UPDATE INTRODUCTION
Ms. McConnell advised that the City of Edmonds is one of 94 cities that has been issued a Western Washington Phase II
Municipal Stormwater Permit by the Department of Ecology (DOE). In order to comply with the Permit, the City is required
to review and revise codes, policies and standard details to eliminate barriers that would prevent the incorporation of LID
principles and best management practices (BMPs). She explained that LID in this context can be defined in a few different
ways and is most commonly thought of as a way to manage stormwater. However, it can also have a broader definition when
looking at overall site design, to include preserving natural resources, arranging homes in a way that minimizes grading or
opens up solar opportunities and minimizes impervious areas.
Ms. McConnell reviewed that in an effort to comply with the Department of Ecology Permit Requirements, the City's
stormwater code went through a major overhaul process starting in 2015. The updated code was approved by City Council in
October 2016, and became effective January 1, 2017. The new code requires stormwater runoff to be managed on site where
feasible — essentially putting the stormwater runoff back into the ground. In addition, City needed to review other
development -related codes and staff has been working with a consultant since 2016 to accomplish this. The Staff Report
identifies code sections that the consultant and city staff recommend revisions to in the effort of encouraging LID and
eliminating any potential barriers. She explained that while the City's code was not seen to present any barriers to the
inclusion of LID in a site design, code language was tweaked to better present opportunities for LID and to get permit
applicants thinking about LID on the front end of their projects. She highlighted some of the proposed changes as follows:
• ECDC 9.20.010(A) — Definitions. The definition for "concrete curbs and gutters" was updated to read, "that portion of
the roadway edge constructed to city standards. " The City has a separate manual that deals with specific design
standards. Because there are a variety of curb types, referencing a specific standard is not appropriate. Staff is
proposing that the reference be removed to eliminate a potential barrier when considering LID options.
• ECDC 18.00.010(B)(4) — Application. A site plan is required as part of a development permit application. The
language in this section was changed to include vegetation and LID elements as part of the site plan requirement. This
amendment is intended to bring to light there are other features that need to be considered with development. If possible,
it is desirable for development to work around these features in order to protect and preserve them.
• ECDC 20.11.030(B)(1) — Criteria. This section deals specifically with site treatment and takes into consideration the
character of the site and the nearby area. The current language is vague, and staff is proposing it be amended to read,
"Grading, vegetation removal and other changes to the site shall be minimized to protect natural resources, limit
disturbance of native soils, and encourage low impact development. " The proposed language is more specific and
encourages the use of LID and limiting the disturbance of soils.
• ECDC 20.13.020(P) — General Design Standards. This is a new section that recognizes that LID is something that
should be considered throughout the entire design process where feasible. As proposed, the section would read,
Planning Board Minutes
September 27, 2017 Page 11
Packet Pg. 13
2.A.a
"Stormwater LID BMP integration into overall landscape design is strongly encouraged, where feasible. " Chair
Rubenkonig suggested that the acronym `BMP" should be spelled out (Best Management Practices).
ECDC 20.75.020(B), (C), and (F) — Purposes. These are new sections that provide additional language in the
subdivision code to promote and encourage the use of LID development and encourage site design around LID. The
change includes promoting the preservation of critical areas, encouraging site design that can make the best use of
renewable energy resources, and encouraging LID practices when providing for streets and sidewalks.
• ECDC 20.55(L) — Terms. This amendment would add a definition for Low Impact Development. As proposed, the
definition would read, `A stormwater management and land development strategy applied at the parcel and subdivision
scale that emphasizes conservation and the use of on -site natural features. "
Chair Rubenkonig asked why the language was not stronger to require rather than simply encourage LID. Ms. McConnell
explained that the current DOE permit requires the City to update the stormwater code with requirement type language, and
the DOE has been working towards that effort for quite some time. The permit no longer encourages, but requires, the
employment of LID where feasible in stormwater design. The DOE is now requiring cities to look at the rest of their codes to
eliminate barriers that may prevent LID from being applied and to encourage people to use LID. It maybe that the DOE will
require the City to make them requirements at some point in the future, but that is not the case now.
Ms. McConnell advised that she would present the proposed amendments at a public hearing on October 1 ltn
Board Member Crank said she assumes that the acronym LID will be clear when the proposed changes are incorporated into
the code. She suggested that a consistent term be used throughout the document. Ms. McConnell answered that the
stormwater code uses the term "LID," and the term is defined in the stormwater code. Rather than providing the definition in
every code section where LID is mentioned, the definition will be added to the general section of the code. The term will be
used consistently throughout the code to correspond with the definition.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Board Member Rosen recalled that the Board previously discussed the concept of having joint meetings with other City
boards and commissions. Chair Rubenkonig said the Board anticipates having a joint meeting with the Architectural Design
Board to discuss design issues associated with the Five Corners Subarea Plan, but they are still waiting for the consultant to
finish the feasibility study. The Board also discussed having a joint meeting with the City Council to discuss issues related to
housing affordability, and this meeting will likely occur sometime in the future. They also expressed a desire to meet with
the Economic Development Commission to brainstorm ideas for code development for the Highway 99 Subarea Plan, but
that plan already seems to be moving along on its own velocity.
Board Member Crank reported on her attendance at the Housing Task Force meeting, where an ambitious, but doable,
timeline was presented. The task force is planning to meet with the Planning Board in early spring of 2018 to present the
draft plan for review and comment. It might be appropriate to have a joint meeting with the City Council at that time.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Rubenkonig pointed out that information was provided in the script she was given prior to the meeting to help her
move the public hearing along. She suggested it would be helpful for all Board Members to receive a copy of the script. She
said it would also be helpful if staff provided an outline of the Board's choices for acting upon what is in front of them.
Board Member Cloutier reviewed that, in the past, the Board has either forwarded a recommendation of approval to the City
Council as presented in the Staff Report, forwarded a recommendation of approval to the City Council with changes, sent an
item back to the staff for more information, or continued Board deliberations to a future date. Chair Rubenkonig said she
does not want the Board to feel pressured to make a decision before having all the information needed. She suggested that
the Board's options be provided in writing prior to a public hearing.
Planning Board Minutes
September 27, 2017 Page 12
Packet Pg. 14
2.A.a
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
None of the Board Members provided additional comments.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
0
N
r.
N
L
d
E
a)
d
N
S
G
L
O
O
L
0.
M
Q
v
ti
N
0
m
IL
c
a�
E
z
c�
r
Q
Planning Board Minutes
September 27, 2017 Page 13
Packet Pg. 15
5.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/11/2017
Development Services Director Report
Staff Lead: Shane Hope, Director
Department: Development Services
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and discuss
Narrative
Report is attached
Packet Pg. 16
6.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/11/2017
Low Impact Development Code Update Public Hearing
Staff Lead: Jeanie McConnell
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Kernen Lien
Background/History
The City of Edmonds is one of 94 cities that has been issued a Western Washington Phase II Municipal
Stormwater Permit (Permit) by the Department of Ecology. This Permit mandates cities reduce the
discharge of stormwater pollutants to the maximum extent feasible and implement a stormwater
management program that integrates Low Impact Development Practices into City policy and code. The
City has for many years worked towards reducing the concentration of pollutants in City stormwater and
has revised codes, policies and practices to better address these issues. As part of this continued effort,
and as required by the Permit, the City began a process in 2015 of reviewing and revising codes, policies,
and standard details.
Staff Recommendation
Forward a recommendation to the Edmonds City Council approving of the LID code amendments in
Attachment 1.
Narrative
The City's Storwmater Code (ECDC 18.30) went through a major overhaul process to address the new
permit requirements and was approved by City Council on October 4, 2016, with an effective date of
January 1, 2017. The stormwater code requires, through the development process, that stormwater
runoff be managed on site where feasible. Stormwater management systems include for example, rain
gardens and pervious pavements.
In addition to updating the City's Stormwater Code, all other development -related codes and
enforceable documents have been reviewed to eliminate barriers that would prevent the incorporation
of low impact development principles and best management practices. The City has been working with
a consultant since 2016 to help identify any potential barriers. The proposed code amendments are
included in the attached table.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Proposed LID Integration Code Amendments
Packet Pg. 17
6.A.a
PROPOSED CODE CHANGES TO ALIGN WITH LID INTEGRATION REQUIREMENTS
Concrete curbs and gutters" means that portion of the roadway edge
Definitions. 9.20.010(A) constructed to city standards (Standard c. ecifiCatiORS f.). Municipal Publim .A.1ei-i s;
The duty, burden, and expense of constructing or repairing a sidewalk shall be upon the
property owner directly abutting the sidewalk zone: Whenever a portion of any city street,
not longer than one block in length, of any street in the ^f*y is not improved by the
construction of a sidewalk thereon, or the sidewalk thereon has become unfit or unsafe
Construction
for the purposes of public travel, or no longer functions as a stormwater facility as
and
designed, and such street, adjacent to both ends of said portion, `hall be 50 improved is
9.20.020
in good repair and the city council of the city shaftfinds by resolution, that the
Reconstruction
improvement of such portion of such street by the construction or reconstruction or repair
of Sidewalk.
of a sidewalk thereon is necessary for the public's safety, -ate convenience, and/or
stormwater management obligation, the duty, burden and expense f,-en5t,-ueti ,
Streets and
Sidewalks
upon such portk4v, pursuant to the procedures outlined below in ECC 9.20.030; provided,
Sidewalk
that such abutting property shall not be charged:
Construction
and
It shall be the responsibility of the abutting property owner to maintain, repair and
Maintenance
reconstruct adjacent planting strips in an attractive and safe manner, while continuing to
Responsibility
provide stormwater management as required. Planting strips shall be maintained,
and duty to
repaired or reconstructed with a4rapproved materials and fFee ef.,....etati..r `ch that
maintain,
tilizdo of the right-of-way for public purposes.
allow for use tends W impair the utilization-
9.20.060
Nonliving material shall be level with the top of the curb and the sidewalk and shall be
repair and
contained within the planting strip so as not to be a hazard to the persons using the
reconstruct
sidewalk or street or crossing the planting strip ^^f^^ to eF 40M , vehiele. Living
planting strips.
vegetation exclusive of street trees placed in the planting strip shall be of a height that
does not interfere with the lawful and safe use of the public right-of-way and shall be
maintained by weeding, spraying, fertilizing, watering and trimming.
Packet Pg. 18
6.A.a
PROPOSED CODE CHANGES TO ALIGN WITH LID INTEGRATION REQUIREMENTS
0
U
ti � PROPOSED CHANGESr
C
N
Responsibility E
0-
and duty to 0
0
maintain, >
Streets and Living vegetation placed in the transition strip shall be maintained by weeding, spFaying,
repair and 9.20.070
Sidewalks fertilizing, watering and trimming.
reconstruct a
transition E
strips. c
J
General "A site plan, to scale, showing existing and proposed structures, a� improvements and
Application 18.00.010(B)(4) r_
Requirements affected streets, utilities, vegetation, LID elements, etc.;" c
Performance
Land Clearing Standards for
and Tree Cutting Land 18.45.050(H)(6)
Code Development
Permits
Public Works
Requirements Streets and
Driveways
Plans and
18.80.020(B)(8)
Specifications
"The applicant may prune branches and roots, femme and water as horticulturally
appropriate for any trees and ground cover which are to be retained."
"Existing and proposed drainage structures (end ' ir-ate ^'i'reetien of fle ., provide RIM and
invert elevations), stormwater features, and easements"
Parking lots shall be hard surfaced. The city engineer may allow gravel parking lots for
Parking Lot Parking Lot temporary parking lots, or where parking is primarily long term. Driveways approaches for
18.95.020(C) gravel parking lots shall be hard -surfaced from the edge of the existing street a distance of
Construction Construction at least 20 feet or to the edge of back from the property line, whichever is greater.t"^
stFeet.
Packet Pg. 19
6.A.a
PROPOSED CODE CHANGES TO ALIGN WITH LID INTEGRATION REQUIREMENTS
General Design Grading, vegetation removal and other changes to the site shall be minimized to protect
Criteria 20.11.030(B)(1) where natural resources, limit disturbance of native soils, and encourage low impact
Review development. beabity exists
Landscape Plan 20.13.010(H) Any proposed or existing physical elements (such as stormwater facilities, fencing, walls,
Requirements building, curbing, and signs) that may affect the overall landscape;
20.13.020(D)
Gov ^
Extruded Curbs four to � F e"^� aregaiFed shall be provided as needed to contain
where landscaping in planter ^,^areas.
Decid-We-us A-.r bFeadleaf evergreen trees sheuld be planted at least feur feet fireffl.. C-uHh-s—,
especially in front of parking stalls. Where possible, coniferous trees should be plante
20.13.020(G) 'Part -;^.,^n fppt frern eir".-,
'. When selecting tree species, consideration should be given
Review Criteria to pedestrian and vehicular use, as well as impacts to surrounding utilities.
and Procedures
Delete Section:
General Design Berms oF mounds should be no steeper than 3(H):!(V). Any slepes steeper than 3:1 (2:1
Standards 20.13.020(1)Fnammum tted by the eity f9F fell slopes) need r+,- l ^ tting ether
Landscaping ntrel methods ; .,lancing aFeas of covered by grass (e rockery)
Requirements
Add Section P (Section I removed):
20.13.020(P) "Stormwater LID BMP integration into overall landscape design is strongly encouraged,
where feasible."
Add Section Q:
"Consideration of a variation to the maximum planter size will be given when the planter
20.13.020(Q) area is also functioning as a bioretention or raingarden facility. See requirements in ECDC
18.30."
Add Section R:
20.13.020(R) "Landscaping used as part of a low impact development stormwater facility may be
counted towards meeting the requirements of this chapter.
Packet Pg. 20
6.A.a
PROPOSED CODE CHANGES TO ALIGN WITH LID INTEGRATION REQUIREMENTS
Landscape rrBie ....
„I+.,...-- ted into ., .LiRg let designs a .-*.-.,.,. lye ed" Note: Language
20.13.030(E)(2)(d) added to ECDC 20.13.020 General Design Standards encouraging use of LID BMP's. (see
Types new section (P) above).
Planned
Decision
Review Criteria Residential Criteria for 20.35.050(A)(3) Minimize the use of impervious surfacing materials through the use of alternate materials
and Procedures Development or methods such as open -cell grid pavers gFaSSGFete or shared drivways
(PRD) PRDs
All drawings presented in the preliminary development stage shall be presented in
20.35.090(C)(1)(c) detailed form, i-.e. e.g., landscaping, circulation, utilities, building location, and LID
elements ete.
Add New Section B:
20.75.020 (B) "To promote the preservation of critical areas and encourage low impact development"
Add New Section C:
20.75.020 (C) "To encourage site design that can make the best use of renewable energy resources
including solar and geothermal"
Subdivisions Purposes
Add New Section F:
"To encourage low impact development (LID) practices when providing for streets and
20.75.020 (F) sidewalks"
20.75.020 (G) To provide for proper ingress and egress, while minimizing impervious surfaces
Packet Pg. 21
6.A.a
PROPOSED CODE CHANGES TO ALIGN WITH LID INTEGRATION REQUIREMENTS
0
PROPOSED CHANGES
U
a�
E
Landscaping
0
Firedale Village and Screening
22.100.050(B)(3)
Parking areas shall have at least one tree per every 10 parking stalls.
m
Site Design Elements
o
Standards
Design
a
Standards
Site Design and Water Use. The proposed development will integrate low -impact
E
0
Sustainable
22.100.090(B)(1)
development techniques whereFeasenably feasible. For the purposes of this section, low-
Design
impact development techniques shall include, but shall are not be limited to, the
following: the use of bioswales, green roofs, and gFaSSGFete open cell/vegetated pavers.
N
Add New Definition:
Low Impact Development (LID): A stormwater management and land development
Definitions 21.55 'T' TERMS strategy applied at the parcel and subdivision scale that emphasizes conservation and the
use of on -site natural features. See Title 18.30 Stormwater Management for additional LID
related terms, including Impervious Surface, Bioretention, Pervious Surface and On -site
Stormwater Management BMP.
Packet Pg. 22
8.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/11/2017
Presentation of the Proposed 2018 - 2023 Capital Facilities Plan/Captial Improvement Plans
Staff Lead: Rob English, City Engineer
Department: Development Services
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
See Narrative below.
Staff Recommendation
Hold public hearing on October 25, 2017.
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 2018-2023 CFP is attached as Exhibit 1. The CFP has three project sections comprised of
General, Transportation and Stormwater. The proposed 2018-2023 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:
Exhibit 1: 2018 - 2023 Capital Facilities Plan
Exhibit 2: 2018 - 2023 Capital Improvement Plan
Packet Pg. 23
8.A
Exhibit 3: 2018 -2023 CIP-CFP Comparison
Packet Pg. 24
8.A.a
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2018-2023
op .. EDP
�sr
1!0
Eo
DRAFT
Packet Pg. 25
8.A.a
CFP
GENERAL
Co
r
O
N
d
N
O
0.
O
L-
a.
CD
0
c
0
:r
m
c
w
N
N
L
a
c
c�
a
N
N
u
m
LL
Q
m
U
Cl)
N
O
N
a
Packet Pg. 26
8.A.a
c
m
o
0
3
3
v
c
c
d
No
c
>
c
>
'
N
Q
L
CL
N
O E
N
CL
N
N
O U
�
IL
N
O N
N
O� O
N
O
1•,�
1�
N
_
p Q
O O O O O
0 0 0 0
0 0
0
O o 0 0 0
0o c
0 U
c
O
N
O N I.O'1 O O
n
M
»
»
N
O N
a
0 0
0 0
0 o O
0 0 o
O N
N C N
00
N
M W
r
0
N
a
a
d
U«
N
�`
O1
d
C
9
in d
~
d
Q
0
m>
0 _
`o
Co «
O .. _
> O o
N Co
N y _
E 2
m O@ r
6 _
> o
Co
t ..
` o a
Co N «
N C
o m
C LL
« A
~
a Q.
LL
d
U
._ O
D O ~
U
._ o. O
r= p F
U W o O
K o O~
O
0 O ~
0. a O
Q E d f
7, m 0
O
O~
U C
L
aci
:9 t
U LL
a (�
W
K LU (�
m~
U
A
m>
a`
v
d
LL
Qi
t
O
_
NO
ON
0
0 0 0 0
OM OM
N
O O
V Q
---
N
G
p
60 .m..
O N O n
OJ M
O
_
—
A�A�
W
—
C
d m
m
.
O1
Ti
«
d °-
aai
c
i z 2
d
� o.
d
N
o f
O a` 0.
U
o
m E
a o
U
o
y E ..
d c
W E
O
o
L
d
U
U
a U
U
U
a
a
a
O
s
o
c
O a
m
c
~ N
O
O
U
U
K
m
Q�
ci
u
m
«
a o
o
LL
E
Qo
o
3
1O ^�
m
`gCo
m e
Sm
m
v
tp T
❑ l6
«
N v
o
n
O y
m
d
b
O 3
d
U
m
Nv
W C
m
d
v
m
6 C T.
O U
(6
�.�
f
W
Q
o
CL
T
d-
ro
z
3 m
o a
m m
10 6mi m
€
o
>
c
m vo
6oi a
m2
KU
::v m
'
a
cv
M
m
a
o L
o'`
d
mo>'
°+E
a
6ai=
dod
dd
o
vT
N
�Ua
O'55
w
5 m co
Kn
K mU
Wm
¢
�
00
T
a
3
v
oml
r
O
ml
g
N
o
y
O
o
o
N
r
E
m
o a.
