2009.09.01 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
Edmonds City Council
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds
______________________________________________________________
SEPTEMBER 1, 2009
7:00 p.m.
Call to Order and Flag Salute
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Approval of Consent Agenda Items
A. Roll Call
B. AM-2467 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of August 17, 2009.
C. AM-2476 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of August 25, 2009.
D. AM-2477 Approval of claim checks #113749 through #113863 dated August 27, 2009 for $699,307.91.
E. AM-2468 Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Judy Howell (amount undetermined).
F. AM-2469 Ordinance approving a change in zoning for certain real property located at 7631 212th
Street SW from Residential Multifamily (RM-2.4) to Neighborhood Business (BN).
G. AM-2473 Proclamation in honor of National Preparedness Month, September 2009.
3. AM-2470
(45 Minutes)
Continued public hearing regarding an update of the 2002 Transportation Plan. The
amendments in the proposed 2009 Transportation Plan would:
(1) Use a future planning year of 2025 instead of 2022.
(2) Base concurrency analysis and recommendations on updated citywide travel demand
forecasting model and updated level of service standards on state routes.
(3) Incorporate results and recommendations of safety studies that have been completed
between 2002 and 2009.
(4) Give stronger emphasis to non-motorized transportation projects. Pedestrian
and bicycle projects make up approximately 25% of Plan costs instead of approximately 5%
in the 2002 Plan.
(5) Utilize planning-level cost projections based on higher per unit prices to reflect trends.
(6) Adjust references to the Edmonds Crossing Multi-Modal Plan. No City expenditures
are proposed but the item is retained as a long-term project.
(7) Update the traffic impact fee, increasing the fee from $764 per trip to $1,040 per trip.
(8) Add a traffic calming program and ADA ramp transition plan as additional programs.
4. AM-2472
(15 Minutes)
Continued public hearing for the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program
(2010-2015) and proposed resolution.
5. AM-2471
(60 Minutes)
Presentation on the Fire District 1 contract offer.
Packet Page 1 of 487
6. AM-2474
(15 Minutes)
Discussion regarding new Yacht Club development.
7.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.
8. AM-2475
(30 Minutes)
Public hearing on the Planning Board recommendation to approve the creation of a new
mixed use zoning classification for Firdale Village to implement the Comprehensive
Plan. (File No. AMD-2008-10 / Applicant: Shapiro Architects)
9. (5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments
10. (15 Minutes)Council Comments
Adjourn
Packet Page 2 of 487
AM-2467 2.B.
Approve 08-17-09 City Council Minutes
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:09/01/2009
Submitted By:Sandy Chase Time:Consent
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of August 17, 2009.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the draft minutes.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attached is a copy of the draft minutes.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: 08-17-09 Draft City Council Minutes
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/24/2009 04:46 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/24/2009 04:47 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/26/2009 09:14 AM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 08/24/2009 04:43
PM
Final Approval Date: 08/26/2009
Packet Page 3 of 487
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2009
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
August 17, 2009
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
D. J. Wilson, Council President
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Steve Bernheim, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief
Lorenzo Hines, Interim Finance Director
Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Ann Bullis, Building Official
Rob English, City Engineer
Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Eng. Program Mgr.
Mike Clugston, Planner
Bio Park, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON,
TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER WITH THE ADDITION ON OF AN
AGENDA ITEM TO DISCUSS AND REQUEST A LEGAL OPINION FROM THE CITY
ATTORNEY REGARDING THE ISSUANCE OF THE 523 ALDER STREET ROOF PERMIT.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Haakenson advised it would be added to the agenda as Item 9B.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Wambolt requested Item F be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 4, 2009.
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #113290 THROUGH #113460 DATED AUGUST 6,
2009 FOR $725,189.09, AND #113461 THROUGH #113614 DATED AUGUST 13, 2009 FOR
$250,261.37. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #48380
THROUGH #48454 FOR THE PAY PERIOD JULY 16, THROUGH JULY 31, 2009 FOR
$969,292.50.
D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM MARK BEARD
($844.02).
Packet Page 4 of 487
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2009
Page 2
E. AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE SR 99
INTERNATIONAL DISTRICT ENHANCEMENT PROJECT.
G. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACTS
FOR BUILDING CODE PLAN REVIEW WITH BECK & ASSOCIATES, AEGIS
ENGINEERING AND LANI O'CONNOR, CONSULTING ENGINEER.
H. RESOLUTION NO. 1204 ADOPTING THE STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN FROM THE
LAKE BALLINGER/MCALEER CREEK WATERSHED FORUM.
ITEM F: REPORT OF BIDS OPENED ON AUGUST 5, 2009 FOR THE 2009 ASPHALT OVERLAY
PROJECT AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO CEMEX CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
PACIFIC LLC ($798,689.77).
Councilmember Wambolt referred to the 5th & Dayton Street crosswalk rehabilitation, recalling that it
was totally redone 3-4 years ago at the same time as 5th & Main. He observed the 5th & Dayton crosswalk
had deteriorated due to the bus traffic that is not present at 5th & Main and asked whether this
rehabilitation would result in a longer lifespan. City Engineer Rob English responded in the original
replacement, a 4-inch concrete section was placed over the existing underlying concrete slab. In this
project both the 4-inch section as well as the existing slab would be removed and replaced to provide a
stronger base and more durability.
Councilmember Wambolt asked whether Cemex Construction Materials Pacific LLC was the original
contractor. Mr. English was uncertain; Mayor Haakenson did not believe they were the original
contractor.
Councilmember Wambolt observed the bids for that work were considerably higher than the engineer’s
estimate. Mr. English agreed the engineer’s estimate for all the concrete work were low which was more
pronounced in this project due to the amount of concrete. He noted the bids for the curb ramps were also
higher than the engineer’s estimate for the same reason.
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON,
FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM F. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Haakenson introduced Interim Finance Director Lorenzo Hines.
3. PUBLIC HEARING ON INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 3746 AMENDING THE
PROVISIONS OF ECDC 20.12.090(B), AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECDC 20.11.050,
FORWARDING FOR REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY’S PLANNING
BOARD A NEW PARKING STANDARD FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 CORRIDOR, PROVIDING
FOR A SUNSET CLAUSE, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE.
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the Council’s previous adoption of this Interim Zoning
Ordinance required a public hearing. The Planning Board is reviewing the matter and will provide a
recommendation to the Council.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no members
of the public present who wished to provide testimony.
4. PUBLIC HEARING ON ECC 7.200 (ILLEGAL DISCHARGES TO STORMWATER SYSTEM
AND WATER COURSES).
Stormwater Engineer Program Manager Jerry Shuster provided several reasons for adopting Edmonds
City Code Chapter 7.2000: the Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit requires an Illicit Discharge
Detection and Elimination (IDDE) ordinance for the City’s municipal separate storm sewer system
Packet Page 5 of 487
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2009
Page 3
(MS4); the existing Code, adopted in 2003 needs to be updated to align with the Permit issued in 2007;
and the storm drainage system is directly connected to creeks, Puget Sound, and Lake Ballinger and no
treatment occurs prior to discharge to those surface water bodies. He provided an illustration of
stormwater runoff that discharges into the stormwater system versus sanitary sewers that enter the
treatment plant before entering Puget Sound.
He explained the Permit requires, 1) development and implementation of an IDDE ordinance, 2)
implementation of an on-going IDDE program to identify, investigate, terminate, clean-up illicit
discharges and spills, including mapping of our MS4, and 3) informing public employees, businesses, and
the general public of the hazards associated with illegal discharges and improper disposal.
The development of an ongoing IDDE program includes mapping all outfalls to the municipal storm
system, developing procedures for on-going, proactive IDDE program evaluation and assessment that
includes illicit connections, and providing appropriate training for municipal field staff on identification
and reporting of illicit discharges into MS4s. The IDDE ordinance will address prohibited discharges and
connections, allowable discharges and conditional discharges. The requirements in the ordinance will
also be integrated with the Plumbing Code and Health Code.
Mr. Schuster described an illicit discharge as any discharge to the municipal separate storm sewer that is
not composed entirely of stormwater with the exception of allowable discharges, conditional discharges
and discharges pursuant to another discharge permit approved by the State. He provided the Phase II
Permit definition of an illicit connection: any man-made conveyance that is connected to a MS4 without
a permit, excluding roof drains and other similar type connections. Examples include sanitary sewer
connections, floor drains, channels, pipelines, conduits, inlets, or outlets connected directly to the MS4.
He provided the following examples:
Allowable Discharges
• Footing drains
• Crawl space pumps
• Air conditioning condensate
• Springs
• Flow from emergency fire fighting activities.
Conditional Discharges
• Public water supply (dechlorinated)
• Swimming pool (dechlorinated)
• Wash water (sweep first, no detergent)
He referred to a summary of the code changes, pointing out most of the changes were in terminology to
align the current code with terminology in the permit. The Department of Ecology also recommends
prohibiting illicit discharges to the storm system as well as groundwater.
He posed the following questions to illustrate activities that are/are not illicit discharges:
• Is water from a roof drain illicit discharge? Not illicit.
• Is water from power-washing driveways an illicit discharge? Conditional, illicit if washing motor
oil, okay if washing natural materials.
• Is water from a car wash an illicit discharge? Illicit, cannot allow soap and dirt to enter the storm
system.
Mr. Shuster advised a car wash kit was available free of charge from the City for charity car washes. He
provided examples of common sources of illicit discharge:
Packet Page 6 of 487
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2009
Page 4
• Illegal dumping practices (95%)
• Broken sanitary sewer line (81%)
• Cross-connections (71%)
• Connection of floor drains to storm sewer (62%)
• Sanitary sewer overflows (52%)
• Failing septic systems (33%)
• Improper RV waste disposal (33%)
• Pump station failure (14%)
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, expressed support for the Council’s adoption of the ordinance to update the
City’s Code regarding illegal discharges to the stormwater system and water courses. As a waterfront
community, he recommended the City not wait for federal and state mandates to take the necessary steps
to protect Puget Sound and the watershed from illicit discharges. In addition to clarifying definitions and
options regarding enforcement of illegal discharges into the stormwater system, he recommended the City
take an active role regarding education and raising awareness about urban runoff and impacts on the
watershed and Puget Sound. He commented many members of the community believe all water entering
the stormwater system is treated. He commended the Edmonds Backyard Wildlife Association for
organizing volunteers to do stormwater stenciling to foster awareness regarding runoff. He suggested
Council pass a resolution concurrent with this ordinance recommending residents and business owners
voluntarily take steps to minimize urban runoff. He provided a list of ways to reduce runoff such as
minimizing lawn watering, installing drip or soaker hose irrigation, replacing turf with drought-tolerant
shrubs or groundcover, creating a rain garden, using only organic based fertilizers and minimizing
commercial based herbicides, and planting native trees and shrubs.
Dave Page, Edmonds, commented that 2,000 drains enter Lake Ballinger. He applauded the efforts of
the Edmonds Backyard Wildlife Association and other organizations and cited the importance of
continued vigilance regarding stormwater runoff.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to Section 7.20.120, Water Body Protection, that suggests property
through which water passes not pollute, contaminate, induce new vegetation or retard the water flow. He
questioned whether the ordinance provided the City the ability to address streams that had been
manicured/altered by property owners. If the ordinance did not, he recommends the City determine how
existing situations would be addressed. He questioned whether roof drains must enter the stormwater
system or could drain onto the ground. He also asked if it was illegal for a person to wash their car on the
grass due to the potential for oil to enter the groundwater.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
With regard to Dr. Senderoff’s comments about public education, Mr. Shuster advised Edmonds was a
member of a group of 45 communities in the Puget Sound region working with the DOE and EPA on a
very large public education program, Puget Sound Starts Here, that will begin this fall.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT,
TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3751 UPDATING EDMONDS CITY CODE 7.200 (ILLEGAL
DISCHARGES TO STORMWATER SYSTEM AND WATERCOURSES).
Council President Wilson commended Mr. Shuster for his efforts to bring the City into compliance with
federal and state mandates.
Packet Page 7 of 487
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2009
Page 5
Councilmember Bernheim also commended Mr. Shuster. He referred to the environmental agenda and
the need to balance education and legislation.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OF THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO
APPROVE THE REZONE OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7631 212TH STREET SW FROM
RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY (RM-2.4) TO NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS (BN). THE
APPLICANT IS OASIS, INC.
Mayor Haakenson invited Councilmembers to make any disclosures under the Appearance of Fairness
Doctrine.
Councilmember Orvis advised six years ago he lived in Rustic Manor Condominiums which is
approximately one lot away from this site. He advised that would not affect his ability to make a fair and
impartial decision.
Councilmember Plunkett disclosed in 2005 he accepted a $100 contribution from one of the parties of
record, Clay Enterprises. As he did not feel he met the test of the appearance of fairness, he recused
himself from the closed record review. Councilmember Plunkett left the dais and the Council Chambers.
Mayor Haakenson asked whether any of the parties of record, Don Miller, Oasis, Inc., or Ken Clay, had
any challenges to Councilmember Orvis’ participation. There were no objections voiced.
Mike Clugston, Planner displayed an aerial photograph of the subject parcels, 6731 212th Street
Southwest, just west of the intersection of 76th Avenue & 212th. He explained the record consists of
Exhibit 1, minutes of the July 22, 2009 Planning Board public hearing; Exhibit 2, the staff report, and
Exhibit 3, the list of parties of record. He explained there are currently four buildings, three rectangular
and one round building, on the site that have existed since the 1960s. There is an existing conditional use
permit (CUP) for the four buildings currently used as medical offices. The site is currently zoned RM-
2.4. The round building on the site is currently vacant.
The applicant has applied to rezone the subject parcel from RM-2.4 to Neighborhood Business (BN) in
order to use the round building as a retail pharmacy. Retail is not an allowed used in the RM zone.
Should the rezone be approved, the applicant would likely install a drive-through window which requires
a separate CUP. The Planning Board unanimously recommended the Council approve the rezone request,
citing its consistency with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the parcel and because it met
the six rezone criteria in the Zoning Code.
Applicant
Don Miller, GWC Land Development Consulting, Mukilteo, representing the applicant, Oasis, Inc.,
commented staff’s analysis was very complete. He explained the proposed rezone met the Zoning Code,
implements the Comprehensive Plan and fulfills the applicant’s intent to allow operation of a retail
pharmacy on the site. The applicant will submit a separate application for the drive-through window if
the rezone is approved.
Mayor Haakenson invited the parties of record to provide comment. None of the parties of record wished
to address the Council.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO
DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE CHANGE
IN ZONING, AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING BOARD.
Packet Page 8 of 487
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2009
Page 6
Councilmember Orvis commented the rezone would allow commercial uses on what was essentially a
commercial site.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Plunkett did not participate in the vote.)
Councilmember Plunkett returned to the dais.
6. UPDATE ON THE SOUTH COUNTY SENIOR CENTER.
David McNayr, South County Senior Center Executive Director, explained the Senior Center was a
regional multi-purpose center providing programs and services for the senior population of South
Snohomish County. Programs and services are grouped in three major activity categories: 1) health and
wellness, 2) social services and community outreach, and 3) education, recreation and social activity
programs. The current membership at the center totals approximately 1300 individuals and over 3,000
members and guests take part in activities at the center.
The Center’s mission statement is to advocate for the senior citizens in the community and provide a
variety of programs and services to help fulfill social service, recreational, educational, and health and
wellness needs of the senior community, with a view toward broadening and enhancing the quality of
their lives and stimulating creative imaginations. The Center is celebrating its 41st year of service to the
community. The Center is a member of the Washington State Association of Senior Centers. It served as
a national model for formulating the requirements for certification as a multi-purpose senior center.
The SCSC serves the needs of the elder population of the community by providing extensive support for a
very diverse target population that faces a multitude of issues including poor health, low and fixed
incomes, lack of employment training and opportunities, inadequate housing options and lack of personal
and family support. The SCSC functions as an access point for all community-aging services resources
while providing support and services in a warm, welcoming and accepting environment. The SCSC’s
overriding goal is to maximize the independence of senior citizens, reduce or eliminate the need for
institutional care, while enhancing the quality of life.
He commented on losses people experience as they age, commenting the need for programs and services
increases each year because seniors are the fastest growing segment of the population. This trend will
continue as people are living longer and healthier lives and because the baby boomer population has
achieved senior status.
Mr. McNayr provided an overview of the three program areas:
• Health and Wellness Programs – includes fitness and exercise classes, health screening, surplus
food clinic as a member of Food Lifeline, serve over 15,000 hot lunches in their dining room
annually, loaned health assistance equipment, SHIBA advisers who provide free health insurance
information to seniors, and an annual health fair
• Social Services and Community Outreach – caregivers resource center, Alzheimer’s,
Parkinson’s, diabetes and sigh impaired support groups; senior employment service; information
and referral services, Sound Thrift Store that offers low priced goods to seniors and the
community and provides revenue for the Center’s operations; Country Boutique consignment
store that provides extra income for senior crafters; AARP tax assistance, transportation
assistance for low income seniors, community breakfasts; themed dinners and summer barbeques.
• Education, Recreation and Social Programs – offer classes on a variety of subjects; locally
planned trips using the Center’s bus or van or Community Transit, Sounder and Washington State
ferry; and guest lecturers
Packet Page 9 of 487
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2009
Page 7
Mr. McNayr explained future programs will be focused on health and well-being as the aging population
continues to increase and live longer. One of the strategies for growth includes seeking younger seniors
who have skills and abilities to share in classroom situations.
He provided several examples of seniors who have been assisted by services provided by the Center
including providing a meaningful place for seniors to meet new friends, health screening, nutritious
lunches, use of the Center’s employment services to hire caregivers, volunteer opportunities that make
seniors feel useful and needed, activities to keep seniors active and engaged, and referral to the Food
Surplus Program. He provided a brief video illustrating seniors involved in activities at the Center. He
emphasized the importance of the sustainability of the human spirit, especially for seniors.
Mr. McNayr concluded the Center was once again thriving in a relaxed and fun atmosphere. They met
their goal of raising $25,000 through the Young at Heart Campaign and civic and corporate partners have
returned in record numbers. By November the Center will have a newly renovated front building
entrance. Also in November, members will have the opportunity to elect seven new individuals to the
Board of Directors.
He commented the $60,000 in funding provided by the Center to the Center this year and in 2010 is much
more than a grant. It is an investment in the lives of numerous seniors at the SCSC. He thanked the
Mayor and Council for partnering with the SCSC.
Councilmember Plunkett thanked Mr. McNayr, Board President Rose Cantwell and Board Members for
taking on a large challenge and for creating a great deal of enthusiasm.
Mr. McNayr invited the Council and the public to the Sound Singers’ beachfront luau on August 20.
7. PRESENTATION ON STEVENS HOSPITAL STRATEGIC PLAN.
Sarah Zabel, Vice President/Chief Planning Officer, Stevens Hospital, introduced Hospital
Commissioners Bob Meador and Chuck Day, consultant Howard Thomas, and Rick Canning, Chief
Financial Officer/Chief Operating Officer. She provided an overview of Stevens Hospital:
• Public Hospital District, governed by a Board of Commissioners, and have the ability to levy
taxes to raise funds for the District
• Third largest public hospital district in Washington
• In 2009 Stevens Hospital will receive approximately $4.9 million in tax dollars from the
community
In 2005, the Board of Commissioners developed the first Strategic Plan which included a new mission
and vision statement for the District. The mission was to improve the health and well-being of the
community through local, high-quality and compassionate health care services. The vision was to be a
trusted and financially strong provider of high quality health care services who collaborates with others to
creatively respond to the health needs of a diverse community. The Commission also developed a series
of goals which Stevens Hospital has largely been successful in meeting.
Ms. Zabel identified several recent accomplishments:
• Increase in the employee satisfaction ranking from the 4th percentile in 2006 to the 73rd percentile
in 2008.
Packet Page 10 of 487
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2009
Page 8
• Increase in operating income and net income, with the first positive bottom line in operations in
2008 since 1997
• In 2009 received a five star rating for the quality of joint replacement, treatment of stroke and
treatment of pneumonia from HealthGrades
• In 2008 became the first hospital in Washington state to receive the American Heart
Association’s Coronary Artery Disease Gold Performance Achievement Award
• The Mother/Baby Unit is in the top one percent in patient satisfaction of 1,000 hospitals across
the country as rated by 640,000 patients in a survey conducted late 2008 by Press Ganey
• CEP America awarded ED contract effective 7/1/09
• Rapid Medical Evaluation implemented in the Emergency Department
• Center for Wound Healing and Hyperbarics
• Digital Mammography
• Opened 16 new Progressive Care Unit Beds
A timeline was provided for the Strategic Planning process that began with a stakeholder input meeting
and SWOT analysis in May, stakeholder input meeting initial strategy discussion in June,
Board/Executive Team Draft Plan development in June, community review and input in July and August
with Plan finalization and adoption anticipated in September. She advised the community review
includes presentations to area City Councils as well as Town Hall meetings.
Findings of the SWOT analysis included:
• Strengths – recent accomplishments moving in the right direction, location, commitment to
community.
• Weaknesses – image issues and weak brand, financial challenges
• Opportunities – capture market share in community
• Threats – increasing competition from well capitalized competitors, unknown challenges of
healthcare reform, economy
Key strategy priorities include the following:
• Community
o Stimulate a sense of community partnership and ownership of Stevens Hospital
• Service
o Strengthen brand so that it is consistently recognized and respected in the community
o Build a culture where providing patients and their families/support groups an excellent
patient experience is an expectation at all levels of the organization
o Improve cultural competence
• People
o Recruit and retain high quality physicians
o Foster a culture of employee empowerment, involvement, and accountability
• Quality and Safety
o Provide excellence in quality and safety in all patient care environments and throughout the
continuum of care
o Meet Electronic Health Record mandates
• Finance
o Continue to improve financial performance
o Meet our ongoing need for capital for facilities and technology
o Monitor and adapt to reimbursement reforms
• Growth
o Perform a service line assessment to align community needs, quality needs, and growth
opportunities
Packet Page 11 of 487
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2009
Page 9
o Grow business volumes with targeted affiliations in numerous service areas
Ms. Zabel advised a full list of the priorities as well as additional information was available on the
StevensHospital.org website. She relayed a potential affiliation strategy or tactic appears in each of the
strategic pillars. The Board of Commissioners is working with a consultant on what an affiliation could
mean. Next steps include presentations and Town Hall meetings to gather input with Plan finalization
and adoption anticipated for September.
Councilmember Wambolt pointed out the Town Hall meeting held in Edmonds conflicted with the
candidate forum and suggested scheduling another Town Hall meeting in Edmonds. She agreed that
could be considered.
Council President Wilson thanked the Board for including Councilmember Wambolt and him in the
Strategic Planning process as well as engaging the public. Recalling that community partnership was a
low priority in the key strategic priorities, he emphasized the importance of community partnership.
Council President Wilson asked Ms. Zabel to address the potential for a levy. Ms. Zabel stated the
Commission had considered a levy or bond. Original considerations were for a large levy ($400 million)
to construct a new hospital; however, the shift in the economy required consideration of a lower amount
($50 million) that would allow Stevens Hospital to meet the community’s need for facilities by building a
new Emergency Department and relocating other departments. She assured consideration of a bond/levy
was in the conceptual stages.
Council President Wilson suggested the Board consider Children’s Hospital as another potential partner.
He relayed the Council’s appreciation to Stevens Hospital for making this presentation, recognizing
Stevens Hospital is the City’s largest employer and the most important healthcare entity in South
Snohomish County.
8. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, referred to Agenda Item 9A, suspending the application of the Community
Development Code intended to protect critical area tracts. He was concerned with issuing a zoning
moratorium to any pending subdivision, short subdivision or PRD parcel prior to revising or replacing the
ordinance intended to protect critical areas. He questioned if development in critical area tracts
previously protected would be allowed while an alternate recommendation or workplan was considered
by the Planning Board. He questioned why the Council was considering an interim ordinance now when
the ruling resulting from a reversal of a Superior Court decision on appeal was made over a year ago; why
the Planning Board could not address the issues in the existing ordinance while maintaining the existing
protections; and how critical areas, including native vegetation and wetlands in RS-12 and larger zones
would be protected in the interim. He urged the Council to consider the importance of trees and wetlands
to easing the burden of stormwater drainage system and protecting Puget Sound.
Dave Page, Edmonds, referred to an inference made during a candidate forum that he was involved in a
real estate transaction with Councilmember Wambolt and Al Dykes, assuring he had no real estate
dealings with Councilmember Wambolt, Mr. Dykes or the former Safeway site.
George Murray, Edmonds, referred to Councilmember Wambolt’s quote in the newspaper regarding
candidates accepting donations from the Alliance for Citizens of Edmonds supporters.
Mayor Haakenson cautioned the public not to speak regarding their support or opposition to a candidate.
Packet Page 12 of 487
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2009
Page 10
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to Agenda Item 3, a public hearing on an interim zoning ordinance
to extend design review, questioning why the interim zoning ordinance also included a review of parking
standards on Highway 99. He referred to federal funds provided to the City for overlays, expressing
concern that the engineer’s estimate was low for all projects, a total of a $200,000 difference between the
engineer’s estimate and the bids.
Mr. Page concluded his comments, recalling several speakers have voiced support for transparency and
citizen oversight. After reviewing the budget every year and always receiving satisfactory answers to his
questions from staff and the Mayor, he assured the City was very transparent.
9A. REVIEW AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE SUSPENDING
THE APPLICATION OF CHAPTER 23.90.040(C), RETENTION OF VEGETATION ON
SUBDIVIDABLE, UNDEVELOPED PARCELS.
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained a recent court case in King County, Citizens Alliance for
Property Rights v. Sims, invalidated King County’s set-asides in rural areas. The City has a similar
provision in the critical area regulations, a 30% native vegetation requirement for subdivisions in the RS-
12 and RS-20 zones. The purpose of the interim ordinance will be to suspend enforcement of that portion
of the critical area regulations while studying alternatives to achieve the goal of retaining vegetation on
larger lots. He summarized the 30% requirement in the City’s code was not tied to an impact or a case-
by-case decision-making process and thus was not defensible based on the recent King County case. The
interim ordinance is narrowly tailored and does not impact streams, wetlands or any other critical area
provision; it is only the native vegetation provision in the RS-12 and RS-20 zones.
City Attorney Bio Park assured this was not a moratorium on enforcement of the critical area ordinance; it
was only on the specific provision related to a 30% native vegetation requirement for subdivisions in the
RS-12 and RS-20 zones. Because the language was not defensible based on the recent King County
decision, best practice would be to send the provision to the Planning Board to draft more appropriate
provisions. Mr. Chave advised the timing was important because subdivision applications are beginning
to surface for the RS-12 and RS-20 zones.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the interim ordinance could result in the problems Dr. Senderoff
suggested. Mr. Chave assured it did not include critical areas for streams or wetlands.
Councilmember Orvis pointed out Section 23.40.270 referenced in the proposed interim zoning ordinance
was the entire critical area ordinance. Mr. Park requested an opportunity to investigate the correct code
section proposed to be repealed.
9B. FURTHER DISCUSSION AND REQUEST FOR A LEGAL OPINION FROM THE CITY
ATTORNEY REGARDING THE ISSUANCE OF THE 523 ALDER STREET ROOF PERMIT.
City Attorney Bio Park pointed out this was a Special Council meeting versus a regular Council meeting.
Case law recommends City Councils refrain from taking any final action on items not advertised on the
agenda of a Special Meeting, therefore, he recommended the Council not take any final action on this
matter at tonight’s Special Meeting.
Councilmember Bernheim displayed the plans for the building at 523 Alder that were originally
submitted by the applicant and approved by the Building Department. He observed the original plans
include 4:12 pitches on the roof. He displayed the revised plans submitted recently that include a roof
description of 1:12. He provided an excerpt of the code provision that requires all portions of the roof
Packet Page 13 of 487
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2009
Page 11
above 25 feet shall have a slope of no less than 4:12. He observed the roof slope on the revised plans
appeared to actually be ¼:12.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON,
TO ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DELIVER AN OPINION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE
APPROVAL OF THE PERMIT IN THIS CASE IS ACCORDING TO THE CODE. AND IF IT IS
DEEMED ACCORDING TO THE CODE, HAVE A BRIEF EXPLANATION OF THE APPEAL
PROCESS FOR PERMITS ISSUED BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOR THINGS THAT
DO NOT HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING.
Councilmember Bernheim provided ten reasons for approving this motion:
1. Because it is a flat roof and the code requires that all portions of the roof above 25 feet shall have
a slope of 4:12 or greater.
2. This was not built according to plan. The plan that was submitted was in accordance with the
regulations but the builder decided not to construct the building in that manner.
3. It is a very large home, a substantial project with a substantial impact on adjacent neighbors.
Adjacent residents claim they have lost thousands in the value of their homes. It is a potential
theft of public space because the City’s regulations limit the height of buildings.
4. The project was inspected by a City Inspector who did not notice that the flat roof exceeded the
25 feet.
5. Plans were submitted and reviewed by the department, not acted upon and discarded.
6. On June 23, two Councilmembers assured the builder knew the City Code well and would not
construct a building that would violate the code. He found that a dangerous attitude for
government to have.
7. The flat roof that has been approved has been termed as a drainage collection device and
approved as an exception to the flat roof. He questioned the installation of a drainage collection
device on a roof, noting a roof is intended to shed water rather than collect it.
8. Allowing flat portions of roofs above 25 feet as drainage collection devices has been interpreted
in many other projects in the City. However, there is no written documentation of that
interpretation.
9. In his own case, a neighbor attempted this in his backyard a couple years ago and was questioned
by staff in interpreting a similar provision, a contrary interpretation to the building at 523 Alder.
10. Everybody makes mistakes. It’s better to recognize that a mistake has been made and correct it as
soon as possible.
Councilmember Bernheim explained he would like to have a legal opinion regarding whether approval of
this flat roof over 25 feet was consistent with the Code based on any reasonable legal interpretation that is
not arbitrary and capricious. If it is decided it is legal in spite of all these circumstances, in light of the
Title 20 discussion regarding appeal periods and how citizens participate, he was interested in the appeal
period for permits that have no public review and issued by the Building Department. He referred to the
Nycrum case, noting the basic principle of that case is if the City approves something, after a certain
period of time, nothing can be done.
Council President Wilson commented all the issues that have been raised through this process were
important in the Council’s capacity as oversight. He appreciated the staff and Mayor’s diligence in
answering questions and supported having as full a conversation as possible. He commented the $30
Councilmember Bernheim paid to obtain records from the City should be reimbursed. Councilmember
Bernheim responded he may ask for reimbursement of future expenses but he was comfortable at this
time paying it.
Packet Page 14 of 487
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2009
Page 12
Councilmember Plunkett commented on the numerous forthright and civil emails between
Councilmember Bernheim and administration over the past 4-5 days. He commented even with
differences of opinion and interpretation, staff, the Mayor and Councilmember Bernheim have
communicated very productively and positively.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9A. REVIEW AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE SUSPENDING
THE APPLICATION OF CHAPTER 23.90.040(C), RETENTION OF VEGETATION ON
SUBDIVIDABLE, UNDEVELOPED PARCELS (CONTINUED).
City Attorney Bio Park commented after reviewing the materials, he determined the City Attorney’s
office had forwarded Planning Manager Rob Chave an incorrect ordinance. He suggested they provide a
correct ordinance to staff this week.
Mayor Haakenson advised this item would be rescheduled on next week’s agenda.
Assuming the ordinance was intended to repeal the 30% vegetation provision rather than the entire critical
area ordinance, Councilmember Bernheim asked whether the 10% open space requirement in the BD
zone was also subject to a similar challenge. Mr. Park responded the reasonable interpretation was no,
but the decision in the recent court case in King County, Citizens Alliance for Property Rights v. Sims,
even setbacks could be vulnerable to challenge. He was doubtful the District 1 Court of Appeals intended
to include setbacks and set asides that were part of regulating development.
Mr. Chave commented in discussions with City Attorney Scott Snyder, things that were more traditional
such as zoning setbacks or bulk restrictions were likely to be defensible and not covered by the decision.
However, the decision was written broadly and language in the City’s Code that was similar to the King
County set asides were vulnerable and should be reviewed.
Councilmember Bernheim suggested rather than declaring a moratorium on the enforcement of the entire
30% vegetative set aside, simply retain Section C and remove the 30% set aside. This would retain the
language that as a provision of this title, the Director may require retention of a certain minimum of
native vegetation. He noted in the decision on the King County case, an individual examination of the
situation validated the set asides and a blanket requirement that a certain percent be retained without
consideration to how it was applied invalidated the set asides. He summarized a moratorium on the entire
Section C would impose a broader moratorium than was required by the King County case.
Councilmember Peterson asked how King County was responding to the decision. Mr. Park offered to
research King County’s response and provide that information at next week’s Council meeting.
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson recognized City Clerk Sandy Chase for the successful shredding event last Saturday.
He also thanked Edmonds-Woodway High School for the use of their site and the City of Lynnwood for
their Citizen Patrol.
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Wilson reported he has been unable to fulfill his duties on the Community Transit
Board and has stepped down from that position. He invited another Councilmember to take his place on
that Board and briefly described the process for being appointed to the Board.
Packet Page 15 of 487
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2009
Page 13
Council President Wilson expressed his thanks to Chief Information Officer Carl Nelson and Senior
Executive Council Assistant Jana Spellman for updating the City Council web pages. He advised there is
now a City Council home page with a great deal more information and each Councilmember will have
his/her own webpage. Because there is not a comprehensive policy regarding the content of the
individual webpages, he cautioned against including any campaign material, links to personal blogs, etc.
Council President Wilson expressed his appreciation to Councilmember Bernheim for the motion to
request a legal opinion regarding approval of the permit for the building at 523 Alder. He urged Council
to bring any large questions to the Council for review to ensure the Council was in agreement that
research by staff, consultants and the City Attorney was an appropriate expenditure of resources.
Councilmember Wambolt recalled a citizen’s question whether the City could regulate the size of
overhead cable installed by cable companies. He relayed City Attorney Scott Snyder’s response that the
size of cable was not within the City’s regulatory authority; it was controlled by the FCC and the State
Electrical Code.
Councilmember Wambolt recalled there had been a number of citizen inquiries regarding when the
sidewalk at 3rd & Dayton would be repaired. He reported new curbs and sidewalks would be installed
around the building at 3rd & Dayton when Dayton was repaved from Sunset to 5th Avenue at the end of
next month. The paving will be paid for via a grant the City received and the curb and sidewalks will be
paid for by the developer.
Councilmember Bernheim reported he has proposed an ordinance that would regulate the maximum
campaign contribution for Mayor and City Council races to $750. He invited the public to provide
comment in support or opposition to that amount or another amount. He noted his intent was not to have
Council discussion regarding this prior to the election but he was hopeful it could be considered in the
next 3-4 months.
With regard to green branding and developing a reputation as a green City, Councilmember Bernheim
commented it was the attitude of citizens that resulted in a green city, not the ordinances the City Council
passed. He referred to Planet Power News, which he receives because he pays a higher price for
solar/renewable energy, where it was reported Edmonds had 519 homes that participate in the program,
nearly as many as Everett. He applauded the citizens of Edmonds for disproportionately supporting
planet power. He hoped to increase participation in that program in the future.
Councilmember Peterson expressed his thanks to the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce for another
successful Taste of Edmonds and the tremendous amount of work done by the numerous volunteers.
12. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Packet Page 16 of 487
AM-2476 2.C.
Approve 08-25-09 City Council Meeting Minutes
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:09/01/2009
Submitted By:Sandy Chase Time:Consent
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of August 25, 2009.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the draft minutes.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attached is a copy of the draft minutes.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: 08-25-09 Draft City Council Minutes
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/27/2009 08:58 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/27/2009 10:18 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/27/2009 02:10 PM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy
Chase
Started On: 08/27/2009 08:56
AM
Final Approval Date: 08/27/2009
Packet Page 17 of 487
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 25, 2009
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
August 25, 2009
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
D. J. Wilson, Council President
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Steve Bernheim, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Rich Lindsay, Parks Maintenance Manager
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Ann Bullis, Building Official
Bio Park, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON,
TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON,
TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda
items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #113615 THROUGH #113748 DATED AUGUST 20,
2009 FOR $1,408.875.15. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS
#48456 THROUGH #48523 FOR THE PAY PERIOD AUGUST 1 THROUGH AUGUST 15,
2009 FOR $893,257.73.
C. APPROVAL OF LIST OF BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF THEIR
LIQUOR LICENSES WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD,
AUGUST 2009.
D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM DALE WORRELL
($50,000.00).
3. PRESENTATION ON THE 2010 CENSUS
Marcel Maddox, Partnership Specialist, Seattle Regional Census Center, explained the Seattle
Regional Census Center covered northern California, Oregon, Idaho, Washington and Alaska. The
Packet Page 18 of 487
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 25, 2009
Page 2
census includes the decennial census that occurs once every ten years as well as ongoing surveys. The
2010 census will use a short form that contains only ten questions and take approximately ten minutes to
complete.
One of his responsibilities is to make presentations in Snohomish County describing the importance of the
census and enlist cities’ support. The tagline for this census is that it is easy, safe and important. The
census is easy because there are only ten questions and takes only ten minutes to complete. The census is
safe because all census employees take a lifetime confidentiality oath which prevents the sharing of any
personal information. The census is important because $300 billion in federal funds are distributed each
year based on census information and political representation changes after each census. For example,
without a complete and accurate count, federal funds received by Edmonds may not represent the growth
and change in demographics that have occurred over the past ten years.
One aspect of the support the Census Bureau enlists from the City is a Complete Count Committee, a
group of individuals who advocate and work in concert with the Bureau to ensure the City’s concerns are
addressed and who marshal the City’s resources in support of census. He assured the resources were not
necessarily monetary, most were low or no cost such as adding census messaging to websites and utility
bills, posting census posters in public facilities, etc.
Councilmember Plunkett commented the public could access names and other personal information for
the 1920 and earlier censuses. He recalled after 70 years the information became public and associated
with names. Mr. Maddox answered 72 years was deemed the lifetime confidentiality oath. He agreed the
public could access census information from 72+ years ago.
Councilmember Plunkett commented the ten questions were less than previous censuses. He asked how
many questions were on the previous census questionnaire. Mr. Maddox answered he was unsure the
exact number of questions, explaining much of the information regarding income, etc. would be captured
via the American Community Survey, part of the ongoing surveys. The decennial census questionnaire
will be sent to everyone; the American Community Survey which contains many more questions is sent to
a smaller, random sample and the information extrapolated to cover the entire area.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if the U. S. Congress directed the Census Bureau to allow extrapolation or
has it been determined that each individual person must be counted. Mr. Maddox responded the
Constitution mandates that every person, regardless of immigration status, criminal history, etc., be
counted which has been done since 1790.
Councilmember Plunkett recalled there was a great deal of undercounting because many people did not
participate and consideration has been given to assuming the number of people who were not counted.
Mr. Maddox explained another of his responsibilities was to work with community and faith-based
organizations, schools, etc. to partner with groups and communities deemed in the past as hard to count.
He advised further information was available from their data specialist who could also provide a
presentation to the Council. Councilmember Plunkett concluded there had been discussion whether
under-represented individuals should simply be extrapolated because they could not be counted.
Councilmember Wambolt observed the census information indicated census questionnaires would be
mailed to households by U.S. Mail in March 2010 and that many households would receive a replacement
questionnaire in early April. Mr. Maddox explained address canvassing, people checking addresses to
ensure households were correctly identified, was the first major operation. Rural addresses and/or post
office boxes are also identified for in-person questionnaire delivery. If a questionnaire was mailed and a
response was not received, a second questionnaire would be mailed. The public will be asked to mail
their census questionnaire on or by Census Day April 1, 2010. If a questionnaire is not received, a census
Packet Page 19 of 487
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 25, 2009
Page 3
worker will make an in-person visit in the next major operation, Non-Response Follow-Up. The next
major operation will be Group Quarters in which groups of unrelated people live together such as
residents of dorms, adult family homes, assisted living, military, etc. are counted.
Mr. Maddox asked whether the Council wanted to form a Complete County Committee and if so, a
liaison needed to be appointed. Mayor Haakenson answered City Clerk Sandy Chase would be the City’s
contact person.
4. PRESENTATION ON THE AQUATICS FEASIBILITY STUDY.
Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh explained the Aquatics Feasibility Study was commissioned
to assist the City in determining the direction of its aquatic future due to the limited life expectancy of the
current Yost Pool. He thanked the advisory team of citizens and staff, the consultants and the hundreds of
citizens who pooled their expertise to produce the report.
Keith Comes, NAIC Architecture, advised another member of the consultant team, Doug Whitaker,
Water Technology, Inc., was unable to attend tonight’s meeting. He reiterated Mr. McIntosh’s thanks to
the members of the Aquatics Feasibility Study Committee. He explained the study process included
evaluation of the existing facility, site evaluation, market analysis, public process, project options and
recommended options.
Evaluation of Existing Facility
Yost Pool completing its 38th season
Costly maintenance issues
ADA accessibility issues
Antiquated mechanical systems
Aging pool house
Limited parking
Aquatic Trends
Pools that appeal to youth of all ages - indoor/outdoor family aquatic centers
Competitive swimming and diving
Wellness & therapy
Zero depth
Spray play feature
Participatory climbable water play structures
Flow channel
Activity zone
Water slides
Mr. Comes reviewed site options considered in the study:
Yost Pool
Beautiful natural setting
Topography and trees
Easy access from neighborhoods
Expansion potential may be limited
Former Woodway High School
Adequate site area
Packet Page 20 of 487
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 25, 2009
Page 4
Displace current outdoor courts/fields
Requires partnership with Edmonds School District
Isolated from neighborhood
Not available at this time
Harbor Square
Requires partnership with Harbor Square Athletic Club
Port of Edmonds supports idea
Urban location
Adequate site area
Cost may be reduced via partnership
Indoor pool at Harbor Square and outdoor pool at Yost Park
Mr. Comes commented during the public process, they learned the physical attributes of a site were not
necessarily the most important criteria; there was a very strong opinion that a pool should remain at Yost
Park and there was likely to be very strong opposition if the report did not recommend a pool at Yost
Park. As a result most of the options considered have a pool remain at Yost Park.
Ken Ballard, Ballard King Associates, described their market analysis that considered demographics,
existing aquatic facilities and market opportunities. Their demographic assessment considered not only
the City of Edmonds but two larger service areas beyond the boundaries of the City, to the north and
south as well as to the east. He explained this was done because the size of the market area will vary
depending on the type of facility and where it was located. Their assessment considered population, age,
income levels, ethnicity, etc. This provides information regarding the size of the market, orientation of
the facility, rates of participation, and pricing of services.
Their analysis considered utilization rates of Yost Pool as well as other amenities available in Edmonds
and the immediate surrounding area. They visited nearly all public, non-profit and for-profit facilities in
the area including private health clubs, Dale Turner YMCA, Shoreline Pool, and Lynnwood’s plans for a
larger renovated aquatic facility. Their assessment revealed there is a market for an aquatic facility.
He next reviewed key findings of a random, statistically valid, telephone survey conducted by Leisure
Vision of Edmonds residents during the months of January and February (324 respondents).
Mr. Comes reviewed the four concepts they developed and presented at a public meeting:
Concept 1 - Outdoor only pool at Yost Park
Reuse existing lap pool
Replace pool mechanical systems
New leisure pool
Replace existing pool house
Add parking
Site impacts
Project cost budget: $8.2 million
Estimated annual tax impact to average home: $35.51
Annual operation subsidy: $0-$50,000
Concept 2 - Indoor only pool at Yost Park
Demolish existing pool and pool house
New indoor lap pool
Packet Page 21 of 487
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 25, 2009
Page 5
New indoor leisure pool
Add parking
Site impacts
Project cost budget: $21.9 million
Estimated annual tax impact to average home: $95.40
Annual operation subsidy: $200,000-$300,000
Concept 3 - Outdoor and indoor pools at Yost Park
New indoor lap pool
New therapy pool and whirlpool
New outdoor leisure pool
Add parking
Site impacts
Project cost budget: $16.7 million
Estimated annual tax impact to average home: $72.61
Annual operation subsidy: $150,000-$250,000
Concept 4 + Concept 1 - Harbor Square & Yost Park
Partnership with Harbor Square Athletic Club
New indoor lap pool
New spray deck and outdoor lap pool
Includes outdoor pool at Yost Park
Project cost budget: $17.4 million
Estimated annual tax impact to average home: $75.49
Annual operation subsidy: $25,000-$125,000
Mr. Comes explained these four options were presented at a second public meeting. As a result of the
discussion, they were asked to consider the following two concepts:
Concept 5 - Yost Park
Replace the existing pool house at Yost Park
Renovate existing lap pool
$5 million project cost budget
Similar cost to option 1, result is a new 1970’s pool
No impact to annual subsidy
Does not address trends or recreation uses desired in the survey
Does not address desire for indoor pool
Concept 6 - Do nothing
Yost Pool would eventually close within a few years
Mr. Comes relayed their recommendation for Concept 3. This facility would provide the best balance for
the City, includes capital recreation facilities highly desired in the survey, outdoor recreation amenities
would be available during the summer, provides a different experience than is available in other
communities, adds a warm water therapy pool, and maintains the facility in Yost Park. He relayed current
lap swimmers expressed a desire to maintain outdoor lap swimming at Yost Park due to the beautiful
setting; this option does not allow that but would allow year-round lap swimming.
Packet Page 22 of 487
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 25, 2009
Page 6
He displayed conceptual images of a facility in Yost Park, explaining the intent would be for the
natatorium to be transparent, allowing users inside to see the view and from the outside reflect the trees to
minimize its impact on the natural setting.
Mr. Comes provided a secondary recommendation, Concept 1. This facility has the lowest capital costs
and operating subsidy, no competing outdoor recreation facilities, but has no indoor facility.
Mr. Ballard commented recreation amenities and activities contribute to a strong community identity and
quality of life. He identified the direct economic benefits of the four options (expenditures in addition to
entrance fees to the facility):
Option 1: $200,000 - $400,000
Option 2: $900,000 - $1.8 million
Option 3: $600,000 - $1 million
Option 4: $330,000 - $650,000
Mr. Ballard provided financing options for the four options with regard to principal, term, interest rate,
annual debt, 2009 accessed value, rate per thousand, average home value, annual impact and monthly
impact. He noted the cost of a facility could be reduced via partnerships, fundraising, grants and other
sources such as the formation of a Parks & Recreation Service Area (PRSA).
Councilmember Wambolt referred to the Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District near Beaverton,
Oregon, commenting that may be an option for the Council to consider. For example, the costs of parks
and recreation and the senior center, $3.5 million, could be transferred to a PRSA. This would remove
those costs from the City’s budget, create a new taxing authority, and provide a consistent funding source
for the senior center and parks. Mr. Ballard cautioned Oregon’s laws with regard to establishing Park &
Recreation Districts were more liberal than Washington. That option was available in Washington in a
slightly different format. There is a PRSA in the Northshore area that was established to support the
Northshore Senior Center. PRSA’s tend to be for a single purpose and in most instances, a PRSA is
formed to broaden the tax base for a facility such as was done in Northshore. In this area, it would be
difficult to expand beyond the City’s current boundaries as most of the neighboring cities have aquatic
facilities and likely would not be interested in joining a PRSA.
Councilmember Wambolt commented the Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District only includes
Beaverton and a small unincorporated area of Washington County.
Councilmember Plunkett asked why the consultants were not enthusiastic about forming a special district.
Mr. Ballard explained there were a number of complications and it took a great deal of time to establish a
PRSA and get the funding in place. They have considered PRSAs in other areas of Seattle where it would
be possible to expand the tax base. In Edmonds, a PRSA could remove the expense from the City and
place it in a district but because the boundaries could not be expanded to increase the tax base, it would
not reduce the cost to the taxpayer. Councilmember Plunkett summarized a PRSA was an option for a
funding mechanism but there was a little difference between a PRSA or the City doing a levy.
For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Ballard reviewed the estimated net subsidy (revenue less expense) for
each option:
Current: $100,000
Option 1: $0-$50,000
Option 2: $200,000-$300,000
Option 3: $150,000-$250,000
Packet Page 23 of 487
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 25, 2009
Page 7
Option 4: $25,000-$125,000
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether outdoor lap swimming could be accommodated in Option 3. He
referred to the outdoor Magnolia pool that includes recreation and lap. Mr. Comes answered it could be
done. He explained the hardcore lap swimmers, swim teams, and fitness swimmers like a lower water
temperature than the users of a recreation pool. Councilmember Plunkett assumed the lap swimmers at
Yost Pool were casual swimmers and may not be as affected by water temperature. Mr. Comes agreed
outdoor lap lanes could be added within the recreation tank without impacting the cost.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT,
TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Council President Wilson asked where in the report the economic impact information was located. Mr.
Ballard answered it was on pages 105-107. Council President Wilson asked how those numbers were
determined. Mr. Ballard acknowledged it was difficult to do detailed economic impact projections at this
point. They used assumptions based on the increase in admissions and a rate of approximately $10 per
person. He cautioned the economic impact projections were very conservative at this point in the process.
The economic impact for Option 2 (all indoor) was higher because it had year-round use and was a larger
facility. He clarified the $10 per person was money spent on the trip to/from the pool and did not include
the admission price. He advised the $10 was determined via reducing the amount cited by the Visitor’s
Bureau for a more in-depth economic study for an aquatic facility in Bellevue.
Mr. Comes commented a facility with outdoor recreation would be unique to this area and would attract
residents who stay for a few hours as well as people who stay all day, buy lunch, etc.
Council President Wilson asked whether Concept 4 +Concept 1 (Harbor Square) had been reviewed by
the Harbor Square management. He recalled their desire during early conversations to retain the tennis
courts. Mr. Comes answered they have had multiple conversations with Harbor Square ownership. Their
architect prepared an option with a similar concept that eliminated more site area than Concept 4.
Council President Wilson asked if cities in Washington typically used a 20-year bond that required a 60%
voter approval rate or a 6-year bond that required a 50% voter approval rate. Mr. Ballard stated it would
depend on the magnitude of the project. Most of the options were too expensive for a 6-year payback. In
his experience, most indoor facilities were at least 15 years, a 20 year bond was provided as a baseline.
He noted a 6-year payback would be tax intensive and approximately triple the per year cost to taxpayers.
Council President Wilson asked whether quotas were used in the survey such as age or income. Mr.
Ballard answered age and income information was used to ensure the responses met the demographics of
the City. The randomness of the survey typically represents the City’s demographics. It was his
understanding there was no weighting done in the survey.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT,
TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Bernheim commented the analysis and options were very good and would cost the
average household between $30 and $100/year. He recalled a Planning Board Member and he visited the
pool project at the private Klahaya Pool, commenting it was possible to spend less and obtain a very good
project. Mr. Comes agreed, noting they did not want to provide too low an estimate. He pointed out the
Klahaya Pool project was a pool-only replacement; the concepts presented included the replacement of a
Packet Page 24 of 487
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 25, 2009
Page 8
6500 square foot pool house on a difficult site which accounts for a majority of the difference between the
Klahaya Pool and the concepts they presented.
Councilmember Bernheim commented consideration could not be given to only the cost of a facility, the
resulting multi-faceted facility would provide a great benefit to the community that was not measurable in
dollars and cents. The facility would provide a place for team sports, a place for teens and may also
increase residents’ property values.
Councilmember Peterson commented the site benefits of Yost Park were also drawbacks, specifically
parking. A larger facility would require additional parking which would require removing trees. He
asked whether any consideration was given to traffic impacts. Mr. Comes answered consideration of
traffic impacts was not part of their scope of work. He agreed tree removal would be required as a pool
would impact the topography. One of the priorities of any project would need to be maintaining as many
trees as possible. He pointed out in the existing 65 parking stalls, users feel like they are parking in the
woods and any parking expansion would need to maintain that character which would likely result a less
efficient, more expensive lot. He pointed out in the aerial photographs of Yost Pool, the parking lot was
not visible because it was covered by the tree canopy. He suggested the City also consider alternatives to
reduce the parking impact such as allowing a reduction in parking due to bus service, bike parking,
carpool spaces, etc.
Councilmember Peterson asked if the parking would need to be doubled. Mr. Comes estimated twice the
parking would be the minimum. The diagrams illustrate approximately twice the current 65 spaces.
Councilmember Peterson suggested the transportation plan consider the impact of a facility on nearby
intersections.
Councilmember Plunkett observed the cost of Concept 1 was $8 million and Concept 3 was twice that
amount. He anticipated Concept 1, outdoor lap and outdoor recreation, may satisfy the vast majority of
Edmonds residents; however, the consultant’s recommendation was Concept 3 which includes indoor lap.
He asked what was so compelling about indoor lap that justified twice the cost. Mr. Comes answered the
survey results indicated 32% wanted an indoor option and 28% wanted both indoor and outdoor. Mr.
Ballard noted in addition to the surveys, people at the community meetings expressed a desire for an
indoor option. Councilmember Plunkett concluded the desire was not simply indoor lap, but an indoor
option. Mr. Comes explained the indoor pool was designated as a lap pool; it could be used for lap
swimming, lessons, recreation swimming, etc.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Diane Buckshnis, Edmonds, expressed concern with the item on tonight’s agenda concerning an interim
zoning ordinance suspending the application of Chapter 23.90.040(C), placing a moratorium on the
retention of vegetation on land zoned RS-12 and RS-20, requiring the issue to be reviewed by the
Planning Board and holding a public hearing. She was concerned the public was not aware of this code as
it was not included in the agenda packet. With approval of this interim ordinance, the Council would
instantly suspend the retention of a minimum of 30% native vegetation on subdividable and undeveloped
parcels zoned RS-12 and RS-20 as well as eliminate the requirement for providing a vegetation
management plan. She suggested the Council not approve the interim ordinance and instead refer it to the
Planning Board for a public hearing to determine public sentiment.
Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, referred to the interim zoning ordinance and the comments he provided at the
last Council meeting, commenting none of the Council’s discussion regarding the interim ordinance
resolved his concern that the ordinance was unnecessary. He was concerned to learn the ordinance was
Packet Page 25 of 487
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 25, 2009
Page 9
referred to the City Attorney by the Planning Department a year after the ruling. He questioned the
existence of a crisis when a year had passed before the City responded. He reiterated his recommendation
that the Planning Board, followed by the City Council, address this issue with the existing code and
protections in place. Next, with regard to the trees proposed to be removed near Horizon Bank, he
suggested a more prudent and less costly solution would be to apply asphalt or concrete to minimize the
sidewalk discontinuity that may create a trip hazard, a method used on Seattle streets. He referred to a
meeting citizens had with Seattle arborist Nolan Rundquist and his statement that no tree exists that only
grow down and not laterally; whether the sidewalk lifts is primarily related to the depth of the hardpan.
He pointed out six of the seven spindly deciduous trees the City planted after removing brush and hydro
seeding at the end of his street had died. Planting fir or cedar trees in this area would have been less
costly, increased the survivability of the trees, minimized maintenance and provided more habitats.
Dick Van Hollebeke, Edmonds, a member of the Aquatic Feasibility Study Committee, complimented
the consultant team. He preferred Concept 3, the indoor and outdoor pool option, which would cost the
average household $6.05/month. He suggested including maintenance in the bond issue, a cost of
approximately $12-$15/year per household. He pointed out people live in Edmonds because 1) the
beautiful area, 2) the people, and 3) amenities including the pool. He offered to spearhead the citizen
effort to put a bond issue on the ballot. He suggested scheduling a public meeting to gather citizen input
and a year from November place a bond measure on the ballot.
Monda Van Hollebeke, Edmonds, offered to assist Dick with the citizen effort for a bond issue.
Dennis Weaver, Edmonds, spoke in support of preserving Edmonds’ mature trees, specifically the
canopy of shade trees west of Horizon Bank to 4th Avenue on the north side of Dayton. He noted
Edmonds was the dream of many community designers - walkable, comforting, authentic, historic, and
with character. He pointed out the environmental benefits provided by mature trees and suggested in
view of the tight budget, the City restrict the expenditure of funds to the inexpensive grinding of sidewalk
lips, leveling a sidewalk panel, or installing a small amount of asphalt versus the more expensive method
of removal, restoration and replanting. He referred to the Council’s 2009 Sustainability Agenda, pointed
out the City’s mature trees would assist with branding and marketing the City as a green destination. He
commented City resident Barbara Mercer, before leaving for Europe, told him she expected to see the
trees by Horizon Bank when she returned.
Rebecca Wolfe, Edmonds, referred to the interim zoning ordinance regarding the retention of vegetation
on subdividable or undeveloped parcels, pointing out the narrative description stated a recent court case in
King County invalidated its set asides in rural areas. Edmonds is a city and should not be required to base
its ordinances on decisions in rural King County. She referred to the statement that the City’s ordinance
had some similarities to King County’s ordinance and questioned the City’s response to adopt a
moratorium on a critical areas ordinance. She referred to the alternative approach, require site-specific
critical area studies in lieu of a uniform percentage approach, asking what criteria would be used for a
site-by-site review, preferring the Planning Board conduct their review before adopting a moratorium.
She pointed out the top priority of the group that prevailed in the appeal, Citizens Alliance for Property
Rights, was saving taxpayers money and not the environment.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, described the fire on the island in Lake Ballinger and the fire department’s
response. He commented on ash from the fire on several homes, noting most homes on the lake have
pumps that draw water from the lake.
George Murray, Edmonds, complimented the presentation on Yost Pool, noting it was good to see
people unite regarding an issue that was so important to the community. He expressed support for an
indoor pool with a zero entry. He noted there may be funds available from health organizations that
Packet Page 26 of 487
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 25, 2009
Page 10
underwrite pool programs. Next, he referred to a presentation he attended regarding the $1.3 million
library levy on the November ballot. The library plans to reduce senior administrative staff salaries by
3% in 2010, freeze staff salaries in 2010, delay replacement of the library’s computer system, reduce
replacement of manuals and materials, not fill open positions, and all non-library programs are being
eliminated. He noted the presentation was well received because the library system was sharing the
burden.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the evaluation of the former Woodway High School in the
Aquatic Feasibility Study. He suggested the City and School District administration reach an agreement
to allow a pool on that site. He also supported an outdoor pool at Yost Park, recalling the study cited the
popularity of the natural setting of the outdoor Yost Pool.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to Mr. Van Hollebeke’s comment regarding including maintenance and
operating costs in a pool bond and requested the consultants add a note to their report regarding the
possibility of financing M&O. Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh responded there would need
to be two separate bond measures, contingent on the passage of each other, one asking for construction
funds and a second for M&O.
6. INITIAL DISCUSSION ON ISSUES RELATING TO ROOF DESIGN STANDARDS.
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained recent construction in a multi family zone raised a number of
questions about how roof standards have been applied in the RM zones. As a result Building Official
Ann Bullis and he reviewed 20+ years of history of multi family projects in RM zones in an effort to
determine how roof standards have been applied and how the rules have been interpreted. He displayed
an aerial photograph of a multi family building approved in 1989 that illustrates a roof that dips into the
center portion of the building. In the center portion there are drainage features, flat roof sections, etc. that
is below the highest portion of the roof but not necessarily below 25 feet.
He displayed photographs of buildings constructed in the last 1990s that illustrate a pitch at the edge of
the building and then the roof dips down, often into a series of peaks and valleys. This presents a
challenge for getting rid of the water that collects in the valleys, necessitating the use of “cricket”
features. Crickets are placed on top of the roof where there is a valley to collect and direct water toward a
drain. The crickets are not typically 4-in-12, but as low a pitch as possible to still collect and move the
water, often ¼-in-12. He noted the crickets were not technically part of the roof structure. He displayed
several photographs of buildings with roofs that have peaks and valleys, many with cricket systems to
collect and redirect water toward drains. When reviewing plans, crickets were sometimes shown on the
plans and sometimes they were not.
History reveals it is impractical to expect a roof on a large RM building to span its entire roof area with a
uniformly pitched roof, complicated roof systems have been developed including internal wells and
valleys;; crickets have been used to solve drainage problems arising from complicated roof designs. The
Zoning Code states the following:
ECDC 16.30.030(A): Roof only may extend five feet above the stated height limit if all portions
of the roof above the stated height limit have a slope of 4 inches in 12 inches or greater.
ECDC 21.85.070 Roof: Roof means the top covering of a building or structure
The Zoning Code does not define a cricket and it appears they have been allowed for the past 20+ years.
Another factor to consider is roofs must achieve a certain structural integrity and achieve their purpose -
protect the structure and provide adequate drainage. He cautioned the City should not mandate designs
Packet Page 27 of 487
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 25, 2009
Page 11
through zoning that are impractical to build, create structural or maintenance issues or add unnecessarily
to the cost. Questions that arise from the current code include:
Dictionary definition of roof includes dormers, gables as part of the roof
Where does a roof start?
Pitch is specified in the code but roof form is not
Roofs have many forms and features - peak of the roof where planes meet
Non-structural drainage features such as crickets
He suggested the City needed to get away from code provisions that did not achieve what the Council
wanted to accomplish. He commented design features include appearance from the street; light, air, mass;
materials; and interest and scale. With regard to what is good design and how it can be legislated, he
suggested different standards be developed for different RM zones such as on Highway 99 and corridors,
downtown and neighborhood centers as well as giving consideration to visual preferences. As an
example he displayed an aerial photograph of two RM buildings with similar peak and valley roof
systems and the same buildings as viewed from the street, one with few architectural details, the other
with a great deal of architectural detail.. He concluded roof systems and design do not equate in the
current code.
Mr. Chave recalled the Comprehensive Plan was developed in the 1990s, citizens were asked to rate a
series of building photographs. He displayed photographs of a 3 story multi family building and a 1½
story multi family building that residents rated positively and the same. He displayed photographs of a
single family home, multi family building and a mixed use residential/commercial building that residents
rated the same as the two multi family buildings. He summarized in many cases, use and scale were not
the most important factor, people react primarily to design.
Going forward he suggested the City focus on what they wanted the code to do and the rules should
consider and be consistent between zoning requirements (height, bulk and scale), design (appearance),
and building code (structure, maintenance). Currently these factors are not in synch. Another issue is
single family in RM zones; in the BC zone single family structures are allowed but only to a height of 25
feet. In the RM zones, single family structures may be the same height as multi family structures and
only single family setbacks are required which are typically smaller.
Council President Wilson commented the purpose of this item tonight was to bring the Council up to
speed with conversations staff has been having with Councilmember Bernheim regarding the building at
523 Alder. The September 22 agenda will include further discussion on the issues Mr. Chave identified.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether any changes would need to be reviewed by the Planning Board.
Mr. Chave agreed they would. Councilmember Plunkett commented staff has accepted the cricket
systems because they do not impact the streetscape. Mr. Chave agreed. He commented when Ms. Bullis
and he reviewed the building plans, sometimes crickets were shown, sometimes they were not and often
they were very difficult to discern in the plans. Typically the focus of staff and the ADB is on appearance
and overall elevation and often the crickets were overlooked.
Councilmember Bernheim asked whether literal enforcement of the slope requirement was impractical in
every case. Mr. Chave answered the interaction of the building code, slope requirement and zoning led to
impractical solutions and maintenance issues waiting to happen.
Councilmember Bernheim referred to the photographs Mr. Chave displayed of buildings constructed as
early as 1988, pointing out the current code was adopted by Ordinance 3627 in 2007. He asked whether
the site development standard of 4-in-12 were in existence when the buildings Mr. Chave displayed were
Packet Page 28 of 487
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 25, 2009
Page 12
constructed. Mr. Chave answered that provision in the RM zone has not changed since 1981.
Councilmember Bernheim suggested if the literal wording of the law is disregarded, and the roof design
of the building does not comply with the 4-in-12, then the developer is being allowed to construct a larger
building than otherwise would be allowed. He commented the mass was as importance as the design.
Mr. Chave responded mass and roof design are entirely different.
Councilmember Bernheim asked if any buildings were built during this period that complied with the
spirit of the 25+5 height limit. Mr. Chave answered some buildings clearly had simpler 4-in-12 roof
designs.
Councilmember Bernheim pointed out “structure” was not referenced in the code, only that all portions of
the roof above the stated height limit have a slope of 4-in-12 or greater. With regard to different
standards in different neighborhoods, he noted the RM and BD zones required all portions of the roof
above 25 feet to be a certain manner and the BD5 zone required all parts of the building above 25 to be a
certain manner. Mr. Chave clarified his intent was RM zones in different areas of the City.
Councilmember Bernheim noted there were at least four variations of the roof requirement above 25 feet.
City Attorney Bio Park reported the City Attorney’s office was asked to work with staff to develop a
correct interpretation of the code. Therefore they looked at the plain language and asked staff what roof
structure could be built applying the plain language of the code. Their response was it was impractical
but it would not result in an absurd situation. They may be strange looking and not very efficient, but the
plain meaning of the code could be interpreted to build a functioning roof. The City’s experience in
interpreting the code, given that the definition of roofs does not include crickets and given that the
definition of heights includes several exceptions to what can exceed the building height such as chimneys,
vents and elevator penthouses, the fact that crickets were specifically excluded was an indication that the
Council intended to exclude crickets.
Councilmember Plunkett recalled when Mr. Chave referred to the plain meaning of the code, he
mentioned impractical; Mr. Park said it the result would be strange. He asked for examples of building
design that applied the plain meaning of the code. Mr. Chave answered they would be similar to existing
buildings; the difference would be crickets may disappear. One solution would be to construct a roof
such that the interior structure sloped. This would result in additional expense as each truss would need
to be individually designed versus a set of uniform trusses.
Councilmember Plunkett commented a significant increase in cost would be absorbed by the purchasers
rather than the builder and could result in an increase in the cost of housing in the community. Mr. Chave
answered it could, which was the importance of a design discussion and not considering one aspect in
isolation. Once the Council determined what they wanted to achieve, the rules to achieve that could be
developed. The problem now is the disconnect between the zoning code and the building code.
7. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON A PROPOSED RESOLUTION RELATED TO
DELAYING THE REMOVAL OF TREES AT 5TH AVENUE AND DAYTON STREET, NEAR
THE SITE OF HORIZON BANK.
Public Works Director Noel Miller explained staff’s proposal was to replace the Plum and Sweet Gum
trees in front of Horizon Bank with Bowhall Maples in accordance with the 2006 Street Tree Plan. In
addition staff proposes to replace the Sweet Gum trees at the 5th and Dayton intersection with October
Glory Maples in conjunction with the Daley Street overlay project. As part of the overlay, the curb ramps
must be replaced at the intersection which will damage the tree roots and reduce the health of the trees.
The trees are recommended for replacement due to the shallow and continued root growth which cause
the sidewalks to uplift, increasing trip hazards and claims against the City. Staff recommends removal of
Packet Page 29 of 487
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 25, 2009
Page 13
the existing street trees on Dayton and replanting with a tree species in accordance with the Street Tree
Plan that will be less disruptive to downtown sidewalks. Staff is sensitive to the reduction of canopy;
however, it would reduce trip claims, allow planting of trees whose roots that are less invasive and would
eventually create an attractive canopy.
Councilmember Wambolt asked why the trees on the Horizon Bank property were proposed to be
removed. Mr. Miller answered staff planned to do the sidewalk improvements in conjunction with the
Dayton Street overlay project. Based on experience with the street trees on Main Street as well as other
streets in the downtown area, he anticipated the trees would lift the sidewalk in this area. Another
solution is to install asphalt or concrete shims but the result would be an undulating sidewalk in the
future. Councilmember Wambolt asked about the trees north of the sidewalk. Mr. Miller answered the
Plum trees were in the City right-of-way, the Sweet Gum trees were along the Horizon Bank property.
The Sweet Gum trees have a very shallow, fast growing root structure and tend to uplift the sidewalks.
He acknowledged the trees may not be lifting the sidewalk dramatically now, however, based on their
history, it would be efficient to address the Sweet Gum trees at the same time as the overlay.
Councilmember Bernheim thanked staff for the materials included in the agenda packet. He pointed out
none of presentations at the public hearings on the Street Tree Plan mentioned the downtown streetscape
nor were there any public comments regarding the downtown streetscape. He noted the Street Tree Plan
required a 3.5 inch caliper tree downtown; however, all the trees that have been planted are 1.5 - 2.5 inch
caliper due to the unavailability of large trees or because the larger caliper trees will not fit within the
utility vault. He noted a 2.5 - 3.5 inch caliper tree was nearly twice the size of a 1.5 inch caliper tree. His
consideration when cutting trees was whether their removal would improve safety, preserve the canopy
and retain the image that attracted visitors. He commented removing existing trees, flat sidewalks,
replanting trees of a uniform size and looking forward to their growth in 7-8 years was one image; unless
there was some urgency, he preferred the lower cost approach such as grinding uplifted portions of the
sidewalk. He pointed out there would not be an appreciable increase in the City’s insurance premiums
regardless of the decision regarding the tree replacements. He concluded it was unnecessary to remove
the trees but it was part of an overall tree update.
Councilmember Bernheim referred to a scientific study he provided that indicated downtowns were
healthier economically when shoppers were surrounded by trees. He pointed out Kirkland, Issaquah,
Seattle and many other cities were installing flexible sidewalks. Although they were a greater cost, the
recycled tire material allowed the sidewalk to be constructed around the tree roof invasion which results a
safe sidewalk and preservation of the tree canopy. He also noted WCIA indicated it was the City’s
discretion whether to remove the trees.
Mayor Haakenson summarized staff would continue to follow the adopted Street Tree Plan unless the
Council provided specific direction not to or requested specific trees not be removed.
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM,
TO RETAIN THE THREE SWEET GUM ON THE HORIZON BANK PROPERTY AND NOT
REMOVE THEM AT THIS TIME.
Councilmember Bernheim explained it was not his intent to involve the Council in every tree removal and
recognized it was an executive responsibility. He wanted to moderate the attitude that trees that were not
causing an uplift problem should be removed as part of an overall update without first considering the
possibility of a rubber sidewalk. He cautioned the City could not brand itself as a green city if they were
continually removing trees.
Packet Page 30 of 487
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 25, 2009
Page 14
Councilmember Plunkett thanked Councilmember Bernheim for his efforts, acknowledging it was
administration’s responsibility to carry out the policy but it was the Council’s responsibility to set policy.
If the Council’s policy was not to remove trees, that needed to be stated.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT,
THAT THE COUNCIL ENCOURAGE THE ADMINISTRATION TO LOOK INTO
ALTERNATIVES TO TREE REMOVAL INCLUDING RUBBER SIDEWALKS AND NEW
TECHNOLOGIES AND IN THE COURSE OF CONSIDERING COMPLIANCE WITH THE
STREET TREE PLAN, THEY CONSULT WITH NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES WHO ARE
ACTIVELY IMPLEMENTING ALTERNATIVES.
Mayor Haakenson suggested the Council review and revise the Street Tree Plan. Councilmember
Bernheim pointed out the Street Tree Plan did not require removal of these trees.
