Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2014.07.22 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers ~ Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds SPECIAL MEETING JULY 22, 2014 6:30 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER 1.(30 Minutes)Convene in executive session regarding Collective Bargaining per RCW 42.30.140(1)(a) REGULAR MEETING JULY 22, 2014 7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER/ FLAG SALUTE 2.(5 Minutes)Roll Call 3.(5 Minutes)Approval of Agenda 4.(5 Minutes)Approval of Consent Agenda Items A.AM-7015 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of July 15, 2014. B.AM-7011 Approval of claim checks #209538 through #209641 dated July 17, 2014 for $542, 042.57 (reissued check #209575 $4,086.92). Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #61095 through #61110 for $469,501.59, benefit checks #61067, #61111 through #61116 and wire payments for $446,876.40 for the period July 1, 2014 through July 15, 2014. C.AM-7008 Authorization for Mayor to approve acceptance of easements from the U-Save property for the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement Project D.AM-7007 Approval of 2014 Taxicab Operator's License for Yellow Cab of Washington E.AM-7018 Update on funds for Historic Preservation Calendar Packet Page 1 of 524 5.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings 6.(10 Minutes) AM-7005 Presentation by Northwest SEED regarding Solarize South County 7.(20 Minutes) AM-7004 Update on Stormwater Code 8.(10 Minutes) AM-7010 Introduction to Critical Area Ordinance Update 9.(30 Minutes) AM-7013 Preview of the Planning Board's recommendations to adopt a comprehensive plan text amendment, zoning code text amendment, and zoning map change to implement a new development plan for the Westgate commercial area. 10.(20 Minutes) AM-7012 Continued Discussion of Comprehensive Plan Update 11.(5 Minutes) AM-7016 Confirmation of Mayor Earling's appointment of Patrick Doherty as the new Community Services/Economic Development Director. 12.(15 Minutes) AM-6992 Report on City Council Committee Meetings of July 8, 2014. 13.(5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments 14.(15 Minutes)Council Comments 15.Convene in executive session regarding pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). 16.Reconvene in open session. Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session. ADJOURN Packet Page 2 of 524 AM-7015 4. A. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:07/22/2014 Time:Consent Submitted By:Scott Passey Department:City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Action Information Subject Title Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of July 15, 2014. Recommendation Review and approve meeting minutes. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative The draft minutes are attached. Attachments 07-15-14 Draft Council Meeting minutes Form Review Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 07/18/2014 08:20 AM Final Approval Date: 07/18/2014 Packet Page 3 of 524 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES July 15, 2014 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Diane Buckshnis, Council President Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Strom Peterson, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Police Chief Don Anderson, Assistant Police Chief Phil Williams, Public Works Director Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director Shane Hope, Development Services Director Scott James, Finance Director Rob English, City Engineer MaryAnn Hardie, Human Resources Manager Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Sandy Chase, Sr. Executive Council Asst. Gerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PER RCW 42.30.140(1)(a) At 6:30 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session to discuss collective bargaining per RCW 42.30.140(1)(a). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 30 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso, Bloom and Mesaros. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Parks & Recreation/Human Resources Reporting Director Carrie Hite, Police Chief Al Compaan, Human Resources Manager MaryAnn Hardie and City Clerk Scott Passey. At 7:00 p.m., Mayor Earling announced to the public present in the Council Chambers that an additional 10 minutes would be required in executive session. At 7:12 p.m., Mayor Earling announced an additional 5 minutes would be required in executive session. The executive session concluded at 7:15 p.m. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:18 p.m. and led the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. (Councilmember Bloom was out of the room.) 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Packet Page 4 of 524 COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER, ADDING A BRIEF EXECUTIVE SESSION TO EVALUATE THE QUALIFICATIONS OF AN APPLICANT FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT AS AGENDA ITEM 11A AND WAIVER OF THE THIRD INTERVIEW AS AGENDA ITEM 11B. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Bloom was not present for the vote.) 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Petso requested Item D be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Bloom was not present for the vote.)The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 1, 2014 B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #209348 THROUGH #209442 DATED JULY 3, 2014 FOR $181,911.34, REISSUED CHECK #209443 AND CLAIM CHECKS #209444 THROUGH #209537 DATED JULY 10, 2014 FOR $228,487.02. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS (REPLACEMENT CHECK #61065 THROUGH #61066) #61069 THROUGH #61085 FOR $476,165.93, BENEFIT CHECKS#61068, #61086 THROUGH #61094 AND WIRE PAYMENTS OF $423,990.52 FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 16, 2014 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2014 C. 2014 MAY BUDGETARY FINANCIAL REPORT E. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES FOR DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE 2015 SEWERLINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT F. RENEWAL OF INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH SNOHOMISH REGIONAL DRUG & GANG TASK FORCE 2014-2015 G. RESOLUTION AMENDING DEVELOPMENT FEE SCHEDULE TO INCLUDE VIOLATION COMPLIANCE FEE ITEM D: REAPPOINTMENT OF MARLA MILLER TO THE PFD BOARD Councilmember Petso explained she pulled this as Consent Agenda items are typically routine or have been reviewed Council committee. As it was neither routine nor reviewed by committee, she wanted to ensure the Council was aware of it. She spoke in favor of reappointing Ms. Miller to the PFD Board, commenting her experience in the public sector is very helpful to the PFD Board. (Councilmember Bloom returned to Council Chambers at 7:21 p.m.) COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE ITEM D. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Chuck Gold, Edmonds, thanked Mayor Earling for his speeches that highlight the problems Edmonds faces from increased railroad traffic and double tracking. The Edmonds train trench solves all the problems as well as many environment, noise and other issues while adding value, quality of life and Packet Page 5 of 524 making the train inviable instead of an ugly industrial feature. He has had many conversations with citizens and groups since the www.EdmondsTrainTrench.net website went live two weeks ago; this is the first project ever proposed that benefits everyone and has no opposition other than questions of logistics and cost. Although many of the questions have been addressed on the website, they can only be answered by a qualified train trench engineering company such as those that constructed the below water table Reno trench in preliminary design studies during the window of opportunity to work with BNSF’s plans to double track. He relayed a BNSF engineer’s comment last week at the Saturday’s Farmers Market that the long horn blast earlier in the week was from a stuck horn and not intentional. The engineering liked the trench idea and felt BNSF would also. He summarized it is important to move forward as soon as possible to develop a plan to bring to BNSF, Washington State Ferries and other stakeholders together. In addition to costing far less than any previous proposal, the Edmonds train trench offers the unique opportunity to create a private-public partnership that is highly cost effective for the public and BNSF. Catherine Gold, Edmonds, ceded her time to Mr. Gold. Mr. Gold provided a chart comparing six-lane overpass/tunnel and all other alternative plans to the Edmonds train trench. Although all resolve ferry conflict and emergency access at Main 24/7, only the train trench solves emergency access at Dayton 24/7, maintains and improves Edmonds economy, eliminates train horns and crossings, waterfront more attractive experience, expanded multi-point pedestrian access, increases property values, decreases liability and risk to City and BNSF, reduces danger from toxic, flammable and explosive railroad cargo accidents, directs toxic cargo runoff away from marsh and waterfront, likely lowest cost project with railroad partner, becomes invisible – Edmonds stays the same. He relayed cons of the other projects including changes view of waterfront from bowl, increased flooding risk with subsurface road, removes 4.5 million annual ferry customers from local economy, massive disruptive road project, permanently industrializes the town’s look and feel. He summarized everyone agrees on the plan and the only questions are whether it can be done, the cost, where trains will go during construction, etc. Sally Wassall, Edmonds, resident on Sunset Avenue, explained when two construction sites on Sunset were surveyed it was discovered the City’s sidewalk in on their and their neighbor’s property. The City has been using the west 45 feet of their property for years. This situation needs to be rectified by the City either moving the sidewalk off their property or buying/leasing the property. She doubted the City could claim imminent domain or adverse possession for BNSF property. She agreed with Councilmember Bloom that the walkway should be built on Edmonds property and not BNSF property. The walkway should also be located closer to the business area so the merchants benefit from foot traffic. Marilyn Lindberg, Edmonds, relayed her continued objection to the proposed Sunset Avenue walkway, fearing citizens would pay for cost overruns. She questioned the cost of fill to bring the lowest part of the bank to the street level; it could not be funded via a federal grant because it is on BNSF property. She also questioned what input BNSF has had into this project. She feared fill on BNSF property would raise the question of a 6-foot fence like was planned in 1995. The 20 feet of unimpeded roadway required by the Fire Department and the 10 foot walkway leaves no space for parking on Sunset which would be detrimental to citizen who park on Sunset to enjoy the view. She pointed out problems created by Mother Nature such as surface water that backed up 15 feet into her driveway last fall and strong northerly winds and high tide in 2002 or 2003 that destroy railroad tracks and caused the rock retaining wall to collapse. She summarized there were many unanswered questions. Jim Wassall, Edmonds, commented many disabled people, some who cannot get out of their cars, park on Sunset Avenue to enjoy the view. He questioned how they could enjoy the view if the Sunset Avenue project eliminated the parking. He recommended the walkway be built on Edmonds property, not on BNSF’s property. He questioned whether BNSF or the City would maintain bluff, anticipating it would likely be the City. He liked the idea of a train trench, citing the need for emergency vehicle access to the west side of the tracks. Packet Page 6 of 524 Lay Brother Steven Gerard Sidlovsky, referred to a flyer regarding Edmonds Neighborhood and Business District Citizen Overlay Life Peace Zone. He travels the county to present this concept and is seeking citizens who want to add a new chapter to the zoning code regarding citizen overlay zone. He referred to two books regarding this concept, “40 Days for Life” and “Healing the Culture.” A citizen overlay would allow citizens to make proactive decisions regarding uses they do not want in their community such as an abortion facility, a gun shop, marijuana store, etc. He encouraged the City to consider this new possibility. Carol Nickisher, Edmonds, relayed her opposition to the walkway project and suggested the Council consider all the reasons she and others such as the Wassalls and Ms. Lindberg have previously expressed. She referred to Mr. Gold’s statement that the trench will allow Edmonds to stay the same, commenting if the desire is to have Edmonds stay the same, the Council will not pursue the multipurpose pathway because it will destroy last bit of natural waterfront in Edmonds. She collected 70 signatures in the past and anticipated she could collect many more walking the embankment. She urged the Council to consider all the reasons for opposing project. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented when visiting Sunset Avenue recently to smell the salt air and observe the water, tidelands and birds, he had to park illegally because the parking on Sunset Avenue was completely full; only one person walking. He commented on the history of Sunset Avenue where a one- way street replaced two lanes. The simplest approach is to remove/change funding for the Sunset Avenue Walkway so that staff will longer pursue installing a 12 foot pathway. If something is needed, he suggested installing a standard size 4-foot sidewalk, drainage, curb and 2-way bike lane which will leave room for parking. He concluded there were ways to make this a good project without deteriorating the neighborhood. 6. PROCLAMATION IN RECOGNITION OF PARK AND RECREATION MONTH, JULY 2014 Mayor Earling read a proclamation in recognition of Parks & Recreation Month, July 2014. Parks & Recreation Commission Carrie Hite commented she was fortunate to work for Edmonds. Edmonds is unique; it highly prioritizes and supports its park system. She recognized the incredible team of parks and recreation professionals that work for the City and make it possible to provide such great services such as summer rec programs, camps concerts at parks, concerts at Hazel Miller Plaza, the circus at Civic Fields, park improvement projects such as City Park that 100 volunteers helped construct, the Hazel Miller Plaza, the Woodway fields, and working with EarthCorp and the RCO on the Edmonds Marsh and daylighting Willow Creek. She summarized it was a pleasure to work in a community that valued parks and recreation and she thanked the community for their support. 7. PRESENTATION AND POTENTIAL ACTION TO AWARD BID FOR CITY PARK SPRAY PAD DESIGN SERVICES Parks & Recreation Commission Carrie Hite relayed the request: authorize the Mayor to sign a professional services agreement with Site Workshop for completion of the design, permitting, construction documents. The following options were presented to the Council several months ago after difficulties were encountered with geotech work, permitting and the Department of Ecology for a water reuse system: 1. Allocate additional funds ($320,000) to redesign and continue design for water reuse system 2. Cease project 3. Explore other options (install playground and look for another location for the spray pad) Packet Page 7 of 524 She noted exploration of other options was dependent on approval from the funding sources ($270,000 from Hazel Miller Foundation, $80,000 from Snohomish County and $500,000 from State of Washington Recreation and Conservation Office). Council direction at that time was to explore more options. Site Workshop, the second highest bidder, completed 30% of design that included considering alternative sites. She displayed a drawing of a Prow Concept developed by Site Workshop. She explained more geotech work was done and the water table is where it is. A water recirculating system is still a green option but needs less clearance. Health Code requires a water recirculating systems be within 100 feet of a restroom. That waiver could not be obtained last year for the water reuse system; the City received the waiver from Snohomish Health District last week for the water recirculating system. This allows the spray pad to be co-located with the playground. The geotech report allows clearance for a 5,000 gallon water recirculating tank. This concept is named “Prow” because it has a maritime theme. She referred to bow shapes in the upper section that include gathering areas and spray features. The playground is located in the lower area. The footprint is the same to minimize construction costs. There are plans to excavate to the south to add swings and other play features. She displayed a drawing of the use zones in the Prow Concept. Ms. Hite explained Site Workshop was asked to determine how the playground could be installed without waiting for 100% design of the spray ground. Site Workshop prepared a site diagram to allow installation of the play area and fence off the spray ground until it can be installed. The playground at City Park was installed two weekends ago with the help of a work party. Park crew spread the old play chips where the spray area will be and placed picnic tables in that location for the summer. She displayed a photograph of the playground and picnic tables, noting it has been a very popular area. The only complaint has been the lack of swings; the swings will be installed during the second phase after excavation to the south. She explained Site Workshop is ready and willing to expedite 60-90% permit documents for construction. She anticipated going out to bid in late August, doing the underground spray ground work in October, noting the water table would be higher if that work is delayed until March. Installation of the spray pad and components would begin in March; the goal is to have the spray pad open by Memorial Day. She commented on the great working relationship with Site Workshop who has an incredible amount of experience with spray grounds. She reviewed the project budget: Total project budget $1,350,000 Previous design work, survey, SEPA permitting wetland mitigation, etc. $ 110,000 Playground (Use of volunteers saved $20,000 - $25,000) $ 180,000 Site Workshop $ 20,000 Site workshop (this agreement0 $ 115,000 Balance remaining $ 925,000 Projected spray ground cost and soft costs (permitting, taxes, contingencies) $ 650,000 She anticipated any unforeseen issues that would add to the cost would be known by October/November 2014 and could be included in the 2015 CIP. Councilmember Petso asked whether any opportunity was offered for public input on the preliminary design or was there a stage in the project when that opportunity would be offered. Ms. Hite answered there was a great deal of public input on the original concept of a spray park in City Park. There was also a great deal of public comment in 1996, 2002 and 2008 and 2014 on the Park, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan which includes a similar concept for the spray pad. There was also public comment on the Packet Page 8 of 524 playground and the equipment was selected by popular vote. The public has not been asked to comment on the spray park concept design because it consistent with what has been discussed. Selection of the spray park components is done via competitive bid; her intent is to use best practices for the specific equipment. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH SITE WORKSHOP FOR COMPLETION OF DESIGN OF THE SPRAY PAD AT CITY PARK. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON VOTING NO. 8. AUTHORIZATION TO AMEND INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH SNOHOMISH COUNTY FOR HUD "URBAN COUNTY" REQUALIFICATION Development Services Director Shane Hope explained the request is to authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment to the Interlocal Agreement (ILA) with Snohomish County. The ILA has been in place for several years. The Federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Department provides block grant funds to participating jurisdictions. HUD has requested a slight amendment to the ILA to allow an additional grant program, clean up language regarding the Fair Housing Act as well as a few technical amendments. There are no substantive changes to the ILA. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AMENDMENT TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH SNOHOMISH COUNTY FOR URBAN COUNTY REQUALIFICATION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2014 BUDGET Finance Director Scott James reviewed the 2nd quarter budget amendment request: • 19 decision packages • 10 decision packages have previously been discussed by the City Council (pages 10-20) • 9 new decision packages (pages 21-30) • $115,667 in new revenue • $1,421,734 in expenditures He identified changes made to pages 7 and 8 that were not included in the packet materials. These included separating the Comprehensive Plan Extra Help and Solar Grant, previously presented as one item; and funds for bond counsel to prepare the PFD ILA Amendment Rewrite. He displayed a Budget Amendment Summary illustrating the Fund Number, Change in Beginning Fund Balance, Revenue, Expense, and Change in Ending Fund Balance. He summarized the net ending fund balance was decreased by $1,306,067. He reviewed new items for Council consideration: Packet Page Amendment Amount 21 New oversized computer monitors are needed to accommodate the needs of Development Services Department plan reviewers for new electronic plan review system. $7,550 22 Work with bond counsel to draft amendments to ILA with PFD to reflect reduced debt service payments $5,000 23 City’s share of costs for Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA). AHA’s work includes preparation of a housing profile for Edmonds that will be used in updating $2,456 Packet Page 9 of 524 the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 24 In 2014 $20,000 was allocated to Fund 117 Municipal Arts Fund for contract use to help offset the elimination of full-time Senior Office Specialist position in 2013. With the departure of the Administrative Assistant providing part-time assistance to Cultural Services, $15,400 of remaining funds will be transferred to the Recreation Cost Center to pay salary for a new part-time temporary Senior Office Specialist. $15,400 25 Edmond Arts Commission received a grant of $1,000 from the Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation for contracting with an artist to prepare a report on potential interim projects to highlight the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor $1,000 26 Edmonds Arts Commission received a grant for $9,000 from the Hazel Miller Foundation to fund expenses for the summer concert series at Hazel Miller Plaza $9,000 27 The public art installation “Cedar Dreams” was damaged by a motorist in March 2014 and the insurance recovery revenue was expended to repair the artwork $1,350 28 City contracted with EarthCorp to perform wetland mitigation work at Edmonds Marsh as a result of property development projects at the American Brewery Company and Jacobsen Marine. The wetland buffer planting project is funded in full with the payments from these businesses. $31,000 30 The Parks Construction Fund had a negative fund balance after the 2013 year-end adjustment was made to the 2014 beginning fund balance. The City is reducing the capital expenditure BARS number bringing the fund balance to a positive number. $31,000 Mr. James displayed: • Exhibit A: 2014 Beginning Fund Balances, Revenue, Expenditures, 2014 Ending Fund Balance by fund • Exhibit B: Summary of Revenues • Exhibit C: Summary of Expenses Councilmember Bloom asked whether the budget amendment regarding bond counsel for PFD ILA amendments is an additional $5,000. Mr. James answered yes. Councilmember Bloom recalled she pulled a $5,200 expenditure from the vouchers last week; the Finance Committee was to review and explain how those funds were used. Mr. James explained the initial expense was to draft the first amendment to the ILA. That amendment was too comprehensive to address the current issue. It was recommended the amendment focus on the refunding of bond. The payment schedule in the existing ILA does not reflect the changes due to bond refunding. The refunding resulted in a savings; another issue to be addressed in the ILA is how those savings will be allocated, either to the City or the PFD. Councilmember Bloom asked whether the new amendment would allow the bond savings to be used to pay debt. Mr. James responded the goal was to keep the amendment very simple, to add new tables to address only the new bond payment, the old bond payment and the savings and who gets the savings. Councilmember Bloom asked who will get the savings. Mr. James answered that is to be decided. The Council has voiced a willingness to allow the PFD to receive the savings but that has not yet been determined. Councilmember Bloom asked whether the savings would reduce the amount the City contributes to the PFD. Mr. James answered when the PFD is short on money, the City assists with their bond payments. How the PFD uses the savings could be addressed in the ILA; that has not yet been decided. Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding that issue would be discussed by the Finance Committee and then Council. Councilmember Bloom referred to the $5,200 for work done by the bond counsel and asked why that work was not acceptable and why another $5,000 expenditure was necessary. Mr. James explained the first amendment bond counsel prepared was very comprehensive and addressed issues other than the bond payments. .The Finance Committee did not recommend moving it forward to the full Council. Packet Page 10 of 524 Councilmember Bloom asked who approved that expenditure. Mr. James answered the statement of work was signed by the former Finance Director authorizing Foster Pepper to do that work. Councilmember Bloom recalled when this came up last year, the former Finance Director presented a $5,000 request for bond counsel to amend the PFD ILA to include waiving the debt service. She recalled asking whether the City would lose its interest in the ECA which is part of agreement; that question was never answered by the former Finance Director and the expenditure to hire bond counsel was not presented or approved by full Council. Mr. James reiterated the former Finance Director signed the letter authorizing Foster Pepper to do the work. Council President Buckshnis recalled it was part of budget item and was within the former Finance Director’s budgetary authority. The effort to draft the first amendment resulted in a new ILA rather than an amendment, when all that was needed was a replication of a 2012 letter from bond counsel to the ECA outlining the new debt service. Debt service has been paid at the lower amount since 2012. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3973, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3963 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. CITIZENS' COMMISSION ON THE COMPENSATION OF ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENTATION - 2015 & 2016 COMPENSATION SCHEDULE Mike Hathaway, Co-Chair, Citizens’ Commission on the Compensation of Elected Officials (CCCEO), identified the members of the Commission: • Dilys Rosales, Co-Chair, 2nd term • Mike Hathaway, Co-Chair, 1st term • Brent Hunter, 1st term • Mike Meeks, 1st term He provided the following information regarding the Commission • The Citizens Commission on Compensation of Elected Officials is composed of up to seven members appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. • The Commission meets every even year, and their compensation schedule is to be filed with the City Clerk no later than the first Monday in August • The task of the Commission is to review compensation of elected officials (Mayor, Council, and Judge) and adjust as deemed necessary, so that citizens of the highest quality may be attracted to, and retained for public service • Any compensation schedule changes will become effective beginning January 1, 2015 He described the source of comparative data: • The Council adopted a policy for non-represented employees which strives to maintain equity in pay for all employees, offers competitive salaries to attract high level applicants and offers internal equity to foster long term retention of valuable employees • This policy for non-represented employees is based on maintaining salary ranges at the median when compared to cities of similar size in King, Pierce, Kitsap, Thurston and Snohomish Counties. This policy has been in place for approximately 12 years He explained the Commission used the following criteria in review of compensation for the Mayor, Council and Judge: Packet Page 11 of 524 • City Population • Form of Government (Mayor or City Manager) • Current and projected operating budget of the City of Edmonds • Compensation of elected officials in comparative cities • Feedback from previous and current position holders • Industry trends in compensation and benefits He reviewed the Mayor’s comparative cities: City Population Everett 104,200 Renton 95,540 Federal Way 89,720 Auburn 73,235 Redmond 55,840 EDMONDS 39,950 Bremerton 37,850 Lynnwood 35,960 Tukwila 19,160 He provided a graph comparing the Mayor’s monthly salary in the comparative cities, advising the salary reflects average monthly salary plus any other forms of cash compensation such as car allowance, cell phone but do not include health or life insurance: City Salary Everett $13,019 Renton $11,710 Auburn $11,016 Redmond $10,967 Bremerton $10,910 EDMONDS $9,623 Federal Way $9,400 Lynnwood $8,709 Tukwila $8,279 He advised Edmonds ranks 6th of the 9 comparative cities; the median compensation is Bremerton’s at $10,910. He provided a graph of the Mayor’s salary history 2000-2014. The Commission found an incremental adjustment was appropriate to stay close to the median compensation for Mayor in the comparative cities. The Commission established the following compensation schedule change for the position of Mayor: • The Mayor’s salary shall be set at $10,123 monthly (increase of $500 per month) • If other non-represented officials receive a Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) in 2015 or 2016 this shall be applied to the Mayor • Benefits to remain the same. If benefit plan or contribution rate changes for non-represented employees, Commission schedule requires these changes for the Mayor as well Commissioner Hathaway reviewed the Court Judge’s compensation. He displayed and reviewed a graph illustrating the monthly salary history for the Court Judge 2005-2013. He reviewed the Judge’s compensation schedule: • The current Judge’s contract was effective July 30, 2005 Packet Page 12 of 524 • When Judge’s contract expired December 31, 2005, he was given a salary increase at 95% of the state requirement. • In 2010 the Judge’s position was converted to an elected position. This positions pay rate has been increased according to the state requirement when increased by COLA. • This position is eligible for PERS retirement, MEBT, life insurance, and health care similar to non-represented employees. • The Commission is required by the State court improvement funds to maintain compensation at 95% of the salary of a District Court Judge • This position is currently 55% of a full (40 hour) work week • Currently paid at $6, 294 per month • If there are any changes in the state salary rate, and/or prorated FTE status, these are to be reflected in the City of Edmonds Judge’s compensation for 2015 and 2016 • Benefits to remain the same. If benefit plan or contribution rate changes for non-represented employees, Commission requires these changes for the Judge as well Commissioner Hathaway displayed and reviewed a chart of City Councilmember annual base pay history 2000-2014. In 2012 the Commission changed Council compensation packages which included: • Base of $600 monthly • Meeting pay of $400 monthly • Health insurance benefit (Based upon 90% of employee coverage) • Access to family health insurance coverage at 100% of premium cost paid by councilmember • All of these items were combined into a monthly compensation package valued at $1,567 for each Councilmember effective January 1, 2012 Commissioner Hathaway identified the Council comparative cities: City Population Redmond 55,840 Shoreline 53,670 Olympia 48,480 Burien 48,030 Lacey 44,350 EDMONDS 39,950 Puyallup 37,980 Bremerton 37,850 Lynnwood 35,960 Bothell 34,460 University Place 31,340 He provided a graph of Council compensation in the comparative cities: City Salary Puyallup $3,367 Lynnwood Redmond $2,112 Shoreline $ EDMONDS $1,695 University Place $1,408 Olympia $1,387 Lacey Burien $1200 Bremerton Packet Page 13 of 524 Bothell $900 The median compensation is $1,408/month. Edmonds Councilmember compensation of $1,695 is ranked 5th of the 11 cities. Compensation for the top five cities including Edmonds reflects inclusion of health insurance benefits. The six cities below Edmonds do not provide a health insurance benefit to Councilmembers. Based on the comparative cities’ data, the Commission directs no change in compensation which remains as follows: • Total compensation (includes salary and benefits) o Base of $ 1000 monthly ($1200 for Council President) o Additional cash compensation equal to value of health insurance premium cost for councilmember (currently 90 % of premium). This is valued at $ 695 monthly in 2014 o Access to family health insurance coverage at 100 % of premium cost paid by council member The Commission directs the following new benefit: • In response to a perceived need, a professional development budget of $2000 per year will be allocated in the Council budget o All proposals must be submitted and approved by Council. o The Council President will have final approval on prioritization of expenditures Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked why Mukilteo or Marysville were not included as comparison cities. In Snohomish County Edmonds is the third largest city behind Everett and Marysville. CCCEO Commissioner Brent Hunter advised Marysville’s population is 62,000. The policy for comparative cities is five cities with populations higher and lower than Edmonds which excluded Marysville. Mukilteo’s population is below the base. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed Marysville’s population was similar to Redmond. Councilmember Peterson pointed out the Mayor’s comparative cities were cities with strong mayor form of government. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed Mukilteo changed to a strong mayor. Mayor Earling pointed out Mukilteo only recently abolished the City Manager position. Commissioner Hunter summarized the factors considered in selecting the Mayor’s comparative cities include population and form of government. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed neither Mukilteo or Marysville were used as Council comparative cities. Mr. Hunter advised Marysville’s population is too high and Mukilteo’s is too low. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked the population of Mukilteo; Councilmember Peterson advised it is 20,605. Councilmember Bloom referred to Ordinance No. 6993 which states the Commission shall have 7 members. She asked how a Commission comprised of four members met the requirements of the ordinance. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained efforts were made to recruit commissioners, but Human Resources staff was unable to fully seat the Commission. Councilmember Bloom asked whether four members were legal if the ordinance states there shall be seven members. Mr. Taraday responded it is still a seven member Commission with vacant seats. Similar to when there is a Council vacancy, the Council is still a body of seven Councilmembers but there is a vacant Council seat. Councilmember Bloom pointed out the difference is the Council fills the position in a two month period. This Commission meets every two years, providing a great deal more time to find commissioners. Mr. Taraday pointed out the same thing could occur if no one wanted to serve on the Council; people cannot be forced to serve. It was his understanding the positions were advertised on more than one occasion and these were all the people that applied. Packet Page 14 of 524 Councilmember Bloom refereed to section 10.80.050 regarding operation in the ordinance that states the Commission shall prepare and approve compensation schedule by affirmative vote of not less than a simple majority of the commission plus one member. She noted a simple majority of a seven member commission is four, plus one member is five. The ordinance also states the members of the commission shall receive no compensation for their services. If the commission is not able to approve the compensation schedule by an affirmative vote of a simple majority of the commission plus one member, then the previous schedule, or the substantial equivalent thereof, shall be deemed to remain in effect. She concluded a Commission of four was not enough according to the ordinance. Parks & Recreation/Human Resources Reporting Director Carrie Hite advised there were five members on the Commission until a few weeks ago when one member went on medical leave. That member approved the compensation; her name does not appear on the memo because she was not present to present it but she still occupies a Commission seat. With regard to recruitment for the Commission, Ms. Hite said three PSAs were issued to recruit for the position and it was listed on the City’s website as open until filled from January through May. The Commission began work in March; a code change was approved in April to allow the Commission to submit their recommendation by August 1 rather than May 1. Mr. Taraday offered to provide an interpretation of the statute. He explained a simple majority according to Black’s Law Dictionary means a numerical majority of those actual voting. If there were only four members actually voting, three of the four members would constitute a simple majority and four of the four would constitute a simple majority plus one. If the schedule was approved by the affirmative vote of four commissioners, which he understood it was, that would satisfy the requirement of Section 10.80.050. Councilmember Bloom referred to the Council compensation comparison, noting although Edmonds is ranked 5th in line, the range is more dramatic, and Edmonds Council is not much above the median. For example Edmonds’ compensation of $1000 plus medical is $1695. The highest is Puyallup at $3,367 and the lowest is $900. She asked how the Commission determined leaving the salary the same would attract high quality candidates. Commissioner Hathaway answered it is a balance of factors including the median, the realities of the City’s budget, the sense of whether an increase is appropriate, etc. Councilmember Bloom referred to the professional development benefit for Councilmembers due to a perceived need. She asked what the perceived need was for professional development. Commissioner Hathaway answered the CCCEO’s process included an informal survey of Councilmembers. One of the questions was whether it would be a benefit to provide additional training to increase professional development and if so, what type of training. Councilmembers’ feedback was very positive and several examples were offered. Councilmember Bloom asked what type of professional development was suggested. Commissioner Hathaway answered Councilmembers voluntarily offered examples such as city government orientation, Roberts Rules of Order, public finance, basic government, courses offered through AWC, grant writing, understanding the Council’s role, labor relations, economic development, and risks of social media. Councilmember Bloom asked if the Councilmembers who made those suggestions were aware that that training was already available to Councilmembers. She recalled when she became a Councilmember the City paid for her to attend three days of training on those topics on her own time. Commissioner Hathaway said the question posed to Councilmembers was whether it would be a benefit to provide funds for professional development; he was not certain what prompted their response. Councilmember Bloom did not view that as compensation as it was already available for Councilmembers to attend on their own time. Commissioner Hathaway advised it was defined as a benefit by the City Packet Page 15 of 524 Attorney. Mr. Taraday relayed he was asked about this in March; his response was he thought it boiled down to whether the training allowance can be considered compensation, the ordinance does not define compensation. Black’s Law Dictionary defines compensation as remuneration and other benefits received in return for services rendered especially salary or wages. He was not certain whether the Commission had discussed it enough to make a distinction between reimbursement of course tuition versus payment for time spent at training. He agreed with Councilmember Bloom that it was really only compensation to the extent it was compensation for time spent in training. The CCCEO ordinance also states in Section 10.80.090, Reimbursement Unaffected, the Mayor and Councilmember shall receive reimbursement for their actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their duties. The CCCEO is not authorized to do anything other than provide for compensation; the CCCEO is not authorized to provide for reimbursement of expenses. If it is interpreted as payment for time spent in training, the question of how the $2000 is divided arises such as $50/meeting. That issue was not answered by the Commission. Councilmember Bloom commented it clearly is not compensation. Mr. Taraday answered it is if it is for time. Councilmember Bloom answered Councilmembers are not being paid for their time, they are offered funds to spend more time in training. Mr. Taraday explained the Commission’s recommendation or compensation schedule does not clearly specify whether it is for time or for tuition. Because they do not have the authority to reimburse for tuition, he assumed it is compensation for time. Councilmember Bloom stated it is not compensation because someone cannot be compensated for using their own time to do extra work. Mr. Taraday interpreted the schedule to provide up to $2000 for Councilmember’s time in attending training at their option. What is not clear is how the amount would be divided up, whether it would be $50 per training for which there is some historical precedence or some other way. It must be payment for a Councilmember’s time spent in a training session; the CCCEO does not have authority to do anything other than pay the Council. Councilmember Bloom asked who decided how much a Councilmember was paid per hour for the training. Mr. Taraday agreed that was the question; the CCCEO may need to specify that. Councilmember Petso asked whether the Mayor receives MEBT benefits and whether that was calculated into his compensation. Commissioner Hunter answered no, the CCCEO considered salary and related taxable salary such as a car allowance. Councilmember Petso asked whether the Mayor’s position received MEBT and PERS. Mayor Earling answered yes. Councilmember Petso observed the comparables used for Councilmembers were cities whose population were within 10,000 of Edmonds; the comparables for the Mayor have significant different populations. She asked whether the CCCEO considered limiting the Mayor comparables to the same population range used for Councilmembers and other employees. Commissioner Hunter answered the Commission tried to utilize the comparables used for non-represented employees but because there are few cities with a strong mayor forms of government, a wider range was used. When there is a nonrepresented position that does not have a large number of comparables for a position, say four, Councilmember Petso asked whether the survey would proceed with those four rather than bring in larger and smaller cities. Human Resources Manager MaryAnn Hardie answered the range was 10,000 population above and 10,000 below. When cities with a similar population did not fit, the CCCEO used a wider range. She acknowledged that did not exactly mirror the non-represented policy but it was similar. Councilmember Petso did not view the professional development funds as a benefit, relaying the Council President who prioritizes the expenditures could approve one Councilmember using all the money. Mr. Taraday found the statement about the Council President having the authority to prioritize expenditures problematic. The Council cannot set its own compensation; that is the reason for the CCCEO. Therefore, the Council President cannot determine who gets the training allowance. He recommended slightly Packet Page 16 of 524 tweaking the new benefit and suggested the CCCEO provide additional direction regarding how the $2000 would be paid. He noted there are several ways to divide up the $2000 and if not in equal allotments, in small enough amounts that one Councilmember does not use all the money. For example, it could be divided into 7 allotments of $285 each or 40 trainings of $50 each. Councilmember Petso observed the packet states if the Council does nothing, it accepts the CCCEO’s recommendation and it becomes law. She asked how the Council could not accept the CCCEO’s recommendation. Mr. Taraday said the Council has no ability not to accept the CCCEO’s recommendation. When the CCCEO was created, the Council turned over to the Commission the entire ability to compensate elected officials. There is no way for the Council to undo their recommendation and there is no action for the Council to take. He suggested the CCCEO provide additional direction regarding how the new benefit is paid. Councilmember Petso asked whether the Council has the authority to set compensation for the Mayor and Judge. Mr. Taraday answered he did not know. The Council could abolish the Commission and return to the old way of setting compensation for future Councilmembers; the Council cannot set its own compensation. Councilmember Petso assured she was not interested in setting her own compensation but if she did not think it was accurate to use Everett which was 2.5 times Edmonds’ size as a comparable and perhaps if the MEBT benefit had been included it would be worth the 5% the CCCEO felt the Mayor’s salary was lacking, was there a mechanism for her to express that by vote or during the budget process. Mr. Taraday answered the way to express that would be to remove the Commission’s authority to establish the Mayor’s salary and potentially for all elected officials. The Council could not do that for 2014 and he would need to research whether they could do it for 2015. Councilmember Petso relayed her understanding that the recommendation of the CCCEO regarding the Mayor’s salary would be included in the budget regardless of anything the Council does. Mr. Taraday answered he would need to research whether the Council could override the Commission’s recommendation regarding the Mayor’s salary for 2015. Councilmember Petso asked whether that would need to be done by August 1. Mr. Taraday answered the August 1 deadline only applied to the CCCEO. Council President Buckshnis recalled research done last year; the only way to change the Mayor salary is to abolish the Commission. She expressed concern with the report and the number of members on the CCCEO. She also relayed concern with redline changes made to the ordinance. She felt the Commission was very powerful. She also felt the Council President’s salary should be more than $1200. Councilmember Peterson thanked the Commission for their work, commenting it was a thankless job. With regard to compensation, one of his suggestions was to create opportunities for more people to serve. For example, it may be helpful to compensate a Councilmember who has to take time off work to attend training. The funds for professional development might help a new Councilmember get training and may encourage Councilmembers to attend training. He appreciated the work done by the Commission and the creativity in their recommendation, recognizing it was tedious work and difficult to find comparative cities. Although the Commission may need to tweak the new Council benefit, the idea is sound and it may attract more people to serving on the Council. He summarized the primary goal of Commission was not to figure out what this Council needs but to make it more attractive for others to serve. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas thanked the Commission, assuring she was not being critical but was just trying to look at the whole picture. She agreed compensation for professional development is a good idea; $300/year per Councilmember will not match the need but it is a start. She agreed the Council President was underpaid and should receive an additional $500/month. Philosophically, she could not support raises for the Council or Mayor. Assuring it was nothing personal to Mayor Earling, she felt a $6,000/year increase was a lot particularly in difficult economic times. Packet Page 17 of 524 Councilmember Johnson said she enjoyed speaking with the Commissioner who surveyed her and she appreciated the work the Commission has done. From her training in statistics, she knew the median was a measure of central tendency, the middle. In a comparison where five cities’ populations are above Edmonds and three are below, the measure is already skewed and it would be better to have an equal number above and below. She understood there was a limited pool using four counties and a strong mayor form of government. Councilmember Bloom expressed her appreciation for the Commission’s work but said she was disappointed by the results of their work. The last time the Commission met, she was encouraged by the cafeteria style that allowed a Councilmember to elect to take the pay rather than the benefit. She pointed out how difficult it is to get people interested in serving on the Council position, particularly young people. Most of the Edmonds Councilmembers are retired, semi-retired or own their own business so they have a flexible schedule. She felt it was unrealistic to expect anyone with a full-time job to serve on the Council. The amount of time Councilmembers spend is much greater than one may think. She was disappointed in the CCCEO’s recommendation because she did not feel paying for training was a benefit. What would be beneficial would be a salary that would attract young people, enough money so it would be worth their while to serve on the Council, not seek higher office and remain on the Council as long as they are elected. The CCCEO’s recommendation does not accomplish that. Councilmember Bloom did not support an increase in the Mayor’s salary because $6,000 in addition to a COLA was too much in this economy. She did not agree with comparing the Mayor’s salary to other Mayors; part of working here is love for the City and dedication to it. She wanted Councilmembers to be valued rather than marginalized and seen as worker bees that do not get paid. She noted if the amount of time is taken into consideration, Councilmembers are making less than minimum wage. She wanted every open Council position to have a strong candidate to oppose them. She wanted Councilmembers who want to be in office because they will be compensated fairly and have something to offer and are passionate. People serving on the Council now do it because they are passionate. She urged the City to post the CCCEO’s minutes on the City’s website, noting when there are only five Commissioners, the decisions have to be unanimous. Commissioner Hunter appreciated the input elected officials provided to the CCCEO. The Commission discussed the input to determine ways to help. With regard to the hours of work, he said the Commission would like to help with that but their scope is limited. The Commission wrote a letter to the Mayor asking him to consider ways to assist Councilmembers. Councilmember Bloom explained the CCCEO’s letter sent a letter to the Mayor recommending more administrative support for Council and that MEBT vesting occur sooner than five years and be consistent with a Councilmember’s term. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 11. REQUEST TO AMEND THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TO INCLUDE ONLY THE SOUTH PORTION OF THE SUNSET AVENUE WALKWAY PROJECT. Councilmember Petso explained a couple of weeks ago the Council voted whether to keep the Sunset Avenue Walkway in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). At that time Councilmember Bloom made a motion to do only the south portion of the walkway, the Bell – Edmonds portion of the walkway south of the railroad right-of-way. She voted against that motion and subsequently requested an opportunity to change her vote and to make this motion. At that time, the Council discussed staff developing alternatives. One of the alternatives was to paint stripes on the road to represent the walkway Packet Page 18 of 524 and test it for a period of time. She agreed with that approach but forgot until she spoke with Public Works Director Phil Williams and Councilmember Fraley-Monillas after the meeting that that would not solve one of her primary concerns, safety. She displayed a photograph of a bike resting on the curb above the railroad tracks, noting the painting on the road would allow bicycles to be extremely close to the top of the bluff. She requested this opportunity to change her vote for safety reasons. She did not want to support a test project that might result in someone getting hurt. Council President Buckshnis pointed out the Council can amend the TIP anytime. She thanked Mr. Williams for all the work he and staff have done. There are a still a number of issues that need to be addressed, and she preferred to develop the south portion of the walkway and not do a test project that would remove the parking. If the south portion of the walkway works well, the rest could be constructed. Councilmember Peterson asked painting a test project would not remove all the parking. Council President Buckshnis said it will remove some parking. Councilmember Mesaros pointed out the Council has not yet approved a plan for Sunset. Including the in the TIP means the City wants to create a plan. Mayor Earling agreed. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the Sunset Avenue project was on the TIP or a parks plan previously. Mr. Williams answered the Sunset Avenue Overlook was in the PROS Plan for two cycles. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out it is not a new idea. She did not see any harm with keeping the project in the TIP and using a painted alternative to work out the bugs. She was anxious about BNSF and wanted staff to have an opportunity to discuss the project with them. She also wanted a better idea of the project since the width of the walkway has been reduced. She did not anticipate a conclusion could be reached without a test project using paint. A painted test project would not hurt anything and would illustrate fire truck access, parking, etc. She spoke in favor of keeping Sunset Avenue in the TIP. Councilmember Petso clarified the painting would not hurt anyone unless someone riding in the new area at the top of the bluff gets hurt. Currently bicycles use the east side of the road and they are not mixed with pedestrians and dog walkers. The proposal is to move bicycles to the west side which allows them to be as close to curb as the bike in the photograph is. She did not understand why the Council would adopt a risky way to test the project when there was safe way – doing the south end of project and allow staff to continue to work out issues on the north section for a possible future project. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the intent was to paint the walkway up to the edge of the bluff so that bikes are teetering on the edge. Mr. Williams answered the intent was to mark the first 8 feet inside the existing curb as the pathway and a two foot mountable curb for a total of 10 feet. The 8 feet would function as a pathway for non-motorized users. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas wanted to ensure no one would be put in jeopardy by painting on the bluff. Mr. Williams explained the intent was to provide an idea of the geometry, how it would function, parking, etc. He was hopeful as many parking spaces as possible could be maintained during the test. Staff is working on the graphics and will provide details to Council soon. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the test could also illustrate the width of a standard sidewalk. Williams advised anything could be done with paint. The City’s standard sidewalk width is a minimum of 5 feet and up to 7 feet. Mr. State law allows Segways on 5-foot sidewalks. Councilmember Johnson commented having this project in the TIP does not define what it is. The Council could maintain Sunset as one-way street with a one-way bike lane on the right or construct a multi-purpose walkway; the Council has not reached that decision yet. She recommended the Sunset Avenue Walkway be considered a work in progress. Packet Page 19 of 524 Councilmember Bloom clarified the motion is not to remove the Sunset Walkway from the TIP but for the walkway to be constructed on the property owned by the City on the south end. She preferred to focus on developing the walkway on the south end on property the City owns and resolve the issues for the remainder in the future. She was also concerned the City was continuing to spend money on consultant fees to design the walkway. A third issue is the public process; residents on Sunset and others were not engaged in a public hearing or public process in advance of applying for the PSRC grant and the citizen input was misrepresented on the PSRC application. There has been a significant amount of input since then and the majority are opposed to building on BSNF property. Building the walkway on the south portion would solve all the problems as it would reduce the controversy, eliminate worry about a fence and cost overruns, etc. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND PETSO VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY- MONILLAS, JOHNSON, MESAROS AND PETERSON VOTING NO. 11A. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO EVALUATE THE QUALIFICATIONS OF AN APPLICANT FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(g) At 9:50 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session to evaluate the qualifications of applicant for public employment per RCW 42.30.100(1)(g). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 10 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso, Bloom and Mesaros. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Parks & Recreation/Human Resources Reporting Director Carrie Hite and City Clerk Scott Passey. The executive session concluded at 10:05p.m. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 10:06 p.m. 11B. WAIVER OF THIRD INTERVIEW COUNCIL PRESIDENT BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, FOR CONSIDERATION AND POTENTIAL WAIVER OF THE THIRD INTERVIEW RULE FOR THE DIRECTOR POSITION PER CODE 20.10.0.10(D). MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND BLOOM VOTING NO. 12. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF JULY 8, 2014 Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to the next Council meeting. 13. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling had no report. 14. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported on a coal train/oil tanker consortium that Councilmember Peterson and she attended with King County Executive Dow Constantine. She offered to share with the Council the information they learned. She volunteered to serve on one of their subgroups. Packet Page 20 of 524 Councilmember Peterson reported the consortium, Leadership Alliance Against Coal, will be renamed to broaden the scope to include oil trains. He and Councilmember Fraley-Monillas will provide a report in the future. Councilmember Johnson reported she attended a garden party yesterday hosted by Val Stewart for people interested in having rain gardens on their property. The hope is to have 100 rain gardens in Edmonds by 2016. Mayor Earling reported there will be a number of forums regarding coal and oil trains. He is speaking at one in Everett and AWC is forming a railroad statewide group to discuss rail traffic. 15. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. 16. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 17. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Packet Page 21 of 524 AM-7011 4. B. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:07/22/2014 Time:Consent Submitted For:Scott James Submitted By:Nori Jacobson Department:Finance Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Action Information Subject Title Approval of claim checks #209538 through #209641 dated July 17, 2014 for $542, 042.57 (reissued check #209575 $4,086.92). Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #61095 through #61110 for $469,501.59, benefit checks #61067, #61111 through #61116 and wire payments for $446,876.40 for the period July 1, 2014 through July 15, 2014. Recommendation Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non-approval of expenditures. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2014 Revenue: Expenditure:1,458,420.56 Fiscal Impact: Claims $542,042.57 Payroll Employee checks and direct deposit $469,501.59 Payroll Benefit checks and wire payments $446,876.40 Total Payroll $916,377.99 Attachments Claim cks 07-17-14 Project Numbers 07-17-14 Payroll Summary 07-20-14 Packet Page 22 of 524 Payroll Summary 07-20-14 Payroll Benefit 07-20-14 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Sarah Mager 07/18/2014 10:40 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 07/18/2014 10:41 AM Mayor Dave Earling 07/18/2014 10:43 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 07/18/2014 10:45 AM Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 07/17/2014 09:33 AM Final Approval Date: 07/18/2014 Packet Page 23 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209538 7/17/2014 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 714201 2014 TENNIS TEAM SHIRTS 5000B Lime shirt Yth MD 001.000.64.575.52.31.00 14.80 5000B Lime shirt Yth LG 001.000.64.575.52.31.00 29.60 5000 Lime shirt SM 001.000.64.575.52.31.00 59.20 5000 Lime shirt MD 001.000.64.575.52.31.00 22.20 5000 Lime shirt LG 001.000.64.575.52.31.00 22.20 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.575.52.31.00 14.06 SISTER CITY T-SHIRTS714256 Sister City Commission t-shirts 138.100.21.557.21.49.00 378.84 9.5% Sales Tax 138.100.21.557.21.49.00 35.99 PARKS CAMP GOODTIME SHIRTS714266 5000B White T-shirt, Yth SM 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 38.24 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 3.63 SUMMER PICKLE BALL LEAGUE, REMAINDER OF714267 5000 Ash T-shirt, 1 MD, 1 LG, 4 XL for 001.000.64.575.52.31.00 35.34 5000 Spts.Grey T-Shirt 1 SM, 6 LG, 12 001.000.64.575.52.31.00 111.91 5000 Spts.Grey T-Shirt 11 2 X for 001.000.64.575.52.31.00 81.29 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.575.52.31.00 21.71 Total :869.01 1Page: Packet Page 24 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209539 7/17/2014 000850 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT 9525 MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER CHARGES MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER CHARGES 421.000.74.534.80.33.00 160,215.59 Total :160,215.59 209540 7/17/2014 074695 AMERICAN MESSAGING W41010460G Water Watch Pager / Extra Pager Water Watch Pager / Extra Pager 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 25.06 Total :25.06 209541 7/17/2014 073769 ANTONCICH, WALTER J 18573 Basketball Cmp INSTRUCTOR FEES BASKETBALL CAMP 18573 Basketball Camp 7/7/14 - 7/11/14 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 225.00 Total :225.00 209542 7/17/2014 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1987447809 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.09 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 4.15 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.10 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.40 2Page: Packet Page 25 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209542 7/17/2014 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.38 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS1987447810 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 5.00 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 5.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 0.47 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS1987447811 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 5.28 FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 7.59 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.50 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.72 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS1987454851 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 17.45 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1.66 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1987459107 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.09 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 4.16 3Page: Packet Page 26 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209542 7/17/2014 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 4.15 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.10 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.38 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS1987459108 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 5.00 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 5.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 0.47 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS1987459109 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 15.62 FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 7.59 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 1.48 4Page: Packet Page 27 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209542 7/17/2014 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.72 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS1987466274 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 17.45 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1.66 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1987470613 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.09 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 4.15 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.10 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.38 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS1987470614 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS 5Page: Packet Page 28 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209542 7/17/2014 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 5.00 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 5.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 0.47 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS1987470615 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 5.28 FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 7.59 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.50 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.72 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS1987477667 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 17.45 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1.66 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1987481955 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.09 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 4.15 6Page: Packet Page 29 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209542 7/17/2014 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.10 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.38 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS1987481956 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 5.00 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 5.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 0.47 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS1987481957 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 15.62 FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 7.59 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 1.48 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.72 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS1987489139 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 17.45 9.5% Sales Tax 7Page: Packet Page 30 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 8 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209542 7/17/2014 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1.66 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS1987493439 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.09 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 4.16 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 4.15 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.10 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.40 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.38 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS1987493440 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 5.00 STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 5.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 8Page: Packet Page 31 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 9 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209542 7/17/2014 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 0.47 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS1987493441 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 5.28 FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 7.59 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.50 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.72 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE1987511790 Parks Maint Uniform Service 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 34.47 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 3.27 Total :381.82 209543 7/17/2014 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0605612-IN WWTP - FUEL, ULSD #2 DYED Fuel 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 2,606.89 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 247.65 Total :2,854.54 209544 7/17/2014 073598 AUBURN MECHANICAL, INC 17338 YOST POOL BACKFLOW REPAIR Yost Pool backflow repair 125.000.64.576.80.48.00 768.77 Total :768.77 209545 7/17/2014 071947 BELAIR, CANDACE Refund REFUND PER CUSTOMER REQUEST Refund per customer request 001.000.239.200 37.00 Total :37.00 209546 7/17/2014 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 67624 INV#67624 - EDMONDS PD - LEE 9Page: Packet Page 32 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 10 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209546 7/17/2014 (Continued)002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP L/S UNIFORM SHIRT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 89.95 SEW EMBLEM ON SHIRT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 1.00 CLOTH NAMETAG FOR SHIRT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 4.95 SEW YRS OF SERVICE ON SHIRT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 1.00 L/S UNIFORM SHIRT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 89.95 SEW YRS OF SERVICE ON SHIRT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 1.00 METAL BUTTONS W/TOGGLES 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 8.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 18.70 Total :215.50 209547 7/17/2014 065739 BOBBY WOLFORD TRUCKING &061460 Storm - Dump Fees Storm - Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 160.00 Storm - Concrete Dump Fees061610 Storm - Concrete Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 1,080.00 Total :1,240.00 209548 7/17/2014 074849 BOMAR, RICK 07032014 TRAVEL REFUND TRAVEL REFUND 001.000.23.523.30.43.00 42.07 Total :42.07 209549 7/17/2014 074229 BONNIE AUBUCHON 18565 18565 JEWELRY: SILVERSMITHING 18565 Jewelry: Silversmithing 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 112.20 10Page: Packet Page 33 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 11 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :112.202095497/17/2014 074229 074229 BONNIE AUBUCHON 209550 7/17/2014 003001 BUILDERS SAND & GRAVEL 306041 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Gravel Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Gravel 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 444.21 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Gravel 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 444.21 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Gravel 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 444.21 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Gravel 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 444.21 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 42.20 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 42.20 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 42.20 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 42.20 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Gravel306047 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Gravel 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 143.13 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Gravel 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 143.13 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Gravel 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 143.13 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Gravel 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 143.13 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 13.60 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 13.60 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 13.60 9.5% Sales Tax 11Page: Packet Page 34 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 12 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209550 7/17/2014 (Continued)003001 BUILDERS SAND & GRAVEL 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 13.59 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Gravel306049 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Gravel 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 145.37 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Gravel 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 145.37 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Gravel 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 145.37 Water/Sewer/Street/Storm - Gravel 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 145.38 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 13.81 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 13.81 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 13.81 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 13.81 Total :3,209.28 209551 7/17/2014 068484 CEMEX LLC 9428751823 Roadway - Asphalt Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 570.70 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 54.22 Total :624.92 209552 7/17/2014 069457 CITY OF EDMONDS E1GA.ROW E1GA.ENG20130476 ROW PERMIT E1GA.ENG20130476 ROW Permit 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 260.00 E3JA.ENG20130533 ROW PERMITE3JA.ROW E3JA.ENG20130533.ROW Permit 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 260.00 Total :520.00 12Page: Packet Page 35 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 13 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209553 7/17/2014 073737 CITY OF SEATTLE DMT00261 FR022 FIBER MAINTENANCE Fiber Maintenance 2014 001.000.31.518.87.48.00 4,452.36 Total :4,452.36 209554 7/17/2014 074319 CLASSICAL KING FM 98.1 IN-114063421 RADIO ADS 6/09/14 - 6/15/14 KING FM Radio promotional ads week of 6/09/14 - 001.000.61.558.70.44.00 345.00 Total :345.00 209555 7/17/2014 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2677317-2 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES Jumbo acclaim 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 118.69 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 11.28 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIESW2679830 Suma Break Up HV Clnr 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 143.04 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 13.59 Total :286.60 209556 7/17/2014 064369 CODE PUBLISHING CO 47033 UPDATE OF CITY CODE Supplemental updates of code 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 2,363.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 224.53 Total :2,588.03 209557 7/17/2014 068358 COLUMBIA CASCADE COMPANY 47787-07 PARKS MAINT LITTER BINS Litter Bins 001.000.64.576.80.35.00 13,750.00 freight on bins 001.000.64.576.80.35.00 550.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.35.00 1,358.50 13Page: Packet Page 36 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 14 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :15,658.502095577/17/2014 068358 068358 COLUMBIA CASCADE COMPANY 209558 7/17/2014 072848 COPIERS NW INV1060137 INV#1060137 ACCT#HMH636 - EDMONDS PD IRC5045 LEASE 06/05 TO 07/04/14 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 226.77 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 21.54 INV#1060138 ACCT#HMH636 - EDMONDS PDINV1060138 BLACK COPIES 06/06 TO 07/04/14 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 60.53 COLOE COPIES 06/05 TO 07/04/14 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 94.61 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 14.74 Total :418.19 209559 7/17/2014 074928 DALE TURNER FAMILY YMCA Jun-14 JUNE YOST STAFFING June Yost Staffing 6/1 - 6/29/14 001.000.64.575.51.41.00 14,968.17 Total :14,968.17 209560 7/17/2014 070230 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING 6/25/14 - 7/16/14 STATE SHARE OF CONCEALED PISTOL State Share of Concealed Pistol 001.000.237.190 396.00 Total :396.00 209561 7/17/2014 070324 DESTINY SOFTWARE 3481 AGENDA QUICK MAINTENANCE Yearly Maintenance of software 001.000.25.514.30.48.00 3,525.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.48.00 264.00 Total :3,789.00 209562 7/17/2014 073757 DEX MEDIA WEST INC 651150804 CEMETERY ADVERTISING CHARGE Cemetery advertising charge 130.000.64.536.20.44.00 693.54 14Page: Packet Page 37 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 15 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :693.542095627/17/2014 073757 073757 DEX MEDIA WEST INC 209563 7/17/2014 070441 DOBSON, IAN 07/22/14 perform 07/22/14 PERFORMANCE HAZEL MILLER CONCER performance 7/22/14 Hazel Miller concert 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 475.00 Total :475.00 209564 7/17/2014 070244 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES INC 14-2306.1 E4FD.TO 14-02.SERVICES THRU 6/29/14 E4FD.TO 14-02.Services thru 6/29/14 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 185.76 Total :185.76 209565 7/17/2014 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 37595 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES 100 pc bit set, harmonic balancer 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 32.98 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 3.13 Total :36.11 209566 7/17/2014 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC 000245 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES SS Quick Link 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 19.72 50 LB Fastset Concrete Mix 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 26.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 4.44 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES000252 PFTE Seal Tape 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.49 WHT Cap Threaded 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.79 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.22 Total :53.63 209567 7/17/2014 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP Boe YSF Swim Team BOE YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND SWIM TEAM 15Page: Packet Page 38 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 16 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209567 7/17/2014 (Continued)069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP Summer Grace Boe Youth Scholarship Fund 122.000.64.571.20.49.00 75.00 Total :75.00 209568 7/17/2014 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 5-10351 23823 76TH AVE W 23823 76th Ave W 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 49.55 Total :49.55 209569 7/17/2014 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 099779 Additional images Council Office copier Additional images Council Office copier 001.000.11.511.60.45.00 11.48 COPIER MAINT101173 COPIER MAINT 001.000.23.523.30.45.00 9.25 Total :20.73 209570 7/17/2014 071572 EVIDENT CRIME SCENE PRODUCTS 87201A INV#87201A CUST#21159 - EDMONDS PD SMALL ADJUSTABLE EVIDENCTUBES 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 51.00 MED AJDUSTABLE EVIDENCE TUBES 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 86.25 GUN BOXES 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 118.00 RIFLE BOXES 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 93.00 LARGE RIFLE BOXES 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 116.00 Freight 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 188.00 Total :652.25 209571 7/17/2014 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU32678 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES Torx Securitybit 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 5.17 16Page: Packet Page 39 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 17 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209571 7/17/2014 (Continued)066378 FASTENAL COMPANY 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.49 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIESWAMOU32764 ComboWrch 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 24.52 Truebolt 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 90.30 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.91 Total :131.39 209572 7/17/2014 011900 FRONTIER 206-188-0247 TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY ACCOUNT TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY ACCOUNT 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 247.15 TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY ACCOUNT 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 247.15 LIFT STATION #6 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINES253-003-6887 LIFT STATION #6 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINES 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 41.67 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE425-712-0417 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 0.37 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 0.37 WWTP AFTER HOUR BUSINESS LINE425-712-0423 WWTP AFTER HOUR BUSINESS LINE 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 63.93 PUBLIC WORKS OMC ALARM, FAX, SPARE LINES425-712-8251 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 0.23 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 1.13 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 0.95 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 17Page: Packet Page 40 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 18 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209572 7/17/2014 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 0.95 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND INTRUSION 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 1.25 CLUBHOUSE ALARM LINES 6801 MEADOWDALE RD425-745-4313 CLUBHOUSE FIRE AND INTRUSION ALARM 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 1.52 FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FAX LINES425-771-0158 FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FAX LINES 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 117.60 LIFT STATION #8 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINES425-774-1031 LIFT STATION #8 TWO VOICE GRADE SPECIAL 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 46.84 RANGER STATION PHONE @ FISHING PIER425-775-1344 Ranger Station Phone @ Fishing Pier 001.000.64.571.23.42.00 59.78 UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE425-775-7865 UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE TO FIVE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 0.74 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE LINE425-776-1281 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE LINE 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 47.13 LIFT STATION #7 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINE425-776-2742 LIFT STATION #7 V/G SPECIAL ACCESS LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 26.02 CITY HALL ALARM LINES 121 5TH AVE N425-776-6829 CITY HALL FIRE AND INTRUSION ALARM 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 119.45 LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINE509-022-0049 LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCESS LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 26.02 Total :1,050.25 209573 7/17/2014 068617 GLEISNER, BARBARA 18585 Tai Chi & Qigo INSTRUCTION FOR TAI CHI & QIGONG 18585 Tai Chi 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 228.00 18Page: Packet Page 41 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 19 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209573 7/17/2014 (Continued)068617 GLEISNER, BARBARA 18587 Tai Chi 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 155.00 18590 Qigong 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 234.86 18592 Qigong 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 252.00 18983 Moving for Better Balance 001.000.64.575.54.41.00 114.13 Total :983.99 209574 7/17/2014 074929 HARDWICK, GAVIN 6/9 and 6/30 6/9 AND 6/30/14 OUTDOOR VOLLEYBALL ATTEN 6/9 and 6/30/14 Outdoor Volleyball 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 160.00 Total :160.00 209575 7/17/2014 070515 HARLEY DAVIDSON OF SEATTLE 106214 Unit 405 - Supplies Unit 405 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 134.87 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 12.82 Unit 405 - Parts106244 Unit 405 - Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 92.99 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.83 Unir 405 - Parts107140 Unir 405 - Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 292.89 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 27.83 Unit 405 - Parts Including Tax108184 Unit 405 - Parts Including Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 143.40 Unit 203 - Parts including tax110631 Unit 203 - Parts including tax 19Page: Packet Page 42 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 20 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209575 7/17/2014 (Continued)070515 HARLEY DAVIDSON OF SEATTLE 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 280.27 Unit 405 - Parts111950 Unit 405 - Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 203.83 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 19.37 Unit 405 - Parts including tax112084 Unit 405 - Parts including tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 684.06 Unit 582 - Parts including Tax112514 Unit 582 - Parts including Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 376.58 Unit 582 - Repairs Including tax and11324 Unit 582 - Repairs Including tax and 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 525.79 Unit 405 - Sensor114624 Unit 405 - Sensor 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 110.99 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.54 Unit 405 - Parts115899 Unit 405 - Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 214.98 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 20.42 Unit 405 - Parts including tax116042 Unit 405 - Parts including tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 117.13 Unit 405 - Tire12494 Unit 405 - Tire 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 111.30 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.58 Unit 405 - Tire Repair12822 Unit 405 - Tire Repair 20Page: Packet Page 43 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 21 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209575 7/17/2014 (Continued)070515 HARLEY DAVIDSON OF SEATTLE 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 625.98 Disp Fee 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 2.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 59.47 Total :4,086.92 209576 7/17/2014 074814 HARRIS & ASSOCIATES INC 25233 E2AC.SERVICES THRU 6/30/14 E2AC.Services thru 6/30/14 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 281.34 Total :281.34 209577 7/17/2014 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1048553 Yost Pool - Moss Proof Yost Pool - Moss Proof 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 69.52 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 6.60 PS - Supplies1104191 PS - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 23.94 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.27 Fac Maint - Unit 5 - Supplies2030491 Fac Maint - Unit 5 - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 12.39 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.18 City Hall - Supplies2040951 City Hall - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 17.88 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.70 Fac Maint - Unit 26 - Power Lock2043390 Fac Maint - Unit 26 - Power Lock 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 8.47 21Page: Packet Page 44 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 22 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209577 7/17/2014 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.80 City Hall - Surge Protector2043504 City Hall - Surge Protector 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 22.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.18 PS - Thermometer3040602 PS - Thermometer 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.98 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.95 PS - Supplies3040752 PS - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 8.29 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.79 City Hall - Shelf Supplies3091240 City Hall - Shelf Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 35.85 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.41 Traffic - Blocks4040322 Traffic - Blocks 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 20.93 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 1.99 Grand Stands - Supplies4045673 Grand Stands - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 71.58 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 6.80 Fac Maint - Shop Sink Supplies4045755 Fac Maint - Shop Sink Supplies 22Page: Packet Page 45 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 23 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209577 7/17/2014 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 19.04 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.81 FS 17 - Repair Kit4090792 FS 17 - Repair Kit 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.98 City Hall - Toilet Flapper 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.58 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.19 Fac Maint - Unit 5 - Supplies5042801 Fac Maint - Unit 5 - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 24.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.37 PW - Shelving Supplies5042805 PW - Shelving Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 34.98 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.32 City Hall / PW - Dishwasher repair5073349 City Hall / PW - Dishwasher repair 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.17 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.97 Fac Maint - Supplies5090536 Fac Maint - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 12.98 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.23 Yost Pool - PVC Cement5096462 Yost Pool - PVC Cement 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 6.53 9.5% Sales Tax 23Page: Packet Page 46 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 24 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209577 7/17/2014 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.62 Traffic Control5590009 Traffic Control 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 27.49 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 2.61 Fac Maint - Unit 26 - Supplies6042516 Fac Maint - Unit 26 - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 16.55 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.57 Storm - Supplies6042676 Storm - Supplies 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 18.92 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 1.80 City Hall - Dish Washer Repair Supplies6081829 City Hall - Dish Washer Repair Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 52.30 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.97 Water - Supplies7042221 Water - Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 11.48 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1.09 Sewer - Supplies7042283 Sewer - Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 55.99 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 5.32 Water - Supplies8031822 Water - Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 219.24 24Page: Packet Page 47 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 25 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209577 7/17/2014 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 20.83 FAC - Sink repair supplies8041928 FAC - Sink repair supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 249.35 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 23.69 Fac Maint - Unit 26 - Supplies9041698 Fac Maint - Unit 26 - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 29.44 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.80 FAC - Supplies9044417 FAC - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.56 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.43 Fac Maint Unit 5 - Truck Supplies9048892 Fac Maint Unit 5 - Truck Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 16.41 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.56 Fac Maint Unit 26 - Truck Supplies9048998 Fac Maint Unit 26 - Truck Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 120.05 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 11.40 Storm - Supplies9072669 Storm - Supplies 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 13.97 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 1.33 PS - Door Stop9280113 PS - Door Stop 25Page: Packet Page 48 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 26 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209577 7/17/2014 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 15.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.52 Total :1,395.87 209578 7/17/2014 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 25182 E4HA.TO 14-01 THRU 7/3/14 E4HA.TO 14-01 thru 7/3/14 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 384.00 SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION-25197 Supplemental Geotechnical 132.000.64.594.76.41.00 2,348.40 Total :2,732.40 209579 7/17/2014 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2479518 Office Supplies Office Supplies 001.000.22.521.10.31.00 93.12 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.521.10.31.00 8.85 Total :101.97 209580 7/17/2014 074930 KAHN, LAURA Refund REFUND PER CUSTOMER REQUEST Refund, per customer request 001.000.239.200 365.00 Total :365.00 209581 7/17/2014 074932 KOBUKE, THOMAS 07/14/14 volleyball 07/14/14 OUTDOOR VOLLEYBALL ATTENDANT Outdoor volleyball attendant 7/14/14 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 40.00 Total :40.00 209582 7/17/2014 068024 KRUCKEBERG BOTANIC GARD FOUND 18436 18436 KRUCKEBERG BOTANIC GARDEN INSTRUCT 18436 Kruckeberg Botanic Garden 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 113.75 Total :113.75 209583 7/17/2014 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 07072014-01 INV#07072014-01 - EDMONDS PD 26Page: Packet Page 49 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 27 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209583 7/17/2014 (Continued)017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 21 CAR WASHES $5.03(INC TX) 6/14 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 105.63 Total :105.63 209584 7/17/2014 073603 LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC JULY-2014 07-14 LEGALS FEES 07-14 Legal fees 001.000.36.515.31.41.00 32,000.00 Total :32,000.00 209585 7/17/2014 068957 LYNN PEAVEY COMPANY 291037 INV#291037 CUST#980012 - EDMONDS PD COMBO RULER PACK 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 15.95 PHOTO RULER 5 CM SCALE 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 4.00 BLACK/WHITE T SCALE 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 5.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 2.42 Total :27.87 209586 7/17/2014 071140 MAD SCIENCE OF SNO-KING 18252 Mad Science Ca 18252 MAD SCIENCE CAMP INSTRUCTOR FEE 18252 Mad Science Camp Instructor Fee 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 1,417.00 Total :1,417.00 209587 7/17/2014 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 1341 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 88.32 INTERPRETER FEE1342 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 88.32 INTERPRETER FEE1343 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 88.32 INTERPRETER FEE1344 27Page: Packet Page 50 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 28 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209587 7/17/2014 (Continued)069362 MARSHALL, CITA INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 88.32 INTERPRETER FEE1345 INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 108.32 Total :461.60 209588 7/17/2014 019920 MCCANN, MARIAN 57 LOEFF 1 medical reimbursement LOEFF 1 medical reimbursement 009.000.39.517.20.29.00 8,262.00 Total :8,262.00 209589 7/17/2014 074831 MILLER PAINT COMPANY 28099490 Traffic Control - Airless Hose Traffic Control - Airless Hose 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 159.50 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 15.16 Traffic Control - Guard28142160 Traffic Control - Guard 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 36.30 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 3.45 Total :214.41 209590 7/17/2014 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 190102 PARKS MAINT GENIE LIFT Genie lift rental, delivery, damage 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 511.84 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 48.62 Street - Gatorline191713 Street - Gatorline 111.000.68.542.71.31.00 37.90 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.71.31.00 3.60 PARKS MAINT TRAILER, CAR 16'192062 28Page: Packet Page 51 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 29 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209590 7/17/2014 (Continued)020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC trailer, car, 16' 125.000.64.576.80.45.00 340.00 9.5% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.45.00 32.30 Street - Weed Mower Rental192244 Street - Weed Mower Rental 111.000.68.542.71.45.00 89.79 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.71.45.00 8.53 Street - Supplies192270 Street - Supplies 111.000.68.542.71.31.00 21.90 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.71.31.00 2.08 Total :1,096.56 209591 7/17/2014 067834 NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION RENTALS 3932292 PARKS MAINT TEMPORARY PANELS CITY PARK P 6 ft temporary panels 125.000.64.576.80.45.00 2,005.92 9.5% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.45.00 190.56 Total :2,196.48 209592 7/17/2014 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0378328-IN Storm - Rain gear for trucks Storm - Rain gear for trucks 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 107.10 Freight 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 16.18 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 11.71 Total :134.99 209593 7/17/2014 074306 NEBCO/NPRIT 3304479 LEOFF 1 medical premium LEOFF 1 medical premium 617.000.51.522.20.23.00 1,283.53 29Page: Packet Page 52 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 30 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209593 7/17/2014 (Continued)074306 NEBCO/NPRIT LEOFF 1 medical premium 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 8,297.31 Total :9,580.84 209594 7/17/2014 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY s5909662.001 WWTP - REPAIR & REPLACEMENT Electric Supplies 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 506.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 48.07 Total :554.07 209595 7/17/2014 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-958293 CIVIC FIELD HONEY BUCKET Civic Field Honey Bucket 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 115.65 Total :115.65 209596 7/17/2014 074085 O.I. CORPORATION 165066 SENSOR CABLES AND CONNECTIONS SENSOR CABLES AND CONECTIONS 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 2,049.54 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 194.71 Total :2,244.25 209597 7/17/2014 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 586962 INV#586962 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD BANKERS BOXES 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 108.14 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 10.27 OFFICE SUPPLIES549885 Office Supplies 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 126.82 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 12.04 INV#551293 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS P551293 LEGAL PADS-JUNIOR SIZE 30Page: Packet Page 53 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 31 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209597 7/17/2014 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 6.46 LEGAL PADS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 24.16 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 16.50 STENO BOOKS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 23.78 CATALOG ENVELOPES 9X12 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 52.93 FILE FOLDERS-LETTER SIZE 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 7.28 REDI-STRIP CATALOG ENVELOPES 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 20.61 HANGING FOLDERS-LETTER SIZE 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 7.83 MULTI USE PAPER-CANARY YELLOW 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 5.38 MULTI USE PAPER-BOTTLE BLUE 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 4.31 HEATSEAL MENUE SIZE SHEETS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 20.96 INV#586328 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD586328 SHARPIE FOR CD/DVD 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 25.82 CD-R RECORDABLE DISCS 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 68.52 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 2.45 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 6.51 PARKS OFFICE SUPPLIES594484 Chalk 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 1.98 Discover Programs supplies: 31Page: Packet Page 54 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 32 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209597 7/17/2014 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC 001.000.64.571.23.31.00 49.32 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 0.19 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.23.31.00 4.68 DISCOVERY PROGRAM SUPPLIES594572 finger paint 001.000.64.571.23.31.00 6.84 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.23.31.00 0.64 OFFICE SUPPLIES623631 Office Supplies 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 63.52 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 6.03 OFFICE SUPPLIES673875 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 0.51 office supplies: ball pens black, hole 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 5.35 PARKS & REC SUPPLIES674062 laminating pouches 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 51.65 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 4.90 Total :746.38 209598 7/17/2014 068709 OFFICETEAM 40807378 HR Temporary Employee- Terry Crosson HR Temporary Employee- Terry Crosson 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 600.00 Total :600.00 209599 7/17/2014 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0021400 FIRE STATION #20 88TH AVE W / METER R130 FIRE STATION #20 88TH AVE W / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 184.94 32Page: Packet Page 55 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 33 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :184.942095997/17/2014 026200 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 209600 7/17/2014 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC 10167 PARKS POOL SUPPLIES Acid Magic 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 191.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 18.23 Total :210.13 209601 7/17/2014 074632 OVIVO USA LLC 8463377 WWTP - REPAIR & REPLACEMENT Clamp Lower Nordel 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 721.37 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 68.53 WWTP - PLANT PARTS8463394 skimmer, springs, and zinc collars 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 612.42 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 58.18 WWTP - PLANT PARTS8463443 Hinged Skimmer, Steel 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 427.14 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 40.58 Total :1,928.22 209602 7/17/2014 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 79321 ROCK FOR CITY PARK PLAY TOY PROJECT rock, environmental compliance fee, 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 465.60 9.5% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 44.23 Total :509.83 209603 7/17/2014 070962 PAULSONS TOWING INC 104071 INV#104071 - EDMONDS PD TOW 2008 TOYOTA #B34140L 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 158.00 33Page: Packet Page 56 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 34 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209603 7/17/2014 (Continued)070962 PAULSONS TOWING INC 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 15.01 Total :173.01 209604 7/17/2014 074931 PEAK CMS LLC 4837 CITY WIDE PHONE SYSTEM UPGRADE 75% deposit for City wide phone system 001.000.31.594.18.64.10 8,218.01 Total :8,218.01 209605 7/17/2014 073871 PERSONNEL EVALUATION INC 09444 INV 09444 EDMONDS PD - PEP 6/1-6/30/14 5 PERSONNEL EVAL PROFILES - PRE-HIRE - 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 100.00 Total :100.00 209606 7/17/2014 008350 PETTY CASH Day Camp PC 07112014 DAY CAMP PETTY CASH 07112014 Clothespins, party favors for frogs 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 4.38 Pony beads, pipe cleaners, squiggly eyes 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 11.80 kleenex, velcro 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 4.65 watermelons for jungle hunt 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 7.98 parachute cords to make bracelets 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 21.53 bead store supplies 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 14.24 Skewers for flag sticks 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 2.82 trophies for camp cup and pens for 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 24.09 wicks for candles for senior art project 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 6.11 portion cups for crafts 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 3.71 34Page: Packet Page 57 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 35 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209606 7/17/2014 (Continued)008350 PETTY CASH squeezable paint for crafts 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 14.45 craft looms and bands 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 14.87 salt, flour, koolaid for playdough craft 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 6.28 cups, clothes pins & sponges for crafts 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 8.67 gallon of glue 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 21.73 spray paint to paint rock for treasure 001.000.64.575.53.31.00 11.76 JC photographs for bulletin board 001.000.64.575.53.49.00 6.35 Total :185.42 209607 7/17/2014 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 03870 PORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR CITY PORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR CITY 422.000.72.531.90.51.00 3,264.93 Total :3,264.93 209608 7/17/2014 064088 PROTECTION ONE 2445047 ALARM MONITORING SENIOR CENTER ALARM MONITORING SENIOR CENTER 220 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 116.67 ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL31146525 ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 43.82 Total :160.49 209609 7/17/2014 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 200000704821 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST / ME FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,048.90 OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER 0200007876143 OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST / METER 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 54.37 35Page: Packet Page 58 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 36 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209609 7/17/2014 (Continued)046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY FIRE STATION # 16 8429 196TH ST SW / MET200009595790 FIRE STATION # 16 8429 196TH ST SW / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 125.78 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W / METE200011439656 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 60.33 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / METER 00052200016558856 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 121.33 FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER 0200016815843 FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 218.01 FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 72ND AVE W /200017676343 FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 72ND AVE W 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 72.44 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE R200019375639 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 80.93 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 001200019895354 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 65.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / METE200020415911 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 6.81 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 25.88 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 25.88 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 25.88 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 25.88 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW / 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 25.88 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 000390395200021829581 36Page: Packet Page 59 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 37 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209609 7/17/2014 (Continued)046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / METER 000390395 423.000.76.535.80.47.63 370.38 CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE S / METER200024711901 CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE S / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 71.37 Total :2,425.05 209610 7/17/2014 070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE 14-0241 COURT SECURITY COURT SECURITY 001.000.23.512.50.41.00 2,981.25 COURT SECURITY14-0503 COURT SECURITY 001.000.23.512.50.41.00 2,677.50 Total :5,658.75 209611 7/17/2014 062657 REGIONAL DISPOSAL COMPANY 0000047688 Storm - Dump Fees Storm - Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 728.20 Total :728.20 209612 7/17/2014 061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197 3-0197-0800478 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 143.58 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW3-0197-0800897 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 28.17 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 107.06 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 107.06 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 107.06 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 107.06 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW 37Page: Packet Page 60 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 38 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209612 7/17/2014 (Continued)061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 107.04 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW3-0197-0801132 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST SW 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 151.43 CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD3-0197-0829729 CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 64.98 Total :923.44 209613 7/17/2014 074927 RICHARDSON, APRIL 18582 Kids Printmaki 18582 KIDS PRINTMAKING INSTRUCTOR FEE 18582 Kids Printmaking Instructor Fee 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 390.50 Total :390.50 209614 7/17/2014 069062 RONGERUDE, JOHN 8042 PUBLIC DEFENDER PUBLIC DEFENDER 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 2,000.00 Total :2,000.00 209615 7/17/2014 067802 SAN DIEGO POLICE EQUIP CO 613125 INV#613125 CUST#001733 - EDMONDS PD FED AE223F-CF 223 55GR FMJ BT 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 3,098.80 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 294.38 INV#613126 CUST#001733 - EDMONDS PD613126 FED AE223F-CF 223 55GR FMJ BT 001.000.41.521.23.31.00 1,549.40 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.23.31.00 147.19 Total :5,089.77 209616 7/17/2014 074335 SAVAGE, LINDA 18367 Etiquette 18367 ETIQUETTE INSTRUCTOR FEE 18367 Etiquette instructor fee 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 250.00 Total :250.00 38Page: Packet Page 61 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 39 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209617 7/17/2014 071159 SEATTLE SHAKESPEARE COMPANY 07/20/2014 perform 7/20/14 PERFORMANCE THE TWO GENTLEMEN OF performance 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 1,800.00 Total :1,800.00 209618 7/17/2014 074086 SIGNON 153543 INTERPERTER FEE INTERPERTER FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 171.98 Total :171.98 209619 7/17/2014 065119 SIRCHIE FINGERPRINT LAB 0169989-IN INV#0169989-IN CUST#00-A98020 EDMONDS PD E-Z PEEL RED EVIDENCE TAPE 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 27.90 Total :27.90 209620 7/17/2014 074906 SITE WORKSHOP LLC 3415 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES CITY PA Landscape Architectural Services 132.000.64.594.76.41.00 1,855.00 Total :1,855.00 209622 7/17/2014 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-0291-9 LIFT STATION #8 113 RAILROAD AVE / METER LIFT STATION #8 113 RAILROAD AVE / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 155.09 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23602 76TH AVE W / METER 12002-7495-9 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23602 76TH AVE W / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 32.33 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 76TH AVE W / METER 12004-9315-3 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 76TH AVE W / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 49.27 LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT RD / METER2004-9683-4 LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT RD / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 125.29 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 76TH AVE W / METER 12005-9488-5 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 76TH AVE W / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 30.50 CITY PARK RESTROOMS2006-5085-1 39Page: Packet Page 62 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 40 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209622 7/17/2014 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 electricity 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 32.86 PARK & MAINTENANCE SHOP2006-5164-4 electricity 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 447.34 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9730 220TH ST SW / METER 12007-4860-6 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9730 220TH ST SW / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 32.33 250 6TH AVE N2008-6924-6 250 6th Ave N 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 56.95 DECORATIVE LIGHTING 115 2ND AVE S / METE2009-1385-3 DECORATIVE LIGHTING 115 2ND AVE S / 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 34.87 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23202 EDMONDS WAY / METER2009-4334-8 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23202 EDMONDS WAY / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 70.85 HICKMAN PARK2011-8453-8 Hickman Park 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 145.58 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21132 76TH AVE W / METER 12011-8789-5 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21132 76TH AVE W / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 35.74 TRAFFIC LIGHT 20408 76TH AVE W / METER 12011-9222-6 TRAFFIC LIGHT 20408 76TH AVE W / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 32.33 CITY PARK GAZEBO2013-8327-0 City Park Gazebo 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 32.86 LIFT STATION 7403 BALLINGER WAY / METER2014-2731-7 LIFT STATION 7403 BALLINGER WAY / METER 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 32.33 251 6TH AVE N2014-5305-7 251 6th Ave N 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 121.30 40Page: Packet Page 63 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 41 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209622 7/17/2014 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 LIFT STATION #14 7905 1/2 211TH PL SW /2015-0127-7 LIFT STATION #14 7905 1/2 211TH PL SW / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 35.17 LIFT STATION #7 121 W DAYTON ST / METER2015-3292-6 LIFT STATION #7 121 W DAYTON ST / METER 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 276.69 TRAFFIC LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W / METER 12015-8215-2 TRAFFIC LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W / METER 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 46.54 STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @ 150W) / NO2017-1178-5 STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @ 150W) / 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 1,105.99 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W / METE2020-7719-4 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 934.53 CITY PARK SOUTH RESTROOMS & COVERED2021-1448-4 electricity 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 63.83 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 7801 212TH ST SW /2021-9128-4 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 7801 212TH ST SW / 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 32.33 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 HWY 99 / METER 100042022-8909-6 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 HWY 99 / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 101.94 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21530 76TH AVE W / METER 12023-5673-9 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21530 76TH AVE W / METER 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 41.18 LIFT STATION #1 105 CASPERS ST / METER 12024-9953-9 LIFT STATION #1 105 CASPERS ST / METER 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 780.36 STREET LIGHTING (303 LIGHTS @ 200W) / NO2025-2918-6 STREET LIGHTING (303 LIGHTS @ 200W) / 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 2,562.24 STREET LIGHTING (13 LIGHTS @ 400W) / NOT2025-2920-2 STREET LIGHTING (13 LIGHTS @ 400W) / 41Page: Packet Page 64 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 42 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209622 7/17/2014 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 116.09 STREET LIGHTING (2029 LIGHTS @ 100W) / N2025-7615-3 STREET LIGHTING (2029 LIGHTS @ 100W) / 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 14,657.07 STREET LIGHTING (58 LIGHTS @ 250W) / NOT2025-7948-8 STREET LIGHTING (58 LIGHTS @ 250W) / 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 337.50 LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / METER 102044-2584-7 LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / METER 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 110.43 STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150W) / NOT M2047-1489-3 STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150W) / NOT 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 3.75 STREET LIGHTING (18 LIGHTS @ 200W) / NOT2047-1492-7 STREET LIGHTING (18 LIGHTS @ 200W) / 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 83.38 STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 400W) / NOT2047-1493-5 STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 400W) / NOT 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 43.94 STREET LIGHTING (2 LIGHTS @ 100W) / NOT2047-1494-3 STREET LIGHTING (2 LIGHTS @ 100W) / NOT 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 11.15 STREET LIGHTING (26 LIGHTS @ 250W) / NOT2047-1495-0 STREET LIGHTING (26 LIGHTS @ 250W) / 111.000.68.542.68.47.00 151.58 LIFT STATION #5 432 3RD AVE S / METER 102051-8438-5 LIFT STATION #5 432 3RD AVE S / METER 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 52.70 DECORATIVE & STREET LIGHTING 226122053-0758-0 DECORATIVE & STREET LIGHTING 22612 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 220.27 Total :23,236.48 209623 7/17/2014 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 2014-2161 CREDITS ON #2014-2161 - SNO CO JAIL CR HOME DETENTION FROM 05/14S 42Page: Packet Page 65 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 43 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209623 7/17/2014 (Continued)063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 -494.74 7 WORK RELEASE $40 - ROEBKE 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 -280.00 INV#2014-2161 - EDMONDS PD2014-2161 48.5 BOOKINGS @ $95.94 - 06/14 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 4,653.09 459.83 HOUSING DAYS @ $66.63 - 06/14 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 30,638.47 26 WORK RELEASE @ $44.77 - 06/14 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 1,164.02 Total :35,680.84 209624 7/17/2014 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 64618 PARKS SOLID WASTE FEES JUNE Parks Solid Waste Fees June 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 926.00 Total :926.00 209625 7/17/2014 037800 SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT CEDM 6/12/14 WWTP HEP (1) WWTP HEP (1) 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 167.00 Total :167.00 209626 7/17/2014 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103583 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 550.68 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST103585 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700 MAIN ST 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 674.47 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST103586 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 555.23 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N103588 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 459.89 WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / ASH DISPOSAL104757 43Page: Packet Page 66 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 44 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209626 7/17/2014 (Continued)038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO WWTP 200 2ND AVE S / ASH DISPOSAL 423.000.76.535.80.47.65 10,715.99 Total :12,956.26 209627 7/17/2014 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 4235781-01 STREET - WORK TSHIRTS 6 / 1 OVERALL - Street - Work Tshirts 6 / 1 Overall - 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 147.20 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 13.98 Total :161.18 209628 7/17/2014 039775 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE L103877 06-14 AUDIT FEES 06-14 Audit Fees 001.000.39.519.90.51.00 21,043.85 06-14 Audit Fees 422.000.72.531.90.51.00 1,052.19 06-14 Audit Fees 421.000.74.534.80.51.00 3,507.31 06-14 Audit Fees 423.000.75.535.80.51.00 3,507.31 06-14 Audit Fees 423.000.76.535.80.51.00 3,507.31 06-14 Audit Fees 111.000.68.543.30.51.00 1,052.19 06-14 Audit Fees 511.000.77.548.68.51.00 1,402.92 Total :35,073.08 209629 7/17/2014 040250 STEUBER DISTRIBUTING 2773681 PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES OSMO 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 308.00 8.