U
2
..
U o
N 0
N
d
00
3
x
o
W
0
m
o
d
at
o
r
o
_rn
d
v
d
d
ON
o
=
IL
'E 90
LL
o y
U
x
m
d
)
E�
y c.
o
Y
i
Ev=
10E
E'S
S
V
U
UO
am
3 U
a
Packet Pg. 27
8.A.a
PROJECT NAME: Aquatic Facility ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000 —
$23,000,000
Man
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Implement recommendations of the Aquatics Feasibility Study
completed in 2009. Six scenarios were presented and the plan recommended by the
consultants was a year round indoor pool with an outdoor recreational opportunity in the
summer. The project is dependent upon a public vote.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The current Yost Pool, built in 1972, is nearing the end of
its life expectancy. The comprehensive study done in 2009 assessed the needs and wants of
Edmonds citizens in regard to its aquatic future as well as the mechanical condition of the
current pool.
SCHEDULE: 2024-2038
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024-2038
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$5m - $23m
x all or part of this Project may quality for 1 Yo for the Arts
4
Packet Pg. 28
8.A.a
PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Development ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $12,050,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Civic Center Development / Stadium Demolition.
Develop the recently adopted master plan for Civic Park, including demolition of the stadium.
Develop plan adding amenities and recreation components, restrooms to accommodate
increased growth.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Civic Center Development.
The acquisition and development of Civic Center is a high priority in the PROS plan.
SCHEDULE: 2018 - 2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Design
500000
1,000,000
Construction
250000
10,000,000
300,000
TOTAL
750000
11,000,000
300,000
Packet Pg. 29
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
.._...®p,s ..._ a ,.,.� ,.�.,....
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: 2018-2038
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024-
COST
2038
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$6-8M
" all or a portion of this project may quality for 1 % for the Arts
6
Packet Pg. 30
8.A.a
PROJECT NAME: Parks & Facilities ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3-$4 Million
Maintenance & Operations Building
Existing Building Outline
Yard Fu Mo ;
0
0
�,Ikw — 100
L adirtg T..�
New One S,
1,600 sf 6,600 s#
Building
Driveway — 15,800�
Yard Functions � 11,910 If
Perimeter zone — 4,200 st
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
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024-2038
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$3m - $4m
'all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts
7
Packet Pg. 31
8.A.a
PROJECT NAME: Waterfront Redevelopment ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,595,000
/ Waterfront Walkway Completion
Prapvwd Ftlrtrw4
W arerlront Ganrer
-q1
;rrra5:
r �Mw ww
f-
`�
--------------
w�ww raW
Fnr rw rarer.
raecnrwr tdnn
. - IIMp11KM
co" N�w r Rr
n.P.rr'.1 mw O� rw
a-�n+a� ors a
e..a
M4q
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with Sr. Center to renovate surrounding park, parking lot
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.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Provide anew Senior and Community Center and
provide a new beachfront walkway. One of the top priorities in the PROS plan is to open up
beach -front access.
SCHEDULE: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$2,425,000
$1,170,000
0
0
0
0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
8
Packet Pg. 32
8.A.a
CFP
TRANSPORTATION
co
r
O
N
d
N
O
0.
O
L-
a.
CD
0
c
0
:r
m
c
w
N
N
L
a
c
c�
a
N
N
u
m
LL
Q
m
U
Cl)
N
O
N
a
Packet Pg. 33
8.A.a
0 s
0 0
0 0
0 s
0
0 0
O O
O O
i» w
0 0
0 o
0 o
0 o
O
O O
uj uj
w w
O O O
O O O
(O O 1p
M O M
-
0 s
o O
N
w w
0
0
co io
r
0 0
c oID
m m
th M
0
0
N
0 0 0
Lq voi o
r n N
ro m r
0 0 0
0 0 0
r M
N v o
w w
0 0
0 0
Y,m
-
i»
O O O
O O O
w w
. N O
Itaa N O
w w
O O
O O
w N
O V Q
o n r
N N N
aa_
V O
N
N
U
fn LL O
N
N
U
.5 LL O
N
N
U
(n .�. LL O
N
N
U
(A LL O
N
N
u) LL O
N
N
U
u) LL O
O O O
O Z5 0
O O'o
O 0
O O g
O O o
d
d
N
LL
d
d
LL N
�• LL
O O
O O
d
d
LL N
•� LL
_
d
d
LL N
� LL
O O
_ J
d
d
LL N
� LL
_
d
d
LL N
� LL
O
O V
O O
N
V O
6 0 a
n N
my
n
m O O n
N O
O m N
� w
aO
a
w V .011 0
le n
5
r
Ow Cn'l W N
O A
0 0 0
W M O
O_
N
C
575
r
N
rry
o
U
O
,m
U
U
m
C7
U
U
(7
io
U'
m
C7
o
a°
a°
0
�
u10i `o
42
o c
d a
a>
y v m
E o
m E a
o '3 0'o J
a s
o o a10i
d
o°
d
do
`.m0
°am'm
o9 m.:
m10co
o+d E�
@a£irny
�m
yE-�
fA
N y Z @
c 6 �` 2
o £
o
V
y
c d
.o
3 V
E
d m
0
N c y
¢£
L
c o
o N
a
o
c c o 0
o m
U;o >
22
r d
�t
>
N c_ o
od
m m
E
cEo
cE
o
E E
£�_E=
FInR
m `�'::
Uw6�
a N
33�£
v
o
_
N
Q
N
� �
N
u,
m �
..
c aEi
m
d
yE
u)
d
N
£E
m
n `
Ud E
Uo
L E
5
@)E
N N
.J
6.o
N
(a)E
Q y
3
u�Niy
m
Qy
mo
`
Lt5N
y5
L N
`nos
T 6
2
n 5
2
E
10
Packet Pg. 34
8.A.a
c
M
o O
O
i
N
W
yo
V V
y y
� A
W
N
w y
"
N
O
L
CL
M
N
0 0
M M
0 0
N N
o
O
N
C
G
O
N
ml W
O O)
y _
0 0
0 o
in
o 0 0
0
0 0
0 _
y0
0 0 0
O O O
y y 0
0 0 0
O O O
O O O
ILO
0 0 0
O O
O O O
0 0 0
O O O
O O O
0 0
y y 0
N Id O
0 0
O O
O O
0 0 o
O O O
O O O
N
N
N N V
y N
N th y
d O O
M N O
y N 0
N y
M I� O
(n
�
O
O
N
Q.
O
V
N
M
N
O
�
N
�
o
N
O
N
d
3 a
y
m a
m a
H
m a
N
o E a
N
m 3 a
a
N
m a
a
O
Q
w .-
.�
IL r
IL .�
IL
O
C
O
fn F
000
(D O
fn F
000
u) O
u) F
ooJ
55 O
fn F
oo0
u) o
fn F
000
u) O
w F
00o
m O
(n F
0oo
(D O
u) F
000
t4 O
(n F
ooJ
L
a
v
LL
N m
N
N m
LL N
N m
LL N
N m
LL N
N m
N
N m
LL N
N m
LL N
N m
LL N
N
N
4a
O
O
i^y
O
N U
� A
O O O
O C) O y
fA N M
M N M
O O O
O N O y
w O ty
N N
w
O O O
O I� O O
w y M O
O O M
N»
y y 0
O N c 0
w tC �j O
M y
Nw w w
O O O
O O O O
fA Ol uj V
OI
'A w»
O O
O O O O
to N fA y
O> Oi
w
p O p
O O ry
to I� M
n N M
w
O O O O
to to to w
O O O O
to to to M
�
N H
p
Mw N
� W
va
in w
Qi
N
i
m
IL
a
do
O
C
y
O
C
O
U
O
o
y
U
O
p
U
O
IL`
d
c
m
m
m
m
c �
0
(
m
C7 o
p
m
m
a°
a
m
a°
a°
LL
m
m
y
d
/L
oo
a D L
d
c c
2
x
N N
N>
m
tJ
O
p C
C N
N
u 3
m N
omi 3
O C m
J n E@
N W
E m o
3
d£
•L.•
m3
U
O
tom
�mr�
o
aamd
oN
om�
v.->.
mgm
7
m mE
°Hm
a
maE
in@o
N
incd°�-mm�
my3
E(n -mm
��o$
rnnZ'
m�
=ado
N
rmE
a
Laic
m
mm n-
'"'"o
E
won..
d E
mm¢mm
w o Q o
HcE
m m d
o 8
3ENU
o° m H
iv m
0
Ham
3Nc
c r `m d
-c
m
a
m
-mEm>
�nma
=_�°i
=ai2_m�65
o
00
r
�ma
aain�rn
'SN`-'E
_>m
9n£
d>oo
cv rnU
�U`-'N
`S a�i in
5o o
O
3?3
3mmdd
c@>>�
m
a
=E�
wEZ
u)
o�So
ci�
�o
c9nin
N
r
0
o
IS
L
yH
g
co-
H
ro
++
o
A
-`
_
an d
x
Z
m
E
E
t
W
d
>o
o
a
o
y+
'
a
..
E
£ v`{
row
o
3 E
_
@)E
(a)E
aU
'm E-
aU°
aUE
aUE
>°
o'
5,2
°' o
rn
d m
$ N
o
o
£ m
i
x_
3E
x_
3
x
B
a
��
(n_
�E
m_
�E
_
°
y+
a
Packet Pg. 35
8.A.a
p
N
N
O
N
N
V V
'
iD
�
s o
0 0
N 10f1
� W
a
m
e»
O O
� �
N
N
N
N
O
N
N
O
N
N
N
Of
O
N
N
2
3
O
o a
(n
d
a
U)
C
LL
m m F
N
N O
LL
tp tp
U) m F
N
N O
IL. IL
m F
mCo
�—
N
N O
•W_. IL
M
N �
N 0
U
U
N
L
IL
;
d
'O
IL`
U
U
U
0
c7 0
O
m
`
W
o a9immd
U y Q n a
m
_
o
£ d
O
CL
m
�90,30
a
m£ W o rn
m
e
H a
C O N o
.. m
,s
m
N N& C
m t
a L
m U)
`+ N
—
uNt
g m
EQ dL
O
N
oL
2'E
o
3m
co
N
N
m
Z
O
d
o
O£
O
o
o m
Uad
L
aU�
>o
£ `9
3
w E
10 E
0 0
0 0
� N
O O
� IA
O O
N N
� N
000
O O �
(A Yi N
m�
rn N
', o r.
m�
m F
@oo
N
N O
LL. IL
S F
boo
N
N O
� IL
m F
@oo
N
N O
LL. IL
O O
G C
W V!
O
Lq O
d
U
o
o
U
@
o
C7
m
a
m
(�
d
0
a
rn o
o
0
o m N
o d
ob
'm' o
m o
`
m d� $
E V C
m d. m
C N
r«`� U
o.u)
am
O
o.u) W
N R
> A m
O
O L y N
O L d
E��
N N
£M n,o
N
E� at0
N
>O
>
fV)
N
ai
3
>
z
o
=3
s
0
E
w�
9ti
E
E W
o m
�¢
E
o m
`g
�
o
y m
� �
u o
N o
u
�
L E
Nfn
N�
N W
c
4)
E
4)
O
L
CQ
G
CL
V
IL
^N
W
V
M
N
O
N
r
O
N
d
N
0
CL
Q
a
m
O
_
O
W
N
N
IL
IL
N
d
LL
Q
V
M
N
O
N
O
N
r
K
LU
_
d
E
L
V
y+
a
12
Packet Pg. 36
8.A.a
c
M
o o
O
N
0
E
O
4)
N
'
N
O
CL
M
N
0 0
O O
Q� OI
0 o
N N
O O
C
G
O
N
� W
� W
CL
OR
O O
(�
N
N
N N
O O
N
�
00o
0 0 0
a
0 0
00
0 0
0 0
N
O O
O M
O O
M NU Ifni
N
L
N
O
LL
N
Q.
01
O
,��♦♦
V
N
M
N
O
o
N
» M
Co
r
O
N
°
d
d
O
CL
N
N LL O
LL 0
LL O
LL 0
LL O
O
LL
L
C
N
tq u ~
(n o
N u ~
fn
F
(n o
'n 75
u
in
(n
(n o 0
N u
7
Co — v
LL
N
LL N
N
IL N
N
LL N
N
LL N
N
LL N
N
IL N
N
LL N
O
O
O
i^y y
O o
N U
0 0
O O
O O O O
0
o 0
O Oi O N
0 0
0 0
O O O O
0 0
0 0
O N O N
0 0
0 0
O
O O O
0 0 o
0
O 0 o
O O O
co r+
co r
N
Cb
r
M O fA O
A T
to M to M
V
fA fA O O
M M
43 O (A O
M M
to G to C
M O N
N
to O r
M r M
W�
C
N H
W
N
i
m
_
a
0
C
C
O
'O
U
U
U
U
U
U
�j
�
a`
d
m
5
m
m
m
(9
LL
o
ow
o 8
° T U
°
y
. 9
_ �
° n
°=
0
Q.
2
m N
o
3
oC5
Hm�
—
C)
W0
d o
y
d
y d 2
c
0
C L 3$
E
Cm
7
a
C
dy
9
Joao
r
mh o'
2
N
m��
�
d3
o.
H
N� o
o
DN�°i
a3i3
DNa
> Q I
°ry
>¢ o
�tE
a Q
>oo.mt
N N ....
a N
>oow„
00
T
O
�m�
£mw
ow
aE
aEn
o
a
oiod
a`Na>
=
aNm
N
mo
o
y
y
d
o
E
x
Z
M
E
n
¢
3
U)
W
C1
O
M
O
. .
W�
of
_
CDT
(n
> N
>
N >
N U
(n
E
W N
b
M N
N
N M
fn
N o
N
W�
a
13
Packet Pg. 37
8.A.a
M
N
N
N
O O
O O
O O
O O
16 N
in O
O O
O O
ro aD
� W
0 0
O O
O O
O O
N� NM
om
O
N N
�
In
M
N
O
N
N
_ _
M
O O O
O O
�
N
O O
O O
M CO9
O O O
O O O
E N O
N
N
Of
O
N
O
N
�
to u O
C
.O
U)
fn A r
O `p 0
M R r
O
fn r
O O o
(n R r
O `O O
N A r
O `O O
LL
co —
N
O O
p
....
LL N
m .�
LL N
O O
....
LL N
....
N
M N
o O
O O
O O O
O O
N C1
O O O O
O O
0 0 0
O O O O
O O O O
N � � N
�
V c
aO
N
U
O
❑
N
l0
L
IL
d
ILCL
75
O
75
yy��
O
O
@
O
c �
m
is
-
p
E
w N
@
❑
rn
E
m r
N
d
N Q
mt
rn
N
c
u r w
o,�
co
N
w ° c
d
•-
d
�'o
C
oa)
co3rn°'
_oo
75N3
-3
yin'
yy,
o'
a'
N�2
6
r�
y t«
-om
d x g"
y�x
Q
Ev
d N d
g E
o f
m�
v o_^
N M
d E°
a
u
d
= c°
D T
> In ` o
£ w
>
E O
23
Q
t
a`axZeb
Un
N
Q
a`ao
U£
O
N
N
O
A
o
d
n
w
Z
u
L
O
¢
9
M
L
N
O
0
o
a
o
L
❑
E
w
N
E
o
a
x
3
a3i �
O
a
ul
E
w V)
0
N
5
o
r n
m in
c
0 0
O O
O
O O
O O
m
O
O _
O
O
(00 iD
O O
O O
r A
O O
O O
V V
a
to LL O
a
(n U) LL O
a
m'n LL O
a
In 'n LL O
to A r
O ;5 0
N
N
LL N
m r
O O'
N
N
LL N
r
O 0 0
N
N
LL N
r
O O D
N
N O
N
O O O O
to W
O O
O O O G
W t0 fA t0
O O O O
M C) M o
O O O O
M - - W
N
O
U
@
C
U
N
U
C
U
pad�
U
co
U
m
UD
?
a
d
io
CD
m
o
p
E o
m
o
°
L
n
o 0
a
o Q
c
=
°
a d
c
3 m£
y
L
c t
o m ."
o£ E
m
m o
@16-2
-6Z
%3:2
�m
xo«�.
�m
DNE
N
8 9
a o N
N 9
'NOo N cOi
d E
a
m
o d
N>
>O
E
0
z°
3 0
Q o
�
°
a
Eo
U)n
nmL
rE
=
N�
_
U
a d d
�
d
a
o
_
0 ao
$
u Q
t
K E
0
U) E
w
_H
o n
0 0 0
ID O O O
_ H
O1 M
U U
to LL O In U, LL O to LL
m m r m m r
!6 O JO N O JO R O c
N N N
N N O N O
LL N LL N LL N
O O O O O O O O O O C
to to fA N fA Vi (A IA to (A tfi
Co — _
U L
C O C
U U U
O N W N
O O N C O
yU)E
c
W.3 0. oL'� oL
o E O ` x
m E`- mN d mro
N 19 3 a _o o o
g ai c6 _ _
do¢¢ 0033 °033
O V t0� p NN p N�
o
aoo c a`a'in a¢'in
oo Q t r
L °o m
o. N
O O O
685
3 y
m > m > m
Q t Q r
14
Packet Pg. 38
8.A.a
0
0
e
w
m
0
L
CQ
G
CL
V
IL
0
m
0
0
0
c.�
M
N
O
N
O
O
N
U
U
vi
N d
N d
0
a
c
a
c
Q
«
N
B
Q
m o o
o o
d
LL N
LL N
i�
0
_
0
4a
N
N
L
-
M
a
0
0
0
U
U
�
a
N
N
V
LL
Q
cm
Hm
ci
d
o=
m
o=
M
°E
°E
Cm
O
m°
d3
m°
a3
N
O
aio
3
m d
O
o co
ate¢'
a`Na'
N
m
rn
i
x
3
x
3
x
LU
0
0
j.+
d
E
N Q
N Q
W�
a
15
Packet Pg. 39
8.A.a
M
o O
N
O
N
Y�
a
l0 2
M
N
N
N
O
N
N
N
O
O
N
Of
O
N
0
N
2
3
y
o a
Co
@oo
LL
N
N O
LL
N
N O
LL. LL
M N
N �
N V
O O O O
O O O
� �
N3 to fA W
-
fA to fA W
O O
U
O
N
L
IL
C
d
IL`
O
0
c7 0
O
�L
om
�
g
`off
d
m o
d
C
So �
o N
o 0
o E
�
CL
xy
°3wo
m
9
-,s
�33
_d
2 <
o�N
oi%L
o
(L
0
�
N
E
A
6
Q
z
c�5 o
s
d
•o
�o
o
0
_
¢t
o m
aQ
m m
c
4)
E
4)
O
L
CQ
G
CL
V
IL
W
0
m
U-
V
M
N
O
N
r
O
N
d
N
0
CL
Q
a
m
O
_
O
W�
N
N
IL
IL
N
N
LL
Q
<.i
M
N
O
N
O
O
N
x
W
C
d
E
L
V
a
16
Packet Pg. 40
8.A.a
PROJECT NAME: 228t" St. SW from Hwy. 99 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,421,000
to 95t" PI. W
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 228t" St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 95t" 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 pedestrian safety and traffic
flow along this corridor.