Council President Wilson inquired about Councilmember Bernheim’s intent with regard to encouraging
consideration of alternatives. Councilmember Bernheim answered his intent was for staff to consider
alternatives including new technologies such as getting an estimate for a rubber sidewalk.
Council President Wilson asked Mr. Miller to comment on the use of rubber sidewalk material. Mr.
Miller answered in certain situations a rubber sidewalk would be workable such as in a residential area
where there is a curb planter strip that provides separation between the street tree and the sidewalk as
there would be adequate space for contouring. This was problematic in areas where the sidewalk was
lifting above the elevation of the curb as it created a higher drop from the curb into the street. Rather than
a standard curb drop of 6 inches, the tree roots raise the sidewalk and increase the drop to 10+ inches.
Installing rubber sidewalk material would not eliminate the increase in the drop. He agreed to keep the
Council updated on staff’s contact with vendors and other cities.
Council President Wilson asked when the Street Tree Plan was scheduled for review by the Council. Mr.
Miller answered there was not a regular cycle for review but due to the number of issues that have arisen
recently, he recommended placing it on staff’s work plan in early 2010.
Council President Wilson suggested a moratorium on the removal of trees until the Council reviewed the
Street Tree Plan.
Councilmember Plunkett suggested the Council either propose amendments to the Street Tree Plan, or
adopt a moratorium and in the meantime develop alternatives for a January update of the Street Tree Plan.
Councilmember Peterson commented his concern with the moratorium was ADA compliance.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
THE SECOND.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT,
TO ESTABLISH A MORATORIUM ON STREET TREE REMOVAL WITH A JANUARY
DEADLINE TO REVIEW THE STREET TREE PLAN.
Councilmember Bernheim clarified his motion would include trees proposed to be removed on Dayton.
Mayor Haakenson noted the Dayton Street overlay was an opportunity to replace the trees; staff wanted to
avoid digging up Dayton Street a second time to remove and replace the trees in the future. Mr. Miller
advised there were three street trees in the parking strip west of the intersection and four trees at the
Packet Page 31 of 487
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 25, 2009
Page 15
intersection, a total of seven trees. Mayor Haakenson advised the Dayton overlay has been delayed and
was now scheduled to begin September 14. The sidewalk at 3rd Avenue will be replaced at the same time.
Councilmember Bernheim requested the Plum trees be excluded and the Sweet Gum trees in the parking
lot be retained. Mr. Miller clarified the Plum trees could be removed; however, the Sweet Gum trees at
the intersection in front of the bank and the Red Twig restaurant needed to be retained as well as the
Sweet Gum trees by the Horizon Bank parking lot. Councilmember Bernheim agreed. Mr. Miller
commented the Plum trees may not be removed.
Councilmember Wambolt inquired whether the ADA ramps could still be installed. Mr. Miller answered
they could, the concern was the ramps would be damaged by the tree roots if the trees were not removed.
Council President Wilson restated the motion as follows:
PUT A MORATORIUM ON ALL STREET TREE REMOVAL IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS
INDEFINITELY WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE THREE PLUM TREES ON DAYTON.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. REVIEW AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE SUSPENDING
THE APPLICATION OF CHAPTER 23.90.040(C), RETENTION OF VEGETATION ON
SUBDIVIDABLE, UNDEVELOPED PARCELS.
Mayor Haakenson recalled several citizens voiced concern about the moratorium, why it took so long for
the City to take action in response to the July 2008 decision and why there was now a rush. City Attorney
Bio Park responded his understanding was staff had been discussing this with the City Attorney’s office
for several months; the City Attorney has been analyzing whether the City’s ordinance was comparable to
King County’s ordinance and recently concluded it was. He noted the application of King County’s
ordinance to rural zoning was not pertinent to the court’s decision to invalidate King County’s ordinance.
King County had established a set aside of up to 50% depending on lot size and there was no
proportionality to the specific features of the property to support the set aside.
Mayor Haakenson asked the risk to the City of referring the issue to the Planning Board without a
moratorium. Mr. Park answered there were pending applications in the City that may be impacted by the
City’s current 30% set aside. If the requirements were changed to site-specific critical area studies, a
change to the code would be required and applications would be vested under the current code. The risk
would be an applicant may challenge the City’s code under the King County decision.
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained when the critical area regulations were adopted, they were
believed to be defensible because RS-12 and RS-20 zones were in and around critical areas, establishing a
nexus for the requirement versus King County’s rule which applied to all rural areas. Staff began
discussions with the City Attorney when the ruling on King County’s set aside was made. One approach
considered was rather than via critical areas was via the subdivision regulations, low impact development
standards, etc. The difficulty now is an application has been submitted that would require retention of the
30% native vegetation under the current rules.
For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Chave explained if the Council adopted the moratorium, the
application would not be required to provide the 30% set aside. Without the moratorium, the existing
rules would apply and retention of 30% native vegetation would be required. Mr. Chave recalled a
previous applicant who later did not proceed with their application raised the question and said the City’s
rule was inappropriate.
Packet Page 32 of 487
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 25, 2009
Page 16
Councilmember Plunkett asked if the moratorium provided the best protection. Mr. Chave answered staff
was convinced by the City Attorney’s office that a moratorium was the most prudent action to take.
Councilmember Bernheim asked where in the materials the City Attorney provided that opinion. Mr.
Chave answered it was verbal at this point. Councilmember Bernheim said he was unable to accept a
verbal recommendation to abandon the critical areas ordinance. He asked if the existing ordinance
allowed for an individual assessment of a subdivision based on critical areas. Mr. Park answered a
change to the code to require individualized study/assessment would not apply to applications that were
vested under the current code.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Peterson commented if the moratorium were approved, an applicant would not need to
retain 30% native vegetation; if the Council did not pass the moratorium and an applicant successfully
challenged the code, they would not need to retain 30% native vegetation. Mr. Park commented it was
very likely the City’s requirement could be challenged under the King County case in Superior Court.
The strategy with regard to defending a challenge would need to be discussed in Executive Session.
Councilmember Peterson commented if the code were not changed until the Planning Board had an
opportunity to review the requirement and an applicant successfully challenged it, the City had a better
chance of protecting its critical areas. Mr. Park responded a challenge would likely include takings and
constitutional damages, etc. that may or may not be upheld. He summarized it was likely additional
damages would be sought by a plaintiff. Councilmember Peterson asked whether damages were sought in
the King County case and if they were significant. Mr. Park answered issues were bifurcated; first the
adjudication of the merits and if plaintiffs prevail, damages are adjudicated separately. He offered to
research the damages in the King County case.
Councilmember Wambolt pointed out there would also be legal costs associated with a challenge. Mr.
Park agreed, advising legal costs for such a case would not be covered by WCIA. Councilmember
Wambolt asked if the City would be required to pay the plaintiff’s legal costs if a challenge were
successful. Mr. Park answered yes if they prevailed on certain constitutional issues.
Council President Wilson concluded the potential downside of any future litigation was outweighed by
waiving the critical areas ordinance.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM,
TO SEND THE MATTER TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR REGULAR AND NORMAL
REVIEW. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS
Council President Wilson reported the Lake Ballinger Forum met today and are moving into the next
phase which is to identify a governance structure to implement the Strategic Action Plan such as an
Interlocal Agreement or creating a new agency or lake management district with its own taxing authority.
Councilmember Plunkett reported the Historic Preservation Commission will be presenting properties to
the Council for inclusion on the Historic Registry.
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson reported he will make a presentation on the Fire District 1 contract offer at the
September 1 Council meeting. City Clerk Sandy Chase distributed a binder to each Councilmember
Packet Page 33 of 487
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 25, 2009
Page 17
containing all the pertinent information. Mayor Haakenson advised documents would be available for
citizen review at the September 1 meeting and links would be provided on the City’s website on
September 2. He invited Councilmembers to contact him with any questions.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the binder contained all the information the Council would need.
Mayor Haakenson answered it did, including questions Councilmembers have asked in the past.
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Wilson thanked Mayor Haakenson for distributing the information regarding Fire
District 1. He explained the schedule would include a presentation by City Attorney Scott Snyder on
September 15 regarding other options for regionalization of fire service such as an RFA, reverse
annexation and ways other communities have addressed the issue. Public comment will be accepted at
the September 22 Council meeting. A joint meeting with the Council and Fire District 1 Commissioners
is scheduled for the September 29 Council meeting. At the October 6 Council meeting, he invited the
Mountlake Terrace Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and City Manager as well as the Brier Mayor to speak to the
Council regarding their experience as cities that contract with Fire District 1 for fire service. Public
comment will be accepted on October 6 and again on October 20. The October 20 agenda will include a
Council work session on the Fire District 1 proposal. He anticipated the Council may take a vote at the
October 27 meeting with regard to contracting for fire service with Fire District 1.
12. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:16 p.m.
Packet Page 34 of 487
AM-2477 2.D.
Approval of Claim Checks
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:09/01/2009
Submitted By:Debbie Karber
Submitted For:Lorenzo Hines Time:Consent
Department:Finance Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:Approved for Consent Agenda
Information
Subject Title
Approval of claim checks #113749 through #113863 dated August 27, 2009 for $699,307.91.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approval of claim checks.
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:2009
Revenue:
Expenditure:$699,307.91
Fiscal Impact:
Claims: $699,307.91
Attachments
Link: Claim cks 8-27-09
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Finance Debra Sharp 08/27/2009 02:15 PM APRV
2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/27/2009 02:18 PM APRV
3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/27/2009 02:33 PM APRV
4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/27/2009 02:43 PM APRV
Form Started By: Debbie
Karber
Started On: 08/27/2009 11:27
AM
Final Approval Date: 08/27/2009
Packet Page 35 of 487
Packet Page 36 of 487
08/27/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
11:23:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
113749 8/27/2009 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 809203 SOFTBALL T-SHIRTS
SOFTBALL T-SHIRTS
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 1,481.11
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 140.71
Total :1,621.82
113750 8/27/2009 065413 ALPINE TREE SERVICE 2049 CITY PARK TREE REMOVAL
REMOVAL OF TREES @ CITY PARK
125.000.640.576.800.480.00 525.00
9.5% Sales Tax
125.000.640.576.800.480.00 44.88
Total :569.88
113751 8/27/2009 066025 ANDERSON, ANGIE ANDERSON0822 PLAZA ROOM MONITOR
PLAZA ROOM MONITOR~
001.000.640.574.100.410.00 285.00
Total :285.00
113752 8/27/2009 069751 ARAMARK 655-4447796 UNIFORM SERVICES
PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 34.04
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 3.23
Total :37.27
113753 8/27/2009 069751 ARAMARK 655-4435750 21580001
UNIFORM SERVICE
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 143.66
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 13.65
Total :157.31
113754 8/27/2009 072880 ARNOLD, JILL ARNOLD0825 DAYCAMP REIMBURSEMENT
1Page:
Packet Page 37 of 487
08/27/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
11:23:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
113754 8/27/2009 (Continued)072880 ARNOLD, JILL
DAYCAMP SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.530.310.00 179.86
Total :179.86
113755 8/27/2009 064343 AT&T 425-771-0152 STATION #16 FAX
STATION #16 FAX
001.000.510.522.200.420.00 39.72
Total :39.72
113756 8/27/2009 001835 AWARDS SERVICE INC 72388 BASEBALL TROPHIES
SUMMER LEAGUE 2009~
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 220.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 20.95
Total :241.45
113757 8/27/2009 001702 AWC EMPLOY BENEFIT TRUST September 2009 SEPTEMBER 2009 AWC PREMIUMS
09/09 Fire Pension AWC Premiums
617.000.510.522.200.230.00 3,824.50
09/09 Retirees AWC Premiums
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 25,651.60
09/09 Gaydos AWC Premiums
001.000.510.526.100.230.00 1,188.13
09/09 AWC Premiums
811.000.000.231.510.000.00 304,393.35
Total :335,057.58
113758 8/27/2009 072319 BEACH CAMP LLC BEACHCAMP10883 WATER SPORTS BEACH CAMP
BEACH CAMP #10883
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 2,332.00
Total :2,332.00
113759 8/27/2009 072879 BETTS, ANNIE BETTS0824 DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND
REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT MINUS EXTRA
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 220.00
2Page:
Packet Page 38 of 487
08/27/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
11:23:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :220.001137598/27/2009 072879 072879 BETTS, ANNIE
113760 8/27/2009 069226 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC 0002614 E8GB.Services thru 07/24/09
E8GB.Services thru 07/24/09
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 32,823.55
E8GA.Services thru 07/24/090002616
E8GA.Services thru 07/24/09
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 170.65
Total :32,994.20
113761 8/27/2009 003075 BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY E8GC.RR Insurance E8GC.RR Protective Liability Insurance
E8GC.RR Protective Liability Insurance
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 2,000.00
Total :2,000.00
113762 8/27/2009 066578 BROWN AND CALDWELL 14106197 E4FE.Services thru 06/25/09
E4FE.Services thru 06/25/09
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 2,984.25
Breske Appeal and Plan Review Asstnce
001.000.620.532.200.410.00 213.00
Total :3,197.25
113763 8/27/2009 071510 BUCK, ALICIA BUCK10868 ART FOR KIDZ
MINI MARKERS #10868
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 385.00
MINI MARKERS #11034
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 423.50
Total :808.50
113764 8/27/2009 072571 BUILDERS EXCHANGE 1014069 E6DB.Const Proj Listing
E6DB.Const Proj Listing
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 25.00
E3JC.Const Proj Listing
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 25.00
Total :50.00
113765 8/27/2009 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY147404 ALS SUPPLIES
3Page:
Packet Page 39 of 487
08/27/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
11:23:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
113765 8/27/2009 (Continued)003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY
medical oxygen
001.000.510.526.100.310.00 45.96
Freight
001.000.510.526.100.310.00 17.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.510.526.100.310.00 6.03
ALS SUPPLIESLY147405
medical oxygen
001.000.510.526.100.310.00 34.47
Freight
001.000.510.526.100.310.00 17.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.510.526.100.310.00 4.93
ALS SUPPLIESLY147406
medical oxygen
001.000.510.526.100.310.00 45.96
Freight
001.000.510.526.100.310.00 17.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.510.526.100.310.00 6.03
Total :195.88
113766 8/27/2009 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION 460493535 UNIFORMS
Stn. 17 - ALS
001.000.510.526.100.240.00 113.19
Stn. 17 - OPS
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 113.19
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.510.526.100.240.00 10.76
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 10.75
4Page:
Packet Page 40 of 487
08/27/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
11:23:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
113766 8/27/2009 (Continued)066382 CINTAS CORPORATION
OPS UNIFORMS460493555
Stn. 20
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 113.30
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 10.76
OPS UNIFORMS460495749
Stn. 16
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 130.30
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 12.38
VOLUNTEERS UNIFORMS460495750
Volunteers
001.000.510.522.410.240.00 21.16
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.410.240.00 2.01
Total :537.80
113767 8/27/2009 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2096685 005302
PAPER TOWELS/LINERS/ROLLSAVER TP
411.000.656.538.800.310.23 255.41
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.23 24.26
Total :279.67
113768 8/27/2009 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 2425 CREDIT CARD TRANSACTIONS
GYMNASTICS SUPPLIES:~
001.000.640.575.550.310.00 158.78
GYMNASTICS CAMP SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.550.310.00 150.82
Total :309.60
113769 8/27/2009 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING 510-0128 OPS UNIFORMS
Admin Training BC
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 17.79
5Page:
Packet Page 41 of 487
08/27/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
11:23:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
113769 8/27/2009 (Continued)065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING
OPS UNIFORMS510-0991
BCs
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 36.96
PREV UNIFORMS510-1524
Fire Marshal
001.000.510.522.300.240.00 8.21
ADMIN UNIFORMS510-1884
Fire Chief
001.000.510.522.100.240.00 9.59
OPS UNIFORMS510-2341
Asst. Chief
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 17.80
Total :90.35
113770 8/27/2009 069225 COSTCO MEMBERSHIP 4285 OPS MISC
Membrshp renewal
001.000.510.522.200.490.00 50.00
Total :50.00
113771 8/27/2009 069848 CRAM, KATHERINE CRAM11205 IRISH DANCE CLASSES
IRISH DANCE #11205
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 308.00
IRISH DANCE #11203
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 259.00
Total :567.00
113772 8/27/2009 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3221096 E9CA.Bid Invite Overlay Project
E9CA.Bid Invite Overlay Project
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 558.00
Total :558.00
113773 8/27/2009 069279 DECATUR ELECTRONICS INC 19932 INV#19932 WAEDMO EDMONDS PD
6Page:
Packet Page 42 of 487
08/27/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
11:23:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
113773 8/27/2009 (Continued)069279 DECATUR ELECTRONICS INC
GENESIS HANDHELD RADAR GUNS
001.000.410.521.710.350.00 988.00
8.9% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.710.350.00 87.93
Total :1,075.93
113774 8/27/2009 029900 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS Perry DRS CONTRIBUTIONS FOR PERRY
June 2009 DRS for Steve Perry
811.000.000.231.540.000.00 5,907.57
Total :5,907.57
113775 8/27/2009 070244 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES INC 09-1574.1 E9CA.Services thru 07/12/09
E9CA.Services thru 07/12/09
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 3,400.00
E9FF.Services thru 07/26/0909-1577.1
E9FF.Services thru 07/26/09
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 1,656.00
Total :5,056.00
113776 8/27/2009 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 12860 SUPPLIES
OIL
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 71.76
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.82
SUPPLIES12908
BITS, RATCHETS, ETC.
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 80.96
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 7.69
SUPPLIES12960
TERMINAL
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.92
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.37
7Page:
Packet Page 43 of 487
08/27/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
11:23:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :171.521137768/27/2009 007675 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS
113777 8/27/2009 070683 EDMONDS MAIL & PARCEL 17077 UPS KPFF CONSULTING
UPS KPFF CONSULTING
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 27.88
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 2.65
Total :30.53
113778 8/27/2009 009800 FACTORY DIRECT TIRE SALES 31074 TUBES
TUBES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 48.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.65
TIRE SUPPLIES31388
TURF SAVERS & TUBES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 153.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 14.54
Total :221.14
113779 8/27/2009 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU17459 OPERATIONS SUPPLIES
express plugs
001.000.510.522.200.310.00 170.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.310.00 16.15
Total :186.15
113780 8/27/2009 070271 FIRST STATES INVESTORS 5200 Edmo (5449)TENANT #101706 4TH AVE PARKING LOT RENT
Sept-09 4th Avenue Parking Lot Rent
001.000.390.519.900.450.00 300.00
Total :300.00
113781 8/27/2009 071562 FORMA 4395 CITY PARKING SIGNAGE
8Page:
Packet Page 44 of 487
08/27/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
11:23:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
113781 8/27/2009 (Continued)071562 FORMA
PARKING SIGNAGE
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 1,435.70
9.5% Sales Tax
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 136.39
Total :1,572.09
113782 8/27/2009 010660 FOSTER, MARLO 60 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 395.13
Total :395.13
113783 8/27/2009 068617 GLEISNER, BARBARA GLEISNER11077 QIGONG & TAI CHI CLASSES
QIGONG #11077
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 336.00
TAI CHI #10961
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 940.50
TAI CHI #10963
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 292.50
TAI CHI #11103
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 277.50
Total :1,846.50
113784 8/27/2009 071391 GRAY & OSBORNE INC 09523.00-1 Review of 3rd/Dayton Guy Wire Issue
Review of 3rd/Dayton Guy Wire Issue
001.000.620.532.200.410.00 698.88
Total :698.88
113785 8/27/2009 061410 GRCC/WETRC 2454 TRAINING/AMBURGEY
TRAINING/AMBURGEY
411.000.656.538.800.490.71 295.00
Total :295.00
113786 8/27/2009 012350 GREENE ROBERT C 59 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.290.00 3,085.00
9Page:
Packet Page 45 of 487
08/27/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
11:23:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
113786 8/27/2009 (Continued)012350 GREENE ROBERT C
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement61
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 791.43
Total :3,876.43
113787 8/27/2009 072883 HAIGHT, RONALD 3-12500 RE: #5219007121-PD UTILITY REFUND
UB Refund Haight/Cain
411.000.000.233.000.000.00 128.17
Total :128.17
113788 8/27/2009 006030 HDR ENGINEERING INC 124014-H E7AC.Services thru 07/25/09
E7AC.Services thru 07/25/09
112.200.630.595.440.410.00 2,499.19
Total :2,499.19
113789 8/27/2009 069332 HEALTHFORCE OCCMED 1030-126 Drug testing services
Drug testing services
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 50.00
Total :50.00
113790 8/27/2009 072647 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL 20678 E9FB.Services thru 07/31/09
E9FB.Services thru 07/31/09
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 8,135.20
E8FD.Services thru 07/31/0920700
E8FD.Services thru 07/31/09
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 12,060.89
Total :20,196.09
113791 8/27/2009 072869 HINES, JR, LORENZO 8/24/09 Hours worked for the week ending
Hours worked for the week ending
001.000.310.514.230.410.00 2,130.00
Total :2,130.00
113792 8/27/2009 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 20281 E4GA.Services thru 07/25/09
E4GA.Services thru 07/25/09
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 2,865.62
10Page:
Packet Page 46 of 487
08/27/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
11:23:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
113792 8/27/2009 (Continued)060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC
E4GA.Services thru 07/25/0920327
E4GA.Services thru 07/25/09
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 2,874.45
E3JC.Services thru 07/25/0920328
E3JC.Services thru 07/25/09
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 75.00
Total :5,815.07
113793 8/27/2009 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 80179034 INV #80179034 ACCT 467070-1005305A3
RENT-UPSTAIRS COPIER C4080i
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 340.00
ADDITIONAL IMAGES - C4080i
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 179.88
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 49.39
Total :569.27
113794 8/27/2009 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 439963 54278825
HYPOCHLORITE SOLUTION
411.000.656.538.800.310.53 3,558.71
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.53 338.08
Total :3,896.79
113795 8/27/2009 069355 KLEINFELDER INC 593459 E6DB.Testing thru 07/19/09
E6DB.Testing thru 07/19/09
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 1,856.50
Total :1,856.50
113796 8/27/2009 068396 KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS 0709-108246 E8GC.Services thru 06/30/09
E8GC.Services thru 06/30/09
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 14,672.89
E2DB.Services thru 06/30/09E2DB.39
E2DB.Services thru 06/30/09
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 14,276.79
11Page:
Packet Page 47 of 487
08/27/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
11:23:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :28,949.681137968/27/2009 068396 068396 KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS
113797 8/27/2009 016600 KROESENS INC 97176 OPS UNIFORMS
boots
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 205.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.240.00 19.48
OPS UNIFORMS98151
JS boots
001.000.510.522.200.250.00 205.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.250.00 19.48
Total :448.96
113798 8/27/2009 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 102132 Office Supplies - Mayor's office
Office Supplies - Mayor's office
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 114.88
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 10.91
Total :125.79
113799 8/27/2009 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 102080 Window Envelopes
Window Envelopes
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 336.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 31.92
Total :367.92
113800 8/27/2009 066191 MACLEOD RECKORD 5457 E5MC.Services thru 06/30/09
E5MC.Services thru 06/30/09
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 1,358.55
Total :1,358.55
113801 8/27/2009 072874 MANSOURZADEH, ARYA MANSOURZADEH0825 DAYCAMP REIMBURSEMENT
12Page:
Packet Page 48 of 487
08/27/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
11:23:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
113801 8/27/2009 (Continued)072874 MANSOURZADEH, ARYA
COMMUNITY TRANSIT FOR DAYCAMP
001.000.640.575.530.430.00 20.00
REIMBURSEMENT FOR MOVIES/DAYCAMP
001.000.640.575.530.490.00 192.00
COMMUNITY TRANSIT
001.000.640.575.530.430.00 20.00
Total :232.00
113802 8/27/2009 072882 MARION FRISCH TRUST 2-16525 RE: #30027169-326 UTILITY REFUND
UB Refund Frisch
411.000.000.233.000.000.00 57.45
Total :57.45
113803 8/27/2009 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 600 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 88.25
INTERPRETER FEE612
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 88.25
INTERPRETER FEE631
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 88.25
Total :264.75
113804 8/27/2009 072875 MC ELLIOTT, DAVE MCELLIOTT0818 REFUND
REFUND DUE TO SPONSOR'S PAYMENT AND
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 550.00
Total :550.00
113805 8/27/2009 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 35201295 123106800
PIPE FITTING/STRAPPING/WRENCH/VISE GRIP
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 379.90
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 12.96
13Page:
Packet Page 49 of 487
08/27/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
11:23:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
113805 8/27/2009 (Continued)020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO
12310680035568474
PIPE FITTINGS/BATTERIES/BUSHINGS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 493.58
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 8.61
Total :895.05
113806 8/27/2009 072223 MILLER, DOUG MILLER0819 GYM MONITOR
GYM MONITOR FOR 3 ON 3 BASKETBALL~
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 78.00
Total :78.00
113807 8/27/2009 069923 MOTION INDUSTRIES INC WA23-233686 101690-01
FAN PARTS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 24.10
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.35
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 2.80
Total :32.25
113808 8/27/2009 072881 MULLER, KURT & TAMMY 3-17580 RE: #1-0907-102 UTILITY REFUND
UB Refund Muller/Evjen
411.000.000.233.000.000.00 198.62
Total :198.62
113809 8/27/2009 072746 MURRAY SMITH & ASSOCIATES 09-1030-3 E8JB.Services thru 06/30/09
E8JB.Services thru 06/30/09
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 14,305.50
Total :14,305.50
113810 8/27/2009 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S2947031.001 2091
WARRANTY/HP START UP
411.000.656.538.800.410.22 920.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.410.22 87.40
14Page:
Packet Page 50 of 487
08/27/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
11:23:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
113810 8/27/2009 (Continued)024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY
2091S2955844.001
RCPT ASSEMBLY
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 567.33
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 9.07
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 54.76
Total :1,638.56
113811 8/27/2009 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 0994057 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
HONEYBUCKET RENTAL:~
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 174.47
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL0995597
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:~
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 180.29
Total :354.76
113812 8/27/2009 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 659 MINUTE TAKER FOR ECON DEV COMMISSION
Minute taking for Economic Development
001.000.240.513.110.410.00 224.00
Total :224.00
113813 8/27/2009 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 934037 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 225.40
Total :225.40
113814 8/27/2009 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 843063 RETURNED ITEM FROM INV. 606448
Returned - defective binders from
001.000.240.513.110.310.00 -87.66
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.240.513.110.310.00 -8.33
15Page:
Packet Page 51 of 487
08/27/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
11:23:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
113814 8/27/2009 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
Office Supplies - HR846534
Office Supplies - HR
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 124.17
Office supplies - paper
001.000.610.519.700.310.00 16.14
Office supplies - paper
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 16.13
Office supplies - paper
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 16.13
Office supplies - Econ. Development
001.000.240.513.110.310.00 215.73
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 13.33
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.310.00 1.53
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 1.53
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.240.513.110.310.00 20.49
VENDOR PRICE CORR. ON INVOICE 846534862158
Corrected pricing on binders from order
001.000.240.513.110.310.00 -82.40
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.240.513.110.310.00 -7.83
Total :238.96
113815 8/27/2009 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 907869 Desk pad/Magazine File Holder/Hand
Desk pad/Magazine File Holder/Hand
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 60.01
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 5.70
16Page:
Packet Page 52 of 487
08/27/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
11:23:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
113815 8/27/2009 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
Label cartridges909528
Label cartridges
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 36.42
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 3.46
Total :105.59
113816 8/27/2009 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 898500 Office Supplies - DSD
Office Supplies - DSD
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 388.27
Total :388.27
113817 8/27/2009 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 871243 INV#871243 ACCT520437 250POL EDMONDS PD
RSVP FINE POINT PENS
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 7.54
PENS FOR FRONT COUNTER
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 2.49
SET OF DRY ERASE MARKERS
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 8.63
BLUE PENS
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 25.02
FINE POINT BLUE PENS
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 18.92
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 5.94
17Page:
Packet Page 53 of 487
08/27/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
11:23:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
113817 8/27/2009 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
INV#913978 ACCT520437 250POL EDMONDS PD913978
LAMINATION POUCHES
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 21.00
BOX OF 1 INCH RINGS (BINDER RINGS)
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 6.05
CASH RECEIPT PRINTER RIBBON
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 9.10
PENS FOR PATROL
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 54.80
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 2.57
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 6.07
Total :168.13
113818 8/27/2009 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER june-july10 COURT, BLDG CODE & JIS TRANSMITTAL
Emergency Medical Services & Trauma
001.000.000.237.120.000.00 2,483.03
PSEA 1,2,3 Account
001.000.000.237.130.000.00 45,702.01
Building Code Fee Account
001.000.000.237.150.000.00 148.50
State Patrol Death Investigations
001.000.000.237.170.000.00 1,356.24
Judicial Information Systems Account
001.000.000.237.180.000.00 8,451.54
School Zone Safety Account
001.000.000.237.200.000.00 456.33
traumatic brain injury
001.000.000.237.260.000.00 998.34
auto theft
001.000.000.237.250.000.00 4,784.53
Total :64,380.52
113819 8/27/2009 025889 OGDEN MURPHY AND WALLACE 677186 JUL-09 RETAINER FEES
18Page:
Packet Page 54 of 487
08/27/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
11:23:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
113819 8/27/2009 (Continued)025889 OGDEN MURPHY AND WALLACE
Jul-09 Retainer fees
001.000.360.515.100.410.00 14,860.98
JUL-09 LEGAL FEES677210
Jul-09 Legal Fees
001.000.360.515.100.410.00 9,923.60
Total :24,784.58
113820 8/27/2009 025889 OGDEN MURPHY AND WALLACE 677186 Prof Serv - Legis Legal Fees July 2009
Prof Serv - Legis Legal Fees July 2009
001.000.110.511.100.410.00 8,008.30
Total :8,008.30
113821 8/27/2009 065704 OMB PRODUCTIONS OMB0830 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT
SUMMER CONCERT MANAGER~
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 1,300.00
Total :1,300.00
113822 8/27/2009 072876 OPENSHAW, DOUG OPENSHAW0806 REFUND
REFUND DUE TO MEDICAL REASONS
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 37.00
Total :37.00
113823 8/27/2009 071402 PACIFIC NW FLOAT TRIPS PACNWFLOAT11023 WINE TASTING FLOAT TRIP
WINE TASTING FLOAT TRIP~
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 577.95
Total :577.95
113824 8/27/2009 066412 PARKS & RECREATION DAYCAMP CAMPCASH0817 DAYCAMP PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
BOWLING FEES/DAYCAMP
001.000.640.575.530.490.00 283.00
TRANSPORTATION FEES/DAYCAMP
001.000.640.575.530.430.00 25.50
SUPPLIES/DAYCAMP
001.000.640.575.530.310.00 57.16
Total :365.66
19Page:
Packet Page 55 of 487
08/27/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
11:23:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
113825 8/27/2009 070091 PARROTT, CHERYL PARROTT10972 STAINED GLASS CLASS
STAINED GLASS #10972
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 105.00
Total :105.00
113826 8/27/2009 070170 PIPE EXPERTS LLC 09-1087 E9FE.Camera locate for 12th Ave N Storm
E9FE.Camera locate for 12th Ave N Storm
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 377.78
Total :377.78
113827 8/27/2009 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 178244 INV$178244 ACCT#2772 EDMONDS PD
MAIL RADAR FOR REPAIRS
001.000.410.521.100.420.00 11.16
Total :11.16
113828 8/27/2009 065021 PRINTING PLUS 67102 WOTS POSTER
WRITE ON THE SOUND POSTER
123.000.640.573.100.490.00 148.73
9.5% Sales Tax
123.000.640.573.100.490.00 14.13
Total :162.86
113829 8/27/2009 071184 PROCOM 2009-1301 JUL-09 PROF SERV FIBER OPTIC PROJ
Prof Serv Fiber Optic Proj for Jul-09
001.000.310.518.870.410.00 2,718.75
Total :2,718.75
113830 8/27/2009 067263 PUGET SAFETY EQUIPMENT COMPANY 0035720-IN EDMCITW
CAL GAS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 199.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 37.10
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 22.43
Total :258.53
113831 8/27/2009 071696 RANKINS, KATE RANKINS0821 PLAZA ROOM MONITOR
20Page:
Packet Page 56 of 487
08/27/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
11:23:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
113831 8/27/2009 (Continued)071696 RANKINS, KATE
PLAZA ROOM MONITOR~
001.000.640.574.100.410.00 70.00
Total :70.00
113832 8/27/2009 031500 REID MIDDLETON & ASSOC INC 0907078 E6DB.Services thru 07/10/09
E6DB.Services thru 07/10/09
112.200.630.595.330.650.00 1,679.42
Total :1,679.42
113833 8/27/2009 067447 RILEY, CHARLES H.58 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 150.00
Total :150.00
113834 8/27/2009 072254 RIVER OAKS COMMUNICATIONS CORP 08132009 COMCAST CABLE FRANCHISE NEGOTIATIONS
Comcast Cable Franchise Consortium
001.000.610.519.700.410.00 416.36
Total :416.36
113835 8/27/2009 072375 SAMIONE, JAMI SAMIONE10959 FUN FACTORY CLASSES
FUN FACTORY #10959
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 478.80
FUN FACTORY #10960
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 478.80
Total :957.60
113836 8/27/2009 061482 SEA-WESTERN INC 136712 OPS PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
helmets
001.000.510.522.200.250.00 287.00
Freight
001.000.510.522.200.250.00 10.12
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.510.522.200.250.00 28.23
Total :325.35
113837 8/27/2009 071223 SEATTLE ARTISTS SEATTLEARTISTS0830 PARK CONCERT
21Page:
Packet Page 57 of 487
08/27/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
11:23:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
113837 8/27/2009 (Continued)071223 SEATTLE ARTISTS
PARK CONCERT:~
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 75.00
PARK CONCERT~
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 525.00
Total :600.00
113838 8/27/2009 065803 SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY SKYHAWKS10788 SPORTS CAMPS
CAMP #10788
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 450.00
CAMP #10780
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 1,398.00
CAMP #10771
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 746.15
CAMP #10791
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 276.00
SPORTS CAMPSSKYHAWKS11200
CAMP #11200
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 311.40
SPORTS CAMP #10798
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 596.60
Total :3,778.15
113839 8/27/2009 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2060028723 YOST PARK POOL
YOST PARK POOL
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 2,293.27
MAPLEWOOD HILL PARK2710014701
MAPLEWOOD HILL PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 30.89
UTILITY BILLING316-083-134-7
23700 104TH AVE W~
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 48.88
Total :2,373.04
113840 8/27/2009 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 937043553 958-001-000-8
22Page:
Packet Page 58 of 487
08/27/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
11:23:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
113840 8/27/2009 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
WWTP ELECTRICITY
411.000.656.538.800.471.61 19,722.51
Total :19,722.51
113841 8/27/2009 037376 SNO CO PUD NO 1 09-08-061 Adv Contract fee of jtly owned PUD &
Adv Contract fee of jtly owned PUD &
001.000.310.518.870.410.00 11.24
Total :11.24
113842 8/27/2009 038100 SNO-KING STAMP 42948 INV#42948 EDMONDS PD - TRYKAR
MAILBOX TAGS - STACIE TRYKAR
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 4.50
LOCKER MAGNET - STACIE TRYKAR
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 4.00
Freight
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 2.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 1.05
Total :12.05
113843 8/27/2009 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER June crime victims
crime victims
001.000.000.237.140.000.00 1,220.23
Total :1,220.23
113844 8/27/2009 069997 SRI TECHNOLOGIES INC 96807 E6DA.Services thru 07/18/09
23Page:
Packet Page 59 of 487
08/27/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
11:23:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
113844 8/27/2009 (Continued)069997 SRI TECHNOLOGIES INC
E6DA.Services thru 07/18/09
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 390.00
E3JB.Services thru 07/18/09
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 227.50
E5MC.Services thru 07/18/09
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 520.00
E4GA.Services thru 07/18/09
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 325.00
E6DB.Services thru 07/18/09
112.200.630.595.330.650.00 325.00
E4GA/E5MC.Expenses thru 07/18/09
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 34.44
E4GA/E5MC.Expenses thru 07/18/09
125.000.640.594.750.650.00 34.43
E6DA.Services thru 07/25/0996940
E6DA.Services thru 07/25/09
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 390.00
E3JB.Services thru 07/25/09
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 325.00
E4GA.Services thru 07/25/09
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 422.50
E5MC.Services thru 07/25/09
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 650.00
E4GA/E5MC.Expenses thru 07/25/09
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 39.94
E4GA/E5MC.Expenses thru 07/25/09
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 39.93
24Page:
Packet Page 60 of 487
08/27/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
11:23:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
113844 8/27/2009 (Continued)069997 SRI TECHNOLOGIES INC
E6DA.Services thru 08/01/0997094
E6DA.Services thru 08/01/09
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 195.00
E3JB.Services thru 08/01/09
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 130.00
E5MC.Services thru 08/01/09
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 357.50
E4GA.Services thru 08/01/09
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 162.50
E6DB.Services thru 08/01/09
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 65.00
E4GA/E5MC.Expenses thru 08/01/09
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 13.95
E4GA/E5MC.Expenses thru 08/01/09
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 13.94
E6DA.Services thru 08/08/0997252
E6DA.Services thru 08/08/09
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 520.00
E3JB.Services thru 08/08/09
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 455.00
E5MC.Services thru 08/08/09
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 520.00
E4GA.Services thru 08/08/09
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 260.00
E6DB.Services thru 08/08/09
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 487.50
E9CA.Services thru 08/08/09
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 130.00
E4GA/E5MC.Expenses thru 08/08/09
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 52.23
E4GA/E5MC.Expenses thru 08/08/09
125.000.640.594.750.410.00 52.23
Total :7,138.59
113845 8/27/2009 060371 STANDARD INSURANCE CO September 2009 SEPTEMBER 2009 STANDARD INSURANCE
25Page:
Packet Page 61 of 487
08/27/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
11:23:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
113845 8/27/2009 (Continued)060371 STANDARD INSURANCE CO
09/09 Standard Insurance
811.000.000.231.550.000.00 19,525.79
Total :19,525.79
113846 8/27/2009 040300 STEVENS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL STEVENSHOSP0818 REFUND
REFUNDABLE DAMAGE DEPOSIT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 200.00
Total :200.00
113847 8/27/2009 067375 TERRACON CONSULTANTS INC T059783 E9FB.Services thru 07/25/09
E9FB.Services thru 07/25/09
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 4,943.47
Total :4,943.47
113848 8/27/2009 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1657600 E9CA.Bid Invite Overlay Project
E9CA.Bid Invite Overlay Project
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 266.56
Total :266.56
113849 8/27/2009 068907 THERMAL TRANSFER CORP X018-08-09 HEAT EXCHANGER TUBE BELLOWS
HEAT EXCHANGER TUBE BELLOWS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 10,620.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 28.17
Total :10,648.17
113850 8/27/2009 072864 THOMPSON, KATHLEEN THOMPSON0811 REFUND
CLASS REFUND/CUSTOMER REQUEST
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 119.00
Total :119.00
113851 8/27/2009 062693 US BANK 3538 CREDIT CARD TRANSACTIONS
26Page:
Packet Page 62 of 487
08/27/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
11:23:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
113851 8/27/2009 (Continued)062693 US BANK
DISCOVERY PROGRAM:~
001.000.640.574.350.310.00 9.84
DAYCAMP SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.530.310.00 141.87
SUPLIES FOR HICKMAN PARK OPENING
001.000.640.574.200.310.00 17.43
YOST POOL SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.510.310.00 657.96
YOST POOL PARKS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 282.32
Total :1,109.42
113852 8/27/2009 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-775-1344 BEACH RANGER PHONE @ FISHING PIER
BEACH RANGER PHONE @ FISHING PIER
001.000.640.574.350.420.00 54.48
YOST POOL425-775-2645
YOST POOL
001.000.640.575.510.420.00 126.40
Total :180.88
113853 8/27/2009 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-AB8-1176 CITY PARK T1 LINE
City Park T1 Line 8/16-9-16/09
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 409.72
POLICE T1 LINE425-AB8-2844
Police T1 Line 8/10-9/10/09
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 381.63
Total :791.35
113854 8/27/2009 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-774-0944 FS #20-FAX LINE
FS #20-FAX LINE
001.000.510.522.200.420.00 50.41
FRAME RELAY FOR FS #20 & SNOCOM425-NW4-3726
FRAME RELAY FOR FS #20 & SNOCOM
001.000.510.528.600.420.00 247.00
27Page:
Packet Page 63 of 487
08/27/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
11:23:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :297.411138548/27/2009 011900 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST
113855 8/27/2009 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 0788307312 C/A 671247844-00001
7/13-8/12/09 Cell Service-Bldg
001.000.620.524.100.420.00 127.00
7/13-8/12/09 Cell Service-Eng
001.000.620.532.200.420.00 153.94
7/13-8/12/09 Cell Service Fac-Maint
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 126.42
7/13-8/12/09 Cell Service-Fire OPS
001.000.510.522.200.420.00 140.72
7/13-8/12/09 Cell Service-Fire Admin
001.000.510.522.100.420.00 35.89
7/13-8/12/09 Cell Service-Parks
001.000.640.574.350.420.00 13.12
7/13-8/12/09 Cell Service Parks Maint
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 70.43
7/13-8/12/09 Cell Service-PD
001.000.410.521.100.420.00 803.84
7/13-8/12/09 Cell Service-Planning
001.000.620.558.600.420.00 26.24
7/13-8/12/09 Cell Service-PW Street
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 49.21
7/13-8/12/09 Cell Service-PW Storm
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 61.18
7/13-8/12/09 Cell Service-PW Water
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 109.90
7/13-8/12/09 Cell Service-PW Sewer
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 70.94
7/13-8/12/09 Cell Service-PW Fleet
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 13.12
7/13-8/12/09 Cell Service-WWTP
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 39.38
Total :1,841.33
113856 8/27/2009 069889 VETERINARY SPECIALTY CENTER 25492 INV#97380 CLIENT#25492 STRAY CAT
28Page:
Packet Page 64 of 487
08/27/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
11:23:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
113856 8/27/2009 (Continued)069889 VETERINARY SPECIALTY CENTER
EMERGENCY VISIT - STRAY 25492D
001.000.410.521.700.410.00 99.00
Total :99.00
113857 8/27/2009 047455 WA ST DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION RE-313-ATB-90512029R ED CROSSING WSDOT PRE ENGINEERING
Ed Crossing WSDOT pre engineering costs
113.000.610.547.200.410.00 8,507.66
ED CROSSING WSDOT PRE ENGINEERINGRE-313-ATB90609025
Ed Crossing/WSDOT pre-engineering for
113.000.610.547.200.410.00 14,310.13
Total :22,817.79
113858 8/27/2009 067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC 42116 INV#42116 EDMONDS PD
PULL P-04 OFF CURB/ROCKERY
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 150.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 14.25
Total :164.25
113859 8/27/2009 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL T1000015 T1000015 EDM301 - MOORE MJ LEAF ID
CLASSROOM USE - MJ LEAF ID TRAINING
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 29.88
SEVEN MEALS DURING TRAINING
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 56.00
3 NIGHTS LODGING DURING TRAINING
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 114.00
Total :199.88
113860 8/27/2009 045912 WASPC 70165 ELECTRONIC HOME MONITORING
ELECTRONIC HOME MONITORING
001.000.230.523.200.510.00 126.50
Total :126.50
113861 8/27/2009 068106 WELCOME COMMUNICATIONS 6614 INV#6614 EDMONDS PD
29Page:
Packet Page 65 of 487
08/27/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
11:23:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
113861 8/27/2009 (Continued)068106 WELCOME COMMUNICATIONS
IMPACT RAPID DESKTOP CHARGERS W/MTS-XTS
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 141.00
Freight
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 11.44
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 14.48
Total :166.92
113862 8/27/2009 064008 WETLANDS & WOODLANDS 39544001 PLANTS
PLANTS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 120.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 11.40
PLANTS39561001
PLANTS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 207.75
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 19.75
Total :358.90
113863 8/27/2009 049905 WHITNEY EQUIPMENT CO INC 0031450-IN EDMO CI
DO CARTRIDGE
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 1,402.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 10.22
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 134.16
Total :1,546.38
Bank total :699,307.91115 Vouchers for bank code :front
699,307.91Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report115
30Page:
Packet Page 66 of 487
08/27/2009
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
11:23:10AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
31Page:
Packet Page 67 of 487
AM-2468 2.E.
Claim for Damages
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:09/01/2009
Submitted By:Linda Hynd
Submitted For:Sandy Chase Time:Consent
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Judy Howell (amount undetermined).
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council acknowledge receipt of the Claim for Damages by minute
entry.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Judy Howell
8825 Shell Place
Edmonds, WA 98026
(amount undetermined)
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Howell Claim for Damages
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/26/2009 09:14 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/26/2009 09:23 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/26/2009 12:58 PM APRV
Form Started By: Linda
Hynd
Started On: 08/25/2009 03:20
PM
Final Approval Date: 08/26/2009
Packet Page 68 of 487
Packet Page 69 of 487
Packet Page 70 of 487
Packet Page 71 of 487
AM-2469 2.F.
Ordinance Completing Rezone at 7631 212th Street from RM-2.4 to BN
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:09/01/2009
Submitted By:Michael Clugston Time:Consent
Department:Planning Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:Approved for Consent Agenda
Information
Subject Title
Ordinance approving a change in zoning for certain real property located at 7631 212th Street SW
from Residential Multifamily (RM-2.4) to Neighborhood Business (BN).
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approve the rezone ordinance.
Previous Council Action
On August, 17, 2009, the Council unanimously approved the rezone in a closed record review of
the Planning Board's recommendation to approve the request.
Narrative
The City Attorney has prepared an ordinance at the request of the City Council to approve the
rezone action at 7631 212th Street SW. The ordinance is attached as Exhibit 1. The draft minutes
from the August 17, 2009, City Council meeting are attached as Exhibit 2.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Exhibit 1 - Rezone Ordinance (R-09-36)
Link: Exhibit 2 - Draft City Council minutes from August 18, 2009
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/26/2009 04:10 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/27/2009 07:39 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/27/2009 08:55 AM APRV
Form Started By: Michael
Clugston
Started On: 08/25/2009 04:00
PM
Final Approval Date: 08/27/2009
Packet Page 72 of 487
0006.90000
BFP/
8/19/2009
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, APPROVING A CHANGE IN ZONING FOR
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7631 212TH
STREET SW FROM MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL (RM-2.4) TO
NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS (BN); AUTHORIZING
AMENDMENT OF THE CITY’S OFFICIAL ZONING MAP;
AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendation of the Planning
Board, which after a public hearing, is recommending approval of a rezone of certain real
property located at 7631 212th Street SW from Multiple Residential (RM-2.4) to Neighborhood
Business (BN); and
WHEREAS, a closed record review of the Planning Board’s recommendation was
held by the City Council on August 17, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council hereby adopts the recommendation of the
Planning Board, finding that the proposed rezone is in the public interest and satisfies all
applicable criteria of the Edmonds Community Development Code; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. For its findings in support of the rezone effected by this ordinance, the
City Council adopts by reference the Planning Division Advisory Report, Findings, Conclusions
and Recommendations for the Planning Board meeting of July 22, 2009 (File No. R-2009-36). A
copy of the advisory report was included in the proceedings before the City Council. The City
{BFP738902.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 1 -
Packet Page 73 of 487
Section 2. That certain real property located at 7631 212th Street SW, Edmonds,
Washington and legally described on the attached Exhibit A is hereby rezoned from Multiple
Residential (RM-2.4) to Neighborhood Business (BN). Exhibit A is incorporated by this
reference as if herein set forth in full.
Section 3. The Community Services Director or his designee is hereby
authorized and directed to make appropriate amendments to the Edmonds Zoning Map in order
to properly designate the rezoned property as BN pursuant to Section 2 of this ordinance.
Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi-
cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect
five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the
title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
W. SCOTT SNYDER
{BFP738902.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 2 -
Packet Page 74 of 487
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
{BFP738902.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 3 -
Packet Page 75 of 487
{BFP738902.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 4 -
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2009, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, APPROVING A
CHANGE IN ZONING FOR CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7631 212TH
STREET SW FROM MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL (RM-2.4) TO NEIGHBORHOOD
BUSINESS (BN); AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT OF THE CITY’S OFFICIAL ZONING
MAP; AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2009.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 76 of 487
Exhibit A
Legal Description
WILLOWDALE GARDENS DIV 1 BLK 000 D-01 - LOT 17 LESS N 250FT
{BFP738902.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 5 -
Packet Page 77 of 487
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2009
Page 5
Councilmember Bernheim also commended Mr. Shuster. He referred to the environmental agenda and
the need to balance education and legislation.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OF THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO
APPROVE THE REZONE OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7631 212TH STREET SW FROM
RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY (RM-2.4) TO NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS (BN). THE
APPLICANT IS OASIS, INC.
Mayor Haakenson invited Councilmembers to make any disclosures under the Appearance of Fairness
Doctrine.
Councilmember Orvis advised six years ago he lived in Rustic Manor Condominiums which is
approximately one lot away from this site. He advised that would not affect his ability to make a fair and
impartial decision.
Councilmember Plunkett disclosed in 2005 he accepted a $100 contribution from one of the parties of
record, Clay Enterprises. As he did not feel he met the test of the appearance of fairness, he recused
himself from the closed record review. Councilmember Plunkett left the dais and the Council Chambers.
Mayor Haakenson asked whether any of the parties of record, Don Miller, Oasis, Inc., or Ken Clay, had
any challenges to Councilmember Orvis’ participation. There were no objections voiced.
Mike Clugston, Planner displayed an aerial photograph of the subject parcels, 6731 212th Street
Southwest, just west of the intersection of 76th Avenue & 212th. He explained the record consists of
Exhibit 1, minutes of the July 22, 2009 Planning Board public hearing; Exhibit 2, the staff report, and
Exhibit 3, the list of parties of record. He explained there are currently four buildings, three rectangular
and one round building, on the site that have existed since the 1960s. There is an existing conditional use
permit (CUP) for the four buildings currently used as medical offices. The site is currently zoned RM-
2.4. The round building on the site is currently vacant.
The applicant has applied to rezone the subject parcel from RM-2.4 to Neighborhood Business (BN) in
order to use the round building as a retail pharmacy. Retail is not an allowed used in the RM zone.
Should the rezone be approved, the applicant would likely install a drive-through window which requires
a separate CUP. The Planning Board unanimously recommended the Council approve the rezone request,
citing its consistency with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the parcel and because it met
the six rezone criteria in the Zoning Code.
Applicant
Don Miller, GWC Land Development Consulting, Mukilteo, representing the applicant, Oasis, Inc.,
commented staff’s analysis was very complete. He explained the proposed rezone met the Zoning Code,
implements the Comprehensive Plan and fulfills the applicant’s intent to allow operation of a retail
pharmacy on the site. The applicant will submit a separate application for the drive-through window if
the rezone is approved.
Mayor Haakenson invited the parties of record to provide comment. None of the parties of record wished
to address the Council.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO
DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE CHANGE
IN ZONING, AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING BOARD.
Packet Page 78 of 487
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 17, 2009
Page 6
Councilmember Orvis commented the rezone would allow commercial uses on what was essentially a
commercial site.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Plunkett did not participate in the vote.)
Councilmember Plunkett returned to the dais.
6. UPDATE ON THE SOUTH COUNTY SENIOR CENTER.
David McNayr, South County Senior Center Executive Director, explained the Senior Center was a
regional multi-purpose center providing programs and services for the senior population of South
Snohomish County. Programs and services are grouped in three major activity categories: 1) health and
wellness, 2) social services and community outreach, and 3) education, recreation and social activity
programs. The current membership at the center totals approximately 1300 individuals and over 3,000
members and guests take part in activities at the center.
The Center’s mission statement is to advocate for the senior citizens in the community and provide a
variety of programs and services to help fulfill social service, recreational, educational, and health and
wellness needs of the senior community, with a view toward broadening and enhancing the quality of
their lives and stimulating creative imaginations. The Center is celebrating its 41st year of service to the
community. The Center is a member of the Washington State Association of Senior Centers. It served as
a national model for formulating the requirements for certification as a multi-purpose senior center.
The SCSC serves the needs of the elder population of the community by providing extensive support for a
very diverse target population that faces a multitude of issues including poor health, low and fixed
incomes, lack of employment training and opportunities, inadequate housing options and lack of personal
and family support. The SCSC functions as an access point for all community-aging services resources
while providing support and services in a warm, welcoming and accepting environment. The SCSC’s
overriding goal is to maximize the independence of senior citizens, reduce or eliminate the need for
institutional care, while enhancing the quality of life.
He commented on losses people experience as they age, commenting the need for programs and services
increases each year because seniors are the fastest growing segment of the population. This trend will
continue as people are living longer and healthier lives and because the baby boomer population has
achieved senior status.
Mr. McNayr provided an overview of the three program areas:
Health and Wellness Programs – includes fitness and exercise classes, health screening, surplus
food clinic as a member of Food Lifeline, serve over 15,000 hot lunches in their dining room
annually, loaned health assistance equipment, SHIBA advisers who provide free health insurance
information to seniors, and an annual health fair
Social Services and Community Outreach – caregivers resource center, Alzheimer’s,
Parkinson’s, diabetes and sigh impaired support groups; senior employment service; information
and referral services, Sound Thrift Store that offers low priced goods to seniors and the
community and provides revenue for the Center’s operations; Country Boutique consignment
store that provides extra income for senior crafters; AARP tax assistance, transportation
assistance for low income seniors, community breakfasts; themed dinners and summer barbeques.
Education, Recreation and Social Programs – offer classes on a variety of subjects; locally
planned trips using the Center’s bus or van or Community Transit, Sounder and Washington State
ferry; and guest lecturers
Packet Page 79 of 487
AM-2473 2.G.
National Preparedness Month Proclamation
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:09/01/2009
Submitted By:Linda Carl
Submitted For:Gary Haakenson Time:Consent
Department:Mayor's Office Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Proclamation in honor of National Preparedness Month, September 2009.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
In honor of National Preparedness Month, Mayor Haakenson encourages Edmonds citizens to
update their emergency kits in order to be self-sufficient for three days following a disaster.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Proclamation
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/26/2009 12:58 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/26/2009 12:59 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/27/2009 08:55 AM APRV
Form Started By: Linda
Carl
Started On: 08/26/2009 12:02
PM
Final Approval Date: 08/27/2009
Packet Page 80 of 487
Packet Page 81 of 487
AM-2470 3.
Continued Public Hearing Regarding Update of 2002 Transportation Plan
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:09/01/2009
Submitted By:Conni Curtis
Submitted For:Robert English Time:45 Minutes
Department:Engineering Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Continued public hearing regarding an update of the 2002 Transportation Plan. The
amendments in the proposed 2009 Transportation Plan would:
(1) Use a future planning year of 2025 instead of 2022.
(2) Base concurrency analysis and recommendations on updated citywide travel demand
forecasting model and updated level of service standards on state routes.
(3) Incorporate results and recommendations of safety studies that have been completed
between 2002 and 2009.
(4) Give stronger emphasis to non-motorized transportation projects. Pedestrian and bicycle
projects make up approximately 25% of Plan costs instead of approximately 5% in the 2002 Plan.
(5) Utilize planning-level cost projections based on higher per unit prices to reflect trends.
(6) Adjust references to the Edmonds Crossing Multi-Modal Plan. No City expenditures are
proposed but the item is retained as a long-term project.
(7) Update the traffic impact fee, increasing the fee from $764 per trip to $1,040 per trip.
(8) Add a traffic calming program and ADA ramp transition plan as additional programs.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Council approve the 2009 Comprehensive Transportation Plan and begin an investigation in 2010
for additional revenue from the Transportation Benefit District.
Previous Council Action
On February 19, 2008, Council authorized the Mayor to sign a Professional Services Agreement
with ICF Jones & Stokes for the update of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
On June 3, 2008, the consultant and staff updated City Council on the progress of the Plan.
On May 12, 2009, a brief overview of the Plan and the City’s current financial situation with
regard to funding proposed transportation improvement projects were discussed at the CSDS
committee meeting.
On July 21, 2009, the 2009 Comprehensive Transportation Plan was presented to Council.
On August 4, 2009, Council held a public hearing on the Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
Packet Page 82 of 487
Narrative
On August 4, 2009, a public hearing was held on the proposed Comprehensive Transportation
Plan Update. Following discussion of the Plan, Council requested staff provide responses to
questions raised during the hearing and to continue the public hearing to the September 1st
Council meeting.
Attached are the responses to the questions raised during the public hearing. Several
minor revisions have been made to the plan based on public comments. These revisions are
identified in the attached set of redlined pages and also redlined in the full Plan.
Staff recommends the Council approve the 2009 Comprehensive Transportation Plan and begin an
investigation in 2010 for additional revenue from the Transportation Benefit District.
Narrative from August 4th Council Meeting:
The City of Edmonds is currently in the process of updating the Comprehensive Transportation
Plan. Under the Growth Management Act, the City is required to perform a major update to the
plan every six to ten years. Our last major update was prepared in 2002. The plan lists existing
transportation conditions for all users (drivers, pedestrians, bikers and transit users) as well as
possible improvements to these conditions. The main objective of the Comprehensive
Transportation Plan is to identify improvements necessary to provide a system for all modes of
transportation that will function safely and efficiently through the year 2025.
The Planning Board held a public hearing on June 10, 2009 at which time the Board approved the
Draft Comprehensive Transportation Plan and forwarded it to City Council with a
recommendation for adoption.
The consultant, ICF Jones & Stokes, and City staff have been working on the update over the last
year. The consultant will provide a summary of the financial plan, the City's shortfall in
transportation funding, and a potential source of new revenue (Transportation Benefit District).
Staff recommends the Council approve the 2009 Comprehensive Transportation Plan and begin an
investigation in 2010 for additional revenue from the Transportation Benefit District.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Council Presentation
Link: Revised Text Pages
Link: Transportation Plan w/redlines
Link: Letters of Support
Link: Planning Consistency Memo
Link: Response to Public Comments
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Engineering Robert English 08/27/2009 09:56 AM APRV
2 Public Works Noel Miller 08/27/2009 10:47 AM APRV
3 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/27/2009 02:10 PM APRV
Packet Page 83 of 487
3 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/27/2009 02:10 PM APRV
4 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/27/2009 02:33 PM APRV
5 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/27/2009 02:43 PM APRV
Form Started By: Conni
Curtis
Started On: 08/26/2009 08:18
AM
Final Approval Date: 08/27/2009
Packet Page 84 of 487
Ci
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
1
,
2
0
0
9
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
S
t
a
f
f
/
I
C
F
J
o
n
e
s
&
S
t
o
k
e
s
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
85
of
48
7
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
–
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
Go
a
l
s
,
O
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
,
a
n
d
P
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
St
r
e
e
t
S
y
s
t
e
m
No
n
-
M
o
t
o
r
i
z
e
d
S
y
s
t
e
m
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
a
n
d
D
e
m
a
n
d
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
P
l
a
n
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
86
of
48
7
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
–
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
R
e
v
i
e
w
D
r
a
f
t
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
(
J
u
n
e
)
Re
v
i
e
w
e
d
b
y
a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
,
c
i
t
y
s
t
a
f
f
,
a
n
d
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
m
e
m
b
ers
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
m
e
n
t
Th
r
e
e
o
p
e
n
h
o
u
s
e
s
–
f
i
n
a
l
h
e
l
d
o
n
6
/
3
0
Ci
t
i
z
e
n
c
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
s
-
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
,
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
,
B
i
k
e
,
P
a
rking
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
Br
i
e
f
i
n
g
s
o
n
3
/
1
1
,
5
/
2
7
;
p
u
b
l
i
c
h
e
a
r
i
n
g
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
o
n
6/10
Bo
a
r
d
p
a
s
s
e
d
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
f
o
r
w
a
r
d
P
l
a
n
t
o
C
i
t
y
Council
Ci
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
Br
i
e
f
i
n
g
o
n
7
/
2
1
;
p
u
b
l
i
c
h
e
a
r
i
n
g
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
o
n
8
/
4
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
87
of
48
7
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
–
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
Re
m
o
v
a
l
o
f
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
f
u
t
u
r
e
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
i
n
E
s
p
e
r
a
n
c
e
a
r
e
a
f
r
o
m
T
a
b
l
e
1
-
1
to
t
a
l
s
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
c
u
l
-
d
e
-
s
a
c
d
e
s
i
g
n
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
b
a
c
k
i
n
t
o
p
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
,
u
n
t
i
l
t
h
e
t
i
m
e
EC
D
C
i
s
a
m
e
n
d
e
d
(
s
a
m
e
a
s
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
)
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
‘
n
o
n
-
s
i
g
n
a
l
’
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
Ma
i
n
/
9
t
h
a
n
d
W
a
l
n
u
t
/
9
t
h
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
T
I
P
d
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
i
n
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
6
(i
n
i
t
i
a
l
l
y
d
e
l
e
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
P
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
)
Co
r
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
A
v
e
n
u
e
be
t
w
e
e
n
P
u
g
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
.
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
f
r
o
m
l
o
c
a
l
t
o
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
i
s
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
.
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
88
of
48
7
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
–
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
St
a
f
f
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
P
l
a
n
w
i
t
h
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
b
e
g
i
n
i nv
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
2
0
1
0
f
o
r
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
T
B
D
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
l
e
v
e
l
a
n
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
t
o
b
e
f
u
n
d
e
d
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
d ev
e
l
o
p
e
d
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
o
t
a
l
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
p
a
c
k
a
g
e
Co
u
n
c
i
l
D
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
St
a
f
f
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
s
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
a
t
t hi
s
t
i
m
e
Ad
o
p
t
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
a
n
n
u
a
l
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
u pd
a
t
e
–
A
u
t
u
m
n
2
0
0
9
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
89
of
48
7
Introduction
September 2009 1-3
City of Edmonds Bikeway Comprehensive Plan. 2000. Evaluates existing bikeways
throughout the City, and proposes comprehensive improvements to the bikeway system.
Olympic View Drive / 176th Street SW: Intersection Traffic Analysis. 2001. Evaluates traffic
flow operations and pedestrian safety and access for the intersection, and makes
recommendations for operational and safety improvements.
Land Use Review
The Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and ECDC guides development and growth within the city.
Future transportation infrastructure and service needs identified in this Transportation Plan were
established by evaluating the level and pattern of travel demand generated by planned future land
use. Future population and employment projections for the region are established by the Puget
Sound Regional Council (PSRC). Snohomish County works with local jurisdictions to determine
the expected distribution of population and employment between cities and unincorporated
county. The transportation analysis presented in this Transportation Plan is based upon these
future population and employment projections. Within the City, the allocation of future housing
and jobs growth was based upon the County’s “buildable lands” assessment (Snohomish County
2008), which estimates available land capacity for future development, according to the amount
of vacant and under-developed (based upon zoning) land. Table 1-1 summarizes the existing and
projected future land use growth, based upon these assessments.
Table 1-1. Land Use Summary
Analysis Year
Land Use Type Unit Existing (2008) 2015 2025
Single Family Dwelling Units 12,53711,099 12,87711,312 13,35711,919
Multi-Family Dwelling Units 6,7426,496 7,6367,059 8,9148,668
Retail Jobs 2,507 2,748 3,105
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate Jobs 1,191 1,245 1,321
Services and Government Jobs 6,244 6,675 7,290
Wholesale, Transportation, Utilities Jobs 32 34 39
Manufacturing Jobs 69 75 84
Construction Jobs 49 51 57
Education Students 5,755 6,159 6,733
Park Acres 202 202 202
Marina Slips 668 668 668
Park-and-Ride Spaces 484 484 484
Packet Page 90 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 2-6
b. Require new development to consolidate and minimize access points
along all state highways, principal arterials, and minor arterials.
c. Place a high priority on consolidating existing access points onto all
arterial streets in the city. This effort should be coordinated with
local business and property owners in conjunction with
improvements to the arterial system and redevelopment of adjacent
land parcels.
d. Design the street system so that the majority of direct residential
access is provided via local streets.
e. For access onto state highways, implement Chapter 468-52 of the
Washington Administrative Code (WAC), Highway Access
Management -- Access Control Classification System and Standards.
Policy 3.16 Encourage underground parking as part of new development.
Objective 4: Circulation. Circulation and connectivity throughout the city should be via
the system of arterial and collector streets, bikeways and pedestrian paths. Local streets
should be utilized for local property access and designed in a manner to discourage cut-
through vehicular traffic.
Policy 4.1 Encourage the efficient movement of people and goods through an
effective and inter-connected collector and arterial street system.
Policy 4.2 The use of dead end streets and culs-de-sac should be avoided. When
unavoidable, the length of a dead end street, including cul-de-sac, should
be limited to 600 feet, with a minimum 35-foot radius to back of curb on
the cul-de-sac.
Policy 4.32 Complete the arterial sidewalk system according to the following priority
list:
a. Arterial roadways without sidewalks or shoulders on which transit
service is provided;
b. Arterial roadways without sidewalks or shoulders on which transit
service is not provided;
c. Arterial roadways with shoulders too narrow or in or poor walking
condition for pedestrians;
d. Arterial roadways with adequate shoulders for pedestrians but
without sidewalks; and
e. The remainder of the arterial roadway system (e.g. roads with
sidewalks along one side, or roads with sidewalks in disrepair).
Policy 4.43 Design streets to accommodate emergency service vehicles.
Packet Page 91 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 3-8
Road Location Existing Recommended
Olympic View Drive Puget Drive – 76th Avenue W Collector ---
Walnut Street, Bowdoin Way 9th Avenue S – 84th Avenue W Collector ---
W Dayton Street, Dayton Street Admiral Way - 5th Avenue S Collector ---
208th Street SW 76th Avenue W – SR 99 Collector ---
76th Avenue W, 95th Place W Olympic View Drive – North City Limits Collector ---
Olympic Avenue Puget Drive – Olympic View Drive Collector ---
Maplewood Drive, 200th Street SW Main Street – 88th Avenue W Collector ---
84th Avenue W 212th Street SW – 240th Street SW Collector ---
88th Avenue W 200th Street SW - Olympic View Drive Collector ---
95th Place W Edmonds Way – 220th Street SW Collector ---
226th Street SW 108th Avenue W – Edmonds Way Collector ---
3rd Avenue S Elm Street – Pine Street Collector ---
Recommended Higher Classification
220th Street SW 9th Avenue S – SR 99 Collector Minor Arterial
76th Avenue W 244th Street SW – 212th Street SW Collector Minor Arterial
Dayton Street 5th Avenue S – 9th Avenue S Local Street Collector
200th Street SW 88th Avenue W – 76th Avenue W Local Street Collector
7th Avenue N Main Street – Caspers Street Local Street Collector
80th Avenue W, 180th Street SW 200th Street SW – Olympic View Drive Local Street Collector
80th Avenue W 212th Street SW and 220th Street SW Local Street Collector
96th Avenue W 220th Street SW – Walnut Street Local Street Collector
Olympic Avenue Puget Drive – Main Street Local Street Collector
Recommend Lower Classification
Admiral Way South of W Dayton Street Collector Local Street
Table 3-3 summarizes the miles of roadway by recommended classification. The table shows that
under the recommended classifications, the total proportion of minor arterial would increase
slightly, and the proportion of local access street would decrease slightly, compared to existing
conditions. Figure 3-3 shows the recommended roadway functional classifications.
Table 3-3. Miles of Roadway by Recommended Federal Functional Classification
Functional
Classification
Miles of Roadway in
Edmonds
Proportion of Total
Roadway
Typical Proportion based on
FHWA Guidelines1
Principal Arterial 12 7.6% 5% – 10%
Minor Arterial 15 9.6% 10% – 15%
Collector 1516 9.6%10.2% 5% – 10%
Local Access 115114 73.2%72.6% 65% – 80%
Total 157
1. Source: Federal Highway Administration 1989.
Packet Page 92 of 487
Main St
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
75
t
h
P
l
W
Olym
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
148th St SW
208th St SW
95
t
h
P
l
W
212th St SW
220th St SW
Fisher Rd
68
t
h
A
v
e
W
Fi
r
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
Dayton St
7t
h
A
v
e
N
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Olym
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
238th St SW
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
96
t
h
A
v
e
W
176th St SW
Bowdoin
W
a
y
180th St SW
Walnut St
3r
d
A
v
e
S
244th St SW
5t
h
A
v
e
S
236th St SW
3rd
A
v
e
N
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
9t
h
A
v
e
S
238th St SW
200th St SWCaspers St
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Puget Dr
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
y
Ma
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
D
r
228th St SW
9t
h
A
v
e
N
52
n
d
A
v
e
W
Meadowdale Beach R
o
a
d
Olympic View
D
r
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
196th St SW
Sun
s
e
t
A
v
e
104
99
524
Snohomish County
King County
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan
September 2009
Figure 3-3. Recommended Road Functional Classifications
0 0.5 1
Miles
Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008);
Snohomish County (2008)
City Boundary
Railroad
Water Feature
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Local Street
Olympic Avenue betweenPuget Drive and Main Streetadded as recommended collector
Packet Page 93 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 3-44
Shell Valley
Main Street and 3rd Avenue
In addition, the City considers improvement to all modes (bicycle, pedestrian, and transit) in the
design of road projects; so all proposed road improvements, even those that are listed primarily as
concurrency improvements, will also include elements to support and promote alternative mode
operations and safety.
Table 3-14. Recommended Capital Roadway Improvements through 2025
Location
Trigger
Year1 Improvement Jurisdiction
Concurrency Projects by 2015
4 Puget Drive and 88th Avenue W 2009 Install traffic signal.2 Edmonds
10 212th Street SW and 84th Avenue W 2009 Install a single-lane roundabout. Edmonds
11 Main Street and 9th Avenue N 2009 Install traffic signal.3 Edmonds
12 Walnut Street and 9th Avenue S 2009 Install traffic signal.3 Edmonds
2 Olympic View Drive and 76th Avenue W 2015 Install traffic signal. Widen 76th to add a
westbound left turn lane for 175-foot storage
length.
Edmonds
9 212th Street SW and 76th Avenue W 2015 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 Avenue W 2015 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 Street SW and Olympic View Drive 2025 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 2015 Install traffic signal. Edmonds
8 212th Street SW and SR 99 2025 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 2025 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 94 of 487
Street System
September 2009 3-45
Location
Trigger
Year1 Improvement Jurisdiction
State Highway Improvement Projects
20 238th Street SW and Edmonds Way 2008 Install a signal and provide protected left turn
phase for northbound and southbound.
Edmonds/
WSDOT
21 244th Street SW and 76th Avenue W 2025 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
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
1. Trigger year is the year by which travel demand forecasts indicates that the location will operate below adopted LOS standards, and
thus be in violation of concurrency. Under the GMA, improvements must be in place within six years of the year that a concurrency
violation is triggered.
2. 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.
3. 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.
2015 Operating Conditions with Improvements
Projected intersection LOS under 2015 conditions, with recommended improvements in place, is
summarized in Table 3-15 and illustrated in Figure 3-16. The table shows that recommended
projects are expected to address deficiencies identified through 2015.