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 27.10 Total :335.10 44Page: Packet Page 67 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 45 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209630 7/17/2014 072319 SUNSET BAY RESORT LLC 18370 and 18393 BEACH WATERSPORTS CAMP 18370 Beach Watersports Camp 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 7,095.00 18393 Beach Watersports Camp 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 5,670.00 Total :12,765.00 209631 7/17/2014 073970 TALLMAN, TYLER TALLMAN TYLER 062714 SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT MEADOWDALE PLAY Softball field attendant Meadowdale 001.000.64.575.52.41.00 440.00 Total :440.00 209632 7/17/2014 074882 TEC CONSTRUCTION INC co pymt #1 WWTP - CHANGE ORDER C411 Change Order #1, C-411 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 830.21 WWTP - CHANGE ORDER C411co pymt #2 Change Order #2, C411 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 10,121.43 WWTP - CHANGE ORDER C411co pymt #3 Change Order #3, C411 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 9,233.01 Total :20,184.65 209633 7/17/2014 071666 TETRA TECH INC 50812199 E3FC.SERVICES THRU 6/30/14 E3FC.Services thru 6/30/14 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 62,337.35 Total :62,337.35 209634 7/17/2014 068105 THORSON BARNETT & MCDONALD PC 68373 INV 68373 CITY OF EDMONDS ACCT 42097 HONNEN OVERPAYMENT/COMPENSATION 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 3,236.00 Total :3,236.00 209635 7/17/2014 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR US53323 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE CITY HALL ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE CITY HALL 121 5TH 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 1,042.54 45Page: Packet Page 68 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 46 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209635 7/17/2014 (Continued)038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 99.04 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SENIOR CENTERUS54073 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SENIOR CENTER 220 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 242.77 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 23.06 ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING CIVIC CENTERUS54537 ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING CIVIC CENTER 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 49.70 ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING SENIOR CENTERUS54628 ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING SENIOR CENTER 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 14.95 Total :1,472.06 209636 7/17/2014 043935 UPS 00002T4T13274 UPS ADJUSTMENT CHARGES D BECK SHIPMENT UPS adjustment charges for D Beck & 001.000.62.524.20.42.00 3.12 Total :3.12 209637 7/17/2014 062693 US BANK 0378 SHRM membership renewal- Mary Ann Hardie SHRM membership renewal- Mary Ann Hardie 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 185.00 SHRM membership renewal- Yvonne Chan 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 185.00 Advertising- Parks Dept. seasonal 001.000.22.518.10.44.00 50.00 Advertising- Capital projects manager 001.000.22.518.10.44.00 50.00 INV#2519 07/07/14 -TRAINING- EDMONDS PD2519 MEAL/PNWD-IAI/MOORE 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 50.64 FUEL/PNWD-IAI/MOORE 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 43.23 MEAL/PNWD-IAI/MOORE 46Page: Packet Page 69 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 47 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209637 7/17/2014 (Continued)062693 US BANK 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 6.57 LODGING/PNWD-IAI/MOORE 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 743.99 MEAL/PNWD-IAI/MOORE 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 9.00 CR FOR CHG IN ERROR #2519 07/07/14 STMT2519-CR ITEM CHGD IN ERROR TO HOTEL BILL 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 -15.99 JUNE 2014 CREDIT CARD2985 Water Environment Federations 423.000.76.535.80.49.00 268.00 INV#3181 07/07/14 - BARD - EDMONDS PD3181 MINDFLASH-MO FEE FOR ONLINE TRAINING 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 199.00 KINGSTON DIGITAL TRAVELERS 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 42.80 VARIOUS COMPUTER CABLES 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 82.64 BLADE-TECH TASER HOLSTER,~ 001.000.41.521.22.35.00 60.21 BLADE-TECH TASER HOLSTER 001.000.41.521.22.35.00 49.26 ON-LINE TRAINING FOR NEW WORLD 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 23.00 COMFORT PANEL/LUMBAR PAD 001.000.41.521.40.24.00 83.13 EPSON PROJECTOR 001.000.41.521.40.35.00 940.00 E-LEARNING/SCIENCE OF INSTRUCT 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 58.01 TLO SEARCHES 06/2014 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 27.25 REG/FORENSIC ANALY/MCINTYRE 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 129.00 47Page: Packet Page 70 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 48 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209637 7/17/2014 (Continued)062693 US BANK REG/FORENSIC EVIDENCE/SMITH 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 25.00 UNIVERSAL PROJECTION MOUNT 001.000.41.521.40.35.00 49.00 REFUND FOR CLASS #3181 07/07/14 STMT3181-CR 07-14 REFUND FOR CANCELLED CLASS 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 -129.00 COURT ONLINE TRAINING FOR CLERK CLIFTON3249 COURT ONLINE TRAINING FOR CLERK CLIFTON 001.000.23.512.50.49.00 595.00 COURT ONLINE TRAINING FOR PROBATION 001.000.23.523.30.49.00 595.00 POSTAGE FOR PASSPORT APPLICATIONS 001.000.23.512.50.42.00 55.55 INV#3314 07/07/14 - LAWLESS - EDMONDS PD3314 TOURNIQUETS 628.000.41.521.23.31.00 704.20 TRAINING TOURNIQUETS 628.000.41.521.23.31.00 174.60 QUICKCLOT COMBAT GAUZE 628.000.41.521.23.31.00 620.63 CR FOR CHG ON 05/06/14 #3314 STMT3314-CR REFUND FOR BOOTS NOT REC'VD 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 -146.99 DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION3470 Bulkregister.com - Domain name 001.000.31.518.88.49.00 41.85 INV#3520 07/07/14 TRAINING - EDMONDS PD3520 PARKING FOR IA-14-002 INTERVIEW 001.000.41.521.10.43.00 6.00 FUEL/SHOTGUN INST/LIM 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 22.10 MEAL /SHOTGUN INST/LIM 6/23 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 8.40 48Page: Packet Page 71 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 49 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209637 7/17/2014 (Continued)062693 US BANK MEAL/SHOTGUN INST/LIM 6/23 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 18.63 MEAL/SHOTGUN INST/LIM 6/24 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 6.79 MEAL/SHOTGUN INST/LIM 6/24 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 37.55 MEAL/SHOTGUN INST/LIM 6/25 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 17.25 FUEL/SHOTGUN INST/LIM 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 42.25 MEAL/SHOTGUN INST/LIM 6/25 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 32.48 MEAL/SHOTGUN INST/LIM 6/26 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 58.87 MEAL/SHOTGUN INST/LIM 6/27 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 16.00 LODGING/SHOTGUN INST/LIM 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 393.24 FUEL/SHOTGUN INST/LIM 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 46.90 MEAL/SHOTGUN INST/LIM 6/27 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 11.32 MEAL/SHOTGUN INST/LIM 6/27 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 8.40 LIEN RETIREMENT POSTER4697 Framing of retirement poster and extra 001.000.21.513.10.41.00 120.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.41.00 11.40 AIR COND UNIT, BATTERIES, PRINTER, HARD5179 Server Parts Warehouse - AX-S207-750 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 791.41 Newegg.com - StarTech.com IEEE-1394 001.000.31.518.88.31.00 9.99 49Page: Packet Page 72 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 50 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209637 7/17/2014 (Continued)062693 US BANK Server Supply.com - various HP, 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 823.00 B&H photo-video.com - Seagate & Buffalo 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 318.95 Newegg.com - StarTech HDACFM5IN 5" high 001.000.31.518.88.31.00 12.99 Newegg.com - HP LaserJet P2035 Laser 001.000.41.521.40.35.00 201.98 Experts Exchange - IT Solutions Online 001.000.31.518.88.49.00 12.95 Home Depot - Air conditioning unit for 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 349.31 High-Tech Battery Solutions - APC 001.000.31.518.88.31.00 240.22 ASUS VS Series VS228H-P 21.5" HDMI LED 117.100.64.573.20.35.00 129.99 CITY CLERK PURCHASE CARD5593 Misc recorded documents 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 153.00 Recording of Utility Liens 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 231.00 Recording of Utility Liens 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 231.00 AWC CONFERENCE7483 AWC Conference hotel 001.000.21.513.10.43.00 332.10 July Mayor's Meeting luncheon 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 13.00 INV#7914 07/07/14 - THOMPSON - EDMONDS P7914 NAVY TWIN POCKET FOLDERS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 43.46 OCUFRESH EYE WASH 628.000.41.521.23.31.00 66.06 ENGRAVE EPD # ON BADGES 50Page: Packet Page 73 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 51 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209637 7/17/2014 (Continued)062693 US BANK 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 3.56 ENGRAVE EPD# ON BADGES 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 9.58 TREATS FOR EPF MTG 6/24 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 5.25 DUTY BOOTS FOR LIM 001.000.41.521.23.31.00 193.30 ELECTRIC LABEL MAKER 001.000.41.521.80.35.00 135.92 TURBO 64GB USB 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 68.98 GLOVES IN A BOTTLE 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 41.94 OHAUS PORTABLE BALANCE SCALES 001.000.41.521.80.35.00 881.96 AVERY MANILA "G" SHIPPING TAGS 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 89.76 ENG CREDIT CARD JUNE 20148313 E1CA.Public Meeting Notice 112.200.68.595.33.41.00 249.05 Storm Equipment - Socket Set 422.000.72.594.31.41.20 27.34 E1GA.Railroad Shutoff Notice 423.000.75.594.35.41.30 36.81 Total :12,416.02 209638 7/17/2014 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR 4060123 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 84.47 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 84.47 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 87.02 Total :255.96 51Page: Packet Page 74 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 52 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209639 7/17/2014 069816 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC 8058256543 WWTP - LAB SUPPLIES Pipette Sero 50ml 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 269.96 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 25.65 Total :295.61 209640 7/17/2014 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 6345 BUSINESS CARDS FOR PW PD AND DEV SER Business Cards-Samuel Gagner250-00319 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 20.60 Tyler Buckingham250-00319 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 20.60 Josh McClure250-00319 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 20.60 Andrew Gahan250-00319 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 20.60 Steve Fisher250-00319 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 10.30 Steve Fisher250-00319 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 10.30 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 5.87 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 1.96 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 0.98 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 0.98 Total :112.79 209641 7/17/2014 068106 WELCOME COMMUNICATIONS 8157 INV#8157 - EDMONDS PD ENDURA CHARGER POD 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 40.00 ENDURA DUAL UNIT CHARGER 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 82.95 9.5% Sales Tax 52Page: Packet Page 75 of 524 07/17/2014 Voucher List City of Edmonds 53 9:22:03AM Page:vchlist Bank code :usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 209641 7/17/2014 (Continued)068106 WELCOME COMMUNICATIONS 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 11.68 Total :134.63 Bank total :546,129.49103 Vouchers for bank code :usbank 546,129.49Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report103 53Page: Packet Page 76 of 524 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 E0AA STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)c424 E3DC STM 190th Pl SW Wall Construction c428 E3FF STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 E0JA STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA SWR 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE STM 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c406 E3FA STM 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects c407 E3FB SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA WTR 2014 Waterline Replacement Program c422 E4JA STM 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB STR 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk c421 E3DA WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)c425 E3DD STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)c423 E3DB STR 5th Ave Overlay Project c399 E2CC STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB Revised 7/16/2014 Packet Page 77 of 524 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP)c390 E2GB WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 E0IA STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA STR Citywide Safety Improvements c404 E2AC SWR City-Wide Sewer Improvements c301 E8GD STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)c409 E3FD FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 E0LA FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA FAC Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades c393 E3LA STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)c298 E8GA STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 E8MB STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE STM NPDES m013 E7FG SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB WTR OVD Watermain Improvements (2003)c141 E3JB STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB Revised 7/16/2014 Packet Page 78 of 524 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1FD STR School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant c420 E3AA PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 E0LB SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA WTR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 E1EA General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1FF STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)c349 E1FH STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 E0FC STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA Revised 7/16/2014 Packet Page 79 of 524 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number Project Title WTR c141 E3JB OVD Watermain Improvements (2003) SWR c142 E3GB OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements PM c146 E2DB Interurban Trail General c238 E6MA SR99 Enhancement Program STR c245 E6DA 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project STR c256 E6DB Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project STR c265 E7AA Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements STR c268 E7CB Shell Valley Emergency Access Road PM c276 E7MA Dayton Street Plaza PM c282 E8MA Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor PM c290 E8MB Marina Beach Additional Parking STR c294 E9CA 2009 Street Overlay Program SWR c298 E8GA Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) SWR c301 E8GD City-Wide Sewer Improvements SWR c304 E9GA Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design STM c307 E9FB Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation STR c312 E9DA 226th Street Walkway Project PM c321 E9MA Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements WTR c324 E0IA AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements STM c326 E0FC Stormwater GIS Support FAC c327 E0LA Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project STR c329 E0AA 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade FAC c332 E0LB Senior Center Roof Repairs WTR c333 E1JA 2011 Waterline Replacement Program STM c339 E1FD Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades WTR c340 E1JE 2012 Waterline Replacement Program STM c341 E1FF Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects STR c342 E1AA Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STR c343 E1AB 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming WTR c344 E1JB 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood WTR c345 E1JC Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study WTR c346 E1JD PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment SWR c347 E1GA 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement STM c349 E1FH Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) Revised 7/16/2014 Packet Page 80 of 524 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number Project Title STR c354 E1DA Sunset Walkway Improvements WTR c363 E0JA 2010 Waterline Replacement Program STR c368 E1CA 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements SWR c369 E2GA 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update WTR c370 E1GB Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update General c372 E1EA SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing STM c374 E1FM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives WTR c375 E1JK Main Street Watermain STM c376 E1FN Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement STM c378 E2FA North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements STM c379 E2FB SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System STM c380 E2FC Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study STM c381 E2FD Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 STM c382 E2FE 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements WTR c388 E2CA 2012 Waterline Overlay Program WTR c389 E2CB Pioneer Way Road Repair SWR c390 E2GB Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP) STR c391 E2AA Transportation Plan Update STR c392 E2AB 9th Avenue Improvement Project FAC c393 E3LA Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades WTR c397 E3JA 2013 Waterline Replacement Program SWR c398 E3GA 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project STR c399 E2CC 5th Ave Overlay Project STR c404 E2AC Citywide Safety Improvements STR c405 E2AD Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) STM c406 E3FA 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement STM c407 E3FB 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects STM c408 E3FC Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study STM c409 E3FD Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) STM c410 E3FE Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive PRK c417 E4MA City Spray Park WTR c418 E3JB 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) FAC c419 E3LB ESCO III Project STR c420 E3AA School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant Revised 7/16/2014 Packet Page 81 of 524 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Funding Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number Project Title STR c421 E3DA 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk WTR c422 E4JA 2014 Waterline Replacement Program STR c423 E3DB 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STR c424 E3DC 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) STR c425 E3DD 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) STR c426 E3DE ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S STR c427 E3AB SR104 Corridor Transportation Study STM c428 E3FF 190th Pl SW Wall Construction STM c429 E3FG Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th STM c430 E3FH SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements STM c433 E4FA 2014 Drainage Improvements STM c434 E4FB LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin STM c435 E4FC 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM c436 E4FD 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects STR c438 E4CA 2014 Overlay Program WTR c440 E4JB 2015 Waterline Replacement Program SWR c441 E4GA 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project FAC c443 E4MB Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab WWTP c446 E4HA Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring STR i005 E7AC 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STM m013 E7FG NPDES Revised 7/16/2014 Packet Page 82 of 524 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title STR E0AA c329 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade STM E0FC c326 Stormwater GIS Support WTR E0IA c324 AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements WTR E0JA c363 2010 Waterline Replacement Program FAC E0LA c327 Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project FAC E0LB c332 Senior Center Roof Repairs STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STR E1AB c343 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements General E1EA c372 SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing STM E1FD c339 Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades STM E1FF c341 Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects STM E1FH c349 Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) STM E1FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives STM E1FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement SWR E1GA c347 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement WTR E1GB c370 Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update WTR E1JA c333 2011 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E1JB c344 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood WTR E1JC c345 Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study WTR E1JD c346 PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment WTR E1JE c340 2012 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E1JK c375 Main Street Watermain STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project STR E2AC c404 Citywide Safety Improvements STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) WTR E2CA c388 2012 Waterline Overlay Program WTR E2CB c389 Pioneer Way Road Repair STR E2CC c399 5th Ave Overlay Project PM E2DB c146 Interurban Trail STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System Revised 7/16/2014 Packet Page 83 of 524 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study STM E2FD c381 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 STM E2FE c382 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements SWR E2GA c369 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update SWR E2GB c390 Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP) STR E3AA c420 School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study STR E3DA c421 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STR E3DC c424 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) STR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) STR E3DE c426 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S STM E3FA c406 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement STM E3FB c407 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study STM E3FD c409 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) STM E3FE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive STM E3FF c428 190th Pl SW Wall Construction STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project SWR E3GB c142 OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements WTR E3JA c397 2013 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E3JB c141 OVD Watermain Improvements (2003) WTR E3JB c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) FAC E3LA c393 Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program STM E4FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin STM E4FC c435 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM E4FD c436 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring Revised 7/16/2014 Packet Page 84 of 524 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Funding Engineering Project Number Project Accounting Number Project Title WTR E4JA c422 2014 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E4JB c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program PRK E4MA c417 City Spray Park FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab STR E6DA c245 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project STR E6DB c256 Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project General E6MA c238 SR99 Enhancement Program STR E7AA c265 Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STR E7CB c268 Shell Valley Emergency Access Road STM E7FG m013 NPDES PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza SWR E8GA c298 Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) SWR E8GD c301 City-Wide Sewer Improvements PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor PM E8MB c290 Marina Beach Additional Parking STR E9CA c294 2009 Street Overlay Program STR E9DA c312 226th Street Walkway Project STM E9FB c307 Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation SWR E9GA c304 Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design PM E9MA c321 Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements Revised 7/16/2014 Packet Page 85 of 524 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 E0LA FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 E0LB FAC Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades c393 E3LA FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 E1EA General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 E8MB PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 E0FC STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1FD STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1FF STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)c349 E1FH STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE STM 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c406 E3FA STM 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects c407 E3FB STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)c409 E3FD STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE STM 190th Pl SW Wall Construction c428 E3FF STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB STM 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STM NPDES m013 E7FG Revised 7/16/2014 Packet Page 86 of 524 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 E0AA STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB STR Citywide Safety Improvements c404 E2AC STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)c405 E2AD STR 5th Ave Overlay Project c399 E2CC STR School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant c420 E3AA STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB STR 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk c421 E3DA STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)c423 E3DB STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)c424 E3DC STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)c425 E3DD STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA SWR 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP)c390 E2GB SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB Revised 7/16/2014 Packet Page 87 of 524 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Project Title Project Accounting Number Engineering Project Number SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)c298 E8GA SWR City-Wide Sewer Improvements c301 E8GD SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 E0IA WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 E0JA WTR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA WTR OVD Watermain Improvements (2003)c141 E3JB WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013)c418 E3JB WTR 2014 Waterline Replacement Program c422 E4JA WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB Revised 7/16/2014 Packet Page 88 of 524 Packet Page 89 of 524 Packet Page 90 of 524 Packet Page 91 of 524 AM-7008 4. C. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:07/22/2014 Time:Consent Submitted By:Megan Luttrell Department:Engineering Review Committee: Parks/Planning/Public Works Committee Action: Approve for Consent Agenda Type: Action Information Subject Title Authorization for Mayor to approve acceptance of easements from the U-Save property for the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement Project Recommendation Authorize Mayor to accept and sign the easement documents for the U-Save property. Previous Council Action On July 9, 2013, the Planning, Parks and Public Works Committee authorized the acceptance and recording of right of way and easements documents for the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements project. Narrative The City has reached an agreement with the U-Save property owner to have 1,371 square feet of temporary construction easement during the construction of the 228th St. Corridor Improvements project. The total compensation provided to the property owner is $2,750, with an additional $750 for the Statutory Evaluation Allowance (payment to their attorney/Rodgers Deutsche & Turner). This cost will be funded by a federal transportation grant with a 13.5% match in local funds. The U-Save property is located on the southeast corner of Highway 99 and 76 th Ave W. Attachments Real Property Voucher #1 Real Property Voucher #2 Temporary Construction Easement Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 07/16/2014 03:48 PM Engineering Robert English 07/17/2014 10:28 AM Engineering Robert English 07/17/2014 10:29 AM Public Works Scott Passey 07/18/2014 10:43 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 07/18/2014 10:44 AM Mayor Dave Earling 07/18/2014 11:11 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 07/18/2014 11:16 AM Packet Page 92 of 524 Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 07/18/2014 11:16 AM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 07/16/2014 03:43 PM Final Approval Date: 07/18/2014 Packet Page 93 of 524 P a c k e t P a g e 9 4 o f 5 2 4 P a c k e t P a g e 9 5 o f 5 2 4 P a c k e t P a g e 9 6 o f 5 2 4 P a c k e t P a g e 9 7 o f 5 2 4 P a c k e t P a g e 9 8 o f 5 2 4 P a c k e t P a g e 9 9 o f 5 2 4 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 0 o f 5 2 4 P a c k e t P a g e 1 0 1 o f 5 2 4 AM-7007 4. D. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:07/22/2014 Time:Consent Submitted By:Scott Passey Department:City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Action Information Subject Title Approval of 2014 Taxicab Operator's License for Yellow Cab of Washington Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council approve the 2014 Taxicab Operator's License for Yellow Cab of Washington. Previous Council Action Taxicab Operator's Licenses are issued annually. Narrative Edmonds City Code Chapter 4.60 requires that the City Council approve Taxicab Operator's Licenses. A copy of the license application for Yellow Cab Taxi is attached. The Police Department reviewed the application, vehicles and drivers, and recommended the applicant be allowed to continue through the application process. Attachments 2014 Taxicab App Yellow Cab of WA Form Review Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 07/16/2014 02:19 PM Final Approval Date: 07/16/2014 Packet Page 102 of 524 Packet Page 103 of 524 Packet Page 104 of 524 Packet Page 105 of 524 Packet Page 106 of 524 Packet Page 107 of 524 Packet Page 108 of 524 Packet Page 109 of 524 Packet Page 110 of 524 Packet Page 111 of 524 Packet Page 112 of 524 AM-7018 4. E. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:07/22/2014 Time:Consent Submitted For:Councilmember Petso Submitted By:Rob Chave Department:Planning Committee: Finance Type: Information Information Subject Title Update on funds for Historic Preservation Calendar Recommendation Update the full Council on the status of the Historic Preservation Calendar project. Previous Council Action The Council amended the 2014 budget to add funding for printing a 2015 historic preservation calendar ($5,000). This item was discussed at the Council's Finance Committee on May 13, 2014. Narrative When the 2014 budget was approved by Council, an amendment was included to fund a 2015 Historic Preservation Calendar (similar to past years' efforts). The understanding was that the $5,000 allocated by Council would be reimbursed by a state grant if that was obtained. During discussions by staff earlier this year with the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, it was determined that a grant application for another calendar would not be successful, given the limited funds available and the state's other priorities. Therefore, the City's Historic Preservation Commission would like to advise the Council of the inability of the Commission to obtain grant funding, but also advise that the Commission is ready to move forward with the funding provided by the Council in the 2014 budget without the expectation of any grant money being received. Attachments Finance Committee Minutes Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 07/18/2014 09:03 AM Mayor Dave Earling 07/18/2014 10:12 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 07/18/2014 10:16 AM Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 07/18/2014 08:55 AM Final Approval Date: 07/18/2014 Packet Page 113 of 524 FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES May 13, 2014 Councilmembers Present Staff Present Councilmember Lora Petso Scott James, Finance Director Councilmember Kristiana Johnson Sarah Mager, Accounting Supervisor Council President Buckshnis Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Councilmember Fraley-Monillas Jeannie Dines, Recorder Public Present Mario Brown Roger Hertrich Ron Wambolt Bruce Witenberg Councilmember Petso called the meeting to order at 6:51 p.m. She suggested beginning with Item D and taking the remaining agenda items in reverse order. She suggested adding the contracts for the strategic plan and marketing consultants as agenda items. Councilmember Johnson was agreeable to adding the marketing consultant contract but preferred not to discuss the strategic plan consultant contract as the contract has already been approved. D. Authorization to Contract with James G. Murphy to Sell Surplus City Vehicles and Sell a Parts Car to Pick-n-Pull Mr. James commented this is standard procedure. Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda. C. Contract Renewal with Lighthouse Law Group PLLC Mr. James distributed a comparison of City Attorney Expenditure History 2005 to 2014. A brief discussion followed regarding the expenditures that were included and excluded from the comparison. Council President Buckshnis described the analysis done of the costs paid for legal services in comparable cities. She recommended renewing the contract with Lighthouse Law Group; their proposal is to continue the flat rate structure with an increase from the current $384,000/year to $492,000/year with a 4% per year increase in each of the next 4 years. She did not recommend an in- house attorney because it is, 1) more costly, 2) requires paying benefits, vacation and supplies, and 3) the Mayor has the ability to terminate at will. Mr. Taraday summarized for the amount of work Lighthouse provides, the proposal is below market. Discussion followed regarding the term of the contract, reasons the previous contract did not include an annual increase, how the new flat rate was determined, staff concerns with delays in obtaining information from the City Attorney, determining if any service efficiencies are possible, Mr. Taraday’s practice when a Councilmember contacts him, and opportunity for a performance evaluation. Committee members requested the following additional information: • Expenditures and amount of Council meeting time previously spent when the Council sought a change in legal representation • Reconcile amounts included in the City Attorney Expenditure History Action: Schedule for full Council on May 27 with information requested. Discuss City Attorney performance in executive session at the end of the May 20 meeting. Packet Page 114 of 524 B. Update on funds for Historic Preservation Calendar Councilmember Petso explained the 2014 budget included funds for a historic preservation calendar. The expected grant was not received; the Historic Preservation Commission still plans to produce a calendar. Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda. A. 2014 March Budgetary Financial Report Mr. James explained the only change to the report format is the additional of tables. Revenues and expenses are on target. General Fund revenue is up $456,000 or 7.4% in 2014 compared to 2013 primarily due to increased sales tax and development related revenues. Mr. James questioned the practice in the 2014 budget of budgeting General Fund savings as other misc. revenues. Discussion followed regarding pros and cons of this practice. Mr. James reported the auditors are onsite and were provided financial yesterday. He plans to prepare a budget calendar and inquired about scheduling a budget priorities workshop with the Council. Discussion followed regarding the process for preparing and reviewing the July budget amendment. Mr. James suggested the quarterly PFD report be scheduled for the July Finance Committee meeting. Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda. E. Marketing Consultant Contract Councilmember Petso relayed Councilmember Bloom’s concern that the scope had changed from what was originally included in the budget and her interest in the Council discussing whether to pull the budget authority for this item due to the change in scope. Councilmember Bloom would prepare an agenda memo with minutes from the original approval and the new RFQ. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas arrived at 8:00 p.m. Mr. Taraday advised because this is an advertised meeting, a fourth Councilmember can attend a committee meeting. Discussion followed regarding whether the Council could change funding authority for line items and contracting authority for this contract. Councilmembers in attendance also briefly discussed work being done by the Strategic Plan consultant. Action: Councilmember Petso recommended scheduling for full Council discussion and potential action. Councilmember Johnson recommended Councilmember Bloom meet with Mayor Earling to discuss the matter. F. Public Comments Mario Brown, agree with Mr. James’ suggestion not to include the surplus as revenue. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, asked how the public will be informed of the Strategic Plan consultant’s work . He referred to Mayor Earling’s comments about Lighthouse Law Group and asked about the committee’s decision with regard to Mayor Earling’s suggestion. Councilmember Johnson inquired about Council discussion regarding a long term mechanism to fund road improvements. Council President Buckshnis advised it will be part of the vision planning agenda item at the May 27 meeting. She commented on revenue sources to fund road improvements. Adjournment – The meeting adjourned at 8:24 p.m. Packet Page 115 of 524 AM-7005 6. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:07/22/2014 Time:10 Minutes Submitted By:Jen Machuga Department:Planning Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Information Information Subject Title Presentation by Northwest SEED regarding Solarize South County Recommendation N/A Previous Council Action On May 20, 2014, the Council authorized the Mayor to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Northwest SEED for the Solarize program. Narrative With authorization by the Council, the City entered into an Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the non-profit Northwest SEED to support a community-based project to encourage Southwest Snohomish County residents to install solar arrays at their homes. Referred to as "Solarize South County," the City of Edmonds is supporting community meetings and outreach about the project and the permitting process, but is not directly involved in the contractor selection or contracting. The project is funded by a grant from Snohomish PUD, and the City will benefit by receiving a small grant ($10,000) for assisting with the project. Information on the project is included in Exhibit 1. Meghan Barrier with Northwest SEED will provide a short presentation to the City Council with an update on the status of the Solarize South County initiative, including an announcement of upcoming workshops that Edmonds residents and small business owners are invited to attend. Refer to Exhibit 2 for workshop information. Attachments Exhibit 1: Solarize South County Info Exhibit 2: Workshop Flyer Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 07/17/2014 10:59 AM Mayor Dave Earling 07/17/2014 01:17 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 07/17/2014 03:33 PM Form Started By: Jen Machuga Started On: 07/15/2014 03:37 PM Packet Page 116 of 524 Final Approval Date: 07/17/2014 Packet Page 117 of 524 Have you ever thought about putting solar panels on your rooftop? A collaborative effort of Northwest Sustainable Energy for Economic Development (Northwest SEED), Snohomish County PUD, the City of Edmonds and a team of volunteers from Lynnwood, Edmonds and Woodway, are bringing you Solarize South County, a time-limited initiative designed to help single family homeowners and small businesses purchase solar panels via a streamlined process and group discount. Registration is now open. The next workshop will be held August 5. The Solarize South County initiative will include a PUD-registered solar installer, A&R Solar, vetted by a volunteer committee through a competitive process. Participants in the initiative will be eligible not only for the group discount, but also for the PUD’s Solar Express rebate of up to $2500 for residential customers and up to $10,000 for small businesses, along with federal and state incentives for solar energy. To qualify for a free site assessment and community pricing, interested residents and business owners are invited to attend free educational workshops scheduled monthly, July through September. Registration for Solarize South County is now open at www.solarizewa.org/registration. Workshops are set for the following dates and locations: • Tuesday, August 5, 6:30-8pm, Edmonds City Hall, Brackett Room (121 Fifth Ave. N., Edmonds) • Wednesday August 20, 6:30-8pm, Lynnwood Library (19200 – 44th Ave. West, Lynnwood) • Saturday, Sept 13, 10-11:30am, Edmonds City Hall, Brackett Room (121 Fifth Ave. N., Edmonds) Please note that this program is only open to residents and small businesses in the following zip codes: 98026, 98037, 98036, 98043 and 98020. For additional information, please visit www.solarizewa.org. Packet Page 118 of 524 Produce clean, renewable energy Solarize with your community and receive a limited time group discount. Program led by local nonprofits and neighborhood groups. Tues., Aug. 5 6:30-8 p.m. Brackett Room, Edmonds City Hall 121 Fifth Avenue North, 3rd Floor, Edmonds, WA 98020 Wed., Aug. 20 6:30-8 p.m. Lynnwood Library 19200 44th Ave W, Lynnwood, WA 98036 Thu., Aug 28 Noon-1 p.m. Webinar Online Sat., Sept. 13 10-11:30 a.m. Brackett Room, Edmonds City Hall 121 Fifth Avenue North, 3rd Floor, Edmonds, WA 98020 Get started at: www.solarizewa.org/registration Questions? meghan@nwseed.org AT Te nd A FR e e S o l A R eneRgy WoRkShop Campaign boundaries s larize south county Packet Page 119 of 524 AM-7004 7. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:07/22/2014 Time:20 Minutes Submitted For:Phil Williams Submitted By:Megan Luttrell Department:Engineering Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Information Information Subject Title Update on Stormwater Code Recommendation Information only. Previous Council Action None. Narrative Background The City of Edmonds is one of approximately 80 municipalities required to have a stormwater discharge permit from the Department of Ecology. This document permits the City to discharge stormwater runoff into our local receiving waters (Puget Sound, Lake Ballinger, and a number of small streams). This discharge to “waters of the state” is permitted only if the City implements certain stormwater best management practices (BMPs) on a prescribed schedule. The document containing these requirements is entitled the Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit and is available on Ecology’s website.(http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/municipal/phaseIIww/wwphiipermit.html) The required BMPs are divided into five major areas of compliance. One of these is entitled: Controlling Runoff from New Development, Redevelopment, and Construction Sites (permit section S5.C.4). One section requires the City to implement an ordinance or other enforceable mechanism by December 31, 2016 that meets the minimum requirements, thresholds, and definitions in Appendix 1 of the Permit. The minimum requirements for stormwater management include: (a) Site planning requirements (b) BMP selection criteria (c) BMP design criteria (d) BMP infeasibility criteria (e) Low Impact Development (LID) competing needs criteria (f) BMP limitations The requirements, limitations and criteria listed above can be met by choosing to adopt Ecology’s 2012 Packet Page 120 of 524 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington or a program approved by Ecology from another jurisdiction, such as a manual and code from either Snohomish or King County, for example. The Permit also requires the City to review and revise all development-related codes, rules, and standards to require LID principles and best management practices so that LID is the preferred and commonly used approach to site development. This process needs to be completed by December 31, 2016. The code revisions shall be designed to minimize: Impervious surfaces Native vegetation loss Stormwater runoff. Ecology does not mandate specific targets for these items, they leave it up to the community to decide what works best for them. This review is required to include the following Planning Division items: Site planning and assessment practices Bulk and dimensional considerations Clearing and grading Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Critical Areas and Shoreline Management Impervious (hard) surfaces Parking and the following Engineering Division items Streets and roads, Stormwater management and maintenance. This code review process will influence the final look of the revised stormwater regulations. More information about this can be found at: http://www.psp.wa.gov/downloads/LID_Guidebook/20120731_LIDguidebook.pdf . Plan The City’s current stormwater regulations (adopted in 2010) exceed the current Ecology requirements for development projects. Per those Ecology-requirements, the use of LID is not mandatory but encouraged. One of the major changes required by December 31, 2016, is to make LID the preferred approach to development. Homeowners and developers will be required to demonstrate that LID is not feasible using a mandated infeasibility checklist. The Engineering Staff is moving to update the stormwater code and associated guidance documents to meet the upcoming new requirements. Staff are beginning now to improve our design standards such as LID techniques as rain gardens and permeable pavement to be equal to or better than the standards that are required by December 31, 2016. We plan on having these LID standards available by early 2015. In other words, stormwater LID techniques built in Edmonds according to these revised documents will be to the Ecology-mandated standards well ahead of the deadline. Packet Page 121 of 524 Once these updated standards are complete, these stormwater LID practices will be explained and advocated for at the City’s permit counter in updated handouts placed in the Green Resource Room when it is completed. This promotion will also help prepare homeowners and developers for making LID the preferred and commonly used approach to site development. Staff will survey similar jurisdictions to document the various approaches taken to comply with these new requirements. We will also keep a close eye on the Phase I jurisdiction submittals to Ecology (from Snohomish and King County) to see if any of their Stormwater Manuals (due June 30, 2015) would be a better fit for Edmonds than the Department of Ecology Manual. As Staff puts together the budget for 2015, we will include a request for resources to re-write Planning and Stormwater code to make LID the preferred and commonly used approach to site development using the most current LID design standards. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 07/16/2014 08:02 AM Public Works Scott Passey 07/18/2014 10:43 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 07/18/2014 10:44 AM Mayor Dave Earling 07/18/2014 11:11 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 07/18/2014 11:16 AM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 07/15/2014 11:01 AM Final Approval Date: 07/18/2014 Packet Page 122 of 524 AM-7010 8. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:07/22/2014 Time:10 Minutes Submitted By:Kernen Lien Department:Planning Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Information Information Subject Title Introduction to Critical Area Ordinance Update Recommendation Previous Council Action The Council adopted Decision Packet #22 (Exhibit 1) in the 2014 City Budget which provided $40,000 in 2014 and $40,000 in 2015 for professional services to hire a consultant for the CAO update. Narrative All cities and counties in Washington State are required to adopt critical areas regulations by the Growth Management Act (GMA). As defined by the GMA, "critical areas" include the following areas and ecosystems: (a) wetlands; (b)areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water; (c) fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; (d) frequently flooded areas; and (e) geologically hazardous areas. [RCW 36.70A.030(5)] Counties and cities are required to include Best Available Science (BAS) in developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas. All jurisdictions are required to review, evaluate, and, if necessary, revise their critical areas ordinances according to an update schedule. The City of Edmonds critical area ordinance (CAO) update is due in 2015. The City's CAO and BAS has not had a comprehensive review and update in nearly 10 years since the current version of the City's critical area regulations became effective in 2005. The City will be issuing a Request of Qualifications (RFQ) in order to select a consultant to assist the City with the CAO and BAS update. A consultant is needed to provide the necessary expertise to accomplish the review. The consultant will be used to update the City BAS report to reflect current scientific research, review the existing CAO for consistency with an updated BAS report, and recommend changes to the City's critical area regulations were needed for consistency with the current scientific thinking. A draft Critical Areas code will be ready for public review and City Council consideration ahead of the state's June 30, 2015 deadline. Attachments Exhibit 1: 2014 Buget Excerpt and Decision Package #22 Packet Page 123 of 524 Exhibit 1: 2014 Buget Excerpt and Decision Package #22 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Development Services Shane Hope 07/18/2014 10:33 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 07/18/2014 10:33 AM Mayor Dave Earling 07/18/2014 10:39 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 07/18/2014 10:42 AM Form Started By: Kernen Lien Started On: 07/17/2014 08:06 AM Final Approval Date: 07/18/2014 Packet Page 124 of 524 2014 Adopted Budget City of Edmonds, Washington 31 DECISION PACKAGES Pkg #Department Package Description One-Time Y/N 2014 Cost 2015 Ongoing Cost 2014 Revenue 1 Council Outside Professional Service Fees for Counsel Y 10,000$ 10,000$ -$ 2 Human Resources Applicant Tracking System Y 11,000$ 1,080$ -$ 3 Human Resources Worker's Compensation Claims Consultant N 12,000$ 12,000$ -$ 4 Human Resources PartTime Employee for support of programs N 24,898$ 25,271$ -$ 5 Human Resources NonDepartmental Longevity Program N -$ -$ -$ 6 Municipal Court Paperless Court System Design & Planning Y 20,000$ -$ -$ 7 City Clerk Fee Increase for Parking Permits N -$ -$ 8,700$ 8 Information Svcs Storage and process of Credit Cards to vendor.Y 5,500$ 1,100$ -$ 9 Information Svcs Upgrade GIS equipment to allow online mapping data N 16,400$ 5,500$ 14,000$ 10 Information Svcs Expand IT Staffperson to full time.N 33,800$ 33,800$ -$ 11 Information Svcs Upgrade video monitoring for Public Safety.Y 10,000$ -$ -$ 12 Information Svcs Secure Network Design & Equipment Y 35,000$ -$ -$ 13 Information Svcs Data Backup and restoration system Y 21,000$ -$ -$ 14 Finance Intern working on providing documentation Y 10,000$ -$ -$ 15 Police Animal Licensing contract N 10,660$ 9,660$ 39,540$ 16 Police Add one commissioned FTE for Assistant Chief N 94,927$ 102,092$ -$ 17 Police Increase Radio Replacement B- Fund N 36,000$ 36,000$ -$ 18 Community Svcs Contracting for online communication via Facebook, Google and YouTube.N 4,800$ 4,800$ -$ 19 Community Svcs 1 year project contracted Arts/Information Y 55,000$ -$ 0 20 Development Svcs Adjustments to Development Fees N -$ 183,185$ 183,185$ 21 Development Svcs Hire a Plan Check/Inspector Position.N 86,170$ 86,170$ -$ 22 Development Svcs GMA Critical Areas Ordinance N 40,000$ 40,000$ -$ 23 Development Svcs Building plan checker hiring overlap Y 12,055$ -$ -$ 24 Parks General Fund subsidy to support services at Cemetery N 40,186$ 40,000$ -$ Packet Page 125 of 524 Packet Page 126 of 524 AM-7013 9. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:07/22/2014 Time:30 Minutes Submitted By:Rob Chave Department:Planning Committee: Type: Information Information Subject Title Preview of the Planning Board's recommendations to adopt a comprehensive plan text amendment, zoning code text amendment, and zoning map change to implement a new development plan for the Westgate commercial area. Recommendation No action is required; a public hearing is scheduled for August 4, 2014. Previous Council Action The City Council referred the Westgate proposal to the Planning Board during its June 21, 2011, meeting (see Exhibit 13). The Council most recently had a presentation on the plan and code proposal in July, 2013. Narrative The Planning Board has completed its review and recommendations on the proposed amendments that would implement the Westgate plan and code proposals. The Board held a total of three public hearings during its consideration of the plan and zoning code for the Westgate commercial center; the study area is shown in the vicinity map in Exhibit 5, along with maps showing existing zoning and topography. The draft of the plan and zoning code amendments being considered by the Planning Board are included in Attachments 1 through 4. Note that three specific actions are being recommended; in total, these actions implement the Westgate development plan: 1) An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Text updating policies for the Westgate Commercial Area; and, 2) An amendment to the Edmonds Community Development Code creating a new Westgate Mixed Use zone and related design standards; and, 3) An amendment to the Zoning Map changing The BN, BC and BC-EW Zones in the Westgate Commercial Area to a new Westgate Mixed Use zone designation. This project was initiated by the Edmonds City Council at the request of the Edmonds Economic Development Commission, and began with the City working with a design team from the University of Washington. Students from the undergraduate Community, Environment, and Planning program began work in October 2010 to collect data on the use and configuration of each commercial area. A new team of graduate students in urban planning, landscape architecture and architecture continued that work to develop the Special District plans. The first public meetings (termed “listening sessions”) took place in January 2011 (Exhibit 13). On March 12, 2011, the City held a design workshop (or charrette) to engage the public, business and property owners, and the local design community in exploring more specific design options for the two sites. In late April, 2011, public meetings presented results of this effort, and a June 2011 presentation was made to the City Council (Exhibit 12). In addition to the public meetings and workshops, the project included presentations to City officials, research on form-based codes, production of final conceptual designs, and preparation of a report with recommendations for implementation. The Council formally referred the Westgate proposals to the Planning Board on June 21, 2011 (see Exhibits 11 and 12). Planning Board review of the Westgate plan and form-based code began in 2012. Since then, there have been a number of meetings and public presentations, including an additional City Council presentation on July 23, 2013 (Attachments 8 and 9), and two Planning Board public hearings on September 12, 2012, March 14, 2014, and finally on May 28, 2014. The draft plan and code considered at the first hearing (September 2012) is included in Attachment 10, and is essentially what the UW team recommended at the conclusion of its work. Additional material on the project is extensive, and can be found online by visiting: http://www.edmondswa.gov/government/departments/development-services-home/planning-division-home/plans-long-range-planning/planning-plans-fivecorners-article.html With this long project history, and the substantial review that has followed, there have, of course, been changes from what the original UW team proposed. Some significant changes include several key items: 1. The overall plan provides for opportunities while not mandating that new development conform rigidly to certain minimum building heights or requiring buildings be pushed up to sidewalk lines. Nonetheless, open space and amenity space is still required, as well as pedestrian and non-motorized circulation within each of the four quadrants of the Westgate commercial area. The general emphasis of the plan has changed from buildings organized around the SR-104/100th Ave W intersection to a quadrant-based system which focuses on creating circulation, buildings and spaces within each of the four quadrants formed by the intersection. 2. Instead of allowing development of up to 5 stories, buildings are now capped in most places at 3 stories, with an opportunity to obtain 4 stories only where the nearby slopes are higher, or where no residences are nearby. In some locations with no adjacent slopes, heights are limited to two stories. 3. Street setbacks have been increased from the original 8 feet to 12 feet to provide a wider street interface and to assure that, if needed, turn pockets can be provided for traffic access. 4. The intersection of SR-104 and 100th Ave W has a significant step-back requirement radiating from the intersection, to assure that a sense of place is provided at this key intersection. 5. The design standards for Westgate now include a map showing "Westgate Protected Slopes." This is attempting to provide greater definition to what has been a feature of the Westgate code: an intent to protect existing slopes and vegetation that help buffer the commercial area from the surrounding residential area. The map provides a specific line, mainly tied to topography, that would define the limit of the developed area within the commercially zoned properties of the Westgate Mixed Use zone. Development activity (such as clearing, grading, or retaining walls) can't intrude into the slopes beyond this line. Packet Page 127 of 524 9. City Council Meeting Planning Information Information Subject Title Preview of the Planning Board's recommendations to adopt a comprehensive plan text amendment, zoning code text amendment, and zoning map change to implement a new development plan for the Westgate commercial area. Recommendation No action is required; a public hearing is scheduled for August 4, 2014. Previous Council Action The City Council referred the Westgate proposal to the Planning Board during its June 21, 2011, meeting (see Exhibit 13). The Council most recently had a presentation on the plan and code proposal in July, 2013. Narrative The Planning Board has completed its review and recommendations on the proposed amendments that would implement the Westgate plan and code proposals. The Board held a total of three public hearings during its consideration of the plan and zoning code for the Westgate commercial center; the study area is shown in the vicinity map in Exhibit 5, along with maps showing existing zoning and topography. The draft of the plan and zoning code amendments being considered by the Planning Board are included in Attachments 1 through 4. Note that three specific actions are being recommended; in total, these actions implement the Westgate development plan: 1) An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Text updating policies for the Westgate Commercial Area; and, 2) An amendment to the Edmonds Community Development Code creating a new Westgate Mixed Use zone and related design standards; and, 3) An amendment to the Zoning Map changing The BN, BC and BC-EW Zones in the Westgate Commercial Area to a new Westgate Mixed Use zone designation. This project was initiated by the Edmonds City Council at the request of the Edmonds Economic Development Commission, and began with the City working with a design team from the University of Washington. Students from the undergraduate Community, Environment, and Planning program began work in October 2010 to collect data on the use and configuration of each commercial area. A new team of graduate students in urban planning, landscape architecture and architecture continued that work to develop the Special District plans. The first public meetings (termed “listening sessions”) took place in January 2011 (Exhibit 13). On March 12, 2011, the City held a design workshop (or charrette) to engage the public, business and property owners, and the local design community in exploring more specific design options for the two sites. In late April, 2011, public meetings presented results of this effort, and a June 2011 presentation was made to the City Council (Exhibit 12). In addition to the public meetings and workshops, the project included presentations to City officials, research on form-based codes, production of final conceptual designs, and preparation of a report with recommendations for implementation. The Council formally referred the Westgate proposals to the Planning Board on June 21, 2011 (see Exhibits 11 and 12). Planning Board review of the Westgate plan and form-based code began in 2012. Since then, there have been a number of meetings and public presentations, including an additional City Council presentation on July 23, 2013 (Attachments 8 and 9), and two Planning Board public hearings on September 12, 2012, March 14, 2014, and finally on May 28, 2014. The draft plan and code considered at the first hearing (September 2012) is included in Attachment 10, and is essentially what the UW team recommended at the conclusion of its work. Additional material on the project is extensive, and can be found online by visiting: http://www.edmondswa.gov/government/departments/development-services-home/planning-division-home/plans-long-range-planning/planning-plans-fivecorners-article.html With this long project history, and the substantial review that has followed, there have, of course, been changes from what the original UW team proposed. Some significant changes include several key items: 1. The overall plan provides for opportunities while not mandating that new development conform rigidly to certain minimum building heights or requiring buildings be pushed up to sidewalk lines. Nonetheless, open space and amenity space is still required, as well as pedestrian and non-motorized circulation within each of the four quadrants of the Westgate commercial area. The general emphasis of the plan has changed from buildings organized around the SR-104/100th Ave W intersection to a quadrant-based system which focuses on creating circulation, buildings and spaces within each of the four quadrants formed by the intersection. 2. Instead of allowing development of up to 5 stories, buildings are now capped in most places at 3 stories, with an opportunity to obtain 4 stories only where the nearby slopes are higher, or where no residences are nearby. In some locations with no adjacent slopes, heights are limited to two stories. 3. Street setbacks have been increased from the original 8 feet to 12 feet to provide a wider street interface and to assure that, if needed, turn pockets can be provided for traffic access. 4. The intersection of SR-104 and 100th Ave W has a significant step-back requirement radiating from the intersection, to assure that a sense of place is provided at this key intersection. 5. The design standards for Westgate now include a map showing "Westgate Protected Slopes." This is attempting to provide greater definition to what has been a feature of the Westgate code: an intent to protect existing slopes and vegetation that help buffer the commercial area from the surrounding residential area. The map provides a specific line, mainly tied to topography, that would define the limit of the developed area within the commercially zoned properties of the Westgate Mixed Use zone. Development activity (such as clearing, grading, or retaining walls) can't intrude into the slopes beyond this line. Packet Page 128 of 524 A transportation analysis, looking at potential traffic impacts if development occurred according to the plan, was completed in 2013. The study indicated that traffic level of service would not be degraded (see Attachment 6). Since this study was done when buildings were being allowed at up to five stories, the current plan capping heights at 2-to-4 stories reduces traffic impacts even further, since the overall level of development is substantially reduced by 18 to 20% (see Attachment 14). A public hearing before the Council is scheduled for August 4, 2014. Attachments: Exhibit 1: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment. Exhibit 2: Proposed Westgate Development Code Text Amendment. Exhibit 3: Proposed Westgate Zoning Map Amendment. Exhibit 4: Green Factor Tools (adopted by reference). Exhibit 5. Location, zoning, and topography maps of the study area. Exhibit 6. Transportation analyses and conclusions. Exhibit 7. Planning Board minutes. Exhibit 8. City Council presentation from July, 2013. Exhibit 9. City Council minutes from July, 2013. Exhibit 10. Planning Board Public Hearing Draft, August 2012. Exhibit 11. Westgate presentation and overview, June 21, 2011. Exhibit 12. City Council minutes, June 21, 2011 Exhibit 13. Westgate meeting summary, January 2011. Exhibit 14. Reduced development scenario. Exhibit 15. Public comment letters related to the Planning Board hearings. Attachments Exhibit 1: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment. Exhibit 2: Proposed Westgate Development Code Text Amendment. Exhibit 3: Proposed Westgate Zoning Map Amendment. Exhibit 4: Green Factor Tools (adopted by reference). Exhibit 5. Location, zoning, and topography maps of the study area. Exhibit 6. Transportation analyses and conclusions. Exhibit 7. Planning Board minutes. Exhibit 8. City Council presentation from July, 2013. Exhibit 9. City Council minutes from July, 2013. Exhibit 10. Planning Board Public Hearing Draft, August 2012. Exhibit 11. Westgate presentation and overview, June 21, 2011. Exhibit 12. City Council minutes, June 21, 2011 Exhibit 13. Westgate meeting summary, January 2011. Exhibit 14. Reduced development scenario. Exhibit 15. Public comment letters related to the Planning Board hearings. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 07/18/2014 07:59 AM Mayor Dave Earling 07/18/2014 08:18 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 07/18/2014 08:53 AM Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 07/17/2014 03:54 PM Final Approval Date: 07/18/2014 Packet Page 129 of 524 A transportation analysis, looking at potential traffic impacts if development occurred according to the plan, was completed in 2013. The study indicated that traffic level of service would not be degraded (see Attachment 6). Since this study was done when buildings were being allowed at up to five stories, the current plan capping heights at 2-to-4 stories reduces traffic impacts even further, since the overall level of development is substantially reduced by 18 to 20% (see Attachment 14). A public hearing before the Council is scheduled for August 4, 2014. Attachments: Exhibit 1: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment. Exhibit 2: Proposed Westgate Development Code Text Amendment. Exhibit 3: Proposed Westgate Zoning Map Amendment. Exhibit 4: Green Factor Tools (adopted by reference). Exhibit 5. Location, zoning, and topography maps of the study area. Exhibit 6. Transportation analyses and conclusions. Exhibit 7. Planning Board minutes. Exhibit 8. City Council presentation from July, 2013. Exhibit 9. City Council minutes from July, 2013. Exhibit 10. Planning Board Public Hearing Draft, August 2012. Exhibit 11. Westgate presentation and overview, June 21, 2011. Exhibit 12. City Council minutes, June 21, 2011 Exhibit 13. Westgate meeting summary, January 2011. Exhibit 14. Reduced development scenario. Exhibit 15. Public comment letters related to the Planning Board hearings. Attachments Exhibit 1: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment. Exhibit 2: Proposed Westgate Development Code Text Amendment. Exhibit 3: Proposed Westgate Zoning Map Amendment. Exhibit 4: Green Factor Tools (adopted by reference). Exhibit 5. Location, zoning, and topography maps of the study area. Exhibit 6. Transportation analyses and conclusions. Exhibit 7. Planning Board minutes. Exhibit 8. City Council presentation from July, 2013. Exhibit 9. City Council minutes from July, 2013. Exhibit 10. Planning Board Public Hearing Draft, August 2012. Exhibit 11. Westgate presentation and overview, June 21, 2011. Exhibit 12. City Council minutes, June 21, 2011 Exhibit 13. Westgate meeting summary, January 2011. Exhibit 14. Reduced development scenario. Exhibit 15. Public comment letters related to the Planning Board hearings. Form Review Date 07/18/2014 07:59 AM 07/18/2014 08:18 AM 07/18/2014 08:53 AM Started On: 07/17/2014 03:54 PM Final Approval Date: 07/18/2014 Packet Page 130 of 524 Comprehensive Plan Changes Text Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element 2 Note: The changes shown incorporate the goals from the Westgate study into the 4 comprehensive plan. 6 C. Goals for Community Commercial Areasthe Westgate Community Commercial Area. Community commercial areas areWestgate is comprised of commercial development serving 8 a dual purpose: services and shopping for both local residents and regional traffic. The intent of the community commercial designation is to recognize both of these purposes by 10 permitting a range of business and mixed use development while maintaining a neighborhood scale and design character. 12 C.1. Permit uses in Westgate community commercial areas that serve both the local neighborhood and regional through-traffic. 14 C.2. Provide for transit and pedestrian access in addition to the need to accommodate automobile traffic. 16 C.3. Provide for the pedestrian-scale design of buildings that are two stories or less in height and that contain architectural features that promote pedestrian activity. 18 C.2. Encourage mixed-use development, including offices and retail spaces in conjunction with residential uses, in a walkable community center that includes a variety of amenity and 20 open spaces. The intent is to establish a connection between neighborhoods; create a desirable center for local residents, while being inviting to visitors; and unify the larger Westgate 22 district with a distinctive character.C.4. Provide pedestrian walkways and transit connections throughout the community commercial area, assuring connections to nearby residential 24 neighborhoods. C.3. Create mixed-use walkable, compact development that is economically viable, 26 attractive and community-friendly. C.4. Improve connectedness for pedestrian and bicycle users in a transit-friendly 28 environment. C.5. Prioritize amenity spaces for informal and organized gatherings. 30 C.6. Emphasize green building construction, stormwater infiltration, and a variety of green features. 32 C.7. Establish a flexible regulating system that creates quality public spaces by regulating building placement and form. 34 C.8. Ensure civic and private investments contribute to increased infrastructure capacity and benefit the surrounding neighborhoods and the community at large. 36 C.9. Encourage the development of a variety of housing choices available to residents of all economic and age segments. 38 Packet Page 131 of 524 Code Changes to Implement Westgate Study (all new) 2 4 Chapter 16.110 WMU – Westgate Mixed Use Zone District 6 Sections: 16.110.000 Purposes. 8 16.110.010 Uses. 16.110.020 Site development standards. 10 16.110.030 Operating restrictions. 16.110.000 12 Purposes. The Westgate Mixed Use (WMU) zone has the following specific purposes in addition to 14 the general purposes for business and commercial zones listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC: A. Encourage mixed-use development, including offices and retail spaces in conjunction 16 with residential uses, in a walkable community center with a variety of amenity and open spaces. The intent is to establish a connection between neighborhoods; create a 18 desirable center for local residents, while being inviting to visitors; and unify the larger Westgate District with a distinctive character. 20 B. Create mixed-use walkable, compact development that is economically viable, attractive and community-friendly. 22 C. Improve connectedness for pedestrian and bicycle users. D. Prioritize amenity spaces for informal and organized gatherings. 24 E. Emphasize green building construction, stormwater infiltration, and a variety of green features. 26 F. Establish a flexible regulating system that creates quality public spaces by regulating building placement and form. 28 G. Ensure civic and private investments contribute to increased infrastructure capacity and benefit the surrounding neighborhoods and the community at large. 30 H. Encourage the development of a variety of housing choices available to residents of all economic and age segments. 32 Packet Page 132 of 524 16.110.010 Uses. 2 A. Table 16.110-1. 4 Permitted Uses WMU Commercial Uses Retail stores or sales A Offices A Service uses A Retail sales requiring intensive outdoor display or storage areas, such as trailer sales, used car lots (except as part of a new car sales and service dealer), and heavy equipment storage, sales or services X Enclosed fabrication or assembly areas associated with and on the same property as an art studio, art gallery, restaurant or food service establishment that also provides an on-site retail outlet open to the public A Automobile sales and service C Dry cleaning and laundry plants which use only nonflammable and nonexplosive cleaning agents A Printing, publishing and binding establishments A Public markets licensed pursuant to provisions in Chapter 4.90 ECC A Residential Uses Single-family dwelling C Multiple dwelling unit(s) A Other Uses Bus stop shelters A Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020 C Primary and high schools, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R) C Local public facilities, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050 C Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 A Packet Page 133 of 524 Permitted Uses WMU Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted use B Commuter parking lots in conjunction with a facility otherwise permitted in this zone B Commercial parking lots C Wholesale uses X Hotels and motels A Amusement establishments C Auction businesses, excluding vehicle or livestock auctions X Drive-in businesses C Laboratories C Fabrication of light industrial products not otherwise listed as a permitted use X Day-care centers A Hospitals, health clinics, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums C Museums and art galleries of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033 A Zoos and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033 C Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug abusers C Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 C Outdoor storage, incidental to a permitted use D Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC X A = Permitted primary use 2 B = Permitted secondary use C = Primary uses requiring a conditional use permit 4 D = Secondary uses requiring a conditional use permit X = Not permitted 6 For conditional uses listed in Table 16.110-1, the use may be permitted if the proposal meets the criteria for conditional uses found in Chapter 20.05 ECDC, and all of the following 8 criteria are met: Packet Page 134 of 524 1. Access and Parking. Pedestrian access shall be provided from the sidewalk and/or adjoining commercial areas. 2 2. The use shall be landscaped and designed to be compatible with the pedestrian streetscape, as described in Chapter 22.110 ECDC. 4 16.110.020 6 Site development standards. A. Building and site development standards are specified in Chapter 22.110 ECDC. 8 B. Building setback along external streets. A building setback is required as follows: 12 feet from 100th Avenue W 10 12 feet from SR-104 C. Setbacks and Screening from R-zoned property. All buildings shall be set back a 12 minimum of 15 feet from adjacent R-zoned properties. The required setback from R-zoned property shall be permanently landscaped with trees and ground cover and permanently 14 maintained by the owner of the WMU lot. A six-foot minimum height fence, wall or solid hedge running the length of the setback shall be provided within the setback area. 16 D. Parking. Parking space requirements stated here prevail over parking space standards 18 contained in ECDC 17.050. The specific parking requirements for the Westgate Mixed Use zone are: 20 1. 1 space for every 500 square feet of leasable commercial space. 2. 1.2 spaces for every dwelling unit. 22 Parking meeting the commercial parking requirements shall be open to the public throughout business operating hours. Shared parking may be provided per ECDC 20.030. 24 E. Satellite television antennas shall be regulated as set forth in ECDC 16.20.050. 16.110.030 26 Operating restrictions. A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed 28 building, except: 1. Public utilities and parks and uses associated with amenity and open spaces; 30 2. Off-street parking and loading areas, and commercial parking lots; 3. Drive-in businesses; 32 4. Plant nurseries; 5. Public markets; provided, that when located next to a single-family residential zone, 34 the market shall be entirely within a completely enclosed building; 6. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC; 36 7. Motorized and nonmotorized mobile vending units meeting the criteria of Chapter 4.12 ECC. 38 B. Nuisances. All uses shall comply with Chapter 17.60 ECDC, Performance Standards. 40 [Ord. 3320 § 2, 2000]. Packet Page 135 of 524 Chapter 22.110 Design Standards for the 2 WMU – Westgate Mixed Use District Sections: 4 22.110.000 Purpose and Intent. 22.110.010 Building Types. 6 22.110.020 Frontage Types. 22.110.030 Green Building Construction and Housing 8 22.110.050 Circulation. 22.110.070 Amenity Space and Green Feature Types. 10 22.110.080 Public Space Standards. 22.110.090 Height Bonus 12 22.110.000 Purpose and Intent. The core concept for the Westgate Mixed Use District is to create a vibrant mixed-use 14 activity center that enhances the economic development of the city and provides housing as well as retail and office uses to meet the needs of all age groups. This Chapter seeks to retain 16 key features of the area, including protecting the large trees and green surrounding hillsides, while increasing walkability and gathering spaces, such as plazas and open spaces. Important 18 aspects of this Chapter include: 20 Protecting steep slopes is a core concept of the WMU zone. 22 • Designing a landscape emphasis for the primary intersection. 24 • Creating a lively pedestrian environment with wide sidewalks and requirements for buildings to be placed close to the sidewalk. 26 • Landscaping the plazas, open spaces, and parking areas with required landscaped open space. 28 Packet Page 136 of 524 • Promoting a sustainable low-impact development with a requirement for bioswales, rain gardens, green roofs and other features to retain and infiltrate storm water. 2 • Providing workforce housing and increasing residential uses including small-sized dwelling units. 4 • Providing options for non-motorized transportation linking new bike lanes into the city’s larger system of bike lanes and extending sidewalks and pedestrian paths into the surrounding 6 residential areas. 8 22.110.010 Building Types. A. Properties in the Westgate District have varying height limits depending on location and 10 topography as identified in ECDC 22.110.010.B and ECDC 22.110.090. Seven Building Types are allowed in the Westgate District, as listed below: 12 1. Rowhouse - Two or more attached story townhome apartments or condominiums. 2. Courtyard - A cluster of apartment or condominium flats arranged to share one or more 14 common courtyards. 3. Stacked Dwelling - The building massing is predicated on horizontal repetition and 16 vertical stacking of non-residential commercial uses on the ground level with residential above. 18 4. Live-work - An integrated housing apartment or condominium and working space designed to accommodate joint residential and work activity uses. 20 5. Loft Mixed-Use - Loft Mixed-Use buildings are predicated on horizontal repetition and vertical stacking of units organized on lobby, corridor, and elevator access. Loft 22 buildings have greater height per floor on one or more floors to accommodate the additional loft area within a unit. 24 6. Side Court Mixed-Use - Retail mixed-Use with office or residential above, or community service mixed-use with office or residential above. 26 7. Commercial Block | Mixed-Use - Mixed-use with retail and/or service uses, with residential above. 28 B. Building Height. Building heights are described in terms of stories. Regardless of the 30 number of stories specified, overall building heights in the Westgate Mixed Use zone cannot exceed 25 feet for a two-story building, 35 feet for a three-story building, or 45 feet for 32 buildings with four stories. Buildings may only include a fourth story if the building meets the criteria contained in Chapter 22.110.090 ECDC. Building height is established by the finished 34 grade at the street front, so that buildings may not use adjoining slopes to increase the average height of the building above the street front level. The following diagram illustrates building 36 height limits and step back requirements for buildings in the Westgate Mixed Use zone. Unless otherwise specified, the height limit is three stories or 35 feet. 38 Packet Page 137 of 524 2 C. Building Locations. Setbacks established in Chapter 22.110.020 describe the minimum distances buildings must be placed from the SR-104 and 100th Avenue W rights-of-way. In 4 general, buildings shall be located at or within 10 feet of the setback line so that the buildings can relate to each other and help to define the adjoining open space and amenity spaces that 6 will surround them. However, exceptions may be granted as part of the design review process when it can be demonstrated that the proposed building will achieve these goals while also 8 fitting into an established building and circulation pattern, provided that vehicle parking is not located between the building and the public street. 10 D. Building Type Descriptions. The following describe the different building types and include diagrams indicating where each building type is allowed. Note that where descriptions 12 and standards refer to “street” this is intended to refer to either an external street or an internal street or drive which provides secondary vehicular and pedestrian access within the overall 14 development(s). Packet Page 138 of 524 2 Table of general allowed uses by floor for each building type. 4 Building Type Residential Uses Office Uses Retail Rowhouse Any floor Not allowed Not allowed Courtyard Any floor Ground floor only Ground floor only Stacked Dwellings Any floor Ground floor only Ground floor only Live-Work Any floor Ground floor only Ground floor only Loft Mixed Use Not ground floor1 Any floor Any floor Side Court Mixed Use Any floor Any floor Ground floor only Commercial Block Mixed Use Not ground floor Not ground floor Any floor 1 “Not ground floor” means any floor other than the ground floor of a building. 6 Packet Page 139 of 524 1. Rowhouse 2 Rowhouse type diagram and allowed locations. 4 6 Description. Two or more attached dwellings with zero side yard setbacks located on a qualifying lot in 8 the Westgate District as shown in the Allowed Locations Diagram. Access. 10 The primary entrance to each dwelling shall be accessed directly from and face the external street or sidewalk if feasible. Where dwellings are accessed from internal streets or circulation 12 drives, then the primary entrance to each dwelling shall be accessed directly from and face the internal street or circulation drive. Parking and services shall be accessed from an internal 14 street or alley or tuck-under parking in a Mixed Type Development. Parking entrances are allowed on an internal street if the garage entrance does not occupy more than one half the 16 building frontage. Amenity Space. 18 Usable outdoor space shall be provided in conjunction with and related to the dwelling units at no less than 15% of the lot area devoted to residential uses. The outdoor space shall be 20 of a regular geometry so that the space is usable for recreational or leisure use. Where buildings back up to steep topography, the open space is not required to be usable. 22 Packet Page 140 of 524 Landscape. Landscape may be used to separate a front yard from the front yards of adjacent units or 2 buildings. Any front yard trees shall be of porch scale where adjacent to the porch (at maturity, no more than 15 feet tall) except at the margins of the lot and as a part of the 4 frontage landscaping at the street sidewalk interface, where they may be of house scale (no more than 30 feet tall at the maturity of the tree). In general, medium-to-large trees shall be 6 dispersed through the development (either new or existing trees) and landscaping provided for shade and privacy. 8 Building Design and Massing. Buildings on corner properties adjacent to streets shall be designed with a main façade and 10 a secondary façade to provide street frontage on all streets. In a 3 story building, a townhouse dwelling may be stacked over a ground floor flat. In this case, the flat shall be accessed by its 12 own front doors at the street and the townhouse dwelling shall be accessed by a separate front door and an internal stair. In a 2 story building, the rowhouse consists of a townhouse 14 dwelling that is accessed from the street and faces the street, or residential flats that each have a street entry. 16 18 Packet Page 141 of 524 2. Courtyard 2 Courtyard type diagram and allowed locations. 4 6 Description. A cluster of dwelling units arranged to share one or more common courtyards. The 8 individual units may be rowhouses or flats or stacked flats. The courtyard is private space that is adjacent to the public realm and may provide access to tuck-under parking. Courtyard 10 building types may house ground floor commercial/flex uses. Access 12 • The main entry to each ground floor dwelling shall be directly off a common courtyard or directly from a street. Access to commercial uses shall be directly from a street. 14 • Access to second-story units may be through an open or open roofed stair. • Parking shall be accessed through an alley or interior street if present. 16 Amenity Space. Sites shall be designed to provide usable open space with a total area of 15% of the lot. A central courtyard and / or multiple separated or interconnected courtyards, 18 roof decks, green roofs, plaza and courtyards may be included in the cumulative total area. In a project with multiple courtyards at least two of the courtyards shall conform to the patterns 20 below: • Optimal court dimensions are a minimum of 40 feet when the long axis of the court is 22 oriented East/West and a minimum of 30 feet when the court is oriented North/South. Packet Page 142 of 524 • In 40-foot wide courts, the frontages allowed within the applicable zone are permitted on two sides of the court; they are permitted on one side of a 30-foot wide court. 2 • Private open space is allowed in side and rear yard, courtyards, balconies and roof decks. • Courtyards shall be connected to the public way and/or to each other. Connecting spaces 4 shall be at least 10 feet wide. Landscape. 6 Landscape may not be used to separate a front yard from the front yards on adjacent parcels. Front yard trees shall be of porch scale where adjacent to the porch (at tree’s 8 maturity, no more than 15 feet tall) except at the margins of the lot and as a part of the frontage landscaping at the street sidewalk interface, where they may be of house scale (no 10 more than 30 feet tall at the maturity of the tree). In general, medium-to-large trees shall be dispersed through the development (either new 12 or existing trees) and landscaping provided for shade and privacy. Building Design and Massing. 14 • Entrance doors and living spaces (great room, dining, living, family) should be oriented toward the courtyard and exterior street. Service rooms may be oriented toward the side-yard, 16 rear yard or alley. • No exterior arcade may encroach into the required minimum width of the courtyard. 18 • Stoops up to 3 feet in height may be placed above below grade parking. Building size and massing. 20 • Buildings shall be composed of flats and rowhouses alone or in combination. • Units may be repetitive or unique in design. 22 • Buildings shall be composed of one, two, or three story masses, each using design features such as combinations of materials, windows or decorative details to suggest smaller-24 scale 30-foot-wide individual residential masses. • The building is not required to appear to be one building. 26 28 Packet Page 143 of 524 3. Stacked dwellings 2 Stacked dwellings type diagram and allowed locations. 4 6 Description Stacked Dwellings are predicated on horizontal repetition and vertical stacking of units 8 organized on lobby, corridor, and stairs or elevator access. These buildings may be used for ancillary non-residential commercial uses on the ground level only. 10 Access • The primary entrance to each dwelling shall be accessed through a lobby accessible from 12 the street. • Interior circulation to each unit shall be through a double or single loaded corridor. 14 Amenity space. The primary shared open space is the rear yard, which shall be designed as a courtyard. The 16 rear yard may be designed for ground installation or as the lid of a below-grade parking garage. Side yards are allowed for common use gardens. 18 Sites shall be designed to provide usable open space with a total area of 15% of the lot. Central courtyards, roof decks, green roofs, plaza and courtyards may be included in the 20 Packet Page 144 of 524 cumulative total area. No arcade may encroach into the required minimum width of the courtyard. 2 In a project with multiple courts, at least two of the courts shall conform to the patterns below: 4 • Optimal court dimensions are a minimum of 40 feet wide when the long axis of the court is oriented East/West and a minimum of 30 feet wide when the court is oriented North/South. 6 • In 40-foot wide courts, the frontages allowed within the applicable zone are permitted on two sides of the court; they are permitted on one side of a 30-foot wide court. 8 • Private open space is allowed in side and rear yard, courts, balconies and roof decks. • Courts shall not be less than 1:1 between width and height. 10 • Private patios may be provided in side and rear yards. Landscape. 12 Landscape may not be used to separate a front yard from the front yards on adjacent parcels. Trees may be placed in front yards and in side yards to create a sense of place. 14 In general, medium-to-large trees shall be dispersed through the development (either new or existing trees) and landscaping provided for shade and privacy. 16 Courtyards located over below grade garages shall be designed to avoid the sense of planters and hardscape landscaping. 18 Building Design and Massing. Buildings shall be composed of flats, lofts, and rowhouses alone or in combination. 20 • Units may be repetitive or unique in design. • Buildings shall be composed of individual masses that are intended to break up the 22 building into identifiable housing units rather than large undifferentiated blocks. The building is not required to appear to be one building. 24 26 Packet Page 145 of 524 4. Live-Work 2 Live-Work type diagram and allowed locations. 4 6 Description An integrated housing unit and working space occupied and utilized by a single household 8 in a structure, either single family units in clusters or a multi-family building, that has been designed to accommodate joint residential and work activity uses. Work uses shall be at the 10 ground floor. A live-work structure may be located on a qualifying lot in the Westgate District, as shown in the Allowed Location Diagram, Figure 3.2-8. 12 Access The primary entrance to each ground floor work/flex space shall be accessed directly from 14 and face the external street or a sidewalk if feasible. Where dwellings are accessed from internal streets, then the primary entrance to each dwelling shall be accessed directly from and 16 face the internal street. Packet Page 146 of 524 The upstairs residential unit may be accessed by a separate entry and internal stair that is accessed from and faces the street. Access may also be provided by a shared lobby that 2 provides separate access to the commercial/flex and dwelling uses. Parking and services shall be accessed from an alley or tuck-under parking located under 4 the building. Parking entrances are allowed on an internal street or alley if the garage entrance does not occupy more than one half the building frontage. 6 Amenity Space Front Yards are defined by the street and frontage type requirements of the zone. 8 One usable outdoor space shall be provided behind the live-work at no less than 15% of the lot area and of a regular geometry with a minimum dimension of 20 feet. Where buildings 10 back up to steep topography, the open space is not required to be usable. Alternatively, 50% of the usable open space may be provided at the front of the lot. 12 Landscape Landscape shall not obscure the storefront of the ground floor flex/work space. 14 In general, medium-to-large trees shall be dispersed through the development (either new or existing trees) and landscaping provided for shade and privacy. 16 Frontage • Commercial/work/flex space and living areas should be oriented toward the fronting street 18 or sidewalk. Service rooms should be oriented towards the side and rear yards. • Commercial/work/flex spaces shall conform to Shopfront Frontage Type Standards (see 20 ECDC 22.110.020). • Buildings on corner lots may provide an appropriate frontage type on each street front. 22 Building Design and Massing Live-work units may be designed as individual buildings composed of 2- and/or 3-story 24 volumes or included in larger buildings in compliance with the applicable building type requirements. 26 28 Packet Page 147 of 524 5. Loft Mixed-Use 2 Loft Mixed-Use type diagram and allowed locations. 4 6 Description Loft Mixed-use buildings are predicated on horizontal repetition and vertical stacking of 8 units organized on lobby, corridor, and stairs or elevator access. Loft buildings up to 3 stories in height are permitted. These buildings have greater height on at least one floor to 10 accommodate additional floor loft area within a unit. These buildings may be used for residential, office, and commercial uses. 12 Access • The primary entrance to each unit may be accessed be through a street level or elevated 14 lobby accessible from the street. • The entry to each ground floor unit may be through an elevator/stair corridor. 16 • Interior circulation to each unit shall be through a double or single loaded corridor. • Access to upper level loft areas via an internal stair. 18 Packet Page 148 of 524 Amenity space. The primary shared open space is the rear yard. The yard may be designed for ground 2 installation or for the lid of a below grade parking garage or garage deck. Side yards are allowed for common use gardens. 4 In a project with multiple courtyards at least two of the courtyards shall conform to the patterns below: 6 • Optimal court dimensions are a minimum 40 feet wide when the long axis of the court is oriented East/West and a minimum 30 feet wide when the court is oriented North/South. 8 • In 40-foot wide courts, the frontages and architectural projections allowed within the applicable zone are permitted on two sides of the court; they are permitted on one side of a 10 30-foot wide court. • Private open space is allowed in side and rear yard, courtyards, balconies and roof decks. 12 • Courtyards shall not be less than 1:1 between width and height. • Private patios may be provided in side and rear yards. 14 • The minimum courtyard shall be 15% of the lot area. Central courtyards, roof decks, green roofs, plaza and courtyards may be included in the cumulative total area. 16 • No arcade may encroach into the required minimum width of a courtyard. Landscape 18 Landscape may not be used to separate a front yard from front yards on adjacent parcels. Trees may be placed in front yards and in side yards to create a sense of place. 20 Courtyards located over below grade garages shall be designed to avoid the sense of planters and hardscape landscaping. 22 In general, medium-to-large trees shall be dispersed through the development (either new or existing trees) and landscaping provided for shade and privacy. 24 Building Design and Massing. Buildings shall be composed of lofts alone or above commercial space on the ground level. 26 Units may be repetitive or unique in design. • Buildings shall be composed of one, two, or three story masses, each designed to loft 28 scale. • The building is required to appear to be one building. 30 • The main volume may be flanked by a secondary volume. 32 Packet Page 149 of 524 6. Side Court Mixed-Use 2 Side Court Mixed-Use type diagram and allowed locations. 4 6 Description A single or cluster of buildings containing dwelling units or office suites arranged to share 8 one or more common courtyards. The individual units or suites are rowhouses, flats or stacked flats. The side courtyard is a semi-public space that is adjacent to the public realm. Side 10 courtyard types may house ground floor commercial spaces with office or dwelling units above. Side court buildings may be located on a qualifying lot in the Westgate District, as 12 shown in the Allowed Location Diagram, Figure 3.2-12. Access 14 • The main entry to each ground floor dwelling shall be directly off the common courtyard or directly from an external street or sidewalk. Access to commercial and office uses may be 16 directly from an external street, sidewalk, or side courtyard. • Access to second-story units or suites shall be through an open, open roofed, or internal 18 stair. • Parking shall be accessed through an alley, internal circulation drive, or shared driveway 20 access. Parking shall not be accessed directly from the exterior street via individual driveways Packet Page 150 of 524 • Parking entrances to below grade garages and driveways should be located as close as possible to the side or rear of each lot. 2 • Entrance doors and living spaces (great room, dining, living, family) should be oriented toward the courtyard and/or exterior street or sidewalk. Service rooms may be oriented toward 4 the side-yard, rear yard or alley. Amenity space. 6 Courtyard buildings shall be designed to provide a side courtyard and or multiple separated or interconnected courtyards with a minimum dimension of 20 feet and comprising at least 8 15% of the lot area. No exterior arcade may encroach into the required minimum width of the side courtyard. 10 In a project with multiple courtyards at least two of the courtyards shall conform to the patterns below: 12 • Dwellings shall face a side yard or courtyard. • Major ground floor rooms shall be open to the active side yard with large windows and 14 doors. • When located on a side yard, a driveway shall be integrated into the design of the yard 16 through the use of a reduced paved area, permeable paving materials for a landscaped area and usable outdoor space. 18 • Rear yards are not required. Landscape 20 Landscape may not be used to separate a front yard from the front yards on adjacent parcels. Front yard trees shall be of porch scale where adjacent to the porch (at tree’s 22 maturity, no more than 15 feet tall) except at the margins of the lot and as a part of the frontage landscaping at the street sidewalk interface, where they may be of house scale (no 24 more than 30 feet tall at the maturity of the tree). In general, medium-to-large trees shall be dispersed through the development (either new 26 or existing trees) and landscaping provided for shade and privacy. Building Design and Massing 28 • The building elevation abutting an inactive side yard shall be designed to provide at least one horizontal break of at least three feet and one vertical break. 30 • Buildings on corner lots shall be designed with two facades using similar scale and design features without the use of blank walls. 32 • Units within the buildings may be flats and/or townhouses. 34 36 Packet Page 151 of 524 7. Commercial Block Mixed-Use 2 Commercial Block Mixed-Use type diagram and allowed locations. 4 6 Description Commercial block dwellings are permitted. These buildings are designed for retail, service, 8 and /or office uses on the ground floor street frontage, with upper floors configured for dwelling units or commercial uses. The buildings are predicated on horizontal repetition and 10 vertical stacking of units organized on lobby, corridor, and stairs or elevator access. These buildings shall be used for nonresidential commercial uses on the ground level. These 12 buildings are located on a qualifying lot in the Westgate District, as shown in the Allowed Location Diagram, Figure 3.2-14. 14 Access • The primary entrance to each building shall be accessed through a street level lobby or 16 elevated lobby accessible from the street or sidewalk. • Interior circulation to each unit shall be through a double or single loaded corridor. 18 Packet Page 152 of 524 • The entry to each ground floor commercial space shall be directly from and face the street or sidewalk. 2 Amenity space. Shared open space shall be provided, and may be a combination of yard(s), courtyards or 4 rooftop garden(s). Shared open space may include the lid of a below grade parking garage or garage deck. Side yards or courts are allowed for common use gardens. In a project with 6 multiple open space areas at least two of the courts shall conform to the patterns below: • Optimal open space area dimensions are a minimum 40 feet wide when the long axis of 8 the court is oriented East/West and a minimum of 30 feet wide when the court is oriented North/South. No arcade may encroach into the required minimum width of a courtyard. 10 • In 40-foot wide courts, the frontages and architectural projections allowed within the applicable zone are permitted on two sides of the court; they are permitted on one side of a 12 30-foot wide court. • Private open space is allowed in side and rear yard, courts, balconies and roof decks. 14 • Open space areas shall not be less than 1:1 between width and height. • Private patios may be provided in side and rear yards. 16 • The minimum open space area shall be 15% of the lot area. Central courtyards, roof decks, green roofs, plaza and courtyards may be included in the cumulative total area. 18 Landscape Private landscaping is required. Trees may be placed in front yards and in side yards to 20 create a sense of place. Open space areas located over below-grade garages shall be designed to avoid the sense of 22 planters and hardscape landscaping. In general, medium-to-large trees shall be dispersed through the development (either new or existing trees) and landscaping provided for shade 24 and privacy. Building Design and Massing 26 Buildings shall be composed of office, retail, flats, or lofts alone or above commercial space on the ground level. Units may be repetitive or unique in design. 28 • The building is required to appear to be one building. • The main volume may be flanked by one or more secondary volumes. 30 • Large floor plate retail such as grocery stores, nursery, and exercise gyms are allowed on the first or second floors of a mixed-use building. 32 34 Packet Page 153 of 524 22.110.020 Frontage Types. Purpose 2 This Section defines how the buildings within Westgate relate to the public realm of the sidewalk and other common use areas. The purpose of defining Frontage Types is to 4 encourage the development of a variety of frontage types and to encourage each building to relate to the public realm in ways that are attractive, inviting, and accessible to all. 6 Principles and Standards The frontage types for each proposed development shall be designed in concert with the 8 Building Types and standards presented in sections 22.110.010. Primary frontage. “Primary frontage” is frontage that faces main public spaces or 10 circulation areas of higher pedestrian importance. Entrances are required. Examples are street fronts or interior access drives that link developments. 12 Secondary frontage. “Secondary frontage” is frontage that faces areas of lesser pedestrian importance. Entrances to buildings are not required. Examples include SR-104 when an 14 alternative interior drive or pedestrian walkway is able to provide linkage to other developments and pedestrian connections within the overall developed area or Westgate 16 quadrant. This section identifies five Frontage Types for primary and secondary frontages, as shown 18 in the figure on the next page. Each of the five frontage types are described and depicted in a section view. For each Frontage Type, the description concludes by identifying those Building 20 Types for which that Frontage Type is permitted. For secondary frontages (permitted along portions of SR 104, for example), no building entrance is required and the frontage types do 22 not apply. Frontages for retail uses are required to provide windows facing the public street, circulation drive, or sidewalk, glazed with clear glass and occupying no less than 60% of the 24 ground-level frontage. In general, entries to ground floor commercial space shall be directly from and face the 26 related primary frontage. Additional entries may be provided, for example from parking or secondary frontages. 28 Blank walls are not permitted. Packet Page 154 of 524 2 22.110.030 Green Building Construction and Housing. Purpose 4 The purpose of this Section is to encourage the development of a variety of housing choices available to residents of all economic segments and to encourage sustainable development 6 through the use of development standards, requirements and incentives. Green Building and Site Design Criteria 8 All development in the Westgate District shall meet Built Green 1-to-3 star or LEED Certified rating or equivalent as a requirement and shall meet a minimum Green Factor Score 10 of 0.3. Sustainable site design. 12 All development shall meet Built Green 1-to-3 star or LEED Certified standards, or an equivalent. Green Factor Score requirements shall be used in the design of sustainable site 14 Packet Page 155 of 524 features and low-impact stormwater treatment systems. A Green Factor Score of 0.3 is required of all developments (see ECDC 22.110.070). 2 Pervious surfaces shall be integrated into site design and may include: pervious pavement, pervious pavers and vegetated roofs. Capture and reuse strategies including the use of 4 rainwater harvesting cisterns may be substituted for the effective area of pervious surface required. 6 Runoff generated on–site shall be routed through a treatment system such as a structured stormwater planter, bioswale, rain garden, pervious pavement, or cisterns. Runoff leaving the 8 site shall conform to City of Edmonds Stormwater Management Code Chapter 18.30 of the City of Edmonds Municipal Code. 10 Housing. 12 To promote a balance in age demographics and encourage age diversity, the City of Edmonds is actively encouraging a greater number of dwelling units targeting young 14 professionals and young workers through workforce housing provisions. The Westgate Mixed Use District requires that at least 10% of residential units shall be very small units designed 16 for affordable workforce housing (under 900 square feet) and that not more than 10% of all dwelling units may exceed 1,600 square feet in size. 18 22.110.050 Circulation and parking. 20 A. Alternative transportation. The goals of the Westgate Mixed Use District include improving connectedness for 22 pedestrian and bicycle users. Developers of private property within Westgate shall support the pedestrian and bicycle use of the District by providing: 24 • Internal circulation systems for both bicyclists and pedestrians within the property, • Connections to off-site systems in the public right-of-way and on adjacent properties, 26 • Bicycle racks and other supportive facilities, and • Connections to bus stops and transit routes. 28 B. Internal circulation drives. The concept for an Internal Circulation drive is that of a shared street. This concept is 30 intended to provide access to new residential developments, new and existing businesses, and provide pedestrian connectivity and to reduce the impact of local traffic movement on 32 surrounding arterial streets. Thoroughfare Type: shared street 34 Movement: yield Design Speed: 10 mph 36 Traffic Lanes: 10 feet Parking: none 38 Curb to Curb Distance: no curbs Sidewalks: 6 feet 40 Packet Page 156 of 524 Sample street section for internal circulation drive. 2 C. Parking 4 The Westgate District parking standards are intended to reinforce that the area is pedestrian-oriented and intended to be equally accessible by people on foot, in wheelchairs, 6 on bicycles, or travelling by motorized vehicles. These standards strive to: (a) maximize a compatible mix of parking and pedestrian circulation; and 8 (b) encourage the development of shared parking; and (c) promote density and diversity of the built environment. 10 Design standards for parking lots include the following: (a) No parcel shall be used principally as a parking lot unless it provides centralized 12 parking for the larger developed area framed by external streets (e.g. a parking garage). (b) The edge of any surface parking lot shall be planted with shrubs or street trees, planted 14 at an average distance not to exceed thirty (30) feet on center and aligned three (3) to seven (7) feet behind the common lot line. This requirement may be reduced for parking lot edges 16 abutting parking on adjacent lots, when parking lots are linked by vehicular and pedestrian connections (see item (h) below). 18 (c) Plantings designed to provide a minimum tree canopy coverage of at least 40% in 10 years and no less than 60% in 20 years. 20 (d) Parking lot pathways are to be provided at least every four rows of parking and a maximum distance of 180 feet shall be maintained between paths. Pathways shall connect 22 with major building entries or other sidewalks, pathways, and destinations, and must be universally accessible and meet ADA standards. 24 (e) Landscaping in parking lots shall integrate with on-site pathways, include permeable pavements or bioswales where feasible, and minimize use of impervious pavement. 26 (f) Where a parking lot is abutting another parking lot on an adjacent parcel, vehicular and pedestrian connections between lots are required, to facilitate circulation within Westgate and 28 to reduce the need for vehicles to return to the street when traveling between sites. Packet Page 157 of 524 22.110.070 Amenity Space and Green Feature Standards. A. Purpose and intent. 2 This section identifies the types of amenity spaces and green open space allowed within the Westgate District, and provides design standards for each type to ensure that proposed 4 development is consistent with the City of Edmonds goals for character and quality of the places surrounding the buildings on private property within the Westgate area. This section 6 also describes the Green Factor requirements that apply to each development within Westgate. The intent of the proposed system is not only to establish amenity spaces that serve the 8 community and local needs, but also to provide for the protection and enhancement of natural resources for the benefit of the greater community. Core principles of the Westgate Mixed 10 Use Zone are to promote: • an environment that encourages and facilitates bicycling and pedestrian activity —12 “walkable” streets that are comfortable, efficient, safe, and interesting; and • coherence of the public-right-of-way, serving to assist residents, building owners and 14 managers with understanding the relationship between the public right-of-way and their own properties; and 16 • sustainability by providing for trees and plants which contribute to privacy, the reduction of noise and air pollution, shade, maintenance of the natural habitat, conservation of water and 18 rainwater management. 20 B. Green Factor Requirements and Fulfillment Overview 22 The Green Factor sets a minimum score that is required to be achieved through implementation of allowed landscaping practices. The program provides a menu of 24 landscaping practices that are intended to increase the functional quantity of landscape in a site, to improve livability and ecological quality while allowing flexibility in the site design 26 and implementation. In this approach, each allowed landscape feature utilized in a project earns credits that are weighted and calculated through use of the Green Factor Scoresheet. The 28 score is based upon the relationship between the site size and the points earned by implementation of the specified landscape features. 30 For example, credits may be earned for quantity and size of trees and shrubs, bioretention facilities, and depth of soil. Built features such as green roofs, vegetated walls and permeable 32 paving may also earn credits. Bonus points may be earned with supplementary elements such as drought tolerant and native plants, rainwater irrigation, public visibility and food 34 cultivation. Scoring priorities come from livability considerations, an overall decrease in impervious surfaces and climate change adaptation. The functional benefits target a reduction 36 in stormwater runoff, a decrease in building energy, a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and an increase in habitat space. 38 The minimum score required for all new development in the Westgate District is .30, earned through implementation of features that comply with Green-Factor standards. Other 40 site requirements such as Setbacks, Open Space Standards, Street and Parking Standards, and City of Edmonds Municipal Stormwater Code and City of Edmonds Code for Landscaping 42 Requirements also apply. Green Factor credit may be earned for these site requirements only if they comply with Green Factor standards. 44 Packet Page 158 of 524 Application and Implementation The Green Factor for the Westgate District uses for reference Seattle Green Factor tools. 2 These include: • the Green Factor Worksheet 4 • the Green Factor Score Sheet • • Plant and Tree lists. 6 The Green Factor tools are included in ECDC 22.110.100. In complying with the Green Factor Code, the following steps apply: 8 Step 1. Designers and permit applicants select features to include in planning their site and building and apply them to the site design. Applicants track the actual quantity—e.g. square 10 footage of landscaped areas, pervious paved amenity space, number of trees—using the Green Factor Worksheet. 12 Step 2. Calculations from the Worksheet are entered on the Scoresheet. The professional also enters the site’s square footage on the electronic Scoresheet. The instrument then scores 14 each category of proposed landscape improvements, and provides a total score in relation to the overall site size. The designer can immediately know if the site design is achieving the 16 required score of .30, and can adjust the design accordingly. Note that improvements to the public right-of-way (such as public sidewalks, street tree plantings) are allowed to earn points, 18 even though only the private site square footage is included in the site size calculation. Step 3. The landscape professional submits the Scoresheet with the project plans, certifying 20 that the plan meets or exceeds the minimum Green Factor Score and other requirements for the property. The submission also requires indication that a Landscape Management Plan has 22 been submitted to the client. Step 4. City of Edmonds staff verify that the code requirements have been met before 24 issuance of a permit. Using Green Factor with Other Requirements 26 While a specific green feature may count for both Green Factor calculations and other requirements such as Open Space, the requirements for each need to be met. As described in 28 section 22.110.070(C) of this code, Open Space includes Amenity Space, which is usable open space with dimensions for recreational and passive leisure use. In conjunction with the 30 Green Factor requirements, the percentage of Amenity Space for Westgate is 15% of lot size, to be addressed within each development project, with the possibility of cooperative 32 aggregation between projects. The Open Space section 22.110.070(C) also addresses green feature requirements, such as retention of vegetation on steep slopes, specifications for tree 34 size, and stormwater management (refer to ECDC18.30); these are examples of features that are likely to overlap with and contribute to the Green Factor score. 36 Green Factor Categories: Landscape Elements 38 • Landscaped Areas (based on soil depth) • Bio-retention Facilities 40 • Plantings (mulch and ground cover) • Shrubs and Perennials 42 • Tree Canopy (based on tree sizes) • Green Roofs 44 • Vegetated Walls • Approved Water Features 46 Packet Page 159 of 524 • Permeable Paving • Structural Soil Systems 2 • Bonuses for Drought Tolerant Plants, Harvested Rain Water, Food Cultivation, etc. 4 C. Open Space Standards The Westgate District includes two types of open space: Amenity Space and Green Open 6 Space. 8 Amenity Space Amenity space is designed to provide residents of all ages with a variety of outdoor activity 10 space. Although the character of these amenity spaces will differ, they form the places that encourage residents and visitors to spend time in the company of others or to find solitude in 12 an outdoor setting. All new development shall provide a minimum of 15% of parcel size as amenity space. 14 Additional amenity space above the 15% base requirement is encouraged and can be part of the development’s Green Factor plan outlined in Chapter 22.110.070(B) and can contribute to 16 bonus heights as defined in Chapter 22.110.090. The types of amenity space are as follows: 18 (a) Lawns: An open space, available for unstructured recreation. A lawn may be spatially defined by landscaping rather than building frontages. Its landscape shall consist of lawn and 20 trees and shall provide a minimum of 60% planted pervious surface area (such as a turf, groundcover, soil or mulch.) 22 (b) Plazas: An open space, available for civic purposes and commercial activities. A plaza shall be spatially defined primarily by building facades, with strong connections to interior 24 uses. Its landscape shall consist primarily of pavement. Trees are encouraged. Plazas shall be located between buildings and at the intersection of important streets. Plazas shall provide a 26 minimum of 20% planted pervious surface area (such as a rain garden, bioswale, turf, groundcover, soil or mulch). The remaining balance may be any paved surface with a 28 maximum 30% impervious paved surface. (c) Squares: An open space available for unstructured recreation or civic purposes. A square is 30 spatially defined by building facades with strong connections to interior uses. Its landscape shall consist of paths, lawns and trees with a minimum of 20% planted pervious surface area 32 (such as a rain garden, bioswale, turf, groundcover, soil or mulch). The remaining balance may be any paved surface with a maximum 30% impervious paved surface. 34 (d) Accessible Green Rooftops: Accessible green rooftops can confer significant added value to a building’s occupants or to the general public, with benefits ranging from enhanced 36 educational opportunities for schools, landscaped “roofparks” for leisure or recreational opportunities, horticultural therapy, and even food production. Accessible green rooftops that 38 provide these benefits may count toward required amenity space. Sidewalks: Although not counting toward required amenity space, the purpose of sidewalks is 40 to provide safe, convenient, and pleasant pedestrian circulation along all streets, access to shopfronts and businesses, and to improve the character and identity of commercial and 42 residential areas consistent with the City of Edmonds vision. New development meeting the standards of this Chapter may be allowed to use a portion of the sidewalk area within the 44 public right-of-way for outdoor seating, temporary displays, or other uses consistent with City code standards. 46 Packet Page 160 of 524 Green Open Space 2 The goal for the overall open space in the Westgate District is to create a unified, harmonious, and aesthetically pleasing environment that also integrates sustainable concepts and solutions 4 that restore natural functions and processes. In addition to amenity space, the Westgate District shall incorporate green open space, which includes: 6 (a) Trees: The location and selection of all new tree planting will express the underlying interconnectivity of the Westgate District and surrounding neighborhoods. Species selection 8 will be in character with the local and regional environment, and comprised of an appropriate mix of evergreen and deciduous trees. Trees will be used to define the landscape character of 10 recreation and amenity space areas, identify entry points, and reinforce the legibility of the District by defining major and minor thoroughfares for pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles. 12 • All new development shall preserve existing trees wherever feasible. • All new development shall plant new trees in accordance with this chapter. 14 (b) Steep Slopes: New development shall protect steep slopes by retaining all existing trees and vegetation on protected slopes, as shown on the map included in this section. No 16 development activity, including activities such as clearing, grading, or construction of structures or retaining walls, shall extend uphill of the protected slope line shown on the map. 18 20 Packet Page 161 of 524 (c) Stormwater Management: Stormwater runoff from sidewalks should be conveyed to planted parkways. Overflow from parkways and runoff from the roadways should be directed 2 into bioswales and/or pervious paving in curbside parking areas, located along the street edges where it can infiltrate into the ground. Perforated curbs through which street stormwater 4 runoff can flow to open vegetated swales may also be provided, wherever feasible. 22.110.080 Public Space Standards. 6 In the Westgate District – and within the larger context of the City of Edmonds – there are multiple opportunities to enhance public space for recreational use, pedestrian activity, and 8 ecological health. Future development of the Westgate District shall capitalize on these opportunities to strengthen the overall character of the District’s public space. 10 Public Space: General Requirements 12 Public space shall enhance and promote the environmental quality and the aesthetic character of the Westgate District in the following ways: 14 (a) the landscape shall define, unify and enhance the public realm; including streets, parks, plazas, and sidewalks; 16 (b) the landscape shall be sensitive to its environmental context and utilize plant species that reduce the need for supplemental irrigation water; 18 (c) the landscape shall cleanse and detain storm water on site by utilizing a combination of biofiltration, permeable paving and subsurface detention methods; and, 20 (d) the landscape shall be compatible with encouraging health and wellness, encouraging walking, bicycling, and other activities. 