SCHEDULE: The design phase is scheduled to begin in 2022 (pending funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024-2038
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$75,000
$300,000
Construction
$10,046,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$75,000
$300,000
$10,046,000
17
Packet Pg. 41
8.A.a
PROJECT NAME: 761h Ave W @ 212th St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $6,500,000
Intersection Improvements
I
�
�,E
JJ
J
EDMONDS-WOODWAY
HIGH SCHOOL
ARTS
�c
I
OFFICE
W
a
R
1301
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Add a northbound and southbound left -turn lane to convert the signal
operation for those approaches from split phasing to protected -permissive phasing. Add a right -turn
lane for the westbound, southbound, and northbound movements. The project also consists of
various utility upgrades and conversion of overhead utilities to underground.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Reduce the intersection delay and improve the existing level
of service to LOS C.
SCHEDULE: Design was completed in May 2016. The project was advertised in June 2016 but the
lowest bid was rejected since it was - approx. $1.3 Million over budget. The project was re -advertised in
February 2017 (under budget) and construction began in May 2017. The project is scheduled to be
completed in December 2017. A TIB grant was secured to cover the shortfall.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
Construction
$353,740
1 % for Art
TOTAL $353,740
18
Packet Pg. 42
8.A.a
PROJECT NAME: Highway 99 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $190,000,000
Gateway/Revitalization
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project would include, among other features, wider replacement
sidewalks or new sidewalk where none exist today, new street lighting, center medians for access
control and turning movements, etc., attractive and safe crosswalks, better stormwater
management, targeted utility replacements, potential undergrounding of overhead utilities,
landscaping and other softscape treatments to identify the area as being in Edmonds.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve aesthetics, safety, user experience, and access
management along this corridor. In addition, economic development would be improved.
SCHEDULE: The design phase is scheduled to begin in September 2017 and should be
completed between 2024 and 2038 (pending addition funding / $10M from Connecting
Washington allocation has been secured).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024-2038
COST
Planning/Study
Engineering &
$440,000
$436,000
$5,000,000
$4,300,000
$10,000,000
Administration
& ROW
Construction
$170,000,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$440,000
$436,000
$5,000,000
$4,300,000
$10,000,000
$170,000,000
19
Packet Pg. 43
8.A.a
PROJECT NAME: SR-524 (19611 St. SW)/ 88' ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $903,000
Ave. W Intersection Improvements
3
w
a
SEVEN DAY
ADVEN-nST
CHURCH
196TH Sf SW
L
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: The intersection LOS must meet MUTCD traffic signal warrants and be approved
by WSDOT since 196th St. SW is a State Route (SR524). No funding is currently allocated to this
project (pending grant funding).
COST
BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Engineering &
$193,000
$175,000
Administration &
ROW
Construction
$535,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$193,000
$175,000
$535,000
20
Packet Pg. 44
8.A.a
PROJECT NAME: Main St and 9t" Ave. S ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $896,000
-11 Rk- �L_
BELL ST
M _
a
x
MAIN ST
J J _ I WADE JAM ES
_ `J THEATER
71 N
W 2
a
_t:_ =_ - -
H
DAYTON ST
�Z
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of a traffic signal (or mini -roundabout is an alternative
solution).
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.
SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2018 and 2021 (unsecured funding)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$120,000
Construction
$776,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$120,000
$776,000
21
Packet Pg. 45
8.A.a
PROJECT NAME: 220th St SW @ 76th Ave W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST:
Intersection Improvements $5,925,000
2,9rH sr sw
J
21919
J
J J
3 414
I' Lri
,a
Ui
in
J _J
1 2215TPLSW
TOP FOODS JSTARBU KS
J
220TH ST SW -
1
r
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: Engineering, ROW, and construction scheduled between 2021 and 2023
(unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Engineering & ROW
$330,000
$1,800,000
Administration
Construction
$3,795,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$330,000
$1,800,000
$3,795,000
' All or a portion of this project may quality for 1 % for the arts
`�:
Packet Pg. 46
8.A.a
PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 212th St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,806,000
intersection improvements
i
21 g sw I
i
w
W Paalung
s gn
shop
/
n
7313
P.U.B
3 Edmonds
Edmonds
/
W Family Clinic ei
Public 17-ks
ADX
KENNEL
21 1
27114 /
f Arbor
Q
2I /
P.
27109
R
n
lle Box /
/
212TH ST SW
7,.59RI
"3"2"
L
215THSTSW
PLANT
AEGIS
W SWEDISH
m MDNnSCAM— '
ALLIED /
ROOFING /
/
/
B&M /
CON ST
21414 /
21448 /
/
/
NCnONRLD'
/ 01
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)
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and reduce delay.
SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2021 and 2023 (unsecured funding).The
project cost is split between Lynnwood and Edmonds since half the project is within Lynnwood.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Engineering,
ROW, &
Administration
$175,000
$1,091,000
Construction
$1,540,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$175,000
$1,091,000
$1,540,000
23
Packet Pg. 47
8.A.a
PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,335,000
intersection improvements
2141021408w
c^
13�{
214021d12
21405
04
LU
N
U
2> 120L<
2i431MC�UHA6'
un
�
anz
150
r
215 AEGIS
21558
VA LU E
VILLAGE
ST
S,qw
—
• 21 B Tli
21600 {� 21619
KRUGER
CLINIC f
21632 � � -
��I16e
2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 216th St. SW to add a westbound left turn lane for and an
eastbound left turn lane. Provide protected -permissive left turn phases for eastbound and
westbound movements. This project ranked #3 in the Roadway Project Priority in the 2015
Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and reduce delay.
SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2021 and 2023 (unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Engineering &
ROW &
Administration
$164,000
$334,000
Construction
$1,837,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$164,000
$334,000
$1,837,000
24
Packet Pg. 48
8.A.a
PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,215,000
intersection improvements
19TH sT SW
21919
f,ill
7514221 STPLSW
I
I
I
13
-- a
n
I
[:Z/II
TOP FOODS
220TH Sr SW
LYNWOOD
HONDA a
_ iL
FUN TA 91A
H'S IN N
L7
w .F 7223'J'
A.dy's
� td .D. 7301 R
A
a S
H ¢ nm
rsw
TIN
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: #1).
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Reduce intersection delay and improve traffic flow and
safety.
SCHEDULE: All Phases are scheduled between 2021 and 2023 (unsecured funding for all
phases).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
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
25
Packet Pg. 49
8.A.a
PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 234th St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,300,000
intersection improvements
ESPEMNCE
FS -
21207
S7ND PL W
�• �I� 2f731 .- F
'1 �233RD PL
'71J7tl' i _ e :331•. !9„ ]y0! 7131 -
Y"i I
1�� �� )7�1 *i� •�� I i]406■�� I i.1.K�.. 111 ., 1717
ri 411 .,.
7yn7] -]y{f p uW
:.1:9
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).
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection safety and pedestrian conditions
along the corridor.
SCHEDULE: All Phases are scheduled between 2021 and 2023 (unsecured funding for all
phases).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
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
26
Packet Pg. 50
8.A.a
PROJECT NAME: Pedestrian Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $250,000
(SR-104 off ramps)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install pedestrian improvements at the two SR-104 Off ramps
entering onto Hwy. 99 (project identified in Hwy. 99 Sub Area Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian conditions along the Hwy. 99
Corridor.
SCHEDULE: All Phases are scheduled between 2021 and 2023 (unsecured funding for all
phases).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$50,000
Construction
$200,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$50,000
$200,000
27
Packet Pg. 51
8.A.a
PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 22611 St. SW / ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $194,000
15' St. SW Intersection Improvements
14TH WAY SW
226TH ST SW
uJ 226TH PL SW
M
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Extend the left turn lane for the westbound movement on SR-104.
Complete various pedestrian and bicycle intersection improvements. This project was
identified in the SR-104 Complete Streets Corridor Analysis (completed in 2015).
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve non -motorized transportation safety at the
intersection and improve traffic flow along the SR-104 corridor.
SCHEDULE: 2021-2022 (unsecured funding)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$30,000
Construction
$164,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$30,000
$164,000
2s
Packet Pg. 52
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.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection safety for pedestrians and vehicles.
SCHEDULE: 2021-2022 unsecured funding)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$75,000
Construction
$420,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$75,000
$420,000
29
Packet Pg. 53
8.A.a
PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 238t" St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,338,000
Intersection Improvements
Ll
i
10
■
To Hwy 99
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: 2021-2022 unsecured funding)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$200,000
Construction
$1,138,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$200,000
$1,138,000
30
Packet Pg. 54
8.A.a
PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 76th Ave. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST:
W Intersection Improvements $1,183,000
N
SEAVIEW
PARK
3
PLSW
186TH ST SW
ml I m—I
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 2024 and 2038
(unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024-2038
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$200,000
Construction
$983,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$1,183,000
31
Packet Pg. 55
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: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2024 and 2038
(unsecured funding). The project cost is split between Snohomish County and Edmonds since
half the project is in Esperance.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024-2038
Planning/Study
Engineering &
$2,000,000
Administration
Construction
$13,441,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$15,441,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts.
32
Packet Pg. 56
8.A.a
PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 100t" Ave. W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,017,468
Intersection Improvements / Access
Management
I
EDMONDS WAY
�% � MMI -a 0L I
r
NEI
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 2021 and 2022 (unsecured funding)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024-2038
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$150,000
Construction
$867,468
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$150,000
$867,468
33
Packet Pg. 57
8.A.a
PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 76t" Ave. W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,017,000
Intersection Improvements
x
M1
M1
}
W
dM1
-P
--En&WW Dri 1ELA.Y-_--------_LAKE BALLING €RWAY
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: 2024-2038. The project cost would be split between Shoreline and Edmonds
since half the intersection is in Shoreline.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024-2038
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$453,000
Construction
$2,564,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$3,017,000
34
Packet Pg. 58
8.A.a
PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 17411 St. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $610,000
SW Intersection Improvements
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 2024 and 2038
(unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024-2038
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$100,000
Construction
$510,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$610,000
35
Packet Pg. 59
8.A.a
PROJECT NAME: Sunset Ave Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,200,000
from Bell St to Caspers St.
ORA
s UHDVIEwavrs
♦ ♦ �♦ I■� 11111■0 I
��' IIIIIII :M1■S■1 ■
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Provide a walkway on the west side of the street, facing
waterfront (- 1/2 mile / more recent project).
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
SCHEDULE: Temporary improvements have been installed to evaluate the alignment of the
proposed walkway and parking alternatives. Construction isn't scheduled to occur until 2022
when utility improvements are scheduled along this stretch. No grant funding has been
secured for the construction phase. The design phase will be completed in 2021.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$170,000
$295,000
Construction
$2,595,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$170,000
$295,000
$2,595,000
all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts.
36
Packet Pg. 60
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 SANK
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
■ 2y
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: 2022-2023 (unsecured funding)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$200,000
Construction
$1,105,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$200,000
$1,105,000
37
Packet Pg. 61
8.A.a
PROJECT NAME: 23611 St. SW Walkway from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $900,000
Edmonds Way to Madrona Elementary School
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct an — 800' sidewalk on the south side of 236t" St. SW
from SR-104 to Madrona Elementary as well as the addition of sharrows along that stretch.
(This is only part of a stretch of Walkway project, which ranked #1 in the Long Walkway list in
the 2009 Transportation Plan)
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route near
Madrona Elementary School and along 236t" St. SW.
SCHEDULE: Construction was completed in June 2017. The project was funded through the
Safe Routes to School Grant program, Fund 422 for stormwater improvements, and REET
funds for the pavement reconstruction. The remaining funding is to complete the Federal
Documentation.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
Construction
$7,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$7,000
38
Packet Pg. 62
8.A.a
PROJECT NAME: 23611 St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,395,000
from Madrona Elementary to 97th Ave. W
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk with curb and gutter along 236nd St. SW from
Madrona Elementary to 97th Ave. W. This project ranked #4 in Long Walkway list of the 2015
Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2021-2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$213,000
Construction
$1,182,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$213,000
$1,182,000
39
Packet Pg. 63
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 2023 (unsecured funding)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024-2038
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$90,000
Construction
$495,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$90,000
$495,000
40
Packet Pg. 64
8.A.a
PROJECT NAME: 801h Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,439,000
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: 2021-2022 (funding unsecured).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$210,000
Construction
$1,229,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$210,000
$1,229,000
Cy
Packet Pg. 65
8.A.a
PROJECT NAME: 2nd Ave. S Walkway from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $30,000
James St. to Main St.
4t
<1 NG
4
►.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 100') on
2nd Ave. S between Main St. and James St. (Ranked #2 in Short Walkway Project list in
2015 Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
SCHEDULE: 2021
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
$30,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$30,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts
42
Packet Pg. 66
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: 2022-2023 unsecured funding
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$200,000
Construction
$1,105,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$200,000
$1,105,000
43
Packet Pg. 67
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 2021 (unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
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
44
Packet Pg. 68
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
COURT AEGIS 21558 `
21527 VALUE
VILLAGE
21674 ST SW �� 216TJ1
120
:VEN5 21600 { 21619
tILION KRUGER *Aq
CLINIC , �11
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 #4 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 2021 (unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
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
45
Packet Pg. 69
8.A.a
PROJECT NAME: 238th St. SW Walkway from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $491,000
Hwy. 99 to SR-104
i
1
L
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked #12 in Long Walkway list from 2015
Transportation Plan. Install 5' sidewalk on the north side of 238th St. SW.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety along that stretch
and creating safe pedestrian connection between Hwy. 99 and 76th Ave. W.
SCHEDULE: The design phase was completed in early 2017. The project was
advertised in May 2017 but the lowest bid was rejected since it was over budget.
The project will be re -advertised in early 2018. A TIB grant was secured to fund
the design and construction phases.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
$370,977
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$370,977
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts.
46
Packet Pg. 70
8.A.a
PROJECT NAME: Elm Way Walkway from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $789,000
8t" Ave. S to 9t" Ave. S
■
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: 2021-2022 (funding unsecured).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$156,000
Construction
$633,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$156,000
$633,000
47
Packet Pg. 71
8.A.a
PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Dr. Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,591,000
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 #22 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 2021 and construction in 2022 / 2023 (funding
unsecured).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Engineering &
$230,000
Administration
Construction
$681,000
$680,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$230,000
$681,000
$680,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts.
48
Packet Pg. 72
8.A.a
PROJECT NAME: Dayton St Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $250,000
between 3R1 Ave. S and 9t" Ave. S
i
-----------------------
Q:
MAIM Si
_i
,
I
ILP 1'�
Loo 0110 ■ ;
■" F i of
MA
..� �
�...
I �
, ■ �
r11 I E
.� �" -
..)
CSC
WALNUT 51
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk Dayton St. between 7tn
Ave. S and 8t" Ave. S and additional sidewalk improvements along the rest of the stretch
(ranked #2 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 2018 and 2019. A TIB grant was
secured for this project in 2016.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$27,500
Construction
$200,000
1 % for Art
TOTALI
$27,500
1 $200,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts.
49
Packet Pg. 73
8.A.a
PROJECT NAME: 951h PI. W Walkway from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $550,000
224th ST. SW to 220th St. SW
F
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 95th PI. W from 224th ST. SW to
220th ST. SW, with curb and gutter. This project ranked #9 in the Long Walkway
List of the 2015 Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2021 and construction in 2022 (funding
unsecured).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$105,000
Construction
$445,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$105,000
$445,000
50
Packet Pg. 74
8.A.a
PROJECT NAME: Minor Sidewalk Program ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: varies
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Complete missing sidewalk along short segments throughout the
City.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2018
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$10,000
Construction
$90,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$100,000
51
Packet Pg. 75
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❑
ePo
4z
e
r
j
a
? Fo
�ONn.
ea a
--^ 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 2021 and 2022 (unsecured funding for all
phases). A TAP grant application was submitted in September '17 to fund the design and
construction phases. A 13.5% local match is required. The ROW phase will be funded by the
City.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$145,000
Construction
$555,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$145,000
$555,000
52
Packet Pg. 76
8.A.a
PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ SR-104 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $700,000
Multi -Use path improvements
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install new non -motorized asphalt path along SR-104 from
SR-104 @ 240t" St. SW to Hwy. 99 @ 244t" St. SW.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve non -motorized transportation conditions along
the SR-104 / Hwy. 99 Corridors since this path is currently not easily accessible due to
significant uprooting.
SCHEDULE: All Phases are scheduled in 2021 and 2022 (unsecured funding for all
phases). A TAP grant application was submitted in September '17 to fund the design and
construction phases. A 13.5% local match is required. The ROW phase will be funded by the
City.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$145,000
Construction
$555,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$145,000
$555,000
53
Packet Pg. 77
8.A.a
PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 76th Ave. W non- ESTIMATED PROJECT COST:
motorized transportation safety improvements $1,100,000
I
%it,.-01111 WAY aFFRAM. PIP �ikI
LAKE UtLINGER WAY TmE)FA0N0S WAV
.. _%
F�111_
w i
17.
242NbPL SW
I _LL 1 `�I ■ `1�
r � �
LAKL UAL1.INGER WAY
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 2021 and 2022 (unsecured funding for all
phases). A TAP grant application was submitted in September '17 to fund the design and
construction phases. The City of Shoreline would fund the local match. The ROW phase
will be funded by the City.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$220,000
Construction
$880,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$220,000
$880,000
54
Packet Pg. 78
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: 2024-2038
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024-2038
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$90,000
Construction
$540,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$630,000
55
Packet Pg. 79
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: 2024-2038
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024-2038
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$150,000
Construction
$840,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$990,000
56
Packet Pg. 80
8.A.a
PROJECT NAME: 801h Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $315,000
from 218th St. SW to 220th St. SW
----- 77T---------------220THSTSW—
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: 2024-2038
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024-2038
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$55,000
Construction
$260,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$315,000
57
Packet Pg. 81
8.A.a
PROJECT NAME: 84th Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $315,000
from 188th St. SW to 186th St. SW
r`T r K, r
5■■
i r
.}
'■
F i L
■
r r r
ri
186TH ST W
m
w
i-�
--. r
■
■
18 TH 5 5W
■
L a
- IF
1 'r - ■�
188TH 5T 5W
LE
. P ram
■
L
7
W ,
a
III•
.; _ L
r
■
r As or I
,
r
SFASAF 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: 2024-2038
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024-2038
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$60,000
Construction
$255,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$315,000
58
Packet Pg. 82
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 SIN
23607
23603 SAFEN
23605 � KJI
23607 NON
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 236th St. SW from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W.