Packet Page 95 of 487
Implementation and Financial Plan
September 2009 6-11
evaluation of future conditions that result from the City’s adopted future land use plan, and
priorities stated by Edmonds citizens.
A six-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is prepared each year, which identifies
transportation projects needed to respond to planned growth of the community, and to meet safety
and mobility objectives. The TIP integrates City transportation improvement projects and
resources with other agencies in order to maximize financing opportunities such as grants, bonds,
city funds, donations, impact fees, and other available funding.
The TIP is maintained as follows:
1. Provide for annual review by the City Council as part of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
contained in the Comprehensive Plan capital facilities element.
2. Ensure that the TIP:
Is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan;
Defines a project’s need, and links it to LOS and facility plans;
Includes construction costs, timing, and funding sources; and considers operations and
maintenance impacts where appropriate; and
Establishes project development priorities.
Table 6-4 summarizes the recommended Transportation Improvement Plan, 2010 through 2025,
which is a comprehensive multimodal plan that is based on extensive public input and reflects a
major update of the 2003 Plan. The table also identifies which projects are recommended for
inclusion in the 2010-2015 TIP.
Table 6-4. Transportation Improvement Plan 2010–2025
Project 2010 – 2015 2016 – 2025 Total
Annual Street Overlays $ 9,000,000 $ 15,000,000 $ 24,000,000
Citywide Street Improvements 90,000 150,000 240,000
Citywide Signal Improvements 30,000 50,000 80,000
Citywide Cabinet and Controller Upgrades 30,000 50,000 80,000
Puget & Olympic View Drive 198,000 198,000
Downtown Bicycle Parking 22,500 37,500 60,000
238th / 100th Ave Signal Upgrades 236,000 236,000
Puget Drive / 196th St SW / 88th Avenue W 879,000 879,000
Main Street / 9th Avenue N 874,400 874,400
Walnut Street / 9th Avenue S 874,400 874,400
212th Street SW / 84th Avenue W 1,910,100 1,910,100
Packet Page 96 of 487
Packet Page 97 of 487
Packet Page 98 of 487
City of Edmonds
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
121 5th Avenue N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Prepared by:
710 Second Avenue, Suite 550
Seattle, WA 98104
With support from:
8060 165th Avenue NE, Suite 220 10230 NE Points Drive, Suite 400
Redmond, WA 98052 Kirkland, WA 98033
September 2009
Packet Page 99 of 487
This document should be cited as:
City of Edmonds. 2009. Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Prepared by ICF Jones & Stokes. 710 Second Avenue, Suite
550, Seattle, WA 98104. August.
Packet Page 100 of 487
September 2009 i
Table of Contents
Chapter 1.Introduction ...................................................................... 1-1
Purpose of the Transportation Comprehensive Plan ........................................ 1-1
Plan Background .............................................................................................. 1-2
Reports, Plans and Records .................................................................. 1-2
Land Use Review ................................................................................... 1-3
Regulatory Framework ...................................................................................... 1-4
Growth Management Act ....................................................................... 1-4
Washington Transportation Plan ............................................................ 1-4
PSRC Plans ........................................................................................... 1-5
VISION 2040 .............................................................................. 1-5
Destination 2030 ......................................................................... 1-6
Transportation 2040 ................................................................... 1-7
Snohomish County Countywide Planning Policies ................................. 1-7
Edmonds Comprehensive Plan .............................................................. 1-8
Public Participation ........................................................................................... 1-9
Original 1995 Transportation Plan ......................................................... 1-9
2002 Transportation Plan Update .......................................................... 1-9
2009 Comprehensive Transportation Plan ............................................1-10
Public Open Houses ..................................................................1-10
Citizen Advisory Transportation Committee ...............................1-11
Walkway Committee ..................................................................1-11
Edmonds Bike Group ................................................................1-11
Intergovernmental Coordination ................................................1-11
Overview of the Transportation Plan Elements ................................................1-12
Chapter 2.Goals, Objectives, and Policies ...................................... 2-1
15.25.000State and Regional Context ........................................................ 2-2
15.25.010Streets and Highways ................................................................. 2-2
15.25.020Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation ........................................ 2-7
15.25.030Public Transportation .................................................................2-11
15.25.040Streetscape ................................................................................2-14
15.25.050Capital Facilities, Transportation ................................................2-15
15.25.060Traffic Calming ...........................................................................2-19
15.25.070Air Quality and Climate Change .................................................2-20
Packet Page 101 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds
ii
Chapter 3.Street System ................................................................... 3-1
Roadway Functional Classification ................................................................... 3-1
Existing Classifications........................................................................... 3-1
Evaluation of Road Functional Classifications ....................................... 3-5
Street System Inventory ...................................................................................3-10
State Highways .....................................................................................3-10
City Streets ...........................................................................................3-10
Speed Limits .........................................................................................3-12
Traffic Control .......................................................................................3-14
Traffic Calming Devices ........................................................................3-16
Parking ................................................................................................3-17
Street Standards ..............................................................................................3-20
Road Conditions ..............................................................................................3-24
Existing Operating Conditions ...............................................................3-24
Traffic volumes ..........................................................................3-24
Level of Service .........................................................................3-24
Future Operations .................................................................................3-30
Travel Demand Forecasting Model ............................................3-30
2015 Conditions without Improvements .....................................3-33
2025 Conditions without Improvements .....................................3-36
Safety Assessment ...............................................................................3-39
Collision History .........................................................................3-39
SR 99 Traffic and Circulation Study ...........................................3-42
Residential Neighborhood Issues ..............................................3-42
Recommended Road Projects and Programs ..................................................3-43
Capital Improvement Projects ...............................................................3-43
Concurrency Projects ................................................................3-43
State Highway Projects..............................................................3-43
Safety and Other Projects ..........................................................3-43
2015 Operating Conditions with Improvements ....................................3-45
2025 Operating Conditions with Improvements ....................................3-46
Road Project Priority .............................................................................3-52
Traffic Calming Program .......................................................................3-54
Preservation and Maintenance Programs and Projects ........................3-54
Chapter 4.Non-Motorized System .................................................... 4-1
Comprehensive Walkway Plan ......................................................................... 4-1
Walkway Inventory ................................................................................. 4-1
Packet Page 102 of 487
Table of Contents
September 2009 iii
Recommended Walkway Improvements ........................................................... 4-5
Walkway Prioritization Process .............................................................. 4-5
Curb Ramp Upgrade Program ..............................................................4-11
Bikeway Comprehensive Plan .........................................................................4-11
Bicycle Facility Inventory .......................................................................4-12
Recommended Bikeway Improvements ...........................................................4-14
Small Bikeway Projects .........................................................................4-14
Bicycle Loops ............................................................................4-14
Shared Use Lanes .....................................................................4-15
Bicycle Parking ..........................................................................4-15
Large Bicycle Projects ..........................................................................4-17
Interurban Trail ......................................................................................4-17
Chapter 5.Transit and Transportation Demand Management ....... 5-1
Existing Transit Service .................................................................................... 5-1
Community Transit ................................................................................. 5-1
Fixed Route Bus Service ............................................................ 5-1
Rideshare Services .................................................................... 5-7
DART Paratransit ....................................................................... 5-7
King County Metro Transit ..................................................................... 5-7
Sound Transit Express Bus .................................................................... 5-7
Park-and-Ride Facilities ......................................................................... 5-8
Rail Service ....................................................................................................... 5-8
Sounder Commuter Rail ......................................................................... 5-9
Amtrak Service ....................................................................................... 5-9
Amtrak Cascades ....................................................................... 5-9
Empire Builder ............................................................................ 5-9
Washington State Ferries ................................................................................. 5-9
Transportation Demand Management .............................................................5-10
Future Transit Improvements ...........................................................................5-11
Bus Shelters and Benches ....................................................................5-11
Transit Emphasis Corridors ...................................................................5-12
Swift Bus Rapid Transit .........................................................................5-12
Additional Fixed Route Transit Service .................................................5-13
Edmonds Crossing Multimodal Facility .................................................5-13
Chapter 6.Implementation and Financial Plan ................................ 6-1
Project Costs .................................................................................................... 6-1
Revenue Sources ............................................................................................. 6-6
Packet Page 103 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds
iv
Current Sources of Revenue .................................................................. 6-6
Other Potential Financing Options ......................................................... 6-8
Project Prioritization .......................................................................................... 6-9
Program Priority ..................................................................................... 6-9
Implementation Plan ........................................................................................6-10
Transportation Improvement Plan 2010-2025 .......................................6-10
Interjurisdictional Coordination ..............................................................6-13
Contingency Plan in Case of Revenue Shortfall..............................................6-13
Chapter 7.References ........................................................................ 7-1
Packet Page 104 of 487
Table of Contents
September 2009 v
Tables
Table 1-1.Land Use Summary .............................................................................................................. 1-3
Table 3-1.Miles of Roadway by Existing Federal Functional Classification .......................................... 3-5
Table 3-2.Summary of Existing and Recommended Federal Functional Classifications ...................... 3-7
Table 3-3.Miles of Roadway by Recommended Federal Functional Classification ............................... 3-8
Table 3-4.Inventory of City Streets ..................................................................................................... 3-10
Table 3-5.Inventory of Existing Traffic Calming Devices ..................................................................... 3-17
Table 3-6.Typical Roadway Cross Sections ....................................................................................... 3-21
Table 3-7.Typical Roadway Level of Service Characteristics ............................................................. 3-24
Table 3-8.Level of Service Criteria for Intersections ........................................................................... 3-25
Table 3-9.Level of Service Standards ................................................................................................. 3-26
Table 3-10.Existing PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS ........................................................................... 3-28
Table 3-11.2015 Intersection Level of Service – without Improvements ............................................... 3-34
Table 3-12.2025 Intersection Level of Service – without Improvements ............................................... 3-37
Table 3-13.High Collision Locations ..................................................................................................... 3-40
Table 3-14.Recommended Capital Roadway Improvements through 2025.......................................... 3-44
Table 3-15.2015 Level of Service – with Recommended Improvements .............................................. 3-48
Table 3-16.2025 Level of Service – with Recommended Improvements .............................................. 3-50
Table 3-17.Prioritization Criteria for Roadway Projects ........................................................................ 3-52
Table 3-18.Roadway Project Priority .................................................................................................... 3-53
Table 4-1.Prioritization Criteria for Walkway Projects ........................................................................... 4-5
Table 4-2.Recommended Walkway Projects ........................................................................................ 4-7
Table 5-1.Community Transit Local Bus Routes .................................................................................. 5-3
Table 5-2.Community Transit Commuter Bus Routes .......................................................................... 5-3
Table 5-3.Park-and-Ride Facilities Serving Edmonds .......................................................................... 5-8
Table 5-4.Top Priority Locations for Bus Shelters and Seating .......................................................... 5-11
Table 6-1.Costs of Transportation Projects .......................................................................................... 6-2
Table 6-2.Potential Revenue ................................................................................................................ 6-7
Table 6-3.Potential Revenue from Additional Optional Sources ........................................................... 6-9
Table 6-4.Transportation Improvement Plan 2010–2025 .................................................................... 6-11
Packet Page 105 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds
vi
Figures
Figure 3-1.Access and Mobility Characteristics of Road Functional Classifications .............................. 3-3
Figure 3-2.Existing Federal Functional Classifications ........................................................................... 3-4
Figure 3-3.Recommended Federal Functional Classifications ............................................................... 3-9
Figure 3-4.Speed Limits on City Streets .............................................................................................. 3-13
Figure 3-5.Existing Traffic Control Devices .......................................................................................... 3-15
Figure 3-6.Existing Traffic Calming Devices ........................................................................................ 3-18
Figure 3-7.Downtown Parking .............................................................................................................. 3-19
Figure 3-8.Typical Roadway Cross-Sections ....................................................................................... 3-22
Figure 3-9.Downtown Sidewalk Area ................................................................................................... 3-23
Figure 3-10.Existing Level of Service ..................................................................................................... 3-29
Figure 3-11.Transportation Analysis Zones ........................................................................................... 3-31
Figure 3-12.2015 Level of Service without Improvement ....................................................................... 3-35
Figure 3-13.2025 Level of Service without Improvement ....................................................................... 3-38
Figure 3-14.High Collision Locations ..................................................................................................... 3-41
Figure 3-15.Recommended Capital Road Improvements ...................................................................... 3-47
Figure 3-16.2015 Level of Service with Improvement ............................................................................ 3-49
Figure 3-17.2025 Level of Service with Improvement ............................................................................ 3-51
Figure 4-1.Pedestrian Intensive Land Uses ........................................................................................... 4-3
Figure 4-2.Existing Walkways ................................................................................................................ 4-4
Figure 4-3.Recommended Walkway Projects ...................................................................................... 4-10
Figure 4-4.Existing Bicycle Facilities .................................................................................................... 4-13
Figure 4-5.Recommended Signed Bicycle Loops ................................................................................ 4-16
Figure 4-6.Recommended Bicycle Facilities ........................................................................................ 4-18
Figure 5-1.Fixed Route Bus Service ...................................................................................................... 5-2
Figure 5-2.Access to Local and Commuter Transit ................................................................................ 5-5
Figure 5-3.Access to Local Transit ......................................................................................................... 5-6
Packet Page 106 of 487
Table of Contents
September 2009 vii
Appendices
Appendix A – Public Participation Materials
Appendix B – Traffic Calming Program
Appendix C – ADA Ramp Inventory and Upgrade Priority
Appendix D– Walkway Projects
Acronyms
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
ADT Average Daily Traffic
BRT Bus Rapid Transit
CAC Citizens’ Advisory Committee
CIP Capital Improvement Program
CTR Commute Trip Reduction
DART Dial-A-Ride Transit
ECDC Edmonds Community Development Code
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FTE full time equivalent
GMA Growth Management Act
LID Local Improvement District
LOS level of service
mph miles per hour
PRSC Puget Sound Regional Council
RID Roadway Improvement District
SEPA State Environmental Policy Act
Packet Page 107 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds
viii
SP Sidewalk Program
SR State Route
ST Sound Transit
STP Surface Transportation Program
TAC Technical Advisory Committee
TAZ transportation analysis zone
TBD Transportation Benefit District
TIB Transportation Improvement Board
TDM Transportation Demand Management
TIP Transportation Improvement Program
TSM Transportation System Management
UAP Urban Arterial Program
UCP Urban Corridor Program
WAC Washington Administrative Code
WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation
WSF Washington State Ferries
WTP Washington Transportation Plan
Packet Page 108 of 487
Table of Contents
September 2009 ix
Glossary
Access The ability to enter a freeway or roadway via an on-ramp or other
entry point.
Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA)
A federal act that was passed in 1990 and amended in 2008. ADA
requires jurisdictions to provide accessible sidewalks primarily
through the installation of ADA-compliant sidewalk ramps. The
design requirements address various areas of concern such as curb
alignment with crosswalks, narrower sidewalk width, obstacles such
as utility poles, placement of the sidewalk adjacent to the curb, or
the slope of the ramps. Deficiencies in any of these areas could
render a sidewalk or sidewalk ramp to be unsafe or inaccessible for
the handicapped, or those who generally have difficulty walking.
Arterial A major street that primarily serves through traffic, but also provides
access to abutting properties. Arterials are often divided into
principal and minor classifications depending on the number of
lanes, connections made, volume of traffic, nature of traffic, speeds,
interruptions (access functions), and length.
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) The average number of vehicles that travel on a roadway on a
typical day.
Capacity The maximum sustained traffic flow of a transportation facility under
prevailing traffic and roadway conditions in a specified direction.
Capital Improvement Program
(CIP)
A long-range plan established by a city or county that encompasses
its vision and future needs for capital facilities, including fire, police,
utilities, and transportation. The CIP also establishes the
jurisdiction’s project priorities and funding methods.
Commute trip reduction (CTR) Efforts related to reducing the proportion of trips made in single-
occupancy vehicles during peak commuting hours. CTR efforts may
include carpooling, telecommuting, compressed work weeks, or
using alternative modes to get to work (e.g. walking or biking).
Washington State’s CTR efforts are coordinated through WSDOT
and local governments in counties with the highest levels of
automobile-related air pollution and traffic congestion. Qualified
employers in these counties are required by law to develop a
commuter program designed to achieve reductions in vehicle trips.
Packet Page 109 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds
x
concurrency A requirement established by the Washington State Growth
Management Act that adequate infrastructure be planned and
financed to support a jurisdiction’s adopted future land use plan. For
transportation, adequacy is measured by the impact on a
jurisdiction’s roadway and/or intersection LOS. If an impact is
anticipated to cause the adopted LOS standard to be exceeded,
then the jurisdiction must have a strategy in place to increase
capacity or manage demand (or a financial plan to put that strategy
in place) within 6 years of the transportation impact.
Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA)
A major agency of the United States Department of Transportation
responsible for ensuring that America’s roads and highways
continue to be the safest and most technologically up-to-date.
Functional classification A roadway category that is based on the types of trips that occur on
the roadway, the roadway’s basic purpose, and the level of traffic
that the roadway carries. The functional classification of a roadway
can range from a freeway to principal arterial to minor arterial to
collector to local access.
Growth Management Act (GMA) Adopted by the Washington State Legislature in 1990, and
subsequently amended to require all cities and counties in the state
to do some long-range comprehensive planning. Requirements are
more extensive for the largest and fastest-growing counties and
cities in the state. Such comprehensive plans must address several
required topics, including but not limited to land use, transportation,
capital facilities, utilities, housing, etc. The GMA requirements also
include guaranteeing the consistency of transportation and capital
facilities plans with land use plans.
Highways of Statewide
Significance
Highways identified by the Washington State Transportation
Commission that provide significant statewide travel and economic
linkages.
Level of service (LOS) A measure of how well a roadway or local signalized intersection
operates. For roadways, LOS is a measure of traffic congestion
based on volume-to-capacity ratios. For local intersections, LOS is
based on how long it takes a typical vehicle to clear the intersection.
Other criteria also may be used to gauge the operating performance
of transit, non-motorized, and other transportation modes.
Local Improvement District (LID) Special assessment district in which infrastructure improvements,
such as water, sewer, stormwater, or transportation system
improvements, will benefit primarily the property owners in the
district.
Packet Page 110 of 487
Table of Contents
September 2009 xi
Traffic calming The combination of physical measures and educational efforts to
alter driver behavior and improve conditions for non-motorized street
users. Physical measures may include bulb-out curb extensions,
chicanes, or traffic circles, among other things. Educational efforts
may include pavement markings or increased police enforcement.
Transportation Analysis Zone
(TAZ)
Areas with similar land use characteristics that are used in travel
demand models to assess traffic conditions and operations.
Transportation Benefit District
(TBD)
A geographic area designated by a jurisdiction that is a means to
funding transportation improvement projects; funding sources can
include vehicle license fees, property taxes or sales taxes. The City
of Edmonds has already enacted a $20 vehicle license fee.
Transportation Demand
Management (TDM)
A set of strategies intended to maximize the efficiency of the
transportation network by reducing demand on the system.
Examples of TDM strategies are encouraging commuting via bus,
rail, bicycle, or walking; managing the available parking supply; or
creating a compressed work week.
Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP)
A long-range (6 years) plan established by a city or county that
results from the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) process. The
TIP establishes the jurisdiction’s transportation deficiencies, project
priorities, and possible funding methods.
Transportation System
Management (TSM)
A coordinated approach to the construction, preservation,
maintenance, and operations of the transportation network with the
goal of maximizing efficiency, safety, and reliability. These activities
include making intersection and signal improvements, constructing
turn lanes, improving signage and pavement markings, and
collecting data to monitor system performance.
Travel Demand Forecasting Methods for estimating the desire for travel by potential users of the
transportation system, including the number of travelers, the time of
day, travel mode, and travel routes.
Washington Transportation Plan
(WTP)
A long-range (20 years) statewide transportation plan adopted by
the Washington Transportation Commission. The WTP describes
existing transportation conditions in the state, and outlines future
transportation needs.
Packet Page 111 of 487
Packet Page 112 of 487
September 2009 1-1
Chapter 1. Introduction
The purpose of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (Transportation Plan) is to guide the
development of multimodal surface transportation within the City of Edmonds (City) in a manner
consistent with the City’s adopted transportation goals, objectives, and policies (presented in
Chapter 2). The Transportation Plan serves as the transportation element of the City of Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan). It identifies transportation infrastructure and services
needed to support projected land use within the city through the year 2025, in compliance with
the State of Washington Growth Management Act (GMA) [RCW 36.70A, 1990, as amended].
Based upon existing and projected future land use and travel patterns, the Transportation Plan
describes street, walkway, bikeway, and public transportation infrastructure and services, and
provides an assessment of existing and projected future transportation needs. It provides a long-
range Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that establishes transportation priorities, addresses
transportation deficiencies and guides the development of the six-year Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). The Transportation Plan identifies safety and mobility
improvements for streets, walkways, bikeways, neighborhood traffic control, and public
transportation, as well as preservation, maintenance, and implementation strategies that include
concurrency management and financing. The Transportation Plan establishes direction for
development of programs and facilities that address the transportation needs for the city through
the year 2025.
Purpose of the Transportation Comprehensive Plan
Based upon the directives of the City’s adopted transportation goals and policies, as well as the
requirements of the GMA, the objectives of the Transportation Plan are as follows:
Address the total transportation needs of the city through 2025.
Packet Page 113 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 1-2
Identify transportation improvements necessary to provide a system that will function safely
and efficiently through the year 2025.
Ensure consistency with the land use adopted in the adopted 2008 Comprehensive Plan.
Contribute to economic growth within the city through an efficient transportation system.
Provide cost-effective accessibility for people, goods, and services.
Provide travel alternatives that are safe and have convenient access to employment,
education, and recreational opportunities for urban and suburban residents in the area.
Identify funding needs for identified transportation improvements and the appropriate
participation by both the public and private sectors of the local economy.
Comply with the requirements of the GMA and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
Support improvements to major transportation routes outside the city that will reduce
through-traffic in the community.
Plan Background
Reports, Plans and Records
This Transportation Plan integrates the analysis and results of numerous plans and prior reports
that have been completed for the City. Information was obtained from the following sources:
City of Edmonds Transportation Element. 2002. Previous transportation plan that established
citywide transportation goals and policies and infrastructure and service needs, which was
updated for this Plan.
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. 2008. Current GMA plan that presents the City’s
planned future land use through 2025, and plans and policies established by the City to
support that land use.
Snohomish County Buildable Lands Report. 2008. Identifies where capacity exists to
accommodate future planned land use within cities and unincorporated areas located within
Snohomish County, including the City of Edmonds.
City of Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). December 1980, as amended.
Provides City zoning and other land use regulations.
SR 99 Traffic and Circulation Study. 2006. Assesses traffic conditions on State Route (SR)
99, and recommends safety and mobility improvements to be included in the City TIP.
City of Edmonds Walkway Comprehensive Plan. 2002. Evaluates existing sidewalks and
pedestrian facilities throughout the City and proposes comprehensive improvements to the
walkway system.
Packet Page 114 of 487
Introduction
September 2009 1-3
City of Edmonds Bikeway Comprehensive Plan. 2000. Evaluates existing bikeways
throughout the City, and proposes comprehensive improvements to the bikeway system.
Olympic View Drive / 176th Street SW: Intersection Traffic Analysis. 2001. Evaluates traffic
flow operations and pedestrian safety and access for the intersection, and makes
recommendations for operational and safety improvements.
Land Use Review
The Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and ECDC guides development and growth within the city.
Future transportation infrastructure and service needs identified in this Transportation Plan were
established by evaluating the level and pattern of travel demand generated by planned future land
use. Future population and employment projections for the region are established by the Puget
Sound Regional Council (PSRC). Snohomish County works with local jurisdictions to determine
the expected distribution of population and employment between cities and unincorporated
county. The transportation analysis presented in this Transportation Plan is based upon these
future population and employment projections. Within the City, the allocation of future housing
and jobs growth was based upon the County’s “buildable lands” assessment (Snohomish County
2008), which estimates available land capacity for future development, according to the amount
of vacant and under-developed (based upon zoning) land. Table 1-1 summarizes the existing and
projected future land use growth, based upon these assessments.
Table 1-1. Land Use Summary
Analysis Year
Land Use Type Unit Existing (2008) 2015 2025
Single Family Dwelling Units 12,53711,099 12,87711,312 13,35711,919
Multi-Family Dwelling Units 6,7426,496 7,6367,059 8,9148,668
Retail Jobs 2,507 2,748 3,105
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate Jobs 1,191 1,245 1,321
Services and Government Jobs 6,244 6,675 7,290
Wholesale, Transportation, Utilities Jobs 32 34 39
Manufacturing Jobs 69 75 84
Construction Jobs 49 51 57
Education Students 5,755 6,159 6,733
Park Acres 202 202 202
Marina Slips 668 668 668
Park-and-Ride Spaces 484 484 484
Packet Page 115 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 1-4
Regulatory Framework
Growth Management Act
Transportation planning at the state, county and local levels is governed by the GMA, which
contains requirements for the preparation of the Transportation Element of a Comprehensive
Plan. In addition to requiring consistency 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;
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.
[RCW 36.70A.070(6)]
In addition to these elements, GMA mandates that development cannot occur unless adequate
supporting infrastructure either already exists or is built concurrent with development. In addition
to capital facilities, infrastructure may include transit service, Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) strategies, or Transportation System Management (TSM) strategies.
Under the GMA, local governments and agencies must annually prepare and adopt six-year TIPs.
These programs must be consistent with the transportation element of the local comprehensive
plan, and other state and regional plans and policies as outlined below.
Washington Transportation Plan
The Washington Transportation Plan (WTP) presents the State’s strategy for developing budgets
and implementing over a 20-year planning horizon. The current WTP was adopted by the
Transportation Commission in 2006 and covers the period 2007 to 2026. The WTP contains an
overview of the current conditions of the statewide transportation system, and an assessment of
the State’s future transportation investment needs. The WTP policy framework sets the course for
meeting those future needs. The WTP Prioritized Investment Guidelines are as follows:
1. Preservation
2. Safety
3. Economic Vitality
Packet Page 116 of 487
Introduction
September 2009 1-5
4. Mobility
5. Environmental Quality and Health
PSRC Plans
The PSRC is the Regional Transportation Planning Organization for the area that includes
Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Kitsap counties, and is responsible for overseeing six-year TIPs
within the region. The PSRC works with local jurisdictions to establish regional transportation
guidelines and principles, and certifies that the transportation-related provisions within local
jurisdictions’ comprehensive plans are consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan and
conform to GMA requirements.
VISION 2040
VISION 2040 is comprised of the following four parts, developed to help guide the region as it
experiences population and employment growth:
Part I: Sustainable environment framework – Provides the context for planning, development,
and environmental management in the region. This framework describes the role that the
environment plays – along with the benefits, challenges, and opportunities it provides – and
how it affects prosperity and quality of life.
Part II: Regional Growth Strategy – Identifies an approach to promote a focused regional
growth pattern. It builds on current growth management plans, and recommits the region to
directing future development into the urban growth areas, while focusing new housing and
jobs in cities and within a limited number of designated regional growth centers. Focusing
growth in urban areas helps to protect natural resources and sensitive environmental areas,
encourages a strong economy, provides more housing opportunities for all economic
segments of the population, improves regional jobs-housing balance, and minimizes rural
residential growth. The Regional Growth Strategy describes the roles of all communities in
implementing VISION 2040.
Part III: Multicounty planning policies –Adopted under the state’s Growth Management Act,
the policies are divided into six major sections: Environment, Development Patterns,
Housing, Economy, Transportation, and Public Services. The policies are designed to help
achieve the Regional Growth Strategy and address region-wide issues within a collaborative
and equitable framework. They provide guidance and direction to regional, county, and local
governments on such topics as setting priorities for transportation investment, stimulating
economic development, planning for open space, making city and town centers more
hospitable for transit and walking, and improving transportation safety and mobility.
Multicounty planning policies lay the foundation for securing the necessary funding for
services and facilities, and provide direction for more efficient use of public and private
investments. Each policy section contains actions that lay out steps the region will need to
take to achieve VISION 2040.
Packet Page 117 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 1-6
Part IV: Implementation – Describes several programs and processes, including a monitoring
program that includes tracking action on agreed-upon steps, measuring progress over time,
and determining whether the region is achieving desired results. This section includes specific
measures that relate to the multicounty planning policies.
The multicounty planning policies provide direction and guidance for maintenance, safety, clean
transportation, supporting the regional growth strategy, and optimizing travel options. Policies are
provided that relate to safety and security, reducing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions,
increasing energy efficiency and the use of alternative energy, developing roadways as “complete
streets” that accommodate different modes of travel, and advancing alternatives to driving alone.
(Puget Sound Regional Council 2008)
The City’s next major update to the Comprehensive Plan (due in 2011) will need to demonstrate
how it is aligning with the VISION 2040 Regional Growth Strategy, including expanded
provisions for addressing health and the built environment, design, and environmental planning
(including climate change). The transportation element will be revisited at that time, to ensure
consistency with the City’s update to its future land use plan and the VISION 2040 provisions.
However, the updates reflected in this Transportation Plan, particularly the increased emphasis on
non-motorized elements and alternative transportation modes, are consistent with the policy
direction that VISION 2040 provides.
Destination 2030
The central Puget Sound region’s current long-range plan, Destination 2030, addresses long-term
transportation strategies and investments in King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Kitsap Counties.
Adopted in 2001, Destination 2030 was developed to maintain and expand the regional vision of
a growth management strategy, supporting compact urban areas connected by a high capacity
transportation system. Destination 2030 focuses on preserving and managing the existing
transportation system and ensuring the development of a balanced multi-modal transportation
system that includes choices for private vehicles, public transit, ride sharing, walking and
bicycling, and freight modes. Destination 2030 coordinates the diverse ambitions of the region’s
counties, cities, towns, and neighborhoods, and emphasizes the connection between land use and
transportation to reduce long-term infrastructure costs and provide better links between home,
work, and other activities. Destination 2030 meets requirements governing Regional
Transportation Plans in central Puget Sound.
Destination 2030 was updated in 2007, satisfying new requirements and preparing for more
extensive plan updates in 2010. The updates address emerging transportation trends and enhance
the safety, security and special needs transportation aspects of Destination 2030. The
improvements also add provisions related to congestion management, commute trip reduction,
and environmental mitigation.
Packet Page 118 of 487
Introduction
September 2009 1-7
Transportation 2040
PSRC is updating the current regional transportation plan, Destination 2030. The new plan,
Transportation 2040, will extend the region’s long-range transportation vision to the year 2040
and respond to the recently updated regional growth strategy, VISION 2040. The plan is expected
to be adopted in 2010 (Puget Sound Regional Council 2009).
Six alternatives—the baseline plus five action alternatives—have been created during the initial
planning process and each includes a funding strategy. The alternatives consider two related
approaches to transportation investment: improving efficiency and strategic expansion. Improving
efficiency means that we make better use of the system to move people and goods and that we
attempt to reduce the demands on the system during peak hour travel. Efficiency also depends on
better use of land to reduce the need to drive and to increase bicycle and pedestrian options. The
updated plan will continue to meet federal and state transportation planning requirements (Puget
Sound Regional Council 2009).
Snohomish County Countywide Planning Policies
The Snohomish County Countywide Planning Policies are written policies used to establish a
countywide framework from which the county and cities’ comprehensive plans are developed.
The Countywide Planning Policies were originally adopted in 1994 and were last amended in
2008. Future amendments will be in response to changes in the countywide growth strategy,
changes in the GMA, decisions of the Growth Management Hearings Board, and issues involving
local plan implementation.
Countywide Planning Policies include the following:
x Policies to implement urban growth areas;
x Policies for the promotion of contiguous and orderly development and provision of urban
services;
x Policies for rural land use;
x Policies for housing;
x Policies for the siting of public capital facilities of a countywide or statewide nature;
x Policies for economic development and employment;
x Fiscal impact analysis;
x Policies for transportation.
Transportation policies are intended to guide transportation planning by the county and cities
within Snohomish County and to provide the basis for regional coordination with WSDOT and
transportation operating agencies. The policies ensure that the countywide transportation systems
are adequate to serve the level of land development that is allowed and forecasted.
Packet Page 119 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 1-8
Edmonds Comprehensive Plan
The most current update of the City’s Comprehensive Plan was adopted in December 2008. The
Comprehensive Plan has the following purposes:
To serve as the basis for municipal policy on development and to provide guiding principles
and objectives for the development of regulations.
To promote the public health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity and the general welfare
and values of the community.
To anticipate and influence the orderly and coordinated development of land and building use
of the city and its environs, and conserve and restore natural beauty and other natural
resources.
To encourage coordinated development and discourage piecemeal, spot or strip zoning and
inharmonious subdividing.
To facilitate adequate provisions for public services such as transportation, police and fire
protection, water supply, sewage treatment, and parks.
(City of Edmonds 2008)
The Comprehensive Plan serves as the City’s primary growth management tool. A community
such as Edmonds, with attractive natural features, a pleasant residential atmosphere and proximity
to a large urban center, is subject to constant growth pressures. Growth management is intended
to provide a long-range strategy guiding how the City will develop and how services will be
provided.
GMA requires that jurisdictions plan to accommodate housing and employment forecasts for the
next 20 years within Urban Growth Areas. The City of Edmonds’ share of regional growth by the
year 2025 is 5,420 additional residents (approximately 3,079 residential units) compared to 2000.
By 2025, total population is expected to reach 44,880 residents.
An extensive public process was conducted for the 2004 comprehensive plan update. It included
numerous public workshops, open houses, and televised work sessions both at the Planning Board
and City Council. Three public hearings were held at the Planning Board and two public hearings
were held at the City Council.
The Comprehensive Transportation Plan serves as the transportation element of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan. As discussed in the VISION 2040 discussion above, the City’s next major
update to the Comprehensive Plan is due in 2011, and will demonstrate alignment with the
VISION 2040 Regional Growth Strategy, including expanded provisions for addressing health
and the built environment, design, environmental planning and climate change.
Packet Page 120 of 487
Introduction
September 2009 1-9
Public Participation
The Comprehensive Transportation Plan has included a significant amount of community
involvement at all stages of the planning and development process, starting with the original Plan
development in 1995, and continuing in the major Plan updates that have been completed in 2002
and 2009.
Original 1995 Transportation Plan
When the Transportation Element was initially created in 1995, citizens were encouraged to
participate through completion of questionnaires and involvement in public open houses. In
addition, a six-member Citizen Advisory Committee was established to oversee all aspects of the
plan as it was developed.
The project was launched with a brochure mailed to each of the approximately 14,000 residences
and businesses in the city. The brochure explained the purpose of the Transportation Plan, the
planning process, the components of the plan, and public participation opportunities. The
brochure also contained a mail-back questionnaire through which respondents could identify
problems with congestion, speeding and safety, as well as any other traffic problems that they
perceived. Approximately 150 citizens provided input by returning the questionnaires.
2002 Transportation Plan Update
For the 2002 update of the Transportation Plan, the City implemented a community involvement
strategy that included public open houses and the participation of the Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) and Citizens’ Advisory Committee (CAC).
Two public open houses provided a forum for the citizens to identify high priority transportation
issues, and to review and provide comments on various components of the proposed
Transportation Plan. Participants in the open houses provided suggestions for improving roadway
infrastructure (i.e. signals, pavement marking, roadway width), transit, and pedestrian access; and
identified issues related to roadway connectivity, speeding and cut-through traffic (with support
for traffic calming), and access issues for disabled citizens.
Two advisory committees, the TAC and CAC, were formed to oversee the 2002 Transportation
Element Update. The TAC was made up in part by representatives from various City
departments, including Engineering, Planning, Public Works, Parks, Fire, Police, and the School
Districts. In addition, the TAC membership included representatives from WSDOT, Snohomish
County, Washington State Ferries, Community Transit, Sound Transit, and the neighboring City
of Lynnwood. Membership in the CAC included representatives from Bicycle Facilities, Parking,
Development, as well as a wide variety of neighborhoods and corridors throughout the city.
Packet Page 121 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 1-10
In addition to the jurisdictions represented on the TAC, the following agencies reviewed the
Transportation Plan: the City of Mountlake Terrace, the City of Shoreline, the Town of
Woodway, and PSRC.
2009 Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Feedback obtained from open houses, citizen committee involvement, and intergovernmental
coordination was very useful to the initial development and subsequent revision of the
Transportation Plan, greatly enhancing its effectiveness. These efforts led to more realistic
assessments of existing conditions and impacts of forecasted growth, as well as the identification
of appropriate measures to address both current and future conditions.
Public Open Houses
Three public open houses were held at Edmonds City Hall to inform the community about the
Comprehensive Transportation Plan and gather comments on transportation improvement
priorities.
The first open house was held on June 19, 2008. The purpose of this meeting was to introduce the
project to citizens, share the existing transportation inventories and existing conditions analyses
that had been completed, and gather input from participants on the transportation issues they felt
are most important. The second meeting was held on March 5, 2009. The purpose of this meeting
was to share the results of future conditions analyses, present the preliminary list of
recommended transportation projects, present that preliminary cost and revenue projections, and
solicit citizen input on project funding priorities. The third meeting was held on June 30, 2009.
The purpose of this meeting was to share the recommended transportation projects, which had
been refined to incorporate the feedback gathered on the preliminary list, and also to discuss the
financial outlook for transportation capital projects and solicit citizen input on potential funding
strategies. Each meeting began with a presentation by project staff, providing an overview of
project objectives, and specifics such as the existing conditions assessment, potential
transportation improvement projects, anticipated costs and available revenues, and potential
funding opportunities. Following each presentation, participants were invited to view display
boards and fact sheets, talk with project staff, and submit comment cards. Citizen comments
helped guide the city staff to identify project priorities and viable funding sources, and finalize
the recommended Transportation Plan.
The public open houses were publicized through notice in the City newsletter, City website,
advertisement on the local government channel, and meeting notification in the local newspaper.
Public participation materials used for this update process are included in Appendix A.
Packet Page 122 of 487
Introduction
September 2009 1-11
Citizen Advisory Transportation Committee
The City of Edmonds Citizen Advisory Transportation Committee is comprised of eight citizens
who meet monthly with City engineering staff. The purpose of the Committee is to:
Monitor and make recommendations relative to motorized and non-motorized transportation
issues, systems and funding;
Contribute input to updates of the City Comprehensive Transportation Plan and monitor the
efforts to implement the improvements detailed in the Plan; and
Enhance communication with the public with regard to transportation needs.
The Transportation Committee provided transportation recommendations for updates reflected in
this Transportation Plan. City staff worked with Transportation Committee members throughout
the Plan development to update the City’s transportation goals and policies, discuss Plan
elements, and determine how best to produce a balanced multimodal plan.
Walkway Committee
The Edmonds Walkway Committee is comprised of 12 citizen volunteers, who walk frequently
and live throughout the city. Their role is to evaluate criteria such as safety and access to schools
and parks; prioritize proposed sidewalk project based on the criteria; and to provide feedback and
recommendations related to the City Comprehensive Walkway Plan. The Walkway Committee
met monthly from March 2008 through September 2008 and provided walkway recommendations
presented in Chapter 4 of this Transportation Plan.
Edmonds Bike Group
The long-standing group meets monthly to discuss bicycle transportation issues. Membership
includes over 50 residents, with about 10 members who regularly attend monthly group meetings.
Members represent Edmonds and Woodway and are interested in improving citywide bicycle
infrastructure and conditions for bicycle travel. The Bike Group helped establish three bicycle
loop trails as well as a bike map indicating existing local bicycle lanes and where lanes should be
added as part of future roadway improvement projects. The Bike Group’s recommendations are
also included in Chapter 4 of this Transportation Plan.
Intergovernmental Coordination
The following agencies reviewed this Comprehensive Transportation Plan: WSDOT, PSRC,
Community Transit, Snohomish County, City of Mountlake Terrace, City of Shoreline, and Town
of Woodway.
Packet Page 123 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 1-12
Overview of the Transportation Plan Elements
This Comprehensive Transportation Plan includes the following elements:
Chapter 2: Goals, Objectives, and Policies – Presents the transportation goals,
objectives, and policies that guide the assessments of existing and future conditions, and the
development of the Recommended Transportation Plan.
Chapter 3: Street System – Provides an inventory of existing streets, existing and
projected future traffic volumes, assessment of existing and projected future roadway
operations, safety assessment, standards for different street types, and recommended
improvements to address safety and mobility needs.
Chapter 4: Non-Motorized System – Provides an inventory of existing walkways and
bikeways, assessment of needs, strategy for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA), and recommended improvements to address pedestrian and bicycle mobility and
safety.
Chapter 5: Transit and Transportation Demand Management – Provides an inventory
of existing transit facilities and service, including buses, rail and ferries; and presents
strategies to support transit and commute trip reduction.
Chapter 6: Implementation and Financial Plan – Provides a summary of the projects,
project prioritization, total costs, and financial strategies and projected revenue for
recommended improvements through 2025.
Packet Page 124 of 487
September 2009 2-1
Chapter 2. Goals, Objectives, and Policies
Assessments of existing and future conditions, as well as development of the Transportation Plan,
are guided by transportation goals, objectives, and policies developed by the City. A major update
of the goals, objectives, and policies took place as part of the 2002 update of the Transportation
Element, under the direction of the Citizen Advisory and Technical Advisory Committees. The
goals, objectives, and policies were further refined as part of the 2009 Transportation Plan, under
the direction of the Citizen Advisory Transportation Committee.
Goals, objectives and policies are defined under the following major categories:
State and Regional Context
Streets and Highways
Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation
Public Transportation
Streetscape
Capital Facilities
Traffic Calming
Air Quality and Climate Change
Under each category, the following information is provided:
A.General consists of a general discussion of the context, issues and priorities behind the
development of the goals, objectives and policies for that category.
B.Goals are generalized statements which broadly relate the physical environment to values,
but for which no test for fulfillment can be readily applied.
C.Objectives are specific measurable statements related to the attainment of goals.
Packet Page 125 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 2-2
D. Under each objective,Policies are listed that provide specific direction for meeting the
objectives.
The transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan is guided by the following transportation
goals and policies, initially developed for the 1995 Transportation Element and updated in 2002
and 2009. Inevitably, conflict will occasionally arise between a transportation policy and real-
world constraints and opportunities, or even between two policies. After the specifics of the
situation and the purpose of the policies are fully understood, the conflict will be resolved using
the best judgment of the City Council, as advised by City staff and the Citizen Advisory
Transportation Committee.
The following sub-sections define each of the Transportation Policies to guide the development
of transportation in the city, within the broader framework of the Goals and Objectives.
15.25.000 State and Regional Context
A.General: The combination of an increasing population, demand for transportation, and ever
tightening limits on funding has led to a need to plan for future transportation systems that are
more efficient movers of people and goods. Public transportation is expected to play an
increasing role in the transportation system, and state and regional priorities are being shifted
to encourage this goal. For this strategy to work, however, it also requires a commitment to
maintaining existing transportation networks and investments, and to providing connections
between different modes of travel.
B.State Goal: Encourage efficient multi-modal transportation systems that are based on
regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans.
Regional Goal: Strategically invest in a variety of mobility options and demand
management to support the regional system of activity centers.
15.25.010 Streets and Highways
A.General. The street system in Edmonds is established on the Official Street Map and
Arterial System Map. New right-of-way additions occur primarily in subdivisions. Within the
city, three state highways, rail, and ferry facilities serve regional travel.
A significant challenge facing the City is to bring substandard streets to City standards by
providing such facilities as underground utilities, sidewalks, bikeways and landscaping. Key
intersections that are operating at or beyond capacity must be improved.
Feedback from citizens who participated in public meetings has clearly indicated concern
about the types of potential transportation improvements, and the impact of improvements on
existing neighborhoods. By placing an emphasis on providing facilities for bicycles,
pedestrians, and buses, streetscapes can become a friendlier environment for all users.
Packet Page 126 of 487
Goals, Objectives, and Policies
September 2009 2-3
Speed and noise can be problems where arterial streets adjoin residential neighborhoods.
Land use changes frequently occur where major arterial streets are improved.
B.Goal I: Develop transportation systems that complement the land use, parks, cultural, and
sustainability elements of the Comprehensive Plan.
Goal II: Provide transportation services that enhance the safety of the community, maximize
the use of the existing street system, and maintain the unique character of the city and its
neighborhoods.
Goal III: Implement transportation improvements in a way that minimizes adverse impacts
on the natural environment, air quality, climate change, and energy consumption.
Goal IV: Develop transportation improvements that support commuting in a way that
discourages the use of local streets.
Goal V: Prioritize and finance transportation improvements for the greatest public benefit,
emphasizing transit, demand management, and maintenance of current facilities.
Goal VI: Take a leadership role in coordinating the transportation actions of both local and
non-local agencies. Seek to promote creative, coordinated solutions that do the following:
Meet transportation service needs;
Link local transportation networks with regional, state and national transportation
systems;
Increase use of public transit and non-motorized transportation;
Reduce congestion;
Reduce energy consumption;
Provide solutions consistent with the City’s land use and cultural goals, and
sustainability initiatives.
C.Objective 1: Community Standards. The goals of the Comprehensive Plan, the needs
and desires of its citizens, the integrity of its neighborhoods, shopping areas, parks, recreation
facilities, schools and other public facilities are the criteria for measuring the effectiveness
and success of transportation programs and improvements.
Policy 1.1 Locate and design streets and highways to meet the demands of both
existing and projected land uses as provided for in the Comprehensive
Plan.
Policy 1.2 Locate and design street and highway improvements to respect the
residential character of the community and its quality living
environment.
Policy 1.3 Minimize the adverse impact of street and highway improvements on the
natural environment.
Packet Page 127 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 2-4
Policy 1.4 Design streets to minimize environmental impacts on established
neighborhoods.
Policy 1.5 Develop roadway design standards with sufficient flexibility to reflect
the differences in character and function of different roadways.
Objective 2: Conservation. Streets, sidewalks and bikeways should be located, designed
and improved in a manner that will conserve land, materials and energy. New streets must
meet minimum City standards and code requirements. Streets and highways should be
integrated into the total transportation system to facilitate the development of public
transportation and increase mobility while reducing travel time and costs of construction and
maintenance, in accordance with the following policies:
Policy 2.1 Design streets with the minimum pavement areas needed, to reduce
impervious surfaces.
Policy 2.2 Include pedestrian and bicycle elements in roadway improvements to
encourage energy conservation.
Policy 2.3 Utilize innovative materials where feasible to reduce impervious
surfaces.
Policy 2.4 Design arterial and collector streets as complete streets that serve
automobile, transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel.
Objective 3: Design Standards. Design requirements for streets and alleys should be
related to needs and desires of the local community within reasonable guidelines for safety,
function, aesthetic appearance and cost. Each new street improvement should be scaled to the
density, land use, and overall function that the roadway is designed to serve, in accordance
with the following policies:
Policy 3.1 Design local residential streets to prevent or discourage use as shortcuts
for vehicle through-traffic. Coordinate local traffic control measures with
the affected neighborhood.
Policy 3.2 Periodically review functional classifications of city streets, and adjust
the classifications when appropriate.
Policy 3.3 Provide on-street parking as a secondary street function, only in
specifically designated areas such as in the downtown business district
and in residential areas where onsite parking is limited. Streets should
not be designed to provide on-street parking as a primary function,
particularly in areas with frequent transit service
Policy 3.4 Encourage parking on one side rather than both sides of streets with
narrow rights-of-way.
Packet Page 128 of 487
Goals, Objectives, and Policies
September 2009 2-5
Policy 3.5 Design streets to accommodate vehicles which use the street most
frequently, rather than large vehicles which may use the street only
occasionally.
Policy 3.6 Relate required street widths to the function and operating standards for
the street.
Policy 3.7 Include analysis of geological, topographical, and hydrological
conditions in street design.
Policy 3.8 Encourage landscaping on residential streets to preserve existing trees
and vegetation, increase open spaces, and decrease impervious surfaces.
Landscaping may be utilized to provide visual and physical barriers but
should be carefully designed not to interfere with motorists’ sight
distance and traffic, pedestrian, bicycle, and wheel chair safety.
Landscaping improvements should take maintenance requirements into
consideration.
Policy 3.9 Encourage underground placements of utilities at the time of extensive
street improvement.
Policy 3.10 Encourage placement of underground conduit for future installation of
fiber optic cable at the time of extensive street improvement.
Policy 3.11 Design street improvements so as not to impair the safe and efficient
movement of pedestrians and bicycle traffic.
Policy 3.12 Restrict access between non-arterial streets and the SR 99 commercial
corridor to the extent necessary to prevent nonresidential traffic from
entering residential areas, and to maintain efficient traffic flow and
turning movements on SR 99.
Policy 3.13 Design street improvements to encourage downtown traffic circulation to
flow in and around commercial blocks, promoting customer convenience
and reducing congestion. Separate through-traffic from local traffic
circulation to encourage and support customer access.
Policy 3.14 Carefully review parking requirements for downtown development
proposals; to promote the development while still ensuring adequate
balance between parking supply and demand.
Policy 3.15 Provide access between private property and the public street system that
is safe and convenient, and incorporates the following considerations:
a. Limit and provide access to the street network in a manner consistent
with the function and purpose of each roadway. Encourage the
preparation of comprehensive access plans and consolidation of
access points in commercial and residential areas through shared
driveways and local access streets.
Packet Page 129 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 2-6
b. Require new development to consolidate and minimize access points
along all state highways, principal arterials, and minor arterials.
c. Place a high priority on consolidating existing access points onto all
arterial streets in the city. This effort should be coordinated with
local business and property owners in conjunction with
improvements to the arterial system and redevelopment of adjacent
land parcels.
d. Design the street system so that the majority of direct residential
access is provided via local streets.
e. For access onto state highways, implement Chapter 468-52 of the
Washington Administrative Code (WAC), Highway Access
Management -- Access Control Classification System and Standards.
Policy 3.16 Encourage underground parking as part of new development.
Objective 4: Circulation. Circulation and connectivity throughout the city should be via
the system of arterial and collector streets, bikeways and pedestrian paths. Local streets
should be utilized for local property access and designed in a manner to discourage cut-
through vehicular traffic.
Policy 4.1 Encourage the efficient movement of people and goods through an
effective and inter-connected collector and arterial street system.
Policy 4.2 The use of dead end streets and culs-de-sac should be avoided. When
unavoidable, the length of a dead end street, including cul-de-sac, should
be limited to 600 feet, with a minimum 35-foot radius to back of curb on
the cul-de-sac.
Policy 4.32 Complete the arterial sidewalk system according to the following priority
list:
a. Arterial roadways without sidewalks or shoulders on which transit
service is provided;
b. Arterial roadways without sidewalks or shoulders on which transit
service is not provided;
c. Arterial roadways with shoulders too narrow or in or poor walking
condition for pedestrians;
d. Arterial roadways with adequate shoulders for pedestrians but
without sidewalks; and
e. The remainder of the arterial roadway system (e.g. roads with
sidewalks along one side, or roads with sidewalks in disrepair).
Policy 4.43 Design streets to accommodate emergency service vehicles.
Packet Page 130 of 487
Goals, Objectives, and Policies
September 2009 2-7
Policy 4.54 Coordinate traffic signals located within ½ mile of each other to decrease
delay and improve operations.
Objective 5: New Development. Improve traffic safety and reduce congestion through
appropriate street design and site layout during the development process.
Policy 5.1 Require new development to dedicate adequate street rights-of-way for
public streets as specified by City Standards.
Policy 5.2 Use public rights-of-way only for public purposes. The private use of a
public right-of-way is prohibited unless expressly granted by the City.
Policy 5.3 Acquire easements and/or development rights in lieu of rights-of-way for
installation of some smaller facilities such as sidewalks and bikeways.
Policy 5.4 Convert private streets to public streets only when:
a. The City Council has determined that a public benefit would result.
b. The street has been improved to the appropriate City public street
standard.
c. The City Engineer has determined that conversion will have minimal
effect on the City’s street maintenance budget.
d. In the case that the conversion is initiated by the owner(s) of the
road, that the owner(s) finance the survey and legal work required
for the conversion.
15.25.020 Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation
A.General. Walking and bicycling are beneficial forms of recreation, transportation, and a
means of maintaining physical fitness, in addition to an excellent means of exploring the
community. Carefully targeted investments in the city’s non-motorized network have the
potential to provide an enhanced level of accessibility and mobility to residents at a relatively
low cost. With geographically strategic investments in facilities such as sidewalks,
crosswalks, bicycle paths and bicycle lanes, many short trips that are currently taken by car
could be shifted to walking or bicycling trips.
Recreational walkways are discussed in the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Walkway Plan
(summarized in Chapter 4 of this Transportation Plan) and incorporate existing sidewalks and
natural trails. Sidewalks exist on many major streets but some improvements are needed as
well as addition of these facilities on several important routes.
Although bicycling has rapidly expanded as a recreational activity in the community, it is also
an important means of transportation. For many people, it provides the only available form of
local transportation. The Bikeway Comprehensive Plan (summarized in Chapter 4 of this
Transportation Plan) provides guidance and prioritizes bicycle improvements throughout the
city.
Packet Page 131 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 2-8
Planning for and implementing a connected system of walkways and bikeways is a way to
promote community health, as recognized in the “Community Sustainability Element” of the
Comprehensive Plan currently being developed by the City.
B.Goal VII: Improve non-motorized transportation facilities and services.
C.Objective 6: Sidewalks. Provide safe, efficient and attractive pedestrian facilities as an
essential element of the city circulation and recreation system. Safe walkways must be an
integral part of the City’s street and recreation plans to encourage and promote walking for
both transportation and recreational purposes.
Policy 6.1 Construct pedestrian facilities on all streets and highways;
interconnecting with other modes of transportation.
Policy 6.2 Design sidewalks for use by people at all mobility levels. Sidewalks and
curb cuts should meet the requirements of the ADA.
Policy 6.3 Construct sidewalks with durable materials.
Policy 6.4 Construct sidewalks in an ecologically friendly manner, encouraging the
use of pervious paving materials where feasible.
Policy 6.5 Locate sidewalk amenities, including but not limited to poles, benches,
planters, trashcans, bike racks, and awnings, so as to not obstruct non-
motorized traffic or transit access.
Policy 6.6 Place highest priority on provision of lighting on sidewalks and
crosswalks that regularly carry non-motorized traffic at night.
Policy 6.7 Locate sidewalks to facilitate community access to parks, schools,
neighborhoods, and shopping centers.
Policy 6.8 Locate sidewalks along transit routes to provide easy access to transit
stops.
Policy 6.9 Implement a curb ramp retrofit program to upgrade existing sub-standard
pedestrian ramps and curb cuts to meet the requirements of the ADA.
Policy 6.10 Maintain existing public sidewalks.
Policy 6.11 Place highest priority on pedestrian safety in areas frequented by
children, such as near schools, parks, and playgrounds. Provide
walkways in these areas at every opportunity.
Policy 6.12 Periodically review and update walkway construction priorities in the
Transportation Plan.
Policy 6.13 Design pedestrian improvements to include curbs, gutters and sidewalks,
in accordance with the Edmonds Streetscape Plan (City of Edmonds
2006), including the Street Tree Plan. Provide tree grates between the
curb and sidewalk, where appropriate, with adequate levels of
Packet Page 132 of 487
Goals, Objectives, and Policies
September 2009 2-9
illumination and low water requirements. The landscape buffers must not
obstruct minimum sight distances.
Policy 6.14 Require sidewalk construction along street frontages to complete missing
links, increase pedestrian safety, and provide linkages to key
destinations, as a condition of development approval in accordance with
ECDC 18.90 and Transportation Policies 7.1 through 7.4.
Policy 6.15 Conduct pedestrian safety studies at locations where regular pedestrian
crossings are observed along unstriped stretches of road. Install
crosswalks at locations where the study indicates they are warranted, and
where a minimum sight distance between pedestrians and drivers are
met.
Policy 6.16 Encourage the use of innovative crosswalk treatments, such as pedestrian
actuated flashing signals or pedestrian crossing flags.
Policy 6.17 Encourage collaboration between the Engineering and Parks departments
to develop a network of walkways throughout the city. This network
could include but not be limited to signed loop trails in neighborhoods,
park-to-park walkways, and theme-related walks.
Policy 6.18 Encourage separation of walkways from bikeways, where feasible.
Policy 6.19 Provide a complete sidewalk network in commercial areas, especially
downtown, as an element of public open space that supports pedestrian
and commercial activity.
Objective 7: Sidewalk Construction Policy. Require sidewalks to be constructed as a
condition of development, for those projects that increase the number of residential units, or
include commercial development or other uses that generate pedestrian acitivity.
Policy 7.1 The City Engineer will determine whether sidewalks are required as a
condition of approval for development projects. If they are required, the
developer shall construct sidewalks along the street(s) fronted by the
project, including new streets constructed as part of the development. If
one or a combination of the following criteria is applicable to a project,
sidewalks will be required as a condition of approval:
a. Sidewalks are required by ECDC 18.90.030;
b. Any sidewalks presently exist within 1,000 feet of the proposed
development project on the street(s) on which the project fronts;
c. The current Walkway Plan (chapter 4) indicates sidewalks/walkways
are proposed at the project location (see Figure 4.3);
Packet Page 133 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 2-10
d. The current Bikeway Plan (chapter 4) indicates a designated or
proposed designated bikeway at the project location (see Figure 4-6);
and/or
e. The project is located within 1,000 feet and on a street leading to
facilities such as parks, schools, churches, shopping/commercial
establishments, etc., which generate pedestrian traffic.
Policy 7.2 Require sidewalks on both sides of the street inside the designated
Downtown Sidewalk Area (see Figure 3-9).
Policy 7.3 Sidewalks will not be required as a condition of approval if:
a. The City Engineer makes an affirmative determination that none of
the above criteria apply to the project, and that sidewalks are not
necessary and will not be necessary for the foreseeable future; and/or
b. The City Engineer, with the approval of the Planning Manager,
determines that, in accordance with ECDC 18.90.030.B, special
circumstances exist related to topography, insufficient right-of-way,
or other factors making construction of sidewalks economically
unfeasible or physically impossible.
Policy 7.4 When the City Engineer determines that sidewalks are required as a
condition of approval, payment-in-lieu of construction will be allowed
only if:
a. The City’s six-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes a
specifically identified City project for sidewalks at the location of the
development project, and
b. The City Engineer determines that it will be in the best interest of the
City to construct sidewalks at the development project location as
part of and concurrently with the City’s identified capital project.
Objective 8: Bicycle Facilities. Provide safe and efficient bicycle facilities as an essential
element of the city circulation and recreation system. Safe bicycle facilities must be an
integral part of the City’s street and recreation plans to encourage and promote bicycling for
both transportation and recreational purposes.
Policy 8.1 Seek opportunities to improve safety for those who bicycle in the city.
Policy 8.2 Place highest priority for improvements to bicycle facilities near schools,
commercial districts, and transit facilities.
Policy 8.3 Provide connections to bicycle facilities in adjacent jurisdictions.
Policy 8.4 Provide bicycle lanes on arterial streets, where feasible, to encourage the
use of bicycles for transportation and recreation purposes.
Policy 8.5 Identify bicycle routes through signage.
Packet Page 134 of 487
Goals, Objectives, and Policies
September 2009 2-11
Policy 8.6 Provide bicycle racks or bicycle lockers in commercial, school, multi-
family residences, and recreational areas.
Policy 8.7 Ensure that existing public bicycle facilities are maintained, and
upgraded when feasible.
15.25.030 Public Transportation
A.General. The City is well served by public transportation providers including Community
Transit, Sound Transit, Amtrak, Washington State Ferries and the Edmonds School District.
Transportation options include bus, van, ferry, and rail.
Public transportation provides a range of benefits for our community:
Primary mobility for those who cannot drive, including many of our youth, seniors,
and citizens with disabilities
Mobility options for people who choose not to drive – either to avoid congestion,
save money, or support the environment
Preserves the quality of our environment by conserving energy, supporting better air
quality, and reducing congestion on our roadways
Community Transit is the primary public transit provider in Edmonds, offering local and
commuter bus services, specialized door-to-door transportation for persons with disabilities,
commuter vanpools, carpool matching, park-and-ride lots, transportation consulting for
employers, training programs for youth, seniors and persons with disabilities, and overall
customer assistance. Sound Transit (Commuter Rail Station) provides rail and bus service
between Everett, Seattle, and Tacoma. King County Metro does not provide local service
within the city, but connections are available between Community Transit and Metro routes
at the Aurora Village Transit Center.
Additionally, the Washington State Ferry system provides ferry service between Edmonds
and the City of Kingston on the Olympic Peninsula; and Amtrak provides intercity rail
service. The Edmonds School District provides bus service to schools. Additionally, some
school bus service is provided by Community Transit.
The location of the city along Puget Sound with the convergence of the state ferry terminal,
passenger rail service, a highway of statewide significance SR 104, bus service, and a
pedestrian and bicycle network, offers unique opportunities for coordinated service as the hub
of a public transportation network. The potential for multi-modal transportation facilities
should continue to be examined and evaluated.
B.Goal VIII: The public transportation system should provide alternatives for transportation
that enable all persons to have reasonable access to locations of employment, health care,
education, and community business and recreational facilities.
Packet Page 135 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 2-12
Goal IX: Enhance the movement of people, services and goods. Transportation system
improvements should encourage the use of travel alternatives to the single occupancy vehicle.
C.Objective 9: Operations. Enhance public transit options and operations to provide
alternatives to the automobile and as a means of reducing air pollution, conserving energy,
and relieving traffic congestion in accordance with the following policies:
Policy 9.1 Work with transit providers to ensure that transit service within the city
is:
a. Convenient and flexible to meet community needs;
b. Dependable, affordable, and maintains regular schedules;
c. Provides adequate service during evening hours, weekends, and
holidays; and
d. Comfortable and safe for all users.
Policy 9.2 Work with transit providers to ensure that public transit is accessible
within reasonable distance of any address in the system area. A desirable
maximum distance is 0.25 mile.
Policy 9.3 Work with transit providers to serve designated activity centers with
appropriate levels of transit service. Transit stops should be properly
located throughout the activity center, and designed to serve local
commuting and activity patterns, and significant concentrations of
employment.
Policy 9.4 Design new development and redevelopment in activity centers to
provide pedestrian access to transit.
Policy 9.5 Works with transit providers to coordinate public transit with school
district transportation systems to provide transportation for school
children.
Policy 9.6 Integrate existing ferry terminal, urban design and feasibility studies into
the City planning process for the planned relocation of the ferry dock to
serve future transportation needs while maintaining the community’s
character.
Policy 9.7 Coordinate and link ferry, rail, bus, auto, and non-motorized travel to
form a multi-modal system providing access to regional transportation
systems while ensuring the quality, safety, and integrity of local
commercial districts and residential neighborhoods.
Policy 9.8 Develop a multi-modal transportation center along the
downtown/waterfront of the city that is the focal point for increasing the
capacity, interconnectivity, and efficiency of moving people and goods
along state and interstate highway routes, intercity passenger and
Packet Page 136 of 487
Goals, Objectives, and Policies
September 2009 2-13
commuter railroad systems, public transit system, and local and regional
bikeways and bike routes.
Policy 9.9 Locate and design a multi-modal transportation center and terminal to
serve the city’s needs with the following elements:
A ferry terminal that meets the operational requirements to
accommodate forecast ridership demand and that provides proper
separation of automobile, bicycle and walk-on passenger loading;
A train station that meets intercity passenger service and commuter
rail loading requirements, and provides the requisite amenities such
as waiting areas, storage and bicycle lockers;
A transit center that meets the local and regional transit system
requirements;
A linkage between stations/terminals that meets the operational and
safety requirements of each mode, including a link between the
multi-modal station terminal to the business/commerce center in
downtown Edmonds;
Safety features that include better separation between train traffic
and other modes of travel, particularly vehicle and passenger ferry
traffic as well as the general public; and
Overall facility design that minimizes the impact to the natural
environment, in particular the adjacent marshes.
Policy 9.10 Encourage joint public/private efforts to participate in transportation
demand management and traffic reduction strategies.
Policy 9.11 Work with other government agencies that cause additional
transportation impacts or costs to the City, so that the agencies mitigate
the impacts and/or defray the costs.
Policy 9.12 Explore future funding for a city-based circulator bus that provides local
shuttle service between neighborhoods (Firdale Village, Perrinville, Five
Corners, Westgate) and downtown.
Objective 10: Coordination. Coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions, state and regional
transportation agencies, Community Transit, Washington State Department of Transportation
(WSDOT), Washington State Ferries, and Amtrak in the development and location of
transportation facilities.
Policy 10.1 Participate in local and regional forums to coordinate strategies and
programs that further the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
Policy 10.2 Work with neighboring jurisdictions and regional and state agencies to
coordinate transportation system improvements and assure that funding
requirements are met.
Packet Page 137 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 2-14
Policy 10.3 Encourage public transportation providers within the city to coordinate
services to ensure the most effective transportation system possible.
Policy 10.4 Coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions and regional and state agencies
to encourage their support of the City’s policies and planning processes.
Policy 10.5 Participate on the boards of Community Transit and other public transit
providers, and regularly share citizen and business comments regarding
transit services to the appropriate provider.
Objective 11: Access. Provide safe and convenient pedestrian access to bus stops, and
inter-modal transfer locations, the rail station, and the ferry terminal.
Policy 11.1 Place priority on coordinating bus routes and bus stop sites in City plans
for street lighting improvements.
Policy 11.2 Place priority on corridors served by transit for sidewalk improvements,
especially in locations that connect neighborhoods, parks, schools and
businesses to bus stops. Sidewalks should also be a priority on
connecting roads within 0.25 mile of a transit corridor.
Policy 11.3 Include boarding pads at bus stop sites as part of sidewalk construction
projects, to allow for shelters.
Policy 11.4 Work with Community Transit to provide additional passenger shelters
and benches at bus stops sites within Edmonds.
Objective 12: Roadway Infrastructure. Provide a roadway network that supports the
provision of public transportation within the city.
Policy 12.1 Design Arterial and Collector roadways to accommodate buses and other
modes of public transportation (including the use of high occupancy
vehicle priority treatments, transit signal priority, queue bypass lanes,
boarding pads and shelter pads, and transit-only lanes where
appropriate).
Policy 12.2 Coordinate with local public transit agencies and private transit providers
regarding road closures or other events that may disrupt normal transit
operations in order to minimize impacts to transit customers.
15.25.040 Streetscape
A.General. The City is a place with unique character and beauty. The street system has a
tremendous impact on the scenic quality of our community and should complement our
setting, while supporting our neighborhoods.
B.Goal X: Incorporate streetscape design in the development and redevelopment of city streets
to enhance the scenic beauty of, and help preserve, our neighborhoods. The Edmonds
Packet Page 138 of 487
Goals, Objectives, and Policies
September 2009 2-15
Streetscape Plan (City of Edmonds 2006), including the Street Tree Plan, shall guide the
development of these design standards, which need to also recognize the unique
neighborhood characteristics.
C.Objective 13: Design Standards. Develop design standards that result in an attractive
street system consistent with the character of the city.
Policy 13.1 Crosswalks should be eight feet wide.
Policy 13.2 Streetlights should be the main light source for public streets, with the
following minimum standards:
a. The intersection of arterial and collector streets should have a
minimum of two standard street lights with additional street lights
placed at a maximum of 250-foot spacing between intersections;
b. The intersection of residential local streets should have at least one
standard street light;
c. Streetlights and poles should be of a high design quality, with
specifications guided by the Edmonds Streetscape Plan.
Policy 13.3 Street trees should be installed at 50-foot intervals or one per lot
whichever is greater. Plant materials should be specified by the City
Parks Department and maintained in conformance with City policies.
Care should be taken in both the selection and placement of landscaping
materials to protect existing scenic views and vistas.
15.25.050 Capital Facilities, Transportation
A.General. The following goals, objectives and policies address capital facility planning and
financing for projects contained in the transportation element of the Edmonds Comprehensive
Plan. These criteria will serve to guide agencies planning public capital facilities and services
in Edmonds.
B.Goal XI: Provide adequate transportation facilities concurrent with the impact of new
development.
Goal XII: Coordinate the City’s transportation element plans with state, county, and local
agencies.
Goal XIII: Maintain a six-year TIP as part of the capital facilities plan of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Goal XIV: Prepare and maintain a TIP that is financially feasible and financially constrained.
Goal XV: Ensure development pays a proportionate cost of transportation improvements
required to mitigate impacts associated with the development.
Packet Page 139 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 2-16
Goal XVI: Locate and design transportation facilities in keeping with the community
character, and to be compatible with surrounding land uses and the environment.
C.Objective 14: Inventory. Identify and define the transportation facilities in the city.
Policy 14.1 Maintain an inventory of existing transportation facilities owned or
operated by the City and State within Edmonds; include the locations and
capacities of such facilities and systems.
Objective 15: Level of Service. Establish level of service (LOS) standards for City owned
transportation facilities in Edmonds and coordinate with the State on LOS standards for state
owned facilities.
Policy 15.1 The Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, Special
Report 209) is the City’s recognized source for roadway LOS definition
and analysis techniques. The quality of traffic operation is graded into
one of six LOS designations, A through F, with LOS A representing the
free flow traffic operation and LOS F representing the worst levels of
traffic congestion.
Policy 15.2 Establish LOS standards which (1) measure the LOS preferred by city
residents, (2) that can be achieved and maintained for existing
development and growth anticipated in the land use plan, and (3) are
achievable with the TIP and Comprehensive Plan.
Policy 15.3 Minimum LOS standards are established as follows. LOS is measured at
intersections during a typical weekday PM peak hour, using analysis
methods outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation
Research Board 2000). For intersections of roads with different
functional classifications, the standard for the higher classification shall
apply.
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 are designated 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 LOS D is exceeded.
Policy 15.4 When a lower order roadway intersects with one of higher order, apply
the LOS standard for the higher order roadway (e.g., when a collector
and arterial street intersect, the LOS for the arterial street will apply).
Policy 15.5 Use LOS standards to (1) determine the need for transportation facilities,
and (2) test the adequacy of such facilities to serve proposed
Packet Page 140 of 487
Goals, Objectives, and Policies
September 2009 2-17
development. In addition, use LOS standards for City-owned
transportation facilities to help develop the City’s annual budget and 6-
year transportation improvements program.
Policy 15.6 Reassess the TIP annually to ensure that transportation facilities needs,
financing, and levels of service are consistent with the City’s land use
plan. The annual update should be coordinated with the annual budget
process, and the annual amendment of the Comprehensive Plan.
Policy 15.7 Work toward development of a multi-modal LOS standard that considers
transit and non-motorized operations as well as automobile operations.
Objective 16: Transportation System Efficiency. Implement a variety of strategies that
respond to the demands of growth on transportation facilities while maximizing the efficiency
of the existing infrastructure.
Policy 16.1 Ensure city transportation facilities and services are provided concurrent
with new development or redevelopment to mitigate impacts created
from such development. Road improvements may be funded with
mitigation fees, and provided at the time of or within six years of
development.