22 Public Space: Sustainability 24 The goal for the overall landscape design of public spaces is to create a unified, harmonious, socially vibrant, and aesthetically pleasing environment that also integrates 26 sustainable concepts and solutions to restore natural functions and processes. The public right of way and urban\street runoff becomes an extension of existing drainage pathways and the 28 natural ecology. Water efficient landscaping shall be introduced to reduce irrigation requirements based on a 30 soil/ climate analysis to determine the most appropriate indigenous/native-in-character, and drought tolerant plants. All planted areas, except for lawn and seeded groundcover, shall 32 receive a surface layer of specified recycled mulch to assist in the retention of moisture and reduce watering requirements, while minimizing weed growth and reducing the need for 34 chemical herbicide treatments. Where irrigation is required, high efficiency irrigation technology with low-pressure 36 applications such as drip, soaker hose, rain shut-off devices, and low volume spray will be used. The efficiency and uniformity of a low water flow rate reduces evaporation and runoff 38 and encourages deep percolation. After the initial growth period of three to seven years, irrigation may be limited in accordance with City requirements then in place. 40 The location and selection of all new tree planting will adhere to ‘green infrastructure’ principles by visually expressing the underlying interconnectivity of the Westgate 42 development. Species selection will be comprised of an appropriate mix of evergreen and deciduous trees. Trees will be used to define the landscape character of recreation and open 44 space areas, identify entry points, and reinforce the legibility of the neighborhood by defining Packet Page 162 of 524 major and minor thoroughfares for pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles. Trees will also be used to soften and shade surface parking and circulation areas. 2 4 Stormwater management. 6 Stormwater shall be consistent with ECDC 18.30. Stormwater and hydrology components will be integrated into the Westgate District to 8 restore and maintain natural functions and processes, mitigate negative environmental impacts. 10 Public rights-of-way, proposed open space and parking lots will filter and infiltrate stormwater to the maximum extent feasible to protect the receiving waters of Puget Sound. 12 This ecological concept transcends the Westgate District to positively affect the surrounding neighborhoods, stream corridors and the regional watershed. 14 The two primary objectives of the proposed stormwater and hydrology components are: (a) to reduce volume and rate of runoff; and 16 (b) to eliminate or minimize runoff pollutants through natural filtration. These objectives will be met by: 18 (a) maximizing pervious areas; (b) maximizing the use of trees; 20 (c) controlling runoff into bioswales and biofiltration strips; (d) utilizing permeable paving surfaces where applicable and feasible; 22 (e) utilizing portions of parks and recreational spaces as detention basin; and (f ) removing sediments and dissolved pollutants from runoff. 24 22.110.090 Height Bonus. Areas eligible for a 4th story height bonus are shown in the diagram contained in Chapter 26 22.110.010.B. In order to obtain the bonus, the proposal must obtain 8 points from the Height Bonus Score Sheet, including points in at least three different scoring categories. 28 When a 4th story is included in a building, the 4th story must be stepped back at least 10 feet from a building façade facing SR-104 or 100th Ave W. In addition, no 3rd or 4th story may be 30 Packet Page 163 of 524 located within 30 feet of the intersection of SR-100 and 100th Ave W, measured from the corner points of the right-of-way intersection. 2 Height Bonus Score Sheet Height Bonus to obtain 4 stories requires 8 points with points in at least 3 categories 1 Green Building Program (points are not additive) Points Required 2 Built Green*/LEED* Certified Rating or equivalent Required Credit 1 LEED* Silver / Built Green* 4-5 Rating 1 Credit 2 LEED* Gold or Evergreen Sustainable Development Rating 2 Credit 3 Passive House Standard / LEED* Platinum Rating 4 Credit 4 Living Building* 6 Green Factor (points are not additive) Points Required Green Factor Score 0.3 Required Credit 1 Green Factor Score 0.4 2 Credit 2 Green Factor Score 0.5 3 Credit 3 Green Factor Score 0.6 4 Credit 4 Green Factor Score ≥0.7 5 Amenity Space (points are not additive) Points Required Percentage of amenity space 15% Required Credit 1 Percentage of amenity space 20% 2 Credit 2 Percentage of amenity space 25% 3 Credit 3 Percentage of amenity space ≥30% 4 Alternative Transportation (points are additive) Points Required Meet street standards incl. bikeway & pedestrian networks Required Credit 1 Car-share parking3., minimum 2 spaces 1 Credit 2 Charging facility for electric cars, minimum 4 spaces 1 Credit 3 Indoor/enclosed bicycle storage and changing facilities 1 1 See locational requirements for extra floor bonus in Chapter 22.110.090. 4 2 “Required” means required for all development, whether seeking a height bonus or not. 3. “Car-share” parking refers to parking for vehicles that are “shared” or rented by the hour or portion 6 of a day. 8 22.110.100 Green Factor Tools The Green Factor Tools are adopted by reference herein as if set forth in their entirety for 10 use in meeting the Green Factor requirements described in ECDC 22.110.070(B). Packet Page 164 of 524 232ND ST SW 1 0 2 N D P L W 2 3 1 S T P L S W 228TH PL SW 227TH PL SW 1 5 T H W A Y S W 231ST PL SW 9 8 T H A V E W 9 6 T H A V E W227THPLSW E D M O N D S W AY 1 0 0 T H A V E W 232ND ST SW 9 9 T H A V E W 9 8 T H P L W 9 5 3 0 97 2 6 DU S T Y ' S 97 2 2 97 2 0 98 1 8 98 1 0 98 0 8 98 0 6 98 0 2 97 9 8 97 9 4 97 9 2 97 9 0 23028BARTELL'S -10030 23028 SALEMLUTHERNCHURCH 23115 1001610022 9601 96 2 4 228042 2 8 0 6 10116 23102 95 1 7 95 1 1 9508 9 5 1 4 9520 96 1 1 96 1 5 9609 23115 2310723103 23125 22915 2291122907 22831 10 1 3 0 2281722818 22828 22826 22808 22806 22925 22933 22919 22717 9709 952 1 95 1 5 9520 9 5 2 4 23001 95 2 1 95 3 1 22711 22721 22719 95 1 3 23 1 2 6 23 1 2 4 23120 95 1 4 74 4 9705 9702 9706971 0 97 1 6 9724 22727 22712 9529 9504 9 5 1 0 9 5 1 6 23 0 1 5 9601 23215 9516 95 1 2 95 1 0 95 3 2 95 2 1 95 0 9 9507 95 1 5 95 2 3 95 2 9 96 0 4 23029 23 1 0 6 98 2 2 2301 723027 10119 1010 9 10 1 0 1 23124 23122 23114 9906 23216 23206 23215 9624 23214 23206 23215 232059924 23218 23214 23206 23029 9920 961023109 96 0 7 96 2 3 23 1 2 3 9729 23126 2303023028 9706971897 2 8 97 2 7 9717 9707 23127 23119 23111 23105 2303123030 23104 23110 23118 982599 0 3 99 0 9 99 1 7 99 2 7 23107 23105 23108 23110 23112 23104 23102 23105 23117 23119 23121 9713 22710 22718 23019 100 3 2 98 2 1 98 2 9 9803 98 2 1 2280 3 228 0 8 228 1 0 22809 228 0 7 22 8 0 5 9 7 0 1 22 7 2 6 22 7 2 0 9715 9706 97039711 23015 23027 98 2 8 2273122714 97 2 7 22710820 99 2 6 99 1 8 99 1 0 99 0 4 9826 98 2 0 99 0 3 99 0 9 99 1 7 99 2 5 10 1 1 9 23009 1 0 2 0 0 22828 9930 9910 97 2 4 98 0 4 23025 9727 22815 22811 22805 23024 98 0 5 98 1 3 9820 98 1 4 98 0 6 97 2 6 97 1 8 97 1 2 97 1 7 2280410117 750 22910 22920 22 9 1 2 23002 23006 22930 23 0 0 4 23026 23024 771 9827 9620 23003 23009 2301723024 23014 23027 740 761 230 1 1 23001 10 1 2 4 10 1 1 5 76 GAS IVAR'S PA R K I N G PARKING ROSEWOOD CT TE N N I S CO U R T S BANK QFC SUNRISE OLD WOODWAYH.S. TACOBELL GOODWILL PARKING PARKING WALGREEN'S PCC NATURALMARKET PARKING BANK M C D O N A L D ' S 9801 9797 BANK June 2014 ¯ 1 inch = 250 feet City of Edmonds121 5th Ave NEdmonds, WA 98020 500 Feet Proposed Westgate Mixed Use Zone Zoning Map Amendment Packet Page 165 of 524 Edmonds Green Factor Tools This document includes the following materials: Green Factor Worksheet Green Factor Score Sheet Green Factor Plant List Green Factor Trees Packet Page 166 of 524 1 2 3 keep adding columns as needed A1 square feet 0 A2 square feet 0 A3 square feet 0 B1 square feet 0 B2 # of plants 0 B3 # of trees 0 B4 # of trees 0 B5 # of trees 0 B6 # of trees 0 B7 # of trees 0 C1 square feet 0 C2 square feet 0 D square feet 0 E square feet 0 F1 square feet 0 F2 square feet 0 G square feet 0 H1 square feet 0 H2 square feet 0 H3 square feet 0 H4 square feet 0 ** Enter totals on the Green Factor score sheet * See Green Factor score sheet for category definitions Planting Area TOTAL** Green Factor Worksheet* Packet Page 167 of 524 enter sq ft of parcel Parcel size (enter this value first) *5,000 SCORE - Landscape Elements**Factor Total A Landscaped areas (select one of the following for each area) enter sq ft 1 Landscaped areas with a soil depth of less than 24"0 0.1 - enter sq ft 2 Landscaped areas with a soil depth of 24" or greater 0 0.6 - enter sq ft 3 Bioretention facilities 0 1.0 - B Plantings (credit for plants in landscaped areas from Section A) enter sq ft 1 Mulch, ground covers, or other plants less than 2' tall at maturity 0 0.1 - enter number of plants 2 Shrubs or perennials 2'+ at maturity - calculated 0 0 0.3 - at 12 sq ft per plant (typically planted no closer than 18" on center) enter number of plants 3 Tree canopy for "small trees" or equivalent 0 0 0.3 - (canopy spread 8' to 15') - calculated at 75 sq ft per tree enter number of plants 4 Tree canopy for "small/medium trees" or equivalent 0 0 0.3 - (canopy spread 16' to 20') - calculated at 150 sq ft per tree enter number of plants 5 Tree canopy for "medium/large trees" or equivalent 0 0 0.4 - (canopy spread of 21' to 25') - calculated at 250 sq ft per tree enter number of plants 6 Tree canopy for "large trees" or equivalent 0 0 0.4 - (canopy spread of 26' to 30') - calculated at 350 sq ft per tree enter inches DBH 7 Tree canopy for preservation of large existing trees 0 0 0.8 - with trunks 6"+ in diameter - calculated at 20 sq ft per inch diameter C Green roofs enter sq ft 1 Over at least 2" and less than 4" of growth medium 0 0.4 - enter sq ft 2 Over at least 4" of growth medium 0 0.7 - enter sq ft D Vegetated walls 0 0.7 - enter sq ft E Approved water features 0 0.7 - F Permeable paving enter sq ft 1 Permeable paving over at least 6" and less than 24" of soil or gravel 0 0.2 - enter sq ft 2 Permeable paving over at least 24" of soil or gravel 0 0.5 - enter sq ft G Structural soil systems 0 0.2 - sub-total of sq ft =0 H Bonuses enter sq ft 1 Drought-tolerant or native plant species 0 0.1 - enter sq ft 2 Landscaped areas where at least 50% of annual irrigation needs are met 0 0.2 - through the use of harvested rainwater enter sq ft 3 Landscaping visible to passersby from adjacent 0 0.1 - public right of way or public open spaces enter sq ft 4 Landscaping in food cultivation 0 0.1 - Green Factor numerator =- Green Factor Score Sheet * Do not count public rights-of-way in parcel size calculation. ** You may count landscape improvements in rights-of-way contiguous with the parcel. All landscaping on private and public property must comply with the Landscape Standards Director's Rule (DR 6-2009) Project title: Totals from GF worksheet Packet Page 168 of 524 Revised December 2010 Se a t t l e G r e e n F a c t o r P l a n t L i s t Sc i e n t i f i c N a m e Co m m o n N a m e E v e r g r e e n S h a d e S u n N a t i v e u p t o 2 4 " 2 - 3 ' h t B i o r e t e n t i o n Z o n e N o t e s A rc t o s t a p h y l o s u v a - u r s i ki n n i k i n n i c k ●● ● ● A sa r u m c a u d a t u m wi l d g i n g e r ●● ● Ca l l u n a , i n v a r i e t y he a t h e r ●● ● Ce r a t o s t i g m a p l u m b a g i n o i d e s ha r d y p l u m b a g o ●● ● ● Da b o e c i a c a n t a b r i c a Ir i s h h e a t h ●● ● Er i c a , i n v a r i e t y he a t h ●● ● Er i g e r o n k a r v i n s k i a n u s La t i n A m e r i c a n f l e a b a n e ●● ● ● Eu o n y m o u s f o r t u n e i ' C o l o r a t a ' wi n t e r c r e e p e r e u o n y m o u s ●● ● ● Fe s t u c a g l a u c a bl u e f e s c u e ●● ● Fr a g a r i a c h i l o e n s i s be a c h s t r a w b e r r y ●● ● ● ● Aggressive Fr a g a r i a x ' L i p s t i c k ' pi n k - f l o w e r e d b a r r e n s t r a w b e r r y ●● ● ● Aggressive Ge n i s t a l y d i a ha r d y d w a r f b r o o m ●● ● Ge n i s t a p i l o s a si l k y l e a f b r o o m ●● ● Ju n i p e r u s c o n f e r t a s h o r e j u n i p e r ●● ● Mi c r o b i o t a d e c u s s a t a Ru s s i a n a r b o r v i t a e ●● ● 2 Pa c h y s a n d r a t e r m i n a l i s Ja p a n e s e s p u r g e ●● ● Pa c h y s a n d r a p r o c u m b e n s Al l e g h e n y p a c h y s a n d r a ●● ● Pa x i s t i m a c a n b y i Ca n b y p a x i s t i m a ●● ● ● Ru b u s p e n t a l o b u s cr e e p i n g b r a m b l e ●● ● ● Vi n c a m i n o r pe r i w i n k l e ●● ● PE R E N N I A L S / F E R N S / G R A S S E S Sc i e n t i f i c N a m e Co m m o n N a m e Ev e r g r e e n S h a d e S u n N a t i v e u p t o 2 4 " 2 - 3 ' h t B i o r e t e n t i o n Z o n e N o t e s A ch i l l e a m i l l e f o l i u m ya r r o w ●● ● A ll i u m , i n v a r i e t y or n a m e n t a l a l l i u m ●● A ru n c u s s y l v e s t r e 'M i s t y L a c e " dw a r f g o a t s b e a r d ●● ● 1B A st e r , in v a r i e t y as t e r ●●● A th y r i u m f i l i x - f e m i n a la d y f e r n ●● ● No t e s : ● A l l p l a n t s o n t h i s l i s t a r e d r o u g h t - t o l e r a n t o n c e t h e y a r e e s t a b l i s h e d u n l e s s c o m m e n t s i n d i c a t e o t h e r w i s e . ● S e a t t l e D e p a r t m e n t o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n s R i g h t - o f W a y I m p r o v e m e n t M a n u a l e s t a b l i s h e s h e i g h t l i m i t s f o r n o n - s t r e e t - t r e e p l a n t i n g s i n r i g h t s - o f - w a y . M a x i m u m p l a n t he i g h t w i t h i n 3 0 f e e t o f a n i n t e r s e c t i o n ( a s m e a s u r e d f r o m t h e c o r n e r o f t h e c u r b ) i s 2 4 i n c h e s . E l s e w h e r e i n t h e r i g h t - o f - w a y , p l a n t i n g s a r e a l l o w e d t o b e 3 0 i n c h e s t a l l . ● " B i o r e t e n t i o n Z o n e " d e s c r i b e s w h e r e p l a n t s c a n a p p r o p r i a t e l y b e u s e d i n b i o r e t e n t i o n s y s t e m s s u c h a s s w a l e s a n d r a i n g a r d e n s . Z o n e 1 i s t h e d e s i g n a t i o n f o r p l a n t s th a t c a n b e u s e d i n t h e f l a t b o t t o m s o f b i o r e t e n t i o n f a c i l i t i e s : 1 A r e f e r s t o s p e c i e s t h a t p r e f e r s o i l s a t u r a t i o n o r s h a l l o w i n u n d a t i o n f o r l o n g d u r a t i o n s , w h i l e Z o n e 1 B re f e r s t o p l a n t s t h a t c a n a l t e r n a t e b e t w e e n d r y a n d s s h o r t - t e r m s a t u r a t e d c o n d i t i o n s . Z o n e 2 i s t h e d e s i g n a t i o n f o r p l a n t s b e s t u s e d a t t h e w e l l - d r a i n e d s l o p e s o f bi o r e t e n t i o n f a c i l i t i e s . A l l o t h e r s p e c i e s a r e a p p r o p r i a t e f o r p l a n t i n g a t t h e t o p s o f b i o r e t e n t i o n a r e a s . GR O U N D C O V E R S Packet Page 169 of 524 Revised December 2010 Be r g e n i a , in v a r i e t y be r g e n i a ●● ● Bl e c h n u m s p i c a n t de e r f e r n ●● ● ● Ca l l u n a v u l g a r i s he a t h e r ●● ● Ca r e x a m p l i f o l i a am p l e - l e a v e d s e d g e ●● ● 1A, 1B N o t d r o u g h t - t o l e r a n t Ca r e x d o l i c h o s t a c h y a go l d f o u n t a i n s e d g e ● ● ● 1A N o t drought-tolerant Ca r e x m o r r o w i i Mo r r o w ' s s e d g e ● ● ● Ca r e x o b n u p t a sl o u g h s e d g e ● ●● ●1A, 1B N o t d r o u g h t - t o l e r a n t Ca r e x p a c h y s t a c h y a th i c k - h e a d e d s e d g e ● ●● ● 1B Ca r e x s t i p a t a be a k e d s e d g e ●● ● ●1A N o t d r o u g h t - t o l e r a n t Ca r e x t e s t a c e a or a n g e s e d g e ● ● ● 1A, 1B, 2 Ci n e r a r i a m a r i t i m a du s t y m i l l e r ●● ● De s c h a m p s i a c e s p i t o s a tu f t e d h a i r g r a s s ●● ● ●1A, 1B N o t d r o u g h t - t o l e r a n t Di e r a m a p u l c h e r r i m u m an g e l ' s f i s h i n g r o d s ● ●● Ep i m e d i u m , in v a r i e t y bi s h o p ' s h a t ● ●● ● Ga i l l a r d i a , in v a r i e t y bl a n k e t f l o w e r ●● Ge r a n i u m m a c r o r r h i z u m bi g r o o t c r a n e s b i l l ●● ● 2 Ge r a n i u m x c a n t a b r i g i e n s e ‘B i o k o v o ’ Bi o k o v o g e r a n i u m ●● ●● He m e r o c a l l i s , in v a r i e t y da y l i l y ●● 2 He u c h e r a , in v a r i e t y he u c h e r a , c o r a l b e l l s ●● ● 2 Ib e r i s s e m p e r v i r e n s ev e r g r e e n c a n d y t u f t ●● ● Ir i s "P a c i f i c C o a s t H y b r i d s " Pa c i f i c C o a s t i r i s ●● ● ● ● Ju n c u s b a l t i c u s Ba l t i c r u s h ●● ● 1A, 1B Not drought-tolerant Ju n c u s e f f u s u s so f t r u s h ●● ● ● 1A, 1B, 2Aggressive, not drought-tolerant Ju n c u s e n s i f o l i u s da g g e r l e a f r u s h ●● ● 1A N o t drought-tolerant Ju n c u s p a t e n s 'E l k b l u e ' Ca l i f o r n i a g r a y r u s h ●● ● ●1A, 1B N o t d r o u g h t - t o l e r a n t La v a n d u l a a n g u s t i f o l i a la v e n d e r se m i ●● Li a t r i s s p i c a t a ga y f e a t h e r ●● Li r i o p e , in v a r i e t y li l y t u r f ●● ● Lu p i n u s , in v a r i e t y lu p i n e ●● ● Mo n a r d a d i d y m a 'P e t i t e W o n d e r ' be e b a l m ●● ● Mu s c a r i b o t r y o i d e s gr a p e h y a c i n t h ●● ● Na r c i s s u s , in v a r i e t y da f f o d i l ●● Ne p e t a , in v a r i e t y ca t m i n t ●● ●2 Or i g a n u m , i n v a r i e t y ma r j o r a m , o r n a m e n t a l o r e g a n o ●● ● Pe n s t e m o n , in v a r i e t y pe n s t e m o n ●● Pe t a s i t e s f r i g i d u s co l t s f o o t ●● ● 1A, 1B Not drought-tolerant Ph l o x s u b u l a t a ph l o x ●● Po l y s t i c h u m m u n i t u m we s t e r n s w o r d f e r n ●● ● ●2 Ru d b e c k i a , in v a r i e t y co n e f l o w e r ●● Sa g i t t a r i a l a t i f o l i a ar r o w h e a d ●● Sa l v i a , in v a r i e t y sa g e ● ● ● Sc i r p u s a c u t u s ha r d s t e m b u l r u s h ●● 1A N o t drought-tolerant Packet Page 170 of 524 Revised December 2010 Sc i r p u s a t r o c i n c t u s wo o l - g r a s s ●● ● ● 1A, 1B N o t d r o u g h t - t o l e r a n t Sc i r p u s m i c r o c a r p u s sm a l l - f r u i t e d b u l r u s h ●● ● 1A N o t d r o u g h t - t o l e r a n t Th y m u s , i n v a r i e t y th y m e ●● ● To l m i e a m e n z i e s i i yo u t h - o n - a g e ● ●● Tu l i p a , i n v a r i e t y tu l i p ●● Yu c c a f i l a m e n t o s a yu c c a ●● ● LO W S H R U B S ( p r u n i n g m a y b e r e q u i r e d t o m a i n t a i n 2 4 " o r 3 0 " m a x i m u m h e i g h t i n R O W ) Sc i e n t i f i c N a m e Co m m o n N a m e E v e r g r e e n S h a d e S u n N a t i v e u p t o 2 4 " 2 - 3 ' h t B i o r e t e n t i o n Z o n e N o t e s A be l i a x g r a n d i f l o r a 'R o s e C r e e k ' ab e l i a ●● ● ● 2 A rc t o s t a p h y l o s d e n s i f l o r a Vi n e H i l l m a n z a n i t a ●● ● 2 A rc t o s t a p h y l o s p u m i l a ma n z a n i t a ●● ● Be r b e r i s b u x i f o l i a ' P y g m a e a ' o r ' N a n a ' dw a r f b o x l e a f b a r b e r r y ●● ● Be r b e r i s c a n d i d u l a pa l e l e a f b a r b e r r y ●● ● Be r b e r i s d a r w i n i i ' Co m p a c t a ' dw a r f D a r w i n b a r b e r r y ●● ● Be r b e r i s s t e n o p h y l l a 'C o r a l l i n a C o m p a c t a ' dw a r f c o r a l h e d g e b a r b e r r y ●● ● Be r b e r i s t h u n b e r g i i Ja p a n e s e b a r b e r r y ●● ● Be r b e r i s v e r r u c u l o s a wa r t y b a r b e r r y ●● ●2 Bu x u s m i c r o p h y l l a 'C o m p a c t a ' li t t l e - l e a f b o x w o o d ●● ● Bu x u s s e m p e r v i r e n s 'S u f f r u t i c o s a ' co m m o n e d g i n g b o x w o o d ●● ●2 Ca r y o p t e r i s , in v a r i e t y ca r y o p t e r i s ●● Ca s s i n i a l e p t o p h y l l a ca s s i n i a ●● ●2 Ce a n o t h u s g l o r i o s u s Po i n t R e y e s c e a n o t h u s ●● ● 2 Ch a m a e c y p a r i s o b t u s a 'N a n a ' dw a r f h i n o k i c y p r e s s ●● ● ● Ci s t u s , in v a r i e t y ro c k r o s e ●● ●2 Co r n u s s e r i c e a 'K e l s e y i i ' Ke l s e y r e d s t e m d o g w o o d ●● ●1B, 2 Co t o n e a s t e r d a m m e r i be a r b e r r y c o t o n e a s t e r ●● ● Da b o e c i a c a n t a b r i c a Ir i s h h e a t h ●● ● Es c a l l o n i a ‘C o m p a c t a ’ co m p a c t e s c a l l o n i a ●● ● ●2 Eu o n y m u s j a p o n i c u s 'M i c r o p h y l l u s ' ev e r g r e e n e u o n y m o u s ●● ● ●2 Eu r y o p s , in v a r i e t y eu r y o p s ●● ● ● 2 Ga u l t h e r i a s h a l l o n sa l a l ●● ● ●2 Ha l i m i o c i s t u s x sa h u c i i ha l i m i o c i s t u s ●● ● Ha l i m i o c i s t u s x wi n t o n e n s i s ha l i m i o c i s t u s ●● ● 2 He b e , in v a r i e t y he b e ●● ● ● 2 Hy d r a n g e a q u e r c i f o l i a 'P e e W e e ' dw a r f o a k - l e a f h y d r a n g e a ●● ●1B, 2 Il e x c r e n a t a ‘C o m p a c t a ’ Ja p a n e s e h o l l y ●● ●●2 Il e x c r e n a t a ' H e l l e r i ' He l l e r J a p a n e s e h o l l y ●● ● ● La v a n d u l a , in v a r i e t y la v a n d e r ●● ●2 Ma h o n i a n e r v o s a lo w O r e g o n h o l l y - g r a p e ●● ● ●2 Ma h o n i a r e p e n s cr e e p i n g O r e g o n h o l l y - g r a p e ●● ●●● Na n d i n a d o m e s t i c a 'C o m p a c t a ' o r ' H a r b o r D w a r f ' or ' G u l f S t r e a m ' dw a r f h e a v e n l y - b a m b o o ●● ● ●2 Packet Page 171 of 524 Revised December 2010 Ol e a e u r o p a e a 'L i t t l e O l l i e ' [ ' M o n t r a ' ] dw a r f o l i v e ●● ● 2 Ph l o m i s p u r p u r e a ph l o m i s ●● ●2 Ph o r m i u m t e n a x 'T i n y T i m ' o r ' J a c k S p r a t ' co m p a c t N e w Z e a l a n d f l a x ●● ● Pi e r i s j a p o n i c a ' C a v a t i n e ' Ca v a t i n e ' a n d r o m e d a ●● ● Pi t t o s p o r u m t o b i r a 'W h e e l e r ' s D w a r f ' a n d ' S h i m a ' dw a r f J a p a n e s e m o c k - o r a n g e ●● ● ●2 Po t e n t i l l a f r u t i c o s a sh r u b b y c i n q u e f o i l ●●2 Pr u n u s l a u r o c e r a s u s 'M o u n t V e r n o n ' Mo u n t V e r n o n c h e r r y l a u r e l ●● ● Rh o d o d e n d r o n 'P J M P r i n c e s s S u s a n ' (c o m p a c t / d w a r f f o r m ) co m p a c t P J M r h o d o d e n d r o n ●● ●2 Rh o d o d e n d r o n , i n v a r i e t y rh o d o d e n d r o n a n d a z a l e a ●● ● ●2 Rh u s a r o m a t i c a 'G r o - L o w ' dw a r f l e m o n a d e s u m a c ●● ●2 Ro s a n u t k a n a No o t k a R o s e ●● 1B, 2 Ro s a r u g o s a Ru g o s a R o s e ● 1B, 2 Ro s m a r i n u s o f f i c i n a l i s 'C o l l i n g w o o d I n g r a m ' dw a r f r o s e m a r y ●● ●2 Ro s m a r i n u s o f f i c i n a l i s '' M a j o r c a P i n k ' Ro s e m a r y ●● 2 Ru s c u s a c u l e a t u s a n d R . h y p o g l o s s u m bu t c h e r s b r o o m ●● ● Se n e c i o g r e y i i se n e c i o ●● ●2 Sa r c o c o c c a h o o k e r i a n a v a r . h u m i l i s sw e e t b o x ●● ● Sp i r a e a b e t u l i f o l i a sh i n y - l e a f s p i r e a ●● ● ●2 Sp i r a e a d o u g l a s i i St e e p l e b u s h ●● ● ●1A,1B, 2 Sp i r a e a j a p o n i c a 'L i t t l e P r i n c e s s ' dw a r f J a p a n e s e s p i r e a ●●2 Sp i r a e a x b u m a l d a ‘ M a g i c c a r p e t ’ bu m a l d a s p i r e a ●● ●1B Sy m p h o r i c a r p o s a l b u s sn o w b e r r y ● ●● ●1A, 1B, 2 Te u c r i u m c h a m a e d r y s wa l l g e r m a n d e r ●● ● Vi b u r n u m a c e r i f o l i u m ' N a n a ' dw a r f c r a n b e r r y b u s h v i b u r n u m ●● ●1B Vi b u r n u m d a v i d i i Da v i d v i b u r n u m ●● ● ●2 Vi b u r n u m t r i l o b u m ' C o m p a c t u m ' dw a r f c r a n b e r r y b u s h v i b u r n u m ●● ●1B, 2 TA L L S H R U B S ( s u b j e c t t o s i t e - s p e c i f i c a p p r o v a l i f u s e d i n R O W ) Sc i e n t i f i c N a m e Co m m o n N a m e E v e r g r e e n S h a d e S u n N a t i v e u p t o 2 4 " 2 - 3 ' h t B i o r e t e n t i o n Z o n e N o t e s A rb u t u s u n e d o 'C o m p a c t a ' co m p a c t s t r a w b e r r y t r e e ●● ● 2 Ca m e l i a s a s a n q u a 'Y u l e t i d e ' yu l e t i d e c a m e l i a ●● ● Ce a n o t h u s J u l i a P h e l p s Sm a l l l e a f M o u n t a i n l i l a c ●● 2 Ch a m a e c y p a r i s o b t u s a ' n a n a g r a c i l i s ' dw a r f h i n o k i c y p r e s s ●● 2 Ch o i s y a t e r n a t a Me x i c a n m o c k o r a n g e ●● ● Co r n u s s t o l o n i f e r a Re d - o s i e r D o g w o o d ●● ● 1A, 1B, 2 Co r n u s s e r i c e a 'I s a n t i ' co m p a c t r e d t w i g d o g w o o d ●● ● 1B, 2 Hy d r a n g e a q u e r c i f o l i a oa k - l e a f h y d r a n g e a ●● 2 Ho l o d i s c u s d i s c o l o r Oc e a n S p r a y ●● ● 1 A , 1 B , 2 Ma h o n i a a q u i f o l i u m Ta l l O r e g o n G r a p e ●● ● ● 1 A , 1 B , 2 Packet Page 172 of 524 Revised December 2010 Ma h o n i a x m e d i a ' A r t h u r M e n z i e s ' hy b r i d m a h o n i a ●● ● ● 2 My r i c a c a l i f o r n i c a Ca l i f o r n i a w a x - m y r t l e ●● ● 2 Ph i l a d e l p h u s l e w i s i i Mo c k - o r a n g e ●● 1B,1A, 2 Ph o r m i u m t e n a x Ne w Z e a l a n d f l a x ●● 2 Ph y s o c a r p u s c a p t a t u s Pa c i f i c N i n e b a r k ●● ● 1B,1A, 2 Ph y s o c a r p u s o p u l i f o l i u s ' D i a b l o ' Di a b l o N i n e b a r k ●● 1B,1A, 2 Ri b e s s a n g u i n e u m an d c u l t i v a t e d v a r i e t i e s re d - f l o w e r i n g c u r r a n t ●● ● 2 Sa l i x h o o k e r i a n a Ho o k e r ' s W i l l o w ●● ● 1A,1B, 2 N o t d r o u g h t - t o l e r a n t Ta x u s b a c c a t a ' Fa s t i g i a t a ' Ir i s h y e w ●● ● Va c c i n i u m o v a t u m ev e r g r e e n h u c k l e b e r r y ●● ● ● 2 BI O R E T E N T I O N T R E E S ( a p p r o p r i a t e f o r z o n e s 1 A o r 1 B ) , s u b j e c t t o s i t e - s p e c i f i c a p p r o v a l i n R O W . S e e G r e e n F a c t o r t r e e l i s t f o r n o n - b i o r e t e n t i o n o p t i o n s . Sc i e n t i f i c N a m e Co m m o n N a m e E v e r g r e e n S h a d e S u n N a t i v e u p t o 2 4 " 2 - 3 ' h t B i o r e t e n t i o n Z o n e N o t e s Ab i e s g r a n d i s Gr a n d F i r ●● ● 1B, 2 Ac e r c i r c i n a t u m Vi n e M a p l e ●● ● 1A,1B, 2 Ac e r g l a b r u m Ro c k y M o u n t i a n M a p l e ●● ● 1A,1B, 2 Ac e r s a c c h a r u m ' C o m m e m o r a t i o n ' Co m m e m o r a t i o n S u g a r M a p l e ●● 1A,1B, 2 Al n u s c r i s p a Si t k a A l d e r ●● ● 1A,1B, 2 Al n u s r u b r a Re d A l d e r ●● ● 1A,1B, 2 Be t u l a p a p y r i f e r a Wh i t e B i r c h ●● ● 1A,1B, 2 Ch a m a e c y p a r i s n o o t k a t e n s i s Al a s k a n C e d a r ●● ● ● 1A,1B, 2 Co r y l u s c o r n u t a Be a k e d H a z e l n u t ●● ● 1A,1B, 2 Fr a x i n u s l a t i f o l i a Or e g o n A s h ●● 1A,1B, 2 Li q u i d a m b a r s t y r a c i f l u a Sw e e t G u m ● 1A,1B, 2 Po p u l u s t r e m u l o i d e s Qu a k i n g A s p e n ●● 1A,1B, 2 Ps e u d o t s u g a m e n z i e s i i Do u g l a s F i r ●● ● ● 1B, 2 Rh a m u s p u r s h i a n a Ca s c a r a ●● ● 1A,1B, 2 Sa l i x l u c i d a Pa c i f i c W i l l o w ●● 1A,1B, 2 Sa l i x s c o u l e r i a n a Sc o u l e r ' s W i l l o w ●● 1A,1B, 2 Ta x o d i u m d i s t i c h u m Ba l d C y p r e s s ● 1A,1B, 2 Th u j a p l i c a t u m We s t e r n R e d C e d a r ●● ●● 1A,1B, 2 Ts u g a h e t e r o p h y l l a We s t e r n H e m l o c k ●● ● ●1A,1B, 2 Packet Page 173 of 524 Revised December 2010 V IN E S Sc i e n t i f i c N a m e Co m m o n N a m e Ev e r g r e e n S h a d e S u n N a t i v e u p t o 2 4 " 2 - 3 ' h t B i o r e t e n t i o n Z o n e N o t e s A ct i n i d i a k o l o m i k t a Ko l o m i k t a k i w i ●● A ke b i a q u i n a t a 5- l e a f a k e b i a ● ●● Aggressive A ri s t o l o c h i a m a c r o p h y l l a Du t c h m a n ' s p i p e ●● Cl e m a t i s a r m a n d i i ev e r g r e e n c l e m a t i s ●● Cl e m a t i s x c a r t m a n i i " B l a a v a l " Av a l a n c h e e v e r g r e e n c l e m a t i s ●● Cl e m a t i s m o n t a n a a n e m o n e c l e m a t i s ● Eu o n y m o u s f o r t u n e i 'K e w e n s i s ' o r ' R a d i c a n s ' cl i m b i n g w i n t e r c r e e p e r ●● ● Hy d r a n g e a a n o m a l a cl i m b i n g h y d r a n g e a ● Ja s m i n u m g r a n d i f l o r u m cl i m b i n g j a s m i n e ●● Lo n i c e r a c i l i o s a or a n g e h o n e y s u c k l e ●● Lo n i c e r a s e m p e r v i r e n s or L. h e c k r o t t i i tr u m p e t h o n e y s u c k l e / c o r a l h o n e y s u c k l e ● Pa s s i f l o r a , in v a r i e t y pa s s i o n v i n e ●● Aggressive Pa r t h e n o c i s s u s q u i n q u e f o l i a Vi r g i n i a c r e e p e r ● Pa r t h e n o c i s s u s t r i c u s p i d a t a Bo s t o n i v y ● Tr a c h e l o s p e r m u m j a s m i n o i d e s st a r j a s m i n e ●● ● Wi s t e r i a , i n v a r i e t y wi s t e r i a ● GR E E N R O O F P L A N T S Sc i e n t i f i c N a m e Co m m o n N a m e Ev e r g r e e n S h a d e S u n N a t i v e u p t o 2 4 " 2 - 3 ' h t B i o r e t e n t i o n Z o n e N o t e s A ll i u m s c h o e n o p r a s u m ch i v e s ●● A ll i u m s e n e s c e n s la v e n d e r - f l o w e r e d o n i o n ●● ● De l o s p e r m a n u b i g e n u m ye l l o w i c e p l a n t ●● ● ● Fe s t u c a i d a h o e n s i s Id a h o f e s c u e ●● ●● Fr a g a r i a c h i l o e n s i s ba r r e n s t r a w b e r r y ●● ● ● ● He b e d e c u m b e n s gr o u n d h e b e ●● ● ● He l i a n t h e m u m n u m m u l a r i u m , in v a r i e t y su n r o s e ●● ● He u c h e r a m i c r a n t h a co r a l b e l l s / a l u m r o o t ● ● ● ● Ib e r i s s e m p e r v i r e n s ev e r g r e e n c a n d y t u f t ●● ● ● Mo n t i a p a r v i f l o r a sm a l l - f l o w e r e d s p r i n g - b e a u t y ●● ● ● Ro s m a r i n u s o f f i c i n a l i s 'P r o s t r a t u s ' pr o s t r a t e r o s e m a r y ●● ● Se d u m d a s y p h y l l u m th i c k - l e a f s t o n e c r o p ●● ●● Se d u m d i v e r g e n s Pa c i f i c s t o n e c r o p ●● ●● Se d u m k a m t s c h a t i c u m Ru s s i a n s t o n e c r o p ●● ● Se d u m l a x u m ro s e f l o w e r s t o n e c r o p ●● ●● Se d u m o r e g a n u m Or e g o n s t o n e c r o p ●● ●● Se d u m s p a t h u l i f o l i u m br o a d l e a f s t o n e c r o p ●● ●● Se d u m s t e f c o st o n e c r o p ●● ● Se m p e r v i v u m a r a c h n o i d e u m he n s a n d c h i c k s ●● ● Si s y r i n c h i u m b e l l u m bl u e - e y e d g r a s s ●● ● Ta l i n u m c a l y c i n u m fa m e f l o w e r ●● ● Tr i f o l i u m r e p e n s Ne w Z e a l a n d W h i t e C l o v e r s e m i ● Packet Page 174 of 524 Revised December 2010 SP E C I E S N O T P E R M I T T E D I N R O W O R N E W L A N D S C A P E P L A N S Sc i e n t i f i c N a m e Co m m o n N a m e He d e r a h e l i x - - a l l v a r i e t i e s En g l i s h i v y Bu d d l e i a bu t t e r f l y b u s h Cl e m a t i s v i t a l b a ol d m a n ’ s b e a r d Il e x a q u i f o l i u m En g l i s h h o l l y Pr u n u s l a u r o c e r a s u s En g l i s h L a u r e l Po l y g o n u m a u b e r t i i si l v e r l a c e v i n e An y p l a n t s p e c i e s c l a s s i f i e d b y K i n g C o u n t y a s a Cl a s s A , B , o r C N o x i o u s W e e d Packet Page 175 of 524 Gr e e n F a c t o r T r e e s ( S o r t e d a c c o r d i n g t o c r i t e r i a ) Gr o u p B o t a n i c a l N a m e C o m m o n N a m e H e i g h t S p r e a d S h a p e V o l u m e S t r i p W i d t h Wi r e s F a l l C o l o r Co m m e n t s Street Tree N a t i v e T r e e La r g e Ab i e s g r a n d i s Gr a n d F i r 1 0 0 3 5 0 Gr o w s a t 0 - 1 5 0 0 m i n m o i s t c o n i f e r fo r e s t s Ab i e s p r o c e r a No b l e F i r 9 0 3 0 0 Ac e r f r e e m a n i i ' A u t u m n B l a z e ' A u t u m n B l a z e M 5 0 4 0 37 7 0 0 6 Or a n g e Ac e r m a c r o p h y l l u m Bi g L e a f M a p l e 1 0 0 8 0 R o u n d e d 0 ye l l o w / br o w n Ve r y l a r g e n a t i v e Ac e r p l a t a n o i d e s ‘ E m e r a l d Q u e E m e r a l d Q u e e n 5 0 4 0 50 3 0 0 6 Ye l l o w Ac e r s a c c h a r u m ‘ B o n f i r e ’ B o n f i r e S u g a r M a 5 0 4 0 O v a l 50 3 0 0 6 Br i g h t or a n g e r e d Fa s t e s t g r o w i n g s u g a r m a p l e . Ac e r s a c c h a r u m ' C o m m e m o r a t C o m m e m o r a t i o n 5 0 3 5 38 5 0 0 6 Or a n g e t o or a n g e - r e d Re s i s t a n t t o l e a f t a t t e r . Ac e r s a c c h a r u m ' L e g a c y ' L e g a c y S u g a r M a 5 0 3 5 38 5 0 0 5 Ye l l o w o r or a n g e / r e d Li m i t e d u s e - w h e r e s u g a r m a p l e i s de s i r e d i n s t a n d a r d p l a n t i n g s t r i p s Ae s c u l u s f l a v a Ye l l o w B u c k e y e 7 0 4 0 0 ye l l o w / or a n g e ye l l o w f l o w e r s - l e a s t s u s c e p i b l e t o le a f b l o t c h - l a r g e f r u i t Al n u s r u b r a Re d A l d e r 7 0 3 5 B r o a d l y c o n i 0 ye l l o w / br o w n ni t r o g e n f i x i n g Ce r c i d i p h y l l u m j a p o n i c u m K a t s u r a T r e e 4 0 4 0 O v a l 37 7 0 0 6 Ye l l o w t o or a n g e Ne e d s l o t s o f w a t e r w h e n y o u n g Fa g u s s y l v a t i c a Gr e e n B e e c h 5 0 4 0 O v a l 50 3 0 0 6 Br o n z e S i l v e r y - g r e y b a r k . Fa g u s s y l v a t i c a ' A s p l e n i f o l i a ' F e r n l e a f B e e c h 6 0 6 0 0 6 go l d e n / br o w n Be a u t i f u l c u t l e a f Fr a x i n u s l a t i f o l i a Or e g o n A s h 6 0 3 5 0 ye l l o w / br o w n On l y n a t i v e a s h i n P N W We d n e s d a y , J u n e 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 Page 1 of 11 Packet Page 176 of 524 Gr o u p B o t a n i c a l N a m e C o m m o n N a m e H e i g h t S p r e a d S h a p e V o l u m e S t r i p W i d t h Wi r e s F a l l C o l o r Co m m e n t s Street Tree N a t i v e T r e e Fr a x i n u s p e n n s y l v a n i c a ‘ U r b a n i U r b a n i t e A s h 5 0 4 0 P y r a m i d a l 5 0 3 0 0 6 De e p br o n z e To l e r a n t o f c i t y c o n d i t i o n s Gy m n o c l a d u s d i o i c u s ' E s p r e s s E s p r e s s o K e n t u c 5 0 3 5 0 6 ye l l o w v e r y c o a r s e b r a n c h e s - e x t r e m e l y la r g e b i - p i n n a t e l y c o m p o u n d l e a f - Li r i o d e n d r o n t u l i p i f e r a Tu l i p T r e e 6 0 3 0 O v a l 35 4 0 0 8 Ye l l o w F a s t - g r o w i n g t r e e . No t h o f a g u s a n t a r c t i c a An t a r c t i c B e e c h 5 0 3 5 38 5 0 0 6 No n e R u g g e d t w i s t e d b r a n c h i n g a n d pe t i t e f o l i a g e . Pi c e a s i t c h e n s i s Si t k a S p r u c e 1 0 0 3 0 0 Ev e r g r e e n N a t i v e e n v i r o n m e n t i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a c o o l , m o i s t m a r i t i m e c l i m a t e Pi n u s m o n t i c o l a W e s t e r n W h i t e P i 1 0 0 3 5 0 Ev e r g r e e n O c c u r s i n l o w l a n d f o g f o r e s t s o r o n mo i s t m o u n t a i n s o i l s - p r i m a r y h o s t Pl a t a n u s x a c e r i f o l i a ' B l o o d g o o B l o o d g o o d L o n d o 5 0 4 0 P y r a m i d a l 6 3 7 0 0 8 Re d M o r e a n t h r a c n o s e r e s i s t a n t - n e e d s sp a c e Pl a t a n u s x a c e r i f o l i a ' Y a r w o o d ' Y a r w o o d L o n d o n 5 0 4 0 50 3 0 0 8 Ye l l o w - br o w n Hi g h r e s i s t a n c e t o p o w d e r y m i l d e w . Ps u d o t s u g a m e n z i e s i i Do u g l a s F i r 1 5 0 3 5 0 Ev e r g r e e n Qu e r c u s b i c o l o r Sw a m p W h i t e O a 4 5 4 5 55 7 0 0 8 Va r i e s . S h a g g y p e e l i n g b a r k Qu e r c u s c o c c i n e a Sc a r l e t O a k 5 0 4 0 U p r i g h t 50 3 0 0 6 Re d B e s t o a k f o r f a l l c o l o r Qu e r c u s g a r r y a n a Or e g o n O a k 4 5 4 0 O v a l 43 9 6 0 6 Na t i v e t o P a c i f i c N o r t h w e s t Qu e r c u s i m b r i c a r i a Sh i n g l e O a k 6 0 5 0 0 6 go l d e n / br o w n ni c e s u m m e r f o l i a g e - l e a v e s c a n pe r s i s t Qu e r c u s m u h l e n b e r g i i Ch e s t n u t O a k 6 0 5 0 0 6 br o w n / ye l l o w co a r s e l y t o o t h e d l e a f Qu e r c u s r o b u r En g l i s h O a k 5 0 4 0 R o u n d e d 5 0 3 0 0 8 Ye l l o w - br o w n La r g e , s t u r d y t r e e Qu e r c u s r u b r a Re d O a k 5 0 4 5 R o u n d e d 6 3 6 0 0 8 Re d F a s t g r o w i n g o a k - n e e d s s p a c e We d n e s d a y , J u n e 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 Page 2 of 11 Packet Page 177 of 524 Gr o u p B o t a n i c a l N a m e C o m m o n N a m e H e i g h t S p r e a d S h a p e V o l u m e S t r i p W i d t h Wi r e s F a l l C o l o r Co m m e n t s Street Tree N a t i v e T r e e Qu e r c u s v e l u t i n a Bl a c k O a k 6 0 5 0 0 6 ru s t y r e d Th u j a p l i c a t a W e s t e r n R e d C e 1 2 5 4 0 P y r a m i d a l 0 Ev e r g r e e n g r o w t h i s s t u n t e d o n d r y s o i l s Ts u g a h e t e r o p h y l l a W e s t e r n H e m l o c 1 3 0 3 0 0 Ev e r g r e e n Ul m u s ‘ H o m e s t e a d ’ Ho m e s t e a d E l m 6 0 3 5 48 1 0 0 6 Ye l l o w Ul m u s ‘ P i o n e e r ’ Pi o n e e r E l m 6 0 5 0 98 2 0 0 6 Ye l l o w R e s i s t a n t t o D u t c h e l m d i s e a s e . Ul m u s p a r v i f o l i a ‘ E m e r I I ’ A l l e e E l m 5 0 3 5 V a s e 38 5 0 0 5 Ye l l o w - or a n g e Ex f o l i a t i n g b a r k a n d n i c e f a l l c o l o r Ze l k o v a s e r r a t a ‘ G r e e n v a s e ’ G r e e n V a s e Z e l k 5 0 4 0 50 3 0 0 5 Or a n g e V i g o r o u s Me d i u m / L a r g e Ac e r c a m p e s t r e He d g e M a p l e 3 0 3 0 14 1 0 0 5 Ye l l o w Ac e r c a m p e s t r e ‘ E v e l y n ’ Q u e e n E l i z a b e t h 3 5 3 0 17 7 0 0 5 Ye l l o w M o r e u p r i g h t b r a n c h i n g t h a n t h e sp e c i e s . Ac e r m i y a b e i ' M o r t o n ' St a t e S t r e e t M a p l 4 5 3 0 0 5 ye l l o w Ac e r p l a t a n o i d e s ‘ P a r k w a y ’ P a r k w a y N o r w a y 4 0 2 5 14 7 0 0 6 Ye l l o w t o l e r a n t o f v e r t i c i l l i u m w i l t Ac e r p s e u d o p l a t a n u s ‘ A t r o p u r p S p a e t h i i M a p l e 4 0 3 0 21 2 0 0 5 No t si g n i f i c a n t Le a v e s g r e e n o n t o p p u r p l e un d e r n e a t h . Ac e r s a c c h a r u m ' G r e e n M o u n t G r e e n M o u n t a i n 4 5 3 5 O v a l 33 7 0 0 6 Re d t o or a n g e . Re l i a b l e f a l l c o l o r Ae s c u l u s x c a r n e a ‘B r i o t t i i ’ R e d H o r s 3 0 3 5 19 2 0 0 5 No Re s i s t s h e a t a n d d r o u g h t b e t t e r th a n o t h e r h o r s e c h e s t m u t s . Be t u l a a l b o s i n e n e s i s v a r s e p t e C h i n e s e R e d B i r c 4 5 3 5 0 5 ye l l o w p i n k / w h i t e p e e l i n g b a r k Be t u l a j a c q u e m o n t i i Ja c q u e m o n t i i B i r 4 0 3 0 O v a l 21 2 0 0 5 Ye l l o w W h i t e b a r k m a k e s f o r g o o d w i n t e r in t e r e s t - b e s t f o r a p h i d r e s i s t a n c e We d n e s d a y , J u n e 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 Page 3 of 11 Packet Page 178 of 524 Gr o u p B o t a n i c a l N a m e C o m m o n N a m e H e i g h t S p r e a d S h a p e V o l u m e S t r i p W i d t h Wi r e s F a l l C o l o r Co m m e n t s Street Tree N a t i v e T r e e Be t u l a p a p y r i f e r a Pa p e r B i r c h 6 0 3 5 0 Ye l l o w / br o w n Hi g h s u s c e p t i b i l i t y t o a p h i d in f e s t a t i o n Ch a m a e c y p a r i s p i s i f e r a S a w a r a C y p r e s s 4 5 2 5 P y r a m i d a l 1 7 2 0 0 6 Ev e r g r e e n S p e c i a l s i t e a p p r o v a l n e e d e d - ma n y c u l t i v a r s a v a i l a b l e Co r y l u s c o l u r n a Tu r k i s h F i l b e r t 4 0 2 5 P y r a m i d a l 1 4 8 0 0 5 Ye l l o w T i g h t , f o r m a l , d e n s e c r o w n - n o t f o r hi g h p e d e s t r i a n a r e a s Eu c o m m i a u l m o i d e s H a r d y R u b b e r T r 5 0 4 0 0 5 Da r k g r e e n s h i n y l e a v e s Fa g u s s y l v a t i c a ' R o h a n i i ' P u r p l e O a k L e a f 5 0 3 0 0 6 At t r a c t i v e p u r p l e l e a v e s w i t h w a v y ma r g i n s . Fr a x i n u s a m e r i c a n a ' A u t u m n A A u t u m n A p p l a u s 4 0 2 5 O v a l 14 7 0 0 5 Pu r p l e C o m p a c t t r e e - r e p o r t e d l y s e e d l e s s Fr a x i n u s a m e r i c a n a ' E m p i r e ' E m p i r e A s h 5 0 2 5 C o l u m n a r 1 7 9 0 0 5 Ru s t y Or a n g e Us e f o r a r e a s a d j a c e n t t o t a l l e r bu i l d i n g s w h e n a s h i s d e s i r e d Fr a x i n u s p e n n s y l v a n i c a ‘ P a t m o P a t m o r e A s h 4 5 3 5 O v a l 33 7 0 0 5 Ye l l o w E x t r e m e l y h a r d y , m a y b e s e e d l e s s . Gi n k o b i l o b a ‘ A u t u m n G o l d ’ A u t u m n G o l d G i n 4 5 3 5 P y r a m i d a l 3 3 7 0 0 6 Ye l l o w N a r r o w w h e n y o u n g Ha l e s i a m o n t i c o l a Mo u n t a i n S i l v e r b 4 5 2 5 0 5 ye l l o w a t t r a c t i v e , s m a l l w h i t e f l o w e r Ko e l r e u t e r i a p a n i c u l a t a G o l d e n r a i n T r e e 3 0 3 0 14 1 0 0 Ye l l o w M i d s u m m e r b l o o m i n g . Li q u i d a m b a r s t y r a c i f l u a ‘ R o t u n R o t u n d i l o b a S w e 4 5 2 5 17 2 0 0 6 Pu r p l e or a n g e On l y s w e e t g u m t h a t i s e n t i r e l y fr u i t l e s s . S m o o t h r o u n d e d l e a f Ma g n o l i a d e n u d a t a Yu l a n M a g n o l i a 4 0 4 0 0 5 6" i n c h , f r a g r a n t , w h i t e b l o s s o m s i n sp r i n g Me t a s e q u o i a g l y p t o s t r o b o i d e s D a w n R e d w o o d 5 0 2 5 N a r r o w 19 6 2 5 6 Ru s t y F a s t g r o w i n g d e c i d u o u s c o n i f e r Ny s s a s y l v a t i c a Tu p e l o 60 2 0 18 8 0 0 5 Ap r i c o t > br i g h t r e d Ha n d s o m e l y c h u n k y b a r k . Ph e l l o d e n d r o n a m u r e n s e ' M a c M a c h o C o r k T r e e 4 0 4 0 0 5 ye l l o w M a l e s e l e c t i o n - f r u i t l e s s - a n o t h e r go o d v a r i e t y i s ' H i s M a j e s t y ' We d n e s d a y , J u n e 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 Page 4 of 11 Packet Page 179 of 524 Gr o u p B o t a n i c a l N a m e C o m m o n N a m e H e i g h t S p r e a d S h a p e V o l u m e S t r i p W i d t h Wi r e s F a l l C o l o r Co m m e n t s Street Tree N a t i v e T r e e Pi n u s n i g r a Au s t r i a n P i n e 4 5 2 5 P y r a m i d a l 1 7 2 0 0 6 Ev e r g r e e n S p e c i a l s i t e a p p r o v a l n e e d e d - f a i r l y to l e r a n t o f h e a t , p o l l u t i o n , u r b a n Pi n u s p i n e a It a l i a n S t o n e P i n 4 0 3 0 P y r a m i d a l 2 1 2 0 0 6 Ev e r g r e e n S p e c i a l s i t e a p p r o v a l n e e d e d Po p u l u s t r e m u l o i d e s Qu a k i n g A s p e n 5 0 3 0 0 ye l l o w / or a n g e Py r u s c a l l e r y a n a ‘ A r i s t o c r a t ’ A r i s t o c r a t P e a r 4 0 3 0 21 2 0 0 5 Re d G o o d b r a n c h a n g l e s - o n e o f t h e ta l l e s t p e a r s Qu e r c u s f r a i n e t t o It a l i a n O a k 5 0 3 0 O v a l 28 3 0 0 6 Ye l l o w - Br o w n Dr o u g h t r e s i s t a n t Qu e r c u s r o b u r ‘ f a s t i g i a t a ’ S k y r o c k e t O a k 4 0 1 5 17 2 0 0 6 Ye l l o w - br o w n Co l u m n a r v a r i e t y o f o a k . Sa l i x l a s i a n d r a Pa c i f i c W i l l o w 4 0 3 0 0 ye l l o w So p h o r a j a p o n i c a ' R e g e n t ' J a p a n e s e P a g o d 5 0 4 0 0 6 ye l l o w c a n h a v e t r u n k c a n k e r o r t w i g b l i g h t Ta x o d i u m d i s t i c h u m Ba l d C y p r e s s 5 5 3 0 P y r a m i d a l 3 1 8 0 0 6 Ru s t y r e d A d e c i d u o u s c o n i f e r Ta x o d i u m d i s t i c h u m ' M i c k e l s o n S h a w n e e B r a v e 5 5 2 0 N a r r o w / p y r . 1 4 1 0 0 6 Or a n g e / b r o n ze De c i d u o u s c o n i f e r - t o l e r a t e s c i t y co n d i t i o n s Ti l i a a m e r i c a n a ‘ R e d m o n d ’ R e d m o n d L i n d e n 4 5 3 0 P y r a m i d a l 2 1 2 0 0 8 Ye l l o w P y r a m i d a l , n e e d s w a t e r . Ti l i a c o r d a t a ‘ G r e e n s p i r e ’ G r e e n s p i r e L i n d e 4 0 3 0 21 2 0 0 5 Ye l l o w i s h S y m m e t r i c a l , p y r a m i d a l f o r m . Ze l k o v a s e r r a t a ‘ V i l l a g e G r e e n ’ V i l l a g e G r e e n Z e l 4 0 3 8 34 0 0 0 5 Ru s t y R e d Me d i u m / S m a l l Ac e r n i g r u m ‘ G r e e n C o l u m n ’ G r e e n C o l u m n B l 5 0 1 0 12 6 0 0 5 Ye l l o w t o or a n g e Go o d c l o s e t o b u i l d i n g s . Ac e r p l a t a n o i d e s ‘ C o l u m n a r ’ C o l u m n a r N o r w a 4 0 1 5 53 0 0 5 Ye l l o w G o o d c l o s e t o b u i l d i n g s . Ac e r r u b r u m ‘ B o w h a l l ’ Bo w h a l l M a p l e 4 0 1 5 53 0 0 5 Ye l l o w or a n g e We d n e s d a y , J u n e 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 Page 5 of 11 Packet Page 180 of 524 Gr o u p B o t a n i c a l N a m e C o m m o n N a m e H e i g h t S p r e a d S h a p e V o l u m e S t r i p W i d t h Wi r e s F a l l C o l o r Co m m e n t s Street Tree N a t i v e T r e e Ac e r r u b r u m ‘ K a r p i c k ’ Ka r p i c k M a p l e 3 5 - 4 0 2 0 88 0 0 5 Ye l l o w t o or a n g e Ma y w o r k u n d e r v e r y h i g h po w e r l i n e s w i t h a r b o r i s t ’ s a p p r o v a l . Ac e r r u b r u m ‘ S c a r s e n ’ S c a r l e t S e n t i n e l 4 0 2 0 94 0 0 5 Ye l l o w or a n g e Ac e r t r u n c a t u m x A . p l a t a n o i d e N o r w e g i a n S u n s 3 5 2 5 12 3 0 0 Ye l l o w - or a n g e / r e d Li m i t e d u s e u n d e r w i r e s Ac e r t r u n c a t u m x A . p l a t a n o i d e P a c i f i c S u n s e t M 3 0 2 5 98 0 0 5 Ye l l o w - or a n g e / r e d Li m i t e d u s e u n d e r w i r e s Al n u s s i n u a t a Si t k a A l d e r 4 0 2 5 0 Pr e f e r s a h e a v y m o i s t s o i l - u s u a l l y fo u n d a b o v e 3 0 0 0 ' f e e t - c a n b e Ca r p i n u s b e t u l u s ‘F a s t i g i a t a ’ P y r a 3 5 1 5 P y r a m i d a l 1 2 3 0 0 5 Ye l l o w B r o a d e n s w h e n o l d e r Cl a d r a s t i s k e n t u k e a Ye l l o w w o o d 4 0 4 0 0 5 ye l l o w / or a n g e wh i t e f l o w e r s i n s p r i n g , r e s e m b l i n g wi s t e r i a f l o w e r s Co r n u s c o n t r o v e r s a ' J u n e S n o G i a n t D o g w o o d 4 0 3 0 0 5 re d / o r a n g e L a r g e w h i t e f l o w e r c l u s t e r s t h a t ap p e a r i n J u n e Cr a t a e g u s c r u s - g a l l i ‘ I n e r m i s ’ T h o r n l e s s C o c k s 2 5 3 0 10 6 0 0 Or a n g e t o sc a r l e t Re d p e r s i s t e n t f r u i t . Cr a t a e g u s p h a e n o p y r u m W a s h i n g t o n H a w 2 5 2 0 47 0 0 Sc a r l e t T h o r n y . Cr a t a e g u s s u k s d o r f i i Su k s d o r f ' s H a w t h 3 0 2 5 0 Sh o r t e r s p i n e s t h a n C . D o u g l a s i i Cr a t a e g u s x l a v a l i i La v a l l e H a w t h o r n 2 8 2 0 56 0 0 Br o n z e T h o r n s o n y o u n g e r t r e e s . Da v i d i a i n v o l u c r a t a Do v e T r e e 4 0 3 0 0 5 la r g e , u n i q u e w h i t e f l o w e r s i n M a y Gi n k o b i l o b a ‘ P r i n c e t o n S e n t r y P r i n c e t o n S e n t r y 4 0 1 5 C o l u m n a r 53 0 0 6 Ye l l o w V e r y n a r r o w g r o w t h . Ha l e s i a t e t r a p t e r a Ca r o l i n a S i l v e r b e l 3 5 3 0 I r r e g u l a r 0 5 Ye l l o w A t t r a c t i v e b a r k f o r s e a s o n a l i n t e r e s t Li b o c e d r u s d e c u r r e n s In c e n s e C e d a r 3 5 2 0 P y r a m i d a l 78 5 0 6 Ev e r g r e e n S p e c i a l s i t e a p p r o v a l n e e d e d We d n e s d a y , J u n e 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 Page 6 of 11 Packet Page 181 of 524 Gr o u p B o t a n i c a l N a m e C o m m o n N a m e H e i g h t S p r e a d S h a p e V o l u m e S t r i p W i d t h Wi r e s F a l l C o l o r Co m m e n t s Street Tree N a t i v e T r e e Li q u i d a m b a r s t y r a c i f l u a M o r a i n e S w e e t g u 4 0 2 0 94 0 0 6 Ye l l o w , or a n g e / r e d Li g h t g r e e n f o l i a g e . M o r e c o m p a c t th a n o t h e r v a r i e t i e s Ma a c k i a a m u r e n s i s Am u r M a a c k i a 3 0 2 0 0 5 no n e a t t r a c t i v e b a r k a n d s u m m e r fl o w e r s - g r o w s i n t o u g h c o n d i t i o n s Ma g n o l i a ' E l i z a b e t h ' El i z a b e t h M a g n o l 3 0 2 0 0 5 ye l l o w f l o w e r s Ma g n o l i a ' G a l a x y ' Ga l a x y M a g n o l i a 3 5 2 5 p y r a m i d a l 0 5 ye l l o w / b r o w n re d d i s h - p u r p l e f l o w e r s i n s p r i n g . Ma g n o l i a g r a n d i f l o r a ‘ V i c t o r i a ’ V i c t o r i a E v e r g r e e 2 5 2 0 47 0 0 5 Ev e r g r e e n Ma g n o l i a K o b u s W a d a ' s M e m o r y 3 5 2 0 R o u n d 79 0 0 5 Br o w n D o e s n o t f l o w e r w e l l w h e n y o u n g Os t r y a v i r g i n i a n a Ir o n w o o d 4 0 2 5 0 5 ye l l o w h o p l i k e f r u i t Pa r r o t i a p e r s i c a Pe r s i a n P a r r o t i a 3 0 2 0 63 0 0 5 Ye l l o w - or a n g e r e d Se l e c t o r p r u n e f o r s i n g l e s t e m ; c a n be m u l t i - t r u n k e d . Pi n u s d e n s i f l o r a ' U m b r a c u l i f e r a U m b r e l l a P i n e 2 5 2 0 O v a l 48 1 0 8 Ev e r g r e e n S p e c i a l s i t e a p p r o v a l n e e d e d Pr u n u s x y e d o e n s i s ‘ A k e b o n o ’ A k e b o n o F l o w e r i 2 5 2 5 74 0 0 6 Ye l l o w Pt e r o s t y r a x h i s p i d a Fr a g r a n t E p a u l e t t 4 0 3 0 0 5 ye l l o w / br o w n Pe n d u l o u s c r e a m y w h i t e f l o w e r s - fr a g r a n t Py r u s c a l l e r y a n a ‘ C a m b r i d g e ' ’ C a m b r i d g e P e a r 4 0 1 5 P y r a m i d a l 53 0 0 5 Re d d i s h pu r p l e Na r r o w t r e e w i t h g o o d b r a n c h an g l e s a n d f o r m Py r u s c a l l e r y a n a ‘ G l e n ' s F o r m ’ C h a n t i c l e e r o r C l 4 0 1 5 53 0 0 5 Sc a r l e t V i g o r o u s . Py r u s c a l l e r y a n a ‘ R e d s p i r e ’ R e d s p i r e P e a r 3 5 2 5 12 3 0 0 Ye l l o w t o re d Py r a m i d a l . Qu e r c u s ‘ C r i m s c h m i d t ’ C r i m s o n S p i r e O 4 5 1 5 62 0 0 Ha r d t o f i n d . Ro b i n i a x a m b i g u a Pi n k I d a h o L o c u s 3 5 2 5 12 3 0 0 5 Ye l l o w F r a g r a n t f l o w e r s . We d n e s d a y , J u n e 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 Page 7 of 11 Packet Page 182 of 524 Gr o u p B o t a n i c a l N a m e C o m m o n N a m e H e i g h t S p r e a d S h a p e V o l u m e S t r i p W i d t h Wi r e s F a l l C o l o r Co m m e n t s Street Tree N a t i v e T r e e Sc i a d o p i t y s v e r t i c i l l a t a Ja p a n e s e U m b r e l 3 0 2 0 P y r a m i d a l 63 0 0 8 Ev e r g r e e n G r o w s s l o w l y - p r i s t i n e e v e r g r e e n fo l i a g e - s p e c i a l s i t e a p p r o v a l So r b u s a l n i f o l i a Ko r e a n M o u n t a i n 4 0 3 0 0 5 or a n g e S i m p l e l e a v e s . B e a u t i f u l p i n k - r e d fr u i t - m a y b e s h o r t l i v e d So r b u s a u c u p a r i a ‘ M i t c h r e d ’ C a r d i n a l R o y a l M 3 5 2 0 79 0 0 5 Ru s t B r i g h t r e d b e r r i e s . So r b u s x h y b r i d i a Oa k l e a f R o y a l M t 3 0 2 0 63 0 0 5 Ru s t St e w a r t i a m o n o d e l p h a O r a n g e B a r k S t e 3 0 2 0 0 5 or a n g e o r a n g e p e e l i n g b a r k - w h i t e f l o w e r s in s p r i n g Ta x u s b r e v i f o l i a Pa c i f i c Y e w 4 0 2 5 0 Ev e r g r e e n t y p i c a l l y o c c u r s a s a n u n d e r s t o r y tr e e 3 - 5 m t a l l w e s t o f t h e C a s c a d e s Ti l i a c o r d a t a ‘ D e G r o o t ’ D e G r o o t L i t t l e l e a 3 0 2 0 63 0 0 5 Ye l l o w C o m p a c t , s u c k e r s l e s s t h a n o t h e r Li n d e n s . Ti l i a c o r d a t a ‘ C h a n c o l e ’ C h a n c e l o r L i n d e n 3 5 2 0 79 0 0 5 Ye l l o w P y r a m i d a l . Sm a l l Ac e r b u e g e r i a n u m Tr i d e n t M a p l e 3 0 3 0 0 or a n g e / r e d s e l e c t f o r a s i n g l e s t e m Ac e r c i r c i n a t u m Vi n e M a p l e 2 5 2 5 0 5 re d / o r a n g e D o n o t u s e i n e x p o s e d ' h a r s h ' s i t e s in s t r e e t s c a p e p l a n t i n g s . Ac e r g i n n a l a ‘ F l a m e ’ F l a m e A m u r M a 2 0 2 0 R o u n d 31 0 0 5 Re d S e l e c t o r p r u n e f o r s i n g l e s t e m ; c a n be m u l t i - t r u n k e d . Ac e r g r a n d i d e n t a t u m ‘ S c h m i d t ’ R o c k y M t . G l o w 2 5 + 1 5 27 0 0 5 In t e n s e r e d H a r d t o f i n d Ac e r g r i s e u m Pa p e r b a r k M a p l e 2 5 2 0 27 0 0 5 Sm o o t h , p e e l i n g , c i n n a m o n c o l o r e d ba r k . Ac e r p a l m a t u m Ja p a n e s e M a p l e 2 0 2 4 11 0 0 5 Y Hu n d r e d s o f v a r i e d c u l t i v a r s . C a n be s l o w g r o w i n g . Ac e r p l a t a n o i d e s ‘ G l o b o s u m ’ G l o b e N o r w a y M 2 0 1 8 25 0 0 5 Ye l l o w R o u n d e d t o p , a n d c o m p a c t g r o w t h . Ac e r t r i f l o r u m Th r e e - F l o w e r M a 2 5 2 0 0 5 ap r i c o t / g o l d c r e a m c o l o r e d s h a g g y b a r k We d n e s d a y , J u n e 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 Page 8 of 11 Packet Page 183 of 524 Gr o u p B o t a n i c a l N a m e C o m m o n N a m e H e i g h t S p r e a d S h a p e V o l u m e S t r i p W i d t h Wi r e s F a l l C o l o r Co m m e n t s Street Tree N a t i v e T r e e Am e l a n c h i e r a l n i f o l i a Sa s k a t o o n S e r v i c 2 0 1 5 0 sh r u b l i k e f o r m - m a y b e d i f f i c u l t t o tr a i n i n t o t r e e f o r m Am e l a n c h i e r g r a n d i f l o r a ‘ P r i n c P r i n c e s s D i a n a S 2 0 1 5 18 0 0 5 Br i g h t r e d G o o d f o r l i m i t e d s p a c e . Am e l a n c h i e r x g r a n d i f l o r a ‘ A u t u A u t u m n B r i l l i a n c e 2 0 1 5 18 0 0 5 Br i g h t r e d R e l i a b l e b l o o m . Ar b u t u s ‘ M a r i n a ’ St r a w b e r r y T r e e 2 5 1 5 27 0 0 5 Go o d s u b s t i t u t e f o r P a c i f i c Ma d r o n e . M a y e x c e e d 2 5 ’ h e i g h t As i m i n a t r i l o b a Pa w P a w 3 0 2 0 0 5 ye l l o w p u r p l i s h b e l l s h a p e d f l o w e r i n s p r i n g be f o r e l e a v e s e m e r g e Ca r p i n u s c a r o l i n i a n a Am e r i c a n H o r n b e 2 5 2 0 27 0 0 5 Ye l l o w t o or a n g e Ou t s t a n d i n g f a l l c o l o r – n i c e l i t t l e tr e e Ca r p i n u s j a p o n i c u s Ja p a n e s e H o r n b 2 0 2 5 11 0 0 5 Br o n z e W i d e s p r e a d i n g – n o t f o r c o n f i n e d sp a c e s Ce r c i s c a n a d e n s i s Ea s t e r n R e d b u d 2 5 3 0 16 0 0 5 Ye l l o w B l o o m s b e f o r e l e a v e s a r e o u t . Ce r c i s s i l i q u a s t r u m Ju d a s T r e e ( E u r o 2 5 3 0 O v a l 16 0 0 5 Ye l l o w b l o o m s b e f o r e l e a v e s e m e r g e Co r n u s a l t e r n i f o l i a Pa g o d a D o g w o o 2 5 2 5 0 5 re d a t t r a c t i v e w h i t e f l o w e r s i n s p r i n g - pr u n e f o r s i n g l e s t e m Co r n u s ' E d d i e ' s W h i t e W o n d e r ' E d d i e ' s W h i t e W 2 5 2 0 P y r a m i d a l 27 0 0 5 Re d A h y b r i d o f C . f l o r i d a a n d C . n u t t a l i i Co r n u s k o u s a ‘ C h i n e n s i s ’ K o u s a D o g w o o d 2 0 2 0 31 0 0 5 Re d d i s h t o sc a r l e t Mo s t r e s i s t a n t t o d i s e a s e o f t h e do g w o o d s . Co t i n u s o b o v a t u s Am e r i c a n S m o k e 2 5 2 5 0 5 va r i e d p i n k i s h p a n i c l e o f f l o w e r s i n s p r i n g - ca n p r u n e f o r s i n g l e s t e m Cr a t a e g u s d o u g l a s i i Bl a c k H a w t h o r n e 3 0 2 5 0 re d / o r a n g e U p t o 1 " i n c h t h o r n s - t i c k e t fo r m i n g - m a y s p r e a d u n d e r g r o u n d Fa g u s s y l v a t i c a ‘D a w y c k P u r p l e ’ 4 0 1 2 C o l u m n a r 34 0 0 5 No Pu r p l e f o l i a g e . La g e r s t r o e m i a ' t u s c a r o r a ' T u s c a r o r a H y b r i d 2 0 1 8 25 0 0 5 Ye l l o w R o u n d e d t o p , a n d c o m p a c t g r o w t h . We d n e s d a y , J u n e 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 Page 9 of 11 Packet Page 184 of 524 Gr o u p B o t a n i c a l N a m e C o m m o n N a m e H e i g h t S p r e a d S h a p e V o l u m e S t r i p W i d t h Wi r e s F a l l C o l o r Co m m e n t s Street Tree N a t i v e T r e e Li r i o d e n d r o n t u l i p i f e r a ' F a s t i g i a t C o l u m n a r T u l i p 4 0 1 0 N a r r o w 24 0 0 6 Ye l l o w G o o d n e x t t o b u i l d i n g s . Ma g n o l i a g r a n d i f l o r a ‘ L i t t l e G e L i t t l e G e m M a g n 1 5 1 0 16 0 0 5 Ev e r g r e e n U s e f u l w h e r e l a r g e r v a r i e t i e s a r e in a p p r o p r i a t e . Ma g n o l i a x l o e b n e r i Lo e b n e r M a g n o l i 2 0 2 0 31 0 0 Ye l l o w S e v e r a l c u l t i v a r s . Ma l u s ‘ A d i r o n d a c k ’ Ad i r o n d a c k C r a b 1 8 1 0 U p r i g h t 16 0 0 5 Re d f r u i t . E x c e l l e n t s c a b r e s i s t a n c e . Ma l u s ‘ G o l d e n R a i n d r o p s ’ G o l d e n R a i n d r o p 1 8 1 3 11 0 0 5 Ye l l o w A b u n d a n t y e l l o w f r u i t - p e r s i s t s o n tr e e . Ma l u s ‘ T s c h o n o s k i i ’ Ts c h o n o s k i i C r a b 2 8 1 4 20 0 0 5 Sc a r l e t S p a r s e g r e e n f r u i t , p y r a m i d a l . Ma l u s ' D o n a l d W y m a n ' D o n a l d W y m a n 2 5 2 5 0 5 ye l l o w D i s e a s e r e s i s t a n t - n i c e g r e e n fo l i a g e i n s u m m e r - l a r g e w h i t e Ma l u s f u s c a Pa c i f i c C r a b a p p l e 4 0 2 5 0 Ox y d e n d r o n a r b o r e u m S o u r w o o d 3 5 1 2 28 0 0 5 Re d C o n s i s t e n t a n d b r i l l i a n t f a l l c o l o r . Pr u n u s ‘ F r a n k t h r e e s ’ M t . S t . H e l e n s P l 2 0 2 0 31 0 0 5 Pu r p l e f o l i a g e . Pr u n u s ‘ N e w p o r t ’ Ne w p o r t P l u m 2 0 2 0 31 0 0 5 Re d d i s h P u r p l e r e d f o l i a g e . Pr u n u s ‘ S n o w g o o s e ’ S n o w G o o s e C h 2 0 2 0 31 0 0 6 Up r i g h t w h e n y o u n g , s p r e a d i n g wh e n o l d e r . Pr u n u s c e r a s i f e r a ‘ K r a u t e r V e s V e s u v i u s F l o w e r i 3 0 1 5 35 0 0 5 Up r i g h t g r o w t h , d a r k e s t f o l i a g e o f th e p l u m s . Pr u n u s c e r a s i f e r a ‘ T h u n d e r c l o u T h u n d e r c l o u d P l u 2 0 2 0 31 0 0 5 Da r k p u r p l e f o l i a g e . Pr u n u s s a r g e n t i i ' C o l u m n a r i s ' C o l u m n a r S a r g e n 3 5 1 5 C o l u m n a r 44 0 0 8 Or a n g e t o or a n g e - r e d Up r i g h t f o r m . T h e c h e r r y w i t h t h e be s t f a l l c o l o r . Pr u n u s x h i l l i e r i ‘ S p i r e ’ Sp i r e C h e r r y 3 0 1 0 C o l u m n a r 16 0 0 6 Or a n g e r e d We d n e s d a y , J u n e 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 Page 10 of 11 Packet Page 185 of 524 Gr o u p B o t a n i c a l N a m e C o m m o n N a m e H e i g h t S p r e a d S h a p e V o l u m e S t r i p W i d t h Wi r e s F a l l C o l o r Co m m e n t s Street Tree N a t i v e T r e e Qu e r c u s I l e x Ho l l y O a k 2 0 2 0 31 0 0 5 Pr u n e t o k e e p s m a l l , l e a v e i t a l o n e to g r o w l a r g e . Rh a m n u s p u r s h i a n a Ca s c a r a 30 2 0 0 5 re d / o r a n g e St e w a r t i a p s u e d o c a m e l l i a J a p a n e s e S t e w a r 2 5 1 5 0 5 or a n g e / r e d P a t c h w o r k b a r k - w h i t e f l o w e r i n sp r i n g . St y r a x j a p o n i c a Ja p a n e s e S n o w b 2 5 2 5 28 0 0 5 Ye l l o w P l e n t i f u l , g r e e n 1 / 2 ” s e e d s . St y r a x o b a s s i a Fr a g r a n t S t y r a x 2 5 2 0 O v a l 27 0 0 5 ye l l o w S m o o t h g r a y b a r k a n d f r a g r e n t wh i t e f l o w e r s Sm a l l / C o n s t r a i n e d s i t e Ma l u s ‘ R e d B a r r o n ’ Re d B a r r o n C r a b 1 8 8 40 0 5 Ye l l o w G o o d f o r n a r r o w s p a c e s . R e d be r r i e s . Ma l u s ' L a n c e l o t ' ( ' L a n z a m ' ) L a n c e l o t C r a b a p 1 5 1 0 0 5 ye l l o w F l o w e r i s r e d i n b u d . Y e l l o w f r u i t . Di s e a s e r e s i s t a n t Pr u n u s s e r r u l a t a ‘ A m a n o g a w a ’ A m a n o g a w a F l o 2 0 6 30 0 6 Br o n z e P a r t i c u l a r l y u s e f u l f o r v e r y n a r r o w pl a n t i n g s t r i p s . So r b u s a m e r i c a n a ‘ D w a r f c r o w n R e d C a s c a d e M o 1 8 8 40 0 5 Ye l l o w - or a n g e Ni c e w i n t e r f o r m – w h i t e f l o w e r s i n sp r i n g – r e d c l u s t e r s o f b e r r i e s Tr a c h e o c a r p u s f o r t u n n i W i n d m i l l P a l m 2 5 1 0 O v a l 30 0 5 EV t r a f f i c v i s i b i l i t y c a n b e a p r o b l e m wi t h s m a l l p l a n t s We d n e s d a y , J u n e 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 Page 11 of 11 Packet Page 186 of 524 We s t g a t e S t u d y A r e a Da s h e d b o u n d a r y s h o w s e x t e n t o f p r o p o s e d p l a n / z o n i n g c h a n g e . Packet Page 187 of 524 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! 2 3 2 N D S T S W 1 0 2 N D P L W 2 3 1 S T P L S W 2 2 8 T H P L S W 2 2 7 T H P L S W 2 3 1 S T P L S W 9 8 T H 9 E D M O N D S W A Y 1 0 0 T H A V E W 2 3 2 N D S T S W 9 9 T H A V E W W 9 6 T H P L W BN BN RS - 8 RS-8 BC BC-EW We s t g a t e Z o n i n g Ex i s t i n g z o n i n g p a t t e r n o f t h e W e s t g a t e a r e a . D a s h e d bo u n d a r y s h o w s t h e l i m i t o f t h e W e s t g a t e s t u d y a r e a . Packet Page 188 of 524 50’ 58’ 55’ 60’ 70’ 65’ 70’ 70’ 70’ 65’ 30’ 30’ 25’ 30’ 40’ 40’50’50’50’52’ 52’ 52’50’ Packet Page 189 of 524 We s t g a t e T o p o g r a p h y Da r k b r o w n l i n e s s h o w 1 0 - f o o t in t e r v a l s i n e l e v a t i o n c h a n g e . Packet Page 190 of 524 232ND ST SW 1 0 2 N D P L W 2 3 1 S T P L S W 228TH PL SW 227TH PL SW 1 5 T H W A Y S W 231ST PL SW 9 8 T H A V E W 9 6 T H A V E W227THPLSW E D M O N D S W AY 1 0 0 T H A V E W 232ND ST SW 9 9 T H A V E W 9 8 T H P L W 9 5 3 0 97 2 6 DU S T Y ' S 97 2 2 97 2 0 98 1 8 98 1 0 98 0 8 98 0 6 98 0 2 97 9 8 97 9 4 97 9 2 97 9 0 23028BARTELL'S -10030 23028 SALEMLUTHERNCHURCH 23115 1001610022 9601 96 2 4 228042 2 8 0 6 10116 23102 97219723 95 1 7 95 1 1 9508 9 5 1 4 9520 96 1 1 96 1 5 9609 23115 2310723103 23125 22915 2291122907 22831 10 1 3 0 2281722818 22828 22826 22808 22806 22925 22933 22919 22717 9709 952 1 95 1 5 9520 9 5 2 4 23001 95 2 1 95 3 1 22629 22711 22721 22719 95 1 3 23 1 2 6 23 1 2 4 23120 95 1 3 95 1 4 74 4 9705 9702 9706971 0 97 1 6 9724 22727 22712 9529 9504 9 5 1 0 9 5 1 6 23 0 1 5 9601 23215 9516 95 1 2 95 1 0 95 3 2 95 2 1 95 0 9 9507 95 1 5 95 2 3 95 2 9 96 0 4 23029 23 1 0 6 98 2 2 2301 723027 10119 1010 9 10 1 0 1 23124 23122 23114 9906 23216 23206 23221 23215 9624 23214 23221 23206 23215 232059924 9828 23218 23214 23206 23029 9920 961023109 96 0 7 96 2 3 23 1 2 3 9729 23126 2303023028 9706971897 2 8 97 2 7 9717 9707 23127 23119 23111 23105 2303123030 23104 23110 23118 982599 0 3 99 0 9 99 1 7 99 2 7 23107 23105 23116 23108 23110 23112 23104 23102 23105 23117 23119 23121 9713 22710 22718 23019 100 3 2 98 2 1 98 2 9 9803 2270222704 98 2 1 2280 3 228 0 8 228 1 0 22809 228 0 7 22 8 0 5 9 7 0 1 22 7 2 6 22 7 2 0 9715 9706 97039711 23015 23027 98 2 8 2273122714 97 2 7 22710820 99 2 6 99 1 8 99 1 0 99 0 4 9826 98 2 0 99 0 3 99 0 9 99 1 7 99 2 5 10 1 1 9 23009 1 0 2 0 0 22828 9930 9910 97 2 4 98 0 4 23025 9727 22815 22811 22805 23024 98 0 5 98 1 3 9820 98 1 4 98 0 6 97 2 6 97 1 8 97 1 2 97 1 7 2280410117 750 22910 22920 22 9 1 2 22 8 3 0 23002 23006 22930 23 0 1 0 23 0 0 4 23026 23024 771 9827 9620 23003 23009 2301723024 23014 23027 740 761 230 1 1 23001 10 1 2 4 10 1 1 5 76 GAS IVAR'S PA R K I N G PARKING ROSEWOOD CT TE N N I S CO U R T S BANK QFC SUNRISE OLD WOODWAYH.S. TACOBELL GOODWILL PARKING PARKING WALGREEN'S PCC NATURALMARKET PARKING BANK M C D O N A L D ' S 9801 9797 BANK 330 350 3 3 2 32 2 332 340 June 2014 ¯ 1 inch = 250 feet City of Edmonds121 5th Ave NEdmonds, WA 98020 500 Feet Protected Slope Line Visibility Line25'35'45' Westgate Protected Slopes Buildings at indicated height arevisible up to corresponding coloredline. Packet Page 191 of 524 6544 NE 61st Street, Seattle, WA 98115 Phone: (206) 523-3939 Fax: (206) 523-4949 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Project: SR 104 Corridor Study / Westgate Redevelopment Subject: Summary of Transportation Analysis Date: June 14, 2013 Author: Jennifer Barnes, P.E. In September 2012, transportation assessment was completed that included detailed analysis at the intersection of SR 104/100th Avenue W. The analysis evaluated the potential impacts to the intersection of the proposed land use changes from Neighborhood Business to mixed-used development with higher density. The analysis studied weekday PM peak hour traffic conditions (most congested time of day at this location), and included projected traffic volumes and intersection operational analysis for the long-range planning year of 2025. To determine transportation impacts with the proposed land use density changes, the analysis compared expected future traffic volumes and intersection delay, with and without the proposed land use change. In the 2009 Comprehensive Transportation Plan, the projected 2025 traffic volumes at this intersection reflect future land use growth with the current adopted land use plan. The September 2012 analysis projected the 2025 traffic volumes with the proposed land use change. The analysis projected that an additional 461 PM peak hour trips would be generated by build-out of planned land use with the proposed change. With land use build-out under existing zoning, the SR 104/100th Avenue W intersection is projected to operate at level of service (LOS) D in 2025, with an average intersection delay of 44.6 seconds. With additional trips generated by the land use change, the intersection delay is projected to increase by about 10 seconds, but would still maintain LOS D operation. The City’s adopted level of service standard and concurrency requirement for arterials is LOS D. Local concurrency requirements do not apply to intersections along SR 104 because it is a Highway of Statewide Significance; however, the City identifies intersection deficiencies if LOS D is exceeded. The analysis showed that concurrency requirements would be met through the long-range planning year of 2025 with the proposed re-development. No additional vehicular lanes would be needed along SR 104 or 100th Avenue S. Depending on the future development proposed, additional project-level traffic analysis could be needed to determine if a road diet would be feasible along 100th Avenue S in the Westgate vicinity. Packet Page 192 of 524 6544 NE 61st Street, Seattle, WA 98115 Phone: (206) 523-3939 Fax: (206) 523-4949 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Project: Edmonds Westgate/Five Corners Land Use Policy Change Subject: Transportation Assessment Date: September 28, 2012 Author: Jennifer Barnes, P.E. 1. Introduction The City of Edmonds (City) is proposing to revise its Comprehensive Plan land use element to allow mixed-use development with higher densities in the Westgate and Five Corners areas. The City previously completed citywide transportation analysis to support planned future land use through the Comprehensive Plan’s long-range planning year of 2025, which is documented in the current Comprehensive Transportation Plan (Transportation Plan).1 This memorandum presents the analysis of the potential transportation impact of the proposed land use policy changes. The City’s proposal is a non-project action; therefore, the transportation analysis presented in this memorandum reflects a programmatic assessment of its potential effect on the City’s long range transportation plan. Analysis is provided for the weekday PM peak hour condition, which reflects the most congested hour of a typical week, and is the analysis period on which the City’s concurrency program is based. 2. Relevent Legislation 2.1. Growth Management Act Transportation planning at the state, county and local levels is governed by the Growth Management Act (GMA). Requirements for the transportation element of a Comprehensive Plan are codified in Chapter 36.70A.070(6) of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). In addition to requiring con- sistency with the land use element, the GMA requires that the following components be included in transportation elements: Inventory of facilities by mode of transport; Level of service assessment to aid in determining the existing and future operating conditions of the facilities; Proposed actions to bring these deficient facilities into compliance; Traffic forecasts, based upon planned future land use; 1 City of Edmonds, Comprehensive Transportation Plan, 2011. Packet Page 193 of 524 Edmonds Westgate/Five Corners Land Use Policy Change Transportation Assessment - 2 - September 28, 2012 Identification of infrastructure needs to meet current and future demands; Funding analysis for needed improvements, as well as possible additional funding sources; Identification of intergovernmental coordination efforts; and Identification of demand management strategies as available. In addition to these elements, GMA mandates that new development cannot occur unless adequate supporting infrastructure either already exists or is built concurrent with development (the concurrency timeframe is defined as the six-year period from the time the need for improvement is triggered). In addition to capital facilities, infrastructure may include transit service, Transportation Demand Man- agement (TDM) strategies, or Transportation System Management (TSM) strategies. Under the GMA, local governments and agencies must annually prepare and adopt six-year Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs). These programs must be consistent with the transportation element of the local com- prehensive plan, and other state and regional plans and policies. The City’s current Comprehensive Transportation Plan serves as the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan, and presents transportation analysis and transportation improvement projects to support its future land use plan, consistent with GMA requirements. 2.2. State Environmental Policy Act The proposed changes to the City zoning code are a non-project action subject to the State Environ- mental Policy Act (SEPA), which is codified under the RCW 43.21C, and Chapter 197-11 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC). The analysis presented in this memorandum provides trans- portation impact analysis of the proposed changes to the City’s land use plan needed to support SEPA for a non-project action. 3. Land Use Assessment The City is proposing revisions to its land use code that would allow higher density mixed use development in (1) the Five Corners neighborhood, surrounding the five-legged intersection of Main Street, Bowdoin Way, 212th Street SW, and 84th Avenue W, and (2) the Westgate neighborhood, surrounding the intersection of Edmonds Way (State Route [SR] 104) and 100th Avenue W. For each of the two study areas, Table 1 summarizes the existing land use, projected 2025 land use that was analyzed in the Transportation Plan, and the 2025 land use that has been projected with the proposed land use policy changes. The projections assume build-out of the proposed land use concepts by 2025; this is a conservative representation of future conditions because it reflects the highest number of additional trips that could result from future redevelopment. It is likely that if the land use policy changes are adopted, complete redevelopment would not occur by 2025. The table shows that in the Five Corners area, the proposed land use policy changes could result in a higher level of retail, but lower levels of residential and office development than what was analyzed in the Transportation Plan. In the Westgate area, residential, retail and office development are all projected to be higher with the proposed policy changes than the land use analyzed in the Transportation Plan. Packet Page 194 of 524 Edmonds Westgate/Five Corners Land Use Policy Change Transportation Assessment - 3 - September 28, 2012 Table 1. Land Use Summary Land Use Type Single Family Residential (dwelling units) Multi-family Residential (dwelling units) Retail (square feet) Office (square feet) Church (square feet) Five Corners Existing 1 4 4 30,760 17,378 12,192 2025 Projected in Transportation Plan 2 4 114 40,560 51,428 12,192 2025 Projected with Land Use Change 3 --- 95 98,795 33,331 --- Westgate Existing 1 7 2 193,993 44,446 --- 2025 Projected in Transportation Plan 2 7 13 201,175 52,302 --- 2025 Projected with Land Use Change 4 --- 204 336,800 167,600 --- 1. Source: Snohomish County Assessor, 2012. 2. Source: City of Edmonds, Comprehensive Transportation Plan, 2009. 3. Source: City of Edmonds, Five Corners Concept Plan, 2012. 4. Source: City of Edmonds, Westgate Concept Plan, 2012. 4. Trip Generation Assessment To evaluate the potential localized effects of the land use policy change on future roadway operations, the resulting change in vehicle trips generated within the subarea was estimated for the weekday PM peak hour, which is the most congested hour during a typical week, and the analysis period on which the City’s concurrency program is based. This section presents the estimate of additional trips projected to result from the proposed land use changes compared to the projected land use that was analyzed in the Transportation Plan. These estimates provide the basis for determining the potential transportation impacts of the proposed policy change. The methodologies used to determine the trips account for the location of the study area neighborhoods, their proximity to transit, and the walkability promoted in the pedestrian-focused elements of the redevelopment concepts. As a result, the traffic estimates reflect the expectation that some of the trips would occur by modes other than single-occupant vehicles. The methodology also accounts for the mixed-use character of the concepts that would keep some trips internal to the site. For over a decade, Heffron Transportation has utilized a trip generation methodology for urban mixed-use development projects that adjusts typical suburban Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates to account for urban characteristics and variety of modal choices for subject properties. This methodology accounts for each site’s local characteristics related to transit use, carpooling, walking, and bicycling. For mixed-use projects, it also accounts for trips that occur between uses on a site. The analysis methodology relies on future forecasts from the City’s travel demand forecasting model as well as data provided by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), and produces estimates of peak hour vehicle trips, transit trips, and non-motorized trips that are necessary for transportation impact analyses. Packet Page 195 of 524 Edmonds Westgate/Five Corners Land Use Policy Change Transportation Assessment - 4 - September 28, 2012 4.1. Summary of Heffron Transportation Trip Generation Methodology Trip generation for new projects is typically determined using rates and equations in Trip Genera- tion.2 This reference manual summarizes the results of numerous traffic studies throughout the coun- try for a variety of land-use types. The Trip Generation User’s Guide states on page 1: “The average trip generation rates in this report represent weighted averages of studies conducted throughout the United States and Canada since the 1960s. Data were primarily col- lected at suburban locations having little or no transit service, nearby pedestrian amenities, or travel demand management (TDM) programs. At specific sites, the user may wish to modify trip generation rates presented in this document to reflect the presence of public transportation services, ridesharing, or other TDM measures, enhanced pedestrian and bicycle trip-making opportunities, or other special characteristics of the site or surrounding area.” Thus, as recommended in Trip Generation, the ITE trip generation rates were adjusted to account for the sites’ proximity to transit and proposed mix of land uses. The following methodology was used to adjust the trip generation rates to account for internal trips among uses at the site, transit and non- motorized modes of travel, and also to account for vehicle trips generated by the site that would already be traveling on the roadway network. 1. The total number of “person trips” generated by each major land use category (residential, office, and retail) was determined using trip generation rates and equations from ITE’s Trip Generation, plus information about the average number of persons per vehicle assumed in the ITE rates. These person trips reflect all trips generated by a land use component by all modes of travel including transit, bike, and foot. It also reflects the trips made between on-site uses. 2. Internal trips between on-site uses were estimated using the methodology pre- sented in Chapter 7 of the Trip Generation Handbook.3 An office worker who makes a lunchtime trip to an on-site restaurant, or a resident who makes a trip to an on-site retail shop, are examples of internal trips. The internal trips are assumed to occur on foot within each of the Five Corners and Westgate areas. 3. The mode of travel used for off-site trips was determined based on PSRC’s compilation of 2000 Census data summarizing mode shares for residents and employees within the areas where the project sites are located. The retail rates were estimated based on the assumption that a small portion of the retail trips would also occur by transit or non-motorized modes. 4. Person trips by automobile were converted back to vehicle trips based on local data about the average number of persons per vehicle in the study areas. 5. Total vehicle trips were separated into “pass-by” trips (trips already on the roadway network) and “primary” trips (new trips generated by the site), utilizing procedures in the Trip Generation Handbook.4 2 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 8th Edition, 2008. 3 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition, June 2004. 4 Ibid. Packet Page 196 of 524 Edmonds Westgate/Five Corners Land Use Policy Change Transportation Assessment - 5 - September 28, 2012 Details for each of these steps are provided in the following sections, and detailed trip calculations are provided in Attachment A. The same methodologies were applied to the Transportation Plan projected land use (referred to as the Baseline scenario) and to the projected land use with the proposed policy changes (referred to as the Rezone scenario). The difference in net new trips in the Rezone scenario, compared to the Baseline scenario, reflect the additional trips projected to result from the proposed policy changes. 4.2. Trip Rates ITE trip generation rates and equations were used as the basis for determining the number of person trips. Person trips are the total number of trips made by all modes of travel, including passengers in cars, buses, on bikes or on foot. The person trips were determined by applying an average-vehicle- occupancy (AVO) factor to the ITE vehicle trips for each land use. The ITE vehicle trip rates and the assumed AVO factors for each land use are summarized in Table 2. Table 2. ITE Trip Generation Rates ITE Code Land Use PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Rate 1 % Inbound 1 % Outbound 1 AVO 210 Single Family Residential 1.01 trips/dwelling unit 63% 37% 1.20 2 220 Multifamily Residential 0.62 trips/dwelling unit 65% 35% 1.20 3 560 Church 0.55 trips/1,000 sf 48% 52% 1.20 2 710 General Office 1.49 trips/1,000 sf 17% 83% 1.10 4 820 Retail 3.73 trips/1,000 sf 49% 51% 1.20 5 1. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, 8th Edition, 2008. 2. Heffron estimate, based on past experience with similar developments. 3. Final Report on Improved Vehicle Occupancy Data Collection Methods, Battelle, April 1997. 4. Based on AVO rate published for Single-Tenant Office Building (LU 715) ITE's Trip Generation (ITE, 8th Edition, 2008). 5. Based on AVOs for other retail in ITE's Trip Generation (ITE, 8th Edition, 2008). 4.3. Internal Trips The total number of trips generated by a site includes “internal trips,” or trips made between one use on the site and another use on the site. Chapter 7 of the Trip Generation Handbook 5 is dedicated to estimating trip generation for multi-use developments, and provides a methodology to estimate the number of internal trips that can be expected at specific types of sites. This method is based on the type and size of various land uses. The more balanced the mix of uses, the higher the percentage of internal trips. Developments with a predominance of one type of use (e.g., mostly office, or mostly residential) typically have few or no internal trips. Each of the subareas evaluated are small enough that all internal trips were assumed to occur on foot. ITE’s methodology to determine internal trips has four steps: 1. Determine the number of trips generated by each land use as if each was on a separate site. 5 Ibid. Packet Page 197 of 524 Edmonds Westgate/Five Corners Land Use Policy Change Transportation Assessment - 6 - September 28, 2012 2. Determine the number of internal trips from capture rates provided in the Trip Generation Handbook. 3. Balance the number of internal trips to and from all land uses at the site. 4. Subtract internal person trips based on the percentages determined. The Trip Generation Handbook provides internal trip capture percentages for retail, office, and resi- dential uses for PM peak hour conditions, which were applied for the trip calculations within each of the two study areas. 4.4. Mode of Travel The mode of travel percentages were derived from Journey-to-Work survey results from the year 2000 Census compiled by the PSRC for residents and employees in the zones in which the two study areas are located. Table 3 summarizes the mode shares for the two study areas, which were applied to the estimated person trips. The “Residents” mode shares were applied to projected residential trips and the “Employee” mode shares were applied to projected office trips. Retail trips were assumed to have the same mode shares as residential trips. It should be noted that the redevelopment concepts for both study areas are designed to encourage higher use of alternative modes. Therefore, it is likely that transit and non-motorized use at the sites would be higher than the historical averages for the areas in which they are located, and that the estimated vehicle mode share based on these averages is conservative. Table 3. Mode-of-Travel Assumptions Five Corners 1 Westgate 2 Mode of Travel Residents Employees Residents Employees Drive Alone 79.4% 80.2% 74.0% 75.8% Carpool 9.5% 9.4% 10.0% 11.0% Transit 5.5% 0.6% 7.5% 1.7% Non-Motorized 1.3% 2.2% 2.6% 3.0% Other (e.g., work from home) 4.3% 7.6% 5.9% 8.5% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Average Vehicle Occupancy 3 1.06 1.06 1.07 1.07 1. Source: PSRC, Journey-to-Work data from 2000 U.S. Census, Data for Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) 576 and 577. 2. Source: PSRC, Journey-to-Work data from 2000 U.S. Census, Data for TAZs 578, 580, and 581. 3. Derived from Journey-to-Work dataset, which included sizes of carpools. The “person trips by automobile” for residential and office uses were converted back to vehicle trips by applying the AVO for residents and employees in the study areas, based also on PSRC Journey-to- Work data and shown in Table 3. Person trips generated by the retail and church uses were converted to vehicle trips by applying the AVOs presented in Table 2. 4.5. Trip Components There are two types of trips—primary and pass-by trips—which reflect the traffic impact characteris- tics associated with the retail element of the proposed mixed-use land uses. Packet Page 198 of 524 Edmonds Westgate/Five Corners Land Use Policy Change Transportation Assessment - 7 - September 28, 2012 Pass-by Trips are already on the roadway network on the way to another destination. For example, a trip to a retail store at Westgate during a trip home from work that uses SR 104 would be a pass-by trip. Primary (New) Trips are single-purpose trips generated by the retail or other land use types. New trips are generally assumed to begin and end at home, although some new trips could originate at work or other locations. Pass-by trips would affect driveway volumes at the specific site access points, but do not represent new trips on the citywide roadway network. Because the proposed land use policy change is a non- project action, the programmatic transportation analysis only considers the potential effect of additional primary (new) trips on the transportation system. Driveway traffic volumes would be evaluated at the project level, as a condition of approval for specific development proposals. The average pass-by trip percentage of 34% published in the Trip Generation Handbook6 for Shopping Centers (Land Use 820) was applied to the projected retail development within the Five Corners and Westgate areas. The remaining percentages of retail trips would be considered new to study area roadways and intersections. The residential and office uses were assumed not to generate pass-by trips. 4.6. Vehicle Trip Generation Summary All of the methods described above were applied to project the number of vehicle trips that would result from the proposed policy changes in the Five Corners and Westgate area, compared to the trips projected for these areas in the Transportation Plan analysis. Detailed trip generation tables for the Five Corners and Westgate areas are provided in Attachment A. Table 4 presents the total vehicle trips that are projected to result from the proposed policy changes at the two sites. The table shows that for the Five Corners area, about 66 additional PM peak hour primary trips are projected to be generated in 2025 with the proposed land use policy changes, compared to the projections analyzed in the Transportation Plan. In the Westgate area, about 461 additional PM peak hour primary trips are projected. 4.7. Trip Distribution and Roadway Network Assignment The inbound and outbound trip distribution patterns for this project were derived from trip origin and destination data obtained from the City of Edmonds travel demand forecasting model. In the Five Corners area, trip distribution data were compiled for Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) 24, 27, 30, 31 and 32. In the Westgate area, data were compiled for TAZs 15, 35, 48 and 49. These TAZs all include some portion of the two study areas. Net new vehicle trips projected to result from the land use policy change were assigned to the roadway network according to the derived trip distribution patterns. To estimate future traffic volumes with the proposed land use policy changes, the forecasted net changes traffic generated by the two study sites were added to the 2025 traffic volumes projected in the Transportation Plan. 6 Institute of Transportation Engineers, June 2004, Figure 5.5. Packet Page 199 of 524 Edmonds Westgate/Five Corners Land Use Policy Change Transportation Assessment - 8 - September 28, 2012 Table 4. Vehicle Trip Generation Summary Five Corners Westgate Land Use In Out Total In Out Total Rezone Scenario Retail - Primary Trips 96 103 199 319 337 656 Office - Primary Trips 6 37 43 28 189 217 Residential - Primary Trips 26 11 37 52 19 71 Total Primary Trips 128 151 279 399 545 944 Total (Retail) Pass-By Trips 52 52 104 169 169 338 Total Rezone Scenario Vehicle Trips 180 203 383 568 714 1282 Baseline Scenario Retail - Primary Trips 39 38 77 197 211 408 Office - Primary Trips 13 66 79 9 56 65 Residential - Primary Trips 39 18 57 9 1 10 Total Primary Trips 91 122 213 215 268 483 Total (Retail) Pass-By Trips 20 20 40 105 105 210 Total 111 142 253 320 373 693 Net New Vehicle Trips Retail - Primary Trips 57 65 122 122 126 248 Office - Primary Trips -7 -29 -36 19 133 152 Residential - Primary Trips -13 -7 -20 43 18 61 Net New Primary Trips 37 29 66 184 277 461 Net New (Retail) Pass-By Trips 32 32 64 64 64 128 Total Vehicle Trips 69 61 130 248 341 589 Source: Heffron Transportation, September 2012. 5. Traffic Operations Assessment Traffic operations are evaluated by intersection level of service, which is a qualitative measure used to characterize traffic operating conditions. Six letter designations, “A” through “F,” are used to define level of service. LOS A and B represent the lowest level of traffic congestion, and LOS C and D represent intermediate traffic flow with some delay. LOS E indicates that traffic conditions are at or approaching congested conditions and LOS F indicates that traffic conditions are at a high level of congestion with unstable traffic flow. Attachment B presents the level of service criteria for signalized and unsignalized intersections. Packet Page 200 of 524 Edmonds Westgate/Five Corners Land Use Policy Change Transportation Assessment - 9 - September 28, 2012 Levels of service for signalized and stop-controlled intersections were calculated using methodologies based on those presented in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM).7 All level of service calculations for conventional intersections were performed using Trafficware’s Synchro 7.0 analysis software, consistent with the analysis presented in the Transportation Plan. Results for were reported using the HCM Signalized and Unsignalized modules. Operation of the planned future roundabout at the Five Corners intersection was evaluated using SIDRA analysis software. Attachment B includes the level of service reports completed for this study. Under GMA, concurrency is the requirement that adequate infrastructure be planned and financed to support the City’s adopted future land use plan. Level of service standards are used to evaluate the transportation impacts of long-term growth and concurrency. In order to monitor concurrency, the jurisdictions adopt acceptable roadway operating conditions that are then used to measure existing and projected future traffic conditions and identify deficiencies. Table 5 summarizes the City’s adopted level of service standards. Table 5. City of Edmonds Level of Service Standards Facility Standard City Streets Arterials: LOS D or better (except state routes); Collectors: LOS C or better. State Routes1 SR 99 north of SR 104; SR 524: LOS E or better. 1. State routes for which a standard is designated are Highways of Regional Significance, and are subject to City concurrency requirements. State routes designated as Highways of Statewide Significance (SR 104, and SR 99 south of SR 104) are not subject to concurrency and thus no City standard is defined for these facilities. However, to monitor operations on Highways of Statewide Significance, the City identifies existing or potential future deficiencies if the WSDOT standard of LOS D is exceeded. Table 6 summarizes the 2025 level of service projected to result with build-out of the City’s adopted land use plan and the proposed land use policy changes. The analysis assumed completion of the City’s planned transportation improvement projects that have been identified through 2025, which are summarized in Attachment C. The levels of service with projected volumes in the Transportation Plan are provided for comparison. As shown, the highest increase in average delayabout 10 secondsis expected to occur at the intersection of Edmonds Way/100th Avenue W. This is not surprising since the intersection is located in the center of the Westgate area. However, the intersection is projected to still operate at a high LOS D with the land use changes. An increase in average delay of about 6 seconds is projected at 238th Street/SR 99, but the intersection is expected to still operate at LOS C with the land use changes. At all other City analysis intersections the proposed land use policy changes are projected to add about 0 to 3 seconds of average delay. All City analysis intersections are projected to operate within their adopted level of service standards with the proposed land use policy changes. It is noted that the results in Table 6 assume that Edmonds Way/100th Avenue W would maintain its existing geometry. However, the Westgate redevelopment concept includes a proposed “road diet” on 100th Avenue W that would remove one general purpose lane in each direction and convert that space to bicycle and parking lanes. The operational implication of reducing vehicle capacity on 100th Avenue W is discussed in the following section. 7 Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 2010. Packet Page 201 of 524 Edmonds Westgate/Five Corners Land Use Policy Change Transportation Assessment - 10 - September 28, 2012 Table 6. 2025 Level of Service with Planned Transportation Plan Improvements LOS Standard Projected Volumes in Transportation Plan Projected Volumes with Policy Change Intersection LOS Delay LOS Delay Stop Controlled 1 174th Street SW/Olympic View Drive D C 22.1 C 22.1 Signalized 2 Olympic View Drive/76th Avenue W D B 12.3 B 12.4 3 196th Street SW/76th Avenue W D D 47.2 D 48.1 4 Puget Drive (SR 524)/88th Avenue W E A 8.1 A 8.1 5 Puget Drive/Olympic View Drive D B 19.7 B 20.0 6 Caspers Street/9th Avenue N (SR 524) E B 12.7 B 13.4 7 208th Street SW/76th Avenue W D B 18.0 B 18.1 8 212th Street SW/SR 99 E E 79.6 E 80.0 9 212th Street SW/76th Avenue W D D 53.5 D 54.6 11 Main Street/9th Avenue N D B 15.7 B 17.0 12 Walnut Street/9th Avenue S D A 9.4 B 10.2 13 Main Street/3rd Avenue N (SR 524) E A 9.4 A 9.5 14 220th Street SW/SR 99 E E 62.3 E 63.7 15 220th Street SW/76th Avenue W D D 52.2 D 53.2 16 220th Street SW/84th Avenue W D B 11.2 B 11.7 17 220th Street SW/9th Avenue S D B 14.0 B 14.6 18 Edmonds Way (SR 104)/100th Ave W (1) D 44.6 D 54.3 19 238th Street SW/SR 99 E C 32.9 C 38.6 20 238th St SW/Edmonds Way (SR 104) (1) B 11.1 B 14.4 21 244th Street SW (SR 104)/76th Ave W (1) D 52.5 D 54.5 22 244th Street SW (SR 104)/SR 99 2 (1) D 45.9 D 46.4 23 238th Street SW/100th Avenue W D B 18.5 B 19.0 24 238th Street SW/Firdale Avenue D C 26.8 C 26.9 Roundabout 10 212th Street SW/84th Avenue W D A 10.0 B 11.0 LOS = Level of service; Delay = average seconds of delay per vehicle. 1. State routes designated as Highways of Statewide Significance are not subject to concurrency and thus no City standard is defined for these facilities. However, to monitor operations on Highways of Statewide Significance (SR 104, and SR 99 south of SR 104), the City identifies existing or potential future deficiencies if LOS D is exceeded. 2. Shared jurisdiction with WSDOT and the City of Shoreline; improvement of this intersection is included in the final phase of the City of Shoreline’s Aurora Corridor Improvement Project, N 165th Street to N 205th Street, which is planned to begin construction in 2013. Packet Page 202 of 524 Edmonds Westgate/Five Corners Land Use Policy Change Transportation Assessment - 11 - September 28, 2012 6. Effect of Vehicle Capacity Reduction on 100th Avenue W As mentioned in the previous section, the City’s design concept for redevelopment of the Westgate area includes a potential road diet on 100th Avenue W at Edmonds Way, which would reduce the existing five-lane section (two general purpose traffic lanes in each direction with a center left-turn lane) to a three-lane section. A general purpose traffic lane would be removed in each direction, and converted to a bicycle and parking lanes. Analysis indicates that with the 2025 projected traffic volumes at Edmonds Way/100th Avenue W, this reduction in vehicle capacity would degrade the intersection operation from LOS D to LOS F. However, there are strategies that could be explored at the site-specific level to balance reduced intersection capacity with vehicle demand through the intersection. For example, the Westgate design concept includes addition of an internal access roadway between 100th Avenue W and Edmonds Way (northeast of the intersection, roughly parallel to Edmonds Way) that would allow vehicles to travel within the site, without having to turn onto Edmonds Way or travel through the Edmonds Way/100th Avenue W intersection. Depending on the specific development that is proposed, there could also be some opportunity to implement transportation demand management strategies that would reduce vehicular trips within the area. It is also possible that the 100th Avenue W intersection could remain wider at the intersection, with lanes that drop to a narrower section away from the intersection. This is similar to the current configuration of 100th Avenue W north of Edmonds Way, where the outside vehicle lanes transition to parking lanes a couple of blocks north of the intersection; however, the reduced general purpose lanes could possibly begin farther south, and also be provided on the south side of Edmonds Way. In order for the road diet to result in acceptable operations at Edmonds Way/100th Avenue W, it would likely need to be combined with one or more of these types of strategies to balance intersection capacity with vehicle demand through the intersection, and would require detailed project-level analysis. The City would also need to work with WSDOT to move forward with any project that would potentially affect operation on Edmonds Way (SR104), which is a Highway of Statewide Significance. It is not recommended that the proposed roadway cross section be adopted into City design standards until detailed TDM and/or TSM strategies are developed, and detailed project-level analysis of the effect of those strategies is completed. However, it would be consistent with the Transportation Plan for the City to adopt a policy stating its desire to develop strategies that would support implementation of the road diet project along 100th Avenue W. 7. Effect on Transit and Non-Motorized Operations Community Transit provides bus transit service to both study areas. In the Five Corners area, Route 115 provides daily service between Mill Creek, Lynnwood, Edmonds, Shoreline, and Mountlake Terrace; Route 116 provides daily service between Edmonds, Lynnwood and Mill Creek. In the Westgate area, Route 130 provides daily local bus service between Edmonds, Shoreline, Mountlake Terrace, and Lynnwood; Route 416 provides weekday commuter service between Edmonds and downtown Seattle. These bus routes also provide connections to other bus and rail routes that serve regional destinations. As shown in Attachment A, transit and non-motorized trips are expected to be generated by future new development in the Five Corners and Westgate areas. With the proposed land use policy changes, Packet Page 203 of 524 Edmonds Westgate/Five Corners Land Use Policy Change Transportation Assessment - 12 - September 28, 2012 a total of about 24 transit trips and 120 non-motorized trips (including internal trips, external walking and biking trips, and trips to and from transit stops) are projected to be generated during the PM peak hour by the Five Corners development. In the Westgate area, about 120 trips and 430 non-motorized trips are projected. Both areas are served by existing bus service, and have complete sidewalks on their major streets. Improvements to sidewalks and other non-motorized amenities would also likely be required as a condition of permit approval, as redevelopment occurs. In the Westgate area, it may be desirable to provide bus pull-outs on Edmonds Way as frontage improvement to new development, so that buses may stop outside of the vehicle traffic flow. It is expected that transit and non-motorized demand would be accommodated by existing and future infrastructure and services. The Transportation Plan provides detailed assessment of existing transit and non-motorized conditions, as well as future recommended transit and non-motorized projects. Development in the Five Corners and Westgate areas would not affect the recommended non- motorized improvements and transit recommendations provided in the Transportation Plan, and therefore are consistent with the Transportation Plan analysis. 8. Effect on Site Access, Circulation and Parking The proposed land use policy changes are a non-project action and do not include specific development proposals. Site access, internal circulation, and parking are site-specific characteristics that are more detailed than the transportation policies and analyses presented in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. If the proposed land use policy changes are approved, new development would be subject to applicable City design standards and parking requirements as condition for approval. Nevertheless, it is recognized that depending on the mix of uses that are developed, there could be opportunities for reduced parking requirements through shared parking. For example, parking could potentially be shared between residents who use their cars during the day but need to park in the evening, and office employees or retail customers who park during the day but not in the evening. As discussed previously, mixed land uses could also encourage more non-motorized trips, particularly between uses within the site. Thus, site access and internal circulation will likely need to consider all modes of travel, maximizing mobility and reducing the potential for conflicts between pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles. 9. Consistency with Transportation Plan Policies The proposed land use policy changes are consistent with Transportation Plan policies. Specifically, the higher density and mixed use development that would be encouraged by the policy changes would promote conservation and sustainability through encouraging alternative modes such as walking, biking, and transit. In addition, transportation policies call for design of complete streets that serve automobile, transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel. Policies to encourage higher density mixed use development in the Five Corners and Westgate areas would also support transportation system efficiency by encouraging development where adequate transportation facilities exist, and providing for a greater number of walking and biking trips between uses on-site. Packet Page 204 of 524 Edmonds Westgate/Five Corners Land Use Policy Change Transportation Assessment - 13 - September 28, 2012 10. Conclusions Following is summary of the key findings of the transportation analysis for the proposed land use policy changes. Build-out of projected land use with the proposed policy changes is expected to generate about 66 additional PM peak hour primary trips in the Five Corners area compared to the 2025 volumes that were analyzed in the Transportation Plan. Build-out of projected land use with the proposed policy changes is expected to generate about 461 additional PM peak hour primary trips in the Westgate area compared to the 2025 volumes that were analyzed in the Transportation Plan. Build-out of projected land use with the proposed policy changes is expected to add about 10 seconds of average vehicle delay at Edmonds Way/100th Avenue W in 2025, compared to the Transportation Plan analysis. However, the intersection is projected to still operate at a high LOS D with the existing intersection geometry in place. At all other City analysis intersections, the build-out of land use with the proposed land use policy changes is projected to add zero to 6 seconds of average delay in 2025, compared to the Transportation Plan analysis. All City analysis intersections are projected to operate within their adopted level of service standards with the proposed land use policy change and planned citywide transportation improvements identified in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Analysis indicates that with the 2025 projected traffic volumes at Edmonds Way/100th Avenue W, the proposed road diet on 100th Avenue W would degrade the intersection operation from LOS D to LOS F. However, there are strategies that could be explored at the site-specific level to balance reduced intersection capacity with vehicle demand through the intersection, including addition of an internal access roadway between 100th Avenue W and Edmonds Way, transportation demand management strategies, or an intersection configuration in which 100th Avenue W remains wider at the intersection, with lanes that drop to a narrower section away from the intersection. In order for the road diet to result in acceptable operations at Edmonds Way/100th Avenue, it would likely need to be combined with strategies to reduce the vehicle demand through the intersection, and would require detailed project-level traffic analysis. The City would also need to work with WSDOT to move forward with any project that would affect operation on Edmonds Way (SR104), which is a Highway of Statewide Significance. It would be consistent with the Transportation Plan for the City to adopt a policy stating its desire to develop strategies that would support implementation of the road diet project along 100th Avenue W. However, it is not recommended that the proposed roadway cross section be adopted into City design standards until detailed TDM and/or TSM strategies are developed, and detailed project-level analysis of the effect of those strategies is completed. Transit and non-motorized trips are expected to be generated by future new development in the Five Corners and Westgate areas. It is expected that transit and non-motorized demand would be accommodated by existing and future infrastructure and services, and would not affect the recommended non-motorized improvements and transit recommendations provided in the Transportation Plan. Packet Page 205 of 524 Edmonds Westgate/Five Corners Land Use Policy Change Transportation Assessment - 14 - September 28, 2012 The proposed land use policy changes are a non-project action and do not include specific development proposals. Site access, internal circulation, and parking are site-specific characteristics that are more detailed than the transportation policies and analyses presented in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. If the proposed land use policy changes are approved, new development would be subject to applicable City design standards and parking requirements as condition for approval. Nevertheless, it is recognized that depending on the mix of uses that are developed, there could be opportunities for reduced parking requirements through shared parking, and that site access and internal circulation will likely need to consider all modes of travel, maximizing mobility and reducing the potential for conflicts between pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles. The proposed land use policy changes are consistent with Transportation Plan policies, specifically those that encourage alternative modes such as walking, biking, and transit. They also support transportation system efficiency policies by encouraging development where adequate transportation facilities exist, and providing for a greater number of walking and biking trips between uses on-site. Packet Page 206 of 524 ATTACHMENT A TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS Packet Page 207 of 524 Trip Generation Summary:Edmonds Five Corners Rezone-Total Study Area REZONE SCENARIO Total Person Trips - Rezone Scenario PM Peak Hour Person Trip Summary Size Daily In Out Total Retail (LU 820) 98,795 sf 5,090 217 225 442 General Office (LU 710) 33,331 sf 400 9 46 55 Multifamily Residential (LU 220) 95 dwelling units 760 46 25 71 Total All Person Trips 6,250 272 296 568 Internal Trips 694 35 35 70 % Internal Trips 11.1% External Trips 5,556 237 261 498 External Person Trips by Mode - Rezone Scenario Percent PM Peak Hour Land Use/Mode Share Mode Share Daily In Out Total Retail (LU 820) Walk or Bicycle Trips 5.7%270 11 12 23 Transit Trips 5.5%260 11 11 22 Person Trips by Vehicle 88.8%4,217 178 185 363 Total 100.0%4,747 200 208 408 General Office (LU 710) Walk or Bicycle Trips 2.2%10 0 1 1 Transit Trips 0.6%00 00 Person Trips by Vehicle 97.2%312 6 40 46 Total 100.0%322 6 41 47 Multifamily Residential (LU 220) Walk, Bicycle, or Other Trips 5.7%30 2 0 2 Transit Trips 5.5%30 2 0 2 Person Trips by Vehicle 88.8%427 27 12 39 Total 100.0%487 31 12 43 Total Project Person Trips Walk, Bicycle or Other 310 13 13 26 Transit Trips 290 13 11 24 Person Trips by Vehicle 4,956 211 237 448 Total 5,556 237 261 498 Vehicle Trips by Component - Rezone Scenario Percent of PM Peak Hour Land Use/Trip Component Type Trips Daily In Out Total AVO Retail (LU 820)1.20 Primary Trips 66%2,320 96 103 199 Pass-by Trips 34%1,190 52 52 104 Total 100%3,510 148 155 303 General Office (LU 710) Primary Trips 100%300 6 37 43 1.06 Pass-by Trips 0%0 0 0 0 Total 100%300 6 37 43 Multifamily Residential (LU 220)1.06 Primary Trips 100%400 26 11 37 Pass-by Trips 0%0 0 0 0 Total 100%400 26 11 37 Total Project - Vehicle Trips Primary Trips 3,020 128 151 279 Pass-by Trips 1,190 52 52 104 Total Project Trips 4,210 180 203 383 12.3% Trip Generation Summary Page 1 8/21/2012 Packet Page 208 of 524 Trip Generation Summary:Edmonds Five Corners Rezone-Total Study Area BASELINE SCENARIO Total Person Trips - Baseline Scenario PM Peak Hour Person Trip Summary Size Daily In Out Total Retail (LU 820) 40,560 sf 2,090 89 93 182 General Office (LU 710) 51,428 sf 620 14 70 84 Multifamily Residential (LU 220) 114 dwelling units 910 55 30 85 Single Family Residential (LU 210) 4 dwelling units 50 3 2 5 Church (LU 560) 12,192 sf 130 4 4 8 Total All Person Trips 3,800 165 199 364 Internal Trips 588 26 26 52 % Internal Trips 15.5% External Trips 3,219 139 173 312 External Person Trips by Mode - Baseline Scenario Percent PM Peak Hour Land Use/Mode Share Mode Share Daily In Out Total Retail (LU 820) Walk or Bicycle Trips 5.7%100 4 5 9 Transit Trips 5.5%100 4 5 9 Person Trips by Vehicle 88.8%1,608 71 69 140 Total 100.0%1,808 79 79 158 General Office (LU 710) Walk or Bicycle Trips 2.2%10 0 2 2 Transit Trips 0.6%00 00 Person Trips by Vehicle 97.2%531 11 65 76 Total 100.0%541 11 67 78 Multifamily Residential (LU 220) Walk, Bicycle, or Other Trips 5.7%40 2 2 4 Transit Trips 5.5%40 2 2 4 Person Trips by Vehicle 88.8%615 39 18 57 Total 100.0%695 43 22 65 Single Family Residential (LU 210) Walk or Bicycle Trips 5.7%00 00 Transit Trips 5.5%00 00 Person Trips by Vehicle 88.8%45 2 1 3 Total 100.0%45 2 1 3 Church (LU 560) Walk or Bicycle Trips 0.0%00 00 Transit Trips 0.0%00 00 Person Trips by Vehicle 100.0%130 4 4 8 Total 100.0%130 4 4 8 Total Project Person Trips Walk, Bicycle or Other 150 6 9 15 Transit Trips 140 6 7 13 Person Trips by Vehicle 2,929 127 157 284 Total 3,219 139 173 312 Vehicle Trips by Component - Baseline Scenario Percent of PM Peak Hour Land Use/Trip Component Type Trips Daily In Out Total AVO Retail (LU 820)1.20 Primary Trips 66%880 39 38 77 Pass-by Trips 34%460 20 20 40 Total 100%1,340 59 58 117 General Office (LU 710)1.06 Primary Trips 100%500 10 62 72 Pass-by Trips 0%0 0 0 0 Total 100%500 10 62 72 Multifamily Residential (LU 220) Primary Trips 100%580 37 17 54 1.06 Pass-by Trips 0%0 0 0 0 Total 100%580 37 17 54 Single Family Residential (LU 210) Primary Trips 100%40 2 1 3 1.06 Pass-by Trips 0%0 0 0 0 Total 100%40 2 1 3 Church (LU 560) Primary Trips 100%110 3 4 7 1.20 Pass-by Trips 0%0 0 0 0 Total 100%110 3 4 7 Total Project - Vehicle Trips Primary Trips 2,110 91 122 213 Pass-by Trips 460 20 20 40 Total Project Trips 2,570 111 142 253 14.3% Trip Generation Summary Page 2 8/21/2012 Packet Page 209 of 524 Trip Generation Summary:Edmonds Five Corners Rezone-Total Study Area NET NEW TRIPS Net New Vehicle Trips PM Peak Hour Land Use Daily In Out Total Rezone Scenario Retail - Primary Trips 2,320 96 103 199 Office - Primary Trips 300 6 37 43 Residential - Primary Trips 400 26 11 37 Total Primary Trips 3,020 128 151 279 Total (Retail) Pass-By Trips 1,190 52 52 104 Total Rezone Scenario Vehicle Trips 4,210 180 203 383 Baseline Scenario Retail - Primary Trips 880 39 38 77 Office - Primary Trips 610 13 66 79 Residential - Primary Trips 620 39 18 57 Total Primary Trips 2,110 91 122 213 Total (Retail) Pass-By Trips 460 20 20 40 Total 2,570 111 142 253 Net New Vehicle Trips Retail - Primary Trips 1,440 57 65 122 Office - Primary Trips -310 -7 -29 -36 Residential - Primary Trips -220 -13 -7 -20 Net New Primary Trips 910 37 29 66 Net New (Retail) Pass-By Trips 730 32 32 64 Total 1,640 69 61 130 Trip Generation Summary Page 3 8/21/2012 Packet Page 210 of 524 Trip Generation Summary:Edmonds Westgate Rezone-Total Study Area REZONE SCENARIO Total Person Trips - Rezone Scenario PM Peak Hour Person Trip Summary Size Daily In Out Total Retail (LU 820) 336,800 sf 17,350 739 769 1,508 General Office (LU 710) 167,600 sf 2,030 47 228 275 Multifamily Residential (LU 220) 204 dwelling units 1,630 99 53 152 Total All Person Trips 21,010 885 1,050 1,935 Internal Trips 1,948 91 91 182 % Internal Trips 9.3% External Trips 19,062 794 959 1,753 External Person Trips by Mode - Rezone Scenario Percent PM Peak Hour Land Use/Mode Share Mode Share Daily In Out Total Retail (LU 820) Walk or Bicycle Trips 8.5%1,390 59 61 120 Transit Trips 7.5%1,220 52 54 106 Person Trips by Vehicle 84.1%13,786 585 608 1,193 Total 100.0%16,396 696 723 1,419 General Office (LU 710) Walk or Bicycle Trips 3.0%50 1 6 7 Transit Trips 1.7%30 1 3 4 Person Trips by Vehicle 95.3%1,555 30 202 232 Total 100.0%1,635 32 211 243 Multifamily Residential (LU 220) Walk, Bicycle, or Other Trips 8.5%90 6 2 8 Transit Trips 7.5%80 5 2 7 Person Trips by Vehicle 84.1%861 55 21 76 Total 100.0%1,031 66 25 91 Total Project Person Trips Walk, Bicycle or Other 1,530 66 69 135 Transit Trips 1,330 58 59 117 Person Trips by Vehicle 16,202 670 831 1,501 Total 19,062 794 959 1,753 Vehicle Trips by Component - Rezone Scenario Percent of PM Peak Hour Land Use/Trip Component Type Trips Daily In Out Total AVO Retail (LU 820)1.20 Primary Trips 66%7,580 319 337 656 Pass-by Trips 34%3,910 169 169 338 Total 100%11,490 488 506 994 General Office (LU 710) Primary Trips 100%1,460 28 189 217 1.07 Pass-by Trips 0%0 0 0 0 Total 100%1,460 28 189 217 Multifamily Residential (LU 220)1.07 Primary Trips 100%810 52 19 71 Pass-by Trips 0%0 0 0 0 Total 100%810 52 19 71 Total Project - Vehicle Trips Primary Trips 9,850 399 545 944 Pass-by Trips 3,910 169 169 338 Total Project Trips 13,760 568 714 1,282 9.4% Trip Generation Summary Page 1 8/21/2012 Packet Page 211 of 524 Trip Generation Summary:Edmonds Westgate Rezone-Total Study Area BASELINE SCENARIO Total Person Trips - Baseline Scenario PM Peak Hour Person Trip Summary Size Daily In Out Total Retail (LU 820) 201,175 sf 10,370 441 459 900 General Office (LU 710) 52,302 sf 630 15 71 86 Multifamily Residential (LU 220) 13 dwelling units 100 7 3 10 Single Family Residential (LU 210) 7 dwelling units 80 5 3 8 Church (LU 560) 0 sf 0 0 0 0 Total All Person Trips 11,180 468 536 1,004 Internal Trips 338 19 19 38 % Internal Trips 3.0% External Trips 10,857 449 517 966 External Person Trips by Mode - Baseline Scenario Percent PM Peak Hour Land Use/Mode Share Mode Share Daily In Out Total Retail (LU 820) Walk or Bicycle Trips 8.5%860 36 39 75 Transit Trips 7.5%760 32 34 66 Person Trips by Vehicle 84.1%8,598 362 379 741 Total 100.0%10,218 430 452 882 General Office (LU 710) Walk or Bicycle Trips 3.0%20 0 2 2 Transit Trips 1.7%10 0 1 1 Person Trips by Vehicle 95.3%482 10 59 69 Total 100.0%512 10 62 72 Multifamily Residential (LU 220) Walk, Bicycle, or Other Trips 8.5%10 0 1 1 Transit Trips 7.5%00 11 Person Trips by Vehicle 84.1%52 5 0 5 Total 100.0%62 5 2 7 Single Family Residential (LU 210) Walk or Bicycle Trips 8.5%10 0 0 0 Transit Trips 7.5%00 00 Person Trips by Vehicle 84.1%55 4 1 5 Total 100.0%65 4 1 5 Church (LU 560) Walk or Bicycle Trips 0.0%00 00 Transit Trips 0.0%00 00 Person Trips by Vehicle 100.0%0 0 0 0 Total 100.0%00 00 Total Project Person Trips Walk, Bicycle or Other 900 36 42 78 Transit Trips 770 32 36 68 Person Trips by Vehicle 9,187 381 439 820 Total 10,857 449 517 966 Vehicle Trips by Component - Baseline Scenario Percent of PM Peak Hour Land Use/Trip Component Type Trips Daily In Out Total AVO Retail (LU 820)1.20 Primary Trips 66%4,730 197 211 408 Pass-by Trips 34%2,440 105 105 210 Total 100%7,170 302 316 618 General Office (LU 710)1.07 Primary Trips 100%450 9 56 65 Pass-by Trips 0%0 0 0 0 Total 100%450 9 56 65 Multifamily Residential (LU 220) Primary Trips 100%50 5 0 5 1.07 Pass-by Trips 0%0 0 0 0 Total 100%50 5 0 5 Single Family Residential (LU 210) Primary Trips 100%50 4 1 5 1.07 Pass-by Trips 0%0 0 0 0 Total 100%50 4 1 5 Church (LU 560) Primary Trips 100%00 001.20 Pass-by Trips 0%0 0 0 0 Total 100%00 00 Total Project - Vehicle Trips Primary Trips 5,280 215 268 483 Pass-by Trips 2,440 105 105 210 Total Project Trips 7,720 320 373 693 3.8% Trip Generation Summary Page 2 8/21/2012 Packet Page 212 of 524 Trip Generation Summary:Edmonds Westgate Rezone-Total Study Area NET NEW TRIPS Net New Vehicle Trips PM Peak Hour Land Use Daily In Out Total Rezone Scenario Retail - Primary Trips 7,580 319 337 656 Office - Primary Trips 1,460 28 189 217 Residential - Primary Trips 810 52 19 71 Total Primary Trips 9,850 399 545 944 Total (Retail) Pass-By Trips 3,910 169 169 338 Total Rezone Scenario Vehicle Trips 13,760 568 714 1282 Baseline Scenario Retail - Primary Trips 4,730 197 211 408 Office - Primary Trips 450 9 56 65 Residential - Primary Trips 100 9 1 10 Total Primary Trips 5,280 215 268 483 Total (Retail) Pass-By Trips 2,440 105 105 210 Total 7,720 320 373 693 Net New Vehicle Trips Retail - Primary Trips 2,850 122 126 248 Office - Primary Trips 1,010 19 133 152 Residential - Primary Trips 710 43 18 61 Net New Primary Trips 4,570 184 277 461 Net New (Retail) Pass-By Trips 1,470 64 64 128 Total 6,040 248 341 589 Trip Generation Summary Page 3 8/21/2012 Packet Page 213 of 524 ATTACHMENT B LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS & REPORTS Packet Page 214 of 524 Levels of service (LOS) are qualitative descriptions of traffic operating conditions. These levels of service are designated with letters ranging from LOS A, which is indicative of good operating condi- tions with little or no delay, to LOS F, which is indicative of stop-and-go conditions with frequent and lengthy delays. Levels of service for this analysis were developed using procedures presented in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2010). Level of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of delay. Delay can be a cause of driver discomfort, frustration, inefficient fuel consumption, and lost travel time. Specifically, level of service criteria are stated in terms of the average delay per vehicle in seconds. Delay is a complex measure and is dependent on a number of variables including: the quality of progression, cycle length, green ratio, and a volume-to-capacity ratio for the lane group or approach in question. Table B-1 shows the level of service criteria for signalized intersections from the Highway Capacity Manual. Table B-1. Level of Service Criteria Level of Service Average Delay Per Vehicle General Description A Less than 10.0 Seconds Free flow B 10.1 to 20.0 seconds Stable flow (slight delays) C 20.1 to 35.0 seconds Stable flow (acceptable delays) D 35.1 to 55.0 seconds Approaching unstable flow (tolerable delay— occasionally wait through more than one signal cycle before proceeding. E 55.1 to 80.0 seconds Unstable flow (approaching intolerable delay) F Greater than 80.0 seconds Forced flow (jammed) Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 2010. For unsignalized intersections, level of service is based on the average delay per vehicle for each turning movement. The level of service for a two-way, stop-controlled intersection is determined by the computed or measured control delay and is defined for each minor movement. Delay is related to the availability of gaps in the main street's traffic flow, and the ability of a driver to enter or pass through those gaps. The delay at an all-way, stop-sign (AWSC) controlled intersection is based on saturation headways, departure headways, and service time using procedures in Chapter 17 – Unsignalized Intersections, Applications – AWSC Intersections of the Highway Capacity Manual 2010 (Transportation Research Board (TRB), 2010). Table B-2 shows the level of service criteria for unsignalized intersections from the Highway Capacity Manual. Table B-2. Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Average Delay (seconds per vehicle) A Less than 10.0 B 10.1 to 15.0 C 15.1 to 25.0 D 25.1 to 35.0 E 35.1 to 50.0 F Greater than 50.0 Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 2010. Packet Page 215 of 524 SYNCHRO/SIDRA REPORTS TRANSPORTATION PLAN ANALYSIS Packet Page 216 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 1: 174th St SW & Olympic View Dr.HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 30 30 90 640 880 40 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 33 33 98 696 957 43 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1870 978 1000 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 978 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 891 vCu, unblocked vol 1870 978 1000 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 87 89 86 cM capacity (veh/h) 252 304 692 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 65 98 696 1000 Volume Left 33 98 0 0 Volume Right 33 0 0 43 cSH 276 692 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.24 0.14 0.41 0.59 Queue Length 95th (ft) 22 12 0 0 Control Delay (s)22.1 11.1 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C B Approach Delay (s) 22.1 1.4 0.0 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 Packet Page 217 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 2: Olympic View Dr. & 76th Ave HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 30 340 10 220 340 60 10 210 390 70 50 30 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.91 0.97 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1849 1770 1821 1701 1771 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.45 1.00 1.00 0.68 Satd. Flow (perm) 1766 843 1821 1695 1231 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 33 370 11 239 370 65 11 228 424 76 54 33 RTOR Reduction (vph)0200110011100160 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 412 0 239 424 0 0 552 0 0 147 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4826 Permitted Phases 4826 Actuated Green, G (s)18.6 18.6 18.6 19.4 19.4 Effective Green, g (s)19.6 19.6 19.6 20.4 20.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.44 0.44 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)752 359 776 752 546 v/s Ratio Prot 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.23 c0.28 c0.33 0.12 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.67 0.55 0.73 0.27 Uniform Delay, d1 9.9 10.6 9.9 10.6 8.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 4.6 0.8 3.7 0.3 Delay (s)10.7 15.2 10.7 14.3 8.4 Level of Service B B B B A Approach Delay (s)10.7 12.3 14.3 8.4 Approach LOS BBBA Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 12.3 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 46.0 Sum of lost time (s)6.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.9% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 218 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 3: 196th St SW & 76th Ave HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 130 680 50 310 890 210 160 340 210 170 140 80 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.96 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3503 1770 3438 3345 3357 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.98 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3503 1770 3438 3345 3357 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 141 739 54 337 967 228 174 370 228 185 152 87 RTOR Reduction (vph)060023005100260 Lane Group Flow (vph) 141 787 0 337 1172 0 0 721 0 0 398 0 Turn Type Prot Prot Split Split Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 8 8 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 7.6 21.1 17.7 31.2 18.0 14.7 Effective Green, g (s) 8.6 22.1 18.7 32.2 19.0 15.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.25 0.21 0.37 0.22 0.18 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 174 885 378 1265 726 602 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 0.22 c0.19 c0.34 c0.22 c0.12 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.81 0.89 0.89 0.93 0.99 0.66 Uniform Delay, d1 38.7 31.5 33.4 26.5 34.2 33.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 24.0 10.8 22.2 11.6 31.5 2.7 Delay (s)62.7 42.4 55.6 38.1 65.7 36.1 Level of Service E D E D E D Approach Delay (s)45.4 42.0 65.7 36.1 Approach LOS D D E D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 47.2 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.87 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 87.5 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 219 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 4: Puget Dr & 88th Ave W HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 40 580 10 100 580 120 30 70 100 40 70 50 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.93 0.96 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1858 1770 1815 1724 1762 Flt Permitted 0.23 1.00 0.31 1.00 0.94 0.91 Satd. Flow (perm) 421 1858 572 1815 1627 1631 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 43 630 11 109 630 130 33 76 109 43 76 54 RTOR Reduction (vph)010013006100280 Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 640 0 109 747 0 0 157 0 0 145 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4826 Permitted Phases 4826 Actuated Green, G (s) 21.8 21.8 21.8 21.8 9.6 9.6 Effective Green, g (s) 22.8 22.8 22.8 22.8 10.6 10.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.27 0.27 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 244 1075 331 1050 438 439 v/s Ratio Prot 0.34 c0.41 v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 0.19 c0.10 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.18 0.60 0.33 0.71 0.36 0.33 Uniform Delay, d1 3.9 5.3 4.3 5.9 11.6 11.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.9 0.6 2.3 0.5 0.4 Delay (s)4.2 6.2 4.9 8.2 12.1 12.0 Level of Service A A A A B B Approach Delay (s)6.1 7.8 12.1 12.0 Approach LOS AABB Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 8.1 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 39.4 Sum of lost time (s)6.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 220 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 5: Puget Dr & Olympic View Dr.HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 4 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 410 490 500 10 30 330 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1858 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.39 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 718 1863 1858 1770 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 446 533 543 11 33 359 RTOR Reduction (vph)00100271 Lane Group Flow (vph) 446 533 553 0 33 88 Turn Type Perm Perm Protected Phases 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 2 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 55.0 55.0 55.0 20.0 20.0 Effective Green, g (s) 60.0 60.0 60.0 22.0 22.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.24 0.24 Clearance Time (s)9.0 9.0 9.