This project ranked #11 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2024-2038
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024-2038
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$115,000
Construction
$650,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$765,000
59
Packet Pg. 83
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 5T 5W
"'
■
■
■
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 #12 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2024-2038
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024-2038
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$175,000
Construction
$995,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$1,170,000
60
Packet Pg. 84
8.A.a
PROJECT NAME: 80th Ave. W / 180th St. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,350,000
SW Walkway from 188th St. SW to OVD
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 801h 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: 2024-2038
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024-2038
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$270,000
Construction
$1,080,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$1,350,000
61
Packet Pg. 85
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: 2024-2038
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024-2038
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$115,000
Construction
$470,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$585,000
62
Packet Pg. 86
8.A.a
PROJECT NAME: Ferry Storage ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $357,000
Improvements from Pine St. Dayton St.
5�
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: 2021 (unsecured funding)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$50,000
Construction
$307,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$357,000
63
Packet Pg. 87
8.A.a
PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Street Overpass ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $29,000,000
ro
77
i
A"
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project builds a grade -separated overcrossing over the railroad
tracks as an extension of Edmonds Street connecting to Brackett's Landing north park (project
identified in Edmonds Waterfront Alternatives Access Study completed in 2016).
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Provide access for emergency vehicles, pedestrians, and
bicycles. The overpass could be utilized to offload passenger vehicles from a ferry during an
extended closure of the railroad track crossings.
SCHEDULE: 2018-2038. A State Appropriation for $700,000 was secured in 2017. Community
Transit, Sound Transit, BNSF, and the Port of Edmonds are contributed $140,000 to get this projec
started (Unsecured funding for Design and Construction Phases).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024-203E
Planning/Study
$175,000
$1,285,000
Engineering &
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
Administration
Right of Way /
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
Environment
Mitigation
Construction
$12,000,000
$11,000,00
TOTAL
$700,000
$1,285,000
$2,000,00
$2,000,000
$12,000,000
$11,000,00
64
Packet Pg. 88
8.A.a
CFP
STORMWATER
Co
r
O
N
d
N
O
0.
O
L-
a.
CD
0
c
0
:r
m
c
w
N
N
L
a
c
c�
a
N
N
u
m
LL
Q
m
U
Cl)
N
O
N
a
65
Packet Pg. 89
coo coo
coo coo
coo coo
coo coo
coo oo
coo coo
coo coo
coo coo o w
}\\/� 8u) \_\/�
J7)§ 76 -§
\)4 {)— wCS
o '000
§!_\\# _ \g _
k)"��� \oj o\�k
k
c !0 ) \\ o
\a &o
}\ o« p
;cL
o
% \§,
o
- E�§
CL ) &
)� k
o
\� kj\
_ /§\
\2 = )kk
7; ±] !]]
76
12
!/\
k{ \ �E)
® ) \\}
/§ \ >
o
}§\
+
§
E
t
0
CL
E
�
CL
�
\
FL
$
k
�
�
�
�
0
C14
/
�
0
0
0
a
2
0
0
CD
N-
IL
FL
q
k
\
:
�
�
C14
�
q
2
x
w
k
E
/
7
Packet Pg -90
8.A.a
PROJECT NAME: Dayton St and Hwy 104 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,227,700
Drainage Improvements
184 /X
/ \170 _
ILJ o
GJ �200 200
_Qqp
ECM❑ w�Sl -?q1461 Q
a -W3
r H n
z a
LULU c
F N
f!3 3 a r
JA �LL
R _P30
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Add lift station in the Beach Place parking lot and other new
infrastructure.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To reduce flooding at the intersection of Dayton St and
State Hwy 104.
SCHEDULE: 2018-2020
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
$100000
Construction
$1830000
$50,000
1 % for Art
$10000
TOTAL
$1,940,000
67
Packet Pg. 91
8.A.a
PROJECT NAME: Willow Creek Daylighting ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,825,000
Edmonds Marsh as seen from the viewing platform.
Previously restored section of Willow Creek. Source:
www.unocaledmonds.info/clean-up/gallery.php
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Building on the studies completed in 2013 and 2015 that assessed the
feasibility of daylighting the Willow Creek channel, this project will likely construct a new tide gate and
1,100 linear ft of new creek channel lined with an impermeable membrane. Funds will be used for
design and construction but exact breakdown cannot be assessed at this time.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The daylighting of Willow Creek 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.
SCHEDULE: 2017-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
$300,000
$300,000
$300,000
$300,000
$300,000
$300,000
Construction
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$300,000
$300,000
$300,000
$300,000
$300,000
$300,000
68
Packet Pg. 92
8.A.a
PROJECT NAME: Perrinville Creek High Flow ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,532,950
Reduction/Management Project
ue �d
172 n
°' 173 d
Talbot
PerrinvilleN
`r
Frederick-4
Creek
th
� rr
M
77t 1 7 h
78th
79th
a
Z
180
1 Oth c°7o
h `m
181s
2nd
18 nd 4`
'E
Cnn
185th °O
85th
o
u* ev
87th 40.7
18 h
_r
r
Pcrrinville Creek Channel illustrating the channel incision
that will be addressed by restoration.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A flow reduction study for the Perrinville Creek basin was
completed in 2014. This study recommended a number of flow control and water quality
projects to improve the conditions in Perrinville Creek. The City applied for and won a grant
from the Department of Ecology for $633,750 to design and construct a stormwater infiltration
facility in Seaview Park. The 2017 budget is for that facility. The dollars allocated in the out
years are to implement additional water quality and flow control projects in the Perrinville Creek
basin as recommended by the Flow Reduction Study.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Urbanization of the Perrinville Creek Basin has increased
flows in the creek, incision of the creek, and sedimentation in the low -gradient downstream
reaches of the creek. Before any habitat improvements can be implemented, the flows must be
controlled or these improvements will be washed away.
SCHEDULE: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
COST
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
$35,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
Construction
$886,825
$400,000
$450000
$450,000
1% for Art
$1,125
$1,250
$1,250
$1,250
TOTAL
$922,950
$451,250
$501,250
$501,250
$50,000
$50,000
69
Packet Pg. 93
8.A.b
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
2018-2023
op .. EDP
�sr
1!0
Eo
DRAFT
Packet Pg. 94
8.A.b
a
U
c
tv
d
a�
:r
.v
cv
W
r
.Q
cv
U
CO)
N
O
N
Oo
r
O
N
d
N
O
M
O
L
a)
r
O
r_
O
r
m
r
L
CL
a
c
a�
E
m
O
L
Q
E
.Q
U
M
N
O
N
Q
Packet Pg. 95
8.A.b
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2017-2022)
Table of Contents
GENERAL
016
Building
Maintenance
Public Works
7
112
Transportation
Public Works
10
125
Capital
Projects Fund
Parks & Recreation/
Public Works
13
126
Special Capital /
Parks Acquisition
Parks & Recreation/
Public Works
15
129
Special Projects
Parks & Recreation
17
132
Parks Construction
Grant Funding)
Parks & Recreation
18
421
Water Projects
Public Works
20
422
Storm Projects
Public Works
21
423
Sewer Projects
Public Works
23
423.76
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
Public Works
25
PARKS — PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
Capital
Parks & Recreation/
125
Projects Fund
Public Works
28
Special Capital /
Parks & Recreation/
126
Parks Acquisition
Public Works
51
Parks Construction
132
(Grant Funding)
Parks & Recreation
54
Packet Pg. 96
8.A.b
a
U
c
tv
d
a�
:r
.v
cv
W
r
.Q
cv
U
CO)
N
O
N
Oo
r
O
N
d
N
O
M
O
L
a)
r
O
r_
O
r
m
r
L
CL
a
c
a�
E
m
O
L
Q
E
.Q
U
M
N
O
N
Q
Packet Pg. 97
8.A.b
Cip
GENERAL
O
r
O
N
d
N
O
M
O
L
a)
r_
r
O
r_
O
r
m
r
L
a
c
w
E
m
O
L
Q
E
.Q
U
M
N
O
N
Q
Packet Pg. 98
8.A.b
a
U
c
tv
d
a�
:r
.v
cv
W
r
.Q
cv
U
CO)
N
O
N
Oo
r
O
N
d
N
O
M
O
L
a)
r
O
r_
O
r
m
r
L
CL
a
c
a�
E
m
O
L
Q
E
.Q
U
M
N
O
N
Q
Packet Pg. 99
C
R
En
O
a
U)
c
0
N
O
Q
m
CL
m
U
0
(y00000000OO0000000O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0V0)V0)O0O0V0)000000000000000000
N
O O
C C
C C
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
C C
C 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Ln O
O Ln
O O
O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O
CD
OL)OL)
U')
0 U')
L) o2
U')
O O
U') O
O O
V) V)
V)
V) LO
O OL�
O
Lf) o
o U)
N LnU)
00
CD
L) L)
00
0f0
N
wp
NMNM
U') Co
(O
V3(M(M0
00L
� �
63 63
63 V>
V3
V3 V3
V> V)
V>V3
V3 V3
V3 V3
N V3
V)
VVV3VN
V3
V3 V3
V)
V3
V> 64
63
V3
VMO
V3
613 V>
Co 613
V3
613
V>
613 613
V3 V3
V3 V3
V>
O
N
O O
O
O O
O O
O
O O
O
000
0000
O
O
O O
O O
O
O
O O
O O
O O
O O
000
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O O
O O
0000
O O
L n 0
O
O
O
O
m
LOB
O
OO
U') U')
OV0
0
V)
V)
oU)N
U)
U)
U)
N
CDV>
613 63
N
Lf)
V3 to
63 613
N
V3
N
V) V)
V)ellV3
V)
V3
N V)
613
V3 V3
V)
V3
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
(O
O
O
L()
U5
(f)
U')
U')
m
0
W,
N
U)
O
V>
V>
V>
V)
V)
N
V)
O
N
64
613
613
N1
V3
00
O
O
O
0
00
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
00
00
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
LL) U5
o
Lf)
U')
O
U)
O
m
Lo
Lf)
O
U')
O
m
63 V>
M
V>
V)
V)
N
V)
N
V)
V)
N
N
V3
N
V)
V)
V
V)
CD
N
V)
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
CD
O
O
O
O
O
u7
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
Ln
Lf)
Lf)
Lf)
Lf)
O
V)
m
O
N
O
O
O
lf)
N
O
V3
OD
63
V3
V)
V)
N
V)
N
V)
V)
N
64
V)
OD
V3
(O
V3
V3
V)
N
00000
0000
00
000
0
000
0
00
0
0
0
0
00000
00000
OOOO
0000
oo
00
coo
000
0
0
000
000
0
0
OO
0o
o
Lq
0
o
0
0
0
0
O
LO U)000
U)0
U-)
U')
U)O
OOO
U)
N
0U)
O
00
N
O
O
lf)
p
V3 63
00 7
V> V>
o
N
h
6464
Cl) 64
V3
V3 Co
V)
V
V)
V
V) V)
�
V)
V)
U') V3
V)
V
N U')
6464
V)
lf)
N
V)
N
V3
Efl
V>
00
O
00
O
O
O
O
O
O
00000
O
00
00
O
0
00
O O
O
O
00
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
00000
O O
O O
O
O
O
00
O O
00
O O
O
O
0
0
LO
Lf)
Lf)
Lf)
Lf)
U')
U')
O
O
O
LO O
to O
O
O
U') U')
O O
O
0
_O
63
V3
63
N
63
N
Vi
V)
613
V
V3
Cl)
V3
(3)
M
(A
N
V3 V3
CO N
V3 V3
N
V3
V
V3
CO V)
V3
Co OD
V3 V3
V
V3
M
V3
V)
V3
!
O
O
LO
O O
O
O
N
O
N N
V>
N
613
V)
LO
613 613
M
613
O
V)
W
Vi
IL
LL
U
C
a)
E
N
C
U
E
Cl
U
C
N
Ccr,C
N
E
@
U)
O
E
Na)
N
d'
C
C
p
L
y0
O tq
a) c6
C
p
C@
r
U
@
LL
N
U
C
O i
_
@@
C
C
N
O
E
0@
x
°) °)
a)
U
N
U
@
C
C
C
C
m
~
C Ccl
O Lq
O
La a
E d
m
C
V@
(6 O
C C
w
C
(6
U
C
C
�-
v) @
a a)
0 LL
o
m w
U o
x 0�
y
m�
m�
E m
`x Cl
m
o y�
U
10 @
a
a
p
o
w o
r
c �e
_m
a)
o
U)
�_
U
'9 o
a)
m m
a
f6
LL
a
'J Ln
O O
U
co
°
u) U
E N
9 C
a) N@
LL
r
C -O
co C
fy6 O
N
O rn
m 0
V
C
c`
O
O
UVO+O-'Xi
Co X�OEQ
O X
i
@�07
t rn
O O
F>007
N—
0 0
0 C�
O
00 .@
NBC
LD a)
'(a
C
c 0
OO(aU
E
LL a)
O
L
;
c
ooUCCl
O'
DO'
W
cn
s=
W ILL'
W
J W
m2(nQLL000W
W
W
N
a)
-0cm
U
0
0LCo
OUW
�Q�
m
m m
m m
m m
N m
N
-LL�U
30
@U
V
m
M =
::
U U
U
)
Q
'p
y0 O
(6
d'
C
`
U
W j
C C
a)
a)`
U
y m
(O (O
(O
n O
N
O
N
Z
o 0
0 0
0 o
y y
o o
y y
y y
y y
y y
y y
o 9
c>
o¢
Q
ces U
La .@
'o 0
r
O D
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U U
U m@
'-
U �i
��.!
a) X
W W
O i�
d 2
7
W m
i p
2
LL a)
LL f/)
g g
LL a
LL w
C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C
C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C
J
Y Y
_%
a)
"O
a O
p 0
+'
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
W
O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O p=__________-
N N
N N
N N
N l6
l6 O3
O3 O3
l6 l6
-
w
N
2
N l6
l0 f0
f0 f6
N
L
�,�,�,�,�,�,�,�,�,„o00000000oa)xxxxxxxxxxxxLLLL000
L L
L L
L L
L L
L`````
L L
L L
L
c(nL�inininininwwo
¢-o-o-o-o-o-o
0
0 0
0 0
0-0
0 0
0 0
0 0
o E
UUU
C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C m
._ ._
._ ._
._ ._
._ t'
======
(n (n
(n . _
N y
y
y y
d
¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢QQQQQQQQUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUwwwUiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiLiL
Packet Pg. 100
8.A.b
0000000000000
O
0000
O O
O f A
0 0
00000
00
0 (A
0 0
00
0000
00
L000
COW)
N
64646464
(O7
M
N N
64
M L0M
EH EH
EH
64M
613
04
O
O
O
6n
0
000
���
0
0
0
0
00
00
0
0
06Co
N
V3
0
0
0
0
0
0
fA
V3
Cl)
fA
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O O
O
O
O
O
��M
N
V3
((00
V3
V3
V3 V3
V3
M
V3
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
LO
V3
N
fA
EH
Co
m
r
m
1b
0
N
C C
N
E
E E
N
C E
Co 0
E
co
m n
U Com
W
N
Cl
0
a' cL
E
O
@@
C N
N
f0 a'
't
cl,C
N
Y d
N
t.
m
y
C �
7
C
N
L6
W
N N
O
0 N
0
Q O
N 7
O
a
c
N
E
-p
UWLLL
°�L�arLpam
@?�>>>
N—
LL
� r
9 0
0 0
Sv)'�
— N
Y
E
�-0
o-0-0-0
O
NN
O p
W
< Co
L
C 7
FjFUUU
p 7
7 7
r
U
N_
N p;
N
N N
N N
r -0O O C@
Y
ld O
N M
M M
M M
@a(na��vvvv-p
c
m m
m m
00000
m
aaaaa0
Co
m m
m
1a�
EI
LL
LL
J J
J J
J
Q
m
L)
C
m
IL
m
a_
a
m
c)
M
N
O
N
Co
TMI
N
d
N
O
CL
O
L
a
m
O
C
O
y.+
d
d
d
d
O
L
Q
E
Q
m
V
M
N
O
N
Q
Packet Pg. 101
8.A.b
000000000000000000
00000000000000
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
O (n
O O
OO
(t7(f)(f)(f)(f)
0'o
V
O 000
N 00
00
N
64646464
I4 O
O V)
O
O
fA
CO m
fA fA
M O
fA fA
M
EA fA
DD
EA
H) H)
N ZF3,
EA
0
0
O
O
O
O
C
0
0
O
O
0
O
O
O
fA
(Of1
69
H)
H)
69
000
00
00
O
O
O
O
C C
0
0000
0 0
O
O
0 0
0
O O
O
6s
6q
V NfJ7-
69
V) �
H) H)
fA
O
O
00
0 0
O
O
O
O
0 O
O
6q
V NV3
fA
H)
0
0
00
00
0
0
00
00
6s
M Nd)
69
6
00
0000
0
0
OO
0000
O
O
0
0
(n
o
000
u)
0
ui
o
N
6q
00 6q
fA
O N
Cl) 60,
(O
60))
)
N
ff
M
69
C9
00
O O
000
0 0
0
O
O
O
O
cc
00
O
0
O
O O
00
V) 6q
0 N
O V)
6
69
�
69
H) H)
fA
000
00
0
O00 O
O O
0
0 0
0
0 0
0 0
O O
000
O
O O
6sN
6q
(AO
N
m fA
(A
(f) EH
i
C
CL
d'
a)
Co
c
�
c
m
E
0
U
U
U
a)CL
C
U
Co
Co
a3
d
Ca
N
E
a
C
m
YU
E
m
m
C
EF=U
CU (0
Of
c
c m
(afOECE
°off
m
U
Ugo
°°(0U
U
Q
o coi
of (oi
o
a� o�
U
E�
CO
@@
C
E i
03
O
c
LL
O a)
L a)
O
c Fu
C
>
a3 N
m
_p
(0
LLU
a)
m E
u�
� 3
o
c a
m
_
w
f
O
0mm
a�(n
° °
�Uamt
c
a� c
as�ScSco>'m`cooaa)i�'a
`m `m
c�
$$
LLw
wU=LL
cc
is is
�j m\
n y
`o `o
w w
`o `o
c c
-°
°www
c
w
m
w w
as m
w w
m m
m°
3:LL
E
E E
a�(2)
cgcgcq����UU
a
C
a
W
O
O
O
O
Co
4a
O
Cl)
w
0
0
Ln
O
O
en
60
O
O
O
T
O
N
60
00000000000
O (f)
O
O O
O O
O O
O O
69 fA
V) V)
V)
CC)
O O
O O
O
O O
OV
N
N
N
fA fA
ffl fA
Efl
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O
O (A
O
O O
O O
O O
O O
fA fA
V) fA
fA
N
O
O O
O O
N
O O
N
O O
O
C(fl
N
N
V) Q3)
fA Q3J
Ufl
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O
O 5>0
O
O
O Cl
O ofA
O O
PH
EH 6q
6q
O
O O
O O
O
O O
OV
N
<n es
i» f»
N
N
00000000000
oe»0000(s)
�n
o000
(sv>v>
O00
Cl)
o00o
OOOO
�N
NN
H)v>�
OOOOOOOOOOO
0e9lOOOow6S,646460
O
OOOo
v
o000
CoO
NU)
O
O
N
�fl
in 613
E»61�
O O
O
O
O O
O O
O
0 U9,
0
0
<A to
64 64
64
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
Q4
U3
O O
O O
O
CD
O O
O
0�
0 0
0�
0
64 64
64
r
0
o0
O O
00
O
O
N
(f)
N
V3 �
�
a
N
�
`y
U
LL
M
N
O
Co
N
O
L
N
00
U
N
N
O
Co
NN
LL-
N
fn
a3
O
C
v
m
c
c
m
m
7
C 7
7
LL
LL
m
V
7LLLL
LL F
F
l06 p0
N W
LL
m
c w
w
U w
c
s
ly
of
to
U°
c°
m
o c@
V
m NE
E
E 'C
O"
c
LL
c°
O
c
LL
w
w
LL
o LL
U
�
V E
M
0 0
0 a°��
m�
cc
'E y:2
:2
:2
°3:
0U
a
c°
—
wm�UUU7��m��:
Q
•E
Q
O
CD
O
O
42,
en
0
v�
co
m
to
0
O
0
Co
0
O
Lo
O
O
O
Co
Packet Pg. 102
8.A.b
N
N
N
0
N
N
O
N
a
U.