Policy 16.2 Maximize efficiencies of existing transportation facilities, using
techniques such as:
Transportation Demand Management
Encouraging development to use existing facilities
Other methods of improved efficiency.
Policy 16.3 Provide additional transportation facility capacity when existing facilities
are used to their maximum level of efficiency consistent with adopted
LOS standards.
Policy 16.4 Encourage development where adequate transportation facilities and
services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. Prioritize
location of large trip generators (e.g. community centers, recreation
facilities, shopping, entertainment, public facilities, etc.) within 0.25 mile
of Transit Emphasis Corridors as identified in Community Transit’s Six
Year Transit Development Plan and Long Range Transit Plan.
Policy 16.5 Work with Community Transit to encourage ridesharing at employment
centers.
Objective 17: Coordination. Coordinate transportation planning and programming with
state, regional, county, and local agencies
Packet Page 141 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 2-18
Policy 17.1 Coordinate with non-City providers of transportation facilities and
services on a joint program for maintaining adopted LOS standards,
funding, and construction of capital improvements. Work in partnership
with non-City transportation facility providers to prepare functional plans
consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan.
Policy 17.2 Regularly coordinate with WSDOT, Washington State Ferries,
Community Transit, King County Metro, Snohomish County, the Town
of Woodway, and the Cities of Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood,
Shoreline, and Mukilteo, to ensure levels of service for transportation
facilities are compatible.
Objective 18: Financing. Establish mechanisms to ensure that required transportation
facilities are financially feasible.
Policy 18.1 Base the financing plan for transportation facilities on estimates of
current local revenues and external revenues that are reasonably
anticipated to be received by the City.
Policy 18.2 Finance the six-year TIP within the City's financial capacity to achieve a
balance between available revenue and expenditures related to
transportation facilities. If projected funding is inadequate to finance
needed transportation facilities, based on adopted LOS standards and
forecasted growth, the City should explore one or more of the following
options:
Lower the LOS standard
Change the Land Use Plan
Increase the amount of revenue from existing sources
Adopt new sources of revenue
Policy 18.3 Encourage Neighborhood planning to afford neighborhoods the
opportunity to form Local Improvement Districts (LIDs) to develop
locally based improvements that exceed City standards (e.g. for parking,
median strips, landscaping, traffic calming, walkways or other locally-
determined projects).
Policy 18.4 Seek to balance funding to support multimodal solutions to
transportation needs.
Objective 19: Revenue. Establish mechanisms to ensure that required transportation
facilities are fully funded.
Policy 19.1 Match revenue sources to transportation improvements on the basis of
sound fiscal policies.
Packet Page 142 of 487
Goals, Objectives, and Policies
September 2009 2-19
Policy 19.2 Revise the TIP in the event that revenue sources for transportation
improvements, which require voter approval in a local referendum, are
not approved.
Policy 19.3 Ensure that ongoing operating and maintenance costs associated with a
transportation facility are financially feasible prior to constructing the
facility.
Objective 20: Concurrency. Ensure existing and future development pays for the costs of
needed transportation improvements.
Policy 20.1 Ensure that existing development pays for transportation improvements
that reduce or eliminate existing deficiencies, and pays for some or all of
the cost to replace obsolete or worn out facilities. Existing development
may also pay a portion of the cost of transportation improvements
needed by future development. Existing development's payments may
take the form of user fees, charges for services, special assessments, and
taxes.
Policy 20.2 Ensure that future development pays a proportionate share of the cost to
mitigate impacts associated with new facilities. Future development may
also pay a portion of the cost to replace obsolete or worn-out facilities.
Future development's payments may take the form of voluntary
contributions for the benefit of any transportation facility, impact fees,
mitigation payments, capacity fees, dedications of land, provision of
transportation facilities, and future payments of users fees, charges for
services, special assessments, and taxes.
Objective 21: Partnerships. Seek to mitigate disproportionate financial burdens to the
City due to the location of essential transportation facilities.
Policy 21.1 Through joint planning or inter-local agreements, the City should seek to
mitigate disproportionate financial burdens that result from the location
of essential transportation facilities.
Policy 21.2 Seek amenities or incentives for neighborhoods in which the facilities are
located, to compensate for adverse impacts.
15.25.060 Traffic Calming
A.General. Speeding is the single most received complaint regarding traffic. Locations include
arterials, local access and commercial access streets, and in residential neighborhoods.
Citizens have expressed concern about the safety of children walking along roadways or
playing near the street, vehicles entering streets from driveways or at intersections, and cut-
through traffic. The City should establish a systematic and consistent way of responding to
requests for action, while respecting the City’s limited finances and staff resources. The City
Packet Page 143 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 2-20
must also remain cognizant of the transportation system’s need to carry vehicles efficiently
and effectively.
B.Goal XVII: Respond to citizen requests concerning traffic speed and pass through traffic in a
consistent, systematic and responsive manner, while maintaining the basic function of the
Edmonds street system.
C.Objective 22: Traffic Calming. Maintain a response system to citizen requests concerning
traffic calming procedures by implementing the Traffic Calming program described in this
Transportation Plan (see Appendix B).
Policy 22.1 Use a formal written procedure for traffic calming requests, and an
acknowledgement procedure for receipt of request.
Policy 22.2 Use field investigation procedures that include short-term solutions.
Policy 22.3 Use neighborhood speed watch program.
Policy 22.4 Publicize the formal procedure for traffic calming requests (Policy 22.1)
and neighborhood speed watch program (Policy 22.3).
Policy 22.5 Use permanent traffic calming request procedures and evaluation
procedures.
Policy 22.6 Use permanent traffic calming design criteria.
Policy 22.7 Use a permanent traffic calming authorization procedure.
Policy 22.8 Use a permanent traffic calming implementation procedure.
Policy 22.9 Traffic calming measures should be located and designed so as not to
interfere with bus operation, travel speed, or on-time performance.
15.25.070 Air Quality and Climate Change
A.General. The Washington State Clean Air Conformity Act establishes guidelines and
directives for implementing the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments. The Washington
Administrative Code requires local transportation plans to include policies that promote the
reduction of criteria pollutants that exceed national ambient air quality standards.
Environmental quality is recognized as a critical part of what people often describe as the
“character” of Edmonds. In the “Community Sustainability Element” of the Comprehensive
Plan, the City recognizes that global climate change brings significant risks to the
community, and that appropriate transportation policies are required.
B.Goal XVIII: Comply with Federal and State air quality requirements.
Goal XIX: Promote transportation options such as bicycle trails, commute trip reduction
programs, incentives for car pooling and public transit, in an effort to meet or exceed Kyoto
protocol targets for reducing global warming pollution.
Packet Page 144 of 487
Goals, Objectives, and Policies
September 2009 2-21
C.Objective 22: Air Quality. Participate in efforts by Puget Sound agencies to improve air
quality as it is affected by the movement of people and goods through and around the city.
Policy 23.1 Strive to conform to the Federal and State Clean Air Acts by working to
help implement the Metropolitan Transportation Plan of the PSRC and
by following the requirements of Chapter 173-420 of the WAC.
Policy 23.2 Support transportation investments that advance alternatives to driving
alone, as a measure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and in turn
reduce the effect of citywide transportation on global climate change.
Packet Page 145 of 487
Packet Page 146 of 487
September 2009 3-1
Chapter 3. Street System
This chapter provides an inventory of the existing street system, assessment of existing and
projected future roadway operations, safety assessment, design standards for different street
types, and recommended projects and programs to address safety and mobility needs.
Roadway Functional Classification
Existing Classifications
All streets in the city have a designated functional classification. The functional classification of a
street depends on the types of trips that occur on it, the basic purpose for which it was designed,
and the relative level of traffic volume it carries. The different classifications of roadways serve
different stages of a trip:
Traveler accesses roadway system from origin (access),
Traveler travels through roadway system (mobility), and
Traveler accesses destination from roadway system (access).
The different types of roads that serve these functions are classified as follows.
Freeway – Multi-lane, high-speed, high-capacity road intended exclusively for motorized
traffic. All access is controlled by interchanges and road crossings are grade-separated. No
freeways pass through Edmonds, though Interstate-5 (I-5) runs to the east of the city limits.
Principal Arterial – Road that connects major activity centers and facilities, typically
constructed with limited direct access to abutting land uses. The primary function of principal
arterials is to provide a high degree of vehicle mobility, but they may provide a minor amount
of land access. Principal arterials serve high traffic volume corridors, carrying the greatest
portion of through or long-distance traffic within a city, and serving inter-community trips.
Packet Page 147 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 3-2
On-street parking is often limited to improve capacity for through-traffic. Typically, principal
arterials are multi-lane facilities and have traffic signals at intersections with other arterials.
Regional bus routes are generally located on principal arterials, as are transfer centers and
park-and-ride lots. Principal arterials usually have sidewalks and sometimes have separate
bicycle facilities, so that non-motorized traffic is separated from vehicle traffic.
Minor Arterial – Road that connects centers and facilities within the community and serves
some through-traffic, while providing a greater level of access to abutting properties. Minor
arterials connect with other arterial and collector roads, and serve less concentrated traffic-
generating areas, such as neighborhood shopping centers and schools. Provision for on-street
parking varies by location. Although the dominant function of minor arterials is the
movement of through-traffic, they also provide for considerable local traffic with origins or
destinations at points along the corridor. Minor arterials also carry local and commuter bus
routes. They usually have sidewalks and sometimes have separate bicycle facilities, so that
non-motorized traffic is separated from vehicular traffic.
Collector – Road designed to fulfill both functions of mobility and land access. Collectors
typically serve intra-community trips connecting residential neighborhoods with each other or
activity centers, while also providing a high degree of property access within a localized area.
These roadways “collect” vehicular trips from local access streets and distribute them to
higher classification streets. Additionally, collectors provide direct services to residential
areas, local parks, churches and areas with similar uses of the land. Typically, right-of-way
and paving widths are narrower for collectors than arterials. They may only be two lanes
wide and are quite often controlled with stop signs. Local bus routes often run on collectors,
and they usually have sidewalks on at least one side of the street.
Local Access – Road with a primary function of providing access to residences. Typically,
they are only a few blocks long, are relatively narrow, and have low speeds. Local streets are
generally not designed to accommodate buses, and often do not have sidewalks. Culs-de-sac
are also considered local access streets. All streets in Edmonds that have not been designated
as an arterial or a collector are local access streets. Local access streets make up the majority
of the miles of roadway in the city.
Figure 3-1 illustrates the basic tradeoffs that occur between mobility and access among the
different functional classifications of roadways. Higher classes (e.g. freeways and arterials)
provide a high degree of mobility and have more limited access to adjacent land uses,
accommodating higher traffic volumes at higher speeds. Lower classes (e.g., local access streets)
provide a high degree of access to adjacent land and are not intended to serve through traffic,
carrying lower traffic volumes at lower speeds. Collectors generally provide a more balanced
emphasis on traffic mobility and access to land uses.
Cities and counties are required to adopt a street classification system that is consistent with these
guidelines (RCW 35.78.010 and RCW 47.26.090). Figure 3-2 shows the existing road functional
classifications for city streets.
Packet Page 148 of 487
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Figure 3-1. Access and Mobility Characteristics of Road Functional Clasifications
FREEWAY
COLLECTOR
CULDESAC
LOCAL
MINOR ARTERIAL
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL
LAND
ACCESS
MOBILITY
Road
Functional
Classification
Increasing access to land uses
In
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
mo
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
n
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
No local
access
traffic
No
through
traffic
Complete
access
control
Unrestricted
access
Source: Federal Highway Administration 1989
Packet Page 149 of 487
Main
S
t
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
75
t
h
P
l
W
Oly
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
208th
S
t
S
W
95
t
h
P
l
W
212th St SW
220th
S
t
S
W
Fisher
68
t
h
A
v
e
W
F
i
r
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
Dayton
S
t
7t
h
A
v
e
N
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Oly
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
238th
S
t
S
W
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
96
t
h
A
v
e
W
176th
S
t
S
W
Bow
d
o
i
n
W
a
y
180th
S
t
S
W
Walnut
S
t
3r
d
A
v
e
S
244th
S
t
S
W
5t
h
A
v
e
S
236th
S
t
S
W
3rd
A
v
e
N
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
9t
h
A
v
e
S
238th
S
t
S
W
200th St SWCaspers
S
t
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Puget
D
r
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
y
Ma
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
D
r
228th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
52
n
d
A
v
e
W
Meado
w
d
a
l
e
B
e
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
Olympic
V
i
e
w
D
r
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
196th St SW
Su
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
104
99
524
Snohomish County
King County
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan
September 2009
Figure 3-2. Existing Federal Functional Classifications
00.51
Miles
Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008);
Snohomish County (2008)
City Boundary
Railroad
Water Feature
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Local Street
Packet Page 150 of 487
Street System
September 2009 3-5
Table 3-1 summarizes the total miles of roadway located within the city by existing functional
classification. The table compares the miles of roadway to Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) guidelines (FHWA 1989). The table shows that miles of minor arterial are slightly
lower than FHWA guidelines, and miles of all other classifications are within guidelines. The
total miles of principal and minor arterial are within guidelines for total amount of arterial.
Table 3-1. Miles of Roadway by Existing Federal Functional Classification
Functional
Classification
Miles of Roadway in
Edmonds
Proportion of Total
Roadway
Typical Proportion based on
FHWA Guidelines1
Principal Arterial 12 7.6% 5% – 10%
Minor Arterial 12 7.6% 10% – 15%
Collector 14 9.0% 5% – 10%
Local Access 119 75.8% 65% – 80%
Total 157
1. Source: Federal Highway Administration 1989.
Evaluation of Road Functional Classifications
Over time, changes in traffic volumes and shifts in land use and traffic patterns may cause the
function of a road to change. Thus, it is important to periodically review the functions city roads
serve, and evaluate whether any changes in classification are warranted. The following guidelines
are used for evaluating the classifications.
1.Average Daily Traffic (ADT) – Roadways with higher functional classifications typically
carry higher traffic volumes. On high volume roadways, the demand for traffic mobility is
more likely to outweigh the need for access to abutting land. Conversely, where volumes are
lower the access function of the street will generally be more important than mobility for
traffic. Traffic volumes alone do not provide the basis for classification, but are used in
conjunction with the other criteria listed below. However, the following ranges are used as
guidelines:
- Minor Arterial Street: 3,000 to 15,000 ADT
- Collector Street: 1,000 to 5,000 ADT
2.Non-motorized use – The accommodation of non-automobile modes, including walking,
bicycling, and transit use is another important measure of a road’s function. Roads with
higher classifications tend to serve more modes of travel. The more travel modes that a street
accommodates, the greater the number of people that street serves, and the more important
that street is to the movement of people, goods, and services throughout the city.
3.Street length – A street that is longer in length tends to function at a higher classification.
This is due to the fact that longer (continuous) streets allow travelers to move between distant
attractions with a limited number of turns, stops, and other distractions that discourage them
Packet Page 151 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 3-6
from using streets of lower classification. Longer streets generally supply a higher level of
mobility, compared to other streets that provide more access.
4.Street spacing – Streets of higher classification usually have greater traffic carrying
capacity and fewer impediments to travel. Fewer facilities are needed to serve the traffic
mobility demands of the community due to their efficiency in moving traffic. This typically
means that fewer streets of higher classification are needed, so there will be greater distances
between them. The farther the distance of a street from a higher classification street, the more
likely it is that the street will function at a similar classification. A greater number of streets
of lower classification are needed to provide access to abutting land. Therefore, they must be
spaced more closely and there must be many more of them. It is considered most desirable to
have a network of multiple lower classification streets feeding into progressively fewer
higher classified streets. Based on these guidelines, typical spacing for the different
classifications of roadways are as follows:
- Principal Arterials: 1.0 mile
- Minor Arterials: 0.3 to 0.7 mile
- Collectors: 0.25 to 0.5 mile
- Local Access: 0.1 mile
5.Street connectivity – Streets that provide easy connections to other roads of higher
classification are likely to function at a similar classification. This can be attributed to the
ease of movement perceived by travelers who desire to make that connection. For example,
state highways are generally interconnected with one another, to provide a continuous
network of high order roadways that can be used to travel into and through urban areas.
Urban arterials provide a similar interconnected network at the citywide level. By contrast,
collectors often connect local access streets with one or two higher-level arterial streets, thus
helping provide connectivity at the neighborhood scale rather than a citywide level. Local
streets also provide a high degree of connectivity as a necessary component of property
access. However, the street lengths, traffic control, and/or street geometry are usually
designed so that anyone but local travelers would consider the route inconvenient.
The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 requires the use of functional highway classification to
update and modify the Federal-aid highway systems. Thus, the FHWA and WSDOT have
adopted a federal functional classification system for city roadways. Allocation of funds, as well
as application of local agency design standards, is based on the federal classification. Federal
funds may only be spent on federally classified routes.
Based upon the guidelines provided above, the following changes to functional classifications are
recommended:
Apply for the following federal functional classification upgrade from collector to minor
arterial for the following two road segments:
- 220th Street, 9th Avenue S – SR 99
Packet Page 152 of 487
Street System
September 2009 3-7
- 76th Avenue W, 244th Street SW – 212th Street SW
Apply for the following federal functional classification upgrade from local access to
collector for the following six road segments:
- Dayton Street, 5th Avenue S – 9th Avenue S
- 200th Street SW, 88th Avenue W – 76th Avenue W
- 7th Avenue N, Main Street – Caspers Street
- 80th Avenue W / 180th Street SW, 200th Street – Olympic View Drive
- 80th Avenue W, 212th Street SW – 220th Street SW
- 96th Avenue W, 220th Street SW – Walnut Street
Apply for the following federal functional classification downgrade from collector to local
access for the following road segment:
- Admiral Way, south of W Dayton Street
Table 3-2 summarizes existing and recommended functional classifications for city streets.
Table 3-2. Summary of Existing and Recommended Federal Functional
Classifications
Road Location Existing Recommended
No Recommended Changes
SR 104 (Main Street, Sunset Avenue,
Edmonds Way, 244th Street SW)
Edmonds-Kingston Ferry Dock – East City
Limits
Principal Arterial ---
244th Street SW SR 99 – SR 104 Principal Arterial ---
SR 99 244th Street SW – 208th Street SW Principal Arterial ---
SR 524 (3rd Avenue N, Caspers
Street, 9th Avenue N, Puget Drive,
196th Street SW)
Main Street – 76th Avenue W Principal Arterial ---
3rd Avenue S Pine Street – Main Street Principal Arterial ---
Pine Street Sunset Avenue – 3rd Avenue S Principal Arterial ---
Main Street Sunset Avenue – 84th Avenue W Minor Arterial ---
Olympic View Drive 76th Avenue W – 168th Street SW Minor Arterial ---
212th Street SW 84th Avenue W – SR 99 Minor Arterial ---
220th Street SW SR 99 – East City Limits Minor Arterial ---
228th Street SW 95th Place W – East City Limits Minor Arterial ---
228th Street SW SR 99 – East City Limits Minor Arterial ---
238th Street SW Edmonds Way – SR 99 Minor Arterial ---
244th Street SW Firdale Avenue – SR 99 Minor Arterial ---
5th Avenue S Edmonds Way – Main Street Minor Arterial ---
100th Avenue W, Firdale Avenue, 9th
Avenue S, 9th Avenue N
244th Street SW – Caspers Street Minor Arterial ---
76th Avenue W 212th Street SW – Olympic View Drive Minor Arterial ---
Meadowdale Beach Road 76th Avenue W – Olympic View Drive Collector ---
Packet Page 153 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 3-8
Road Location Existing Recommended
Olympic View Drive Puget Drive – 76th Avenue W Collector ---
Walnut Street, Bowdoin Way 9th Avenue S – 84th Avenue W Collector ---
W Dayton Street, Dayton Street Admiral Way - 5th Avenue S Collector ---
208th Street SW 76th Avenue W – SR 99 Collector ---
76th Avenue W, 95th Place W Olympic View Drive – North City Limits Collector ---
Olympic Avenue Puget Drive – Olympic View Drive Collector ---
Maplewood Drive, 200th Street SW Main Street – 88th Avenue W Collector ---
84th Avenue W 212th Street SW – 240th Street SW Collector ---
88th Avenue W 200th Street SW - Olympic View Drive Collector ---
95th Place W Edmonds Way – 220th Street SW Collector ---
226th Street SW 108th Avenue W – Edmonds Way Collector ---
3rd Avenue S Elm Street – Pine Street Collector ---
Recommended Higher Classification
220th Street SW 9th Avenue S – SR 99 Collector Minor Arterial
76th Avenue W 244th Street SW – 212th Street SW Collector Minor Arterial
Dayton Street 5th Avenue S – 9th Avenue S Local Street Collector
200th Street SW 88th Avenue W – 76th Avenue W Local Street Collector
7th Avenue N Main Street – Caspers Street Local Street Collector
80th Avenue W, 180th Street SW 200th Street SW – Olympic View Drive Local Street Collector
80th Avenue W 212th Street SW and 220th Street SW Local Street Collector
96th Avenue W 220th Street SW – Walnut Street Local Street Collector
Olympic Avenue Puget Drive – Main Street Local Street Collector
Recommend Lower Classification
Admiral Way South of W Dayton Street Collector Local Street
Table 3-3 summarizes the miles of roadway by recommended classification. The table shows that
under the recommended classifications, the total proportion of minor arterial would increase
slightly, and the proportion of local access street would decrease slightly, compared to existing
conditions. Figure 3-3 shows the recommended roadway functional classifications.
Table 3-3. Miles of Roadway by Recommended Federal Functional Classification
Functional
Classification
Miles of Roadway in
Edmonds
Proportion of Total
Roadway
Typical Proportion based on
FHWA Guidelines1
Principal Arterial 12 7.6% 5% – 10%
Minor Arterial 15 9.6% 10% – 15%
Collector 1516 9.6%10.2%5% – 10%
Local Access 115114 73.2%72.6%65% – 80%
Total 157
1. Source: Federal Highway Administration 1989.
Packet Page 154 of 487
Main
S
t
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
75
t
h
P
l
W
Oly
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
208th
S
t
S
W
95
t
h
P
l
W
212th St SW
220th
S
t
S
W
Fisher
68
t
h
A
v
e
W
F
i
r
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
Dayton
S
t
7t
h
A
v
e
N
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Oly
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
238th
S
t
S
W
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
96
t
h
A
v
e
W
176th
S
t
S
W
Bow
d
o
i
n
W
a
y
180th
S
t
S
W
Walnut
S
t
3r
d
A
v
e
S
244th
S
t
S
W
5t
h
A
v
e
S
236th
S
t
S
W
3rd
A
v
e
N
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
9t
h
A
v
e
S
238th
S
t
S
W
200th St SWCaspers
S
t
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Puget
D
r
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
y
Ma
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
D
r
228th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
52
n
d
A
v
e
W
Meado
w
d
a
l
e
B
e
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
Olympic
V
i
e
w
D
r
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
196th St SW
Su
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
104
99
524
Snohomish County
King County
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan
September 2009
Figure 3-3. Recommended Road Functional Classifications
00.51
Miles
Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008);
Snohomish County (2008)
City Boundary
Railroad
Water Feature
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Local Street
Olympic Avenue between
Puget Drive and Main Street
added as recommended collector
Packet Page 155 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 3-10
Street System Inventory
State Highways
There are three Washington state routes located within the city.
SR 104 (Edmonds Way) runs roughly east-west between the Edmonds-Kingston Ferry dock
and I-5.
SR 524 (Puget Drive/196th Street SW) runs east-west connecting SR 104 to SR 99, I-5, and
ultimately SR 522.
SR 99 runs north-south on the east side of the city, and is the highest traffic-carrying arterial
in Edmonds. From Edmonds, it runs north to Everett, and south through Shoreline to Seattle
and the Tacoma metropolitan area.
In 1998, the Washington State Legislature passed Highways of Statewide Significance legislation
(RCW 47.06.140). Highways of Statewide Significance promote and maintain significant
statewide travel and economic linkages. The legislation emphasizes that these significant facilities
should be planned from a statewide perspective, and thus they are not subject to local
concurrency standards. (WSDOT 2007)
In Edmonds, SR 104 between the Edmonds-Kingston Ferry Dock and I-5, and SR 99 between the
south city limits and SR 104 have been designated as Highways of Statewide Significance. The
Edmonds-Kingston ferry route is considered to be part of SR 104, and is also identified as a
Highway of Statewide Significance. (Washington State Transportation Commission 2006)
City Streets
The city street system is comprised of a grid of principal arterials, minor arterials, collectors, and
local streets. Table 3-4 summarizes the city roadways currently classified as principal arterial,
minor arterial, or collector. The table shows the existing functional classification, speed limit,
number of lanes, and walkway/bikeway characteristics for each of the roadways.
Table 3-4. Inventory of City Streets
Existing City
Classification Street1 Location
Speed
Limit
(mph)
Number
of
Lanes Sidewalk Bikeway
Principal Arterial Edmonds Way Pine Street – 244th Street
SW
35 – 40 4 – 5 2 sides None
SR 99 244th Street SW – 212th
Street SW
45 7 2 sides None
Sunset Avenue Pine Street – Dayton
Street
40 4 – 5 2 sides None
Packet Page 156 of 487
Street System
September 2009 3-11
Existing City
Classification Street1 Location
Speed
Limit
(mph)
Number
of
Lanes Sidewalk Bikeway
Sunset Avenue Dayton Street – Main
Street
25 3 2 sides None
Main Street Sunset Avenue – Ferry
Terminal
25 4 – 5 2 sides None
244th Street SW SR 99 – East City Limits 40 4 2 sides None
Minor Arterial Caspers Street 3rd Avenue N – 9th
Avenue N
30 2 – 3 2 sides 2 None
Firdale Avenue 244th Street SW – 238th
Street SW
35 2 2 sides None
Main Street Sunset Avenue – 84th
Avenue W
25 – 30 2 2 sides Bike route
Olympic View Drive 76th Avenue W – 168th
Street SW
30 2-3 2 sides 2 None
Puget Drive/196th Street SW 9th Avenue N – 76th
Avenue W
30 – 35 2 – 4 2 sides
mostly 2
None
3rd Avenue N Main Street – Caspers
Street
25 – 30 2 2 sides None
5th Avenue S Edmonds Way – Main
Street
25 2 2 sides None
9th Avenue 220th Street SW –
Caspers Street
25 – 30 2 2 sides Bike route
9th Avenue N Caspers Street – Puget
Drive
30 3 2 sides 2 None
76th Avenue W 244th Street SW – SR 99 30 2 2 sides None
76th Avenue W SR 99 – 212th Street SW 30 2 – 4 2 sides None
76th Avenue W 212th Street SW –
Olympic View Drive
30 2 2 sides None
100th Avenue W South City Limits – 238th
Street SW
35 2 2 sides None
100th Avenue W 238th Street SW –
Edmonds Way
30 – 35 4 2 sides None
100th Avenue W Edmonds Way – 220th
Street SW
30 2 – 4 2 sides Bike route
212th Street SW 84th Avenue W – 76th
Avenue W
30 2 – 3 2 sides Bike route
212th Street SW 76th Avenue W – SR 99 30 4 2 sides None
220th Street SW 9th Avenue S – 84th
Avenue W
30 2 2 sides Bike lanes
220th Street SW 84th Avenue W – SR 99 30 2 – 3 2 sides None
228th Street SW SR 99 – East City Limits 25 2 2 sides None
Packet Page 157 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 3-12
Existing City
Classification Street1 Location
Speed
Limit
(mph)
Number
of
Lanes Sidewalk Bikeway
238th Street SW Edmonds Way – SR 99 30 2 2 sides
partially
None
244th Street SW Firdale Avenue – SR 99 35 2 2 sides None
Collector Dayton Street Admiral Way – 9th
Avenue S
25 2 2 sides Bike route
Maplewood Drive Main Street – 200th
Street SW
25 2 None None
Meadowdale Beach Road 76th Avenue W – Olympic
View Drive
25 2 None None
Olympic View Drive Puget Drive – 76th
Avenue W
25 2 1 side None
Walnut Street, Bowdoin Way 9th Avenue S – 84th
Avenue W
25 – 30 2 2 sides Bike route
3rd Avenue S Edmonds Way – Main
Street
25 2 2 sides
mostly
Bike route
7th Avenue N Main Street – Caspers
Street
25 2 2 sides
mostly
None
76th Avenue W, 75th Place
W
Olympic View Drive –
North City Limits
25 – 30 2 1 side 2 None
80th Avenue W 212th Street SW – 220th
Street SW
25 2 1 side None
84th Avenue W 238th Street SW – 212th
Street SW
25 2 Very short
2 sides
None
88th Avenue W 200th Street SW -
Olympic View Drive
25 2 1 side None
95th Place W Edmonds Way – 220th
Street SW
25 2 1 side None
96th Avenue W 220th Street SW – Walnut
Street
25 2 None None
200th Street SW Maplewood Drive – 76th
Avenue W
25 2 1 side None
208th Street SW 76th Avenue W – East
City Limits
30 2 None Bike lane
228th Street SW 95th Place W – SR 99 25 2 Very short
2 sides
None
1. All other city streets not listed in this table are local access streets.
2. Under construction as of summer 2009.
Speed Limits
Figure 3-4 shows speed limits on collectors and arterials in Edmonds. The speed limits range
from 25 miles per hour (mph) to 45 mph. The speed limit on local access streets is 25 mph.
Packet Page 158 of 487
Main
S
t
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
75
t
h
P
l
W
Oly
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
208th
S
t
S
W
95
t
h
P
l
W
212th St SW
220th
S
t
S
W
Fisher
68
t
h
A
v
e
W
F
i
r
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
Dayton
S
t
7t
h
A
v
e
N
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Oly
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
238th
S
t
S
W
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
96
t
h
A
v
e
W
176th
S
t
S
W
Bow
d
o
i
n
W
a
y
180th
S
t
S
W
Walnut
S
t
3r
d
A
v
e
S
244th
S
t
S
W
5t
h
A
v
e
S
236th
S
t
S
W
3rd
A
v
e
N
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
9t
h
A
v
e
S
238th
S
t
S
W
200th St SWCaspers
S
t
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Puget
D
r
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
y
Ma
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
D
r
228th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
52
n
d
A
v
e
W
Meado
w
d
a
l
e
B
e
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
Olympic
V
i
e
w
D
r
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
196th St SW
Su
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
Snohomish County
King County
524
99
104
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan
September 2009
Figure 3-4. Speed Limits on City Streets
00.51
Miles
Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008);
Snohomish County (2008)
City Boundary
Railroad
Water Feature
Speed Limits on Collectors and Arterials
25 mph
30 mph
35 mph
40 mph
45 mph
Note: Local streets have speed limit of 25 mph.
Packet Page 159 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 3-14
Traffic Control
Traffic signals and stop signs are used to provide traffic controls at intersections with high traffic
volume. These devices aid in control of traffic flow. In addition, these devices help to minimize
accidents at intersections. Figure 3-5 shows the city intersections controlled by traffic signals and
those controlled by all-way stop signs. There are 29 signalized intersections, two emergency
signals, and 43 all-way stop controlled intersections in the city. Intersections located on
Highways of Statewide Significance are maintained by WSDOT while others are maintained by
the City.
Packet Page 160 of 487
Main
S
t
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
75
t
h
P
l
W
Oly
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
208th
S
t
S
W
95
t
h
P
l
W
212th St SW
220th
S
t
S
W
Fisher
68
t
h
A
v
e
W
F
i
r
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
Dayton
S
t
7t
h
A
v
e
N
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Oly
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
238th
S
t
S
W
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
96
t
h
A
v
e
W
176th
S
t
S
W
Bow
d
o
i
n
W
a
y
180th
S
t
S
W
Walnut
S
t
3r
d
A
v
e
S
244th
S
t
S
W
5t
h
A
v
e
S
236th
S
t
S
W
3rd
A
v
e
N
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
9t
h
A
v
e
S
238th
S
t
S
W
200th St SWCaspers
S
t
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Puget
D
r
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
y
Ma
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
D
r
228th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
52
n
d
A
v
e
W
Meado
w
d
a
l
e
B
e
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
Olympic
V
i
e
w
D
r
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
196th St SW
Su
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
104
99
524
Snohomish County
King County
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan
September 2009
Figure 3-5. Existing Traffic Control Devices
00.51
Miles
Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008);
Snohomish County (2008)
City Boundary
Railroad
Water Feature
Traffic Signal
All-Way Stop
Emergency Signal
Packet Page 161 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 3-16
Traffic Calming Devices
Traffic calming devices are physical devices installed on neighborhood residential streets, to
discourage speeding, reduce cut-through traffic, and/or improve safety. Traffic calming devices
are currently in place at many locations throughout Edmonds. These measures have been installed
as part of capital improvement projects, as opportunities were presented, and occasionally in
response to citizen requests.
The following types of traffic calming devices are currently present within the city:
Bulb-outs – curb extensions that are used to narrow the roadway either at an intersection or
at mid- block along a street corridor. Their primary purpose is to make intersections more
pedestrian friendly by shortening the roadway crossing distance and drawing attention to
pedestrians via raised peninsula. Additionally, a bulb-out often tightens the curb radius at the
corner, which reduces the speeds of turning vehicles.
Chicane – series of curb extensions that alternate from one side of the street to the other,
which narrows the roadway and requires drivers to slow down to travel through the chicane.
Typically, a series of at least three curb extensions is used.
Partial closure – involves closing down one lane of a two-lane roadway along with a “Do
Not Enter” or “One Way” sign, in order to reduce cut-through traffic.
Raised pavement markers – 4-inch diameter raised buttons placed in design sequence
across a road, causing a vehicle to vibrate and alert the motorist to an upcoming situation.
Raised pavement markers may be used in conjunction with curves, crosswalks, pavement
legends and speed limit signs. They are most effective when used to alert motorists to unusual
conditions ahead, and are most commonly used on approaches to stop signs, often in
situations where the visibility of a stop sign is limited.
Speed hump – rounded raised area placed across the roadway, which is approximately 3 to
4 inches high and 12 to 22 feet long. This treatment is used to slow vehicles by forcing them
to decelerate in order to pass over them comfortably. The design speeds for speed humps are
20 to 25 mph.
Traffic circle – raised island placed in the center of an intersection which forces traffic into
circular maneuvers. Motorists yield to vehicles already in the intersection and only need to
consider traffic approaching in one direction. Traffic circles prevent drivers from speeding
through intersections by impeding straight-through movement.
Table 3-5 summarizes traffic calming devices located throughout the city. Figure 3-6 shows the
locations of these traffic calming devices.
Packet Page 162 of 487
Street System
September 2009 3-17
Table 3-5. Inventory of Existing Traffic Calming Devices
Location Traffic Calming Device
Dayton Street, between 2nd Avenue S and 7th Avenue S Bulb-Out
Main Street, between 2nd Avenue and 5th Avenue Bulb-Out
Main Street, between 6th Avenue and 8th Avenue Raised Pavement Markers
5th Avenue S, between Main Street and Walnut Street Bulb-Out
238th Street SW, between SR 99 and 78th Avenue W Chicane; Speed Hump
240th Street SW, between SR 99 and 78th Avenue W Chicane; Speed Hump
Caspers Street and 2nd Avenue N Partial Closure (one-way outlet)
76th Avenue W, approaching 216th Street SW Raised Pavement Markers
City Park Access Roads Speed Hump
7th Avenue S, between Birch Street and Elm Street Speed Hump
78th Avenue W, between 238th Street SW and 236th Street SW Speed Hump
166th Place SW, between 74th Place W and 72nd Avenue W Speed Hump
191st Street SW, between 80th Avenue W and 76th Avenue W Speed Hump
215th Street SW, between 76th Avenue W and 73rd Place W Speed Hump
238th Place SW, between 78th Avenue W and 76th Avenue W Speed Hump
Dayton Street and 8th Avenue S Traffic Circle
Main Street and 5th Avenue Traffic Circle
Parking
On-street parking is available throughout most of the city. Parking is accommodated on the street
and in private parking lots associated with existing development. Public parking is provided
throughout the city at no charge to drivers. In the downtown area, parking is limited to three
hours along most of the downtown streets, with certain stalls designated for handicapped parking,
one-hour parking, and loading/unloading.
The City has established an employee permit parking program to provide more parking to the
general public in high demand parking areas by encouraging Edmonds' business owners and
employees to park in lower demand parking areas. The permit authorizes permit employees to
park for more than three hours in three-hour parking areas if the parking is part of a commute to
work.
A three-hour public parking lot is provided at the Edmonds Police Department/Fire Department.
Supply is currently adequate to accommodate parking demand. The City will continue to monitor
parking demand and supply and make adjustments as needed. Figure 3-7 shows the downtown
streets on which three hour parking, one hour parking, and handicapped parking are located.
Packet Page 163 of 487
Main
S
t
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
75
t
h
P
l
W
Oly
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
208th
S
t
S
W
95
t
h
P
l
W
212th St SW
220th
S
t
S
W
Fisher
68
t
h
A
v
e
W
F
i
r
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
Dayton
S
t
7t
h
A
v
e
N
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Oly
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
238th
S
t
S
W
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
96
t
h
A
v
e
W
176th
S
t
S
W
Bow
d
o
i
n
W
a
y
180th
S
t
S
W
Walnut
S
t
3r
d
A
v
e
S
244th
S
t
S
W
5t
h
A
v
e
S
236th
S
t
S
W
3rd
A
v
e
N
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
9t
h
A
v
e
S
238th
S
t
S
W
200th St SWCaspers
S
t
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Puget
D
r
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
y
Ma
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
D
r
228th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
52
n
d
A
v
e
W
Meado
w
d
a
l
e
B
e
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
Olympic
V
i
e
w
D
r
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
196th St SW
Su
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
104
99
524
Snohomish County
King County
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan
September 2009
Figure 3-6. Existing Traffic Calming Devices
00.51
Miles
Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008);
Snohomish County (2008)
City Boundary
Railroad
Water Feature
Bulb-Out
Chicane
One-Way Outlet
Traffic Circle
Speed Hump
Raised Pavement Markers
Packet Page 164 of 487
SR
1
0
4
Main
S
t
SR
5
2
4
3r
d
A
v
e
S
Dayton
S
t
5t
h
A
v
e
S
Su
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
3rd
A
v
e
N
6t
h
A
v
e
N
Walnut St
2n
d
A
v
e
N
Bell
S
t
4th
A
v
e
N
4t
h
A
v
e
S
Alder
S
t
Daley St
2n
d
A
v
e
S
Maple
S
t
6t
h
A
v
e
S
Su
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
N
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
S
t
5th
A
v
e
N
Hemlock
W
a
y
Holly Dr
Glen
S
t
Dayton St W
Rai
l
r
o
a
d
A
v
e
S
Ja
m
e
s
S
t
Howell
W
a
y
Homeland
D
r
Seamont
L
n
Sprague St
Erben
D
r
Rai
l
r
o
a
d
S
t
Carol
W
a
y
Du
r
b
i
n
D
r
U
n
i
o
n
O
i
l
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
R
d
Su
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
S
Magnolia
L
n
Access
R
d
Rai
l
r
o
a
d
A
v
e
N
Aloha
W
a
y
Rai
l
r
o
a
d
A
v
e
SR
1
0
4
6t
h
A
v
e
S
4t
h
A
v
e
S
Alder
S
t
A
c
c
e
s
s
R
d
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan
September 2009
Figure 3-7. Downtown Parking
0 500 1,000
Feet
Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008);
Snohomish County (2008)
City Boundary
Railroad
Water Feature
15-Minute/5-Minute
Loading/Unloading Parking
Handicapped Parking
1-Hour On-Street Parking
3-Hour On-Street Parking
Employee Permit Parking
Public Parking Lot
Packet Page 165 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 3-20
Street Standards
The City has adopted street design standards for residential, business and commercial access
roads, and follows established design guidelines for other streets. The Goals and Objectives of the
Transportation Plan relate street design to the desires of the local community, and advise that
design be at a scale commensurate with the function that the street serves. Guidelines are
therefore important to provide designers with essential elements of street design as desired by the
community. Essential functions of streets in Edmonds include vehicle mobility, pedestrian access,
bicycle access and aesthetics.
Street design guidelines for the City are based on the State of Washington Local Agency
Guidelines for roadway design (WSDOT 2008) and ECDC Title 18. These guidelines specify that
lane widths should be 11 to 12 feet depending on the location of curbs and percentage of truck
traffic. Left-turn lanes increase capacity, reduce vehicular accidents, and improve access to
adjacent property. Bicycle lanes should be provided along major traffic corridors, and when
striped, should be a minimum of 5 feet in width. Sidewalk widths should be a minimum of 5 feet
in low pedestrian volume areas, and a minimum of 7 feet in high pedestrian volume areas.
Landscaped medians are especially important to soften wide expanses of pavement, to provide a
haven for crossing pedestrians, and to provide aesthetic treatment to streets.
The adoption of design guidelines is advantageous over the adoption of standards in that it allows
a needed flexibility in design that may not be permitted by strict standards. Often when designing
streets obstacles are encountered that require modification in design approach. Impediments
might include topographic features that make road construction difficult or very expensive;
inadequate available right-of-way to allow for all desired features; or environmentally sensitive
areas that require modification to avoid adverse impacts. Additionally, funding or grant sources
may require specific features or dimensions.
Table 3-6 summarizes typical guidelines applied to the design of different types of roads in
Edmonds. Figure 3-8 illustrates typical cross sections for each functional classification of road.
Figure 3-9 illustrates the downtown area which sidewalks are required on both sides of the street.
Packet Page 166 of 487
Street System
September 2009 3-21
Table 3-6. Typical Roadway Cross Sections
I tem Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Local Street
Access Control Controlled Partial Partial Partial
Posted Speed (mph) 35 – 50 30 – 35 25 – 30 15 – 25
Number of Lanes 4 – 7 2 – 4 2 – 3 2
Lane Width Interior (feet) 11 11 11 8 – 111
Lane Width Exterior (feet) 12 12 12 N/A
Minimum right of way (feet) 60 60 55 33
Curb and Gutter Yes, vertical Yes, vertical Yes, vertical Yes, vertical
Sidewalk Width (feet) 5 – 7 5 – 7 5 – 7 5 – 7
Right-of-Way Width (feet) 60 – 100 60 min. 60 min. 20 min.
Parking Lane None 8-foot lanes, when
required
8-foot lanes, when
required
8-foot lanes, when
required
Pavement Type By design By design By design By design
Design Vehicle City Bus City Bus City Bus City Bus
Bike Lane 5-foot lanes, when
required
5-foot lanes, when
required
5-foot lanes, when
required
5-foot lanes, when
required
Landscaping Strip2 5 3 As required As required
Drainage By design By design By design By design
1. Local roads that are 16-feet wide are not striped as two lanes.
2. Can be fully planted strip or full-width sidewalks with tree grates.
Packet Page 167 of 487
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan
September 2009
Figure 3-8. Typical Roadway Cross Sections
Typical cross sections may be modified to include low impact development design features.
5’–7’
5’–7’
5’–7’
5’–7’
5’–7’
right-of-way
right-of-way
right-of-way
right-of-way
Packet Page 168 of 487
Pine
S
t
SR
5
2
4
Main
S
t
5t
h
A
v
e
S
3r
d
A
v
e
S
SR
1
0
4
9t
h
A
v
e
N
Dayton
S
t
9t
h
A
v
e
S
Bell
S
t
Fir
S
t
Walnut
S
t
Alder
S
t
Daley
S
t
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
Maple
S
t
8t
h
A
v
e
S
7t
h
A
v
e
S
7t
h
A
v
e
N
3rd
A
v
e
N
Su
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
2n
d
A
v
e
N
Caspers
S
t
6t
h
A
v
e
N
Adm
i
r
a
l
W
a
y
Elm
S
t
Su
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
N
Cedar
S
t
Ma
k
a
h
R
d
4th
A
v
e
N
4t
h
A
v
e
S
6t
h
A
v
e
S
CA
v
e
S
Hi
g
h
l
a
n
d
D
r
BA
v
e
S
Aloha
S
t
AA
v
e
Ca
r
y
R
d
Elm
P
l
8
t
h
A
v
e
N
No
o
t
k
a
R
d
Bella
C
o
o
l
a
R
d
Un
o
c
o
R
d
Glen
S
t
5th
A
v
e
N
Hemlock
W
a
y
Holly Dr
Hindley
L
n
AA
v
e
S
Elm Way
Laurel
S
t
Dayton St W
Rai
l
r
o
a
d
A
v
e
S
Spruce
S
t
Sprague
S
t
Forsyth
L
n
Ja
m
e
s
S
t
Howell
W
a
y
Hemlock St
Brookmere
D
r
Melody
L
n
2n
d
A
v
e
S
Homeland
D
r
Vista
P
l
Access
R
d
Whitcomb
P
l
Seamont
L
n
Puget
W
a
y
Giltner
L
n
Fir
P
l
N
D
o
g
w
o
o
d
W
a
y
Sater
L
n
Point
E
d
w
a
r
d
s
P
l
Carol
W
a
y
Du
r
b
i
n
D
r
Su
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
S
Edmonds
S
t
Elm
P
l
W
Aloha
W
a
y
Ha
n
n
a
h
P
a
r
k
R
d
Laurel
W
a
y
B
e
a
c
h
P
l
Al
o
h
a
P
l
Access
R
d
2n
d
A
v
e
S
8t
h
A
v
e
S
Edmonds
S
t
Alder
S
t
4t
h
A
v
e
S
Elm
S
t
6t
h
A
v
e
S
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
S
t
2n
d
A
v
e
S
6t
h
A
v
e
S
Elm Way
Elm
P
l
Fir
P
l
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan
September 2009
Figure 3-9. Downtown SidewalkArea
0 500 1,000
Feet
Source: City of Edmonds (2008)
Downtown Sidewalk Area-
City Boundary
Railroad
Water Feature
Sidewalks required on
both sides of street as part
of new development
Packet Page 169 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 3-24
Road Conditions
Existing Operating Conditions
Traffic volumes
Daily traffic counts and PM peak hour traffic counts were taken at numerous locations throughout
the city in April 2008. The analysis of existing operating conditions on city roadways is based on
this data.
Level of Service
LOS is the primary measurement used to determine the operating quality of a roadway segment
or intersection. The quality of traffic conditions is graded into one of six LOS designations: A, B,
C, D, E, or F. Table 3-7 presents typical characteristics of the different LOS designations. LOS A
and B represent the fewest traffic slow-downs, and LOS C and D represent intermediate traffic
congestion. LOS E indicates that traffic conditions are at or approaching urban congestion; and
LOS F indicates that traffic volumes are at a high level of congestion and unstable traffic flow.
Table 3-7. Typical Roadway Level of Service Characteristics
Level of Service Characteristic Traffic Flow
A
Free flow – Describes a condition of free flow with low volumes and high
speeds. Freedom to select desired speeds and to maneuver within the
traffic stream is extremely high. Stopped delay at intersections is minimal.
B
Stable flow – Represents reasonable unimpeded traffic flow operations at
average travel speeds. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is
only slightly restricted and stopped delays are not bothersome. Drivers are
not generally subjected to appreciable tensions.
C
Stable flow – In the range of stable flow, but speeds and maneuverability
are more closely controlled by the higher volumes. The selection of speed is
now significantly affected by interactions with others in the traffic stream,
and maneuvering within the traffic stream required substantial vigilance on
the part of the user. The general level of comfort and convenience declines
noticeably at this level.
D
Stable flow – Represents high-density, but stable flow. Speed and freedom
to maneuver are severely restricted, and the driver or pedestrian
experiences a generally poor level of comfort and convenience- Small
increases in traffic flow will generally cause operational problems at this
level.
Packet Page 170 of 487
Street System
September 2009 3-25
Level of Service Characteristic Traffic Flow
E
Unstable flow – Represents operating conditions at or near the maximum
capacity level. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely
difficult, and it is generally accomplished by forcing a vehicle or pedestrian
to "give way" to accommodate such maneuvers. Comfort and convenience
levels are extremely poor, and driver or pedestrian frustration is generally
high. Operations at this level are usually unstable, because small increases
in flow or minor disturbances within the traffic stream will cause breakdowns
F
Forced flow – Describes forced or breakdown flow, where volumes are
above theoretical capacity. This condition exists wherever the amount of
traffic approaching a point exceeds the amount that can traverse the point.
Queues form behind such locations, and operations within the queue are
characterized by stop-and-go waves that are extremely unstable. Vehicles
may progress at reasonable speeds for several hundred feet or more, then
be required to stop in a cyclical fashion.
Source: Transportation Research Board 2000
Level of Service Criteria
Methods described in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board 2000) are
used to calculate the LOS for signalized and stop-controlled intersections. Table 3-8 summarizes
the LOS criteria for signalized and stop-controlled intersections. LOS for intersections is
determined by the average amount of delay experienced by vehicles at the intersection. For stop-
controlled intersections, LOS depends on the average delay experienced by drivers on the stop-
controlled approaches. Thus, for two-way or T-intersections, LOS is based on the average delay
experienced by vehicles entering the intersection on the minor (stop-controlled) approaches. For
all-way stop controlled intersections, LOS is determined by the average delay for all movements
through the intersection. The LOS criteria for stop-controlled intersections have different
threshold values than those for signalized intersections, primarily because drivers expect different
levels of performance from distinct types of transportation facilities. In general, stop-controlled
intersections are expected to carry lower volumes of traffic than signalized intersections. Thus,
for the same LOS, a lower level of delay is acceptable at stop-controlled intersections than it is
for signalized intersections.
Table 3-8. Level of Service Criteria for Intersections
Average Delay per Vehicle (seconds/vehicle)
LOS Designation Signalized Intersections Stop-Controlled Intersections
A 10 10
B > 10 – 20 > 10 – 15
C > 20 – 35 > 15 – 25
D > 35 – 55 > 25 – 35
E > 55 – 80 > 35 – 50
F > 80 > 50
Source: Transportation Research Board 2000
Packet Page 171 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 3-26
The Highway Capacity Manual methodology does not provide methods for analyzing delay,
queues, or LOS of roundabouts. Therefore, LOS analysis for roundabouts is calculated using
methods presented in a FHWA report that provides an approach for estimating the average
vehicle delay at each entry point along the rotary (FHWA 2000). Utilizing this method, the LOS
of the rotary is based upon the average vehicle delay at its most congested entry point. Because
LOS thresholds for roundabouts are not provided in the FHWA report, the Highway Capacity
Manual criteria for stop-controlled intersections (see Table 3-8) is applied, because drivers’
expectations for delay at a roundabout more closely resemble expectations at a stop sign than at a
signal (e.g. a lower level of delay is considered acceptable).
Concurrency and Level of Service Standard
Under GMA, concurrency is the requirement that adequate infrastructure be planned and financed
to support the City’s adopted future land use plan. LOS 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 or proposed traffic conditions and identify deficiencies. The City has adopted LOS
standards for city streets and state routes in the city that are subject to concurrency. Table 3-9
shows the City LOS standards.
Table 3-9. 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.
LOS is measured at intersections during a typical weekday PM peak hour, using analysis methods
outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board 2000) and discussed in
the previous section. For intersections of roads with different functional classifications, the
standard for the higher classification shall apply.
Intersections that operate below these standards are considered deficient under concurrency.
Deficiencies are identified either as existing deficiencies, meaning they are occurring under
existing conditions and not as the result of future development, or as projected future deficiencies,
meaning that they are expected to occur under future projected conditions. Concurrency
management ensures that development, in conformance with the adopted land use element of the
Comprehensive Plan, will not cause a transportation facility’s operations to drop below the
adopted standard. Transportation capacity expansion or demand management strategies must be
in place or financially planned to be in place within six years of development use.
Packet Page 172 of 487
Street System
September 2009 3-27
Transportation concurrency is a term that describes whether a roadway is operating at its adopted
LOS standard. The adopted standard indicates a jurisdiction’s intent to maintain transportation
service at that level, which has budgetary implications. If a city adopts a high LOS standard, it
will have to spend more money to maintain the roadways than if it adopts a low LOS standard.
On the other hand, a standard that is too low may lead to an unacceptable service level and reduce
livability for the community or neighborhood. Under the GMA, if a development would cause the
LOS to fall below the jurisdiction’s adopted standard, it must be denied unless adequate
improvements or demand management strategies can be provided concurrent with the
development. The key is to select a balanced standard—not so high as to be unreasonable to
maintain, and not so low as to allow an unacceptable level of traffic congestion.
Highways of Statewide Significance (in Edmonds, SR 104, and SR 99 south of SR 104) are not
subject to local concurrency standards. However, WSDOT has established a standard of LOS D
for these facilities. The City monitors Highways of Statewide Significance, and coordinates with
WSDOT to address any deficiencies that are identified.
Existing Level of Service
Table 3-10 presents existing PM peak hour LOS for 24 intersections throughout the city. Existing
intersection LOS is also shown in Figure 3-10. The analysis indicates that the following four stop-
controlled intersections are currently operating below the City’s adopted LOS standard:
Puget Drive and 88th Avenue W
212th Street SW and 84th Avenue W
Main Street and 9th Avenue N
Walnut Street and 9th Avenue S
The intersection of 238th Street SW and Edmonds Way is operating at LOS F during the PM
peak hour. It is located on SR 104, which is a Highway of Statewide Significance, and thus is
under WSDOT jurisdiction and is not subject to City concurrency standards. However, the City
still considers exceeding LOS E to be an operational deficiency, and will work with WSDOT to
address issues at this location.
Packet Page 173 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 3-28
Table 3-10. Existing PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS
Intersection
Traffic
Control
Existing
LOS
Average
Delay
(sec/veh)
LOS
Standard
Juris-
diction
1 174th Street SW and Olympic View Drive Eastbound
Stop-Control
C 21 D Edmonds
2 Olympic View Drive and 76th Avenue W All-Way
Stop-Control
D 27 D Edmonds
3 196th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Signal D 37 D Edmonds
4 Puget Drive (SR 524) and 88th Avenue W Northbound/
Southbound
Stop-Control
C/F1,2 24/52 E Edmonds
5 Puget Drive and Olympic View Drive Signal B 16 D Edmonds
6 Caspers Street and 9th Avenue N (SR 524) Northbound
Stop-Control
C 24 E Edmonds
7 208th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Signal B 11 D Edmonds
8 212th Street SW and SR 99 Signal D 51 E Edmonds
9 212th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Signal D 50 D Edmonds
10 212th Street SW and 84th Avenue W All-Way
Stop-Control
F2 110 D Edmonds
11 Main Street and 9th Avenue N All-Way
Stop-Control
E2 48 D Edmonds
12 Walnut Street and 9th Avenue S All-Way
Stop-Control
E2 44 D Edmonds
13 Main Street and 3rd Avenue N (SR 5524) Signal A 7 E Edmonds
14 220th Street SW and SR 99 Signal D 45 E Edmonds
15 220th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Signal D 48 D Edmonds
16 220th Street SW and 84th Avenue W Signal A 7 D Edmonds
17 220th Street SW and 9th Avenue S Signal B 13 D Edmonds
18 Edmonds Way (SR 104) and 100th Avenue
W
Signal C 31 (3) Edmonds/
WSDOT
19 238th Street SW and SR 99 Signal B 18 E Edmonds
20 238th Street SW and Edmonds Way (SR
104)
Eastbound/
Westbound
Stop-Control
F/D1 80/31 (3) Edmonds/
WSDOT
21 244th Street SW (SR 104) and 76th
Avenue W
Signal D 48 (3) Edmonds/
WSDOT
22 244th Street SW (SR 104) and SR 99 Signal D 42 (3) Shoreline/
Edmonds/
WSDOT
23 238th Street SW and 100th Avenue W Signal B 12 D Edmonds
24 238th Street SW and Firdale Avenue Signal B 16 D Edmonds
1. For two-way stop controlled intersections, the LOS and average delay is presented for each stop-controlled movement.
2. LOS exceeds standard.
3. 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.
Packet Page 174 of 487
Main
S
t
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
75
t
h
P
l
W
Oly
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
208th
S
t
S
W
95
t
h
P
l
W
212th St SW
220th
S
t
S
W
Fisher
68
t
h
A
v
e
W
F
i
r
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
Dayton
S
t
7t
h
A
v
e
N
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Oly
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
238th
S
t
S
W
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
96
t
h
A
v
e
W
176th
S
t
S
W
Bow
d
o
i
n
W
a
y
180th
S
t
S
W
Walnut
S
t
3r
d
A
v
e
S
244th
S
t
S
W
5t
h
A
v
e
S
236th
S
t
S
W
3rd
A
v
e
N
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
9t
h
A
v
e
S
238th
S
t
S
W
200th St SWCaspers
S
t
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Puget
D
r
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
y
Ma
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
D
r
228th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
52
n
d
A
v
e
W
Meado
w
d
a
l
e
B
e
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
Olympic
V
i
e
w
D
r
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
196th St SW
Su
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
104
99
524
Snohomish County
King County
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan
September 2009
Figure 3-10. Existing Level of Service
00.51
Miles
Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008);
Snohomish County (2008)
City Boundary
Railroad
Water Feature
Level of Service (LOS) Designation
Meets LOS Standard
Exceeds LOS Standard
Highway of Statewide Significance
(Not subject to Local LOS Standard)
Packet Page 175 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 3-30
Future Operations
This section presents the methodology used to forecast roadway operating conditions through
2025, and provides an assessment of those future traffic conditions if no additional improvements
are made to the transportation system.
Travel Demand Forecasting Model
For this Transportation Plan, a travel demand forecasting model was developed to analyze future
travel demand and traffic patterns for the weekday PM peak hour, which is typically the hour in
which the highest level of traffic occurs, and is the time period in which concurrency assessment
is based. The major elements of the model include:
Transportation network and zone development
Existing land use inventory
Trip generation
Trip distribution
Network assignment
Model calibration
Model of future traffic conditions.
These elements are described in the following sections.
Transportation Network and Zone Development
The analysis roadway network is represented as a series of links (roadway segments) and nodes
(intersections). Road characteristics such as capacity, length, speed, and turning restrictions at
intersections are coded into the network. The geographic area covered by the model is divided
into transportation analysis zones (TAZs) that have similar land use characteristics. Figure 3-11
shows the TAZs that were developed for the Edmonds model. The PSRC regional transportation
model was used as the basis for both transportation network and TAZ definitions. For the more
detailed Edmonds model, some larger TAZs from the regional model were subdivided into
smaller TAZs, and the roadway network was analyzed in greater detail. Consistency with the
regional model allows land use and roadway information that was updated in the development of
the Edmonds model to be easily transferred to PSRC for the next update of the regional model.
Existing Land Use Inventory
Existing land use was based on a citywide land use inventory completed for this project in 2008.
In order to establish an accurate base map of existing land use, land use was confirmed using
assessor records, supplemental aerial photos, and field verification. For the model area outside the
city limits, land use was based on regional population and employment inventory provided by the
PSRC. The land use is summarized by TAZ, as shown in Figure 3-11.
Packet Page 176 of 487
Main
S
t
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
75
t
h
P
l
W
Oly
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
208th
S
t
S
W
95
t
h
P
l
W
212th St SW
220th
S
t
S
W
Fisher
68
t
h
A
v
e
W
F
i
r
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
Dayton
S
t
7t
h
A
v
e
N
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Oly
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
238th
S
t
S
W
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
96
t
h
A
v
e
W
176th
S
t
S
W
Bow
d
o
i
n
W
a
y
180th
S
t
S
W
Walnut
S
t
3r
d
A
v
e
S
244th
S
t
S
W
5t
h
A
v
e
S
236th
S
t
S
W
3rd
A
v
e
N
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
9t
h
A
v
e
S
238th
S
t
S
W
200th St SWCaspers
S
t
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Puget
D
r
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
y
Ma
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
D
r
228th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
52
n
d
A
v
e
W
Meado
w
d
a
l
e
B
e
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
Olympic
V
i
e
w
D
r
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
196th St SW
Su
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
104
99
524
Snohomish County
King County
55
58
62
46
36
27
31
11
57
9
59
22
30
53
37
40
49
24
32
50
54
3515
45
56
43
21
60
52
39
29
47
48
17
34
7
44
25
16
20
51
28
61
42
4
14
23
10
33
26
38
6
3
1
41
8
12
18
13
52 19
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan
September 2009
Figure 3-11. TransportationAnalysis Zones
00.51
Miles
Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008);
Snohomish County (2008)
City Boundary
Railroad
Water Feature
City TAZ Boundaries
Packet Page 177 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 3-32
Trip Generation
The trip generation step estimates the total number of trips produced by and attracted to each
TAZ in the model area. The trips are estimated using statistical data on population and household
characteristics, employment, economic output, and land uses. Trips are categorized by their
general purpose, including:
Home-based-work, or any trip with home as one end and work as the other end;
Home-based-other, or any non-work trip with home as one end;
Non-home-based, or any trip that does not have home at either end.
The trip generation model estimates the number of trips generated per household and employee
during the analysis period for each of these purposes. The output is expressed as the total number
of trips produced in each TAZ and the total number of trips attracted to each TAZ, categorized by
trip purpose.
Trip Distribution
The trip distribution step allocates the trips estimated by the trip generation model to create a
specific zonal origin and destination for each trip. This is accomplished using the gravity model,
which distributes trips according to two basic assumptions: (1) more trips will be attracted to
larger zones (the size of a zone is defined by the number of attractions estimated in the trip
generation phase, not the geographical size), and (2) more trip interchanges will take place
between zones that are closer together than the number that will take place between zones that are
farther apart. The result is a trip matrix for each of the trip purposes specified in trip generation.
This matrix estimates how many trips are taken from each zone (origin) to every other zone
(destination). The trips are often referred to as trip interchanges.
Network Assignment
The roadway network is represented as a series of links (roadway segments) and nodes
(intersections). Each roadway link and intersection node is assigned a functional classification,
with associated characteristics of length, capacity, and speed. This information is used to
determine the optimum path between all the zones based on travel time and distance.
The trips are distributed from each of the zones to the roadway network using an assignment
process that takes into account the effect of increasing traffic on travel times. The result is a
roadway network with traffic volumes calculated for each segment of roadway. The model
reflects the effects of traffic congestion on the roadway network.
Model Calibration
A crucial step in the modeling process is the calibration of the model. The modeling process can
generally be described as defining the existing roadway system as a model network and applying
trip patterns based on existing land use. The model output, which consists of estimated traffic
volumes on each roadway segment, is compared to existing traffic counts. Adjustments are made
to the model inputs until the modeled existing conditions replicate actual existing conditions,
Packet Page 178 of 487
Street System
September 2009 3-33
within accepted parameters. Once the model is calibrated for existing conditions, it can be used as
the basis for analyzing future traffic conditions and the impacts of potential improvements to the
roadway network.
Model of Future Traffic Conditions
Future travel demand is based on projections of future land use patterns and community growth.
Based on population and employment forecasts, the City provided these growth assumptions for
the next 20 years. The growth assumptions represent the higher end of possible ranges, resulting
in a more conservative assessment of the impact of future land use on traffic conditions. For the
model area outside the city limits, future land use projections were based on PSRC forecasts.
Using the same general process described for modeling existing conditions, the forecasted land
use data is used to estimate the number of trips that will be generated in future travel. These trips
are then distributed among the TAZs, and assigned to the roadway network. The result is a model
of projected future traffic conditions, under the projected future land use scenario.
For future analysis under 2015 conditions, a straight-line growth between existing and projected
2025 traffic volumes was assumed. This is based on the assumption that steady growth between
existing and planned 2025 land uses will occur.
2015 Conditions without Improvements
Table 3-11 presents projected PM peak hour LOS for city intersections by 2015, with existing
transportation infrastructure in place. Projected 2015 LOS at the analysis intersections is also
shown in Figure 3-12. The following locations are projected to operate below the City’s adopted
LOS standards under the 2015 conditions, if no additional improvements are made to the
transportation system:
Olympic View Drive and 76th Avenue W
Puget Drive and 88th Avenue W (deficient under existing conditions)
212th Street SW and 76th Avenue W
212th Street SW and 84th Avenue W (deficient under existing conditions)
Main Street and 9th Avenue N (deficient under existing conditions)
Walnut Street and 9th Avenue S (deficient under existing conditions)
220th Street SW and 76th Avenue W
Analysis indicates that the intersection of 238th Street SW and Edmonds Way will operate at
LOS F in 2015. As it is located along a Highway of Statewide Significance, this intersection is
not subject to City concurrency standards. However, the City still considers exceeding LOS D to
be an operational deficiency, and will work with WSDOT to address it.
Packet Page 179 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 3-34
Table 3-11. 2015 Intersection Level of Service – without Improvements
Intersection
Existing
Traffic
Control
2015
LOS
Average
Delay
(sec/veh)
LOS
Standard
Juris-
diction
1 174th Street SW and Olympic View Drive Westbound
Stop-Control
D 33 D Edmonds
2 Olympic View Drive and 76th Avenue W All-Way
Stop-Control
F1 93 D Edmonds
3 196th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Signal D 42 D Edmonds
4 Puget Drive (SR 524) and 88th Avenue W Northbound/
Southbound
Stop-Control
F/F1,2 55/236 E Edmonds
5 Puget Drive and Olympic View Drive Signal B 16 D Edmonds
6 Caspers Street and 9th Avenue N (SR 524) Northbound
Stop-Control
E 37 E Edmonds
7 208th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Signal B 15 D Edmonds
8 212th Street SW and SR 99 Signal E 77 E Edmonds
9 212th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Signal F2 81 D Edmonds
10 212th Street SW and 84th Avenue W All-Way
Stop-Control
F2 172 D Edmonds
11 Main Street and 9th Avenue N All-Way
Stop-Control
F2 89 D Edmonds
12 Walnut Street and 9th Avenue S All-Way
Stop-Control
F2 80 D Edmonds
13 Main Street and 3rd Avenue N (SR 524) Signal A 8 E Edmonds
14 220th Street SW and SR 99 Signal E 72 E Edmonds
15 220th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Signal E2 55 D Edmonds
16 220th Street SW and 84th Avenue W Signal A 9 D Edmonds
17 220th Street SW and 9th Avenue S Signal B 13 D Edmonds
18 Edmonds Way (SR 104) and 100th Avenue
W
Signal D 36 (3) Edmonds/
WSDOT
19 238th Street SW and SR 99 Signal C 24 E Edmonds
20 238th Street SW and Edmonds Way (SR
104)
Eastbound/
Westbound
Stop-Control
F/F1 371/56 (3) Edmonds/
WSDOT
21 244th Street SW (SR 104) and 76th
Avenue W
Signal E 57 (3) Edmonds/
WSDOT
22 244th Street SW (SR 104) and SR 99 Signal D 50 (3) Shoreline/
Edmonds/
WSDOT
23 238th Street SW and 100th Avenue W Signal B 15 D Edmonds
24 238th Street SW and Firdale Avenue Signal C 21 D Edmonds
1. For two-way stop controlled intersections, the LOS and average delay is presented for each stop-controlled movement.
2. LOS exceeds standard.
3. 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.
Packet Page 180 of 487
Main
S
t
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
75
t
h
P
l
W
Oly
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
208th
S
t
S
W
95
t
h
P
l
W
212th St SW
220th
S
t
S
W
Fisher
68
t
h
A
v
e
W
F
i
r
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
Dayton
S
t
7t
h
A
v
e
N
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Oly
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
238th
S
t
S
W
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
96
t
h
A
v
e
W
176th
S
t
S
W
Bow
d
o
i
n
W
a
y
180th
S
t
S
W
Walnut
S
t
3r
d
A
v
e
S
244th
S
t
S
W
5t
h
A
v
e
S
236th
S
t
S
W
3rd
A
v
e
N
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
9t
h
A
v
e
S
238th
S
t
S
W
200th St SWCaspers
S
t
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Puget
D
r
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
y
Ma
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
D
r
228th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
52
n
d
A
v
e
W
Meado
w
d
a
l
e
B
e
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
Olympic
V
i
e
w
D
r
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
196th St SW
Su
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
104
99
524
Snohomish County
King County
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan
September 2009
Figure 3-12. 2015 Level of Service Without Improvement
00.51
Miles
Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008);
Snohomish County (2008)
City Boundary
Railroad
Water Feature
Level of Service (LOS) Designation
Meets LOS Standard
Exceeds LOS Standard
Highway of Statewide Significance
(Not subject to Local LOS Standard)
Packet Page 181 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 3-36
2025 Conditions without Improvements
Table 3-12 presents projected PM peak hour LOS for city intersections by 2025, with existing
transportation infrastructure in place. Projected 2025 LOS at the analysis intersections is also
shown in Figure 3-13. The following locations are projected to operate below the City’s adopted
LOS standards under the 2025 conditions, if no additional improvements are made to the
transportation system:
174th Street SW and Olympic View Drive
Olympic View Drive and 76th Avenue W (deficient under 2015 conditions)
Puget Drive and 88th Avenue W (deficient under existing conditions)
Caspers Street and 9th Avenue N
212th Street SW and SR 99
212th Street SW and 76th Avenue W (deficient under 2015 conditions)
212th Street SW and 84th Avenue W (deficient under existing conditions)
Main Street and 9th Avenue N (deficient under existing conditions)
Walnut Street and 9th Avenue S (deficient under existing conditions)
220th Street SW and SR 99 (deficient under 2015 conditions)
220th Street SW and 76th Avenue W
Analysis indicates that the intersections of 238th Street SW / Edmonds Way and 244th Street SW
/ 76th Avenue W will operate at LOS F by 2025. As they are located along a Highway of
Statewide Significance, these intersections are not subject to City concurrency standards.
However, the City still considers exceeding LOS D to be operational deficiencies, and will work
with WSDOT to address them.
Packet Page 182 of 487
Street System
September 2009 3-37
Table 3-12. 2025 Intersection Level of Service – without Improvements
Intersection
Traffic
Control
2025
LOS
Avg Delay
(sec/veh)
LOS
Standard
Juris-
diction
1 174th Street SW and Olympic View Drive Westbound
Stop-Control
F1 75 D Edmonds
2 Olympic View Drive and 76th Avenue W All-Way
Stop-Control
F1 180 D Edmonds
3 196th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Signal D 47 D Edmonds
4 Puget Drive (SR 524) and 88th Avenue W Northbound/
Southbound
Stop-Control
F/F1,2 ECL3 E Edmonds
5 Puget Drive and Olympic View Drive Signal B 20 D Edmonds
6 Caspers Street and 9th Avenue N (SR 524) Northbound
Stop-Control
F2 74 E Edmonds
7 208th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Signal B 19 D Edmonds
8 212th Street SW and SR 99 Signal F2 129 E Edmonds
9 212th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Signal F2 136 D Edmonds
10 212th Street SW and 84th Avenue W All-Way
Stop-Control
F2 204 D Edmonds
11 Main Street and 9th Avenue N All-Way
Stop-Control
F2 132 D Edmonds
12 Walnut Street and 9th Avenue S All-Way
Stop-Control
F2 131 D Edmonds
13 Main Street and 3rd Avenue N (SR 524) Signal A 9 E Edmonds
14 220th Street SW and SR 99 Signal F2 120 E Edmonds
15 220th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Signal E 68 D Edmonds
16 220th Street SW and 84th Avenue W Signal B 11 D Edmonds
17 220th Street SW and 9th Avenue S Signal B 14 D Edmonds
18 Edmonds Way (SR 104) and 100th Avenue
W
Signal D 44 (4)Edmonds/
WSDOT
19 238th Street SW and SR 99 Signal C 33 E Edmonds
20 238th Street SW and Edmonds Way (SR
104)
Eastbound/
Westbound
Stop-Control
F/F1 ECL3/142 (4) Edmonds/
WSDOT
21 244th Street SW (SR 104) and 76th
Avenue W
Signal F 90 (4) Edmonds/
WSDOT
22 244th Street SW (SR 104) and SR 99 Signal D 55 (4) Shoreline/
Edmonds/
WSDOT
23 238th Street SW and 100th Avenue W Signal B 18 D Edmonds
24 238th Street SW and Firdale Avenue Signal C 27 D Edmonds
1. For two-way stop controlled intersections, the LOS and average delay is presented for each stop-controlled movement.
2. LOS exceeds standard.
3. ECL = Exceeds calculable limits
4. 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.
