Loading...
2019-10-23 Planning Board Packet1. 2. 3. 4. 5. ti3 f!}:qr Agenda Edmonds Planning Board 't j4yx COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 OCTOBER 23, 2019, 7:00 PM LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water. CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Approval of Planning Board Draft Minutes of October 9, 2019 ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA AUDIENCE COMMENTS ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS A. Development Services Director Report 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Hearing on the Proposed 2020 - 2025 Capital Facilities Plan / Capital Improvement Plans B. Public Hearing on Comprehensive Plan Amendment regarding Housing implementation (referred from the City Council) 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS 9. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA A. Review Planning Board Extended Agenda 10. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS 11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS 12. ADJOURNMENT Edmonds Planning Board Agenda October 23, 2019 Page 1 2.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/23/2019 Approval of Planning Board Draft Minutes of October 9, 2019 Staff Lead: N/A Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and Approve the draft minutes. Narrative Draft Minutes are attached. Attachments: PB191009d Packet Pg. 2 2.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Meeting October 9, 2019 Chair Cheung called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 51 Avenue North. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Matthew Cheung, Chair Daniel Robles, Vice Chair Todd Cloutier Alicia Crank Nathan Monroe Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig (left at 8:00) Mike Rosen Conner Bryan, Student Representative BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Roger Pence (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Joe Herr, Chair Maureen Jeude Bruce Owensby Cary Guenther ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Laurie Strauss, Vice Chair Kim Bayer Tom Walker STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Rob English, City Engineer Shannon Burley, Deputy Director, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER MONROE MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER ROSEN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no audience comments. Packet Pg. 3 2.A.a DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD There were no comments related to the Development Services Director Report JOINT MEETING WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD (ADB): DESIGN REVIEW ROLES AND PROCESS Mr. Clugston reviewed that the Planning Board and ADB discussed revisions to the ADB's roles and involvement in project reviews at a joint meeting on July 24', and the Planning Board discussed revisions to the ADB's roles and processes at a joint meeting with the City Council on September 241. The purpose of this meeting is to have continued discussion about the ADB's changing roles in developing the guidance and standards necessary to influence design in Edmonds and its specific role in the project design review process. It is anticipated that, at the end of the discussion, the two groups will provide direction to staff to draft code revisions to implement the changes. Mr. Clugston reviewed that the ADB is concerned that the design standards are incomplete and do not always yield the results that the ADB and the Edmonds community want to see. The ADB feels it spends too much time approving already - designed projects without being able to influence design decisions early in the development process. They have expressed a desire to have an earlier role in the review process, as well as a role in reviewing and developing design standards. He referred to Attachment 1, which provides a summary of the ADB's current codified powers and duties compared with the ADB's desired roles and a list of recommendations from the ADB. He also referred to Attachment 2, which is a flowchart of the proposed new design review process. He reviewed the ADB's recommendations are as follows: 1. Mandatory pre -application meetings with prospective applicants, before designs are completed and applications submitted. For the past 30 years, the ADB's work has focused on making quasi-judicial decisions at the end of a project review, and this has caused it to miss opportunities to participate in recent design work related to Westgate, Highway 99, Five Corners, etc. As was discussed at the last joint meeting, quasi-judicial decision making at the end of a project review cycle is not the best use of the ADB's time and expertise. In addition, the City Council, via Resolution 1367, has stated its intent to remove volunteer boards from the quasi-judicial decision - making role. As envisioned, the ADB would have two touches of larger projects during the design review cycle. The first would be at the pre -application phase when an applicant is still in the early stages of project development, and the second would be during the application review as a recommendation to the final decision maker. A mandatory pre -application meeting would allow the ADB to provide guidance on a variety of elements, including massing, site context and open space, before an applicant spends significant time and money preparing design plans. The second review would allow the Board to take a second look at a project to see if the applicant addressed the Board's design vision from the pre -application meeting and propose design conditions if it did not. 2. Periodic reviews of completed projects, comparing approved designs to completed projects. Post -hoc reviews of completed projects would allow the ADB to see how projects age into sites and whether what was envisioned by the design standards and guidelines are working or if they need to be revised to ensure the community is getting the design it wants. 3. Review City codes and policies related to design, making recommendations to the City Council on adjustments or, when appropriate, new standards or design guidance. The ADB would like to have a role in developing and recommending citywide design guidelines and standards, as well as context -sensitive standards for special design districts such as Highway 99, Five Corners, Westgate, etc. Board Member Owensby said the ADB hasn't had a lot of opportunity to discuss how the proposed recommendations would be implemented, but they all feel frustration with the current process and their inability to provide input relative to design. In some cases, the ADB has approved projects it normally wouldn't have simply because they meet all of the City's design standards and they had no choice. He said the ADB would like to play a larger role in developing policies and codes that affect design. There are currently a lot of design standards that appear to be requirements, when in fact, they are just guidelines and the ADB doesn't have the ability to enforce them. It would be good to have guidelines in place that are both consistent and enforceable. He suggested that, rather than one -size -fits -all design standards, the standards should recognize Planning Board Minutes October 9, 2019 Page 2 Packet Pg. 4 2.A.a that the setbacks, building modulation and other design standards need to based on the type of building, as well as its use and location. Chair Herr recalled that, just recently, an applicant presented a project that the ADB really liked but could not approve as presented. While the intent of the design standards is good, it wasn't possible to meet them without making significant structural engineering changes. The Board's hands were tied because it has no discretionary ability to modify the standards. If the ADB had been involved early in the design, perhaps it could have recommended some potential solutions. In the end, the applicant came back with a project that met all of the Board's recommendations, but a lot of time and money was required to get to that point. They could have got out in front of these issues if they had had an opportunity to meet with the applicant early in the design process. He summarized that the Board can recommend changes as part of its quasi-judicial review, but it has no authority to stop a project that meets all of the design guidelines and code standards. The fact that this developer took the ADB's recommendations to heart and redesigned the building was a bonus, but he didn't have to do it. Chair Herr explained that, with the current process, applicant's present projects and the Board reviews the Design Guideline Checklist and signs off on them without having an opportunity to provide significant input. They can make recommendations, but there are no teeth to require applicants to implement changes. If the ADB doesn't like a project, they have to approve it anyway if it meets all of the design guidelines and codes. The ADB would like to be involved earlier in design review to help guide projects. Board Member Guenther pointed out that the ADB has never been invited to provide input on design elements when the Comprehensive Plan is updated. He expressed his belief that the ADB needs to be more involved in both Comprehensive Plan policies and legislative code amendments related to design. Besides just approving projects, the ADB can offer a lot more. Board Member Rosen asked what the Planning Board's role will be in the process of changing the ADB's role and the design review process. Mr. Chave explained that, as per code, the Planning Board is responsible for making recommendations to the City Council regarding amendments to the Development Code, including ADB procedures and responsibilities, and that is why the ADB is meeting jointly with the Planning Board to share its recommendation. Mr. Chave said the ADB has discussed having all of the design standards in one section of the code, and then having the ADB the body in charge of making recommendations to the City Council regarding design code changes. He suggested it would be awkward for the ADB to have study sessions and public hearings on proposed amendments, only for the Planning Board to have to repeat the process before making a recommendation to the City Council. The ADB is interested in having a stronger role in the development of design guidelines (Comprehensive Plan) and design standards (Development Code), and staff believes it would make sense for the ADB to submit their recommendations directly to the City Council. In an attempt to advance the recommendations with the best opportunity for success, Board Member Rosen asked if it would be better to have the recommended changes come from the Planning Board or from both boards together. Mr. Chave suggested that it would be appropriate to present the proposed changes to the City Council in a joint meeting. Regarding Board Member Guenther's comment about the ADB being left out of the Comprehensive Plan process, Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that there hasn't been a comprehensive review of the Comprehensive Plan for quite a while. The most recent amendments were unrelated to design. Board Member Guenther recalled that he was a member of the Planning Board when the design element of the Comprehensive Plan was updated, and the Planning Board did not solicit feedback or help from the ADB. He suggested that it would be appropriate for the ADB to participate the next time the design element is updated. Board Member Rubenkonig asked Mr. Chave to explain the City's process for reviewing the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chave said the City completes a comprehensive update of its Comprehensive Plan every seven years. In between, the City conducts an annual update to address minor changes that are needed for one reason or another. He said the ADB has suggested it would like to take a larger role in modifications to and development of the design guidelines, some of which are in the Comprehensive Plan. They would also like a larger role in creating and modifying the design standards in the Development Code. He noted that their input has been largely left out of previous updates. Planning Board Minutes October 9, 2019 Page 3 Packet Pg. 5 Board Member Monroe recalled that at the last joint meeting, the two boards talked about the need for a deviation process. He asked if the ADB had a chance to talk about the concept further. Board Member Owensby answered no. Mr. Chave explained that the proposal currently before the Board would modify the code to allow the ADB to be involved earlier in design review and to have a role in developing and modifying design guidelines, design standards and other code regulations related to design. If and when the current proposal is adopted by the City Council, the ADB can begin to discuss potential code amendments, including a provision that allows for deviations to the design standards. Vice Chair Robles recalled that at the joint meeting, he recognized that the ADB members are creative, technically -minded and safety conscious in taking care of details. At their joint meeting with the Council, the Planning Board expressed its belief that the ADB is being underutilized at this time. For example, it was pointed out that the ADB has some great ideas related to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) that could be beneficial to the Housing Commission. When the City Council made it clear that ADU's were under the purview of the Housing Commission, he pointed out that allowing the ADB to study the issue and recommend a set of specifications that can work for ADUs would help the Housing Commission move quicker. He said he can see how the ADB's work at the front end could actually lubricate the issue and allow it to run smoother rather than hold it back. He wholeheartedly agreed that having ADB participation closer to the front end of design review would be beneficial, as well. He asked what would be the best approach for pushing the ADB's recommended changes forward to the City Council. Chair Herr referred to Attachment 1, which outlines what the ADB is striving to accomplish. However, implementing all of the changes will take baby steps. The ADB's recommendation list only includes three items as a place to start. As the changes are implemented, the Board will get a better idea of how it can best serve and help applicants present their projects. If the ADB is allowed to comment earlier, their feedback will come more as a suggestion or recommendation. If they are presented at the end after a project has been fully designed, applicants are much less willing to consider the recommendations. Having the review come earlier in the process will benefit developers, the ADB, the City and the community. Vice Chair Robles stressed the need to clearly articulate the ADB's vision. If you flip the politics, it becomes an easy change. It is all about communicating the proposal to the City Council in a way that they are open to the rest of the changes. Mr. Chave referred to Attachment 1, which lists the ADB's current powers and duties, noting that most of what the ADB currently does (reviewing projects) isn't even on the list. Their major job now is to act as the approval body for projects rather than providing design expertise for the development of design in the City. The ADB is suggesting going back to the powers and duties that the current code assigns to them. They would still have a role in project review, but it would be pushed much earlier in the process to better influence how design develops. Having a provision in place that allows for design standard modifications would encourage good design to happen. He summarized that if the Planning Board supports the ADB's recommendations, staff could schedule a joint meeting with the ADB, Planning Board and City Council. If the Council is receptive to the recommendation, staff could draft the appropriate code changes to make it happen. Board Member Owensby agreed that the proposal's success will depend on how it is presented to the City Council. He doesn't want to step on anyone's toes. As an architect, he has to gather and assimilate a variety of information (building codes, soil conditions, client desires, etc.) in order to do a good project. The ADB members excel at doing this. With regards to ADUs, the ADB could help the Housing Commission think through the process creatively so that Edmonds gets the type of housing it needs. Vice Chair Robles agreed that the Housing Commission is necessary, and the ADB could support their efforts so they don't get bogged down with details that would be easy for the ADB to address. Mr. Chave explained that the Housing Commission's role will be to come up with policies relative to ADUs and not to develop detailed standards for ADU's. Once the policies are in place, they will allow the Planning Board and/or ADB to come up with specific implementation standards to implement the policies. The City Council didn't want the Planning Board and ADB to "get too far into the weeds" before the Housing Commission comes up with the big picture policy direction. Board Member Rubenkonig said she watched the video of the Planning Board's joint meeting with the City Council and observed that there was a misrepresentation of the ADU concept and that some Board Members confused the issue. She appreciates that Mr. Chave has set the Board straight. She said the way the Board could impact the ADU discussion was also Planning Board Minutes October 9, 2019 Page 4 Packet Pg. 6 2.A.a misrepresented. It is her understanding that the Planning Board and ADB can look at the current criteria for detached ADUs and consider other criteria that would result in acceptable design for the City, and it is time for that to take place. There is no new policy being made at this time for detached ADU's, and it is not within their purview to discuss policy changes. However, the Planning Board can work with the ADB to see if there is another way for ADUs to look that might be more palatable for the neighborhoods and the City. The current regulations have been in place for a long time, and perhaps they no longer represent the present concerns or future needs. Discussing these regulations are well within the purview of the two Boards. She recalled previous discussions with the Development Services Director, indicating that the Planning Board could work with the ADB on the design issues related to ADU's. However, policies as to who can benefit from ADU's will come from the Housing Commission. That is what the City Council was trying to clarify. Board Member Rubenkonig concluded that, with this understanding and staff s support, the Planning Board can engage with the ADB in looking at the design standards for ADUs. However, they must be clear they can always do what they have been doing, which is making preferences known as to the benefit these structures could be for other people in the City aside from family members. The Planning Board is expected to represent different views and be part of the conversation. Striking a chord on the Board will require communication and that they are all in agreement when it comes to agenda setting for when they meet with the City Council. They need to be clearer, publicly, about how they discuss things as a Board. Once they make plans, they have to protect those plans and represent the Board in a fine manner. They have to be very clear tonight about the difference between the policies the Housing Commission will be setting and the Planning Board's future work with the ADB. She concluded that it was disconcerting to see the issue become so mottled, and she didn't want the confusion to continue at this meeting. Board Member Crank said she supports the ADB's recommendation and the flowchart that was attached to the Staff Report. The last thing that volunteers want to feel like is that their time and talent is not being utilized because their hands are being tied or that the work is not going down the right pathway for them to be effective. She recalled that, at the Planning Board's joint meeting with the City Council, Councilmember Johnson brought up that some items have been on the Planning Board's extended agenda for years. She would like these items to be revisited. She suggested that the 2020 Planning Board Chair should proactively work with staff to schedule these projects on the Board's extended agenda and find ways to incorporate the ADB where appropriate. Board Member Rosen said that whenever he considers potential changes, he tries to consider what issues might come up that will kill a new idea. He asked what are the worst things someone might say in opposition to the ADB's recommended changes. Chair Herr responded that, without the changes, good volunteers may decide to leave their position on the ADB. Board Member Rosen agreed that will be an outcome of the proposed change. Board Member Guenther commented that if the ADB is able to make recommendations directly to the City Council, it will appear they are being promoted a level up the chain. The current process requires the ADB to make recommendations to the Planning Board and then the Planning Board makes a recommendation to the City Council. Along the way, recommendations get modified, and what is eventually adopted may not be consistent with the ADB's original recommendation. He said it makes sense for the ADB to make recommendations directly to the City Council, but this change could raise some concerns. Board Member Owensby voiced concern that elements of an ADB recommendation can get lost in the translation as it is moved through the Planning Board and then to the City Council. The Planning Board may not have an adequate understanding of an ADB recommendation to clearly explain to the City Council why it is important. If the ADB is able to make recommendations directly to the City Council, they can clearly explain their reasoning. Board Member Rosen agreed that many good ideas have been derailed by the current process, which is a compelling argument in support of the proposed changes. Mr. Chave said they may receive some pushback on the mandatory pre -application meeting requirement. He explained that pre -application meetings are not mandatory at this point. Quite a number of applicants do them anyway, but it is something else to make it mandatory. Some element of the development community is used to the current process, and adding a new step early in the process might cause some pushback. He said that, in his view, it isn't really a penalty to require a pre - application meeting; it just means that people will have to think of that earlier in the process. Planning Board Minutes October 9, 2019 Page 5 Packet Pg. 7 2.A.a Board Member Rosen asked if other jurisdictions in the region require pre -application meetings. Chari Herr said he works in a lot of jurisdictions, and most have pre -application meetings. He said he doesn't think they will receive a lot of pushback from the development community because they are used to it in most jurisdictions. Mr. Chave commented that some of the local developers are not used to pre -application meetings, but they provide a potential benefit, particularly if the City has a process for deviations to the standards. A pre -application meeting will allow the ADB to engage a prospective developer early enough that they can see possibilities they may not have recognized themselves. BOARD MEMBER ROSEN MOVED THAT THE BOARD ENDORSE THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD AND SET UP A TIME TO CO -PRESENT THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION. Board Member Cloutier