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 479 1242 1239 433 387 v/s Ratio Prot 0.29 0.30 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm c0.62 c0.06 v/c Ratio 0.93 0.43 0.45 0.08 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 13.2 7.0 7.1 26.2 27.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 27.1 1.1 1.2 0.3 1.4 Delay (s)40.3 8.1 8.3 26.5 28.6 Level of Service D A A C C Approach Delay (s)22.8 8.3 28.4 Approach LOS C A C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 19.7 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 221 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 6: Caspers St & 9th Ave N HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 5 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 420 30 270 550 10 580 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1863 1583 1770 1863 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.40 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 1583 751 1863 1770 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 457 33 293 598 11 630 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 16 0 0 0 224 Lane Group Flow (vph) 457 17 293 598 11 406 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 16.0 16.0 Effective Green, g (s) 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 17.0 17.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.35 0.35 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 970 824 391 970 627 561 v/s Ratio Prot 0.25 0.32 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 c0.39 c0.26 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.02 0.75 0.62 0.02 0.72 Uniform Delay, d1 7.3 5.6 9.0 8.1 10.1 13.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.0 7.7 1.2 0.0 4.6 Delay (s) 7.7 5.6 16.7 9.3 10.1 18.1 Level of Service AABABB Approach Delay (s) 7.5 11.7 17.9 Approach LOS A B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 12.7 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 48.0 Sum of lost time (s)6.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 222 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 7: 208th St SW & 76th Ave HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 5 5 5 380 0 250 5 660 500 90 320 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1750 1770 1583 1862 1583 3501 Flt Permitted 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.61 Satd. Flow (perm) 1750 1770 1583 1858 1583 2167 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 5 413 0 272 5 717 543 98 348 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0500182000186000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 10 0 413 90 0 0 722 357 0 446 0 Turn Type Split Split Perm Perm pm+pt Protected Phases 3 3 8 8 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s)1.3 28.2 28.2 43.8 43.8 43.8 Effective Green, g (s)1.3 29.2 28.2 44.8 44.8 44.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.34 0.33 0.53 0.53 0.53 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)27 606 523 976 831 1138 v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.23 0.06 v/s Ratio Perm c0.39 0.23 0.21 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.68 0.17 0.74 0.43 0.39 Uniform Delay, d1 41.6 24.1 20.3 15.7 12.4 12.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.5 3.2 0.2 3.0 0.4 0.2 Delay (s)50.1 27.2 20.4 18.7 12.8 12.3 Level of Service D C C B B B Approach Delay (s)50.1 24.5 16.2 12.3 Approach LOS D C B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 18.0 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 85.3 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 223 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 8: 212th St SW & SR 99 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 230 380 90 160 410 140 150 1780 210 140 1620 180 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3437 1770 3404 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3437 1770 3404 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 250 413 98 174 446 152 163 1935 228 152 1761 196 RTOR Reduction (vph)00000000580055 Lane Group Flow (vph) 250 511 0 174 598 0 163 1935 170 152 1761 141 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 26 Actuated Green, G (s) 22.9 29.2 18.7 25.0 12.9 70.5 70.5 11.5 69.1 69.1 Effective Green, g (s) 24.4 30.7 20.2 26.5 13.4 73.0 73.0 12.0 71.6 71.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.21 0.14 0.18 0.09 0.49 0.49 0.08 0.48 0.48 Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 5.5 5.5 3.5 5.5 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.5 3.5 2.0 3.5 3.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 292 713 242 610 160 1747 781 144 1713 766 v/s Ratio Prot c0.14 0.15 0.10 c0.18 c0.09 c0.55 0.09 0.50 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.86 0.72 0.72 0.98 1.02 1.11 0.22 1.06 1.03 0.18 Uniform Delay, d1 60.0 54.6 61.1 60.4 67.2 37.5 21.2 68.0 38.2 21.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 20.4 2.9 8.2 31.3 76.2 57.4 0.2 90.6 29.2 0.1 Delay (s)80.4 57.4 69.4 91.7 143.4 94.8 21.4 158.5 67.4 21.7 Level of Service F E E F F F C F E C Approach Delay (s)65.0 86.7 91.0 69.7 Approach LOS E F F E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 79.6 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.01 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 147.9 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.4% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 224 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 9: 212th St SW & 76th Ave HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 250 380 110 180 470 120 170 760 140 100 390 210 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3457 1770 3354 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3457 1770 3354 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 272 413 120 196 511 130 185 826 152 109 424 228 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 84 0 0 90 0 14 0 0 67 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 272 413 36 196 511 40 185 964 0 109 585 0 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.0 30.4 30.4 14.7 29.1 29.1 13.3 29.0 11.6 27.3 Effective Green, g (s) 17.0 31.4 31.4 15.7 30.1 30.1 14.3 30.0 12.6 28.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.30 0.30 0.15 0.28 0.28 0.14 0.28 0.12 0.27 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 285 553 470 263 531 451 239 981 211 898 v/s Ratio Prot c0.15 0.22 0.11 c0.27 c0.10 c0.28 0.06 0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.95 0.75 0.08 0.75 0.96 0.09 0.77 0.98 0.52 0.65 Uniform Delay, d1 44.0 33.6 26.7 43.1 37.2 27.7 44.1 37.6 43.7 34.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 40.7 5.5 0.1 10.9 29.5 0.1 14.4 24.5 2.1 1.7 Delay (s)84.7 39.0 26.8 54.0 66.8 27.8 58.6 62.1 45.8 36.0 Level of Service F D C D E C E E D D Approach Delay (s)52.6 57.7 61.5 37.4 Approach LOS D E E D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 53.5 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 105.7 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.9% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 225 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 10: Main St & 84th Av. W HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR EBR2 WBL2 WBL WBT WBR NBL2 NBL NBT NBR Right Turn Channelized Volume (veh/h) 90 220 230 110 10 170 230 20 20 150 120 110 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 98 239 250 120 11 185 250 22 22 163 130 120 Approach Volume (veh/h) 707 467 435 Crossing Volume (veh/h) 462 467 641 High Capacity (veh/h) 962 958 833 High v/c (veh/h) 0.73 0.49 0.52 Low Capacity (veh/h) 780 776 666 Low v/c (veh/h) 0.91 0.60 0.65 Intersection Summary Maximum v/c High 0.73 Maximum v/c Low 0.91 Intersection Capacity Utilization 109.5% ICU Level of Service H Movement SBL SBT SBR SBR2 NEL2 NEL NER NER2 Right Turn Channelized Volume (veh/h) 90 130 5 40 40 10 140 20 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 98 141 5 43 43 11 152 22 Approach Volume (veh/h) 288 228 Crossing Volume (veh/h) 674 837 High Capacity (veh/h) 812 711 High v/c (veh/h) 0.35 0.32 Low Capacity (veh/h) 647 559 Low v/c (veh/h) 0.45 0.41 Intersection Summary Packet Page 226 of 524 Unlicensed Trial Version INTERSECTION SUMMARY Site: Rou 5-way Star 1-Lane R Roundabout with 5 legs, and 1-lane approaches and circulating road Roundabout Intersection Performance - Hourly Values Performance Measure Vehicles Persons Demand Flows (Total)2125 veh/h 2655 pers/h Percent Heavy Vehicles 2.0 % Degree of Saturation 0.754 Practical Spare Capacity 12.7 % Effective Intersection Capacity 2819 veh/h Control Delay (Total)5.90 veh-h/h 7.08 pers-h/h Control Delay (Average)10.0 sec 9.6 sec Control Delay (Worst Lane)11.2 sec Control Delay (Worst Movement)11.2 sec 11.2 sec Geometric Delay (Average)3.6 sec Stop-Line Delay (Average)6.4 sec Intersection Level of Service (LOS)LOS A 95% Back of Queue - Vehicles (Worst Lane)10.2 veh 95% Back of Queue - Distance (Worst Lane)72.7 m Total Effective Stops 1977 veh/h 2372 pers/h Effective Stop Rate 0.93 per veh 0.89 per pers Proportion Queued 0.86 0.83 Performance Index 53.9 53.9 Travel Distance (Total)1212.1 veh-km/h 1454.6 pers-km/h Travel Distance (Average)570 m 548 m Travel Time (Total)32.9 veh-h/h 39.4 pers-h/h Travel Time (Average)55.7 sec 53.5 sec Travel Speed 36.9 km/h 36.9 km/h Cost (Total)1083.85 $/h 1083.85 $/h Fuel Consumption (Total)129.1 L/h Carbon Dioxide (Total)323.1 kg/h Hydrocarbons (Total)0.532 kg/h Carbon Monoxide (Total)21.90 kg/h NOx (Total)0.644 kg/h Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Intersection LOS value for Vehicles is based on average delay for all vehicle movements. Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard. SIDRA Standard Delay Model used. Intersection Performance - Annual Values Performance Measure Vehicles Persons Demand Flows (Total)1,020,000 veh/y 1,274,400 pers/y Delay 2,832 veh-h/y 3,399 pers-h/y Effective Stops 948,848 veh/y 1,138,618 pers/y Travel Distance 581,832 veh-km/y 698,198 pers-km/y Travel Time 15,775 veh-h/y 18,930 pers-h/y Cost 520,249 $/y 520,249 $/y Fuel Consumption 61,983 L/y Carbon Dioxide 155,081 kg/y Hydrocarbons 255 kg/y Carbon Monoxide 10,512 kg/y NOx 309 kg/y Processed: Thursday, September 06, 2012 8:47:17 AM SIDRA INTERSECTION 5.1.12.2089 Copyright © 2000-2011 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd www.sidrasolutions.com Packet Page 227 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 11: Main St & 9th Ave N HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 50 230 70 150 230 40 50 330 150 20 250 20 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.97 0.99 0.96 0.99 Flt Protected 0.99 0.98 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1800 1807 1783 1839 Flt Permitted 0.91 0.74 0.94 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 1645 1354 1692 1755 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 54 250 76 163 250 43 54 359 163 22 272 22 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 15 00600240050 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 365 0 0 450 0 0 552 0 0 311 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4826 Permitted Phases 4826 Actuated Green, G (s)21.2 21.2 21.0 21.0 Effective Green, g (s)21.2 21.2 21.0 21.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)695 572 708 734 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.22 c0.33 c0.33 0.18 v/c Ratio 0.53 0.79 0.78 0.42 Uniform Delay, d1 10.8 12.5 12.6 10.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 7.0 5.4 0.4 Delay (s)11.5 19.6 18.0 10.7 Level of Service BBBB Approach Delay (s)11.5 19.6 18.0 10.7 Approach LOS BBBB Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 15.7 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 50.2 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.5% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 228 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 12: Walnut St & 9th Ave N HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 10 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 20 60 20 90 70 70 30 620 70 50 490 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.97 0.96 0.99 1.00 Flt Protected 0.99 0.98 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1794 1752 1834 1850 Flt Permitted 0.93 0.86 0.97 0.90 Satd. Flow (perm) 1692 1542 1780 1679 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 65 22 98 76 76 33 674 76 54 533 11 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 15 0 0 27 0070010 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 94 0 0 223 0 0 776 0 0 597 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4826 Permitted Phases 4826 Actuated Green, G (s)11.7 11.7 28.1 28.1 Effective Green, g (s)12.7 12.7 29.1 29.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.61 0.61 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)450 410 1084 1022 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 c0.14 c0.44 0.36 v/c Ratio 0.21 0.54 0.72 0.58 Uniform Delay, d1 13.6 15.1 6.5 5.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 1.5 2.3 0.9 Delay (s)13.9 16.5 8.8 6.5 Level of Service BBAA Approach Delay (s)13.9 16.5 8.8 6.5 Approach LOS BBAA Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 9.4 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 47.8 Sum of lost time (s)6.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 229 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 13: Main St & 3rd Ave N HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 11 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 150 110 20 50 180 30 70 180 40 60 310 70 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.98 Flt Protected 0.97 0.99 0.99 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1797 1634 1807 1810 Flt Permitted 0.70 0.92 0.84 0.93 Satd. Flow (perm) 1299 1511 1529 1687 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 163 120 22 54 196 33 76 196 43 65 337 76 RTOR Reduction (vph)000000000000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 305 0 0 283 0 0 315 0 0 478 0 Parking (#/hr) 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 8426 Permitted Phases 8426 Actuated Green, G (s)10.0 10.0 16.4 16.4 Effective Green, g (s)11.0 11.0 17.4 17.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.32 0.51 0.51 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)415 483 773 853 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm c0.23 0.19 0.21 c0.28 v/c Ratio 0.73 0.59 0.41 0.56 Uniform Delay, d1 10.4 9.8 5.3 5.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.6 1.2 0.1 0.5 Delay (s)17.0 11.0 5.4 6.4 Level of Service BBAA Approach Delay (s)17.0 11.0 5.4 6.4 Approach LOS BBAA Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 9.4 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 34.4 Sum of lost time (s)6.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 230 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 14: 220th St SW & SR 99 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 12 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 120 330 50 140 600 270 140 1680 250 500 1660 170 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3470 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3470 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 130 359 54 152 652 293 152 1826 272 543 1804 185 RTOR Reduction (vph)00000000600064 Lane Group Flow (vph) 130 413 0 152 652 293 152 1826 212 543 1804 121 Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.0 17.7 10.3 20.0 20.0 10.3 57.9 57.9 17.1 64.7 64.7 Effective Green, g (s) 9.0 18.7 11.3 21.0 21.0 11.3 59.9 59.9 18.1 66.7 66.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.16 0.09 0.18 0.18 0.09 0.50 0.50 0.15 0.56 0.56 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 133 541 167 619 277 167 1767 790 518 1967 880 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.12 0.09 0.18 0.09 c0.52 c0.16 0.51 v/s Ratio Perm c0.19 0.13 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.98 0.76 0.91 1.05 1.06 0.91 1.03 0.27 1.05 0.92 0.14 Uniform Delay, d1 55.4 48.5 53.8 49.5 49.5 53.8 30.1 17.4 51.0 24.1 12.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 70.4 6.3 44.5 51.0 70.1 44.5 30.5 0.2 52.8 7.3 0.1 Delay (s)125.8 54.9 98.3 100.5 119.6 98.3 60.6 17.6 103.7 31.4 12.9 Level of Service F D FFFFEBFCB Approach Delay (s)71.8 105.3 57.9 45.6 Approach LOS E F E D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 62.3 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.01 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.3% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 231 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 15: 220th St SW & 76th Ave HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 13 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 150 290 50 80 430 510 30 420 40 220 480 120 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1822 1848 1583 1770 1839 1770 1807 Flt Permitted 0.10 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 195 1822 1634 1583 1770 1839 1770 1807 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 163 315 54 87 467 554 33 457 43 239 522 130 RTOR Reduction (vph)0000098030000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 163 369 0 0 554 457 33 497 0 239 652 0 Turn Type pm+pt Perm Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 1 6 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 57.3 57.3 41.0 41.0 3.5 34.7 16.0 47.2 Effective Green, g (s) 58.3 58.3 42.0 42.0 4.5 35.7 17.0 48.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.49 0.49 0.35 0.35 0.04 0.30 0.14 0.40 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 269 885 572 554 66 547 251 726 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.20 0.02 0.27 c0.14 c0.36 v/s Ratio Perm 0.23 c0.34 0.29 v/c Ratio 0.61 0.42 0.97 0.82 0.50 0.91 0.95 0.90 Uniform Delay, d1 23.7 19.9 38.4 35.6 56.6 40.6 51.1 33.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 3.8 0.3 29.4 9.7 5.8 18.9 43.5 13.8 Delay (s)27.5 20.2 67.8 45.3 62.5 59.5 94.6 47.4 Level of Service C C E D E E F D Approach Delay (s)22.4 56.5 59.7 60.1 Approach LOS C E E E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 52.2 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.89 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 96.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 232 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 16: 220th St SW & 84th Av. W HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 14 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 60 240 10 50 420 120 60 340 50 130 130 60 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1851 1770 1801 1770 1827 1779 Flt Permitted 0.26 1.00 0.56 1.00 0.57 1.00 0.64 Satd. Flow (perm) 481 1851 1051 1801 1055 1827 1154 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 65 261 11 54 457 130 65 370 54 141 141 65 RTOR Reduction (vph)000000000000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 65 272 0 54 587 0 65 424 0 0 347 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4826 Permitted Phases 4826 Actuated Green, G (s) 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 13.9 13.9 13.9 Effective Green, g (s) 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 14.9 14.9 14.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.41 0.41 0.41 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 205 788 448 767 432 748 472 v/s Ratio Prot 0.15 c0.33 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.05 0.06 c0.30 v/c Ratio 0.32 0.35 0.12 0.77 0.15 0.57 0.74 Uniform Delay, d1 6.9 7.0 6.3 8.9 6.8 8.3 9.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 0.3 0.1 4.6 0.2 1.0 5.9 Delay (s)7.8 7.3 6.4 13.5 6.9 9.3 15.0 Level of Service A A A B A A B Approach Delay (s)7.4 12.9 8.9 15.0 Approach LOS ABAB Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 11.2 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 36.4 Sum of lost time (s)6.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 233 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 17: Elm Wy & 9th Ave S HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 15 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 10 30 5 90 40 160 5 650 140 100 420 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1656 1425 1620 1425 1676 1425 1593 1671 Flt Permitted 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.23 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1656 1425 1620 1425 1672 1425 383 1671 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 11 33 5 98 43 174 5 707 152 109 457 11 RTOR Reduction (vph)00000138000000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 44 5 0 141 36 0 712 152 109 468 0 Turn Type Split Prot Split Prot Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 444888 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)4.2 4.2 11.7 11.7 35.8 35.8 35.8 35.8 Effective Green, g (s)6.2 6.2 13.7 13.7 37.8 37.8 37.8 37.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.09 0.21 0.21 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)154 132 333 293 948 808 217 947 v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 0.00 c0.09 0.03 0.28 v/s Ratio Perm c0.43 0.11 0.28 v/c Ratio 0.29 0.04 0.42 0.12 0.75 0.19 0.50 0.49 Uniform Delay, d1 28.2 27.5 23.1 21.6 10.9 7.0 8.8 8.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 0.1 0.9 0.2 3.4 0.1 1.8 0.4 Delay (s)29.2 27.7 23.9 21.8 14.3 7.1 10.6 9.1 Level of Service C C C C BABA Approach Delay (s)29.1 22.7 13.0 9.4 Approach LOS C C B A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 14.0 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 66.7 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.1% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 234 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 18: Edmonds Wy & 100th Ave W HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 16 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 50 730 190 180 760 270 280 540 150 230 350 30 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3429 1770 3400 1770 3424 1770 3497 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3429 1770 3400 1770 3424 1770 3497 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 54 793 207 196 826 293 304 587 163 250 380 33 RTOR Reduction (vph)000000000000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 54 1000 0 196 1119 0 304 750 0 250 413 0 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 3.9 28.1 14.6 38.8 16.0 22.3 14.0 20.3 Effective Green, g (s) 4.9 30.6 15.6 41.3 17.0 24.8 15.0 22.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.31 0.16 0.42 0.17 0.25 0.15 0.23 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)89 1071 282 1433 307 866 271 814 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.29 c0.11 0.33 c0.17 c0.22 0.14 0.12 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.61 0.93 0.70 0.78 0.99 0.87 0.92 0.51 Uniform Delay, d1 45.6 32.7 39.0 24.4 40.4 35.0 40.9 32.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 11.2 14.2 7.2 2.8 48.6 9.1 34.6 0.5 Delay (s)56.8 46.9 46.2 27.3 89.0 44.1 75.5 33.2 Level of Service E D D C F D E C Approach Delay (s)47.4 30.1 57.0 49.2 Approach LOS D C E D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 44.6 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 98.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 235 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 19: 238th St SW & SR 99 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 17 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 200 50 150 30 50 20 290 1610 40 60 1420 140 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1791 1583 1785 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.67 1.00 0.81 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1252 1583 1476 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 217 54 163 33 54 22 315 1750 43 65 1543 152 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 122 0 10 0 0 0 18 0 0 81 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 271 41 0 99 0 315 1750 25 65 1543 71 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)22.4 22.4 22.4 17.4 50.0 50.0 5.1 37.7 37.7 Effective Green, g (s)22.9 22.9 22.9 17.9 52.5 52.5 5.6 40.2 40.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.58 0.58 0.06 0.45 0.45 Clearance Time (s)3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 5.5 5.5 3.5 5.5 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)319 403 376 352 2064 923 110 1581 707 v/s Ratio Prot c0.18 0.49 0.04 c0.44 v/s Ratio Perm c0.22 0.03 0.07 0.02 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.85 0.10 0.26 0.89 0.85 0.03 0.59 0.98 0.10 Uniform Delay, d1 31.9 25.7 26.8 35.1 15.5 7.9 41.1 24.4 14.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 18.6 0.1 0.4 23.8 4.6 0.1 8.2 17.6 0.3 Delay (s)50.5 25.8 27.2 59.0 20.0 8.0 49.3 42.0 14.7 Level of Service D C C E C A D D B Approach Delay (s)41.2 27.2 25.6 39.9 Approach LOS DCCD Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 32.9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 236 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 20: 238th St SW & Edmonds Wy HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 18 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 5 5 10 20 5 230 20 1340 70 90 960 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.93 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.99 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1711 1790 1583 1770 3513 1770 3534 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.82 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1649 1536 1583 1770 3513 1770 3534 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 11 22 5 250 22 1457 76 98 1043 11 RTOR Reduction (vph)09000124050010 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 12 0 0 27 126 22 1528 0 98 1053 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 Actuated Green, G (s)9.4 9.4 9.4 0.7 31.6 3.1 34.0 Effective Green, g (s)10.4 10.4 10.4 1.7 32.6 4.1 35.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.03 0.58 0.07 0.62 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)306 285 293 54 2041 129 2205 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.43 c0.06 0.30 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.02 c0.08 v/c Ratio 0.04 0.09 0.43 0.41 0.75 0.76 0.48 Uniform Delay, d1 18.8 18.9 20.2 26.7 8.7 25.5 5.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.1 1.0 4.9 1.5 22.3 0.2 Delay (s)18.8 19.1 21.2 31.7 10.3 47.8 5.8 Level of Service B B C C B D A Approach Delay (s)18.8 21.0 10.6 9.4 Approach LOS B C B A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 11.1 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 56.1 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 237 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 21: 244th St SW & 76th Ave W HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 19 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 40 1690 80 370 1770 160 190 230 380 100 160 30 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3515 3433 3495 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3515 3433 3495 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 43 1837 87 402 1924 174 207 250 413 109 174 33 RTOR Reduction (vph)00000000560029 Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 1924 0 402 2098 0 207 250 357 109 174 4 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 52316 Permitted Phases 26 Actuated Green, G (s) 3.6 80.9 17.0 94.3 17.0 25.0 42.0 9.2 17.2 17.2 Effective Green, g (s) 4.6 82.9 18.0 96.3 18.0 26.0 44.0 10.2 18.2 18.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.03 0.56 0.12 0.65 0.12 0.17 0.30 0.07 0.12 0.12 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)55 1954 414 2257 214 325 499 121 227 193 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.55 c0.12 0.60 c0.12 c0.13 c0.09 0.06 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.78 0.98 0.97 0.93 0.97 0.77 0.71 0.90 0.77 0.02 Uniform Delay, d1 71.8 32.5 65.3 23.4 65.3 58.7 46.9 68.9 63.4 57.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 50.5 16.7 36.5 7.4 51.6 10.5 4.8 52.3 14.3 0.0 Delay (s)122.2 49.2 101.8 30.8 116.9 69.2 51.8 121.2 77.7 57.7 Level of Service F D F C F E D F E E Approach Delay (s)50.8 42.2 72.3 90.6 Approach LOS D D E F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 52.5 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 149.1 Sum of lost time (s)6.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.1% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 238 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 22: 244th St SW & SR 99 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 280 230 130 340 440 320 120 1370 130 80 870 140 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3348 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3348 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 304 250 141 370 478 348 130 1489 141 87 946 152 RTOR Reduction (vph)0000010000710049 Lane Group Flow (vph) 304 391 0 370 478 248 130 1489 70 87 946 103 Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 17.2 15.1 20.0 17.9 17.9 9.4 42.3 42.3 4.7 37.6 37.6 Effective Green, g (s) 18.2 17.1 21.0 19.9 19.9 10.4 42.3 43.3 5.7 37.6 38.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.17 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.43 0.44 0.06 0.38 0.39 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 325 578 375 711 318 186 1511 692 102 1343 617 v/s Ratio Prot 0.17 0.12 c0.21 0.14 c0.07 c0.42 c0.05 0.27 v/s Ratio Perm c0.16 0.04 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.94 0.68 0.99 0.67 0.78 0.70 0.99 0.10 0.85 0.70 0.17 Uniform Delay, d1 39.9 38.4 38.9 36.6 37.5 42.8 28.1 16.4 46.3 26.0 19.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 33.2 3.1 42.5 2.5 11.7 10.9 19.6 0.1 45.9 1.7 0.1 Delay (s)73.1 41.5 81.4 39.1 49.2 53.7 47.7 16.5 92.2 27.7 19.9 Level of Service E D F DDDDBFCB Approach Delay (s)55.3 55.1 45.6 31.5 Approach LOS E E D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 45.9 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.90 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 99.1 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.0% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 239 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 23: 238th St. SW & 100th Av. W HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 21 Movement EBL EBR EBR2 NBL NBT SBT SBR SBR2 NEL NER Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 80 10 110 130 840 220 270 150 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.90 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1770 3539 3191 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1770 3539 3191 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 87 11 120 141 913 239 293 163 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 72 0 0 0 43 0000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 87 59 0 141 913 652 0000 Turn Type Perm Prot Protected Phases 4 1 6 2 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 26.3 26.3 6.1 25.3 20.0 Effective Green, g (s) 26.3 26.3 6.1 26.3 21.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.09 0.40 0.32 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 712 637 165 1423 1025 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 c0.08 c0.26 0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.09 0.85 0.64 0.90dr Uniform Delay, d1 12.3 12.1 29.2 15.8 18.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.13 0.73 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.1 27.6 0.8 1.3 Delay (s)12.4 12.2 60.5 12.2 20.2 Level of Service B B E B C Approach Delay (s) 12.3 18.7 20.2 0.0 Approach LOS B B C A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 18.5 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.41 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.4 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 dr Defacto Right Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a right lane. c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 240 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 PM with Intersection Improvement 24: 238th St. SW & Firdale Av.HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report KK Page 22 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 410 30 30 20 20 20 30 540 20 10 230 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.96 0.98 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1769 1750 1770 3520 1770 3539 Flt Permitted 0.71 0.84 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1306 1487 1770 3520 1770 3539 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 446 33 33 22 22 22 33 587 22 11 250 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0400130040000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 508 0 0 53 0 33 605 0 11 250 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 8 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s)26.3 26.3 6.1 25.3 0.8 20.0 Effective Green, g (s)26.3 26.3 6.1 26.3 0.8 21.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.09 0.40 0.01 0.32 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)525 598 165 1416 22 1136 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 c0.17 0.01 0.07 v/s Ratio Perm c0.39 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.97 0.09 0.20 0.43 0.50 0.22 Uniform Delay, d1 19.1 12.1 27.4 14.1 32.1 16.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.27 0.78 Incremental Delay, d2 30.7 0.1 0.6 0.2 13.1 0.1 Delay (s)49.9 12.2 28.0 14.3 53.8 12.7 Level of Service D B C B D B Approach Delay (s)49.9 12.2 15.0 14.4 Approach LOS D B B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 26.8 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.4 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 241 of 524 SYNCHRO/SIDRA REPORTS ANALYSIS WITH PROPOSED LAND USE CHANGE Packet Page 242 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 1: 174th St SW & Olympic View Dr.HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 30 30 90 641 881 40 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 33 33 98 697 958 43 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 1872 979 1001 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 979 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 892 vCu, unblocked vol 1872 979 1001 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4 tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 87 89 86 cM capacity (veh/h) 252 303 692 Direction, Lane # EB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 Volume Total 65 98 697 1001 Volume Left 33 98 0 0 Volume Right 33 0 0 43 cSH 275 692 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.24 0.14 0.41 0.59 Queue Length 95th (ft) 23 12 0 0 Control Delay (s)22.1 11.1 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C B Approach Delay (s) 22.1 1.4 0.0 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 Packet Page 243 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 2: Olympic View Dr. & 76th Ave HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 30 340 10 221 340 60 10 213 391 70 50 30 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.91 0.97 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1849 1770 1821 1701 1771 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.45 1.00 1.00 0.68 Satd. Flow (perm) 1766 841 1821 1696 1227 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 33 370 11 240 370 65 11 232 425 76 54 33 RTOR Reduction (vph)0200110010900160 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 412 0 240 424 0 0 559 0 0 147 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4826 Permitted Phases 4826 Actuated Green, G (s)18.7 18.7 18.7 19.6 19.6 Effective Green, g (s)19.7 19.7 19.7 20.6 20.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.44 0.44 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)751 358 775 755 546 v/s Ratio Prot 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.23 c0.29 c0.33 0.12 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.67 0.55 0.74 0.27 Uniform Delay, d1 10.0 10.7 10.0 10.6 8.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 4.9 0.8 3.8 0.3 Delay (s)10.8 15.6 10.8 14.5 8.4 Level of Service B B B B A Approach Delay (s)10.8 12.5 14.5 8.4 Approach LOS BBBA Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 12.4 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 46.3 Sum of lost time (s)6.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.1% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 244 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 3: 196th St SW & 76th Ave HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 134 680 50 315 890 210 160 340 212 170 141 80 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.96 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3503 1770 3438 3344 3357 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.98 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3503 1770 3438 3344 3357 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 146 739 54 342 967 228 174 370 230 185 153 87 RTOR Reduction (vph)060022005200260 Lane Group Flow (vph) 146 787 0 342 1173 0 0 722 0 0 399 0 Turn Type Prot Prot Split Split Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 4 4 8 8 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 8.0 21.2 17.8 31.0 18.0 14.8 Effective Green, g (s) 9.0 22.2 18.8 32.0 19.0 15.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.25 0.21 0.36 0.22 0.18 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 181 886 379 1253 724 604 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 0.22 c0.19 c0.34 c0.22 c0.12 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.81 0.89 0.90 0.94 1.00 0.66 Uniform Delay, d1 38.5 31.6 33.6 26.9 34.4 33.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 22.4 10.8 23.9 12.9 32.6 2.7 Delay (s)61.0 42.4 57.5 39.8 67.0 36.2 Level of Service E D E D E D Approach Delay (s)45.3 43.7 67.0 36.2 Approach LOS D D E D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 48.1 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 87.8 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 245 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 4: Puget Dr & 88th Ave W HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 41 582 11 100 580 120 32 72 100 40 72 50 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.93 0.96 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1858 1770 1815 1726 1763 Flt Permitted 0.23 1.00 0.30 1.00 0.93 0.91 Satd. Flow (perm) 420 1858 566 1815 1623 1632 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 45 633 12 109 630 130 35 78 109 43 78 54 RTOR Reduction (vph)010013005900270 Lane Group Flow (vph) 45 644 0 109 747 0 0 163 0 0 148 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4826 Permitted Phases 4826 Actuated Green, G (s) 21.9 21.9 21.9 21.9 9.7 9.7 Effective Green, g (s) 22.9 22.9 22.9 22.9 10.7 10.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.27 0.27 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 243 1074 327 1050 439 441 v/s Ratio Prot 0.35 c0.41 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.19 c0.10 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.19 0.60 0.33 0.71 0.37 0.34 Uniform Delay, d1 3.9 5.4 4.4 6.0 11.7 11.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.9 0.6 2.3 0.5 0.5 Delay (s)4.3 6.3 5.0 8.3 12.3 12.1 Level of Service A A A A B B Approach Delay (s)6.2 7.9 12.3 12.1 Approach LOS AABB Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 8.1 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 39.6 Sum of lost time (s)6.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 246 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 5: Puget Dr & Olympic View Dr.HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 4 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 411 496 500 12 32 330 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1857 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.38 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 716 1863 1857 1770 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 447 539 543 13 35 359 RTOR Reduction (vph)00100271 Lane Group Flow (vph) 447 539 555 0 35 88 Turn Type Perm Perm Protected Phases 2 6 4 Permitted Phases 2 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 55.0 55.0 55.0 20.0 20.0 Effective Green, g (s) 60.0 60.0 60.0 22.0 22.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.24 0.24 Clearance Time (s)9.0 9.0 9.0 6.0 6.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 477 1242 1238 433 387 v/s Ratio Prot 0.29 0.30 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm c0.62 c0.06 v/c Ratio 0.94 0.43 0.45 0.08 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 13.3 7.0 7.1 26.2 27.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 28.2 1.1 1.2 0.4 1.4 Delay (s)41.5 8.1 8.3 26.6 28.6 Level of Service D A A C C Approach Delay (s)23.3 8.3 28.4 Approach LOS C A C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 20.0 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.75 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 247 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 6: Caspers St & 9th Ave N HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 5 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 420 30 276 550 12 593 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1863 1583 1770 1863 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.40 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 1583 749 1863 1770 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 457 33 300 598 13 645 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 16 0 0 0 223 Lane Group Flow (vph) 457 17 300 598 13 422 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.6 24.6 24.6 24.6 16.5 16.5 Effective Green, g (s) 25.6 25.6 25.6 25.6 17.5 17.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.36 0.36 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 971 825 391 971 631 564 v/s Ratio Prot 0.25 0.32 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 c0.40 c0.27 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.02 0.77 0.62 0.02 0.75 Uniform Delay, d1 7.5 5.7 9.4 8.3 10.2 13.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.0 8.7 1.2 0.0 5.4 Delay (s) 7.8 5.7 18.1 9.5 10.3 19.2 Level of Service AABABB Approach Delay (s) 7.7 12.3 19.1 Approach LOS A B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 13.4 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 49.1 Sum of lost time (s)6.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 248 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 7: 208th St SW & 76th Ave HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 5 5 5 380 0 250 5 664 500 90 326 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.95 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 Flt Protected 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1750 1770 1583 1862 1583 3501 Flt Permitted 0.98 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.61 Satd. Flow (perm) 1750 1770 1583 1858 1583 2168 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 5 413 0 272 5 722 543 98 354 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0500183000183000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 10 0 413 89 0 0 727 360 0 452 0 Turn Type Split Split Perm Perm pm+pt Protected Phases 3 3 8 8 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 6 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s)1.3 28.2 28.2 44.7 44.7 44.7 Effective Green, g (s)1.3 29.2 28.2 45.7 45.7 45.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.34 0.33 0.53 0.53 0.53 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)26 600 518 985 839 1149 v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.23 0.06 v/s Ratio Perm c0.39 0.23 0.21 v/c Ratio 0.39 0.69 0.17 0.74 0.43 0.39 Uniform Delay, d1 42.1 24.6 20.7 15.6 12.3 12.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 9.3 3.3 0.2 2.9 0.4 0.2 Delay (s)51.4 27.9 20.8 18.6 12.7 12.2 Level of Service D C C B B B Approach Delay (s)51.4 25.1 16.0 12.2 Approach LOS D C B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 18.1 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 86.2 Sum of lost time (s)10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.6% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 249 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 8: 212th St SW & SR 99 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 232 380 90 160 405 140 152 1780 210 140 1629 192 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3437 1770 3403 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3437 1770 3403 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 252 413 98 174 440 152 165 1935 228 152 1771 209 RTOR Reduction (vph)00000000580058 Lane Group Flow (vph) 252 511 0 174 592 0 165 1935 170 152 1771 151 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 26 Actuated Green, G (s) 22.9 29.3 18.7 25.1 12.9 70.5 70.5 11.5 69.1 69.1 Effective Green, g (s) 24.4 30.8 20.2 26.6 13.4 73.0 73.0 12.0 71.6 71.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.21 0.14 0.18 0.09 0.49 0.49 0.08 0.48 0.48 Clearance Time (s)4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.5 5.5 5.5 3.5 5.5 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.5 3.5 2.0 3.5 3.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 292 715 242 612 160 1746 781 144 1712 766 v/s Ratio Prot c0.14 0.15 0.10 c0.17 c0.09 c0.55 0.09 0.50 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.86 0.71 0.72 0.97 1.03 1.11 0.22 1.06 1.03 0.20 Uniform Delay, d1 60.2 54.5 61.2 60.3 67.3 37.5 21.3 68.0 38.2 21.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 21.5 2.8 8.2 27.9 79.6 57.6 0.2 90.6 31.2 0.1 Delay (s)81.7 57.4 69.4 88.2 146.9 95.1 21.5 158.6 69.4 21.9 Level of Service F E E F F F C F E C Approach Delay (s)65.4 83.9 91.6 71.1 Approach LOS E F F E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 80.0 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.01 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 148.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 99.4% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 250 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 9: 212th St SW & 76th Ave HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 254 387 112 180 480 120 169 760 140 100 390 216 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3457 1770 3350 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 1770 3457 1770 3350 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 276 421 122 196 522 130 184 826 152 109 424 235 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 86 0 0 88 0 14 0 0 71 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 276 421 36 196 522 42 184 964 0 109 588 0 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 3 8 7 4 Permitted Phases 6 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.0 30.4 30.4 14.7 29.1 29.1 13.3 29.0 11.6 27.3 Effective Green, g (s) 17.0 31.4 31.4 15.7 30.1 30.1 14.3 30.0 12.6 28.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.30 0.30 0.15 0.28 0.28 0.14 0.28 0.12 0.27 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 285 553 470 263 531 451 239 981 211 897 v/s Ratio Prot c0.16 0.23 0.11 c0.28 c0.10 c0.28 0.06 0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.97 0.76 0.08 0.75 0.98 0.09 0.77 0.98 0.52 0.66 Uniform Delay, d1 44.1 33.7 26.7 43.1 37.5 27.8 44.1 37.6 43.7 34.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 44.1 6.1 0.1 10.9 34.5 0.1 13.9 24.5 2.1 1.7 Delay (s)88.2 39.9 26.8 54.0 72.0 27.9 58.0 62.1 45.8 36.1 Level of Service F D C D E C E E D D Approach Delay (s)54.2 61.1 61.4 37.5 Approach LOS D E E D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 54.6 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 105.7 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 251 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 10: Main St & 84th Av. W HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR EBR2 WBL2 WBL WBT WBR NBL2 NBL NBT NBR Right Turn Channelized Volume (veh/h) 90 220 230 110 10 170 230 20 20 150 120 110 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 98 239 250 120 11 185 250 22 22 163 130 120 Approach Volume (veh/h) 707 467 435 Crossing Volume (veh/h) 462 467 641 High Capacity (veh/h) 962 958 833 High v/c (veh/h) 0.73 0.49 0.52 Low Capacity (veh/h) 780 776 666 Low v/c (veh/h) 0.91 0.60 0.65 Intersection Summary Maximum v/c High 0.73 Maximum v/c Low 0.91 Intersection Capacity Utilization 109.5% ICU Level of Service H Movement SBL SBT SBR SBR2 NEL2 NEL NER NER2 Right Turn Channelized Volume (veh/h) 90 130 5 40 40 10 140 20 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 98 141 5 43 43 11 152 22 Approach Volume (veh/h) 288 228 Crossing Volume (veh/h) 674 837 High Capacity (veh/h) 812 711 High v/c (veh/h) 0.35 0.32 Low Capacity (veh/h) 647 559 Low v/c (veh/h) 0.45 0.41 Intersection Summary Packet Page 252 of 524 Unlicensed Trial Version INTERSECTION SUMMARY Site: Rou 5-way Star 1-Lane R Roundabout with 5 legs, and 1-lane approaches and circulating road Roundabout Intersection Performance - Hourly Values Performance Measure Vehicles Persons Demand Flows (Total)2191 veh/h 2735 pers/h Percent Heavy Vehicles 2.0 % Degree of Saturation 0.780 Practical Spare Capacity 8.9 % Effective Intersection Capacity 2809 veh/h Control Delay (Total)6.70 veh-h/h 8.04 pers-h/h Control Delay (Average)11.0 sec 10.6 sec Control Delay (Worst Lane)12.8 sec Control Delay (Worst Movement)12.8 sec 12.8 sec Geometric Delay (Average)P sec Stop-Line Delay (Average)P sec Intersection Level of Service (LOS)LOS B 95% Back of Queue - Vehicles (Worst Lane)11.3 veh 95% Back of Queue - Distance (Worst Lane)80.8 m Total Effective Stops 2159 veh/h 2591 pers/h Effective Stop Rate 0.99 per veh 0.95 per pers Proportion Queued 0.89 0.86 Performance Index 57.8 57.8 Travel Distance (Total)1250.6 veh-km/h 1500.8 pers-km/h Travel Distance (Average)571 m 549 m Travel Time (Total)34.5 veh-h/h 41.4 pers-h/h Travel Time (Average)56.6 sec 54.5 sec Travel Speed 36.3 km/h 36.3 km/h Cost (Total)1136.02 $/h 1136.02 $/h Fuel Consumption (Total)134.7 L/h Carbon Dioxide (Total)337.0 kg/h Hydrocarbons (Total)0.558 kg/h Carbon Monoxide (Total)22.95 kg/h NOx (Total)0.672 kg/h P: You need to Process this Site (F9) for this variable to be computed. Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay (HCM 2000). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Intersection LOS value for Vehicles is based on average delay for all vehicle movements. Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard. SIDRA Standard Delay Model used. Intersection Performance - Annual Values Performance Measure Vehicles Persons Demand Flows (Total)1,051,826 veh/y 1,312,591 pers/y Delay 3,216 veh-h/y 3,859 pers-h/y Effective Stops 1,036,348 veh/y 1,243,617 pers/y Travel Distance 600,307 veh-km/y 720,368 pers-km/y Travel Time 16,548 veh-h/y 19,857 pers-h/y Cost 545,289 $/y 545,289 $/y Fuel Consumption 64,661 L/y Carbon Dioxide 161,782 kg/y Hydrocarbons 268 kg/y Carbon Monoxide 11,016 kg/y NOx 323 kg/y Packet Page 253 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 11: Main St & 9th Ave N HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 50 233 70 151 233 40 50 356 157 20 263 20 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.97 0.99 0.96 0.99 Flt Protected 0.99 0.98 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1800 1807 1785 1840 Flt Permitted 0.91 0.73 0.95 0.95 Satd. Flow (perm) 1647 1341 1696 1755 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 54 253 76 164 253 43 54 387 171 22 286 22 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 15 00600240050 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 368 0 0 454 0 0 588 0 0 325 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4826 Permitted Phases 4826 Actuated Green, G (s)21.7 21.7 22.0 22.0 Effective Green, g (s)21.7 21.7 22.0 22.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.42 0.42 0.43 0.43 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)691 563 722 747 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.22 c0.34 c0.35 0.19 v/c Ratio 0.53 0.81 0.82 0.44 Uniform Delay, d1 11.2 13.2 13.1 10.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 8.2 7.0 0.4 Delay (s)12.0 21.4 20.1 10.9 Level of Service B C C B Approach Delay (s)12.0 21.4 20.1 10.9 Approach LOS B C C B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 17.0 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.81 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 51.7 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 96.0% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 254 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 12: Walnut St & 9th Ave N HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 10 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 20 65 20 95 72 70 30 653 81 50 504 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.97 0.96 0.99 1.00 Flt Protected 0.99 0.98 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1797 1753 1832 1850 Flt Permitted 0.94 0.87 0.97 0.90 Satd. Flow (perm) 1701 1547 1779 1672 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 22 71 22 103 78 76 33 710 88 54 548 11 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 15 0 0 26 0070010 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 100 0 0 231 0 0 824 0 0 612 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4826 Permitted Phases 4826 Actuated Green, G (s)12.1 12.1 29.5 29.5 Effective Green, g (s)13.1 13.1 30.5 30.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.26 0.61 0.61 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)449 409 1094 1028 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 c0.15 c0.46 0.37 v/c Ratio 0.22 0.57 0.75 0.60 Uniform Delay, d1 14.3 15.8 6.8 5.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 1.8 3.0 0.9 Delay (s)14.5 17.6 9.8 6.7 Level of Service BBAA Approach Delay (s)14.5 17.6 9.8 6.7 Approach LOS BBAA Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 10.2 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 49.6 Sum of lost time (s)6.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 255 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 13: Main St & 3rd Ave N HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 11 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 150 112 20 50 180 30 70 193 40 60 316 70 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.98 Flt Protected 0.97 0.99 0.99 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 1797 1634 1809 1811 Flt Permitted 0.71 0.92 0.84 0.92 Satd. Flow (perm) 1302 1511 1538 1686 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 163 122 22 54 196 33 76 210 43 65 343 76 RTOR Reduction (vph)000000000000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 307 0 0 283 0 0 329 0 0 484 0 Parking (#/hr) 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 8426 Permitted Phases 8426 Actuated Green, G (s)10.1 10.1 16.5 16.5 Effective Green, g (s)11.1 11.1 17.5 17.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.32 0.51 0.51 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)418 485 778 853 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm c0.24 0.19 0.21 c0.29 v/c Ratio 0.73 0.58 0.42 0.57 Uniform Delay, d1 10.4 9.8 5.4 5.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.6 1.2 0.1 0.5 Delay (s)17.0 11.0 5.5 6.4 Level of Service BBAA Approach Delay (s)17.0 11.0 5.5 6.4 Approach LOS BBAA Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 9.5 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 34.6 Sum of lost time (s)6.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 256 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 14: 220th St SW & SR 99 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 12 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 141 330 53 140 595 270 143 1682 250 500 1660 179 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3465 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3465 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 153 359 58 152 647 293 155 1828 272 543 1804 195 RTOR Reduction (vph)00000000600068 Lane Group Flow (vph) 153 417 0 152 647 293 155 1828 212 543 1804 127 Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 8.0 17.7 10.3 20.0 20.0 10.3 57.9 57.9 17.1 64.7 64.7 Effective Green, g (s) 9.0 18.7 11.3 21.0 21.0 11.3 59.9 59.9 18.1 66.7 66.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.16 0.09 0.18 0.18 0.09 0.50 0.50 0.15 0.56 0.56 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 133 540 167 619 277 167 1767 790 518 1967 880 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.12 0.09 0.18 0.09 c0.52 c0.16 0.51 v/s Ratio Perm c0.19 0.13 0.08 v/c Ratio 1.15 0.77 0.91 1.05 1.06 0.93 1.03 0.27 1.05 0.92 0.14 Uniform Delay, d1 55.5 48.6 53.8 49.5 49.5 53.9 30.1 17.4 51.0 24.1 12.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 124.1 6.8 44.5 48.5 70.1 48.5 30.9 0.2 52.8 7.3 0.1 Delay (s)179.6 55.4 98.3 98.0 119.6 102.5 60.9 17.6 103.7 31.4 12.9 Level of Service F E FFFFEBFCB Approach Delay (s)88.7 103.9 58.6 45.4 Approach LOS F F E D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 63.7 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.02 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.4% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 257 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 15: 220th St SW & 76th Ave HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 13 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 150 312 50 80 438 509 30 420 40 222 480 120 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1824 1848 1583 1770 1839 1770 1807 Flt Permitted 0.10 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 178 1824 1628 1583 1770 1839 1770 1807 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 163 339 54 87 476 553 33 457 43 241 522 130 RTOR Reduction (vph)0000098030000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 163 393 0 0 563 456 33 497 0 241 652 0 Turn Type pm+pt Perm Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 1 6 2 7 4 3 8 Permitted Phases 6 2 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 57.3 57.3 41.0 41.0 3.5 34.7 16.0 47.2 Effective Green, g (s) 58.3 58.3 42.0 42.0 4.5 35.7 17.0 48.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.49 0.49 0.35 0.35 0.04 0.30 0.14 0.40 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 263 886 570 554 66 547 251 726 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.22 0.02 0.27 c0.14 c0.36 v/s Ratio Perm 0.23 c0.35 0.29 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.44 0.99 0.82 0.50 0.91 0.96 0.90 Uniform Delay, d1 24.0 20.2 38.7 35.6 56.6 40.6 51.2 33.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.3 0.4 34.2 9.6 5.8 18.9 45.6 13.8 Delay (s)28.3 20.6 72.9 45.1 62.5 59.5 96.8 47.4 Level of Service C C E D E E F D Approach Delay (s)22.8 59.2 59.7 60.8 Approach LOS C E E E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 53.2 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.90 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.8% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 258 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 16: 220th St SW & 84th Av. W HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 14 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 66 269 10 50 431 121 60 341 50 132 131 65 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1853 1770 1801 1770 1827 1777 Flt Permitted 0.25 1.00 0.53 1.00 0.56 1.00 0.63 Satd. Flow (perm) 475 1853 985 1801 1041 1827 1147 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 72 292 11 54 468 132 65 371 54 143 142 71 RTOR Reduction (vph)000000000000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 72 303 0 54 600 0 65 425 0 0 356 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4826 Permitted Phases 4826 Actuated Green, G (s) 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.1 14.1 14.1 Effective Green, g (s) 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.1 15.1 15.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.41 0.41 0.41 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 203 791 420 768 427 750 471 v/s Ratio Prot 0.16 c0.33 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.15 0.05 0.06 c0.31 v/c Ratio 0.35 0.38 0.13 0.78 0.15 0.57 0.76 Uniform Delay, d1 7.1 7.2 6.4 9.1 6.8 8.3 9.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 0.3 0.1 5.2 0.2 1.0 6.8 Delay (s)8.2 7.5 6.5 14.3 7.0 9.3 16.1 Level of Service A A A B A A B Approach Delay (s)7.7 13.6 9.0 16.1 Approach LOS ABAB Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 11.7 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 36.8 Sum of lost time (s)6.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 259 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 17: Elm Wy & 9th Ave S HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 15 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 10 30 5 111 40 160 5 695 180 100 440 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1656 1425 1617 1425 1676 1425 1593 1671 Flt Permitted 0.99 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.22 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1656 1425 1617 1425 1672 1425 377 1671 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 11 33 5 121 43 174 5 755 196 109 478 11 RTOR Reduction (vph)00000142000000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 44 5 0 164 32 0 760 196 109 489 0 Turn Type Split Prot Split Prot Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 444888 2 6 Permitted Phases 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)4.8 4.8 12.3 12.3 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 Effective Green, g (s)6.8 6.8 14.3 14.3 47.0 47.0 47.0 47.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.09 0.19 0.19 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 Clearance Time (s)5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)146 126 300 264 1019 869 230 1019 v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 0.00 c0.10 0.02 0.29 v/s Ratio Perm c0.45 0.14 0.29 v/c Ratio 0.30 0.04 0.55 0.12 0.75 0.23 0.47 0.48 Uniform Delay, d1 32.9 32.2 28.5 26.2 10.8 6.8 8.3 8.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.2 0.1 2.0 0.2 3.0 0.1 1.5 0.4 Delay (s)34.1 32.3 30.5 26.4 13.8 6.9 9.8 8.7 Level of Service C C C C BAAA Approach Delay (s)33.9 28.4 12.4 8.9 Approach LOS C C B A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 14.6 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 77.1 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 260 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 18: Edmonds Wy & 100th Ave W HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 16 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 73 759 201 214 780 311 291 575 191 267 369 39 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3428 1770 3388 1770 3407 1770 3489 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3428 1770 3388 1770 3407 1770 3489 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 79 825 218 233 848 338 316 625 208 290 401 42 RTOR Reduction (vph)000000000000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 79 1043 0 233 1186 0 316 833 0 290 443 0 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Actuated Green, G (s) 5.6 34.4 16.5 45.3 22.6 27.5 18.0 22.9 Effective Green, g (s) 6.6 36.9 17.5 47.8 23.6 30.0 19.0 25.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.32 0.15 0.41 0.20 0.26 0.16 0.22 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 101 1096 268 1403 362 886 291 768 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.30 c0.13 0.35 c0.18 c0.24 c0.16 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm v/c Ratio 0.78 0.95 0.87 0.85 0.87 0.94 1.00 0.58 Uniform Delay, d1 53.7 38.4 47.8 30.5 44.4 41.8 48.2 40.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 31.6 16.8 24.5 4.9 20.0 17.5 51.5 1.1 Delay (s)85.3 55.2 72.3 35.3 64.5 59.3 99.6 41.3 Level of Service F E E D E E F D Approach Delay (s)57.3 41.4 60.7 64.4 Approach LOS E D E E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 54.3 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.93 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 115.4 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89.4% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 261 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 19: 238th St SW & SR 99 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 17 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 214 76 150 30 76 20 290 1615 40 60 1423 151 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1797 1583 1801 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.65 1.00 0.80 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1211 1583 1462 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 233 83 163 33 83 22 315 1755 43 65 1547 164 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 118 08000190088 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 316 45 0 130 0 315 1755 24 65 1547 76 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s)24.5 24.5 24.5 16.2 48.2 48.2 4.8 36.8 36.8 Effective Green, g (s)25.0 25.0 25.0 16.7 50.7 50.7 5.3 39.3 39.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.19 0.56 0.56 0.06 0.44 0.44 Clearance Time (s)3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 5.5 5.5 3.5 5.5 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)336 440 406 328 1994 892 104 1545 691 v/s Ratio Prot c0.18 0.50 0.04 c0.44 v/s Ratio Perm c0.26 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.94 0.10 0.32 0.96 0.88 0.03 0.62 1.00 0.11 Uniform Delay, d1 31.8 24.2 25.8 36.3 17.0 8.7 41.4 25.4 15.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 33.8 0.1 0.5 39.0 6.0 0.1 11.1 23.2 0.3 Delay (s)65.6 24.3 26.2 75.4 23.0 8.8 52.5 48.6 15.3 Level of Service E C C E C A D D B Approach Delay (s)51.5 26.2 30.5 45.6 Approach LOS DCCD Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 38.6 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.97 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.9% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 262 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 20: 238th St SW & Edmonds Wy HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 18 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 5 5 10 20 5 267 20 1395 70 130 993 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.93 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.99 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1711 1790 1583 1770 3514 1770 3534 Flt Permitted 0.96 0.83 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1654 1549 1583 1770 3514 1770 3534 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 5 5 11 22 5 290 22 1516 76 141 1079 11 RTOR Reduction (vph)09000119050010 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 12 0 0 27 171 22 1587 0 141 1089 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 Actuated Green, G (s)10.4 10.4 10.4 0.7 30.8 4.0 34.1 Effective Green, g (s)11.4 11.4 11.4 1.7 31.8 5.0 35.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.03 0.56 0.09 0.61 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)330 309 315 53 1954 155 2169 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.45 c0.08 0.31 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 0.02 c0.11 v/c Ratio 0.04 0.09 0.54 0.42 0.81 0.91 0.50 Uniform Delay, d1 18.5 18.7 20.6 27.3 10.3 25.9 6.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.1 1.9 5.2 2.7 46.1 0.2 Delay (s)18.5 18.8 22.5 32.5 13.0 71.9 6.4 Level of Service B B C C B E A Approach Delay (s)18.5 22.1 13.2 13.9 Approach LOS B C B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 14.4 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 57.2 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 263 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 21: 244th St SW & 76th Ave W HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 19 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 40 1718 80 370 1800 160 190 230 380 100 160 30 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3516 3433 3496 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3516 3433 3496 1770 1863 1583 1770 1863 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 43 1867 87 402 1957 174 207 250 413 109 174 33 RTOR Reduction (vph)00000000560029 Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 1954 0 402 2131 0 207 250 357 109 174 4 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot pm+ov Prot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 52316 Permitted Phases 26 Actuated Green, G (s) 3.6 80.9 17.0 94.3 17.0 25.0 42.0 9.2 17.2 17.2 Effective Green, g (s) 4.6 82.9 18.0 96.3 18.0 26.0 44.0 10.2 18.2 18.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.03 0.56 0.12 0.65 0.12 0.17 0.30 0.07 0.12 0.12 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)55 1955 414 2258 214 325 499 121 227 193 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.56 c0.12 0.61 c0.12 c0.13 c0.09 0.06 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.78 1.00 0.97 0.94 0.97 0.77 0.71 0.90 0.77 0.02 Uniform Delay, d1 71.8 33.1 65.3 23.9 65.3 58.7 46.9 68.9 63.4 57.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 50.5 20.1 36.5 8.9 51.6 10.5 4.8 52.3 14.3 0.0 Delay (s)122.2 53.2 101.8 32.9 116.9 69.2 51.8 121.2 77.7 57.7 Level of Service F D F C F E D F E E Approach Delay (s)54.6 43.8 72.3 90.6 Approach LOS D D E F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 54.5 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.94 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 149.1 Sum of lost time (s)6.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 92.9% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 264 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 22: 244th St SW & SR 99 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 280 230 130 340 440 320 120 1379 130 80 878 140 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3348 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3348 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 1770 3539 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 304 250 141 370 478 348 130 1499 141 87 954 152 RTOR Reduction (vph)0000010000700049 Lane Group Flow (vph) 304 391 0 370 478 248 130 1499 71 87 954 103 Turn Type Prot Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 17.2 15.1 20.0 17.9 17.9 9.4 42.3 42.3 4.7 37.6 37.6 Effective Green, g (s) 18.2 17.1 21.0 19.9 19.9 10.4 42.3 43.3 5.7 37.6 38.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.17 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.43 0.44 0.06 0.38 0.39 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 325 578 375 711 318 186 1511 692 102 1343 617 v/s Ratio Prot 0.17 0.12 c0.21 0.14 c0.07 c0.42 c0.05 0.27 v/s Ratio Perm c0.16 0.04 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.94 0.68 0.99 0.67 0.78 0.70 0.99 0.10 0.85 0.71 0.17 Uniform Delay, d1 39.9 38.4 38.9 36.6 37.5 42.8 28.2 16.4 46.3 26.1 19.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 33.2 3.1 42.5 2.5 11.7 10.9 21.2 0.1 45.9 1.8 0.1 Delay (s)73.1 41.5 81.4 39.1 49.2 53.7 49.4 16.5 92.2 27.9 19.9 Level of Service E D F DDDDBFCB Approach Delay (s)55.3 55.1 47.1 31.6 Approach LOS E E D C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 46.4 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 99.1 Sum of lost time (s)9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 265 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 23: 238th St. SW & 100th Av. W HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 21 Movement EBL EBR EBR2 NBL NBT SBT SBR SBR2 NEL NER Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 93 10 110 130 855 233 285 163 0 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.90 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1583 1770 3539 3190 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1583 1770 3539 3190 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 101 11 120 141 929 253 310 177 0 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 72 0 0 0 44 0000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 101 59 0 141 929 696 0000 Turn Type Perm Prot Protected Phases 4 1 6 2 Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green, G (s) 26.3 26.3 6.0 25.5 20.3 Effective Green, g (s) 26.3 26.3 6.0 26.5 21.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.09 0.40 0.32 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 710 635 162 1430 1036 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 c0.08 c0.26 0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.14 0.09 0.87 0.65 0.95dr Uniform Delay, d1 12.5 12.2 29.4 15.8 19.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.13 0.73 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.1 31.0 0.8 1.7 Delay (s)12.6 12.3 64.3 12.4 20.9 Level of Service B B E B C Approach Delay (s) 12.4 19.2 20.9 0.0 Approach LOS B B C A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 19.0 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.42 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.6 Sum of lost time (s)8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 dr Defacto Right Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a right lane. c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 266 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Improvement 24: 238th St. SW & Firdale Av.HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 22 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 410 30 30 20 20 20 30 555 20 10 243 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.96 0.98 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1769 1750 1770 3521 1770 3539 Flt Permitted 0.71 0.84 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1306 1487 1770 3521 1770 3539 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 446 33 33 22 22 22 33 603 22 11 264 0 RTOR Reduction (vph)0400130040000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 508 0 0 53 0 33 621 0 11 264 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 8 1 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s)26.3 26.3 6.0 25.5 0.8 20.3 Effective Green, g (s)26.3 26.3 6.0 26.5 0.8 21.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.09 0.40 0.01 0.32 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)524 596 162 1422 22 1149 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 c0.18 0.01 0.07 v/s Ratio Perm c0.39 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.97 0.09 0.20 0.44 0.50 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 19.3 12.2 27.6 14.2 32.2 16.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.26 0.82 Incremental Delay, d2 31.1 0.1 0.6 0.2 12.4 0.1 Delay (s)50.4 12.3 28.2 14.4 53.0 13.4 Level of Service D B C B D B Approach Delay (s)50.4 12.3 15.1 15.0 Approach LOS D B B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 26.9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 65.6 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 267 of 524 SYNCHRO REPORT ANALYSIS OF EDMONDS WAY/100TH AVENUE E WITH PROPOSED LAND USE CHANGE AND 100TH AVENUE W ROAD DIET Packet Page 268 of 524 City of Edmonds 2025 Model PM+Proposed LU_with Impr+100th Ave Road Diet 18: Edmonds Wy & 100th Ave W HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/30/2008 5:00 pm Synchro 7 - Report J&S, revised by HTi Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 73 759 201 214 780 311 291 575 191 267 369 39 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3428 1770 3388 1770 1793 1770 1836 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.10 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3428 1770 3388 381 1793 186 1836 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 79 825 218 233 848 338 316 625 208 290 401 42 RTOR Reduction (vph)000000000000 Lane Group Flow (vph) 79 1043 0 233 1186 0 316 833 0 290 443 0 Turn Type Prot Prot pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.0 29.8 16.7 41.5 58.5 45.5 48.0 39.0 Effective Green, g (s) 6.0 32.3 17.7 44.0 59.5 48.0 50.0 41.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.27 0.15 0.37 0.50 0.40 0.42 0.35 Clearance Time (s)4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)89 923 261 1242 380 717 210 635 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04 c0.30 c0.13 0.35 c0.11 0.46 c0.12 0.24 v/s Ratio Perm 0.30 c0.46 v/c Ratio 0.89 1.13 0.89 0.95 0.83 1.16 1.38 0.70 Uniform Delay, d1 56.7 43.9 50.2 37.0 22.7 36.0 32.2 33.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 59.4 72.2 29.4 15.9 14.3 87.8 198.3 3.3 Delay (s)116.0 116.1 79.6 52.9 37.0 123.8 230.5 37.2 Level of Service F F E D D F F D Approach Delay (s)116.1 57.3 99.9 113.7 Approach LOS F E F F Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 92.6 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.17 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 109.3% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group Packet Page 269 of 524 ATTACHMENT C PLANNED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS – COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Packet Page 270 of 524 Table C-1. Recommended Capital Roadway Improvements through 2025 Project Category/Location Improvement Jurisdiction Concurrency Projects by 2015 4 Puget Drive and 88th Avenue W Install traffic signal.1 Edmonds 10 212th Street SW and 84th Ave W (Currently in design phase) Install a single-lane roundabout. Edmonds 11 Main Street and 9th Avenue N Install traffic signal.2 Edmonds 12 Walnut Street and 9th Avenue S Install traffic signal.2 Edmonds 2 Olympic View Drive and 76th Ave W Install traffic signal. Widen 76th to add a westbound left turn lane for 175-foot storage length. Edmonds 9 212th Street SW and 76th Ave W (Currently in design phase) Widen 76th to add a northbound left turn lane for 250-foot storage length and a southbound left turn lane for 125-foot storage length. Provide protected left turn phase for northbound and southbound movements. Widen 212th to add a westbound right turn lane for 50-foot storage length. Edmonds 15 220th Street SW and 76th Ave W Reconfigure eastbound lanes to a left turn lane and a through-right lane. Change eastbound and westbound phase to provide protected-permitted phase for eastbound left turn. Provide right turn phase for westbound movement during southbound left turn phase. Edmonds Concurrency Projects by 2025 1 174th St SW and Olympic View Dr Widen Olympic View Dr to add a northbound left turn lane for 50-foot storage length. Shift the northbound lanes to the east to provide an acceleration lane for eastbound left turns. Edmonds 6 Caspers Street and 9th Avenue N Install traffic signal. Edmonds 8 212th Street SW and SR 99 Widen 212th to add a westbound left turn lane for 200-foot storage length and an eastbound left turn lane for 300-foot storage length. Provide protected left turn phase for eastbound and westbound movements. Edmonds 14 220th Street SW and SR 99 Widen 220th to add westbound right turn lane for 325-foot storage length. Widen SR 99 add second southbound left turn lane for 275-foot storage length. Edmonds Packet Page 271 of 524 Project Category/Location Improvement Jurisdiction State Highway Improvement Projects 20 238th Street SW and Edmonds Way Install a signal and provide protected left turn phase for northbound and southbound. Edmonds/ WSDOT 21 244th Street SW and 76th Ave W Widen 244th to add second westbound left turn lane for 325-foot storage length. Provide right turn phase for northbound movement during westbound left turn phase. Edmonds/ WSDOT Safety Projects 228th Street SW, at SR 99 and 76th Avenue W (Currently in design phase) Construct connection of 228th Street SW between SR 99 and 76th Avenue W (three lanes with curb, gutter, bike lanes and sidewalk). Install traffic signals at 228th Street SW / SR 99 and 228th Street SW / 76th Avenue W. Install median on SR 99 to prohibit southbound left turn movements at 76th Avenue W. Edmonds SR 99 at 216th Street SW Widen to allow one left turn lane and one through lane in eastbound and westbound directions, with 100-foot storage length for turn lanes. Edmonds 238th Street SW, between Edmonds Way and 84th Avenue W Widen to three lanes with curb, gutter, bike lanes, and sidewalk. Edmonds 84th Avenue W, between 212th Street S and 238th Street SW Widen to three lanes with curb, gutter, bike lanes and sidewalk. Edmonds/ Snohomish County SR 99 illumination Improve roadway safety with illumination. Edmonds Shell Valley New road to improve emergency vehicle access and non-motorized access. Edmonds Main Street and 3rd Avenue Upgrade signal to reduce conflicts with trucks. Edmonds Source: City of Edmonds, Comprehensive Transportation Plan, 2009. 1. Analysis indicates that restricting northbound and southbound traffic to right-turn-only (prohibiting left-turn and through movements) would also address the deficiency identified at this location through 2025. This could be implemented as an alternate solution, or as an interim solution until traffic signal warrants are met. 2. Analysis indicates that identified deficiencies could also be addressed by removal of parking along the entire length of 9th Avenue between the northbound approach of Walnut and the southbound approach of Main, and restriping and signing so that this section of 9th would be 4 lanes wide. This would result in two lanes of traffic at the northbound and southbound stop-controlled approaches of both intersections. This could be implemented as an alternate solution, or as an interim solution until traffic signal warrants are met. Packet Page 272 of 524 APPROVED JUNE 25TH CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 11, 2014 Chair Cloutier called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:04 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Todd Cloutier, Chair Neil Tibbott, Vice Chair Bill Ellis Philip Lovell Carreen Rubenkonig Valerie Stewart (arrived at 7:35 p.m.) BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Daniel Robles (excused) Ian Duncan (excused) STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Shane Holt, Development Services Director Karin Noyes, Recorder READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES VICE CHAIR TIBBOTT MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MAY 28, 2014 BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER ELLIS SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, noted that she submitted written comments earlier in the day regarding the Westgate Plan and form-based zoning, but wanted to read them to the Board so they could be included in the minutes. She observed that incentive zoning is the sweeping code changes adopted by cities with serious problems such as those in the rust-belt, the run- down areas of Seattle, and suburban towns seeking identity like Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace and Shoreline. In successful, popular Edmonds a form-based code and incentive zoning are solutions looking for a problem. The main topic the Planning Board should discuss is what problems in Edmonds are to be solved by replacing the successful, long-time existing code. She asked the Board to answer the following questions: Question 1: Can the original height limits of 25 feet for residential and 35 feet for commercial (with no bribes for this and that) be retained and still meet the goals listed on Pages 1 and 2 of the Westgate Plan dated May 14, 2014? If the answer is no, she asked them to explain which goals can’t be met and why. She pointed out that one of the goals is to establish a flexible regulating system (i.e. replace the existing code) that creates quality public spaces by regulating building placement and form. She questioned why quality public spaces can’t be created under the existing zoning code. Packet Page 273 of 524 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes June 11, 2014 Page 2 The argument is made that the Growth Management Act requires greater density in Edmonds, and increased height limits make that possible. Therefore, the proposed zoning is justified. Has the Planning Board ever objectively discussed different ways to increase density? For example, they could rezone commercial or single-family zones to multi-family. Is it the Board’s opinion that only increased height limits will produce increased density? Why does the Board believe that approval of incentive zoning and the form-based code before them won’t produce more buildings like the Compass pair? The Mayor’s office negotiated a “flexible” development agreement that produced the existing Compass warehouses, and the proposal the Board is being asked to endorse simply formalizes his authority. What has changed to prevent more Compass buildings? Washington State Ferries plans to operate four, 144-car ferries daily on the Edmonds/Kingston run by 2030, and that will almost double the volume of ferry traffic through Westgate. What specific measures has the Board considered to address this growing problem? CONTINUED WORK ON WESTGATE PLAN AND FORM-BASED CODE Mr. Chave advised that the intent of this discussion is for the Board to arrive at a set of recommendations for the City Council. He recommended that the Board consider and take separate action on each of the following items: Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment (Attachment 1), which is intended to incorporate the Westgate Plan into the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Community Development Code Text Amendment (Attachment 2), which would create a new zoning classification of Westgate Mixed-Use (WMU) and provide additional design criteria that would apply to the new zone. Zoning Map Amendment (Attachment 3), which would replace the existing Neighborhood Business (BN), Commercial Business (BC) and Commercial Business – Edmonds Way (BC-EW) zoning at Westgate with the new WMU zoning. Mr. Chave referred to Attachment 6, which contains a list of the criteria the Board must consider when making decisions related to Comprehensive Plan and Development Code (zoning) amendments. The criteria should be discussed by the Board when making a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Chave advised that the code language highlighted in Attachment 2 show a number of technical corrections that are intended for clarification. It also includes helpful language changes that assist the code in being clearer to implement. None of the changes alter the purpose or way in which the code works. He also advised that a code amendment contained in Attachment 2 references the Edmonds Green Factor Tools that are contained in Attachment 4. These tools would be adopted into the code by reference. Mr. Chave recalled that, at the May 28th hearing, numerous people testified about the need to protect the existing slopes and vegetation to help buffer the commercial area from the surrounding residential properties. He referred to the map showing “Westgate Protected Slopes” (Attachment 5), which attempts to provide greater definition in order to protect existing slopes and vegetation that help buffer the commercial area from the surrounding residential properties. The map provides specific contour lines, tied to topography, that define the limit of the developed area within the commercially-zoned properties of the WMU zone, and a cleaned-up version would be inserted into Page 30 of the draft code (Attachment 2). He explained that, as per the proposed map, development activity would not be allowed to intrude into the slopes beyond the contour lines, which are intended to be closer to where existing development is located. The goal is to not take away from what people are able to do on their properties, but ensure that buildings do not encroach further into the sloped areas than is already the case. Mr. Chave said another issue that warrants additional consideration is the property identified as Lot 23105 in the southeast quadrant, which was the topic of some discussion at the last public hearing. A contract rezone was approved for the property in 1985, requiring that the 45-foot natural area be retained. The question before the Board is whether the newly adopted zoning should reflect the earlier agreement and require a 45-foot setback, or should the setback be 30 feet as shown on the map of contour lines. He expressed his belief that because the Westgate Plan will allow for more intense development on the site, it would make sense for the zoning to respect the condition that was put in place in 1985 and push the setback line back an additional 15 feet to protect the slope and vegetation. Packet Page 274 of 524 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes June 11, 2014 Page 3 Board Member Ellis asked if the proposed zoning amendment would override the contract rezone that was approved in 1985. Mr. Chave answered that the zoning amendment would replace the previous zoning. Because the contract runs with the zoning, if the zoning goes away, the contract would go away, as well. Board Member Ellis asked if staff has any sense of whether or not the proposed contour lines would be sufficient to preserve the integrity of the slopes. Mr. Chave said that is the intent. While development would be allowed into the slope to some degree, the bulk of the slope would be retained based on the proposed contour lines. Board Member Lovell asked staff to explain the elevation classes that are identified on the Westgate Protected Slopes Map. Mr. Chave said the green areas indicate where buildings in the commercial zone would be visible from residential properties on top of the slope. A 25-foot building would be visible from the areas identified in green, a 35-foot building from areas identified in orange, and a 45-foot building would be visible from properties identified in blue. He summarized that, the taller the buildings, the more visible they would be from the higher elevations. Board Member Lovell pointed out that the map assumes there are no trees when, in fact, most of the sloped areas are vegetated. Mr. Chave said the contour lines are intended to ensure that sufficient trees are retained on the slopes to provide a buffer. Vice Chair Tibbott asked what the building setback would be for the commercial properties. Mr. Chave said the contour lines are intended to identify the building setback requirement. If the contour line is closer to the property line, a 15-foot standard setback would apply. Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Attachment 1) Board Member Lovell commented that the Board has reviewed the proposed changes on previous occasions. He said he particularly supports the proposed language in C.2 and C.9, related to encouraging mixed-use development in a walkable community center and encouraging the development of a variety of housing choices to residents of all economic and age segments. Some members of the public have expressed concern about increasing density to accommodate residents and meet the requirements of the Growth Management Act. However, the real intent of the proposed amendments is to create a flexible system of zoning that accommodates a greater variety of housing options to meet the needs of the aging population, younger residents, and others who want to live, work and shop close to where public transportation is available. The proposed language provides flexibility to allow housing options in conjunction with retail, whereas the current BN zoning only allows residential uses in the form of single-family homes. It is not feasible or realistic for any of the property owners at Westgate to consider tearing down retail establishments to develop single-family homes. The proposed language will address this concern by allowing a mixture of multi-family residential and commercial development. Board Member Ellis said his only concern about the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is that it opens an area that has been commercial for a long to a variety of residential uses. While the Board recognizes that is the type of development the City wants to encourage, it is also possible the change will allow the area to become more residential and less commercial. While he does not believe that will happen, it needs to be recognized as a possibility. Vice Chair Tibbott said the proposed amendment reflects the Board’s discussion to date, and he is grateful for staff’s hard work putting it together. However, he still remains concerned about walkability in the Westgate area after development occurs. While the traffic study indicated that traffic impacts would not be significant at the intersection of SR-104 and 100th Avenue West, he cannot help but think that especially pedestrian traffic will be impacted with more residential space in the area. At some point, the City will need to give specific consideration to encouraging pedestrian-friendly and other modes of transportation within the quadrants, perhaps through additional incentives. BOARD MEMBER STEWART ARRIVED AT THE MEETING AT 7:35 P.M. Mr. Chave referred to Page 8 of the proposed Development Code Amendment (Attachment 2), which identifies where particular building types could be developed. Generally, the types of residential uses allowed at Westgate are targeted around the periphery of the property, with the more intense commercial uses in the central area. In fact, a certain amount of commercial space would be required in the central core area. Because the proposed code would allow more intense development, there would be opportunities for additional commercial development in addition to residential development. Board Member Ellis thanked Mr. Chave for this helpful observation. The point is that the proposed zoning represents what Packet Page 275 of 524 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes June 11, 2014 Page 4 the City would like at Westgate, recognizing that the City does not have control over the type of development that will actually occur. Board Member Lovell pointed out that the proposed changes would not prevent more drugstore or bank development. Mr. Chave agreed, but clarified that development would look different because more pedestrian connections, amenities and open spaces would be required. Board Member Lovell recalled that some members of the public have expressed concern that introducing more residential development in the area would push retail uses out, and he does not think that would be the case given the property’s location and existing development. Mr. Chave agreed that the area is not likely to convert to a residential area. The Comprehensive Plan’s intent is to introduce opportunities for residential development in the mix of uses, which is a common trend in nearly all communities. Chair Cloutier recalled that one of the Board’s primary goals was to provide flexibility to land owners. While the proposed language includes mandates for open space and amenities, it does not overly constrain landowners. Rather than specifying how each piece of land should be used, it provides direction on how each development could be placed. This will prevent the area from being developed into one large apartment block. He said he does not believe the proposed changes would push out existing development, and he supports the Comprehensive Plan amendment as written. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS RELATED TO THE CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS (ATTACHMENT 6), THE BOARD FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (ATTACHMENT 1) AS PRESENTED. CHAIR CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0, WITH BOARD MEMBERS STEWART AND RUBENKONIG ABSTAINING. Board Member Rubenkonig explained that she respects the four-year process in which the Board tackled the issue. Because she is a new member of the Board, she was not able to become familiar enough with the Board’s past work to participate in the vote. She supports the Board’s decision, but does not feel she should vote at this time. Board Member Stewart said she abstained from the vote because she was late to the meeting and was not able to hear the Board’s previous discussion. However, she expressed support for the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Amendments (Attachment 2) Mr. Chave said Attachment 2 outlines proposed amendments to Chapters 16 and 22. Chapter 16 outlines the allowed uses, and the bulk of the design related requirements are contained in Chapter 22. Chair Cloutier asked where the Westgate Protected Slopes Map would be inserted into the development code. Mr. Chave answered that the map would be inserted into ECDC 22.110.070.C (Line 32 of Page 30). Board Member Lovell referred to the map in ECDC 22.110.010.B (Page 7), which identifies the parcels that are limited to two stories in height, as well as those that are eligible for the potential fourth story height bonus. He recalled that there was significant community concern about the height of buildings and how the adjacent residential properties would be impacted. He suggested that the map also identify the properties that are limited to three-story development. The Board concurred and Mr. Chave agreed to make this change. Board Member Lovell said some concern has been expressed about the loss of family-oriented amusement and entertainment type facilities in the City. It has been suggested that perhaps the development code for Westgate could include some incentives to encourage this type of use. Mr. Chave pointed out that, as currently proposed, amusement establishments would be allowed in the WMU zone as a conditional use. One option would be to change the table to eliminate the conditional use permit requirement and allow amusement establishments as outright permitted uses. He reviewed that a conditional use permit requires a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. Generally, uses that require a conditional use permit have more activity than a normal business, and the conditional use permit process allows the City to place conditions on uses to mitigate their impacts. Chair Cloutier pointed out that the term “amusement establishment” is not defined in the code. Packet Page 276 of 524 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes June 11, 2014 Page 5 Board Member Ellis said he is satisfied with Table 16.110.010, as written, which requires a conditional use permit for amusement establishments. This allows the City to have some review to make sure the proposed development fits with the goals of the Westgate Plan. It is also important to allow the public an opportunity to review and comment on this type of use. Mr. Chave said the assumption is that conditional uses will be permitted, but the City will examine the particulars of the activity to determine if additional requirements are needed to reduce impacts. Chair Cloutier summarized that the majority of the Board supports Table 16.110.010 as written, which would neither encourage nor discourage the use, but would provide a process to make it happen. Board Member Rubenkonig requested clarification that the map in ECDC 22.110.010.B (Page 7), which identifies properties that are eligible for the fourth story height bonus, is the same as the map that was provided at the May 28th hearing. Mr. Chave answered that the steep slope line was changed, but the numbers remain the same. Board Member Stewart reminded the Board that the Comprehensive Plan calls for encouraging the development of a variety of housing choices available to residents of all economic and age segments (Goal C.9). She expressed concern about eliminating the requirement for at least 10% small-sized development in ECDC 22.110.000 (Line 4 on Page 6). Mr. Chave explained that the language Board Member Stewart referenced is in the purpose section. Because the requirement is included in the housing section of the code, it was removed from the purpose section. Board Member Lovell questioned how the 10% requirement would be applied to smaller developments with commercial on the ground floor and residential units above. Mr. Chave said the requirement would be based on the number of residential units in the development. Board Member Stewart referred to ECDC 22.110.010.C.1 (Lines 2 through 8 on Page 10) and questioned the requirement that front yard trees in row house developments be no more than 1.5 times the height of the porch and that frontage landscaping at the street/sidewalk interface be no more than 1.5 times the height of the house. ECDC 22.110.010.C.6 (Lines 24 through 29) also restricts tree height in side-court mixed–use developments. She reminded the Board that trees provide a function of shade and reduced energy costs. She questioned if it is necessary to significantly restrict tree size. She expressed her belief that it would be clearer to regulate the height of trees by using a specific height limit because houses and porches differ in height and design. Board Member Ellis questioned the need to regulate the height of trees at all. He doubts a property owner would plant trees that are out of scale with his/her development. He cautioned against micromanaging the vegetation plan. Chair Cloutier pointed out that landscaping is considered part of the building envelope, and trees that are too large can impact adjacent properties. He suggested that tree height should be limited, but the code should allow flexibility in the types of trees that are planted. The majority of the Board recognized the need to limit the height of trees to minimize impacts to adjacent property owners. They agreed that the height limit for front yard trees should be set at 15 feet, and the height limit for trees near the sidewalk or travel way should be set at 30 feet. They directed staff to apply this standard for all the building types identified in the proposed code language. Board Member Ellis asked if existing trees would have to be removed if they are taller than the height limit allowed for the front yard. Mr. Chave answered that existing trees would be allowed to remain on the site, regardless of their height. Board Member Stewart also referred to ECDC 22.110.010.C.2 (Lines 7 and 8 on Page 12), which requires that courtyards be connected to the public way and/or to each other, and that the connecting spaces be at least 10 feet wide. She questioned if 10 feet is sufficient enough width to serve the intended purpose. Mr. Chave pointed out that the requirement would not limit the width to 10 feet, but it would require at least 10 feet. Board Member Stewart asked if the Green Factor Tools contained in Attachment 4 were provided by the Green Futures Lab. Mr. Chave answered affirmatively. Board Member Stewart asked if Attachment 4 would be incorporated into the code language. Mr. Chave said the intent is to adopt Attachment 4 by reference. Providing a reference would allow the information to be accessed via the City’s website. Board Member Lovell expressed concern that the Green Factor Tools are complicated. Mr. Chave agreed and noted that staff would provide examples and help developers through the process. Vice Chair Tibbott asked if the 45-foot setback requirement for the property identified as Lot 23105 would be incorporated into the actual code language. Mr. Chave answered that it would be identified on the Westgate Protected Slopes Map. Vice Chair Tibbott pointed out that increasing the setback requirement for this property could help address some of the adjacent Packet Page 277 of 524 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes June 11, 2014 Page 6 neighbor’s concerns about privacy, particularly given that the area is heavily vegetated. He questioned if changing the setback requirement would be sufficient, or if the height limit should also be reduced to 25 feet. The entire bank is fairly low and the only buffer is the bank and vegetation. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the current contract rezone that applies to Lot 23105 is attached to the parcel or the building. Mr. Chave said the parcel is bound by the contract rezone at this time, and any redevelopment would have to comply with the 45-foot setback requirement. However, the proposed zoning would supersede the contract rezone and reduce the buffer width to just 30 feet. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the City frequently makes zoning changes that supersede previously approved contract rezones. Mr. Chave said it has occurred on occasion. Board Member Rubenkonig voiced her opinion that it would be a poor move to change the setback for this property to something less than what was identified in the contract rezone. The remainder of the Board agreed that the map should be altered to change the setback line from 30 feet to 45 feet regardless of the contour of the site. Vice Chair Tibbott said ECDC 22.110.070.B (Line 1 on Page 30) makes reference to opportunities for landscaped roof parks. He noted that, as currently proposed, green roofs are a type of amenity that can be used to get the fourth story height bonus. He asked if green roofs should be required in situations where development would be within close proximity to residential units. Board Member Stewart pointed out that green roofs, as identified in the Green Factor Tools, are different than roof parks. Roof parks are intended to be useable spaces that people walk on and enjoy. Green roofs are intended to perform stormwater functions and provide insulation for the rooftop and not necessarily for public access. She appreciates that roof parks have been identified as a type of amenity space; not only are they useable, but they are attractive, as well. Board Member Lovell said it is fairly likely that a three-story, mixed-use development would be of a wood frame design, which is not structurally suitable for either roof parks or green roofs. Typically, these uses require a steel or reinforced concrete design. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ECDC 16.110 AND 22.110 (ATTACHMENT 2) TO THE CITY COUNCIL, WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS WRITTEN AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: 1. IN THE FIGURE ILLUSTRATING HEIGHT LIMITS ON PAGE 7 (ECDC 22.110.010) INSERT DISTINCT LIMITATIONS FOR EVERY PARCEL, INCLUDING THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE LIMITED TO THREE-STORY DEVELOPMENT. 2. ON THE MAP THAT WILL BE INSERTED INTO ECDC 22.110.070 (PAGE 30) TO ILLUSTRATE THE BUILT-TO LINES, ADJUST THE LINE FOR LOT 23105 (SOUTHEAST QUADRANT) TO BE 45 FEET, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CONTRACT REZONE THAT WAS APPROVED FOR THE PROPERTY IN 1985. 3. THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT, CHANGE THE SCALE OF TREES TO BE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 15 FEET IN THE FRONT YARD AND 30 FEET FOR TREES THAT ARE LOCATED NEAR THE SIDEWALK. BOARD MEMBER STEWART SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED 5-0, WITH BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG ABSTAINING. Zoning Map Amendment (Attachment 3) Mr. Chave explained that Attachment 3 illustrates the zoning changes necessary to incorporate the new WMU zoning. He emphasized that the rezone proposal only involves properties that are currently zoned commercial. No residential properties would be rezoned as part of the current proposal. Mr. Chave advised that, since the Board’s last discussion, staff learned of an anomaly in the southeast quadrant where the existing commercial zone has a triangular shape and the commercial boundaries intrude into the residential lots. Although the current zoning has been in place for more than 20 years, he felt it would be appropriate to resolve the issue now that it has been called to the City’s attention. He explained that more research into county and City records is needed to learn more Packet Page 278 of 524 DRAFT Planning Board Minutes June 11, 2014 Page 7 about the history of why these lots are zoned the way they are. If an error was made on the zoning map, the map can be corrected when it is presented to the City Council as part of their review of the Westgate Plan and zoning. If the zoning is not an error, then a separate action, including more research and a public hearing, would be needed to rezone the property to address the problem. In that case, the City Council would likely deal with the Zoning Map Amendment using the current boundaries, and then take action at a later date to address these specific properties. Board Member Lovell requested more information about Lot 9601, which is currently zoned BC-EW. Mr. Chave explained that, as proposed, the current BC-EW zone would be replaced with the new WMU zone. The current 45-foot height limit would be replaced with a 35-foot height limit. VICE CHAIR TIBBOTT MOVED THAT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS RELATED TO THE CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING REZONES (ATTACHMENT 6), THE BOARD FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (ATTACHMENT 3) AS PRESENTED, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE WILL BE AN AMENDMENT BASED ON FURTHER RESEARCH. BOARD MEMBER ELLIS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0, WITH BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG ABSTAINING. THE BOARD TOOK A BREAK FROM 8:45 TO 8:52. REVIEW OF POTENTIAL CODE AMENDMENTS DEFINING “LOTS OF RECORD” AND ESTABLISHING A PROCESS FOR DETERMINING “INNOCENT PURCHASER” (FILE NUMBER AMD20140001) Mr. Lien explained that, typically, legal lots are created via the subdivision process and the property boundaries are clearly spelled out. However, some properties have been further subdivided over the years absent the subdivision process. The City cannot issue building permits for properties that were not legally created through the subdivision process. To preface his comments he referred to the following sections of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC): ECDC 20.75.180 states that, “No building permit, septic tank permit or other development permit, shall be issued for any lot, tract or parcel of land divided in violation of this chapter unless the applicant for such a permit has applied to the hearing examiner and obtained a ruling that the public interest will not be adversely affected, thereby; provided, however, the prohibition contained in this section shall not apply to an innocent purchase.” ECDC 20.55.010 defines “lot,” as “A single tract of land legally created as a separate building site with frontage on a street or access easement. For purposes of this code, adjoining lots under common ownership, which were created without subdivision or short subdivision approval from applicable city or county governments, shall be considered as one lot.” Mr. Lien provided an example of a subdivision that was recorded in 1915. Since the original subdivision, just one short plat has been approved in the area, but numerous parcels were created outside of the subdivision process and may not be legal lots. He noted that there are several areas throughout the City where this problem exists. As properties are redeveloped, he suspects more issues will come up and it will be important to have a clear definition for what a legal lot is. A related issue that is being considered as part of the code amendment is “innocent purchaser,” which is someone who unknowingly purchases an illegal lot. Mr. Lien referred to Attachment 1, which outlines the proposed code amendments and reviewed each of the changes as follows: In ECDC 21.55.010, the first sentence in the definition of “lot” would be changed to read, “A fractional part of divided lands having fixed boundaries, being of sufficient area and dimension to meet minimum zoning requirements for width and area. The term shall include tracts and parcels.” Mr. Lien advised that this definition was taken from the State’s definition (58.17.02). The last two sentences of the existing definition would remain unchanged. In ECDC 21.55.015, a new definition would be added for “lot of record.” Mr. Lien said this is a new term that would take the place of “legal lot.” As currently proposed, a “lot of record” means a single tract of land meeting any one of the Packet Page 279 of 524 APPROVED JUNE 11TH CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 28, 2014 Vice Chair Tibbott called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Neil Tibbott, Vice Chair Ian Duncan Bill Ellis Philip Lovell Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig Valerie Stewart Daniel Robles BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Todd Cloutier, Chair (excused) STAFF PRESENT Shane Hope, Development Services Director Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Karin Noyes, Recorder READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2014 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER ELLIS SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Darrell Haug, Edmonds, thanked the Board Members for their service. As volunteers, they work hard for the City and their job is very complicated and rewarding for the City. PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED PLAN AND FORM-BASED CODE GUIDING FUTURE COMMERCIAL AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT IN THE WESTGATE COMMERCIAL AREA: The Westgate Commercial Area consists of the Neighborhood Business (BN), Commercial Business (BC) and Commercial Business-Edmonds Way (BC-EW) Zones near the intersection of SR-104 (Edmonds Way) and 100th Avenue West. Mr. Chave explained that this is a public hearing on a proposed plan and form-based code that will guide future commercial and mixed use development in the Westgate Commercial Area. The proposed amendments include modifications to the text of the Comprehensive Plan addressing the Westgate Commercial area, establishment of a new Mixed Use-Westgate (MU-W) Zone, and Development Code changes to apply the new MU-W zone to the Westgate Commercial Area. The proposed amendments are intended to provide opportunities for additional development intensity within the commercial area, as well as additional protection for the surrounding slopes. Packet Page 280 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 28, 2014 Page 2 Mr. Chave displayed a map of the Westgate Commercial Area, emphasizing that no zoning changes are being proposed for properties outside of the study area. He provided a brief explanation about why the study came about: There is a fair amount of growth in the region, and Edmonds made the choice a few decades ago to not zone new areas for commercial or multi-family (RM) residential development. Instead, the City has focused future growth into existing areas that were already established for those kinds of uses. Because the City is largely built out, the idea is to focus on enhancing areas that are already set for higher-intensity uses. A change in population has occurred and will continue to occur, and it is expected to significantly change what areas look like in the future. The aging population, combined with the recent economic issues, has created some challenges related to housing choices. The City looks at the Westgate area as an opportunity for a different mixture of housing and services than has traditionally been there, and this would match the trend in the region. There is a real interest in combining commercial and residential development into small centers that build on the opportunities for enhanced transit and more walkable and vital environments. Focusing development in the already developed areas that have the services to support the intensity will result in less impetus to have additional sprawl. The Puget Sound area has experienced a tremendous amount of sprawl over the last few decades, which is not sustainable going into the future. The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) and its member cities have grappled with how to be smarter with future development so as not to compromise the resources and environment that make Puget Sound so attractive. Those who care about climate change and environmental issues recognize that compact development that is more reliant on transit and less reliant on automobiles and roads has potential benefits in the future. Local governments cannot do much to address climate change, but they have a lot of influence over land use and transportation issues that can reduce the environmental footprint of development over time. Mr. Chave reviewed that the Westgate planning process started in 2010, with the City enlisting the help of the University of Washington’s Green Futures Lab and the Cascade Land Conservancy. Before starting their design work, the team conducted a survey of existing amenities and had a fairly extensive public process in early 2011. This effort was followed by a number of public workshops to review design alternatives, and citizens were invited to participate in an on-line survey. Throughout the public process, people indicated a desire for more public open spaces and uses that complement each other. They were particularly interested in improving walkability and circulation. A traffic study was also done in conjunction with the planning process to analyze what future development scenarios might look like. Mr. Chave referred to the draft Westgate Plan and form-based code (Attachment 1) and highlighted the following features: Rather than using strictly traditional zoning, the proposed zoning incorporates some elements of a form-based approach. Traditional zoning focuses specifically on uses allowed and the building envelope (setbacks, building height, etc), and says very little about what takes place inside the building. A form-based code focuses more on the overall design of a project and typically includes design standards to address the relationship of buildings to the streets and other public places. The proposed plan is based on the idea of creating a mixed use, walkable and compact center. It includes improved bicycle and pedestrian access and enhancing the identity of Westgate. It also discusses privatizing amenity spaces (places where people gather), promoting civic and private investment (offering incentives for developers to provide public amenity spaces), encouraging and/or requiring green and sustainable features, and improving stormwater systems that deal with runoff on site rather than discharging to the citywide system. The current standard zoning addresses height and setbacks in a one-size-fits-all fashion and does not address a development’s location in the Westgate area or its relationship to the street. The proposed plan and code is intended to address these subtleties and support the demographic trends by providing different mixes of uses than what you would typically see. For example, younger people would like to live in Edmonds and older people would like to stay in Edmonds, but the housing opportunities are limited. The idea is to provide opportunities for more diverse housing that will benefit the community as a whole. Packet Page 281 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 28, 2014 Page 3 The proposed plan calls for amenity spaces (sidewalks, plazas, lawns, small parks, etc.) to be interspersed throughout the Westgate area. It also calls for development to be located closer to the street to encourage a more active street life. The plan calls out a series of streetscape standards and building types. While the specific locations vary, most of the development in Westgate will be commercial, with some opportunities for residential uses primarily above the ground floor. The plan discusses green features and offers options for incorporating low-impact development elements to improve the sustainability aspect of the project. Mr. Chave explained that the Planning Board conducted an extensive review of the initial plan presented by the University of Washington and made the following key changes: The initial plan mandated that buildings be located at the street front. While the current proposal encourages buildings to be located closer to the street, it does not mandate a rigid conformity. The initial plan focused development outward, with buildings organized around the SR-104 and 100th Avenue West intersection. The current proposal calls out a quadrant-based system that focuses on creating circulation, buildings and spaces within each of the four quadrants formed by the intersection (Northeast, Northwest, Southeast and Southwest). That means most of the circulation would be internal and away from the busy streets. An example of a development in Hillsboro, Oregon, was provided to further illustrate this concept. The initial plan recommended a base height of between one and four stories. A fifth story would have been allowed in certain locations. The current proposal caps the height in most places at three stories, with an opportunity to obtain four stories only where the nearby slopes are higher and where no residences are nearby. The additional height would require the developer to incorporate a certain level of green features into the project, as well. On properties where there are no adjacent slopes, heights would be limited to two stories. The initial plan called for street setbacks of 8 feet. After further discussion, the Board decided it would be appropriate to increase the street setback to 12 feet to provide a wider street interface and to assure that turn pockets could be provided for traffic access if needed. The proposed plan includes a stepback requirement for development radiating from the intersection of SR-104 and 100th Avenue West to maintain openness and create a sense of place. Mr. Chave explained that, when considering appropriate building heights, the Board carefully reviewed the topography of the properties. He provided a topographic map that identifies the locations of the steep slopes in relationship to the proposed building heights. He noted that the steepest slopes are located in the northeast (40 to 50 feet) and southwest (65 to 70 feet) quadrants. In these locations, a 45-foot building (3 to 4 stories) would remain below the height of the residential properties on top of the slope. The slope in the southeast quadrant is between 30 and 35 feet, and the northwest quadrant is relatively flat. Building height in these quadrants would be limited to just two and three stories. Mr. Chave observed that the existing zoning throughout the area allows a height of up to 25 feet, and requires a 15-foot setback. The Board has discussed concern that the 15-foot setback requirement does little to protect the slopes. Because they are primarily located in the commercial zones, developers can cut significantly into the slope without getting into the 15-foot setback area. He noted that the 20 to 30-foot retaining wall that was constructed behind the Walgreens building was code compliant, but not something the City wants to allow in the future. He said staff is considering language that would further protect the slopes and existing vegetation. Mr. Chave provided a map that illustrated the various building heights allowed throughout the Westgate area. He noted that at the intersection of SR-104 and 100th Avenue West, building heights would be limited to just two stories at the street front. Additional height would be allowed if the upper stories are stepped back. He pointed out that development would be limited to just two stories on properties where there is very little topographic separation between the commercial and residential properties. Three and four story development would be allowed on properties that have greater slopes, with the residential development tucked above. Packet Page 282 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 28, 2014 Page 4 Mr. Chave explained that following the public hearing, the Planning Board will deliberate and discuss final changes to the draft proposal. An addition to changes brought forward by the Planning Board, staff will also propose some minor amendments for clarity. A final draft of the proposal will be brought back to the Board for review on June 11th, after which the Board will forward a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will hold an additional public hearing and make a final decision on the plan and proposed zoning changes. He encouraged members of the public to sign up on the mailing list so they can receive follow up information regarding the proposal. Hank Landau, Edmonds, said he and his wife own commercial property on 100th Avenue West, just south of Bartells, as well as the residential property on top of the 70-foot slope. He said his understanding is that the current proposal would limit the height on his commercial property to 35 feet or three stories. He requested the Board consider changing the proposal to allow a height similar to what was developed on the adjacent Bartells property, which is 45 feet or four stories. He noted that this request would be consistent with the concept of allowing four-story development on properties where the slope is high and no residential development is nearby. He further noted that his property is joined on both sides by commercial uses. Mr. Landau explained that a portion of his commercial property is higher than the street grade as a result of an approximately 10-foot bench that runs through the property. He requested that the proposed language be amended to allow him to cut into the bench so that the entire property could be developed at the same elevation. He acknowledged that doing so would require a retaining wall, but it would be nothing like the significant wall located behind Walgreens. He summarized his belief that what he is requesting would be consistent with the Board’s guidance on height. A 45-foot tall building would still be 25 feet below the grade of the residential properties on top of the slope. He recognized the neighbor’s concerns about not wanting businesses to look down on their properties, but his request would not adversely impact the residential properties or development located along 100th Avenue West. Barbara Tipton, Edmonds, voiced concerned about the notion of the four quadrants. As a user of three of the four quadrants, she finds it difficult to navigate through the traffic because there are so many conflicts with people going back and forth throughout the quadrants. While she acknowledged that providing a pedestrian overpass going across SR-104 would be costly and require a significant amount of planning with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), it would help to resolve issues related to safety and navigation. Other than safety concerns, she said thinks the proposed plan is wonderful. She particularly likes the fact there will be residential options for young people to move into the community. The idea of apartments rather than condominiums is also very appealing. She commented that Seattle was recently identified as the fastest growing city in the nation, and young people who cannot afford the high rents may want to live in Edmonds, instead. She suggested that a health club and other amenities would be appropriate in the Westgate area. She is not concerned about allowing four-story development in some locations, and she specifically noted that in the Queen Anne Neighborhood of Seattle, there is residential development on top of a QFC. She said she likes the idea of public amenities, especially plazas to provide places for people to meet and greet. Chuck Kalkwarf, Edmonds, said he lives directly behind the Landau’s property and is totally against increasing the height limit from 35 feet to 45 feet. He recalled the earthquake that occurred several years ago, which caused the slope to slide down the back side of his property. He said he is against allowing the slopes to be cut out and replaced with retaining walls. David Snow, Edmonds, said he has lived in his residential property adjacent to the Westgate Commercial Area for 55 years and has watched the neighborhood deteriorate because of growth. If the height limit is increased to 35 and 45 feet, any new commercial development would increase the residential property owners’ view of rooftops, including the associated mechanical equipment. He said he is opposed to any commercial development that is greater than two stories, and he is also opposed to allowing any more of the hillside to be cut away. He said he doesn’t understand why the City is proposing 35 and 45-foot height limits, when the height limit in most of the City is 25 feet. Marsha Fischer, Edmonds, referred to the beautiful pictures provided by staff to illustrate a development with storefronts and gathering places in the back. However, the Board should keep in mind that the quadrants at Westgate are small and there would not likely be enough space for significant gathering places or a small farmer’s market. She said she is against any height increase, as the area is already congested. She also doesn’t believe that pedestrians will walk through the quadrants, particularly if they have to cross the street. Packet Page 283 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 28, 2014 Page 5 Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, said she is opposed to incentive zoning and form-based planning. She is opposed to their purpose (raising height limits in commercial Edmonds to make money) and the method for achieving that purpose (authorizing institutional bribery and cronyism). She suggested that if the Planning Board thinks open space, amenity space, green buildings, alternative transportation, and affordable housing are desirable and a benefit to the public, they can recommend that the City Council use its police power to mandate these requirements. Edmonds doesn’t have to bribe developers to provide these amenities and then call it an incentive as a cover. Ms. Shippen expressed her belief that form-based planning substitutes negotiation for the certainty of traditional zoning. The negotiators will be a developer and the Edmonds Mayor, who will work out a deal (development plan) vaguely guided by the pictures, sketches and piles of verbiage that comprises a form-based code. Form-based codes do not use numbers if it can be avoided. Instead it is about wheeling and dealing over a set of official brownie points, making it impossible for a resident of Edmonds to follow. She noted that the Compass Project is a good example of what can happen. The mayor and the developer wrote the code and then applied it. The developer got height increases and the public got two big eyesores. That’s called cronyism. She emphasized that she does not want any Edmonds Mayor negotiating land-use decisions on her behalf. Many are Chamber of Commerce retreads who are unduly sympathetic to the problems of business and believe the questionable political theory that anything that benefits business will trickle down to the residents. She said she disagrees with that point of view and does not want a mayor who is any ex-realtor negotiating a flexible development agreement with a builder because she will likely lose. Ms. Shippen summarized that the Board is being asked to approve measures that are devious, unnecessary and invite abuse. Edmonds does not need an official policy of bribery and cronyism to get growth. Westgate is growing well under the existing code, and the only change needed is removal of the footnotes beneath the height allowance chart that grant five-foot height increases for this and that. The code would then be simple, clear and protect the interests of the residents, as a good ordinance should. She recalled that a Westgate resident who protested the original zoning request was told that it was necessary in order for the project to be financially practical. So for the past seven years, the Planning Board has been inundated with piles of mindless planning fluff, the purpose of which is to install a system that will insure more bucks for developers. She suggested the Board learn from the mistakes of the Compass Project and ask what parts of the goals and policies for Westgate would not be implemented if the height limits remained at 25 and 35 feet. Jim Dasher, Edmonds, questioned why lot 23315 has been designated for two-story development when the adjacent properties would be allowed three stories. He expressed concern that his residential property would look down on the tops of the commercial buildings. He recalled that numerous trees were removed as part of previous development, eliminating much of the greenbelt that separated the residential and commercial properties. He voiced concern about the aesthetic impacts three-story development would have on the residential properties above. He has lived in his home since 1978 and doesn’t want the neighborhood messed up. He wants to keep the small, comfortable area and not commercialize it. Susan Payne, Edmonds, said she lives north of QFC and likes the idea of having apartments available for young families. However, she would like to maintain the existing code rather than allow everything to be negotiated. Form-based codes leave too much up for grabs. While she supports green infrastructure, she requested that traffic and safety issues must be addressed. She observed that there are numerous access points for the commercial properties, making it difficult to travel along SR-104 and 100th Avenue West. There have been numerous traffic accidents in the area and a few fatalities because people are not as careful as they need to be. She is concerned that traffic will not be well managed in terms of safety, and greater height limits would only make the problem worse. She understands that working out a solution with WSDOT would be tricky, but critical to making sure they do not have any other traffic incidents. Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, referred to Ms. Shippen’s earlier comment about the negotiating power of the City’s mayor. He clarified that the Mayor cannot negotiate development agreements with developers. If development agreements are allowed, the negotiation would be between the City Attorney and seven City Council Members. For those who have followed the City Council, it is clear that they do not let the Mayor get away with very much. Dennis Fee, Edmonds, said he has lived on 100th Avenue West for 26 years. When he purchased his property, it was part of unincorporated Snohomish County (Esperance). It was later annexed into the City of Edmonds. Since becoming a citizen of Edmonds, his taxes have increased with no additional benefits. For example, although the City talks about wanting to serve the aging population, there are no crosswalks on 100th Avenue West in the nearly one-mile stretch of residential community Packet Page 284 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 28, 2014 Page 6 between SR-104 and 200th Avenue West. He said he does not support the concept of increasing population in the Westgate Commercial Area. Eric Goodman, AICP, Edmonds, said he lives on 101st Place Southwest. He said he likes a lot of elements contained in the plan, particularly making Westgate more of a place, providing more activities and amenities, and accommodating the housing needs of a diverse population. He expressed concern that limiting the height to two to four stories would discourage redevelopment. Greater heights are needed in order for projects to pencil out. For those who have traffic concerns, he noted that taller buildings would actually slow traffic down. He agreed that more crosswalks are needed. He referred to recent developments in Vancouver, B.C., where green roofs have been used to reduce visual impacts from properties located uphill. He reminded the Board that the community is about to lose some of its bus service. More riders are needed to increase transit opportunities, and this requires that there be places for people to live, work and shop. He concluded that the proposed plan could make Westgate much better. Dave Snow, Edmonds, encouraged the Planning Board to carefully consider the written comments he previously submitted via email to voice his opposition to the proposed plan. Jim Dasher, Edmonds, said he received a letter from the City several weeks ago informing him of the proposed plan and advising that additional information was available on the City’s website. He tried unsuccessfully to access the information, and later learned from City staff that it had not been posted yet. He suggested that the information should have been posted on line before the letter was sent out. THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:08 P.M. Board Member Duncan asked Mr. Chave to clarify the City’s jurisdiction related to SR-104 and 100th Avenue West. Mr. Chave answered that SR-104 is under WSDOT’s control, but 100th Avenue West is controlled by the City. The University of Washington’s initial plan included cross sections to illustrate potential changes on 100th Avenue West. While the plan makes reference to the changes, they were not actually included. The Engineering and Public Works Departments agreed that there might be some opportunity to improve crossing, particularly near the cemetery; but they felt a more detailed study would be needed before including the concept in the plan. They pointed out that most of the problems are associated with access points that were historically placed in less than ideal locations, and changes would likely occur as properties are redeveloped and access points are adjusted. Board Member Duncan summarized that the City does not have the ability to make changes on SR-104. Mr. Chave agreed that the City cannot add crosswalks on SR-104 without approval from the WSDOT, and he would be very surprised if they allowed additional crossings on the highway. He added that while an elevated crossing would be possible, it would be extremely costly. Board Member Lovell expressed concern that the Planning Board, City Council, staff and community has spent the past four years reviewing plans, drawings, diagrams, maps, topography, traffic studies, building height, etc., yet members of the public still claim that they were not well informed. He reviewed that the effort started with an extensive public process guided by a team of students from the University of Washington. Their work culminated in a study titled, “Revisioning Westgate, which has been available for public review for the past three years. The current proposal is a watered-down version, which includes major changes and adjustments as a result of Planning Board’s discussion and input from the public. He said he supports the proposed plan, as currently written, with the expectation that it will come before the Board once again for final review of minor tweaks before forwarding a recommendation to the City Council. He specifically made the following comments in support of the plan: Currently, the Westgate Commercial Area is zoned BN and BC. BN zoning already allows single-family residential development, and BC zoning allows multi-family residential in addition to commercial. The new code guidelines will enable mixed-use development with commercial/retail on the ground floor and multi-family residential on the upper floors in a variety of building formats. The proposed form-based code is intended to achieve some, if not all, of the goals spelled out within the merger of both the existing and studied guidelines as outlined. The plan will increase housing options for everyone without clamping down on new housing. Packet Page 285 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 28, 2014 Page 7 More housing contributes to transit-oriented development with locally or immediately available public transportation as well as retail services walkable from your dwelling. This is good for new residents, as well as existing residents within the neighborhood. The plan will accommodate increased density within the City in support for the Growth Management Act and Vision 2040. The plan will respond more actively to market demands for lower cost, smaller residential units to support population growth, as well as younger citizens and families. In summary, Board Member Lovell expressed his belief that the proposed revised development standards for Westgate will result in increased flexibility to create more market-rate and consumer-driven options for housing, as well as retail uses. This will be good for retail business, good for growth, and good for renters and homebuyers of all income levels. He suggested that those objecting to potential growth due to perceived increased congestion are off base. Such growth represents vibrant activity due to shoppers, visitors and residents; and that’s a good thing for Edmonds. Board Member Ellis observed that it is more difficult to address issues when comments come in late in the planning process. However, he is grateful for the comments received. He reminded those in the audience that the final decision will be made by the City Council, and there will be another opportunity for citizens to voice their concerns at the public hearing before the City Council. He expressed his belief that the plan has gone through an extensive public process and addresses most of the concerns raised during the hearing. There are a number of people who just don’t want Edmonds to change. While he understands this position, it is important to keep in mind that “no change” is not really an option given the City’s responsibility to the Growth Management Act. The Board and City Council’s responsibility is to manage the redevelopment as best they can to ensure it is done in a manner that is good for the City. The comments provided during the hearing will be helpful when putting together the final plan. Board Member Stewart thanked the citizens who participated in the hearing, noting that their comments are very important to the Board. She agreed with Board Member Ellis that it is unfortunate that their comments have come late in the process, but the Board is committed to considering each one carefully. The plan has been in process for the past four years, and there have been numerous opportunities for public involvement. The Board has massaged the plan many times to make it more palatable to the public and ultimately the City Council, who will make the final decision. She asked the citizens to respect the work that has been done to date and encouraged them to review the plan in detail and then share their comments with the City Council. Board Member Stewart recalled that many citizens expressed concern that the residential properties would look down on the commercial buildings. She explained that the Board carefully considered the topography of the area to make sure they were not allowing buildings that were too tall. She reminded those present that sustainable building trends include green roofs. In Seattle, in particular, there are beautiful green roofs with trees gardens and plazas. Buildings located uphill look down on these green spaces. Another new trend is to place HVAC systems and other rooftop equipment in obscured areas or inside buildings. She summarized that there are numerous options to make buildings more attractive. She observed that the proposed form-based code is a hybrid approach that blends with traditional zoning. The plan looks at the relationship of buildings to each other and the street, and the goal is to create a place where people want to live, work, play and spend time gathering. It will take decades for this to happen, but she is optimistic the plan will result in a much better place than it is now. Board Member Robles observed that from the information provided, it appears that form-based zoning will require a lot more public interaction. In fact, the Board was forewarned in 2012 by other communities that extensive outreach would be necessary. The City has demonstrated the importance of public involvement by initiating a traffic analysis to address concerns raised by citizens regarding traffic impacts. He said he is confident that when the City Council receives the Board’s recommendation, it will be accompanied by a well-founded packet of information to help them make their decision. Board Member Rubenkonig agreed with Board Member Stewart that it will take decades for the plan to be fully implemented, and significant change will not happen overnight because there are many property owners who have numerous choices. She pointed out that the proposed plan would not mandate three and four-story development. They could be developed with one and two-story structures, if that is the desire of the property owners. She said her understanding is that Packet Page 286 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 28, 2014 Page 8 walking between the four quadrants is not a feature of the plan. Instead, the plan calls for people being able to park in one quadrant and walk to the various businesses within that one quadrant. Board Member Rubenkonig observed that Westgate is a dilemma. The highway runs through a neighborhood, yet the City does not have the ability to change the roadway configuration. However, some of the changes proposed in the plan will help make the area more neighborly and walkable, which is a stated desire of Edmonds citizens. There is a national goal of getting all American’s to walk more, and Edmonds can be a leader by encouraging development that is pedestrian friendly. She said she often sees people walking along 100th Avenue West and SR-104. People are drawn to the businesses located at Westgate, and the plan allows the potential for it to become more value to people living nearby. Vice Chair Tibbott asked Mr. Chave to share how the zoning that existed at the time the Compass Development was built is different than what is proposed in the Westgate Plan. Mr. Chave explained that the Compass Development is located further east on SR-104 in the BC-EW zone. He pointed out that the parcels at the east end of the Westgate Commercial Area are also currently zoned BC-EW, which allows building heights up to 45 feet. Under the proposed plan, this BC-EW zoning would be replaced with the MU-W zoning, and the height limit would be reduced from 45 to 35 feet. In addition, the height limit for the properties currently zoned BC (on the north side of the Westgate Commercial Area) would be changed from 30 feet to 25 feet. However, most of the commercial area is currently zoned BN, which has a 25-foot height limit. Mr. Chave expressed his belief that BN zoning was never appropriate for the Westgate Commercial Area, as it is more applicable to smaller neighborhood centers like Perrinville and Five Corners. Westgate has always been recognized as having “two personalities.” It serves the neighborhood area, but it also draws people from a larger area via the highway. He referred to the traffic analysis, which was a detailed study predicated on the initial plan in which buildings were being allowed up to five stories. The analysis concluded that Level of Service (LOS), even under the five-story development scenario, would not significantly because the amount of traffic generated by redevelopment would pale in comparison to the traffic already in the area. The current plan caps height at two to four stories, so it is anticipated that traffic impacts would be even less, since the overall level of development would be reduced by about 20%. Mr. Chave explained that the transportation analysis identified situations that needed to be fixed, but the only way these changes will happen is project-by-project as redevelopment occurs. Vice Chair Tibbott summarized that, as redevelopment occurs, some of the historic problems with ill-placed access points could be addressed. Vice Chair Tibbott asked Mr. Chave to explain how the proposed plan would protect the slope that is located between the commercial and residential developments. Mr. Chave pointed out that most of the sloped areas are located within the commercial zones, and the 15-foot setback requirement in the current code offers very little protection. This is particularly true if a developer has the money, inclination and desire to maximize the property’s development potential. Rather than using a uniform setback to protect the slope, staff is recommending that the setback be tied to the contours of the slope. At the next meeting, staff will bring back more information about how this concept could be incorporated into the plan. Vice Chair Tibbott asked if staff is suggesting that the final Westgate Plan not allow retaining walls such as the one developed behind Walgreens. Mr. Chave answered affirmatively. Vice Chair Tibbott recalled that the Westgate Plan is intended to preserve the trees and vegetation along the slopes to provide privacy for home owners. Mr. Chave agreed that is the impetus in the plan, but there needs to be more specific guidance. Vice Chair Tibbott asked Mr. Chave to explain what is different about the properties along 100th Avenue West in the southeast quadrant, including the Landau property, that warrants a 35 rather than 45-foot height limit. Mr. Chave pointed out that although there is a slope on these properties, it is not as significant as the slope that exists in areas where four-story development would be allowed. The 10-foot bench that runs through the properties also makes them unique. While it would be appropriate to allow excavation of the bench area to create a building site that is at street level, it would not be appropriate to allow significant excavation into the hillside. Again, he suggested the need to identify contour lines to protect the slope beyond the 15-foot setback requirement. Vice Chair Tibbott asked staff to summarize the current level of development in the Westgate Commercial area, particularly in terms of vacant space and properties that are nearing the end of their reasonable life. Mr. Chave said he does not have information about vacancies, but there are properties within the Westgate Commercial Area that are ripe for redevelopment Packet Page 287 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 28, 2014 Page 9 with the right combination of zoning and property ownership. He noted that Bartells has expressed interest in relocating their building closer to the street so it is more visible. He commented that he does not anticipate that the proposed plan would drive successful businesses away. Instead, it is anticipated that property owners would invest more money in the sites and in the community. Vice Chair Tibbott said one reason he supports the plan is that it would create opportunities for businesses and owners to improve properties, within some creative guidelines, so they are attractive and provide a benefit to the community. However, he suggested the Board consider extending the 25-foot (two story) height limit for commercial properties on 100th Avenue West all the way to 232nd Street to protect the residential properties located on 99th Avenue West. Vice Chair Tibbott said he appreciates the comments related to green roofs. He said he also wants to make sure that any future commercial development is sensitive to the residential properties located on top of the hillsides. Vice Chair Tibbott referred to earlier comments about how difficult it was to obtain information regarding the Westgate Plan from the City’s website. He suggested that the Planning Board’s page on the City’s website is the best place to look for information regarding items that are scheduled on the Board’s agenda for discussion and/or public hearing. For example, the Planning Board’s meeting agenda provided links to all the documents that have been provided to date regarding the Westgate Plan. Board Member Lovell reported that, at their recent meeting, the EDC discussed that many citizens are concerned that the bowling alley was demolished to accommodate the new Walgreen’s store. It was suggested that perhaps the Westgate Plan could include some incentive to encourage the re-establishment of the bowling alley or the development of some other type of family-oriented entertainment facility. He noted that, as currently proposed, amusement establishments and local public facilities would be allowed as primary uses, but a conditional use permit would be required. Mr. Chave suggested that if the Board would like to allow family-oriented entertainment or recreational establishments as outright permitted uses, the best approach would be to change the use table rather than incorporating the idea into the incentive program. Board Member Robles noted that a number of studies related to bowling alleys have connected the decline in American communities to the decline in bowling leagues. He suggested that the Westgate Plan affords the City a powerful tool to strategically insert some of the things they want Edmonds to represent. Board Member Lovell cautioned that the properties are privately owned and any redevelopment will likely be market driven. He questioned how bowling alleys would fit into today’s economy. Board Member Duncan reminded the Board that the proposed plan encourages amenities such as gathering places, cafes, fountains, plazas, etc. These gathering places can help create a center to build upon. He said he supports the plan and believes it will be great for the area. As the area is currently development, there is not a lot to preserve. Board Member Stewart added that it would be great if the plan encouraged child-friendly amenity space, as well. Board Member Robles pointed out that electric cars and other technology is ever changing. He suggested that instead of limiting the plan to the existing trends in urban development, the plan should look to future trends. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that rather than using circles of different colors, the plan should use different shapes to identify the properties that are eligible for the fourth story height bonus and those that are limited to just two stories in height. Mr. Chave noted that the latest version of the map provides numbers within the circles to identify the maximum stories allowed. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if maintenance agreements and performance bonds would still be required for all landscaping. Mr. Chave answered that maintenance agreements and performance bonds are standard code provisions. Board Member Rubenkonig referred to Lines 13 and 14 on Page 33 of the plan and suggested that the examples of high efficiency irrigation applications should be eliminated. She cautioned that calling out specific examples of current technology can cause the plan to become outdated as technology changes. She suggested the sentence be changed to read, “Where irrigation is required, high efficiency irrigation applications will be used.” The remainder of the Board agreed. Packet Page 288 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 28, 2014 Page 10 Board Member Rubenkonig also suggested that Lines 17 on Page 33 be changed by eliminating , “in accordance with City requirements then in place.” She explained that one expects that after initial growth, when the plants have matured and the roots are more secure, irrigation will be limited. The last part of the sentence is awkward and appears to mandate something that is not really required. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the proposed plan would require developers to plant trees consistent with the City’s approved Street Tree List. Mr. Chave pointed out that the Green Factor Program would actually require more extensive plantings than what would typically be required. Board Member Rubenkonig referenced the Height Bonus Score Sheet and suggested that the term “car share parking” be changed to “shared parking,” which is a term used consistently throughout the City’s code. Mr. Chave pointed out that “car share parking” is entirely different than “shared parking,” and refers to parking space for cars that are shared amongst numerous people. Board Member Rubenkonig expressed concern that the term “charging facilities for electric cars” is too limiting, since there are other transportation types that need to be charged. Board Member Duncan cautioned against rating charging facilities for other types of transportation the same as charging stations for cars. He pointed out that cars carry more than one person. He also pointed out that if developers could choose between providing electric charging stations for cars or for other types of vehicles, they would likely choose other types of vehicles since less space would be required. That would not be consistent with the intent of the proposed credit. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that in the Height Bonus Score Sheet, a credit would be allowed for indoor/enclosed bicycle storage and changing facilities. Elsewhere in the code, “bike storage facilities” are referred to as “non-motorized transportation facilities.” Board Member Stewart said the intent is that developers would provide safe and secure places for people to store bicycles. Again, Board Member Duncan cautioned that, if given a choice between skateboard or bicycle storage, developers would like choose skateboard storage because it would take significantly less space. Board Member Ellis added that the idea of providing indoor/enclosed bicycle storage and changing facilities is becoming popular in Seattle. Many buildings are being retrofitted with these types of amenities to serve people who commute to work via bicycle. Board Member Stewart recalled the Board’s previous discussion that more visual information should be provided when the plan is presented to the City Council. She expressed her belief that 3-D drawings would be helpful. Flat topographical maps are not sufficient to address the public’s fears about how the area could be developed if the plan is approved. Board Member Ellis recalled the Board’s concern about providing diagrams of potential development since many people will assume that is exactly what future development will look like. Mr. Chave advised that staff would update the draft Westgate Plan and form-based code as per the Board’s discussion and bring it back for the Board’s final review on June 11th. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA The Board discussed potential dates for a retreat and agreed upon a tentative date of July 9th. They further agreed that the retreat discussion would include a staff presentation on the process and timeline for the upcoming Development Code Update and a discussion about the Planning Board’s use of technology. They agreed to forward other potential agenda topics to the Chair and/or Vice Chair. DIRECTOR/PLANNING MANAGER REPORT Ms. Hope provided a brief summary of her written Director’s Report, specifically noting: The work group continues to meet with a facilitator to identify a process and timeline for implementing the Strategic Action Plan. The first quarterly report will be presented to the City Council on June 14th. The Planning Board will discuss the prioritization and approach for moving forward with the Development Code Update at their upcoming retreat. The Board could also discuss the Comprehensive Plan update at their next retreat, or it could be scheduled for discussion at a separate meeting. Packet Page 289 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 14, 2014 Page 2 August 5, 1998. At a public hearing on January 21, 2014, the Edmonds City Council unanimously approved the Planning Board’s recommendation. Mr. Reidy recalled that, several years earlier, after a public hearing on August 28, 2008, the City Council unanimously approved the Planning Board’s recommended language related to accessory buildings that existed on or before January 1, 1981. He referred to two emails with attachments that he sent to the Board. One attachment, dated November 17, 2009, shows that during its code enforcement efforts against his accessory building, the City was fully aware that if his accessory building existed on or before January 1, 1981, the related setbacks would be grandfathered. The second attachment contained an audio clip during which the former City Attorney tells the former Hearing Examiner that “grandfathering applies to legally initiated uses, not illegal uses.” However, the City Attorney failed to tell the Hearing Examiner the complete law related to accessory buildings that existed on or before January 1, 1981. The Hearing Examiner later ruled in her findings that “the testimony addressing the duration of the existing accessory structure was not relevant and was not relied on.” Mr. Reidy stated that “the duration of his existing accessory structure was extremely relevant and had to be relied upon under the City’s own laws.” Mr. Reid said it is important for the Planning Board to understand that their advisory work can be undermined by the City as evidenced by the City’s code enforcement against his accessory building that was built in the 1960’s. He pointed out that the City’s code is clear. Edmonds City Code 2.01 states that “the Mayor shall see that all laws and ordinances are faithfully enforced and that law and order is maintained in the City.” He emphasized that enforcement of the laws is neither his nor the Planning Board’s responsibility. He commented that when a mayor is fully aware that the City laws and ordinances have not been faithfully enforced and still refuses to correct the City’s conduct, innocent citizens of Edmonds can be harmed and their trust can be greatly impaired. He encouraged the Board to recommend that the City Council task them to address Chapter 2.01 of the Code because of its connection with faithful enforcement of the City’s ordinances. He expressed his belief that Chapter 2.01 must be promptly updated and improved upon. Such would lead to improved performance by the City’s mayors and more accountability. He noted that the majority of Chapter 2.01 was adopted in 1983. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON WESTGATE PLAN AND FORM-BASED CODE Mr. Chave recalled that this is a follow up discussion to the public hearing that was held on March 12, 2014. He referred to Attachment 1, which contains an updated draft of the plan and code as per the Board’s direction following the public hearing. He reviewed the changes as follows: 1. ECDC 16.110.010 was updated to provide for 2, 3 and 4-story building limits, and the map was moved from the end of the document to this section so that it accompanies the height discussion. 2. ECDC 16.110.010(C) was amended by changing the word “preferred” to “shall” to be stronger about building location. The intent is for buildings to be placed closer to the periphery of the properties, but the understanding is that the last sentence of the paragraph still provides discretion to vary building siting when there is a good reason. 3. Most of the height/story references were removed from the building type summaries beginning on Page 11. Because heights are specified in 16.110.010, it seems that talking about “3-story buildings” throughout the building type discussion will only confuse the issue, particularly if 2 and 4-story buildings are also specified. The language was also modified in a few locations where the descriptions did not seem to make sense given the potential for different height limits. 4. The Height Bonus Score sheet was adjusted to reflect the Planning Board’s discussion following the hearing. Mr. Chave noted that, in addition to the updated draft Westgate Plan and Code (Attachment 1), the Staff Report also included Planning Board minutes from the March 12th Public Hearing (Attachment 2), the Transportation Analysis (Attachment 3) and a reduced development scenario (Attachment 4). He explained that the Transportation Analysis was based on 4 and 5-story buildings, and the current plan talks about 2 to 4-story buildings. At the request of the Board, staff prepared an estimate of how lowering the building height might affect the ultimate build-out for Westgate (see Attachment 4). Assuming a broad reduction in heights from 4 to 5 stories to 3 to 4 stories, it is estimated there will be 18% to 20% less development than what was anticipated in the original draft. This will equate to 18% to 20% less traffic, as well. Because the Transportation Packet Page 290 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 14, 2014 Page 3 Analysis indicated that Level of Service (LOS) would not be impacted by the higher level of development, it is safe to say that LOS would not be impacted by the lower level of development proposed in the current plan, either. Board Member Lovell said it appears from the Transportation Analysis that, even with future build-out of Westgate, acceleration and deceleration lanes will not be needed at the intersection of SR-104 and 100th Avenue West. Mr. Chave explained that there is already a tremendous amount of background traffic on the corridor, and development at Westgate only contributes a small fraction of the overall traffic. It is anticipated that additional development will not contribute more to what is already occurring. Vice Chair Tibbott referred to Item 6 of the Transportation Analysis (Page 11), which talks about reducing vehicle capacity on 100th Avenue West, causing LOS to go from Level D to Level F. Mr. Chave recalled that the University of Washington Team recommended reducing the number of lanes on 100th Avenue West. However, the City’s Traffic Engineer indicated that a more thorough study would be needed to proceed with this concept. Because the City does not have funding to move forward with a detailed study, the concept was removed from the plan. However, it can still be considered at some point in the future. Vice Chair Tibbott asked how eliminating the concept would impact bicycle and pedestrian access. Mr. Chave pointed out that closer to the intersection, there is not enough space for additional bicycle lanes without making substantial changes to the entire configuration. However, there may be opportunities for bicycle lanes further north as you approach the cemetery. He noted that bicycle and pedestrian circulation within the four quadrants would be strong, but he cautioned against adopting a formal configuration for SR 104 and 100th Avenue West until a more detailed study has been done. Board Member Stewart pointed out that opportunities for internal circulation in the quadrants would offer bicyclists safer opportunities to get around. While she does not want to discourage the use of LOS as a measure and standard at this time, Board Member Stewart suggested that as communities become more bicycle and pedestrian friendly, updated measurement methods will not only look at the flow of vehicles, but the movement of pedestrians and bicycles. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that they could revisit potential changes to 100th Avenue West and SR-104 as part of their upcoming review of the City’s Transportation Master Plan. He also reminded the Board that the City recently adopted a Complete Streets Ordinance, which gets as bicycle and pedestrian access, as well. Board Member Lovell referred to the Height Bonus Score Sheet on Page 34 and 35 and pointed out that obtaining LEED Platinum or Passive Housing Standard is very difficult. He questioned if it is realistic to expect that developers will utilize these difficult to achieve standards, and if they will result in odd-building designs. Board Member Stewart commented that the younger generation will not likely see LEED Platinum buildings as odd. They will see them as progressive and having all of the sustainable benefits they are looking for. Builders who construct these types of buildings want them to be something other communities look to for examples of sustainable development. While the Edmonds community has been slow to accept this concept, it is important to at least offer the opportunity to developers. Vice Chair Tibbott asked if the Board is interested in recommending a fundamental level of green development for all development in the Westgate area. Mr. Chave said that, as per the proposed plan, all development in the Westgate area would be required to meet at least Built Green or basic LEED certification. All additional points would be offered as incentives for additional building height. Board Member Robles commented that most developers are prepared to at least meet basic LEED certification. Board Member Duncan added that Seattle’s “Green Factor” program is more customized for the area, and the City may want to lean that direction in the future. Board Member Stewart pointed out that “Salmon Safe” is another green building program that has been used for projects in the community. She suggested that the language be amended to allow the City to consider other green building programs, as long as they require third-party verification. Board Member Ellis pointed out that the terms “amenity space” and “open space” are used throughout the draft plan. He asked staff to describe the differences between the two terms. Mr. Chave said there is some discussion in the plan about open spaces and amenity spaces. Amenity spaces are areas that are more actively used and open spaces are less actively used. He agreed to review the two terms again and perhaps recommend changes to make their meaning clearer. Packet Page 291 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 14, 2014 Page 4 Board Member Ellis noted that the heading in Table 16.110-1 should be changed from MWU to WMU. He asked if marijuana related uses should be added to the list of permitted uses. Mr. Chave answered that marijuana uses are addressed in an entirely separate section of the code. Board Member Ellis pointed out that each description of the various buildings types (Section 16.110.010.D) requires that at least one large tree be provided or an existing tree be maintained in each rear yard for shade and privacy. He questioned whether this requirement would be appropriate for all building types or if there is another way to address the intent. Mr. Chave agreed that a statement of intent would be a better approach. Board Member Ellis asked if the term “woonerf,” which is used in Section 16.110.050.B, is a commonly used term. Mr. Chave said it refers to a specific type of street design, but he is not sure the term is useful in the proposed plan. Board Member Ellis pointed out that the term is not used elsewhere in the code. Board Member Ellis expressed concern that Step 3 in Section 16.110.070.B would require a landscape professional to certify under both financial and perjury penalty that the Landscape Improvement Checklist meets or exceeds the minimum Green Factor Score or other requirements for the property. Mr. Chave said this language likely came from Seattle’s code, and he agreed that certification should be sufficient, without adding financial and perjury penalties. Board Member Ellis referred to Section 16.110.070.C, which allow new development to use a portion of the sidewalk area within the public right-of-way for outdoor seating, temporary displays or other uses provided that pedestrian movement is accommodated. He expressed concern that using the word “accommodated” does not really establish a clear standard. Mr. Chave suggested that rather than the word “accommodated” they could say “consistent with City code.” There are code sections that are very specific as to what is allowed in sidewalks, etc. Board Member Ellis said he would rather reference other sections of the code than carve out a different standard for Westgate. Board Member Lovell observed that building height seemed to be a significant concern at the last public hearing. He reminded the Board that the Economic Development Commission (EDC) feels very strongly that public support for the plan at the next public hearing would be greatly enhanced by providing more graphic representations of what could be developed at Westgate. He recalled that many people expressed concern that taller buildings at Westgate would look into their private backyards. He said he contacted an associate who showed him how Google Earth could be used to enhance a graphic by adding translucent layers at both 35 and 45 foot heights. This would help the public understand how the proposed height limits would relate to the existing buildings and surrounding elevations. Board Member Duncan cautioned against committing to a concept and presenting it early in the process without thinking about the building form and style. People get terrified when you show mass without breaking it down properly. Board Member Lovell agreed and clarified that he was not proposing to illustrate buildings, but just a translucent layer to illustrate how high 35 and 45 feet would be. Mr. Chave agreed to work with the City’s GIS Specialist to create an illustration as per Board Member Lovell’s suggestion. Board Member Duncan said it could be as simple as a contour map. Board Member Stewart recalled that, at the previous hearing, adjacent residential neighbors were concerned about how they would be impacted by development in the northeast and southwest quadrants. She reminded the Board that Chair Cloutier addressed the concerns of the adjacent property owners in the northeast quadrant by pointing that that the current code allows for development at a greater height than what is being proposed in the draft plan. Mr. Chave agreed and added that the slope in the southwest quadrant is higher than any of the proposed buildings. Board Member Stewart suggested that staff make these two facts clear prior to opening the next public hearing. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the internal roadways within the four quadrants would be privately owned. Mr. Chave answered affirmatively. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if developers would be required to provide charging stations as part of a project. Mr. Chave referred to the Height Bonus Score Sheet and noted that a developer would receive 1 credit for providing an electric car charging station. Board Member Tibbott asked if there are any areas in King or Snohomish County that have been developed similar to what is proposed in the Westgate Plan. He specifically asked how compatible local and regional uses would be in this area. The plan seems to anticipate a neighborhood center with a local flavor and pedestrian activity on a roadway that serves regional Packet Page 292 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 14, 2014 Page 5 transportation. He asked if the required parking would be adequate to cover both regional and local uses. Mr. Chave explained that the parking requirement is dictated by the use (commercial and residential), and the standard does not differentiate between regional and local uses. He agreed that the highway makes it difficult to think of the Westgate area as one unit, and the plan was modified to divide it into four quadrants with distinct characteristics. While people will not likely park in one quadrant and walk across the street to another, one purpose of the plan is to improve circulation within the quadrants so they are more pedestrian friendly and encourage people to park and walk to their various destinations. Vice Chair Tibbott asked if it is anticipated that the residential developments will have gated and/or secured parking areas. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that, as currently proposed, there would be different parking standards for residential versus commercial uses, but it would be up to the developer to decide what works best. In recent years, developers have tended to separate the parking for residential and commercial uses, but there are some situations of shared parking, as well. Board Member Duncan recommended that rather than making the plan too specific, the Board should focus their attention on the more significant issues. For example, instead of focusing on specific parking standards based on use, they should deal with the larger issue of traffic impacts. They should leave it up to developers to ensure a project is feasible, and this includes providing adequate parking to serve both residential and commercial uses. Mr. Chave pointed out that developers must still comply with the parking requirements, but he agreed that developers have a vested interest in making sure the residents are happy and the people patronizing the businesses can get in and out. Board Member Lovell observed that the plan is intended to encourage mixed-use development with a residential component that is targeted towards less automobile use. He noted that SR-104 is a major public transportation thoroughfare and the plan should encourage transit use. The goal is to apply land use flexibility to the Westgate area, and it will be up to the market place to determine how the area will be redeveloped. Board Member Robles noted that other countries have resolved conflicts between pedestrians and automobile traffic by providing connecting walkways. Board Member Lovell said that was the initial thought with the Westgate Plan, but there is no funding to provide overpasses from one side of the highway to the other. Board Member Rubenkonig observed that the regional traffic that flows through the area is most likely to stop at the gas stations, fast food restaurants and espresso stands, all of which are drive-through businesses that do not require patrons to park. The plan supports a more neighborhood type of development at Westgate. Mr. Chave clarified that the Comprehensive Plan considers the Westgate area to be more of a community and neighborhood commercial center. Regional traffic does not typically stop at Westgate, so it would not significantly contribute to the parking demand. However, people from a wider community area come to Westgate to shop at the grocery and drug stores. If the plan is intended to focus on local and community commercial development, Vice Chair Tibbott was suggested that Item C on Page 1 should be changed. It currently states that commercial development would serve a dual purpose by providing services and shopping for both local residents and regional traffic. While he supports allowing flexibility in the plan and leaving the details to developers, he cannot think of where blending local and regional commercial uses has worked especially well. Board Member Stewart pointed that people come across on the ferry to shop at the PCC. If there are more businesses put in by creative developers, the area will become more unique and attract people from around the region. The plan should be realistic and allow developers to be creative, and parking must be part of their plans. Mr. Chave agreed to update the draft plan as per the Board’s comments in preparation for the public hearing, which is scheduled for May 28th. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF HIGHWAY 99 LAND USE AND ZONING OPPORTUNITIES Mr. Chave reviewed that members of the Planning Board had an informal discussion with members of the Highway 99 Task Force on February 26th (Attachment 7) and a joint meeting with the City Council occurred on April 22nd (Attachment 8). Following the joint meeting, the City Council requested that the Planning Board review Highway 99 zoning and recommend potential changes. He recalled that during the Board’s joint meeting with the City Council, it was apparent that Highway 99 Packet Page 293 of 524 APPROVED APRIL 23RD CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 12, 2014 Chair Cloutier called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Todd Cloutier, Chair Neil Tibbott, Vice Chair Philip Lovell Valerie Stewart BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Bill Ellis (excused) Ian Duncan (excused) Kevin Clarke (excused) Madeline White (Student Representative) STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Development Services Director Karin Noyes, Recorder READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES VICE CHAIR TIBBOTT MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 12, 2014 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, suggested that, for the benefit of the audience, each Board Member should provide a short explanation of what form-based code means to them. He noted that most people do not have a clear understanding of this different type of zoning approach and how it will change things. PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED PLAN AND FORM-BASED CODE GUIDING FUTURE COMMERCIAL AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT IN THE WESTGATE COMMERCIAL AREA. THE WESTGATE COMMERCIAL AREA CONSISTS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS (BN), COMMERCIAL BUSINESS (BC) AND COMMERCIAL BUSINESS-EDMONDS WAY (BC-EW) ZONES NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF SR- 104 (EDMONDS WAY) AND 100TH AVENUE WEST. Mr. Chave emphasized that the area included in the proposed plan and zoning only includes the properties in the Westgate area that are commercially zoned. No changes have been proposed for the surrounding residentially-zoned properties. He explained that the planning process was initiated by the City, and began with the City working with a design team from the University of Washington’s Green Future’s Lab and the Cascade Land Conservancy. Their beginning research focused on Packet Page 294 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes March 12, 2014 Page 2 the idea of complete, compact and connected development. He reviewed that the first public meetings (listening sessions) took place in January 2011 where the following concerns were voiced: How much and how fast would change occur. He said it is important to understand that the proposed document is a plan and not a development proposal. It is up to the property owners to decide whether change will occur and when, but the plan will guide the type of development that is possible. Traffic. A traffic study was done, which indicated that a large share of the traffic on the corridor is related to the ferry, and the changes discussed at Westgate would not significantly contribute to the traffic congestion or deteriorate the roadways beyond the City’s adopted Level of Service (LOS) standard. Types of uses. Concern was expressed that the plan would push out the existing grocery and drug stores and other uses the community enjoys. He explained that that, as is common with this type of plan, new development will make a place for successful existing stores to fit in. Oftentimes, development comes in the form of adding additional density to an existing development, and he expects that will be the case at Westgate. He noted that the Bartells property recently changed ownership, and the new owners have expressed an interest in reconfiguring the site by relocating the drug store closer to the street to improve visibility. While the proposed plan provides flexibility for redevelopment, it would not require that the existing uses to go away. How the plan will guide future development. It must be understood that the plan cannot guarantee the exact configuration of uses, but it can give a sense of what the outcome should be. Throughout the process, it was pointed out that change will happen regardless of whether the plan is adopted or not. Jurisdictions have fairly limited control over the types of changes that occur. By enforcing good design, the City can ensure that any development that does occur will improve the area. Mr. Chave advised that the City held a design workshop on March 12, 2011, where people from the neighborhood were invited to look in detail at what kinds of design would be desirable in the area and how to get more green infrastructure and open space. From the comments received at the public workshop, the design team developed a series of alternatives or ideas, which were later translated into planning documents that incorporated a form-based code approach. He explained that form- based codes have a different emphasis than traditional zoning, which regulates height, bulk, and setbacks, and emphasizes the separation of uses. Form-based codes emphasize the relationship between public and private spaces as a critical component of the overall development scheme, and it that encourages connections between buildings, streets and open spaces. Mr. Chave advised that the plan currently being considered by the Planning Board has been changed in some significant ways from the initial plan created by students from the University of Washington and representatives from the Cascade Land Conservancy. However, many of the original concepts remain a part of the plan. He referred the Board to the initial plan, which was based on the following goals: Creating a mixed-use walkable, compact commercial center and improving connectedness for pedestrian and bicycle users. At this time, it is not easy to walk from one commercial location to another, and this encourages people to drive. The idea is to have centralized parking and arrange buildings, walkways and landscaping in such a way that people feel comfortable walking from one store to another. Enhancing the identity and visibility of Westgate and prioritizing amenity spaces for informal and organized gatherings. The plan calls for providing pleasant places for people to gather and encourages developers to provide small plazas, fountains, pocket parks, etc. as part of any project. Promoting civic and private investments that contribute to increased infrastructure capacity and benefit the surrounding neighborhood and community at large. Currently, there are problems associated with the access points on 100th Avenue West and there is no safe way to cross the street, except at the intersection. There may be some opportunity for the City to invest money to addresses these issues in the future. Packet Page 295 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes March 12, 2014 Page 3 Emphasizing green building construction, stormwater infiltration and low-impact site design. The intent is that the plan should encourage, and in some cases insist, on green building construction to reduce energy use and create a more pleasant environment both inside and out. In addition, the plan calls for using stormwater management techniques that are part of the landscaping. Regulating building placement and form. The intent is to establish a flexible regulating system to encourage development and provide amenities, and the initial plan called for pushing the buildings closer to the street to create more walkable areas. The “built-too” lines identified in the plan focus on SR-104 and 100th Avenue West, where there is potential for an internal connection that would allow traffic to meander throughout the site without having to go onto the highway. Landscape standards could be used to ensure that traffic on the internal connection moves slowly to provide pedestrian safety. The buildings could be located close to the internal connection, with amenities and walkways to allow pedestrians closer access to the buildings. Encourage the development of a variety of housing choices available to residents of all economic and age segments. The plan allows for a mixture of uses, including opportunities for additional housing. The Economic Development Commission pointed out that demographics in Edmonds are changing; the population is aging and there is a need to create more opportunities for different housing choices. In addition, there is a need for more housing opportunities for young workers. The plan envisions a community where people can walk to the services they need, which is consistent with the nationwide movement of people being drawn to walkable, urban areas. The idea is to provide different housing opportunities at Westgate. Mr. Chave said the initial plan regulates: Amenity spaces. In the plan’s terminology, amenity space includes a variety of options, but basically refers to green spaces integrated into the development. This could take the form of walkways, lawns, pocket parks, etc. It is also important to have green spaces in parking lots as part of the landscaping. Stormwater management could be addressed as part of the landscaping, as well. Amenities are important to the overall development, but the current zoning code does not really talk about them at all. Required building lines. The required “built-to” lines were set at 8 feet from the SR-104 right-of-way, 5 feet from the 100th Avenue West right-of-way, and 3 feet from the edge of the internal road. Street types. The initial plan includes specific streetscape standards for SR-104, 100th Avenue West, and the internal roadway. Building types. The initial plan called for buildings up to 3 stories in height, with an additional 1 to 2 stories permitted for development that meets the bonus criteria, including consideration for topography. The plan identified a number of different building types (both commercial and residential) that could go in and around the Westgate area. Rather than specifying where each type must go, the plan allows a variety of locations for each of the building types. For each building type, the plan provides a discussion about what the design of the building should be, the types of open space that should be integrated into the design, and how the development should be laid out. Building frontage types. The plan emphasizes the connection between the building and public way or street front. It talks about the kinds of street furniture, public spaces, etc. that would make the area more inviting and encourage pedestrian activity. Sustainable and green features. The plan calls for the implementation of a Green Feature Program similar to the Green Factor Program implemented by the City of Seattle for all commercial and multi-family zones. The program provides a variety of green and sustainable building options and requires a developer to obtain a certain number of points by incorporating the options into a project. Using this approach, no development would look the same, and the end result would look different than a standard building with no green elements. He provided an example to illustrate how the Green Feature Program would work. Packet Page 296 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes March 12, 2014 Page 4 Development requirements and options. While the Green Feature Program would be required for all development in the Westgate commercial area, the City could require developers to obtain a higher level of green features in order to achieve additional height beyond 3 stories. Mr. Chave said the planning process resulted in a lengthy document of plan and code suggestions that were presented to the City Council, and the City Council referred it the Planning Board for further review, a public hearing and a recommendation. The Planning Board conducted a public hearing on September 12, 2012. Since that time, the Planning Board’s review has focused on producing a plan and code amendments that fit within the City’s regulatory system and are acceptable to the community. The current proposal is a product of the Planning Board’s review and reflects a number of changes from the original proposal. He highlighted the changes as follows: The initial plan called for pushing buildings out to the street and focusing on the street fronts. The Planning Board has shifted the emphasis to a quadrant (Southwest, Southeast, Northwest, Northeast) approach. The Board’s intent is to emphasize development within the quadrants rather than at the edges. The idea is to set development up with an internal focus would result in more walkable commercial areas within each of the quadrants. Rather than worrying about finding safe ways for people to cross SR-104, which is not likely to happen, the commercial areas within each quadrant should be easy to access and provide a sense of place. The proposed plan provides for opportunities without mandating that new development conform rigidly to certain minimum building heights or insisting that all buildings be pushed up against the sidewalk lines. However, open space and amenity space would still be required, as well as pedestrian and non-motorized circulation within each of the four quadrants. The plan still encourages development closer to the street. If buildings are placed along the edges, there will be more space within each quadrant for open space and public amenities. Although the Board felt it was less important to focus on the SR-104 frontage, elements such as open space, amenities, pedestrian circulation, and connections are still a main emphasis of the plan. Examples were provided to illustrate the concepts contained in the current proposal. Instead of development of up to 5 stories, the proposed plan would cap the height of buildings in most places at 3 stories, with an opportunity to obtain 4 stories only where the nearby slopes are higher or no residences are nearby. The plan calls out the specific locations where additional height would be allowed based on topography. A topographical map was provided in the plan, which identifies a slope of 30 to 35 feet in the southeast quadrant, 45 to 50 feet in the northeast quadrant, and 55 to 70 feet in the southwest quadrant. The Planning Board observed that a 5-story building (up to 55 feet in height) would be close to or above the height of the residential properties located above. They felt that a maximum height of 4 stories (45 feet) would be more appropriate, with a standard height of 3 stories (35 feet) for properties that have little or no slope and located closer to single-family development. It was noted that the northwest quadrant is adjacent to the cemetery, and the nearest residential home is quite some distance away. The City typically calculates building height based on the average ground height of the four corners of development footprint, and developments on slopes could appear higher. The proposed plan calls for a different way of calculating height that would not give a bonus based on topography. The height would be calculated based on the ground height at the street front. This new way to measure maximum height is intended to ensure that any new commercial buildings would not extend beyond the top of the slope where single-family homes are located. The initial plan called for an 8-foot setback on SR-104 and 100th Avenue West. The proposed plan increases the setback to 12 feet to provide a wider street interface and to assure that, if needed, turn pockets could be provided for traffic access. The intersection at SR-104 and 100th Avenue West has a significant step back requirement (30 feet from the intersection right-of-way) for the 3rd and 4th floors. The intent is to assure that a sense of place is provided at this key intersection. Mr. Chave summarized that, after the public hearing has been closed and the Planning Board completes its recommendation, the plan and code will be forwarded to the City Council for review. The City Council will conduct another public hearing before adoption is considered. Packet Page 297 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes March 12, 2014 Page 5 Chair Cloutier reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing and opened the hearing. Mr. Chave noted that the Board received comment letters regarding the proposal from Jan Robertson and Larry Williamson. Joe Tedesco, Edmonds, said he just purchased a home immediately adjacent to the Westgate commercial area and had no idea that the City was in the process of creating a new plan. He expressed concern that implementation of the plan, as proposed, would cause his property’s value to go down. He said he does not want 3 or 4-story commercial development to look down onto his property, which is in a quiet area now. Kathy Madigan, Edmonds, voiced concern about the idea of redevelopment, especially on Edmonds Way near 102nd Avenue West. Because of the steep slope, 4-story development would be allowed. There is currently not enough parking in this area and traffic backs up all the way past the PCC with cars waiting for the ferry. She said she does not support the plan to add additional residential units on the site, creating more demand for parking. While her property is located across the street from the Westgate commercial area and would not be directly impacted, her neighbors could end up with 4-story buildings behind their homes, and their property values would diminish. She expressed her belief that the space is too small for apartments or condominiums. She said she lives at the top of the hill and walks to the businesses at Westgate. However, people do not walk along Edmonds Way, which is busy and unsafe. Deborah Wertz, Edmonds, said her home is on 232nd Street, and it currently backs up to a quiet business park where trees line the southern edge. She is very concerned that the proposed plan would allow 2 and 3-story development that would look down into her backyard. She hopes the Board’s desire to limit building height so that commercial buildings do not look down on residential homes will also pertain to future development on the south end of the commercial area. These residential property owners do not want commercial uses peering down into their backyards. She said she is actually excited about the area being spruced up. She loves the green idea and would love the City to address walkability, but she asked that the Board be mindful of potential impacts to residential property owners. Robert Dofredo, Edmonds, said he likes the idea that the vicinity is getting an upgrade. He said he lives on the southeast corner of 100th Avenue West and 227th Street across from the cemetery. He asked if his property would be included in the plan. Mr. Chave answered that the plan would only apply to the commercial-zoned properties at Westgate, and no changes have been proposed to surrounding zoning. He agreed to talk with Mr. Dofredo after the meeting to address issues specific to his property. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, said he has been following the Westgate planning process since it started in 2011. One of his main issues has been somewhat addressed by the change to increase the street setback from 8 to 12 feet. This would allow space for the City to add deceleration lanes or other traffic improvements to address congestion created by future redevelopment. He expressed concern that the plan only identifies the number of stories allowed. If each floor of a development has a greater than average ceiling height, the overall height could be significant. Rather than specifying the number of stories allowed, he suggested a better approach would be to establish a specific height limit. Mr. Hertrich pointed out that although the plan would require an additional setback for all commercial buildings that are adjacent to single-family residential, it does not address height as it relates to shadow and view blockage, which is also important. The plan also requires a stepback for the portion of building that fronts the intersection of SR-104 and 100th Avenue West. However, it is important to note that the City just eliminated the stepback requirement in the downtown area. He questioned if the same thing would happen in this location. Greg Bough, Edmonds, said he lives on the hill directly behind Bartells. He expressed concern that the City has no control of SR-104, and the traffic is already horrid. The ferry traffic during the summer months is horrific, and redevelopment at Westgate would add further congestion. He pointed out that 75% of the commercial space behind the QFC is vacant, and parking is difficult in that area. It is necessary to get in your car to move from PCC to Walgreens because of the way the area is designed. He questioned why the City did not take a more proactive approach to planning in the area before it was too late. He pointed out that most of the commercial space in the relatively new mixed-use development known as the Compass Development is vacant, and he anticipates that vacancies at Westgate will continue in the future, as well. He also expressed concern that the proposed plan would accommodate commercial development that looks down on residential properties. Packet Page 298 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes March 12, 2014 Page 6 Brad Ross, Edmonds, said he recently purchased a home on 96th Place West. He and many of his neighbors are concerned that the plan would allow future development to look down on their residential properties. This would cause property values to drop, and many people would likely choose to leave the neighborhood. Don Ullom, Edmonds, said he lives just north of the cemetery on approximately five acres of land. He expressed concern that a 45-foot tall building on the far side of the cemetery would look into the windows of his home. If the City is going to allow 45-foot tall buildings on commercial properties, then the residential properties should be allowed an additional story, as well. He said he drives, rather than walks, to the Westgate commercial area. While it would be nice to have amenities and landscaping, that is not why he goes there. He noted that parking is extremely limited, especially on the weekends. Many commuters park in this area to catch the bus, and this fills up the parking areas during the weekdays, as well. People who work at the retail businesses park on 100th Avenue West, creating a site distance a problem for cars that are trying to pull out onto the street. Deb Sabotta, Edmonds, said she likes living on 232nd Street, and she particularly loves how open the PCC parking lot is. When she drives down Edmonds Way, she can see everything. Putting buildings close to the street will make it more difficult to see around the corner. However, her biggest concern is regarding cut-through traffic on 232nd between 100th and 104th Avenues West. She noted that it is already dangerous to walk on 232nd Street where there are no sidewalks, and additional development will only make the situation worse. Gary Kidder, Edmonds, said he also recently purchased a home on 96th Place West, and most of his back yard backs up o a vacant lot that is zoned commercial. He also expressed concern that a 3-story building on the vacant lot would peer into his back yard. When he purchased the property he was told that a bank or something low density would be developed on the site. He said he works from home and has an office on the second floor where he is able to look out onto Edmonds Way. The cars come down the road at a high rate of speed, and pulling out of the gas station on most days is very dangerous. Allowing another building would make the situation even worse. He said he would like to see some improvements such as sidewalks, but he is opposed to a 3-story building. Charles Kalkwarf, Edmonds, said he lives on 99th Place, just above the paint shop on 100th Avenue West. He commented that setbacks are extremely important and questioned if the community really wants buildings right up to the street in the future. He specifically noted the difficulty people are having accessing SR-104 from the new veterinary clinic and Compass Development that is located on Edmonds Way east of 232nd because the ferry traffic backs up the street. He urged the City to require greater setbacks to allow space to accommodate an extra lane on SR-104, which he suspects will be needed in the near future. Deborah Wertz, Edmonds, suggested that the Board look at Westgate as a neighborhood within Edmonds, and not as a destination. The people who live in the surrounding neighborhoods shop at the businesses, but they do not draw people from a regional standpoint. Although making it look like downtown Redmond or Kirkland may improve the City’s tax base, this intersection primarily serves as a drive through for people trying to reach other destinations. While some good services are provided at Westgate, people do not drive for ten miles to specifically come to that intersection. She suggested they not lose site of the neighborhood that already exists with the hope of making it into something that will never be. No one else in the audience indicated a desire to address the Board during the public hearing. Chair Cloutier noted that several concerns were raised about building heights, particularly in the southeast quadrant. He pointed out that taller buildings would not be allowed on the eastern side of quadrant. The 35-foot height limit would be measured from the front of the street, and the property has a slope of between 30 and 40 feet. The top of the bluff is about 40 feet higher than the street, and no building on the site would be taller than the bluff. Mr. Chave said it is important to keep in mind that the current BC-EW zoning allows development up to 45 feet in height, so the proposed plan would actually reduce the height in this location. Chair Cloutier noted that there is very little topography change between residential and commercial properties at the corner of 232nd Street and 100th Avenue West. Mr. Chave advised that the form-based code approach allows the City to address height differently for these properties if the Board decides it is not appropriate to allow 3- story development in this particular location. For example, a stepback could be required for the third story portion of the building. Packet Page 299 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes March 12, 2014 Page 7 Chair Cloutier reminded the Board that the proposed zoning would not allow buildings to be constructed into the adjacent hillsides. Pushing the buildings towards the street would provide a buffer between the buildings and the hillside. Mr. Chave said the proposed zoning also includes a setback requirement from single-family residential properties. The language makes it is clear that buildings are not supposed to march up the slope, and there would be no advantage to placing a building closer to the slope because height would be calculated based on the street front elevation. The Board could consider increasing the setback more or be more specific about how much of the slope must be protected. Chair Cloutier recalled that early stage drawings emphasized pushing buildings closer to the street, but the Board felt a setback of 12 feet would be more appropriate. Allowing buildings closer to the street can create a sense of neighborhood and tie developments together. He emphasized that, as per the proposed plan, developing closer to the street would be an option and not a mandate. However, it would require a minimum 12-foot setback from the street right-of-way. Chair Cloutier referred to comments regarding parking. He suggested that the problem is less about the number of parking spaces available at Westgate and more about where they are located. Mr. Chave pointed out that any redevelopment at Westgate would be required to meet the parking standards. A developer would be required to replace spaces that are eliminated to accommodate development and provide the additional parking required for the new development. He explained that parking could be arranged differently to be more efficient. For example, underground parking is one option a developer could consider for meeting the parking requirement. Chair Cloutier recalled that citizens also expressed concern that there was not sufficient space for new development. He explained that the plan is intended to allow property owners to reorganize development to be more cohesive and efficient. Chair Cloutier suggested that, to address concerns raised by citizens, the Board should also reevaluate the height limit in the northwest quadrant to make sure residential properties are adequately protected from the impacts of potential redevelopment of the commercial properties. Chair Cloutier asked staff to respond to the suggestion that acceleration lanes on SR-104 and 100th Avenue West be added to address safety issues. Mr. Chave clarified that SR-104 is a State highway that is controlled by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). However, the City could consider this option for 100th Avenue West. He explained that all development proposals would be reviewed by City staff to identify potential impacts, and applicants would be required to provide appropriate mitigation, which could include an acceleration lane. He noted that the purpose of the proposed 12-foot setback is to ensure space is available if changes need to occur. Chair Cloutier referred to the suggestion that building heights should be regulated by the number of feet and not by the number of stories. He pointed out that the proposed plan identifies the maximum building height as 3 stories or 35 feet. It also indicates that 4 stories means a maximum of 45 feet. He said concerns were also raised about the need for commercial development to be setback from residential development. He noted that this is already addressed in the plan. He also emphasized the stepback requirement included in the plan for the intersection of 100th Avenue West and SR-104. Chair Cloutier recalled comments about 232nd Street Southwest being used for cut-through traffic in order to avoid the SR- 104 and 100th Avenue West intersection. He asked if the City’s Traffic Engineer considered this problem in his findings and offered potential solutions. Mr. Chave agreed to seek input from the Traffic Engineer regarding this issue and report back to the Board. Chair Cloutier said residents near the southwest quadrant are concerned about the potential 45-foot height limit, which could result in commercial buildings looking down into residential back yards. Mr. Chave pointed out that the height of the bluff in this quadrant ranges from 65 to 70, so there is no chance that commercial development would be at a greater height than the residential development. He further pointed out that the maximum 35-foot height limit proposed for the northeast quadrant would place commercial property below the top of the bluff, as well. Again, he reminded the Board that the current zoning allows a maximum height of 45 feet, and the proposed plan would reduce the height in the northeast quadrant by ten feet. Chair Cloutier referred to concern raised by neighbors that allowing residential development at Westgate would result in even greater congestion at the intersection of SR-104 and 100th Avenue West. He pointed out that the traffic study actually studied the impacts of redevelopment at 3 to 5 stories in height, and the proposed plan would reduce the height limit to 3 stories, with Packet Page 300 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes March 12, 2014 Page 8 the potential for an additional story in some locations. Mr. Chave agreed that the traffic study considered a much higher level of development than what the current plan contemplates. He explained that, as per the traffic study, the additional number of trips generated by redevelopment at Westgate was dwarfed by the existing volumes on SR-104. Chair Cloutier agreed that traffic needs to be addressed, particularly on the north side of SR-104, where cars heading towards the ferry back up. Board Member Stewart commented that adding more residential units at Westgate would increase traffic volumes at the intersection of SR-104 and 100th Avenue West, particularly during certain times of the day. The City is “putting its head in the sand” if it thinks that that traffic congestion would not be an increasing problem as redevelopment occurs. Mr. Chave agreed, but reminded the Board that the City does not control what happens on SR-104, and any required traffic mitigation would be addressed on a case-by-case basis as part of the Traffic Engineer’s review of a development permit application. He cautioned that, until a project has been proposed, it is impossible for the City to identify what the exact impacts will be. The Board agreed it would be helpful to have additional feedback from the Traffic Engineer regarding this issue. Chair Cloutier recalled that a member of the audience suggested the City keep Westgate as a neighborhood instead of trying to make it a major destination. While he agreed that the goal should not be to make this commercial area like Kirkland, they can make it something better than what it is now and give it new purpose. Mr. Chave suggested that Westgate could provide a duel role. He recognized that the businesses serve the needs of the neighbors who are able to walk to the site; but they also serve as a destination to people who are coming from further away to shop at the two grocery stores. The goal of the plan is to enhance the area, and not necessarily create a new destination. Board Member Lovell said he was glad that Mr. Chave talked about how much the plan has morphed over the past three years. It initially started with 3 to 5-story buildings, and setbacks between 5 and 8 feet from the property line. The current plan addresses three of the community’s main concerns: building heights, street setbacks, and walkability and connectivity. He said the Board has had a lot of discussion about existing and future problems on SR-104, but it is not likely that WSDOT will be proposing any revisions to the highway in the foreseeable future. He said the plan recognizes that people will drive to Westgate to shop, and they expect to have a place to park. The plan would provide more connectivity and public space within each of the quadrants. It encourages both walking and parking in each quadrant, and enhances workability of the area in terms of space, dimension, green elements, setbacks, etc. Board Member Lovell expressed concern that no members of the public commented on the fact that the City needs to accommodate future population growth. It sounds like they do not want any more residential units as part of the mixed-use development at Westgate, when in fact, that is the development trend across the nation. He noted that no one mentioned the concept of transit-oriented development or the increased use of public transportation, either. SR-104, 9th Avenue and 100th Avenue West are major thoroughfares that are served by both Sound Transit and Community Transit. He expressed his belief that the City needs to establish reasonable standards to accommodate growth and provide lower cost housing in areas that are not zoned single-family residential. He reminded the Board that, although Firdale Village was rezoned several years ago with the goal of accommodating growth, redevelopment has not occurred because there are too many restrictions. He cautioned against doing the same at Westgate. He summarized that the intent is to provide a soft transition between the commercial and single-family residential development, and he believes the proposed plan accomplishes that goal. He said he supports the plan, but he agreed there are still a few concerns that need to be addressed. The proposed plan calls for a lower building height, setbacks, additional landscaping, and public amenities, all of which will benefit the City and its citizens. Board Member Stewart said she generally supports the plan, as it has evolved to address a number of her concerns. She reviewed that the purpose of the plan is to encourage public amenities, which is something that is lacking in this area now. The idea is to create a place where people want to be. The concept outlined in the plan is consistent with the national and regional trend that accommodates the needs of the younger generation by providing gathering places and a variety of housing options. She said she supports the implementation of a form-based code approach, which looks are the relationship of buildings to the street, pedestrian activities and creating a sense of place. Westgate is a neighborhood center, and it would be nice to create an area where people will want to stay for a while. Board Member Stewart said she supports the “green factors” element of the plan, which represents a forward-thinking approach for minimizing human impacts on the environment. Increased height would only be allowed in exchange for additional green features and public amenities. She concluded that the Green Futures Lab (University of Washington) did a Packet Page 301 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes March 12, 2014 Page 9 great job of reviewing the area and considering citizen input when they put together the initial plan, and the Planning Board has massaged the plan to a point where it, hopefully, is more acceptable to the public and the City Council. Vice Chair Tibbott said he continues to be concerned about how increased density will impact traffic, particularly ingress and egress locations. He requested additional information from the Traffic Engineer about the impacts redevelopment would have on this intersection, particularly during rush hour. He said he was specifically interested in learning whether people would use the main thoroughfare or cut through neighborhoods to avoid traffic. He agreed that 232nd Street Southwest is used as a shortcut, and the problems will likely increase with more residential density. Vice Chair Tibbott asked if the City could require a developer to provide a deceleration lane on private property as opposed to the public right-of-way. Mr. Chave said this would be an option, as long as the improvement is tied to specific impacts associated with a development. These decisions would be made on a case-by-case basis as part of the development permit review. He explained that there are two levels of traffic analysis: project based and system based. There are things that can be done before expanding a roadway, such as changing the signalization to help traffic flow better through an intersection. Unfortunately, the City’s history of adding lanes is very nearly a panacea. Board Member Lovell pointed out that lane changes would most likely involve more than one property, and property consolidation would likely be market driven. Vice Chair Tibbott asked how adding a deceleration lane would impact pedestrian accessibility. Mr. Chave agreed that is a general concern. Adding lanes could end up encouraging greater speeds on the highway. He reminded the Board that in addition to potential traffic improvements, frontage improvements would be required for all projects. These improvements could be located on private or public property, depending on the individual situation. Vice Chair Tibbott asked if the City did any outreach to discuss what types of amenities would benefit the residents who live on top of the bluffs. For example, there is no pedestrian pathway from the top of the bluff to the commercial areas below. Mr. Chave agreed that the topography acts as a barrier to accessibility, but it also provides a separation between the commercial and residential developments to minimize impacts. He noted that residential neighborhoods could benefit if more services are available as a result of redevelopment. Vice Chair Tibbott pointed out that Edmonds is built out, and the only way to offer more residential space is to increase density. He asked if there is a label for this type of urban transition. Mr. Chave said the City of Edmonds is technically an urban area with some suburban characteristics. Edmonds must plan for the future, which means doing its part to accommodate the growth identified in the regional plan. Rather than creation new multi-family residential and commercial zones, the City of Edmonds has adopted an approach of creating opportunities for more density in the existing multi-family and commercial zones. The City’s goal is to create more housing opportunities in these areas, along with enhanced public and private amenities. The idea is to prevent the more intense development from spilling out into the single-family residential neighborhoods by providing a more subtle transition. Vice Chair Tibbott asked if it is possible that the type of development envisioned in the Westgate Plan would actually improve surrounding property values. Mr. Chave said this would be true to the extent each commercial property owner decides to upgrade and provide more public amenities. He expressed his belief that the value of surrounding residential properties could also increase through thoughtful new design. However, he agreed that the residents who live adjacent to the southeast quadrant have a valid concern. It is important to provide an adequate transition between the commercial and residential uses in this location where there is not a significant topographical change to provide separation. He suggested the Board study this issue further. Vice Chair Tibbott asked if the proposed plan would require a developer to use innovative techniques to deal with stormwater issues as opposed to drains in parking lots. Mr. Chave answered affirmatively, and noted that developers would be encouraged to incorporate stormwater elements into the landscaping and amenities that are provided on site. Vice Chair Tibbott referred to the Compass Development, which has raised concerns from a number of citizens. He questioned if the proposed plan adequately describes and illustrates the kinds of things they want to see at Westgate. Mr. Chave answered affirmatively, particularly noting the details regarding amenity spaces and the implementation of the Green Factor program. None of that was in place for the Compass Development. Packet Page 302 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes March 12, 2014 Page 10 Vice Chair Tibbott asked staff to respond to concerns raised by citizens about view obstruction for merging traffic. Mr. Chave said the setbacks, rights-of-way and traffic signals are intended to address this issue. Visibility should not be an issue because the traffic signal controls how traffic moves. However, he acknowledged that, at some point, the City will need to consider issues at some of the other access points. It is hoped that a better solution can be found for the opposing turns at the PCC and QFC sites, but this will not occur until redevelopment happens. He summarized that the plan will provide opportunities to address some of the pre-existing problems. Vice Chair Tibbott asked if using a form-based code approach would provide enough incentive for property owners to move forward with redevelopment. Mr. Chave said this will be up to the individual property owners, but one property owner has been following the process and is thinking about the possibilities the proposed plan offers. Vice Chair Tibbott referred to Board Member Lovell’s earlier comment that the Firdale Village code has too many restrictions. He asked if the same would be true about the proposed plan for Westgate. He also asked if developers would prefer to have the kind of guidance that comes from a form-based code or traditional zoning. Mr. Chave commented that the Firdale Village Plan was much more prescriptive, with an assumed layout, and the proposed Westgate Plan provides more options. Developers prefer the form-based code approach because it offers more flexibility but more definition about what the City wants. It provides a number of options to meet the requirements which adds interest and ensures that development is not the same in every location. Vice Chair Tibbott asked if staff has estimated the increase in residential units based on the lower height limits proposed in the plan. Mr. Chave answered that they have not recalculated the number of units, but it would be significantly lower than the number attached to the initial proposal of 4 and 5-story buildings. Vice Chair Tibbott asked if the City has considered the impact the additional units would have on schools, parks and other services that are not directly connected to the intersection. Board Member Lovell noted that the initial proposal would have accommodate approximately 180 residential units. Mr. Chave advised that the City would assess both park and traffic impact fees on any new development that occurs at Westgate. Development at Westgate could result in significant contributions to the parks fund and provides opportunities for the City to partner with developers to provide public art, etc. Board Member Stewart clarified that the proposed plan increases the setbacks on SR-104 and 100th Avenue West from 8 to 12 feet, but it does not mandate that buildings be located 12 feet from the property line. Mr. Chave concurred, but said the plan would discourage developers from having too much parking between the building and the street. If parking is provided between the street and the building, walkways would be required to connect the sidewalk to the building. Board Member Stewart asked if a 12-foot setback would provide adequate space to accommodate a deceleration lane, if deemed necessary at some point in the future. Mr. Chave answered that traffic engineers have assured him that is the case. Board Member Stewart observed that there is already a parking problem at Westgate. As more development occurs, it may be necessary to construct a parking garage at one of the quadrants. While she anticipates transit use will increase, she does not believe the parking demand will diminish because people depend on cars to do their business. Mr. Chave agreed and said that is why the City has parking standards for all development. He noted that because of the topography at Westgate, there is limited opportunity for parking to spill out into the adjoining neighborhoods, and there is great incentive for developers to provide sufficient parking for their customers. Regarding amenity space, Board Member Stewart pointed out that the proposed plan requires a 3-story development to dedicate 15% of its parcel size for amenity space, and it significantly limits the amount of impervious amenity space. The idea is to decrease the amount of hard surface over time. She observed that PCC is a great example of sustainable development; and hopefully, other developers will follow suit. The plan encourages “green” building, and it may attract builders who are used to implementing the concept. Board Member Stewart referred to the Height Bonus Score Sheet on the last page of the proposed plan. She pointed out that the Evergreen Sustainable Development Standards have stringent requirements and suggested that this option be given 2 credits instead of 1. Mr. Chave agreed that the Board could make this change. Board Member Stewart commented that as the bluff continues to recede, the City will need to reanalyze the slope to make sure it continues to serve as an adequate transition between single-family residential and commercial development. Packet Page 303 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes March 12, 2014 Page 11 Chair Cloutier closed the public portion of the hearing and indicated that the discussion would be continued to a future date to allow the Board to revisit the height limit on commercial properties adjacent to residential properties to ensure that the slope would provide an adequate buffer to prevent commercial development from looking down onto residential backyards. The Board would also revisit the height bonus score sheet to make sure the credits are commensurate with the cost of implementing each green option. In addition, the Board will review the traffic study results again in light of comments from the public. Lastly, they asked staff to provide an updated estimate of the number of residential units the plan would accommodate based on the adjusted height limits. Although the public hearing was closed, Chair Cloutier allowed the audience one more opportunity to address the Board. Ralph Wuscher, Puyallup, said his family and a limited partnership own the land where the PCC is located, as well as the parking lot to the east. They recently sold a third parcel to Walgreens. He noted that a building permit has been issued for an additional development on the Walgreen’s property, and the design includes an 8-foot setback. If this building is developed, there will be no room for a deceleration lane. He said he already gave the City an 8-foot easement to accommodate a wider sidewalk. Adding a deceleration lane would require him to forfeit another 15 feet to the easement, which he is not willing to do. Mr. Wuscher suggested that the plan require buildings to be placed at the property line, with no setback. He expressed his belief that no one will want to sit out in front of the buildings along SR-104 to watch the busy traffic go by. Requiring a zero lot line would result in more open area for parking and amenities on the interior of the site. He suggested that one way to address the neighbors concerns about buildings looking onto their back yards is to not allow windows on the backside of commercial buildings. He expressed concern that restricting the building height and requiring a 12-foot setback would end up discouraging redevelopment. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA The Board did not discuss their extended agenda. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Cloutier did not provide any comments during this portion of the meeting. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Lovell reported on his attendance at the February 19th EDC Meeting, and highlighted the following: Mr. Chave introduced the process for updating the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Clifton provided a short update on the City Council’s decision to authorize funding for a professional facilitator to help in the process of creating a Strategic Action Plan Oversight Committee. He was asked to participate in the interview process, and it is anticipated that a recommendation will be forwarded to the Council in the near future. A subcommittee working on economic incentives reported on a number of ideas from tax deferrals to relief from taxes for new development. A subcommittee working on tourism discussed the concept of marketing Edmonds as a place to visit rather than a destination. One idea was drawing cruise ship passengers to shop in the City. There was some discussion about the potential of opening a fine arts museum in Edmonds, but major obstacles include both funding and location. Board Member Lovell reported that he and Farrell Fleming, the Executive Director of the Edmonds Senior Center, will lead a discussion at the City Council’s March 14th retreat regarding implementation of the Strategic Action Plan elements related to the Senior Center. They made a similar presentation to the City Council’s Parks, Planning and Public works Committee. Board Member Tibbott thanked the public for participating in the public hearing. The Board takes their comments seriously and hopes to mitigate their concerns to the extent possible before the plan is forwarded to the City Council. Packet Page 304 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes December 11, 2013 Page 7 complicate the provision in ECDC 17.40.020(J). He reminded the Board that the FCC has indicated they are still working on the rulemaking and interpretation. There has been some push back from other agencies regarding the FCC’s interpretation, which is still in draft form. Therefore, including wording in ECDC 20.50.080(A)(3)(b) from the FCC’s draft interpretation would be a mistake. It would make more sense to refer to Section 6409 and how it is ultimately interpreted. While the FCC’s interpretation will have substantial weight, it will not be the final say. Board Member Clarke recalled that, in some situations, the City has required a nonconforming property to be abated after a certain period of time. He asked if this concept could also be applied to nonconforming WTF’s. Mr. Chave said there are provisions in the code that allow the City to require abatement of certain kinds of nonconformity. The provision is typically used when properties are annexed into the City such as a commercial use located in a residential zone. He reminded the Board that there are only two nonconforming WTF’s in the City at this time, and the industry has indicated the locations are important to their networks and they do not have other alternatives. The FCC regulations make it clear that the City cannot require abatement of these sites. Mr. Chave agreed that screening is not always the best approach for enhancing the appearance of a WTF. Screening on rooftop facilities could be more objectionable than the equipment, itself. He cautioned against requiring screening in all instances. The proposed language is intended to provide flexibility to have discussions about appearance at the time of installation and change. As no one else in the audience indicated a desire to participate, Chair Reed closed the public hearing. Chair Reed summarized the Board’s discussion as follows: The Board Members generally concur with the language proposed by staff for ECDC 20.50.010(F). The Board also supports the proposed change that would add the word “new” before “monopole facilities” in the third line of Table 20.50.060(B)(1) Staff is recommending that the amendments to ECDC 20.50.080(A)(3)(b) be eliminated from the proposed amendment. However, Mr. Busch has expressed concern that he was unaware of the staff’s proposal to eliminate the language and he would like more time to consider alternatives. The Board will need to decide if the language should be removed or modified to more accurately reflect the intent. The Board discussed the need to clarify what is meant by “substantial change.” The Board discussed options for modifying ECDC to address concerns raised by the Board, the staff and Mr. Busch. At issue is whether the provision should require providers to improve nonconforming situations or simply maintain the status quo. The Board appeared to favor the language put forward by Board Member Reed. Chair Reed recommended the Board continue the public hearing to a date certain for further discussion of the above mentioned items. It was noted that if Mr. Lyons is unable to attend the continued hearing, he could submit his comments in writing for the Board’s consideration. BOARD MEMBER ELLIS MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER TIBBOTT, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON FILE NUMBER AMD20130016 TO JANUARY 8, 2014. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. WORK SESSION ON WESTGATE PLAN AND FORM-BASED CODE Mr. Chave referred the Board to the latest draft of the Westgate Plan (Attachment 1), dated December 11, 2013. He noted that he also provided, via email, a draft version showing the changes that were made based on the Board’s feedback at their last meeting. The most recent changes are identified in red. He reviewed that most of the changes were intended to deal with building location within the different quadrants. He recalled that the study prepared by the University of Washington mandated where buildings had to be located, and the Board raised questions about whether those locations would work in every case, particularly during the interim period. He advised that ECDC 16.110.010(C) outlines generally where they want the buildings to be, but it allows flexibility if a developer can demonstrate that a different location would make more sense. He summarized that the intent, over time, is for the buildings to migrate to a consistent location within the different Packet Page 305 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes December 11, 2013 Page 8 quadrants, but the proposed language recognizes that this change will depend on the type and timing of future development. Staff believes that more flexibility is appropriate. Mr. Chave advised that the Height Bonus Table, which outlines the requirements for obtaining a one-story height bonus, was also updated to make it clear that building height in the Westgate area would be limited to four stories. In no instance would five stories be allowed. The table was also updated to reflect comments submitted by Vice Chair Stewart and Board Member Lovell. Mr. Chave explained that the proposed plan is geared towards the quadrant approach rather than treating the entire Westgate area as one development. He referred the Board to pictures he provided of the award-winning Orenco Station development in Hillsboro, Oregon, which illustrates the concept the City is trying to achieve with the Westgate Plan. While Orenco Station is much larger than the Westgate area, the commercial development fronts on a 45-mile-per-hour arterial that is actually wider than SR-104. He pointed out how the Orenco Station development works well with public space and buildings fronting on the highway. He commented that it is not so much that all the activity occurs along the frontage, but the buildings frame and act as a buffer between the roadway and the more active spaces on the side streets and behind. He particularly noted the picture of a farmer’s market, which occurs behind the street front commercial space in the parking area that is adjacent to the side street. He also noted there are significant trees in the parking area, creating an attractive space for more public activity. He summarized that there is some advantage to having the buildings at the street front, not necessarily to create activity on SR-104, but it gives presence to create more amenities and open space inside the site by pushing the buildings out. When buildings are pushed back from the sidewalk, nothing but parking occurs between the street and buildings. Vice Chair Stewart asked how far back from the right-of-way the buildings in the Orenco Station development were placed. Mr. Chave said he does not have the exact measurement, but it is basically the width of the sidewalk and a planting strip. The setbacks are close to those proposed in the Westgate Plan. Board Member Lovell recalled that the City recently increased the setback requirement from 8 feet to a uniform 12 feet along SR-104 and 100th Avenue. He noted that these setbacks would be measured from the property line, and would be in addition to the right-of-way space. Board Member Lovell commented that the City Council recently agreed to fund an additional study of the SR-104 Corridor. At a recent meeting of the Economic Development Commission (EDC), Mr. Williams, the City’s Public Works Director, spoke about meetings the City has had with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) regarding the long-term potential for SR-104. He said WSDOT informed the City that it has no plans to change the roadway at this time, but existing right-of-way width would allow for a slight expansion of the roadway width. Mr. Chave said the Public Works Director is confident that a 12-foot setback requirement would allow for future adjustments to the roadway width if deemed necessary in the future. Board Member Lovell said he has given up on the concept of making the Westgate area bicycle and pedestrian friendly. The best they can do is screen the roadway from the activity areas. However, he supports setting the buildings back slightly and adding a landscaping buffer rather than placing the buildings right at the street front. Chair Reed referred to the illustration on Page 25 that identifies the proximity allowed between landscaping and the various building types. He also referred to the illustration on Page 27 which shows the relationship between landscaping swales and pedestrians. He expressed his belief that providing more illustrations in the plan would be helpful. Mr. Chave agreed and suggested that they could incorporate actual photographs as examples of the concepts called out in the plan. Vice Chair Stewart pointed out that requiring a 12-foot setback on 100th Avenue would still allow ample room for a bicycle lane. She suggested it would be helpful to include pictures in the plan to illustrate how a bicycle lane could work. Mr. Chave agreed that a bicycle lane would make the most sense on 100th Avenue, since it provides a link to other bicycle trails. Board Member Ellis asked if the bicycle lanes would be placed in the setback area or the right-of-way. Mr. Chave answered that that bike lanes are typically placed within the right-of-way, but they could be added within the setback area as a public amenity. The Board had a brief discussion about “sharrows,” which is one option the City is using to mark bicycle routes on existing roadways. Board Member Clarke asked how the City could educate the general public about what “sharrow” Packet Page 306 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes December 11, 2013 Page 9 markings mean for both cars and bicyclists. The Board agreed that simply adding a bike strip on 100th Avenue would not necessarily provide a good solution. Chair Reed commented that the plan should provide an illustration showing how all of the elements (bike lanes, right-of- ways, property lines, etc.) of the plan fit together. He expressed his belief that right-of-way allowance on SR-104 is important, even if WSDOT is not currently planning changes. The situation could change in the future if traffic is significantly increased as a result of development. Mr. Chave commented that, as per the recent traffic study, implementation of the Westgate Plan would not create a significant increase to westbound traffic on SR-104. The worst traffic problem is and will continue to be south bound on 100th Avenue, particularly the left turn lane at the intersection of SR-104. It is believed the problem is less about roadway width and more about signalization, and the City’s Engineering Department is looking at adjusting the light to improve the queuing. The Board briefly discussed the comments provided by Vice Chair Stewart via email regarding the Height Bonus Score Sheet. Vice Chair Stewart summarized that she is recommending that developers be awarded a greater number of points for meeting the higher LEED and Built Green standards. She also recommended that the Board consider allowing up to five stories for developments that meet the PassiveHaus or Living Building standards. She noted that these standards are very difficult to achieve. She advised that Kirkland was able to attract a PassivHaus project just by changing their codes to enable green building. She felt that this level of sustainable development should also be an option in Edmonds. Board Member Clarke expressed concern that allowing an option for five-story development in Edmonds, regardless of how stringent the requirements are and the benefits provided to the community, would likely cause contention and make it difficult to obtain support for the Westgate Plan. He reminded the Board that height has been a contentious issue in the City in the past. Vice Chair acknowledged that allowing an option for five stories might not be appropriate for Edmonds at this time, but she still supports increased weighting for the higher levels of LEED and Built Green certification. She explained that meeting the lower Built Green and LEED standards is a self-verifiable process; but the higher levels require third-party verification, which involves a lengthier process and greater cost. If the City’s intent is to encourage more sustainable development, they should offer more points for the more stringent standards. Board Member Lovell asked Vice Chair Stewart to explain how sustainable development would benefit the citizens of Edmonds, in general. Vice Chair Stewart responded that sustainable development can result in a better indoor environment and protective features for the environment. She expressed her belief that everyone benefits from sustainable development, which is particularly attractive to a certain demographic of younger people. Mr. Chave said one of the most significant benefits of sustainable development is that it focuses a lot on energy and water, which are both resource based. Making buildings more efficient will reduce overall operating costs and decrease the need for utility infrastructure expansion in the future. He acknowledged that community benefits from sustainable development are not necessarily obvious on an individual basis, but applying the concept community wide can have a significant impact on overall utility structures and rates. Chair Reed agreed that “green building” is an important aspect of sustainable development. However, other sustainable options, such as emphasizing walkability and encouraging less vehicular traffic, are also important. It is important that developers are required to incorporate a variety of elements as part of a sustainable development. Mr. Chave specifically noted that, as currently proposed, all development, regardless of height, would be required to meet a minimum Built Green or LEED standard. Chair Reed referred to the table on Page 9, which outlines general allowed uses by floor for each building type, and questioned if this approach is too restrictive. Mr. Chave explained that there would be more than one option for any particular location. The idea is that not one size fits all, but there are choices on what kinds of buildings a developer could construct. He agreed that the table could be modified based on Board feedback. Board Member Lovell pointed out that the only diagrams currently provided in the plan to show where development could occur and what building types would be allowed are located are on Pages 7 and 9. There are no drawings or diagrams that support the quadrant concept other than the map that identifies the location of the four quadrants. Mr. Chave noted there is also a diagram on Page 34, which identifies the properties that are eligible for four-story development. He suggested that the illustrations contained in the University of Washington’s study could be referenced in the plan. He commented that the Packet Page 307 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes December 11, 2013 Page 10 overall verbiage contained in the plan is intended to focus on the quadrant concept, but adding diagrams to illustrate the concept would be worthwhile. Board Member Ellis pointed out that in the heading for Table 16.110-1 (Page 3), the title “MWU” should be changed to WMU. He also noted that references needed to be added to ECDC 16.110.020(D). Mr. Chave advised that these references would be filled in at a later time. Board Member Ellis asked how the term “small-sized dwelling unit” (ECDC 22.110.000) (Page 8) would be defined. Mr. Chave said a small-sized dwelling unit is defined as 900 square feet or smaller, as identified in the University of Washington study. These units would typically be one and two-bedroom. Board Member Ellis suggested that the definition for “rowhouse” in ECDC 22.110.010(A)(1) (Page 8) needs to be clarified. Board Member Cloutier suggested, and the Board agreed, that the definition should be changed by deleting the word “story.” Mr. Chave pointed out that a more detailed description of “rowhouse” is provided in ECDC 22.110.010(D) on Page 10. Board Member Ellis pointed out that the “landscape” section of ECDC 22.110.010(D)(1) (Page 11) requires that a large tree be provided or an existing significant tree be maintained in each rear yard for shade and privacy. He questioned if this would be a reasonable requirement for all building types. Mr. Chave agreed that rear yards may not be the appropriate place for large trees in all situations. He said the requirement came directly from the University of Washington Study, and he agreed to review the rationale and report back to the Board. Board Member Ellis pointed out that the requirement should be updated in the other housing type descriptions, as well. Board Member Ellis said that based on the language contained in the “access” section of ECDC 22.110.010(D)(2) (Page 13), he is not clear on how the “optimal court dimension” would be measured. Mr. Chave said the intent is to require a court dimension of 30’ by 40’. He explained that the reference to east/west and north/south orientation in the bullet at the top of Page 13 was getting at the need to maximize sun exposure and minimize shading in the courtyard. He suggested that perhaps ECDC 22.110.010(D)(2) could deal with just the issue orientation, and courtyard dimension could be addressed separately. Board Member Ellis pointed out that the language in ECDC 22.110.010(D)(6) (Page 21) provides a specific dimension for the courtyard requirement. Mr. Chave agreed that the language should be clarified, and Board Member Ellis noted that this same language is used in the other housing type descriptions, as well. Board Member Ellis referred to the “housing” section of ECDC 22.110.030 (Page 26), which requires that at least 10% of the residential units be very small. It also states that not more than 10% of the dwelling units can exceed 1,600 square feet in size. He said he is uncomfortable including these numbers in the plan without at least understanding where they came from. Board Member Clarke expressed concern about attempting to control the flow of demographics by restricting the square footage of the residential units. He suggested that demographics have more to do with affordability than the size of the units. He said he has never seen a code with this level of specificity, except for subsidized development. He requested more documentation about where the numbers came from and where they have been applied in other communities. Vice Chair Stewart recalled that the Comprehensive Plan calls for providing a variety of housing choices, which means different sizes to reach across the demographics. She expressed her belief that it would be desirable to have more choices than what currently exist in Edmonds, and the proposed limitation should help broaden the demographics, which is important for the City. Board Member Clarke expressed his belief restricting the size of residential units would actually have a limiting affect on demographics, as it would focus on the low-income spectrum rather than letting the market guide development. Board Member Cloutier pointed out that the restrictions would force an increase in density. Board Member Clarke disagreed and said the size limitation would send a statement that the City is not interested in accommodating young professionals. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the size limitations would only apply to the Westgate area. Board Member Clarke recommended that rather than restricting unit size, developers should be allowed to build to meet the market demand. Mr. Chave agreed that is one option, but it would undermine the EDC’s direction to have more units that are smaller and more affordable. The size limitations are intended to target the specific type of development the City wants to see in this part of Edmonds. Packet Page 308 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes December 11, 2013 Page 11 Board Member Ellis said he is not opposed to limiting the size of development in a particular area of the City, as long as it accomplishes the intended goal. Mr. Chave said the intent is to focus the residential development in Westgate towards people who want smaller units and use public transportation rather than private vehicles. He noted that larger units require more parking. He agreed to contact the University of Washington team to learn more about their rationale for the proposed criteria. Board Member Ellis referenced the “amenity space” section in ECDC 22.110.070(C), (Page 31) which requires landscaping in open space to have a minimum of 20% planted pervious surface area and a maximum of 30% impervious surface. While he understands the intent, he suggested the language should be reviewed to ensure it makes sense from a planner standpoint and that it is even possible. Board Member Ellis referred to the “green open space” section of ECDC 22.110.070(C) and questioned if the provision pertaining to steep slopes would have prevented approval of the Walgreen’s development. Board Member Lovell said his interpretation of the proposed language is to prevent vegetation removal that makes the slope susceptible to landslides. He noted that Walgreen’s spent a considerable amount of money to construct a retaining wall to stabilize the slope behind the store. Board Member Ellis suggested that this provision may be too restrictive since it does not appear to allow removal of even a portion of the slope. Mr. Chave explained that, generally, the City allows some disruption of the slope, but not so much that it removes all of the trees above. He agreed that the language does not provide enough balance. Board Member Ellis questioned the meaning of the term “specified recycled mulch” as it is used in the “public space: sustainability” section of ECDC 22.110.070(C) (Page 32). Vice Chair Stewart answered that there is actually a formula for what the mulch should be in a rain garden to provide nourishment and moisture. It is important that the right mulch be used, but she questioned the requirement that it be recycled. Mr. Chave suggested it might be more appropriate to simply require a layer of mulch, without being too specific. Board Member Tibbott asked if the plan identifies any pull outs or bus stops for transit service. He said he likes to think of Westgate as a transit friendly location, but this will not be true unless appropriate accommodations are made. Mr. Chave answered that accommodations could be placed within the public right-of-way or within the setback area, but the transit agency will dictate where these sites are located. Board Member Tibbott asked if it would be appropriate to include a recommendation for transit stops as part of the plan. Mr. Chave agreed that it would be possible to include verbiage in the plan that encourages coordination with the transit agency to locate bus stops and pull outs. However, mandating the locations would be difficult unless the transit agency offers its support. He expressed his belief that once the area starts to redevelop, the transit agency will likely want to add more stops, and he is comfortable there would be space to accommodate the expanded need. The Board agreed that language could be added to Item C.1 on Page 1 that encourages the City to work with the transit agency as part of any new development. It was also suggested that language could be added to the purpose section of the actual code language about accommodating transit-oriented activity. Board Member Tibbott expressed his belief that Westgate could become a destination under the right circumstances. Parking will be a premium in the area, and the City should encourage opportunities for people to use public transit, walk and ride bicycles as opposed to using cars. Board Member Tibbott said he would like the plan to include a comprehensive landscape design for the rights-of-way that could be implemented at all four quadrants at roughly the same time as opposed to piecemeal as development occurs. This would be one way of tying the area all together, regardless of how the buildings are developed. Mr. Chave cautioned that implementing a uniform landscape plan for all the public rights-of-way would be costly, and there is no funding available. He reminded the Board that Councilmember Johnson has requested the City Council approve a corridor study for SR-104 that will talk about improvements within the rights-of-way. Landscaping within the rights-of-way at Westgate could be addressed as part of that study. He said it is important to understand that private developers are not typically required to fund public projects, but the City could require some landscaping as part of frontage improvements. The only way to get the landscaping done all at the same time would be through a Local Improvement District (LID), which must be approved by the property owners. While he does not disagree that developers, as well as the public, would benefit from a comprehensive landscape project, funding would be tricky. The remainder of the Board concurred. Packet Page 309 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes December 11, 2013 Page 12 Board Member Clarke pointed out that the most recent development at Westgate has been one-story structures that are not necessarily consistent with the proposed Westgate Plan. It is not likely that these sites will be redeveloped within the next 50 years so change will happen very slowly. Chair Reed agreed, but emphasized that the goal is to create the opportunity for change, and there are some undeveloped or underdeveloped properties that could take advantage of the new code in the near future. Chair Reed observed that the Westgate Plan was already slowed significantly to address transportation issues. He voiced concern about delaying it further while the City completes a corridor study. Mr. Chave clarified that the corridor study will not be specific to Westgate, and it will not alter the transportation study that was recently completed. Instead, it will identify the types of amenities that are desirable within the public rights-of-way. He reminded the Board that, as per the traffic study, implementation of the Westgate Plan will create only an incremental change to traffic. The traffic study points out that there is already a high traffic volume on the roadway. Vice Chair Stewart referred to the “amenity space” section in ECDC 22.110.050(C) (Page 30) and asked if a green roof could be used to provide all of the required amenity space. She commented that the City of Seattle allows green roofs to count for all of the required amenity space, and this has resulted in buildings that cover the entire lot. She understands this is necessary in Seattle where space is very limited, but she would be opposed to the City allowing all of the amenity space to be located on the rooftop, with none on the ground level. She suggested that the City only allow green roofs to count for a portion of the required amenity space. Board Member Ellis observed that amenity space is designed to encourage people from everywhere to gather, and a green rooftop would only be available to people living within the building. Mr. Chave clarified that amenity space is not just for the benefit of the public, at large, but also for the benefit of the people living in the development. The Board agreed it would be appropriate to allow green roofs to count for up to 25% of the required amenity space. The remaining amenity space should be located at the ground level. Vice Chair Stewart suggested that increasing the point values on the Height Bonus Score Sheet should be left to the discretion of staff based on the Board’s discussion. However, she noted that they should be consistent with the language found in the “green building and site design criteria” in ECDC 22.110.030 (Pages 25 and 26). Board Member Clarke asked if an applicant would have to provide a separate room with showers in order to meet the “indoor/enclosed bicycle storage and changing facility” credit. Mr. Chave answered that showers would not necessarily be required, but the applicant would have to demonstrate that an enclosed storage area and changing area is available. Chair Reed recalled that prior to the time when the Key Bank project was permitted, an interim ordinance was approved that reduced the setback requirement from 20 feet to 8 feet on SR-104 and 5 feet on 100th Avenue. Staff informed him that before the interim ordinance expired, Walgreens applied for and received permits to redevelop the entire area, including the bank site. Although the bank project did not move forward, the permit remains valid until sometime in 2014 as long as the design is not changed. He asked if it would be possible for the City to void the permit. Mr. Chave answered that the permit is vested and cannot be revoked by the City prior to its expiration date. Chair Reed referred to the Use Table 16.110-1 on Pages 3 through 5. He suggested that perhaps the City should be more restrictive about the uses that are allowed in the commercial mixed use area of Westgate. For example, is it really appropriate to allow car dealerships and service stations in this area? Mr. Chave agreed this is a worthwhile topic of discussion. Chair Reed recalled that, previously, the Board heard three different presentations by representatives from nearby jurisdictions about how they implemented a hybrid of a form-based code. The current proposal would take a similar approach by adding a small code section followed by specific design standards. He suggested that perhaps it would be appropriate to identify a maximum height limit in the development standards so the information is available up front. Chair Reed expressed his belief that the proposed parking requirement of 1.2 spaces per unit will be insufficient, particularly when there will be no opportunity for on-street parking. He said he would prefer a parking requirement of 1.5 spaces per unit and even more for larger units. Vice Chair Stewart pointed out that having a lower parking requirement would drive the choices people make. Mr. Chave clarified that 1.2 spaces per unit would be the minimum parking requirement, but Packet Page 310 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes December 11, 2013 Page 13 developers are not likely to put in too few parking spaces or they won’t be able to sell and/or rent their units. However, he agreed that perhaps the parking standard should be greater for larger units, which would provide an incentive for smaller units. Board Member Clarke asked staff to provide examples of where high-density residential uses have occurred in locations where on-street parking is not available to accommodate overflow. Again, Mr. Chave said he does not believe developers will under park the site. Board Member Clarke announced that the Compass Project has recently sold out, and the actual economics of the project were almost zero profit. The only reason it penciled out was because the land was purchased during the recession at a low cost. Providing underground parking significantly increased the cost of the project. Mr. Chave argued that a mixed-use commercial building in that location was sketchy, and it would have made more sense for that type of building to be located at Westgate. Board Member Reed pointed out that the individual sections of the proposed design standards are incorrectly labeled Chapter 16 instead of Chapter 22. He also suggested it would be helpful to number the bulleted items. Mr. Chave announced that a public hearing on the Westgate Plan and Form Based Code is tentatively scheduled for February 12, 2014. He agreed to update the documents as per the Board’s feedback and send out an electronic draft for their review. The Board can then decide if another review is necessary before the public hearing. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Vice Chair Stewart inquired when the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) amendments would come back before the Board. Mr. Chave said the amendments would be added to the Board’s extended agenda in the near future. Chair Reed reminded the Board that they continued the public hearing on amendments to the Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance for January 8th. This will be in addition to a discussion on the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan, a work session on Initiative 502 (cannabis) implementation, and a review of Planning Board procedures, guidelines and codes. ELECTION OF OFFICERS BOARD MEMBER STEWART NOMINATED BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER TO SERVE AS CHAIR OF THE BOARD IN 2014. BOARD MEMBER ELLIS SECONDED THE NOMINATION. THE NOMINATION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED, WITH BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER ABSTAINING. BOARD MEMBER REED NOMINATED BOARD MEMBER TIBBOTT TO SERVE AS VICE CHAIR OF THE BOARD IN 2014. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE NOMINATION. THE NOMINATION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED, WITH BOARD MEMBER TIBBOTT ABSTAINING. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Reed explained that leaving the Planning Board was a difficult decision for him. He enjoyed gaining an understanding of what was going on in the City by participating on the Board. Although the Board does not have any action power, they have recommendation power even if some of their ideas and recommendations are turned down by the City Council. He will miss the opportunity he has had over the past seven years to participate on the Board and serve the citizens and the City Council. He thanked each of the Planning Board Members for the support they have shown and the insight they have provided on so many issues over the years. While they do not always agree, for the most part, they have maintained professionalism and civility as they wrestled with difficult issues. Chair Reed thanked City staff for working with the Board to provide input and support for the changes they want to make and the ideas they put forward, particularly Mr. Chave, Mr. Lien, Mr. Clugston, Mr. English, and Ms. Cunningham. He also thanked the City Council for giving him the opportunity to serve on the Board. Packet Page 311 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes November 13, 2013 Page 15 Board Member Lovell referred to the City Attorney’s recommended new language for ECDC 17.40.020.J and asked if it is a given that technology advancements will constantly make the equipment smaller. He suggested that the proposed language could create a problem if the equipment increases rather than decreases in size in the future. Mr. Clugston said that equipment is generally getting smaller. However, providers now want to stack their technologies on top of each other. The proposed change was the City Attorney’s attempt to create a theoretical box where the facilities could be located. He pointed out that the State and Federal Government, through the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), came out with additional guidance in early 2013 that indicated that the box described in the City’s code, which would go around an existing antenna and support structure, would be on top of an entire roof of a building and not just be where the antennas are located. Mr. Clugston said he forwarded the proposed new language to the WCF providers, and they expressed their belief that it was too restrictive. Mr. Clugston said staff’s intent is to bring these additional amendments to a public hearing on December 11th, parallel with the amendments proposed by AT&T. He advised that the City Attorney has contacted his counterpart, who is a specialist in WCF’s, to seek additional language that would meet the City’s intent of shrinking the facilities to be visually less intrusive and also be consistent with the FCC’s guidelines. He said he anticipates that the proposed language in EDCD 17.40.020.J may be different at the hearing. However, the point is to allow antennas to be replaced on existing nonconforming sites. Board Member Lovell observed that the Planning Board and staff spent a significant amount of time rewriting the WCF code language in 2011, yet it seems they have to continually amend it to address changing technology. Mr. Clugston noted that in addition to changes in technology, the FCC continually changes the requirements, which necessitates amendments to the City’s code. He said he anticipates that the City will have to continually update the chapter. Vice Chair Stewart asked what happened to the concept of making monopoles look like trees. Mr. Clugston said the Board discussed this idea, but decided not to go that route. In his 6.5 years with the City, there have not been any requests for monopoles. He does not believe they will see a lot of applications for this type of facility. Instead, providers are more interested in co-locating on existing structures and utility poles. Board Member Tibbott asked if the WCF codes contain language related to painting or coloring the poles. Mr. Clugston said the proposed amendment to ECDC 20.50.050.G would provide additional clarification regarding finish of a monopole. As proposed it can be laminated wood, fiberglass, steel, or similar material, and it must be a neutral color so as to reduce its visual obtrusiveness. He noted that utility pole replacements must be wood and similar in size and scale to what previously existed. Board Member Tibbott said there is a monopole in his neighborhood around 84th and 182nd. Although it was a neutral color (silver) it really stood out against the surrounding trees. It was eventually painted brown to blend in better. Mr. Clugston pointed out that this pole led to the initial code change in 2009 that prohibited providers from replacing wooden utility poles with large, metal objects. Mr. Clugston summarized that the proposed changes are small, and the intent is to bring them forward for public hearing on December 11th in conjunction with the amendments proposed by AT&T. WORK SESSION ON WESTGATE PLAN AND FORM-BASED CODE Mr. Chave said that in the Staff Report for this item, he suggested that rather than having a public hearing on the Westgate Plan and form-based code on December 11th, the Board could have a detailed work session. He referred to the three sets of plan and code changes that were attached to the Staff Report: Comprehensive Plan Changes. This document outlines the current Comprehensive Plan language related to Westgate, goals contained in the University of Washington Plan, and how they could potentially be combined to reflect the intent of the Westgate Study. Code Changes to Implement the Westgate Study. The language in this document is all new and has two components. The first component (ECDC 16.110) is a new Westgate Mixed Use (WMU) zone that would apply to Westgate. While it looks like a standard zoning classification, it is pared down. It uses a table, similar to the one used in the Downtown Business (BD) zones to simplify and easily reference what is and is not allowed. The second component (16.110.020) would be site development standards. The bulk of this component would refer to the Design Standards for the WMU zone (ECDC 22.110). Packet Page 312 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes November 13, 2013 Page 16 Design Standards for the Westgate Mixed Use District. This document takes all the form-based design discussion from the University of Washington’s plan and puts it into the code as a “design standards” chapter. Basically, the “form-based” elements of the code would be called “design standards.” He noted that usually design standards talk about façade design, etc. But the proposed design standards would go further to talk about overall form of the buildings, relationship of the buildings, etc. Mr. Chave explained that the combination of these three documents is staff’s attempt to illustrate the changes needed to implement the Westgate Plan and form-based code. He summarized that most of the form-based elements are in the design standards chapter, while the basic zoning provisions are in the new Westgate Mixed Use District. He said that while the proposed approach is not a pure version of form-based code, it enables the form-based elements to fit within the City’s overall regulatory scheme so people are not confused. The approach would be similar to the approach used for the BD zones (a use section in the zoning chapter and design standards that govern how buildings are designed and relate to each other). Mr. Chave said the purpose of this work session is for the Board to review the overall approach proposed by staff and provide feedback about whether or not it makes sense. Before the Board moves forward with a more detailed discussion, staff would like assurance that the general approach is sound. Board Member Lovell said he likes the idea of incorporating graphics and pictures. He referred to the Table in ECDC 16.110.010 that lists the different building types allowed in the WMU zone. The subsequent pages provide a more accurate description of each of the building types. He suggested that on the chart, the building types should also identify the types of uses allowed. Board Member Lovell referred to the graphic showing a sample street cross section for the internal circulation drive. He recalled that the University of Washington Study provided street cross sections for SR-104, 100th Avenue, etc. Mr. Chave said that, to avoid potential conflict, the additional street sections would not be included. Board Member Lovell pointed out that there has been significant discussion at the City Council level about the concept of making SR-104 pedestrian friendly and moving the buildings closer to the sidewalk. Mr. Chave said the recommendation from the traffic study was that these ideas may have some merit, but they would require more detailed study. He said the SR-104 study, which was brought forward by Council Member Johnson, would provide an opportunity to look at what could be done in these public rights-of- way to enhance what happens at Westgate proper. Board Member Lovell noted that guidelines for amenity space, paved areas, parking, etc. are provided in each section and identify percentages for each. He suggested that staff run some test cases to see if there would be any room left for development once all of the requirements have been met. He noted that properties at Westgate have multiple owners, and applying all the design guidelines may leave no room on the site to construct a building. Mr. Chave said the University of Washington team was mindful of this concern. Rather than using “lot” area it might be more beneficial to define “site” area. Board Member Lovell suggested that the plan should contain a graphic of the entire Westgate area. Mr. Chave said there are graphics of the entire area in the University of Washington Study. Although intended to be illustrative, including a graphic of the entire Westgate area may cause people to attach too much specificity to it. Board Member Lovell referred to an illustration that Board Member Reed provided, which categorizes the four quadrants into mixed use, buffer and residential, without any further definitions. Mr. Chave noted that the draft document provides a graphic to illustrate how the arrangement of building types would work within the various quadrants. In addition, the first page of the design guidelines document provides a diagram showing where the steep slopes are located. This could be paired with the diagram staff prepared to illustrate the heights of the surrounding slopes. Mr. Chave explained that the way the draft WMU language is currently written, it would only allow development up to four stories. He recalled that the Board has had some discussion about potentially allowing up to five stories in at least one area. He said this will be an important point for the Board to discuss in more detail at their next meeting. He said that if the Board agrees with the overall approach proposed by staff, he would continue to modify the language in preparation for a more detailed discussion on December 11th. Board Member Tibbott said he likes the terminology of design standards, which is more helpful than introducing a form- based code on top of everything else. He said it makes sense to have a WMU district, and he imagines there will eventually Packet Page 313 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes November 13, 2013 Page 17 be multiple districts throughout the City where more specific design standards would be applied. Mr. Chave agreed that is the direction the City is headed. Vice Chair Stewart suggested it would be helpful to ask the Architectural Design Board to review the draft design guidelines, particularly the building types and how they would be oriented. She noted that a form-based code requires more of a design approach. Mr. Chave agreed to invite the Architectural Design Board to provide feedback. Vice Chair Stewart said she likes the overall approach proposed by staff and the draft documents that have been organized. Mr. Chave said he is hoping that the draft language will not look so odd that people will misunderstand it, given that they are more familiar with the traditional code language. Vice Chair Stewart suggested that Board Members forward additional comments and suggestions to staff electronically. Mr. Chave advised that the Board would have a more detailed discussion about the Westgate Plan and form-based code on December 11th. Board Member Clarke asked how the boundaries for the Westgate Study Area were established. Mr. Chave answered that the Comprehensive Plan identifies specific boundaries for the Westgate commercial area. It is basically the extent of the Neighborhood Business (BN) zone, with one or two exceptions. He further explained that the area of SR-104 from Westgate Center to where the road drops down towards the ferry and downtown Edmonds is identified in the Comprehensive Plan as the Westgate Corridor. A specific study of the corridor was done in the 1990’s to identify the current zoning, which is largely Planned Business (BP). The intent was that these properties would be developed as low-level commercial that is geared towards fewer traffic movements. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Vice Chair Stewart announced that the last meeting in November and the last meeting in December have been cancelled. She reviewed that the December 11th meeting agenda will include a work session on the Westgate Plan and form-based code, a public hearing on the telecommunication code, and election of 2014 Planning Board officers. The January 8th agenda will include a discussion of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan, a public hearing on code amendments to implement Initiative 502 (cannabis), and a review of Planning Board procedures, guidelines and codes. The January 22nd agenda will include a tentative public hearing on the PROS Plan, and the February 12th agenda is tentatively scheduled as a public hearing on the Westgate Plan and form-based code. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Vice Chair Stewart announced that she attended a Built Green Conference last week and was specifically interested in the session titled, “Do Incentivized Green Building Programs Work?” The session proved to be very inspiring. Representatives from the Cities of Redmond, Seattle and Kirkland described the challenges and successes of their programs. She learned that the most important step is to offer priority permitting for green building. The second most important step is training for staff, and the third most important step is having codes that enable green building. She agreed to share her notes with the Board Members and City Council Members. Vice Chair Stewart announced that the next Planning Board Report will be presented to the City Council on January 7, 2014. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Clarke thanked the Planning Board for their hard work over the last few months while he was unavailable. He said it was a pleasure to read the recorder’s comprehensive record of the meeting. Board Member Tibbott reported that he attended a portion of the November 12th City Council Meeting and was disappointed that the City had to engage in the massive conversation about Building 10 at Point Edwards. He expressed concern about the heartache that was caused for the residents and the number of lawyers that were involved. He hopes the City can be clear enough about codes to avoid these situations in the future. He expressed his belief that an approach like the one proposed for Westgate is a possible way forward so that developers have a clear understanding of the guidelines and people purchasing property will understand the scope of the development. Packet Page 314 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes September 11, 2013 Page 9 provide some flexibility can be paired with marketing and outreach to form a whole. Doing one without the other will not likely be successful. Board Member Lovell said he agrees with the EDC’s recommendation that real estate sales office should be allowed. He suggested that additional language should be added to the note that is located below Table 16.43-1. Mr. Clifton agreed that this would provide greater clarity. Board Member Ellis observed that certain types of services do not contribute to the goal of having a vibrant downtown. He asked how they can draw the line between the businesses they want and the ones they don’t. It seems that the goal is to get people downtown to walk from business to business. While some service uses do this implicitly, he is uncertain how others will fit into the goal. Mr. Chave advised that the footnote below Table 16.43-1 was an attempt to describe the types of services uses that are desirable. He agreed that additional language could be added for clarity. For example, they could include examples. Vice Chair Stewart suggested that a footnote be added to encourage service and retail uses that have evening business hours. Board Member Tibbott asked if it is possible for the City to partner with a private property owner to create a gathering space on property that is vacant or underutilized (i.e. a live music venue). He felt this type of use would create additional synergy in the downtown core. Mr. Clifton agreed to research this opportunity and report back. Board Member Ellis asked if staff has any feel for how much retail trade must occur before a service becomes a retail establishment. Mr. Chave said the classification would be based on the business’s primary activity. Mr. Clifton said he worked with the City’s Information and Technology and Financial Departments to prepare a matrix and map for his presentation to the Chamber regarding economic development. The City’s Strategic Plan calls for finding some way to measure whether the City codes and current business recruitment efforts are being manifested in an increase in sales and use tax revenue. The matrix identifies property valuations and the sales and use tax revenue generated by each of the geographic areas (downtown, Five Corners, Westgate, Highway 99, Firdale Village, and Perrinville) for 2011 and 2012. He noted that Highway 99 generates five times the sales and use tax revenue as the downtown. He noted that the information is available to Board Members upon request. The Board scheduled a public hearing on the proposal for October 9th. Mr. Clifton indicated that a notice would be sent to all property owners in the BD1 zone. Chair Reed agreed to meet with Mr. Chave and Mr. Clifton to review the updated draft prior to the public hearing. CONTINUED WORK ON THE WESTGATE PLAN Mr. Chave said the purpose of the work session is to explore in more detail two prominent parts of the proposed form-based code for Westgate: the amenity/open space and green factor section and the height bonus section. He specifically asked the Board to provide direction on whether they reflect the Board’s priorities and provide the appropriate balance to achieve the intended goals. Mr. Chave referred to the Westgate Height Bonus Score Sheet (Item 6.5.3) and noted that at least one item in each of the categories (housing, green building, green factor, amenity space, and alternative transportation) is required for any development in the Westgate area. In order to obtain an additional story of height, an applicant would have to earn a total of 8 points, and the points must be spread over four different categories. A total of 12 points would be required in exchange for an additional two stories in height. He asked the Board to provide feedback about whether or not the points required are sufficient to obtain the additional height. Mr. Chave said he is not sure it is beneficial to include so many detailed options in the Housing Unit Size Category. He pointed out that most of the categories are not additive. For example, in the Green Building Category, a developer that obtains a LEED Gold rating would not also get credit for meeting the LEED Silver requirements. However, a developer could receive one point for each of the items in the Housing and Transportation Categories. He suggested that this needs to be clarified. Packet Page 315 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes September 11, 2013 Page 10 Mr. Chave noted that the weighting is important. For example, providing an amenity space that is greater than 30% of the total property requires a large piece of land. Therefore, the larger score (4 points) is warranted. He also said Living Building status is very difficult to achieve, and perhaps four points is not enough. It is at least a couple of orders of magnitude more difficult to get from LEED Platinum to Living Building. If the Board wants to encourage Living Building, they could consider increasing the points. He noted that a developer has to meet numerous requirements to obtain Living Building status, which includes landscaping, surfaces, etc. Board Member Lovell recalled that three of the four quadrants at Westgate have relatively steep slopes at the perimeter. The Board discussed the need to take advantage of the topography and allow buildings to be constructed back into the hill so that at-grade parking could be accommodated under the buildings without penalizing the available height of the rest of the building. However, recent development in the area placed the building away from the retaining wall to accommodate the required fire lane. Mr. Chave clarified that the intent was never to push taller buildings into the hillside. The idea was that if the hillside is there, having a tall building somewhere on the site would have much less impact to surrounding residents. If the City encourages buildings to be pushed back into the slope, some of the natural buffer between the site and the residential properties would be eliminated. Rather than encouraging developers to build back into the hillside as far as possible, they should encourage them to retain as much of the hillside as possible. He reminded the Board of their discussion about the desirability of having buildings located closer to the traveled way rather than pushed back. He noted that four and five-story buildings may also require stepbacks. Board Member Lovell asked what benefit the City would receive by allowing taller buildings at Westgate. Mr. Chave said a lot of discussion in the Westgate Plan focuses on having greater proportions of smaller units that attract younger households who might find an active environment more desirable. Smaller units are typically more affordable, as well. The Green Building options would have broad benefits to the City. They are better for the climate and they put less stress on City facilities. In addition, the Green Factor options would have direct benefits to the City by providing more green space and landscaping, which people find attractive. Amenity space would be geared towards meeting space or public active areas, which also benefit the community. He said the City has been encouraging charging facilities for electric vehicles to reduce the amount of emissions. Car share, parking and bicycle options help reduce the number of vehicles or vehicle miles traveled in the City. The intent is that the items on the list will benefit the City or the general public in some way. Chair Reed referred to Figure 6.5-1, which identifies the parcels that are eligible for the 5th-story height bonus, as well as areas that are not eligible for development because the slope is greater than 8 degrees. He asked if the figure should be updated to reflect the step back requirement. Mr. Chave suggested that rather than revising Figure 6.5-1, an additional figure could be added to identify properties that are eligible for four and five stories, and where stepbacks would be required. He said Figure 6.5-1 is particularly important to make it clear that buildings cannot be set so far back into the hillside that the green barrier is eroded. Mr. Chave recalled previous discussion that the City should not necessarily force buildings to the 10-foot setback, and it would not be a requirement. However, if buildings are setback greater than 10 feet, it is important to provide connections and additional open space in the intervening area so at least there is still a presence or a way to get to the street front. Again, Mr. Chave clarified that Figure 6.5-1 was intended to identify where development would not be allowed because of steep slopes and where five-story development would be allowed. Four-story development would be allowed on any of the other parcels within the Westgate area, except where the slope is greater than 8 degrees. He suggested that an additional color be added to the map to identify the properties that are eligible for four-story development. Board Member Lovell recalled that early in the planning process, two or three concepts were initially developed for Westgate. One was centered around the concept of creating significant landscape buffers between the buildings and the highway, particularly along SR-104. He asked if it would be appropriate to include this concept in the plan. Mr. Chave explained that the Green Factor and Amenity Categories are meant to deal with the interstitial space around buildings. These categories are weighted fairly heavily compared to other categories. Mr. Chave expressed concern that the options listed in the Alternative Transportation Category are not well defined. For example, how many electric charging stations should be required? In looking at the overall rating system, he suggested that the most important categories are the Green Building, Green Factor and Amenity Space Categories. These are weighted Packet Page 316 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes September 11, 2013 Page 11 more than the other categories. If the Board believes these categories are even more important, they could increase the scores. Another option would be to require at least one point in each of these three categories. He summarized that the scoring system should reflect the City’s priorities. Board Member Ellis asked who created the height bonus score sheet. Mr. Chave answered that it was created by the University of Washington team. Board Member Ellis asked how the points were assigned to each of the credit options, particularly those related to housing unit size. Mr. Chave said the numbers were based on available information. Board Member Ellis noted that, as currently proposed, it appears the City wants to discourage units that are greater than 1,400 square feet. Mr. Chave agreed that the goal is to encourage smaller, affordable units in the Westgate area. Board Member Ellis expressed his belief that some of the scores seem arbitrary. Mr. Chave agreed. For example, perhaps it would not be appropriate to offer a point for each of the housing ranges. If the goal is to encourage affordable units, then perhaps more points could be offered to developers who provide smaller units. Perhaps it is overkill to have so many housing credit options. As currently proposed, an applicant could accumulate half of the needed points for an additional story just by meeting the four credits in the Housing Unit Size option. Board Member Ellis asked if it would be possible to encourage property owners to aggregate amenity spaces to create large rather than small spaces on each lot. Mr. Chave answered that this would require that small properties be developed as a group. However, large properties have flexibility to consolidate the amenity space to create a larger area. Board Member Ellis questioned the benefit of creating a lot of small amenity spaces on the individual properties. He felt larger amenity spaces that provide enough room for people to congregate would be more valuable. Mr. Chave said he does not anticipate a significant problem since there are not a lot of small property ownerships in the Westgate area. The language would allow a property owner to develop one property and consolidate the amenity space on another property that is under the same ownership. Board Member Ellis agreed that more specificity is needed for the Alternative Transportation options. He asked if the credits could be better related to things the City of Edmonds wants to encourage. Mr. Chave said most of the options are aimed at discouraging people from using private cars. Electric cars would have no emissions compared to gasoline, and the Sustainability and Transportation Elements in the Comprehensive Plan both call out the need for more charging stations. Car share parking encourages people to share vehicles, which results in fewer cars on the road. The goal is to maximize the use of the transportation facilities that already exist. However, he agreed that the Alternative Transportation options could be more specific. Another issue to consider is whether it would be appropriate to allow a developer to get more than half of the required points for an additional story by doing all of the credits in this one category. Board Member Ellis said that as he reviewed the Height Bonus Score Sheet in preparation for the meeting, he found he had insufficient information to judge whether or not the points proposed for the various credit options are appropriate. Mr. Chave explained that without detailed studies looking at the economic benefit of each of the credit options, the City must rely on experience. Once implemented, the City can keep track of what developers actually choose to get an idea of what is valuable and what is not. He noted that it is easy to get a feel for how difficult and costly some of the credit options will be to implement. Developers will probably not choose the more costly options unless the City offers more points. He said he would prefer that developers focus more on the Green Building, Green Factor, and Amenity Space options and less on the Housing Unit Size and Alternative Transportation options. Board Member Ellis said he would benefit from the Planning staff’s input as to what credit options would be better suited to the City’s goals. Board Member Ellis noted that the Height Bonus Score Sheet only applies to developers who are trying to obtain additional height. Mr. Chave noted that the required options would apply to all development in the Westgate area, regardless of height. He suggested that this should be clarified. Chair Reed asked if there are other bonuses the City could offer besides height such as financial incentives or tax credits. Mr. Chave said the score sheet was created specifically for the height bonus, which is where developers tend to get the most “bang for their buck.” The only other incentive that would factor into the bottom line of a project would be parking. He cautioned against offering tax credits. Packet Page 317 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes September 11, 2013 Page 12 Chair Reed recalled that the Firdale Village Plan incorporated the concept of shared parking. Mr. Chave said this concept is not unique to Firdale Village and is available to any project in the City. The concept is outlined in the parking section of the code. Chair Reed suggested that rather than offering points for charging facilities for electric cars and LEED Silver ratings, perhaps they should be required. Mr. Chave agreed that charging stations could be required for any parking lot over a certain size, but he cautioned against making it a requirement for small parking areas, as well. He suggested that perhaps a minimum LEED Silver rating and charging stations for electric vehicles should be required for all four and five-story buildings. The remainder of the Board agreed that would be appropriate. Vice Chair Stewart recalled Mr. Chave’s earlier comment about how difficult and costly it can be to obtain Passive House, LEED Platinum and Living Building status. She suggested that perhaps the City should offer 4 points to developers to obtain Passive House or LEED Platinum status. Living Building status is very difficult to obtain and should receive more points, perhaps as many as 6. She pointed out that when a developer meets the requirements for any of the three highest green building programs, they will also be fulfilling a number of other options included on the score sheet. Board Member Ellis suggested that the point system would need to be tweaked to implement Vice Chair Stewart’s suggestion. He pointed out that if a developer receives six points for obtaining Living Building status, he/she would only have to obtain two more points to qualify for the additional story. As currently written, a developer must obtain points from at least three other categories. He suggested that if the Living Building status would fulfill a number of other options, perhaps it should be the only prerequisite for a four-story building. Mr. Chave suggested that if a developer obtains Living Building Status, perhaps it would be appropriate to allow him/her to pick up the other required points in any category. This would recognize that Living Building status is an expensive proposition and something the City wants to encourage. Board Member Ellis said he does not want unintended consequences to discourage something the City really wants. Mr. Chave explained that if they find that over time most developers are choosing credits that are less important to the City, they could change the point system. He commented that it is difficult to be precise when weighting each of the options because each property owner will bring their own values to the equation. The weighting has to be a combination of what the City wants to see happen, as well as some recognition of how difficult and/or expensive it is to do. Mr. Chave agreed to revise the Height Bonus Score Sheet based on the Board’s comments. He suggested that staff could also solicit feedback from architects who are familiar with the concept. The Board agreed that would be helpful. Mr. Chave referred the Board to the Green Factor Score Sheet (Appendix 5a), which was developed and has been used successfully by the City of Seattle. He asked the Board to provide feedback regarding the proposed weighting for each of the various factors. He noted that higher weightings recognize that some factors are more valuable than others. Mr. Chave suggested staff could apply the score sheet to existing development in Westgate, particularly the newer developments. He said he anticipates that most of the existing development at Westgate would receive a low score. He briefly explained how the score sheet would be used to calculate the requirements for a given site. Board Member Ellis asked if there are definitions for the terms used in the Green Factor Score Sheet, such as structural soil systems. Mr. Chave answered that architects and landscapers are familiar with the terms used in the score sheet. Mr. Chave said he can understand why vegetative walls would receive a higher score in the City of Seattle where the building sites are very limited. Green walls are costly, if done right. However, green walls may be less important in Edmonds, which means that the score could be lower. Vice Chair Stewart pointed out that Seattle provides a list of additional resources that are available on their Green Factor Website. One particular resource is the Director’s Rules (10-2011) for Landscaping and Green Factor Standards, which provides definitions for the various terms used on the score sheet. She suggested that the City could provide a similar document. Mr. Chave advised that the City’s Engineering Department administratively adopts design standards for various things such as pervious pavement. Packet Page 318 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes September 11, 2013 Page 13 Mr. Chave suggested that Item H.4 on the score sheet (landscaping and food cultivation) should be replaced with “landscaping for habitat.” He said he does not believe that landscaping and food cultivation would be practical on business sites. Vice Chair Stewart suggested the language be changed to “landscaping for food cultivation and habitat.” Vice Chair Stewart suggested that Items B.6 and B.7 could be eliminated from the score sheet. She noted that there are no large existing trees on the Westgate properties. Mr. Chave commented that if the City wants to encourage developers to plant trees that will get large, then Items B.6 and B.7 should remain on the score sheet as options. Board Member Tibbott commented that the intent of Item B.7 is to encourage developers to preserve existing large trees. Mr. Chave noted that any large trees on the site will likely be located on the perimeter. He reminded the Board that the Green Factor Program could potentially be applied to other areas in the City, and not just Westgate. The Board agreed to retain Items B.6 and B.7. Vice Chair Stewart referred to Item C.1 and noted that 2 inches of soil does not seem sufficient for an affective green roof. She felt the City should require a minimum soil depth of 4 inches. Before making this change, Mr. Chave suggested the Board seek feedback from Board Member Duncan. Vice Chair Stewart suggested that while vegetated walls (Item D) are important elements, perhaps they should not be weighted so heavily. She also suggested that it would be appropriate to provide some examples to clarify what is meant by approved water features (Item E). Mr. Chave suggested that perhaps Seattle’s detailed rules provide a description of this term. He agreed to check for additional criteria. Vice Chair Stewart referred to Item F (permeable paving) and commented that greater depths of permeable pavement should receive a higher score. Mr. Chave agreed to solicit feedback from the City’s stormwater engineer. Vice Chair Stewart also recommended that the Board should review the City’s plant and tree list to make sure the score sheet is consistent. Mr. Chave pointed out that, other than a street tree list, the City does not have a plant or tree list. The University of Washington team used Seattle’s list, which is well researched. Board Member Lovell suggested that Item H.3 (landscaping visible to passersby from adjacent public right-of-way or public opens spaces) should be weighted more heavily. He noted that this is a definite public benefit. Mr. Chave concurred. He pointed out that the options in Item H are bonuses that can be added on to the elements listed in Items A through G. Vice Chair Stewart suggested it would be helpful to eliminate the decimals from the scores. She commented that it is so much easier to work with whole numbers. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Reed briefly reviewed the Board’s extended agenda, noting that a public hearing on the proposed Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is scheduled for September 25th. He noted that the Board already received copies of the draft plans. Also on September 25th, the Board will continue their review of the two amendments related to the Critical Areas Ordinance. Chair Reed reminded the Board that they previously scheduled a public hearing on the proposed amendment to the Downtown Business (BD) 1 zone. The Board will also review the code sections related to telecommunications. He advised that, instead a public hearing, the Board will continue their discussion regarding the Westgate Plan and form-based code. Mr. Chave noted that the public hearing on the Westgate Plan would be pushed back to November or December. Once they finish the review of the Westgate Plan, the Board can move forward with the Five Corners Plan. Chair Reed noted that the second meetings in November and December have been cancelled to accommodate the holidays. The Board will elect new officers at their December 11th meeting. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Reed reported that the next Economic Development Commission meeting is scheduled for September 18th at 6:00 p.m. in the Brackett Meeting Room at City Hall. At the meeting, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) from Edmonds Swedish Hospital will make a presentation regarding the hospital’s proposed plans. Board Member Lovell indicated he would not be Packet Page 319 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes February 13, 2013 Page 5 is critical for anyone wanting to try new design. He encouraged the Board to continue to move forward with a recommendation to the City Council. Regarding the Board’s earlier discussion about Subsection 20.43.060, Mr. Chave suggested that if the transparency (window) requirement is specifically tied to the street level on the designated street front, which is where transparency really matters, it would be clear that the language in this subsection would apply to the portions of the street front façade that are not part of the pedestrian designated street front. The Board concurred. Once again, Chair Reed advised that the public hearing would be continued to February 27th. DISCUSSION ON WESTGATE PLAN AND FORM-BASED CODE Mr. Chave referred the Board to the document titled, “Revisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code” dated August 29, 2012. He advised that the plan has not changed in recent months. While staff believes the form-based code approach is appropriate to apply to zoning in both Westgate and Five Corners, it is also important to address the differences between the two locations. For example, the Five Corners plan could focus more on external orientation, and the Westgate plan could be more internally oriented. He explained that while there is some pedestrian activity on SR-104, 9th Avenue and 100th Avenue, there is more opportunity for walking within the quadrants rather than between the quadrants. This is particularly true when crossing SR-104. Going forward, staff believes it would make sense to reconfigure the Westgate material to place more emphasis on internal circulation elements. While maintain a connection between the sidewalk and the building is important, locating buildings against the sidewalk may not be as important. Connections within the quadrants will be more important than connections between the quadrants. Although different in scale, Mr. Chave referred to University Village as a good example of the concept staff is proposing. There are different activity areas within the large development. It is easy to walk between buildings in each of the activity areas because there are good internal connections. While there is also access to the wide and busy streets, the external access is less important. The strong internal connections provide an opportunity for pedestrian-friendly access for people to walk within the activity areas. He suggested this same concept would make sense for Westgate where orientation towards the perimeter of the development is important, but less important than strong internal connections. Mr. Chave recalled that the University of Washington team had some concern about using the same approach for both Five Corners and Westgate. They did their best to provide good ideas that can apply to both areas such as incentives tied to height, Green Factor elements, and guidelines related to building design, building orientation, frontage improvements, etc. However, the plan calls for buildings to be located at the street front. Staff is recommending that setbacks of up to ten feet be allowed in the Westgate area to take into account the speed and quantity of traffic on the roadways. He reminded the Board that the larger setbacks identified in the current code result in planting strips along the sidewalk with an expanse of asphalt between the building and sidewalk to accommodate parking. Retailers and developers typically want buildings to be more visible from the streets rather than set back behind parking lots. When buildings are set too far back, larger signs are necessary in order make the business visible for people passing by on the street. Chair Reed asked if staff’s recommendation is to address the four quadrants differently to emphasize certain elements that are different. Mr. Chave answered affirmatively. He pointed out that building type options are different, depending on the quadrant. In addition, the maximum height limit should vary, depending on the topography of the area. He also noted that while there is significantly more developable land in the northwest and northeast quadrants, there is significantly less depth in the southwest quadrant, and space in the southeast 1uadrant is severely limited. Internal orientation will be less important in the southeast quadrant, but it will be critical in the northeast and northwest quadrants. Mr. Chave invited the Board Members to provide feedback and direction for staff to begin to prepare a more detailed plan for the Board’s consideration. He reminded the Board that the hallmark of the proposed plan and form-based code is to provide both predictability and flexibility. While the plan includes a lot of detail, it also provides a lot of options. This is important so that development does not all look the same. If the Board agrees with the direction proposed by staff, the language and diagrams could be modified accordingly. Packet Page 320 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes February 13, 2013 Page 6 Board Member Tibbott said he likes staff’s recommendation that the plan should focus on internal connections. However, it will also be important to provide some safe pedestrian connections between the quadrants, particularly between the northeast and northwest quadrants. Mr. Chave agreed that connections between the quadrants is also important, particularly connections at locations other than the busy intersections. He recalled that the University of Washington team provided some cross sections to identify potential alternatives for external connections. The Engineering Department has recommended that while it is important to take these ideas under advisement, they should not be adopted as part of the plan at this point. A more detailed traffic analysis will be needed to make this decision. Board Member Tibbott asked if an SR-104 study would be required to identify potential pedestrian connections. Mr. Chave explained that if the City goes in the direction of a more internally-oriented plan, what happens in the right-of-ways will not be central to what happens in the quadrants. The plan and form-based code could move forward, as its relationship to the right-of-way would not be as critical. Vice Chair Stewart agreed with staff’s recommended approach of focusing on internal circulation for Westgate. She also likes the diversity of housing proposed in the plan, particularly the inclusion of affordable housing. She agreed that internal circulation is important, particularly in the northern quadrants. She said she also likes the Green Factors score sheet. She agreed that the built-to lines need to be greater, particularly on SR-104. While bikes are not recommended on SR-104, she felt that bike lanes could be accommodated on 100th Avenue. She suggested the Board discuss option of providing space for a bike lane on the west side of 100th Avenue. However, the bike lane must be located safely so that people parking on the street do not clip bicyclists when opening their car doors. She expressed her belief that a traffic study for SR-104 will be extremely important at some point in time given that 10,000 cars use the roadway each day and the rate of speed is high. Mr. Chave explained that as development occurs over time, turning movements and other safety issues will be addressed on a case-by-case basis. He recalled that the recent transportation analysis indicated that the capacity on SR-104 would not be a problem. Board Member Ellis referred to Figure 7.5-3 (Page 58), which is supposed to identify opportunities for cycling improvements in the Westgate area. He noted that the illustration actually depicts the Five Corners area, instead. Mr. Chave agreed to make this correction. Board Member Ellis pointed out that the proposed form-based code approach would be much different than the current zoning code. He asked if staff believes a form-based code would be useful and enforceable. Mr. Chave answered affirmatively and noted that some of the ideas embodied in the plan make it more user friendly than the current code language. However, certain elements of the existing code will need to be integrated into the new form-based code. For example, the allowed uses will need to be clarified. In addition, the proposed weighting of the various Green Factors will need to be adjusted to reflect what the City wants the end result to be. Staff is currently reviewing the language to determine the appropriate weight to give each of the items. He reminded the Board that the current code contains a parking standard that is based on use. This approach can be problematic as uses change, and it can result in excess parking because it is predicated on worst case scenario. Tying the parking standard to uses does not recognize that parking demands can be different, even for similar uses. Businesses know how much parking they need, and they will not likely locate on a site with insufficient parking space. Parking tends to be self-regulated. Board Member Ellis said that in reading through the Westgate Plan, it seems to be predicated on having certain types of uses in certain areas. He questioned if this approach would be flexible enough to address all four quadrants, which might have different requirements. Mr. Chave said it will be important to pay close attention to the section regarding building types and the maps that identify where each building type can be located. This is a critical piece that sets up a lot of the flexibility. Chair Reed said he has struggled with the issue of how form-based codes would be applied. He recalled that presentations were made where it was suggested that a hybrid form-based code would be a good option. He expressed his belief that a hybrid form-based code approach for the Westgate area would be appropriate. Mr. Chave pointed out that the Westgate area is zoned primarily Neighborhood Business (BN) at this time, and a setback for each lot is required. A form-based code would give a general development area, but the types of development and how the buildings are fit on the site would be more flexible. He summarized that form-based codes are intended to provide flexibility where appropriate, while giving sufficient guidance to result in the type of development the City wants. Important elements include building design, connection requirements, and the relationship of the building to the street. Form-based codes do not worry so much about setbacks between lots, etc. They look at the overall development pattern rather than lot-by-lot development. Packet Page 321 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes February 13, 2013 Page 7 Board Member Lovell asked if the University of Washington team would be involved in the future. Mr. Chave answered that they may be asked to make an additional presentation, but they would not participate in drafting the code language. The document is now a City document that can be modified. Board Member Lovell asked how staff perceives the project will move forward. Mr. Chave said that staff will sort through the document and identify the elements that will be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan and the elements that would end up in the zoning code. Board Member Lovell said he supports the staff’s recommendation to emphasize the quadrants and internal circulation. However, he also supports the idea of providing a pedestrian crossing between the northeast and northwest quadrants at some point in the future. Mr. Chave said the Engineering Department’s take on the issue is that while turning lanes are needed closer to the intersection, there may be opportunities for connections to occur further away. Board Member Lovell pointed out that the form-based code language will be much different than the existing code. The public has provided a lot of input, and there will be more opportunities for public comments. However, he is concerned that people will oppose the document because it represents a change. He agreed with Chair Reed that the best approach would be a hybrid code that includes both traditional codes and form-based codes. It should be emphasized that the hybrid form-based code would be applicable only to the Westgate area. Board Member Lovell noted that the extended agenda includes a review of the Edmonds Way BC-EW and RM-EW zoning classifications, which was referred to the Board by the City Council. He asked how this issue would relate to the Board’s work on the Westgate Plan and form-based zoning. Mr. Chave said this issue came about from concerns raised about the Compass development that occurred on SR-104. The City has received both positive and negative comments regarding the development, and some City Council Members have expressed concern about whether the zoning is appropriate. Questions have been raised about whether they want to allow similar development elsewhere in these two zones. He noted that staff would present the item to the Board for initial discussion on February 27th. However, he emphasized that this is a separate issue from the Westgate Plan. Mr. Chave said the Board would also have an initial discussion about the time frame for short plats on February 27th. He explained that State law recently changed to allow short plats more time before they expire. Some cities have made the change, and the City Council would like the Board to consider the option and forward a recommendation to them. Board Member Ellis said he is baffled by some of the descriptions for landscaping and amenities. Vice Chair Stewart pointed out that turning in and out of the PCC Market is already a dangerous situation. Mr. Chave agreed that the current configuration is less than ideal. Chair Reed suggested that perhaps it would be appropriate to form a subcommittee of Board Members to assist staff in rewriting the Westgate Plan and form-based code based on the Board’s discussion with staff. Vice Chair Stewart indicated she would like an opportunity to review the document further, based on the new direction recommended by staff, and then submit her written comments to staff. Mr. Chave invited all the Board Members to submit their additional comments and questions to staff. This will help narrow the focus as they put the document into a format that makes sense and is not so different from the existing code. He said he envisions that the Westgate area would have its own zoning designation, as well as a separate chapter in the zoning code that integrates some form-based zoning concepts but retains some of the standard zoning look and feel. Chair Reed reminded the Board that the Westgate Plan was initiated by the Economic Development Commission (EDC), who solicited help from the University of Washington team. The document has been in the Board’s hands since early 2012. He questioned if it would be appropriate to have additional interaction with the EDC at some point. It might also be appropriate to have a work session with the City Council to discuss the change in approach recommended by staff. Mr. Chave agreed it may be helpful to have a work session with the EDC. However, he is hesitant to recommend a work session with the City Council at this point. Instead, the Board could report the change in direction as part of their periodical reports to the City Council. Chair Reed expressed concern that, oftentimes, the City Council remands items back to the Board for further consideration because the Board’s recommendations are not what they anticipated. They should consider opportunities to soften this interaction. Chair Reed observed that Westgate is a traffic-intensive area, and the Comprehensive Plan for the Edmonds Way Corridor talks a lot about traffic volumes. He questioned if it would be appropriate to consider options that would allow for expansion Packet Page 322 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes February 13, 2013 Page 8 of the SR-104 right-of-way. Mr. Chave pointed out that expanding SR-104 would cost a substantial amount of money. In addition, the City must keep in mind that this is a well-used corridor, and it may not be desirable to encourage a wider roadway that provides opportunities for even more traffic. Chair Reed referred to Figure 3.1-2 (Page 16), which is an illustrative site plan showing an example development with building heights and uses. While he recognized that the Westgate Plan was built around this illustration, he questioned if including the document in the plan would limit flexibility. Vice Chair Stewart said the illustration helps show what could be at Westgate, and it particularly depicts the diverse set of housing types. Mr. Chave said that as the Board considers changes to make the plan more internally oriented, they will have to decide if the illustration reflects the changes they make. If not, it could be eliminated. The illustration will only be helpful to the extent it reflects the vision for Westgate. Board Members Lovell and Ellis expressed concern that including the illustration may provoke negative reactions from citizens who do not read the entire document. For example, they may interpret the illustration to mean that the QFC would eventually be eliminated. Chair Reed advised that the Westgate Plan and form-based code will come before the Board again on March 27th. Mr. Chave said this would give staff time to make appropriate changes based on the Board’s discussion. Again, he invited them to email their additional comments to him. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Reed reviewed that the Board’s February 27th agenda would include a continued hearing on the BD zone amendments, an introduction of the Edmonds Way BC-EW amendments, and a discussion about the time requirements for short plats. The Board’s retreat is scheduled for March 13th at 6:00 p.m. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Reed reported that on February 4th, he met with Mr. Chave, Mr. Clifton and Commissioners Pierce and Witenberg of the EDC. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss common issues that both the EDC and the Planning Board are working on such as the BD1 zones, Five Corners, Westgate, and implementation of the Strategic Plan. They discussed the need to coordinate the efforts of both groups so they do not work at cross purposes and double up on efforts. Board Member Clarke, the Board’s liaison to the EDC, and Commissioners Pierce and Witenberg, the EDC’s liaisons to the Board, have been asked to keep apprised of the work that is taking place and report back to their respective groups. Chair Reed said he also met with Mr. Chave to discuss potential agenda topics for the Board’s upcoming retreat. Topics include: Edmonds Community Development Code reorganization Updates to Vision 2040 and the Growth Management Act and how they fit in with what the City is doing. Isolating the Strategic Plan items assigned to Development Services and Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Departments to determine which ones will fall into the Board’s hands for additional work. Budget changes and how they will impact the Planning Board’s work schedule. Development agreements and incentive plans. Chair Reed invited Board Members to share their additional thoughts about potential agenda items. The Board discussed that there might not be sufficient time to address all five items. Mr. Chave agreed, particularly since the discussion regarding development agreements and incentive plans could be lengthy. However, he noted the budget discussion would likely be short. Chair Reed said he envisions the Board will spend 30 minutes on each of the first three items, and the remaining items will be discussed as time allows. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Lovell asked what role the Strategic Plan Subcommittee, of which Board Members Ellis and Clarke are members, would have as the plan is moved forward to the City Council. Board Member Ellis answered that, in his mind, the subcommittee has completed its work. Its purpose was to provide feedback to the consultants regarding the City’s position Packet Page 323 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes October 24, 2012 Page 4 However, it is important to distinguish between a general policy leaning a Board Member might have and an actual prejudgment about the facts of a specific case. For example, a Board Member may have a policy leaning that development is good and he/she wants to see more development in Edmonds. However, that leaning would not require a Board Member to step down from a site-specific rezone application that comes before the Board as long as he/she is confident they won’t prejudge the application. Board Members must avoid showing partiality or a personal bias or prejudgment signifying an attitude for or against a party. They should ask themselves if a fair-minded person observing the proceedings could conclude that everyone was able to be heard. For example, allowing a proponent to speak to the Board longer than an opponent might suggest there is some partiality. The Board should also ask themselves if they gave reasonable consideration to all creditable information that was presented to them. There could be a conflict of interest if a Board Member stands to gain or lose something as a result of the Board’s decision. These situations are usually clear and obvious circumstances such as a financial gain if a rezone is approved or a Board Member owns the property that is the subject of a rezone application. Less obvious conflict of interest situations include a Board Member being offered a job by the applicant who is seeking a rezone. Board Members should contact the City Attorney if they have a question as to whether their participation in a public hearing would be considered a conflict of interest. City Attorney Taraday pointed out that the remedy for an Appearance of Fairness Doctrine violation is the same as for violation of the Open Public Meetings Act; the Board’s action would be invalidated and a new public hearing would be required. He emphasized the importance of identifying conflict of interest and appearance of fairness issues at the outset of the public hearing process. He cautioned the Board that when conducting open record hearings, in general, it is important to create a complete verbatim record. Every person who speaks during the hearing should use the microphone so the comments are captured in the audio recording. City Attorney Taraday explained that, as per the Public Records Act, any email that relates to Planning Board business is considered part of the public record. While the City does not receive a lot of public record requests for Planning Board Member emails, it could happen and Board Members would be required to produce all emails that are subject to the request from their personal email accounts. He suggested that, at some point, it would be appropriate for the City to move official emails from board and commission members to a City server so that board members and commissioners are not burdened with having to search for and produce emails from their personal computers. Emails on the City server can be searched by the City Clerk to fulfill public record requests. Until the City makes this change, he suggested the Board Members may want to limit their email activity. WORK SESSION ON WESTGATE PLAN AND FORM-BASED ZONING Mr. Hauss introduced the City’s consultant, Jennifer Barnes, Heffron Transportation, Inc., who was present to provide a summary of the transportation analysis that was recently completed based on the land use policy changes proposed in the Westgate and Five Corners Plans. He also noted that Ms. Barnes worked with City staff to complete the 2009 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) update. Jennifer Barnes, Consultant, Heffron Transportation, Inc., explained that the purpose of the transportation analysis was to determine how the proposed land use policy changes in the Westgate and Five Corners areas would affect the City’s current adopted TMP. Because it serves as the Transportation Element in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, it is important to identify the potential impacts to the TMP if the proposed changes are adopted. She explained that because the proposed action is a policy change and not a specific development proposal, the analysis is still programmatic and intended to answer the question of whether or not the TMP would still address transportation impacts resulting from future land use growth if the proposed changes are adopted. She emphasized that whether or not the proposed land use policy changes are adopted, subsequent development proposals would still be subject to project-level State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review, including a required traffic impact and access management analysis. Ms. Barnes advised that for the analysis, she evaluated conditions for the Comprehensive Plan long-range plan through 2025, compared the assumed future land use in study areas with the proposal, calculated additional trips resulting from build out under the proposal, evaluated the effect of additional trips on the City’s adopted long-range transportation plan, and evaluated consistency with the City’s transportation policies. The analysis identified the following conclusions: Packet Page 324 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes October 24, 2012 Page 5 Build out of land use with the proposed policy changes would add some intersection delay, but the Level of Service (LOS) would remain the same (LOS D). With the adopted Transportation Improvement Plan in place, all intersections are expected to continue to operate within the City’s LOS D standard. Additional transit and non-motorized trips resulting from an increase in land-use density would not affect the TMP improvements and recommendations, and no changes would be needed. Ms. Barnes explained that the proposed design concept for the Westgate area also includes the potential narrowing of 100th Avenue West from five vehicular traffic lanes to three. This would provide additional right-of-way to accommodate a bicycle lane, parking, and sidewalks. The analysis considered the potential impacts of this change and determined that, with the projected 2025 build-out volumes, such a roadway cross section would degrade operations at the Edmonds Way intersection from LOS D to LOS F. She said she would not recommend adopting the proposed change at this time. If the City chooses to pursue the option at some point in the future as part of an actual development proposal, a more detailed project-level analysis would be needed to identify strategies for reducing vehicle demand through the intersection and/or configuring the right-of-way to maintain a wider cross section at the intersection. However, she emphasized that the proposed land use policy changes could still be adopted without adopting the proposed change to the roadway cross sections. Ms. Barnes advised that because the proposal is a non-project action rather than a site specific development proposal, site- specific characteristics such as driveway access, internal circulation, parking and safety are more detailed than is appropriate at the Comprehensive Plan level. Subsequent development proposals would be required to evaluate site-specific elements for consistency with the City’s adopted Traffic Impact Analysis guidelines. She summarized that, based on the conclusions of the transportation assessment, the proposed land use policy changes would be consistent with the TMP policies, particularly those that encourage alternative modes and transportation system efficiency. Vice Chair Stewart raised a concern that the proposal to narrow 100th Avenue West from five to three vehicular lines would not provide adequate space for safe bicycle lanes. Ms. Barnes explained that, currently, there are two lanes for vehicular traffic in each direction and a center turn lane. As per the proposal, the street would be narrowed to one lane in each direction, with a turn lane in the middle. The additional right-of-way width could be used for bicycle lanes, parking, sidewalks, etc. The City must determine if providing access for non-motorized vehicles is an adequate tradeoff for reducing the capacity for vehicular traffic. The traffic assessment has determined that without some additional analysis to identify strategies to reduce vehicular demand through the intersection and/or reconfigure the intersection to maintain a wider cross section, the LOS at the intersection would reach a level that would be unacceptable to both the City and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). Mr. Chave explained that there may be opportunities to change the street configuration while avoiding significant changes at the intersection. For example, it may be possible to provide bicycle and pedestrian opportunities on 100th Avenue West near the cemetery. He summarized that the traffic assessment concluded that more study is needed regarding the proposal to narrow 100th Avenue West. If the concept is eliminated from the plan for the time being, the proposed land use policy changes would still be consistent with the City’s adopted TMP. Ms. Barnes agreed that the concept could be pursued further as part of a future development proposal. Mr. Chave reported that City Council Member Johnson suggested that the City look holistically at the public improvements on the SR 104 Corridor. It may be possible to apply some of the concepts discussed in the Westgate Plan to the entire corridor. Board Member Reed referred to Table 4 on Page 8 of the Transportation Assessment, which identifies the current and projected number of primary and pass-by trips. He noted that “pass-by” trips refer to people heading home from work who stop at businesses along the corridor. He observed that the recommendation focuses on the primary trips and suggested that perhaps more weight should be given to the pass-by trips. Ms. Barnes explained that the general effect of both primary and pass-by trips on the transportation system is accounted for in the analysis. A more specific analysis that distinguishes between primary and pass-by trips would be required as part of a future development proposal. This more detailed analysis would consider specific impacts to the transportation system as a result of additional driveways, driveway reconfiguration, etc. Packet Page 325 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes October 24, 2012 Page 6 Vice Chair Stewart expressed concern that the LOS at the intersection of Edmonds Way and 100th Avenue West would drop from Level D to Level F by 2025 (See Pages 11 and 13 of the report). Ms. Barnes said the comments about the significant reduction in the LOS level are based on the reduced capacity that would result from an intersection reconfiguration. The analysis shows that the LOS level would remain relatively the same if no significant changes are made to the intersection. That is why the analysis recommends that more study is needed before the City makes a decision to reconfigure the intersection. Mr. Chave provided a map that was prepared by the University of Washington team to illustrate the topography of the hillsides that surrounds the Westgate area. The map compares the elevation of the Westgate properties with the elevation of the existing development on top of the slope and illustrates that five-story development makes more sense in some areas than others. He noted that the elevation difference in the southwest quadrant is between 55 and 70 feet, and buildings of up to five stories that sit below that level would not create a problem for the residential properties above. In the northwest quadrant, the cemetery provides a significant buffer between the Westgate area and surrounding residential properties, so taller buildings would not have a significant impact. In the northeast quadrant, the elevation change is about 50 feet so four-story and potentially five-story development would work in this location, as well. However, elevation change in the southeast quadrant is only 30 to 40 feet and four and five-story buildings may not be appropriate in this location because they could rise above the surrounding residential areas. He noted that the depth of properties is less in the southeast quadrant, as well, which is another reason why larger buildings may not be the best solution for that location. Board Member Reed pointed out that Page 6 of the draft Westgate Plan and Form-Based Code indicates that all parcels would be eligible for height bonuses up to four or five stories, including the southeast quadrant. A height bonus score sheet is provided on Page 53 of the document and outlines what would be required for a developer to obtain the additional height. Mr. Chave advised that the language could be changed to make it clear that the height bonus would only apply to certain areas. Height in some areas, such as the southeast quadrant, could be restricted to three or four stories. The Board agreed it would be appropriate to limit height in the southeast quadrant to no more than four stories. Mr. Chave indicated that staff would incorporate the additional changes and prepare an updated draft that clearly distinguishes between the Development Code and Comprehensive Plan elements. The updated draft would be presented to the Board for additional review. It was noted that the extended agenda identifies a public hearing on the draft Westgate Plan and Form-Based Code on November 14th, but this meeting would actually be a work session with a tentative public hearing scheduled for December 12th. Mr. Chave invited Board Members to forward additional comments to staff. Staff would compile a list of the comments for the Board’s consideration on November 14th. While it is possible for the University of Washington Team to attend the Board’s work session on November 14th, Mr. Chave suggested it would not be necessary. He emphasized that the proposal is now a City document to work through and make the appropriate changes. FINALIZE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE PORT OF EDMONDS REQUEST TO INCORPORATE THE HARBOR SQUARE MASTER PLAN (HSMP) INTO THE CITY OF EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (FILE AMD20110009) Mr. Lien reviewed that on October 10th, the Planning Board conducted a public hearing regarding the Port of Edmonds’ request to incorporate the Harbor Square Master Plan (HSMP) into the City’s Comprehensive Plan. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Board voted 6-1 (Board Member Reed voted in opposition) to forward the HSMP to the City Council for approval based on specific recommendations. Following the Board’s action, they agreed it would be appropriate to review the recommendation one last time, in writing, before forwarding it to the City Council for final review and approval. He referred to the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations (Attachment 1), which captures all of the motions made at the last meeting. He noted that the recommendations were reorganized so that all those relating to height were placed first. Note: The list of the draft recommendations were included in the agenda packet but were not read at the meeting. Upon the direction of the Board, the list of recommendations was included in the minutes for additional clarity: 1. Building heights shall be limited to 45 feet and consideration may be given for heights up to 55 feet if the development proposal includes significant public amenities and/or sustainable design certification such as LEED Platinum. 2. Development proposals should place the tallest buildings towards the south and west boundaries of the property. Packet Page 326 of 524 APPROVED AUGUST 22ND CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 8, 2012 Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:03 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Philip Lovell, Chair Valerie Stewart, Vice Chair Kevin Clarke Todd Cloutier Bill Ellis Neil Tibbott BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT John Reed (excused) STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Development Services Director Karin Noyes, Recorder READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES BOARD MEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JULY 25, 2012 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. VICE CHAIR STEWART SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA Chair Lovell advised that later on the agenda he would report on a meeting between the Chair, Vice Chair, staff and representatives of the Port of Edmonds regarding a proposed workshop on August 22nd. The remainder of the agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS No one in the audience indicated a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON DRAFT WESTGATE PLAN AND FORM-BASED CODE Jill Sterrett advised that she and Nancy Rottle, from the University of Washington, were the facilitators who led the studies to produce the Westgate Plan and form-based code. She recalled that at their last presentation before the Planning Board, Board Member Clarke requested examples from throughout the Puget Sound region to illustrate the concepts identified in the draft Westgate Plan. The Board also discussed the importance of public involvement and input when defining the form that people want for an area that is being addressed by a form-based code. She reminded the Board of the lengthy public involvement process that occurred via an on-line survey, listening meetings and design workshops. In addition, the team participated in a series of workshop discussions with the Economic Development Commission. She summarized that, throughout the public process for the Westgate Plan, citizens indicated they were not so concerned about height in the Westgate area, but they expressed a desire to increase and improve public space for all ages. Packet Page 327 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes August 8, 2012 Page 2 Ms. Sterrett said the examples she prepared came from the Cities of Mercer Island and Redmond, which are quite similar to Edmonds. She reviewed the following demographics for the Board’s information: While Edmonds’ population is greater than Mercer Island’s population, it is less than Redmond’s population. Redmond has significantly more land area than both Edmonds and Mercer Island, but Edmonds has more people per square mile than either Redmond or Mercer Island. Redmond experienced a 19.6% population increase from 2000 to 2010 and Mercer Island’s population increased by 3%. Edmonds population growth during that same time period was only .5%. The State’s average population growth was 14.1%. All three cities have similar percentages for people under 5 and 18, but the City of Edmonds has a higher percentage of people over 65 than Redmond and about the same percentage as Mercer Island. About 6.2% of Edmonds’ population is below the poverty line compared with 2.7% for Mercer Island and 5.4% for Redmond. The homeownership rate in Edmonds is 71.5% compared to a rate of 76.6% for Mercer Island and 52.9% for Redmond. The median household income from 2006 to 2010 was significantly higher in Mercer Island and Redmond. Each City had similar percentages of high school graduates, but only 43% of Edmonds’ residents over 25 have bachelor’s degrees or higher compared to 76.3% for Mercer Island and 59.5% for Redmond. The mean travel time to work for people over 16 was 27.7 minutes for Edmonds compared to 21.2 minutes for Mercer Island and 20.2 minutes for Redmond. Ms. Sterrett explained that in 1990, Mercer Island began identifying an area that could accommodate 3,000 new residents by 2022 as required by the Growth Management Act (GMA). They accomplished this goal via a plan to revitalize their downtown, with most of the development concentrated near Interstate 90. They raised their height restrictions in this area from two to five stories and invested money to match federal grants to widen roads and add sidewalks and benches. Their plan calls for improving the public realm to encourage development to happen. She reminded the Board that the draft Westgate Plan would require public gathering places and improved landscaping for any level of development, and even higher standards would be required to obtain additional height beyond the standard two or three stories. She provided the following examples of mixed-use development that has or will occur in Mercer Island that would be consistent with the concepts proposed in the draft Westgate Plan: The Mercer, 7650 SE 27th Street, Mercer Island, WA. This five-story project was constructed in 2005 and 2006 on 1.78 acres of land. It provides 150 residential units (161,266 square feet) that are 96% occupied and six commercial units (13,156 square feet) that are 83% occupied. There are 246 underground parking spaces. Island Square, 2808 SE 28th Street, Mercer Island, WA. This five-story project was constructed in 2005 on 2.25 acres of land. It provides 235 residential units (217,058 square feet) that are 98.3% occupied and 14 commercial units (39,794 square feet) that are 85.7% occupied. There are 486 covered parking spaces. 77 Central, 2630 – 77th Avenue SE, Mercer Island, WA. This five-story project was constructed in 2008 on .45 acres of land. It provides 171 residential units (166,219 square feet) that are 96% occupied, and 8 commercial units (13,580 square feet) that are 75% occupied. There are 308 parking spaces. Avaria, 2441 – 76th Avenue SE, Mercer Island, WA. This five-story project on 1.95 acres of land is expected to be completed in the spring of 2013. It will include 166 residential units, 12,000 square feet of commercial space, and 312 parking spaces. Chair Lovell pointed out that the parking ratio seems quite high in the three Mercer Island examples. Ms. Sterrett concurred, but pointed out that the parking is intended to accommodate both the residential and commercial uses. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that, rather than providing only the minimum parking required by the code, developers typically base the number of parking spaces on their anticipated need to accommodate the proposed uses. Packet Page 328 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes August 8, 2012 Page 3 Chair Lovell asked if the Mercer Island projects were based on a form-based code. Ms. Sterrett explained that rather than using form-based codes as a means to get mixed-use development, Mercer Island determined that the market would support mixed-use developments up to five stories in height. New mixed-use developments occurred after the height limits were changed to allow five-story development. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that at their last meeting, three presenters explained specific types of projects that can result from a form-based code, and the examples provided tonight are intended to illustrate the types of mixed-use projects that have been or are being developed throughout the region. Board Member Ellis asked if the residential units contained in the examples are rentals or owner-occupied condominiums. Ms. Sterrett answered that she did not know, but the team member who gathered the examples likely has the information. She said she recently spoke with Bruce Moe, who is currently developing a mixed-use project near Westgate. He indicated that the residential units would be rentals. The north building opened in May and is already 100% occupied. The south building opened in July and 42 of the 60 units are occupied. Mr. Moe suggested that this is the result of a pent-up demand for rental units. Board Member Ellis pointed out that the residential units in the examples provided appear to be about 900 square feet in size. He asked if this is an industry standard. Ms. Sterrett answered that 900 square feet is on the smaller end, which is what the draft Westgate Plan encourages via the incentives for bonuses. She summarized that smaller-sized unit that are priced for young singles, young families and seniors is the current trend. Given the current housing market, people tend to be more hesitant to commit to purchasing a home, and this has resulted in a higher demand for rental units. Mr. Chave added that unit size depends on the local market demand, the mix of the existing population, employment opportunities, etc. However, in the urban areas, the trend is typically smaller units for people who are employed in the local area. Ms. Rottle pointed out that the rental market in Seattle is currently much stronger than the condominium market. Board Member Clarke asked Ms. Sterrett to share information about her background and expertise. Ms. Sterrett said she is an urban planner with 30 years of experience as a practicing professional and consultant doing various studies for cities in the region. For the past five years she has taught urban planning classes at the University of Washington on sustainability, climate change, and other local planning issues. Board Member Clarke observed that none of the commercial space is 100% occupied in the examples provided, and an occupancy rate of 95% is required to be financially feasible. He noted that even the mixed-use buildings constructed before the recession have never been totally occupied. In fact, tenant improvements have never been done in some of the commercial spaces. He referred to the new mixed-use development that is occurring near Westgate and suggested that one major problem is there is no parking along the street to allow people to conveniently access the ground floor commercial spaces. When development occurs lot-line-to-lot-line, parking is typically located in a structured parking facility, and people have to find their way to the various businesses. There is no direct access from the parking facility to the commercial spaces. Ms. Sterrett explained that the draft Westgate Plan divides the area into four walkable quadrants. While most people will drive to the area, the intent is for them to park in one of the quadrants and walk to the various commercial spaces within that quadrant. Mr. Chave emphasized that the parking requirement can be met by a combination of surface and structured parking. Board Member Clarke commented that because there is not significant residential density in the Westgate area to support the commercial uses, it is necessary to provide convenient parking to accommodate the needs of those who come to patronize the businesses. If parking is not convenient, people will likely go to similar businesses that are located in strip malls where parking is more readily available. Ms. Sterrett pointed out that the draft Westgate Plan does not envision a large number of parking garages. Instead, surface parking would be available in each quadrant to meet the parking requirement. Board Member Clarke said this assumes that a developer would give up the right to construct a five-story building in exchange for surface parking. Ms. Sterrett expressed her belief that it would also be possible to have a five-story building and surface parking, but she acknowledged that it is not likely that the Westgate area would develop with five-story buildings on each and every lot. Ms. Rottle pointed out that five-story buildings would not be allowed on all properties in the Westgate area, but they would be encouraged on the properties located close to the steep slope if certain conditions can be met. Mr. Chave emphasized that the Westgate Plan is intended to be illustrative and would not limit a developer to a particular type of building design. The plan is flexible enough to accommodate various situations, and envisions a mixture of structured and surface parking to meet the City’s parking requirement. Packet Page 329 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes August 8, 2012 Page 4 Ms. Sterrett continued her presentation by explaining that Redmond’s code allows for five-story development, plus a bonus sixth story with a transfer of development right (TDR) purchase. The TDR purchase must be from within the City of Redmond and can only be for land that is sensitive or agricultural approved. She said that Redmond does not have any requirements for enhancing the public realm by providing more landscaping, green space or public space. The draft Westgate Plan would require some landscaping and open space for base level development, and additional height would require the developer to meet even more criteria. She reviewed the following examples from Redmond: The Red160, 16015 Cleveland Street, Redmond, WA. This six-story project was constructed in 2010 on 1.08 acres of land. It includes 250 residential units (105,867 square feet) that are 94.3% occupied and 4 commercial units (5,376 square feet) that are 50% occupied. There are 174 parking spaces provided in the basement and 7 surface parking spaces. Veloce, 8102 – 161st Avenue NE, Redmond, WA. This project was constructed in 2009 on 3.03 acres of land. It includes 322 residential units (270,181 square feet) that are 97% occupied and 2 commercial units (5,066 square feet) that are 100% occupied. The project provides 130 parking spaces in the basement. Ms. Sterrett once again reminded the Board that the extensive public process for the Westgate Plan showed that residents wanted more public gathering spaces and amenities, and they did not object to additional height in this area. She reviewed that the Economic Development Commission particularly discussed the need for suitable housing for young professionals and seniors, which means smaller and more affordable units. They also discussed the need for a flexible plan to respond to market conditions. They agreed that the plan should focus height bonuses at the edges of Westgate near the hillsides rather than SR-104. She clarified that the draft Westgate Plan identifies a building height range of one to three stories, and open space/amenities would be required. Additional height of up to five stories would be allowed only in areas near the hillsides and when additional open space, amenities or smaller housing units are provided. She emphasized that the illustrative site plan shows one potential option for development over the next 20 years, and it not intended to identify a required level of development. The plan is designed to be responsive to market conditions so actual development could look quite different. However, all redevelopment would result in an enhancement of the public realm. Board Member Tibbott asked how the City would use the Westgate Plan and the form-based code concept to promote development in the Westgate area. He pointed out that the plan is a concept built around certain criteria and incentives, but it is only a concept. There are multiple ways that buildings could be placed and numerous options for public amenities, streetscape, etc. Ms. Sterrett agreed that the illustrative site plan contained in the Westgate Plan is just a concept. She explained that the plan would include basic requirements that each developer would have to meet, but it also provides flexibility for individual uses and building configuration. Ms. Rottle added that raising the height limit would encourage development, and allowing the possibility of an additional height bonus if certain conditions are met would further encourage development. It is also hoped that the extensive public process will alleviate some of the public’s fear about redevelopment. Developers want security in understanding the development parameters, and knowing what people want up front should also be helpful. Board Member Tibbott asked if the draft Westgate Plan would allow a developer to construct a residential development with no ground floor commercial space. Ms. Sterrett referred to the seven building types listed in the draft plan. She said that while many allow for ground floor commercial space, it would not be mandated except for properties near the intersection. Board Member Tibbott asked if sustainable incentives, such as encouraging mass transit, have been incorporated into the draft plan. Ms. Rottle answered that requiring public spaces and amenities would encourage people to walk and bicycle, and the proposed “green factor” concept would require developers to incorporate sustainable elements. In addition, the bonus system would allow greater height if more green factor elements are incorporated into a project. There are already public transit opportunities available along Edmonds Way, and the plan encourages parking space for car share programs and electric car charging stations. Chair Lovell asked how the City would encourage individual property owners to morph into the overall concept outlined in the draft plan. He recalled that there has been some effort by the City to encourage internal drives to provide access for groups of properties rather than a separate access for each property. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the Westgate Plan would be a long-term plan that acknowledges that properties will be developed at different times. It does not presume that Packet Page 330 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes August 8, 2012 Page 5 everything will change at once. As each individual property is redeveloped, the City would explain the various development options outlined in the plan to developers. He recalled that the City encouraged the Bartell’s development to link with adjacent properties for access. While the site was developed different than what the proposed plan suggests, it still fits and does not preclude someone else in the area from doing something that is more in line with what the plan envisions. Having a plan in place allows the City’s Economic Development Department to show developers various options for redevelopment of the area, and it allows the City to ensure that whatever is built is at least compatible with the overall plan. He said that, rather than a proscribed development plan, the plan is intended to illustrate available opportunities. Redevelopment will likely occur in stages over time, and sometimes it takes a catalyst project to show people what the opportunities are. Ms. Sterrett agreed with Board Member Clarke that parking will be an issue with redevelopment in the Westgate area. If the City wants redevelopment to occur more quickly, they could fund the construction of a parking garage to attract a catalyst project by providing convenient and accessible parking. Board Member Clarke pointed out that Edmonds Way (SR-104) is a state highway and the speed limit is 35 to 40 miles per hour. This makes the Westgate area different than the Mercer Island and Redmond examples where speed limits are typically 25 miles per hour and bike lanes are located along the streets. He pointed out the danger of accessing a parking structure from a busy 35-mile-per-hour street, especially given that there would be no clear path for vehicles to merge into traffic. He noted that none of the examples have surface parking. Instead, the five-story buildings are developed lot-line-to-lot-line, and parking is located below. Ms. Rottle said this development option would also be possible in the Westgate area. Board Member Clarke expressed his belief that it would be physically and economically impossible to construct a five-story building with ample parking with access directly from SR-104. He cited the difficulty accessing the Starbucks and Bartells businesses, which are only one story. Ms. Rottle acknowledged that it is not likely a traffic engineer would approve a project with this type of access. Ms. Sterrett added that the plan does not envision that the parking structures would be accessed directly from SR-104. Instead, the plan encourages properties to link their internal circulation so that a separate access does not need to be provided for each parcel. Again, Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the plan allows numerous options for developers to creatively configure parking using a combination of surface and structured parking. He pointed out that properties on the south side of SR-104 would have more difficulty addressing the parking requirement than properties on the north side, which typically have more depth. However, the plan should not preclude a proposal if the developer can figure out how to adequately meet the parking requirement. Board Member Clarke summarized that the City’s goal is to provide a land use code for the Westgate area that encourages creativity and allows for more flexible development. It will be up to developers to figure out how the market factors into the equation. He said he raised questions about access and parking to demonstrate to the public that due diligence was done and that the Board thought through the issues and asked the appropriate questions. Mr. Chave explained that the intent is to provide enough flexibility in the code to allow developers to figure out what works and obtain approval for projects rather than requiring developers to amend the code to meet their needs or go somewhere else to develop their projects. He summarized that flexibility offers more options going forward. Board Member Clarke pointed out that the examples from Mercer Island provide a higher ratio of commercial to residential space than the examples from Redmond. He suggested that rather than requiring a specific amount of commercial space on the ground floor, the City should allow other uses that are functional and meet the market demand. Ms. Sterrett pointed out that, with the exception of development at the four corners of the intersection, the proposed plan would allow this flexibility. Some commercial space would be required in redevelopment that occurs at the four corners. Vice Chair Stewart noted that some businesses have trademark style buildings. She asked if the plan would allow for these buildings to be repurposed if the market demand changes in the future. Ms. Sterrett emphasized that the draft plan does not preclude one-story development, and it does not require specific uses. Ms. Rottle explained that if the code requires a 13-foot height on the ground floor, the space could be adapted to accommodate a variety of uses, and future retrofits would be possible. While they acknowledged there are still some details to work through, the Board agreed it would be appropriate to schedule the draft Westgate Plan for a public hearing. They discussed that adoption of the plan would require amendments to both the Comprehensive Plan and the Development (zoning) Code, and Comprehensive Plan amendments can only take place once each year. Chair Lovell agreed to work with staff and Vice Chair Stewart to schedule the public hearing as soon as possible Packet Page 331 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes August 8, 2012 Page 6 so it can be included as part of the 2012 Comprehensive Plan amendment package. Mr. Chave pointed out that a traffic study is currently underway to look at the proposed street configurations. The traffic consultant will review what is currently known about traffic patterns in the Westgate area, particularly the intersection of SR-104 and 100th Avenue, and identify potential issues if the area is redeveloped according to the plan. The study will be forwarded to the Board Members as soon as it has been completed and prior to the public hearing. Board Member Tibbott asked if it would be possible to construct median strips on SR-104. Mr. Chave answered that median strips would be problematic because much of the right-of-way is built out. Board Member Cloutier emphasized the importance of making it clear at the public hearing that the plan does not mandate any particular type of development. If the Board would like to include the plan as part of the 2012 Comprehensive Plan amendments, he suggested staff contact the City Council President to find out how soon they can place the item on their agenda. Mr. Chave agreed to contact the City Council President. Board Member Clarke pointed out that QFC is a tenant of the grocery store building in the Westgate area. While he does not anticipate the store will go away, the draft plan offers more options for them to improve the site and enhance the area. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Lovell reported that since the Harbor Square Master Plan was presented to the Board by the Port of Edmonds on July 25th, he and Vice Chair Stewart have met with staff and representatives from the Port on two occasions to discuss the best approach for moving forward with the review process. It was decided that the best approach is to schedule a workshop discussion between the Planning Board and Port of Edmonds representatives on August 22nd. He referred to the draft outline for the workshop meeting, which was based on the group’s discussion about the meeting format. He explained that the meeting format would follow a fairly prescriptive sequence, which would allow the Port to provide a brief summary of the historical and administrative background associated with Harbor Square. Port representatives would also provide a presentation regarding the process that has occurred thus far, what is happening now, and what they anticipate could happen in the future. The goal is to focus on getting answers to questions that apply to the current process and avoid discussions about matters that extend too far into the future for which there are currently no answers. He noted that the proposed agenda for the workshop would place public comments at the end of the agenda. Chair Lovell recalled that the Board and City Council are under a great deal of pressure to complete several items before the end of 2012, including the Shoreline Master Program, Westgate Plan and Harbor Square Master Plan. It is important for the Board to focus on their responsibility to hold up each proposal for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, make a recommendation, and then move to the next item. Vice Chair Stewart added that the Port’s representatives will present a timeline of the past, current and future processes, and they will invite questions from the Board. They will also attempt to address all of the questions that were raised by the Board at their July 25th meeting as appropriate. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Lovell did not have any new items to discuss during this portion of the meeting. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Tibbott referred to the Strategic Plan Summary and noted that the very top priority was an interest by the citizens to develop and/or more fully develop the vacant and underutilized parcels of land in the City. While he realizes the Board has a full agenda and this discussion might not occur until 2013, he would like staff to provide information about where these parcels are located and how they are currently developed. He is particularly interested in parcels that are good candidates for a form-based code approach. Again, he suggested the Board at least begin some conversation about the vacant or underutilized parcels. He particularly noted the Burlington Coat Factory, Harbor Square and Antique Mall properties. Vice Chair Stewart reported that she presented a report on the Planning Board’s recent activities to the City Council on August 6th. She thanked Chair Lovell and Board Member Tibbott, who attended the meeting, as well. She also thanked Packet Page 332 of 524 APPROVED JULY 11TH CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PRESENTATION ON FORM BASED CODES June 27, 2012 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Philip Lovell, Chair Valerie Stewart, Vice Chair Kevin Clarke Todd Cloutier Bill Ellis John Reed Neil Tibbott CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT Mayor Earling Kristiana Johnson STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Development Services Director Stephen Clifton, Community Serv./Economic Development Director Kernen Lien, Planner Francis Chapin, Cultural Services Manager Karin Noyes, Recorder ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT Bruce Witenberg Don Hall Gail Sarvis Rich Senderoff John Rubenkonig John Dewhirst NOTE: THE BOARD’S REGULAR AGENDA WAS PRE-EMPTED TO ACCOMMODATE A PANEL PRESENTATION AND A QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION ON FORM-BASED CODES INTRODUCTION OF GUEST SPEAKERS Mr. Chave announced that this meeting is a work session sponsored by the Planning Board, with invitations to members of the Economic Development Commission and the city Council. He said the purpose of the presentations is to obtain information from other cities that have implemented or are in the process of implementing form-based approaches to zoning and development codes. He introduced the following individuals, who were present to share their thoughts and experiences with the group: Chuck Wolfe, Attorney at Law, is affiliated with the Lighthouse Law Group and has particular background with form- based codes. . Joe Tovar has had a long-term career in public planning and land use. He has previously served as planning director for the City of Kirkland and, most recently, the City of Shoreline. Shoreline has been working to revamp their codes and reorganize their development code utilizing a form-base approach. Mr. Tovar is currently working as a private consultant. Shane Hope has an extensive background in public planning. She worked with the State for a number of years prior to becoming the Community and Economic Development Director for the City of Mountlake Terrace. Mountlake Terrace has successfully completed a form-based code approach in their town center and neighborhood center areas. Packet Page 333 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 27, 2012 Page 2 Mr. Chave advised that each of the presenters would take approximately 15 to20 minutes to share their observations and experiences with form-based codes. He asked that all questions be held until after the presentations. PRESENTATION BY CHUCK WOLFE, ATTORNEY AT LAW Mr. Wolfe said that “form-based code” is a term that has become more current in the planning and regulatory dialogue in Washington State over the last few years, particularly in mid to large jurisdictions that are interested in revamping their town centers. He said form-based codes are more common in other areas of the country than in Washington State. Because of the State’s topography the structure of its land-use regulations is far more evolved than much of the country. The State already has regulations in place that look a lot like form-based code, particularly from a more individual or district design review standpoint. The form-based zoning concept is not all that different, but it needs to be better adopted into the context of the existing Growth Management Act (GMA) scheme. Mr. Wolfe emphasized that form-based codes are zoning codes and implement the comprehensive plan. Therefore, they must be consistent with the comprehensive plan and meet the requirements of GMA. Because of the nature of the process, form- based codes typically require considerable upfront visioning and public involvement amongst the community and stakeholders. This extensive level of public involvement is consistent with the GMA’s public participation goal. Mr. Wolfe said people have questioned if form-based codes can be legally implemented in Edmonds, and the answer is yes; but only if they are implemented with the purpose, reflection, context and clarity called out in the GMA. Local governments have the police power to regulate in the interest of public health, safety and welfare, and the GMA encourages innovative land management that includes tools such a clustered development, transfer of development rights, etc. While form-based zoning is not called out as a specific tool in the currently adopted GMA, he does not believe the GMA needs to be amended in order to implement form-based codes. Mr. Wolfe explained that form-based codes are different than traditional zoning, in that they offer a placed-based approach that focuses on the physical environment, character and quality of public space, as well as surrounding private spaces. Form- based codes are also consistent with the current trend of emphasizing mixed-use, walkable, and compact development. They are based on spatial organizing principles that identify and reinforce an urban hierarchy and are typically more flexible than traditional codes. The prescriptive regulations found in a form-based code describe what is required, but are flexible enough to accommodate change. They are tailored to each unique place and situation, based on commonly derived community needs and desires as identified through an extensive public process with the community, professionals, city staff, and legislative bodies. The intent is to have a holistic vision to integrate infrastructure, buildings, space and design to boost the economic social and physical health of the community. Mr. Wolfe advised that conventional codes are more use-oriented, and form-based codes are more form-related. Form-based codes regulate the same elements as conventional zoning codes, but they give higher priority to the form of buildings and streets and how they interact with each other. Traditional zoning codes place higher priority on land-use elements such as height and setbacks. He emphasized that both form-priority and land-use-priority codes are land development regulations that must be consistent with adopted comprehensive plans. He explained that at the core of any legal analysis of a zoning code, particularly in jurisdictions where there is no requirement for consistency with the comprehensive plan, codes are considered defensible from a constitutional basis if they are uniform and likes uses are treated alike. In form-based codes, different features are treated alike with less emphasis on use and more emphasis on form. He said that while most land development codes include graphics that display features such as land use districts (i.e. zoning maps), form-based codes tend to use more graphics to clearly convey the intent. Mr. Wolfe pointed out that traditional zoning specifies density, use, floor-area ratio (FAR), parking requirements, and maximum building heights. When design review is added, it is possible to articulate the public/private spaces by considering such things as open space, building materials, frequency of openings, surface articulation, etc. Form-based codes allow jurisdictions to regulate these same things, but with a different approach that focuses on street and building types, build-to lines, number of floors, the percentage of built-site frontage, etc. He provided illustrations to show how each of the three approaches could be implemented on a city block and explained that form-based codes include the following required components: a regulating plan that provides a graphic representation of what an area should look like, public space standards, building form standards, administration, and definitions. He summarized that form-based zoning offers a different Packet Page 334 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 27, 2012 Page 3 way of presenting conventional material in a more graphic way to provide clarity. He provided examples of both regulating and illustrative plans. He said form-based codes can also include the following optional components: architectural standards, landscaping standards, signage standards, environmental resource standards, and annotation. These standards would be more graphically presented in a form-based code than in a traditional code. Mr. Wolfe said that when attempting to implement form-based codes, most jurisdictions start with a “hybrid” code for a specific part of their city. Typically, hybrids are standard zoning codes combined with graphic urban design standards. They usually do not address public space as comprehensively as a full form-based code, but they do allow for flexibility and choice. He reviewed the following two options for implementing a hybrid code: Adopt a complete and comprehensive form-based code for specific planning areas such as a neighborhood or district. The form-based code would reside in the structural and legal framework of a conventional code. This is consistent with what Edmonds is proposing for the Westgate and Five Corners areas. Make the form-based code framework the rule and conventional zoning the exception. This approach is effective for jurisdictions that want to move away from the conventional zoning approach. Mr. Wolfe cautioned that when developing hybrid zoning codes, it is important to keep in mind that public input is very important in determining the community’s objectives. The city should choose a workable regulatory approach, paying attention to the review process and staff requirements, as well as consistency with the comprehensive plan policies. It is important to involve a full range of community stakeholders in the process, and to make sure participants fully understand the implications of various options and alternatives. It is also very important to stay focused on the issues at hand. He noted there have been very few challenges to form-based codes around the country because they are so public-involvement oriented. Those who initially express discomfort from a legal standpoint usually end up supporting the concept if they are invited to participate in the process. Mr. Wolfe said it is important for staff to learn as much as possible about form-based codes before presenting the concept to the public as an option. They can do this by working with experienced professionals who understand how to integrate form- based codes into an existing system. The city should also be strategic about resources while maintaining a comprehensive view of the code development process. Educating and informing the staff who will be responsible for developing and enforcing the code is also important. Mr. Wolfe said he obtained much of his presentation materials from an article written by Bob Bengford, Makers Architecture, Planning and Urban Design, titled, “A Hybrid Approach to Form-Based Codes in the Northwest.” Mr. Wolfe pointed to the City of Flagstaff, Arizona, as an example of a jurisdiction that successfully implemented form- based zoning. Their existing code was piecemeal and had multiple conflicting zoning methodologies. The public blamed it for the high cost of development and for the failure of big projects and economic development opportunities. They hired a consultant to help them update their code, with special attention given to walkable, urban neighborhoods that are differentiated from suburban areas. Mr. Wolfe said it is safe to say that the procedural due process requirements would be easier to meet via a form-based code approach because there is so much more public involvement. Incentives are also helpful when implementing form-based codes. For example, some jurisdictions are offering a streamlined review process for projects that are consistent with zoning and design guidelines. He noted that some form-based codes appear in an optional or overlay capacity as a first step. Another option for implementing form-based codes is State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) planned actions, which allows for the environmental analysis to be done on a district-wide basis. Projects that are consistent with the planned action do not have to complete additional SEPA review. Development agreements can also set the stage for a form-based code, but they must be consistent with the comprehensive plan and the overall development regulations. Mr. Wolfe concluded his presentation by providing a list of local communities that have or are working to implement a type of form-based code. He particularly noted the City of Bothell’s Downtown Revitalization Plan and regulations. Bothell began their community planning process for the Downtown Revitalization Plan in 2006, and they entered into a conceptual design phase in 2009 that included an extensive public outreach program. They eventually passed an ordinance obviating additional SEPA review for specific development projects determined to be consistent with the city’s adopted Downtown Packet Page 335 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 27, 2012 Page 4 Revitalization Plan. The ordinance also allows projects that reflect the city’s vision to use a streamlined development process. Mr. Clifton pointed out that each of the PowerPoint presentations is available on the city’s website under “Planning Board Meetings and Agendas, June 27, 2012 Meeting.” They can also be accessed under “Development Services/Planning, Westgate and Five Corners Study Areas.” Mr. Clifton also reminded those present that although a form-based code approach is being considered for the Five Corners and Westgate Study areas, the presentations and subsequent discussion is intended to focus on the topic of form-based codes in general. The more specific draft Westgate form-based code will be presented to the Planning Board for review and a public hearing at a later date. PRESENTATION BY SHANE HOPE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, MOUNTLAKE TERRACE Ms. Hope said that while each community is different, form-based zoning has worked well in the City of Mountlake Terrace. She explained that they approached their Town Center Vision in terms of what needed to be different. The visioning process included an extensive planning and community outreach program. The city conducted community roundtables, developer forums, design workshops and visual preference surveys to solicit input from the community and stakeholders. Through this process, it became clear that the community was very interested in revitalizing their downtown. The community indicated a desire for the downtown to be more walkable and provide community gathering places. The community also indicated a desire for attractive, mixed-use development. In order to avoid a “vertical effect” that prevents sun, the community determined that buildings should be stepped back. Street trees were also important to the community. Ms. Hope said the community recognized that the downtown area is large and not all areas are alike. They agreed it is important to recognize the differences amongst the building districts, but the Town Square area should be the focal point of the Town Center Subarea because it was better suited for a more intense development approach. The community stressed the need to protect residential neighborhoods. Those areas located close to residential zones were treated differently to provide an adequate transition. Ms. Hope advised that the City of Mountlake Terrace hired a consultant to help staff perform a Tipping Point Analysis to determine if what they were proposing for the Town Center Subarea would actually work. The proposed concepts were applied to a number of parcels to determine what it would take to make development reasonable from a financial point of view. She cautioned that while a city can have good ideas, they cannot be implemented if they are not financially feasible. Ms. Hope said much of the planning effort focused on the Town Square area (on 56th Avenue West near the Civic Center), which is the only superblock in the city. The community indicated their desire for connecting streets to break the area up into smaller blocks. They also expressed an interest in a public plaza area, with perhaps a water feature, that could become the focal point of the Town Square. The community provided specific input on how the streetscape, sidewalks, and landscaping should work together to provide a positive pedestrian experience. However, they recognized that there were various street types within the Town Center area. Ms. Hope reported that the Town Center Subarea Plan was adopted in February 2007, and the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) was completed in August 2007. The planned action designation was approved in September 2007, and form-based code and design standards were implemented in 2007 and 2008. The city council adopted impact fees, a transportation master plan, and a finance strategy in 2007, and amendments were made to the transportation improvement and the capital improvement plans in 2007, as well. The city is currently in the process of developing engineering standards for pedestrian areas. While they recognize that redevelopment will not happen all at once, she said they anticipates that the adopted Town Center Subarea Plan would eventually result in 1,416 more jobs, 197,300 square feet of additional retail space, 267,700 square feet of additional office space, 797 new housing units, and 1,621 more residents. Ms. Hope said that while the adopted Town Center Subarea Plan includes a purpose section, definitions and a short list of uses based on categories, the main focus is on building type and the dimensional requirements of the building and site. The plan also includes landscaping and open space requirements, and other specific regulations to provide additional guidance. The plan identifies eight different building types, and a table is provided to identify the specific dimensional requirements for each building type. The more intense building types are intended for the Town Square area, and the less intense building Packet Page 336 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 27, 2012 Page 5 types are intended for those areas that are closer to residential zones. The building types are general rather than specific and are meant to acknowledge that different heights are appropriate based on location, and that glazing and window transparency is important to the community. Ms. Hope emphasized that design standards are an integral part of the Town Center Subarea Plan. They are not intended to be guidelines, but standards that each development must meet. They provide more specific guidance for site design to address such issues as pedestrian connections, vehicular parking relationships and driveway locations. They also provide specific guidance for building design to address pedestrian entries, wall and roof treatments, setbacks, build-to lines, etc. Sign design is also a component of the design standards. Ms. Hope said that while the city originally had a number of development proposals, the economic downturn caused most to fall through because financing was no longer available. However, development is starting to pick up, and the Arbor Village Project is currently under construction at the corner of 56th Avenue West and 236th Street Southwest. This mixed-use project will result in 123 residential units, with 10,500 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor and two levels of underground parking. She said two assisted living projects have also been proposed and should break ground in 2013. One is located at 23008 – 56th Avenue West and is currently in the permit process. The project will consist of a four-story building, with 109 residential units and commercial space on the ground floor. Underground parking would be provided, as well. The second assisted living project is located at 5525 – 244th Street Southwest and will consist of 96 residential units and 2,500 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor. Ms. Hope emphasized that implementing the Town Center Subarea Plan was not just about having the codes in place. It was also important for the city to work with public, private and non-profit agencies to define the vision further. For example, the City of Mountlake Terrace is currently working to reconstruct the main street area and provide connections to the transit centers. She concluded her presentation by advising that the City of Mountlake Terrace is considering the opportunity to apply a form-based code approach to other commercial and mixed-use zones, as well. PRESENTATION BY JOE TOVAR - FAICP Mr. Tovar advised that when the City of Shoreline was incorporated in 1995, improvements to Highway 99 were very important to the community. Because the highway is a central facet of Shoreline, a great deal of time, money and attention was spent developing the Aurora Corridor Project. He said he was directly involved in the project as Planning Director for Shoreline from 2005 through January 2012. He said the planning effort culminated with the Town Center Subarea Plan and code, which was approved in 2011. He explained that, throughout the process, Shoreline focused their planning and zoning efforts on the transportation corridor. Phase I of the Aurora Corridor Project was completed in 2005, and Phase II followed in 2011. Phase III will be completed this year to extend the improvements to the county line so that bus rapid transit (BRT) service can commence. Mr. Tovar said that, typically, people think of transit-oriented design as station areas with a concentration of residential units and commercial development. However, transit-oriented development in Shoreline means that all the areas along the corridor have access to public transportation. This is particularly important in Shoreline, which is developed with residential development on both sides of the corridor. He provided photographs of Highway 99 before and after the Aurora Corridor Project. He noted that safety was significantly improved on the corridor by providing sidewalks on both side. New light standards, landscaped medians, and BRT lanes were also added. The business access/ transit lanes along the corridor will accommodate BRT service starting next spring, with 10-minute headways during peak hours. Mr. Tovar said the new reality for the Aurora Corridor is multi-modal centers and nodes with opportunities for mixed-use development of various densities. Town Center has become the focal point, and the city has already redeveloped the area that used to be a collection of ramshackle wood-framed buildings on land leased from Seattle City Light into a grassy area that is adjacent to the Interurban Trail. Mr. Tovar provided a chart he prepared to identify the factors that led Shoreline to a hybrid form and character-based code for their Town Center Subarea Plan. He reviewed each factor as follows: Packet Page 337 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 27, 2012 Page 6 The community was already familiar with the approach of discrete subarea plans and implementing codes, which is characteristic of a form-based code. Traditional Euclidean zoning calls for separating commercial and residential uses, which is appropriate in some cases. However, a mixture of uses is more practical in many situations such as along the Aurora Corridor. The Regional Business (RB) zoning that was previously in place was difficult to explain. It was not user friendly, and very few graphic illustrations were provided to clarify the zone’s intent. The new hybrid code is more user-friendly and contains approximately 50% text and 50% graphics. The previous RB zoning did not provide a good balance of certainty and flexibility, and the use categories and density caps were inflexible and confusing. The broad use categories listed the types of commercial uses that were outright permitted, permitted with a conditional use permit, and prohibited, and only the uses identified on the list were allowed. This resulted in a lack of predictability about what the outcome of an application would be. The new hybrid code provides flexible and broad use density categories. While specific standards are included in the plan, they are less prescriptive than a 100% form-based code. The previous RB zoning required a SEPA review for each development proposal, which is a lengthy step. The adopted plan streamlines the permit process by eliminating the SEPA review requirement for proposals that are deemed consistent with the approved planned action designation. The city’s goal was to improve walkability. Traditional zoning determined what took place on the property by using generic street frontage standards rather than “complete streets” improvements. The new hybrid code focuses on creating a public realm by orienting building form to the role of the serving street, and it also identifies the capital improvements needed to improve walkability. The cost of preparing a traditional code can reach six figures because it is necessary to hire a consultant. The cost of creating the hybrid code was closer to $20,000 because much of the work could be done in house by staff. It is important to consider the staff costs associated with administering the code, and traditional codes are often so complex that only the most experienced staff can answer questions that come up. Because the hybrid code relies heavily on graphics, it is more user-friendly and easier for staff to interpret. Mr. Tovar explained that while Shoreline was interested in moving towards a form-based code for the Town Center Subarea Plan, they were concerned the city would not have enough funding and staff time to administer the prescriptive nature of a true form-based code. However, they wanted a more graphic-oriented plan that contains numerous maps and tables that are easy to understand and do a better job of conveying exactly what the city wants. They elected to pursue a hybrid zoning approach for the Town Center Subarea Plan, which included elements of both form-based and traditional zoning. As a result, the use categories in the Town Center Subarea Plan are broader, and the plan is more flexible. A planned action designation was completed for the subarea, as well, so SEPA would not be required for development proposals that are consistent with the plan. Mr. Tovar advised that subarea plans are optional elements of the comprehensive plan, and because Shoreline had already adopted several (Aldercrest, Southeast Neighborhoods, Point Wells, North city), the City Council and Planning Commission was familiar with the concept. The Town Center Subarea Plan started with a visioning exercise to identify the various elements that are important to the community. The vision provided direction for the subarea plan and was required to be consistent with the goals and requirements of GMA. The next step was to create development regulations and outline a development permit process. He noted that all development permits are subject to administrative design review; no public hearing is required and there is no appeal process to the City Council. The development permit process is as streamlined as possible, and the balance between predictability and flexibility was solved by being as clear as possible in the standards contained in the subarea plan. Mr. Tovar pointed out that the Town Center Subarea Plan also provides direction to the capital budget. It identifies specific capital projects such as the Aurora Corridor, Interurban Trail, Heritage Park, and Midvale Avenue Projects. It also identifies programs and policies the community desires such as property tax exemptions and a Shoreline farmer’s market. Mr. Tovar announced that Shoreline’s Town Center Subarea Plan was recently awarded the 2012 Governor’s Smart Community Award. The city will use this recognition to market the subarea to private investors. Packet Page 338 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 27, 2012 Page 7 Mr. Tovar referred to various components in the Town Center Subarea Plan that address what is important to the community. He advised that the Shoreline community has a strong desire to encourage sustainable development, and the city adopted a Sustainability Element into their comprehensive plan two years before the Town Center Subarea Plan was created. The community also expressed a desire for increased density in areas served by transit, recognizing that this would reduce vehicle miles traveled and green house gas emissions would be less. In addition, the community placed an emphasis on protecting the red brick road, developing the interurban trail, and establishing a farmer’s market. Mr. Tovar briefly reviewed the contents of Shoreline’s Town Center Subarea Plan, reminded the Commission that it included a planned action designation, which means that no SEPA review would be required for projects that are deemed consistent with the plan. It also includes a threshold value to identify when development would require site improvements. The plan pays particularly attention to the relationship between buildings and streetfronts. In addition, the plan contains neighborhood protection standards to address neighborhood concerns about traffic circulation, overflow parking, setbacks, etc. He pointed out that although form-based codes have not been specifically called out in past code language, the community has been utilizing the concept for many years. He emphasized that the standards in the plan are requirements rather than guidelines, and the plan includes a provision for design departure if a developer wants to come up with a better solution. However, developers run the risk that their alternative proposal might not be approved. Mr. Tovar summarized that when creating a hybrid form and character-based code, it is important to: Regulate what matters most to the community and let the market decide the details of use, density, and timing. Provide a balance of certainty and flexibility that attracts developers and investors. Provide clear and graphic illustrations of key building and site requirements. Create “place” by coordinating design on private lots with design of the public realm. Mr. Tovar provided a map of the Town Center Subarea that identifies the three kinds of streets (boulevard, Greenlink and storefront). He noted that there are different standards for each type of street. He also shared a marketing piece that was prepared to help market the Town Center Subarea as an investment opportunity for new development and businesses. The marketing piece points out what the City of Shoreline has done to reduce the developers’ costs for improvement. QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION Board Member Lovell requested a brief overview of the ownership situation in the Town Center Subarea of Mountlake Terrace. Ms. Hope said one of the challenges of redevelopment in the Town Center is that there are multiple property owners. The code addresses the size of lot required for development. In some cases, developers must consolidate lots in order to develop to the maximum allowed by the code. Ms. Hope said the City of Mountlake Terrace works with investors who are interested in developing in the Town Center Subarea, and they have also worked with property owners who want to consolidate properties. For example, the mixed-use project that is currently under construction was previously seven, small residential lots that were assembled by an individual developer. Board Member Lovell asked if Mountlake Terrace has done anything to encourage development within their Town Center Subarea. Ms. Hope explained that, in the beginning, the City of Mountlake Terrace did not have to do a lot to promote the Town Center Subarea, but that is no longer the case. The city has stayed in touch with a few developers that have a particular interest in the Town Center Subarea, and they have published a marketing brochure. In addition, the city’s executive director and planners attend large regional meetings of developers to talk about what is happening in Mountlake Terrace and how their projects might fit in. Commissioner Rubenkonig recognized that form-based codes primarily focus on urban areas. He asked if there has been any discussion about applying the concept to residential zones, as well. Mr. Wolfe said it is certainly possible to apply the form- based code concept to residential areas. For example, the concept could be applied in a historic area of a city to offset new variants of development that are inconsistent with the vernacular. This would be similar to the concept of “historic districts.” He emphasized that many elements of the form-based code concept have been utilized for a long time, and have probably even been used in single-family zones. However, some of the principles of form-based codes try to get away from use separation, which is not typically a popular concept in single-family residential areas. Ms. Hope acknowledged that form- based code is an option, but most jurisdictions do not utilize the concept in their single-family residential areas. Packet Page 339 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 27, 2012 Page 8 Commissioner Rubenkonig also asked if comprehensive plan amendments would be necessary in order to implement a form- based code in Edmonds. Mr. Wolfe explained that GMA requires that local jurisdictions’ comprehensive plans provide the basis for their development regulations. He said comprehensive plan amendments are often necessary to implement a form- based code. The extent of the amendments will depend on where a city is in its comprehensive plan. Part of the consideration for a city that is adopting a form-based code for the first time is to determine if it should fit in with the existing comprehensive plan policies or if it should be added as a separate subarea plan. Ms. Hope added that a city’s comprehensive plan should be the basis for all other plans and regulations related to land use, community, and livability. If a city chooses to adopt a subarea plan, it actually becomes part of the comprehensive plan. She advised that Mountlake Terrace did not need to make any changes to their comprehensive plan in order to adopt the Town Center Subarea Plan. The subarea plan and zoning code simply added a final level of detail that fit with the policies already in the comprehensive plan. Mr. Tovar pointed out that the term “plan” can mean different things to different people. It is important to recognize that a subarea plan is more of a regulation than a plan. It controls the use of the properties within the subarea with specificity. It is important to understand that what is built in the subarea depends not only on the regulations contained in the plan, but on capital and other programs that are implemented by the city to ensure the overall success of the subarea plan. Mr. Clifton pointed out that the city has policies within the existing comprehensive plan related to Westgate and Five Corners. They need to look at the existing policies and how they relate to what is already developed and what is called out in the proposed plan. Inconsistencies can be addressed by adding elements of form-based code into the comprehensive plan or by amending the zoning code. Commissioner Senderoff asked if it would be advantageous for cities to have more details in their comprehensive plan to provide guidance when drafting code language. Mr. Tovar explained that comprehensive plans are defined by GMA as “general planning documents.” He said there is a certain risk associated with providing more detail than required by GMA, in that a comprehensive plan can be interpreted to be a regulation rather than a guiding document. Comprehensive plans are intended to provide direction on what is important as far as values and concepts that should be embodied in the regulations. The regulations are not required to exactly mirror the comprehensive plan policies. He cautioned that comprehensive plans should not say more than is needed, but they should be clear about what a city wants their regulations to achieve. Mr. Wolfe agreed and added that if a comprehensive plan is too directive, a planning board’s hands could be tied and flexibility would be limited. He suggested it would be helpful for the city to obtain examples of the level of detail necessary to enable and be consistent with form-based codes. The comprehensive plan could contain policies for transit-oriented development, walkability, compact communities, etc., but it should not reach the level of prescriptive, parcel-by-parcel dictates. Mr. Tovar added that a comprehensive Plan is intended to identify a city’s aspirations, and a zoning code controls how individual parcels must be designed and how they can and cannot be used. Board Member Clarke asked if the Millcreek Town Center was redeveloped as part of an approved master plan or if it was implemented through a type of form-based zoning. Bill Trimm, former Millcreek Planning Director, answered that policies within the comprehensive plan called out the need for a master plan for the Mill Creek Town Center. The developer was required to present a master plan proposal to the city that was consistent with the policies called out in the comprehensive plan. Specific design guidelines were created to implement the master plan. Board Member Clarke said the various visions for building height create a challenge for redevelopment in the downtown bowl area. The current height limit allows for two and three-story buildings, compared to the Mountlake Terrace Town Center, which permits up to seven stories. On the other hand, most of the development in the Millcreek Town Center is single story. He asked what roll height limits and building mass would play in relationship to form-based zoning. He referenced a multi-family project that is currently being developed on Highway 99 that is unsightly, massive, and out of scale with the character of the area. He asked how a form-based zoning approach would control large buildings that are out of scale and character based on lot size. Mr. Tovar answered that a form-based code would regulate building bulk via step backs, floor area ratio, etc. He pointed out that the development referenced by Board Member Clarke, as well as the development that occurred previously at Echo Lake, were both vested under the previous Regional Business zoning. He emphasized that form-based codes are not a way to get taller buildings. Mr. Wolfe said developers desire predictability and flexibility to allow for changing market conditions and changes in the way people live. Form-based codes can allow both residential and commercial uses on the ground floor, depending on a Packet Page 340 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 27, 2012 Page 9 community’s vision. He acknowledged that market based zoning is a dangerous term for some people, but the positive side of form-based zoning is that it allows for changes in the way people live, work and play. He advised that sometimes a very responsible developer will need a little more height to allow for sustainable infrastructure, and form-based codes can facilitate this by placing an emphasis on the number of stories rather than an absolute building height. Ms. Hope added that height is just one element of form-based zoning. The relationship between the street and the sidewalk and other details are also important elements. She noted that no new development was taking place in Mountlake Terrace based on their old traditional development code, which contained specific height limitations. Mr. Tovar said the City of Shoreline created rudimentary Sketch Up models to give a sense of what a building mass would look and feel like. He said this is a great tool, whether it is used for form-based or more conventional zoning, to model whether not the proposal is acceptable. He said this type of computer modeling is not costly and can give a better idea of the types of standards that should be required. Mr. Clifton said he hoped the city could get away from equating height to how attractive a building is. He said that when he served on the City of Seattle’s Design Review Board he saw one-story buildings that were just as unattractive as six-story buildings. What makes a building attractive is its roofline, embellishments, modulation, type of glass, etc. Aesthetics is not just about the height of a structure. Council Member Johnson asked the presenters to expand on the development agreement incentive as it relates to form-based codes. Mr. Wolfe said a development agreement can accomplish the same benefit as a planned action designation. A development agreement stipulates that a property must be developed in accordance with specific limitations and criteria that may be broader than the ordinary development regulations but still consistent with the comprehensive plan. Development agreements can be used as a tool to assure that an area is redeveloped in accordance with a negotiated community vision. Development agreements allow properties to be developed in phases. As long as development is consistent with the specific limitations and criteria contained in the agreement, a separate SEPA review would not be required for each component of the development. He summarized that development agreements can be incentive from not only a developer’s perspective, but they can be specific to a number of issues within the public realm. Commissioner Dewhirst asked Mr. Tovar and Ms. Hope to comment on the main concerns raised by citizens when the form- based code concept was initially introduced in their cities. Ms. Hope answered there was not a lot of opposition to the concept of form-based zoning, but an educational process was necessary to help the public understand how form-based codes could allow for things that are most important to the community. Mr. Tovar said the City of Shoreline did not approach the Town Center Subarea Plan as a form-based code. They knew that the City Council was familiar with the subarea process and was comfortable with the idea of creating unique zoning that is different than other parts of the city. However, staff was not confident that they would support the more prescriptive form-based code approach, and that is why they elected to propose a hybrid approach instead. He said there was no real opposition from the public, but the process included an extensive community outreach program to address public concerns and learn what the community wanted in this location. He summarized that the citizens in Shoreline were starved for things to be better after many years under King County’s rule. Board Member Lovell commented that there are a number of challenges facing future redevelopment of properties between the downtown bowl and the waterfront (i.e. Harbor Square and the Antique Mall). Some are related to the public’s desire for amenities and others are related to logistical and engineering challenges. He asked the presenters to provide input on how these challenges could be addressed as part of a development plan. He also asked Ms. Hope to share Mountlake Terrace’s strategy for funding the plaza that is proposed as part of their Town Square Plan. Ms. Hope answered that the City Council adopted impact fees that would be dedicated to the development of the plaza. When enough fees have been collected, the city will move forward with the public process, acquiring the property and developing the plaza. She explained that in addition to regulations, there are other important things that help key areas develop. This can include city-sponsored projects such as street or frontage improvements. The city is also seeking grant funding for public infrastructure projects, and developers are required to provide the frontage improvements spelled out in the code and pay their share of the impact fees. Commissioner Witenberg asked the presenters to talk about the similarities and differences between contract rezones and development agreements. Mr. Wolfe responded that a development agreement is a GMA term, and there are some parameters within GMA about what development agreements should include. A contract rezone is an old school tool that accomplishes similar results. Mr. Tovar agreed that contract rezones are similar to development agreements. However, Packet Page 341 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes June 27, 2012 Page 10 contract rezones require developers and designers to do much of the work up front before making an application. Development agreement can be worked out at the conceptual level and community concerns can be addressed early in the process. He emphasized that development agreements can be major components of project approval since future development on the site would not require SEPA review if it is consistent with the overall scheme of the approved development agreement. Board Member Clarke observed that underground parking is not possible on the Harbor Square and Antique Mall properties because of the high water table. He questioned how a form-based zoning approach would provide flexibility to accommodate an above-grade parking structure given the current height limit. He said the community is struggling to understand the challenges of redeveloping these sites effectively and economically while keeping the height at 25 and 30 feet. Ms. Hope said that Mountlake Terrace has created different building districts that allow different things based on area. Another option is to identify certain exceptions and create a process for considering whether the exception should be allowed or not. Other communities face this same problem, which certainly complicates the matter. She noted that many jurisdictions do not require underground parking. Instead, they have regulations that prohibit parking lots that are visible from the main street. Mr. Wolfe added that a city may, through a community process, define a form of building that is appropriate with those issues in mind, but it must be fair and based on the urban ecology of the surroundings. While form-based codes cannot be used to address the permissibility of subsurface parking, they can address the relationship of the parking to the street. Mr. Tovar said that the City of Kirkland resolved this issue by creating a fee-in-lieu-of program that allowed applicants to pay into a fund that was used to construct a parking garage. Mr. Clifton thanked the presenters for giving their time to help the Edmonds community better understands the concept of form-based zoning. He also thanked the Planning Board, City Council, Economic Development Commission, and citizens for their attendance at the meeting. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Packet Page 342 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 25, 2012 Page 3 Board Member Johnson pointed out that there are many different kinds of easements. She asked if the proposed amendment would apply to construction easements, too. Mr. Chave answered that the proposed amendment would apply to all easements associated with a street vacation. The Board agreed to schedule a public hearing on the proposed amendment for May 9th. Board Member Reed noted that the “; and” found at the end of ECDC 20.70.090.A.4 should be moved to the end of ECDC 20.70.090.A.5 to accommodate the new section ECDC 20.70.090.A.6. WESTGATE/FIVE CORNERS INTRODUCTION Jill Sterrett and Nancy Rottle were present to provide an overview of the Westgate planning document titled, “Revisioning Westgate.” Ms. Sterrett noted that many members of the Board participated in the fairly extensive public review process that was used to development the plan. The Board also met jointly with the Citizens Economic Development Commission (CEDC) to discuss the plan further. In addition, a series of teams worked on both the Westgate and Five Corners plans starting in the fall of 2010 with a team of undergraduate students; and a team of student interns, from a variety of disciplines, were hired in 2011to work on the project. She and Ms. Rottle assisted the student teams throughout the process. Ms. Rottle explained that Phase I (Research and Data Analysis) began in 2010 and included an on-line survey asking citizens of Edmonds what they liked and disliked about the Westgate and Five Corners Centers, a site survey of land uses and amenities, an analysis of available parking and how it is used, and an analysis of the physical conditions of the sites. Ms. Rottle reviewed that Phase 2 (Listening Session and Audience Response Surveys) involved a very extensive public process. After the initial citizen survey, two public listening sessions were held to find out what the public knew about the two areas. At the first session, citizens were invited to participate in an audience response survey to identify their preferences for future redevelopment in the two centers. Alternatives were presented at the second session, and participants were invited to identify their preferred elements from each one. Ms. Rottle said Phase 3 (Design Workshop and Draft Plans) started with a public design workshop with local professionals that was attended by approximately 60 people. The team reviewed what they had heard from the public and presented a draft site design to use as a baseline for moving the discussion forward. Using a unique process developed by a firm in Copenhagen, the group was divided into teams to talk about the types of activities they want to occur in the two centers and the public space and buildings that would be required to support the desired activities. She provided a diagram to illustrate the site design that was presented at the design workshop to illustrate the public comments received to date. She reported that they received interesting and good ideas from a mix of people, including citizens, trained planners and architects. Ms. Rottle reviewed that the public sentiment related to the Westgate Center was grouped into the following themes: Building Scale. People were most interested in a building scale of three to four-story buildings with a residential component. Public Space. Increasing public space was the most popular recommendation for improvement from all ages. Examples suggested were plazas, sitting space and green space. Walking/Biking. Many people were in favor of improving walkability by creating a safe environment for people of all ages. Traffic. There were no prominent issues with automobile traffic in the Westgate Center. Services. The community expressed a desire for better restaurants, street cafes, and perhaps a bakery. There was a desire for business fronts to be located at the sidewalk. Amenities. The public communicated a desire for additional amenities including landscaping on the sidewalk, street trees and the use of native plant species. Ms. Sterrett advised that during Phase 4 (Refining and Selecting Preferred Alternative), the information gathered from the public was used to develop two potential alternatives, and people were asked to identify the elements from each plan that they liked best. These elements were combined into a preferred alternative. She provided a drawing depicting how development could occur over the next 20 years based on the proposed regulations. In the drawing, residential development would be located around the edges of the site. The PCC Natural Market would be maintained in its current parameters, as would the other newer existing development. While the plan would not require the older existing uses to be retained, it Packet Page 343 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 25, 2012 Page 4 would not require them to be removed either. She also provided a drawing showing how the illustrative plan would focus on landscaping. The hillside areas would be preserved from redevelopment, and green open spaces would be emphasized. Easements would be provided for access from the commercial areas to the surrounding single-family properties. Ms. Sterrett provided an overview of what the illustrative plan would mean in terms of development. She said the existing development provides 235,163 square feet of retail, office, service and residential space. Under the illustrative plan, potential new development could result in as much as 504,400 square feet of commercial space, plus additional residential space. She noted that changes would likely be made to the illustrative plan as the process moves forward. Ms. Sterrett said the proposed plan is intended to serve as a conceptual plan and regulatory document that uses a form-based code approach. The plan’s number 1 goal is to create mixed use, walkable, compact development that is economically viable, attractive and community friendly. This is consistent with what they heard from the public throughout the process. Other goals of the plan include improving connectedness for pedestrian and bicycle users, prioritizing amenity spaces for informal and organized gatherings, establishing a flexible regulating system to provide incentives for developers to do creative development, ensuring that the community gets quality development, and providing a variety of housing choices to residents of all economic and age segments. Ms. Sterrett and Ms. Rottle reviewed the regulating framework proposed in the draft plan, which calls out the following elements: Amenity Spaces and Green Feature Types. Amenity features are typically the kinds of spaces that people can use. The plan calls for landscape enhancement at the SR 104 and 9th Avenue/100th Avenue West intersection, a potential public park, linkages to surrounding areas and setbacks from SR 104. As currently proposed, an amenity space of 15% per lot would be required for amenities such as usable plazas, sidewalks, lawns, etc. This is similar to an open space requirement. The code would also require street trees, parking lot trees, and stormwater management. Required Building Lines. Rather than establishing a minimum street setback requirement, the new code language would identify how close a building must be placed to the right-of-way. As currently proposed, required building lines for SR 104 would be 8 feet from the right-of-way, and required building lines for 100th Avenue West would be 5 feet from the right-of-way. The required building line for the internal circulation drive would be 3 feet from the edge of the prescribed 9 to 12-foot edge treatment lining the drive. She explained that the internal circulation drive would be a private road that links the properties together. Street Types. As currently proposed, the streetscape standards for 100th Avenue West call for two travel lanes, with a center turn lane. Bike lanes would also be added on each side of the roadway. The sidewalks on both sides would be 7- feet wide. A bioswale would be located on the eastside of the street to treat stormwater. Additional street trees would be provided to enhance the pedestrian experience. The streetscape standards for SR 104 call for two travel lanes in each direction and a center turn lane with intermittent planted median. A bioswale would be located on the south side of the street. The sidewalk would be 5 to 8 feet in width on the north side and 5 feet wide on the south side. The internal circulation drive would be a shared street intended to provide access to new residential developments, new and existing businesses, and provide pedestrian connectivity as an alternative to SR 104. The proposed streetscape standards for the internal roadway call for a shared travel lane, with a bicycle lane to help cyclists who want to access 100th Avenue West without going onto SR 104. Bollards, light standards, sidewalks and landscaping would be provided, as well. Building Types. Rather than regulating the specific development that can occur in the zone, the proposed plan establishes a set of potential building types: o Rowhouse – A series of townhome apartments or condominiums that are attached. o Courtyard Residential – Apartment or condominium flats that offer an internal courtyard and/or public space. o Live/Work – Development that provides living space in the same unit with retail uses on the ground floor. o Side Court – This type of residential development can be office only, retail mixed-use with office or residential above, or community service mixed use with office or residential above. Packet Page 344 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 25, 2012 Page 5 o Commercial Block – These types of developments are primarily residential, but they can include retail only, office only, retail mixed-use with office or residential above, or community service mixed use with office or residential above. Ms. Sterrett summarized that the purpose of the plan is not to segregate uses, but to encourage a mixed-use environment. One of the features of the plan is the height bonus system, which was generated through discussions with the CEDC. The idea is to allow three-story heights throughout the entire area and four to five-story heights in some areas if a developer provides certain amenities. She referred to a map that illustrates the locations where four and five stories would be allowed if a developer meets the height bonus criteria. She also referred to the worksheet provided in the plan, which lists the height bonus criteria. She explained that there is a base level for each category (housing unit size, green building, green factor, amenity space, alternative transportation). Every development in the Westgate area must meet the prerequisite criteria outlined on the worksheet, and developers would receive credits for each additional criterion that is met. Four-story development in the selected area would require a total of 8 credits, and five-story development would require 12 credits. Ms. Rottle said the plan proposes a “Green Factor” overlay, which is based on the City of Seattle’s successful program for commercial and multi-family zones. As proposed, developers would be required, but in a very flexible way, to incorporate “green features” onto a site. The program offers a flexible system to address ecological and livability functions. A developer would need to achieve a minimum score (.30 per lot size) by implementing green elements. She referred to the score sheet provided in the plan for applicants to track their quantities. The score sheet would be submitted with a plan, and a professional would certify whether the plan meets or exceeds the minimum requirements. She reviewed that applicants would receive points for soil depth in landscaped areas, tree canopy, shrubs and ground cover, green roofs, permeable paving, water features, green walls, drought tolerant/native plants, and features visible from public spaces. She encouraged Board Members to view the guidebook provided on the City of Seattle’s website to illustrate the different features that could be used to achieve the “Green Factor.” She also provided a diagram to illustrate how the program could be applied to a site. Ms. Sterrett briefly explained the proposed review process for the height bonus system. She advised that an administrative review would be required for all development that is one to three stories in height. Four-story development would require administrative review and the height bonus worksheet. Developments of five stories would require administrative review, the height bonus worksheet, and a design review. Design review may also be required for developments of less than five stories that trigger State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) review or have major exceptions to the overall concept of the plan. Ms. Sterrett summarized that, over the next few months, the Planning Board would continue to work with staff and the consultants to review and refine the plan. Public meetings are scheduled to take place in the fall, with a City Council decision by year end. She referred the Board to the one-page document outlining the additions and corrections that have been made to the draft Revisioning Westgate Plan since January 4, 2012, as a result of continued discussions with the CEDC. Regarding Mr. Hertrich’s earlier comment, Ms. Sterrett emphasized that it is not the Plan’s intent to make Westgate solely pedestrian oriented. There is ample parking in the area for the level of development that has been proposed. Making the area walkable means that people living in surrounding neighborhoods could more easily access the center by walking. Improving the internal walkability of the area would also allow people to park somewhere on site and then walk from place to place without having to relocate their cars. She said the plan does not encourage people to walk across SR104, except at the intersection, but they want to make the area a pleasant place that is walkable once you arrive. As an example, she said people can drive to University Village, but then walk from shop to shop. It is now a vibrant commercial area. She said they heard a strong desire from the public that they wanted pleasant places to be outside and to socialize. They wanted community space as part of the retail experience. The proposed plan attempts to accommodate this sense of community, and walkability is part of the equation. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the presentation is just an introduction of the draft plan. The Board will have multiple meetings to discuss the details of the plan. Board Member Tibbott asked the consultants to describe the internal walkway concept. He observed that rather than one internal walkway, there would be four compartmentalized systems. Ms. Sterrett agreed there would be four internal walkway quadrants on the site. She said the goal is to make the corners at the core intersection safer and more pleasant. It would not be appropriate to encourage crossings in other locations on SR 104. Board Member Tibbott questioned the feasibility of the Packet Page 345 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 25, 2012 Page 6 internal walkway system as proposed in the plan. He suggested that University Village is not really a good comparison. Ms. Sterrett clarified that the essence of University Village is what the plan is trying to achieve in terms of what the site has to offer. She pointed out that the north quadrants would be large enough to be fairly feasible, but not at the magnitude of University Village. The south quadrants are more linear and strip focused. Board Member Tibbott asked if the plan would provide adequate parking not only for the existing and new residential and commercial development, but also for people who will be driving to the site from other locations throughout the City. Ms. Sterrett explained that the parking requirement is based on square footage and the type of uses. Businesses located in the area would be required to provide enough parking for employees and customers to meet the City’s current parking standard. Residential development would also be required to meet the City’s current parking standard. Ms. Rottle added that the City’s parking standard also includes a requirement for street trees next to any parking lot to ensure walkability. Bringing buildings closer to the street with sidewalks in the front, would also create better walking conditions. Ms. Rottle asked if Board Member Tibbott is worried that there would not be enough encouragement in the plan for developers to create pedestrian walkways within the site. If so, she pointed out that the City’s parking standards would require walkways next to any parking lot. The plan also encourages the parking lots to be small and interspersed throughout the area. Board Member Tibbott observed that there is no on-street parking available in adjacent residential neighborhoods, so people would not be able to park outside of the Westgate area and walk to businesses. All of the parking to serve the area must be provided on site. Board Member Stewart observed that the plan assumes that people living in the residential units would use the internal pedestrian walkways to access the various services that are located in the area. She noted there is also fairly good bus access. This may allow the City to either reduce or eliminate the parking requirement for the residential uses in this mixed use area. Ms. Rottle agreed that the plan attempts to encourage young, creative people who want to walk and use public transportation rather than private vehicles. Board Member Reed asked if the study included in the Board’s packet is the complete study done by Property Counselors regarding the Economic Potential for the Five Corners and Westgate Commercial Centers. Mr. Chave answered affirmatively. Board Member Reed said his impression is that some of the survey data is related to both locations, and not just to Westgate. Ms. Sterrett explained that when citizens visited the website to respond to the survey questions, they were allowed to choose Westgate, Five Corners or both. The numbers represent the total number of people who participated in the survey, but the responses were segregated by the area each respondent chose. Ms. Rottle added that the public responses for each area were tracked separately throughout the public process. Board Member Reed recalled that three alternatives were presented to the ECDC, but one was quickly dropped. That left two alternatives, and the CEDC eventually chose the one that placed the buildings right up to the sidewalk with less open space. He expressed his belief that the other alternative seemed better suited to the area. He noted that this concern was also expressed in a recent memorandum from Council Member Petso. He asked how far back he would have to go to read the CEDC’s comments and discussions regarding the draft alternatives. Ms. Rottle said most of the CEDC’s discussion took place between January and June of 2011. Board Member Johnson added that, at the request of the CEDC, the team presented the draft plan to them in February of 2012. Ms. Rottle explained that the street setback standards identified in the proposed plan are consistent with the setbacks the City Council approved by interim ordinance last summer. The Board acknowledged Council Member Petso’s memorandum, which suggests that the survey responses related to the question of whether or not citizens want buildings closer to the street may be misleading. She noted that respondents were only given three choices, all of which had businesses fronting on the street. Respondents were not able to indicate their preference for buildings being set back further from the street, with landscaping between the sidewalk and building. Ms. Rottle emphasized that the survey was just one of many methods used to identify public preferences. In regard to Board Member Reed’s earlier comment, Ms. Rottle said that rather than simply selecting one preferred alternative, the CEDC created a hybridized version that contains elements from all three alternatives. The Board also acknowledged that they received a string of emails between staff and Council Member Petso regarding the setback issue that were written in 2011. Packet Page 346 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 25, 2012 Page 7 Board Member Clarke asked the purpose of the report prepared by Property Counselors titled, “Economic Potential for Five Corners and Westgate Commercial Centers. He also asked how much the City paid for the report. Mr. Chave answered that an assessment of market feasibility for the concepts being discussed was part of the overall project. The report is not meant to be a market study, but a market reconnaissance to assess the general economic potential for the area and determine the types of uses that would be supported by the market and feasible for the private sector to develop. The report cost somewhere between $5,000 and $10,000. Board Member Clarke said he finds the study unprofessional. He suggested that it is ridiculous to compare Westgate’s parking needs to projects in the Pike-Pine Corridor, Belltown, Othello Station North, and the Sound Transit LINK light rail line in Seattle. He also expressed concern that the document is filled with statistics and information that could simply be downloaded from the internet. The document does not provide any economic conclusions of the potential of Westgate, and it is inaccurate to state that there has been no population growth over the last decade. He said he was disappointed that the study did not cite examples of any communities in the Greater Puget Sound area that have gone through a similar design process where the development has been successful and financially feasible. Board Member Clarke acknowledged that the Revisioning Westgate Plan is high-quality, but he is concerned about some of the basic premises. He questioned the feasibility of the proposed internal circulation drive given the current land ownership in the northeast corner of the intersection. He questioned if the owners of the PCC Natural Market would even allow the construction of a circulation driveway that would divide their building from the parking lot. Mr. Chave pointed out that there is already an internal circulation driveway on the site. Board Member Clarke agreed but said the property owners do not like it. Board Member Clarke questioned if the consultants or staff has talked with property owners in the Westgate commercial area. He questioned if the owners of the QFC store have been informed that they would be asked to give up their parking lot, replace the existing store with a larger store, and integrate with properties they do not own to create the massive density identified in the plan for the northeast corner of the commercial center. He said he supports creative plans, but he does not see how the proposed plan accomplishes this goal, given that the properties are under separate ownerships. He noted that one property in the area has remained vacant over the past five years even though it is fully entitled and has the required infrastructure. He stressed the need to tie the plan together with reality. Again, he asked for examples of where the concepts proposed in the draft plan have been successfully applied elsewhere in the Puget Sound area. He noted that University Village is different because the properties are under a single ownership, and there is no residential development. He questioned how the plan would motivate developers to assemble sites under a single ownership to build something of the massive size identified in the plan. He shared several examples of mixed-use development throughout the Puget Sound that remains vacant. Board Member Clarke said that structure parking would make redevelopment cost prohibitive, and the parking lot identified in the plan is not large enough to serve the PCC Natural Market, let alone the parking needs for the existing QFC store. He summarized that the plan looks nice, but he was unable to run the economic proforma on any of the buildings to determine if they are economically viable alternatives. He also noted that the financial study identified a land value of $25 to $30 per square foot, and it did not mention that Key Bank recently paid $100 per square foot for land. Ms. Sterrett said the consultants are well aware that the Westgate properties are under multiple ownerships, and most of the buildings shown in the plan respect the existing property lines. Some property owners may choose to combine because the proposed plan would allow for substantially greater height than what is currently allowed and redevelopment would become more economically viable. It would also allow developers to provide more public amenities such as internal circulation, public spaces, etc. She clarified that the study was intended solely to give a magnitude for the type of development and square footage the area would support, and it was completed prior to Key Bank’s land purchase. Ms. Rottle explained that the proposed plan is intended to be a flexible code. It was not necessarily meant to become an economic stimulus, but it could because it allows for additional height. A property developer would not be required to adhere to very many requirements, and it would be up to a developer to complete a market analysis to determine if his/her proposed project would pencil out before making an investment decision. The spirit of the plan is to allow flexibility over time. Ms. Rottle acknowledged that while there are quite a few examples of how form-based zoning has been applied successfully across the country, there are no local examples. However, at a public meeting, the Cascade Land Conservancy provided local Packet Page 347 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 25, 2012 Page 8 examples of good development, as well as examples of how form-based zoning has been used successfully in other areas. In addition to what they heard from the public, these examples provided inspiration for them to move forward. Board Member Clarke said he participated in the first large commercial development that occurred in Mill Creek in the 1970’s. There is a significant difference between this early development and the more recent development of Mill Creek Town Center as far as parking and circulation. He noted that there is only one building greater than three stories in the entire Mill Creek Town Center development. This mixed-use building with condominium uses is located on the western part of the property and is removed from the commercial section. The rest of the development is one and two-story buildings. He said he does not foresee that massive mixed-use development will be successful in suburban markets. He observed that the Westgate commercial area is relatively small and much different than the University District where needed services are within walking distance. Board Member Clarke expressed his opinion that the proposed plan calls for too many residential units given the small size of the commercial center and the fact that much of the commercial space is occupied by two anchor stores. Ms. Rottle said they initially thought to reduce the amount of residential space, but the CEDC indicated otherwise. She suggested the Board should have a discussion with the CEDC regarding this issue. Chair Lovell referred to Page 11 of the proposed plan, which outlines the various building types. He also noted that additional details about the standards and requirements can be found starting on Page 28. He clarified that while the proposed language would allow for total build out of the intersection as commercial-mixed use, it would not require this type of intense development. Mr. Chave noted that while the market may not support high-intensity development at this time, it may at some point in the future. Implementing a form-based code would allow sufficient flexibility in zoning to accommodate changes if and when they occur. The City will be ahead of the game if they set zoning standards to accomplish what they want to achieve. Part of form-based codes is anticipating what might happen in the future and it is important to have a code that is flexible enough to accommodate desirable development without rezoning properties. Chair Lovell observed that a form-based code does not dictate occupancy or uses. Rather it dictates the form of what they want development to look like and how it relates to the public. Chair Lovell asked the consultants to share their thoughts on how well the proposed plan will be received by the public as it moves forward through the public hearing process. Ms. Rottle said she anticipates the plan will be well-received because they tried to incorporate public comments and concerns. However, she acknowledged that there will be some who express opposition to the plan because it includes concepts they do not support. She summarized that, generally, citizens favor more intense development at Westgate. Rather than focusing on what could be developed at Westgate, the public was more interested in making it a great commercial center that connects to adjacent communities and provides the needed social and service needs. Chair Lovell asked if the public will feel the plan offers what they asked for. Ms. Sterrett said she believes the plan offers the community what they asked for in terms of amenity spaces and greening of the site. However, she is not sure the public really understands the tradeoffs involved. There was much less concern about increasing building height at Westgate than at Five Corners because of the topography of the site. She said she anticipates some members of the public will express concern about building heights, and she suggested the Board respond by pointed out the need to provide legitimate tradeoffs to developers in exchange for added public amenities. Based on public testimony, the Board will have to decide if they are comfortable with the tradeoffs or if they should be scaled down. Chair Lovell noted that three options were provided in the plan for implementing form-based zoning. He asked if the consultants have a feel for what approach would work best for the City. Mr. Chave said it is too soon to make that recommendation, but he reminded the Board that making the zoning code more complex is not a good thing. They need to figure out a way to fit form-based code language into the City’s general scheme. Chair Lovell pointed out that the City has the option of applying form-based codes to just the Westgate area. Mr. Chave agreed but said he suspects that form-based zoning would make sense for other areas of the City that have potential for change over time such as neighborhood centers and portions of Highway 99. Chair Lovell said he believes the community would be less receptive to the idea of form-based zoning in the downtown and waterfront zones, and more receptive for its application in the neighborhood business zones such as Westgate and Five Corners. However, he expressed his belief that the concept could also work well for the downtown and waterfront zones. Mr. Chave said the consultants and staff are seeking feedback from the Board about whether form-based zoning would work better than traditional zoning in the Westgate area. The positive aspects of form-based zoning could be applied not only to Westgate, but to other commercial zones including those in the downtown. He explained that traditional Packet Page 348 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 25, 2012 Page 9 zoning tells what a developer cannot do, and form-based zoning identifies what the City really wants to see. It allows for a lot more flexibility and choices for creative development. Mr. Chave cautioned that the “Green Factor” concept offers a different way of doing things. He said he is not sure it is a good idea to have more than one landscaping standard for the City. However, he agreed the concept is worth considering. If the City determines that it would make sense for Westgate, they could consider implementing the concept throughout the entire downtown, as well. Board Member Clarke referred to Item 3.2 on Page 13 of the proposed plan, which lists the allowable building types. He expressed his concern that, as currently written, it appears that single-story development would not be allowed in Westgate. Mr. Chave responded that the proposed language would not prohibit single-story development, but he agreed that this issue could be clarified. Ms. Sterrett suggested that another category could be added specifically to address single-story development. Ms. Rottle added that public comments indicated little support for single-story structures because they are not a good use of precious land, and the proposed plan responds to these comments by offering development types that are two more stories to allow more intense uses that generally equate to more public spaces. Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director, said he participated in the majority of the CEDC discussions regarding the Westgate commercial area. He did not hear anyone say they were in favor of precluding single- story buildings. He agreed with Mr. Chave that language could be added to make it clear that single-story buildings would be allowed. Board Member Clarke suggested that perhaps the reason the public did not offer support for single-story development was because it was not one of the options offered to them. He pointed out that Key Bank just spent $2 million to purchase land for a single-story building on a prime corner, and most of the recent development in Westgate has been one and two-story buildings. This tells him the market still supports this type of development. Mr. Clifton pointed out that the current code limits height in the Westgate area to 25 and 30 feet, which precludes development greater than two stories in most situations. He suggested that if a form-based code had been in effect, some of the recent development may have been different. Board Member Clarke said he is in favor of expanding development opportunities, but they should also not preclude opportunities for single-story, single-occupancy development. Mr. Clifton reported that when staff met with the developers of the new Walgreens prior to their submittal, they showed them the draft form-based code language. Staff explained that if the City Council adopts the proposed form-based code, future developers would have to site their buildings to accommodate the internal circulation roadway. Although staff made it clear the plan has not been adopted and the City cannot require them to accommodate the roadway, Walgreens chose to work with the PCC Natural Market to construct a two-way drive isle along the internal circulation road. The roadway east of the pet store is currently only one way, and this property owner is also working with Walgreens to create a two-way drive isle. Mr. Chave commented that internal circulation is far superior to requiring people to enter each building site separately. Internal circulation allows people to access all businesses located on the site without having to reenter the main highway. Board Member Clarke said it will be interesting to hear how property owners like the internal circulation roadway once numerous businesses are connected and there is significant congestion. He said he would like examples of how the concept has been used in other commercial developments. Board Member Johnson said she understands that both Shoreline and Mountlake Terrace have adopted form-based codes in some form. She requested that staff provide examples from cities in the area that have successfully implemented the concept. Mr. Clifton reported that Joe Tovar, former Shoreline Community Development Director, reviewed the proposed Westgate plan, and he suggested the Board invite him to a future meeting to discuss the concept further and address the Board’s questions and concerns. He also suggested that they invite Shane Hope, Mountlake Terrace Community and Economic Development Director, to share his thoughts with the Board. Mr. Chave said Mr. Wolfe has also provided guidance to the City Attorney regarding the concept of form-based zoning. He could also be invited to meet with the Board. The Board agreed that would be helpful, but they suggested the presentations be made at a joint meeting with the City Council, Planning Board and CEDC. It was emphasized that the presentations would be open to the public to attend, as well. Board Member Johnson noted that the streetscape standards proposed for SR 104 do not include bike lanes. She said she is interested in considering the potential for adding bike lanes on SR 104 to be consistent with the City’s adopted Street standards and to be consistent with the City Council’s recently adopted Complete Streets Ordinance. She explained that to Packet Page 349 of 524 APPROVED Planning Board Minutes April 25, 2012 Page 10 better understand and evaluate whether bike lanes are viable, the Board needs more information about the SR 104 corridor, in particular the right-of-way width available to accommodate bike lanes and the proposed streetscape design. Ms. Sterrett advised that an earlier version of the plan included a shared sidewalk/bike lane so that bikers were separated from the heavy traffic. However, the Public Works Department indicated that the proposal would not meet bike lane requirements. She agreed it would be appropriate to consider the option again, but the discussions must involve a representative from the Public Works Department. There may also be additional restrictions because the roadway is a state highway. Board Member Stewart said SR 104 is a precarious place to bike at this time, and she supports the internal circulation roadway, which will allow bikers to avoid the main intersection at SR 104 and 100th Avenue. Board Member Clarke asked if the proposed plan would require the utilities to be placed underground. He noted that the existing poles on the south side of SR 104 east of 100th Avenue may interfere with development if buildings are placed next to the sidewalk. The Board acknowledged that requiring underground utilities would be costly and beyond the scope of the proposed plan. Chair Lovell thanked the consultants and their team, as well as staff, for their hard work preparing the draft plain. The plan is exciting and he hopes they can continue to have public support. THE BOARD RECESSED THE MEETING AT 9:20 P.M. FOR A BREAK. THE MEETING WAS RECONVENED AT 9:35 P.M. DISCUSS AND REVISE PROPOSED DRAFT BED AND BREAKFAST (B&B CODE LANGUAGE (FILE NUMBER AMD20120001) Mr. Clugston reviewed that on March 28th the Board discussed and agreed that the City needs to have specific criteria and standards for B&Bs to clarify what is in the existing code and make it more user friendly. At the direction of the Board, staff reviewed regulations from surrounding communities and created draft B&B code language (Attachment 2) for the Board’s consideration. He said staff found it was difficult to incorporate B&B code language into the existing Home Occupation Chapter. Therefore, they are recommending a new section 20.23 be added. He advised that the proposed text provides a suggested definition for “Bed and Breakfast,” as well as ten development standards that all B&Bs should meet. He explained that while all B&Bs should have to obtain a business license to ensure appropriate review, staff is proposing a variable permitting scheme depending on where the B&B is located and how many rental rooms are proposed so that the appropriate level of review is provided for. B&Bs with two rental bedrooms or less would be permitted secondary uses in all residential zones, and B&Bs with three or more rental rooms would require a conditional use permit. B&Bs containing any number of rooms would be permitted primary uses in all business and commercial zones as long as all the development standards in ECDC 20.23.040 are met. The Board and staff reviewed the proposed development standards that would apply to all B&B establishments as follows: A. Bed and breakfasts must meet all applicable health, fire and building codes. B. Bed and breakfasts may only be located in detached, single-family homes. Mr. Clugston pointed out that a B&B is not intended to be a boarding house or motel. Board Member Clarke questioned the need to limit B&Bs to traditional single-family residential development only. Board Member Johnson commented that she lived in “The Park” apartment complex in Bellevue that rents some units on a daily basis, as “executive suites,” which is somewhat similar to a B&B. She noted that, in this case, each unit had a separate entrance. Board Member Stewart pointed out that, in many cases, multi-family development has shared access and common areas. It may not be appropriate to allow B&Bs in these types of situations since they could infringe upon the privacy of other tenants/owners. Chair Lovell pointed out that in the sample code language from other jurisdictions, many limit B&Bs to single-family, detached residential units. He suggested that the City follow this pattern rather than expanding the flexibility to include multi-family development, as well. Board Member Stewart agreed that they should keep the standards simple and go with what is currently proposed. The standards could always be expanded to include other types of development if deemed appropriate in the future. The remainder of the Board concurred. Packet Page 350 of 524 WESTGATE / 5 CORNERS INTRODUCTION Edmonds Planning Division Packet Page 351 of 524 Why Westgate / 5 Corners? Comprehensive Plan | Sustainability Economic | Social | Environmental Economic Development Jobs; Business & Employment; City revenue Social Interaction & Opportunity Housing choices; interactive and creative environment; ‘place making’ Environment & Climate Change Packet Page 352 of 524 Economic Changing markets and suburban development/redevelopment patterns Changing demographics and desires for choices in housing, shopping, jobs & living environments Local examples: Mill Creek, Mountlake Terrace, Shoreline, Bothell… These also benefit City revenues & services Packet Page 353 of 524 Social Urban Land Institute: “Place Making” – “Form-based codes focus on end results – the creation of desirable physical places.” “Successful retail development is inseparable from successful urban places – places where people of all ages and background can gather and engage in a spontaneous, unprogrammed way.” “We will definitely see the inclusion of more residential space and even offices at many retail projects in the future… Residents and office workers are a sort of captive audience….” Packet Page 354 of 524 Environmental Focusing development in mixed use centers provides the opportunity for land-efficient development, reducing sprawl and achieving other growth management goals Land use is one of the few options available to local jurisdictions to address climate change… both in terms of mitigation (reducing emissions) and adaptation Packet Page 355 of 524 Why Form-Based Codes vs. ‘Traditional’ Coding? Traditional zoning codes regulate and emphasize the separation of uses as their basic approach to managing urban form. Form-based codes are an alternative, emphasizing the importance of context and design in addressing the relationship between buildings and their surroundings. Form-based codes focus on the relationship between public and private space, buildings and streetscapes, encouraging interaction among the space’s users and fostering a unique local character. Packet Page 356 of 524 Form-Based code elements •Form-based coding can be designed according to context. •Form-based codes can be better suited to modern mixed-use development patterns and ‘place making’. Packet Page 357 of 524 Key form-based elements Regulating plan… map showing where different form standards apply Building forms and standards Public space specifications & relationships Definitions, Administration & process Use visuals and tables to organize and simplify requirements May also employ architectural, landscape, signage and other standards Can be a ‘hybrid’ approach that incorporates traditional zoning standards where appropriate Packet Page 358 of 524 Next… Two members of the UW project team for Westgate & 5 Corners: Jill Sterrett, FAICP, Sterrett Consulting (UW) Julie Kriegh, AIA, LEED AP, Kriegh Architecture Studios Packet Page 359 of 524 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e We s t g a t e S p e c i a l D i s t r i c t P l a n an d F o r m B a s e d C o d e Ci t y C o u n c i l P r e s e n t a t i o n Ju l y 2 3 , 2 0 1 3 Ci t y o f E d m o n d s Gr e e n F u t u r e s L a b , Un i v e r s i t y o f W a s h i n g t o n Ca s c a d e L a n d C o n s e r v a n c y Packet Page 360 of 524 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e Ag e n d a I N T R O D U C T I O N : J i l l S t e r r e t t PU B L I C P R O C E S S : J i l l S t e r r e t t ED M O N D S F O R M B A S E D C O D E : J u l i e K r i e g h NE X T S T E P S : J i l l S t e r r e t t Packet Page 361 of 524 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e Ma p O v e r v i e w Packet Page 362 of 524 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e Wh y u s e a F o r m B a s e d C o d e ? Re c o n n e c t i n g b u i l d i n g s , s t r e e t s , a n d o p e n s p a c e s Tr a d i t i o n a l z o n i n g c o d e s regulate an d e m p h a s i z e t h e s e p a r a t i o n o f us e s . De s i g n g u i d e l i n e s m o d u l a t e bu i l d i n g f a c a d e s a n d m a t e r i a l s . Fo r m - b a s e d c o d e s em p h a s i z e t h e re l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n p u b l i c a n d pr i v a t e s p a c e t o s u p p o r t u s e r s a n d f o s t e r l o c a l c h a r a c t e r . Packet Page 363 of 524 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e Re s e a r c h a n d a c t i v i t i e s b e f o r e d e s i g n s t a r t s : • CO M P A C T • CO N N E C T E D • CO M P L E T E Ex e m p l a r y C o m m e r c i a l C e n t e r s Packet Page 364 of 524 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e Be f o r e D e s i g n S t a r t e d • Pr e p a r e d c i t i z e n s u r v e y • Si t e s u r v e y s o f l a n d u s e s • Su r v e y o f e x i s t i n g a m e n i t i e s • Pa r k i n g c o u n t s • Wa l k i n g d i s t a n c e & c o n d i t i o n s • Ma p p i n g s t u d y r e s u l t s • An a l y s i s o f u s e r f r i e n d l i n e s s • Ne i g h b o r h o o d I d e n t i t y Co m p a r i s o n Packet Page 365 of 524 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e We s t g a t e : M a r k e t A n a l y s i s We s t g a t e Cu r r e n t We s t g a t e Fu t u r e Sq . F t Cu r r e n t Re t a i l t y p e Ne i g h b o r h o o d Re t a i l Co m m u n i t y Re t a i l 29 . 9 7 a c . 23 5 , 1 6 3 s q . f t . An c h o r s Su p e r m a r k e t s Dr u g s t o r e S a m e 1 6 5 , 8 0 4 Ot h e r r e t a i l & S e r v i c e Co f f e e s h o p , bo w l i n g a l l e y Re s t a u r a n t s , ga r d e n s h o p el e c t r o n i c s 34 , 8 4 4 Of f i c e mi n o r R e a l e s t a t e in s u r a n c e 28 , 6 3 4 Re s i d e n t i a l mi n o r A p a r t m e n t s 5 , 8 8 1 Ti m i n g 5- 1 5 y e a r s Packet Page 366 of 524 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e Pa r t i c i p a t o r y P u b l i c P r o c e s s Br o w n U n i v e r s i t y • Co m m u n i t y S u r v e y b y Ma i l & O n - l i n e [O c t o b e r 2 0 1 0 – M a r c h 2 0 1 1 ] • Li s t e n i n g S e s s i o n s [ J a n u a r y 2 0 1 1 ] • De s i g n W o r k s h o p [M a r c h 2 0 1 1 ] • Al t e r n a t i v e s P r e f e r e n c e s Fo r u m [M a y 2 0 1 1 ] Packet Page 367 of 524 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e Co m m u n i t y S u r v e y s 1. M a i l - i n s u r v e y 2. O n - l i n e s u r v e y a t C i t y w e b s i t e 3. I n - p e r s o n s u r v e y a t P u b l i c L i s t e n i n g S e s s i o n Ag e s < 2 4 (9 r e s p o n d e n t s ) Ag e s 2 5 – 4 4 (1 0 2 r e s p o n d e n t s ) Ag e s 4 5 - 6 4 (1 2 8 r e s p o n d e n t s ) Ag e s 6 5 + (8 1 r e s p o n d e n t s ) Mo r e p u b l i c s p a c e ( o u t d o o r ) 9 7 % Ba k e r y 5 6 % Mo v i e T h e a t r e 4 4 % Mo r e p u b l i c s p a c e ( o u t d o o r ) 5 4 % Im p r o v e d A r e a W a l k a b i l i t y 3 5 % Mo r e p u b l i c u s e s ( l i b r a r y ) 3 0 % Mo r e p u b l i c s p a c e ( o u t d o o r ) 5 4 % Ba k e r y 2 9 % Im p r o v e d A r e a W a l k a b i l i t y 2 9 % Mo r e p u b l i c s p a c e ( o u t d o o r ) 4 6 % Im p r o v e d A r e a W a l k a b i l i t y 3 5 % Ba k e r y 3 3 % Packet Page 368 of 524 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e Pu b l i c L i s t e n i n g S e s s i o n s Ch a n g e – Ho w m u c h ? H o w f a s t ? Wo n ’ t t h i n g s j u s t g e t w o r s e ? Ch a n g e w i l l b e gr a d u a l o v e r t h e n e x t 1 0 y e a r s . Tr a f f i c –Wo n ’ t m o r e d e v e l o p m e n t b r i n g m o r e tr a f f i c ? Wa l k a b l e d e v e l o p m e n t c a n h e l p t o of f s e t t r a f f i c i n c r e a s e s . Fa v o r i t e s –I d o n ’ t w a n t t o l o s e m y f a v o r i t e re s t a u r a n t , f i t n e s s c l u b , e t c . Pr o p e r t y o w n e r s w i l l li k e l y w a n t t o k e e p t h e m o s t s u c c e s s f u l bu s i n e s s e s . Li s t e n i n g - De v e l o p e r s d o w h a t t h e y w a n t an y w a y – h o w c a n w e h a v e a s a y ? The plan offers bo n u s i n c e n t i v e s t o p r o v i d e t h e a m e n i t i e s t h e pu b l i c i s a s k i n g f o r . Packet Page 369 of 524 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e Th o u g h t f u l d e s i g n c a n ma k e c h a n g e f o r t h e b e t t e r Packet Page 370 of 524 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e Pu b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n in a design wo r k s h o p w i t h l o c a l p r o f e s s i o n a l s . Id e n t i f y c o m m u n i t y v a l u e s . De s i g n f o r li f e (ac t i v i t i e s ) t o de t e r m i n e t h e a r r a n g e m e n t o f spaces , an d f i n a l l y , t h e p l a c e m e n t o f bu i l d i n g s . In c o r p o r a t e a " g r e e n in f r a s t r u c t u r e " o v e r l a y . Pu b l i c D e s i g n W o r k s h o p Packet Page 371 of 524 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e Wo r k s h o p S u m m a r i e s We s t g a t e r e f l e c t s i t s i d e n t i t y a s a p e d e s t r i a n f r i e n d l y g a t e w a y Packet Page 372 of 524 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e Al t e r n a t i v e P r e f e r e n c e s F o r u m Re f i n i n g a n d S e l e c t i n g f r o m A l t e r n a t i v e s 1- 3 s t o r i e s a l l o w e d w i t h re q u i r e d a m e n i t i e s 4- s t o r i e s a l l o w e d w i t h m o r e am e n i t i e s 5- s t o r i e s a l l o w e d o n s o m e si t e s n e a r s t e e p s l o p e s Packet Page 373 of 524 Ju l i e K r i e g h We s t g a t e S p e c i a l D i s t r i c t P l a n an d F o r m B a s e d C o d e Packet Page 374 of 524 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e Co n t e n t s o f t h e P l a n a n d F o r m B a s e d C o d e : 1. I n t r o d u c t i o n 2. T h e R e g u l a t i n g F r a m e w o r k 3. B u i l d i n g T y p e s a n d S t a n d a r d s 4. C i v i c I n v e s t m e n t : S t r e e t s c a p e a n d P u b l i c S p a c e S t a n d a r d s 5. P r i v a t e I n v e s t m e n t : A m e n i t y S p a c e s a n d G r e e n F e a t u r e s St a n d a r d s 6. A d m i n i s t r a t i o n a n d I m p l e m e n t a t i o n S t a n d a r d s 7. R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s Packet Page 375 of 524 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e An e x a m p l e o f p o s s i b l e d e v e l o p m e n t - Ke y : R e t a i l / C o m m e r c i a l - O r a n g e Of f i c e – P u r p l e Re s i d e n t i a l – Y e l l o w Pa r k i n g - o p e n l o t s , u n d e r b u i l d i n g s , o n t h e s t r e e t s Packet Page 376 of 524 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e Key: Re t a i l / C o m m e r c i a l - O r a n g e Office – P u r p l e Re s i d e n t i a l – Y e l l o w Wh a t c a n t h e p l a n y i e l d ? Packet Page 377 of 524 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e • Cr e a t e m i x e d - u s e w a l k a b l e , c o m p a c t , c o m m e r c i a l c e n t e r s • En h a n c e E d m o n d s e c o n o m y a n d t a x b a s e • Im p r o v e c o n n e c t i o n s f o r b i c y c l i s t s & p e d e s t r i a n s • Wi t h i n t h e a r e a a n d t o o t h e r p a r t s o f t h e c i t y In t e n t a n d G o a l s - L e v e r a g e S y n e r g i e s Packet Page 378 of 524 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e In t e n t a n d G o a l s - L e v e r a g e S y n e r g i e s • En h a n c e W e s t g a t e i d e n t i t y a n d v i s i b i l i t y • Cr e a t i n g p l a c e s f o r p u b l i c a r t • Pr i o r i t i z e a m e n i t y s p a c e s • Cr e a t i n g p l e a s a n t p l a c e s f o r p e o p l e t o m e e t Packet Page 379 of 524 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e In t e n t a n d G o a l s - L e v e r a g e S y n e r g i e s • Pr o m o t e c i v i c a n d p r i v a t e i n v e s t m e n t s • Pa r t n e r t o c r e a t e p l a c e s t o e n h a n c e t h e c i t y a n d t h e n e i g h b o r h o o d • In c o r p o r a t e s u s t a i n a b l e f e a t u r e s • Em p h a s i z e gr e e n b u i l d i n g co n s t r u c t i o n , st o r m w a t e r in f i l t r a t i o n , low-impact si t e d e s i g n Packet Page 380 of 524 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e In t e n t a n d G o a l s - L e v e r a g e S y n e r g i e s • Re g u l a t e b u i l d i n g p l a c e m e n t a n d f o r m • Es t a b l i s h a f l e x i b l e r e g u l a t i n g s y s t e m t o e n c o u r a g e d e v e l o p m e n t a n d pr o v i d e a m e n i t i e s • Cr e a t e v a r i e t y o f h o u s i n g c h o i c e s a n d r e t a i l o p t i o n s a n d p a r k i n g o p t i o n s • Se r v e n e e d s o f m a n y e c o n o m i c a n d a g e s e g m e n t s Packet Page 381 of 524 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e Wh a t i s r e g u l a t e d b y t h e P l a n ? 1. A m e n i t y S p a c e s 2. R e q u i r e d B u i l d i n g L i n e s 3 . S t r e e t T y p e s 4. B u i l d i n g T y p e s 5. B u i l d i n g F r o n t a g e T y p e s 6. S u s t a i n a b l e a n d G r e e n F e a t u r e s 7. D e v e l o p m e n t R e q u i r e m e n t s a n d O p t i o n s WE S T G A T E : T h e R e g u l a t i n g F r a m e w o r k Packet Page 382 of 524 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e 1. A m e n i t y S p a c e s • Co m m o n A r e a s : La n d s c a p e e n h a n c e m e n t at i n t e r s e c t i o n , p a r k ; s t r e e t se t b a c k s • “A m e n i t y S p a c e ” : pl a z a s , s i d e w a l k s , l a w n s , po c k e t p a r k s • Tr e e s : st r e e t t r e e s , pa r k i n g l o t s & s t e e p s l o p e s • St o r m w a t e r ma n a g e m e n t : l a n d s c a p e f e a t u r e s Packet Page 383 of 524 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e 2. R e q u i r e d B u i l d - t o L i n e s SR 1 0 4 – b u i l d t o 8 f t . f r o m r i g h t o f w a y 10 0 th Av e W – b u i l d t o 5 f t . f r o m r i g h t o f w a y I n t e r n a l R o a d – b u i l d t o 3 f t . f r o m e d g e Packet Page 384 of 524 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e 3. S t r e e t s c a p e S t a n d a r d s In t e r n a l C i r c u l a t i o n Dr i v e St a t e R o u t e 1 0 4 Packet Page 385 of 524 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e 1. R o w h o u s e - To w n h o m e a p a r t m e n t s o r c o n d o m i n i u m s 2. L i v e W o r k - To w n h o m e a p a r t m e n t s o r c o n d o m i n i u m s w i t h w o r k s t u d i o 3. S t a c k e d D w e l l i n g s - Si n g l e l e v e l l i v i n g a p a r t m e n t s o r c o n d o m i n i u m s 4. L o f t D w e l l i n g s - t w o l e v e l l i v i n g u n i t s w i t h r e t a i l o n t h e g r o u n d l e v e l 5. C o u r t y a r d R e s i d e n t i a l - Ap a r t m e n t o r c o n d o m i n i u m f l a t s 6. S i d e C o u r t - Re t a i l M i x e d U s e w i t h o f f i c e o r r e s i d e n t i a l a b o v e 7. C o m m e r c i a l B l o c k - O f f i c e , R e t a i l , M i x e d U s e w i t h o f f i c e o r r e s i d e n t i a l a b o v e 4. B u i l d i n g T y p e s Packet Page 386 of 524 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e 4. R e s i d e n t i a l B u i l d i n g T y p e s W e s t g a t e Li v e / W o r k Ro w h o u s e s Co u r t y a r d R e s i d e n t i a l Packet Page 387 of 524 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e 4. C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g T y p e s Si d e C o u r t Co m m e r c i a l B l o c k Su s t a i n a b l e S t a n d a r d s M e n u • L E E D • E v e r g r e e n • B u i l t G r e e n • P a s s i v e H o u s e • L i v i n g B u i l d i n g C h a l l e n g e Packet Page 388 of 524 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e 5. S t r e e t F r o n t a g e T y p e s : De f i n e h o w b u i l d i n g s m e e t t h e s t r e e t Packet Page 389 of 524 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e 6. G r e e n F e a t u r e s : We s t g a t e G r e e n F a c t o r 1. B a s e d o n su c c e s s f u l S e a t t l e Gr e e n F a c t o r fo r C o m m e r c i a l an d M u l t i - F a m i l y Z o n e s 1. F l e x i b l e s y s t e m t o a d d r e s s ec o l o g i c a l a n d l i v a b i l i t y fu n c t i o n s 1. D e v e l o p e r s e l e c t s o p t i o n s t o ga i n b o n u s s t o r i e s Packet Page 390 of 524 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e 6. G r e e n F e a t u r e s E x a m p l e In s e r t i n f o – p o s s i b l y t h e s t e p b y s t e p s u m m a r y & l i s t o f i t e m s i n t h e Gr e e n F a c t o r C a t e g o r i e s ( e n d o f s e c t i o n 5 . 2 ) - N a n c y t o p r o v i d e Packet Page 391 of 524 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e 7. D e v e l o p m e n t R e q u i r e m e n t s & O p t i o n s Me n u of Op t i o n s C o n s i s t e n t R e v i e w P r o c e s s Packet Page 392 of 524 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e Pu t t i n g i t a l l t o g e t h e r Packet Page 393 of 524 Ji l l S t e r r e t t Co n c l u s i o n Packet Page 394 of 524 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e Ad m i n i s t r a t i o n & I m p l e m e n t a t i o n Packet Page 395 of 524 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e Ci t y a c t i o n s t o e n c o u r a g e d e v e l o p m e n t 1. C r e a t e a d e m o n s t r a t i o n p r o j e c t t h r o u g h R F Q p r o c e s s 2. C r e a t e p u b l i c a r t , t e m p o r a r y s p a c e a c t i v a t i o n 3. A l l o w c o m m u n i t y a n d n o n - p r o f i t u s e s f o r e x i s t i n g v a c a n t b u i l d i n g s 4. C i t y p a r t n e r s h i p i n a m e n i t i e s , o p e n s p a c e , a n d p a r k i n g t h a t a r e l e v e r a g e d wi t h g r e e n s t o r m w a t e r i n f r a s t r u c t u r e 5. C r e a t e P l a n n e d A c t i o n En v i r o n m e n t a l S t a t e m e n t 6. P u b l i c i z e S p e c i a l D i s t r i c t P l a n - • Hi g h l i g h t F B C • Sh o w d e v e l o p a b l e p a r c e l s • Id e n t i f y c a p a c i t y o f u t i l i t i e s • Fe a t u r e d e s i r e d a c t i v i t i e s • D e m o n s t r a t e h o u s i n g d e m a n d Packet Page 396 of 524 RE VI S I O N I N G W e s t g a t e Th a n k Y o u • Ji l l S t e r r e t t , F A I C P St e r r e t t C o n s u l t i n g UW F a c u l t y , U r b a n D e s i g n & P l a n n i n g • Ju l i e K r i e g h , A I A , L E E D A P KR I E G H A R C H I T E C T U R E ST U D I O S Un i v e r s i t y o f W a s h i n g t o n T e a m • Na n c y R o t t l e , A S L A - D i r e c t o r , G r e e n F u t u r e s L a b • UW F a c u l t y , L a n d s c a p e A r c h i t e c t u r e • Be t s y J a c o b s o n - M A K E R S A r c h i t e c t u r e a n d U r b a n D e s i g n Ma s t e r s i n L a n d s c a p e A r c h i t e c t u r e / U r b a n D e s i g n & P l a n n i n g • Je a n i n e M a t t h e w s - M a s t e r s i n L a n d s c a p e A r c h i t e c t u r e • Br a d S h i p l e y - B S D e g r e e i n C o m m u n i t y , E n v i r o n m e n t a n d P l a n n i n g • To m J a m i e s o n - M a s t e r s i n L a n d s c a p e A r c h i t e c t u r e • Er i c S c h a r n h o r s t - M a s t e r s i n L a n d s c a p e A r c h i t e c t u r e Packet Page 397 of 524 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 23, 2013 Page 8 Councilmember Bloom explained she proposed the amendment because the EDBID President already has the option of calling an emergency meeting. She did not believe the EDBID President should have more power to call an emergency meeting than the Mayor has. By striking this language, the BID already has that option in the event a natural disaster necessitated an emergency meeting. Councilmember Peterson asked whether the Council could give an organization such as the EDBID more power than is allowed by RCW. Mr. Taraday answered no. He did not read 9.2.g to be an expansion of power; it was essentially paraphrasing State law. Council President Petso asked if State law includes the requirement that an effort must be made to meet all requirements if possible. Mr. Taraday answered it did not; State law states the notice requirements of the chapter shall be suspended; if anything 9.2.g is not as lenient as State law. If 9.2.g were eliminated, efforts to meet all requirements would not need to be made. Council President Petso summarized 9.2.g provided better notice of an emergency meeting than State law. Mr. Taraday agreed 9.2.g required more. Councilmember Bloom asked if Section 9.2.g would allow the President to call a meeting in the event of a nature disaster such as the RCW describes. Mr. Taraday responded the RCW does not expressly state that an emergency must be a natural disaster; the language states fire, flood, earthquake or other emergency. His reading of “emergency” in Section 9.2.g was an emergency of the same type; it could not just be an emergency due to timing. Councilmember Bloom asked whether Section 9.2.g left it open for another type of emergency that was not contemplated in the RCWs. Mr. Taraday responded the RCW leaves open the possibility of other types of emergency. The City Council has similar discretion to determine when an emergency exists. The EDBID will also have that type of discretion to determine when an emergency exists, either by Section 9.2.g or RCWs unless the Council expressly removes it, which he did not recommend. He concluded it is not possible or advisable to define with precision what constitutes an emergency. Councilmember Johnson asked if inserting “consistent with RCW 42.30.070” into Section 9.2.g would provide clarification. Mr. Taraday replied if there was a concern that the EDBID Board could define emergency in a manner that was inconsistent with State law, reference to the RCW could be added to 9.2.g. Action on Amendment #2 COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM WITHDREW HER AMENDMENT WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Amendment #3 COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD, “CONSISTENT WITH RCW 42.30.070” TO SECTION 9.2.g. Action on Amendment #3 MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO VOTING NO. Action on Main Motion as Amended MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING NO. (Councilmember Buckshnis discontinued her participation in the Council meeting by telephone.) 8. RE-INTRODUCTION OF WESTGATE / 5 CORNERS Acting Development Services Director Rob Chave introduced the topic and explained the reasons for the Westgate and 5 Corners Plans include: • Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Sustainability elements • Economic Development Packet Page 398 of 524 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 23, 2013 Page 9 o Jobs; Business & Employment; City revenue • Social Interaction & Opportunity o Housing choices; interactive and creative environment; ‘place making’ • Environment & Climate Change Mr. Chave described economic issues: • Changing markets and suburban development/redevelopment patterns • Changing demographics and desires for choices in housing, shopping, jobs & living environments • Local examples: Mill Creek, Mountlake Terrace, Shoreline, Bothell… • These also benefit City revenues & services Mr. Chave described social benefits: • Urban Land Institute: o “Place Making” – “Form-based codes focus on end results – the creation of desirable physical places.” o “Successful retail development is inseparable from successful urban places – places where people of all ages and background can gather and engage in a spontaneous, unprogrammed way.” o “We will definitely see the inclusion of more residential space and even offices at many retail projects in the future… Residents and office workers are a sort of captive audience….” Mr. Chave described issues related to the environment: • Focusing development in mixed use centers provides the opportunity for land-efficient development, reducing sprawl and achieving other growth management goals • Land use is one of the few options available to local jurisdictions to address climate change… both in terms of mitigation (reducing emissions) and adaptation To the question of why form-based codes versus traditional coding, Mr. Chave explained: • Traditional zoning codes regulate and emphasize the separation of uses as their basic approach to managing urban form. • Form-based codes are an alternative, emphasizing the importance of context and design in addressing the relationship between buildings and their surroundings. • Form-based codes focus on the relationship between public and private space, buildings and streetscapes, encouraging interaction among the space’s users and fostering a unique local character. Mr. Chave highlighted form-based code elements: • Form-based coding can be designed according to context. • Form-based codes can be better suited to modern mixed-use development patterns and ‘place making’. • Regulating plan… map showing where different form standards apply • Building forms and standards • Public space specifications & relationships • Definitions, Administration & process • Use visuals and tables to organize and simplify requirements • May also employ architectural, landscape, signage and other standards • Can be a ‘hybrid’ approach that incorporates traditional zoning standards where appropriate Jill Sterrett, FAICP, Sterrett Consulting, UW Faculty, explained although the study conducted in 2010-2011 also addressed 5 Corners, the Westgate Plan has moved forward. Due to the delay to allow the Packet Page 399 of 524 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 23, 2013 Page 10 Planning Board to address other issues and because there are new Councilmembers, her intent was to provide a refresher regarding the plan and the process. She described her background that includes 30 years of urban planning experience and now teaching at UW. She pointed out Ms. Kriegh also has a Master’s Degree in Architecture and 20 years of experience and is currently in the PhD program at UW. Ms. Sterrett displayed a map of Westgate and 5 Corners, explaining their study began by comparing those areas to downtown. The EDC worked with the UW team throughout the process; their goal was business growth and jobs which in turn would provide more tax revenue for the City. The EDC was also interested in moderate priced housing for young adults and local service workers. One of the reasons the plan was prepared was to assist developers in understanding what the City wants the area to be. This can result in a faster review process, reducing developers’ risk and helping the City and residents get what they want. The plan uses the concept of form-based code. She compared traditional zoning codes, design guidelines and form-based codes: • Traditional zoning codes regulate and emphasize the separation of uses • Design guidelines modulate building facades and materials • Form-based codes emphasize the relationship between public and private space to support users and foster local character In the early portion of the study in fall 2010, they looked at what works in other commercial centers. They worked with Forterra, previously known as Cascade Land Conservancy; principles they followed include complete (a mix of uses within a given space), compact (close to each other) and connected (good transit, bike, pedestrian connection in the area and to surrounding area). As part of the study, a market analysis was conducted. She displayed a comparison of square footages in Westgate, current and future, with regard to retail, anchors, other retail and service, office, residential. The timing of redevelopment was estimated at 5-15 years. The economist who conducted the analysis concluded Westgate currently functions as neighborhood retail but has the potential to be community retail. She noted Edmonds collects approximately $12,000 per year per resident in retail sales tax; Redmond collects $18,000. Ms. Sterrett reviewed details of the participatory public process: • Community survey by mail and online (October 2010-March 2011) o Strong interest by all age groups in more outdoor public spaces and improved area walkability • Listening Sessions (January 2011) Fears included: Change, traffic, losing favorites, and developers not listening • Public Design Workshop (March 2011) o Public participation in a design workshop with local professionals o Identify community values o Design for life (activities) to determine the arrangement of spaces, and finally the placement of buildings o Incorporate a “green infrastructure” overlay o Developed a number of workshop summaries • Alternatives Preferences Forum (May 2011) o Two preferred alternatives were presented to the public, EDC, Planning Board o Presented to Council in June 2011; Council directed Planning Board to work with UW Julie Kriegh, AIA, LEED AP, Kriegh Architecture Studios, referred to this as the form-based code plus plan because it considers the relationship between building, private spaces and public spaces as well as sustainable building practices, green features and open space, green infrastructure, diversity of commercial and residential housing types, multiple options for transportation and parking opportunities. Packet Page 400 of 524 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 23, 2013 Page 11 She displayed an example of possible development illustrating retail/commercial, office residential and parking. The plan does not regulate the uses, as that is typically market driven; the plan offers opportunity for property and business owners and leverages those on a neighborhood scale. She pointed out the plan has parking behind buildings, creating life spaces and activities in front of the buildings. Bike access, pedestrian streets and open green space are envisioned within each quadrant. She described the intent and goals of leveraging synergies: Create mixed-use walkable, compact, commercial centers; improve connections for bicyclists and pedestrians; enhance Westgate identity and visibility; prioritize amenity spaces; promote civic and private investments; incorporate sustainable features; regulate building placement and form; and create a variety of housing choices and retail options and parking options. Ms. Kriegh described what is regulated by the Plan: 1. Amenity spaces: common areas; plazas; sidewalks; lawns; pocket parks; trees; stormwater management. 2. Required build-to lines for each type of street 3. Street types 4. Building types • Rowhouse – townhome apartments or condominiums • Live Work – townhome apartments or condominiums with work studio • Stacked dwellings – two level living units with retail on the ground level • Courtyard residential – apartment or condominium flats • Side court – retail mixed use with office or residential above • Commercial block – office, retail, mixed use with office or residential above • Sustainable standards menu: LEED, evergreen, built green, passive house, living building challenge. 5. Building frontage types 6. Sustainable and green features • Based on successful Seattle Green Factor for commercial and multi-family zones • Flexible system to address ecological a neighborhood livability functions • Developer selects options to gain bonus stories 7. Development requirements and options Ms. Kriegh explained the benefit for the community is there is a Plan for property owners and developers to look at and that provides choices and they can adhere to community values and vision and work with the City for a clear framework to meet the needs of the community today and in the future. Ms. Sterrett described administration and implementation of the Plan. She described City actions to encourage development: 1. Create a demonstration project through RFQ process 2. Create public art, temporary space activation 3. Allow community and non-profit uses for existing vacant buildings 4. City partnership in amenities, open space, and parking that are leveraged 5. with green stormwater infrastructure 6. Create Planned Action Environmental Statement 7. Publicize Special District Plan- • Highlight FBC • Show developable parcels • Identify capacity of utilities • Feature desired activities • Demonstrate housing demand Packet Page 401 of 524 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 23, 2013 Page 12 Ms. Sterrett displayed a list of team members who contributed to the development of the Plan. Council President Petso acknowledged she voted against this Plan because she does not believe it will happen on a State highway. She observed the Plan considers five story buildings. Ms. Sterrett agreed, noting the location where 5-story buildings are allowed is defined in the plan; it is in limited areas up against the steep slopes. Council President Petso observed the Plan incentivizes small units to support low income/affordable housing. Ms. Sterrett answered the City does not currently have a low income/affordable housing program. The Plan includes workforce housing, smaller units that would be in the price range of young adults and service workers. Council President Petso commented redevelopment of the PCC property into a 5-story, lot line to lot line apartment may be more profitable than the current grocery store, yet the City needs the grocery store. If development of apartments was more profitable, she questioned how favorite uses would not be lost. Ms. Sterrett answered that was part of those company’s business models. Many grocery stores have a model with the grocery store on the ground floor and including apartments above. Council President Petso observed parking requirements were reduced to one space per unit. Ms. Sterrett agreed the Plan suggest a formula for parking which the Planning Board will review. The concept was these would be smaller units and the parking standard would be one parking space per dwelling unit. Council President Petso commented when she reviewed the examples and incentives for extra height, she was able to develop a combination of factors that would allow a 5-story building with no public place- making amenities. She asked if that could be tweaked to ensure public spaces are created, recalling creating public spaces was the consensus of the survey respondents. Ms. Sterrett noted some amenities are required for 1-3 stories; incentives for additional stories can be tweaked. It was her understanding the Planning Board was considering that. Council President Petso asked whether the current proposal was to reduce the 5 lanes on 100th/9th to 3 lanes. Ms. Sterrett acknowledged the team that prepared the Plan are not traffic experts; that part of the Plan needs further review by the Planning Board and Transportation Department. Mr. Clifton answered the Plan is not to reduce the number of lanes on 100th/9th. The traffic impact study determined it was not appropriate to put 9th Avenue on a “road diet” and instead recommended leaving the roadway as is. Councilmember Peterson referred to Council President Petso’s comment about PCC constructing a 5- story lot line to lot line building, pointing out that would not be allowed in that space. Mr. Chave explained the Plan does not say Westgate in its entirety can be redeveloped with apartments; there is a mixture of uses by location. He pointed out QFC owns their property and it will not be redeveloped until QFC wants to. Councilmember Bloom asked how parking would occur behind the buildings, for example on the QFC or PCC parcels. Ms. Sterrett answered parking would only be moved as properties redeveloped. Councilmember Bloom asked if the Plan was based on property ownership. Ms. Sterrett answered yes; that was one of the difficulties of this Plan. Traditionally when a City considers redevelopment of an area, they acquire the property. This Plan respects the current property ownership and it is up to property owners to respond to the Plan and make it work for their property. The concepts lay a foundation for public space and connectivity and encourage developers to do internal circulation. Councilmember Bloom summarized as each property redevelops, there are incentives for additional stories to provide certain amenities. Ms. Sterrett agreed. Councilmember Bloom assumed the Planning Board was reviewing the incentives to ensure the correct ones are offered. Mr. Chave agreed the Planning Packet Page 402 of 524 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 23, 2013 Page 13 Board was reviewing the details. Ms. Sterrett explained the goal is commonality and compatibility in future development. The incentives that allow a developer to achieve additional height also allow the City to achieve the benefits it wants. Councilmember Bloom asked how that fit with the code rewrite. Mr. Chave answered it will fit into the zoning chapter that considers uses; the companion will be the added design features and form-based code that will apply specifically to these zones. The Planning Board will determine how it will fit with current zoning. 9. DISCUSSION REGARDING FUTURE CITY UTILITY RATE ADJUSTMENTS. Public Works Director Phil Williams advised City Engineer Rob English and Nihat Dogan, FCS Group, were present to answer questions. This is a discussion item with possible Council direction for use in preparing the 2014 budget and finalizing the Wastewater Comprehensive Plan. Sewer Mr. Williams provided history regarding sewer rates: • No rate increase in the last 9 years (2004) • Only adjustment in the last 9 years was a 2.4% decrease in 2006 He provided a comparison of current sewer rates: Seattle $116.50 Kirkland $ 91.15 Ronald Wastewater District $ 75.14 Arlington $ 70.15 Woodinville Water District $ 65.77 Mukilteo Water & Sewer District $ 57.59 Lake Forest Park $ 55.44 Redmond $ 52.89 Alderwood Water & Wastewater $ 51.46 Lynnwood $ 39.57 Everett $ 34.94 Edmonds $ 27.85 Olympia View Water & Sewer District $ 23.66 Mr. Williams displayed a spreadsheet of sewer revenues and expenses 2013-2019, explaining a 6% base case annual rate adjustment is necessary 2014-2019 to cover current expenses and debt service. He displayed a chart illustrating the impact of a 6% rate adjustment; Edmonds’ rate increases to $39.51. He described another option, to pay capital costs with rates rather than debt, which would require a 9.5% increase 2014-2019. At the end of that time period, rates would generate approximately $2 million/year for capital projects. Under that option, Edmonds’ rate would increase to $48.01, still in the lower half of comparator cities. Councilmember Bloom asked how many years the 6% increase would be necessary. Mr. Williams answered the illustration was a 6% increase per year for 6 years; it includes current borrowing, borrowing again in 2 years, again 2 years later, etc. to provide capital funding. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether any of the comparator cities’ rates included water or stormwater. Mr. Williams answered they were strictly sewer rates. Water Mr. Williams explained the current Water Comprehensive Plan, approved by the Council in 2010, assumes 7.5% rate adjustments each year. He displayed a comparison of water rates: Packet Page 403 of 524 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 1 REVISIONING Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code City of Edmonds August 29, 2012 Packet Page 404 of 524 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 1 1.1 | Intent and Goals for Westgate The ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form- Based Code (herein called “the plan”) establishes a vision for new types of development in the Westgate area, currently zoned Neighborhood Business. The plan proposes mixed-use development, including dwelling units, offices and retail spaces in a walkable community center with many amenity spaces. The intent of the plan is to establish a connection between neighborhoods; create a desirable center for local residents, while being inviting to visitors; and unify the Westgate District with a distinctive character. The goals for the Westgate District Plan and Form-Based Code include: 1. Creating mixed-use walkable, compact development that is economically viable, attractive and community-friendly, 2. Improving connectedness for pedestrian and bicycle users, 3. Prioritizing amenity spaces for informal and organized gatherings, 4. Emphasizing green building construction, storm- water infiltration, and a variety of green features, 5. Establishing a flexible regulating system that creates quality public spaces by regulating building placement and form, 6. Ensuring civic and private investments contribute to increased infrastructure capacity and benefit the surrounding neighborhoods and the community at large, and 7. Encouraging the development of a variety of housing choices available to residents of all economic and age segments. Recognizing the complexities associated with this neighborhood business site, the plan seeks a balance between open space, green features, commercial, retail and residential needs. The planning process addressed the Westgate area in terms of Life, Space and Buildings, a process pioneered by Gehl Architects of Copenhagen. The Gehl approach is summarized below: Life: a vision for public life begins with the people who live in the neighborhood. Including everyone’s input helps paint a clear picture of neighborhood life. This understanding is the key to improving neighborhood vitality. Space: The next step is to envision public spaces that can best support the life of the neighbor- hood. What types of public spaces do people need for the life that was discussed in the first step? A focus on the fine-grained, human-scale of spaces is crucial. Buildings: Finally, planning should address the quality, height, massing, scale and functions of the buildings that will support neighborhood life and fit the spaces that were defined in the second step. For the Westgate District, significant attributes of the Form-Based Code were made visible through applying the Gehl approach. Specifically, the plan features: t-JGFHSFFO PVUEPPSBNFOJUZTQBDFT QFEFTUSJBO access; good internal circulation; shopping destination with local attractions, especially bakeries, restaurants, and grocery stores; protecting the tree canopy; and retaining existing viable retail. For Westgate, the understanding of this vision was derived from a series of public meetings, (described in Section 1.3 below); t4QBDFTBGFDSPTTJOHT HSFFOPQFOTQBDF EFöOFE plaza space; buildings to street edges; circulation on pedestrian corridors and internal streets; bike-friendly routes and dedicated bike lanes; and water quality features. For Westgate, our understanding of these public spaces was derived from both research (described in Section 1.2) and the public process (described in Section 1.3); and t#VJMEJOHTCVJMEJOHTHSPVQFE BNQMFPQFOTQBDF activated facades, green roofs and deck access; incen- tives and trade-offs for additional building height; tuck-under parking, parking structures, street parking and surface parking; sense of enclosure for residential and open areas; and maintaining some larger building footprints for anchor stores. For Westgate, the process of creating a concept for development (shown in the illustrative plan) began with a hands-on public work- shop (described in Section 1.3) and evolved through many iterations of working with the initial products of the workshop, the plans developed by the GFL team, and the input of staff, the EDC and the Planning Board. Section 1.4 further describes the plan concept and attributes of the plan design. 