Packet Page 183 of 487
Main
S
t
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
75
t
h
P
l
W
Oly
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
208th
S
t
S
W
95
t
h
P
l
W
212th St SW
220th
S
t
S
W
Fisher
68
t
h
A
v
e
W
F
i
r
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
Dayton
S
t
7t
h
A
v
e
N
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Oly
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
238th
S
t
S
W
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
96
t
h
A
v
e
W
176th
S
t
S
W
Bow
d
o
i
n
W
a
y
180th
S
t
S
W
Walnut
S
t
3r
d
A
v
e
S
244th
S
t
S
W
5t
h
A
v
e
S
236th
S
t
S
W
3rd
A
v
e
N
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
9t
h
A
v
e
S
238th
S
t
S
W
200th St SWCaspers
S
t
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Puget
D
r
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
y
Ma
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
D
r
228th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
52
n
d
A
v
e
W
Meado
w
d
a
l
e
B
e
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
Olympic
V
i
e
w
D
r
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
196th St SW
Su
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
104
99
524
Snohomish County
King County
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan
September 2009
Figure 3-13. 2025 Level of Service Without Improvement
00.51
Miles
Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008);
Snohomish County (2008)
City Boundary
Railroad
Water Feature
Level of Service (LOS) Designation
Meets LOS Standard
Exceeds LOS Standard
Highway of Statewide Significance
(Not subject to Local LOS Standard)
Packet Page 184 of 487
Street System
September 2009 3-39
Safety Assessment
Citywide efforts to provide safe transportation include enforcement of traffic regulations,
provision of crosswalks and sidewalks for pedestrians, and provision of well-designed streets for
safe driving. Safety also involves ongoing coordination with emergency service providers to
ensure access for their emergency equipment. Recommendations to address safety issues are
based on assessment of historical collision data, focused sub-area or corridor safety studies, or on
citizen feedback. These assessments are described in the following sections.
Collision History
For this Transportation Plan update, historical collision data provided by WSDOT for the years
2005 through 2007 was compiled and evaluated (WSDOT 2008).
All locations at which an average of five or greater collisions occurred per year were evaluated
more closely. Table 3-13 presents the three most recent years of collision data for locations at
which collision incidents averaged more than five per year (WSDOT 2008). The table shows that
the five highest collision intersections are all located along SR 99, with the highest number
occurring near the intersection of 220th Street SW and SR 99.
An intersection that carries higher traffic volumes is more likely to experience a higher level of
collisions. To account for this, and to allow collision data to be more accurately compared, the
rate of collisions per million entering vehicles was calculated for all locations that had averaged
five or greater collisions per year. Typically, a collision rate at or greater than 1.0 collision per
million entering vehicles raises indicates that further evaluation may be warranted. Table 3-13
presents the collision rate per million entering vehicles at high collision locations; and they are
shown in Figure 3-14. The locations with the rates at or above 1.0 collision per million entering
vehicles are as follows (from the highest rate to the lowest rate):
220th Street SW and SR 99
Main Street and 3rd Avenue
244th Street SW and SR 99
238th Street SW and 84th Avenue W
76th Avenue W and SR 99
212th Street SW and SR 99
SR 104 and 100th Avenue W
220th Street SW and 84th Avenue W
216th Street SW and SR 99
212th Street SW and 76th Avenue W
Packet Page 185 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 3-40
At high collision locations that are also concurrency locations, capacity improvement projects
designed to address operational deficiencies should also serve to improve safety conditions.
Table 3-13. High Collision Locations
Intersection
Total Collisions in
3-Year Analysis
Period1
Average Number
of Collisions per
Year2
Average Collisions
per Million Entering
Vehicles3
220th Street SW and SR 99 90 30 1.8
244th Street SW and SR 99 70 23 1.6
212th Street SW and SR 99 55 18 1.3
SR 99 and 76th Avenue W 54 18 1.5
216th Street SW and SR 99 40 13 1.1(4)
Edmonds Way and 100th Avenue W 39 13 1.2
224th Street SW and SR 99 32 11 0.9(4)
212th Street SW and 76th Avenue W 26 9 1.0
238th Street SW and SR 99 26 9 0.7
244th Street SW and Edmonds Way 20 7 (5)
Main Street and 3rd Avenue 20 7 1.7
236th St SW and Edmonds Way 18 6 0.7(6)
Edmonds Way and SR 99 Ramps 18 6 (5)
220th Street SW and 84th Avenue W 17 6 1.2
244th Street SW and 76th Avenue W 17 6 0.4
238th Street SW and 84th Avenue W 16 5 1.6(7)
220th Street SW and 76th Avenue W 15 5 0.7
236th Street SW and SR 99 14 5 0.4(4)
240th Street SW and SR 99 14 5 0.4(4)
Dayton Street and Sunset Avenue 14 5 0.9
1. Based on data collected from January 2005 through December 2007.
2. Totals that are equal or greater than average 5 collisions per year are included in the table.
3. Totals that exceed threshold of 1.0 collision per million entering vehicles are indicated in bold.
4. Data not available. Intersection entering volume is assumed the same as the intersection of 238th Street SW and SR 99.
5. Data not available.
6. Data not available. Intersection entering volume is assumed the same as the intersection of 238th Street SW and Edmonds Way.
7. Data not available. Use traffic volume along 238th Street SW and 84th Avenue W.
Source: WSDOT 2008.
Packet Page 186 of 487
Main
S
t
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
75
t
h
P
l
W
Oly
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
208th
S
t
S
W
95
t
h
P
l
W
212th St SW
220th
S
t
S
W
Fisher
68
t
h
A
v
e
W
F
i
r
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
Dayton
S
t
7t
h
A
v
e
N
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Oly
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
238th
S
t
S
W
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
96
t
h
A
v
e
W
176th
S
t
S
W
Bow
d
o
i
n
W
a
y
180th
S
t
S
W
Walnut
S
t
3r
d
A
v
e
S
244th
S
t
S
W
5t
h
A
v
e
S
236th
S
t
S
W
3rd
A
v
e
N
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
9t
h
A
v
e
S
238th
S
t
S
W
200th St SWCaspers
S
t
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Puget
D
r
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
y
Ma
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
D
r
228th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
52
n
d
A
v
e
W
Meado
w
d
a
l
e
B
e
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
Olympic
V
i
e
w
D
r
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
196th St SW
Su
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
104
99
524
Snohomish County
King County
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan
September 2009
Figure 3-14. High Collision Locations
00.51
Miles
Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008);
Snohomish County (2008)
City Boundary
Railroad
Water Feature
Collisions per Million Entering Vehicles
1.00 - 1.49
1.5 or Higher
Packet Page 187 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 3-42
SR 99 Traffic and Circulation Study
The City conducted a focused assessment of the SR 99 corridor in 2006 (Perteet 2006).
Collaborating with community, business, and agency stakeholders, the study sought to evaluate
current and future transportation needs along the corridor, identify multi-modal solutions, and
identify high priority projects for incorporation into the City’s TIP. Two high priority
improvement projects were identified, that are incorporated into this Plan:
SR 99 at 228th Street SW and 76th Avenue W – 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 left turn movements at 76th Avenue W.
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.
Residential Neighborhood Issues
Residents periodically express concerns about speeding or a high level of cut-through traffic on
residential streets.
Cut-Through Traffic – Over time, drivers will tend to find the most efficient route between
their origin and destination. When congestion occurs on arterials and collector routes
motorists begin to use local access streets as cut-thorough routes. Maintaining the efficiency
of arterial and collector routes is the most effective way to avoid or reduce cut-through
traffic. However, even with optimally designed and managed road networks, there are times
when drivers will use residential streets as shortcuts.
Speeding Traffic – Vehicles traveling well above the speed limit on residential streets
reduces safety and is of concern to residents. Although some motorists will typically drive
above the posted speed limit, the deviation above the limit is typically 5 to 10 miles per hour
(mph). This deviation is anticipated and routinely reflected in the safety design of streets and
posted speed limits. Speeding more than 10 mph over the speed limit sometimes occurs on
older residential streets that have wide travel lanes and an abundance of vehicle parking,
which can encourage speeding because the motorist perceives the street is safe and intended
for higher speeds.
When the cut-through traffic becomes a significant portion of the overall volume on a residential
street, traffic calming measures may be effective in directing traffic to another route. The speed of
motorists along residential streets can also be addressed by traffic calming. Traffic calming
devices are physical devices installed on neighborhood residential streets, to reduce cut-through
traffic, and/or discourage speeding. Traffic calming devices are currently in place at many
locations throughout Edmonds (see Figure 3-5). These measures have been installed as part of
capital improvement projects, as opportunities were presented, and occasionally in response to
citizen requests. However, the City does not currently have a formal traffic calming program.
Packet Page 188 of 487
Street System
September 2009 3-43
Recommended Road Projects and Programs
Capital Improvement Projects
Proposed improvements are presented in Table 3-14, and illustrated in Figure 3-15. Projects are
categorized as concurrency projects, state highway projects, or safety projects.
Concurrency Projects
Capital roadway improvement projects were developed to address intersection deficiencies under
existing conditions and under 2015 and 2025 projected conditions. These projects are needed to
improve operation and capacity at intersections that currently operate or are projected to operate
at levels below the City’s LOS standards. Concurrency projects applied to the 2015 conditions are
those needed to address existing and 2015 deficiencies. Under the 2025 conditions, all
recommended concurrency projects are applied to intersections that are expected to exceed the
LOS standards.
State Highway Projects
Intersections located on SR 104 are not subject to City’s LOS standards; however, capital
roadway improvement projects were developed to address intersections operations at the
following locations:
238th Street SW / Edmonds Way
244th Street SW / 76th Avenue W
The City will work with WSDOT for implementation of these improvements, or alternative
projects to meet the same mobility objectives.
Safety and Other Projects
Capital roadway improvement projects were also developed to address vehicular and pedestrian
safety on city streets. The City has conducted the circulation and safety analysis for SR 99.
According to the study, improvement projects were recommended at the following locations,
which are expected to improve the vehicular and pedestrian safety at these locations.
228th Street SW / SR 99 / 76th Avenue W
SR 99 / 216th Street SW
Improvements are also recommended on the following streets to improve the vehicle and
pedestrian safety.
238th Street SW, between Edmonds Way and 84th Avenue W
84th Avenue W, between 212th Street S and 238th Street SW
SR 99 illumination
Packet Page 189 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 3-44
Shell Valley
Main Street and 3rd Avenue
In addition, the City considers improvement to all modes (bicycle, pedestrian, and transit) in the
design of road projects; so all proposed road improvements, even those that are listed primarily as
concurrency improvements, will also include elements to support and promote alternative mode
operations and safety.
Table 3-14. Recommended Capital Roadway Improvements through 2025
Location
Trigger
Year1 Improvement Jurisdiction
Concurrency Projects by 2015
4 Puget Drive and 88th Avenue W 2009 Install traffic signal.2 Edmonds
10 212th Street SW and 84th Avenue W 2009 Install a single-lane roundabout. Edmonds
11 Main Street and 9th Avenue N 2009 Install traffic signal.3 Edmonds
12 Walnut Street and 9th Avenue S 2009 Install traffic signal.3 Edmonds
2 Olympic View Drive and 76th Avenue W 2015 Install traffic signal. Widen 76th to add a
westbound left turn lane for 175-foot storage
length.
Edmonds
9 212th Street SW and 76th Avenue W 2015 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 Avenue W 2015 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 Street SW and Olympic View Drive 2025 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 2015 Install traffic signal. Edmonds
8 212th Street SW and SR 99 2025 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 2025 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 190 of 487
Street System
September 2009 3-45
Location
Trigger
Year1 Improvement Jurisdiction
State Highway Improvement Projects
20 238th Street SW and Edmonds Way 2008 Install a signal and provide protected left turn
phase for northbound and southbound.
Edmonds/
WSDOT
21 244th Street SW and 76th Avenue W 2025 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
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
1. Trigger year is the year by which travel demand forecasts indicates that the location will operate below adopted LOS standards, and
thus be in violation of concurrency. Under the GMA, improvements must be in place within six years of the year that a concurrency
violation is triggered.
2. 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.
3. 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.
2015 Operating Conditions with Improvements
Projected intersection LOS under 2015 conditions, with recommended improvements in place, is
summarized in Table 3-15 and illustrated in Figure 3-16. The table shows that recommended
projects are expected to address deficiencies identified through 2015.
Packet Page 191 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 3-46
2025 Operating Conditions with Improvements
Projected intersection LOS under 2025 conditions, with recommended improvements in place, is
summarized in Table 3-15 and illustrated in Figure 3-17. The table shows that recommended
projects are expected to address deficiencies identified through 2025.
Packet Page 192 of 487
Main
S
t
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
75
t
h
P
l
W
Oly
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
208th
S
t
S
W
95
t
h
P
l
W
212th St SW
220th
S
t
S
W
Fisher
68
t
h
A
v
e
W
F
i
r
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
Dayton
S
t
7t
h
A
v
e
N
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Oly
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
238th
S
t
S
W
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
96
t
h
A
v
e
W
176th
S
t
S
W
Bow
d
o
i
n
W
a
y
180th
S
t
S
W
Walnut
S
t
3r
d
A
v
e
S
244th
S
t
S
W
5t
h
A
v
e
S
236th
S
t
S
W
3rd
A
v
e
N
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
9t
h
A
v
e
S
238th
S
t
S
W
200th St SWCaspers
S
t
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Puget
D
r
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
y
Ma
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
D
r
228th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
52
n
d
A
v
e
W
Meado
w
d
a
l
e
B
e
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
Olympic
V
i
e
w
D
r
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
196th St SW
Su
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
104
99
524
Snohomish County
King County
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan
September 2009
Figure 3-15. Recommended Capital Road Improvements
00.51
Miles
Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008);
Snohomish County (2008)
City Boundary
Railroad
Water Feature
Improvement Types
Install New Signal
Upgrade Existing Signal
Install Roundabout
Add Lane/Intersection Approach
Widen Road
Project Category
Concurrency
Safety
Highway of Statewide Significance
Packet Page 193 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 3-48
Table 3-15. 2015 Level of Service – with Recommended Improvements
Intersection
Traffic
Control
2015
LOS
Average
Delay
(sec/veh)
LOS
Standard
Juris-
diction
1 174th Street SW and Olympic View Drive Westbound
Stop-Control
D 33 D Edmonds
2 Olympic View Drive and 76th Avenue W Signal B 12 D Edmonds
3 196th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Signal D 42 D Edmonds
4 Puget Drive (SR 524) and 88th Avenue W Signal A 7 E Edmonds
5 Puget Drive and Olympic View Drive Signal B 16 D Edmonds
6 Caspers Street and 9th Avenue N (SR 524) Signal A 9 E Edmonds
7 208th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Signal B 15 D Edmonds
8 212th Street SW and SR 99 Signal E 77 E Edmonds
9 212th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Signal D 38 D Edmonds
10 212th Street SW and 84th Avenue W Single-lane
Roundabout
B 12 D Edmonds
11 Main Street and 9th Avenue N (SR 524) Signal B 13 E Edmonds
12 Walnut Street and 9th Avenue S Signal A 8 D Edmonds
13 Main Street and 3rd Avenue N Signal A 8 D Edmonds
14 220th Street SW and SR 99 Signal E 72 E Edmonds
15 220th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Signal C 35 D Edmonds
16 220th Street SW and 84th Avenue W Signal A 9 D Edmonds
17 220th Street SW and 9th Avenue S Signal B 13 D Edmonds
18 Edmonds Way (SR 104) and 100th Avenue
W
Signal D 36 (1) Edmonds/
WSDOT
19 238th Street SW and SR 99 Signal C 24 E Edmonds
20 238th Street SW and Edmonds Way (SR
104)
Signal B 10 (1) Edmonds/
WSDOT
21 244th Street SW (SR 104) and 76th
Avenue W
Signal D 43 (1) Edmonds/
WSDOT
22 244th Street SW (SR 104) and SR 99 Signal D 50 (1) Shoreline/
Edmonds/
WSDOT
23 238th Street SW and 100th Avenue W Signal B 15 D Edmonds
24 238th Street SW and Firdale Avenue Signal C 21 D Edmonds
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.
Packet Page 194 of 487
Main
S
t
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
75
t
h
P
l
W
Oly
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
208th
S
t
S
W
95
t
h
P
l
W
212th St SW
220th
S
t
S
W
Fisher
68
t
h
A
v
e
W
F
i
r
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
Dayton
S
t
7t
h
A
v
e
N
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Oly
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
238th
S
t
S
W
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
96
t
h
A
v
e
W
176th
S
t
S
W
Bow
d
o
i
n
W
a
y
180th
S
t
S
W
Walnut
S
t
3r
d
A
v
e
S
244th
S
t
S
W
5t
h
A
v
e
S
236th
S
t
S
W
3rd
A
v
e
N
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
9t
h
A
v
e
S
238th
S
t
S
W
200th St SWCaspers
S
t
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Puget
D
r
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
y
Ma
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
D
r
228th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
52
n
d
A
v
e
W
Meado
w
d
a
l
e
B
e
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
Olympic
V
i
e
w
D
r
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
196th St SW
Su
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
104
99
524
Snohomish County
King County
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan
September 2009
Figure 3-16. 2015 Level of Service With Improvement
00.51
Miles
Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008);
Snohomish County (2008)
City Boundary
Railroad
Water Feature
Level of Service (LOS) Designation
Meets LOS Standard
Exceeds LOS Standard
Highway of Statewide Significance
(Not subject to Local LOS Standard)
Packet Page 195 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 3-50
Table 3-16. 2025 Level of Service – with Recommended Improvements
Intersection
Traffic
Control
2025
LOS
Average
Delay
(sec/veh)
LOS
Standard
Juris-
diction
1 174th Street SW and Olympic View Drive Westbound
Stop-Control
D 33 D Edmonds
2 Olympic View Drive and 76th Avenue W Signal B 12 D Edmonds
3 196th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Signal D 47 D Edmonds
4 Puget Drive (SR 524) and 88th Avenue W Signal A 8 E Edmonds
5 Puget Drive and Olympic View Drive Signal B 20 D Edmonds
6 Caspers Street and 9th Avenue N (SR 524) Signal B 13 E Edmonds
7 208th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Signal B 19 D Edmonds
8 212th Street SW and SR 99 Signal E 80 E Edmonds
9 212th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Signal D 54 D Edmonds
10 212th Street SW and 84th Avenue W Single-lane
Roundabout
B 12 D Edmonds
11 Main Street and 9th Avenue N Signal B 16 D Edmonds
12 Walnut Street and 9th Avenue S Signal A 9 D Edmonds
13 Main Street and 3rd Avenue N (SR 524) Signal A 9 E Edmonds
14 220th Street SW and SR 99 Signal E 62 E Edmonds
15 220th Street SW and 76th Avenue W Signal D 52 D Edmonds
16 220th Street SW and 84th Avenue W Signal B 11 D Edmonds
17 220th Street SW and 9th Avenue S Signal B 14 D Edmonds
18 Edmonds Way (SR 104) and 100th Avenue
W
Signal D 44 (1) Edmonds/
WSDOT
19 238th Street SW and SR 99 Signal C 33 E Edmonds
20 238th Street SW and Edmonds Way (SR
104)
Signal B 11 (1) Edmonds/
WSDOT
21 244th Street SW (SR 104) and 76th
Avenue W
Signal D 52 (1) Edmonds/
WSDOT
22 244th Street SW (SR 104) and SR 99 Signal D 55 (1) Shoreline/
Edmonds/
WSDOT
23 238th Street SW and 100th Avenue W Signal B 18 D Edmonds
24 238th Street SW and Firdale Avenue Signal C 27 D Edmonds
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.
Packet Page 196 of 487
Main
S
t
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
75
t
h
P
l
W
Oly
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
208th
S
t
S
W
95
t
h
P
l
W
212th St SW
220th
S
t
S
W
Fisher
68
t
h
A
v
e
W
F
i
r
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
Dayton
S
t
7t
h
A
v
e
N
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Oly
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
238th
S
t
S
W
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
96
t
h
A
v
e
W
176th
S
t
S
W
Bow
d
o
i
n
W
a
y
180th
S
t
S
W
Walnut
S
t
3r
d
A
v
e
S
244th
S
t
S
W
5t
h
A
v
e
S
236th
S
t
S
W
3rd
A
v
e
N
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
9t
h
A
v
e
S
238th
S
t
S
W
200th St SWCaspers
S
t
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Puget
D
r
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
y
Ma
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
D
r
228th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
52
n
d
A
v
e
W
Meado
w
d
a
l
e
B
e
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
Olympic
V
i
e
w
D
r
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
196th St SW
Su
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
104
99
524
Snohomish County
King County
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan
September 2009
Figure 3-17. 2025 Level of Service With Improvement
00.51
Miles
Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008);
Snohomish County (2008)
City Boundary
Railroad
Water Feature
Level of Service (LOS) Designation
Meets LOS Standard
Exceeds LOS Standard
Highway of Statewide Significance
(Not subject to Local LOS Standard)
Packet Page 197 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 3-52
Road Project Priority
The road improvement projects presented in this Transportation Plan were identified to address a
variety of mobility and safety issues. The projects were prioritized according to five criteria
presented in Table 3-17.
Table 3-17. Prioritization Criteria for Roadway Projects
Criteria Weight Description Points
Concurrency 3 Is the project required to meet
concurrency?
3 Existing concurrency deficiency
2 Concurrency deficiency identified by 2015
1 Concurrency deficiency identified by 2025
0 Does not address a concurrency deficiency
Safety 3 Does the project address identified
safety issues?
3 High collision location 1.5 collisions per million
entering vehicles
2 High collision location 1.0 - 1.5 collisions per
million entering vehicles
1 <1.0 collisions per million entering vehicles
0 No historical vehicle safety issues identified
Grant
Eligibility
2 Does the project include elements, such
as strong safety and/or non-motorized
components, which would make it more
attractive for state or federal grant
funding?
3 High eligibility
2 Medium eligibility
1 Low eligibility
0 No eligibility
Magnitude of
Improvement
2 At how many locations will the project
improve travel conditions?
3 Improve LOS at 2 or more intersections
2 Improve LOS in all directions at an intersection;
and/or significantly improve pedestrian safety
1 Improve LOS in 1 or 2 directions at an
intersection
Multimodal
Elements
1 Does the project include elements that
improve safety or mobility for
pedestrians, bicyclists, and/or transit?
3 Improves transit and non-motorized travel
2 Improves non-motorized travel
1 Improves transit mobility
0 Does not include multimodal elements
Table 3-18 lists the roadway projects in ranked order, based upon the criteria described in Table
3-17. Projected costs of the recommended roadway projects are provided in Chapter 6
(Implementation and Financial Plan) of this Transportation Plan.
Packet Page 198 of 487
Street System
September 2009 3-53
Table 3-18. Roadway Project Priority
Criteria Concurrency Safety
Grant
Eligibility Magnitude
Multimodal
Elements
Weight 3 3 2 2 1 Weighted
TotalRank Project Raw Wtd Raw Wtd Raw Wtd Raw Wtd Raw Wtd
1 228th Street SW, SR99 -
76th Avenue W
0 0 3 9 3 6 3 6 3 3 24
2 Main Street / 9th Avenue
N
3 9 1 3 2 4 2 4 3 3 23
3 212th Street SW / 76th
Avenue W
2 6 2 6 2 4 2 4 1 1 21
4 Main St / 3rd Ave signal
upgrade
0 0 3 9 3 6 2 4 2 2 21
5 84th Avenue W, 212th
Street SW - 238th Street
SW
0 0 3 9 2 4 2 4 3 3 20
6 212th Street SW / 84th
Avenue W
3 9 1 3 1 2 2 4 1 1 19
7 Walnut Street / 9th
Avenue S
3 9 1 3 1 2 1 2 3 3 19
8 Puget Drive / 196th St
SW / 88th Avenue W
3 9 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 18
9 Olympic View Drive / 76th
Avenue W
2 6 1 3 1 2 2 4 2 2 17
10 220th Street SW / SR 99 1 3 3 9 1 2 1 2 1 1 17
11 80th Avenue Sight
Distance
0 3 3 9 2 4 1 2 2 2 17
11 220th Street SW / 76th
Avenue W
2 6 1 3 1 2 2 4 1 1 16
12 Caspers Street / 9th
Avenue N
2 6 1 3 1 2 1 2 3 3 16
13 212th Street SW / SR 99 1 3 2 6 2 4 1 2 1 1 16
14 SR 99 Illumination 0 0 3 9 1 2 1 2 3 3 16
15 238th Street SW /
Edmonds Way (SR 104)
0 0 1 3 1 2 2 4 3 3 12
16 216th Street / SR 99 0 0 2 6 1 2 1 2 2 2 12
17 174th Street SW /
Olympic View Drive
1 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 0 0 10
18 238th Street SW, SR104 -
84th Avenue W
0 0 1 3 1 2 1 2 3 3 10
19 Shell Valley 0 0 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 9
20 244th Street SW (SR
104) / 76th Avenue W
0 0 1 3 1 2 1 2 1 1 8
Packet Page 199 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 3-54
Traffic Calming Program
The recommended Edmonds Neighborhood Traffic Calming program is described in detail in
Appendix B of this Transportation Plan. The program is designed to assist residents and the City
staff in responding to neighborhood traffic issues related to speeding, cut-through traffic, and
safety. Implementation of a traffic calming program allows traffic concerns to be addressed
consistently and traffic calming measures to be efficiently developed and put into operation.
In establishing a neighborhood traffic calming program, the City must take into account the
restriction that no deviation from WSDOT design standards is permitted on principal arterials,
minor arterials and collector streets without express approval of the WSDOT local programs
engineer (RCW 35.78). This limitation does not apply to local access streets, which are defined
by RCW 35.78.010 as streets “…generally limited to providing access to abutting property…
tributary to major and secondary thoroughfares… generally discouraging through traffic…”
Therefore, only local access streets are generally eligible for traffic calming programs.
The two main purposes of traffic calming techniques are to:
Reduce the use of residential streets for cut-through traffic, and
Reduce overall speeds along residential roadways.
A key component of any successful traffic calming program is citizen initiation and ongoing
resident involvement. The traffic calming process begins when residents gather eight or more
signatures on a petition, requesting that the City initiate a study. The City then undertakes a
comprehensive traffic study, gathering data on vehicle speeds, traffic volumes, collision history,
and nighttime lighting conditions. If the study reveals a need for traffic calming per the criteria
set forth in the Edmonds Traffic Calming program (Appendix B), a three-phase approach to
remediate traffic issues is used. The first phase is the start of the process, with the residents filing
a petition and the City reviewing whether or not the application qualifies. Phase 2 focuses on
solutions that can be quickly deployed, including education, signage, striping modifications, and
more police enforcement. If a follow up study indicates that these solutions are not sufficiently
effective, Phase 3 traffic calming measures are considered. Phase 3 measures, which are generally
more costly and require more time to deploy, might include physical devices such as curb bulbs,
chicanes, and traffic circles. The need for citizen involvement greatly increases in Phase 3,
because each potential solution requires resident approval prior to implementation.
Preservation and Maintenance Programs and Projects
The City’s transportation infrastructure is comprised primarily of streets with pavements,
sidewalks, illumination, and traffic control, including traffic signals, signs, and pavement
marking. Transportation infrastructure requires maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, updating, and
replacement to maintain serviceability, reliability, and safety, and to protect the public’s
investment. Maintenance of existing infrastructure enables efficiency of transportation operations,
and reduces the need for more expensive capital improvements.
Packet Page 200 of 487
Street System
September 2009 3-55
Maintenance of the City’s transportation infrastructure is provided primarily by the City’s Public
Works Department. Activities include the following.
Annual Street Overlays – The projects include spot repairs of failed pavement, full surface
and taper grinding of pavement, curbing and sidewalk repairs, and minor storm water system
modifications. The projects also incorporate traffic calming measures. In coordination with
this transportation plan, future projects will include retrofit of curb ramps for ADA
compliance, and may include delineating bike lanes and other bike route improvements (see
Chapter 4 for a more detailed discussion). Selection of projects includes reviewing the capital
improvement plans for water, sewer, and storm to determine if utility improvements are
programmed within the roadway segment under consideration. If there are, the projects
schedules will be coordinated.
The Principal Arterial, Minor Arterials, and Collectors are all rated once every 2 years as part
of the WSDOT Pavement Condition Survey. Those streets are assigned a Pavement
Condition Index (PCI) ranging from 0-100:
-71 – 100: Excellent (only routine maintenance necessary: activities are performed to
maintain a safe traffic condition and include pothole patching, patching around utility
structures, and crack sealing).
-50 – 70: Fair (Repair activities are done within the initial 10 year life of a new
pavement helps to prevent potholes from occurring. These activities may mean placing a
new surface (2 inches or less) on an existing road way to provide a better all weather
surfaces, a better riding surface, and to extend or renew the pavement life).
-25 – 49: Poor (Rehabilitation work generally consists of the preparatory work activities
and either thin or thick overlay. Preparatory work may involve digging out defective
asphalt, base and sub base. A rehab project typically extends the roadway life between 10
–15 years).
-Less than 25: Fail (Reconstruction is required as a majority of the pavement or
underlying base course has failed and can no longer serve as competent foundation for
flexible pavements like asphalt).
Under existing conditions, 70% of city arterials and collectors are in Excellent to Fair
condition, based upon these guidelines. The remaining 30% are in Poor to Fail condition.
Under the ideal cycle, roads with functional classification of collector or above receive an
overlay once every 20 years; and local roads receive an overlay once every 25 years.
Citywide Street Improvements – The City implements minor maintenance projects to
increase roadway life. Projects may include spot repairs of failed pavement, curbing and
sidewalk repairs, and minor storm water system modifications.
Citywide Signal Improvements – As traffic signals age, their functionality becomes more
limited and they become more difficult to maintain. The City regularly upgrades traffic
signals to maintain functionality, and to incorporate new technology.
Packet Page 201 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 3-56
Citywide Cabinet and Controller Upgrades – A signal controller is located in a
controller cabinet at each traffic signal, and determines phases and cycle length for the signal
it operates. Signal controllers are comprised of many types and many manufacturers, and as
they age, their functionality becomes more limited and they become more difficult to
maintain. The City regularly upgrades signal controllers to maintain functionality, and to
accommodate modern traffic control equipment.
Arterial Street Signal Coordination Improvements – Coordinate traffic signals located
within 1/2 –mile of each other, to maximize the operating efficiency of the overall roadway
system.
The following specific maintenance projects are also currently planned:
-Puget Drive/Olympic View Drive Signal Upgrades – Rebuild signal
-238th Street SW/100th Avenue W Signal Upgrades – Rebuild complete signal system
and install video detection
Packet Page 202 of 487
September 2009 4-1
Chapter 4. Non-Motorized System
This chapter provides an inventory of existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities and an assessment
of existing deficiencies and improvement needs. The chapter also highlights strategies for
compliance with ADA, and provides recommendations for other improvements to address
pedestrian and bicycle mobility and safety.
Comprehensive Walkway Plan
In 2002, the City of Edmonds completed its Comprehensive Walkway Plan. The plan included
goals and objectives for non-motorized transportation in the city, in addition to a walkway
inventory, a review of facility standards, and recommendations for walkway projects. The goals
and objectives include:
Goal: Improve non-motorized transportation facilities and services.
Objective: Sidewalks. Safe and attractive pedestrian facilities should be provided as an
essential element of the City’s circulation and recreation system, as established in the City of
Edmonds Comprehensive Walkway Plan.
Objective: Sidewalk Construction Policy. Clarify when sidewalks should be constructed as a
condition of development.
The following inventory has been updated from the 2002 Walkway Plan, and the existing
facilities have been evaluated for ADA compliance.
Walkway Inventory
Pedestrian facilities within the city include sidewalks, walkways, roadway shoulders, and off-road
trails. Those facilities are typically more concentrated in areas with high pedestrian activity, such
as the downtown area, commercial and business centers, near schools and other public facilities.
Figure 4-1 illustrates the locations within Edmonds that have pedestrian-intensive land uses.
Packet Page 203 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 4-2
Figure 4-2 illustrates the existing sidewalks and walkways within the city. The figure shows that
the sidewalk system is most complete inside the core area bounded by SR 104, 92nd Avenue W,
and SR 524. Outside of this area, sidewalks are primarily located along roads classified as
collectors or arterials. Raised and striped walkways are generally associated with schools and
provide safe walking routes.
The federal ADA was passed in 1990 and amended in 2008. ADA requires jurisdictions to
provide accessible sidewalks primarily through the installation of ADA-compliant sidewalk
ramps. The design requirements address various areas of concern such as curb alignment with
crosswalks, narrower sidewalk width, obstacles such as utility poles, placement of the sidewalk
adjacent to the curb, or the slope of the ramps. Most of the city’s sidewalk ramps were
constructed in the 1980s or later. As pedestrian improvements are made along roadway corridors,
the City has upgraded sidewalk ramps or installed new ones in accordance with current standards.
Packet Page 204 of 487
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan
September 2009
Figure 4-1. Pedestrian Intensive Land Uses
00.51
Miles
Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008);
Snohomish County (2008)
School
Downtown
Park
Business
Government/
Community
Hospital
Main St
7 6t
hW
ev
A
75
t
h
P
l
W
Ol ym
p
ic
Vi ew
D
r
208th St SW
P
h t5 9W
l
212th St SW
220th St SW
Fisher
6 8
e v A
h tW
F
i
r
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
Dayton St
7t
h
A
eN
t0
0 1A hv
e
W
W
7e vA
h
t6
Oly
m
p
i
c
Vi
e
w D r
238th St SW
176 th St
S
W
Bow
d
o
i
n
Way
180th
S
t
S
W
Walnut St
rA
3d
v
e
S
244th St SW
5
ev
A
h tS
236th St SW
3rd
A
v
e
N
ev
A
h
t
4 8
W
t9
hS
e vA
238th St SW
200th St SWCaspers St
t6 7h
W
e v A
Puget Dr
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
y
Ma
p
r
D
d
o
o
w
e
l
228th St SW
9h
N
A
t
e v
dn 2v A 5W
e
Meado
w
d
a
l
e
B
e
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
Ol ym pic View
D
r
W
ev
A
h
t
0 88evA
h tW
8
196th St SW
Su
ns
e
t
e
v A
104
99
524
Snohomish County
King County
Packet Page 205 of 487
Main
S
t
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
75
t
h
P
l
W
Oly
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
208th
S
t
S
W
95
t
h
P
l
W
212th St SW
220th
S
t
S
W
Fisher
68
t
h
A
v
e
W
F
i
r
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
Dayton
S
t
7t
h
A
v
e
N
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Oly
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
238th
S
t
S
W
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
96
t
h
A
v
e
W
176th
S
t
S
W
Bow
d
o
i
n
W
a
y
180th
S
t
S
W
Walnut
S
t
3r
d
A
v
e
S
244th
S
t
S
W
5t
h
A
v
e
S
236th
S
t
S
W
3rd
A
v
e
N
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
9t
h
A
v
e
S
238th
S
t
S
W
200th St SWCaspers
S
t
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Puget
D
r
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
y
Ma
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
D
r
228th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
52
n
d
A
v
e
W
Meado
w
d
a
l
e
B
e
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
Olympic
V
i
e
w
D
r
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
196th St SW
Su
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
104
99
524
Snohomish County
King County
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan
September 2009
Figure 4-2. Existing Walkways
00.51
Miles
Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008);
Snohomish County (2008)
City Boundary
Railroad
Water Feature
Sidewalk on One Side
Sidewalk on Both Sides
Unpaved Walkway
Packet Page 206 of 487
Non-Motorized System
September 2009 4-5
All city intersections where sidewalks exist were inventoried to document where sidewalk ramps
are present. Sidewalk ramps were assessed to determine if landing areas and detection warning
meet current ADA guidelines. The curb ramp inventory is provided in Appendix D. Of
approximately 350 intersections in Edmonds, 42 intersections were found to fully meet ADA
standards, and 24 intersections partially met ADA standards.
Recommended Walkway Improvements
This section presents recommended walkway improvements, which consist of new sidewalk
connections to improve pedestrian mobility and safety, and upgrades of curb ramps to conform to
ADA standards.
Walkway Prioritization Process
Major gaps in the city walkway system were identified by the Walkway Committee. To address
those gaps, the Committee developed criteria to evaluate and prioritize walkway improvement
projects. These criteria were used to prioritize improvements to walkway sections that were
identified based on input from public meetings, Walkway Committee meetings, and deficiencies
determined from a review of the existing city walkway inventory.
The criteria were weighted according to their importance. A system of points was developed to
evaluate each proposed project against each criterion. The result was a weighted average score
that helps to compare and prioritize proposed projects. Table 4-1 describes the walkway
prioritization criteria and their relative weights and point systems.
Table 4-1. Prioritization Criteria for Walkway Projects
Criteria Weight Description Points
Pedestrian
Safety
5 How safe is the route for pedestrians?
Does this improvement:
Separate pedestrians from vehicular
traffic, especially in high traffic areas?
Improve width of walkway and surface
conditions?
Address potential conflicts at road
crossings?
3 Strong concerns for pedestrian safety along this
route
2 Some concerns for pedestrian safety along this
route
1 This route is very similar to other routes in
Edmonds
0 Not a safety concern
Connectivity
to Services
and Facilities
4 Does this route connect to facilities or
services such as schools, parks,
churches, community centers,
businesses or transit routes?
Does this improvement:
Provide direct access to facilities or
services?
Ensure that the route links to a safe
direct access to facilities or services?
3 Route provides significant access to 3 or more
services and facilities
2 Route provides access to services and facilities
1 Route provides access to 1 service or facility
0 Route does not provide access to services or
facilities
Packet Page 207 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 4-6
Criteria Weight Description Points
Continuity to
Other
Walkway
Links
3 Does this route complete gaps in the
city’s walkway system?
Does this improvement:
Complete important pedestrian
routes?
Make important destinations more
accessible to users?
Ultimately develop a web of
walkways?
3 Location is a missing link in a very important
pedestrian route
2 Location is a missing link in a pedestrian route
1 Location is one of several missing links in a
route and important
0 Not a missing link in the city walkway system
Pedestrian
Level of
Activity
3 Is this a well-traveled route, or would it
be, if improved?
Level of activity may be determined by:
Measured counts
Identification by the public and staff,
through observation and experience
3 Route is utilized by a significant number of
pedestrians
2 Route is utilized consistently by pedestrians
1 Route is occasionally used by pedestrians
0 Route is not utilized by pedestrians
Public
Support
2 Does the public support the development
of this route?
3 A support petition has been filed with a large
number of signatures from abutting and nearby
property owners and the general public
2 Route has been the subject of a number of
citizen letters along with testimony at public
meetings in support of walkways
1 Route has been the subject of some negative
concern, expressed at public meetings
0 Route has been the subject of major negative
concern, expressed at public meetings
Compatibility
with Goals
and Policies
1 Is this route consistent with the City of
Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Goals,
Policies, and Objectives?
Is this route compatible with the
surrounding land uses?
3 Route would enhance the nearby properties and
complete a portion of the City’s Walkway Plan
2 Route would enhance the nearby properties
1 Route is in a rural area which serves pedestrians
well
0 Surrounding land uses do not generate
pedestrian traffic
Environment
al Impacts
1 Will the development of the route have
any impacts on the environment?
Environmental impacts include:
Wetlands
Shorelines
Wildlife habitat
Aesthetics
3 Route has no negative environmental impact
and aesthetically improves the area
2 Route has some negative environmental impact
but aesthetically improves the area
1 Route has some negative environmental impact
0 Route will have major negative impact on the
environment
Packet Page 208 of 487
Non-Motorized System
September 2009 4-7
Criteria Weight Description Points
Distance
from Schools
1 Is this route within a mile of a public
school?
3 Route is an Elementary school route or close
proximity to school
2 Route provides access to High school students
1 Route is within 0.5 mile of school
Connectivity
with Transit
Services
1 Is this route also a route for transit or
provide access to transit?
3 This route is on a public transit route with transit
stops
2 This route is within 650 feet from a public transit
route with transit stops
1 This route provides a principal pedestrian
access corridor to public transit where sidewalks
do not exist on adjacent pedestrian routes.
(Beyond 650 feet from a public transit route.)
Availability of
Existing
Infrastructure
1 Is there existing infrastructure along this
route that will significantly reduce project
costs?
3 There is existing curb and gutter
2 There is partial curb and gutter
1 There is no curb and gutter
Walkway sections were analyzed separately depending on the section length. Walkway sections
longer than 1,000 feet are defined as “long walkways” and walkway sections shorter than 1,000
feet are defined as “short walkways”.
Using the weighted and scoring criteria, projects with more than 50 points were designated as
Priority 1, and projects with 50 points or less were designated as Priority 2. Table 4-2 summarizes
the walkways that were considered for walkway improvements by the type of projects (i.e., short
walkway or long walkway). The projects are listed in ranked order by the total points and by
priority level. Figure 4-3 shows the locations of the walkway projects. Projected costs of the
recommended walkway projects are provided in Chapter 6 (Implementation and Financial Plan)
of this Transportation Plan. A more detailed summary of each project’s limits, existing
conditions, and point tally is provided in Appendix D.
Table 4-2. Recommended Walkway Projects
ID Street Name From To
Street
Side¹
Total
Points Priority
Short Walkway Projects
S1 2nd Avenue Main Street James Street East 63 1
S2 Dayton Street 7th Avenue S 8th Avenue S South 63 1
S3 Maple Street West of 6th Avenue S 8th Avenue S South 62 1
S4 Walnut Street 6th Avenue S 7th Avenue S Either 54 1
S5 Walnut Street 3rd Avenue S 4th Avenue S South 53 1
S6 226th Street SW 106th Avenue S SR 104 South 50 1
Packet Page 209 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 4-8
ID Street Name From To
Street
Side¹
Total
Points Priority
S7 189th Place SW 80th Avenue W 78th Avenue W Either 45 2
S8 8th Avenue Walnut Avenue South of Walnut Stairway
or trail
43 2
S9 84th Avenue W 188th Street SW 186th Street SW East 43 2
S10 190th Place SW 94th Avenue W Olympic View
Drive
Either 42 2
Long Walkway Projects
L1 236th Street SW/
234th Street SW
SR 104 97th Place W South 65 1
L2 Maplewood Drive Main Street 200th Street SW West 64 1
L3 Olympic Avenue Puget Drive Main Street East 62 1
L4 Meadowdale Beach
Road
Olympic View Drive 76th Avenue W North 60 1
L5 Pine Street 9th Avenue W SR 104 South 59 1
L6 80th Avenue W/
180th Street SW
188th Street SW Olympic View
Drive
West 58 1
L7 80th Avenue W 206th Street SW 212th Street SW Either 58 1
L8 238th Street SW 104th Avenue W 100th Avenue W North 57 1
L9 238th Street SW Highway 99 76th Avenue W North 56 1
L10 232nd Street W 100th Avenue W 97th Avenue W South 54 1
L11 84th Avenue W 238th Street SW 234th Street SW East 54 1
L12 176th Street SW 72nd Avenue W Olympic View
Drive
Either 53 1
L13 188th Street SW 92nd Avenue W 88th Avenue W South 49 2
L14 Andover Street/
184th Street SW
184th Street SW/
88th Avenue W
Olympic View
Drive/
Andover Street
Either/
North2
49 2
L15 72nd Avenue W Olympic View Drive 176th Street SW Either 47 2
L16 236th Street SW SR 104 East of 84th
Avenue W
North 47 2
L17 92nd Avenue W 189th Place SW 186th Place SW Either 47 2
L18 191st Street SW 80th Avenue W 76th Avenue W Either 47 2
L19 218th Street SW 80th Avenue W 84th Avenue W Either 44 2
L20 192nd Street SW 88th Avenue W 84th Avenue W Either 42 2
L21 104th Street SW/
Robin Hood Drive
238th Street SW 106th Avenue W West 42 2
L22 186th Street SW Seaview Park/
80th Avenue W
8608 185th Place
SW
North 37 2
Packet Page 210 of 487
Non-Motorized System
September 2009 4-9
ID Street Name From To
Street
Side¹
Total
Points Priority
L23 216th Avenue SW 86th Avenue W 92nd Avenue W South 31 2
L24 92nd Avenue W Bowdoin Way 220th Street SW Either 26 2
1. Indicates where proposed walkway improvement is located
2. Project L12 is an L-shaped project in which sidewalks are proposed on either side of Andover Street (the north-south leg), and on the
north side of 184th Street SW (the east-west leg).
Pedestrian access to transit stops is a critical element of the walkway improvement program. The
City will continue to work with Community Transit to ensure that access to transit stops is as
convenient and safe as possible. Community Transit offers its support in securing funds related to
improving access to the existing transit system and transit facilities.
In addition to the projects listed in Table 4-2, a variety of non-motorized enhancements are
scheduled as part of the 4th Avenue Corridor Enhancement project. The City also plans to make
improvements to pedestrian lighting throughout the city, with a project currently planned on Main
Street between 5th Avenue and 6th Avenue. Additionally, the City is planning to update all
pedestrian signals to the “countdown” signals, in accordance with the standards set in the Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (FHWA 2001) by 2013.
Packet Page 211 of 487
Main
S
t
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
75
t
h
P
l
W
Oly
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
208th
S
t
S
W
95
t
h
P
l
W
212th St SW
220th
S
t
S
W
Fisher
68
t
h
A
v
e
W
F
i
r
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
Dayton
S
t
7t
h
A
v
e
N
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Oly
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
238th
S
t
S
W
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
96
t
h
A
v
e
W
176th
S
t
S
W
Bow
d
o
i
n
W
a
y
180th
S
t
S
W
Walnut
S
t
3r
d
A
v
e
S
244th
S
t
S
W
5t
h
A
v
e
S
236th
S
t
S
W
3rd
A
v
e
N
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
9t
h
A
v
e
S
238th
S
t
S
W
200th St SWCaspers
S
t
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Puget
D
r
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
y
Ma
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
D
r
228th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
52
n
d
A
v
e
W
Meado
w
d
a
l
e
B
e
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
Olympic
V
i
e
w
D
r
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
196th St SW
Su
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
104
99
524
Snohomish County
King County
L4
L12
L15
L14
L22S9
L13
L17
S10
S7
L18
L20
L3
L2
L7
L11
L16
L1
L10
L8L21
S6
L5
S1
S2
S3
S8
S4
S5
L6
L9
L19
L23
L24
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan
September 2009
Figure 4-3. Existing Walkways and Recommended Walkway Projects
00.51
Miles
Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008);
Snohomish County (2008)
City Boundary
Railroad
Water Feature
Recommended Walkway Project
Existing Paved Walkway
Existing Unpaved Walkway
84th Ave W Safety Project
(includes walkway component)
Project IDXX (see also Appendix D)
Packet Page 212 of 487
Non-Motorized System
September 2009 4-11
Curb Ramp Upgrade Program
In an effort to upgrade the sidewalk ramps and meet ADA requirements, the City has developed a
Curb Ramp Upgrade Program that prioritizes future sidewalk ramp improvements at sub-standard
locations.
Citizen request for curb ramps should be addressed as they occur, and should be accommodated
close to the time of the request unless there are circumstances which would cause them to be
deferred, such as a pending construction project that would provide the ramps in a short time
frame. Priorities for future sidewalk new ramp installations or ramp upgrades are determined
based on the following priority order:
1. Downtown intersections receive priority over other locations;
2. Arterial streets receive priority over local access streets;
3. Intersections receive higher priority if they are near:
a. Community centers, senior centers, or health facilities
b. Transit stops, schools, or public buildings
c. Commercial areas and parks.
Implementation of the curb ramp upgrade program will need to occur over time, due to the costs
of those upgrades. As part of asphalt overlay projects, all ramps adjacent to the paving work must
be upgraded to meet ADA standards and new ramps installed where none exist. Sidewalk ramps
will also be installed as part of street reconstruction and sidewalk construction projects. Private
redevelopment will also fund some ramp upgrades as part of required frontage improvements.
Appendix C provides a complete list of the intersection locations and the prioritization criteria.
Bikeway Comprehensive Plan
The City updated its comprehensive Bikeway Plan in 2009. The Bikeway Plan outlines a list of
improvement projects for the bikeway system; and prioritizes bikeway projects, bicycle parking,
and bikeway signage. Before signing the routes, problem catch basin grates are replaced, sight
distance problems are addressed, and potholes and other safety hazards are corrected.
Additionally, the Bikeway Plan includes maintenance of bicycle facilities. Per RCW 35.75.060
and 36.82.145, all bicycle facilities must comply with Chapter 1020 of the WSDOT Design
Manual (WSDOT 2009) which is consistent with the Guide for the Development of Bicycle
Facilities (AASHTO 1999).
In addition to making project recommendations, the Bikeway Plan states several goals for the
bicycle network in Edmonds. These goals are:
Goal 1: To promote more bicycling.
Goal 2: To provide safer streets and paths for those who bicycle in Edmonds
Packet Page 213 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 4-12
Goal 3: To provide better access to recreational opportunities for those who bicycle
Goal 4: To provide better access to schools for those who bicycle
Goal 5: To provide better access to businesses for those who bicycle
Goal 6: To provide better access to transit for those who bicycle
Goal 7: To provide access to bicycling opportunities in other jurisdictions
Goal 8: To consider bicycle facilities and program in all City transportation programs and
funding
Goal 9: To provide enhanced parking facilities for those who bicycle, making the mode more
convenient
Goal 10: To provide maintenance provisions for City bicycle facilities
The following inventory and recommended bicycle network improvements may be considered as
complements to the Bikeway Comprehensive Plan.
Bicycle Facility Inventory
Figure 4-4 shows existing bicycle facilities within the city, which include bicycle routes, bicycle
lanes, trails, and bicycle parking facilities. Bicycle routes are designated along vehicle travel
lanes that are shared between bicycles and motor vehicles with signing. Bicycle lanes are
dedicated lanes within the traveled roadway that are reserved solely for bicyclists and
distinguished through the use of pavement markings. Bicycle lanes may be located adjacent to the
curbs or parking lanes. Trails are physically separated from vehicular traffic, and are shared with
pedestrians and other non-motorized users.
The Interurban Trail, which links the cities of Seattle, Shoreline, Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace,
Lynnwood, and Everett, runs through the southeastern portion of Edmonds. Upgrades to the trail
are included in the City’s capital improvement program. Trails are also located along the city’s
beaches and within city parks.
There are also easy connections for cyclists to ferries, Sound Transit’s Sounder service, and
Community Transit. Bicycles are allowed on all of these systems; WSF provides a reduced fare
(relative to motorized vehicle fares) for bicycles, Sound Transit provides bike racks, and all
Community Transit vehicles have bike racks.
Packet Page 214 of 487
Main
S
t
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
75
t
h
P
l
W
Oly
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
208th
S
t
S
W
95
t
h
P
l
W
212th St SW
220th
S
t
S
W
Fisher
68
t
h
A
v
e
W
F
i
r
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
Dayton
S
t
7t
h
A
v
e
N
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Oly
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
238th
S
t
S
W
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
96
t
h
A
v
e
W
176th
S
t
S
W
Bow
d
o
i
n
W
a
y
180th
S
t
S
W
Walnut
S
t
3r
d
A
v
e
S
244th
S
t
S
W
5t
h
A
v
e
S
236th
S
t
S
W
3rd
A
v
e
N
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
9t
h
A
v
e
S
238th
S
t
S
W
200th St SWCaspers
S
t
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Puget
D
r
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
y
Ma
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
D
r
228th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
52
n
d
A
v
e
W
Meado
w
d
a
l
e
B
e
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
Olympic
V
i
e
w
D
r
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
196th St SW
Su
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
104
99
524
Snohomish County
King County
In
t
e
r
u
r
b
a
n
T
r
a
i
l
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan
September 2009
Figure 4-4. Existing Bicycle Facilities
00.51
Miles
Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008);
Snohomish County (2008); King County (2009)
City Boundary
Railroad
Water Feature
Bike Lockers
Bike Parking
Bike Lanes
Bike Routes
Trails/Paths
Interim Trail/Path
Interim Route on Roadway
(76th Ave W)
Packet Page 215 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 4-14
Recommended Bikeway Improvements
The 2009 Bikeway Comprehensive Plan outlines a list of improvement projects for the bikeway
system. The Bikeway Plan prioritizes bikeway projects, bicycle parking, and bikeway signage.
The types of bikeway facilities that are recommended projects range from shared-use paths to
bike lanes to bicycle parking. Shared-use or multiuse paths are physically separated from
motorized vehicular traffic. They are designed and built primarily for use by bicycles, but are also
used by pedestrians, joggers, skaters, wheelchair users (both non-motorized and motorized),
equestrians, and other non-motorized users. The desirable width of a shared-use path is 12 feet;
the minimum width is 10 feet.
Bike lanes are established along streets in corridors where there is current or anticipated bicycle
demand and where it would be unsafe for bicyclists to ride in the travel lane. Bike lanes delineate
the rights of way assigned to bicyclists and motorists and provide for movements that are more
predictable by each. The minimum width for a bike lane is 4 feet. However, when parking is
permitted along the bike lane, an additional width of 1 to 2 feet is recommended if parking is
substantial or the turnover of parked cars is high. With curb, guardrail, or barrier, the minimum
bike lane width is 5 feet.
Signed shared roadways are shared roadways that have been identified as preferred bike routes by
posting bike route signs. A signed shared roadway bike route is established by placing the Bicycle
Route signs or markers along the roadways according to guidelines set forth in the Manual of
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (FHWA 2001).
The Bikeway Plan categorizes bikeway projects into small bikeway projects and large bikeway
projects. The distinction between these two categories is the funding sources. The small bikeway
projects can be funded entirely through dedicated City funding; large bikeway projects will
require grant funding and may be tied to a major roadway transportation project. Projected costs
of the recommended bikeway projects are provided in Chapter 6 (Implementation and Financial
Plan) of this Transportation Plan.
Small Bikeway Projects
Bicycle Loops
Figure 4-5 shows three bicycle loops of various difficulties and lengths that are recommended
along roads that have low speeds and low vehicle volumes. The Edmonds Bike Group helped
establish these three bicycle loops.
The short bicycle loop has an easy level of difficulty and a distance of 5 miles.
The medium bicycle loop is a medium level of difficulty route; it follows a similar route as
the short bicycle loop, but has an additional 2 miles for a total length of 7 miles.
Packet Page 216 of 487
Non-Motorized System
September 2009 4-15
The long bicycle loop is a scenic route designed for experienced cyclists. The total distance
for the long bicycle loop is 20 miles with a portion located in the Town of Woodway.
Shared Use Lanes
Shared use lanes, or “sharrows,” are commonly used to indicate where on the roadway a cyclist
should ride, and also to remind motorists to share the lane with bicycles when present. Sharrows
consist of a roadway striping treatment, with chevron arrows and a bicycle symbol placed on the
outside portion of the travel lane. Approved by FHWA as an experimental treatment (Pedestrian
and Bicycle Information Center 2009) and expected to be included in the next edition of the
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, sharrows are a way for many jurisdictions to create
low-cost and safe bicycle facilities. The City intends to create sharrows as necessary as it
completes roadway projects.
Bicycle Parking
In planning for bicycle parking, both public and private property needs must be considered. The
recommended standard for new commercial developments is one bicycle rack for every 12
vehicle spaces provided. The City considers the following criteria when reviewing the suitability
of new bicycle racks:
The bicycle racks shall be as convenient as the majority of automobile parking spaces
provided.
All racks shall be securely anchored to the ground or building structures.
Bicycle racks shall be in a visible location, close to the building entrances.
Bicycle racks must be designed to accommodate U-shaped locks. (U-shaped locks are
designed to allow the lock both wheels and the bicycle frame to a stationary object.)
Figure 4-6 shows the proposed bicycle parking locations identified in the City’s Bikeway Plan.
Packet Page 217 of 487
Main
S
t
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
75
t
h
P
l
W
Oly
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
208th
S
t
S
W
95
t
h
P
l
W
212th St SW
220th
S
t
S
W
Fisher
68
t
h
A
v
e
W
F
i
r
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
Dayton
S
t
7t
h
A
v
e
N
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Oly
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
238th
S
t
S
W
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
96
t
h
A
v
e
W
176th
S
t
S
W
Bow
d
o
i
n
W
a
y
180th
S
t
S
W
Walnut
S
t
3r
d
A
v
e
S
244th
S
t
S
W
5t
h
A
v
e
S
236th
S
t
S
W
3rd
A
v
e
N
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
9t
h
A
v
e
S
238th
S
t
S
W
200th St SWCaspers
S
t
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Puget
D
r
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
y
Ma
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
D
r
228th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
52
n
d
A
v
e
W
Meado
w
d
a
l
e
B
e
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
Olympic
V
i
e
w
D
r
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
196th St SW
Su
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
104
99
524
Snohomish County
King County
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan
September 2009
Figure 4-5. Recommended Signed Bicycle Loops
00.51
Miles
Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008);
Snohomish County (2008)
City Boundary
Railroad
Water Feature
Bike Routes
Short Loop (5 miles)
Medium Loop (7 miles)
Long Loop (20 miles)
Steep Grade/Long Hill
Packet Page 218 of 487
Non-Motorized System
September 2009 4-17
Large Bicycle Projects
Figure 4-6 shows the locations of the proposed bicycle routes and bicycle lanes. The large
bikeway projects include bicycle lanes or bicycle routes that can be added as part of future
roadway improvement projects. The large bikeway projects are concentrated around two major
efforts: creating a north-south bicycle connection between downtown Edmonds and the
Interurban Trail, and creating an east-west bicycle connection between the northern and southern
portions of Edmonds.
The north-south bicycle projects include:
84th Avenue W, 238th Street SW - 212th Street SW
80th Avenue W, 220th Street SW - 206th Street SW
76th Avenue W, 224th Street SW - N Meadowdale Beach Drive
The east-west bicycle projects include:
Edmonds Way/Sunset Avenue, Edmonds Street - city limits
224th Street SW, 100th Avenue W - the Interurban Trail
Other large bikeway projects include:
Olympic View Drive, Puget Drive - 76th Avenue W (less steep route)
3rd Avenue N, Main Street - Caspers Street
Caspers Street, 3rd Avenue N - 9th Avenue N
9th Avenue N, Caspers Street - Puget Drive
Interurban Trail
The City is planning to complete the 1.4-mile link of the Interurban Trail between the cities of
Shoreline and Mountlake Terrace. The planned alignment runs roughly parallel to 76th Avenue
W, south of 228th Street SW. The “interurban corridor” is a former inter-city rail line, part of a
nationwide system of similar lines that operated from the 1890’s to the 1930’s. This vital project
is significant because it is the “missing link” north and beyond to Everett and south through the
recently completed Shoreline Interurban Trail to Seattle and beyond. Locally and regionally this
community supported trail will provide safe passage and a healthy alternative to connect homes,
work, services, recreation sites and other modes of transportation. The trail lies along view
corridors of Lake Ballinger with waterfront access and a respite stop with shelter and information
kiosk at 76th Ave and McAleer Way. For consistency in style, the City’s proposed design follows
the lead of surrounding communities matching them in 12-foot width, design, historical elements,
signage and landscaping. Shared road portions along busy 76th Avenue West and the quieter
residential 74th Avenue West will be reconfigured and improved to add dedicated bicycle lanes.
Traffic calming techniques will be installed at road crossings as well as appropriate signage.
Packet Page 219 of 487
Main
S
t
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
75
t
h
P
l
W
Oly
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
208th
S
t
S
W
95
t
h
P
l
W
212th St SW
220th
S
t
S
W
Fisher
68
t
h
A
v
e
W
F
i
r
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
Dayton
S
t
7t
h
A
v
e
N
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Oly
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
238th
S
t
S
W
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
96
t
h
A
v
e
W
176th
S
t
S
W
Bow
d
o
i
n
W
a
y
180th
S
t
S
W
Walnut
S
t
3r
d
A
v
e
S
244th
S
t
S
W
5t
h
A
v
e
S
236th
S
t
S
W
3rd
A
v
e
N
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
9t
h
A
v
e
S
238th
S
t
S
W
200th St SWCaspers
S
t
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Puget
D
r
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
y
Ma
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
D
r
228th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
52
n
d
A
v
e
W
Meado
w
d
a
l
e
B
e
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
Olympic
V
i
e
w
D
r
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
196th St SW
Su
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
104
99
524
Snohomish County
King County
In
t
e
r
u
r
b
a
n
T
r
a
i
l
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan
September 2009
Figure 4-6. Recommended Bicycle Facilities
00.51
Miles
Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008);
Snohomish County (2008)
City Boundary
Railroad
Water Feature
Existing Bike Lockers
Existing Bike Parking
Proposed Bike Parking
Bike Lanes
Existing
Proposed
Bike Routes
Existing
Proposed
Trails/Paths
Existing
Interim
Proposed
Interim Route on Roadway
(76th Ave W)
Bike Lanes
Bike Routes
Trails/Paths
Packet Page 220 of 487
September 2009 5-1
Chapter 5. Transit and Transportation Demand
Management
This chapter provides an inventory of existing transit facilities and services, including buses, rail
and ferries. Strategies to increase transit use including Transportation Demand Management and
other transit improvements are then presented.
Existing Transit Service
Community Transit
Community Transit, the major provider of public transit for Snohomish County, operates three
types of transit service in the city:
Fixed bus route service
Rideshare services
Dial-A-Ride Transit (DART) paratransit service
Fixed Route Bus Service
Fixed bus routes are local or commuter services that operate on a standardized schedule. Figure 5-
1 shows the bus routes that serve the city.
Table 5-1 summarizes local bus routes serving the city, which provide two-way service between
destinations in the city and surrounding areas, from morning through evening.
Table 5-2 summarizes commuter bus routes serving the city, which provide service to major
employment destinations in Snohomish and King Counties. Commuter routes typically operate
only during the weekday morning and evening peak commute periods. Every Community Transit
bus is equipped to accommodate wheelchairs. All buses are also equipped with bicycle racks.
Packet Page 221 of 487
Main
S
t
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
75
t
h
P
l
W
Oly
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
208th
S
t
S
W
95
t
h
P
l
W
212th St SW
220th
S
t
S
W
Fisher
68
t
h
A
v
e
W
F
i
r
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
Dayton
S
t
7t
h
A
v
e
N
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Oly
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
238th
S
t
S
W
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
96
t
h
A
v
e
W
176th
S
t
S
W
Bow
d
o
i
n
W
a
y
180th
S
t
S
W
Walnut
S
t
3r
d
A
v
e
S
244th
S
t
S
W
5t
h
A
v
e
S
236th
S
t
S
W
3rd
A
v
e
N
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
9t
h
A
v
e
S
238th
S
t
S
W
200th St SWCaspers
S
t
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Puget
D
r
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
y
Ma
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
D
r
228th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
52
n
d
A
v
e
W
Meado
w
d
a
l
e
B
e
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
Olympic
V
i
e
w
D
r
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
196th St SW
Su
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
104
99
524
Snohomish County
King County
119
112
130
114
114114
131
118
116
131
115 116115
118
131
130
112
130
112
110
110
100
110
190
119
110
131
119
131
190
101
114
115 118
110
408
405
401
406
411
416
404
405
435
421
412
416
410
417
422 425
413
406
477
404
414
441
414
441
408
415
402
404
477
404
406
416
513
510 511
851
871
855
870
810
810
812 821
871
880
860
870
870
885
870
810
851
871
871
870
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
-
K
i
n
g
s
t
o
n
To/
F
r
o
m
E
v
e
r
e
t
t
To
/
F
r
o
m
S
e
a
t
t
l
e
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan
September 2009
Figure 5-1. Fixed Route Bus Service
00.51
Miles
Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008);
Snohomish County (2008)
City Boundary
Railroad
Water Feature
Train Station/Park & Ride Lot
Park & Ride Lot
Existing Bus Routes
Community Transit Commuter Route
Community Transit Local Route
Sound Transit Express Route
Swift Bus Rapid Transit Route
Ferry Route
Commuter Rail Route
Packet Page 222 of 487
Transit and Transportation Demand Management
September 2009 5-3
Table 5-1. Community Transit Local Bus Routes
Route
Number Route Description
Days of
Operation
Hours of Operation
(approximate)
2008 Average
Weekday Daily
Boardings
101 Aurora Village (Shoreline) to
Everett
Daily 5:00 am – 1:30 am (Weekdays);
5:00 am -12:30 am (Saturdays); 6:00
am- 12:30 am (Sundays)
4,007
110 Lynnwood Transit Center to
Edmonds Senior Center
Daily 5:40 am- 9:40 pm (Weekdays); 6:45
am- 8:40 pm (Weekends)
525
112 Lynnwood Transit Center to
Edmonds Community College
Daily 5:20 am-11:40 pm (Weekdays); 6:40
am-10:40 pm (Saturdays); 6:40 am-
8:40 am (Sundays)
1,225
114 Mill Creek/Silver Firs to Edmonds
Senior Center
Daily 5:00 am-10:30 pm (Weekdays); 6:30
am-11:00 pm (Saturdays); 6:30 am-
9:00 pm (Sundays)
729
115 Mays Pond/Mill Creek to
Edmonds Senior Center
Weekdays and
Saturdays
5:20 am- 12:00 am (Weekdays);
8:00 am-7:30 pm (Saturdays)
1,698
116 Mill Creek/Silver Firs to Edmonds
Senior Center
Weekdays 5:00 am-11:30 pm (Weekdays) 726
118 Aurora Village (Shoreline) to Ash
Way Park-and-Ride (Lynnwood)
Daily 5:30 am-11:45 pm (Weekdays); 6:45
am-10:40 pm (Saturdays); 6:45 am-
8:40 pm (Sundays)
1,849
131 Aurora Village (Shoreline) to
Edmonds Community College
Transit Center
Daily 5:00 am-10:00 pm (Weekdays); 6:00
am-9:00 pm (Weekends)
702
Source: Community Transit 2009
Table 5-2. Community Transit Commuter Bus Routes
Route
Number Route Description
Days of
Operation
Hours of Operation
(approximate)
2008 Average
Weekday Daily
Boardings
100 Shoreline to Everett Weekdays 5:00 am- 8:45 am (northbound only)
and 3:00 pm-7:00 pm (southbound
only)
515
190 Edmonds Community College to
Mukilteo
Weekdays 6:30 am-10:00 am (southbound only)
and 11:30 am-8:20 pm (northbound
only)
221
404/405 Edmonds to Downtown Seattle Weekdays 5:15 am-8:45 am (southbound only)
and 3:15 pm-7:30 pm (northbound
only)
383
406 Seaview (Edmonds) to
Downtown Seattle
Weekdays 6:00 am-9:00 am (southbound only)
and 3:30 pm-7:00 pm (northbound
only)
244
Packet Page 223 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 5-4
Route
Number Route Description
Days of
Operation
Hours of Operation
(approximate)
2008 Average
Weekday Daily
Boardings
416 Edmonds to Downtown Seattle Weekdays 5:30 am-8:45 am (southbound only)
and 3:30 pm-7:15 pm (northbound
only)
352
441 Edmonds Park-and-Ride to
Redmond
Weekdays 6:15 am-8:00 am (southeast bound
only) and 4:30 pm-6:20 pm
(northwest bound only)
99
810 Everett to University District
(Seattle)
Weekdays 9:15 am-1:20 pm (both directions)
and 6:30 pm-10:45 pm (northbound
only)
296
870/871 Edmonds to University District
(Seattle)
Weekdays 6:00 am-10:20 am (southbound only)
and 12:30 pm-6:40 pm (northbound
only)
415
Source: Community Transit 2009
Accessibility to fixed route transit is considered to be ideal when transit stops are located within
0.25 mile of residents. Figure 5-2 shows the proportion of Edmonds within 0.25 mile of a fixed-
route local or commuter transit service; and Figure 5-3 shows the proportion of Edmonds within
0.25 mile of fixed-route local bus service. The figures show that approximately 64% of the
Edmonds population lives within 0.25 mile of local bus service; and approximately 81% of the
Edmonds population lives within 0.25 mile of either local or commuter service.
Packet Page 224 of 487
Main
S
t
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
75
t
h
P
l
W
Oly
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
208th
S
t
S
W
95
t
h
P
l
W
212th St SW
220th
S
t
S
W
Fisher
68
t
h
A
v
e
W
F
i
r
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
Dayton
S
t
7t
h
A
v
e
N
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Oly
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
238th
S
t
S
W
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
96
t
h
A
v
e
W
176th
S
t
S
W
Bow
d
o
i
n
W
a
y
180th
S
t
S
W
Walnut
S
t
3r
d
A
v
e
S
244th
S
t
S
W
5t
h
A
v
e
S
236th
S
t
S
W
3rd
A
v
e
N
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
9t
h
A
v
e
S
238th
S
t
S
W
200th St SWCaspers
S
t
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Puget
D
r
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
y
Ma
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
D
r
228th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
52
n
d
A
v
e
W
Meado
w
d
a
l
e
B
e
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
Olympic
V
i
e
w
D
r
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
196th St SW
Su
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
104
99
524
Snohomish County
King County
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
-
K
i
n
g
s
t
o
n
To/
F
r
o
m
E
v
e
r
e
t
t
To
/
F
r
o
m
S
e
a
t
t
l
e
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan
September 2009
Figure 5-2.Access to Local and Commuter Transit
00.51
Miles
Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008);
Snohomish County (2008)
City Boundary
Railroad
Water Feature
Train Station/Park & Ride Lot
Park & Ride Lot
Community Transit Bus Stop
Existing Bus Routes
Ferry Route
Commuter Rail Route
1/4-Mile Bus Stop Zone
Approximately 81% of 2000 population
located within 1/4 mile of a transit stop.