pointed out that, as proposed, the pre -application meeting would only be mandatory for significant projects and not every project. Developers of larger projects will have a different level of visibility anyway. Mr. Chave referred to the flowchart (Attachment 2) that was attached to the Staff Report, emphasizing that it is just a draft now. Once they get into the details of the process, they can set different thresholds, depending on where projects are located. For example, he can see that the threshold for mandatory pre -application meetings would be different for development in the downtown versus Highway 99, Westgate, etc. Board Member Owenby said he would like to make sure that any project that is publicly oriented should require a pre - application meeting. This would include development on Highway 99, downtown, Five Corners, etc. The threshold should be based on both size and location. Board Member Cloutier cautioned that it will be important to clearly define the threshold so it is easy for people on the outside to understand. The process outlined in the flowchart is simple, setting the threshold at projects that require State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. Chair Herr agreed that would be a good place to start. However, the pre -application meeting could remain an option for all projects, and some developers might take advantage of the opportunity. Board Member Rubenkonig said she has no comments regarding the contents of the Staff Report, but she is concerned that the ADB hasn't had enough time to consider their recommendation and some of their members are not present. She observed no action is required at this time. They can reconvene the joint meeting on a future date if necessary for the ADB to have more preparation time. Chair Herr responded that the ADB has discussed the recommendation at length in prior meetings. All members of the ADB have participated in the discussion and all are in agreement with the recommendation. Board Member Owensby clarified that the intent of his earlier comment is that the ADB hasn't had time to go beyond the initial recommendation to look at the specific design guidelines and design standards they might recommend in the future. Once again, Chair Herr reminded them that it will take small steps, starting with outlining the framework and gaining the Planning Board and City Council support. As they move forward, the details will all be fleshed out. Board Member Rubenkonig asked the Planning Board members why they are comfortable moving the ADB's recommendation on to the City Council. Board Member Cloutier clarified that they are not recommending a complete rewrite of the code. They are simply endorsing the three recommendations provided in Attachment 1 of the Staff Report, which outline what they want the ADB to be doing. The proposed recommendations set a vision for where the ADB should be going, and then the recommendations will be implemented with new actions. Board Member Monroe commented that the ADB recommendation represents a thoughtful process and is exactly the process he wants to have for the design review board. The proposed changes offer a great way to keep the citizen boards engaged, and they need to be able to fix things that aren't working. He is open to hearing the ADB's ideas for implementing the changes in the future. Chair Cheung said he appreciates the ADB's recommendation and found their arguments to be compelling. He supports empowering the ADB to do work where they can help the most. Rather than the ADB making a recommendation to the Planning Board and then the Planning Board making a recommendation to the City Council, he would support the ADB making their own recommendations to the City Council. Planning Board Minutes October 9, 2019 Page 6 Packet Pg. 8 2.A.a Vice Chair Robles said he is an engineer and works with architects. They rely on each other, and the working relationship is very important. It is also important that both boards represent the citizens. They need to take every opportunity to increase the weight of the citizen comments, and he trusts the architects on the ADB to do that. He looks forward to their active participation in forwarding the goal of protecting the health, safety and welfare of people and property. Board Member Rubenkonig clarified that the ADB is made up of a planner, a civil engineer, at least one architect, a design professional, and two representatives from the community. They are not all architects, but most are related to the design profession. She cautioned against an overemphasis on the ADB members all being architects when the reality is, they represent the design profession. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Board Member Rubenkonig left the meeting at 8:00 p.m. PRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSED 2020 — 2025 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CFP/CIP) Mr. English explained that the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is required by the Growth Management Act and covers a planning horizon of 6 to 20 years. It is intended to identify longer term capital needs (not maintenance) and be tied to the City's Level of Service (LOS) Standards. The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is a budgeting tool that includes capital and maintenance projects, and it ties the projects to the various City funds and revenues. The CFP is required to be consistent with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, and there are restrictions on how often it can be amended. There are no restrictions tied to the CIP. The two plans intersect when identifying 6-year capital projects with funding sources. The CIP is organized based on the City's financial funds and provides a description of each of the capital projects identified for the six - year period. Mr. English explained that projects are added to the CFP and CIP based on adopted elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan, the Transportation Plan and Utilities Plans all go through extensive public processes of updating and establishing policies and goals. The CIP is tied to the City's budget and several funds make up the overall document: • Fund 112 is a Transportation Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. It is funded via grants and the gas tax. • Fund 125 is a Capital Projects Fund that is managed by both the Public Works and Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Departments. It is funded by the Real Estate Excise Tax (REET). • Fund 126 is a Special Capital Project and Parks Acquisition Fund that is managed by both the Public Works and Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Departments. It is also funded by REET. • Fund 332 is a Parks Construction Fund that is managed by the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department. It is funded by grants. • Fund 421 is the Water Utility Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. • Fund 422 is the Stormwater Utility Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. • Fund 423 is the Sewer and Wastewater Treatment Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. Mr. English shared highlights of 2019 Projects: The $1.8 million Pavement Preservation Program was a key part of the program for maintaining City streets. In 2019, the City overlaid 6.5 lane miles and 13 new Americans with Disabilities (ADA) ramps were added using funding from both the Street Overlay Program and the Utility Programs. The 89t1i Place Retaining Wall Project was funded with REET dollars. The project is on a small cul-de-sac street. The existing wall was failing and causing the street to settle and slope away. They were able to rebuild the rockery with a mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) wall and the project was completed last spring at a cost of about $125,000. Planning Board Minutes October 9, 2019 Page 7 Packet Pg. 9 2.A.a • The 841 Avenue Overlay Project started in the middle of September and is expected to be finished by mid -October. It is a combination of stormwater improvements plus 2-inch-grind overlay. It is a half -mile section between 2201 and 212t' Streets. • The Five Corners Reservoir Recoating Project was completed this year. • The Dayton Street Utility Improvement Project is in progress. They are currently paving Dayton from 3rd to 5t1i Avenues, and all of the utilities within that segment are being replaced. The final pavement work will be done on Friday if weather permits. There will be a break in activity, and the project will resume in March on the segment between 5t' and 9r' Avenues. • Phase 1 of the Seaview Infiltration Project was completed this summer and was funded by a State grant. The infiltration facility was installed in Seaview Park, itself, and collects stormwater off the Perrinville system and infiltrates it into the ground. The goal is to minimize the impact to the Perrinville system and the existing creek. The cost of the project was about $350,000. Mr. English also shared highlights of 2020 Projects: • The 2020 Pavement Preservation Program will be funded at $1.2 million, which should provide for about 3 lane miles of street overlay. • The Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Project is funded with federal dollars and will upgrade safety at nine intersections in the City, primarily by upgrading pedestrian ramps and installing rapid flashing beacons at crossings. A Hawk Signal will be installed at the intersection of SR-524 and 81 Avenue, similar to the HAWK signal on SR-104 near City Park. • The Highway 99 Revitalization Project will continue to go forward in 2020 using State funding. The corridor study has been completed and the City learned that the cost of upgrading Highway 99 with all of the streetscape and safety improvements would be well over $100 million, and the State's allocation was only $2 million. The City is working to pick the low -hanging fruit, installing center medians and taking out some of the turn lanes along the corridor to improve safety at high accident intersections. Staff will continue its work to secure additional grant funding to move other elements of the project forward. • The Dayton Street Walkway Project is also grant funded and part of the Main Street to 9t' Avenue Improvement Project. The portion between 5t' and 9r' Avenues will be constructed in 2020, and the portion between 3rd and 5' Avenues is currently in progress. • REET funding will be used for the Pedestrian Safety Program, which started last year and is proposed to continue in 2020. Projects include flashing beacons at 31 Avenue and Bell Street, a project that was funded in 2019. The equipment has been purchased but hasn't been installed. • Several Traffic Signal Upgrades will be done in 2020. They will make several improvements to the existing control cabinets on Highway 99, and the program will continue into 2020 with improvements to signal detections. • The Guardrail System Program will continue into 2020, with replacement of existing guardrails that need upgraded and adding new guardrails in areas where they are needed. • The Traffic Calming Program has been in place for several years and will be funded with REET dollars in 2020. • The Dayton Street Utility Improvement Project will resume in March on the segment between 5' and 9r' Avenues. With the exception of the sewer line, all other utilities will be replaced. The existing sewer line will be refurbished with a cured -in -place pipe process, which is less costly. • The Water Utility Replacement Program will continue and the plan is to replace over 1,000 feet of watermain, including the work that is part of the Dayton Street Program. They will also overlay about .35 lanes miles of street, and most of that work is related to the Dayton Street Project. • The Stormwater Utility Program will replace 4,900 feet of pipe. • The Willow Creek Daylight Project will continue, with $750,000 identified for design. • Phase 2 of the Seaview Infiltration Facility Project will be another infiltration facility that adds capacity to the one that was completed in 2019. • The Ballinger Regional Facility Project is a predesign project that the City is evaluating the potential of building a new infiltration facility in Mathay Ballinger Park to try and minimize the impact of stormwater runoff on Lake Ballinger. • The Paramount Creek Flow Management Project will continue to look for opportunities to install raingardens within the drainage basin to reduce runoff into the system. Planning Board Minutes October 9, 2019 Page 8 Packet Pg. 10 2.A.a • The Sewer Utility Program will replace 2,500 feet of sewer main and rehabilitate 6,300 feet of sewer pipe using the cured -in -place method, overlay 0.35 lane miles of street affected by sewer main replacement, and complete the Lake Ballinger Sewer Trunk Study. • Design will start on the Pyrolysis Project at the Sewer Treatment Plant in 2020. Ms. Burley noted that most of the park projects identified in the CIP and CFP fall within the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan. She shared highlights of 2019 projects: • The first inclusive playground in the City was installed this year at Seaview Park. • All of the tennis courts at Seaview Park were refinished and the restroom was refurbished. • The Olympic Beach Restrooms were completely revamped. The project was scoped to be done by a contractor, but it ended up being done in house by City staff. This resulted in a significant savings, and the project turned out nice. • The Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project is ongoing. Staff believes they found a solution, and they are working to put together the pieces to float the labor underneath to seal it up. They are optimistic the project will be completed in 2020. • The City Park Walkway Project will happen this fall and includes widening the exit to allow for better pedestrian access. The work will be completed in house by a parks crew. • Design work is complete for the Gateway Sign Project. Next, Ms. Hite shared highlights of the proposed 2019 projects: • Civic Park was designed in 2019. The City has secured funding necessary to build the park, including a $2 million request from the 2020 budget. The $2 million request originally included $500,000 from the general fund, but that is no longer needed. The entire $2 million will be funded with balances in the various park funds, including the Park Impact Fee and REET funds. Everything associated with issuing the bonds has been completed. She summarized that $3.1 million of the project funding is in carry-over funds, $3.7 million bonds, and $3.4 million grants. The goal is to get to 90% design in December and submit for permits in November of this year. This will enable the City to issue a Request for Proposals in February or March of 2020 and break ground in the spring. Construction is expected to take one year to complete. The Parks staff is working diligently on solutions to handle the ground water and address the high-water table. The grade needs to be raised significantly enough to allow water to dissipate and for the drainage system to be above the current grade but below the new grade. They are also working to address water mitigation, which is incredibly difficult in addition to taking care of the onsite water. They are exploring options at Yost Park, which is in the same watershed, just upstream. There is potential to do some water infiltration at Yost Park, which will provide four mitigation credits for the Civic Park Project. • The Marina Beach Park Project will continue in 2020 and go hand -in -hand with the Willow Creek Daylighting Project. The Park needs to be designed simultaneously. RCO grants are coming up in 2020, and the design money will be spent to get the project to a place where they can submit confidently for grants for the project. They plan to submit three grant applications for this particular project. • Funding was included to support ongoing maintenance and repair at Yost Pool. In 2020, replacing and rehabilitating the pool grates will be the largest maintenance project. They will also replace the acid/chlorine injector and the pool cover. • The 41 Avenue Cultural Corridor is a significant project that will take longer than some people like. The estimated cost to design the project is about $350,000, and $50,000 has been spent to date. Another $100,000 is allocated in 2020 to continue the design work. Design is critical for the City to secure grant funding. To get much further, they will also need to identify some funding sources. • The City has identified a 1-acre parcel for a Community Garden. They had hoped to purchase it in 2019, but the Purchase and Sale Agreement still hasn't been finalized. The funds will be rolled into the 2020 CIP. • The City has plans for two outdoor fitness zones, one of which was programed in 2019. They were unable to get to the project, so both are now programmed in 2020. One will be at Civic Park and the other at Mathay Ballinger Park. The City received grant funding for the projects. • The Waterfront Redevelopment Project will continue in 2020. About half of the funding for the project was programmed in 2019 and the remaining half in 2020. This is not really a funding request; it is just a carryover of the budget that was identified in 2019. Planning Board Minutes October 9, 2019 Page 9 Packet Pg. 11 2.A.a Ms. Burley advised that the draft CIP and CFP also include a list of projects that go out beyond the 2020 timeline, such as relatively minor park improvements, ongoing maintenance, etc. Mr. English summarized that staff started development of the capital budgets in July and proposals were submitted to the Finance Department in August and September so that the draft CIP and CFP could be prepared. A public hearing before the Planning Board is scheduled for October 23'. Following the hearing, the Board will be asked to forward a recommendation to the City Council. The plans will be presented to the City Council on November 4', and the Council will hold a public hearing on November 121. It is anticipated the City Council will adopt the plans before the end of December. Board Member Crank asked if the 234' Street/Highway 99 Traffic Signal Project would be done in tandem with the housing project that is supposed to take place at that intersection. Mr. English answered no. The traffic signal is part of a grant the City secured a few years ago for safety improvements and it is not tied to the housing development. Board Member Monroe requested more information about the $6.5 million that is identified in the CIP for professional service fees over the next five years. Mr. English responded that building maintenance is managed by the City's Facilities Manager. The allocation is intended to show the needed funding to maintain the facilities, and it won't necessarily all be used to fund engineering and design. It probably should be distributed to both construction and professional services, but the intent is to identify the dollar amount that needs to be programmed each year to maintain the City's facilities. Board Member Monroe noted that no funding is identified for traffic calming. Mr. English responded that the Traffic Calming Program was funded by the 112 Fund through 2019 via a General Fund contribution. Starting in 2020, the program will be funded with the REET 125 Fund at an amount of $15,000. Board Member Monroe asked Mr. English to explain the process for adding projects to the table on Page 187 of the Staff Report. Mr. English explained that there are several components that factor into when projects are added. The City Council has the ability to add projects, and staff can recommend projects to the City Council. Projects may be added because of maintenance reasons or because the City has an opportunity for grant funding. Citizen can also recommend projects. The projects on the list on Page 187 are new projects that were added throughout 2019 for potential funding. Chair Cheung requested an update on the Waterfront Walkway Project. Ms. Burley answered that the City is still in litigation. Chair Cheung asked how the delay will impact the Waterfront Redevelopment Project. Ms. Burley answered that while a few permits are connected, the projects are separate. They have cleared all of the milestones for the Waterfront Redevelopment Project and it will move forward. The City will continue with litigation on the connecting Waterfront Walkway. Student Representative Bryan said he had fun looking through all of the proposed sidewalk additions. He said he runs cross country for the high school, and he and his team run about 8 miles per day throughout the community. While he sees clear reasoning for many of the proposed projects, there were others where there is already a wide shoulder and very little vehicular traffic. He said he would prefer not being confined to a little sidewalk in these locations. He asked Mr. English to speak to the criteria that is used to identify projects for the CFP and CIP. Mr. English responded that a number of factors are considered when selecting projects for the CIP and CFP, including the Comprehensive Plan, which includes the Transportation Plan that is updated every six years. Updating the Transportation Plan involves a public process where the City seeks input from the public on potential projects. A citizen committee is formed to evaluate and rank the projects. In 2015 the committee reviewed a long list of potential sidewalk projects that were categorized and ranked. The final list provides the basic groundwork for what shows up in the transportation section of the CFP. The priorities also help staff identify projects to seek funding for. He emphasized that there isn't a lot of funding. The capital program for streets is only $150,000, as most of the REET funding goes towards preservation work and parks projects. They have a long list of needs relative to walkway projects but a shortage of funding. The City's Transportation Engineer has been very successful in the past securing grant funding. Student Representative Bryan summarized that a major part of the prioritization is based on citizen input in monetary form. Mr. English explained that grants are typically issued by the Federal or State Government. Board Member Cloutier referred to the 196' Street/88' Avenue Intersection Improvement Project, noting that the recommendation for a signal in that location is based on a model that was done in 2009. He suggested that perhaps they Planning Board Minutes October 9, 2019 Page 10 Packet Pg. 12 2.A.a should review the improvement as a potential roundabout instead of yet another signal. He said he loves the roundabout at Five Corners. Mr. English advised that this project has a long history. It doesn't meet warrants for a signal, and that's why a signal has not been installed. One of the challenges with using a roundabout in that location is the line of sight and the inability to see all of the different movements within a roundabout. It will be a challenge on whatever improvement is built at the intersection, and he agreed that a roundabout should be one of the options considered. Board Member Cloutier suggested they also consider a roundabout at the intersection of Main Street and 9' Avenue. Mr. English advised that, if the City is able to secure funding for improvements at that intersection, a roundabout would definitely be one of the options considered. Chair Cheung pointed out that traffic backs up at the Intersection of 761 Avenue and 1961 Street. At certain times, traffic backs up on 76r'', and he has witnessed several accidents when people try to turn left out of the QFC parking lot. He asked if the intersection is in Lynnwood or Edmonds. Mr. English answered that the intersection is controlled by the City of Lynnwood, and he can take the concern to the City's Traffic Engineer to pass on to the City of Lynnwood. Chair Cheung asked if it would be possible to widen 76' Avenue as it approaches the intersection. Mr. English responded that the Edmonds portion of 76t1i Avenue is south of the QFC, but it becomes Edmonds again north of the intersection. Again, he agreed to pass on the concern. However, he acknowledged that doing a widening project at the intersection would be very costly. Perhaps they could look at the operation of the signal to see if anything can be done with channelization to address the concern. Vice Chair Robles referred to the SR-104/951 Place West Intersection Improvement Project and asked what participation the State would have and how much empathy they have for what is going on at the four corners of the intersection where more population density is planned. He asked what $420,000 would buy to mitigate for all that is going on at that intersection. Mr. English pointed out that the 2281 Street Improvement Project would tie into the improvements at this location because it will provide direct access to the transit station in Mountlake Terrace. When they get to the stage of improving 2281 Street, they could potentially redesign the intersection to make it function better in both its connection to residential communities and the transit station. He acknowledged that the $420,000 shown in the CIP will not solve the problem. The scheduled improvements are just trying to improve access management at the intersection by putting in C curbs, creating ramps at intersections, and improving pedestrian safety at crossings. He agreed to forward Vice Chair Robles' question to the Transportation Engineer with a request to provide more information about the scope of the improvements. Vice Chair Robles asked if future problems at the intersection could be blamed on inactivity on the part of the City because it failed to attend to the issues. Mr. English said there is nothing on the near horizon for doing any city -sponsored work at the intersection. However, there is a private development on the south side of SR-104 that could result in some changes to access. Vice Chair Robles asked if there is a proposed action that involves all four corners of the intersection, or just two corners. Mr. English said there is an active proposal for the south side, but he isn't sure about the status of the north side. Chair Cheung said he likes the crosswalk light on 212r' Street near the high school. He asked if they are expensive to install. Mr. English said they cost between $15,000 and $20,000 per system. Chair Cheung suggested that the City consider providing the systems around schools where there is heavy pedestrian traffic. Mr. English agreed and said the Traffic Engineer is always looking for opportunities to install the systems. He noted that a system would be added on 84r' Avenue as part of a project that is currently under construction, and another would be added at the intersection of 3rd Avenue and Dayton Street. In addition, seven of the nine locations included in the Citywide Pedestrian Safety Improvement Program will have rapid flashing beacons added at the crosswalks. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REGARDING HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION (REFERRED FROM THE CITY COUNCIL) Mr. Chave explained that there are various implementation actions in the Comprehensive Plan relative to housing. One in the Housing Element talks about developing a Housing Strategy by 2019. He recalled that the City considered a Housing Strategy at the end of 2018, but the City Council elected not to adopt it. Instead, they formed a Housing Commission. Because the Commission's work is scheduled to take place during 2019 and 2020, the Council felt it was appropriate to modify the related implementation action that identified 2019 as the date for developing the Housing Strategy. Council - adopted Resolution 1420 identified two options to consider as ways to amend the implementation action in the plan, and staff Planning Board Minutes October 9, 2019 Page 11 Packet Pg. 13 2.A.a has also identified a third option. He explained that the first two options were developed by the Council by resolution prior to the establishment of the Housing Commission. Option 3 was developed by staff in response to the Housing Commission being started. It reads, "Provide housing policy options by the end of 2020 for City Council consideration. " He noted that the Housing Commission's work is supposed to be done by the end of 2020. Staff s recommendation is that the Board choose one of the three options to forward to the city Council so that the Comprehensive Plan can be appropriately updated. Board Member Monroe asked what happens if they get to the end of 2020 and the work has still not been completed. Would they have to go through the same process again to amend the Comprehensive Plan to change the date to 2021. Mr. Chave answered affirmatively. Board Member Monroe suggested that a better approach would be to use the language in Option 2, but eliminate the date. The amendment would read, "Develop a strategy for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs. Board Member Crank said her understanding was that the City Council determined that the Housing Commission would sunset at the end of 2020. If the recommendation exceeds that date, it could get push back because it goes beyond what the City Council has already identified as a sunset date. Board Member Monroe said his suggestion was to eliminate the date entirely. Mr. Chave advised that a public hearing on the proposed amendment is scheduled for October 23ra REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Cheung reviewed that the Board's October 23ra meeting agenda will include a Housing Commission Update, a public hearing on the 2020 — 2025 CIP/CFP and a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan amendment regarding housing implementation. The November 13' meeting agenda will include a presentation on potential amendments to the Commercial Waterfront Zone to allow lodging or hotels as permitted uses, a presentation and potential amendments to the unit lot subdivision application procedure, and an update on the Vision 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies. The December 11' meeting agenda will include a public hearing on potential amendments to the Commercial Waterfront Zone to allow lodging or hotels as permitted uses, and a public hearing on potential amendments to the unit lot subdivision application procedure. The November 27t1i and December 25t' meetings were cancelled. The Board agreed to add "Election of 2020 Officers" to the November 13' agenda. Board Member Rosen recalled that, at their last meeting, the Board reviewed a list of agenda items that they hoped could be placed on the extended agenda. The agenda items were identified in the Board's discussions with the City Council at the joint meeting. Chair Cheung said he would like to work with the 2020 Planning Board Officers and staff to schedule the items into the 2020 agenda. The Board agreed that the items should be listed as "pending" on the next Extended Agenda. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Cheung did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS There were no Planning Board comments. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:59 p.m. Planning Board Minutes October 9, 2019 Page 12 Packet Pg. 14 5.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/23/2019 Development Services Director Report Staff Lead: Shane Hope, Director Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative Development Services Director Shane Hope provides an update on local and regional news of planning interest. Packet Pg. 15 6.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/23/2019 Public Hearing on the Proposed 2020 - 2025 Capital Facilities Plan / Capital Improvement Plans Staff Lead: Rob English, City Engineer Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History See Narrative below. Staff Recommendation Recommend approval to City Council. 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. Attached are staff responses to questions raised during the October 9t" Planning Board Meeting (see Exhibit 4). CIP vs. CFP The CFP and CIP are not the same thing; they arise from different purposes and are in response to different needs. While the CIP is a budgeting tool that includes capital and maintenance projects, tying those projects to the various City funds and revenues, the CFP is intended to identify longer term capital needs (not maintenance) and be tied to City level of service standards. The CFP is also required to be consistent with the other elements (transportation, parks, etc.) of the Comprehensive Plan, and there are restrictions as to how often a CFP can be amended. There are no such restrictions tied to the CIP. The proposed 2020-2025 CFP is attached as Exhibit 1. The CFP has four project sections comprised of General, Transportation and Stormwater. The proposed 2020-2025 CIP is attached as Exhibit 2. The CIP has two sections related to general and parks projects and each project list is organized by the City's financial fund numbers. Following the Planning Board's public hearing and recommendation the City Council will also hold a public hearing prior to final approval. Packet Pg. 16 6.A Attachments: Ex. 1: Draft CIP 10.17.19 Ex. 2: CFP Draft 10.4.19 Ex. 3: CIP-CFP Comparison (2020-2025) DRAFT Ex. 4: PB 100919 responses Ex. 5: Att. 1 - 196th-88th Ex. 6: Att. 2 - Traffic Circles Packet Pg. 17 6.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2020-2025 7� DRAFT Packet Pg. 18 6.A.a N C d C N E d O L Q E .Q U c IL N N LL O .Q U LO N O N Q Packet Pg. 19 6.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2020-2025) Table of Contents GENERAL Building Maintenance Public Works 7 112 Transportation Public Works 9 125 Capital Projects Fund Parks & Recreation/ Public Works 12 126 Special Capital / Parks Acquisition Parks & Recreation/ Public Works 14 332 Parks Construction Grant Funding) Parks & Recreation 15 421 Water Projects Public Works 17 422 Storm Projects Public Works 18 423 Sewer Projects Public Works 20 423.76 Waste Water Treatment Plant Public Works 21 PARKS — PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS Capital Parks & Recreation/ 125 Projects Fund Public Works 25 Special Capital / Parks & Recreation/ 126 Parks Acquisition Public Works 49 Parks Construction 332 Grant Funding) Parks & Recreation 55 Wastewater 423.76 Treatment Public Works 63 Q Packet Pg. 20 6.A.a N C d C N E d O L Q E .Q U c IL N N LL O .Q U LO N O N Q Packet Pg. 21 6.A.a Cip GENERAL N C d C N E d O Q. E .Q U c IL N N LL .Q U LO N O N Q Packet Pg. 22 6.A.a N C d C N E d O L Q E .Q U c IL N N LL O .Q U LO N O N Q Packet Pg. 23 0 N N O N O N O N L O w ql V d O a` C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O �n N o0000000000v>0000000v>v>v>OOv>OOOOOv>v000000000000000000000 O O O O O O O O_O CD0 m N 0 eflMMOMMNNMON 0 0 0 0� O O O 0 0 MNNM 0 Co V) NM 00 000 Mr O MONM O O O �O N�NN NfANN f� EH� V3 p CDK3 N O fD V 6ep f� Q!> O Q!> m Q!> Q!> Q!> _� V3 Q!> Q!> Co V> Q93 _O Q9i V3 V3 V V3 V3 V> V> V3 V> V> VEH V> V> V> V V> V3 V3 V3 V3 N K3 Efl Efl H3 (D K3 EA H3 H3 Q9, H3 O 64 N O O N O O O N 64 O O O N O O O N fA O O M O O O N O O O O N O O Q N In lD V3 C. C.O 00 O O N � V) � 05 05 fA 000000000 O O O O 000 O 000000000 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O 000 0 0 0 O O LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O N O N O fA M O N� N N V H3 N � Ef3 Ef3 N Q!> Q!> m Q!> Q9, E9 V9, E9 tf3 N EA V3 �j V3 tf> O Cl Cl Cl O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl O 0000000 0 00 000 00000 O O 7 (O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 O 0000 O O O O O O 00 O O Qf O 00000 V)m00 000 00 N "p"�rjOM W 000 fDO�M V V O �N Co 69p N tf3 69, N V3 [f3 [f3 fA f� MO 69p _000 tf3 Mln 62 [f3 E9 69, ER �� ER ER N N tf> tf> N<f3 V, tf> N V tf> tf> Q!>f-- tf> V> Q!> V, fV N Q!> V3 V3 W a LL U ci L) c m CL CL m C U m U O N m U m y m O N C N= > 0) W C 7 l6 C (� 3 c > m m Y jn 7 fA c m E m @ N -o m fL6 U c uj C E U m U N.2 m 2 u p "O O 2 N U ui o�c@ 2-0 am x v @� Y C w 3U�._mmc0-2 W c m _ V o CL m _� m Z: m n a o. '" U Y 0 Q E c N r u m 2 C -O °> u _ 3 u 4 u v x 3 Z U >° c_ _ m °? _� C m Co �C o a a m u LL V x c w n g v ¢ u$ ,m. v a W W m C 0 o o °1 3 v m m �? c ar '^ c v ;.' c E LL LL a u m¢ E U' c U C m-y0 L %> V¢ �' E o Ti ¢ E O Q 7 m U w _ u Y a a x.2^ a o ¢� '� a�i m aUi a� p min a>i � x a a x " E E w LL 3> E 3 2 LL w 2 m S a w. 3 � 5 a,=== LL s a> u u LL a u a 'u u u z" a 6 s 3fl a 3 a Packet Pg. 24 6.A.a 0 0 0 0 O 40 W. W. O O O LO M vk 00 0 00 C In N 00 0 40 N N 69 V3 N 64 O O O O O O C4 N O O N - _O V3 613, O O O O O O O O O M O O O N O O O O O O N N O O 0 CD N N 69; � f� fA O O 0 O O O N � N N 69 N V3 M EA O O O O O O O O LO C f7 M N CD O 0 O V 0 O O Q1 O 0 m � N V O N Q) O N C f`6 O N N Nt p O fn C :U t a)N 01 N a7 N LL U C.4 C O CD Cm a7 w fn * C U� a�i cl 4)o:* C C '6 C C lL N@E 10 LL LL E aa) O m F F lL LL t c W 0) ul W ul U(a— >c O E Ua m 5 V O (L O 0 C 07 Ur '0 E E 0 0 E a 0 3 o C7 0 c a C 7 - 7 LL LL LL LL) LL a1 0 C C O Q' E o O Oa a> N N LL E fn N DUUUD�����U� O O O C 69, vk a0 O V N9 Q Packet Pg. 25 6.A.a a 0o�o 000(Doo C! C OO C!a C!C O Co M fD W t` 'o OD r a W Co O Co a M H3 N H3 6969 a0 - fA 09 09 H3 O O O O O O O O M Q) N e3 e3 4444 y y O O D U y y O O U U O O O O O O O O 00 (D o o O O O O D U U U c o a o o O O N a) o o a) a) o o ^ ( f^D N M O O ` t` H3 H3 W f) a H3 fA 03 C C O O C C O O fA .lc� . N N . N N O O•� •� •� •� 000000 O O O a) a) [i a) a) [i [i M O a) Cm 0 0 0 LOEflN IA O M[L EA 63 (a (a (a (a 64 N N N N a Co Co Co UUUU O p D) D) D) D) D) D) D) D)00 O O 0 3 3 3 3 n 0 2 2 2 2 N C C N N 7 7 D U C C N N 7 7 U U O O O C C C C O � ul ul ul ul M O � y y U U U U a) a) O O y y y y U U U U a) a) O O Q Q (M � p O N fD H3 LO (DD Cq 61) CO (DD W e a M O M 00 H3 X 1111117 X X X X X c E ur m � c C a a) g w aa)) w a) u OQ a) Q C E E a) E ���� C C C Q) > C °o C C o £ E E E 5 a£ C E m m m m m c E o o a) c0E 00002 P o Edo Qaaac EEEE-o�EoE a)o a> Cl Q - >at5 co003:CL2.Ec o a) o ._ ._ ._ E a; o—._ o L y Ena)c�a�ia�ia�i> rn C o co a g a) O- ._ is i 2 E E d� U% i N U i d>' 0 N aCo C C C W N U 12 C C O U N 00 U 3�� U 3 d U C U = L m N�UUUU U) N 0 ; i E > NQ U U p�N1 m "'fDOaUQ Cl) �N1LL.L.. V v00 N N N N (O rn O'm N UU� N @J @J @J °)@J3; L L Q W W O O O N U Q 000 N N(O 3�3�3�3�3�Ci (a(0 CC CC CC N N n 2 2 2 2 2 U n U U U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000 � OfH H3000 W OOOOOOfH a O W W W W M O O M M M fDM W O D f D O cq O fD O MMfHW N � fH H3 H3 � H3 fA M�fH� N � Q9 K3 fH H3 W H3 H3 N H3 60 fJ3 fA D K3 �N H3 O O O O O O O W N(MON O O O O O O O O O 7 03, O a) o) fi3 e3 e3 e3 O O O O O O N f D O oo O O O oo O c O O t` O� O c co oo oo c c co O MO O O O O c c Lo O W O oo oo oo O C Oa O O O L6 oo oo oo oo O o(D L6 W N - d3 H3 N H3 M N d3 d3 fD N d3 H3 Lo a) H3 H3 a H3 t` a) H3 H3 N 63 a H3 O O O O I� O O O O O O O IA O O O O I- m O O oo O O n (O MMm O O O 007 O(DN O O O O O O O O O O O O oo oLo O O O Lo d3 63 d3 d3 d3 d3 d3 d3 d3 L Efl� H3 Efl O O W t` 613 o0 M W H3 N W d3 c\l c co(19 613 a M O N N M (A H3 W Lo fH Ix 11111XIX X 11 X X X 11 X I �X, U a) Q ur c a M O m E � v o o a � U _o E 0 3 U or C o O-O E Q O > L\< 75 O �[ l N rn N"Og C 0 aC) a) )U> m N a Cm o ao co u5U ) E i /i ~ YO%r RMfETaNa CNNN0 a) > >QjO QQ VUL N 9'o>o> a)O Nam.,; > N N U'N �- (a .0 ) E00000LLT �aQNLugcb.00 we o�����vn U U U U o 0 32U 2 O urn a 000�5-2 . a) a)(A E N� m>� N oo¢ Q o N Q� Er oininininQ(n(/� v (poU E Ez o'oQ PO'pLLLLL To woo DNoo(o,I,> a) a)`�"O O N 6 2 a) a � Oy Q2 E E co aU CQ EL T� ; a) E O Y o o E E E E o M D m o o E n 3 Y Q C S T co 0 0 0 0 0 E E� p �oo` E w aLL ° 3 3: -- O 0� � � "O EOO 23: J-Q) �Uu) . . u) - .()(pupa= o � c a) m m Qom. aiaiaiai.U(). a)>ou) o�3a�= 0 O O L Q Q Q Q L 7 7a) o OOMM E O d 0 O 30 N 7 MM7000� UN N oo oo o0 o0 I N3: 3: N N ` NU wa W 20 w-7 m'w'ii mm Uom �Y wm Q Packet Pg. 26 6.A.a M r r M n O rn a n y (2 CRI M H3 � N t'1 O � � O CV N N M ri O d3 M d! qj t9 Cl) L W O N CM N 7 tO Fil NfA MLn K7 O Vl R O Co (CD O'l L N O) v �Co Co v v "' d! N t9 O M I<) V p N a r M OD Cl)R tD M n 6C,)) n fR c a N O O 01 p tM O CO n O N Cl)MCl) oil M 64,6 n to f0 to M N M n O r N O N M a M d3 fH 09 to�m"' nCo NooT a� 0 N C O Co U (A 2 O y 0 N a)0 Ir U m w 0 05 05 avi O Y L L L O Q. C 555 N N G i co co co Y O J J J V � � C C O O C O N V U U U (n O i' p O 0 d (aA C CA CA CA m W F A AA H Of N uai CO n O VT Co M O 6q 6) tc M q V v_ N Oco NE 001 Ln w O N O O O N nj H3 O R O Cli O O N O M Cm M d3 C6 O O O O � O � N nj 619. 0 00 N O O 0 0Lo N (09 � O O 0 O O O N pp C6 Lo N (o W N � d! cc cc C C O O O 0 O C 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 C O OO O Ili M LLiN O O Co W 0) N N M U) m EA U) r E). r w EH O O O O 00 O O O O O 00 O O 0000000 (O 7 O 0000 0 0 OOO 0 O O O l0 O N I(7 N 100 n 0 (O l0O n n 1171 (O CO N M OO n 0 (O CCi 0 M N V V3 ER O n EA EA m EA 7 r EA r t0 N r V> r ci EA H3 H3 E9 H3 Co) O O O O 0 0 O LLi In n O O 0 LLi CD O O O O 0 0 00 OONNOI2r- O O O O 0 0 N OOO O O O O 0 0 O O O O 0 0 Ili Co N O n�fR n(fl OO��nrfR Cli (6 6,A N Eq N O L' In N � N N O N O N N a> rn E E; N N W a 1L U c E N Wu Co Ri y j > y C 2 U C ¢ L n m N c y O U > N E to C O c o T f (tl v; N E E C O O O E L L L 0 E° E E ("a a)" W M N E E v, N to d C N> (n O N C N 0 E C O U Q� O N N O 0 0 ` (i /�� O V'O L O N` N U C L L L C1 O N 3 ro O N C E y y Fn O N a0 (O N y a x¢ N x rn° C> >>C W U 5 O O c 0 E o CmN o E E 0 C'n N E Z> C O Q> a)C i � O — N ro w w In (DC/) �L c� L >� Nye 3 3 N vl `) > N E O 0 6050 L d L>1 �i {y l>tl Y Y N N Q 2�i /��Ui /N� }j G 0 C>> N (n «; O 0,� � � Q Ui Ui c ?�x�CDrn(djQ000 iD L UQQ C CL ro N cLrrr Co rn cLLL M M O Q d (n 2 N 2 m r 2 (O n (n (n (n (n N N 00 W Q 10 Packet Pg. 27 6.A.a 0 o 0 0 64 000 0 C OoO C 00000 C 01, C O -CIO O O 00 fD 00 O ON O N (D d3 _ fH d3 LoW 613 a 613 fA (DW fA 613 NM 613 613 O O O O 00000000000 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 7 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 127 0I-n 0 �2 (o Ow �2 00 wm Co EA d3 d3 72 d3 d3 d3 Efl IOn 603,� 61) M Efl EA C0 ai Q> a M O O y N (n m w E O ° a E p C0 a E 'a 3 CD u°Ci Cl) LY(A5 O �CNCOma U a>jGO p L.QO >LN CQN C\l O Co C B y °E 0 N L O CU) ai ~ n 76 00 0(n 0, (n (n C N r _O1 (n L L 7 NU� CC a)(D = Eam > �=o i E M Ero C\lo ym E a oLE_ CD—E--3>Eo ° �Zo>N Ea)2mo >oD^m > >i Y fa N Y > Co Co w > C C T °- CoC0 Co Qi Cl) O ILCo ° Q Q L C C0 N L I a 0 0 O C W O 0 o E a Lo ns 'm Cr o 3T T CE oD C, N W 2 Cn Cr 0) 0 n LL 6�3 w3 Co OD ID Lo an al Co OD 7 7 Cl) 7 V3 V3 O N O M R �f1 O M R r- lD � 6f1 (!3 C. C. 61 O C N O O N3 O O V3 O a ro Co to of O Ln 46 IT v aD n of 'O 3 N N Z dani N N N C of Y O C 3 � r a C m C) Q 11 Packet Pg. 28 6.A.a E m i O a y C N E d O CL E m O. m U O N O N O N O N _O N N O a` a c LL LL 0 ci d O a` :a M m U O r a C LL LL O O O 1_ OO OO OO fO ON 0O 0O 0O 0 OEO O 3Ma EOA UO3 EOR HO30O HO3 N OO OO o O 0OO O (C O N 0 0 0 6cA O O O N mI, O 0 Fi)Co 0 O O DODO O O O 0 Ef3 16 J N 09. Ef3 r, En FiJ H} EA r COEf3 6'3 to ~ 04 _ _- 63 O N O O O O O O O 0 N LO LO VA 3 f Cmy3 O N 00 O O O O O O O O 0 O LO In O O N O613. O � N H3 O Ey N CD O O 0� O 0 CD O O O 0 O Cl) O di O d3 O O d3 N In Nfl N y3 O N O O O o O O C C V9 O O C C O O O O N LO LO o v � LO LO 0 N 0 Co N V9 O CG N t � 0 0 C 0 0 V9 0 o V9 0 0 O O Ln v lfS ui O r N IS Cm f IS � N O fA N 0) CCC O O M OO O O O O O0 O O O LO V Cm O Co 0 0 V O N N 03 � � V9 N _ N {CO o 0 d3 O O o O O O O 00 o O O CD N 00 O) O O 0 0 00 0 7 CD EA CO O O) C O .N 7 V9 Co d3 O O � ((D D IA d3 E9 N ER N� ER Co0 ER W T r O N a x x v m o Cm v (n N i 0 C 0 N C C Vl w E aci Cj o ro Y ro U o m 0 ac 0 c m c m a Cl c— o 0 0 N o m° c E aE o o d E Y a m a m W amEmm o acY>0-Pao—'9 O t6 O ClO. OL 0 0 Cl L O Co 0rn a G LL E O C E m O ND Q ar E ma EYaNid—maaEoo>E$a�'o m mm o m as p y R N Z o ro� ° 0 E a �t C7 cu 0 rnU c O a Y E 0 a Y> m N o m Y c 'o U c Ul 0_ N C U N CL W a, o E Y S m m o m Co �, o[ 0_ ° m m is m o m D_ O a cNi v c E O3 L -oo z m a a 0 0 o L E o a aamUQ LLa(n(1) > 4UwU>x0a O O O O CO Ok O Ln CO60) a N T to Co vy s d Y U m 0 O U 0 'o N a > Co Y CL e o a c 0 C E m a w H Q 12 Packet Pg. 29 6.A.a N l0 M O O O O N 0) C n N n 6i1 6i1 O O O O O O O to O Cl) In Q1 fA HT N l0 M O O N N N /0 ZT O O R Cl) .t N N fA N 00 O l0 fA O M 00 T C O fA O 00 M fA r O O O fA O T M fA O N R O M n M fA N 7TIteIW m 0 r r ti r r CL U L r K W C N E t U 2 a+ a 13 Packet Pg. 30 6.A.a R N O N O M 00N Cl) V3 O N N O N _O O N 00 ; C,o m o 00 O N N Cli 00 N O N O N N l0 E .N w rn r 0 N IL LL U E Q i O Y 0 a_ a Cz N !C E U m i <6 W as C O y rL ro Q N Z E a) � � U i r CO M U Li a o dt M V 0) N VT O O C 0 O N VT O O 0 O O 60 O O O O N VT O O O 0 n VT O O O O O N VT M v v VT M Cl) n to N 0 V► O LO 0 0 V3 0 0 V3 63 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) n O 63 0 6 r, 63 0 C 0 cr 0 q Lo 00 C'i V3 N It N 6-1 V3 O O V3 V3 O O 0 0 Cl) 69 N V) O O 0 0 O o O O CO69 NfF? O O O O O O M NV> O O O O O O 0 0 M N69 VD O O O O O O M V> N69 LO O N OOHOOM mno 7�0 n 63 O 00 O O O O o Lo M N V3 6C.� V� 69 V3 V) O O) N cD O O O 0 N n r O 00 O M V O 0000 O O O CDv_ nornrnro r o000 000 COO n n r,N r 00 V)Nr N O N 0000 NOn� O r, V) V) � V) V) M) EA EA EA V, x x x U N N �6 N C O. aj n U Q U o T cod .N U m >� U cM 0 M O) 00 0 N O.0 E N c= = ❑ U m o 0U) ca ai c o nsa os 'Z5 E 0CQ a o 0 o ,t o n U) o O C\j _ E cC F C o_ U C a E E cC w o E a N Z O O> C c U w E 'O O O1 /2� �l U `= C 2 0) 0' COJ N >. a) CO .N N O_0 Co O CLC O7 C C O. O O d > 0 Cn C N Cu d j T N E V C >+ N 07 i y N co 0❑ U m m 0 N a (D U) E� (D c CoWo 0 UU� >mj�C1 > V'OO C a. 0)(C O NC)w 2 1 (io Mho �sdss O N Y �- a`D5i C �� oo:s85 a L CO �iaa Q O�D2dNOMDNN ❑FFUrCSdFQoO N 7 M CD Co rn O R d! 69 O O 0 O O O VT O 0 O O EOA O O O O 0 609 O O 0 0 E09 O O O O E09 N 0 Co n O VT to Co 0 M M CD C'1 di M N W Ir V! COD O O O M a ui a a to Co N n rn N n Cl) O1 N 44 LO a n 0 T ti T 0 TmM IL_ V fo x W C d t c c r � � 0 Q m m Fa r r� 14 Packet Pg. 31 6.A.a O a` C O .0 r C O U Y a N M M a C 7 LL 0n0000008000000 O EAO O N O fD O O � O fA 69 5H O 53O O fA fA fA N a5 NO Cl1, Lo O N LO M M N O to LO O LO O O O O O F Nrn H3 H3 H3 d3 O N O N O O O LO O N N � Cm O O O N O Cm N N 61) Cl) N N O O O LO N C\ O N N KJ N N 0 O NEiT 0 O O O O N 0 0 C 0 O d3 � N 0 0 0 0 LO 64 0 0 0 0 LO d3 NCm O N O00N O fD r LO Co Co O O Lr O (DD L O O O O N Hi a) 06,300 0000 0 0 O � � 7 (DD 'o N W di 0,0 rn C N a LL x x X U LL C C O O _ a) U as 76 N — — E E r m n O O CoUU 0 Co o 3 3 Y Y C C Vl a3 Co _01 � C 3: 3 Y N O y a) O C v O O 2 U c C_ a -C N N Oy LL 0 m asCoCo a)a) LLd O O Q) -O i3 C C O D) C a�£Cl C N N E E L o� C } Cl ova) O E 0 0 0 W F- o a� m c p 3 o as i �m>��-o ott0mm a) Z o�a0p��Co3�Caa�a�c'omm �_ =� a`) � ••dam U W Ci 2 Y C N a) Oy 0y C O C ur d -C a5 LL 0 Y y m C 0 O > ¢ 0 d U c? c? t t E o O o c u 0, a N d r .� .