U
OOOOOOOOO
fAO
O
00
O O
00
O O
00
O O
OOOOOoO
000000
O O
O O
O O
0(O to E9
V
ui
n
M
to
�o cc
0) n
N 6
E9
M cc
O n
O) n
NEA
o cc
W O
6 c4
fA EA
ui ui
M«
N M
M EA
o v
O T
c'J���
M
�ri ao
0 M«
to
r
�
M
O
O
O
O
O
M
O
O
O
O
O
O
�3
O
O
O
i 0
M
i0
O O
O O
O O
i 0 0
O) V
n N
O O
O O
O O
n N
M In
W O)
O
O
O
0
O
i0
O
O
O
n
e»
O
O
O
O
M
O O
O O
O O
n n
n
O O
O O
O O
orn
roo
O O
O O
O O
MaD
Mo�n�v�ro
O O
O O
O O
O<ON
O O
O O
O O
M(O
W
(O
V
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
M
O O
O O
O O
O N
O O
O O
O O
V N
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
IO O
O
O
O
O
O
O
M
O O
O O
W 7
O
O
N
M
M O
W 7
V �
aD O
N N
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
m
E
m
m
c
i
E
E
a
a
O
�
g
>O
U C N
U O >
C
m
E
E
19.2
9—
y
a ha
<p
E
o
y
m«
2
C
C C
C
y>
C C n
U o
'mo
6
E
E E
E t
c E
E
y
N
E>>>>
E
E>>
m O)
C
E
.m.
c O
0 0
0 Y
m o
o Cp,
m
E3o
C
o O.
6EEEE-2EE�
C
3
> O.
`._2
2CLm
3
N C
0000m_oom
C C
C
E
o
E O)
C o
a
j2
2 Ln
E L
U y
N>
O—
m
r
L
o
m m
m N
m d
m y m
I m
d —--Eo
jai-ai3aU
o
� a>3
a>>
L
.3�
m,
E
>osininins-ma>>c
n
L
L
a
U O
N
co
r
s
d
3 3
m
p O
N
N N
N N
N M
W N
O N
O
nm
����u)
6-u3
izro
'IT
'IT
«£QO'�
N N
cps
c«°'ooO'00003Eo
m
N
N
N N
2 to
tp to
tpUN
00000000000m�n00000000000000
O O
O
O O
O O
O O
O N
(D 0
0� 0
O
0
0 0
0 � O
c?
O
NM V3
I
EA
o ooi
O0)
M
o
MM
fA
ui m
00
to
M
r o
i0O
M to
of aim
aD
� to
fA
I
ON
� to
M
o
N
M
N000
<O
to
(OON
� EA
fA
0
E9
fA
O
O
O
O
O
W
�3
O
O
O
O
O
W
N
O O
O O
0 0
0 0
no
N
O
O
O
N
w
N
O
O
O
W
N
N
O
O
O
O
o
0
O
O
M«
M
0
O
O
W
O
O
O
N
v
O
O
0
N
ow�no
O O
O O
0 0
(O N
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
M
O O
O O
O O
0 0
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
n
O
O
O
t 0
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
i 0
O
O
O
O
O O
O O
O O
V N
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
N
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
00
N
N
N
O
l0Milillill
O
l0
O
O
NM
O
N W
E9V
ap
o
N
O
O
N
N O
V O
m
O
N
O W
i0
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
X X
X
X X
X X
X
Z
may.
�
�
E
m
d
E
o
d
W
E
m
C
>
@
u)
C
C
9
> 1
>
>
Y
n
d
m
IOn
Q
ai
t3o33mv
>
m
L
m�LO
> `
Ofn
(n maYn
C
E
@
Eg
S:go
Cm N
3
«c
«NNN
�VO
mO
.
t>
QN3a
U
NWUJ
La
�CE
O�Cm
33°1
o
Mo
nm>>yIn
O
V
O
Ow
EL5,
y
-o
�
`o
u)
y
>0Ea
oZiO>Ono
«Oo
O3d"
E9«
>Yc
QO
N
O
ocmy.
«
E
,
mc
EENNEaomE°LOMyYE`
En
'ga
QE-oEN°
m
mom
m>.oEw
o
E32
aEo
E
E
o
o
o
mvl
w =E
m «
INwu)Zn
.
o)
co
vn�n>
co
coo)
-
o
aa3
w`a_
�m�
m
^ gt
<<
m oUaam�
000
nUN
OMNMNV
ONO
m`Oc
E
m m❑
UNNNNOp
W NN3
NNo
W
mOQQ,rn2
2�ln
fnfL
d<
N
N
O
W
10
Packet Pg. 1 3
8.A.b
a
N
A
a
N
a
G
F
N
� O
r o
_N
O
0
O
N
N0 O
�
O
N
O
N
V O
r o
n M
V
Y3
�
O
0
O
e»
N
N
O O
O) O
d)
Y3
O
O
Y3
01
N
r O
7 O
N O
o M
O
O
O
O
O
N
T O
W O
V W
00
O O
N V
O
O
O
01
O O
m o
O) V
O O
O O
NM
O
o
i0�i0
O
Mom
ap N
V —
O N
O-
V W
aD O
m O
aD O
r O
m M
aONOrO
O N
010.
0 0
i
0 0
0 00
q
0
O O O
000
O O O
n• i0
�N
W W
-It r
N
d3
V M—
d3
0t0
i0
O) O
63 M
n- N
l0
N O
O NO
�O
0
r
M
O)00
M W M
G E
d3
O V
M W
N
t0
O
M
d3 Yi
N
d3 Yi
N
Y3 Yi
N
Y3 Yi
N
Y3 Yi
Y3
d3 N M
N N
d3
63 d3
63
63 d3
d3
d3 63
W
0
0
0
0
m aEi
m
c
o
c rn
0 m
o
E L
O O
O Q
c
O
m m
o o
E
E E
o 0
0 =o,
0 o
a«
0
0
0 o
a a`
C m
o r
o
U U
m
U
g
!n
o 0
0 0«
°�
m
a
o c
U o
c c
m E
y
y
y
y=
m
o M
E
M N
E E
E E
m m
E c
c
O
m E
0.0
f0 @
NO`
m m
>
c
O
2.0
@
m
O
O,C
N Na`
N N
N
c'€
xx
EE
cYaH�in
o;
`J N>
d LL
((00x
M
N
N
�i >
L
m m
O
N
m m>
d mN
CO
m—
=�aiUU
m m
m
N Q
m
O
E3�i
°D
mm
�
d m
"3
�nw
M-2-2LLa
o
u�
o W
0
c
N
N l6
c
C«Q
>>>=
Q
a0
Q
E
d R
(n
N t
r t
J
CiUd
m c
I` _
E
a pyy
a
N
V
C C
Q Q
Q O
N
L L
t0 i0
L
t0 O
Sj O
L i0
W M
t0 W
M M
Q Q
"O
J O
F U
W b
f0`0 0
m
C
�
�NNaN�
�
c N
J
w
w'c
O
w
N w
w wN(O
iO N<0
(Oa
C
J
a(O
J
{p
m
LL
N
N N
M
N E
t0 W
t0
N
N N
N N
a a
a a
a 9—
LL Q
LL
9
L
�y
C m
m—
C C
LL LL
m C
� LL
� a
.O a
c
O
N
p
y a
c
y
a
.........
c c
LL LL
c c
LL LL
c c
LL LL
m N
J
(p C
J
Um
jYY
mYLLli
li �_li
c
LLli
li li
� i
� i
"
m@
mom, m
c
m m
E
m
E
O m
E E
E d°
E
dE
EE
m
E
d m
E E
d m
E E
.
O m.u.
EE
m m.
c
c>
a n
2 n
3
3
a n
a a
a n
a n
a
>
o;
E E
c E
E E
'd 'd
E E
.d
E E
E E
'd
E E
'd 'd
E E
E E
E E
c c
c E
m
Km2(r
m o
d m
K
o m
U K
WE X5
W¢
d
w¢
�x
w x
d m
wKWKnflaf
d m
d d
o 0
o m
F
n
N
n
Y
i
O
N
O
N
O
M
N
N
O
O
O
g
u
f»
N
N
O
G
O
O
�
O
O
c0'J
O
O
(NOO
Y3
O
O
N
CON
N
O
O
000
N
r000
Y)
W O
Y)
�0
�
O
Y)
(00�00
N
Or
Y)
O N
W
Y)
N
r
00
N O
f0.0
Y)
O
N
aDN0000<ON
�
I�OOMO)�I�MN(O
7�00
V
70
ISO
�
d)
cor
V NfA�fAN
W rN0f0
V
�
N N
EArN�
N
Y)
Y)�Yi
d3 N�tA�
W
Y3
Y3
E
3
U)
m
w
in
m
E
.
m
c
d�
t
2N
d
3
o
a
N
v>Q>
E2
m m
¢L'>
o�
O>
mU
O
mgc
E
<O N«
rma
O E
�m
Q/naciu`mi°
�o�
aic
n N>
k2
O M
3 N
N W
O
EN
>�>
6>CC=mm
>>
>N
U
c
ooE�—oEmQ2-oc
N@
T w
N N
O O«
O
p N
O
� m
da
9«
Ea
r B.O>
��G
O�
OOvUrn
E 2
U
c
>>
U
O N
U>>
.. N
N�
6 3
K
o U
W C
E m
O
O
>p>
U)>U)>N\Q>�
m>>
O
NM«
t:
m
NaNQ3
U)>
B:U)
m
�
wo
p0«ap«
41L«N
afON
m N
c M85
U
O Y_
N m
= O
d E
N
=
�O N
.
� y
s W
fO l0
fO l0
fO l0
N l0
0 m
0 mmd00'3
LL LL
LL LL
FUS
LL LL
N USLL
LL
N
F
O
o
O
O
O O
O O
O
O
00
O O
O O
O O
O
o
M
M O
d3
NrNWTM
d3 63
d3 63
d3
O
o
0
V
0
OO
00
63
0
d3
O O
OOOOOOOO
Ln00000Lno
d3r
O O
10O
Yi Y3
O O
MO
Y3
O O
N
Yi
O O
M n
O
M
O
N
V O
W n
63d3
O O
V n
10 N
MV
Tr
w
N
H
m
U
o
o d
m d
N
m
N
E
E °E'
°E' °EE
°E'
V2N
w
y
° E
E
E E
E
N
0 0
0
N N
9
L O
E
0
N
E
H
mL' H
mL
Q
U
M C
c
E
d m
a;
o N=¢
Q
O
W—
N L
L L
L Q
O
a a
m M>
>
N
Z O
N
V
N E
N
m
M U
>>>
L>
M m
N
N
o`
J d
�inrnin
� cL
�«
>rnrnmrnE
Q oo
oomrn
m
N
¢aJ
iq 2N
1:
x3=x3=2
11
Packet Pg. 1 47
8.A.b
0
0
CR
O
0
0
o
I
0
0
O
0
0
o
N
0
0
0
O
N
fA
O O
O O
0 0
V O
<O N
to E9
O W
O (O
o v
0p h
M cp
� E9
e»
O 0
O O
o 0
0p O
� O
� E9
e»
0
O
0
N
aD
�
e»
O O
O O
0 0
O) O
M O
� E9
e»
O O
O O
0 0
OD O
7 0)
V3 M
O O
O O
0 0
N N
7 0
to M
O O
O O
0 0
fG im
aD i0
to M
O
O
0
O
O
N
»
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
f9 fA
O
O
O
f9
O
O
N
f9
O
O
O
f9
O O
O O
O O
f9 fA
O O
O O
O O
fA
O O
O O
O O
f9 fA
O O
O O
O O
f9 fA
O O
O O
O O
f9 N
N
N
0
m
m
m
d
IL
$
o
m
y o
E
L
olpp
E
m
a>
l
=O
aEi E>
> 0
o>
0 0
"
m fn
N O
N
E L
d
L
D
O
Q N
o
N C
N 10
o
w
°
EE
E E.
6
oa
w a�
o
o
'mu)
L
m
o
m
o
o 0
`oo2
v
RL
o
c
4
i"saL
y
o
m m
L
M w
o 3>
ti g
m
0
y
e
d 2
m E
E N
N E
E
L o
ry
o
o m
o U
d�LEo°000ME-
E'?oo
o
.� _
E
m
E o
o «.
E
:E
my
m m
my"y
oy.`x
N m
N
N>>
>
=
O
N
y N>
vp
N
I'd fA
O
O
o
moo:
moo:
�rNi�
om
mac
E m�'m
moo:
d v
(n f/)
(n f/)
(n N
yy
N o�
W N
> N
W
O)
u) u)
LL W
W
N
IA
a
12
Packet Pg. 1 57
8.A.b
C
R
En
O
i
a
U)
C
0
N
O
CL
l6
m
U
O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O
O O
O
M
O
O O
O f A
0 0
0 0
0 0
f A 0
0 f A
0 0
0 0
O
f A 0
0
NC
C C
C
C C
C C
C C
C
C
C C
C C
O
O
C
O
O
LO L0
�OOO
v0
OO
0000
O
O
ui)
l4 N
YO
a0
e3 e3
O
O
N
O
O
Me3
64
7
e3
N N��
L0 N
e3 e3
Ui)
U0n
r _W
e3
e3 e3
fA
N
fA
e3 to
e3
to
to
O
�
�
N
O
O
O O
O
O
O
O O
O
ay
N
�
Goa
V> O
0
N
Goa
O
N
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O0
V>
V
Go)
O
M
e3
LO
N
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
O
o
O O
O
O
O
O
In
O
In O
m
In
In
L6
Go)
Go> O
Goal
Go>
Goal
NN
O
Goal
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
00
O
O
0
O
O
Go>
Go>
d3
0Go)
�
N
O
N
O O
O
O
O
O
00
00
O
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
O1
Goal
)O
�
Goal
Goal
Goal
�
� �
�
O
Goal
Goal
N
O
O O
O
00
O
O
O O
O
00
00
O
O
Goal GoalO
O
CD CD
O O
O
O
O
O
000
O O
O
Oo
O O
00
00
O
O
0 0
O
0
O O
o
661
61
L61
O
n v
God
N
e3
N
God
U0 7
C, God
7
Goal
U0 �
God
U 0
Goal
n
e3
0
0
rn
0
o
0
0
0 0
0 o
0
Goa
0
o
0
C)
0 0
C) o
0 0
Goa o
0
Goa
0
o
0
Go3
0
Co
0
0 00
0
m
0 0
0 ui
0
0
0
[
n N
N
O
O
CD
N
N
r E
Go)
Go)
�
Go3
�
Goal
Go)
N N
W
IL
u_
x
x
X.
0
C
oa
E
c
U
o
�
O
Y
a)
O
-0
-O
C
O
0
m
rn
m
O
C
N
U)
C
.N.
-5
y
C
(`0
Y a)
0
C
w
cc
j
0
E
CD
aa)) E
o
aci
r
c
al
u 0
U
a)
`
w
C T
w
E>
a) O
U
E
m
c
o
c Ear
a)
> rn
C
IX o
o- c
E 0
0
a
E
vo)
'�
>o
a
aEi m
E
a)
E 'o
L
E
a)
3
v
LU
a)
aLL
E m
m
o o
o
a
�'`a�
a>
°' E
Qo
o
a)
E Co
rnm
N
Z
_° °
E m
(p
°�
(p d
rn U
d N
Cl
E
-0 Oo
a
uJ N
N
N
�
O N
U
N a_
E
C
°) o
C7
`m r
d U
o
C O
m
0 a
m
m
d
>
f0 0
2
a7 m
a
C
C
W
Q
0
m
Co 3
a)
3 0
Y
m
°
s
c
LL
O
ai w
Y
m m
aci
Im
c E
3
d cL-Op-Op
3 L°
j �.0.aY(7
t
c m
oa
c
n) n)
E
O
c
cYia
m w
voi
>
S2 o
m `m
m ao
ao c
m o
`m w
Eo w
m
a
aamUUrn�U�����a<n6
.>
ao
>-CL
Lu
O
C
N
N
O
O
C
w
0
0
0
N
VD
O
O
0
M
VD
0
0
0
O
n
0
0
0
rn
ao
w
0
0
0
n
w
0
rn
m
of
n
Vk
13
Packet Pg. 1 6
8.A.b
o O
0 0
(n n
O
N n
V) V)
O O
O O
C C
� O
m 6)
CO V)
O O
O O
C C
O O
(f) O
m O
V)
O O
O O
C C
� W
m m
V3 V)
0
C
0
O O
O O
(n O
O O
O O
O M
7(n
O N
ON
N (n
(o V)
V)
V) V)
c
O
a
O
X
U
T
m
Y
_
E N
j
N
O E
N
C
v
d
a>
c E
N
L
m
cO p
m (6
0.O
O
C
o
N
N
C
N E
C O
C
m
m -D
°)
-o
Z a
m a
E Co
m
y
m
m a
O C
(�
N 0
Co
w E
2 M
Y
N N
m o
O) C
m �
U)
6 CD
EL
3
° 'm
c
� LL
m @
'c
t
m 0
>' G)
c LL
O
E
0)
E
ro Q
U)
=p
m
N
y
U>
o
2
m c
O
U
°¢¢?
a m
(n
> O
....