Packet Page 225 of 487
Main
S
t
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
75
t
h
P
l
W
Oly
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
208th
S
t
S
W
95
t
h
P
l
W
212th St SW
220th
S
t
S
W
Fisher
68
t
h
A
v
e
W
F
i
r
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
Dayton
S
t
7t
h
A
v
e
N
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Oly
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
238th
S
t
S
W
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
96
t
h
A
v
e
W
176th
S
t
S
W
Bow
d
o
i
n
W
a
y
180th
S
t
S
W
Walnut
S
t
3r
d
A
v
e
S
244th
S
t
S
W
5t
h
A
v
e
S
236th
S
t
S
W
3rd
A
v
e
N
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
9t
h
A
v
e
S
238th
S
t
S
W
200th St SWCaspers
S
t
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
Puget
D
r
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
y
Ma
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
D
r
228th
S
t
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
52
n
d
A
v
e
W
Meado
w
d
a
l
e
B
e
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
Olympic
V
i
e
w
D
r
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
196th St SW
Su
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
104
99
524
Snohomish County
King County
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
-
K
i
n
g
s
t
o
n
To/
F
r
o
m
E
v
e
r
e
t
t
To
/
F
r
o
m
S
e
a
t
t
l
e
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan
September 2009
Figure 5-3.Access to Local Transit
00.51
Miles
Source: City of Edmonds (2008); WSDOT (2008);
Snohomish County (2008)
City Boundary
Railroad
Water Feature
Train Station/Park & Ride Lot
Park & Ride Lot
Community Transit Bus Stop- Local Route
Existing Bus Routes
Ferry Route
Commuter Rail Route
1/4 mile Local Route Bus Stop
Approximately 64% of 2000 population
located within 1/4 mile of a local bus stop.
Packet Page 226 of 487
Transit and Transportation Demand Management
September 2009 5-7
Rideshare Services
For citizens who are disinclined or unable to use fixed-route bus service, the following rideshare
services are available:
Commuter Vanpools –Community Transit provides vehicles, driver orientation, vehicle
maintenance, and assistance in forming vanpool groups. Community Transit currently
manages nine vanpools originating in Edmonds that serve the following employment
destinations:
- Amgen in Seattle
- Bangor (2 vans)
- Boeing Everett (2 vans)
- Department of Defense in Keyport
- Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in Renton
- Holmes Electric in Bellevue
- Raytheon in Keyport
Carpools – Community Transit provides ride-matching services for people seeking carpool
partners.
DART Paratransit
DART is a specialized bus service provided by Community Transit for those who are unable to
use regular bus service due to a disability. Service is available to all origins and destinations
within 0.75 mile of local, non-commuter bus routes.
King County Metro Transit
King County Metro does not provide local service within Edmonds, but connections are available
between Community Transit and Metro routes at the Aurora Village Transit Center just south of
the city.
Sound Transit Express Bus
Sound Transit (ST), which provides regional bus service to the urban portions of Snohomish,
King, and Pierce counties, does not have an established express bus stop in Edmonds. However,
ST express bus service is available at transit centers or park-and-ride lots in the vicinity of
Edmonds (Swamp Creek, Lynnwood Transit Center, Mountlake Terrace Transit Center) and can
be accessed by Community Transit.
Packet Page 227 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 5-8
Park-and-Ride Facilities
The primary commuter parking facility in the city is the Edmonds park-and-ride lot located at
72nd Avenue West and 213th Place SW. This facility, which has a capacity for 255 cars, is
owned by WSDOT and operated by Community Transit. This facility offers bus service to
Lynnwood, downtown Seattle, Redmond, Everett, Shoreline and Seattle’s University District.
The average utilization rate of this facility is 71% (Community Transit 2008).
Many routes also serve the Edmonds Senior Center, Edmonds Station and Edmonds Ferry
Terminal. Parking available in the vicinity of these facilities includes a total of 220 spaces near
the ferry terminal and 179 spaces at the Edmonds Station. Edmonds Community College also
serves as a transit hub, but no public parking is available at this location. Table 5-3 summarizes
the park-and-ride lots that serve Edmonds.
Table 5-3. Park-and-Ride Facilities Serving Edmonds
Lot Name Location Routes Parking Capacity
Edgewood Baptist Church 20406 76th Avenue W 112, 406 10
Edmonds Lutheran Church 8330 212th Street SW 118, 131, 404, 870 10
Westgate Chapel 22901 Edmonds Way 416 9
Edmonds Lutheran Church 23525 84th Avenue W 118 21
Korean United Presbyterian Church 8506 238th Street SW 416 64
Edmonds Park-and-Ride 21300 72nd Avenue W 110, 404, 405, 406, 441,
810, 870, 871
255
Mountlake Terrace Transit Center 236th Street SW and
I-5 Northbound Ramp
130, 408, 414, 810, 851,
871, King County Metro
880
Edmonds Ferry Terminal SR 104 WSF 220
Edmonds Station 210 Railroad Avenue Sounder, Amtrak 179
Source: Community Transit, Sound Transit and WSF
Outside of the city, the Lynnwood Transit Center and Aurora Village Transit Center are the major
hubs for transferring between Community Transit local routes. Other transfer hubs include
Edmonds Community College and Mountlake Terrace Transit Center. These Community Transit
routes connect with King County Metro service at Aurora Village, Mountlake Terrace, and
Bothell; Everett Transit in the City of Everett; the Washington State Ferry at the Edmonds and
Mukilteo Terminals; with Sound Transit at various park-and-ride lots in the south Snohomish
County; and Island Transit in the City of Stanwood.
Rail Service
Passenger rail service in Edmonds is provided by Sound Transit’s Sounder commuter rail and
Amtrak’s intercity rail. The rail station is located at 211 Railroad Avenue and can be accessed by
Community Transit.
Packet Page 228 of 487
Transit and Transportation Demand Management
September 2009 5-9
Sounder Commuter Rail
The Sounder commuter rail line operates between Seattle and Everett, with stops in Edmonds and
Mukilteo. Through a partnership with Amtrak, Amtrak trains are also available for commuters
along this route. Sounder operates four southbound trains during the morning commute period
and four northbound trains during the evening commute period. Amtrak operates one additional
train in each direction during both the morning commute period and the evening commute period.
Amtrak Service
Amtrak operates two routes with stops in Edmonds: the Amtrak Cascades and the Empire
Builder.
Amtrak Cascades
Edmonds serves as a stop along the Seattle – Vancouver route. Service is daily, with two
northbound trains (8:07 am and 7:07 pm) and two southbound trains (10:21 am and 9:19 pm)
stopping in Edmonds per day. From Edmonds, one of the two northbound trains terminates in
Bellingham while the other terminates in Vancouver, British Columbia. One southbound
Cascades train originates in Bellingham while the other begins in Vancouver, BC.
The Cascades route’s northbound service provides connections to Everett, Mount Vernon, and
Bellingham in Washington State, and Surrey, Richmond, and Vancouver in British Columbia.
Southbound service terminates in Seattle. Travelers who wish to take rail south to destinations
between Seattle and Portland are best served by traveling to Seattle to take the Seattle–Portland
route.
Empire Builder
The Empire Builder provides cross-country service between Seattle and Chicago. Its route
traverses the states of Washington, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and
Illinois. Service is daily, with one eastbound train departing from Edmonds each evening (5:17
pm). One westbound train arrives in Edmonds each morning (9:05 am).
Washington State Ferries
The Edmonds-Kingston ferry route connects the northern portion of the Kitsap Peninsula and the
Olympic Peninsula with northern King and southern Snohomish Counties. The route is 4.5
nautical miles long, and takes approximately 30 minutes to traverse. The Edmonds-Kingston
route operates seven days per week year round, with average headways ranging between 35 and
75 minutes.
In 2006, the Edmonds-Kingston route carried 4.3 million people, at an average of 12,200
passengers per day (WSF Origin Destination Onboard Survey 2006). A 2006 Washington State
Ferries (WSF) survey indicates that in-vehicle boardings were the most prevalent, with about 87
Packet Page 229 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 5-10
percent of passengers boarding in this manner on the average weekday. Walk-on passengers
constituted 13 percent of all passengers on an average weekday. The WSF survey indicates that
during the PM peak period (3 PM to 7 PM), approximately two-thirds of the total passengers on
the Edmonds-Kingston route are traveling west to the Kitsap / Olympic Peninsulas from
Edmonds, and about one-third are traveling eastbound to Edmonds from the west.
Transportation Demand Management
TDM consists of strategies that seek to maximize the efficiency of the transportation system by
reducing demand on the system. The results of successful TDM can include the following
benefits:
Travelers switch from driving alone to high-occupancy vehicle modes such as transit,
vanpools, or carpools.
Travelers switch from driving to non-motorized modes such as bicycling or walking.
Travelers change the time they make trips from more congested to less congested times of
day.
Travelers eliminate trips altogether either through means such as compressed work weeks,
consolidation of errands, or use of telecommunications.
Within the State of Washington, alternative transportation solutions are necessitated by the
objectives of the Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Law. Passed in 1991 as a section of the
Washington Clean Air Act (RCW 70.94), the CTR Law seeks to reduce workplace commute
trips. The purpose of CTR is to help maintain air quality in metropolitan areas by reducing
congestion and air pollution. This law requires Edmonds to adopt a CTR plan requiring private
and public employers with 100 or more employees to implement TDM programs. Programs
provide various incentives or disincentives to encourage use of alternative transportation modes
other than the single-occupant vehicle.
The City promotes TDM through policy and/or investments that may include, but are not limited
to, the following:
Parking management;
Trip reduction ordinances;
Restricted access to facilities and activity centers; and
Transit-oriented and pedestrian-friendly design.
The City can support the CTR Law and regional vehicle trip reduction strategies by working with
employers to encourage the reduction of commuter single-occupant vehicle use. Community
Transit assists employers in developing plans that meet specific trip reduction needs as required
by the CTR Law. Flex time, parking management, vanpooling, and carpooling are some of the
available options. Community Transit offers free Employee Transportation Coordinator Training
Packet Page 230 of 487
Transit and Transportation Demand Management
September 2009 5-11
Workshops for employers affected by CTR. Transportation consulting services are also available
to interested employers not affected by CTR. Community Transit also conducts community
outreach programs that fall within the realm of TDM.
There are three employers in Edmonds that participate in the CTR program: the City of Edmonds,
Stevens Hospital, and Edmonds Family Medicine Clinic. Each employer measures its progress
toward its goal of reducing single-occupant vehicle trips by conducting an employee survey every
other year. Community Transit assists in this effort, and reviews the results to see if the
employers are in compliance with CTR goals.
Future Transit Improvements
Chapter 2 of this Transportation Plan identifies a number of specific goals, objectives and policies
aiming at enhancing transit options and operations in the City. One of the City’s goals is to
“prioritize and finance improvements for the greatest public benefit, emphasizing transit, demand
management, and maintenance of current facilities”.
Bus Shelters and Benches
Providing additional shelters and benches at bus stops has been identified as a high priority for
the City. At all appropriate locations, sidewalk improvement or construction projects will include
the creation of boarding pads to allow for shelters. The City will continue to work with
Community Transit to ensure that bus stops and shelters fit in with the local street design.
Community Transit is also committed to expanding the number of locations with stop shelters,
adding 25 new locations each year (on the entire system) in addition to maintaining and replacing
existing shelters. Table 5-4 lists the top priority locations identified by the City for bus shelters
and seating.
Table 5-4. Top Priority Locations for Bus Shelters and Seating
Ranking Location Shelter Bench
Simme
Seat1 Comments
1 7901 212th Street SW X X Located across from Edmonds
High School fence right behind
back sidewalk. Additional right
of way needed.
2 123 3rd Avenue S X
3 1675 220th Street SW X X
4 126 3rd Avenue S X X
5 3rd Avenue N at Edmonds
Street (NB)
X X
8 Dayton Street (in front of
Old Milltown)
X X Additional right of way needed.
Packet Page 231 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 5-12
Ranking Location Shelter Bench
Simme
Seat1 Comments
7 220th Street SW in front
Top Foods
X X Additional right of way needed.
9 7805 220th Street SW X
10 8330 212th Street SW X
11 7407 212th Street SW X
12 12810 76th Avenue W X
13 12827 76th Avenue W X
14 Dayton Street at 5th
Avenue N (WB)
X Existing shelter with bank
roofing
15 233 3rd Avenue N X Existing shelter with complex
roofing
16 533 5th Avenue S X Limited space for bus shelter
because building structure
17 1054 Bowdoin Way X
18 1051 Walnut Street X
19 8415 238th Street SW X
1. A Simme-Seat is a double seat that is attached to a bus stop pole.
Transit Emphasis Corridors
Community Transit’s Six Year Transit Development Plan and 20 Year Long Range Plan describe
a network of Transit Emphasis Corridors on arterial streets and highways connecting urban
centers in Snohomish County. SR 99 and 196th Street SW are Transit Emphasis Corridors in
Edmonds. The long-term vision for these corridors is coordinated land use, infrastructure, and
transit planning that will encourage transit market development and will enable effective service
by Community Transit. The Transit Development Plan calls for increasing the frequency and span
of local service providing east-west connections across south Snohomish County between Mill
Creek, Lynnwood and Edmonds including the 164th St SW and 196th St SW transit emphasis
corridors.
Swift Bus Rapid Transit
This process is moving forward on SR 99 with the implementation of Swift Bus Rapid Transit
(BRT), which will begin service in fall 2009. Swift will operate throughout the day, seven days a
week, providing service between Shoreline and Everett. Swift will operate with 10-minute
frequency from 5:00 am to 7:00 pm, and with 20-minute frequency from 7:00 pm to midnight and
on weekends. Swift BRT will serve landmark stations located at approximately one mile intervals
along the route. The City worked closely with Community Transit on the Swift BRT alignment
Packet Page 232 of 487
Transit and Transportation Demand Management
September 2009 5-13
and station locations. There are two stations located along SR 99 in Edmonds: at 238th St SW and
at 216th St SW. Local service on Route 101 will continue to operate in the corridor.
Additional Fixed Route Transit Service
The City will continue to coordinate with Community Transit regarding additional bus transit
service on Olympic View Drive or east of 76th Avenue N.
In addition, the City has adopted a policy (see Policy 8.12 in Chapter 2) to explore future funding
for a city-based circulator bus that provides local shuttle service between neighborhoods (Firdale
Village, Perrinville, Five Corners, Westgate) and downtown.
Edmonds Crossing Multimodal Facility
The City is also a partner in the Edmonds Crossing multimodal ferry, bus, and rail facility. Sound
Transit is planning to relocate Edmonds station as part of the larger Edmonds Crossing
Multimodal project being led by WSDOT. The location of the preferred alternative for the
multimodal project in the Final Environmental Impact Statement would relocate the station south
of Edmonds marina, near Point Edwards. The project would also improve traffic circulation in
downtown Edmonds by eliminating at-grade railroad crossings. The Washington legislature
approved $4 million for the project during the 2007-2009 biennium. However, funding for the
remaining $122 million is not secured.
Packet Page 233 of 487
Packet Page 234 of 487
September 2009 6-1
Chapter 6. Implementation and Financial Plan
This chapter provides a summary of the projects, project prioritization, total costs, projected
revenue, and implementation strategies for recommended improvements through 2025.
Project Costs
Preliminary costs for proposed transportation projects were estimated at a planning level, based
on 2009 dollars. Estimates were based on typical unit costs, as applied to each type of
improvement, and are not the result of preliminary engineering. Annual programs such as asphalt
street overlay show projected expenditures beginning in 2010. These planning-level estimates of
probable cost were the basis for the financial plan.
Table 6-1 summarizes the estimated costs for the recommended transportation projects and
programs through 2025. The table shows that the cost of fully funding all operations, safety, and
maintenance projects and programs through 2025, as presented in this Transportation Plan, is
$103,046,300.
Packet Page 235 of 487
Co
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
9
Ta
b
l
e
6
-
1
.
C
o
s
t
s
o
f
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
ID
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Co
s
t
Co
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
-
b
y
2
0
1
5
2
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
/
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
.
W
i
d
e
n
7
6
t
h
t
o
a
d
d
a
w
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
f
o
r
1
7
5
-
f
o
o
t
st
o
r
a
g
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
.
$1
,
1
4
6
,
8
0
0
4
Pu
g
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
/
1
9
6
t
h
S
t
S
W
/
8
8
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
.
1
$8
7
9
,
0
0
0
9
21
2
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
/
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
W
i
d
e
n
7
6
t
h
t
o
a
d
d
a
n
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
f
o
r
2
5
0
-
f
o
o
t
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
a
n
d
a
so
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
f
o
r
1
2
5
-
f
o
o
t
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
.
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
ph
a
s
e
f
o
r
n
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
a
n
d
s
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
W
i
d
e
n
2
1
2
t
h
t
o
a
d
d
a
we
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
f
o
r
5
0
-
f
o
o
t
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
.
$2
,
3
1
3
,
8
0
0
10
21
2
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
/
8
4
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
s
i
n
g
l
e
-
l
a
n
e
r
o
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
.
$1
,
9
1
0
,
1
0
0
11
Ma
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
/
9
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
N
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
.
$8
7
4
,
4
0
0
12
Wa
l
n
u
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
/
9
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
S
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
.
$8
7
4
,
4
0
0
15
22
0
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
/
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
R
e
c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
e
e
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
l
a
n
e
s
t
o
a
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
a
n
d
a
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
-
r
i
g
h
t
l
a
n
e
.
C
h
a
n
g
e
ea
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
a
n
d
w
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
p
h
a
s
e
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
-
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
p
h
a
s
e
f
o
r
ea
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
.
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
rn
p
h
a
s
e
f
o
r
w
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
d
u
r
i
n
g
so
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
p
h
a
s
e
.
$1
3
8
,
3
0
0
Su
b
T
o
t
a
l
$8
,
1
3
6
,
8
0
0
Co
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
-
b
y
2
0
2
5
1
17
4
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
/
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
W
i
d
e
n
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
t
o
a
d
d
a
n
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
f
o
r
5
0
-
f
o
o
t
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
.
Sh
i
f
t
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
l
a
n
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
e
a
s
t
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
n
a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
l
a
n
e
f
o
r
e
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
le
f
t
t
u
r
n
s
.
$7
2
4
,
2
0
0
6
Ca
s
p
e
r
s
S
t
r
e
e
t
/
9
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
N
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
.
$8
1
8
,
0
0
0
Packet Page 236 of 487
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
P
l
a
n
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
9
ID
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Co
s
t
8
21
2
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
/
S
R
9
9
W
i
d
e
n
2
1
2
t
h
t
o
a
d
d
a
w
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
f
o
r
2
0
0
-
f
o
o
t
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
a
n
d
a
n
ea
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
f
o
r
3
0
0
-
f
o
o
t
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
.
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
ph
a
s
e
f
o
r
e
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
a
n
d
w
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
$3
,
2
6
5
,
5
0
0
14
22
0
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
/
S
R
9
9
W
i
d
e
n
2
2
0
t
h
t
o
a
d
d
w
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
f
o
r
3
2
5
-
f
o
o
t
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
.
W
i
d
e
n
S
R
99
a
d
d
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
f
o
r
2
7
5
-
f
o
o
t
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
.
$3
,
1
4
7
,
3
0
0
Su
b
T
o
t
a
l
$7
,
9
9
5
,
0
0
0
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
o
f
S
t
a
t
e
w
i
d
e
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
(
H
S
S
)
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
20
23
8
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
/
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
(
S
R
10
4
)
In
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
a
n
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
p
h
a
s
e
f
o
r
n
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
a
n
d
so
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
C
o
s
t
a
s
s
u
m
e
s
c
o
r
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
m
i
n
o
r
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
k
e
w
.
$5
,
4
4
4
,
6
0
0
21
24
4
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
(
S
R
1
0
4
)
/
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
W
i
d
e
n
2
4
4
t
h
t
o
a
d
d
s
e
c
o
n
d
w
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
f
o
r
3
2
5
-
f
o
o
t
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
.
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
p
h
a
s
e
f
o
r
n
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
d
u
r
i
n
g
w
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
ph
a
s
e
.
$3
,
3
2
1
,
6
0
0
Su
b
T
o
t
a
l
$8
,
7
6
6
,
2
0
0
Sa
f
e
t
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
25
22
8
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
,
S
R
9
9
-
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
2
2
8
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
b
e
t
w
ee
n
S
R
9
9
a
n
d
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
(
t
h
r
e
e
la
n
e
s
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
b
,
g
u
t
t
e
r
,
a
n
d
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
)
.
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
a
t
2
2
8
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
a
n
d
SR
9
9
.
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
m
e
d
i
a
n
o
n
S
R
9
9
t
o
p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
t
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
.
$3
,
9
4
8
,
2
0
0
26
21
6
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
/
S
R
9
9
Wi
d
e
n
t
o
a
l
l
o
w
o
n
e
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
a
n
d
o
n
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
l
a
n
e
s
i
n
e
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
a
n
d
we
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
,
w
i
t
h
1
0
0
-
f
o
o
t
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
f
o
r
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
s
.
$7
1
9
,
8
0
0
27
23
8
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
,
S
R
1
0
4
-
8
4
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
Wi
d
e
n
t
o
t
h
r
e
e
l
a
n
e
s
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
b
,
g
u
t
t
e
r
,
a
n
d
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
(
a
s
p
e
r
P
i
n
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
F
e
r
r
y
Ac
c
e
s
s
S
t
u
d
y
)
$2
,
5
1
9
,
7
0
0
28
84
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
,
2
1
2
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
-
2
3
8
t
h
St
r
e
e
t
S
W
Wi
d
e
n
t
o
t
h
r
e
e
l
a
n
e
s
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
b
,
g
u
t
t
e
r
,
b
i
k
e
l
a
n
e
s
,
a
n
d
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
.
$1
6
,
3
5
5
,
5
0
0
80
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
Si
g
h
t
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
f
o
r
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
,
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
s
,
a
n
d
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
29
2
,
0
0
0
SR
9
9
I
l
l
u
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
a
f
e
t
y
w
i
t
h
i
l
l
u
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
$4
0
0
,
0
0
0
Packet Page 237 of 487
Co
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
ID
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Co
s
t
Ma
i
n
S
t
/
3
r
d
A
v
e
s
i
g
n
a
l
u
p
g
r
a
d
e
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
l
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
c
o
n
f
l
i
c
t
s
w
i
t
h
t
r
u
c
k
s
$1
3
8
,
0
0
0
Su
b
T
o
t
a
l
$2
4
,
3
7
3
,
2
0
0
No
n
-
M
o
t
o
r
i
z
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
In
t
e
r
u
r
b
a
n
T
r
a
i
l
$1
,
5
3
5
,
0
0
0
Ci
t
y
w
i
d
e
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
$1
4
,
6
9
9
,
0
0
0
AD
A
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
$4
,
1
8
9
,
5
0
0
Ci
t
y
w
i
d
e
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
$8
0
,
0
0
0
Bi
k
e
R
o
u
t
e
S
i
g
n
i
n
g
$2
5
,
0
0
0
Ci
t
y
w
i
d
e
B
i
k
e
w
a
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
$1
2
0
,
0
0
0
Ci
t
y
w
i
d
e
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
t
o
C
o
u
n
t
d
o
w
n
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
S
i
g
n
a
l
s
$4
3
,
0
0
0
Ma
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
$5
3
3
,
0
0
0
Su
b
T
o
t
a
l
$2
1
,
2
2
4
,
5
0
0
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
a
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
An
n
u
a
l
S
t
r
e
e
t
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
s
20
1
0
-
2
0
1
5
G
r
i
n
d
p
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
,
o
v
e
r
l
a
y
$9
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
20
1
6
-
2
0
2
5
$1
5
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
Ci
t
y
w
i
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
20
1
0
-
2
0
1
5
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
t
o
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
l
i
f
e
$9
0
,
0
0
0
20
1
6
-
2
0
2
5
$1
5
0
,
0
0
0
Ci
t
y
w
i
d
e
S
i
g
n
a
l
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
20
1
0
-
2
0
1
5
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
t
o
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
i
g
n
a
l
s
,
f
o
r
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
$3
0
,
0
0
0
20
1
6
-
2
0
2
5
$5
0
,
0
0
0
Ci
t
y
w
i
d
e
C
a
b
i
n
e
t
a
n
d
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
r
Up
g
r
a
d
e
s
20
1
0
-
2
0
1
5
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
t
o
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
c
a
b
i
n
e
t
s
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
f
o
r
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
te
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
$3
0
,
0
0
0
20
1
6
-
2
0
2
5
$5
0
,
0
0
0
Packet Page 238 of 487
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
P
l
a
n
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
9
ID
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Co
s
t
Pu
g
e
t
&
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
S
i
g
n
a
l
r
e
b
u
i
l
d
$1
9
8
,
0
0
0
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
Ad
d
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
a
t
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
c
i
t
y
w
i
d
e
$6
0
,
0
0
0
23
8
t
h
/
1
0
0
t
h
A
v
e
S
i
g
n
a
l
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
R
e
b
u
i
l
d
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
s
i
g
n
a
l
s
y
s
t
e
m
a
n
d
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
v
i
d
e
o
d
e
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
$2
3
6
,
0
0
0
Su
b
T
o
t
a
l
$2
4
,
8
9
4
,
0
0
0
Ot
h
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
Ci
t
y
w
i
d
e
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
C
a
l
m
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
$1
6
0
,
0
0
0
Op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
$2
4
0
,
0
0
0
Fu
t
u
r
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
$6
0
0
,
0
0
0
De
b
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
o
n
2
2
0
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
$6
1
6
,
6
0
0
4t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
$5
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
Sh
e
l
l
V
a
l
l
e
y
A
c
c
e
s
s
R
o
a
d
$5
3
0
,
0
0
0
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
i
g
n
a
l
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
$5
0
,
0
0
0
Su
b
T
o
t
a
l
$7
,
6
9
6
,
6
0
0
GR
A
N
D
T
O
T
A
L
,
2
0
1
0
-
2
0
2
5
$1
0
3
,
0
4
6
,
3
0
0
1.
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
t
h
a
t
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
n
g
n
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
a
n
d
s
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
t
o
r
i
g
h
t
-
t
ur
n
-
o
n
l
y
(
p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
i
n
g
l
e
f
t
-
t
u
r
n
a
n
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
m
ov
e
m
e
n
t
s
)
w
o
u
l
d
a
l
s
o
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
t
h
e
d
e
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
a
t
t
h
i
s
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
2
0
2
5
.
T
h
i
s
co
u
l
d
b
e
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
a
s
a
n
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
on
,
o
r
a
s
a
n
i
n
t
e
r
i
m
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
u
n
t
i
l
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
w
a
r
r
a
n
t
s
a
r
e
m
e
t
.
Packet Page 239 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 6-6
Revenue Sources
Current Sources of Revenue
Revenue sources available to the City for financing the transportation improvements are listed
below.
Grants – State and federal grants may be obtained through a competitive application process.
Grant sources include the following:
-FHWA – The federal government has funds that are made available to the State of
Washington and local agencies from federal gas taxes. The allocations are based on the
competitive evaluation of specific projects against other projects within the State and
region. To be eligible for funding, a project must be located on a route designated as
arterial or collector in the federal classification (see Figures 3-2 and 3-3). Grant programs
include Congestion Mitigation Air Quality, Intersection and Corridor Safety, Surface
Transportation Program (STP) Regional, Transportation Enhancement Program (statewide),
and direct allocations.
-Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development – Federal funds are distributed as
Community Development Block Grants through Snohomish County. Grants are
competitive based on the merits of the projects and are targeted to benefit low income
areas. Typically, a project must be located in a census tract or block with a majority of
residents with low to moderate income. Through the grant amounts are relatively small they
can be used on local streets in residential areas for sidewalk and sidewalk ramp
construction.
-Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) – The Transportation Improvement Board provides
grants using the State’s portion of the gas tax. Projects are selected on a competitive basis
and programs vary from sidewalks to corridor improvements. To be eligible a project must
be located on an arterial or collector. The TIB is an independent state agency that
distributes grant funding, which comes from the revenue generated by three cents of the
statewide gas tax, to cities and counties for funding transportation projects. The TIB
provides funding to its urban customers through three state-funded grant programs:
x Urban Arterial Program (UAP)– best suited for roadway projects that improve safety and
mobility.
x Urban Corridor Program (UCP) – best suited for roadway projects with multiple funding
partners that expand capacity.
x Sidewalk Program (SP) – best suited for sidewalk projects that improve safety and
connectivity.
-Additional State Grants – Other grants available at the state level include, but are not
excluded to, Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety and Safe Routes to Schools.
Packet Page 240 of 487
Implementation and Financial Plan
September 2009 6-7
Traffic Impact / Mitigation Fees – Impact fees were recently instituted within the City and
are paid by developers to mitigate the impacts on the transportation system.
Real Estate Excise Tax –This is a tax on all sales of real estate, measured by the full
selling price, including the amount of any liens, mortgages and other debts given to secure the
purchase at a rate of 1.28 percent. The City is eligible to receive proceeds from the tax if they
have planned under the Growth Management Act. The funds must be used for capital
improvements. The State and Counties receive 0.78 percent and the City 0.5 percent.
Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax – The motor vehicle fuel tax is collected by the State and 2.4 cents
per gallon are distributed to cities for roadway construction purposes. The money is
distributed based on the population of each city.
General Fund – The General Fund includes a broad range of taxes and fees such as sales tax
and building permit fees. These revenue sources may be used for all City activities.
Joint Agency Funding – Edmonds adjoins unincorporated Snohomish County and several
other cities. When projects are located in two more jurisdictions, resources are combined to
fund them.
General Obligation Bonds – These are bonds issued by the City that are financed through
future anticipated tax revenues.
Parks Funding – Funding provided through the City Parks Department, to be used jointly
with transportation funding for pedestrian and bicycle projects.
Table 6-2 summarizes potential revenue projected through 2025, based upon current sources and
funding history.
Table 6-2. Potential Revenue
Source Amount
Grants (unsecured) $12,080,650
Traffic Impact / Mitigation Fees 6,353,485
Real Estate Excise Tax 4,000,000
Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax 2,000,000
Transfers from Other Funds 2,062,650
Utility Resurfacing 1,795,488
Joint Agency1 8,000,000
Interest Income 511,331
Development Sidewalks 23,021
Parks Funding – Interurban Trail 1,326,000
Parks Funding - 4th Ave Enhancement 2,365,000
Miscellaneous 193,306
TOTAL $40,710,931
1. Assumes joint funding with Snohomish County for the recommended 84th Avenue improvement.
Packet Page 241 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 6-8
Based upon the total costs of recommended projects summarized in Table 6-1, and the potential
revenue based upon current sources and funding history, the estimated total revenue shortfall
through 2025 is $62,335,369.
Other Potential Financing Options
The City will continue to explore new options to fund transportation projects and programs that
are important to citizens. Options that could be considered include the following:
Transportation Benefit District – A Transportation Benefit District (TBD) can fund any
transportation improvement contained in any existing state or regional transportation plan that
is necessitated by existing or reasonably foreseeable congestion levels. The legislative
authority of a city to create a TBD by ordinance is set forth in RCW 36.73. Projects covered
by a TBD can include maintenance and improvements to city streets, county roads, state
highways, investments in high capacity transportation, public transportation, transportation
demand management and other transportation projects identified in a regional transportation
planning organization plan or state plan. A variety of revenue options are available. An
annual vehicle license fee of up to $20 per license can be passed by the City of Edmonds
TBD, and is not subject to voter approval. The legislation also allows a TBD the ability to
collect additional annual vehicle license fees up to a total of $100 per license per year in
addition to sales and property taxes, subject to voter approval.
The City has already enacted the $20 per year vehicle license fee, which is slated to fund City
Street Operations only. Additional TBD funding above the amount of the TBD in Edmonds
would be subject to voter approval.
If additional TBD funding were implemented, the City would work with PSRC to incorporate
projects into the regional transportation so that they would be eligible for funding. The
regional and state plans have already identified a broad range of local transportation
improvements as priorities, and the multi-modal mobility and safety projects presented in this
Transportation Plan are consistent with those priorities.
Local Improvement District/Roadway Improvement District –LIDs, enabled under
RCW 35.43, are a means of assisting benefitting properties in financing needed capital
improvements. A special type of LID is a Roadway Improvement District (RID). LIDs may
be applied to water, sewer and storm sewer facilities, as well as roads; but RIDs may only be
applied to street improvements. LIDs and RIDs are special assessment districts in which
improvements will specially benefit primarily the property owners in the district. They are
created under the sponsorship of a municipal government and are not self governing special
purpose districts. To the extent and in the manner noted in the enabling statutes, they must be
approved by both the local government and benefited property owners.
Additional Grants – Revenue projections summarized in Table 6-2 assume that the City
will be able obtain future grant funding at levels consistent with what has been obtained
historically. It may be possible for the City to obtain higher levels of grant funding than what
has been historically obtained. However, state and federal grants are obtained through a
Packet Page 242 of 487
Implementation and Financial Plan
September 2009 6-9
highly competitive process, and other municipalities are also likely to increase their requests
for grant funding to address their own revenue shortfalls, so it is likely that only a small
portion of the City’s revenue shortfall could be covered through additional grant funding.
Business License Fee for Transportation – Cities have the option of including a fee to
fund transportation projects, as part of business license fees. This is typically an annual fee
that is charged per full time equivalent (FTE) employee. In order for this type of fee to be
successful, cities typically collaborate very closely with business owners, to identify projects
and programs for funding that would be of most benefit to local businesses.
Table 6-3 summarizes potential levels of revenue that could be obtained by these additional
sources, if they were approved by the City Council and by citizens. The table shows that the
transportation funding shortfall could be covered by a combination of these optional revenue
sources.
Table 6-3. Potential Revenue from Additional Optional Sources
Source Amount
TBD license fee at $80 per license per year1 $ 46,592,000
Local Improvement District / Roadway Improvement District2 15,743,369
Additional grants3
Additional joint agency funding4
Business license fee for transportation
$62,335,369
1. Assumes 36,000 vehicles (40,000 population x 0.91 vehicles per capita) for 16 years. The total amount shown is that portion above the $20
portion that has already been passed and committed to fund transportation operations.
2. Enacted to pay for specific projects with the district that is defined. Any funding obtained through an LID or RID would lower the fees needed from
the other optional sources.
3. Obtained through application process for specific projects. Any funding obtained through additional grants would lower the fees needed from the
other optional sources.
4. Obtained from adjacent jurisdictions in which specific projects are co-located. Several recommended projects are located in areas also under the
jurisdiction of the cities of Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood, Shoreline, Snohomish County, and/or WSDOT.
Project Prioritization
Program Priority
Although all projects and programs presented in this Transportation Plan are important to the
City, they can only be implemented as funding becomes available. Guided by feedback from
citizens, and also by state laws, the following priority order has been established.
1.Maintenance and Preservation – The City is committed to maintaining existing
transportation facilities in which substantial public investment have been made, and which
are critical to maintaining transportation mobility and safety. This has also been identified as
the top priority by citizens.
Packet Page 243 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 6-10
2.Safety Improvements on City Streets – Road safety projects are also identified as a high
priority by citizens. Some concurrency projects also address safety issues; however,
additional safety projects will be a high priority if additional funding is obtained from
alternative sources.
3.Concurrency – GMA requires that projects needed to maintain concurrency must be in
place within six years of the time that they are triggered by development. If concurrency
projects are not implemented, new development that those projects would support cannot be
approved. Thus, concurrency projects must be implemented to support planned land use
identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
4.Walkway Connections – Completion of walkway connections is consistent with the City’s
policies to support a strong pedestrian network, and has also been identified as a high priority
by citizens. Completing walkway connections will be a high priority if additional funding is
obtained from alternative sources.
5.Curb Ramp Upgrades – ADA requires that the City have a program in place to retrofit
curb ramps that do not meet ADA standards. The City will continue to implement curb ramp
upgrades in conjunction with street construction and maintenance projects, but completion of
the Curb Ramp Upgrade Program by 2025 will require additional funding over current
projections.
6.Bicycle Route Signing and Facility Upgrade – The City will continue to incorporate
bikeways into street improvement and maintenance projects where feasible, whether they
consist of separate bicycle lanes, or marking for shared bicycle/vehicle lanes. However,
completion of the Bike Plan, including signing and provision of bicycle parking, will require
additional funding over current projections.
7.Improvements on SR 104 (Edmonds Way) – Operational deficiencies have been
projected for SR 104. As a Highway of Statewide significance, this road is not subject to
local concurrency rules. The City will continue to coordinate with WSDOT to address
problems as they are identified, but will not be able to fund improvements on this road unless
additional sources of funds over current projections are obtained.
8.Traffic Calming Program – The City will continue to address neighborhood traffic safety
issues on a case by case basis as they are identified; however, implementation of the full
Traffic Calming Program will require additional funding over current projections to be
obtained.
Implementation Plan
Transportation Improvement Plan 2010-2025
The Comprehensive Transportation Plan serves to guide the development of surface
transportation within the City, based upon evaluation of existing conditions, projection and
Packet Page 244 of 487
Implementation and Financial Plan
September 2009 6-11
evaluation of future conditions that result from the City’s adopted future land use plan, and
priorities stated by Edmonds citizens.
A six-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is prepared each year, which identifies
transportation projects needed to respond to planned growth of the community, and to meet safety
and mobility objectives. The TIP integrates City transportation improvement projects and
resources with other agencies in order to maximize financing opportunities such as grants, bonds,
city funds, donations, impact fees, and other available funding.
The TIP is maintained as follows:
1.Provide for annual review by the City Council as part of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
contained in the Comprehensive Plan capital facilities element.
2.Ensure that the TIP:
Is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan;
Defines a project’s need, and links it to LOS and facility plans;
Includes construction costs, timing, and funding sources; and considers operations and
maintenance impacts where appropriate; and
Establishes project development priorities.
Table 6-4 summarizes the recommended Transportation Improvement Plan, 2010 through 2025,
which is a comprehensive multimodal plan that is based on extensive public input and reflects a
major update of the 2003 Plan. The table also identifies which projects are recommended for
inclusion in the 2010-2015 TIP.
Table 6-4. Transportation Improvement Plan 2010–2025
Project 2010 – 2015 2016 – 2025 Total
Annual Street Overlays $ 9,000,000 $ 15,000,000 $ 24,000,000
Citywide Street Improvements 90,000 150,000 240,000
Citywide Signal Improvements 30,000 50,000 80,000
Citywide Cabinet and Controller Upgrades 30,000 50,000 80,000
Puget & Olympic View Drive 198,000 198,000
Downtown Bicycle Parking 22,500 37,500 60,000
238th / 100th Ave Signal Upgrades 236,000 236,000
Puget Drive / 196th St SW / 88th Avenue W 879,000 879,000
Main Street / 9th Avenue N 874,400 874,400
Walnut Street / 9th Avenue S 874,400 874,400
212th Street SW / 84th Avenue W 1,910,100 1,910,100
Packet Page 245 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 6-12
Project 2010 – 2015 2016 – 2025 Total
Caspers Street / 9th Avenue N 818,000 818,000
212th Street SW / 76th Avenue W 2,313,800 2,313,800
Olympic View Drive / 76th Avenue W 1,146,800 1,146,800
220th Street SW / SR 99 3,147,300 3,147,300
220th Street SW / 76th Avenue W 138,300 138,300
228th Street SW, SR99 - 76th Avenue W 3,948,200 3,948,200
84th Avenue W, 212th Street SW - 238th Street SW 16,355,500 16,355,500
80th Avenue Sight Distance 292,000 292,000
SR 99 Illumination 400,000 400,000
Main St / 3rd Ave signal upgrade 138,000 138,000
Shell Valley Access Road 530,000 530,000
212th Street SW / SR 99 3,265,500 3,265,500
216th Street / SR 99 719,800 719,800
174th Street SW / Olympic View Drive 724,200 724,200
238th Street SW / Edmonds Way (SR 104) 5,444,600 5,444,600
238th Street SW, SR104 - 84th Avenue W 2,519,700 2,519,700
244th Street SW (SR 104) / 76th Avenue W 3,321,600 3,321,600
Interurban Trail 1,535,000 1,535,000
Citywide Upgrade to Countdown Pedestrian Signals 43,000 43,000
Citywide Walkway Projects 5,512,125 9,186,875 14,699,000
ADA Transition Plan 1,571,063 2,618,438 4,189,500
Citywide Pedestrian Lighting 30,000 50,000 80,000
Bike Route Signing 25,000 25,000
Citywide Bikeway Projects 45,000 75,000 120,000
Citywide Traffic Calming Program 60,000 100,000 160,000
Operational Enhancements 90,000 150,000 240,000
Future Transportation Plan Updates 225,000 375,000 600,000
Debt Service on 220th Street SW Project 231,225 385,375 616,600
4th Avenue Corridor Enhancement 5,500,000 5,500,000
Main Street Pedestrian Lighting 533,000 533,000
Arterial Street Signal Coordination 50,000 50,000
TOTAL $30,541,812 $72,504,488 $103,046,300
Projected Revenue $15,266,599 $25,444,332 $40,710,931
Shortfall, unless alternative funding identified 15,275,213 47,060,156 $62,335,369
Packet Page 246 of 487
Implementation and Financial Plan
September 2009 6-13
Interjurisdictional Coordination
The City will coordinate with the following agencies to implement projects and strategies
presented in this Transportation Plan:
Revise the federal functional classification of some city streets to be consistent with the
City’s adopted functional classifications (see Table 3-2).
Coordinate with WSDOT on projects to address future operational deficiencies on SR 104.
Coordinate with Snohomish County for joint agency funding of the proposed 84th Avenue
improvement.
If a higher funding level of TBD is put forward and approved by voters, coordinate with
PSRC to include projects in the regional transportation plan so that they will be eligible for
funding.
Coordinate with WSDOT and the FHWA to move forward with the Edmonds Crossing
Multimodal Project.
Coordinate with Community Transit to implement transit investments that are consistent with
the City’s priorities; including construction of additional bus shelters and benches, and new
transit routes.
Contingency Plan in Case of Revenue Shortfall
Some revenue sources are very secure and highly reliable. However, other revenue sources are
volatile, and therefore difficult to predict with confidence. To cover the shortfall identified in the
previous section, or in the event that revenue from one or more of these sources is not
forthcoming in the amounts forecasted in this Transportation Plan, the City has several options:
Change the LOS standard, and therefore reduce the need for road capacity improvement
projects.
Increase the amount of revenue from existing sources.
Find new sources of revenue which could include additional federal and state grants,
additional TBD funding, business license fee for transportation, and/or LID/RIDs.
Require developers to provide such facilities at their own expense.
Change the Land Use Element in the Comprehensive Plan to reduce the amount of
development, and thus reduce the need for additional public facilities; or to further
concentrate growth along higher capacity roads that are served by transit.
Packet Page 247 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 6-14
Packet Page 248 of 487
September 2009 7-1
Chapter 7. References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 1999. Guide
for the Development of Bicycle Facilities.
Association of Washington Cities. 2002. Tax & User Fee Survey, Part II Land Use Fees.
Association of Washington Cities. 2007. Transportation Benefit District Fact Sheet. September.
http://www.awcnet.org/documents/TBDFactSheet0907.pdf
CH2M Hill. 2001. Edmonds Crossing: Pine Street Ferry Traffic Study. Prepared for the City of
Edmonds. October 10.
Community Transit. 2009. System Performance Report Year 2008. Produced by Research and
Statistics Section, Strategic Planning and Grants Division.
Edmonds, City of. 2008. Comprehensive Plan.
Ewing, Reid. 1999. Traffic Calming: State of the Practice. Report No. FHWA-RD-99-135.
Prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers for the US Department of
Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. 1999.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1989. Highway Functional Classification: Concepts,
Criteria and Procedures. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/fcsec1_1.htm
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2000. Roundabouts: An informational Guide.
Publication No. FHWA-RD-00-067. June.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2001. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD). US Department of Transportation. Publication No. MUTCD-1.
Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE). Traffic Engineering Handbook. 5th Edition, James L. Pline,
editor. Publication No. TB-010A. Washington, DC. 1999.
Packet Page 249 of 487
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
City of Edmonds 7-2
JHK and Associates. City of Edmonds Bikeway and Walkway Plan. June 4, 1992.
Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC) of Washington. 2003. Washington State Local
Improvement District Manual. Fifth Edition. Report No. 52. Prepared with the American
Public Works Association, Washington chapter. October.
Parsons Brinkerhoff. Washington State Ferry (WSF) 1999 Travel Survey: Edmonds – Kingston
Route. 1999.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center. How are "Sharrows" or shared-lane markings used to
improve bicyclist safety? Accessed May4, 2009.
http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/faqs/answer.cfm?id=972
Perteet. 2007. SR 99 Traffic and Circulation Study. Prepared for the City of Edmonds.
November.
Puget Sound Regional Council. 2008. VISION 2040.
Puget Sound Regional Council, 2009. PSRC Transportation 2040 Working Group. May.
http://www.psrc.org/boards/advisory/T2040working_group.htm
Snohomish County. 2008. Buildable Lands Report.
Snohomish County. 2000. General Policy Plan – Transportation Element.
Sound Transit. Sound Move – The 10-Year Regional Transit System Plan. Adopted May 31,
1996. http://www.soundtransit.org/stnews/publications/soundmove/pubsSMTOC.htm
State of Washington. Growth Management Act. RCW 36.70A. 1990.
The Transpo Group. Report to City of Edmonds on State “Level of Service Bill” Impact on the
City’s Comprehensive Plan. August 2001.
Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual. Special Report 209. National
Research Council. Washington, DC. (1997 and 2000 updates).
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2007. Washington State Highway
System Plan: 2007 – 2026. Olympia, WA. Prepared by the WSDOT Planning Office.
December 2007.
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2008. Local Agency Guidelines
Manual. Prepared by the Highways and Local Programs Division. October.
Washington State Transportation Commission (WSTC). 2006. Transportation Commission List
of Highways of Statewide Significance. Passed by Resolution 660. June 7.
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/6C953258-50A4-419E-AD79-
BDE4EF775845/0/HSSlist2008.pdf
Packet Page 250 of 487
Appendix A
Public Participation Materials
Packet Page 251 of 487
Packet Page 252 of 487
Page1
TransportationPlanUpdate–OpenHouse#2
ProjectPriorityQuestionnaire
Fromthelistbelow,pleaseidentify fiveprojecttypesthatyoufeelshouldhavehighestfunding
priority.Ofthefiveprojecttypesyouchoose,pleaserankthem1through5,with1ashighestpriority
and5aslowest.Pleaseassignonlyonerankedvalue perprojecttype,andchoosenomorethanfive .
Top5
FundingPriority
(Rank1through5)
ProjectType
BicycleRouteSigning
Providesigningforbicyclerouteswithinthecity.
CapacityImprovementsonCityStreets
Addlanesorimprovetraffic controlatco ngestedintersections.
Capacity/SafetyImprovementsonSR104(EdmondsWay)
Improvevehiclechannelizationand/ortraffic controlatcongestedintersections–
requiresclosecoordinationwiththeWashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation.
CurbRampUpgrades
Buildorrebuildcurbrampsso thatintersectioncro ssingsmeetthere quirementsofthe
AmericanswithDisabilitiesAct.
MultimodalFacilityEdmondsCrossingProject
Constructnewmultimodalfacilityatferryterminal,connectingferry,automobile,
transit,bicycle,andpedes triantrafficindowntownEdmonds.
PavementMaintenance
Provideimprovementstomaintainpav ementoncitystreets,suchasasphaltoverlays
andfillingofpotholes.
SafetyImprovementsonCityStreets
Addlanesorimprovetrafficcontrolat locationswheresafetyissueshavebeen
identified.
SpotImprovementsonCityStreets
Providelowercostimprovements suchassignaltimingupgr adesorlocalizedstreet
improvementstoimprovevehicle safetyandmobility.
SpotImprovementsforWalkwaysandBikeways
Providelowercostimprovementssuchaspedest rianlightingand bicycleparkingto
improvenonmotorizedsafetyandmobility.
TrafficCalmingProgram
Implementmeasurestoslowdowntrafficand /ordiscouragecutthroughtrafficin
neighborhoods,attheneighborhoodresidents’request.
Transit–BusShelters
Provideadditionalbussheltersand/orimprovementsatexistingshelters–requires
closecoordinationwithCommunityTransit.
WalkwayConnections
Constructnewwalkwaysandwalkwayconnections.
Packet Page 253 of 487
Page2
Arethereanyspecificprojects presentedatthisopenhousethatshouldbeofhighestpriorityfor
funding?
Arethereanyspecificprojects presentedatthisopenhousethatshouldnotbeimplemented?
Arethereanyspecificprojectsorprojecttypesthat shouldbefunded,butarenotonthislist?
Anyothercommentsorsuggestions?
Name(optional) Address(optional)
Phone(optional)Email(optional)
Pleasedropthisforminthecommentboxormailyourcommentsby Friday,March20,2009 to:
BertrandHauss,CityofEdmonds
1215thAvenueNorth
Edmonds,WA98020
Phone:(425)7710220
Fax:(425)6725750
Thankyouforyourparticipation!
Packet Page 254 of 487
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update
Welcome
Please sign in here.
Meeting Objectives
Review Draft Transportation Plan
Potential projects and programs
Costs and revenue projections
Provide input on project priorities for Transportation Plan
Review and comment on preliminary design of
SR-99 / W 76th Avenue Intersection Improvement
Meeting Agenda
5:00–5:30 p.m. Sign in.
5:30–5:45 p.m. Presentation
5:45–6:30 p.m. Visit stations, talk to project team members
Provide comments
6:30–6:45 p.m. Presentation
6:45–7:30 p.m. Visit stations, talk to project team members
Provide comments
7:30 p.m. End of meeting
Packet Page 255 of 487
LOS Characteristic Traffi c Flow
Average Delay
(seconds per vehicle)
Signalized Stop Controlled
A
Free fl ow, little or no restriction on
speed or maneuverability caused by the
presence of other vehicles.
≤ 10 ≤ 10
B Stable fl ow, operating speed is beginning
to be restricted by other traffi c.> 10–20 > 10–15
C
Stable fl ow, volume and density levels
are beginning to restrict drivers in their
maneuverability.
> 20–35 > 15–25
D Stable fl ow, speeds and maneuverability
closely controlled due to higher volumes.> 35–55 > 25–35
E Approaching unstable fl ow, low speeds,
freedom to maneuver is diffi cult.> 55–80 > 35–50
F Forced traffi c fl ow, very low speeds, long
delays with stop-and-go traffi c.> 80 > 50
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update
Intersection Operation at 212th Street SW and 76th Avenue W
Level of Service
(LOS) measures
the operating
quality of a road.
LO S is graded
A (free fl ow)
through
F (grid lock).
F Average Delay
138 seconds/vehicle
Average Delay
166 seconds/vehicle
F
Average Delay
94 seconds/vehicle
F
Average Delay
131 seconds/vehicle
F
2025
WITHOUT
IMPROVEMENTS
Average intersection LOS = F
Average intersection delay =
136 seconds/vehicle Average Delay
53 seconds/vehicle
Average Delay
61 seconds/vehicle
Average Delay
58 seconds/vehicle
D
E
E
Average Delay
37 seconds/vehicle
D
2025
WITH
IMPROVEMENTS
Average intersection LOS = D
Average intersection delay =
54 seconds/vehicle
212th Street SW
76
th
Av
e
n
u
e
W
212th Street SW
76
th
Av
e
n
u
e
W
Note: Operations are similar at 212th Street SW/State Route 99 and 220th Street SW/76th Avenue W.
Level of Service
Packet Page 256 of 487
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update
Level of Service
with and without Improvements
Snohomish County
King County
Snohomish County
King County
Main St
76
t
h
Av
e
W
75
t h P
lW
208th St SW
9 5t
h
Pl
W
212th St SW
220th St
S
W
68
t
h
A ve
W
Dayton St
7t
h
A
e
N
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
O lym
p ic
V
iew
D
r
238th St SW
176th St SW
Bowdoin
W
a
y
180th St SW
Walnut St
3r
d
A
v
e
S
244th
S
t S W
5t
h
A
v
e
S
236th St SW
3rd
A
v
e
N
8 4 th
A
ve
W
9t
h
A
v
e
S
238th
S
t
SW
200th St SWCaspers St
7 6 t h
A
v e
W
Puget Dr
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
y
Ma
p
l e wo
o
dD
r
228th StSW
9t
h
A
v
e
N
5 2 n d
Av
eW
Meado
w
d
a
l
e
B
e
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
O l y m p ic V i ew
D
r
8 0t
h
A
v
e
W
8 8t
h
Av
e
W
196th St SW
Su
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
104
99
524
O l y m p i c V i e w
D r
Level of Service (LOS) Key
meets LOS standard
exceeds LOS standard
not subject to LOS standard
no improvements recommended
LOS Standards
City arterials = LOS D
State Route 99 = LOS E
C DF
D
D F F
BB
D D D
D F F
BB
F F F
BA
C E F
BA
B B B
A A A D F F
BB
E F F
BB
D F F
BB
E F F
AA
B B B
D F F
BB
D E F
E
D F F
BB
F F F
BB
B B B
C D D
D F F
BB
D F F
DD
D F F
BB
D E F
EDFF
BB
D E E
DC
A A B
B C C
B C C
D F F
BB
F F F
BB
D D E
D F F
B
D E F
D
00.51
Miles
without
improvements
with
improvementsB
2015 2025
B
without
improvements
existing
FFD
Packet Page 257 of 487
0 0.5 1
Miles
yyy
ymismish Countysh CountmisSnohomnohommishthuyyuuuuooohoohosh Countsh CountSSh Counh CounhhhhhhiiiiiimmmmmmnohomnohomoSnohoiiSSnohommmmmiiiissshhhhhCouuntttty
yyyyioountytyyyyutKing CouKingguuuuuuuuooooCoCo ttttnnnnnnKinKinooKiiKingCooooouuuuunnnttttyyyyyyyytyyyyy
Main St
76
th
A
v
eW
75
t
h
P l
W
208th St SW
9 5 th
P l
W
212th St SW
220th St S W
6 8 t hA
v
e
W
Dayton St
7t
h
A
e
N
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
ve
W
Oly
m
p
i
c Vi
e
w
Dr
238th St S W
176th St SW
Bowdoin Way
180th StSW
Walnut St
3r
d
A
v
e
S
244th St SW
5t
h
A
v
e
S
236th St SW
3 rd
A
v
eN
8 4 t hA
v
eW
9t
h
A
v
e
S
238th St
S
W
200th St SWCaspersSt
7 6t
hA
v
e
W
Puget Dr
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
y
Ma
p l ew
o
o d D
r
228th St SW
9t
h
A
v
e
N
Meado
w
d
a
l
e
B
e
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
Ol y m pi c View
D
r
8 0 th
A
v
eW
8 8 th
A
v
eW
196th St SW
Su
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
104
99
524
O l y m p i c V i e w
D r
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update
Recommended Roadway Projects
Imrovement Types
Install signal
Install roundabout
Add lane on intersection approach
Widen road
Project Category
Concurrency
Safety
Highway of Statewide Signifi cance
0 0.5 1
Miles
City boundary
Railroad
Water feature
Packet Page 258 of 487
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update
Draft Traffi c Calming Program
Phase 1 Residents Petition
for local street traffi c concerns:
cut-through, travel speed, safety
(minimum of 8 signatures)
Staff Reviews
qualifi cation for traffi c calming program
• 25% or 15 cut-through per hour, or
• 85th percentile speed >5 mph over speed limit, or
• 3 collisions in past 3 years
and
• minimum average daily traffi c of 500 vehicles
Qualifi es
Does Not Qualify
Phase 2 Staff and Residents
Develop Less Restrictive Solutions
brush trimming, educational campaign, pavement markings,
police enforcement, portable radar trailer, signing,
speed watch program
Implement and Evaluate Less Restrictive Solutions
Less Restrictive
Solutions Are
Not Eff ective
Less Restrictive
Solutions Are
Eff ective
Phase 3 Staff Reviews Tra ffi c Calming Devices
funding, priority, technical feasibility
Staff Develops Tra ffi c Calming Solutions with Police and
Firefi ghter Approval
bulb-outs, chicanes, diagonal diverters, full closure, medians,
partial closure, traffi c circles
Residents Vote on
Approval of Tra ffi c Calming Device
60% or
Greater
Residents
Approve
Install Tra ffi c Calming Device
Fewer than
60% Residents
Approve
Bulb Out
Chicane
Partial Closure
Tra ffi c Circle
End
End
End
This program applies to neighborhood residential through-streets.
6–12
months
later
Staff Evaluates Eff ectiveness of Device
Note: T his is a recommended future program. No funding is currently available.
Packet Page 259 of 487
Main St
76
t
h
A ve
W
75
t
h
P
l
W
O l ym
p i c V
i e w D r
208th St SW
9 5t
h
Pl
W
212th St SW
220t h St SW
6 8t
h
A
ve
W
F
i
r
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
Dayton St
7t
h
A
e
N
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
ve
W
O l ym
p ic
V
i
e
w
D
r
238th St SW
176th St SW
Bow
doin Way
180thSt SW
Walnut St
3r
d
A
v
e
S
244th St SW
5t
h
A
v
e
S
236th St SW
3 rd
A
v
e
N
8 4t
h
A
ve
W
9t
h
A
v
e
S
238th StSW
200th St SWCaspers St
7 6 th
A
v e W
Puget Dr
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
y
M ap
l
ew
o o
dD
r
228t h St SW
9t
h
A
v
e
N
Meado
w
d
a
l
e
B
e
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
Oly m pic View
D
r
80
t
hA
v
eW
8 8 t hA
v
eW
196th St SW
Su
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
104
99
524
Snohomish County
King County
Ed
monds- K
i
n
g
sto
n
To/
F
r
o
m
E
v
e
r
e
t
t
T
o
/
F
r
o
m
S
e
a
t
t
l
e
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update
Access to Transit
Train station/park-and-ride lot
Park-and-ride lot
Community Transit bus stop
Existing bus route
Ferry route
Commuter rail route
0.25-mile bus stop zone
0 0.5 1
Miles
City boundary
Railroad
Water feature
Approximately 81%
of 2000 population is
located within 0.25-mile
of a transit stop.
Approximately 700 buses
serve Edmonds daily
Packet Page 260 of 487
104
99
524
Snohomish County
King County
Main
S
t
7 6 th
A
v
eW
75
t
h P
l
W
Oly
m
pic
V
i
ew
D r
208th St
S
W
9 5 t h
P l
W
212th St SW
220th St S W
6 8 th
A v e W
F
i
r
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
Dayt on St
7t
h
A
e
N
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
ve
W
Oly
m
p
i
c
Vi
e
w D r
238th St S W
176th St SW
Bowd
o
i
n Way
180th StSW
Walnut St
3r
d
A
v
e
S
244th St SW
5t
h
A
v
e
S
236th
S
t SW
3rd
A
v
e
N
8 4 t hA
v
eW
9t
h
A
v
e
S
238th St SW
200th St SWCaspersSt
76
t hA
v
e
W
Puget Dr
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
y
Ma
p
l
e
wo
o d
D
r
228th St
S
W
9t
h
A
v
e
N
Meado
w
d
a
l
e
B
e
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
Olym pic View
D
r
8 0
th
A
v
eW
8 8 th
A
v
eW
196th St SW
Su
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
176th St SW
184th St SW
72
n
d
A
v
e
W
2n
d
A
v
e
S
Pine St
226th St SW
8t
h
A
v
e
S
Maple St
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
A
v
e
190th Pl SW
92
n
d
A
v
e
W
188th St SW
186th St SW
192nd St SW
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
An
d
o
v
e
r
S
t
189th Pl SW
191st St SW
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
Ro
b
i
n
H
o
o
d
D
r
232nd St SW
234th St SW
236th St SW
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update
Recommended Walkway Projects
Short walkway project
Long walkway project
0 0.5 1
Miles
City boundary
Railroad
Water feature
Packet Page 261 of 487
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update
Draft Curb Ramp Program
This program consists of upgrades of intersection curb ramps to
meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Of approximately 350 intersections in Edmonds:
42 fully meet ADA standards
2 4 par tially meet ADA standards
Priority for upgrades of curb ramps at sub-standard locations:
1. Downtown receives priority over locations outside of downtown
2. Arterial streets receive priority over local access streets
3. Intersections receive higher priority if they are near:
a. Community Centers / Senior Center / Health Facilities
b. Transit stops / Schools / Public Buildings
c. Commercial areas and parks
Note: T his is a future recommended program and is currently
unfunded.
Packet Page 262 of 487
Main
S
t
76
t
hA
ve
W
7 5t
h
P lW
Oly
m
p i cV
i e wD
r
208th St SW
95
th
P
lW
212th St SW
220t h St SW
68
th
A
v
eW
F
i
r
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
Dayton St
7t
h
A
e
N
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
76
t
h
A
ve
W
Ol ym
pi c V i e wD
r
238t h St SW
176th St SW
Bowd
oin Way
180th St SW
Walnut St
3r
d
A
v
e
S
244thStSW
5t
h
A
v
e
S
236th St SW
3 rd
A
v
e
N
8 4 t h
Av
e
W
9t
h
A
v
e
S
238th St SW
200th St SWCaspersSt
7 6 t hA
v eW
Pug et Dr
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
y
M ap
le
w
o o
d D
r
228th St SW
9t
h
A
v
e
N
Meado
w
d
a
l
e
B
e
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
Ol y m p i cView D
r
80
t hA
ve
W
88
th
A
v
e
W
196th St SW
Su
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
104
99
524
Snohomish County
King County
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update
Proposed Bicycle Routes
Short bicycle loop (5 miles)
Medium bicycle loop (7 miles)
Long bicycle loop (20 miles)
0 0.5 1
Miles
City boundary
Railroad
Water feature
Packet Page 263 of 487
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update
Edmonds Crossing Project
Construct new multimodal facility at ferry terminal, connecting
ferry, automobile, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian traffi c in
downtown Edmonds.
Pavement Maintenance Program
Provide improvements to maintain pavement on city streets, such
as asphalt overlays and fi lling of potholes.
Spot Improvements on City Streets
Provide lower cost improvements such as signal timing upgrades
or localized street improvements to improve vehicle safety
and mobility.
Spot Improvements for Walkways and Bikeways
Provide lower cost improvements such as pedestrian lighting and
bicycle parking to improve non-motorized safety and mobility.
Other Transportation Projects
Packet Page 264 of 487
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update
Costs Verses Projected Revenue
through 2025
Summary of Project Costs
through 2025
Total Costs through 2025 = $109,044,500
Costs and Revenue
Total Revenue Identiied through 2025 = $41,443,300
Joint Agency Funding
Interest Income
Real Estate Excise Tax
Development Sidewalks
Sources of Identifi ed Revenue:
Grants (unsecured)
Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax
Traffi c Impact/Mitigation Fees
Transfers from Other Funds
Utility Resurfacing
Identified
Funding,
$41,433,300
Shortfall,
$67,611,200
Concurrency 2010-2015,
$8,954,800
Concurrency 2016-2025,
$7,137,000
HSS Operational,
$9,706,400
Safety, $24,081,200
Walkway, $13,435,000
Curb Ramp Upgrade,
$4,189,500
Bikeway, $145,000
Preservation &
Maintenance,
$16,776,000
Edmonds Crossing,
$17,500,000
Traffic Calming,
$160,000
Spot Roadway
Enhancements,
$240,000
Other, $6,719,600
Packet Page 265 of 487
Packet Page 266 of 487
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
Op
e
n
H
o
u
s
e
#
3
J
u
n
e
3
0
,
2
0
0
9
Su
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
a
n
d
C
o
s
t
s
2
0
1
0
2
0
2
5
Co
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
-
b
y
2
0
1
5
ID
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Co
s
t
2
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
/
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
In
s
t
a
l
l
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
.
W
i
d
e
n
7
6
t
h
t
o
a
d
d
a
w
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
f
o
r
1
7
5
-
f
o
o
t
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
.
1,
1
4
6
,
8
0
0
$
4
P
u
g
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
/
1
9
6
t
h
S
t
S
W
/
8
8
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
In
s
t
a
l
l
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
.
87
9
,
0
0
0
$
6
C
a
s
p
e
r
s
S
t
r
e
e
t
/
9
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
N
In
s
t
a
l
l
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
.
81
8
,
0
0
0
$
9
2
1
2
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
/
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
Wi
d
e
n
7
6
t
h
t
o
a
d
d
a
n
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
f
o
r
2
5
0
-
f
o
o
t
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
a
n
d
a
s
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
l
e
f
t
tu
r
n
l
a
n
e
f
o
r
1
2
5
-
f
o
o
t
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
.
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
p
h
a
s
e
f
o
r
n
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
a
n
d
so
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
W
i
d
e
n
2
1
2
t
h
t
o
a
d
d
a
w
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
f
o
r
5
0
-
f
o
o
t
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
le
n
g th
.
2,
3
1
3
,
8
0
0
$
10
2
1
2
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
/
8
4
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
s
i
n
g
l
e
-
l
a
n
e
r
o
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
.
1,
9
1
0
,
1
0
0
$
11
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
/
9
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
N
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
.
87
4
,
4
0
0
$
12
W
a
l
n
u
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
/
9
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
S
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
.
87
4
,
4
0
0
$
15
2
2
0
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
/
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
R
e
c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
e
e
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
l
a
n
e
s
t
o
a
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
a
n
d
a
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
-
r
i
g
h
t
l
a
n
e
.
C
h
a
n
g
e
e
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
a
n
d
we
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
p
h
a
s
e
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
-
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
p
h
a
s
e
f
o
r
e
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
.
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
ph
a
s
e
f
o
r
w
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
d
u
r
i
n
g
s
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
p
h
a
s
e
.
13
8
,
3
0
0
$
Su
b
T
o
t
a
l
8
,
9
5
4
,
8
0
0
$
Co
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
-
b
y
2
0
2
5
1
1
7
4
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
/
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
Wi
d
e
n
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
t
o
a
d
d
a
n
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
f
o
r
5
0
-
f
o
o
t
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
.
S
h
i
f
t
t
h
e
no
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
l
a
n
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
e
a
s
t
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
n
a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
l
a
n
e
f
o
r
e
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
s
.
72
4
,
2
0
0
$
8
2
1
2
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
/
S
R
9
9
Wi
d
e
n
2
1
2
t
h
t
o
a
d
d
a
w
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
f
o
r
2
0
0
-
f
o
o
t
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
a
n
d
a
e
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
l
e
f
t
tu
r
n
l
a
n
e
f
o
r
3
0
0
-
f
o
o
t
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
.
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
p
h
a
s
e
f
o
r
e
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
a
n
d
we
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
3,
2
6
5
,
5
0
0
$
14
2
2
0
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
/
S
R
9
9
Wi
d
e
n
2
2
0
t
h
t
o
a
d
d
w
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
f
o
r
3
2
5
-
f
o
o
t
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
.
W
i
d
e
n
S
R
9
9
a
d
d
se
c
o
n
d
s
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
f
o
r
2
7
5
-
f
o
o
t
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
.
3,
1
4
7
,
3
0
0
$
Su
b
T
o
t
a
l
7
,
1
3
7
,
0
0
0
$
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
o
f
S
t
a
t
e
w
i
d
e
S
i
g
n
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
(
H
S
S
)
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
20
2
3
8
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
/
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
(
S
R
1
0
4
)
In
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
a
n
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
p
h
a
s
e
f
o
r
n
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
a
n
d
s
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
mo
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
C
o
s
t
a
s
s
u
m
e
s
c
o
r
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
m
i
n
o
r
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
k
e
w
.
$
5
,
4
4
4
,
6
0
0
21
2
4
4
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
(
S
R
1
0
4
)
/
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
Wi
d
e
n
2
4
4
t
h
t
o
a
d
d
s
e
c
o
n
d
w
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
f
o
r
3
2
5
-
f
o
o
t
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
.
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
ph
a
s
e
f
o
r
n
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
d
u
r
i
n
g w
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
p
h
a
s
e
.
3,
3
2
1
,
6
0
0
$
22
2
4
4
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
/
S
R
9
9
W
i
d
e
n
2
4
4
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
t
o
a
d
d
w
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
f
o
r
a
3
0
0
-
f
o
o
t
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
.
Su
b
T
o
t
a
l
8,
7
6
6
,
2
0
0
$
Sa
f
e
t
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
25
2
2
8
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
,
S
R
9
9
-
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
2
2
8
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
R
9
9
a
n
d
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
(
t
h
r
e
e
l
a
n
e
s
w
i
t
h
cu
r
b
,
g
u
t
t
e
r
,
a
n
d
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
)
.
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
a
t
2
2
8
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
a
n
d
S
R
9
9
.
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
m
e
d
i
a
n
o
n
SR
9
9
t
o
p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
t
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
.
$
3
,
9
4
8
,
2
0
0
26
2
1
6
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
/
S
R
9
9
Wi
d
e
n
t
o
a
l
l
o
w
o
n
e
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
a
n
d
o
n
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
l
a
n
e
s
i
n
e
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
a
n
d
w
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
,
wi
t
h
1
0
0
-
f
o
o
t
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
f
o
r
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
s
.
$
7
1
9
,
8
0
0
27
2
3
8
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
,
S
R
1
0
4
-
8
4
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
Wi
d
e
n
t
o
t
h
r
e
e
l
a
n
e
s
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
b
,
g
u
t
t
e
r
,
a
n
d
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
(
a
s
p
e
r
P
i
n
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
F
e
r
r
y
A
c
c
e
s
s
S
t
u
d
y
)
$
2
,
5
1
9
,
7
0
0
28
8
4
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
,
2
1
2
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
-
2
3
8
t
h
St
r
e
e
t
S
W
Wi
d
e
n
t
o
t
h
r
e
e
l
a
n
e
s
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
b
,
g
u
t
t
e
r
,
a
n
d
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
.