� a5 a5 E— O a) E t "O s T m L a vUUU��U�wLLdOU» d! O O O O N fA O O O N60. O O O O NCm 0 O O N u) 0 0 0 O M, N N Cl) T CD N O Cl) to N O N Cm N O N Cl) N O N N N O N N O N O N O O O O LnM7h Qq C.C. O O LOLOO - 6S C. O , C.C. O O O C. C. Eff N (D M C LO EA C. C. ta O N H} O R C O O O 0 N W Ln LO es Of O N a LL U a� U a� Y a Co m ZOL � u E E LL O ¢ 75 C = > a) > y N LL a N — O d C O LL 0 Cl) Y a Cp N E y a) o'0 vD o ID d U 3 c c y N U u E N m C o 6 0 LL LL O E E 0 U >� CmU R O OCL > 22 0 C m o v as E LL `� m am am d o a� N d p= N E2 N + U o i v c U -U p a>i a)t � O .0 O� C N �=U C O a1 a1 C7 � J Yt UY �Y CoCO aYY <` m C C ul w0� LL LL N y> (a d Co (6 d d (6 (6 d d fO fO d d ��oo'- M C E a� O y a m 00 LL U U U U U U U Co 2 0 Co¢ CD Coo a� U' vUUUUUUULLOUC��U) 8 O Nl O fA 15 Packet Pg. 32 6.A.a LO N O N V N O N O O O Cl) O N o O N to O O N O N O O � N O O O O O O O O N O Un LO Cm N � � O N O N O O V3 V3 O O O O O O O O O O V3 V3 O O O O O O O O V) V) O O O O O O O O n n V3 V3 E N � w y ot1 N y w O 2 a v n t •O T d y y C N y c m {p C O y y U m m 9 G 7 L t L a 7 D y N A E N IDc a U C7 y M U m m m m y r o F Ci FFS w a Q Packet Pg. 33 6.A.a LO N O N O N O N O E O I h 0 0 0 0 0 f D (O T I I a 0 0 0 0 0 O O OO �E!)69OrOTCO�O(DN O OT M'tLq Imo' OEAOEA h O O O OOD 117 MOMN Or Nr CO O O fl Co Co (q EA O» LQ 6s 7T aD I -MO» Co O (f) U3 m CO Co 6F1 fA r N CM M ,�i EA U3 69 vi vi 6F) 69 Qi fi) T N Cl ' CoO7 CO LO C' 69 r M M O p n U)� M U3 LO 69- ER r N O O M n M LO 6 9- 69 N r �(q (o v co Co ID 7 N U3 fC� LO V O O) N Co N � E%3� O OO V 0-0 OLnO —O"t "t W O h O O 00� 117 MOO) CO O a�0 (MO EA��7 fA Co ONO N rl LO V O MCo I� NO(f)O a0 O O a) N W LO I" CO O 11) N 7 M H3 ISM O r aD M^ fA N N 6q U3 r 603, U3 Q9� f!J x xx 0 N O .N... N y' C C E N TO N r0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N p >O N y Q E 0) E a) a) c0 c0 c6 c0 c6 c0 c6 c O > CO CO O O O O O O O Q CON q Co Eaa a aaaaaa c a) v, c E C C C C C C C (p W (6 (0 E E E E E E E V C c =U, a) a)0)a)0)a)m a) — O O N y a) d d (a — aY (C — -- aY Co(Co(Co( --- UCn O OC L (C (C o (a U U J I a a) a) a) a) a) a) o Cr>>o[oc Cr Cc CrM aa)) 3 NL e a U U O c 7 O C c 7 7 C C 7 7 C C 7 7 C C CO - a) N N N a) �() Co— 0 N US > a) N Q Q Q Q Q Q Q (D > ILL Q�OC .. ns O nsr N r M r —CD f7 lC) l rr E Q� > m �c(a(a�;�a)a)a)a)a)a)U 7 7 (n N N N N N N M M a) c p c r 0 CO N CO (6 CO (6 CO (6 N c (0L $ Co C c p L O L L L L L L> 7 L (O Cn�QQNdNdddLLdLLLL 05dnU ). O o n N M Cl) to LO Ki fH to CO I M Cl) N N 6RT 69 N V) N M M M N N Vi 69 N � LO rn n to to N N O O ffi f!) lD 069 O T M C C Cl) Cl) 6% 61) � � Cl) O o Cl) Cl) V) Q9 O M O O O O aD M N N fR Q9 Cl) O O Cl) O O N N Cl) Co M (D CD el) cfl n v a u> 69 N N D) D) Cl) Cl) O O O O Cl) Cl) 69 69 C oa) � J a� � U L N .a Ca U E nN L a1 a i O v) m a�i a N N (n a) O ja E a F o r H F Q 17 Packet Pg. 34 6.A.a L() N O N N O N LO N Cl) O N N O O N N O N O U) N N O O N N O N O N O N 2 _O R O E N N W IL LL V E l6 O a c d E d 0 E Q O Z ELY N r a ) O U Li M oeD 0 0 0 r 6a LOO (C Ef3 N O 7 to M d) 7 N EA O O O O Ln O H3 � EA OOOOOOowCo 613, 0 O 0 0 L O 0 0 O V b y rl NM LO OD D) 0 0 7 r N 0 7 fl OoM W L W 0)OOM mo 613� r r r r N N61, H3 H3 H3 H3 H3 e3- 0 Co LO O n rn 0 It O n M r 'E3 fH H3 O m O (00 N V n 6e. Co U) w Co r V) fA O O C. O 7 VM O N V I- (A N (0 N Co S'3 0 00 O O O O O N � LO Co H3 O O C. O O O On 00 fA O LO O M r 6'3 09. O O O u7 O eq. L` 01 V3 Co Itr m N M r O M N � � 6C? O NCM7 (0 N N 0000000 N N N (m N N N N N N N N N U U U U U U U y N N N N N N N U O O O O O O O ) a a a a a a a O a y C C N N C C N N C C N N C N U E E E E E E E O ia``—°(aCl(aCl(aCl aECl D U U U U U U �-aa�ma�ma�ma� Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl U E E E E E E E O O O O O O O O O y in :7 in :7 in :7 in CQ (6 (C (6 tC (6 (C (6 c c c c c c c -OOmrNMV LL'y (0 I� YfA y (O (C fA y (O (C y y (O (C fA (O r L n N 00 r v fA Ly Cn rn N M Ln n O T N EA Co 00 Cl O r N V3 w Iq 0) Co (O O N Cl) W O Cli O Ln R N Go L EA � 0 -e 0 O M W N e Cli CIS N y C t d E U i6 Q (6 0 U N 06 O E a O jp G r Q Packet Pg. 35 6.A.a CD O N O N H N O N N N O N N N O N LO N iy O N N p O N N O N O N � N N Q O N a N O N N O N O N m o 0 O LO N O �3 N N W E a' U) O N CC C O E a� Co m N O = N T y 2 w "O 7 m wQU d � Er 0 p ZH� H 0 0 ouO LO 613� Q9. 6ao �o V) N � H N O FM- LO N O N N Cl N M N O N 0 N 04 iz CO N U3 rl LO v N O H3 N LO rl N � N � 0 0 v y O 0 o O C`M O V N N N � 3 � W LL X X X U aoi U O Cu _ O- 0 J _o O Q U � N_ E O L _N 5 y O Co C O N N ^ p Cl Co _O a n d a E E O Co Cu Cz C C_ fC LLLL C C .0.0 0 0 N N 3 T C C N = ^ 2 Y Y d T Cl Co a. o 3 3 4 CO Z CO N a) _ � � r C > > � � C) u p Z ai a�i Cn fn 0 0 ui 'n o w O N ? O N H N O N fR N N O N O ffl N O N M N O N O CC) n O N O 00 rn N N o N3 O N r v o NT N O O � N O n CoN O N a C 0 00 R Of 0 O E Ir N N W IL LL X U m N t6 a N C W � N N � �Y N W y U N 0 3 � Z O N O i N 4f O V N N fA c ^ O T R ` E (9 W Z 0 n e N ER O 69 O ER O 69 04 in of ro 0 I Co 0) O f9 O � = a y t C 0 c o U 0 � �L N N m c � d d N � a a 9 3 O r r 41 c O N � O EL V rn N N QU w 7 9 r W C > y � N O N o a .- O �•+ C � N j a O N Q d r H Z 19 Packet Pg. 36 6.A.a N O N O N O N O C 0 a Cn N C d E a d O 3 CL C N M � N a a m U d d U a c 0 E a) Co Q a) a) 0 U O O O O'IT M00(0 Il O Co It Co ff> O O(f> Il r M M M r, M 00 00 Cl) 7(O N N 000 N(O 00 P- OM Lo 4Co 0p(cr NM (OOmNM--t r N r N N Co N 6s r N Efl VF- Efl VF- Efl EA 64 d> r M (M O r 7 Co 00 N O eo LO N Ef> 6s lu> O CD 00 00 00O r, 7 C. m 4 0') H) H> 6s O O N O N (C) 07 C. « ) 00 I _ O 00 M 6s (n U> H> LO L r O U) N (0 (0 N ((00 Cl 00 r fFJ Ef> 6s o Cov (o r r� (0 Co Co MO CoNt ( (f> H> H> O O r O Co O O 02 Co M H> Ef> (I M O 0000 " m Cq 7 LoM (O Ef> a N H) H> H> EA K 00 O r N M - Ln (D N N N N N N N O O O O 0000 N N N N cc C C C C C 0 0 C C 0 0 0) N E E 0 0 E E N a) N N > > > > (V 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 a a aaN o- o- o- o- E E E E L E E E E-- — E IL 4 Q 4 Q a3 OS OS OY C C a3 OY 0) N a3 OY 0) L L L L O O �- aQaQ�� CDo 0 0 0 0 Cu CO O N 0 M M 0 0 M L L a)0) E 3 3 3 3 >(� 33330000a�a� 0 3 o 0 0 0 (n (n (n (n ; 3 QLMMMM E m NiC NiC�fn = = = = c' c' c' c' a (L L�� c c c c c c c c d d 0)-- > a c c 0 0 c cQQQQ 0 Q o N U U a M (0 r 00 W r r T o N Co (u IC �.(0 NCoaaaaaaaaUU 0 08 00 .� 0 � � O Of O) O O to LO O 0 M Co N N dl V) lf) O In Co ff> Co W 00 Cl) M (D (0 CJ1 T N N (fT EH Co 4ei Co 00 CO QI T Co Co OI T ow EA Oo Off? 00 n N N O 0 n n N N ffT fA ONO � ONO O O Co R Co 00 N N V? Y> v 40!) a N lr� M Cl) Co Co ' N N ER fA On O M O 00 dr O O O OD O Cl) Cl) O O N N 6f1 61) Q C 0) o p� 4 icn C N 0) 0 U y c m U) ur y F C1 o QAD Q U O y E o a` o oC 0. m Eo m m H CoC r F F 20 Q Packet Pg. 37 6.A.a mar N Lj ID O N M Co H N N eD O to N N N O N N O N N N O N T N O N O N O N E R m O a C d E 0 CL C f0 .Q m U cc O lA O (p O V O CO O Oa fA O V O CO O Oa fA cc O lA O Oa O V O Co O O1 fA N f- N O rn co fA 4) N N O lA O Cq V Cn r O w N n N M_ C9 M Co m r, Cl! Cl! O fR fR l0 l0 r V, r O O N (D O (O (O � � C) O (O 0 0 C O CO LO OO R OO EA00 E O In In O y N (�O Efl ffi W 6,3,N o) Q3 O N N U C) O IL w N N O N 01 N C C G r o W N O O cc m U N -0 C -0-0 C N CO y .O L C C 4 C C N-15 m (j EC E a L) N co O C CJ C C W C - C O N U d .0 m a > a a a OCm � , ( O O O O N N O O O O N N O O O O N N 7 N n N N O O V (O n M_ Cl) 0) V fR (O O WCi 6Co(o0) b 3 C 3 in O � y . R N N U (6 O 7�1�(nN O C U 0 Q c E E F 0w2Ow� Q `I Packet Pg. 38 6.A.a N C d C N E d O L Q E .Q U c IL N N LL O .Q U LO N O N Q 22 Packet Pg. 39 6.A.a CIP PARKS PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS Q 23 Packet Pg. 40 6.A.a N C d C N E d O L Q E .Q U c IL N N LL O .Q U LO N O N Q 24 Packet Pg. 41 6.A.a CIP PARKS PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS FUND 125 - CAPITAL PROJECTS Q 25 Packet Pg. 42 6.A.a N C d C N E d O L Q E .Q U c IL N N LL O .Q U LO N O N Q 26 Packet Pg. 43 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Citywide Beautification I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $126,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Beautification citywide to include Library, outdoor plazas, City Park, corner parks, irrigation, planting, mulch, FAC Center, vegetation, tree plantings, streetscape/gateways/street tree planting, flower basket poles. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve beautification citywide and provide comprehensive adopted plan for beautification and trees. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 a 27 Packet Pg. 44 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Flower Pole Replacement I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $120,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Replacement of Flower Poles in various places as needed throughout City. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Replacement of Flower Poles in various places as needed throughout City. SCHEDULE: 2020 - 2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Construction $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 TOTAL $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 28 Packet Pg. 45 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Citywide Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $300,000 Improvements / Misc Small Projects PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Citywide park facility and public landscaping improvements including signage, interpretive signs, buoys, tables, benches, trash containers, drinking fountains, backstops, bike racks, lighting, small landscaping projects, play areas and equipment. Landscape improvements at beautification areas and corner parks, public gateway entrances into the city and 4t" Avenue Corridor from Main St. to the Edmonds Center for the Arts, SR 104, street tree and streetscape improvements. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Overall capital improvements for citywide park facilities and streetscape improvements in public areas. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering / Administration Construction $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 29 Packet Pg. 46 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Sports Field Upgrade / ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $25,000 Playground Partnerships PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Partnerships with local schools, organizations, or neighboring jurisdictions to upgrade additional youth ball field or play facilities or playgrounds to create neighborhood park facilities at non -City facilities. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Annual partnerships with matching funds to create additional facilities. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Engineering & Administration Construction $0 $25000 $0 $0 1 % for Art TOTAL $0 $25000 $0 $0 a 30 Packet Pg. 47 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Anderson Center ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000 Field/Court/Stage 700 Main Street, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits 2.3 acres; zoned public neighborhood park/openspace field PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Upgrades to youth sports field, picnic and playground amenities and children's play equipment. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: As a neighborhood park, the Frances Anderson Center serves the community with various sports, playground and field activities including various special events. Upgrade and additions essential to meet demand for use. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Professional services Engineering & Administration Construction $5,000 $5,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $5,000 $5,000 * all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. a 31 Packet Pg. 48 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Brackett's Landing ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000 Improvements South: Main Street and Railroad Avenue south of Edmonds Ferry Terminal on Puget Sound North: 2.7 acres with tidelands and adjacent to Department of Natural Resources public tidelands with Underwater Park South: 2.0 acres with tidelands south of ferry terminal. Regional park/Zoned commercial waterfront. Protected as public park through Deed -of -Right; partnership funding IAC/WWRC/LWCF /DNR-ALEA & Snohomish Conservation Futures PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Landscape beautification, irrigation, furnishings/bench maintenance, exterior painting, repairs, jetty improvements/repair, north cove sand, habitat improvement, fences, interpretive signs, structure repairs, sidewalk improvements, restroom upgrades. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Retention of infrastructure for major waterfront park, regional park that serves as the gateway to Edmonds from the Kitsap Peninsula. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $5,000 $5000 1 % for Art TOTAL $5,000 $5000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts a 32 Packet Pg. 49 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: City Park Improvements I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: City Park. Continued pathway, access improvements and ongoing upgrades to PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Make ongoing upgrades to City Park as referenced in the PROS plan. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $5,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $5,000 *all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the arts Q 33 Packet Pg. 50 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Park I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $13,100,000 IMM M91 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Civic Park master plan is complete and has been adopted, funds (including carryover, grants, bonds, REET, Park Impact Fee's and General Fund) have been allocated and we are prepared to go to bid in February with ground breaking in April or May of 2020. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The Civic Master plan was adopted in 2017. Funds have been set aside, and grant funds secured. With the approved bonding we are ready to begin the project. This is a high priority in the PROS plan. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 COST Planning and $395,000 Design Engineering $140,000 Construction $11,937,092 1 % Art $88,000 TOTAL 12,560,092 34 Packet Pg. 51 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Fishing Pier & Restrooms I ESTIMATED COST: $30,000 '' Y1r fP�1 i i.. LWCF/IAC Acquisition and Development Project PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Capital improvements maintain this asset as needed. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Capital improvements to retain capital assets and enhance western gateway to the Puget Sound. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $5,000 $10,000 $5,000 $10,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $5,000 $10,000 $5,000 $10,000 a all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 35 Packet Pg. 52 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Community Garden I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $72,000 PRIVATE LIVING AREA FORMS. JOHNSON m PRWACY FENCE h s ,lr 3 I �N z z a w z W a o w I— V m � y O ❑ b z o COMP ~20 ��- ip b ¢ Y 0 ¢ a ACCESS ROAD PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Funds allocated to support the purchase and sale agreement for a 1-acre parcel of land near Yost Park. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: in the community. The community garden has been a long-standing interest SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Professional Services Lease Terms $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 TOTAL $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $0 $0 Q 36 Packet Pg. 53 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Park ESTIMATED COST: $5,000 Improvements 89t" Place West and 197t" Street SW, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County 12.7 acres (10.7 acres Open Space & 2 acres Neighborhood Park) Zoned Public PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements to the picnic, roadway, parking, play area and natural trail system to Maplewood Park. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset to the neighborhood park system. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $0 $5000 $0 1 % for Art TOTAL $0 $5000 $0 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts ti 0 a U r L r x w a� E U 2 a 37 Packet Pg. 54 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Marina Beach Park ESTIMATED COST: $8-10M Improvements ha CrMMna7 Arvr. • I ti .1 V• l �f` �� IN ,pr Anslclr6loa�¢ axxn -1 :4 - __ ri i7 krru i µ. f 7S iuisBw.aav �Ff Port _ —_ �as�nll�l {orrasmn ' — iamcu m'MtiQ�or Shcra 5 i • � sk :mrq ., - 3Y- ar erm. - k m LAa aru I South of the Port of Edmonds on Admiral Way South, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County 4.5 acres / Regional Park / Zoned Commercial Waterfront, marina beach south purchased with federal transportation funds. WWRC / IAC Acauisition Proiect: Protected throuah Deed -of -Right RCW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Begin development of Master plan, daylighting Willow Creek. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset to the regional waterfront park system. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study $30,000 $250,000 Eng. & Admin. Construction $1,000,000 $2,500,000 $500,000 $500,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $30,000 $250,000 $1,000,000 $2,500,000 $500,000 $500,000 . all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 38 Packet Pg. 55 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Mathay Ballinger Park I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000 781h Place W. & 241" St. at Edmonds City Limits. 1.5 acres/Neighborhood Park/Zoned Public. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements to Mathay Ballinger Park. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset in the neighborhood park system. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $0 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $0 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts ti 0 d U L 0 r K w as E t U 2 r Q 39 Packet Pg. 56 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Pine Ridge Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000 Improvements 83`a Avenue West and 204" St. SW, Edmonds City Limits, within Snohomish County 22 acres (20 acres zoned openspace/2 acres neighborhood park) Zoned Public; Adopted Master Plan PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Forest improvements, habitat improvements, tree planting, wildlife habitat attractions, trail improvements, signs, parking. Natural trail links under Main Street connecting to Yost Park. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Retention of natural open space habitat site and regional trail connections. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $0 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $0 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 * all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. a 40 Packet Pg. 57 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Seaview Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000 Improvements 80" Ave W and 186t' St. SW, Edmonds City Limits, within Snohomish County 6.93-acre neighborhood park; zoned entirely Park. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Trail improvements, habitat improvements, tree planting, athletic field, tennis court and restroom maintenance. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset to the neighborhood park system. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Stud Eng. & Admin. Construction $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 * all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. ti 0 a U L r x w a� E U 2 r Q 41 Packet Pg. 58 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Waterfront Redevelopment ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $6,280,198 / Waterfront Walkway Completion r • 1hY�d 1\IW 11� I ------------------- AccvM•ov R..p lA�6Ui.»l 2o� Propmod Edmwids Wam(from Garver ;r�urs; sr-v. - .au •al Isw45m0,: .— r .• __ M9gwed Tb�lpi�•+' bn b •.. •Y.grOn JN� yyetln W ran p•ur� o . PMcFW.4 Pw� PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with Sr. Center to renovate surrounding park, parking lot, frontage improvements and walkway. Remove creosote pier, reintroduce habitat for fish and wildlife. Increase access to the waterfront to accommodate increased growth. Connect waterfront walkway from Brackett's Landing South to Olympic Beach, including completion in front of the Ebb tide condominiums. This project includes the City's support for the parking lot and frontage improvements. 2021 and 2022 are for the over water walkway in front of the Ebb Tide. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Public access of waterfront and tidelands on Puget Sound. Provide a new Senior and Community Center and provide a new beachfront walkway. One of the top priorities in the PROS plan is to open up beachfront access. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/StudyPlanning/Study $100,000 Engineering $67,500 Construction $2,588,645 $150,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 1 % for Art $24,920 TOTAL $2,681,065 $250,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 42 Packet Pg. 59 6.A.a PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Final design and construction of 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor. Starting from 2009 public process and concept design, develop site design and construction documents for a safe, pedestrian friendly, and art enhanced corridor in the public right of way which provides a strong visual connection along 4th Avenue N between Main Street and Edmonds Center for the Arts. Interim work on this project since the concept was developed includes a 2015 temporary light artwork "Luminous Forest", installed to draw attention and interest to the corridor and enhance the visual connection between Main Street and the Edmonds Center for the Arts. The Cultural Heritage Walking Tour project, funded in part with a matching grant from the National Park Service Preserve America grant program, was implemented in 2011-2014 with 8 artist made historic plaques on 4th Avenue. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The corridor improvements in the public right of way will encourage pedestrian traffic & provide a strong visual connection between the ECA and downtown retail. Improvements will enhance connectivity as an attractive walking corridor & contribute to the economic vitality in the downtown. The project has been supported by the community in the 2014 Community Cultural Plan and in the recently established goals and priorities for the State certified Creative District application. Design completion will assist the City in the process of identifying & acquiring funding sources for the total project implementation phase. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/StudyPlanning/Study $100,000 $250,000 Engineering & Administration Construction $500,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $100,000 $750,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts a 43 Packet Pg. 60 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Yost Park / Pool ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $180,000 Improvements PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Chlorine injector, pool cover, fiberglass drain covers, boiler maintenance and anticipated and unanticipated repairs. Add in -pool play amenities. Park site improvements and repairs to trails and bridges, picnicking facilities, landscaping, parking, tennis/pickleball courts and erosion control. ADA improvements. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Beautiful natural area serves as upland area for environmental education programs as well as enjoyable setting for seasonal Yost Pool users. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $75,000 $25,000 $30,000 $25,000 $25,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $75,000 $25,000 $30,000 $25,000 $25,000 all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 44 Packet Pg. 61 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Outdoor Fitness Zones I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $175,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create outdoor fitness zones by adding fitness equipment within the park system. Zones scheduled for Mathay Ballinger Park and Civic Park. Supported by grant from Verdant. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Provide outdoor places to exercise to improve the health and wellness of citizens and park users, which provides adults the opportunity to exercise while their children play. This is a priority in the PROS plan. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Professional Services Construction $175,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL $175,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 ti 0 a U L r K W c as E U 2 r a 45 Packet Pg. 62 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh /Willow ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: TBD Creek Daylighting PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Daylight Willow Creek through the Edmonds Marsh, across Marina Beach to the Puget Sound, thus increasing connectivity to upstream spawning habitat for salmonid species and other aquatic life. Excavate tidal channels within the marsh and clean out SR104 culverts to improve hydrology and reduce flooding during high flows. Funds used to support grant writing efforts and paid for out of storm water fund 422. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The daylighting of Willow Creek and subsequent redevelopment of Marina Beach park will help reverse the negative impacts to Willow Creek and Edmonds Marsh that occurred when Willow Creek was piped in the early 1960s. This project will provide habitat for salmonids, including rearing of juvenile Chinook. This project, along with its companion CIP projects "Edmonds Marsh Channel Improvements" and "Dayton Street Pump Station," will also help reduce the flooding problem at the intersection of SR-104 and Dayton Street. This project is a priority in the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 COST Professional $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 Services Construction $0 $0 $0 TOTAL $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 a 46 Packet Pg. 63 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Unpaved ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $ 30,000 Trail / Bike Path Improvements PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Complete portions of designated trail through public parks to meet the goals of the Bicycle Plan and Pathway Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Walking and connections was listed as a high priority in the comprehensive Park Plan from public survey data. Creating trails, paths and bike links is essential to meet the need for the community. Provides for the implementation of the citywide bicycle path improvements and the elements and goals of the citywide walkway plan. Linked funding with engineering funding. SCHEDULE: 2020 - 2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 * all or part of these projects may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. a 47 Packet Pg. 64 6.A.a N C d C N E d O L Q E .Q U c IL N N LL O .Q U LO N O N Q 48 Packet Pg. 65 6.A.a CIP PARKS PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS FUND 126 - SPECIAL CAPITAL / PARKS ACQUISITION Q 49 Packet Pg. 66 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Debt Service on Approved ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $988,118 Capital Projects and Acquisitions =-rr�' 1! �Mw w 2 i �• .fit -' Ill' h PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Approximate annual debt service payments on: Marina Beach / Library Roof: $80,830 PSCC (Edmonds Center for the Arts): $54,300 Anderson Center Seismic Retrofit: $26,850 PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Debt service to pay for approved capitol projects SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art Principal & Interest $163,120 $165,820 $167,250 $170,080 $167,710 TOTAL $163,120 $165,820 $167,250 $170,080 $167,710 all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts ti 0 a U L 0 r x w c as E U 2 r Q 50 Packet Pg. 67 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Park I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $13,100,000 IMM M91 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Civic Park master plan is complete and has been adopted, funds (including carryover, grants, bonds, REET, Park Impact Fee's and General Fund) have been allocated and we are prepared to go to bid in February with ground breaking in April or May of 2020. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The Civic Master plan was adopted in 2017. Funds have been set aside, and grant funds secured. With the approved bonding we are ready to begin the project. This is a high priority in the PROS plan. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 COST Planning and $395,000 Design Engineering $140,000 Construction $11,937,092 1 % Art $88,000 TOTAL 12,560,092 51 Packet Pg. 68 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Open ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,100,000 Space / Land PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquisition of properties when feasible that will benefit citizens that fit the definitions and needs identified in the Parks Comprehensive Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Fulfills needs of citizens for parks, recreation and open space. SCHEDULE: 2019 - 2024 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Land $300,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $300,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 a 52 Packet Pg. 69 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Waterfront Redevelopment ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $6,280,198 / Waterfront Walkway Completion r • 1hY�d 1\IW 11� I ------------------- AccvM•ov R..p lA�6Ui.»l 2o� Propmod Edmwids Wam(from Garver ;r�urs; sr-v. - .au •al Isw45m0,: .— r .• __ M9gwed Tb�lpi�•+' bn b •.. •Y.grOn JN� yyetln W ran p•ur� o . PMcFW.4 Pw� PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with Sr. Center to renovate surrounding park, parking lot, frontage improvements and walkway. Remove creosote pier, reintroduce habitat for fish and wildlife. Increase access to the waterfront to accommodate increased growth. Connect waterfront walkway from Brackett's Landing South to Olympic Beach, including completion in front of the Ebb tide condominiums. This project includes the City's support for the parking lot and frontage improvements. 2021 and 2022 are for the over water walkway in front of the Ebb Tide. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Public access of waterfront and tidelands on Puget Sound. Provide a new Senior and Community Center and provide a new beachfront walkway. One of the top priorities in the PROS plan is to open up beachfront access. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/StudyPlanning/Study $100,000 Engineering $67,500 Construction $2,588,645 $150,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 1 % for Art $24,920 TOTAL $2,681,065 $250,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 53 Packet Pg. 70 6.A.a N C d C N E d O L Q E .Q U c IL N N LL O .Q U LO N O N Q 54 Packet Pg. 71 6.A.a CIP PARKS PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS FUND 332 - PARKS CONSTRUCTION Q 55 Packet Pg. 72 6.A.a N C d C N E d O L Q E .Q U c IL N N LL O .Q U LO N O N Q 56 Packet Pg. 73 6.A.a PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Final design and construction of 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor. Starting from 2009 public process and concept design, develop site design and construction documents for a safe, pedestrian friendly, and art enhanced corridor in the public right of way which provides a strong visual connection along 4th Avenue N between Main Street and Edmonds Center for the Arts. Interim work on this project since the concept was developed includes a 2015 temporary light artwork "Luminous Forest", installed to draw attention and interest to the corridor and enhance the visual connection between Main Street and the Edmonds Center for the Arts. The Cultural Heritage Walking Tour project, funded in part with a matching grant from the National Park Service Preserve America grant program, was implemented in 2011-2014 with 8 artist made historic plaques on 4th Avenue. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The corridor improvements in the public right of way will encourage pedestrian traffic & provide a strong visual connection between the ECA and downtown retail. Improvements will enhance connectivity as an attractive walking corridor & contribute to the economic vitality in the downtown. The project has been supported by the community in the 2014 Community Cultural Plan and in the recently established goals and priorities for the State certified Creative District application. Design completion will assist the City in the process of identifying & acquiring funding sources for the total project implementation phase. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/StudyPlanning/Study $100,000 $250,000 Engineering & Administration Construction $500,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $100,000 $750,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts a 57 Packet Pg. 74 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Park I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $12,600,000 IMM M91 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Civic Park master plan is complete and has been adopted, funds (including carryover, grants, bonds, REET, Park Impact Fee's and General Fund) have been allocated and we are prepared to go to bid in February with ground breaking in April or May of 2020. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The Civic Master plan was adopted in 2017. Funds have been set aside, and grant funds secured. With the approved bonding we are ready to begin the project. This is a high priority in the PROS plan. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 COST Planning and $395,000 Design Engineering $140,000 Construction $11,937,092 1 % Art $88,000 TOTAL 12,560,092 58 Packet Pg. 75 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Marina Beach Park ESTIMATED COST: $8-10M Improvements ha CrMMna7 Arvr. • I ti .1 V• l �f` �� IN ,pr Anslclr6loa�¢ axxn -1 :4 - __ ri i7 krru i µ. f 7S iuisBw.aav �Ff Port _ —_ �as�nll�l {orrasmn ' — iamcu m'MtiQ�or Shcra 5 i • � sk :mrq ., - 3Y- ar erm. - k m LAa aru I South of the Port of Edmonds on Admiral Way South, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County 4.5 acres / Regional Park / Zoned Commercial Waterfront, marina beach south purchased with federal transportation funds. WWRC / IAC Acauisition Proiect: Protected throuah Deed -of -Right RCW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Begin development of Master plan, daylighting Willow Creek. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset to the regional waterfront park system. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study $30,000 $250,000 Eng. & Admin. Construction $1,000,000 $2,500,000 $500,000 $500,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $30,000 $250,000 $1,000,000 $2,500,000 $500,000 $500,000 . all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 59 Packet Pg. 76 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Waterfront Redevelopment ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $6,280,198 / Waterfront Walkway Completion r • 1hY�d 1\IW 11� I ------------------- AccvM•ov R..p lA�6Ui.»l 2o� Propmod Edmwids Wam(from Garver ;r�urs; sr-v. - .au •al Isw45m0,: .— r .• __ M9gwed Tb�lpi�•+' bn b •.. •Y.grOn JN� yyetln W ran p•ur� o . PMcFW.4 Pw� PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with Sr. Center to renovate surrounding park, parking lot, frontage improvements and walkway. Remove creosote pier, reintroduce habitat for fish and wildlife. Increase access to the waterfront to accommodate increased growth. Connect waterfront walkway from Brackett's Landing South to Olympic Beach, including completion in front of the Ebb tide condominiums. This project includes the City's support for the parking lot and frontage improvements. 2021 and 2022 are for the over water walkway in front of the Ebb Tide. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Public access of waterfront and tidelands on Puget Sound. Provide a new Senior and Community Center and provide a new beachfront walkway. One of the top priorities in the PROS plan is to open up beachfront access. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/StudyPlanning/Study $100,000 Engineering $67,500 Construction $2,588,645 $150,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 1 % for Art $24,920 TOTAL $2,681,065 $250,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 60 Packet Pg. 77 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Outdoor Fitness Zones I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $175,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create outdoor fitness zones by adding fitness equipment within the park system. Zones scheduled for Mathay Ballinger Park and Civic Park. Supported by grant from Verdant. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Provide outdoor places to exercise to improve the health and wellness of citizens and park users, which provides adults the opportunity to exercise while their children play. This is a priority in the PROS plan. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Professional Services Construction $175,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL $175,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 ti 0 a U L r K W c as E U 2 r a 61 Packet Pg. 78 6.A.a N C d C N E d O L Q E .Q U c IL N N LL O .Q U LO N O N Q 62 Packet Pg. 79 6.A.a CIP PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS FUND 423.76 WASTEWATER TREATMENT Q 63 Packet Pg. 80 6.A.a N C d C N E d O L Q E .Q U c IL N N LL O .Q U LO N O N Q 64 Packet Pg. 81 6.A.a PROJECT NAME: Carbon Recovery I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $24,585,000 Belt Dryer —6► Gaidrriers Biocrhw B,ddmg ao tAtragm Printing PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Carbon Recovery project would replace the sanitary sewage incinerator (SSI) and associated equipment. The SSI is 30 years old and must meet stringent EPA and PSCAA regulations which mandate a full replacement after 50% of the original cost in O&M upgrade has been expensed. Cost of regulatory compliance alone is estimated to be >$100,000/year. Many pieces of equipment within the SSI system are beyond their life expectancy and many are not supported by manufacturers. The Design for the proiect is scheduled for completion in earlv 2020. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The replacement technology being proposed in the Phase 6 Carbon Recovery project is a belt dryer, pyrolysis units and odor control system. The pyrolysis equipment will be housed in a new building within the current WWTP footprint and would be fully integrated into the plant control system. Furthermore, the Carbon Recovery project is the single best opportunity for the WWTP to meet the goals and objectives of the Council Resolution 1389 which commits Edmonds to achieving or exceeding the environmental goals established in the Paris Accords by reducing "greenhouse gas" emissions. The project will provide a beneficial use of the end product, referred to as "biochar", while reducing O&M cost in terms of electricity, regulatory compliance, ongoing maintenance, hauling and disposal costs. The project would be shared with our treatment partners as follows: Mountlake Terrace 23.17% $6,423,034 Olympic View Water/Sewer 16.55% $4,587,367 Ronald Sewer District 9.49% $2,629,747 Edmonds 50.79% $14,076,406 SCHEDULE: 2020-2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 COST Design Construction $11,037,000 $16,358,000 500,000 TOTAL 1 11,449,456.15 I $16,358,000 I 500,000 a 65 Packet Pg. 82 6.A.b CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2020-2025 � O-V ECM 0 U N DRAFT Packet Pg. 83 6.A.b c a r c a� E a� O L Q E Q m U c to d N a� r .v R W r Q O U LO N O N O N Co N d fA O Q O L a a� w Q Packet Pg. 84 6.A.b CFP GENERAL c R a r c a� E a� 0 0- E 76 .Q U c U) U- 76 .Q U LO N O N O N O N d N O Q O L- a. a� r a Packet Pg. 85 6.A.b c a r c a� E a� O L Q E Q m U c to d N a� r .v R W r Q O U LO N O N O N Co N d fA O Q O L a a� w Q Packet Pg. 86 6.A.b N U d O LL a U m 0 C a m o o d 13 N E y � O 'a N N W « C O _ CcN O U _ N T lL m „ U � d 'Q N (9 � U m a o � p N N � N O � O � N N N N N N N N p W N N N N N O r N 0 0 0 ONi O V l0 0 0 0 0 M �O O O O Ol O � O � N O O fR E9 rM E9 fR N U y d U C � _ J O m y LL O g E N y D y o ^m ° r O co d F LL c o° m w n �ry o ro r U w m o ._ m o m go cc t O m LL m LL c7 a[ a Ci a` U O U G rn O r N 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 f N N O I� N O O O V r M O 0 o N O O O O O po f9 f9 f9 f9 69 N O O O po f9 f9 f9 N N O NN � fA fA �'f MM � C U O v y N P N 2 fl U y IL O d o 0 c i i a N O Y ¢ a o m O N d o ro of u y - o o ' c -ooa E rota o m w-o v —�T. i Oo N t t0 N Y IL IL o C Y > A d U o $�roc o j a E yo aE_d c d m roo�ao of o. `�' am > aE o amour of Sro$ aCa N N N Ea o a roIm N O E Z E d t — t m m o ¢s grn v > s= ya d A 3 m j o o M Emo LL c a s d U U O m a 0 O O R9 W N O O O O O Cr O O � W O O O O O O O Cr N N fA N b N LL O w m y Y � fR t9 t9 Ny �o 'g d E o m o a U a o ¢ 3LLIE Q o ¢ o f/1 N 't > ro a c$ y o o omrooy-rom .. d ayym�°°_oo o s o o a o f a � E o o E o E. �aE�mEUropo Uw--m 3ssao a E t y o ro .. E c N rn�oSo oi3 ooc I U O N O m N Y'o m d `mm d d o` l6 C U N U l6 �p U D w N 3 0 d 2'm C E 0 0 0 ao ir() Packet Pg. 87 6.A.b c a r c a� E a� O L Q E Q m U c to d N a� r .v R W r Q O U LO N O N O N Co N d fA O Q O L a a� w Q Packet Pg. 88 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Park I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $13,100,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Civic Park master plan is complete and has been adopted, funds (including carryover, grants, bonds, REET, Park Impact Fee's and General Fund) have been allocated and we are prepared to go to bid in February with ground breaking in April or May of 2020. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The Civic Master plan was adopted in 2017. Funds have been set aside, and grant funds secured. With the approved bonding we are ready to begin the project. This is a high priority in the PROS plan. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 COST Planning and $395,000 Design Engineering $140,000 Construction $11,937,092 1 % Art $88,000 TOTAL 12,560,092 Q Packet Pg. 89 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Community Park / Athletic ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $6-8 M Complex at the Former Woodway High School ra CIA HOGAN - --------- - ... - _ -- f I rC)R lER wOODWAY HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC FIELD IMPROVEMENTS PRE PAnto fOX THE E DMON DS SCHOOL DISH ICT MAY FOV 6.A.b PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop community park and regional athletic complex with lighted or unlighted fields and recreational amenities in partnership with Edmonds School District, community colleges, user groups, and other organizations. Development dependent upon successful regional capital campaign. $10m - $12M project for all 3 phases. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The site is currently an underutilized and under maintained facility with great potential as community multi -use active park. Site has existing controlled access, greenbelt, parking and 4-court tennis facility with substandard fields. Highly urbanized area with 150,000 residents within 5-mile radius. Future maintenance supported by user fees. Phase 1 was completed in 2015 for $4.2M, Phases 2 & 3 will be completed in the future for an additional $6-8M. SCHEDULE: 2020-2039 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026- COST 2039 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $6-8P " all or a portion of this project may quality for 1 % for the Arts 8 Q Packet Pg. 90 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: Parks & Facilities ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3-$4 Million Maintenance & Operations Building Building Outline Perimeter zone — 4,200 sf Existing Fence Line PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The 40 year old maintenance building in City Park is reaching the end of its useful life and is in need of major renovation or replacement. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Parks and Facilities Divisions have long outgrown this existing facility and need additional work areas and fixed equipment in order to maintain City parks and Capital facilities for the long term. SCHEDULE: Contingent on finding additional sources of revenue from general and real estate taxes. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2039 Planning/Stud Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $3m - $4m * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts Packet Pg. 91 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: Waterfront Redevelopment ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $6,280,198 / Waterfront Walkway Completion r • 1hY�d 1\IW 11� I ------------------- AccvM•ov R..p lA�6Ui.»l 2o� Propmod Edmwids Wam(from Garver ;r�urs; sr-v. - .au •al Isw45m0,: .— r .• __ M9gwed Tbrnpi�� bn b •.. •Y.grOn JN� yyetln W ran p•ur� a . PMcFW.4 Pw� PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with Sr. Center to renovate surrounding park, parking lot, frontage improvements and walkway. Remove creosote pier, reintroduce habitat for fish and wildlife. Increase access to the waterfront to accommodate increased growth. Connect waterfront walkway from Brackett's Landing South to Olympic Beach, including completion in front of the Ebb tide condominiums. This project includes the City's support for the parking lot and frontage improvements. 2021 and 2022 are for the over water walkway in front of the Ebb Tide. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Public access of waterfront and tidelands on Puget Sound. Provide a new Senior and Community Center and provide a new beachfront walkway. One of the top priorities in the PROS plan is to open up beachfront access. SCHEDULE: 2020-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/StudyPlanning/Study $100,000 Engineering $67,500 Construction $2,588,645 $150,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 1 % for Art $24,920 TOTAL $2,681,065 $250,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts rn r 0 L a LL U N X w c a� E w Q 10 Packet Pg. 92 6.A.b CFP TRANSPORTATION c R a r c a� E a� 0 0- E 76 .Q U c U) U- 76 .Q U Lo N O N O N O N d N O Q O L- a. a� r a Packet Pg. 93 6.A.b c a r c a� E a� O L Q E Q m U c to d N a� r .v R W r Q O U LO N O N O N Co N d fA O Q O L a a� w Q 12 Packet Pg. 94 6.A.b a LL y N y C' C EL N y e o a W O N W = r Or O N r LL CL f1�c r y <.i N N N N d .O IL W (7 fR N C N N C N O E O 11 « N �lL ._ .