N U
m
.... N
....
d
0 0
a
C
'm
-oaaa?a
C O
-o-oa
C
C C
caaga
7 C
C
C
c c
7
c c
7 7
c
7
LL
>>
LL LL
LL >>
Y LL
aLL
LL c
LL
LL
LL LL
LL
m
c
aaa
oaam'a�inin(n(iio
O
O O
"' 0
0 0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
C
N
E
N N
E E
E N
o E
N N
E E
N
E
N N
E E
N N
E E
N N
E E
N
N N
(n N
N N
N
N N
N N
N N
a
E
a a
E E
a a
E E
a a
E E
a
E
D a
E E
a a
E E
a a
E E
0)
N
E
m
y
3
N �
c E
(D
E a
d o6
(D
3 N
f] U
E
O
z a`
m 6
o H
O O Cl)'
O O Co
M V O
N
O
N
V) V3 V)
OD O OOD
O O m
N O
N V O
N
O
N
V) V3 V)
O (n0
O O n
oD O a
� V O
N
O
N
V) Vd V)
oo
(0 O m
N CD (NO
a O O
O O O
N � o
O
N
V) Vd to
No
O O Cl!
OD o N
Q) (M O
r � N
O
N
V) V3 V3
ooD o cc)
O oD
m o (0
o co v v
C
O
N
V3 Vd V)
CD (00 O N
r O O V
n N N a
O £ N
N N
W
Cq
N
00
0
N
(a N
d
V C
C Cc
!0 �
m U
t Co
H (0 0
� m �
i � N
c Cc m m
7 C_ N W
C C in O N
N C w N
m
a>i a°i o 0
�ma❑C
VT
0
(D
c
r
O
O
M
Co
0
0
O
n
14
Packet Pg. 1 7
8.A.b
00a)"
Co
M
N
OcO-
O
Ln N
00
V
Cl)
C"0
Co
V3
V-) V)
V►
O
N
O
O O
O
0000
W
O N
Lb
O
M
Co
m �
O
N
CO
LO N
Vi
h
O
613
Et3
N
W
O
LOO
� O
N
N
O
O Cfl
r
N
CO
EA
(fl N
U3 U)
CO
O
N
Z.
O
O O
O
M
O O
O
N
00
Cl)C0
N
N
CO �
LO
r
O N
CO
LO N
t0
N O
V3
V) V)
00 N
O
N
L
w
O
O O
O
y
CO
V O
M
N r-
C•i
N N
CO
LO N
O
.O O
L N
V3
V) V)
a
O
Co
CM0
O 'o
Mao
to
O
01
o)M
r-
O
LO N
01
LO
r
Vs
N
O
O O
O
Co
CO
O oc
M W
Co
Of
Co
CTI
4 N
CO
�
O
V3
V3 V3
yg
N
000
O
y
Co
O
O M
M Cfl
t0
Of
a+
ti
£
CO
63
CO N
63 64
n
O .E
N N
W
IL
LL
0
t5
m Q
L
0
o
o0
0
a
m m
y w
Y
cc
-
J
E
O
W
C to
L
Q
L N
m
C
QC N
Z
o
0
L
U U
U
C
Cm
F
L6
a+
W
aZi 00)
0)d
Ch 0
a c
0
110�
U LL
a
M
N
N
M
O
N
Va
M
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
Vt
O
O
O
N
V>
LO
N
CO
M
M
O
N
LO
V►
O
O
O
O
4a
d3
000
O O
O M
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
000
C C
C
000M
C 0)
O M
6F3 Vl
O Vl
O
V30
O
V>N 0
M O
LO 0
0
N LO
0 O
O
O
LO O
N�2
N
6"tq L'a
�! N
64
LO
O
N 68,
64
6409,
03
'
V3
613,
O
O
0
O
LO69
VCN
O
O
O
0
O
LO
O
V
N69
fA
O
O
O
O
LO69
VCN
O
O
O
O
O
LO
It
O
N69
fA
000
0 C
C
0
O
0
O
LO LMO
'
N
N
O
LO
0
N
H3
64
CA
V3
0
0 0
O O
00
C
C 0)
0 m
O M
O
O
N
M
LO
LON
C0 fA
��IN
64 V3
C00
N
N
64
M•
V3 68,
O
O LO
O
O LO
0 0
0
O O
O
M
O L O
O o0
O
V
O I--
O I�
0 0
C C
0
C
V O
C0 O
I-
O
CO
O Q1
O CO
0
00 0
W
63 63
EA
M
e4�
N
N M
69
64V3
X
X
X
X
X
N
N
m
CO
OL
N
U
Q
ui
o
m
F-
>t
m
0
O N
c0
O
0,c
CA
0
(0i
NN
L O
m
CM
2
S
m
i
O
U
all
OO
=O(n
O
O+N.
N
O
c
t
_
N
00
0
N (�
=
y6
O
E
m=
aF
0
-aa
N
>
E
y
c
Z•]
y >.a).>>-
N
f0
m�
@
E
Cn OL
E E
l�
O
00 N
E 0
Co
y
y
3
OY
0
o
O cc
N
O Q C
° c
a0
3 �U�.=
crw
m
aaa
m C,
c
m
m�
n m
_
m
c_ o
a� 2 c
P a
>
m m
cQ�
NYYw
m
m�
E:y�iga
m
a m
inc�i�Um
w
3 oa
r yatrU
�FY
o
c c
o
c
30
_N
4
°
M5MMO
20
2a
@
Q M
S a
N to
M N
N Q
F Q
F W
0(D CO
LO O
LO O
LO h
(nCD
N
I W
LO O
V> V)
M CD
O
O O
OO LO L LO
CO Co
Vk CO
M CD
O
O O
OO O L LO
CO Co
VJ M,
M M
O O
LOO LO
CO w
u�r V3
O O
O O
LO LOO
O Co
d1• to
M 0000
O LO
CO N
0) m
LO r
Vj4 61k
LO LO
LO O
LO Cl!
N LO
m
N r
d) V3
n �
OL O
M M
CO C
01 O
N
V! d)
O O
V) V)
O O
V) V)
O
V)
O O
V) V)
O O
V) V)
O M
V)
M
N
fA
M
0
O
N
V3
00
O O
0LO 0
LO
I�
00
000
O -ItO
M LO
a00
1�
C C
00
O C00
f� N
00 H3
0 O
M
m
O CO
N�
0 w
M
0
O
�
H3 �
H3
6-1 6-1fA
N
fA
fA
X
X
C C
y
`6 L
0o O
C
2N
a S=
N
E
m
E
y
C L
0
0
N 2
.0
CL
�aa
co
c2
it Em
ti
H
c
o
cc rn
�v
m �
m
m
E
c o
m m
c
E
m'E
Co to
>
0
E>
(n
U m
mo 3
o
_ O
m
a� 3
U F
o
mina
�UFE<03�
¢
m
0 r
c o>
LQFQFO[�
m
o
3
Q N
o M
O O
N
04
(L
NNN�cc",)tO
r
O L
=
C C
7 7
C C
7 7
C Cl)
7 N
�LL
LL LL
LL LL
LL �
LL LL
0 0
LL
o y
0
0 0
0 0
0
n
c c
c c
c
OE OE
E E
N a
E E
E
m
E E
E E
E c
a
i i
i i
i LL
E E
E E
E EE
E
E E
E E
E E
M
O
O
40
4a
40
y
C
N
S
E
k
tl
W
3
E
y
E
U
N
}�i
'o
QIL`
:9
0
15
Packet Pg. 1 8
8.A.b
M
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
T
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
rn
0
O
N
Co
0
O
N
0
n is
o E
N N
W
16
Packet Pg. 1 9771
8.A.b
M
EA CD
N
R O
y N
W
H
N
CD
IA
CD
U3
W
N
EA
r
N
N
N
IA
Cm
U3
N
W
N
01
O
N
O
yj
-
Fq
N
O
N
N
N
CD
CmIA
N
Uj
M
N r
r
W
N
01
r
r
O N
N O
N
O
yj
r
Fq
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
w
H
N
N
N
p)
d
N
Q O
N
N
O
N
yj
Fq
N
O
N
a`
CD
IA
Cm
CN
U3
W
N
01
r
O
r
O
yj
r
Fq
r
O
N
N
N
CD
CmIA
CN
U3
Co
O
W
N
01
O
r
r
yj
r
r
N
N
N
O
N V!
r R
O E
N N
W
IL
LL
U
E
fC
i
O
i
a. N
V
N d
c O
m
a`
E
w
O
Q
N
y
E
Z
u
m
U
o
W
a`
O
m
a
U Ui
F
N N Ef?
r
W
17
Packet Pg. o
8.A.b
C
.7
N
e
O
L)
Y
R
a
N
M
.a
c
LL
LL
_00000aaaaaaaaaa
M
v) 6,
fn 69
O 0
fn9 b
fn 0
fn b9
O 0 fn
Ci
N
R N
U)r
O C()
O
N
CD
6q
H
�! Cq
U�
m
ZJ,
N
Co
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
CD
O
O
04
N
LO
O
N
1
O
O
0
O
CIA O
O
m
O
Wi
O
N
00
O O
O
O O
O
N
O O
;: ;;
09.
CD CD
O O
O O
O
O
O O
O O
Co
o I--
h Co
O
N
OO
r fA
N
�
N
!6
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
h
N
Co
M
Co
W
n
O
N
a
LL
X
X
L)
C
O
L
U
EU
m
N
N
a
Cu
R
E 3
O
Y
R
R
(n
N
Y
U C
N
C
O
U
C
LL
o t
E N
CL
0
0
C
7
m
C
Co
R
.2
_
�
0
N
>
c
R
O
cCo
a E
00
t
3
(n
R
c
j
O R
•m O
�p
_
R.,
0
3
V
o m
W
7
c
2t
o.
N
a
-0
0
a
N.@7
0
y R
iD `
N
N C N
Z
R
Q
N
0 cc
W
U`
Uo0
cU'06LLMLL�C
0
'O
Q a
0
a E
m o
c 2
a m
0.
v0000:50U3:wlLdoU>
0
O
N
CO
N
O
Vk
O
Vk
O
O
O
LO
Vk
w
O
O
LLY
O
CD
N
N
(G
7
CN
CO
04
Cq
O
N
Cl
N
N
EA
7
CN
0
N
N
N
C,
N
Cl
N
N
EA
7
CN
N
{
O
M
N
N
EA
N
(C
O
N
Cl
C,
N
�
N
(D
O
O
O
C,
N
0
m
C,Co
N
N
N
Vi
O (D(CD
Co r
CD
O
r
O O
( ND
C,-
CD N -
N
b9
N
t
(n
o
7 M
OCo
O
W
O
N
U
Co
C
00
H
C p
H
C
y
C
N
E
E
O O
O O
O
C
CL
O
L
C
O
E
Co
�
Co N
�>
Cu
O
N
= Cr.R
=
O_
_
Un N
(a)
Co 0
R
R
c
0
cc
(D
7>
O
_.0
R N
Y=
fn R
i
C
15 LL
_c��•N
LL O
(n E
o
0
C
N
R LL
M
H
N C
C
7 (L
Y
R 7
LL 00
N
C
E 't
Q
L
CD
N
y0 O
4:
U
LL U
4: U
U``
c
=��0.UUo�0>UU�Ug2LL
c�
O>
O
O
0
0
0
0
O O
N
C
0
N
N
ho
0
0
0
t0.1
C O
y LoO�I-
N
N
O(o
r N
N N
io
N N
Lo i0(t)
N N
LO(D
N N
N 0
Lo w)
N N
R
_
_
r C
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r E
r _
LL
0
0 c
c.2Q
c c
c c
c c
c c
c c
c w
c c
m
L
C CCl oC
CLLLL
>
4+LL
>
LL
LL LL
LL LL
LL LL
LL LLLL�O
>
> >
LLLL
R
R E
R
N
m
Cu E
R
E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
0
E E
(gy
m Z5
w m
o
CO w
0
w�
0 0
w w
0 0
w w
0 0
w w
0 0
w w
0 0
w w
0
w E
0 o
w w
y
0
'O
y a
N y
y C
C N
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C O
C C
N
C
R
U
LL R
t U
R N
U E
N LL
E,
0 0
E E
0 N
E E
N N
E E
N N
E E
N N
E E
N w
E c
N N
E E—
C
y
R
N
N R
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N O
N N
C
N
LC
N
R
E C
C 7
7 E
7 7
E2 2
7 7
7 7
7 7
7 7
7 S
E2 2
7 7
N
E
m
cmY
c
c E
EY
E E
E E
E E
E E
E E
E-
E E
w
4)
m m
`m m
m '5
'@ `R
'5 '5
'@ 'a�
'a� 'a�
'a� 'a�
'a� 'a�
'a� 0
'5 ,5
>
w
m m
d m
m of
m a
m of
m�
m
m
m
m U
mtY
5
N
M
N
H
N
O
N
N
N
w
CD
(00
Lo
CO
18
Packet Pg. 111
k
)
a
w
Q
e
C:,
jj
°C
Ca
\
(D
\}
)
}
|
®
LL%50
)§
Co
�T
o
!k
CUT
Eo
0
)Z5
§\
|k)
150
. ±(*
`)
>0,0
:20
-
�2\�G£\\)k}\j)
E-
*���o==°=°aoC
a33=2�oq
)$]
Sa«Ia2/�.=
o
o�«00
Z5
`E
't
Co
L
ft<mo4�o/of
L)
) §
)L)
Co
19
Packet PgT2
8.A.b
N
N
CD
00
O
N
0)
ti l6
O E
N N
w
a
LL
0
C
R
O
a.
C 0)
N O
E a`
> `y w
0
a a
E Z
U
., v w
O
U Li a
O O
O O
O O
O O
M O(0,0
O O
O) 0 0
0 0
0 0
Vi Vi
Vi(OO
N
Viw
O
CD
O O
V
l0
M (O
O) M
V N
V
O (O
0
00
0 0
C.
N
W O
O) C
W N
(O (0
CDM
O 'It
n
Vi
(O
Vi
(O
O N
O) CO
V
O
(O
O
W (O
O M
N Vi
(O Vi
(O
ViCli
C4
Cli CliVi
Vi
W N
O) (O
M (00
04
V
(O
O
O
O
LO
co00
N
Vi
V) V
O O)
O
O
LO CD
I-
C,
(0
�O
O)
(MO
C\
V
v>
V>
co
O
O
N
V>
0
0
0 (
O
00 O
O l0
O
O
N
CO O
M
O M
V
��
O N
N
N v
N
Vi
N
Vi
Vi
W
�0l0
O(O
OO
O)O
V
7
O
Cl)
(O
(O (0
(O
O)
(0
Vi
N
M M
M
N
N-
Vi
CV Vi
Vi
Vi
Vi
y
0)
E
O
`cl
c
E
@
0)
a
E
00.4
cl
2 2y
.-
1 y
10 y
a
� y
C
0 0@
O C
o
0 0
0 0
0 0
L E
0)
a
C C>
oaa`oa`oa`a`a`a`a`a`Z
rn
C>
C>
C C
C C
C C
N 2
y
N O
O
0
0) 0
0) 0
0) 0)
0) 0)
0) 0)
E E
0) -o
E o
E 0)
E E
E E
E E
E
m y
0) 0)
U U=
C M
N C
U=
N C
U=
N N
U U
N N
U U
N N
U U
CO
@ 0)
0)
(3
0)N
i y
0)
SQ
N@@N
0
Cl
0 0
0 0
a 03
x
Cd'�3:Xx.a.a.a.a.C>*6(OOCO
O��
1-2�E
CO
W O
N
M�
ULN
0)
N N
N N
NN
N
N
N N
N
N N
N N
N N
LL N
(n N
N
ON ON-
0
(O
(0
O
O
N
�
N
Vi
N
V!
(O OVi (0
O Cn
M �
000 W
Vk V�
M
O M
O
O
M
M
Vi
V!
O
O
O
O
(O
(0
M
M
IA
Vi
M
M
N
N
M
M
Vi
V!
(O
O
O
N
O
N
Vk
�
cD
h
N
M
�
N
N
M
O
M
Cn
�
V
O
M
M V
04
V
a -e
N(O
(O N
K
O
u
"O
cm
r
OD
Cn LL
0) U
E
y
O O
o
O
u £
E E
a
O y
N Q)
E O
•m �
aaa
m £
E E
O. 0.
a of
O
O
M
0CD
N
O
N
�
O
O
N
N
O
N
CD
O-
O
O
Cl)
C4
co
O
N
_O
o
O
O
O
N
O
M
O
N
O
�
O
co
r
O
N
N
O
O
O
CA
O
OCD 4N
Q9�
V31
O
O
W O
O
V O
O O
0)
O
N O
00 O
L. i0
Or-
vrn
O
£
O
O
V) V)
V) V)
.-
NI
">
w
t t
rn rn
0 0
P P
Cl) Cl)
J
O O
0) 0)
O
� �
N
Cl)
N
C
O
N
V V
V N
O
C C
E
C 0)
O
N
+-'
LL LL
LL O
�
cl
E E
E E
O
O O
O
w
C
W y
w w
C
m
0)
U
C C
0) 0)
E E
C lL6
0)
E
2
0 0
0 _
m
V a
7 7
7
U
m oaaa
ii
LL
y
m
d d
w
d C
C li
0
=
c N
00 2
N
O
w y
w CO N
coo
m U
C C
C N 0
O O
O �
C
O M
N
O
N
O O
O
O N
o N
Vk O
N
O O
r
Cl)
M
N N
N
0 0
C
M O
N N
Vt N
O O
u7
00
00 CD
N
O O
O tocm
O)
(•7 OD
cm CD
M O
bi
(np 0)
r` m
o E
N N
w
V
7
U �
0) �
y
w
O
F
20
I Packet Pg. 113
8.A.b
M
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
01
O
N
O
O
N
N
r m
O E
N N
w
IL
LL
U
d
is
m
0
M
0
E
w
w
E'
N
U) i
1
z°`
o
W O
N O
W LQ
V3
O
O
O
O
V3
O
O
O
O
409.
O
O
O
O
V3
O
O
O
0
O
V3
O
O
O
O
LO
414
LO
W
N
N
W
V3
ti
N
N
t0
ti
O
O
O
O
O
M
V!
O
O
O
N
T
N
N
V!
O
O
O
O
N
M
V�
O
O
0
W)
N
M
V�
N
N
O
C-4
N
V►
21
Packet Pg. 4
8.A.b
N
O
N
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O)
O
N
Co
O
N
C
O
2
0000000
fH
fH fH
fA fA
fA fA
OO
000
Co 0,
MO)
00100000
N
10
W
10
EH
M n
V3 10
EH
W N
V3 N
EH
V
O
EH
Y
�a
N @
O Y
U_
0=
y
o2
0
E
a2
d
m
L Co
>
@
L
L
a
E o
7
-C
O)
O ra0)
N
c m
O
O
otf
-2
Cl) C
U p
M
N0)
O-
U
d
N
d 00
O
2 C2
0
a �
°
`�
_�
F
>
0
C
0
a)
7 d
C
d
� E
'F V
U°
E
cn°@�
Q
U
Y
N°
U -E-
@
.L.. @
N
Y
C
m U a)
N
E
rn in
LL'
otf @
3
d
m
a
a?