$
1
6
,
3
5
5
,
5
0
0
SR
9
9
I
l
l
u
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
Im
p
r
o
v
e
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
a
f
e
t
y
w
i
t
h
i
l
l
u
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
$
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
Ma
i
n
S
t
/
3
r
d
A
v
e
s
i
g
n
a
l
u
p
g
r
a
d
e
Up
g
r
a
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
l
t
o
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
c
o
n
f
l
i
c
t
s
w
i
t
h
t
r
u
c
k
s
$
1
3
8
,
0
0
0
Su
b
T
o
t
a
l
24
,
0
8
1
,
2
0
0
$
Pa
g
e
1
Packet Page 267 of 487
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
Op
e
n
H
o
u
s
e
#
3
J
u
n
e
3
0
,
2
0
0
9
Su
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
a
n
d
C
o
s
t
s
2
0
1
0
2
0
2
5
No
n
-
M
o
t
o
r
i
z
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
Ci
t
y
w
i
d
e
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
14
,
6
9
9
,
0
0
0
$
AD
A
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
4,
1
8
9
,
5
0
0
$
Ci
t
y
w
i
d
e
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
80
,
0
0
0
$
In
t
e
r
u
r
b
a
n
T
r
a
i
l
1,
5
3
5
,
0
0
0
$
Bi
k
e
R
o
u
t
e
S
i
g
n
i
n
g
25
,
0
0
0
$
Ci
t
y
w
i
d
e
B
i
k
e
w
a
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
12
0
,
0
0
0
$
Su
b
T
o
t
a
l
20
,
6
4
8
,
5
0
0
$
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
a
n
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
An
n
u
a
l
S
t
r
e
e
t
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
s
20
1
0
-
2
0
1
5
Gr
i
n
d
p
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
,
o
v
e
r
l
a
y
$
1
0
,
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
20
1
6
-
2
0
2
5
$
1
7
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
Ci
t
y
w
i
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
20
1
0
-
2
0
1
5
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
t
o
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
l
i
f
e
$
9
0
,
0
0
0
20
1
6
-
2
0
2
5
$
1
5
0
,
0
0
0
Ci
t
y
w
i
d
e
S
i
g
n
a
l
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
20
1
0
-
2
0
1
5
Up
g
r
a
d
e
s
t
o
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
i
g
n
a
l
s
,
f
o
r
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
$
3
0
,
0
0
0
20
1
6
-
2
0
2
5
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
Ci
t
y
w
i
d
e
C
a
b
i
n
e
t
a
n
d
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
r
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
2
0
1
0
-
2
0
1
5
Up
g
r
a
d
e
s
t
o
e
x
s
i
t
n
g
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
c
a
b
i
n
e
t
s
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
f
o
r
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
$
3
0
,
0
0
0
20
1
6
-
2
0
2
5
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
Pu
g
e
t
&
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
Si
g
n
a
l
r
e
b
u
i
l
d
$
1
9
8
,
0
0
0
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
Ad
d
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
a
t
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
c
i
t
y
w
i
d
e
$
6
0
,
0
0
0
23
8
t
h
/
1
0
0
t
h
A
v
e
S
i
g
n
a
l
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
Re
b
u
i
l
d
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
s
i
g
n
a
l
s
y
s
t
e
m
a
n
d
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
v
i
d
e
o
d
e
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
$
1
1
8
,
0
0
0
Su
b
T
o
t
a
l
27
,
9
7
6
,
0
0
0
$
Ot
h
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
Ci
t
y
w
i
d
e
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
C
a
l
m
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
$
1
6
0
,
0
0
0
Op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
$
2
4
0
,
0
0
0
Fu
t
u
r
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
s
$
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
De
b
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
o
n
2
2
0
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
$
6
1
6
,
6
0
0
4t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
$
5
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
Sh
e
l
l
V
a
l
l
e
y
A
c
c
e
s
s
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
$
5
3
0
,
0
0
0
Mi
n
i
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
C
e
n
t
e
r
$
3
,
0
0
0
Su
b
T
o
t
a
l
7,
6
4
9
,
6
0
0
$
GR
A
N
D
T
O
T
A
L
,
2
0
1
0
2
0
2
5
10
5
,
2
1
3
,
3
0
0
$
Pa
g
e
2
Packet Page 268 of 487
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
Op
e
n
H
o
u
s
e
#
3
-
J
u
n
e
3
0
,
2
0
0
9
Su
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
C
i
t
y
w
i
d
e
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
ID
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
a
m
e
Fr
o
m
To
Le
n
g
t
h
(f
e
e
t
)
Wi
d
t
h
(f
e
e
t
)
Sh
o
r
t
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
SW
1
2
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
S
Ja
m
e
s
S
t
r
e
e
t
Ma
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
10
0
8
SW
2
D
a
y
t
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
7t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
S
8t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
S
25
0
5
SW
3
M
a
p
l
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
We
s
t
o
f
6
t
h
A
v
n
u
e
S
8t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
S
25
0
5
SW
4
W
a
l
n
u
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
6t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
S
7t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
S
70
0
5
SW
5
W
a
l
n
u
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
3r
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
S
4t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
S
35
0
8
SW
6
2
2
6
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
10
6
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
SR
1
0
4
70
0
5
SW
7
1
8
9
t
h
P
l
a
c
e
S
W
80
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
78
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
70
0
5
SW
8
8
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
S
Wa
l
n
u
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
so
u
t
h
o
f
W
a
l
n
u
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
15
0
5
SW
9
8
4
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
18
8
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
18
6
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
70
0
5
SW
1
0
1
9
0
t
h
P
l
a
c
e
S
W
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
94
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
80
0
5
Lo
n
g
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
LW
1
2
3
4
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
/
2
3
6
t
h
S
t
S
W
9
7
t
h
P
l
a
c
e
W
SR
1
0
4
3,
1
0
0
5
LW
2
M
a
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Ma
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
20
0
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
2,
7
0
0
5
LW
3
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
A
v
e
n
u
e
Ma
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Pu
g
e
t
D
r
i
v
e
4,
0
0
0
5
LW
4
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
B
e
a
c
h
R
o
a
d
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
3,
8
0
0
5
LW
5
P
i
n
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
SR
1
0
4
9t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
4,
0
0
0
5
LW
6
8
0
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
/
1
8
0
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
1
8
8
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
3,
0
0
0
5
LW
7
8
0
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
21
2
n
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
20
6
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
2,
0
0
0
5
LW
8
2
3
8
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
10
4
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
1,
4
0
0
5
LW
9
2
3
8
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
SR
9
9
76
t
h
A
v
n
u
e
W
2,
6
0
0
5
LW
1
0
2
3
2
n
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
W
10
0
t
h
A
v
n
u
e
W
97
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
1,
0
0
0
5
LW
1
1
8
4
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
23
8
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
23
4
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
1,
3
0
0
5
LW
1
2
1
7
6
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
72
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
1,
4
0
0
5
LW
1
3
1
8
8
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
92
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
88
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
1,
0
0
0
5
LW
1
4
1
8
4
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
/
A
n
d
o
v
e
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
1
8
4
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
/
8
8
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
/
A
n
d
o
v
e
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
3,
5
0
0
5
LW
1
5
7
2
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
17
6
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
2,
9
0
0
5
LW
1
6
2
3
6
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
SR
1
0
4
Ea
s
t
o
f
8
4
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
2,
1
0
0
5
LW
1
7
9
2
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
18
9
t
h
P
l
a
c
e
S
W
18
6
t
h
P
l
a
c
e
S
W
1,
0
0
0
5
LW
1
8
1
9
1
s
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
80
t
h
A
v
n
u
e
W
76
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
1,
4
0
0
5
LW
1
9
2
1
8
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
80
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
84
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
1,
4
0
0
5
LW
2
0
1
9
2
n
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
88
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
84
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
1,
3
0
0
5
LW
2
1
1
0
4
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
/
R
o
b
i
n
H
o
o
d
Dr
i
v
e
23
8
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
10
6
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
2,
2
0
0
5
LW
2
2
1
8
6
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
86
0
8
1
8
5
t
h
P
l
a
c
e
S
W
Se
a
v
i
e
w
P
a
r
k
/
8
0
t
h
A
v
n
u
e
W
1,
7
0
0
5
LW
2
3
2
1
6
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
86
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
92
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
2,
4
5
0
5
LW
2
4
9
2
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
Bo
w
d
o
i
n
W
a
y
22
0
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
2,
2
5
0
5
Packet Page 269 of 487
Packet Page 270 of 487
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
We
l
c
o
m
e
Pl
e
a
s
e
s
i
g
n
i
n
h
e
r
e
.
Me
e
t
i
n
g
O
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
Re
v
i
e
w
Re
c
om
m
e
n
d
e
d
T
ra
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P l an
P ot
e
n
t
i
a
l
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
an
d
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
C os
t
s
an
d
re
v
e
n
u
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
P ro
v
i
d
e
in
p
u
t
on
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
fu
n
d
i
n
g
st
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
fo
r
T ra
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P l an
Me
e
t
i
n
g
A
g
e
n
d
a
5:
3
0
–6:
0
0
p.
m
.
Si
g
n
in
6:
0
0
–6:
3
0
p.
m
.
Pr
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
6:
3
0
–7:
3
0
p.
m
.
Vi
s
i
t
st
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
ta
l k to
pr
o
j
e
c
t
te
a
m
me
m
b
e
r
s
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
co
m
m
e
n
t
s
7:
3
0
p.
m
.
En
d
of
me
e
t
i
n
g
LO
S
Ch
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
T
ra
ffi
c F
l
ow
Av
e
r
a
g
e
De
l ay
(se
c
o
n
d
s
p
er
v
e h ic
l
e
)
Si
g
n
a
l i z ed
S
t
o
p
Co
n
t
r
o
ll
ed
A
F re
e
f
l
o w,
li
t
t
l
e
or
no
re
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
on
s p ee
d
or
m
an
e
u
v er
a
b il
i
t
y
ca
u
s
e
d
b
y t h e
p re
s
e
n
c
e
o f
ot
h er
v
e h ic
l
e
s
.
≤
1
0
≤
1
0
B
S
ta
b le
f
l
o w,
o p er
a
t
i
n
g
s p ee
d
is
b
eg
i
n
n
i
n
g
to
b
e re
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
b
y ot
h er
tr
a
ffi
c .
>
1
0 –20
>
1
0 –1
5
C
S
ta
b le
f
l
o w,
v
ol
u
m e an
d
de
n
s
i
t
y
le
v el
s
ar
e
b
eg
i
n
n
i
n
g
to
re
s
t
r
i
c
t
dr
i
v er
s
in
t h ei
r
m an
e
u
v er
a
b il
i
t
y
.
>
20
–3
5
>
1
5
–
2 5
D
S
ta
b le
f
l
o w,
s p ee
d
s
an
d
m
an
e
u
v er
a
b il
i
t
y
cl
o
s
e
l
y
co
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
du
e
to
h
ig
h er
v
ol
u
m es
.
>
3
5
–
5
5
>
2 5–
3
5
E
A
p
p
ro
a
c
h in
g
un
s
t
a
b le
f
l
o w,
lo
w
s p ee
d
s
,
f re
e
d
o
m
to
m
an
e
u
v er
is
di
ffi
cu
l
t
.
>
5
5
–
8
0
>
3
5
–
5
0
F
F
or
c
e
d
tr
a
ffi
c f
l
o w,
v
er
y
lo
w
s p ee
d
s
,
lo
n
g
de
l
a
y
s
w
it
h
st
o
p-
an
d
-go
tr
a
ffi
c .
>
8
0
>
5
0
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
t
2
1
2
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
W
a
n
d
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
L ev
e
l
of
Se
r
v
i
c
e
(L
O
S )
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
th
e
op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
q ua
l it
y
of
a ro
a
d
.
LO
S is
gr
a
d
e
d
A (
fr
e
e
f
l
ow
)
th
r
o
u
g
h
F
(
gr
i
d
l
oc
k
).
F
Av
e
r
a
g
e
D
e
l
a
y
13
8
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
/
v e h ic
l
e
Av
e
r
a
g
e
D
e
l
a
y
1 66
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
/
v e h ic
l
e
F
Av
e
r
a
g
e
D
e
l
a
y
94
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
/
v e h ic
l
e
F
Av
e
r
a
g
e
D
e
l
a
y
13
1
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
/
v e h ic
l
e
F
20
2
5
WI
T
H
O
U
T
IM
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
A v er
a
g
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
L
O
S =
F
A v er
a
g
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
d
e
l
a
y
=
13
6
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
/
v e h ic
l
e
Av
e
r
a
g
e
D
e
l
a
y
53
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
/
v e h ic
l
e
Av
e
r
a
g
e
D
e
l
a
y
6 1 s
e
c
o
n
d
s
/
v e h ic
l
e
Av
e
r
a
g
e
D
e
l
a
y
58
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
/
v e h ic
l
e
D
E
E
Av
e
r
a
g
e
D
e
l
a
y
3 7
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
/
v e h ic
l
e
D
20
2
5
WI
T
H
IM
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
A v er
a
g
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
L
O
S =
D
A v er
a
g
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
d
e
l
a
y
=
5 4
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
/
v e h ic
l
e
21
2
th
St
r
e
e
t
SW
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
21
2
th
St
r
e
e
t
SW
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
N ot
e
:
O
pe
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
ar
e
si
m
i
l ar
at
2
1
2
th
St
r
e
e
t
SW
/
S
t
a
t
e
Ro
u
t
e
99
an
d
2
2
0t
h
St
r
e
e
t
SW
/
7
6
t
h
Av
e
n
u
e
W.
Le
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Packet Page 271 of 487
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
wi
t
h
a
n
d
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Sn
o
h
o
m
i
s
h
C
o
u
n
t
y
Ki
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
Sn
o
h
o
m
i
s
h
C
o
u
n
t
y
Ki
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
Ma
i
n
S
t
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
W
7
5
t
h
P
l
W
20
8 t h
S
t
S
W
9
5
t
h
P
l
W
21
2
t
h
S
t
S
W
22
0
t
h
S
t
S
W
6
8
t
h
A
v
e
W
D ay
t
o
n
S
t
7
t
h
A
e
N
1
0
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
W
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
23
8
t
h
S
t
S
W
17
6
t
h
S
t
S
W
B o wd
oin
W
a
y
18
0t
hS
t
SW
W a ln
u
t
S
t
3
r
d
A
v
e
S
2 44
t h
S t S
W
5
t
h
A
v
e
S
2 36
t h S
t
S W
3
r
d
A
v
e
N
8
4
t
h
A
v
e
W
9
t
h
A
v
e
S
23
8
t
h
S
t
SW
20
0
t
h
S
t
S
W
C as
p e rs
S
t
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
W
P ug
e t D
r
Ed mo n d s Wy
M
a
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
D
r
2 28
t
h
S
tS
W
9
t
h
A
v
e
N
5
2
n
d
A
v
e
W
M e a d o w d a l e B e a c h R o a d
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
8
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
8
8
t
h
A
v
e
W
19
6
t
h
S
t
S
W
S
u
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
10
4
99
52
4
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
Le
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
(
L
O
S
)
K
e
y
m ee
t
s
L
O
S s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
ex
c
e
e
d
s
L
O
S s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
no
t
s
u
b je
c
t
t
o
L
O
S s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
no
i
m pr
o
v e m en
t
s
r
e
c
o
mm
en
d
e
d
LO
S
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
C it
y
a
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
=
L
O
S D
S ta
t
e
R
o
u
t
e
9
9
=
L
O
S E
C
DF D
D
F
F B
B
D
D
D
D
F
F B
B
F
F
F B
A
C
E
F B
A
B
B
B
A
A
A
D
F
F B
B
E
F
F B
B
D
F
F B
B
E
F
F A
A
B
B
B
D
F
F B
B
D
E
F E
D
F
F B
B
F
F
F B
B
B
B
B
C
D
D
D
F
F B
B
D
F
F D
D
D
F
F B
B
D
E
F E
D
F
F B
B
D
E
E D
C
A
A
B
B
C
C
B
C
C
D
F
F B
B
F
F
F B
B
D
D
E
D
F
F B
D
E
F D
00
.51
Mi
l
e
s
wi
t
h
o
u
t
i m pr
o
v e m en
t
s
wi
t
h
i m pr
o
v e m en
t
s
B
20
15
20
2
5
B
w it
h
ou
t
i m p ro
v e m en
t
s
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
FF
D
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
M a i n
S t
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
W
7
5
t
h
P
l
W
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
2 08
t
hS
t
SW
9
5
t
h
P
l
W
21
2
t
h
S
t
S
W
2 2 0t
h
S
t
S
W
Fi
s
h
e
r
6
8
t
h
A
v
e
W
Fird
a le Ave
D a y to
n
S
t
7
t
h
A
v
e
N
1
0
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
W
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
2 38
th
S
t
S
W
8
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
9
6
t
h
A
v
e
W
17
6
t
h
S
t
S
W
B ow
d oi nW
a y
18
0
t
h
S
t
S
W
W al
n
u
t
S
t
3
r
d
A
v
e
S
2 4 4 th
St
S W
5
t
h
A
v
e
S
2 3 6 t h
S t
S W
3
r
d
A
v
e
N
8
4
t
h
A
v
e
W
9
t
h
A
v
e
S
2 3 8 th
S
tS
W
20
0
t
h
S
t
S
W
C as
p
e
r
s
S
t
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
W
Pu
g
e
t
D
r
Ed m ond
s W y
M
a
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
D
r
2 2 8 t h
S t
SW
9
t
h
A
v
e
N
5
2
n
d
A
v
e
W
M e a d o w d a l e B e a c h R o a d
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
8
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
8
8
t
h
A
v
e
W
19
6
t
h
S
t
S
W
S
u
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
10
4
99
52
4
Sn
o
h
o
m
i
s
h
C
o
u
n
t
y
Ki
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
00
.51
Mi
l
e
s
So
u
r
c
e
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
(
2
0
0
8
)
;
W
S
D
O
T
(
2
0
0
8
)
;
Sn
o
h
o
m
i
s
h
C
o
u
n
t
y
(
2
0
0
8
)
Ci
t
y
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
Ra
i
l
r
o
a
d
Wa
t
e
r
F
e
a
t
u
r
e
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
T
y
p
e
s
In
s
t
a
l
l
N
e
w
S
i
g
n
a
l
Up
g
r
a
d
e
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
S
i
g
n
a
l
In
s
t
a
l
l
R
o
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
Ad
d
L
a
n
e
/
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
Wi
d
e
n
R
o
a
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
Co
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
y
Sa
f
e
t
y
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
o
f
S
t
a
t
e
w
i
d
e
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
Packet Page 272 of 487
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
C
a
l
m
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ph
a
s
e
1
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
Pe
t
i
t
i
o
n
f or
lo
c
a
l
st
r
e
e
t
tr
a
ffi
c co
n
c
e
r
n
s
:
cu
t
-t h ro
u
g
h,
tr
a
v el
s p ee
d
,
sa
f et
y
(m
in
i
m u m
o f
8
si
g
n
a
t
u
r
e
s
)
St
a
ff
Re
v
i
e
w s
q ua
l
i
fi ca
t
i
o
n
f
or
tr
a
ffi
c ca
l
m in
g
p
ro
g
r
a
m
•
2 5%
or
1
5
cu
t
-t h ro
u
g
h
p
er
h
ou
r
,
or
•
8
5
t h
p
er
c
e
n
t
i
l
e
s p ee
d
>
8
m
p
h
o v er
s p ee
d
li
m it
,
or
•
3
co
l
l
i
s
i
o
n
s
in
p
as
t
3
ye
a
r
s
,
an
d
•
a v er
a
g
e
da
i
l
y
tr
a
ffi
c b
et
w ee
n
5
00
an
d
3
,
00
0
v
e h ic
l
e
s
Q ua
l i fi es
Do
e
s
N
ot
Q
ua
l if
y
Ph
a
s
e
2
St
a
ff
an
d
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
Ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
En
f or
c
e
m
e
n
t
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
ca
mp
ai
g
n
,
p
a v e m en
t
m
ar
k in
g
s
,
p
ol
i
c
e
en
f or
c
e
m en
t
,
p or
t
a
b le
ra
d
a
r
tr
a
i
l
e
r
,
si
g
n
i
n
g
,
s p ee
d
w
at
c
h
p
ro
g
r
a
m
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
an
d
Ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
Le
s
s
Re
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
v
e
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
Ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
En
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
So
l ut
i
o
n
s
Ar
e
E ff ec
t
i
v
e
Ph
a
s
e
3
St
a
ff
Re
v
i
e
w s Tr
a
ffi
c Ca
l
m
i
n
g
De
v
i
c
e
s
f un
d
i
n
g
,
p
ri
o
r
i
t
y
,
te
c
h ni
c
a
l
f
ea
s
i
b il
i
t
y
St
a
ff
De
v
e
l
o
p
s
Tr
a
ffi
c Ca
l
m
i
n
g
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
w
it
h
Po
l
i
c
e
an
d
Fi
r
e
fi gh
t
e
r
Ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
b ul
b-
ou
t
s
,
c h ic
a
n
e
s
,
di
a
g
o
n
a
l
di
v er
t
e
r
s
,
f
ul
l
cl
o
s
u
r
e
,
m
ed
i
a
n
s
,
p ar
t
i
a
l
cl
o
s
u
r
e
,
tr
a
ffi
c ci
r
c
l
e
s
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
V
ot
e
on
Ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
o f
Tr
a
ffi
c Ca
l
m
i
n
g
De
v
i
c
e
60
%
or
G re
a
t
e
r
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
In
s
t
a
l
l
Tr
a
ffi
c Ca
l
m
i
n
g
De
v
i
c
e
F ew
e
r
th
a
n
60
%
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
En
d En
d
En
d
T hi
s
pr
o
g
r
a
m
ap
p
l ie
s
to
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
th
r
o
u
g
h
-
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
.
6–
1
2
mo
n
t
h
s
la
t
e
r
St
a
ff
Ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
s
E ff
ec
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
o f
De
v
i
c
e
N ot
e
:
T
hi
s
is
a re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
fu
t
u
r
e
pr
o
g
r
a
m
.
N
o fu
n
d
i
n
g
is
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l y av
a
i
l ab
l e.
Ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
En
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
So
l ut
i
o
n
s
Ar
e
N
ot
E ff
ec
t
i
v
e
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
Wa
l
k
w
a
y
P
l
a
n
M a i n
S t
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
W
7
5
t
h
P
l
W
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
2 0 8 t hS
t
S W
9
5
t
h
P
l
W
21
2
t
h
S
t
S
W
22
0t
h
S
t
S
W
Fi
s
h
e
r
6
8
t
h
A
v
e
W
Fird
a
l
e
Ave
Da
y
t
o
n
S
t
7
t
h
A
v
e
N
1
0
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
W
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
23
8
t h S
t
S
W
8
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
9
6
t
h
A
v
e
W
17
6
t
h
S
t
S
W
B ow
do
i
n
W
a
y
18
0
t
h
S
t
S
W
W al
n
u
t
S
t
3
r
d
A
v
e
S
24
4
th
S
t
S
W
5
t
h
A
v
e
S
2 3 6 t h
S t
S W
3
r
d
A
v
e
N
8
4
t
h
A
v
e
W
9
t
h
A
v
e
S
2 3 8 th
St
SW
20
0
t
h
S
t
S
W
C a sp
e
r
sS
t
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
W
Pu
g
e
t
D
r
E d mon
d
s
W
y
M
a
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
D
r
2 2 8 th
S t
SW
9
t
h
A
v
e
N
5
2
n
d
A
v
e
W
M e a d o w d a l e B e a c h R o a d
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
8
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
8
8
t
h
A
v
e
W
19
6
t
h
S
t
S
W
S
u
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
10
4
99
52
4
Sn
o
h
o
m
i
s
h
C
o
u
n
t
y
Ki
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
L4
L1
2
L1
5
L1
4
L2
2
S9
L1
3
L1
7
S1
0
S7 L1
8
L2
0
L3
L2
L7
L1
1
L1
6
L1
L1
0
L8
L2
1
S6
L5
S1
S2
S3
S8
S4
S5
L6
L9
L1
9
L2
3
L2
4
00
.51
Mi
l
e
s
So
u
r
c
e
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
(
2
0
0
8
)
;
W
S
D
O
T
(
2
0
0
8
)
;
Sn
o
h
o
m
i
s
h
C
o
u
n
t
y
(
2
0
0
8
)
Ci
t
y
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
Ra
i
l
r
o
a
d
Wa
t
e
r
F
e
a
t
u
r
e
Wa
l
k
w
a
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
P
a
v
e
d
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
U
n
p
a
v
e
d
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
84
t
h
A
v
e
W
S
a
f
e
t
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
w
a
l
k
w
a
y
c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
)
Packet Page 273 of 487
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
Cu
r
b
R
a
m
p
R
e
t
r
o
f
i
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Th
i
s
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
s
o
f
up
g
ra
d
e
s
of
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
cu
r
b
ra
m
p
s
to
me
e
t
th
e
re
q ui
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
of
th
e
Am
e
r
i
c
a
n
s
wi
t
h
Di
s
a
b
i
l it
i
e
s
Ac
t
(
AD
A
).
Of
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
3
5
0
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
in
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
:
4 2
fu
ll
y me
e
t
AD
A st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
2
4 pa
r
ti
a
ll
y me
e
t
AD
A
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
f
o
r
u
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
of
cu
r
b
ra
m
p
s
at
su
b
-s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
l
oc
a
t
i
o
n
s
:
1 .
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
re
c
e
i
v
e
s
pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
ov
e
r
l
oc
a
t
i
o
n
s
ou
t
s
i
d
e
of
do
w
n
t
o
w
n
2 .
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
st
r
e
e
t
s
re
c
e
i
v
e
pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
ov
e
r
l
oc
a
l
ac
c
e
s
s
st
r
e
e
t
s
3.
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
re
c
e
i
v
e
hi
g
h
e
r
pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
if
th
e
y
ar
e
ne
a
r
:
a.
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Ce
n
t
e
r
s
/ Se
n
i
o
r
Ce
n
t
e
r
/ H
ea
l th
F
ac
i
l it
i
e
s
b.
T
ra
n
s
i
t
st
o
p
s
/ Sc
h
o
o
l s / Pu
b
l ic
B
ui
l di
n
g
s
c.
C om
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
ar
e
a
s
an
d
pa
r
k
s
No
t
e
:
T hi
s
is
a fu
t
u
r
e
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
pr
o
g
r
a
m
an
d
is
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l y un
f
u
n
d
e
d
.
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!(
M a i n
St
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
W
7
5
t
h
P
l
W
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
2 08
t
hS
t
S W
9
5
t
h
P
l
W
21
2
t
h
S
t
S
W
2 20
th
S
t
S
W
Fi
s
h
e
r
6
8
t
h
A
v
e
W
Fi rd ale
A
v
e
D ay
to
n
S
t
7
t
h
A
v
e
N
1
0
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
W
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
2 38
t
h
S
t
S
W
8
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
9
6
t
h
A
v
e
W
17
6
t
h
S
t
S
W
B o w d oin
W
a y
18
0
t
h
S
t
S
W
W al
nu
t
S
t
3
r
d
A
v
e
S
2 4 4 th
St
S
W
5
t
h
A
v
e
S
2 3 6t
h
S t
S W
3
r
d
A
v
e
N
8
4
t
h
A
v
e
W
9
t
h
A
v
e
S
2 3 8 th
S t
SW
20
0
t
h
S
t
S
W
C a s pe
r
s
S t
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
W
Pu
g
e
t
D
r
Edm
o
n d s W
y
M
a
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
D
r
2 2 8 t h
St
SW
9
t
h
A
v
e
N
5
2
n
d
A
v
e
W
M e a d o w d a l e B e a c h R o a d
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
8
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
8
8
t
h
A
v
e
W
19
6
t
h
S
t
S
W
S
u
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
¾?@ 10
4
¾?@ 99
!"`
¾?@ 52
4
Sn
o
h
o
m
i
s
h
C
o
u
n
t
y
Ki
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
I
n
t
e
r
u
r
b
a
n
T
r
a
i
l
00
.51
Mi
l
e
s
So
u
r
c
e
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
(
2
0
0
8
)
;
W
S
D
O
T
(
2
0
0
8
)
;
Sn
o
h
o
m
i
s
h
C
o
u
n
t
y
(
2
0
0
8
)
Ci
t
y
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
Ra
i
l
r
o
a
d
Wa
t
e
r
F
e
a
t
u
r
e
!(
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
B
i
k
e
L
o
c
k
e
r
s
!(
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
B
i
k
e
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
!.
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
B
i
k
e
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
Bi
k
e
L
a
n
e
s
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Bi
k
e
R
o
u
t
e
s
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Tr
a
i
l
s
/
P
a
t
h
s
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
In
t
e
r
i
m
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
In
t
e
r
i
m
R
o
u
t
e
o
n
R
o
a
d
w
a
y
(7
6
t
h
A
v
e
W
)
Bi
k
e
L
a
n
e
s
Bi
k
e
R
o
u
t
e
s
Tr
a
i
l
s
/
P
a
t
h
s
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
P
l
a
n
Packet Page 274 of 487
Ma
i
n
S t
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
W
7
5
t
h
P
l
W
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
2 0 8t
h
S t
S
W
9
5
t
h
P
l
W
21
2
t
h
S
t
S
W
22
0
t
h
S
t S
W
6
8
t
h
A
v
e
W
Fir dale
A v e
D ay
t
o
n
S
t
7
t
h
A
e
N
1
0
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
W
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
23
8
t
h
S
t S
W
17
6
t
h
S
t
S
W
B ow
do
i
nW
a
y
18
0
t
h
S
t
S
W
Wa
l
n
u
t S
t
3
r
d
A
v
e
S
2 4 4 t h
S t
S W
5
t
h
A
v
e
S
2 3 6t
h S
t
S
W
3
r
d
A
v
e
N
8
4
t
h
A
v
e
W
9
t
h
A
v
e
S
2 38
t
h
S
tS
W
20
0
t
h
S
t
S
W
Ca
s pe
r
s S
t
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
W
P ug
et
D
r
Ed mo nds
Wy
M
a
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
D
r
22
8
t
h S
t
S
W
9
t
h
A
v
e
N
M e a d o w d a l e B e a c h R o a d
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
8
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
8
8
t
h
A
v
e
W
19
6
t
h
S
t
S
W
S
u
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
10
4
99
52
4
Sn
o
h
o
m
i
s
h
C
o
u
n
t
y
Ki
n
g
C
o
u
n
t
y
Ed
m
o
n ds
-
K
i
n
g
s
to
n
T
o
/
F
r
o
m
E
v
e
r
e
t
t
T
o
/
F
r
o
m
S
e
a
t
t
l
e
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
Ac
c
e
s
s
t
o
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
T
ra
i
n
st
a
t
i
o
n
/
p
a
r
k
-
a
n
d
-
r
i
d
e
l
ot
Pa
r
k
-
a
n
d
-
r
i
d
e
l
ot
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
T
ra
n
s
i
t
bu
s
st
o
p
E x is
t
i
n
g
bu
s
ro
u
t
e
F
er
r
y
ro
u
t
e
Co
m
m
u
t
e
r
ra
i
l
ro
u
t
e
0.
2 5-
m
i
l e bu
s
st
o
p
z
on
e
0
0 .5
1
M i l e s
Ci
t
y
bo
u
n
d
a
r
y
Ra
i
l ro
a
d
Wa
t
e
r
fe
a
t
u
r
e
Ap
p
ro
x
i
m at
e
l
y
8
1
%
o f
20
0
0
p
o p ul
a
t
i
o
n
is
lo
c
a
t
e
d
w
it
h in
0 .2 5-
m
il
e
o f
a tr
a
n
s
i
t
st
o
p.
Ap
p
ro
x
i
m at
e
l
y
70
0
b
us
e
s
se
r
v e E
d m on
d
s
da
i
l
y
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
ne
w
mu
l ti
m
o
d
a
l
fa
c
i
l it
y at
fe
r
r
y
te
r
m
i
n
a
l , co
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
fe
r
r
y
,
au
t
o
m
o
b
i
l e,
tr
a
n
s
i
t
,
bi
c
y
c
l e,
an
d
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
tr
a
ffi
c in
do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
.
Th
i
s
pr
o
j ec
t
is
no
t
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
in
th
e
Ci
t
y
’s
fi
na
n
c
i
a
l
pl
a
n
(
no
pl
a
n
n
e
d
Ci
t
y
e x pe
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
)
b
ut
is
st
i
l
l
pl
a
n
n
e
d
as
a lo
n
g
-ra
n
g
e
pr
o
j ec
t .
Pa
v
e
m
e
n
t
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
im
p
r
ov
e
m
e
n
t
s
to
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
pa
v
e
m
e
n
t
on
ci
t
y
st
r
e
e
t
s
,
su
c
h
as
as
p
h
a
l t ov
e
r
l ay
s
an
d
fi
l
l
in
g
of
po
t
h
o
l es
.
Sp
o
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
C
i
t
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
s
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
l
ow
e
r co
s
t
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
su
c
h
as
si
g
n
a
l
ti
m
i
n
g
up
g
r
a
d
e
s
or
l
oc
a
l i z ed
st
r
e
e
t
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
to
im
p
r
o
v
e
ve
h
i
c
l e sa
f
e
t
y
an
d
mo
b
i
l it
y
.
Sp
o
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
f
o
r
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
s
a
n
d
B
i
k
e
w
a
y
s
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
l
ow
e
r co
s
t
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
su
c
h
as
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
l
ig
h
t
i
n
g
an
d
Ot
h
e
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
Packet Page 275 of 487
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
Co
s
t
s
V
e
r
s
e
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
th
r
o
u
g
h
2
0
2
5
Su
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
C
o
s
t
s
th
r
o
u
g
h
2
0
2
5
T ot
a
l
C
os
t
s
t h ro
u
g
h
20
2
5
= $
1
0 5,
2 13
,
3
00
Co
s
t
s
a
n
d
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
To
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
I
d
e
n
t
i
i
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
2
0
2
5
=
$
4
0
,
9
0
6
,
6
1
1
U
ti
l it
y
Re
s
u
r
f
a
c
i
n
g
J oi
n
t
Ag
e
n
c
y
F
un
d
i
n
g
In
t
e
r
e
s
t
In
c
o
m
e
Re
a
l
Es
t
a
t
e
E x ci
s
e
T
a x
So
u
r
c
e
s
of
Id
e
n
t
i
fi ed
Re
v
e
n
u
e
:
G ra
n
t
s
(
un
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
M ot
o
r
Ve
h
i
c
l e F
ue
l
T
a x
T ra
ffi
c Im
p
a
c
t
/
M it
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
F
ee
s
*
T ra
n
s
f
e
r
s
fr
o
m
O
th
e
r
F
un
d
s
*
U
pd
a
t
e
d
im
p
a
c
t
fe
e
=
$
1
,0
7
1
pe
r
tr
i
p
Co
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
y
,
$
1
6
,
0
9
1
,
8
0
0
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
o
f
S
t
a
t
e
w
i
d
e
Si
g
n
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
,
$
8
,
7
6
6
,
2
0
0
Sa
f
e
t
y
,
$
2
4
,
6
1
1
,
2
0
0
Wa
l
k
w
a
y
,
$
2
0
,
2
7
9
,
0
0
0
Cu
r
b
R
a
m
p
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
,
$4
,
1
8
9
,
5
0
0
Bik
e
w
a
y
,
$
1
,
7
4
0
,
0
0
0
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
&
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
,
$
2
7
,
9
1
6
,
0
0
0
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
C
a
l
m
i
n
g
,
$
1
6
0
,
0
0
0
Ot
h
e
r
,
$
1
,
4
5
9
,
6
0
0
Id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
,
$4
0
,
9
0
6
,
6
1
1
Sh
o
r
t
f
a
l
l
,
$6
4
,
3
0
6
,
6
8
9
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
Ex
a
m
p
l
e
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
S
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
t
o
t
a
l
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
2
0
1
0
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
2
0
2
5
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
B
e
n
e
i
t
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
(
T
B
D
)
A dd
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
ve
h
i
c
l e l
ic
e
n
s
e
fe
e
up
to
$
8
0
(
fo
r
a to
t
a
l
of
$
1
00
)
a ll
ow
e
d
un
d
e
r
l
aw
,
wi
t
h
vo
t
e
r
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
(
to
e x p l or
e
in
2
0 1 0 )
Ap
p
r
op
r
i
a
t
e
fu
n
d
i
n
g
l
ev
e
l , an
d
sp
e
c
i
fi c pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
to
be
fu
n
d
e
d
,
wo
u
l d be
de
v
e
l op
e
d
as
pa
r
t
of
a to
t
a
l
fu
n
d
i
n
g
pa
c
k
a
g
e
,
pr
i
o
r
to
pu
t
t
i
n
g
to
vo
t
e
Packet Page 276 of 487
Appendix B
Traffic Calming Program
Packet Page 277 of 487
Packet Page 278 of 487
Traffic Calming Program
The City of Edmonds Traffic Calming Program is designed to assist residents and City staff in
responding to neighborhood traffic issues related to speeding, cut-through traffic, and safety.
Implementation of a traffic calming program allows traffic concerns to be addressed consistently
and traffic calming measures to be efficiently developed and put into operation.
In establishing a neighborhood traffic calming program, the City must take into account the
restriction that no deviation from Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)
design standards is permitted on principal arterials, minor arterials and collector streets without
express approval of the WSDOT local programs engineer (RCW 35.78). This limitation does not
apply to local access streets, which are defined by RCW 35.78.010 as streets “…generally limited
to providing access to abutting property… tributary to major and secondary thoroughfares…
generally discouraging through traffic…” Therefore, the City’s traffic calming program focuses
on local access streets.
The Traffic Calming Program consists of a three-phase process:
Phase 1 Petition and Review for Qualification): To begin the process, residents submit a
petition for local street traffic concerns, and the City reviews the application and investigates
the site to determine if the application qualifies for the Traffic Calming Program.
Phase 2 (Education and Enforcement) focuses on education and enforcement solutions,
including educational flyers, police enforcement, neighborhood speed watch, signing, and
striping modifications. If those solutions are not effective in reducing speed or cut-through
traffic, then the process moves on to Phase 3.
Phase 3 (Installation of Traffic Calming Device) consists of working with residents to
identify the appropriate traffic calming device to be installed, which could include traffic
circles, chicanes, and narrowed lanes. If approved by residents in the affected area, the device
is planned for installation.
Packet Page 279 of 487
Exhibit A illustrates the three-phase process. Each phase of the Traffic Calming Program is
summarized in the following sections.
Due to economic considerations, city streets that are ineligible for the Traffic Calming Program
include:
1. Streets classified other than local streets, including dead-end streets.
2. Streets scheduled for resurfacing within the next two years.
3. Streets with grades, curvatures or other physical conditions where addition of any device
would create unsafe conditions.
4. Streets not meeting average daily traffic requirements (see Phase 1 Qualification section).
Packet Page 280 of 487
End with
notice
letter
Phase 1 Residents petition for
local street traffic concerns
(minimum of 8 signatures)
Qualifies
Does
not
qualify
Phase 2
Qualifies
Staff and residents develop
education and enforcement solutions
Implement education and enforcement solutions
3-6 months later
Phase 3
Staff evaluates effectiveness of solutions
85th percentile speed
≤ 8 mph over speed limit
Residents vote on
approval of traffic
calming device
≥ 60% of residents
who return ballots
approve
Design and install traffic calming device
< 60% of
residents
approve
6–12 months later
Staff evaluates effectiveness of device
Staff reviews and collects data
Qualification for traffic calming program
and
tBOEDVUUIrPVHIQFSIPVr, or
tUIQFrcFnUJMFTQFFE NQIovFSTQFFEMJNJt
8 mph <
85th percentile
≤ 10 mph
85th percentile speed
> 10 mph over speed limit
or
Cut-through traffic per hour
< 25% and 15 vehiclesEnd with notice letter stating
program objectives have been met
Review
other
solutions
End with
notice
letter.
Staff reviews traffic calming devices
for funding, priority, technical feasibility
Staff develops traffic calming solutions
with police and fire departments’ approval
August 2009
Exhibit A. Traffic Calming Program Process
Program applies to neighborhood residential through streets.
Packet Page 281 of 487
Phase 1 – Petition and Review for Qualification
Phase 1 of the program includes resident petition to begin the process and City review for
qualification of the application. Phase 1 consists of the following steps:
Citizen Action Re uest and Petition
The program begins when a resident turns in a “Citizen Action Request Form” and a “Petition
Form” to show neighborhood consensus of the traffic concerns.
The Citizen Action Request Form, as shown in Exhibit B, identifies the type of traffic
concerns, such as cut-through traffic, vehicle speed, and safety concerns present in the
neighborhood.
The Petition Form, as shown in Exhibit C, indicates neighborhood consensus that the traffic
concerns should be studied. A minimum of eight adult resident signatures from separate
addresses on the subject street will be required prior to going forward with the program.
City Staff Review
City staff will research the issues and acknowledge the requestor if the petition is a candidate for
the program.
The issues must be on a local access (non-arterial/non-collector) street. If the traffic concern
is on an arterial or collector, City staff will inform the Police Department of the concern and
ask for additional enforcement.
City staff will also acknowledge the requestor if the issues have been previously reviewed
and action was taken; if previous investigations have deemed the problem unsolvable, and if
the problem is part of an ongoing investigation/action.
Site Visit and Data Collection
City staff will schedule a meeting with the residents at the problem location to investigate the
traffic concerns. City staff will survey traffic signing, pavement markings, sight distances,
parking, and road conditions along the subject street.
If there appear to be simple solutions to the issues, such as brush trimming, speed limit signs,
or channelization, City will implement them as soon as feasible.
If the issues are not easy to identify from the site survey, City staff will collect baseline traffic
data (traffic volume counts, cut-through traffic, travel speed, and historical accident data) for
problem clarification and for future evaluation.
Packet Page 282 of 487
ualification
City staff will compare the baseline traffic data to the following criteria to determine if the
petition qualifies for the program. The criteria to determine if a petition qualifies for the program
include the following:
The average daily traffic volume on the subject street must be between 500 and 3,000
vehicles per day, because average daily traffic below or above these limits is not suitable for a
neighborhood traffic calming device.
If the traffic concern is related to safety, there have been at least 3 reported collisions in the
past 3 years at the same location.
If the traffic concern is related to cut-through traffic, the peak hour (AM or PM, whatever is
higher) cut-through traffic is greater than 25% of total traffic and greater than 15 vehicles per
hour.
If the traffic concern is related to speeding, the daily 85th percentile speed (the speed below
which 85% of the cars are traveling) is 8 mph over the posted speed limit.
If the baseline traffic data show that the criteria are not met, the City will inform the requestor,
record the request and continue to monitor the situation.
Packet Page 283 of 487
Exhibit B. Citizen Action Re uest Form for the Traffic Calming Program
Citizen Action Re uest Form - Traffic Calming Program
Contact Name: Day Phone:
E-mail Address:
Address:
Location of Concern:
Neighborhood Traffic Concern (Check applicable concerns):
Speeding Cut-Through Traffic Pedestrian/Bicycle/Traffic Safety
Other:
What, in your opinion, is the root cause of the problem
T
hank you for taking the time to complete the Citizen Action Re uest Form.
Please send the completed form with the Neighborhood Petition Form to:
City of Edmonds
Attn: Public Works Engineering Department
121 5th Avenue N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Once we receive the form, the Public Works Engineering Department will investigate
your re uest. If you have uestions or comments, please call the transportation
engineer at (425) 771-0220.
Packet Page 284 of 487
Exhibit C. Neighborhood Petition Form for the Traffic Calming Program
Neighborhood Petition Form - Traffic Calming Program
Contact Name:
Location of Concern:
Eight (8) neighbor signatures, one per household, are re uired prior to initiate the
Traffic Calming process in our neighborhood. If you agree that the issues stated in the
Citizen Action Re uest Form exist on our residential street, please sign below with your
address and phone number.
The Traffic Calming process involves active participation of our community. The
decision making process may re uire us to set and attend neighborhood meetings and
conduct further petition campaigns.
Name Address Phone Signature
Make additional copies as necessary.
Packet Page 285 of 487
Phase 2 – Education and Enforcement
Phase 2 of the program focuses solutions that include education of drivers on existing traffic
regulations, and a focus on enforcement of those regulations. During this phase, neighborhood
concerns are addressed by informing drivers of safety issues, by using traffic enforcement
techniques, or by adding signs or pavement markings to change driver behavior. These solutions
can be an effective way to address speeding within neighborhoods by residents themselves. The
City can implement these less restrictive solutions more easily and quickly than physical traffic
calming devices. It is recognized, however, that these solutions may produce benefits that are
only temporary, and that conditions need to be monitored. Phase 2 consists of the following steps:
Development of Solutions
If the application is qualified for the program, then City staff will use the baseline traffic data,
along with insights and suggestions from area residents, to determine which solutions will be
used to improve the traffic issues.
Table 1provides a comparison of advantages, disadvantages, and effectiveness of potential Phase
2 solutions.
Implementation
Once the solutions are determined, they will be implemented with the assistance of the
neighborhood residents. The solutions would be implemented for at least three months to provide
a traffic adjustment period.
Evaluation
Eight to fourteen months after the Phase 2 solutions have been implemented, conditions will be
evaluated by City staff based on new traffic, speed, and accident data. The results will be
compared with the previous data to measure the effectiveness of these traffic calming solutions.
There are three possible outcomes based on the results:
If the daily 85th percentile speed is 5 mph or less over the posted limit; or if peak hour (AM
or PM) cut-through traffic is at or less than 25% of the total traffic or less than 15 cut-through
vehicles, no further action will be taken.
If the daily 85th percentile speed is at or below 10 mph but above 8 mph over the posted
limit, another Phase 2 solution will be developed and implemented. The City staff will meet
with the requestor and neighborhood residents to review if other solutions would be more
effective.
The application will move to Phase 3 if it meets the following conditions:
The daily 85th percentile is over 10 mph greater than the posted limit; or
The peak hour (AM or PM) cut-through traffic is greater than 25% of the total traffic and
greater than 15 vehicles per hour.
Packet Page 286 of 487
Ta
b
l
e
1
.
C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
o
f
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
h
a
s
e
2
S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
D
i
s
a
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
Sa
f
e
t
y
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Sp
e
e
d
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Vo
l
u
m
e
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Cu
t
-
th
r
o
u
g
h
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
C
o
s
t
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
Ca
m
p
a
i
g
n
Lo
w
c
o
s
t
.
Ca
n
b
e
r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
l
y
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
.
In
v
o
l
v
e
s
a
n
d
e
m
p
o
w
e
r
s
c
i
t
i
z
e
n
s
.
Ma
y
t
a
k
e
t
i
m
e
t
o
b
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
.
Ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
m
a
y
d
e
c
r
e
a
s
e
o
v
e
r
t
i
m
e
.
No
t
l
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
b
e
a
s
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
o
n
n
o
n
-
l
o
c
a
l
tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
Ca
n
b
e
t
i
m
e
c
o
n
s
u
m
i
n
g
.
(1
)
(
1
)
N
o
E
f
f
e
c
t
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
L
o
w
N
o
E
f
f
e
c
t
Pa
v
e
m
e
n
t
Ma
r
k
i
n
g
s
Re
m
a
i
n
s
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
o
n
o
c
c
a
s
i
o
n
a
l
u
s
e
r
s
.
De
l
i
n
e
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
a
n
d
bi
c
y
c
l
e
l
a
n
e
c
r
e
a
t
e
s
t
h
e
i
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
o
f
a
na
r
r
o
w
e
d
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
,
r
e
d
u
c
i
n
g
s
p
e
e
d
.
Di
s
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
s
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
f
r
o
m
d
r
i
v
i
n
g
i
n
o
r
al
o
n
g
t
h
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
a
n
e
.
Fe
w
e
r
l
a
n
e
c
o
n
f
l
i
c
t
s
.
Mo
r
e
d
e
f
i
n
e
d
d
r
i
v
i
n
g
p
a
t
t
e
r
n
s
,
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
a
c
c
i
d
e
n
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
,
pa
s
s
i
n
g
o
n
t
h
e
r
i
g
h
t
,
s
i
d
e
s
w
i
p
e
,
a
n
d
pa
r
k
e
d
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
v
a
r
i
e
t
y
.
Po
s
i
t
i
v
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
r
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
.
Ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
m
a
y
d
e
c
r
e
a
s
e
o
v
e
r
t
i
m
e
.
Ma
y
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
l
e
s
s
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
d
u
e
t
o
d
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
an
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
i
g
h
t
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
s
.
Th
e
u
s
e
o
f
r
a
i
s
e
d
b
u
t
t
o
n
s
a
s
s
t
r
i
p
i
n
g
m
a
y
in
t
e
r
f
e
r
e
w
i
t
h
s
n
o
w
r
e
m
o
v
a
l
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
.
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
c
o
s
t
s
f
o
r
s
t
r
i
p
i
n
g
in
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
r
e
-
s
t
r
i
p
i
n
g
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
(2
)
(
2
)
N
o
N
o
t
L
i
k
e
l
y
L
o
w
N
o
E
f
f
e
c
t
Po
l
i
c
e
En
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
Go
o
d
t
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
p
u
b
l
i
c
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
o
l
.
Se
r
v
e
s
t
o
i
n
f
o
r
m
p
u
b
l
i
c
t
h
a
t
s
p
e
e
d
i
n
g
i
s
un
d
e
s
i
r
a
b
l
e
b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
f
o
r
w
h
i
c
h
t
h
e
r
e
a
r
e
co
n
s
e
q
u
e
n
c
e
s
.
Ef
f
e
c
t
i
s
n
o
t
p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
.
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
e
x
p
e
n
s
i
v
e
.
Bu
d
g
e
t
a
n
d
m
a
n
p
o
w
e
r
c
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s
.
Ye
s
,
Te
m
p
o
r
a
r
i
l
y
Ye
s
,
Te
m
p
o
r
a
r
i
l
y
No
t
L
i
k
e
l
y
Y
e
s
,
Te
m
p
o
r
a
r
i
l
y
Me
d
i
u
m
to
H
i
g
h
No
E
f
f
e
c
t
Po
r
t
a
b
l
e
Ra
d
a
r
T
r
a
i
l
e
r
He
i
g
h
t
e
n
s
m
o
t
o
r
i
s
t
s
’
a
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
o
f
d
r
i
v
i
n
g
be
h
a
v
i
o
r
a
n
d
i
t
s
i
m
p
a
c
t
o
n
t
h
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
.
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
r
e
d
u
c
e
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
p
e
e
d
b
y
1
t
o
6
mp
h
i
n
t
h
e
v
i
c
i
n
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
s
i
g
n
.
Ma
y
t
a
k
e
t
i
m
e
t
o
b
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
.
Ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
m
a
y
d
e
c
r
e
a
s
e
o
v
e
r
t
i
m
e
.
St
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
r
a
d
a
r
s
i
g
n
s
m
u
s
t
b
e
n
e
a
r
po
w
e
r
s
o
u
r
c
e
.
Ye
s
,
Te
m
p
o
r
a
r
i
l
y
Ye
s
,
Te
m
p
o
r
a
r
i
l
y
No
Y
e
s
,
Te
m
p
o
r
a
r
i
l
y
Lo
w
t
o
Me
d
i
u
m
No
E
f
f
e
c
t
Ra
i
s
e
d
Pa
v
e
m
e
n
t
Ma
r
k
e
r
s
Re
l
a
t
i
v
e
l
y
i
n
e
x
p
e
n
s
i
v
e
t
o
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
.
Cr
e
a
t
e
s
d
r
i
v
e
r
a
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
.
Ma
y
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
p
e
e
d
s
.
Ma
y
a
d
v
e
r
s
e
l
y
i
m
p
a
c
t
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
.
Ra
i
s
e
d
p
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
m
a
r
k
e
r
s
a
r
e
n
o
i
s
y
b
y
de
s
i
g
n
,
t
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
f
r
o
n
t
o
f
re
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
c
a
r
e
f
u
l
l
y
(3
)
(3
)
N
o
t
L
i
k
e
l
y
N
o
t
L
i
k
e
l
y
M
e
d
i
u
m
to
H
i
g
h
No
E
f
f
e
c
t
Packet Page 287 of 487
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
D
i
s
a
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
Sa
f
e
t
y
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Sp
e
e
d
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Vo
l
u
m
e
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Cu
t
-
th
r
o
u
g
h
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
C
o
s
t
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
Se
r
v
i
c
e
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
.
Ma
y
i
n
t
e
r
f
e
r
e
w
i
t
h
s
n
o
w
r
e
m
o
v
a
l
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
.
Si
g
n
i
n
g
Ma
y
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
n
e
e
d
e
d
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
dr
i
v
e
r
t
h
a
t
w
a
s
n
o
t
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
a
l
r
e
a
d
y
o
n
th
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
.
Ty
p
i
c
a
l
l
y
s
a
f
e
t
y
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
l
o
n
g
r
u
n
wh
e
n
u
n
w
a
r
r
a
n
t
e
d
s
i
g
n
s
a
r
e
r
e
m
o
v
e
d
.
Re
m
o
v
a
l
o
f
t
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
s
t
o
p
s
i
g
n
s
i
s
o
f
t
e
n
ve
r
y
d
i
f
f
i
c
u
l
t
t
o
a
c
c
e
p
t
f
o
r
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
u
s
e
d
to
h
a
v
i
n
g
t
h
e
m
t
h
e
r
e
,
e
v
e
n
w
h
e
n
t
h
e
si
g
n
s
a
r
e
u
n
w
a
r
r
a
n
t
e
d
.
Ov
e
r
-
s
i
g
n
i
n
g
a
n
a
r
e
a
c
a
n
c
r
e
a
t
e
a
l
o
s
s
o
f
ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
.
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
c
o
s
t
s
.
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
N
o
t
L
i
k
e
l
y
N
o
t
L
i
k
e
l
y
L
o
w
N
o
E
f
f
e
c
t
Sp
e
e
d
W
a
t
c
h
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
Pr
o
m
o
t
e
s
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
ad
d
r
e
s
s
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
i
s
s
u
e
s
(
e
x
c
e
s
s
i
v
e
s
p
e
e
d
as
w
e
l
l
a
s
o
t
h
e
r
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
)
.
He
i
g
h
t
e
n
s
m
o
t
o
r
i
s
t
s
’
a
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
o
f
d
r
i
v
i
n
g
be
h
a
v
i
o
r
a
n
d
i
t
s
i
m
p
a
c
t
o
n
t
h
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
.
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
t
h
e
P
o
l
i
c
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
t
i
m
e
s
f
o
r
s
e
l
e
c
t
i
v
e
e
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
.
De
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
s
i
f
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
i
s
c
u
t
-
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
.
Ti
m
e
c
o
n
s
u
m
i
n
g
f
o
r
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
.
Ma
y
t
a
k
e
t
i
m
e
t
o
b
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
.
Ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
m
a
y
d
e
c
r
e
a
s
e
o
v
e
r
t
i
m
e
.
(4
)
(
4
)
N
o
Y
e
s
,
Te
m
p
o
r
a
r
i
l
y
Lo
w
N
o
E
f
f
e
c
t
(1
)
T
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
w
i
l
l
o
c
c
u
r
i
f
t
h
e
m
a
j
o
r
i
t
y
o
f
s
p
e
e
d
e
r
s
i
n
t
h
e
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
a
r
e
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
.
(2
)
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
l
l
d
e
p
e
n
d
o
n
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
r
o
a
d
a
n
d
t
h
e
t
y
p
e
o
f
s
t
r
i
p
i
n
g
.
T
h
i
s
w
i
l
l
h
a
v
e
t
o
b
e
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
o
n
a
c
a
s
e
-
b
y
-
c
a
s
e
b
a
si
s
.
(3
)
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
l
l
d
e
p
e
n
d
o
n
h
o
w
d
e
v
i
c
e
i
s
u
s
e
d
.
(4
)
T
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
w
h
e
n
a
l
l
o
f
t
h
e
s
p
e
e
d
e
r
s
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
l
e
t
t
e
r
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
P
o
l
i
c
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
.
Packet Page 288 of 487
Packet Page 289 of 487
Phase 3 – Installation of Traffic Calming Devices
Phase 3 of the program involves modifying the physical geometry of the roadway to install traffic
calming devices. Traffic calming devices are much more expensive and more restrictive to local
traffic than the education and enforcement solutions in Phase 2. Because of this, traffic calming
devices require a much greater level of resident involvement and agreement for implementation.
Phase 3 consists of the following steps:
City Staff Review
If the petition qualifies for a traffic calming device, City staff will conduct a preliminary review
with the following tasks.
City staff will score the petition by using the Scoring Criteria shown in Table 2. Because
traffic calming devices are much more expensive to implement than Phase 2 solutions, the
City will use the score to decide the priority to fund a traffic calming device. Applications
will be processed in order of priority, in accordance with available funding.
City staff will identify the technical feasibility and constraints of potential traffic calming
devices. The following are technical aspects that will be considered when reviewing the
proposed placement of a traffic calming device:
Traffic rerouting. It must be assured that the problem will not shift to adjacent streets.
Adequate provisions should be made for buses (school, metro, para-transit), garbage
collection, moving vans, construction equipment, pedestrians, and bicyclists, where
traffic calming devices are installed.
Emergency response times and the need to move vehicles through the area should be
considered. The cumulative effect of traffic calming devices on emergency vehicle
response times should also be considered.
Drainage. It must be assured that devices will allow adequate drainage.
If curbs and gutters are not present, the design of individual devices may need to be
modified to restrict drivers from using the shoulders to avoid the devices.
Proximity to other traffic calming devices and intersections.
Roadway surface conditions. Traffic calming devices should be installed on paved
roadways with good surface conditions.
Roadway grade. Some traffic calming devices should not be used on grades exceeding
8%.
Effect of the devices on street sweeping and other maintenance activities.
Potential loss of on-street parking.
Potential increase in noise levels due to the device.
Potential changes to community character.
Sight distance obstructions related to landscaping, fences, roadway alignment, grade, etc.
Packet Page 290 of 487
Potential impact to residential driveways.
City staff will define the study area to ensure it includes all residents that could be affected by
a traffic calming device.
Table 2. Scoring Criteria for Traffic Calming Devices
Criterion Points
Average Weekday Daily Traffic (AWDT)
500 – 1,000 vehicles/day 1
1,001 – 2,000 vehicles/day 2
2,001 – 3,000 vehicles/day 3
Traffic Speed (85th Percentile)
5.1 – 8.0 mph above posted limit 2
8.1 – 10.0 mph above posted limit 4
More than 10 mph above posted limit 6
Cut-Through Traffic
25% - 49% of AWDT 1
50% - 74% of AWDT 2
More than 74% of AWDT 3
Accident History of Past 3 Years
1 accident/year 3
2 accidents/year 4
3 accidents/year 5
More than 3 accidents/year 7
Parks / Schools
Greater than 6 blocks 1
Between 3 and 6 blocks 2
Within 3 blocks 3
Street Conditions
Sidewalks on both sides of street 1
Sidewalks on one side of street 2
No Sidewalks 3
Packet Page 291 of 487
Development of Traffic Calming Solutions
City staff will hold a public meeting for all residents within the study area. In conjunction with
neighborhood volunteers, City staff will organize the meeting and ensure the neighborhood
residents are notified of the meeting. The meeting may include following discussions.
Review the effectiveness of Phase 2 solutions.
Discuss the funding and priority of the application among other traffic calming applications
within the City.
Discuss possible traffic calming devices and advantages, disadvantages, and special concerns
of these devices.
Discuss the entire process for Phase 3 implementation.
Establish workgroups to allow residents to work out the solutions with the help of City staff.
Include the Fire and Police Departments to discuss possible reduction in response times with
traffic calming devices, cumulative effect with existing devices, and other issues relating to
specific concerns of the neighborhood layout.
The workgroups will discuss the problems and alternative solutions with their neighbors and
report their findings to the rest of the group and City staff. The City staff will evaluate technical
feasibility of the traffic calming devices that are selected by the neighborhood workgroups. The
City staff will then determine the preferred traffic calming device with the approval from the Fire
and Police Departments.
Table 3 provides a comparison of advantages, disadvantages, and effectiveness of potential traffic
calming devices.
Approval for Preferred Device
When a preferred traffic calming device is selected, the City staff will send out a voting sheet to
each of the affected residents. For a traffic calming device to be implemented, 60% of the
households, based on returned ballots, must approve the installation of the proposed traffic
calming device.
Installation of Traffic Calming Device
Once funding is available for the application, the City will begin the design and construction of
the approved traffic calming device. Tasks before the construction of the device are discussed
below.
Baseline Data Collection
Before the installation of the device, City staff will collect baseline traffic data within the study
area for future comparison and effectiveness evaluation. This traffic data will be used to evaluate
whether traffic shifted from the subject street to adjacent streets and to what extent the traffic
Packet Page 292 of 487
shifted after a device was installed. The baseline data will also be used to evaluate the
effectiveness of a device by comparison to future traffic data.
Installation of Temporary Device
A temporary device may be installed for traffic calming measures, such as diverter, full closure,
and partial closure. If appropriate, the City will install a temporary device for up to 6 months to
provide a trial period.
If proposed by the City, the City will evaluate the effectiveness of the device and examine
whether traffic shifted from the subject street to adjacent local streets. If more than 150 vehicles
per day have been added to an adjacent street as a result of the traffic calming device, the City
may modify the traffic calming solution.
Maintenance of Landscaping
Landscaping can be included in the installation of some traffic calming devices. However,
neighborhood volunteers must sign up to maintain the landscaping. Otherwise, decorative paving
will be used. In some areas of the City, landscaping is provided through the flower program.
Evaluation
If proposed by the City, 6 to 12 months after the traffic calming device has been installed, City
staff will collect traffic data on surrounding streets to ensure the device did not shift traffic from
the subject street to adjacent local access streets.
Packet Page 293 of 487
Ta
b
l
e
3
.
C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
o
f
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
h
a
s
e
3
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
C
a
l
m
i
n
g
D
e
v
i
c
e
s
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
D
i
s
a
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
Sa
f
e
t
y
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Sp
e
e
d
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Vo
l
u
m
e
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Cu
t
-
th
r
o
u
g
h
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
C
o
s
t
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Bu
l
b
-
O
u
t
s
Re
d
u
c
e
s
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
’
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
di
s
t
a
n
c
e
.
Na
r
r
o
w
e
d
l
a
n
e
s
c
a
n
s
l
o
w
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
.
Ma
y
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
i
g
h
t
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
a
t
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
Ma
y
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
r
e
m
o
v
a
l
o
f
s
o
m
e
o
n
-
s
t
r
e
e
t
pa
r
k
i
n
g
.
Ma
y
l
i
m
i
t
m
a
r
k
e
d
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
l
a
n
e
s
.
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
,
st
r
e
e
t
s
w
e
e
p
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
c
u
r
b
r
e
p
a
i
r
.
Ma
y
l
i
m
i
t
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
n
e
w
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
r
o
u
t
i
n
g
o
p
t
i
o
n
s
.
Ye
s
Y
e
s
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
M
e
d
i
u
m
to
H
i
g
h
No
E
f
f
e
c
t
Di
v
e
r
t
e
r
El
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
s
c
u
t
-
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
.
Re
d
u
c
e
c
o
n
f
l
i
c
t
s
a
t
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
r
e
a
f
o
r
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
.
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
a
f
e
t
y
.
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
a
n
d
b
i
k
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
c
a
n
b
e
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
.
Ma
y
r
e
d
i
r
e
c
t
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
o
n
t
o
o
t
h
e
r
l
o
c
a
l
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
.
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
t
r
a
v
e
l
t
i
m
e
f
o
r
l
o
c
a
l
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
.
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
i
n
v
o
l
u
m
e
m
a
y
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
p
e
e
d
s
.
Re
d
u
c
e
s
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
’
a
c
c
e
s
s
u
n
l
e
s
s
sp
e
c
i
a
l
l
y
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
.
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
c
o
s
t
s
f
o
r
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
.
Ye
s
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
Y
e
s
Y
e
s
M
e
d
i
u
m
to
H
i
g
h
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
Pr
o
b
l
e
m
s
Fu
l
l
C
l
o
s
u
r
e
El
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
s
c
u
t
-
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
.
Ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
v
o
l
u
m
e
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
.
Im
p
r
o
v
e
s
a
e
s
t
h
e
t
i
c
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
st
r
e
e
t
.
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
a
n
d
b
i
k
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
c
a
n
b
e
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
.
Im
p
r
o
v
e
s
s
a
f
e
t
y
f
o
r
a
l
l
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
us
e
r
s
.
Ma
y
r
e
d
i
r
e
c
t
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
t
o
o
t
h
e
r
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
.
Ma
y
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
r
i
p
l
e
n
g
t
h
f
o
r
l
o
c
a
l
d
r
i
v
e
r
s
.
No
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
re
s
p
o
n
s
e
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
r
o
u
t
e
s
.
Ma
y
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
d
i
f
f
i
c
u
l
t
t
u
r
n
a
r
o
u
n
d
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
c
o
s
t
s
f
o
r
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
.
Ye
s
Y
e
s
Y
e
s
Y
e
s
L
o
w
t
o
Me
d
i
u
m
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
Pr
o
b
l
e
m
s
Me
d
i
a
n
s
Na
r
r
o
w
e
d
l
a
n
e
s
c
a
n
s
l
o
w
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
.
Pr
e
v
e
n
t
s
p
a
s
s
i
n
g
.
Op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
f
o
r
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
a
n
d
vi
s
u
a
l
e
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
.
Se
p
a
r
a
t
e
s
o
p
p
o
s
i
n
g
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
.
Ma
y
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
i
g
h
t
l
i
n
e
s
i
f
o
v
e
r
-
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
d
.
Ma
y
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
r
e
m
o
v
a
l
o
f
s
o
m
e
o
n
-
s
t
r
e
e
t
pa
r
k
i
n
g
.
Ma
y
p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
o
r
l
i
m
i
t
d
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
a
c
c
e
s
s
.
Ma
y
a
f
f
e
c
t
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
d
u
r
i
n
g
in
c
l
e
m
e
n
t
w
e
a
t
h
e
r
,
i
f
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
o
n
a
g
r
a
d
e
.
Ma
y
l
i
m
i
t
m
a
r
k
e
d
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
l
a
n
e
s
.
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
,
st
r
e
e
t
s
w
e
e
p
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
c
u
r
b
r
e
p
a
i
r
.
Sl
i
g
h
t
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
S
l
i
g
h
t
S
l
i
g
h
t
M
e
d
i
u
m
to
H
i
g
h
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
Pr
o
b
l
e
m
s
Packet Page 294 of 487
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
A
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
D
i
s
a
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
Sa
f
e
t
y
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Sp
e
e
d
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Vo
l
u
m
e
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Cu
t
-
th
r
o
u
g
h
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
C
o
s
t
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Pa
r
t
i
a
l
Cl
o
s
u
r
e
Re
d
u
c
e
s
c
u
t
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
.
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
re
d
u
c
e
d
.
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
.
Ma
y
a
f
f
e
c
t
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
.
Ma
y
r
e
d
i
r
e
c
t
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
o
n
t
o
o
t
h
e
r
l
o
c
a
l
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
.
Ma
y
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
r
i
p
l
e
n
g
t
h
f
o
r
l
o
c
a
l
d
r
i
v
e
r
s
.
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
i
f
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
d
.
Ye
s
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
Y
e
s
Y
e
s
L
o
w
t
o
Me
d
i
u
m
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
Pr
o
b
l
e
m
s
Sp
e
e
d
Cu
s
h
i
o
n
s
Re
d
u
c
e
s
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
p
e
e
d
s
i
n
t
h
e
vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
o
f
s
p
e
e
d
c
u
s
h
i
o
n
.
.
Se
l
f
-
e
n
f
o
r
c
i
n
g
.
Re
l
a
t
i
v
e
l
y
i
n
e
x
p
e
n
s
i
v
e
.
Ma
y
d
i
v
e
r
t
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
i
f
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
a
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
st
r
e
e
t
e
x
i
s
t
s
.
Ma
y
c
r
e
a
t
e
n
o
i
s
e
.
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
s
i
g
n
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
c
o
s
t
s
.
Ma
y
c
a
u
s
e
d
i
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
o
f
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
t
o
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
l
o
c
a
l
st
r
e
e
t
s
.
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
Y
e
s
Y
e
s
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
L
o
w
t
o
Me
d
i
u
m
Le
s
s
E
f
f
e
c
t
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
Ci
r
c
l
e
s
Sp
e
e
d
r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
n
e
a
r
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
Ma
y
d
i
v
e
r
t
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
i
f
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
a
n
ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
t
r
e
e
t
e
x
i
s
t
s
.
Op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
f
o
r
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
a
n
d
be
a
u
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
Ma
y
r
e
d
u
c
e
c
o
l
l
i
s
i
o
n
s
a
t
t
h
e
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
Ma
y
a
f
f
e
c
t
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
.
Ma
y
c
a
u
s
e
d
i
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
o
f
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
t
o
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
l
o
c
a
l
st
r
e
e
t
s
.
Ma
y
a
f
f
e
c
t
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
.
So
m
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
o
s
s
o
f
o
n
-
s
t
r
e
e
t
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
a
t
co
r
n
e
r
s
.
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
,
st
r
e
e
t
s
w
e
e
p
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
c
u
r
b
r
e
p
a
i
r
.
Ye
s
Y
e
s
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
L
o
w
t
o
Hi
g
h
Mi
n
o
r
Co
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s
No
t
e
:
S
p
e
e
d
h
u
m
p
s
a
n
d
c
h
i
c
a
n
e
s
a
r
e
n
o
t
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
a
s
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
c
a
l
m
i
n
g
d
e
v
i
c
e
s
i
n
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
a
s
t
h
e
y
c
a
u
s
e
a
d
d
e
d
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
d
e
l
a
y
t
i
m
e
d
u
r
i
n
g
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
y
a
r
e
d
i
f
f
i
c
u
l
t
t
o
m
a
n
e
u
v
e
r
a
r
o
u
n
d
.
Packet Page 295 of 487
Removal of a Traffic Calming Device
If the device is determined to be a safety issue, the device will be removed immediately by the City at no
cost to the residents. If the device is determined to be ineffective, it may be removed by the City if it
conflicts with the installation of future traffic control devices at no cost to the residents. However, if
residents wish to remove a traffic calming device after it is installed following the steps of this program,
residents shall be petitioned for 60% agreement, and residents shall pay for the removal.
Packet Page 296 of 487
Appendix C
ADA Ramp Inventory and Upgrade Priority
Packet Page 297 of 487
Packet Page 298 of 487
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
,
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
AD
A
R
a
m
p
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
Cr
i
t
.
2
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
3
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
4
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
5
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
6
ID
N
o
.
I
N
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
C
O
R
N
E
R
(
S
)
S
t
r
e
e
t
A
C
l
a
s
s
.
1
S
t
r
e
e
t
B
C
l
a
s
s
1
C
o
m
m
.
C
e
n
t
e
r
&
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
S
e
n
i
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
H
o
s
p
i
t
a
l
B
R
T
/
R
a
i
l
/
F
e
r
r
y
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
R
o
u
t
e
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
S
c
h
o
o
l
S
c
h
o
o
l
N
e
a
r
b
y
C
i
t
y
H
a
l
l
/
P
o
l
i
c
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
C
o
m
m
.