� n _o n_o O N O~ O U U~ O O O O C 0 0888 A Oo N OOCD n n aomn m C6 fR zi OF $ rn C N o � U E o y Ta a d o N Q 0 a Q U (mn N a O O O N m U N o N O T N Co m > d E E a N d E E c T N O c d > N a O m �E mm0 0 0 0 0 �2 N C m « « a N U N U N U N U Qi O o O 0 O N o W O N O 6% O W N N N N � O O O O �(Ny•Ol� y3 (g O 3 y m 3 m ro 3 m m 3 y Ta L Q o C C C 0 C C C7 C7 C} L L W n O N N N M « > N « > N _« > N « > N m O O O c o o O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C C O 6% CC rn m rn m m m rn N—m O O O O w M h o _ m rn m rn f»`Aw in in m FL O fR O fNo O fA O d! O fR C 'NO C C V C 'y0 0000 O O O O N O O b O n > U C « > U C « > U C « ] U C N m > W _ V O O O O O O O O U U U U o 00 O LL U N 'o U N 'o U N Sio U m 'o O2 m a i» fC r+ a a a a .Q 0 w � w � o» w LO N O N dg 0 0 29 0 0 dg 0 0 25 0 0 dg 0 0 29 o dg 0 0 29 0 0 29 0 0 dg 0 0 O o y N N N C N U N N N C N o y N N N C N U d y N N C N o y N N N C N U d N N N C N o y N N N C N U d y N N C N U d N N N C N o y N N N C N N C Cm LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL�«_r«o LL (n MoH(n i«_Fo a(n r«o (n �m_Ho a rm_o (n im_Ho (n rmo T mT �N .. o«(y T Gi o o o o o ov oo oJ ov o 0 .J, t` 0 .J, t` 0 .J. N N N� 0—� LL N LL N LL N LL N LL N LL N LL N LL N LL N LL N IL O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N M tD 1p O O N N � N O O O �+ Ey � fR Fy rn m u� O ooinr fR fR rn m fR � n M MN�' E9 fR E9 (R mnio in 6% C O C C C C C C C C C C m U U U U U U U U U U (7 (7 (7 (7 (7 (7 rn (7 (7 •� Vl NN NVl N N N O O O O O O O N O O w Li a a a a a a (n a amo N Co N >— OO m E CNN dN > N Co d N (n O N E N> O O "2NUOCy N C O o vc . EampO N (n E N m yN E (n co >O >E_ O mTOC 0 o (..JV-dran NOy_ +f N O O 0.orOrQ+LCU L IN p LE Co Z «NO L 2 NO -a > N Co N O O N W OQ`O QN O CU U i NE~O N Eq E ` > U ~ti O �E Ca>«> 0 «N N i5 NOL iL 0.5 E S .S n y (0) -U c> y c t E V N N N N 0 ) t(nE 3E E Wy N (n N n U y N N n > �> C OO _ a (OE CO IL O NE N NE N C',— N N N C C C N C N N C > d N O C N C Gi m � � � ern � >0 � � � � �— m y rn ° y m m y rn a> 0 N Q o U) > Q o y y 0 a 3 o i a Cr >c 6: _o m« _o m« T> a V 2 2 2 2H W (nM E nmE U U UQ = ++ Q 13 Packet Pg. 95 6.A.b a LL y U y N y C' C S 4 N y cc o a w o N W = r T p N r LL a" f1�c « y W ~ U 0 0 0 0 00 a a a 0 0 0 * o O o O o0 oa 0 0 N a o o co e a a (O ti v2 cn w cn vi O N � � U) O V! O V! O !A O V! O V! O O O O O O m N O O o O O O N N M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M M 0 0 0 000 C 0 0 O N N O 49 O V! NO N O O iA N � W sA N (9 A N fA t0 I a Vi fR O O O o00 O O 0 o O O O in ino O O 0 0 O O O 000 N n Gr�pp: o uS vi o o" � co ai ri e+i o 0 0" N Vi N! � fR N � � fR V! fA fR (A f9 !A fR E9 !A O di O O o O OO H p fR O1°i o o eD O OO H p fR OO H p fR p fA O O o O pp f9 N N a m o O N in» fnw in N N N N O V! O M O V! O M O !A O V! O M O V! O M O V! O M O V! N N 0 vi 0 ur 0 vi 0 w 0 w 0 w 0 ur 0 vi 0 w 0 w 0 w 0 0 ^ n ° p O N a � d hi ad d aa� d am d ad d aa� d ad d aa� d aa� d am d ay d aa� d C1 U N N ^y U N y y ^y U N N ^y U N N ^y U N m y ^y U N N y ^y U N y y ^y U N N y ^y U N m y ^y U N y y ^y U N N y ^y U N N ^y l�N Ol�OOLL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL lL_yc°i n y o U `U o o U. o oy . o ~o � o `U o (� ~o o `U o (� ~o o C`O —m O° O° O° F. O° oUc O° F. O° O° F. O° O° O° OC co `l ttl 0 N O ttl 0 ttl 0 R lL N L 0 LL N N da LL N N L 0 LL N N da LL N N da LL N N L 0 LL N N da LL N N L 0 LL N N da LL N N L 0 LL N N da LL N N L 0 LL N N OD 00 O O O O O O O O O N (.7O OOpp E9 fR f9 O1� 0 E9OE9O O OOpp fR E9 fR f9 O OOpp E9 fR E9 (R 0 00 O V3�V3M N 01n 000 i°N ViN O OOO Via Vim Opp Otp O m m, OOOO �O�O OO A N �fJi � OM ��pf t�D c1°OM N 10 l0 f0 l0 f0Co f6 l0 a Co 0 Co d y lO O a N a N a N a N a y a N a N a N a N a N a N a N Z d a U o U 0 U 0 U 0 N U 0 U 0 U 0 U 0 U 0 U 0 U 0 U U U U U U U U U U U C 7 (7 m U 2 m (7 (7 (7 m (7 m (7 m (7 rn C7 O L y y h y— c ° O N a N N n V N a N N n N N a N N n N a d y O LL O U y O y O y O y O y O y O U N O a � o a a a a a a (n a a a a �^ N c o, C L N d > 0 Co o m lC m o y o Co ro a ?) > E 0 E 3 o m o y d E Y? N yO7 hiO N— O tl R C Y 0 E Cd OW w NNarOay ay NNarO( ESE O O L Y � y Co U C -Co m o a cNO. ° N Na 0 L �� da �.2 NCNa 0N y CO U�yO 3 J N a6M NN.G L0 3 O c aaNm al a3 N c apL -°NNym = y O y > d > y.j O Ncn O i2 Or O0 o y E o �N3O `o1 iw� � � wc N IL a a 3 L m o 0 �_ >>� > N N yo TNy 2 N(n L o3 yQ y O 3�> m m > N ° Oi N ° o m NLN nifLEn `Qc TN QLOW o E 0 EU o oL Ev NNya.0.�ai U(Nn iCQ 3L 3O LN> O bi?iQT3Gi i O Q n ° � ro C iy L« > O >> On QmZ C � E N >Q M m E N V% L O> O> N L f0 L M «O (n C , � Ofn E (nm NQ N W m(n Mm O� O r m In a LL U N X W C Cd G U m Q 14 Packet Pg. 96 6.A.b a LL a U y N y C' C EL N Eye o a w o N W = r T O N r LL CL f1�c r y W ~ U s 0 C C 0 0 0 0 0 N o o e to vi w N N U) O V! o N! O O 00 OO n o !9 O V! o N! O V! o V! o V! O V! o V! O � N fA O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 N ON HO O u2 N 1� A 7 a N N W aD a O N 7N N O M O t0 E9 1� t0 10 W aD M OI NM N 1� M t0 M fA R N 4ifR fA fR V! fR !A E9 N! fR !A f9 V! O O O c O O O O O O O O O O .5OO O OO OO O O O O O O O OO OO OO OO OO O� N% N coo rl OfA M N12 000 r, O N t2m O O w 1p M O O O O '.0 MH MN 9N 000 O O O O oO O O O O w ONM Mf fA Ok fR Ok fR !A fA Ok RN fR Ok N fR � A fA fA O OO OO OO OO N N NNO V O VO! O VO! NN0O! VN0O! NW0O! VWoo! VVOO!! O! NWo NO Ok o O Ok O NN m rn 0 N N am d aa� d am d ad d am d ay d aa� d ad d aa� d aa� d ad d i U N N y ^y U N y y y U N y y ^y U N N y y U N y y ^y U N y y ^y U N y ^y U N N y y U N N y y U N 0 y ^y U N N y y y O"O'll� m O'O"ll «� y O'O'll� m �'O" 11 «� y O'O'll .� m �'O"ll «� y O'O'll� m N B C O'O"ll «R y w- C O'O-'ll «� y y O'0 . y N B C O'O"ll5 y C U _O U.F `o U.._O (�c�i~ o U.__O U.F `o U.._O (�. o U.__O U.F `o U.._O (�. o U.__O U.F `o U.._O (�.F 0 U.._O (�c�i~ 0 U.__O UHF `o U.._O (��F 0 '6 _ 0 0 O `O O O `O O O `O O O O `O OZ5O R ty R N R E!ti ti R titl LL L0 LL y da LL N da LL N da LL 0 L0 LL N da LL 0 L0 LL N da LL 0 da LL 0 L0 LL N da LL 0 N Np o w Q O O 010 O O O O O O o O O O O O O O a7 O p p O O O O O O O O M 0 N O O N N N O O O O O O O O N L-W-HE O p p O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 O -0 O O O 0 O O ON .� y M N A fR M fR M fR E9 M O) V fR f0 O N fA O fA O N N E9 tMO pM�pp t00NF� fR E9 fR fA fA iA f9 N w J u 0 w J Cu Cu > j a d • {a a N a N a N a N a N a N a N a N a N a N d a O O O = O O O O O O O U U U 0 U U U U U U U O C7 CL N N N O N N V a N a NCL n N a a a a a a a a aO dm o� O c3 o a y o an � /yy7 U O y m C � o C3L'om� LU 3 la OO N ¢LmUUL�w�a>i o Cn o Y> o oC.,3E CL �nZ, Eca N E o cL E f _ Eo o E O 00a p o 0 o m cos K NO a CC O O 0 o f a O 3U3 CoO. E 0E cm swEL 3>o Y ` R y�00 Q i > -O'y aa Y w > O ai > V y `dE o ESQ vas L E_ XOE 26 0�>N Q> L O E c IL w cc o a a s >ao° o E E o U U E� o U z c 3¢ x (qU Q d �3 ai > t 3 E c o E> ¢' E t v 3 m a r a Q ro> LL CO _o d> N EO 0 O M O L O pU$ TU o6 y> N U UaECO c 3a mE NL d M Nm �E U no L_ E 0 _ O O �Nm O)a O a lu5 ti 0-2 rn(n ¢ U o aiv�° UE r� 15 Packet Pg. 97 6.A.b a LL y U y m y C' 00. y cc o a m o N W = � r Or O N r LL a" f1�c r y W ~ U O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 O O o O w o 0 w o O w o 0 O O 0 0 N 1f1 w Fn vi F» w � � N N N N N W N W N N N OO H O di pp fR pp f9 pp fR o O 0 O O O OO H m p pp f9 N e fR fR O di pp fR pp f9 pp fR 0 0 0 O O O OO H N O N O M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N a m d g a m d g a m d g a m d g a m d g a m d g a m d g O U m m y U m m y U m m m U m m y U m m m U m m m U m m �LL «� mLL� yLL «� mL-L y LL «� mLL c (n.--O nmf inr-O cn mH in.--O nmf inr-O cn mH in.--O wmf inr-O T mH in.--O Tmf 'p C o o m_�, m o o m—`. o o co —0 m o o m—`. g o co —0 m o o -a —0 m o o o 0 LL ma LL'LL ma LLlL ma LL'IL ma LLlL ma LL'IL ma LLlL ma LL'LL N o 0 O O O O O 0 )O�oaONr pp pp pp pp pp 00 0 pp N NH fA�W m z d O O L d a d 0 U 0 d 0 U 0 d 0 d 0 d 0 U U U U U U U C = 7 c m � 0 �. OCL a y y CL O o a 03 03 0 c � 03 yC/) N(n O� C N(n r L Y �- m L m omE m L m T m T m K C mo-m o0 N CN>c N O 0� 03 =E 03 =f C) 0 E c Y O c, oC E Oc O oC O 0 o f p 9QNY 3 E 0 3: 3 y 2 3: m w N y 3 NC a > cLrn Q 03.: �_ � 3 �Co d�wa y ai y O« y Qj y N� y N y m min > a N m > 3 3 y Q Cs�L � Q0 'LsOE Oa0i E_LN 55 O3� O p E E p °E amoa aN wU aa m io d R L L sO L o3 oni fr on E� E o E 0 E> EZ _ o _ yai _ U �i E >N (6 U)¢ L Q O Q O >U Q O a^ OJ� �m W m (n N 0 N M fR a m Q U U a 10 16 Packet Pg. 98 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: 228th St. SW from Hwy. 99 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $11,700,000 to 95th PI. W PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 228th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 95th Pl. W to three lanes (with two-way left turn lane), with curb and gutter, sidewalk, and bike lanes. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve active transportation safety and traffic flows along this corridor. Community Transit would also look into creating a new east -west bus route along 228th St. SW if this project moves forward (connecting Edmonds Transit Station to Mountlake Terrace Transit Station). SCHEDULE: The design phase is scheduled to begin in 2023 (pending funding). More than half the project is within Esperance / Snohomish County. A Sound Transit System Access grant was submitted in May '19 to fully fund this project but the grant wasn't secured. Sound Transit also has funding available through ST3 to improve accessibility to the Sound Transit Station. Mukilteo and Edmonds have $40 Million in combined funding to complete projects improving access to the Sound Transit Station (for all modes of transportation). The City indicated to Sound Transit that this project should to be considered by Sound Transit and it is currently being evaluated. A final response from Sound Transit whether this project is funded or not is scheduled for late 2019. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026- 2040 Planning/Study Engineering, $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Admin., & ROW Construction $9,700,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $9,700,000 17 Packet Pg. 99 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: Highway 99 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $175,000,000 Gateway/Revitalization rn a c E a� 0 L Q E 76 .Q R U c ca d N a� tv U- 76 r .Q cv U LO N O N O N O N K-1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project would include, among other features, wider replacement o sidewalks or new sidewalk where none exist today, new street lighting, center medians for access contro $ and turning movements, etc., attractive and safe crosswalks, better stormwater management, targeted a utility replacements, potential undergrounding of overhead utilities, landscaping and other softscape treatments to identify the area as being in Edmonds. c PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve aesthetics, safety, user experience, and access management along this corridor. In addition, economic development would be improved. x SCHEDULE: The conceptual phase began in September 2017 and was completed in December 2018. •2 An interim project has been identified with the addition of raised median along the entire corridor from a 244t" St. SW to 212t" ST. SW (to address safety issues along the corridor). The design phase is scheduled to begin in November 2019. The addition of a traffic signal at Hwy. 99 @ 234t" St. SW is also,, 07 priority project, adding a pedestrian crossing between 238t" St. SW and 228t" St. SW (� 1 mile distance o with no crossing). $10M from a Connecting Washington allocation has been secured, with $91VI not available prior to 2021. o COST BREAKDOWN a U- PROJECT 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-204( U COST Planning/StudyPlanning/Study w Engineering & $60,000 $500,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $24,000,OC Administration E & ROW Construction $858,000 6,300,000 $138,000,OC a 1 % for Art TOTAL $918,000 $500,000 $2,000,000 $6,300,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $162,000,0f 18 Packet Pg. 100 6.A.b 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). The cost for the intersection improvements are included within the Hwy. 99 Revitalization / Gateway project costs. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and reduce delay. SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2023 and 2025 (unsecured funding).The project cost is split between Lynnwood and Edmonds since half the project is within Lynnwood. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering, $175,000 $1,091,000 ROW, & Administration Construction $1,540,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $175,000 $1,091,000 $1,540,000 r 0 L 0 a LL U N X W a� E U r Q 19 Packet Pg. 101 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,335,000 intersection improvements 2141021 c^ 13�408w 214021d12 { 21405 04 LU N W 2> 120L< 2i431MC�UHA6' un � anz 150 r 2150021558EGIS VA LU E VILLAGE ST SVU — 21BTlM 21600 {� 21619 KRUGER CLINIC f 21632 � � - ��I16e 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 216th St. SW to add a westbound left turn lane and an eastbound left turn lane. Provide protected -permissive left turn phases for eastbound and westbound movements. This project ranked #3 in the Roadway Project Priority in the 2015 Transportation Plan. The cost for the intersection improvements are included within the Hwy. 99 Revitalization / Gateway project costs. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and reduce delay. SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2023 and 2025 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & ROW & Administration $204,000 $334,000 Construction $1,837,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $204,000 $334,000 $1,837,000 r O L 0 a U_ U N X W r a� E w r Q 20 Packet Pg. 102 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,215,000 intersection improvements TOP FOODS v �, 19TH sr SW / 21919 STARBU S / / 220TH ST SW I I I I 1221 I I I I I 13 _I � � l4 n III •0. 7301 W U O e S C m .M. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 220th St. SW to add Westbound right turn lane for 325' storage length. Widen SR-99 to add 2nd Southbound left turn lane for 275' storage length. (ROADWAY PROJECT PRIORITY in 2015 Transportation Plan: #2). The cost for the intersection improvements are included within the Hwy. 99 Revitalization / Gateway project costs. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Reduce intersection delay and improve traffic flow and safety. SCHEDULE: All Phases are scheduled between 2023 and 2025 (unsecured funding for all phases). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 COST -Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $175,000 $1,085,000 Construction $1,955,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $175,000 $1,085,000 $1,955,000 21 Packet Pg. 103 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 234th St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,300,000 intersection improvements ESPE&ANCE F] — 1i711 21202 17 S-IMO PL W i «n �• �I 21]31 233RD PLy� 1 • 71J7C'. _ - : i321 ff -- �34TFS ST.SW _.-. } l3 a'•• 3]406■�� 1 DIM ]l1 1 1712 1� 2341� r3111 "2141f 23+17 :b ul w Y3Q€ 7i.ti1, I 7i WOOL PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal at the intersection of Hwy. 99 @ 234th St. SW to provide safer crossing of Hwy. 99 for vehicles and non -motorized transportation (project identified in Hwy. 99 Sub Area Plan). These intersection improvements are included as part of the Hwy. 99 Revitalization / Gateway project. The cost for the intersection improvements are included within the Hwy. 99 Revitalization / Gateway project costs. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection safety and pedestrian conditions along the corridor. SCHEDULE: All Phases are scheduled between 2023 and 2025 (unsecured funding for all phases). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $300,000 $300,000 Construction $1,200,000 $1,500,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $300,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 Q 22 Packet Pg. 104 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: 196th St. SW (SR-524) @ ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $903,000 88th Ave. W Intersection Improvements 1em 3 ILU _ a_ .~a I m :VEN DAY WENTIST :HURCH 4 1eeTM sr sw PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal at the intersection of 196th St. SW @ 88th Ave. W. The modeling in the 2009 Transportation Plan indicated that restricting northbound and southbound traffic to right -turn -only (prohibiting left -turn and through movements) would also address the deficiency identified at this location through 2025. This is same alternative as one concluded by consultant in 2007 study but not recommended by City Council. This could be implemented as an alternate solution, or as an interim solution until traffic signal warrants are met. The ex. LOS is F (below City Standards: LOS D). This project was ranked #6 in the Roadway Project Priority in the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve traffic flow characteristics and safety at the intersection. The improvement would modify LOS to A, but increase the delay along 196th St. SW. SCHEDULE: All project phases are scheduled between 2023 and 2025 (unsecured funding). In order to allow the installation of a traffic signal, the MUTCD traffic signal warrants must be met and the installation must be approved by WSDOT (since 196th St. SW is a State Route / SR-524). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & $193,000 $175,000 Administration Construction $535,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $193,000 $175,000 $535,000 23 Packet Pg. 105 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: Main St and 9t" Ave. S ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $896,000 N Q x J __J1 MH__JI __�, BELL ST UJ a I - � P MAIN ST A WADE JAMES V _P1 i TH EATE R L � W� a r H oavraN n PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of a traffic signal or mini -roundabout. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The existing intersection is stop -controlled for all approaches and the projected intersection LOS in 2035 is LOS F (below the City's concurrency standards: LOS D). The installation of a traffic signal would improve the intersection delay to LOS B. The project ranked #4 in the Roadway Project Priority of the 2015 Transportation Plan. In Fall 2018, turn lanes will be added to the intersection to improve safety and traffic flow through the intersection. SCHEDULE: The design phase is scheduled to begin in 2023 and construction in 2024. unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering, $120,000 Administration & ROW Construction $776,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $120,000 $776,000 24 Packet Pg. 106 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: 7611 Ave. W @ 22011 St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Intersection Improvements $8,109,000 S STARBU KS J 220TH Sr 5w 14 zz� sr Pt sw LYNWOOD HONDA PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reconfigure eastbound lanes to a left turn lane and through / right turn lane. Change eastbound and westbound phases to provide protected -permitted phase for eastbound and westbound left turns. Provide right turn overlap for westbound movement during southbound left turn phase. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY #1 in 2015 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Reduce the intersection delay and improve the LOS. The projected LOS in 2035 would be improved from LOS F to LOS D. SCHEDULE: A STP Federal grant was secured in 2018 for the Design Phase (funds not available until 2021). The ROW and construction phases are currently unfunded. The design phase and ROW phases are scheduled to be completed in 2022 and construction in 2024 (pending additional grant funds). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & ROW $533,000 $876,000 Administration Construction $6,700,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $533,000 $876,000 $6,700,000 . All or a portion of this project may quality for 1 % for the arts 25 Packet Pg. 107 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 95t" PI. W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $495,000 Intersection Improvements W H r ST S a CC rn cl WESTGATE CHAPEL PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Upgrade all ADA Curb Ramps; and add C-Curb for access management. This project was identified in the SR-104 Complete Streets Corridor Analysis completed in 2015). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection safety for pedestrians and vehicles. SCHEDULE: 2023-2024 unsecured funding COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $75,000 Construction $420,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $75,000 $420,000 26 Packet Pg. 108 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 238t" St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,338,000 Intersection Improvements AD i 10 to 0 ■ To Hwy 99 F 41� 239TH ST SW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal. The warrants are met for such an installation. This project was identified in the SR-104 Complete Street Corridor Analysis (completed in 2015). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve vehicular and pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2023-2024 unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $200,000 Construction $1,138,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $200,000 $1,138,000 0 0 IL U- U N X W c a� E w r Q 27 Packet Pg. 109 6.A.b 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 2026 and 2040 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2040 Planning/Study Engineering, Administration, & ROW $200,000 Construction $983,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $1,183,000 28 Packet Pg. 110 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: 84th Ave. W (212th St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $15,441,000 to 238th St. SW) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 84th Ave. W to (3) lanes with curb, gutter, bike lanes, and sidewalk on each side of the street. (part of this project was ranked #6 in the Long Walkway list of the 2015 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve overall safety of the transportation system along this collector street: 1) the sidewalk and bike lanes would provide pedestrians and cyclists with their own facilities and 2) vehicles making left turn will have their own lane, not causing any back-up to the through lane when insufficient gaps are provided. SCHEDULE: All project phases are scheduled between 2026 and 2040 (unsecured funding). The project costs would be split between Snohomish County and Edmonds since half the project is located within Esperance. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2040 Planning/Study Engineering, $2,000,000 Administration, & ROW Construction $13,441,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $15,441,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 29 Packet Pg. 111 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 100t" Ave. W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,017,468 Intersection Improvements / Access Management EDMONDS WAY ME � M -a 0L I PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Implement Westgate Circulation Access Plan, install mid -block pedestrian crossing along 100t" Ave. W, improve safety to access the driveways within proximity to the intersection, and re -striping of 100t" Ave. W with the potential addition of bike lanes. This project was identified in the SR-104 Completed Streets Corridor Analysis completed in 2015). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve access and safety at the intersection and improve non -motorized transportation safety. SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2023 and 2024 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2040 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $150,000 Construction $867,468 1 % for Art TOTAL $150,000 $867,468 a 30 Packet Pg. 112 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 76t" Ave. W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,017,000 Intersection Improvements *T-4 240iA PL SYY. 