1.0 | Introduction Packet Page 405 of 524 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 2 In Fall of 2010, an undergraduate student team from the University of Washington initiated the background research for the ReVisioning Westgate project with a preliminary site analyses of the Westgate area. The team mapped sidewalk conditions, measured the distance travelled within 5 and 10-minute walks of the main intersection, and collected parking counts to measure the current demand. The team used Gehl Architects’ 12-quality criteria methodology to evaluate the project site on the basis of the site’s current capa- city to provide protection, comfort, and enjoyment for persons of all ages (Figure 1.2-1). See also Appendix 1a. The results indicated that the existing Westgate site is deficient on eleven of the twelve quality criteria. In particular, opportunities to safely sit, stand, walk, and talk were found to be especially deficient at Westgate. However, the site did provide possibilities for interesting and unhindered views. Phase Two of the Project was initiated in January 2011 by a team of graduate students from the UW Green Futures Lab (GFL). This phase of work focused on researching case studies of other municipalities and their work with Form Based Codes. In particular, the team examined recently adopted form-based codes from Benecia, California; Farmers Branch, Texas; Ventura, California; and Miami, Florida. One of the GFL team members also met with city officials and residents in Miami to discuss the public process, challenges, and successes of developing the Miami21 form-based code.The Miami21citywide plan was developed by Duany, Plater-Zyberk & Company and 1.2 | Summary of Background Research Figure 1.2-1: Westgate 12 Quality Criteria was awarded the American Planning Association’s (APA) 2011 National Planning Excellence Award for Best Practice. Using GIS (Geographic Information System) data, the team mapped property lines, steep slopes, locations of mature trees, topography in a digital terrain model, identified sidewalk breaks, and recorded other existing conditions. With input from the public at public meetings, the GFL team identified existing biking/ pedestrian connections, green features, and move- ment corridors for wildlife habitat. The focus of Phase Three of the Revisioning Westgate project included the public involvement process that is further described in Section 1.3. Phase Four brought together the results of all previous public workshops and the extensive research work of the GFL team. In a public open house setting, the public reviewed and responded to two draft alternatives,representing alternative approaches to development at Westgate. The public marked preference cards to identify site features they found most desirable. Throughout the duration of the project, the team worked with City staff and the Edmonds Economic Development Commission (EDC) who offered local perspective, critiqued the findings of the GFL team’s work, and offered guidance when needed. Briefings were held for the EDC throughout the process and more extensive work sessions were held for in-depth discussions of the alternatives and preferred plans on April 20, May 20, and June 15, 2011. Courtesy Gehl Architects 12 Quality Criteria for Good Public Space PR O T E C T I O N EN J O Y M E N T CO M F O R T 1. Against Traffic and Accidents 2. Against Crime and Violence 4. Possiblities for Walking 5. Possibilities for Standing/Staying 6. Possibilities for Sitting 7. Possibilities to See 8. Possibilities for Talking/Hearing 9. Possibilities for Play/Unfolding of Activities 10. Human Scale 11. Possibilities for Enjoying Positive Aspects of Climate 12. Aesthetic Quality/ Positive Sense Experiences 3. Unpleasant Sense Experiences Packet Page 406 of 524 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 56 7.5.1 | Movement Opportunities | Green Connections S R 1 0 4 10 0 t h E d m o n d s 232nd 98 t h 96 t h 95 t h 93 r d 234th 8t h 10 6 t h 236th 15th 97 t h 226th 1 0 2 n d 237th 235th 23 Robin Hood 10 4 t h 9 4 t h 14th 6 t h 10 1 s t P a r a d i s e 10 5 t h 7t h 10 7 t h 229th 231 s t Nottingham Hu m b e r Birch t h 13th 99 t h 225th 227th Access Fi r d a l e Co r o n a d o Friar T u c k 233rd Ea t o n Littl e J o h n 8t h 14th 92 n d 10 1 s t 235th 228th 7 t h 99t h Access 9 4 t h 7th 235th 236th 96 t h 226th 13th 10 7 t h 94 t h 226th 10 6 t h 7t 231st 234th 10 2 n d 99 t h 93 r d Acce s s 94 t h 232nd 227th 96 t h 237th Access 236th 97 t h Access 226th 235th 92 n d 97 t h 236th 234th 5t h 98 t h 238th 8t h 228th 91 s t 14th 94t h 99 t h 237th 231st Birch Madrona School Hickman Park Westgate Chapel pic View Watershed Cemetary Westgate Elementary Sherwood Elementary Woodway Elementary Edmonds Memorial Cemetary Edmonds Presbyterian Church Salem Lutheran Church PUD Sub Staton? Faith C o m m u n i t y C h u r c h h9th hhhh236th 2236th 10 6 t h 228th AAc n dd SSS h 8t h 8t h 4th14th 99 t h h h h h 7t h h h 9t h 4 R 1 1 S R 1 0 4 m o n d d m o n d E d m o n d s ddnd th h 9 4 t h h234th d 92 n d Chapelp N 0 500 1 , 0 0 0 250 Feet Legend green connections - potential movement connections - potential walking radius: 5 - 10 minutes By establishing green connections between destinations (such as schools and parks), the neighborhood becomes more walkable, as well as provides better connected habitat for wildlife. There is great opportunity to connect existing parks, with new continuous green spaces providing significantly higher habitat value than isolated spaces. These green improvements will provide the aesthetic features that will contribute to a more livable residential environment surrounding Westgate (see Section 4). Green connections and features can also help to reduce the impacts of urbanization on the natural environment. Currently rainwater runoff from Edmonds roads, roofs and parking lots flows directly into the area's streams and to Puget Sound, without first filtering the petroleum and metals that vehicles generate. Street trees, natural areas and sustainable stormwater infrastructure will help to slow and filter this stormwater, to alleviate the pollution burden that city streets puts on local water bodies. Figure 7.5-1 shows some of the opportunities to increase green connections in the areas surrounding the Westgate District. Figure 7.5-1: Westgate Regional Green Connection Opportunities 7.5 | Regional Connections Packet Page 407 of 524 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 57 N ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! S R 1 0 4 10 0 t h E d m o n d s 232nd 98 t h 96 t h 95 t h 93 r d 234th 8t h 10 6 t h 236th 15th 97 t h 226th 1 0 2 n d 237th 235th 238th Robin Hood 10 4 t h 9 4 t h 14th 6 t h 10 1 s t P a r a d i s e 10 5 t h 7t h 10 7 t h 229th 231 s t Nottingham Hu m b e r Birch 5 t h 13th 99 t h 225th 227th Access Fi r d a l e Co r o n a d o Friar T u c k 233rd Ea t o n Littl e J o h n 8t h 14th 92 n d 10 1 s t 235th 228th 7 t h 99t h Access 9 4 t h 7th 235th 236th 96 t h 226th 13th 10 7 t h 94 t h 226th 10 6 t h 7t h 231st 234th 10 2 n d 99 t h 93 r d Acce s s 94 t h 232nd 227th 96 t h 237th Access 236th 97 t h Access 226th 235th 92 n d 97 t h 236th 234th 5t h 98 t h 238th 8t h 228th 91 s t 14th 94t h 99 t h 237th 231st Birch Madrona School Hickman Park Westgate Chapel mpic View Watershed Cemetary Westgate Elementary Sherwood Elementary Woodway Elementary Edmonds Memorial Cemetary Edmonds Presbyterian Church Salem Lutheran Church PUD Sub Staton? Faith Community Church 0 500 1 , 0 0 0 250 Feet 7.5.2 | Movement Opportunities | Sidewalks ! Legend opportunity/need for better walking conditions transit stops sidewalks walking radius: 5 - 10 minutes By making good pedestrian connections to the Westgate District, pedestrian use of the District may increase. This supports the plan’s reduction in on-site parking requirements and enhanced amenity space, site activities and green features. Figure 7.5-2 shows sidewalk conditions in the vicinity of the Westgate District and highlights areas where sidewalk improvements are needed. Figure 7.5-2: Westgate Regional Sidewalk Improvement Opportunities 7.5 | Regional Connections Packet Page 408 of 524 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 58 220th 76 t h 218th Main 84 t h 212 216th 92 n d Bowd o i n 206th 88 t h 77 t h 85 t h 203rd 95 t h 8 3 r d Pio n e e r 217th 215th 86 t h 210th 208t 78 t h 81 s t 80 t h 90 t h Ma p l e w o o d 12 t h 82 n d 93 r d H i l l c r e s t 207th 79 t h 205th Sh e l l V a l l e y Park Su m m i t 214th A 213th 89 t h Hi g h l a n d 8 7 t h 219th Skyl i n e Hospital Dr w y monds Wo o d l a k e 211th 209th Sh e l l 82 n d 215th 85 t h 209th 80 t h 204th 92 n d 214th 215th Access 214th 88 t h 80 t h Access 215th 82 n d 88 t h 78 t h 86 t h 82 n d 81 s t 93 r d 8 2 n d 77 t h 219thAccess 208th 78 t h 92 84 t h 79 t h 88 t h 216th 204th 12 t h Access 206th 207th 210th 88 t h 217th 204th Ac c e s s 206th 207th 209th 207th Access A c c e s s 95 t h 216th Pa r k Access 78 t h Ac c e s s 86 t h Ac c e s s 81 s t 205th 217th d 218th 78 t h Ac c e s s 77 t h 85 t h 215th 208th 8 2 n d 12 t h e s s 8 3 r d 217th 93 r d 86 t h Ac c e s s Ac c e s s Yost Memorial Park Pine Ridge Park Edmonds Woodway High School College Place Jun College Place Steven's Hospital Chase Lake School Olympic Baptst Church Grace Church Water Tank Edgewood Baptst Church 7.5.3 | Movement Opportunities | Cycling N 0 500 1 , 0 0 0 250 Feet Legend bike connections - potential walking radius: 5 - 10 minutes Making new bicycle connections will enable people to get to Westgate without getting in their cars, and will create safe ways to cycle between schools, parks and residential areas. The City’s Bike Master Plan identifies 100th Avenue West as a potential route and a critical link to nearby schools and existing bicycle infrastructure. Figure 7.5-3 shows opportunities to improve bycycling connections between the Westgate District and the surrounding neighborhoods. Figure 7.5-3: Westgate Regional Cycling Improvement Opportunities 7.5 | Regional Connections Packet Page 409 of 524 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 3 The GFL team began the four-phase public process in Fall 2010. During the first phase, the team conducted an online survey to gain insight of how the public uses the site and to learn what improvements the public might desire. The survey was marketed by the City of Edmonds through a postcard mailer sent to approximately 2,200 residences within a 2000-ft radius of each center. The survey was open from November 9, 2010 through March 22, 2011 and received 387 individual responses. The online survey found respondents of all ages considered ‘more public spaces’ as the best way to improve the site (Figure 1.3-1). Many respondents also stated they desired better restaurants and safer streets. Phase Two included a public meeting, termed a Listening Session, with about 25 people attending. Led by The Cascade Land Conservancy (CLC) and the GFL team, participants at this session were presented with data from the Phase One online survey, shown examples of local built projects that reflected best practices for creating high quality public spaces, and given a brief tutorial on green infrastructure. The informational presentation was followed by an instant polling audience-response, visual preference survey. Participants were issued digital “clickers” that allowed for real-time tabulations of their responses, which allowed each respondent to see the combined responses of the whole group. They were asked to respond to multiple-choice questions and select 1.3 | Summary of Public Process Figure 1.3-2 visual preferences to various building configurations and street treatments. Figure 1.3-2 provides an example question and audience responses. (See Appendix 1b for additional highlights from the visual preference survey). The participants expressed the desire to bring building fronts to the street and to allow activities, such as outdoor café tables, on the sidewalks where appropriate. The city staff organized individual meetings with some of the property owners in the Westgate area. From these meetings staff and the consultant team gained an understanding of the constraints and potentials for new development at Five Corners. Guided by what the team heard in the first two phases, the Phase Three public involvement effort focused on a half-day Saturday Design Workshop. At this workshop, residents and local business owners engaged with design professionals in a hands-on effort to create designs for Westgate. The workshop began with summary of what the GFL team heard from the public during the Phase One and Two processes and a brief overview of green infrastructure. Approximately 65 citizens and members of the city’s boards and City Council attended the workshop. The attendees were divided into nine small groups, separately addressing Five Corners or Westgate. Led by a design professional, each group designed a plan by first considering the life (activities), they would like to be able to do on site. The teams then located plazas and open spaces needed to support these life activities on the site. Ages < 24 (9 respondents) Ages 25 – 44 (94 respondents) Ages 45 - 64 (137 respondents) Ages 65+ (85 respondents) Suggestions for Improvements, categorized by age ++4 ++4 ++4 ,,4 --4 ./4 /04 )4 +)4 -)4 /)4 1)4 % # # $& % # # $& % # # & % # ++4 +,4 +/4 +/4 ,)4 ,*4 /04 )4 +)4 -)4 /)4 1)4 % # # $& % # # $& % # # & % # *14 +,4 +14 +14 ,,4 ,.4 -04 )4 +)4 -)4 /)4 1)4 % # # & % # # $& % # # $& % # *14 +.4 +04 +14 +14 -)4 --4 )4 +)4 -)4 /)4 1)4 % # # & % # # $& % # # $& % # Figure 1.3-1: Suggestions for Improvements, categorized by age Packet Page 410 of 524 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 4 W ESTGATE ALTERNATIVES ARTS & FOOD HUB For each alternative check the design features that appeal to you most URBAN VILLAGE GENERAL COMMENTS: 3 story height limit buildings oriented toward 100th Ave. W & SR-104 buildings oriented toward internal circulation 4 stories w/ height bonus opportunities, higher buildings concentrated at corners & around pocket park retain PCC, Starbucks, & existing thriving buildings, QFC remains but re-developed phased re-development of entire site w/ retention of PCC or similar supermarket larger building footprints accommodate garden centers, home supplies, entertainment, & larger offices smaller building footprints accommodate independent shops, starter businesses, & small offices water quality & open space features concentrated along SR-104 water quality & open space features concentrated at village park regional & chain shopping experience w/ live/ work housing in southwest quad inceased housing, office, and local shops w/ live/work housing & studios concentrated in northwest quad & dispersed throughout pedestrian improvements concentrated along 100th Ave. W pedestrian improvements focused along privately-owned internal roads surface parking surface, tuck-under, & structured parking rely on existing mass transit transit center temporary farmers market site at surface parking lot near cemetery temporary farmers market w/ street closure at village park buffer off-site residential w/ vegetation buffer buffer off-site residential w/ housing where possible protect existing vegetation optimize new building potential 1.3 | Summary of Public Process Lastly, the teams used wooden blocks, scaled to repre- sent building sizes, to place buildings on their plans to define the edges of the desired life-space, enhance the overall character, and activate the site. Figure 1.3-3 shows an example conceptual plan representing the results of one of the Westgate teams at this workshop. The conceptual plans developed by the other teams are provided in Appendix 1c. Phase Four brought together the results of all previous workshops and the extensive work of the GFL team. In a public open house setting, the public reviewed and responded to two draft alt- ernatives, representing alternative approaches to development at Westgate. The public marked preference cards to identify site features they found most desirable (Figure 1.3-4). Through the duration of the project, the team worked with the Edmonds Economic Develop- ment Commission (EDC) to offer local perspective, critique the findings of the GFL team’s work, and offer guidance when needed. Regular briefings were held for the EDC throughout the project and more extensive work sessions were held for in-depth discussions of the alternatives and pre- ferred plans on April 20, May 20, and June 15. A Summary of Common Themes heard at these public meetings is provided in Appendix 1e. Figure 1.3-3: Conceptual Plan for Westgate from the Public Design Workshop Figure 1.3-4: Preference Card for Public Input on Alternatives Packet Page 411 of 524 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 6 Public Use Plaza Residential Green Space Rain Garden Retail Office Existing 1.4 | Westgate Illustrative Site Plan Amenity Space: The variety of outdoor spaces required of all future development, which includes lawns, plazas, squares, accessible rooftops, and sidewalks. Figure 1.4-1 shows a 3-dimensional view of possible development in the Westgate area under the form- based code. This view shows the building scale and types of uses of potential future development for the Westgate area that could develop over the next 10 to 20 years. This view illustrates how the area might develop, but is not intended to regulate the exact land use, size, location, or amenities of future development. In meetings to discuss alternative plans for the West- gate area, the Economic Development Commission and the Planning Board recognized the local resident’s interests and also felt it is necessary to provide incen- tives to property owners to create amenity space and the desired small-unit housing. Thus, the Concept Plan for Westgate allows for up to 3 story development throughout the area. All parcels are also eligible for height bonuses that would allow up to a total of 4 or 5 stories, subject to the development review process as defined in City Code and the bonus requirements (see Section 6.5). An important restriction on permitting the 5th story is that it is allowed only where the added height backs against steep slopes, to reduce impacts on existing adjacent residential uses and to avoid a canyon-like effect of tall buildings along the two major roads (see Section 6.5). Figure 1.4-1 provides an illustration showing a mix of potential building heights and a possible combination of uses. Figure 1.4-1: Westgate Illustrative Massing Plan: Example of Potential Development (not regulatory) Table 1.4-2 Potential Development as Illustrated in Fig. 1.4-1 Northwest Northeast Southwest Southeast Total Retail (new) 20,200 122,400 42,300 64,800 249,700 Retail (retained) 20,200 34,500 54,700 Office 27,000 13,000 81,800 45,800 167,600 Bed & Breakfast 32,400 32,400 Live-work units 24 24 Residential units 32 62 34 52 180 Parking spaces 170 397 281 363 1,211 Development total* 67,400 169,900 124,100 143,000 504,400 *Total square footage excludes dwelling units Packet Page 412 of 524 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 7 Section 5 – Private Investment: Gathering Spaces and Green Feature Standards: This section provides information on Green Factor requirements. This section also sets the standards for plazas, gathering spaces, and parking configurations. Section 6 – Administration and Implementation: This section describes how the review of development proposals in the Westgate District will be handled under the Form-Based Code, consistent with City procedures for other development. This section also identifies the bonus system which allows for added building height when various conditions are met. Section 7 – Recommendations: This section provides information for the City Council, Boards and Commissions that describe actions the city can take to foster development under the Westgate plan and to meet the goals of the plan. Section 1 – Introduction: This section lays out the goals and intent of the plan. It also describes how the plan was con- structed relevant to background research and the public process. This section also explains how the plan is structured. Section 2 – The Regulating Framework: This section establishes the Regulating Frame- work for the Form-Based Code. It provides a con- solidated overview of the permitted development standards for each property and for the adjacent public rights-of-way. These development stan- dards are detailed further in Sections 3 through 6. Section 3 – Building Standards: This section provides detailed standards for build- ing types, including placement, height, and front- age types, as well as green building construction and housing diversity requirements. Section 4 – Civic Investment: Streetscape and Public Space Standards: This section sets the standard for sidewalks, street trees, bike lanes, landscaping, and streets with the intent to build coherent, safe transportation corridors for all modes of travel. This section is also intended to assist developers in understanding how a building site relates to the street. ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code establishes standards for new development in the Westgate area. The plan is organized so that the parts interrelate and often must be reviewed together. The sections in the Table of Contents show the main topics and the overall organization of the plan. Each of the major sections is described below. 1.5 | Organization of the Plan Packet Page 413 of 524 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 8 Purpose This section establishes the Regulating Framework that defines development standards for the building forms and land use types that are allowed within the Westgate District. The Regulating Framework includes Core Concepts, Amenity Space and Green Features Types, Street Types, Required Building Lines, Building Types, and Frontage Types. Principles and Intent A core principle of the Westgate Plan is to provide spaces for the use and enjoyment of the public, green features which protect and enhance the environment, and multi-modal access to amenity spaces as well as to businesses. The Regulating Framework is the controlling document and principal tool for implementing the Westgate District form-based code. The Regulating Framework provides standards for the development of each property or lot and illustrates how each relates to the adjacent properties and public right-of-way. The Regulating Framework for the Westgate District identifies the Core Concepts of the plan, Amenity Space and Green Feature Types, Street Types & Required Building Lines, Building Types, and Frontage Types. 2.0 | The Regulating Framework 2.1 | Purpose, Principles and Intent t%FTJHOJOHBMBOETDBQFFNQIBTJTGPSUIFQSJNBSZ intersection. t$SFBUJOHBMJWFMZQFEFTUSJBOFOWJSPONFOUXJUIXJEF sidewalks and requirements for buildings to be placed close to the sidewalk. t-BOETDBQJOHUIFQMB[BT PQFOTQBDFT BOEQBSLJOH areas with a requirement of 15% landscaped open space. t1SPNPUJOHBTVTUBJOBCMFMPXJNQBDUEFWFMPQNFOU with a requirement for bioswales, rain gardens, green roofs and other features to retain and infiltrate storm water. t1SPWJEJOHXPSLGPSDFIPVTJOHBOEJODSFBTJOHSFTJEFO- tial uses with a requirement of 10% small-sized dwell- ing units. t1SPWJEJOHPQUJPOTGPSOPONPUPSJ[FEUSBOTQPSUBUJPO linking new bike lanes into the city’s larger system of bike lanes and extending sidewalks and pedestrian paths into the surrounding residential areas. The core concept for the Westgate District is to create a vibrant mixed-use activity center that enhances the economic development of the city and provides hous- ing as well as retail and office uses to meet the needs of all age groups. The plan seeks to retain key features of the area, including protecting the large trees and green surrounding hillsides, while increasing walk- ability and gathering spaces, such as plazas and open spaces. (See figures 2.1-1 and 2.1-2). Other important aspects of the Concept Plan for Westgate include: 2.2 | Core Concepts Figure 2.1-1: Westgate Illustrative Map: Trees and Hillsides Protecting Steep Slope Areas is a Core Concept of the Plan Packet Page 414 of 524 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 9 As noted in the previous section, an important component of the Westgate District Plan is the provision of ample amenity space and encouragement of green features throughout the District. In addition to the requirements for individual properties, the Westgate District plan includes some common areas that will provide amenity space and green features. Specifically, these include: 2.3 | Amenity Space & Green Features Types t-BOETDBQFFOIBODFNFOUTBUUIFJOUFSTFDUJPO of SR 104 and 100th Street to create a clear identity and a distinct central point for the Westgate District. t"QVCMJDQBSLJOUIF/8RVBESBOUPGUIFTJUF providing shared amenity space for residents in the area. t-JOLBHFTGSPNUIF8FTUHBUF%JTUSJDUUP surrounding residential areas to encourage walking and biking to the District. t&YQBOEFETFUCBDLBSFBT GSPNGFFUUPGFFU along SR 104 to provide separation for pedestrians from traffic and to provide landscaping to enhance the natural setting for motorists along SR 104 t#JPTXBMFTBMPOH4UBUF3PBE 100th Avenue West, Bowdoin Way, and 84th Avenue West. Figure 2.3-1: Westgate Illustrative Plan of Open Space with Example Photos Packet Page 415 of 524 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 11 2.5 | Building Types Properties in the Westgate District are allowed buildings up to 3 stories in height, with an additional 1 to 2 stories permitted for development meeting the bonus criteria including considerations of topography. See Section 6.5 for bonus provisions. There are seven Building Types allowed in the Westgate District, as listed below: 1. Rowhouse - Two or more attached story townhome apartments or condominiums. 2. Courtyard - A cluster of apartment or condominium flats arranged to share one or more common court- yards. 3. Stacked Dwelling - The building massing is predi- cated on horizontal repetition and vertical stacking of non-residential commercial uses on the ground level with residential above. 4. Live-work - An integrated housing apartment or condominium and working space designed to accommodate joint residential and work activity uses. Figure 2.5-1: Allowed Locations for each Building Type 1. Rowhouse 7. Commercial Mixed-Use 6. Side Court Mixed-Use 5. Loft Mixed-Use 4. Live-Work 3. Stacked Dwelling 2. Courtyard 5. Loft Mixed-Use - Loft Mixed-Use buildings are predicated on horizontal repetition and vertical stack- ing of units organized on lobby, corridor, and elevator access. Loft buildings have greater height per floor to accommodate the second floor loft area within a unit. 6. Side Court Mixed-Use - Retail mixed-Use with office or residential above, or community service mixed-use with office or residential above. 7. Commercial Block | Mixed-Use - Retail mixed-use or community service mixed-use with residential above. Retail only, office only or community service mixed-use with office or retail above. Each Building Type is allowed only within specified locations within the Westgate District, as shown in figures below. Most properties have an option of several building types. Packet Page 416 of 524 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 12 2.6 | Frontage Types Drawing for coding purposes only. This section establishes the regulations for Frontage Types within the Westgate District. The purpose of the Frontage Types is to ensure coherent streets and to assist developers and owners with understanding the relationship between building fronts and public space. Building Frontage Types are carefully coordinated with Building Types, see Section 3.3 for regulations on which frontage types are allowed for each Building type. Figure 2.6-1: Frontage Type Locations Shopfront or Gallery Frontages allowed All Frontage types allowed Secondary Frontage type allowed >100’ from building corner at the intersection of 100th Ave W. and SR-104 (see section 3.3) Standards Primary façades shall be built to the Required Building Line along a minimum 60% of the Required Building Line. Where Secondary Frontage types are allowed, 40% of the frontage shall be built to the Required Building Line. Any section along the Required Building Line that is not defined by a building must be defined by amenity space or green space except to allow for the minimum necessary openings for vehicular traffic. For both primary and secondary frontages, façades on retail stores shall be glazed with clear glass occupying no less than 60% of the sidewalk-level story. Loading docks, drive-throughs, or other service entries are prohibitted on street facing façades. Any building GBÎBEF facing a public street shall include changes in building form, modulation, archways, entrances, porches, or stoops for every 12’ of frontage. When appropriate, access through the building to rear parking or amenity spaces should be at intervals no more than every 150’ of the façade facing a public street. Awnings, bay windows, or other non-street level building design features may encroach on the Required Building Line, but not on the Property Line. Key SR-104 1 0 0 t h A v e . W Proposed Internal Circulation Drive Packet Page 417 of 524 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 13 3.1 | Purpose, Principles, and Intent 3.0 | Building Types All parcels in the Westgate District may have up to 3 stories allowed with a bonus of 1 or 2 additional stories on any property meeting bonus criteria. See Section 6.5 for bonus provisions. Illustrative Plans Figures 3.1-1 and 3.1-2 provide illustrations of possible future development of the Westgate District as it could occur over the next twenty years under the Westgate District Plan and Form-Based Code. The development illustrated in these figures correspond to the example development massing plan previously illustrated in Figure 1.4-1. The first of these (Figure 3.1-1) illustrated potential open space and green features, including green roof and rain gardens. In this illustrative plan, the buildings are left as white spaces (with labels to indicate land use) to emplasize the life-space areas. In the second illustration (Figure 3.1-2) new buildings are shaded as gray and retained existing uses are shaded as yellow. Labels within the building outline show the number of stories (height) of the building and the mix of uses. Both figures are illustrative of possible future development and are not regulatory. Each of the seven building types is detailed in Sec- tions 3.2.1 through 3.2.7 of this document. For each building type, an illustrative diagram and photos show the type of development that would occur under this building type, but that exact form or design shown is not required. For each building type, a diagram shows the allowed locations for that building type in green. For parcels that are not colored green, that building type is not allowed. Six of the seven building types allow a mixture of uses within the building. The rowhouse building type al- lows residential uses only. Three other building types are primarily residential, but do allow ground floor commercial uses. These three are: Courtyard, Stacked Dwellings, and Live-Work Units. The Loft and Side Court Mixed Use building types allow any use on any floor, while the Commercial Block Mixed Use allows residential uses only on upper floors. These regulations are summarized in Table 3.1-1. Purpose This Section identifies the building types allowed with- in the Westgate District, and provides design standards for each type, to ensure that proposed development is consistent with the city’s goals for building form and quality. Principles and Intent The intent of the Westgate District Plan is to create a lively and pedestrian-friendly environment by provid- ing for a variety of mixed use buildings and spaces. Each proposed building shall be designed in compli- ance with the standards of this Section for the ap- plicable building type and with the neighborhood character identity identified in Section 1.4. Allowable Building Types by Zone A lot may be developed only with a building type allowed by Section 3.2 in the zone applicable to the parcel. More than one building type is allowed on each parcel. Mixed Type Development The development regulations are structured by the definition of distinct building types of the Form Based Code that have been identified as specifically suitable for Westgate District in scale and configura- tion. On deep lots and aggregated lots, there is an opportunity to mix these types within a single devel- opment project. Mixing building types within a project encourages variety in the massing and organization of the buildings, open spaces on the lot, and on the frontages at a scale that is appropriate for Westgate. Scale and Massing The scale and massing of buildings is to be calibrated to the existing urban context with the intent of break- ing down large scale building masses and elements into “walkable neighborhood” elements and smaller scale building clusters. The contiguous lengths of building facades are regulated in the Frontage Types Section 3.3. The heights of buildings will be designated by area using stories as the measure rather than a prescribed height in feet. Upper floors are encouraged to be stepped back from street to allow an accessible roof deck or green roof area. Packet Page 418 of 524 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 14 Table 3.1-1: Allowed Uses by Floor for Each Building Type Building Type Residential Office Retail Rowhouse Any floor Not allowed Not allowed Courtyard Any floor Ground floor only subordinate to residential Ground floor only subordinate to residential Stacked Dwellings Any floor Ground floor only subordinate to residential Ground floor only subordinate to residential Live-Work Any floor Ground floor only subordinate to residential Ground floor only subordinate to residential Loft Mixed Use Any floor Any floor Any floor Side Court Mixed Use Any floor Any floor Ground floor only Commercial Block Mixed Use Upper floors only Upper floors only Any floor Whenever residential uses occur, at least 10% of the residential units shall be very small units designed for workforce housing (under 900 square feet) and no unit will exceed 1,600 square feet in size. See Section 3.4, Workforce Housing Criteria, for further details. Packet Page 419 of 524 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 15 $ " $ + & % & ' $ ! & % & $ ' & ' $ $ ! * % & ! & # $ & ! & % # $ & ! & % * % & ! - * % & ! & ( " $ ' ! & % & - & & # $ & ! & % & # $ & ! & % ' ! & % & & - & & # $ & ! & % & * % & ! & - " ) " ' % ! ) ' ! $ $ ! ' ! & % - $ " % % ) % & & # $ & ! & % & , , , , ! $ ! % ! $ ! % , , $ ( " $ ' ! & % ( " $ ' ! & % , & # $ & ! & % & & - - - , , , , $ $ ! % ! & & & " ) " ' % ! ) ' ! $ $ ! ' ! & % & & $ $ % & & , $ $ , & & % & ' $ ! & % & $ ' & ' $ $ ! & # $ & ! & % ' ! & % & # $ & ! & % ' ! & % & # $ & ! & % ' ! & % & # $ & ! & % ' ! & % $ ! $ ! % $ " % % ) % & , 0 6 0 1 2 0 30 Fe e t L I F E S P A C E B U I L D I N G S P L A N Pu b l i c U s e P l a z a Bu i l d i n g F o o t p r i n t Gr e e n S p a c e Gr e e n R o o f Ra i n G a r d e n Po i n t s o f I n t e r e s t Figure 3.1-1: Illustrative Site Plan showing open space and green features Example of potential development, not regulatory Packet Page 420 of 524 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 16 0 6 0 1 2 0 30 Fe e t I L L U S T R A T I V E S I T E P L A N Pl a z a Bu i l d i n g F o o t p r i n t Pa r c e l B o u n d a r y Op e n S p a c e Ra i n G a r d e n s Wa t e r F e a t u r e Ex i s t i n g B u i l d i n g SR 10 4 1 0 0 t h Ed m ond s 23 2 n d 102nd 9 7 t h 9 8 t h 2 3 1 s t Ac c e s s 9 9 t h 22 8 t h 23 2 n d Ac c e s s Ac c e s s Ac c e s s 9 6 t h 9 8 t h 23 1 s t 22 8 t h Sc h o o l y PU D S u b S t a t i o n Sa l e m L u t h e r a n C h u r c h ST O R I E S : 2 R E T A I L ST O R I E S : 1 R E T A I L S T O R I E S : 1 R E T A I L 2 R E S I D E N T I A L ST O R I E S : 4 R E S I D E N T I A L ST O R I E S : 2 L I V E W O R K ST O R I E S : 3 O F F I C E ST O R I E S : 1 R E T A I L ST O R I E S : 2 L I V E W O R K W/ P A R K I N G ST O R I E S : 1 R E T A I L 2 R E S I D E N T I A L ST O R I E S : 1 R E T A I L 2 R E S I D E N T I A L ST O R I E S : 3 R E T A I L S T O R I E S : 1 R E T A I L 2 O F F I C E ST O R I E S : 1 R E T A I L 3 R E S I D E N T I A L ST O R I E S : 1 R E T A I L 3 R E S I D E N T I A L W/ P A R K I N G ST O R I E S : 2 R E T A I L ST O R I E S 1 R E T A I L ST O R I E S : 2 O F F I C E ST O R I E S : 2 R O W H O U S E W/ P A R K I N G S T O R I E S 2 O F F I C E ST O R I E S : 2 L I V E W O R K W/ P A R K I N G S T O R I E S : 1 R E T A I L 2 R E S I D E N T I A L S T O R I E S : 1 R E T A I L 2 O F F I C E S T O R I E S : 1 R E T A I L 2 O F F I C E S T O R I E S : 2 R E T A I L S T O R I E S : 2 R E T A I L S T O R I E S : 2 O F F I C E S T O R I E S : 3 O F F I C E S T O R I E S : 3 O F F I C E W/ P A R K I N G ST O R I E S : 3 R E T A I L ST O R I E S : 2 R E T A I L ST O R I E S : 2 R E T A I L ST O R I E S : 2 R O W H O U S E W/ P A R K I N G ST O R I E S : 3 R E T A I L ST O R I E S : 2 R E T A I L ST O R I E S : 2 R E T A I L ST O R I E S : 2 R E T A I L ST O R I E S : 1 R E T A I L 2 R E S I D E N T I A L ST O R I E S : 1 R E T A I L 2 R E S I D E N T I A L ST O R I E S : 1 R E T A I L 2 R E S I D E N T I A L ST O R I E S : 1 R E T A I L 2 R E S I D E N T I A L ST O R I E S : 3 R E T A I L W/ P A R K I N G ST O R I E S : 4 R E T A I L ST O R I E S : 2 R E T A I L ST O R I E S : 2 R E T A I L ST O R I E S : 2 R E T A I L Figure 3.1-2: Illustrative Site Plan showing an example development with building heights and uses Example of potential development, not regulatory Packet Page 421 of 524 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 33 3.3 | Frontage Types Figure 3.3-1 (1) Frontages a, b, and c are not allowed within 100 feet measured from the building corner at the intersection of 100th Ave W. and SR-104. Private Frontage Public Frontage Required Building Line S t r e e t a. Terrace or Elevated Entry: The main façade is set back from the frontage line by an elevated terrace or entry. This type buffers residential use from sidewalks. The elevated terrace is also suitable for outdoor cafes (1). Terrace or Elevated Entry front- age is allowed on all building types. c. Stoop: The main façade is near the frontage line with the first story elevated to provide privacy. The stoop is appropriate for ground floor residential use (1). Stoop frontage may be used on Rowhouse, Courtyard, Live-Work, and Stacked Dwellings building types. d. Shopfront: The main façade is aligned close to the frontage line with the building entrance at sidewalk grade. The covering shall extent far enough to provide pedestrians protection from the weather. This type is appropriate for retail or office use only. Shopfront frontage may be used on Stacked Dwellings, Live-Work, Loft Mixed-Use, Side Court Office, or Commercial Block Mixed-Use building types where the building provides ground floor retail or office uses. e. Gallery PSBSDBEF : The main façade is set back from the frontage line with an at UBDIFEcantilevered colonnade overlapping the sidewalk. The entry should be at sidewalk grade. The galleryBSDBEF should be no less than 8’ feet wide. This type is appropriate GPSretail or office use only. GalleryBSDBEF frontage may be used on Stacked Dwellings, -JWFWork, Loft Mixed-Use, Side Court Office, or Commercial Block Mixed-Use building types where the building provides ground floor retail or office uses. b. Forecourt: The main façade is at the required building line with a portion set back for a small court space. The court could be used to provide shopping or restaurant seating in commercial CVJMEJOHT, or as an entry court for residential CVJMEJOHT. This type should be used sparingly (1).Forecourt frontage may be used on Courtyard, Stacked Dwellings, and Live-Work building types. (Right-of-way) Packet Page 422 of 524 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 37 FigVSF 4.1 - 434FDUJPO-PDBUJPO.BQ Notes: 1. The sidewalk and swale are depicted at 8’ and 7’, respectively. However, depending on stormwater volume, the width of both the sidewalk or the swale can vary. It is recommended that the sidewalk vary between 5-8’ and the swale between 5-7’. Also, depending on stormwater volume and capacity, the swale depicted here can built as Btraditional landscape strip, rain garden, or a vegetated swale planted with appropriate street trees. 2. Within the site boundary, the ROW on SR-104 is predominantly 80’. There are, however, a number of places where the ROW fluctuates between 80’ and 90’. The Streetscape Standard indicated here is for an 80’ ROW. At those places on SR-104 where the ROW widens, the respective landscape feature should also be required to widen accordingly. Thoroughfare Type: state highway Movement: free R.O.W Width: 80’ Design Speed: 35 mph Landscape: north side - vegetated swale, south side - street trees planted 30’ on center Traffic Lanes: 11’, two each way; 11’ center turn lane w/ intermittent planted median Bike Lane: none Parking: none Curb to Curb Distance: 55’ Sidewalks: north side 5 - 8’; south side 5’ State Road 104 Proposed Approach The proposed alterations maintain the street’s func tion and designation as a principal arterial while they enhance the street’s ecologic al aspec ts and improve it as a pedestrian route. Frontage requirements and additional vegetaion will strengthen the charac ter of the street and provide a comfortabl e sense of enclosure. '*(63&NOT TO SCALE 8’7’11’11’5’5’ sidewalk sidewalktraveltravelswalelandscape R.O.W 80’ travel travelturn lane &planted median 11’11’11’ curb to curb 55’ 8’ setbacksetback 8’ 2 11 SR-104 S R - 1 0 4 SR-1 04 1 00 t h Av e . W 1 00 t h Av e . W proposed road (private) required building line required building line FigVSF 4.2434USFFU4FDUJPO Table 4.2434USFFU4UBOEBSET a a’ 4.2 | Streetscape Design Standards Internal Circulation Drive Proposed Approach The proposed concept maintains the street’s function and designation as a principal arterial while enhancing the street’s ecological aspects and improving pedestrian amenities. Frontage requirements and additional vegetation will strengthen the character of the street and provide a comfortable sense of enclosure. Packet Page 423 of 524 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 38 FigVSF 4.3UI"WFOVF8/PG43 4FDUJPO-PDBUJPO.BQ Notes: 1. Where feasible, it is recommended a planted median replaceTFHNFOUTPG the existing turn lane . 2. Within the site boundary, the ROW on 100th Ave. is predominantly 70’. There are, however, a number of places where the ROW fluctuates between 70’ and 80’. T he Streetscape Standard indicated here is for a 70’ ROW. At those places on 100th Ave. where the ROW widens, the respective landscape features will be required to widen accordingly. R.O.W 70’ 6’6’11’8’ 6’5’ sidewalk sidewalkturn laneparking curb to curb 50’ 5’ setback setback 2 7’10’ travel 10’ travel swalebike lane 6’ bike lane I"WFOVF8/PG43 1 requiredbuildingline requiredbuildingline Table 4.UI"WFOVF8/PG434USFFU4UBOEBSET FigVSF 4.4UI"WFOVF8/PG434USFFU4FDUJPO 100th Avenue West north of S R - 1 0 4 Proposed Approach The proposed DPODFQUJT foc used on establishing the street as a pedestrian- centered thoroughfare. Bike lanes are established along the existing cycling route. A bioswale and street trees provide enclosure. Thoroughfare Type: commercial street with pedestrian enhancements Movement: slow R.O.W Width: 70’ Design Speed: 25 mph Landscape: east side - bioswale; west side - street trees planted in bulb outs between parking Traffic Lanes: 10’, one each way; 11’ center turn lane w/ intermittent landscaping Bike Lane: 6’ both sides of street Parking: 8’ parallel parking on west side of street Curb to Curb Distance: 50’ Sidewalks: 6’ '*(63&NOT TO SCA-& SR-104 S R - 1 0 4 SR-1 04 1 00 t h Av e . W 1 00 t h Av e . W proposed road (private) a a’ 4.2 | Streetscape Design Standards Internal Circulation Drive Packet Page 424 of 524 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 43 5.1 | Purpose, Principles and Intent Purpose This section identifies the types of amenity spaces and green open space allowed within the Westgate District as indicated by the Regulating Framework (Section 2.0), and provides design standards for each type, to ensure that proposed development is consistent with the City of Edmonds goals for character and quality of the places surrounding the buildings on private property within the Westgate area. This section also describes the Green Factor requirements that apply to each development within Westgate. Principles and Intent The intent of the proposed system is not only to establish amenity spaces that serve the community and local needs, but also to provide for the protection and enhancement of natural resources for the benefit of the greater community. Core principles of the Westgate District plan are to promote: tBOFOWJSPONFOUUIBUFODPVSBHFTBOEGBDJMJUBUFT bicycling and pedestrian activity —”walkable” streets that are comfortable, efficient, safe, and interesting; and tDPIFSFODFPGUIFQVCMJDSJHIUPGXBZ TFSWJOHUP assist residents, building owners and managers with understanding the relationship between the public- right-of-way and their own properties; and tTVTUBJOBCJMJUZCZQSPWJEJOHGPSUSFFTBOEQMBOUTXIJDI contribute to privacy, the reduction of noise and air pollution, shade, maintenance of the natural habitat, conservation of water and rainwater management. 5.0 | Private Investment: Amenity Spaces & Green Features Standards Regulating Framework: The Regulating Framework (see Section 2.0) is the principal tool for imple- menting the District Form-Based Codes. It provides general standards for the development of each property or lot and illustrates how each relates to the adjacent properties and street space. The Regulating Framework also defines general development standards for the building forms and land use types that are allowed within the Westgate District. The Regulating Framework includes Core Concepts, Amenity Space and Green Features Types, Street Types, Required Building Lines, Building Types, and Frontage Types. Additional detail on each of these standards is provided in Sections 3.0 through 5.0. Packet Page 425 of 524 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 46 5.3 | Open Space Standards The Westgate District shall include two types of open space: Amenity Space and Green Open Space. Amenity Space Amenity space is designed to provide residents of all ages with a variety of outdoor experiences. Although the character of these amenity spaces will differ, they form the places that encourage residents and visitors alike to spend time in the company of others or to find solitude in an outdoor setting. All new development shall provide a minimum of 15% of parcel size as amenity space. Additional amenity space above the 15% base requirement is encouraged and can be part of the development’s Green Factor plan outlined in Section 5.2 and can contribute to bonus heights as defined in section 6.5. The types of amenity space include: (a) Lawns: An open space, available for unstructured recreation. A lawn may be spatially defined by land- scaping rather than building frontages. Its landscape shall consist of lawn and trees and shall provide a minimum of 60% planted pervious surface area (such as a turf, groundcover, soil or mulch.) (b) Plazas: An open space, available for civic purposes and commercial activities. A plaza shall be spatially defined primarily by building facades, with strong connections to interior uses. Its landscape shall consist primarily of pavement. Trees are encouraged. Plazas shall be located between buildings and at the intersection of important streets. Plazas shall provide a minimum of 20% planted pervious surface area (such as a rain garden, bioswale, turf, groundcover, soil or mulch). The remaining balance may be any paved surface with a maximum 30% impervious paved surface. (c) Squares: An open space available for unstructured recreation and civic purposes. A square is spatially defined by building facades with strong connections to interior uses. Its landscape shall consist of paths, lawns and trees with a minimum of 20% planted pervious surface area (such as a rain garden, bioswale, turf, groundcover, soil or mulch). The remaining balance may be any paved surface with a maximum 30% impervious paved surface. (d) Accessible Green Rooftops: Accessible green rooftops can confer significant added value to building’s occupants or to the general public with benefits ranging from enhanced educational opportunities for schools, “roofparks”, horticultural therapy, and even food production. (e) Sidewalks: The purpose of sidewalks is to provide safe, convenient, and pleasant pedestrian circulation along all streets, access to shopfronts and businesses, and to improve the character and identity of com- mercial and residential areas consistent with the City of Edmonds vision. New development meeting the standards of this plan are allowed to use a portion of the sidewalk area within the public right-of-way for outdoor seating, temporary displays, or other uses provided that pedestrian movement is accommodated. Green Open Space The goal for the overall open space in the Westgate District is to create a unified, harmonious, and aesthetically pleasing environment that also integrates sustainable concepts and solutions that restore natural functions and processes. In addition to amenity space, the Westgate District shall incorporate green open space, which includes: (a) Trees: The location and selection of all new tree planting will express the underlying interconnectivity of the Westgate District and surrounding neighborhoods. Species selection will be in character with the local and regional environment, and comprised of an appropriate mix of evergreen and deciduous trees. Trees will be used to define the landscape character of recreation and amenity space areas, identify entry points, and reinforce the legibility of the District by defining major and minor thoroughfares for pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles. tAll new development shall preserve existing trees wherever feasible. tAll new development shall plant new trees in accordance with the Edmonds Municipal Code Chapter 20.13. (b) Steep Slopes: New development shall protect steep slopes by retaining all existing trees and vegetation on slopes exceeding 15%. (c) Stormwater Management: Stormwater runoff from sidewalks shall be conveyed to planted parkways. Overflow from parkways and runoff from the roadways will be directed into bioswales and/or pervious paving in curbside parking areas, located along the street edges where it can infiltrate into the ground. Perforated curbs through which street stormwater runoff can flow to open vegetated swales can also be provided, wherever feasible. Packet Page 426 of 524 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 50 6.0 | Administration and Implementation Purpose This Section identifies the administrative procedures for proposed development within the Westgate District, and provides for measures to implement the plan. Principles and Intent The intent of this section is to ensure that private development is consistent with the standards of ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code related to street, frontage, building, and public space and green feature types. 6.2 | Administrative Review A staff planner will be assigned to coordinate the technical review process for each new proposed development within the Westgate District. Staff will first review the application and evaluate whether the project meets the general goals and objectives and the specific provisions of the ReVisioning Westgate plan. Administrative Review shall be the only review needed for changes to non-conforming uses or for new development where no SEPA review is needed, provided that the proposed new development meets the provisions of the plan and conforms to the 3-story height limit or meets the requirements for a height bonus up to a total of 4 stories. However, if the proposed development requires a SEPA review or seeks approval for a height bonus up to a total of 5 stories, the development shall follow the city’s Design Review process. During the design review and approval process, staff will ensure compliance following the requirements imposed by the Architecture Design Board (ADB) or other designated authority. The staff planner will coordinate the application process with other city departments, including Parks and Recreation, Engineering, Public Works, Police and Fire departments. A trained staff member will review the Green Factor application and verify the point value calculated by the landscape professionals working for the applicant. (see Section 5.2). Figure 6.1-1: Design Review for Major Projects, adapted from Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007 SEPA determination ADB Public (Hearing Phase 2) Required First Meetings w ADB (Hearing Phase 1) Design Checklist established ADB issues Design Consider- Appeal SEPA Appeal to HE Design appeal to HE of CC (?) Detailed Design Conceptual Design Application to City Staff permit review & Design Decision Permit Approved Redesign (optional) No Yes 6.1 | Purpose, Principles and Intent Development: Includes any improvement to property open to exterior view, such as buildings, structures, fixtures, landscaping, site screening, signs, parking lots, lighting, pedestrian facilities, street furniture, use of open areas; whether all or any are publicly or privately sponsored. Proposed Development Review Process 1 to 3 Stories Administrative Review 4 Stories Administrative Review + Bonus Scoresheet 5 Stories Administrative Review + Bonus Scoresheet + Design Review Exceptions to standards for any development Administrative Review + Bonus Scoresheet (if over 3 stories) + Design Review Table 6.2-1: Westgate Development Review Requirements Packet Page 427 of 524 ReVisioning Westgate: A District Plan and Form-Based Code 53 Housing Unit Size (see Section 3.4) Cumulative 4 Points Prereq.Number of units < 900 sq. ft., 10%Required Prereq.No units > 1,600 sq. ft.Required Credit 1 Number of units < 900 sq. ft. 20%1 Credit 2 Number of units 900-1000 sq. ft. 10%1 Credit 3 Number of units 1001-1200 sq. ft. 10%1 Credit 4 Number of units 1201-1400 sq. ft. 10%1 Green Building Program (see Section 3.4)4 Points Prereq.Built Green® / LEED® Certified Rating or equivalent Required Credit 1 LEED® Silver Rating / Built Green® 4-5 / Evergreen Sustainable Development Standards 1 Credit 2 LEED® Gold Rating 2 Credit 3 Passive House Standard / LEED® Platinum Rating 3 Credit 4 Living Building®4 Green Factor (see Section 2.3 and 5.2)5 Points Prereq.Green Factor Score 0.3 Required Credit 1 Green Factor Score 0.4 2 Credit 2 Green Factor Score 0.5 3 Credit 3 Green Factor Score 0.6 4 Credit 4 Green Factor Score > 0.7 Sustainable Sites Initiative™, or equivalent 5 Amenity Space (see Section 5.3) 4 Points Prereq.Percentage of amenity space of lot size 15% Required Credit 1 Percentage of amenity space of lot size 20% 2 Credit 2 Percentage of amenity space of lot size 25% 3 Credit 3 Percentage of amenity space of lot size > 30% 4 Alternative Transportation (see Section 5.6) Cumulative 5 Points Prereq.Meet street standards, including; bikeway and pedestrian networks, and vehicle parking Required Credit 1 Car share parking, minimum 2 parking spots 1 Credit 2 Charging facility for electric cars 2 Credit 3 Indoor bicycle storage and changing facilities 1 Credit 4 Priority parking for sub-compact (Smart Cars™ and motorcycles) 1 One-story Bonus requires 8 Points Two-story Bonus requires 12 Points Points in at least 4 categories Required 6.5.3 | Westgate Height Bonus Score Sheet NOTE: The 5th story height bonus is limited to parcels adjacent to steep slopes as shown in Figure 6.5-1. Packet Page 428 of 524 REVISIONING Five Corners & Westgate Edmonds Special District Plan Presentation to Edmonds City Council June 21, 2011 City of Edmonds Green Futures Lab, University of Washington Cascade Land Conservancy Packet Page 429 of 524 REVISIONING Five Corners & Westgate Acknowledgements Team 1 –Fall Quarter Undergrad Class –Elizabeth Abrahamson, Cristina Haworth, Brad Shipley Team 2 –January-June Student Internships –Betsy Jacobson –Masters in Urban Planning and Landscape Architect –Tom Jamieson –Masters in Landscape Architecture –Julie Kreigh –PhD in Built Environment –Jeanine Matthews –Masters in Landscape Architecture –Eric Scharnhorst –Masters in Landscape Architecture –Brad Shipley –B.S Degree in Community, Environment and Planning Faculty: Jill Sterrett, FAICP -Urban Design and Planning –Nancy Rottle, ASLA -Landscape Architecture Packet Page 430 of 524 REVISIONING Five Corners & Westgate Agenda 1.Public Process 2.Connections and Green Features 3.Five Corners Plan 4.Westgate Plan 5.Overview of Form Based Code 6.Questions and Discussion Packet Page 431 of 524 REVISIONING Five Corners & Westgate Public Process Overview Packet Page 432 of 524 REVISIONING Five Corners & Westgate Phase One: Site Analysis and Online Survey •Prepared a citizen survey •Site surveys of land uses & amenities. •Parking counts •Walking distance & conditions •Mapping study results •Analysis of user friendliness Packet Page 433 of 524 REVISIONING Five Corners & WestgatePhase One: Research on Exemplary Commercial Centers in the PNW COMPACT The Three C’s: CONNECTED COMPLETE Packet Page 434 of 524 REVISIONING Five Corners & WestgatePhase Two: Listening Session and Audience Response Surveys Brown University •Listening sessions for each site •Audience response survey •Synthesis of survey results •Form-based code case studies Packet Page 435 of 524 REVISIONING Five Corners & WestgatePhase Three: Design Workshop and Draft Plans •Public design workshop with local professionals •Review of what we had heard from the public •Draft site design: Life, Space, Buildings •6 teams Five Corners, 3 teams Westgate Packet Page 436 of 524 REVISIONING Five Corners & WestgatePhase Three: Five Corners’ Design Workshop Packet Page 437 of 524 REVISIONING Five Corners & WestgateDesign Workshop Westgate Packet Page 438 of 524 REVISIONING Five Corners & WestgateLife Space Five Corners Packet Page 439 of 524 REVISIONING Five Corners & Westgate Public Sentiment Main Topics Five Corners Westgate Building Scale 2-3 stories w/ housing 3-4 stories w/ housing Public Space Increasing public space was the most popular recommendation for improvement (all ages). Examples suggested were plazas, sitting space, green space. Walking/Biking Improve walkability by creating safe environment for people of all ages. Traffic Roundabout has general public support. Concerns about increased congestion noted. No prominent issues with automobile traffic Services Community desires better restaurants, street cafés, and a bakery. Business fronts should be at the sidewalk. Amenities Landscaping on sidewalks, street trees, and use of native plant species Packet Page 440 of 524 REVISIONING Five Corners & Westgate Phase 4: Refining and Selecting Preferred Alternative -Five Corners Packet Page 441 of 524 REVISIONING Five Corners & Westgate Phase 4: Refining and Selecting Preferred Alternative -Westgate Packet Page 442 of 524 REVISIONING Five Corners & Westgate Pedestrian Connections Five Corners Packet Page 443 of 524 REVISIONING Five Corners & WestgateCycling Connections Westgate Packet Page 444 of 524 REVISIONING Five Corners & WestgateGreen Connections Five Corners Packet Page 445 of 524 REVISIONING Five Corners & Westgate Stormwater Management Five Corners Five Corners Westgate Packet Page 446 of 524 REVISIONING Five Corners & Westgate Packet Page 447 of 524 REVISIONING Five Corners & Westgate Packet Page 448 of 524 REVISIONING Five Corners & WestgateIllustrative Plan Five Corners Packet Page 449 of 524 REVISIONING Five Corners & WestgateBuildings Five Corners Packet Page 450 of 524 REVISIONING Five Corners & WestgateLife Space Five Corners Packet Page 451 of 524 REVISIONING Five Corners & WestgateIllustrative Plan Westgate Packet Page 452 of 524 REVISIONING Five Corners & WestgateBuildings Westgate Packet Page 453 of 524 REVISIONING Five Corners & WestgateLife Space Westgate Packet Page 454 of 524 REVISIONING Five Corners & Westgate Contents of the Plan/Form-Based Code 1.Introduction –Intent and Goals –Summary of the Public Process –How to Use this Code 2.The Regulating Framework –Understanding the Regulating Framework –Street Types –Frontage Types –Building Types –Public Space and Green Feature Types 3.Building Standards 4.Civic Investment: Streetscape and Public Space Standards 5.Private Investment: Gathering Spaces and Green Features S 6.Administration and Implementation Standards Packet Page 455 of 524 REVISIONING Five Corners & Westgate Building Types 1.Rowhouse -Townhome apartments or condominiums 2.Live Work -Townhome apartments or condominiums 3.Courtyard Residential -Apartment or condominium flats 4.Side Court -Office only, Retail Mixed Use with office or residential above, or Community Service Mixed Use with office or residential above 5.Commercial Block -Retail only, Office only, Retail Mixed Use with office or residential above, or Community Service Mixed Use with office or residential above Packet Page 456 of 524 REVISIONING Five Corners & Westgate Residential Building Types Live/WorkRowhousesCourtyard Residential Packet Page 457 of 524 REVISIONING Five Corners & Westgate Commercial Building Types Side Court Commercial Block Packet Page 458 of 524 REVISIONING Five Corners & Westgate Streetscape Standards Packet Page 459 of 524 REVISIONING Five Corners & Westgate Streetscape Standards Packet Page 460 of 524 REVISIONING Five Corners & Westgate Next Steps Tonight: City Council Presentation Summer: Planning Board to review & refine Plan and FBC Fall:Public meeting Year end: City Council decision Packet Page 461 of 524 REVISIONING Five Corners & Westgate THANKS FOR PARTICIPATING! Packet Page 462 of 524 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 21, 2011 Page 10 cities. He pointed out studies have found that a bicycle lane separating pedestrians results in increased traffic flow and increased pedestrian safety. He also supported agenda item 6, reduced setbacks in the Westgate area. He was involved in the Bartell project and they wanted the reduced setback to bring the building closer to the street but were unable to do so and make the parking work. The proposed amendment will allow buildings to be located closer to the street and allow parking to work. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented he drove through the Westgate and Five Corners areas today enjoying the sunshine from all angles as well as the foliage and greenery. He feared the five story buildings along the road edge as proposed in the UW study would block the sun. People in Edmonds like plantings, greenery, openness, views and low buildings and he feared the proposed increase in building heights would fuel discussion during the upcoming election. Craig Dela, Edmonds, expressed support for the Complete Streets ordinance, explaining he is teaching his 4 and 5-year olds to ride their bikes in their neighborhood where the streets are wide and quiet and some streets have bike lanes. Expanding bike lanes throughout the City will allow them to ride safety in other areas. He pointed out the buses and trains that serve this area all have bicycle racks; there needs to be bicycle lanes to reach the bus and train via bicycle lanes. Mark Bailey, Edmonds, echoed the support for the Complete Streets ordinance. He and his wife walk and ride their bicycles in Edmonds. He cited the importance of using the public roads which is a big part of what makes Edmonds such a wonderful place to live. Council President Peterson apologized for the length of tonight’s agenda. Next week’s Council meeting is a workshop regarding levy options that is open to the public. 5. UPDATE ON THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON PLANNING FOR FIVE CORNERS AND WESTGATE. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the UW was here to present an interim report. The study was initiated by the Economic Development Commission (EDC) to plan for eventual changes in Five Corners and Westgate. This is not a redevelopment scheme but a planning approach for long term redevelopment of these areas. There have been changes in these areas such as the new Bartell’s in Westgate and refurbishing such as the PCC. This planning is an attempt to position these areas to take advantage of changes that may occur in the future so that they better match what the community wants to see. He requested the Council accept the results of the study to date and refer it to the Planning Board for formal review and deliberation on alternatives. The Planning Board will ultimately forward a product to the Council for adoption. He explained this had been a multi-month process that involved several classes and a large number of students. There was a great turnout at public meetings and good interest from residents and property owners in the areas. Jill Sterritt, Department of Urban Design and Planning, UW, acknowledged the many students involved in the process. The process began in the fall quarter 2010 as part of an undergraduate class; that team included Elizabeth Abrahamson, Cristina Haworth, and Brad Shipley. Brad Shipley continued throughout the process and in January they hired a group of student interns that represent urban planners, landscape architects and built environment. She introduced students present tonight, Betsy Jacobson, Masters in Urban Planning and Landscape Architect, and Jeanine Matthews, Masters in Landscape Architecture. Ms. Sterritt explained this is the sixth project she has done where they are hired by a city and they in turn hire students to work on a project. It has been a win-win for the cities and the students, many of whom said they got their full-time job based on experience gained from this work. The city also receives the work for a fraction of the cost of a consultant. Packet Page 463 of 524 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 21, 2011 Page 11 Nancy Rottle, Department of Landscape Architecture, UW, displayed a timeline for the process, explaining they will continue to refine the plan and develop it into a form based code working with the Planning Board. The first phase of the process began with a citizen survey that was available on the City’s website for four months. At the same time students conducted site surveys particularly looking at walkability, parking at the two centers and existing conditions. Their partners at Cascade Land Conservancy (CLC) provided examples of exemplary commercial centers throughout the Pacific NW with the goal of making communities that are complete, compact and connected. She recognized Jeff Aken, CLC, for his participation in the process. The second phase included two public listening sessions, one for Westgate and one for Five Corners. These were open houses to listen, gather information and learn from the public regarding how they used the centers. Instant polling was also used to tally visual preferences. The students also began researching form based code and held meetings with property owners to learn their desires. The third phase included a Saturday design workshop attended by over 50 people and volunteer professionals where they collected information about preferences and realities regarding the two centers. The approach used was life space building that allows participants to explore the type of life, activities, spaces that support that life, and buildings that form and activate the spaces within the two centers. Six teams worked on Five Corners and three worked on Westgate. The students compiled the information developed by each team. She displayed examples of concepts developed by the Five Corners and Westgate teams. From those nine alternatives, the students developed two alternatives for each center. The alternatives were presented to the public at a public forum and included examples of life space for each center. The public was asked to provide feedback regarding the qualities they liked in each alternative. She explained form based code will define the qualities the public and the City would like developers to provide as they develop. It is a more flexible approach to development but tends to provide more of the desired physical qualities. The public preferred 2-3 stories with housing for Five Corners and 3-4 stories at Westgate. In both areas, the public felt it was important to increase public space with the most popular recommendations being plazas, sitting space and green space. The public was interested in improving walkability in both centers. At Five Corners there was initial concern about congestion and traffic speeds due to the roundabout; as information was provided, the fears were allayed. Services people wanted include restaurants, street cafes, bakery, and overwhelmingly preferred buildings at the street front and cared a great deal about landscaping and the use of native plants. Two alternatives for each center were then presented to the EDC at three meetings. She described the alternatives for Five Corners; both are oriented around the planned roundabout. Public space around the roundabout was envisioned; in one alternative the building fronts the roundabout and in the other buildings formed courtyards. The alternatives illustrate different building heights; in one 2-3 stories and the other 3-4 stories. Two alternatives were also developed for Westgate. Taller buildings are at the corner and there is internal circulation. She described the location of commercial, residential, and office use on the sites. She displayed maps identifying needs and opportunities for better pedestrian and bicycle connections to the center as well as to schools and parks and better connected green space that can enhance walkability and habitat. The centers are envisioned as having slightly less parking as it is expected people will get there via means other than driving vehicles. The studies found Edmonds has a separated stormwater system which although this prevents overflows, polluted stormwater continues to enter Puget Sound and likely in the future the NPDES permit will require cities to treat their stormwater before discharge. They also made recommendations to encourage Packet Page 464 of 524 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 21, 2011 Page 12 green features in the two commercial centers that would help treat stormwater such as bioswales, green roofs, and permeable paving. Those features could be integrated into open space the public wants. Ms. Sterritt explained with the input of the EDC and Planning Board at joint meetings, the preferred elements from the two alternatives were combined into an illustrative plan for each site. She emphasized the plans were examples of how development could occur on the site after form based code is developed. The plans do not dictate or determine a specific outcome. She displayed the illustrative plan for Five Corners that emphasizes open space for public gathering particularly around the roundabout. It emphasized mixed use with low cost smaller dwelling units and affordable housing in the upper stories. A recent EDC decision allows for three stories near the roundabout with one additional possible story, a total of four, if the developer provides additional amenities such as green features or affordable housing. On the periphery, the base height is two stories and a possible one story bonus. Ms. Sterritt displayed the building massing plan for Five Corners related to the illustrative site plan that provides an indication of building heights and types of uses. Commercial is typically on the ground floor, residential on upper floors and office uses. She reviewed life space options for Five Corners such as smaller shops in plazas, buildings fronting on plazas and streets, row houses or life/work units, and a variety of uses and housing options. Ms. Sterritt displayed the illustrative site plan for Westgate which permits three stories overall; additional stories require a development agreement. The EDC recommended one additional story be allowed for meeting certain criteria and a second additional story for meeting further criteria. The EDC emphasized five story buildings would relate to the topography and be located primarily on the periphery of the site where there are steep hillsides so there is less impact on surrounding residential uses and less impact on the street. She displayed the building massing for Westgate, highlighting features such as the internal street and connections to the residential area. There is some massing around the intersection as well as key open spaces to highlight the intersection. There are a great deal of residential uses to the south. She reviewed life space options for Westgate such as bicycle lanes on both SR-104 and 100th. She relayed the public’s preference to retain the PCC and QFC. She noted redevelopment of those uses could provide the opportunity for a green roof. Ms. Sterritt reviewed the contents of a form based code that includes, 1) introduction with intent and goals, summary of the public process, and how to use the code; 2) regulating framework that addresses street types, frontage types, building types and public space and green feature types; 3) building standards, 4) civic investment – streetscape and public space standards; 5) private investment – gathering spaces and green features, and 6) administration and implementation standards. She acknowledged this was a different approach than the typical zoning code that establishes setback, height restrictions, and parking requirements. It includes those but addresses how the public space is arranged and how buildings are massed and formed. They are recommending five building types: residential building types includes rowhouse, live/work, courtyard residential; commercial building types include side court and commercial block. She displayed photo examples of each building type. Ms. Sterritt displayed and reviewed examples of streetscape standards for Five Corners and Westgate. She requested the Council refer the plan to the Planning Board to review and refine the plan and the form based code. Additional public meetings will be held and she anticipated a complete plan for each site will be presented to the Council by year end. Councilmember Buckshnis, liaison to the EDC, agreed this has been a very interesting process; the students have worked very hard and produced a great product. She relayed a resident’s concern that the City Council did not understand “spot rezone.” She asked why a form based code was not a spot rezone. Ms. Sterritt answered both areas are zoned BN. The form based code they are developing would apply to the BN zone. They are not establishing zoning for individual properties. Councilmember Buckshnis Packet Page 465 of 524 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 21, 2011 Page 13 summarized they were establishing a template to specify what was desired in certain areas. Ms. Sterritt explained spot zoning specifies what happens on a single parcel; the form based code would apply within the BN zone. Councilmember Buckshnis acknowledged Ms. Johnson’s concerns and asked whether those had been taken into consideration. Ms. Sterritt advised they are looking closely at that. The examples provided are illustrative; they will be working with Public Works staff to refine them to ensure they are consistent with the Council’s decision regarding setbacks and/or Complete Streets. Councilmember Buckshnis asked why a development agreement is not a spot rezone. Ms. Sterritt answered in most jurisdictions certain things can be agreed to via a development agreement. The things that can be allowed in a development agreement would be established by the form based code. A developer would need to meet the code requirements for additional height and in order to obtain the additional height, complete the development agreement public process. Councilmember Petso observed the street standard for 100th south of the corner shows it reduced to three lanes, one lane each way and a turn lane. The current configuration is two lanes each way plus a turn lane. She asked whether a level of service analysis had been conducted to study the effect of reducing the travel lanes. Ms. Sterritt emphasized the street standards were very preliminary. Staff also pointed out there are four travel lanes in that area. There was some discussion that that configuration may be workable if it is needed to accommodate bike lanes. Further discussion is planned; this is only an initial effort to look at the right-of-way and how it could accommodate bike lanes, bioswales, parking, etc. Councilmember Petso observed if a travel lane, bike lane, a safe pedestrian area was desired, buildings should not yet be moved closer to the street until the right-of-way has been measured to determine if all those things can be accommodated. Ms. Sterritt responded those are two separate issues. They are considering the right-of-way as it exists and then the amount of setback and the buildings. They are not considering expansion of the right-of-way; they are working within the existing right-of-way. If there is interest in expanding the right-of-way and acquiring additional right-of-way, that is a different question and not what their plan assumes. Mr. Chave commented there has also been discussion about alternate routing for bicycles such as taking them off SR-104 and onto the internal streets through the development. The cross sections that were displayed were simply possibilities. Councilmember Petso asked how many residences the Westgate plan envisioned. Ms. Jacobson answered 650 [this was later clarified to be 650 people and 282 dwelling units]. Councilmember Petso observed the public put a high priority on public space. She expressed concern that for 650 residences, the only park area was approximately the size of her side yard. Ms. Sterritt identified park and plaza/open space areas throughout the Westgate plan, noting those areas were envisioned as hardscape with landscape elements. She agreed this plan does not have any large expanses of green space or park. One of the things that has been discussed is the City providing underground parking with a park above which could foster redevelopment. Councilmember Petso observed there was no park within a mile of the Westgate center and it may be appropriate to consider some form of recreation for the proposed 650 residences. Ms. Sterritt clarified it would be 650 people and 282 dwelling units. Under the direction of the EDC and Planning Board, smaller dwelling units were assumed for this center, a 900 square foot average, with the idea of encouraging young families and seniors who are downsizing and providing places they can live affordably in the City. Councilmember Petso asked if the plan was driven by the EDC or the citizens. Ms. Sterritt stated the plan was initiated by the EDC but there has been an extensive, hands-on public process to gather public input. Packet Page 466 of 524 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 21, 2011 Page 14 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked about traffic from 282 dwelling units that are envisioned at Westgate. Mr. Chave answered development would occur over a long period of time, it would likely not be developed by a single developer. The level of traffic created is basically background as the largest volume is through traffic. It is hoped more of the traffic will stop at the Westgate center. Given overall levels of traffic on SR-104, traffic generated by the development would be minor. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas observed that piece has not yet been investigated. Mr. Chave answered that is part of the review that will occur at the Planning Board. Five Corners is somewhat different because the Comprehensive Plan already envisions four stories and the Transportation Plan considered up to four stories. The long term traffic needs at Five Corners was one of the things that drove the roundabout. He advised a Transportation Plan update was planned for next year that would consider updated land uses. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas assumed the intent of reducing the traffic lanes was to provide additional space for sidewalks and alternate mobility surfaces. She pointed out the plan adds more vehicles with less roadway space than exists today. Ms. Sterritt answered in most areas the travel lanes are not reduced; the possibility of reducing from four travel lanes to two travel lanes with a common turn lane is only considered on 100th south of SR-104. In all other areas there are the same number of travel lanes although they may be slightly narrower. On mixed use sites with a variety of uses including residential, the number of trips per unit are typically less because residents can walk to uses on the site. Mr. Chave pointed out both areas are well served by transit and to the extent that walking can be encouraged, that will reduce traffic. He pointed out in the sample cross sections, the reduction to three lanes does not occur at the intersection. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented it was difficult to understand how everything will work together. Councilmember Plunkett asked how the number of units at Westgate was determined, envisioning the free market would determine the number of units. Ms. Sterritt agreed, explaining 282 was determined by the building footprints and number of residential floors to provide a square footage of residential which was then divided by 900 square feet per unit. Because this is form based code and not a development plan, the market, property owners and developers will determine the number of units. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the plan is based on existing buildings, however, as the economy improves, he envisioned some buildings will be removed. Ms. Sterritt responded the majority of buildings in the plan are new, developed at a reasonable upper level of development with a couple exceptions due to favored uses that people wanted to retain. Councilmember Plunkett inquired about the 900 square foot average size of residences. Ms. Sterritt answered 900 square feet per unit was used due to the EDC’s interest in smaller units. Councilmember Plunkett responded he thought the EDC was interested in economic development; if they want economic development, telling a developer he can have 900 square foot units will retard economic development because most developers do not want to build a 900 square foot condominium. Ms. Sterritt answered the plan does not dictate the size of units. Councilmember Plunkett observed the intent was not a plan but to have the marketplace to build it. Ms. Sterritt explained they wanted to create building envelopes and standards that make good public places. Within those building envelopes, the property owners and developers will have a great deal of flexibility to determine what the market will bear. Mr. Chave recalled the EDC discussed target populations. They hoped these urban areas would attract young professionals and smaller households that would add to the vibrancy and activity in the area. Given that idea, the smaller housing units make sense. Ultimately the marketplace will determine the size of the units. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION. Packet Page 467 of 524 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 21, 2011 Page 15 Councilmember Petso asked if the process included a market study. Mr. Chave stated a market analysis was conducted and factored into the plan. For example the market study indicated underground parking probably would not pencil out in these locations. That dictated more surface and tuck-under parking. Councilmember Petso asked if the market analysis commented on the feasibility of mixed use. She noted the Unocal mixed use development has only residential and mixed use downtown is condominiums over empty space. Mr. Chave stated the market analysis indicated mixed use was very viable at both locations. Councilmember Bernheim expressed support for the motion, relaying his interest in creativity in City planning which in his opinion has not occurred in the four years he has been on the Council. The downtown stepback has not generated any development. Before he was on the City Council, he actively promoted student involvement in City planning. He recalled the designs developed by the students at Edmonds-Woodway High School for the Skippers and Antique Mall properties provided very valuable information. Five Corners and Westgate were identified as centers where development could occur. This has been an exciting and vibrant process for the residents and the public meetings have been well attended. He was eager for the Planning Board to begin their review. MOTION CARRIED 5-1, COUNCILMEMBER PETSO VOTING NO. 6. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) SECTION 16.45.020 TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED STREET SETBACKS IN THE BN ZONE FOR THE WESTGATE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL CENTER FROM TWENTY (20) TO EIGHT (8) FEET ALONG SR-104 AND FROM TWENTY (20) FEET TO FIVE (5) FEET ALONG 100TH AVENUE WEST. THE AMENDMENT IS RECOMMENDED TO SUNSET ONE YEAR AFTER ADOPTION. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the current BN zoning requires buildings be setback a minimum of 20 feet from the street front which is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with the current direction being developed for Westgate and Five Corners. The current BN setback pushes buildings into the site and encourages placement of parking or drive aisles between buildings and the street. It is hoped that reducing the minimum setback will push buildings closer to the street and allow improvement of the street front and pedestrian amenities provided on private property adjacent to the street front. The proposed change would apply only to the Westgate area. He displayed an aerial photograph of Westgate that shows buildings are typically set well back inside property lines. Mr. Chave provided photographs of the Bartell/Starbucks development. On the 100th side, the businesses are setback from the street with a landscape strip between the sidewalk and parking between the sidewalk and building; the traditional design encouraged by the existing BN zoning requirement. As a result, anyone walking in that area must cross the parking/drive aisle to reach the building front. On the SR-104 side of that development, the building is approximately 9 feet from the existing right-of-way. Placing the building closer to the right-of-way allows the parking to be moved to the side and the street front to be enhanced with walkways and landscaping. The SR-104 side of that building is what the setback as recommended by the Planning Board would provide opportunity for. He explained under the existing BN zone, the SR-104 side is non-conforming. Mr. Chave explained the recommendation is only for the BN zone for the Westgate area. There is ample policy direction in the Comprehensive Plan regarding the Westgate Community Center with regard to accommodating transit and pedestrian access and providing pedestrian walkways. The design objectives in the Comprehensive Plan speak to buildings oriented to the street front with pedestrian access. The UW plan contains setbacks similar to those recommended by the Planning Board. Mr. Chave relayed the Planning Board’s recommendation: • Reduced street setback only applies to Westgate Community Commercial area, as defined in Comprehensive Plan Packet Page 468 of 524 CITY OF EDMONDS REVISIONING WESTGATE Special District Plan Minutes of Public Listening Session Brackett Room, City Hall, 3rd Floor, 121 – Fifth Avenue North, Edmonds January 25, 2011 Stephen Clifton, Edmonds Community Services/Economic Development Director called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Mr. Clifton explained that the City’s Comprehensive and Economic Development Plans identify neighborhood centers that have specific planning policies that apply to commercial areas such as Westgate and Five Corners. The Economic Development Commission (EDC) has identified completing the planning and implementation process for these key neighborhood centers as one of the six recommended high-priority items for the City. The City Council expressed their support by passing Resolution 1224 and by providing funding to move the projects forward. Mr. Clifton advised that, in addition to staff, the Special District Project Team includes faculty and graduate students from the University of Washington’s Urban Design and Planning and Green Futures Lab and representatives from the Cascade Land Conservancy, Planning Board and Economic Development Commission. He reported that Phase 1 of the project was conducted last fall and included a survey of citizens (about 360 citizens responded) and an inventory (uses, amenities, buildings, etc.) of the two commercial centers by the University of Washington students. Mr. Clifton announced that Phase 2 of the project is underway and will involve several opportunities for public participation. The Special District Project Team will host a series of meetings to solicit input from citizens. They are eager to hear from the public about the types of uses they want to see, the size and scale of redevelopment, etc. Their goal is to collect as much input as possible, particularly from the citizens living near the commercial areas. He said the Project Team considers the citizens to be the fifth member of the Team because their input will shape the outcome of future development regulations. He explained that Phase 3 of the project is scheduled to begin during the second quarter of the year when the Project Team forwards a recommendation to the Planning Board for consideration. The Planning Board would conduct a series of public meetings with the Project Team and hold a formal public hearing prior to forwarding a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council would review the proposal and take final action on the recommendation. Mr. Clifton introduced Jill Sterrett, University of Washington (UW) Professor and Affiliate Instructor with the Department of Urban Design and Planning; Jeff Aken, Cascade Agenda Cities Project Manager, Cascade Land Conservancy; and Nancy Rottle, UW Associate Professor with the Department of Landscape Architecture and Director of the Green Futures Research and Design Lab. He explained that these individuals were present to review the Project Team’s work and solicit feedback from the public. He also recognized the presence of Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager, Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Director, and Cindi Cruz, Executive Assistant. Ms. Sterrett reviewed the agenda for the meeting noting that the Project Team would provide a brief presentation, followed by a polling exercise to collect the audience’s responses to specific questions. The last half of the meeting would provide an opportunity for the citizens to visit the various stations set up around the room, provide their specific input about how they use the site and share ideas about what they would like to see in the future. She noted that each of the stations would be manned by University of Washington graduate and PhD students in Planning and Landscape Architecture and the Built Environment and other students as part of a public engagement and business involvement class. The students were Packet Page 469 of 524 responsible for collecting data of the neighborhood commercial centers via a citizen survey and an inventory of the two areas. Ms. Sterrett emphasized that there would be additional opportunities for the public to be involved in the process over the next few months. Another public workshop related to design ideas is currently scheduled for February 26th. In March, the Project Team would work with the Planning Board and Economic Development Commission to refine some draft alternatives for redevelopment of the Westgate Commercial Center. These meetings would also be open to the public, and the public would specifically be invited to provide comment again at a meeting in April. Workshops with the Planning Board and Economic Development Commission and a public hearing before the Planning Board would take place in May and June. She specifically invited the members of the audience to participate in the on-line citizen survey, which is open until mid February. She noted that materials from tonight’s workshop would be posted on the City’s website. Ms. Sterrett explained that the students conducted a user friendliness survey of the Westgate Commercial Center, using the following criteria: PROTECTION • Protection against traffic and accidents (traffic accidents, fear of traffic, other accidents) • Protection against crime and violence (lived in/used, street life, street watchers, overlapping functions in space and time) • Protection against unpleasant sense experiences (wind/draft, rain/’snow, cold/heat, pollution, dust, glair, noise) COMFORT • Possibilities for walking (room for walking, layout of streets, interesting facades, no obstacles, good surfaces) • Possibilities for standing/staying (attractive edges, defined spots for staying, supports for staying) • Possibilities for sitting (zones for sitting, benches for resting) • Possibilities for seeing (seeing distances, unhindered views, interesting views, lighting) • Possibilities for hearing/talking (low noise level, bench arrangements, talkscapes) ENJOYMENT • Scale (dimension of buildings and space in observance of the important human dimensions, related to sense, movement, size and behavior) • Possibilities for enjoying positive aspects of climate (sun/shade, warmth/coolness, breeze/ventilation) • Aesthetic qualities/positive sense experiences (good design and good detailing, views/vistas, trees, plants, water) Ms. Sterrett summarized that, based on the 12 criteria, the Westgate Commercial Center scored very low in terms of user friendliness. The students found that neither Five Corners nor Westgate reached the user-friendliness level of Downtown Edmonds. She emphasized that it is not the Project Team’s intent to make the Westgate Commercial Center just like Downtown Edmonds, but Downtown Edmonds could be used as good examples of what makes a commercial center convenient, comfortable and user-friendly. She provided a map to illustrate the connection between the Westgate Commercial Center and Downtown Edmonds. She noted that the entire Westgate area is in a key location as people approach downtown Edmonds coming down SR-104. Mr. Aken said it has been a pleasure to work with City staff and the University of Washington students and faculty on the Westgate Special District Plan. He explained that Cascade Land Conservancy’s efforts focus on conserving great lands and creating great communities. Their goal is to engage citizens in discussions about how communities grow and develop, how to protect the quality of life, and how to preserve lands. He reminded the audience that the purpose of the meeting is to listen to what the citizens want to see in the Westgate Commercial Center in terms of design and changes. He explained that when planning for future redevelopment of the Westgate Commercial Center, they should consider opportunities to enhance public space and the neighborhood identity, connect to surrounding neighborhoods and amenities, make it easier to walk, bike and use transit, provide opportunities for sensible parking, and allow for a mixture of uses, including the potential for housing. It is also important to consider opportunities for making neighborhood centers more complete, compact and connected. He provided the following questions to consider in each of the categories: COMPLETE • How can the public realm be enhanced? Packet Page 470 of 524 • What mixture of uses would best serve the community’s needs and help them do what they need to do? • How can neighborhood identity be created and/or enhanced? COMPACT • What is the best way to use the land to make redevelopment efficient and walkable? • How can redevelopment be more environmentally friendly? • Are their opportunities to support transit? • How can they create a more active street life? CONNECTED • How can the residential neighborhoods be better connected to the local shops? • How can parks and open space be better connected? • How can transportation options be increased so people feel safe walking, biking, taking the bus or driving to the site? Mr. Aken emphasized the importance of designing a neighborhood center that meets the needs of everyone. He reported that approximately 20% of the population in Edmonds is under 18 years of age, and 20% is 64 years or older. About 35% of the citizens of Edmonds do not drive for various reasons. It is important to consider how to make the Westgate Commercial Center work for everyone. He provided the following examples of what cities in the area are doing to improve their commercial centers and make them more user-friendly: • The Town Center development in Mill Creek offers a good example of a public gathering place. It includes an open-air plaza where people can meet with neighbors. The Plaza can provide a sense of place, and slow the pace so people are more comfortable. • A development in Burien provides an example of how open space can be utilized as a public gathering place to host outdoor events such as a farmer’s market. He noted that distinctive lighting features were used to provide a sense of place. • The Town Center development in Mill Creek also provides a good example of scale. It includes 1 and 1½-story buildings that are used for primarily office and commercial. Some parking is provided on the street in front of the businesses, and a separate parking lot is also provided behind the businesses. There is a variety of architecture to break up the appearance from the street. In addition, street trees and other landscaping, as well as awnings, were added to create a more user friendly environment. • A development in Queen Anne provides another example of appropriate scale. It includes development up to three stories high, with residential units constructed above the commercial space. This is an example of how it is possible to mix housing and commercial uses together. The parking is primarily provided by an underground parking garage, but there is some surface parking, as well. • A development in Old Bellevue provides yet another good example of scale. The buildings are up to 4 stories tall, with the 4th stories set back more to break up the scale from the street level. There is a mixture of heights to break up the scale. Retail uses are located on the ground floor, with awnings to provide weather protection. Different colored sidewalks separate the pedestrian areas from the street and parking, and the curb bulbs make it more comfortable for pedestrians to cross the street. Parking is provided both in front and behind the buildings. • A Mercer Island development provides a good example of the types of design features that can be included as part of the streetscape. In this area, a median was placed in the middle of the street. The median includes landscaping, but also a pedestrian refuge for people to safely stand while attempting to cross the street. Awnings on the fronts of buildings provide a more comfortable pedestrian experience. Street lights and bike racks also add to the design. • An example in Burien illustrates more options for streetscape improvements. A few parking spaces were eliminated in order to accommodate a wider sidewalk in some areas to provide a place for landscaping and for people to sit. Taller buildings are located on one side of the street, with lower buildings on the other. This allows for a mixture of rents and opportunities for various business sizes. • An example of a Portland development illustrates good ideas for parking and includes both surface and street parking. It incorporates pedestrian features into the parking areas so that people feel safe walking through the parking lots to reach the businesses. It also incorporates landscaping to minimize stormwater runoff and impervious surfaces. Packet Page 471 of 524 • A development in Portland also provides a good example of using stormwater and green infrastructure to make a project more environmentally friendly. There are ways to treat stormwater on site using pedestrian-friendly green areas for people to enjoy. • Examples from Portland also illustrate good connections between bicycles, pedestrians and transit. It is important to make it easy for people to use all modes of transportation, including private vehicles. Amenities include bike racks, bike lanes, complete streets, signage, and transit infrastructure that is easy and comfortable to use. • An example from Edmonds illustrates how public art can be used to create a sense of place. Gathering places are often the place that people know and identify with, and art can be used to make these areas stand out at a pedestrian and human scale. Mr. Aken emphasized that the citizens are the 5th stake holder in the Westgate Special District Planning Process. It is important for them to provide their ideas throughout the process so that the neighborhood’s views are clearly reflected in the end product. Brad Shipley, University of Washington, led the audience through a polling process. The following are the questions posed and the responses received: What is your age group? A. 17 or under (1) B. 18 to 24 (0) C. 25-34 (0) D. 35-44 (3) E. 45-54 (5) F. 55-64 (6) G. 65-74 (4) H. 75-84 (4) I. 85+ (0) J. Prefer not to answer (0) How many years have you lived in Edmonds? A. 0-5 (1) B. 6-10 (5) C. 11-15 (1) D. 16-20 (1) E. 21-25 (1) F. 25+ (10) G. I live in Esperance, Shoreline or Woodway (3) H. I Live in Lynnwood or Mountlake Terrace (0) I. I do not live in the area (0) How many children live in your home? A. 0 (13) B. 1 (3) C. 2 (4) D. 3 (0) E. 4+ (0) F. Prefer not to answer (0) What type of dwelling do you live in? A. Single-family (20 B. Duplex (0) C. Multi-family (2) Packet Page 472 of 524 Assuming perfect conditions, what is your preferred method of getting to Westgate? A. Walking (5) B. Biking (6) C. Bus (0) D. Auto (7) E. Other (1) Approximately how long would it take for you to walk from your home to Westgate? A. Live there (2) B. 5-10 minutes (2) C. 10-15 minutes (3) D. 20 minutes (2) E. 30 minutes (9) F. 45 minutes (2) G. 60 minutes (0) H. Don’t know (0) In your opinion, what is the greatest barrier to walking? A. Nothing, I enjoy walking (1) B. Time/living too far away (7) C. Inconvenience (1) D. Protection from weather (0) E. Unpleasant walking environment (2) F. Fear for safety (3) G. Carrying purchased items home (4) H. Running other errands (0) I. Steep hills (1) J. Lack of lighting (0) Mr. Shipley noted that this response confirms the data collected as part of the on-line survey. A member of the audience asked if they had considered that people may ride their bike because it is faster and not because they don’t enjoy walking. If we were to make changes to Westgate, which of these streetscape treatments do you think are most appropriate? A. Street trees (4) B. Landscaping and activities (15) C. Bioswales/stormwater treatment (1) D. Art elements (0) Imagine you are walking down the sidewalk approaching the site, what type of interface from the sidewalk would you like to have with the businesses? A. Asphalt business fronts (2) B. Business fronting on the street (2) C. Businesses fronting on street with business activity on the street (17) If changes are made to Westgate, what type of gathering space do you think most appropriate? A. Benches (2) B. Water activities for children (3) C. Plaza (7) D. Artistic setting (6) E. Water feature (2) Which building scale do you feel is most appropriate for Westgate? A. 1-2 stories (5) Packet Page 473 of 524 B. 3-4 stories (11) C. 5 stories (3) Packet Page 474 of 524 Revisioning Westgate -- Special District Plan Minutes of Public Listening Session January 25, 2011 Page 7 What would most draw you to Westgate? A. Retail shopping (2) B. Higher quality restaurants (5) C. People spaces such as plazas and outdoor dining (3) D. Better lighting (0) E. Activities for children (2) F. Improved architecture and aesthetics (2) G. Improved walkability (2) H. Fewer vacancies (3) I. None of the above (1) J. Do nothing (0) Mr. Clifton observed that with this last question, it might be helpful to allow respondents to identify the top three things they would like to see at Westgate as opposed to just one response. This would allow them to rate the responses and a few items would likely rise to the top of the list. Mr. Shipley noted that the on-line survey allows people to identify their top three preferences. In addition, participants at the Shopping/Service, Socializing and Housing Station would have an opportunity to provide more specific information about what they would like to see at Westgate. Ms. Rottle announced that the second half of the meeting would be structured similar to an open house to obtain more detailed feedback from the participants. The expert student team has worked hard to set up a series of stations that are all about listening. The goal of this exercise is to find out what the residents of Edmonds know about Westgate and what they would like to see there. Edmonds residents are the experts about their City, and the Project Team wants to learn from them. She invited the participants to visit all of the stations. She encouraged them to share their thoughts both orally and in writing. She described the five stations as follows: • Getting Around. Two maps have been provided at this station so that participants can draw the routes they take to get to and from Westgate and what they would like to see. • Greening the Site and Environment. At this station participants would be asked to share their ideas for how to make the design and planning more environmentally friendly. This station provides an opportunity for people to look at the larger neighborhood and identify the problems, opportunities and solutions. The goal is to be better connected to habitat and parks and to provide better stormwater treatment options. Participants will be asked to share their ideas for stormwater control, more sustainable energy, etc. A wide range of environmental options have been identified, but participants should feel free to add more. • Shopping/Services, Socializing and Housing. At this station each participant will have an opportunity to identify their three to five highest priorities for shopping/services, socializing and housing options in Westgate. • What is Your Neighborhood? At this station participants will be invited to share the history of their neighborhood and how the commercial center can contribute to a sense of community. Participants will also be invited to identify things they like and dislike about their neighborhood. • Wish Center. At this station participants will have an opportunity write down their one wish for Westgate. Ms. Rottle explained that the information would be collated and used by the Project Team to prepare better maps for the next public meeting where they would report back on what they heard from the citizens to date. The February 26th workshop would be even more interactive with good maps and building blocks. Participants would be asked to help construct different alternatives for what Westgate might look like. Based on the information they receive at the next public meeting, the Project Team would prepare larger-scale design options. A member of the audience asked how those who do not live in the Westgate area should respond to the questions posed at each of the stations. Ms. Rottle encouraged those who do not live in the Westgate area to share their thoughts and ideas, too. She summarized that a person does not need to live near Westgate; they just need to care what happens. THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED TO A WORKSHOP SETTING AT 7:30 P.M. WHERE PARTICIPANTS VISITED THE VARIOUS STATIONS SET UP AROUND THE ROOM. THE MEETING CONCLUDED AT APPROXIMATELY 8:30 P.M. Packet Page 475 of 524 Westgate Potential Development Assuming broad reduction in heights as shown Plan 4-5 stories Plan 3-4 stories New Retail 249,700 199,760 New Office 167,600 134,080 Service/B&B 32,400 25,920 Exist SF Comm 54,700 54,700 Live Work 24 19 New Residential 180 144 Reduction in ultimate development: Total Commercial SF 504,400 414,460 18% Total Res Units 204 163 20% Packet Page 476 of 524 P a c k e t P a g e 4 7 7 o f 5 2 4 P a c k e t P a g e 4 7 8 o f 5 2 4 P a c k e t P a g e 4 7 9 o f 5 2 4 P a c k e t P a g e 4 8 0 o f 5 2 4 P a c k e t P a g e 4 8 1 o f 5 2 4 P a c k e t P a g e 4 8 2 o f 5 2 4 P a c k e t P a g e 4 8 3 o f 5 2 4 P a c k e t P a g e 4 8 4 o f 5 2 4 P a c k e t P a g e 4 8 5 o f 5 2 4 P a c k e t P a g e 4 8 6 o f 5 2 4 P a c k e t P a g e 4 8 7 o f 5 2 4 P a c k e t P a g e 4 8 8 o f 5 2 4 P a c k e t P a g e 4 8 9 o f 5 2 4 P a c k e t P a g e 4 9 0 o f 5 2 4 P a c k e t P a g e 4 9 1 o f 5 2 4 P a c k e t P a g e 4 9 2 o f 5 2 4 P a c k e t P a g e 4 9 3 o f 5 2 4 P a c k e t P a g e 4 9 4 o f 5 2 4 P a c k e t P a g e 4 9 5 o f 5 2 4 AM-7012 10. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:07/22/2014 Time:20 Minutes Submitted By:Shane Hope Department:Development Services Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Information Information Subject Title Continued Discussion of Comprehensive Plan Update Recommendation Ask questions, discuss. No action is required. Previous Council Action The City Council discussed the 2014 and 2015 Comprehensive Plan update process at its July 1 meeting and provided consensus for staff to move forward with preparing a minor update for 2014 and a more significant update in 2015. At its July 16 meeting, the City Council approved a budget amendment to allow the hiring of a temporary part-time planner to assist with the 2015 update. Narrative The state's Growth Management Act requires most cities and counties to have comprehensive plans and development regulations and to implement them. Every few years, each jurisdiction must review and, as needed, update its comprehensive plan and development regulations so that the plans and regulations meet current state laws, as well as local needs. For cities in our region, the next due date for a major review and update is June 30, 2015. In the spring of 2014, the Development Services Department conducted a review of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, using a checklist created by the State Department of Commerce. The review indicated that the Plan's goals and policies were generally consistent with the Growth Management Act, but that: (a) a significant data update was needed, affecting almost every chapter; (b) the population and jobs forecast needed to reflect a new 20-year period (through 2035, rather than through 2025); and (c) some aspects of the Plan could benefit from new information since the last major update. An overview of the above information, along with options for the update process and a preliminary schedule, were presented to the Planning Board on June 25. On July 1, the City Council reviewed the information and provided general consensus that staff should move forward with a basic update of the Comprehensive Plan, aiming to complete it by the State's mid-2015 deadline. Council member Johnson asked for the discussion to be continued to another meeting. Currently, the Development Services Department is working on preliminary aspects of the update, including to obtain assistance from a part-time planner. The 2015 update is assumed to include: - Review and draft revision of each chapter, as needed, for: Packet Page 496 of 524 - Data updates - Relevant new information - References to regional guidance, such as from Snohomish County Tomorrow or Puget Sound Regional Council - Minor clean-up. In addition: - Some referenced plans, such as older drainage plans, may be proposed for elimination from the Comprehensive Plan. - Several performance measures may be proposed as an addition to track how key goals are being met. - One or two "action steps" may be proposed for some chapters (such as the Sustainability Element) to help implement the adopted objectives. Public process for the update will include: - Creation of a webpage with update information to be added on a regular basis (Note: creation of the webpage is likely to occur after some technology upgrades are completed for the City's network.) - Public meetings of the Planning Board - Public meetings of the City Council - One open house - Press releases - Feature in the City newsletter - Presentations to interested organizations - Notices to nearby jurisdictions, tribes, and state agencies - Public hearing by the Planning Board - Public hearing by the City Council. The preliminary schedule for the 2015 Update, which was previously shown at the City Council's July 1 meeting, has been slightly modified --for example, consolidating the timeframe for reviewing the Streetscape and Street Tree plans. See Attachment 1. A slideshow has been prepared to include the above information, along with some other details, such as which elements are required and which are optional under the Growth Management Act. See Attachment 2. Attachments Atchmt 1: Schedule Attchmt 2: Slide Show Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 07/18/2014 07:59 AM Mayor Dave Earling 07/18/2014 08:18 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 07/18/2014 08:53 AM Form Started By: Shane Hope Started On: 07/17/2014 02:43 PM Final Approval Date: 07/18/2014 Packet Page 497 of 524 DRAFT Estimated 2015 Comprehensive Plan Review & Update Schedule Revised July 16, 2014 ITEM May/June July Aug Sept Oct Nov/Dec Jan Feb March Apr May June July 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 GENERAL INPUT & ANALYSIS Analysis/ Preparation/ Drafting PB & CC Initial Direction Selection of TE Consultant Hiring of temp. PT planner Data gathering/ drafting Public info & input SEPA Review Prep of Submittal Docs Public Hearings Adoption of full Update REVIEW BY MAJOR ELEMENT Comm. Sustainability Elem * Housing Elem * Gen. Intro + Land Use Elem ** Streetscape & Street Tree Plan * Economic Development * Culture & Urban Design Elem * Utilities Elem * Transportation Elem ** Capital Facilities Elem * NOTE: Schedule is approximate & subject to change. * - Indicates the timeframe intended for a public meeting by both the PB and CC to review & provide direction on the identified element. Packet Page 498 of 524 City Council Meeting July 22, 2014 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Packet Page 499 of 524 Comp Plan Background 2015 Update Process Next Steps TONIGHT Packet Page 500 of 524 COMP PLAN BACKGROUND Packet Page 501 of 524 Provide long term community planning & public process Required under Growth Management Act Must be internally consistent Cannot be amended more than once/year (with certain exceptions) Must be implemented by local government through budget & other activities COMPREHENSIVE PLANS Packet Page 502 of 524 Required for Cities Housing Land Use Transportation Capital Facilities Utilities Economic * Parks & Recreation* * If budget allows Optional for Cities Conservation Solar Energy Subarea Plans Any other topic relating to physical development within community COMP PLAN ELEMENTS UNDER GMA Packet Page 503 of 524 Last amended in 2013 Reviewed in Spring 2014 for consistency with current state laws Found to be mostly in compliance, with need for some updating EDMONDS’ EXISTING COMP PLAN Packet Page 504 of 524 Community Sustainability Land Use Shoreline sensitive areas map Stevens Memorial Hospital Master Plan Edmonds-Woodway HS Master Plan City Park Master Plan Pine Ridge Parks Master Plan SW County Park Master Plan Port of Edmonds Master Plan & Strategic Plan Housing Transportation (2009 Plan) PROS Plan (2008) Community Culture & Urban Design Community Cultural Plan Streetscape Plan Economic Development Plan Utilities Sewer Plan Water Plan (2010) Storm & Surface Water Plan (2010) Edmonds Drainage Basin Studies Meadowdale & Perrinville Drainage Studies SW Edmonds Basin Study EXISTING COMP PLAN ELEMENTS (2013) Packet Page 505 of 524 To be on separate track from 2015 Update Planning Board has held public hearing & recommended 2014 Comp Plan Update to have: Text revision for Westgate Replacement of “old” PROS Plan with “new” PROS Plan (approved by City Council in early 2014) Replacement of “old” Community Culture Plan with “new” Community Culture Plan (approved by City Council in early 2014) Planning Board’s recommendation - scheduled for City Council public hearing & possible action on August 4 2014 UPDATE PROCESS Packet Page 506 of 524 2015 UPDATE Packet Page 507 of 524 Every few years, cities & counties must do major review of comp plan & development regulations —and as necessary, update them Next major review & update is due June 30, 2015 Dev. Services staff recently completed extensive checklist under GMA MAJOR REVIEW & UPDATE Packet Page 508 of 524 Planning Board held June 25 public meeting & recommended moving forward with basic update to include new data & general clean-up City Council reviewed proposed recommendation for 2015 update & provided general direction to move forward with basic update, including new data & general clean-up; also approved budget amendment for temporary part-time planner assistance City Council review & discussion continues on July 22 GENERAL DIRECTION FOR CITY Packet Page 509 of 524 Census data out of date (largely based on 2000 data) New jobs & population forecasts to be incorporated (Snohomish County Tomorrow process)—extending from Year 2025 to 2035 Transportation Plan needs major updating (process just getting started) All other elements need updating (except any updated in 2014) to reflect newer data& information or streamlining Possible exception: Sustainability Element, since it’s very general Some outdated documents may need to be removed from reference Performance measure & action steps (optional) may be considered for each major element UPDATE ISSUES Packet Page 510 of 524 To include: Creation of special webpage with info added on regular basis* Numerous public meetings of Planning Board Numerous public meetings of City Council At least one open house Press releases Article(s) in City newsletter Presentations to interested organizations Notices to nearby jurisdictions, tribes, state agencies Public hearing by Planning Board Public hearing by City Council Note: creation of webpage is likely to occur after some technology upgrades are completed for City's network PUBLIC PROCESS Packet Page 511 of 524 Development Services Dept. is working on preliminary aspects of update , including to: Obtain assistance from temporary part-time planner Review SCT materials & Countywide Planning Policies Review Buildable Lands data Obtain Housing Profile data from AHA Review guidance from State agencies Review guidance from PSRC Coordinate with Public Works Dept. on RFQ process for Transportation Master Plan & SR 104 Complete Streets Analysis CURRENT STATUS Packet Page 512 of 524 NEXT STEPS Packet Page 513 of 524 To be considered for updating, one-by - one, based on schedule with any minor changes No final decisions until entire Comp Plan Update is drafted & considered at public hearings EACH ELEMENT Packet Page 514 of 524 Estimated 2015 Comprehensive Plan Review & Update Schedule Revised July 16, 2014 ITEM May/June July Aug Sept Oct Nov/Dec Jan Feb March Apr May June July 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 GENERAL INPUT & ANALYSIS Analysis/ Preparation/ Drafting PB & CC Initial Direction Selection of TE Consultant Hiring of temp. PT planner Data gathering/ drafting Public info & input SEPA Review Prep of Submittal Docs Public Hearings Adoption of full Update REVIEW BY MAJOR ELEMENT Comm. Sustainability Elem * Housing Elem * Gen. Intro + Land Use Elem * * Streetscape & Street Tree Plan * Economic Development * Culture & Urban Design Elem * Utilities Elem * Transportation Elem * * Capital Facilities Elem * NOTE: Schedule is approximate & subject to change. * - Indicates the timeframe intended for a public meeting by both the PB and CC to review & provide direction on the identified element. Packet Page 515 of 524 Sustainability Element Planning Board: Aug 27 or Sept 10 City Council: Sept 23 Housing Element Planning Board: Sept 24 City Council: Oct 14 Land Use Element Planning Board: Oct 8 & Oct 22 City Council: Dec 2 Streetscape/Street Trees Plan Planning Board: Dec 10 (to be followed by CC in early 2015) LIKELY UPDATES TO BE DRAFTED FOR DISCUSSION IN 2014 Packet Page 516 of 524 Not expecting major policy changes Lots of work ahead to include: New Transportation Element, consistent w/Land Use Element Updated data & info throughout General clean-up & refreshing Possible addition of performance measures & action steps Questions, discussion? CONCLUSION Packet Page 517 of 524 AM-7016 11. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:07/22/2014 Time:5 Minutes Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Carolyn LaFave Department:Mayor's Office Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Action Information Subject Title Confirmation of Mayor Earling's appointment of Patrick Doherty as the new Community Services/Economic Development Director. Recommendation Mayor Earling and staff recommend and request Council confirmation of Patrick Doherty as the new City of Edmonds Community Services/Economic Development Director. Previous Council Action Narrative After careful consideration, Mayor Earling has selected Patrick Doherty to fill the position of Community Services/Economic Development Director. Upon confirmation, Mr. Doherty will begin work on July 30, 2014. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 07/18/2014 09:01 AM Mayor Dave Earling 07/18/2014 10:12 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 07/18/2014 10:16 AM Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 07/18/2014 08:35 AM Final Approval Date: 07/18/2014 Packet Page 518 of 524 AM-6992 12. City Council Meeting Meeting Date:07/22/2014 Time:15 Minutes Submitted By:Scott Passey Department:City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Information Information Subject Title Report on City Council Committee Meetings of July 8, 2014. Recommendation For information. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Copies of the meeting minutes are attached for the following City Council committee meetings: 07-08-14 Finance Committee 07-08-14 Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee 07-08-14 Public Safety & Personnel Committee Attachments 07-08-14 Finance Committee minutes 07-08-14 PPP Committee minutes 07-08-14 PSP Committee minutes Form Review Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 07/16/2014 07:45 AM Final Approval Date: 07/16/2014 Packet Page 519 of 524 Minutes FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING July 8, 2014 Councilmembers Present Staff Present Councilmember Lora Petso Scott James, Finance Director Councilmember Kristiana Johnson Brian Tuley, IT Manager Council President Buckshnis Rob English, City Engineer Phil Williams, Public Works Director Shane Hope, Development Services Director Jeannie Dines, Recorder The meeting was called to order at 6:03 p.m. Councilmember Petso added Sales Tax Reporting to the agenda prior to Public Comments. Councilmember Johnson reminded the purpose of committee meetings is Council and staff discussion; audience comments will be taken at the end. A. 2014 May Budgetary Financial Report Mr. James presented the 2014 May Financial Report, highlighting: • General Fund revenues are above budget at 50%; May is 41.7% into the year • General Fund expenses are below budget at 39% • Fund 129, Special Projects Fund; It was agreed to retain the asterisk in revenues and expenses that references the SR99 International District enhancement Project • Property Tax receipts are as budgeted • Sales Tax revenues are above budget at 43% • Anomaly in Amusement and Recreation Sales Tax is due to a catch-up payment last year Mr. James responded to questions. Councilmembers requested Mr. James investigate liquor excise tax and profits and what the footnoted item on page 6 (Building Maintenance Subfund (016) Professional Services – difference due to a payment of $439,517 for HVAC conversion) is for. [Note: Later in the meeting Mr. Williams reported he contacted Jim Stevens by phone who said it was either to upgrade the Public Safety building HVAC controls or the ESCO project at Senior Center. Mr. Williams will verify and advise. He noted the Building 016 fund has spent only 6% of its budget.] Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda B. Discussion of Edmonds Public Facilities District and City of Edmonds Interlocal Agreement Mr. James explained Alice Ostdiek, Foster Pepper, reported on amendments to the ILA at a Finance Committee meeting earlier this year. Councilmember Petso recalled universal dissatisfaction with the draft amendment presented to the Finance Committee and a request that the amendment only address the payment schedule. Her understanding was the amendment was to ref lect the new debt service schedule as a result of the bond refunding. Councilmember Johnson observed there is a second issue, who benefits if there are savings as a result of the bond refunding. Discussion followed regarding the purpose of the amendment. Action: Mr. James will prepare a budget amendment for at least $5,000 to complete the amendment to the ILA to memorialize the repayment schedule due to the refunded bonds. C. 2014 2nd Quarter Budget Amendment Packet Page 520 of 524 Mr. James explained there are 17 budget amendments, 9 have previously been discussed by Council and 8 are new; of the 8, only 2 are not self-funded. The amendments include approximately $115,000 in new revenues and $1,416,000 in new expenses. The overall ending fund balance is reduced by $1,301,000. Mr. James reviewed the amendments and responded to questions. He highlighted the Unscheduled IT Equipment Replacement in the amount of $318,000. Staff will provide Council a bi-monthly progress report on the replacement project. He described funding for the project which will include the use of some funds from the fiber optic budget. Staff was asked to add that information to the budget amendment. Other changes the committee requested included: • Comprehensive Plan Extra Help - separate the expenditure from the grant • Alliance for Housing Affordability - move to amendments previously discussed by Council • Wetland Mitigation-Edmonds Marsh - staff provide details in presentation to Council Mr. James distributed a draft IS Replacement Policy. It was agreed to discuss the policy at the next Finance Committee meeting, including an explanation regarding the need to establish a separate capital reserve for IS equipment. Action: Schedule for full Council on July 15. E. Sales Tax Reporting Mr. James explained RCW 82.32.330 prohibits the City from disclosing single taxpayers ’ information. He proposed revising the Sales Tax Report to include a minimum of five businesses in each category and to create more categories. The revised report will be presented to the Finance Committee in the future. Action: Discussion only. D. Public Comment Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, pointed out the hospital is not listed on the Sales Tax Report. After hearing a presentation on tourism at the EDC meeting, he recalled the Sales Tax Report in the budget book would be a way to show the EDC which businesses generate sales tax. The Sales Tax Report is not in the 2014 budget book. He noted car dealerships generate the most sales tax. David Preston, Port of Edmonds Commissioner, pointed out Health and Personal Care is a category in the Sales Tax Report. He reported Leavenworth’s City Council gave $520,000 to the Chamber to help with promotion. Mr. James noted Leavenworth has far more hotels/motels than Edmonds. Councilmember Johnson commented Edmonds’ Lodging Tax Advisory Committee allocates the City’s Hotel/Motel Tax. The meeting was adjourned at 7:37 p.m. Packet Page 521 of 524 Minutes PARKS, PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING July 8, 2014 Elected Officials Present Staff Present Councilmember Joan Bloom Phil Williams, Public Works Director Rob English, City Engineer Shane Hope, Development Services Director The meeting was called to order at 6:02 p.m. A. Authorization to Amend Interlocal Agreement with Snohomish County for "Urban County" Requalification with HUD Ms. Hope explained this agreement has been in place for many years; HUD is requiring Snohomish County to requalify as an urban county for funding purposes which requires participating cities to execute an amendment to the existing agreement. The proposed amendment adds a new grant program, updates language regarding the Fair Housing Act and other minor amendments. The amendment was to have been approved by July 10; Snohomish County agreed to extend the date to July 15. Action: Schedule for full Council. B. Authorization for the Mayor to sign a Professional Services Agreement with Murray, Smith & Associates for design services for the 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project Mr. English explained a RFQ was issued in March 2014 and 7 engineering firms responded. Following a selection process, Murray, Smith and Associates was selected to design plans and contract documents for the project. The scope of work includes seven locations; some are spot repairs, others are pipe replacements. The overall contract is approximately $321,000 including a $35,000 management reserve and $25,000 for a sub-consultant to negotiate easement acquisitions. Mr. English and Mr. Williams responded to questions regarding the difference between a bid process and a RFQ, what the contingency fund would be used for, the City’s project manager, and how “as needed” tasks are determined. A future budget amendment will be required. The intent is to begin design earlier so projects can be bid early in 2015. Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda C. Proposed Addition to Development Fee Schedule Ms. Hope explained in late 2013 the Council approved a resolution to update development fees. It was recently discovered the Violation Compliance Fee ($240 or up to 5 times the permit fee) had been inadvertently omitted from the updated fee schedule. The fee is the same as in the previous schedule. Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda Packet Page 522 of 524 D. Public Comments Chuck Gold, Edmonds, explained the trench solves all the problems, benefits everyone and is the least expensive option. There have been no negative comments other than train hobbyists who say they will miss seeing the trains. He referred to their website: www.Edmondstraintrench.net. The meeting was adjourned at 6:25 p.m. Packet Page 523 of 524 Minutes PUBLIC SAFETY & PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MEETING July 8, 2014 Elected Officials Present Staff Present Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas Al Compaan, Police Chief Councilmember Strom Peterson Don Anderson, Assistant Police Chief The meeting was called to order at 6:01 p.m. A. Renewal of Interlocal Agreement with Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force 2014-2015 Chief Compaan explained this is a consortium of cities that includes Edmonds. Edmonds does not contribute any staffing but does contribute monetarily and the task force receives federal matching funds. Edmonds’ share for the fiscal year July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015 is $10,544. The Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force collaborates with the local drug task force and will assist with dismantling a drug lab. The City has been a member of the task force since 1988 and he recommended continuing as a member. Chief Compaan responded to questions regarding services this task force provides and Edmonds staff assigned to the local task force. Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda B. Discussion regarding Code of Ethics Councilmember Fraley-Monillas provided Shoreline’s Code of Ethics that was distributed at last week’s Council meeting (Councilmember Peterson was absent from that meeting). Committee members reviewed the General Code of Conduct in the City’s Personnel Policies that covers staff. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas offered to revise Shoreline’s Code of Ethic to change “officials” to “elected officials” and send a redline version to Councilmember Peterson and City Attorney Jeff Taraday. Action: Schedule for full Council. C. Public Comments Lay Brother Steven Gerard distributed and reviewed a brochure regarding the Life Peace Zone, a citizen overlay zone. Don Hall, Edmonds, spoke in support of adopting a Code of Ethics. He pointed out enforcement is an important component. A brief discussion followed regarding how violations are handled. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas offered to inquire how Shoreline handles violations. The meeting was adjourned at 6:33 p.m. Packet Page 524 of 524