U
E Y 0
@
>
@ .
w 3 m
fA
a L
fA
n
.L... (o
Co 00
fn
N
N
N N
0
to
to
to
to
O
to
to
O
O
m
Co
N
O
EA
O
H3
O LO
O O
Vil
O n 0
H3 0 00
N N
Co M
EA Ef)
O
EA
N
N
H3
LO
N
6q
N
H3
LO
O)
ce)
O 0
n 0
61) O
61)
0
N
U)
O
E
-
O
C
U
d
d
N
.-
_
- C
d
@
d
n
d
LL o
E d
E
j
w
-• -•
N N
U E
E
0 >
o
a'o'0
3 c
-22
Q.O
LL LL
p p
Z
a
d d
y>
N E
y
m
e
E E
d
L a)U
@
c
d
E
d d
`d>
@
= c
2
d
@ @
C C
>
i O Q
a)
0 0
j
L
C
LL LL
Y Y
N
N
(n
=
d d
L
o
p`
U U
g
a) Y Co
atf
a)d
"O
d
•> '>
o)
>
E cc-
L
3
C C
C
Q
> C
O L O
L
00
�UaawCl
�No
N Co Ln
Co N In
CO M
N V3 M0
n
O O
� fR O
O
LO
Vk
O O
64 O
C
N
N
64
O O
Ln -n -n
N N N
M
64
o O
LO
N N n
% V3 N
C)
64
L N
N N N
to
V
V
fR
I- Co
Ln LO
lc ON)
N
fR O
a
fR
44 0 0
w
W a
v n
N �
en �
O O
O O
M M M
N
O
N
O O
N M M
N �
O V3
N
C.
O
O O
N MEfi Co
O
N
0 0
O O
O Cl) Co
N Vi 61�
O
N
CD O O
O C
O M M
O
N
CD CD Q
O r, n
t-
oo M Con
O LO N
N
0
d C) � h
n m o a
to M y
N
N
W
x
0
C C
u 3
d
U
O In
c
d
a) U E
d
@ N O)
N @ O @
M d N Z
N U L N O
00 (7 LL
N ° @ ` p d
C Y
m @ g mU
U _ y0
M L a) C N
!0 J -dp d 0 x C N
C LL E
m Lv,
N' 0 w O LL d
@ U ' U 1 1ID
'0 (O O C d 'O d V
@ CO J U U U)LO
U L
r
C E ate) m �a �Z N
0C V E ID @
Cr
O fL6 @ E d
m Co LL W C7 LL C7 U H
O
10
O
O
M
M
Ln
N
N
tq
N
O
N
tq
10
O
N
Co
Ln
N
N
O
H7
N
V3
N
O
O
O
O
N
O
M
EH
N
ER
N
O
0
O
0
O
N
N
O
M
V3
V3
N
O)
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
M
EH
N
EH
N
Co
O
O
N
O
O
U')
CD
N
O)
404
N(A
d
L.
O .-
N N
W
x
x
x
d
N
ay
N
V
d
�
i_i
C
d
0
3
0)
LL
°
>
Ed
E
E
Co
U
y
rn
@
C
Co
m
Co N
@
�
N O
Z
o
Il
� d
d
T
@ C
c U
g o
06
O
m
N E
a O
N
>
C
C
O
O d
Ems
O
@
N
d
E LL
W L
E2
7
y
2
O
d
N
N
L)
J a)
N 7
N
i
c
c
c
7
N
M
c
U O m O
.N..
m@
.N..
E O
7(L
CDz
Cr) Li
C7z
O
N =
� t
H 13
t
t
y
O -
N t
N t
N V
4 e
w
t
O
o p
o �
V G
c
a
e
O G
C,
o Z
O t
V 6
s
i
O O
O t
N s
M 4
O �
O
O w
Ln
n =
t
t
� t
s
0
o =
� N t
N 0
v
i
O
c t
o
N t
N
J
N i
s
N Q
N S
a c t
w EC
a .0
- O C
3 a C
Y G
rn �
O W a
N �
u
G
a t'
O U
V N
.o c
� ❑ i
a �
N � i
N u
7 w
d 0 C i
N
� a c
N w
fit-•
O
d O
N
O _0 m <
@ y Q Q
H Z N
W
Packet Pg. 5
8.A.b
M
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
O
O
N
00
O
N
r
n E
O .-
N 0)
W
IL
LL
0
E
L
�
a
o
LL
a
2
N
O
-p
(;
U)
S
m O
E a`
r
E
E
a)
Of
m
0 3
r-
L y
Q
O
Q
E M
F
CO
CO a
CL
O
3
3
U
a
Li
Cn
in
O
OOOOOOOON
LO
CO
O
00(Dn
OOr
m
O
Ln
U)
(Al
(f3
O
(f3
O
O
CO
O
O
Co
EA
M
LLi
O
N
O
O
V
V
V
Cfl
N
LLB
O
M
M
O
(D
O
O
W
LO
O
M
M
LO
M
m1�1-
6S
Or--
N
V)
ER
O
N
Nr--
(O
I:r
O
O
CO
V
M
m
N
N
7
M
N
1l.
M
Cl)
CV
C4
-
C\
A
CV
Efl
6s
Ef3
Ef3
6s
6S
N
V)
00
00
7
M
O
O
-
(i!
(i?
61)
O
C,LOf)
�
Co
LO
O
N
N
O
LC)
O
CO
Co
CO
1
GO.
(0Co
—
v)
(A
O
CDC
Co
CoO
O
'D
;
Lt)
((00
N
CoM
69.
�
EA
O
00
M
�
O
N
LO
(M
O
N
CoLO
Co
fR
7
ER
Com
h
LOo
(r
O
O
V
rCo
V
N
eq
En
V3
CA
LO
O
O
N
LLi
04
O
r-
M
O
M
O
O
00
O
L1j
CA
(A
6s
GRI6C\41
V>
O
00
N
CD
Co
M
0OM
CD
M
O
O
M_
N
N
V!
ffi
N
C
(n
C
N
C
N
C
N
C
N
C
N
C
N
C
N
C
N
C
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
>
O
>
O
>
OOaa
>>
O
>>
O
O
>>
O
O
r
N>
yO
Q.
a
a
a
t
m
co
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
a
a
C
C
C
Ca
m
m
m
m
0)
m
0)
m
Ca
.O
O
O
-C
r
r
t
r
t
r
t
r
t
m
m
m
a
a
a
Cl)
Co
Co
C
C
N
C
N
T
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
(D
N
a)
E
E
E
E
m
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
m
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
aa))
a)
2
Y
m
m>
m>
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
3
3
3
p>
—a)ma)
E
f>0
rn
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
c
v)
-
a
a.
m
Q
a)
3
a)
3
a)
3
a)
3
m
3
3
m
3
a)
3
a)
3
a)
3
a)
3
a)
3
a)
a)
0
0
0
L,.)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
°tS
c
(n
to
(n
Co
(A
�
(A
to
(A
to
(A
to
(A
a
a
-o
r
N
O
O
(O
r
c.2
O
Cn
O
N
M
N
N
O@
M
O
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
O
N
U
U
U
N I'llN
Co Vo
Co
n
Q Co
C4 n
N
N
n
r
N
N
to
V9
Co
� 00
00
00
V to V
Ll7 Ll7
O O
MQ
O O
Co
Q Co
61)
n
r
N
V
N
V
�
�
n
o In
V
I V
N N
1717
N N
M 69
In
O
Vi Lli
T
T
Co
00
(A
(A
O
O
M
M
V3
V3
N n
1-
00 W
1, O LL7
V
N
V
111i CA
O
O
(A
0
M V
N
EJ>
ta N
4
ER
5
E
O
fh
r
E
a)
c
N O
U
O
O
a
L
N
d
E
O Co
O
En
0
Na)
2 o
o
N
7
N
r
Caxs
LL
3
�
r
,6
-D
U)
c
>
>
w
C
C
0
LL
LL
C C
0
o
o
E La
L
p~
O
c
a)
c
m
L F
C r
od C o
'�
—
a) E
CO
n
COn
a)
E
o
m
3
a
c
a
U)
a)
a
E
E
a
@
Lo E
Z
m
Lo Lo
C J
J
23
Packet Pg. 6
8.A.b
o
�
M
M
O
O
EF7
N
O
N
ER
O
0CIA
O
N
O
Hi
O
N
O
O
to
N
Vi
N
C)
O
p
O
r
N
N
O
N
O
O
N
�
G
O
N
EJ7
V3
O
C
O
N
O
Gq
O
N
O
O
U9
N
V!
N
o
O
O
O
01
O
N
fA
O
N
(A
O
C
O
C
EO9
00
00
p
00
T
O
O
64
!f)
O
to
N
N
y
O
C
O
O
y
EO9
{
O
O
� cc
O
O
N N
64
69
O
N N
W
0
N_
W
N
C
N
�
O
J
y
N
C
C
O
�
M
N
N
O
N
N
N
C
Co
_
C
N
3
LL
M
-0
N
T
=
C
C
O
0-
fV
s
C
O
Co
?
O
C
7
O
CON
C
m
7
N
O
Of
L
Co
0)C
0)
_
u
N
N
LL
4)
7
C
C
D:
U
o
>
y
O
6
U
V
Of
N
m
C
U
y
C
C1
y
y
C
O
C
O
L
N
a'cUm
c
N
d
a��
7
w
W C,4
24
Packet Pg. 117
8.A.b
M
00 6'9
O C'4
w N
N
O
O CD
U3
T
CO
�
O
N
fA
O
O
00
O O
o G
O C
Cl)
O
V) V)
00
N
N
M
N If)
n r
O n
o v
o m
v v
eo ao
CmCIA
O N
N N
O N
to Cli
N N
OK 00
O
N
(fi 61)
619
M
N p
pp N
T
O
N
O
w
W
V O
O N
O O
� N
IL
0)
T
O
N
Co
O
N
O (MD
O O �
I` N Lo Co
T
�! W)
O .— N
Cm0 V)
W
IL
LL
U
N
N
a) N a)
0 U C
=O
N 6
c
C Cc
c U m
E
E V 6 .
W U a) N C
Q C O O LL
Z a)da
Q O U
C
W Co
as c c a
O
ILUU0
N N
O IN
O Co
Ifj V)
H V�
�
OM
O
M M
N N
fA Vi
fM0
(N
N
En
m
0
a
h
0 0
In
n
ri cd
N
U
N
i5
25
Packet Pg. 8
8.A.b
a
U
c
tv
d
CIP N
LL
PARKS
.Q
U
Go
r
O
N
d
N
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS °
0
a
r
0
r
r
L
a
c
a�
E
m
0
L
Q
E
Q
m
U
M
N
O
N
co
r
O
N
N
t
X
W
r
C
N
E
t
0
Q
26
Packet Pg. 119
8.A.b
a
U
c
tv
d
a�
:r
.v
cv
W
r
.Q
cv
U
CO)
N
O
N
Oo
r
O
N
d
N
O
M
O
L
a)
r
O
r_
O
r
m
r
L
CL
a
c
a�
E
m
O
L
Q
E
.Q
U
M
N
O
N
Q
27
Packet Pg. 120
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Anderson Center ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $160000
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. In 2018, we will be replacing the play equipment, which is
beyond its use full life.
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: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Professional
services
$150,000
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
$
$5,000
$0
$5,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$150,000
$
$5,000
$0
$5,000
* all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts.
2s
Packet Pg. 121
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Brackett's Landing ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000
Improvements
4;
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: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
$
$
$5,000
$0
$5,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$
$
$5,000
$0
$5,000
' all or part of this project may quality for 1 % for the Arts
29
Packet Pg. 122
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: City Park Improvements I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $15,000
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: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
$
$5,000
$5,000
$
$5,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$
$5,000
$5,000
$
$5,000
*all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the arts
30
Packet Pg. 123
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Civic Center ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $12,050,000
Improvements / Stadium Demolition
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Civic Center Improvements / Stadium Demolition As part of the
master planning process for Civic, and in consideration of the current condition of the stadium, it
is being recommended to demolish the current stadium. The City also has some grant funds
available to assist with this. In addition, the City will begin the design development process for
the completion of the master plan.
PROJECT BENEFITI RATIONALE:
The Civic Master plan was adopted in 2017. Funds will be set aside, and grant funds applied for
in order to develop the master plan. This is a high priority in the PROS plan.
SCHEDULE: 2018 - 2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning and
Stud
$500,000
Construction
$500,000
TOTAL
$500,000
$500,000
31
Packet Pg. 124
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Fishing Pier & Restrooms I ESTIMATED COST: $125,000
LWCF/IAC Acquisition and Development Project
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Fishing pier parking lot landscape improvements. Re -tile and
renovate restroom facilities.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Capital improvements to retain capital assets and
enhance western gateway to the Puget Sound.
SCHEDULE: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
$75,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$75,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts
32
Packet Pg. 125
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION
8.A.b
PROJECT NAME: Community Garden ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $145,000
1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Locate and develop a community garden site.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This was formerly planned for the Former Woodway HS
site. This is adopted as part of the PROS plan.
SCHEDULE: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
$145,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$145000
all or a portion of this project may quality for 1 % for the Arts
33
Packet Pg. 126
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Park ESTIMATED COST: $15,000
Improvements
89th Place West and 197th Street SW, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County
12.7 acres (10.7 acres Open Space & 2 acres Neighborhood Park) Zoned Public
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements to the picnic, roadway, parking, play area and
natural trail system to Maplewood Park.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset to the
neighborhood park system.
SCHEDULE: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
$0
$5,000
$
$5,000
$0
$5000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$0
$5,000
$
$5,000
$0
$5000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts
34
Packet Pg. 127
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Marina Beach Park ESTIMATED COST: $8-10M
Improvements
South of the Port of Edmonds on Admiral Way South, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County
4.5 acres / Regional Park / Zoned Commercial Waterfront, marina beach south purchased with
federal transportation funds.
WWRC / IAC Acquisition Proiect; Protected through 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: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
$
$
$500,000
$500,000
$500,000
$500,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$
$
$500,000
$500,000
$500,000
$500,000
'all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
35
Packet Pg. 128
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Mathay Ballinger Park I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $30,000
781h Place W. & 241" St. at Edmonds City Limits. 1.5 acres/Neighborhood Park/Zoned Public.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Improvements to Mathay Ballinger Park. This next year the City will be creating a pathway
from the park to the Interurban trail to promote both pedestrian and bicycle access to/from the
park and neighborhood.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset in the
neighborhood park system.
SCHEDULE: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
$20,000
$5,000
$0
$5,000
$0
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$20,000
$5,000
$0
$5,000
$0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts
36
Packet Pg. 129
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Meadowdale Clubhouse ESTIMATED COST: $5,000
Grounds
6801 N. Meadowdale Road, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County
1.3 acres / Neighborhood Park / Zoned RS20
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements to the parking area, wooded area, trail system and
landscaping of exterior clubhouse at Meadowdale Clubhouse site.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset with installation
that provides community use of the facility and north Edmonds programming for day care,
recreation classes and preschool activities.
SCHEDULE: 2017-2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
$
$0
$5,000
$0
$0
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$
$0
$5,000
$0
$0
. all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
37
Packet Pg. 130
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Pine Ridge Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000
Improvements
83" Avenue West and 2041h 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: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
$0
$5,000
$0
$5,000
$0
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$
$5,000
$0
$5,000
$0
New additions meet the 1 % for the Arts Ordinance requirements
38
Packet Pg. 131
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Seaview Park ESTIMATED COST: $40,000
Improvements
8011 Street West and 18611 Street SW, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits
5.5 acres; Neighborhood Park/ Zoned Public; Purchased and developed with LWCF funds through IAC; protected with Deed -
Of -Right
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Annual repair and upgrade to facilities and fields. Maintenance of
tennis courts, pathway improvements, and play area. Replace roof on restrooms.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Site serves as neighborhood park with children's play
area, open lawn, softball/baseball fields and soccer fields, restroom facilities, basketball court,
parking and tennis courts.
SCHEDULE: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
$25000
$10,000
$0
$5,000
$0
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$25000
$10,000
$0
$5,000
$0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts
39
Packet Pg. 132
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Waterfront Redevelopment ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,595,000
/ Waterfront Walkway Completion
--------------------------
.._--_.......
------------
A{�
Propvwd Edmonds
Wam(from Garver
Arws;
-ycox ww •a u.v�
r ,o. yyr .wo r
r,ce w careha �+•• s+� w.ra.
swa - Hsu m�
o E:.. •
[�ebp Sewur b Aem �
lsa5z. '�
r�y-
U++dhM.y
5]51
k�mpWa�wrm Rn'�
M9gwed Tbrn pfl w
Yom'MVronwb •..
gran W ran p.ur� o
6e-7�
wipf..d Mc`+.{4 P."
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with Sr. Center to renovate surrounding park, parking lot
and walkway. Remove creosote pier, reintroduce habitat for fish and wildlife. Increase access
to the waterfront. Connect waterfront walkway from Brackett's Landing South to Olympic
Beach, including completion in front of the Ebb tide condominiums.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Provide anew Senior and Community Center and
provide a new beachfront walkway. One of the top priorities in the PROS plan is to open up
beach -front access.
SCHEDULE: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
$343000
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
$7000
$170000
$0
$0
$0
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$350000
$170000
$0
$0
$0
'all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts
40
Packet Pg. 133
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Yost Park / Pool ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $220,000
Improvements
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pool replastering, tile work, and annual anticipated and
unanticipated repairs. Add in -pool play amenities. Park site improvements and repairs to trails
and bridges, picnicking facilities, landscaping, parking, tennis/pickleball courts and erosion
control. ADA improvements.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Beautiful natural area serves as upland area for
environmental education programs as well as enjoyable setting for seasonal Yost Pool users.
SCHEDULE: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
$40,000
$50,000
$50,000
$25,000
$30,000
$25000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$40,000
$50,000
$50,000
$25,000
$30,000
$25000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts.
41
Packet Pg. 134
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Parklet Development, 4th ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $40,000
Avenue Cultural Corridor
A parklet is a small urban park that is made by creating a sidewalk extension that provides
more space and amenities for people using the street. Usually parklets are installed on top of
parking lanes and use one or more parking spaces, but do not permanently impact the
underlying street. Parklets typically extend out from the sidewalk at the level of the sidewalk to
the width of the adjacent parking space creating a patio and seating area, often including
plantings. Parklets are public space and open to everyone.
10
.ON
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop one or more parklets on the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor.
The first parklet will be created on 4th Avenue adjacent to the ECA. The design will be
developed with Parks crew and an artist/landscape consultant.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Provide a small urban park along the 4th Avenue Cultural
Corridor with views of Puget Sound and seating on a popular walking route. Parklets are a
resting and a gathering space and highlight the social function integral to streets. The
importance of additional small gathering spaces is referred to in both the Community Cultural
Plan and the PROS Plan.
SCHEDULE: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Construction
$40000
$0
$
$0
$0
TOTAL
$40000
$0
$
$0
$0
42
Packet Pg. 135
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: City Gateway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $40,000
Replacements
(.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Design and construct new gateway elements at SR 104 and 5`
Ave. S and at Sunset and Main St. to replace aging and deteriorated signage. In addition, find a
new location on the north entrance to Edmonds.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The PROS Plan, Community Cultural Plan and Streetscape
Plan all refer to the importance of these visual "gateways" to the City of Edmonds. New signage
with artistic elements will enhance the gateways and reinforce Edmonds reputation as a cultural
destination for visitors.