'l o'ISI S1 sw LT r�:au I ietluvnLsw ' f I 141111, 1i SW �y LY4Y ai F J LAKE BALLINGEA HAY— - — - —. — MP EMA(MI)S WAY PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Add a 2nd left turn lane along SR-104. This project was identified in the SR-104 Complete Street Corridor Analysis (completed in 2015). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve access and safety at the intersection and improve non -motorized transportation safety. SCHEDULE: 2026-2040. The project costs would be split between Shoreline and Edmonds since half the intersection is located within Shoreline. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2040 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $453,000 Construction $2,564,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $3,017,000 31 Packet Pg. 113 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 17411 St. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $610,000 SW Intersection Improvements L+ 4 + — Meadowdale Middle School — — — J-/, Parking L_ b 6WI St. Thomas Moore —� a e I Catholic School B Ilfield y / SanctuarY PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen Olympic View Dr. to add a northbound left turn lane for 50' storage length. Shift the northbound lanes to the east to provide an acceleration lane for eastbound left turns. Install traffic signal to increase the LOS and reduce intersection delay. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2015 Transportation Plan: #13) PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and safety of drivers accessing either street. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2026 and 2040 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2040 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $100,000 Construction $510,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $610,000 Q 32 Packet Pg. 114 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: Sunset Ave Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,050,000 from Bell St to Caspers St. s UHDVIEwavrs ♦ ♦ �� I■� 11111■0 I ��' IIIIIII :M1■S■1 ■ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Provide a walkway on the west side of the street, facing waterfront (— 112 mile / more recent project). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Temporary improvements were installed in 2017 through striping, in order to evaluate the alignment of the proposed walkway and parking alternatives The design phase is scheduled to be completed in 2023. Construction isn't scheduled to occur until 2024 when utility improvements are scheduled to be completed along this stretch. No grant funding has been secured for the construction phase. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 COST Planning/Study Engineering & $295,000 Administration Construction $2,595,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $295,000 $2,595,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. Q 33 Packet Pg. 115 6.A.b 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 `2q 7 1 nm (0) 1 � ■ � e PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 232nd St. SW from 100th Ave. W to SR-104. This project ranked #3 in the Long Walkway List of 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2024-2025 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $200,000 Construction $1,105,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $200,000 $1,105,000 r� Q 34 Packet Pg. 116 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: 2361" St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,395,000 from Madrona Elementary to 97t" Ave. W �! O v, A 6TH ST SVh� - 9' PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk with curb and gutter along 236nd St. SW from Madrona Elementary to 97t" Ave. W. This project ranked #4 in Long Walkway list of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2024-2025 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $213,000 Construction $1,182,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $213,000 $1,182,000 Q 35 Packet Pg. 117 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: 84th Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $585,000 From 238th St. SW to 234th ST. SW L PARK EonnoNos SAL GALLL APTS m w w LL CH RIST LNTH E RAN CH N RCH O PARK & RIDE OFFICE 236:1 4SUHSET 23603 SAFEWAY $23605 WH L KJIHG R23607 23619 0 P ���R AURORAS MARKETPLACET N 239TH ST SW W SEOUL 23821 PLAZA 2 23827 TRAVEL LODGE 0" NORTH ry HAVEN z n MANOR w a � R p r~ } n•1L LO'N 13ROCK PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 84th Ave. W from 238th St .SW to 234th St. SW, with curb and gutter. This project ranked #5 in the Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: Begin design in 2025 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2040 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $90,000 Construction $495,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $90,000 $495,000 r a 36 Packet Pg. 118 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: 801h Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,996,000 from 206th St. SW to 212th ST. SW I PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 80th Ave. W from 206th St. SW to 212th St. SW with curb and gutter. This project ranked #1 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The improvements will improve non -motorized transportation safety including for school kids due to proximity of several schools). SCHEDULE: 2024-2025 (funding unsecured). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $333,000 Construction $1,663,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $333,000 $1,663,000 37 Packet Pg. 119 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: 21811 St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,305,000 from 76th Ave. W to 84th Ave. W ■■■■N� ���■■ mom r- �A ■■ oil OENT ER Ira&, U1 E PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 218th St. SW from 76th Ave. W to 84th Ave. W with curb and gutter. This project ranked #2 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The improvements will improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2024-2025 unsecured funding COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $200,000 Construction $1,105,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $200,000 $1,105,000 Q 38 Packet Pg. 120 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: Walnut St. Walkway from 3rd ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $105,000 Ave. S to 4th 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 OLD MILLTOWN MAPLE ST TRIC ALDER ST N W a FBECKWT'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 4th Ave. S (ranked #3 in Short Walkway Project list in 2015 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2023 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Stud Engineering & Administration $10,000 Construction $95,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $105.000 " all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 39 Packet Pg. 121 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: 216th St. SW Walkway from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $157,000 Hwy. 99 to 72" d Ave. W 7200 PARK & RIDE 7309 5TEVE N MAN oa M1 rlao 21407 21507 21511 J y IL 0 211 52 M STEVEN C{} ll RT 21527 21B7H 120 EVENS FILION �� 21500 AEGIS S 21600 KRUGER CLINIC 210 B &M40 CONS 21410 2140$ 0. 21401 21412 r 21420 21�MCDONALD' Ln {4N �AL' 21558 VALUE VILLAGE � 21 6 TJl { 21619 - ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install 150' sidewalk on north side of 216th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave. W (completing a missing link on north side of stretch). This project ranked #3 in the Short Walkway List (from 2015 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2023 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $30,000 Construction $127,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $157,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts o� 0 M L 0 a LL U N x w c m E z c� Q 40 Packet Pg. 122 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: Elm Way Walkway from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $830,000 8tn Ave. S to 9t" Ave. S IR L ■ P, PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along Elm Way from 8t" Ave. S to 9t" Ave. S. This project ranked #6 in the Short Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2023-2024 (funding unsecured). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $175,000 Construction $655,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $175,000 $655,000 rn 0 r a+ 0 a w U N x w r c m E U 2 r a 41 Packet Pg. 123 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Dr. Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,330,000 from Main St. to 2001h St. SW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct sidewalk on Maplewood Dr. from Main St. to 200th St. SW (- 2,700'). A sidewalk currently exists on 200th St. SW from Main St. to 76th Ave. W, adjacent to Maplewood Elementary School (rated #18 in the Long Walkway list of the 2015 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Create pedestrian connection between Maplewood Elementary School on 200th St. SW and Main St., by encouraging kids to use non -motorized transportation to walk to / from school. SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2024 and construction in 2024 / 2025 (funding unsecured). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & $436,000 Administration Construction $947,000 $947,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $436,000 $947,000 $947,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 42 Packet Pg. 124 6.A.b PROJECT NAME:95th PI. W Walkway from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $585,000 224th St. SW to 220th St. SW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 95th PI. W from 224th St. SW to 220th St. SW with curb and gutter. This project ranked #8 in the Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: Engineering is scheduled for 2023 and construction in 2024 (funding unsecured) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $100,000 Construction $485,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $100,000 $485.000 43 Packet Pg. 125 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: Railroad Ave. Sidewalk from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $862,000 Dayton St. to SR-104 bt. 4� fi �tio-P W NAYTON 5T P❑ a ? Fo �ONn. ea a 4k DAYTON ST l 1f PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install new and wider sidewalk along Railroad St. from Dayton St. to SR-104. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve non -motorized transportation safety along Railroad St. from Dayton St. to SR-104, key stretch since connects to various destination points such as Senior Center, Port of Edmonds, Downtown Edmonds... . SCHEDULE: All Phases are scheduled in 2023 and 2024 (unsecured funding for all phases). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $160,000 Construction $702,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $160,000 $702,000 r O L 0 IL U_ U N X w r a� E w r Q 44 Packet Pg. 126 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 76th Ave. W non- I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: motorized transportation safety improvements $1,210,000 mr— Ra In a. IqN r� w MS. -V iy ��19 ka,jdN95 WAraFFRq .. _ � LAKE 8At LINGER WRIT-- - - -- - - - Tio MONO WAY PLO a ,.fir r s� sw zr Nla V --�dND5 RFLIIVF LAKi iiAL1.IN PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Extend bike lanes within proximity of the intersection in northbound and southbound directions. Install APS on all corners and new ADA curb ramps. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve non -motorized transportation safety along this section of the Interurban Trail. SCHEDULE: All Phases are scheduled in 2023 and 2024 (unsecured funding for all phases). This intersection is shared with Shoreline and they own the traffic signal. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $224,000 Construction $986,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $224,000 $986,000 r 0 L 0 a U_ U N X W r C d E t v R .r .r Q 45 Packet Pg. 127 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: 191th St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $630,000 from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave. W 1� 192ND PL 5W PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 191th St. SW from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave., with curb and gutter. This project ranked #8 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2026-2040 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2040 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $90,000 Construction $540,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $630,000 46 Packet Pg. 128 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: 10411 Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $990,000 from 238th St. SW to 106th Ave. W PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 104th Ave. W from 238th ST. SW to 106th Ave. W, with curb and gutter. This project ranked #10 in the Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2026-2040 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2040 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $150,000 Construction $840,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $990,000 47 Packet Pg. 129 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: 801h Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $315,000 from 218th St. SW to 220th St. SW ----7--7-1-77 T----------------220TH STSW— PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 80th Ave. W from 218th ST. SW to 220th ST. SW, with curb and gutter. This project ranked #7 in the Short Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2026-2040 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2040 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $55,000 Construction $260,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $315,000 48 Packet Pg. 130 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: 84th Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $315,000 from 188th St. SW to 186th St. SW r`T r 5■■ i r .} K, r '■ F i L ■ r r r ri 186TH ST W m w F■ i-� --. r ■ 18 TH 5 5W ■ L a - IF 1 'r - ■� 188TH 5T 5W LE . P ram ■ L 7 W , a r .; _ 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: 2026-2040 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2040 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $60,000 Construction $255,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $315,000 r Q 49 Packet Pg. 131 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: 23611 St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $765,000 from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W ■ PARK & RIDE 236TH ST SN 2367 2303 SAFEN 235 JI 23607 NON PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 236th St. SW from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W. This project ranked #10 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2026-2040 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2040 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $115,000 Construction $650,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $765,000 50 Packet Pg. 132 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: 23811 St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,170,000 from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W 1 PARK r .•nrIRL NA LN ' , ■ ' EOMONOs APTS BALL ' • • 1 ��r� W w Ov NORTH m CH RIST LH THE RAN CHURCH S N PARK & RIDE R n - 2 TH T OFFICE ■ d `� ,4 , W r SAFEWAY � L KJIHG FC,� I ' L • . SUNSET '•n•1L LO•n: CEj BROOK ■ AURORA- MARKETPLACE FAMILYPANCAKEr j7' � 1 ■ 238TH ST SW "' ■ ■ ■ 23827 seouL PLAZA ' ■ ► 1 23827, TRAVEL LODGE 2397 ■ -MISISON TACO TIM ■ ST. FRA NCIS MOTEL WHSE ■ME . . . - ■ ■ ■ _+ K&EMOTEL 1 1 ■ ■ � I, 1:11 RIl RIl III F 1 ■ ■ ■ � , IN ■ ■ :yA PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 238th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W This project ranked #10 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2026-2040 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2040 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $175,000 Construction $995,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $1,170,000 a 51 Packet Pg. 133 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: 801h Ave. W / 180th St. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,135,000 SW Walkway from 188th St. SW to OVD PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 80th Ave. W from 188th St. SW to OVD. This project ranked #13 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2023-2024 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 20200 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2040 Planning/Study Engineering, ROW, & Administration $440,000 Construction $1,695,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $440,000 $1,695,000 52 Packet Pg. 134 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: 189th PI. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $585,000 from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave. W PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 189th PI. SW from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave. W. This project ranked #14 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2026-2040 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2040 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $115,000 Construction $470,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $585,000 53 Packet Pg. 135 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: Ferry Storage ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $357,000 Improvements from Pine St. Dayton St. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Modify existing lane channelization on SR104 to add vehicle storage for ferry users. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Reduce conflicts between ferry storage and access to local driveways. SCHEDULE: 2023 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $50,000 Construction $307,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $357,000 54 Packet Pg. 136 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: Citywide Bicycle ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000 Improvements A-z. i AI _ Pnpo dBke Pekng �Bke ur.e ® EmMg 63x PaMrylLader - a.,e u,.t_ Exstig PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation bike lanes and sharrows along various stretches as identified on the Proposed Bike Facilities map of 2015 Transportation Plan PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project will create new bike connections to various destination points throughout the City (such as schools, parks, Downtown, Sound Transit Station...). The intent of this project is to get more people riding their bikes and feel more comfortable riding their bikes on the roadway (with safety improvements). SCHEDULE: 2026-204 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026-2040 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $750,000 Construction $4,250,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $5,000,000 55 Packet Pg. 137 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: Dayton St. Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $205,000 between 7th Ave. S to 8th Ave. S MAIN ST I i f Frances Anderson Center m , Of i navTn" IT LU > sTj _ =1rd, MAPI EST - PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along Dayton St between 7th Ave. S and 8th Ave. S. This missing link was identified as #1 in Short Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project will improve pedestrian safety along this stretch. SCHEDULE: The Design was completed in 2019 and construction is scheduled for 2020. The project will be built with the Dayton St. Utility Replacements project (from 3rd Ave. S to 9th Ave. S). The funding source is a 2019 TIB Complete Street grant. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction 192,290 1 % for Art TOTAL $192,290 Q 56 Packet Pg. 138 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: Downtown Lighting ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,500,000 Improvements PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of street lights along various streets within Downtown Edmonds. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project will improve lighting along various stretches within Downtown where street light poles / PUD pole don't currently exist. Those improvements will improve night-time safety for all transportation system users. More users will be encouraged to use active transportation to reach their destination during those hours Sound Transit Station and many other destinations within Downtown). SCHEDULE: The design and construction phases are scheduled to take place in 2023 (unsecured funding). Sound Transit has funding available through ST3 to improve accessibility to the Sound Transit Station. Mukilteo and Edmonds have $40 Million in combined funding to complete projects improving access to the Sound Transit Station (for all modes of transportation). The City submitted this lighting project to be considered by Sound Transit and it is currently being evaluated. A final response from Sound Transit regarding the projects that will be selected is scheduled for late 2019. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering, $100,000 Administration & ROW Construction $1,400,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $1,500,000 57 Packet Pg. 139 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: SR-104 Walkway from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $600,000 HAWK signal to Pine St. / Pine St. Walkway from SR-104 to 3rd Ave. S .%, qx AH RD ♦ „�- � CITY PARK l M 0 ERBfne ❑a J PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of sidewalk with ADA curb ramps along SR-104 from the HAWK signal to Pine St. and along Pine St. from SR-104 to 3rd Ave. S PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project will improve pedestrian connectivity between the residential areas along 3rd Ave. S to Downtown Edmonds and City Park. SCHEDULE: The design and construction phases are scheduled to take place in 2023 and 2024 (unsecured funding). A TIB grant was submitted for this project, with a response scheduled for late 2019. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering, Administration & ROW $135,000 Construction $465,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $135,000 $465,000 58 Packet Pg. 140 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: Walnut St. from 6th Ave. S ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $57,710 to 7th Ave. S ," 4 q }� In Will # � ALDER 5T -- .� ,1 -- PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk on the south side of Walnut St. from 6th Ave. S to 7th Ave. S. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project will improve pedestrian safety along this stretch. SCHEDULE: The Design and construction phases are scheduled to be completed in 2020. The funding source is a 2019 TIB Complete Streets grant. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $5,710 Construction $52,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $57,710 59 Packet Pg. 141 6.A.b c R a r c a� E a� O L Q E 76 .Q R U c ca d N a� tv U- 76 r .Q cv U LO N O N O N O N d N O Q O L- a. a� r a 60 Packet Pg. 142 6.A.b CFP STORMWATER r 0 r a+ L IL LL U N K W r C d E t v R .r r a 61 Packet Pg. 143 6.A.b c a r c a� E a� O L Q E Q m U c to d N a� r .v R W r Q O U LO N O N O N Co N d fA O Q O L a a� w Q 62 Packet Pg. 144 / 4\\ -z2 K(naq _ ! 