SCHEDULE: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Repairs &
Maintenance
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
TOTAL
$0
$40000
$0
$0
$0
43
Packet Pg. 136
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: City Park Storage Building � ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $150,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a new City Park Storage Building
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Construct a new City Park storage building to replace the
previous storage building which was destroyed by fire in 2016.
SCHEDULE: 2018 - 2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Construction
$150000
$0
$0
$0
$0
TOTAL
$150000
$0
$0
$0
$0
44
Packet Pg. 137
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Hickman Park
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $50,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Secure park slope erosion area in northwest corner of park.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The northwest area of Hickman park has experienced
some erosion on the slope that borders private residences. This project seeks to take care of
our current assets, as is a priority in the PROS plan.
SCHEDULE: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Construction
$50000
$0
$0
$0
$0
TOTAL
$50000
$0
$0
$0
$0
45
Packet Pg. 138
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
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.
PROJECT BENEFITI 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.
SCHEDULE: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Professional
Services
$75000
Construction
$0
$0
$0
$0
TOTAL
$75000
$0
$0
$0
$0
46
Packet Pg. 139
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Citywide Beautification I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $126,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Beautification citywide to include Library, Senior Center, 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: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
$21,000
$21,000
$21,000
$21,000
$21,000
$21000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$21,000
$21,000
$21,000
$21,000
$21,000
$21000
47
Packet Pg. 140
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Citywide Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $300,000
Improvements / Misc Small Projects
1 : 4W
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 4th 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: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
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
48
Packet Pg. 141
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Sports Field Upgrade / ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $50,000
Playground Partnerships
�v:_... ..........._...:, ... _,... , a .,�. ,..._-L.11,.._
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: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
$
$0
$25,000
$0
$25000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$
$0
$25,000
$0
$25000
49
Packet Pg. 142
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Unpaved ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $ 20,000
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: 2018 - 2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
$0
$10,000
$0
$10,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
so
$10,000
$0
$10,000
* all or part of these projects may qualify for 1 % for the Arts.
50
Packet Pg. 143
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
8.A.b
PROJECT NAME: Debt Service on Approved ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $988,118
Capital Projects and Acquisitions
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 BENEFITI RATIONALE: Debt service to pay for approved capitol projects
SCHEDULE: 2017-2022
COST
BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1 % for Art
Principal &
Interest
$161,980
$159,868
$163,120
$165,820
$167,250
$170,080
TOTAL
$161,980
$159,868
$163,120
$165,820
$167,250
$170,080
" all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts
51
Packet Pg. 144
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Open ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,200,000
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: 2018 - 2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Land
$0
$0
$200,000
$200,000
$200000
200000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$0
$0
$200,000
$200,000
$200000
200000
52
Packet Pg. 145
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Waterfront Redevelopment ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,595,000
/ Waterfront Walkway Completion
k40{,
A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Redevelop waterfront to secure access to Puget Sound and
walkways along the beachfront for public use as indentified in the Parks, Recreation & Open
Space Comprehensive Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Public access of waterfront and tidelands on Puget
Sound.
SCHEDULE: 2018-2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
150000
$0
$0
$0
$0
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
53
Packet Pg. 146
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Development ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $510,000
/ Stadium Demolition
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Civic Center Development / Stadium Demolition.
As part of the Master planning process for Civic, and in consideration of the current condition
of the stadium, it is being recommended to demolish the current stadium. The City also has
some grant funds available to assist with this. In addition, develop a signature downtown park
at this site.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Civic Center Development / Stadium Demolition.
The Civic Master plan will be complete by early 2017. Funds will be set aside, and grant
funds applied for in order to develop the master plan. This is a high priority in the PROS plan.
SCHEDULE: 2018 - 2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning
210,000
Construction
$0
$0
$0
$
$
TOTAL
$210,000
$0
$0
$
$
54
Packet Pg. 147
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Development ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $12,050,000
/ Stadium Demolition
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Civic Center Development / Stadium Demolition.
As part of the Master planning process for Civic, and in consideration of the current condition
of the stadium, it is being recommended to demolish the current stadium. The City also has
some grant funds available to assist with this. In addition, the City will begin the design
development process for the completion of the master plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Civic Center Development / Stadium Demolition.
The Civic Master plan was adopted in 2017. Funds will be set aside, and grant funds applied
for in order to develop the master plan. This is a high priority in the PROS plan.
SCHEDULE: 2018 - 2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Design
750,000
Construction
$0
$11,000,000
$.300,000
$
$
TOTAL
$750,000
$11,000,000
$300,000
$
$
55
Packet Pg. 148
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Waterfront Redevelopment ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,875,000
/ Waterfront Walkway Completion
--------------------------
.._--_.......
------------
A{�
Propvwd Edmonds
Waterfront Genrer
ArUS;
-ycox ww •a u.v�
r ,o. yyr .wo r
r,ce w careha �+•• s+� w.ra.
swa - Hsu m�
f
o E:.. •
[�ebp Sewur b Aem �
lsa5z. '�
r�y-
U++dhM.y
5]51
k�mpWa�w,m Rn'�
M9gwed Tbrn pfl w
Yom'MVronwb •..
gran W ran p.ur� o
6e-7�
wipf..d Mc`+.{4 P."
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with Sr. Center to renovate surrounding park, parking lot
and walkway. Remove creosote pier, reintroduce habitat for fish and wildlife. Increase access
to the waterfront. Connect waterfront walkway from Brackett's Landing South to Olympic
Beach, including completion in front of the Ebb tide condominiums.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Provide anew 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: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
$1,875,000
$1,000,000
$0
$0
$0
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$1,875,000
1 $1,000,000
$0
$0
$0
0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
56
Packet Pg. 149
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
8.A.b
PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh / Willow ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,200,000
Creek Daylighting
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Using strategies and recommendations identified in the comprehensive
management plan, protect site from adjacent development and storm water impacts. Continue to
support day -lighting of Willow Creek to Puget Sound. Sidewalk / pathway repairs and continuation
of walkway / viewing path to the hatchery if environmentally feasible. Work with Friends of the
Edmonds Marsh, People for Puget Sound and others in the rejuvenation and management of the
marsh. This also includes planning for the outfall of Willow Creek into Marina Beach Park.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The Edmonds Marsh is a unique urban salt and fresh water
marsh with abundant habitat / wildlife species. It is a designated and protected bird sanctuary.
Protection is vital. Co -fund the completion of a master plan using Storm Water Utility funds as
defined in the comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan. As well as grant funds available
through various agencies and foundations.
SCHEDULE: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
$0
$
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
$0
1 % for Art
TOTAL
1 $200,000
$
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
$0
all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts.
57
Packet Pg. 150
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Outdoor Fitness Zones I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $100,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create outdoor fitness zones by adding fitness equipment within
the park system.
PROJECT BENEFITI 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.
SCHEDULE: 2018-2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Construction
$100000
$0
$0
$0
$0
TOTAL
$100,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
58
Packet Pg. 151
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: City Park Storage Building � ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $60,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a new City Park Storage Building
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Construct a new City Park storage building to replace the
previous storage building which was destroyed by fire in 2016.
SCHEDULE: 2018 - 2023
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Construction
$60000
$0
$0
$0
$0
TOTAL
$60000
$0
$0
$0
$0
59
Packet Pg. 152
UP / CIP COMPARISON (2017 TO 2018)
8.A.c
ADDED PROJECTS
FUND PROJECT NAME I CFP I DESCRIPTION
16
Museum exterior door replacements
Replace non -historic doors to comply with historic registry specifications
16
Museum East window replacement
Replace East facing windows that are damaged with approved replacement
double hung sash approved by State Historic Architect
16
Library West deck water seal and repair parking ceiling
Waterproof deck and repair pan -deck ceiling at covered parking
16
FAC metal flashing replacement and repair
Remove and replace failed metal flashing as needed to eliminate water intrusion
16
PW replace failed insulated window units
Replace glazing at failed window units
16
CH replace failed insulated window units
Replace glazing at failed window units
16
FAC add building controls to both boiler systems
Add Alerton building controls to existing boilers
16
FAC steam radiator retrofits
Retrofit steam radiators as needed to replace abandoned or leaking radiators
16
Exterior building washing, sealing and painting
Wash seal and paint building exteriors
16
Replace carpeting and flooring
Replace warn carpeting and flooring as necessary
16
CH electrical infastructure survey and replacement
Survey and replace electrical infastructure at CH, phase 1 of 5
16
Clean and maintenance City facility roofs
Cleand inspect and maintain roofs of all City Facilities
16
CH Planned maintenance and replacemnet of HVAC
Replace failed HVAC unit and maintain all existing end of life HVAC infastructure.
Yearly program
16
Retro comission City building
Retro Commission a City building to bring HVAC operation to engineered
specifications and optimize DDC system and energy performance.
16
CH heat tape installation
Add freeze protection to uninsulated vulnerable water pipes
16
Museum structural analysis of upper fa4ade
Analysis of upper fagade structrure since previous stop gap repair measure
16
Failed sash and glazing replacement
Replace failed window sash and glazing at various non -historic locations
16
MCH replace damaged and warn flooring at kitchen and entry
Replace existing damaged and warn flooring at Kitchen and entry
112
Hwy 99 @ 234th St. SW Intersection Improvements
X
Install traffic signal at Hwy 99 @ 234th St. SW
112
SR-104 @ 100th Ave. W Intersection Improvements /Access Management
X
Improve safety to access driveways at SR-104 @ 100th / installation of mid -block
crossing north of the intersection
112
89th PI. W Retaining Wall
Install new retaining wall along 89th Pl. W
112
Dayton St. Walkway from 3rd Ave. to 9th Ave.
X
Improve pedestrian safety along Dayton St. from 3rd Ave. to 9th Ave.
112
Railroad St. Sidewalk from Dayton St. to Main St. / SR-104
X
Improve pedestrian safety along Railroad St. from Dayton St. to Main St / SR-104
112
SR-104 @ 76th Ave. W Non -Motorized Transportation Improvements
X
Extend bike lanes and install APS / new ADA curb ramps at SR-104 @ 76th
112
SR-104 @ Hwy. 99 Multi Use path
X
improve non -motorized transportation safety from Hwy 99 @ 244th to SR-104 @
240th
112
Pedestrian Improvements (SR-104 Off -Ramps)
X
Improve pedestrian crossing safety at SR-104 off ramps along Hwy. 99
112
Admiral Way Crosswalk
Improve pedestrian crossing safety at Dayton St. @ Admiral Way
112
.Q
R
U
CO)
N
O
N
0
0
N
m
rn
O
M
O
L
d
a�
t
O
c
O
r
M
r
c
m
rn
d
c
O
N
O
U
d
LL
U
d
U
CO)
N
0
N
00
0
N
M
t
x
w
r
C
a�
E
t
c�
to
a
Page 1 of 5 Packet Pg. 153
125
Frances Anderson Center Playground Replacement
I Consistent with PROS plan
125
Hickman Park, hillside erosion mitigation
Consistent with PROS plan, maintain parks.
125
126
Civic Park design
x
Consistent with PROS plan, master plan
126
Waterfront Redevelopment/Ebb tide walkway design
x
Consistent with PROS plan, master plan
126
84th Ave. W Overlay from 220th St. SW to 212th St. SW
Complete overlay along 84th Ave. W from 220th St. SW to 212th St. SW
126
89th PI. W Retaining Wall
Install new retaining wall along 89th PI. W
421
2024 Replacement Program
Estimated future costs for waterline replacements.
421
212th & 76th Improvements
Accounting changed to be by fund. So instead of a reinbursement, this project
was added to all respective utilities which contributed to this project.
421
2018 Waterline Overlays
Estimated future costs for road repairs due to waterline replacements.
Dayton 3rd to 9th
422
Accounting changed to be by fund. So instead of a reinbursement, this project
was added to all respective utilities which contributed to this project.
2017 Waterline Replacement Project
Accounting changed to be by fund. So instead of a reinbursement, this project
422
was added to all respective utilities which contributed to this project.
423
2024 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements
Estimated future costs for sewerline replacements/rehab/impr.
423
212th & 76th Improvements
Accounting changed to be by fund. So instead of a reinbursement, this project
was added to all respective utilities which contributed to this project.
423
Dayton 3rd to 9th
Accounting changed to be by fund. So instead of a reinbursement, this project
was added to all respective utilities which contributed to this project.
423
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase 1
Separated from single line item to account by project.
423
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase 2
Separated from single line item to account by project.
423
2018 Sewerline Overlays
Estimated future costs for road repairs due to sewerline repl/rehab/impr.
8.A.c
R
r
.Q
tv
U
CO)
N
O
N
O
r
O
N
m
O
M
O
L
a�
t
r
O
c
O
r
c
m
N
a�
d
c
O
N
�L
E
O
U
d
U-
U
d
U
CO)
N
O
N
O
O
N
M
r
L
x
w
r
c
as
E
�a
a
Page 2 of 5 Packet Pg. 154
CFP / CIP COMPARISON (2017 TO 2018)
8.A.c
DELETED PROJECTS
FUND I PROJECT NAME I
CFP DESCRIPTION
16
Museum exterior door replacements
Replace non -historic doors to comply with historic registry specifications
16
Museum East window replacement
Replace East facing windows that are damaged with approved replacement
double hung sash approved by State Historic Architect
16
Council/Court Chamber AV upgrade
Council/Court Chamber AV upgrade
16
MCH gutter replacement
Complted 2016
16
Estimate of CH security needs
Completed 2017
16
FAC spot flooring replacement in Beach Ranger office
Completed 2017
16
PW replace failed insulated window units
Scheduled to complete 2017
16
CH replace failed insulated window units
Scheduled t o complete 2017
16
FAC add building controls to both boiler systems
Scheduled to complete 2017
16
FAC steam radiator retrofits
Completed 2016
16
Replace carpeting and flooring
Complete 2017
16
16
Clean and maintenance City facility roofs
Scheduled to complete 20172017
16
CH Planned maintenance and replacemnet of HVAC
Completed /ongoing year to year
16
Retro comission City building
PS and CH scheduled for 2017
16
CH heat tape installation
Complete 2016
16
Museum structural analysis of upper fa4ade
Complete 2017
16
Failed sash and glazing replacement
Scheduled to be complete 2017
16
MCH replace damaged and warn flooring at kitchen and entry
Complete 2017
112
220th St. SW Overlay from 76th Ave. W to 84th Ave. W
Completed in 2017
Citywide Signal Improvements
Upgrades to be addressed as part of future intersection improvements projects
228th St. Corridor Safety Improvements
X
Completed in 2017
112
238th St. SW Walkway from 100th Ave. W to 104th Ave. W
X
Completed in 2017
112
Hwy 99 Enhancement (Phase 3)
Completed in 2017
112
ADA Curb Ramps along 3rd Ave. S from Pine St. to Main St.
X
Completed in 2017
125
Meadowdale Playfields
Anticipated completion
125
Veteran's Plaza
Anticipated completion
125
FAC Bandshell
Anticipated completion
125
Audible Pedestrian Signals
Upgrades to be addressed as part of future intersection improvements project
126
Trackside Warning System
I X
lCompleted in 2017
126
Citywide ADA Transition Plan
I
lCompleted in 2017
421 2015 Replacement Program I lCompleted in 2016.
421 2016 Waterline Overlays I lCompleted in 2016.
422 88th & 194th Study I lCompleted in 2016.
Page 3 of 5 Packet Pg. 155
423
2016 Sewerline Overlays
lCompleted in 2016.
423
2015 Sewerline Replacement
lCompleted in 2016.
423
8.A.c
O
r
O
N
d
N
O
0.
O
L
r
O
r_
O
r
r
cn
w
L
O
N
�L
m
Q
E
O
U
d
U-
U
d
U
CO)
N
O
N
O
O
N
M
r
L
x
w
r
c
as
E
�a
a
Page 4 of 5 Packet Pg. 156
UP / CIP COMPARISON (2017 TO 2018)
8.A.c
CHANGED PROJECTS
FUND PROJECT NAME I CFP I CHANGE
16
OPW container storage
Scheduled 2017
16
PW conference/Library carpet replacement
Completed 2017
16
Facilites Condition /planning report (Mckinstry Study)
Year one of three 2017
16
CH West first floor window waterproofing
Scheduled 2017
16
Museum Sylight replacement
Scheduled 2017
16
FS-16,17,20 Roll up door defeciencies rectified
Scheduled 2017
16
CH Electrical infrastructure replacement study
Scheduled 2018
16
Library Failed window units
Added to 2017 Capital Renewal Projects
16
PS failed window units
Added to 2017 Capital Renewal Projects
16
Library West deck water seal and repair parking ceiling
Estimate came in in excess of $170,000 will look for alternative options
16
FAC metal flashing replacement and repair
IState Capital funding was not approved
423.76
423.76
423.76
Page 5 of 5 Packet Pg. 157
9.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 10/11/2017
Planning Board Extended Agenda
Staff Lead: N/A
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
The Board's current extended agenda is attached.
Attachments:
10-11-2017 PB Extended Agenda
Packet Pg. 158
ov. E pMo�
o Items and Dates are subject to change
N
p�f�[�Of�C� oOOQaD
Extended Agenda
October 11, 2017
Meeting Item
OCTOBER
Oct. 11 1. Public Hearing on LID integration code amendments
2. Presentation on CIP / CFP for 2018 — 2023
Oct. 25 1. Public Hearing on the proposed 2018 — 2023 CIP / CFP
2. Five Corners Area — Development Feasibility Analysis —Status report
3. Housing Strategy Update (# 1)
NOVEMBER
Nov. 8 1. Draft Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP)
2. Parks & Recreation Quarterly / End of Year Report
3. Comp Plan Amendments hearing?
4. Critical Area Restoration Requirements Review (tentative)
Nov.22 HOLIDAY
DECEMBER
Dec. 13 1. PB & ADB Joint meeting on roles & responsibilities
2. Housing Strategy Update (#2)
3. Five Corners Area —Development Feasibility Analysis —Final report
Dec.27 HOLIDAY
9.A.a
Packet Pg. 159
Items and Dates are subject to change
9.A.a
Pending 1. Community Development Code Re -Organization
2017 2. Neighborhood Center Plans and zoning implementation, including:
✓ Five Corners
3. Further Highway 99 Implementation, including:
✓ Potential for "urban center" or transit -oriented design/development
strategies
✓ Parking standards
4. Exploration of incentive zoning and incentives for sustainable
development
Current Priorities
1. Neighborhood Center Plans & implementation.
2. Highway 99 Implementation.
Recurring 1. Annual Adult Entertainment Report (January -February as necessary)
Topics 2. Election of Officers (VY meeting in December)
3. Parks & Recreation Department Quarterly Report (January, April, July,
October)
4. Quarterly report on wireless facilities code updates (as necessary)
Packet Pg. 160