04 wji§ 2 0 ■ @ »LTL@— e)o \° 0 q Packet Pg. 145 6.A.b c R a r c a� E a� O L Q E 76 .Q R U c ca d N a� tv U- 76 r .Q cv U LO N O N O N O N d N O Q O L- a. a� r a 64 Packet Pg. 146 6.A.b o`' 'q0' ,,p O 0� Q� 305 R MP Q #17.4 120 MALL ¢C' 184 R ¢¢y R d 8 �c Ilk u EDMO DS J AND EOMONOS ;� m w SHOPPING CT 180 '200 200 _ Q11A Q -9J 1461 Ni N P DAY TO N S T 0 20Q w BAN et z W 210 LU Q ARTS 222 z a ENTER v 224 NC LU LU N ❑ I JA TUU C/% 3 Q r Z UHDOWN JR _P$0 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Add a lift station in the Beach Place parking lot and supporting stormwater conveyance structures. The scope also includes baffle manholes to divert flows away from Harbor Square and the Edmonds Marsh, and provide a sub -surface connection for overflows. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To reduce flooding at the intersection of Dayton St. and State Hwy 104. The Project is part of a series of projects recommended in the 2013 study of necessary storm water improvements related to Shellabarger Creek, Willow Creek, and Edmonds Marsh. The project is complimentary to the Willow Creek Daylighting project in that the pump is required to manage flood conditions after the daylighting project is completed. SCHEDULE: A construction contract has been awarded and is expected to be substantially complete in 2019. Total cost est. at $2.1 M; 2020 budget shown is intended for project close- out. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 COST Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $15,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $15,000 65 Packet Pg. 147 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh / Willow Creek ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $16,650,000 Daylighting — Design & Construction Aerial photo of Marsh from 2018 General Project Location Marsh as it existed in 1941 Updated project concept PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project will daylight Willow Creek and help begin restoration efforts in the Marsh. The project has three sub -components including (1) daylighting Willow Creek through the Edmonds Marsh and existing Unocal property, (2) daylighting of the Willow Creek through Marina Beach Park and redevelopment of the Park, and (3) excavation/reestablishment of tidal channels within the Marsh. The project includes significant re -vegetation and mitigation within the Marsh to improve habitat conditions and, depending on the final recommended alternative, may also include significant flood wall and/or berms. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The daylighting of Willow Creek and subsequent redevelopment of Marina Beach park will help reverse the negative impacts to Willow Creek and Edmonds Marsh that occurred when Willow Creek was piped in the early 1960s. This project will provide habitat for salmonids, including rearing of juvenile Chinook. The project, along with its companion CIP project "Dayton Street Pump Station", will also help reduce the flooding problem at the intersection of SR-104 and Dayton Street. This project is a priority in the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. SCHEDULE: 2019 - 2023 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. $775,000 $1,875,000 Construction $7,000,000 $7,000,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $775,000 $1,875,000 $7,000,000 $7,000,000 66 Packet Pg. 148 6.A.b PROJECT NAME: Seaview Park Infiltration ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $742,700 Facility Phase 2 1 \ Proposed Phase 2 !! 1 o Iv IF uP Id 172n 1 173 d �0 � o Ia it Yalbot �, - IF o . Frederick 175th y I ^ o r IF, 1n N i Seaview 78th 77t 1 7 ht 1. y Park 79th - N 180 1 oth fi `y ry815 ❑ Distribution Chamber I 2nd 18 rid Q` Diversion Structure Inspection Port �i O�� C I© Swirl Concentrator ss W 1 4 �a a C maier goaidy realo.) Well Cl).. Modify exist. flow s ` 185th 'a 85th 0 ~ : c Limits of Phase 1 diaersion structure ,Ln N 18 th r p. Catch Basin A sketch of the project provided in grant application materials. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City applied for and received a grant from the Department of Ecology to design and construct an additional stormwater infiltration facility in Seaview Park. The proposal will duplicate the system successfully installed during Phase 1 and is tentatively planned for construction in 2022. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Urbanization of the Perrinville Creek Basin has increased flows in the creek, incision of the creek, and sedimentation in the low -gradient downstream reaches of the creek. A flow reduction study for the Perrinville Creek basin was completed in 2015. This study recommended a number of flow control and water quality projects to improve the conditions in Perrinville Creek. Control of the sediment loads in Perrinville Creek must be achieved before proceeding with additional fish habitat improvement and removal of the sediment collection structure the City currently maintains on the creek near Talbot Road. SCHEDULE: Design is anticipated to begin in 2020 with construction planned for 2022 in order to allow ample time to acquire permits and meet grant obligations during the design phase. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 COST Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. $241,000 $6,100 Construction $495,600 1 % for Art TOTAL $241,000 $6,100 $495,600 a 67 Packet Pg. 149 6.A.b c R a r c a� E a� O L Q E 76 .Q R U c ca d N a� tv U- 76 r .Q cv U LO N O N O N O N d N O Q O L- a. a� r a 68 Packet Pg. 150 UP / CIP COMPARISON (2019 TO 2020) 6.A.c ADDED PROJECTS FUND PROJECT NAME I UP I DESCRIPTION Building I Public Safety Ground Fence I lInstall new security fence around the parking lot at the public safety building. 112 Walnut St. Walkway from 6th Ave. S to 7th Ave. S Install walkway on south side of Walnut St. from 6th Ave. S to 7th Ave. S (funded X by TIB Complete Street grant) 112 SR-104 Walkway from HAWK signal to Pine St / Pine St. from SR-104 to 3rd Install walkway along SR-104 from HAWK signal to Pine St. and along Pine St. Ave. S X from SR-104 to 3rd Ave. S 112 Citywide Bicycle Improvements X Add bike lanes and sharrows along various stretches throughout the City. 112 Downtown Lighting Improvements Installation of new light poles at various locations throughout Downtown to X improve night-time safety for all modes of transportation. 126 Civic Park design I x longoing, anticipated completion in 2020/2021 126 Waterfront Redevelopment/Ebb tide walkway design I x jongoing, anticipated completion in 2019/2020 421 Phase 15 Annual Replacement Program (2026) jEstimated future costs for waterline replacements. 421 Citywide Pedestrian Enhancements I IPeclestrian enhancements at various locations in the City 421 2020 Waterline Overlays jEstimated future costs for road repairs due to waterline replacements. 422 Phase 7 Annual Storm Replacement Project (2026) jEstimated future cost for Storm pipe replacements 422 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 x Enlargement of infiltration facility to decrease peak flows into Perrinville Creek 423 Phase 13 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements (2026) 1 1 Estimated future costs for sewerline replacements/rehab/impr. 423 Lake Ballinger Sewer I jEstimated future costs for sewer project. LO N 0 N O N O N m O M O d a� t r c O a� c c� m 2 v d Page 1 of 3 Packet Pg. 151 6.A.c UP / CIP COMPARISON (2019 TO 2020) DELETED PROJECTS FUND I PROJECT NAME I CFP I DESCRIPTION 112 76th Ave. W @ 212th St. SW Intersection Improvements X Completed in 2019 112 SR-104 @ 226th St. SW / 15th St. SW Intersection Improvements X Completed in 2019 112 2nd Ave. S Walkway from James St. to Main St. X To be installed as part of up -coming development 112 238th St SW. Island and ADA Curb Ramps Completed in 2019 112 Pavement Rating Study Included within Annual Street Preservation Program 125 Audible Pedestrian Signals Completed in 2019 125 Anderson Center playground Completed 125 Civic Stadium removal Completed 125 Veterans Plaza Completed 125 City Park Storage Anticipate completion 126 Trackside Warning System Completed in 2019. 126 220th St. SW Signal Coordination Completed in 2019 126 238th St SW. Island and ADA Curb Ramps Completed in 2019 126 Admiral Way Anticipate completion 126 89th PI Retaining Wall Replacement Completed in 2019 421 2016 Water System Plan Update Completed in 2018. 421 2018 Waterline Overlays Completed in 2018. 421 76th Ave. W @ 212th St. SW Intersection Improvements Completed in 2019. 421 Annual Replacement Program (Phase 8) 2017 Completed in 2019. 421 Annual Replacement Program (Phase 9) 2018 1 lCompleted in 2019. 422 Northstream Culvert Abandonement Completed 422 Seaview Infiltration Facility Phase 1 Completed 422 City-wide Drainage Replacement Projects Project completed at 71st & 174th; funding for out years revised into individual phased annual repalcement proejcts 422 76th Ave @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements (Storm) Completed in 2019 422 2018 Lorian Woods Study IStudy complete 423 Phase 4 Annual Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Impr (2016) lCompleted in 2018 423 Phase 6 Annual Sewer Repl/Rehab/Improvements (2018) 1 I lCompleted in 2019 423 76th Ave. W @ 212th St. SW Intersection Improvements lCompleted in 2019 LO N O N a� c m 2 v d H u_ Q 0 N O N O N 0 N c O N �L E O U d u_ U d U ai K W C m E t v r r Q Page 2 of 3 Packet Pg. 152 6.A.c UP / CIP COMPARISON (2019 TO 2020) CHANGED PROJECTS FUND I PROJECT NAME I CFP I CHANGE 422 IPerrinville Creek Flow Management Projects 1 12020 & 2021 values reduced to provide funding for Seaview Phase 2 Ln N O N �L V LL NQ 0 ui N O N O N O N C O N �L Q E O U d u_ U d U ai K LU c CD E t r r Q Page 3 of 3 Packet Pg. 153 6.A.d Staff responses to questions from 10/9/19 Planning Board Meeting: 1. QUESTION -Why is there no funding for traffic calming in 2020? How much is in the budget next year and in which fund? CITY RESPONSE - There is $18,000 in the proposed 2020 budget for traffic calming in Fund 126 (REET). 2. QUESTION - Why is the photo being used on page 171 when the scope doesn't match the picture? CITY RESPONSE - The debt service for City Hall was paid off in 2014. The picture has been replaced with the Frances Anderson Center, since there is on -going debt payments. 3. QUESTION - 196tn & 881n intersection — has roundabout been considered? CITY RESPONSE - In 2007, an engineering study was completed at this intersection. Different alternatives to improve intersection operation and safety due to the skewness of the intersection and existing sight distance issues were developed. A list of different alternatives was identified, ranging from restricting certain movements, installation of roundabout, traffic signal, or an all -way stop. The restriction of the left / through movements for the northbound movement (making movement right turn only) was the recommended alternative upon completion of the study. However, this alternative wasn't approved by Council as well as all the other proposed solutions. The roundabout option was considered (as shown in Attachment #1), However, such an installation was estimated at — $4 Million (ROW costs, profile grades on the approaches, 5-approaches, and steep drop on the west side of the intersection). 4. QUESTION - Main & 9tn St. intersection — pedestrian safety with roundabout is important because of the high volume road. CITY RESPONSE - No schematic has been generated for this intersection. However, similar mini - roundabout have been completed (see Attachment #2) showing the general location of the pedestrian crossings. Based on the existing inscribed circle diameter (— 70'), this intersection would be a possible candidate for such an installation (typically between 45' and 90'). In 2019, flashing LED's will be installed around all the STOP signs to re -enforce to the driver that they need to come up to a complete stop. QUESTON - 76tn & SR524 —The northbound que backs -up to exit driveway at QFC. Board member has seen several accidents with cars trying to turn left out of the driveway to head south on 76tn CITY RESPONSE - The long northbound queueing at this intersection has previously been passed on to Lynnwood (once they converted the intersection for the NB and SB movements from split phasing to concurrent movements with Flashing Yellow Arrow a several of years ago). Additional green time has been allocated to the northbound and southbound movements. However, we will notify Lynnwood of this concern. Packet Pg. 154 6.A.d 6. QUESTION - SR104 & 95h —What is the scope of work for $420k? CITY RESPONSE - The scope of work for $420k is for ADA curb ramp upgrades and addition of C- Curb along SR-104 to provide access management. The addition of left turn phasing along SR- 104 was also included in the scope of work but that improvement was completed in 2017. 7. QUESTION - More rectangular rapid flashing beacon's (RRFB's) should be added around schools? CITY RESPONSE - In 2019, RRFB's will be added on all corners at SR-524 / 3rd Ave. N @ Bell St. In 2020 (as part of the Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements project), RRFB's are scheduled to be installed at the following locations: a. 76th Ave. W 206th St. SW (existing crosswalk in front of College Place Elementary and Middle School) b. 2291h PI. W @ 1061h Ave. W (existing crosswalk in front of Sherwood Elementary School) c. SR-524 @ 7th Ave. N / Brookmere St. d. Dayton St. @ 2nd Ave. S e. Dayton St. @ Commercial Driveway (existing crosswalk to west side of SR-104 on Dayton St.) f. Walnut St. @ 81h Ave. S g. Main St. @ Olympic Ave. Packet Pg. 155 R 4 r { �s 49 Jo3 All. S8 ? ! xs .69gR A I 11 Fos '['�a � 01 `3660, 1 I4•11 >1 6.A.e ._� s ] �x00 d 00 OP r t Lo 1 4 CSC O r r W CITY OF EDMONDS FIGURE 4-4 E t ALTERNATIVE F ROUNDABOUT } Q CONSU j Me, Lao. Packet Pg. 156 —7 . ! Packet Pg. 157 6.B Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/23/2019 Public Hearing on Comprehensive Plan Amendment regarding Housing implementation (referred from the City Council) Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Development Services Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History The City Council approved Resolution #1420 (attached) on December 11, 2018, docketing a comprehensive plan amendment to be considered in 2019. Staff Recommendation Forward the amendment to the City Council with a recommendation. Staff recommends the third option, given that the Housing Commission is in progress and has a sunset date by the end of 2020. Narrative This is concerning an implementation action regarding housing in the City's Comprehensive Plan. "Implementation actions" are used in the Comprehensive Plan to identify a few specific time -related priorities that will be carried out. This year the City Council established a Housing Commission to study housing policy issues. Because the Commission's work is scheduled to take place during 2019-2020, the Council also felt it was appropriate to modify the related implementation action contained in the Comprehensive Plan; the existing action identified 2019 as the date for developing a 'housing strategy'. Council -adopted Resolution #1420 identified two options to consider as ways to amend the implementation action in the plan. Staff has also identified a third option. Please refer to Attachment 1 for the various options. Attachments: Attachment 1: 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Housing Implementation Options Attachment 2: Resolution 1420 Attachment 3: Council minutes 12-11-2018 Packet Pg. 158 6.B.a 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Options for amending Housing Implementation Action #1 Option #1. (From City Council Resolution) Delete the existing language in its entirety. Option #2. (From City Council Resolution) Amend the existing language as follows: Implementation Action: Develop a strategy by 2019202 for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs. Note: The final amendment will specify a date for completion. Since the Housing Commission is not scheduled to complete its work until the end of 2020, 2021 could be a reasonable date to recommend to complete this implementation action. Option #3. (From City Staff) Amend the existing language as follows: Implementation Action: Develop a strategy by 20 o fer increasing the supply f -,ff rdable housing and meeting diverse heusiRg Peed-S Provide housing policy options by the end of 2020 for City Council rnnririPrntinn Packet Pg. 159 6.B.b RESOLUTION NO. 1420 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DOCKETING TWO PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR CONSIDERATION AND ACTION IN 2019. WHEREAS, the city shall undertake comprehensive plan amendments only once per year; and WHEREAS, all amendments requested by the city or private parties shall be reviewed concurrently to ensure that the integrity of the comprehensive plan is preserved; and WHEREAS, proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan are to be submitted no later than December 31 st of every year to be docketed for consideration in the following year; and WHEREAS, docketing amendments in no way commits the city council to adopt those amendments in the following year; and WHEREAS, after proposed amendments have been docketed, the city council shall consider proposed amendments and may subsequently approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, the housing element of the comprehensive plan, on page 96, currently contains the following language, which is referenced below as the Existing Language: Implementation Action: Develop a strategy by 2019 for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs. WHEREAS, in response to significant public input regarding the housing strategy, the city council would like to conduct further deliberations in 2019 regarding whether the Existing Language should remain in the comprehensive plan, be amended by changing the year, or be deleted from the comprehensive plan in its entirety; now therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The city council hereby dockets the following proposed comprehensive plan amendments for consideration in 2019: Proposed amendment #1: The Existing Language is deleted in its entirety as follows: Packet Pg. 160 6.B.b Proposed amendment #2: The Existing Language is amended to read as follows: Implementation Action: Develop a strategy by 204-9202 1 for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs. Section 2. The administration is requested to take any necessary and appropriate steps to ensure that the above proposed amendments are considered in 2019. RESOLVED this 111i, day of December, 2018. CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR, DAVE EARLING ATTEST: CL K, SC '' PASSEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: December 7, 2018 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: December 11, 2018 RESOLUTION NO. 1420 1 The blank space here should be filled in pursuant to city council motion. Packet Pg. 161 s.g.� comparators could be found. She suggested an annual cost of living increase for the position and a one-time increase to reflect that it had been three years since the last increase. Councilmember Tibbott said it could be beneficial to extend the contract to consider options and to allow the contracts for the Video Recorder and the Legislative Assistant to be approved at the same time. Council President Nelson questioned whether the research of comparators could be completed by the time the Legislative Assistant contract expired; there were comparators available for the Legislative Assistant position. He clarified his motion was for a two -month extension of the Audio Video Recorder contract. He recommended taking action on the Legislative Assistant contract next year. Councilmember Mesaros said if the information regarding comparators for the Video Recorder position is received sooner than two months, the Council could take action on that contract, possibly at the same time as the renewal of the Legislative Assistant contract. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. RESOLUTION RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND HOUSING STRATEGY Council President Nelson read the resolution title, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Edmonds, Washington, Docketing Two Proposed Amendments to the Housing Element of the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan for Consideration and Action in 2019. He explained there are four options: 1) do nothing, 2) support one amendment, 3) support the other amendment, or 4) support the resolution as adopted (consider both amendments in 2019). COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 1420, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DOCKETING TWO PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR CONSIDERATION AND ACTION IN 2019 AS CURRENTLY DRAFTED. For Councilmember Buckshnis, City Attorney Jeff Taraday clarified the resolution simply dockets both options. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. SELECTION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR 2019 Mayor Earling described the process, Councilmembers make nominations, nominations do not need a second. The nominee that receives the most votes is selected. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL NOMINATED COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS FOR COUNCIL PRESIDENT IN 2019. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS NOMINATED COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS FOR COUNCIL PRESIDENT IN 2019. There were no further nominations. COUNCILMEMBERS MESAROS, TIBBOTT AND TEITZEL VOTED IN FAVOR OF COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTED IN FAVOR OF COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 11, 2018 Page 24 Packet Pg. 162 9.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/23/2019 Review 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 current extended agenda is attached. Attachments: 10-23-2019 PB Extended Agenda Packet Pg. 163 �y0,0 EDV o Items and Dates are subject to change pLAKIMFW� BOARD Extended Agenda October 18, 2019 Meeting Item OCTOBER, 2019 October 1. Housing Commission Update 23 2. Public Hearing on CIP/CFP 2020 — 2025 3. Public Hearing on Comprehensive Plan Amendment regarding Housing Implementation (referred from the City Council) NUVtMtitK, ZU19 November 1. Presentation on potential amendment to the CW — Commercial 13 Waterfront zone to allow lodging or hotels as a permitted use 2. Presentation on potential amendment to the Unit Lot Subdivision application procedure 3. VISION 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies Update (next steps in PSRC process) November HOLIDAY 27 DECEMBER, 2019 December 1. Public Hearing on potential amendment to the CW — Commercial 11 Waterfront zone to allow lodging or hotels as a permitted use 2. Public Hearing on potential amendment to the unit lot subdivision application procedure 3. Election of Officers December HOLIDAY 25 Packet Pg. 164 9.A.a Items and Dates are subject to change Pending 1. Community Development Code Amendments / Re -Organization 2020 2. Further Highway 99 Implementation, including: ✓ Potential for "urban center" or transit -oriented design/development strategies ✓ Parking standards 3. Exploration of incentive zoning and incentives for sustainable development 4. Neighborhood Center Plans & implementation. 5. Highway 99 Implementation Recurring 1. Election of Officers (V meeting in December) Topics 2. Parks & Recreation Department Quarterly Report (January, April, July, October) Packet Pg. 165