Z
o
n
e
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
P
a
r
k
P
a
r
k
N
e
a
r
b
y
N
o
R
a
m
p
S
u
b
-
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
R
a
m
p
S
u
b
-
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
A
s
p
h
a
l
t
R
a
m
p
N
e
w
R
a
m
p
,
W
i
t
h
o
u
t
D
o
m
e
s
A
s
p
h
a
l
t
R
a
m
p
,
N
o
D
o
m
e
s
N
e
w
R
a
m
p
,
W
i
t
h
D
o
m
e
s
D
O
W
N
T
O
W
N
E
D
M
O
N
D
S
3
AD
A
1
8
8
Ma
i
n
&
S
u
n
s
e
t
A
L
L
12
X
X
X
AD
A
1
9
0
D
a
y
t
o
n
&
S
u
n
s
e
t
A
L
L
13
X
X
X
AD
A
2
7
9
SR
-
1
0
4
&
D
a
y
t
o
n
D
U
P
L
I
C
A
T
E
13
X
X
X
AD
A
1
0
9
3
r
d
&
M
a
i
n
A
L
L
22
X
X
X
AD
A
1
8
6
M
a
i
n
&
3
r
d
D
U
P
L
I
C
A
T
E
22
X
X
X
AD
A
1
5t
h
&
M
a
i
n
A
L
L
22
X
X
X
AD
A
2
5t
h
&
D
a
y to
n
2
AL
L
23
X
X
X
X
AD
A
1
8
3
M
a
i
n
&
D
u
r
b
i
n
A
L
L
24
X
X
X
X
X
AD
A
1
8
4
M
a
i
n
&
6
t
h
A
L
L
24
X
X
X
X
AD
A
1
0
6
3
r
d
&
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
A
L
L
24
X
X
X
AD
A
1
1
0
3
r
d
&
J
a
m
e
s
A
L
L
24
X
X
X
AD
A
1
0
8
3
r
d
&
B
e
l
l
N
W
,
S
E
,
S
W
24
X
X
X
AD
A
1
0
7
3
r
d
&
B
e
l
l
N
E
24
X
X
X
AD
A
1
8
5
M
a
i
n
&
4
t
h
A
L
L
24
X
X
AD
A
1
8
7
M
a
i
n
&
2
n
d
A
L
L
24
X
X
AD
A
1
1
1
3
r
d
&
D
a
y
t
o
n
A
L
L
33
X
X
X
AD
A
1
9
2
D
a
y
t
o
n
&
3
r
d
D
U
P
L
I
C
A
T
E
33
X
X
X
AD
A
1
8
9
D
a
y
t
o
n
&
R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
N
W
,
N
E
34
X
X
X
X
X
AD
A
2
7
5
Da
y
t
o
n
&
R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
D
U
P
L
I
C
A
T
E
34
X
X
X
X
X
AD
A
1
9
1
D
a
y
t
o
n
&
2
n
d
A
L
L
34
X
X
X
AD
A
1
9
3
D
a
y
t
o
n
&
4
t
h
A
L
L
34
X
X
X
AD
A
1
9
5
D
a
y
t
o
n
&
6
t
h
S
E
,
S
W
,
N
E
34
X
X
X
AD
A
1
9
4
D
a
y
t
o
n
&
6
t
h
N
W
34
X
X
X
AD
A
1
9
9
B
e
l
l
&
6
t
h
A
L
L
44
X
X
X
X
AD
A
1
9
8
B
e
l
l
&
5
t
h
A
L
L
44
X
X
X
AD
A
2
7
3
2n
d
&
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
S
E
,
S
W
44
X
X
AD
A
2
7
4
2n
d
&
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
N
E
,
N
W
44
X
X
AD
A
1
9
7
B
e
l
l
&
2
n
d
A
L
L
44
X
X
AD
A
2
0
2
B
e
l
l
&
S
u
n
s
e
t
S
E
44
X
X
AD
A
2
6
5
4
t
h
&
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
A
L
L
44
X
X
AD
A
2
7
2
2
n
d
&
J
a
m
e
s
S
E
,
N
W
44
X
X
AD
A
2
7
1
2
n
d
&
J
a
m
e
s
N
E
,
S
W
44
X
X
AD
A
2
6
3
4
t
h
&
B
e
l
l
S
W
,
N
E
,
S
E
44
X
X
AD
A
2
6
4
4t
h
&
B
e
l
l
N
W
44
X
X
D
O
W
N
T
O
W
N
E
D
M
O
N
D
S
3
Se
e
P
a
g
e
1
2
f
o
r
N
o
t
e
s
1
-
3
K:
\
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
\
3
1
1
0
0
\
3
1
1
6
1
\
D
a
t
a
\
R
a
m
p
s
\
R
a
m
p
-
2
0
0
9
_
0
2
2
4
.
x
l
s
Sh
e
e
t
1
Pa
g
e
1
o
f
1
2
Ot
a
k
,
I
n
c
.
Pr
i
n
t
e
d
:
4
/
2
4
/
2
0
0
9
Packet Page 299 of 487
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
,
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
AD
A
R
a
m
p
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
Cr
i
t
.
2
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
3
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
4
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
5
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
6
ID
N
o
.
I
N
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
C
O
R
N
E
R
(
S
)
S
t
r
e
e
t
A
C
l
a
s
s
.
1
S
t
r
e
e
t
B
C
l
a
s
s
1
C
o
m
m
.
C
e
n
t
e
r
&
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
S
e
n
i
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
H
o
s
p
i
t
a
l
B
R
T
/
R
a
i
l
/
F
e
r
r
y
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
R
o
u
t
e
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
S
c
h
o
o
l
S
c
h
o
o
l
N
e
a
r
b
y
C
i
t
y
H
a
l
l
/
P
o
l
i
c
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
C
o
m
m
.
Z
o
n
e
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
P
a
r
k
P
a
r
k
N
e
a
r
b
y
N
o
R
a
m
p
S
u
b
-
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
R
a
m
p
S
u
b
-
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
A
s
p
h
a
l
t
R
a
m
p
N
e
w
R
a
m
p
,
W
i
t
h
o
u
t
D
o
m
e
s
A
s
p
h
a
l
t
R
a
m
p
,
N
o
D
o
m
e
s
N
e
w
R
a
m
p
,
W
i
t
h
D
o
m
e
s
AD
A
3
0
5
SR
-
9
9
&
2
4
4
t
h
N
W
,
N
E
11
X
X
X
AD
A
2
8
3
SR
-
1
0
4
&
9
t
h
A
v
e
/
1
0
0
t
h
A
L
L
12
X
X
X
X
AD
A
2
9
4
SR
-
9
9
&
2
1
2
n
d
N
W
,
S
W
12
X
X
X
AD
A
2
9
7
SR
-
9
9
&
2
2
0
t
h
N
W
,
N
E
12
X
X
X
AD
A
2
9
6
SR
-
9
9
&
2
2
0
t
h
S
W
12
X
X
X
AD
A
3
0
3
SR
-
9
9
&
2
3
8
t
h
A
L
L
12
X
X
X
AD
A
2
9
3
SR
-
9
9
&
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
W
2
AL
L
12
X
X
X
AD
A
7
1
76
t
h
&
1
9
6
t
h
A
L
L
12
X
X
AD
A
2
8
8
SR
-
1
0
4
&
2
3
8
t
h
A
L
L
12
X
X
AD
A
2
9
9
SR
-
9
9
&
2
2
8
t
h
A
L
L
13
X
X
X
AD
A
2
8
4
SR
-
1
0
4
&
9
5
t
h
N
W
,
N
E
13
X
X
AD
A
2
8
7
SR
-
1
0
4
&
2
3
6
t
h
A
L
L
1
4
X
X
X
X
AD
A
2
8
2
SR
-
1
0
4
&
1
0
2
n
d
A
L
L
14
X
X
X
X
AD
A
2
8
1
SR
-
1
0
4
&
2
2
6
t
h
A
L
L
14
X
X
X
AD
A
2
8
5
SR
-
1
0
4
&
9
7
t
h
S
W
,
S
W
14
X
X
X
AD
A
2
9
5
SR
-
9
9
&
2
1
6
t
h
N
W
,
S
W
14
X
X
X
AD
A
2
9
8
SR
-
9
9
&
2
2
4
t
h
A
L
L
14
X
X
X
AD
A
3
0
2
SR
-
9
9
&
2
3
6
t
h
A
L
L
14
X
X
X
AD
A
3
0
4
SR
-
9
9
&
2
4
0
t
h
N
W
,
N
E
14
X
X
X
AD
A
3
0
0
SR
-
9
9
&
2
3
2
n
d
N
W
,
N
E
,
S
W
14
X
X
X
AD
A
3
0
1
SR
-
9
9
&
2
3
2
n
d
S
E
14
X
X
X
AD
A
2
8
0
SR
-
1
0
4
&
P
a
r
a
d
i
s
e
L
a
n
e
N
W
,
N
E
14
X
X
AD
A
2
8
6
SR
-
1
0
4
&
2
3
2
n
d
A
L
L
14
X
X
AD
A
2
9
0
SR
-
1
0
4
&
2
4
0
t
h
N
W
,
S
W
14
X
AD
A
2
8
9
SR
-
1
0
4
&
2
4
0
t
h
N
E
,
S
E
1
4
X
P
R
I
N
C
I
P
A
L
A
R
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
Se
e
P
a
g
e
1
2
f
o
r
N
o
t
e
s
1
-
3
K:
\
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
\
3
1
1
0
0
\
3
1
1
6
1
\
D
a
t
a
\
R
a
m
p
s
\
R
a
m
p
-
2
0
0
9
_
0
2
2
4
.
x
l
s
Sh
e
e
t
1
Pa
g
e
2
o
f
1
2
Ot
a
k
,
I
n
c
.
Pr
i
n
t
e
d
:
4
/
2
4
/
2
0
0
9
Packet Page 300 of 487
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
,
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
AD
A
R
a
m
p
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
Cr
i
t
.
2
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
3
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
4
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
5
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
6
ID
N
o
.
I
N
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
C
O
R
N
E
R
(
S
)
S
t
r
e
e
t
A
C
l
a
s
s
.
1
S
t
r
e
e
t
B
C
l
a
s
s
1
C
o
m
m
.
C
e
n
t
e
r
&
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
S
e
n
i
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
H
o
s
p
i
t
a
l
B
R
T
/
R
a
i
l
/
F
e
r
r
y
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
R
o
u
t
e
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
S
c
h
o
o
l
S
c
h
o
o
l
N
e
a
r
b
y
C
i
t
y
H
a
l
l
/
P
o
l
i
c
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
C
o
m
m
.
Z
o
n
e
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
P
a
r
k
P
a
r
k
N
e
a
r
b
y
N
o
R
a
m
p
S
u
b
-
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
R
a
m
p
S
u
b
-
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
A
s
p
h
a
l
t
R
a
m
p
N
e
w
R
a
m
p
,
W
i
t
h
o
u
t
D
o
m
e
s
A
s
p
h
a
l
t
R
a
m
p
,
N
o
D
o
m
e
s
N
e
w
R
a
m
p
,
W
i
t
h
D
o
m
e
s
AD
A
1
6
5
21
2
t
h
&
7
6
t
h
AL
L
2
2
XX
X
X
X
AD
A
5
7
21
2
t
h
&
7
6
t
h
DU
P
L
I
C
A
T
E
2
2
XX
X
X
X
AD
A
4
9
76
t
h
&
2
2
8
t
h
NE
,
S
E
22
X
X
X
AD
A
9
5
19
6
t
h
&
O
l
y m p ic
4
SE
,
S
W
22
X
X
X
X
AD
A
9
4
19
6
t
h
&
O
l
y m p ic
2
NE
,
N
W
22
X
X
X
X
AD
A
3
6
22
0
t
h
&
7
6
t
h
S
E
,
S
W
22
X
X
X
AD
A
3
5
22
0
t
h
&
7
6
t
h
N
E
,
N
W
22
X
X
X
AD
A
1
7
9
M
a
i
n
&
9
t
h
A
L
L
22
X
X
X
AD
A
1
0
1
3r
d
&
C
a
s
p er
s
2
NW
,
S
W
22
X
X
AD
A
1
7
22
0
t
h
&
9
t
h
A
L
L
22
X
X
AD
A
1
3
4
2
2
0
t
h
&
9
t
h
D
U
P
L
I
C
A
T
E
22
X
X
AD
A
7
7
76
t
h
&
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
N
W
,
S
E
22
X
X
X
AD
A
7
8
7
6
t
h
&
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
S
W
22
X
X
X
AD
A
7
9
7
6
t
h
&
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
N
E
22
X
X
X
AD
A
1
8
2
M
a
i
n
&
7
t
h
S
W
,
N
W
,
N
E
23
X
X
X
X
AD
A
1
8
1
M
a
i
n
&
7
t
h
S
E
23
X
X
X
X
AD
A
9
6
19
6
t
h
&
O
l
y m p ic
V
i
e
w
D
r
2
SW
,
N
E
,
N
W
2
3
X
X
X
X
X
AD
A
6
0
76
t
h
&
2
0
8
t
h
S
W
,
N
W
,
N
E
2
3
X
X
X
X
AD
A
2
1
22
0
t
h
&
9
6
t
h
A
L
L
2
3
X
X
X
X
AD
A
9
7
19
6
t
h
&
9
t
h
2
AL
L
23
X
X
X
X
AD
A
6
8
76
t
h
&
2
0
0
t
h
A
L
L
23
X
X
X
AD
A
2
2
22
0
t
h
&
9
5
t
h
A
L
L
23
X
X
X
AD
A
2
9
22
0
t
h
&
8
4
t
h
A
L
L
23
X
X
X
AD
A
9
0
1
9
6
t
h
&
8
8
t
h
N
W
,
S
E
23
X
X
X
AD
A
1
7
1
5
C
o
r
n
e
r
s
A
L
L
23
X
X
X
AD
A
1
9
6
D
a
y
t
o
n
&
9
t
h
A
L
L
23
X
X
X
AD
A
1
7
6
M
a
i
n
&
M
a
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
A
L
L
23
X
X
X
AD
A
9
1
1
9
6
t
h
&
8
8
t
h
N
E
23
X
X
X
AD
A
1
1
8
9
t
h
&
D
a
y
t
o
n
A
L
L
23
X
AD
A
1
2
1
9
t
h
&
W
a
l
n
u
t
A
L
L
23
X
AD
A
8
5
1
9
6
t
h
&
8
0
t
h
A
L
L
23
X
AD
A
1
8
0
M
a
i
n
&
8
t
h
A
L
L
24
X
X
X
X
X
AD
A
5
5
76
t
h
&
2
1
6
t
h
A
L
L
2
4
X
X
X
X
X
AD
A
5
4
76
t
h
&
2
1
8
t
h
A
L
L
24
X
X
X
X
X
AD
A
6
1
76
t
h
&
2
0
6
t
h
N
E
,
N
W
2
4
X
X
X
X
AD
A
6
2
76
t
h
&
2
0
4
t
h
A
L
L
2
4
X
X
X
X
A DA
1
4
4
10
0
t
h
&
2
3
2
n
d
N
E
,
S
E
24
X
X
X
X
AD
A
1
4
5
1
0
0
t
h
&
2
3
4
t
h
AL
L
2
4
XX
X
X
AD
A
1
6
6
21
2
t
h
&
7
7
t
h
AL
L
24
X
X
X
X
M
I
N
O
R
A
R
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
Se
e
P
a
g
e
1
2
f
o
r
N
o
t
e
s
1
-
3
K:
\
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
\
3
1
1
0
0
\
3
1
1
6
1
\
D
a
t
a
\
R
a
m
p
s
\
R
a
m
p
-
2
0
0
9
_
0
2
2
4
.
x
l
s
Sh
e
e
t
1
Pa
g
e
3
o
f
1
2
Ot
a
k
,
I
n
c
.
Pr
i
n
t
e
d
:
4
/
2
4
/
2
0
0
9
Packet Page 301 of 487
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
,
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
AD
A
R
a
m
p
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
Cr
i
t
.
2
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
3
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
4
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
5
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
6
ID
N
o
.
I
N
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
C
O
R
N
E
R
(
S
)
S
t
r
e
e
t
A
C
l
a
s
s
.
1
S
t
r
e
e
t
B
C
l
a
s
s
1
C
o
m
m
.
C
e
n
t
e
r
&
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
S
e
n
i
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
H
o
s
p
i
t
a
l
B
R
T
/
R
a
i
l
/
F
e
r
r
y
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
R
o
u
t
e
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
S
c
h
o
o
l
S
c
h
o
o
l
N
e
a
r
b
y
C
i
t
y
H
a
l
l
/
P
o
l
i
c
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
C
o
m
m
.
Z
o
n
e
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
P
a
r
k
P
a
r
k
N
e
a
r
b
y
N
o
R
a
m
p
S
u
b
-
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
R
a
m
p
S
u
b
-
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
A
s
p
h
a
l
t
R
a
m
p
N
e
w
R
a
m
p
,
W
i
t
h
o
u
t
D
o
m
e
s
A
s
p
h
a
l
t
R
a
m
p
,
N
o
D
o
m
e
s
N
e
w
R
a
m
p
,
W
i
t
h
D
o
m
e
s
AD
A
1
6
7
21
2
t
h
&
7
8
t
h
N
W
,
N
E
2
4
X
X
X
X
AD
A
5
6
76
t
h
&
2
1
4
t
h
N
E
,
S
E
2
4
X
X
X
X
AD
A
1
6
3
2
1
2
t
h
&
7
2
n
d
A
L
L
24
X
X
X
X
AD
A
1
6
4
21
2
t
h
&
7
4
t
h
N
W
,
N
E
24
X
X
X
X
AD
A
9
2
1
9
6
t
h
&
1
2
t
h
S
W
,
S
E
24
X
X
X
X
AD
A
9
3
1
9
6
t
h
&
1
1
t
h
S
W
,
S
E
24
X
X
X
X
AD
A
1
9
22
0
t
h
&
9
8
t
h
P
l
a
c
e
W
S
W
,
S
W
24
X
X
X
AD
A
2
0
22
0
t
h
&
9
8
t
h
A
v
e
W
A
L
L
24
X
X
X
AD
A
1
4
1
9t
h
&
P
u
g et
W
a
y
2
AL
L
24
X
X
X
X
AD
A
1
4
6
1
0
0
t
h
&
2
3
5
t
h
N
E
,
S
E
24
X
X
X
AD
A
6
3
76
t
h
&
2
0
3
r
d
N
W
,
S
W
24
X
X
X
AD
A
6
5
76
t
h
&
2
0
2
n
d
N
E
,
S
E
24
X
X
X
AD
A
6
4
76
t
h
&
2
0
2
n
d
N
W
,
S
W
24
X
X
X
AD
A
5
9
76
t
h
&
2
1
0
t
h
S
E
24
X
X
X
AD
A
5
8
76
t
h
&
2
1
0
t
h
N
E
24
X
X
X
AD
A
6
7
76
t
h
&
2
0
1
s
t
N
E
,
S
E
24
X
X
X
AD
A
6
6
76
t
h
&
2
0
1
s
t
N
W
,
S
W
24
X
X
X
AD
A
1
6
8
2
1
2
t
h
&
8
0
t
h
A
L
L
24
X
X
X
AD
A
1
6
9
2
1
2
t
h
&
8
1
s
t
N
W
,
N
E
24
X
X
X
AD
A
2
3
22
0
t
h
&
9
3
r
d
A
L
L
24
X
X
X
AD
A
1
4
7
1
0
0
t
h
&
2
3
7
t
h
N
E
,
S
E
24
X
X
AD
A
3
9
76
t
h
&
2
4
2
n
d
N
E
24
X
X
X
X
AD
A
3
8
76
t
h
&
2
4
2
n
d
S
E
24
X
X
X
X
AD
A
3
7
76
t
h
&
2
4
2
n
d
N
W
,
S
W
24
X
X
X
X
AD
A
1
7
7
M
a
i
n
&
1
2
t
h
A
L
L
24
X
X
X
X
AD
A
1
7
8
M
a
i
n
&
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
A
L
L
24
X
X
X
X
AD
A
1
1
5t
h
&
H
o
m
e
l
a
n
d
A
L
L
24
X
X
X
AD
A
5
2
76
t
h
&
2
2
2
t
h
N
W
,
S
W
24
X
X
X
AD
A
5
3
76
t
h
&
2
2
1
s
t
N
E
,
S
E
24
X
X
X
AD
A
4
0
76
t
h
&
2
4
1
s
t
A
L
L
24
X
X
X
A DA
4
2
76
t
h
&
M
c
A
l
e
e
r
N
E
,
S
E
24
X
X
X
AD
A
3
5t
h
&
M
a
p
l
e
N
E
,
S
E
,
N
W
24
X
X
X
AD
A
4
5t
h
&
A
l
d
e
r
N
E
,
S
E
24
X
X
X
AD
A
1
0
5t
h
&
H
o
w
e
l
l
W
a
y
A
L
L
24
X
X
X
AD
A
1
2
5t
h
&
H
e
m
l
o
c
k
W
a
y
A
L
L
24
X
X
X
AD
A
5
0
76
t
h
&
2
2
4
t
h
A
L
L
24
X
X
X
AD
A
5
1
76
t
h
&
2
2
3
r
d
N
W
,
S
W
24
X
X
X
AD
A
1
0
4
3r
d
&
4
t
h
N
E
,
S
E
24
X
X
X
M
I
N
O
R
A
R
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
Se
e
P
a
g
e
1
2
f
o
r
N
o
t
e
s
1
-
3
K:
\
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
\
3
1
1
0
0
\
3
1
1
6
1
\
D
a
t
a
\
R
a
m
p
s
\
R
a
m
p
-
2
0
0
9
_
0
2
2
4
.
x
l
s
Sh
e
e
t
1
Pa
g
e
4
o
f
1
2
Ot
a
k
,
I
n
c
.
Pr
i
n
t
e
d
:
4
/
2
4
/
2
0
0
9
Packet Page 302 of 487
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
,
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
AD
A
R
a
m
p
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
Cr
i
t
.
2
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
3
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
4
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
5
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
6
ID
N
o
.
I
N
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
C
O
R
N
E
R
(
S
)
S
t
r
e
e
t
A
C
l
a
s
s
.
1
S
t
r
e
e
t
B
C
l
a
s
s
1
C
o
m
m
.
C
e
n
t
e
r
&
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
S
e
n
i
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
H
o
s
p
i
t
a
l
B
R
T
/
R
a
i
l
/
F
e
r
r
y
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
R
o
u
t
e
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
S
c
h
o
o
l
S
c
h
o
o
l
N
e
a
r
b
y
C
i
t
y
H
a
l
l
/
P
o
l
i
c
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
C
o
m
m
.
Z
o
n
e
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
P
a
r
k
P
a
r
k
N
e
a
r
b
y
N
o
R
a
m
p
S
u
b
-
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
R
a
m
p
S
u
b
-
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
A
s
p
h
a
l
t
R
a
m
p
N
e
w
R
a
m
p
,
W
i
t
h
o
u
t
D
o
m
e
s
A
s
p
h
a
l
t
R
a
m
p
,
N
o
D
o
m
e
s
N
e
w
R
a
m
p
,
W
i
t
h
D
o
m
e
s
AD
A
1
6
2
21
2
t
h
&
7
0
t
h
N
W
,
N
E
24
X
X
X
AD
A
1
4
5t
h
&
P
i
n
e
A
L
L
24
X
X
X
AD
A
1
5
5t
h
&
F
o
r
s
y
t
h
L
a
n
e
N
E
,
S
E
24
X
X
X
AD
A
1
7
3
M
a
i
n
&
8
6
t
h
A
L
L
24
X
X
X
AD
A
1
7
5
M
a
i
n
&
H
i
l
l
c
r
e
s
t
A
L
L
24
X
X
X
AD
A
6
5t
h
&
W
a
l
n
u
t
N
W
,
N
E
,
S
W
24
X
X
X
AD
A
5
5t
h
&
W
a
l
n
u
t
S
E
24
X
X
X
AD
A
9
5t
h
&
H
o
l
l
y
D
r
S
W
24
X
X
X
AD
A
8
5t
h
&
H
o
l
l
y
D
r
N
W
,
S
E
24
X
X
X
AD
A
7
5t
h
&
H
o
l
l
y
D
r
N
E
24
X
X
X
AD
A
4
1
76
t
h
&
2
3
9
t
h
N
W
,
S
W
24
X
X
X
AD
A
4
3
76
t
h
&
2
3
8
t
h
N
W
,
S
W
24
X
X
X
AD
A
4
4
76
t
h
&
2
3
6
t
h
A
L
L
24
X
X
AD
A
4
5
76
t
h
&
2
3
4
t
h
N
W
,
S
W
24
X
X
AD
A
4
7
76
t
h
&
2
3
2
n
d
S
W
24
X
X
AD
A
7
2
76
t
h
&
1
9
5
t
h
A
L
L
24
X
X
AD
A
1
3
5t
h
&
S
e
a
m
o
n
t
A
L
L
24
X
X
AD
A
1
6
5t
h
&
E
l
m
W
a
y
N
E
,
S
E
24
X
X
AD
A
3
0
22
0
t
h
&
8
3
r
d
N
W
,
N
E
24
X
X
AD
A
3
1
22
0
t
h
&
8
2
n
d
N
W
,
N
E
24
X
X
AD
A
3
2
22
0
t
h
&
8
0
t
h
A
L
L
24
X
X
AD
A
3
3
22
0
t
h
&
7
8
t
h
S
W
,
S
E
24
X
X
AD
A
3
4
22
0
t
h
&
7
7
t
h
S
W
,
S
E
24
X
X
AD
A
4
6
76
t
h
&
2
3
2
n
d
N
W
24
X
X
AD
A
6
9
76
t
h
&
1
9
9
t
h
N
W
,
S
W
24
X
X
AD
A
7
0
76
t
h
&
1
9
8
t
h
N
E
,
S
E
24
X
X
AD
A
1
0
2
3r
d
&
G
i
l
t
n
e
r
NE
,
S
E
24
X
X
AD
A
1
7
2
M
a
i
n
&
2
1
0
t
h
AL
L
24
X
X
AD
A
1
7
0
2
1
2
t
h
&
8
2
n
d
SW
,
S
E
24
X
X
AD
A
1
7
4
Ma
i
n
&
8
8
t
h
AL
L
24
X
X
AD
A
1
0
3
3r
d
&
S
a
t
e
r
NE
,
S
E
24
X
X
AD
A
2
4
22
0
t
h
&
9
2
n
d
AL
L
24
X
X
AD
A
2
5
22
0
t
h
&
9
0
t
h
SW
,
S
E
24
X
X
AD
A
2
6
22
0
&
8
8
t
h
P
l
a
c
e
NW
,
N
E
24
X
X
AD
A
2
7
22
0
t
h
&
8
8
t
h
A
v
e
AL
L
24
X
X
AD
A
2
8
22
0
t
h
&
8
6
t
h
NW
,
N
E
24
X
X
AD
A
4
8
76
t
h
&
2
3
0
t
h
AL
L
24
X
X
AD
A
9
8
Ca
s
p er
s
&
B
r
o
o
k
m
e
r
e
2
AL
L
24
X
X
M
I
N
O
R
A
R
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
Se
e
P
a
g
e
1
2
f
o
r
N
o
t
e
s
1
-
3
K:
\
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
\
3
1
1
0
0
\
3
1
1
6
1
\
D
a
t
a
\
R
a
m
p
s
\
R
a
m
p
-
2
0
0
9
_
0
2
2
4
.
x
l
s
Sh
e
e
t
1
Pa
g
e
5
o
f
1
2
Ot
a
k
,
I
n
c
.
Pr
i
n
t
e
d
:
4
/
2
4
/
2
0
0
9
Packet Page 303 of 487
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
,
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
AD
A
R
a
m
p
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
Cr
i
t
.
2
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
3
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
4
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
5
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
6
ID
N
o
.
I
N
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
C
O
R
N
E
R
(
S
)
S
t
r
e
e
t
A
C
l
a
s
s
.
1
S
t
r
e
e
t
B
C
l
a
s
s
1
C
o
m
m
.
C
e
n
t
e
r
&
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
S
e
n
i
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
H
o
s
p
i
t
a
l
B
R
T
/
R
a
i
l
/
F
e
r
r
y
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
R
o
u
t
e
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
S
c
h
o
o
l
S
c
h
o
o
l
N
e
a
r
b
y
C
i
t
y
H
a
l
l
/
P
o
l
i
c
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
C
o
m
m
.
Z
o
n
e
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
P
a
r
k
P
a
r
k
N
e
a
r
b
y
N
o
R
a
m
p
S
u
b
-
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
R
a
m
p
S
u
b
-
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
A
s
p
h
a
l
t
R
a
m
p
N
e
w
R
a
m
p
,
W
i
t
h
o
u
t
D
o
m
e
s
A
s
p
h
a
l
t
R
a
m
p
,
N
o
D
o
m
e
s
N
e
w
R
a
m
p
,
W
i
t
h
D
o
m
e
s
AD
A
9
9
Ca
s
p er
s
&
8
t
h
2
NE
,
N
W
24
X
X
AD
A
1
0
0
Mi
d
-
b
l
o
c
k
X
-
w
a
l
k
C
a
s
p
e
r
s
e
a
s
t
of
8
t
h
2
NE
,
N
W
24
X
X
AD
A
1
8
22
0
t
h
&
9
9
t
h
P
l
a
c
e
W
S
W
,
S
E
24
X
X
AD
A
7
6
76
t
h
&
1
9
0
t
h
A
L
L
24
X
X
AD
A
1
5
0
F
i
r
d
a
l
e
&
2
4
1
s
t
N
E
,
S
E
24
X
AD
A
1
5
1
F
i
r
d
a
l
e
&
2
4
2
n
d
N
E
,
S
E
24
X
AD
A
1
5
2
F
i
r
d
a
l
e
&
2
4
3
r
d
A
L
L
24
X
AD
A
2
9
1
22
8
t
h
&
7
5
t
h
A
v
e
W
S
E
,
S
W
24
X
AD
A
7
3
76
t
h
&
1
9
4
t
h
A
L
L
24
X
AD
A
7
4
76
t
h
&
1
9
3
r
d
A
L
L
24
X
AD
A
7
5
76
t
h
&
1
9
1
s
t
A
L
L
24
X
AD
A
8
7
1
9
6
t
h
&
8
2
n
d
A
L
L
24
X
AD
A
8
8
1
9
6
t
h
&
8
4
t
h
A
L
L
24
X
AD
A
8
9
1
9
6
t
h
&
8
6
t
h
A
L
L
24
X
AD
A
1
4
8
F
i
r
d
a
l
e
&
2
3
8
t
h
A
L
L
24
X
AD
A
2
9
2
22
8
t
h
&
7
4
t
h
A
v
e
W
N
E
,
N
W
24
X
AD
A
1
0
5
3
r
d
&
D
a
l
e
y
N
E
,
S
E
24
X
AD
A
1
1
9
9
t
h
&
M
a
p
l
e
A
L
L
24
X
AD
A
1
2
0
9
t
h
&
A
l
d
e
r
A
L
L
24
X
A DA
1
2
2
9t
h
&
C
e
d
a
r
A LL
24
X
AD
A
1
2
3
9t
h
&
S
p
r
u
c
e
AL
L
24
X
AD
A
1
2
4
9t
h
&
P
i
n
e
AL
L
24
X
AD
A
1
2
5
9t
h
&
F
i
r
AL
L
24
X
AD
A
1
2
8
9
t
h
&
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
AL
L
24
X
AD
A
1
2
9
9
t
h
&
S
p
r
a
g
u
e
AL
L
24
X
AD
A
1
3
0
9t
h
&
D
a
l
e
y
AL
L
24
X
AD
A
1
3
5
9
t
h
&
1
4
t
h
s
t
S
W
NW
,
S
W
24
X
AD
A
1
3
6
9t
h
&
2
2
4
t
h
NE
,
S
E
24
X
AD
A
1
3
7
9t
h
&
2
2
5
t
h
NE
,
S
E
24
X
AD
A
1
3
8
9t
h
&
2
2
6
t
h
AL
L
24
X
AD
A
1
3
9
9t
h
&
2
2
7
t
h
NE
,
S
E
24
X
AD
A
1
4
0
9t
h
&
1
5
t
h
AL
L
24
X
AD
A
1
5
3
2
4
4
t
h
&
9
2
n
d
NE
,
N
W
24
X
AD
A
1
5
4
24
4
t
h
&
9
1
s
t
NE
,
N
W
24
X
AD
A
1
5
5
24
4
t
h
&
9
0
t
h
NE
,
N
W
24
X
AD
A
1
5
9
24
4
t
h
&
9
0
t
h
DU
P
L
I
C
A
T
E
24
X
AD
A
1
5
6
24
4
t
h
&
8
9
t
h
NE
,
N
W
24
X
AD
A
1
6
0
2
4
4
t
h
&
8
8
t
h
(
F
r
e
m
o
n
t
)
A
L
L
24
X
AD
A
1
5
7
24
4
t
h
&
8
7
t
h
NE
,
N
W
24
X
M
I
N
O
R
A
R
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
Se
e
P
a
g
e
1
2
f
o
r
N
o
t
e
s
1
-
3
K:
\
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
\
3
1
1
0
0
\
3
1
1
6
1
\
D
a
t
a
\
R
a
m
p
s
\
R
a
m
p
-
2
0
0
9
_
0
2
2
4
.
x
l
s
Sh
e
e
t
1
Pa
g
e
6
o
f
1
2
Ot
a
k
,
I
n
c
.
Pr
i
n
t
e
d
:
4
/
2
4
/
2
0
0
9
Packet Page 304 of 487
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
,
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
AD
A
R
a
m
p
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
Cr
i
t
.
2
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
3
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
4
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
5
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
6
ID
N
o
.
I
N
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
C
O
R
N
E
R
(
S
)
S
t
r
e
e
t
A
C
l
a
s
s
.
1
S
t
r
e
e
t
B
C
l
a
s
s
1
C
o
m
m
.
C
e
n
t
e
r
&
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
S
e
n
i
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
H
o
s
p
i
t
a
l
B
R
T
/
R
a
i
l
/
F
e
r
r
y
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
R
o
u
t
e
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
S
c
h
o
o
l
S
c
h
o
o
l
N
e
a
r
b
y
C
i
t
y
H
a
l
l
/
P
o
l
i
c
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
C
o
m
m
.
Z
o
n
e
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
P
a
r
k
P
a
r
k
N
e
a
r
b
y
N
o
R
a
m
p
S
u
b
-
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
R
a
m
p
S
u
b
-
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
A
s
p
h
a
l
t
R
a
m
p
N
e
w
R
a
m
p
,
W
i
t
h
o
u
t
D
o
m
e
s
A
s
p
h
a
l
t
R
a
m
p
,
N
o
D
o
m
e
s
N
e
w
R
a
m
p
,
W
i
t
h
D
o
m
e
s
AD
A
1
6
1
24
4
t
h
&
8
7
t
h
D
U
P
L
I
C
A
T
E
24
X
AD
A
1
5
8
2
4
4
t
h
&
8
9
t
h
N
E
,
N
W
24
X
AD
A
1
3
2
9
t
h
&
C
a
r
o
l
N
E
24
X
AD
A
1
3
1
9
t
h
&
C
a
r
o
l
S
E
24
X
AD
A
1
2
6
9
t
h
&
S
e
a
V
i
s
t
a
N
E
,
S
E
24
X
AD
A
1
2
7
9
t
h
&
S
e
a
V
i
s
t
a
N
W
,
S
W
24
X
AD
A
1
4
9
F
i
r
d
a
l
e
&
2
4
0
t
h
N
E
,
S
E
24
X
AD
A
8
0
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
&
K
a
i
r
e
z
A
L
L
24
X
AD
A
8
6
1
9
6
t
h
&
8
1
s
t
S
W
,
S
E
24
X
AD
A
1
3
3
9t
h
&
C
a
s
p er
s
2
SE
,
S
W
24
X
AD
A
1
4
2
9t
h
&
H
i
n
d
l
e
y 2
AL
L
24
X
AD
A
1
4
3
Mi
d
-
b
l
o
c
k
X
-
w
a
l
k
9
t
h
s
o
u
t
h
o
f
Hi
n
d
l
e
y
2
SE
,
S
W
24
X
M
I
N
O
R
A
R
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
Se
e
P
a
g
e
1
2
f
o
r
N
o
t
e
s
1
-
3
K:
\
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
\
3
1
1
0
0
\
3
1
1
6
1
\
D
a
t
a
\
R
a
m
p
s
\
R
a
m
p
-
2
0
0
9
_
0
2
2
4
.
x
l
s
Sh
e
e
t
1
Pa
g
e
7
o
f
1
2
Ot
a
k
,
I
n
c
.
Pr
i
n
t
e
d
:
4
/
2
4
/
2
0
0
9
Packet Page 305 of 487
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
,
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
AD
A
R
a
m
p
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
Cr
i
t
.
2
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
3
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
4
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
5
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
6
ID
N
o
.
I
N
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
C
O
R
N
E
R
(
S
)
S
t
r
e
e
t
A
C
l
a
s
s
.
1
S
t
r
e
e
t
B
C
l
a
s
s
1
C
o
m
m
.
C
e
n
t
e
r
&
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
S
e
n
i
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
H
o
s
p
i
t
a
l
B
R
T
/
R
a
i
l
/
F
e
r
r
y
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
R
o
u
t
e
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
S
c
h
o
o
l
S
c
h
o
o
l
N
e
a
r
b
y
C
i
t
y
H
a
l
l
/
P
o
l
i
c
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
C
o
m
m
.
Z
o
n
e
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
P
a
r
k
P
a
r
k
N
e
a
r
b
y
N
o
R
a
m
p
S
u
b
-
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
R
a
m
p
S
u
b
-
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
A
s
p
h
a
l
t
R
a
m
p
N
e
w
R
a
m
p
,
W
i
t
h
o
u
t
D
o
m
e
s
A
s
p
h
a
l
t
R
a
m
p
,
N
o
D
o
m
e
s
N
e
w
R
a
m
p
,
W
i
t
h
D
o
m
e
s
AD
A
3
2
8
Bo
w
d
o
i
n
&
9
6
t
h
S
W
,
S
E
33
X
XX
X
AD
A
3
3
5
20
0
t
h
&
M
a
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
SE
33
X
X
AD
A
3
3
9
20
0
t
h
&
8
0
t
h
SE
,
S
W
33
X
X
AD
A
3
6
6
88
t
h
&
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
S
E
33
X
X
AD
A
3
3
0
88
t
h
&
2
0
0
t
h
SE
,
S
W
33
X
AD
A
3
8
7
76
t
h
&
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
B
e
a
c
h
2
SE
,
N
E
33
X
AD
A
2
4
8
7
t
h
&
D
a
y
t
o
n
N
W
,
S
E
34
X
X
X
X
X
AD
A
2
4
7
7
t
h
&
D
a
y
t
o
n
S
W
34
X
X
X
X
X
AD
A
2
2
0
8t
h
&
D
a
y
t
o
n
A
L
L
34
X
X
X
X
AD
A
3
1
4
20
8
t
h
&
7
4
t
h
S
E
3
4
X
X
X
X
AD
A
3
1
3
20
8
t
h
&
7
4
t
h
N
W
,
S
W
3
4
X
X
X
AD
A
8
3
8
4
t
h
&
2
1
4
t
h
S
W
,
N
W
34
X
X
X
AD
A
8
4
8
4
t
h
&
2
1
4
t
h
N
E
,
S
E
34
X
X
X
AD
A
8
1
8
4
t
h
&
2
1
8
t
h
N
E
,
S
E
34
X
X
X
AD
A
8
2
8
4
t
h
&
2
1
5
t
h
N
E
,
S
E
34
X
X
X
AD
A
3
1
2
20
8
t
h
&
7
2
n
d
N
W
,
S
W
,
S
E
34
X
X
X
AD
A
3
3
6
20
0
t
h
&
8
4
t
h
S
E
,
S
W
34
X
X
X
AD
A
2
3
7
7
t
h
&
A
l
o
h
a
A
L
L
34
X
X
X
AD
A
2
3
8
7
t
h
&
G
l
e
n
A
L
L
34
X
X
X
AD
A
3
5
8
18
8
t
h
&
8
8
t
h
N
E
,
S
E
34
X
X
X
AD
A
3
6
8
88
t
h
&
1
8
9
t
h
N
E
,
S
E
34
X
X
X
AD
A
2
1
7
10
t
h
&
W
a
l
n
u
t
A
L
L
34
X
X
X
AD
A
2
7
6
Wa
l
n
u
t
&
9
5
t
h
A
L
L
34
X
X
X
AD
A
3
2
9
Wa
l
n
u
t
&
1
0
t
h
A
v
e
S
A
L
L
34
X
X
X
AD
A
2
4
2
7
t
h
&
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
A
L
L
34
X
X
X
X
AD
A
2
4
3
7
t
h
&
S
p
r
a
g
u
e
A
L
L
34
X
X
X
X
AD
A
2
4
4
7
t
h
&
D
a
l
e
y
A
L
L
34
X
X
X
AD
A
3
2
0
Bo
w
d
o
i
n
W
a
y
&
8
9
t
h
S
W
,
S
E
34
X
X
AD
A
3
2
2
Bo
w
d
o
i
n
&
9
0
t
h
S
W
,
S
E
34
X
X
AD
A
3
2
3
Bo
w
d
o
i
n
&
9
2
n
d
A
v
e
S
W
,
S
E
34
X
X
AD
A
3
2
5
Bo
w
d
o
i
n
&
9
2
n
d
P
l
a
c
e
A
L
L
34
X
X
AD
A
3
2
7
Bo
w
d
o
i
n
&
9
3
r
d
A
v
e
S
W
,
S
E
34
X
X
AD
A
3
5
2
80
t
h
&
1
8
8
t
h
S
W
34
X
X
AD
A
3
1
8
Bo
w
d
o
i
n
&
8
6
t
h
P
l
a
c
e
W
N
W
,
N
E
34
X
X
AD
A
3
2
1
Bo
w
d
o
i
n
&
P
i
o
n
e
e
r
W
a
y
N
W
,
N
E
34
X
X
AD
A
3
2
4
Bo
w
d
o
i
n
&
P
a
r
k
R
d
N
W
,
N
E
3
4
X
X
C
O
L
L
E
C
T
O
R
S
Se
e
P
a
g
e
1
2
f
o
r
N
o
t
e
s
1
-
3
K:
\
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
\
3
1
1
0
0
\
3
1
1
6
1
\
D
a
t
a
\
R
a
m
p
s
\
R
a
m
p
-
2
0
0
9
_
0
2
2
4
.
x
l
s
Sh
e
e
t
1
Pa
g
e
8
o
f
1
2
Ot
a
k
,
I
n
c
.
Pr
i
n
t
e
d
:
4
/
2
4
/
2
0
0
9
Packet Page 306 of 487
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
,
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
AD
A
R
a
m
p
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
Cr
i
t
.
2
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
3
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
4
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
5
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
6
ID
N
o
.
I
N
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
C
O
R
N
E
R
(
S
)
S
t
r
e
e
t
A
C
l
a
s
s
.
1
S
t
r
e
e
t
B
C
l
a
s
s
1
C
o
m
m
.
C
e
n
t
e
r
&
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
S
e
n
i
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
H
o
s
p
i
t
a
l
B
R
T
/
R
a
i
l
/
F
e
r
r
y
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
R
o
u
t
e
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
S
c
h
o
o
l
S
c
h
o
o
l
N
e
a
r
b
y
C
i
t
y
H
a
l
l
/
P
o
l
i
c
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
C
o
m
m
.
Z
o
n
e
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
P
a
r
k
P
a
r
k
N
e
a
r
b
y
N
o
R
a
m
p
S
u
b
-
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
R
a
m
p
S
u
b
-
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
A
s
p
h
a
l
t
R
a
m
p
N
e
w
R
a
m
p
,
W
i
t
h
o
u
t
D
o
m
e
s
A
s
p
h
a
l
t
R
a
m
p
,
N
o
D
o
m
e
s
N
e
w
R
a
m
p
,
W
i
t
h
D
o
m
e
s
AD
A
3
2
6
Bo
w
d
o
i
n
&
9
3
r
d
P
l
a
c
e
S
W
,
S
E
34
X
X
AD
A
3
1
9
Bo
w
d
o
i
n
&
8
8
t
h
S
W
,
S
E
34
X
X
AD
A
3
1
7
Bo
w
d
o
i
n
&
8
6
t
h
A
v
e
W
S
W
,
S
E
34
X
X
AD
A
3
3
7
20
0
t
h
&
8
3
r
d
S
E
,
S
W
34
X
X
AD
A
3
3
8
20
0
t
h
&
8
1
s
t
S
E
,
S
W
34
X
X
AD
A
2
4
6
7
t
h
&
V
i
s
t
a
P
l
a
c
e
A
L
L
34
X
X
AD
A
1
1
4
3
r
d
&
H
o
w
e
l
l
N
E
,
S
E
34
X
X
X
AD
A
1
1
5
3
r
d
&
E
r
b
e
n
N
E
,
S
E
34
X
X
X
AD
A
1
1
6
3
r
d
&
P
i
n
e
N
E
,
N
W
,
S
W
34
X
X
X
AD
A
3
5
1
80
t
h
&
1
9
0
t
h
N
W
,
S
W
34
X
X
X
AD
A
3
8
4
76
t
h
&
S
o
u
n
d
v
i
e
w
D
r
.
S
E
34
X
X
X
AD
A
3
8
5
76
t
h
&
S
o
u
n
d
v
i
e
w
D
r
.
N
E
34
X
X
X
AD
A
3
8
2
76
t
h
&
1
8
0
t
h
N
E
,
S
E
34
X
X
X
AD
A
3
8
3
76
t
h
&
1
7
8
t
h
N
E
,
S
E
34
X
X
X
AD
A
1
1
3
3
r
d
&
W
a
l
n
u
t
N
E
,
S
E
34
X
X
AD
A
3
4
8
80
t
h
&
S
i
e
r
r
a
N
W
,
S
W
34
X
X
AD
A
2
0
1
B
e
l
l
&
7
t
h
N
E
,
N
W
,
S
W
34
X
X
AD
A
2
0
0
B
e
l
l
&
7
t
h
S
E
34
X
X
AD
A
3
5
0
80
t
h
&
1
9
2
n
d
N
W
34
X
X
AD
A
3
4
9
80
t
h
&
1
9
2
n
d
S
W
34
X
X
AD
A
3
7
4
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
&
T
a
l
b
o
t
N
W
,
N
E
3
4
X
X
AD
A
1
1
7
3
r
d
&
E
l
m
A
L
L
34
X
AD
A
1
1
2
3
r
d
&
A
l
d
e
r
N
W
,
S
W
34
X
AD
A
3
6
0
18
5
t
h
&
8
8
t
h
N
E
,
S
E
34
X
AD
A
3
6
1
18
4
t
h
&
8
8
t
h
N
E
,
S
E
34
X
AD
A
3
6
7
88
t
h
&
1
8
2
n
d
N
E
,
S
E
34
X
AD
A
3
7
6
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
&
B
l
a
k
e
N
W
,
N
E
3
4
X
AD
A
3
7
7
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
&
C
h
e
r
r
y
N
W
,
N
E
3
4
X
AD
A
3
7
8
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
&
E
u
c
l
i
d
N
W
,
N
E
3
4
X
AD
A
3
5
9
18
7
t
h
&
8
8
t
h
N
E
,
S
E
34
X
AD
A
3
6
9
88
t
h
&
1
9
2
n
d
NE
,
S
E
34
X
AD
A
3
7
5
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
&
W
h
a
r
f
N
W
,
N
E
3
4
X
AD
A
3
8
6
76
t
h
&
B
r
a
e
m
a
r
NE
,
S
E
34
X
AD
A
3
8
8
75
t
h
&
1
6
2
n
d
S
t
.
S
W
2
SE
,
S
W
,
N
W
3
4
X
C
O
L
L
E
C
T
O
R
S
Se
e
P
a
g
e
1
2
f
o
r
N
o
t
e
s
1
-
3
K:
\
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
\
3
1
1
0
0
\
3
1
1
6
1
\
D
a
t
a
\
R
a
m
p
s
\
R
a
m
p
-
2
0
0
9
_
0
2
2
4
.
x
l
s
Sh
e
e
t
1
Pa
g
e
9
o
f
1
2
Ot
a
k
,
I
n
c
.
Pr
i
n
t
e
d
:
4
/
2
4
/
2
0
0
9
Packet Page 307 of 487
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
,
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
AD
A
R
a
m
p
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
Cr
i
t
.
2
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
3
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
4
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
5
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
6
ID
N
o
.
I
N
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
C
O
R
N
E
R
(
S
)
S
t
r
e
e
t
A
C
l
a
s
s
.
1
S
t
r
e
e
t
B
C
l
a
s
s
1
C
o
m
m
.
C
e
n
t
e
r
&
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
S
e
n
i
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
H
o
s
p
i
t
a
l
B
R
T
/
R
a
i
l
/
F
e
r
r
y
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
R
o
u
t
e
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
S
c
h
o
o
l
S
c
h
o
o
l
N
e
a
r
b
y
C
i
t
y
H
a
l
l
/
P
o
l
i
c
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
C
o
m
m
.
Z
o
n
e
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
P
a
r
k
P
a
r
k
N
e
a
r
b
y
N
o
R
a
m
p
S
u
b
-
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
R
a
m
p
S
u
b
-
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
A
s
p
h
a
l
t
R
a
m
p
N
e
w
R
a
m
p
,
W
i
t
h
o
u
t
D
o
m
e
s
A
s
p
h
a
l
t
R
a
m
p
,
N
o
D
o
m
e
s
N
e
w
R
a
m
p
,
W
i
t
h
D
o
m
e
s
AD
A
3
4
7
72
n
d
&
2
1
6
t
h
N
W
,
N
S
W
44
X
X
X
X
AD
A
3
5
6
18
8
t
h
&
8
5
t
h
N
E
4
4
X
X
X
X
AD
A
3
0
6
21
6
t
h
&
7
8
t
h
S
W
,
S
E
44
X
X
X
AD
A
3
5
4
18
8
t
h
&
8
3
r
d
S
E
,
S
W
44
X
X
X
AD
A
3
5
5
18
8
t
h
&
8
4
t
h
S
E
,
S
W
44
X
X
X
AD
A
3
5
7
18
8
t
h
&
8
6
t
h
N
E
44
X
X
X
AD
A
2
0
5
2
2
8
t
h
&
1
0
6
t
h
N
E
,
S
E
44
X
X
X
AD
A
2
0
6
2
2
9
t
h
&
1
0
6
t
h
S
E
44
X
X
X
AD
A
3
1
0
21
0
t
h
&
7
4
t
h
N
E
,
N
W
44
X
X
X
AD
A
3
4
6
72
n
d
&
2
1
3
t
h
N
W
,
S
W
44
X
X
X
AD
A
3
5
3
18
8
t
h
&
8
1
s
t
S
E
,
S
W
44
X
X
X
AD
A
2
1
4
9
7
t
h
&
2
3
9
t
h
S
E
,
S
W
44
X
X
AD
A
2
1
5
2
3
9
t
h
&
2
3
8
t
h
S
E
,
S
W
44
X
X
AD
A
3
0
7
21
6
t
h
&
8
0
t
h
A
L
L
44
X
X
AD
A
3
0
8
21
4
t
h
&
8
0
t
h
N
W
,
S
W
44
X
X
AD
A
3
0
9
21
3
t
h
&
8
0
t
h
A
L
L
44
X
X
AD
A
3
3
3
88
t
h
&
2
0
4
t
h
S
E
,
S
W
44
X
X
AD
A
3
3
4
88
t
h
&
2
0
2
n
d
N
E
,
S
E
44
X
X
AD
A
3
4
0
20
6
t
h
&
7
7
t
h
N
E
,
N
W
44
X
X
AD
A
3
4
1
20
6
t
h
&
7
8
t
h
N
W
,
N
E
44
X
X
AD
A
3
4
2
20
6
t
h
&
7
9
t
h
N
W
,
N
E
44
X
X
AD
A
3
6
3
84
t
h
&
1
9
2
n
d
N
E
,
S
E
44
X
X
AD
A
3
6
4
84
t
h
&
1
8
7
t
h
N
E
,
S
E
44
X
X
AD
A
3
6
5
84
t
h
&
1
8
6
t
h
N
E
,
S
E
44
X
X
AD
A
3
7
0
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
A
v
e
&
V
i
e
w
l
a
n
d
W
a
y
N
E
,
S
E
4
4
X
X
AD
A
2
1
2
9
6
t
h
&
2
4
0
t
h
A
L
L
44
X
X
AD
A
2
1
3
9
7
t
h
&
2
4
0
t
h
N
E
,
N
W
44
X
X
AD
A
2
0
3
2
2
6
t
h
&
1
0
5
t
h
P
l
a
c
e
W
S
W
44
X
X
AD
A
2
0
4
2
2
6
t
h
&
1
0
6
t
h
A
v
e
W
SE
44
X
X
AD
A
2
0
7
2
3
1
s
t
&
1
0
6
t
h
SW
44
X
X
AD
A
2
6
2
6t
h
&
P
i
n
e
AL
L
44
XX
X
AD
A
3
4
5
20
6
t
h
&
8
2
n
d
NE
44
XX
AD
A
2
6
6
4t
h
&
D
a
l
e
y
AL
L
44
X
X
AD
A
2
7
0
2n
d
&
A
l
d
e
r
NE
,
S
E
,
S
W
44
X
X
L
O
C
A
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
Se
e
P
a
g
e
1
2
f
o
r
N
o
t
e
s
1
-
3
K:
\
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
\
3
1
1
0
0
\
3
1
1
6
1
\
D
a
t
a
\
R
a
m
p
s
\
R
a
m
p
-
2
0
0
9
_
0
2
2
4
.
x
l
s
Sh
e
e
t
1
Pa
g
e
1
0
o
f
1
2
Ot
a
k
,
I
n
c
.
Pr
i
n
t
e
d
:
4
/
2
4
/
2
0
0
9
Packet Page 308 of 487
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
,
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
AD
A
R
a
m
p
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
Cr
i
t
.
2
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
3
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
4
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
5
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
6
ID
N
o
.
I
N
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
C
O
R
N
E
R
(
S
)
S
t
r
e
e
t
A
C
l
a
s
s
.
1
S
t
r
e
e
t
B
C
l
a
s
s
1
C
o
m
m
.
C
e
n
t
e
r
&
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
S
e
n
i
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
H
o
s
p
i
t
a
l
B
R
T
/
R
a
i
l
/
F
e
r
r
y
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
R
o
u
t
e
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
S
c
h
o
o
l
S
c
h
o
o
l
N
e
a
r
b
y
C
i
t
y
H
a
l
l
/
P
o
l
i
c
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
C
o
m
m
.
Z
o
n
e
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
P
a
r
k
P
a
r
k
N
e
a
r
b
y
N
o
R
a
m
p
S
u
b
-
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
R
a
m
p
S
u
b
-
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
A
s
p
h
a
l
t
R
a
m
p
N
e
w
R
a
m
p
,
W
i
t
h
o
u
t
D
o
m
e
s
A
s
p
h
a
l
t
R
a
m
p
,
N
o
D
o
m
e
s
N
e
w
R
a
m
p
,
W
i
t
h
D
o
m
e
s
AD
A
3
1
1
21
0
t
h
&
7
2
n
d
N
W
,
S
W
,
S
E
44
X
X
AD
A
3
1
6
N.
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
&
7
5
t
h
S
E
,
S
W
44
X
X
AD
A
2
1
8
8
t
h
&
M
a
p
l
e
S
W
,
N
E
44
X
X
AD
A
2
1
9
8t
h
&
M
a
p
l
e
S
E
,
N
W
44
X
X
AD
A
2
5
2
7
t
h
&
M
a
p
l
e
N
W
,
S
W
,
N
E
44
X
X
AD
A
2
5
3
7
t
h
&
M
a
p
l
e
S
E
44
X
X
AD
A
2
5
9
6
t
h
&
D
a
l
e
y
A
L
L
44
X
X
AD
A
2
7
8
Fi
r
&
A
A
v
e
A
L
L
44
X
X
AD
A
3
4
4
20
6
t
h
&
8
1
s
t
N
W
,
N
E
44
X
X
AD
A
2
6
8
4
t
h
&
H
o
w
e
l
l
N
E
,
S
E
,
N
W
44
X
X
AD
A
2
6
9
4
t
h
&
H
o
w
e
l
l
S
W
44
X
X
AD
A
3
7
3
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
A
v
e
&
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
S
t
N
E
,
S
E
4
4
X
X
AD
A
2
4
1
7
t
h
&
E
l
m
P
l
a
c
e
W
A
L
L
44
X
AD
A
2
5
7
6
t
h
&
M
a
p
l
e
A
L
L
44
X
AD
A
2
2
7
8
t
h
&
1
4
t
h
W
a
y
N
E
,
S
E
44
X
AD
A
2
4
9
7
t
h
&
A
l
d
e
r
A
L
L
44
X
AD
A
2
5
0
7
t
h
&
W
a
l
n
u
t
N
E
,
S
E
44
X
AD
A
2
5
1
7
t
h
&
C
e
d
a
r
N
E
44
X
AD
A
2
2
9
8
t
h
&
C
e
d
a
r
S
E
44
X
AD
A
2
3
0
8
t
h
&
S
p
r
u
c
e
N
W
44
X
AD
A
2
3
1
8
t
h
&
L
a
u
r
e
l
S
W
44
X
AD
A
2
3
2
8
t
h
&
E
l
m
N
W
,
S
W
44
X
AD
A
2
3
3
8
t
h
&
F
i
r
N
W
,
S
E
44
X
AD
A
2
2
1
8
t
h
&
A
l
d
e
r
N
E
,
N
W
44
X
AD
A
2
6
1
6
t
h
&
W
a
l
n
u
t
S
W
44
X
AD
A
2
6
0
6
t
h
&
W
a
l
n
u
t
A
L
L
44
X
AD
A
2
3
9
7
t
h
&
E
l
m
S
t
.
S
E
44
X
AD
A
2
4
0
7
t
h
&
E
l
m
S
t
.
S
W
44
X
AD
A
2
5
5
6t
h
&
A
l
d
e
r
N
W
44
X
AD
A
2
5
4
6
t
h
&
A
l
d
e
r
S
E
,
N
E
44
X
AD
A
2
5
6
6
t
h
&
A
l
d
e
r
S
W
44
X
AD
A
2
3
5
8
t
h
&
P
i
n
e
S
t
.
N
W
44
X
AD
A
2
3
4
8
t
h
&
P
i
n
e
S
t
.
NE
44
X
AD
A
2
2
3
8
t
h
&
P
i
n
e
S
t
.
D
U
P
L
I
C
A
T
E
44
X
AD
A
2
2
2
8
t
h
&
P
i
n
e
S
t
.
D
U
P
L
I
C
A
T
E
44
AD
A
2
2
8
8
t
h
&
1
4
t
h
S
t
.
SE
44
X
AD
A
2
3
6
7th
P
l
a
c
e
&
1
3
t
h
W
a
y
N
E
44
X
L
O
C
A
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
Se
e
P
a
g
e
1
2
f
o
r
N
o
t
e
s
1
-
3
K:
\
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
\
3
1
1
0
0
\
3
1
1
6
1
\
D
a
t
a
\
R
a
m
p
s
\
R
a
m
p
-
2
0
0
9
_
0
2
2
4
.
x
l
s
Sh
e
e
t
1
Pa
g
e
1
1
o
f
1
2
Ot
a
k
,
I
n
c
.
Pr
i
n
t
e
d
:
4
/
2
4
/
2
0
0
9
Packet Page 309 of 487
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
,
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
AD
A
R
a
m
p
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
Cr
i
t
.
2
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
3
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
4
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
5
Cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
6
ID
N
o
.
I
N
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
C
O
R
N
E
R
(
S
)
S
t
r
e
e
t
A
C
l
a
s
s
.
1
S
t
r
e
e
t
B
C
l
a
s
s
1
C
o
m
m
.
C
e
n
t
e
r
&
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
S
e
n
i
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
H
o
s
p
i
t
a
l
B
R
T
/
R
a
i
l
/
F
e
r
r
y
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
R
o
u
t
e
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
S
c
h
o
o
l
S
c
h
o
o
l
N
e
a
r
b
y
C
i
t
y
H
a
l
l
/
P
o
l
i
c
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
C
o
m
m
.
Z
o
n
e
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
P
a
r
k
P
a
r
k
N
e
a
r
b
y
N
o
R
a
m
p
S
u
b
-
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
R
a
m
p
S
u
b
-
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
A
s
p
h
a
l
t
R
a
m
p
N
e
w
R
a
m
p
,
W
i
t
h
o
u
t
D
o
m
e
s
A
s
p
h
a
l
t
R
a
m
p
,
N
o
D
o
m
e
s
N
e
w
R
a
m
p
,
W
i
t
h
D
o
m
e
s
AD
A
2
4
5
7t
h
&
B
i
r
c
h
A
L
L
44
X
AD
A
2
5
8
6
t
h
&
E
l
m
S
t
.
A
L
L
44
X
AD
A
2
6
7
4
t
h
&
W
a
l
n
u
t
A
L
L
44
X
AD
A
2
7
7
Pi
n
e
S
t
.
&
C
A
v
e
S
E
,
S
W
44
X
AD
A
2
1
0
2
3
7
t
h
&
1
0
6
t
h
A
L
L
44
X
AD
A
2
1
1
2
3
7
t
h
&
1
0
7
t
h
A
L
L
44
X
AD
A
2
1
6
Ro
b
i
n
H
o
o
d
&
1
0
6
t
h
N
E
,
S
E
44
X
AD
A
2
2
4
8
t
h
P
l
a
c
e
&
1
5
t
h
S
E
,
S
W
44
X
AD
A
3
3
1
88
t
h
&
2
0
5
t
h
N
W
44
X
AD
A
3
3
2
88
t
h
&
2
0
5
t
h
S
W
44
X
AD
A
3
4
3
20
6
t
h
&
8
0
t
h
N
W
,
N
E
44
X
AD
A
3
6
2
84
t
h
&
1
9
4
t
h
N
E
,
S
E
44
X
AD
A
2
2
6
8
t
h
A
v
e
&
1
5
t
h
S
E
44
X
AD
A
2
2
5
8
t
h
A
v
e
&
1
5
t
h
N
E
44
X
AD
A
2
0
9
2
3
7
t
h
&
1
0
4
t
h
S
W
44
X
AD
A
2
0
8
2
3
7
t
h
&
1
0
4
t
h
N
W
44
X
AD
A
3
7
9
23
7
t
h
&
1
0
4
t
h
S
W
44
X
AD
A
3
8
0
23
7
t
h
&
1
0
6
t
h
A
L
L
44
X
AD
A
3
8
1
23
7
t
h
&
1
0
7
t
h
A
L
L
44
X
AD
A
3
7
2
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
A
v
e
&
D
a
l
e
y
P
l
a
c
e
N
E
,
S
E
4
4
X
AD
A
3
7
1
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
A
v
e
&
S
i
e
r
r
a
P
l
a
c
e
N
E
,
S
E
4
4
X
AD
A
3
1
5
N.
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
&
1
6
4
t
h
S
W
,
N
W
4
4
X
No
t
e
1
:
"
1
"
=
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
a
l
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
,
"
2
"
=
M
i
n
o
r
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
,
"
3
"
=
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
,
"
4
"
=
L
o
c
a
l
S
t
r
e
e
t
No
t
e
2
:
N
o
t
e
"
4
"
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
r
a
m
p
s
t
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
u
p
g
r
a
d
e
d
t
o
n
e
w
A
D
A
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
a
f
u
t
u
r
e
C
i
t
y
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
w
o
r
k
i
n
g
o
n
No
t
e
3
:
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
N
u
m
b
e
r
1
i
s
t
h
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
i
n
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
.
L
O
C
A
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
Se
e
P
a
g
e
1
2
f
o
r
N
o
t
e
s
1
-
3
K:
\
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
\
3
1
1
0
0
\
3
1
1
6
1
\
D
a
t
a
\
R
a
m
p
s
\
R
a
m
p
-
2
0
0
9
_
0
2
2
4
.
x
l
s
Sh
e
e
t
1
Pa
g
e
1
2
o
f
1
2
Ot
a
k
,
I
n
c
.
Pr
i
n
t
e
d
:
4
/
2
4
/
2
0
0
9
Packet Page 310 of 487
Appendix D
Walkway Projects
Packet Page 311 of 487
Packet Page 312 of 487
ID
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
a
m
e
F
r
o
m
T
o
Le
n
g
t
h
(f
e
e
t
)
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
G ut
t
e
r
/
Dr
a
i
n
a
g
e
/
Di
t
c
h
P
h
o
t
o
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
T
y
p
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Co
s
t
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
S1
2
n
d
A
v
e
S
J
a
m
e
s
S
t
M
a
i
n
S
t
1
0
0
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
w
e
s
t
s
i
d
e
w
i
t
h
di
s
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
e
a
s
t
s
i
d
e
.
Ye
s
,
dr
a
i
n
a
g
e
.
In
s
t
a
l
l
8
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
e
a
s
t
si
d
e
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
t
o
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
.
8
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
b
s
a
n
d
gu
t
t
e
r
s
.
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Sh
o
r
t
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
$2
5
,
0
0
0
S2
D
a
y
t
o
n
S
t
7
t
h
A
v
e
S
8
t
h
A
v
e
S
2
5
0
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
n
o
r
t
h
s
i
d
e
w
i
t
h
di
s
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
s
o
u
t
h
s
i
d
e
.
Ye
s
,
dr
a
i
n
a
g
e
.
In
s
t
a
l
l
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
s
o
u
t
h
si
d
e
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
t
o
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
.
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
b
s
a
n
d
gu
t
t
e
r
s
.
$6
3
0
0
0
$6
3
,
0
0
0
S3
M
a
p
l
e
S
t
W
e
s
t
o
f
6
t
h
Av
e
S
8t
h
A
v
e
S
2
5
0
N
a
r
r
o
w
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
(
3
-
4
f
t
)
w
i
t
h
di
s
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
s
o
u
t
h
s
i
d
e
be
t
w
e
e
n
7
t
h
a
n
d
8
t
h
A
v
e
.
No
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
n
e
w
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
so
u
t
h
s
i
d
e
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
t
o
m
e
e
t
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
w
i
d
t
h
.
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
b
s
a
n
d
gu
t
t
e
r
s
.
$5
0
,
0
0
0
S4
W
a
l
n
u
t
S
t
6
t
h
A
v
e
S
7
t
h
A
v
e
S
7
0
0
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
s
o
u
t
h
s
i
d
e
o
n
t
h
e
we
s
t
e
n
d
.
N
o
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
r
s
t
r
i
p
e
d
sh
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
r
e
s
t
o
f
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
.
Ye
s
,
dr
a
i
n
a
g
e
.
In
s
t
a
l
l
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
e
i
t
h
e
r
si
d
e
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
t
o
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
.
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
b
s
a
n
d
gu
t
t
e
r
s
$1
7
5
,
0
0
0
S5
W
a
l
n
u
t
S
t
3
r
d
A
v
e
S
4
t
h
A
v
e
S
3
5
0
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
n
o
r
t
h
s
i
d
e
.
N
o
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
/
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
o
n
s
o
u
t
h
s
i
d
e
.
Ye
s
,
dr
a
i
n
a
g
e
.
In
s
t
a
l
l
8
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
s
o
u
t
h
si
d
e
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
t
o
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
t
o
th
e
e
a
s
t
.
8
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
b
s
a
n
d
gu
t
t
e
r
s
.
$8
8
,
0
0
0
Packet Page 313 of 487
ID
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
a
m
e
F
r
o
m
T
o
Le
n
g
t
h
(f
e
e
t
)
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
G ut
t
e
r
/
Dr
a
i
n
a
g
e
/
Di
t
c
h
P
h
o
t
o
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
T
y
p
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Co
s
t
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
S6
2
2
6
t
h
S
t
S
W
1
0
6
t
h
A
v
e
W
S
R
1
0
4
7
0
0
N
a
r
r
o
w
u
n
p
a
v
e
d
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
o
n
b
o
t
h
s
i
d
e
s
wi
t
h
s
o
m
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
s
o
u
t
h
s
i
d
e
.
Ye
s
,
dr
a
i
n
a
g
e
on
n
o
r
t
h
si
d
e
.
In
s
t
a
l
l
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
s
o
u
t
h
si
d
e
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
t
o
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
.
Ap
p
l
i
e
d
f
o
r
f
e
d
e
r
a
l
s
a
f
e
t
y
g
r
a
n
t
i
n
A
u
g
u
s
t
20
0
8
.
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
b
s
a
n
d
gu
t
t
e
r
s
.
$1
7
5
,
0
0
0
S7
1
8
9
t
h
P
l
S
W
8
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
7
8
t
h
A
v
e
W
7
0
0
N
a
r
r
o
w
,
d
i
s
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
a
s
p
h
a
l
t
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
mi
x
w
i
t
h
u
n
p
a
v
e
d
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
.
No
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
ei
t
h
e
r
s
i
d
e
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
.
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
b
s
a
n
d
gu
t
t
e
r
s
.
$1
4
0
,
0
0
0
S8
8
t
h
A
v
e
S
S
o
u
t
h
o
f
Wa
l
n
u
t
S
t
Wa
l
n
u
t
S
t
2
5
N
o
r
o
a
d
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
8
t
h
A
v
e
a
n
d
Wa
l
n
u
t
S
t
No
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
t
a
i
r
w
a
y
o
r
t
r
a
i
l
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
tw
o
r
o
a
d
s
.
St
a
i
r
w
a
y
o
r
A
s
p
h
a
l
t
t
r
a
i
l
.
$5
,
0
0
0
S9
8
4
t
h
A
v
e
W
1
8
8
t
h
S
t
S
W
1
8
6
t
h
S
t
S
W
7
0
0
U
n
p
a
v
e
d
,
u
n
s
t
r
i
p
e
d
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
o
n
b
o
t
h
si
d
e
s
w
i
t
h
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
w
i
d
t
h
s
.
No
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
e
a
s
t
si
d
e
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
t
o
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
t
o
th
e
s
o
u
t
h
.
A
d
d
e
d
g
e
l
i
n
e
s
o
n
b
o
t
h
s
i
d
e
s
o
f
st
r
e
e
t
.
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
b
s
a
n
d
gu
t
t
e
r
s
.
$1
4
0
,
0
0
0
S1
0
1
9
0
t
h
P
l
S
W
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
Dr
94
t
h
A
v
e
W
8
0
0
U
n
p
a
v
e
d
,
u
n
s
t
r
i
p
e
d
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
o
n
b
o
t
h
si
d
e
s
w
i
t
h
n
a
r
r
o
w
w
i
d
t
h
s
R
o
a
d
i
s
n
a
r
r
o
w
No
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
ei
t
h
e
r
s
i
d
e
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
A
d
d
e
d
g
e
l
i
n
e
s
o
n
b
o
t
h
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
b
s
a
n
d
Dr
si
d
e
s
w
i
t
h
n
a
r
r
o
w
w
i
d
t
h
s
.
Ro
a
d
i
s
n
a
r
r
o
w
.
ei
t
h
e
r
s
i
d
e
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
.
Ad
d
e
d
g
e
l
i
n
e
s
o
n
b
o
t
h
si
d
e
s
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
.
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
b
s
a
n
d
gu
t
t
e
r
s
.
$1
6
0
,
0
0
0
Lo
n
g
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
Packet Page 314 of 487
ID
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
a
m
e
F
r
o
m
T
o
Le
n
g
t
h
(f
e
e
t
)
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
G ut
t
e
r
/
Dr
a
i
n
a
g
e
/
Di
t
c
h
P
h
o
t
o
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
T
y
p
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Co
s
t
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
L1
2
3
4
t
h
S
t
S
W
/
23
6
t
h
S
t
S
W
97
t
h
P
l
W
S
R
1
0
4
3
,
1
0
0
2
3
4
t
h
S
t
S
W
-
U
n
p
a
v
e
d
,
u
n
s
t
r
i
p
e
d
sh
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
w
i
t
h
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
w
i
d
t
h
s
.
94
t
h
A
v
e
W
-
N
a
r
r
o
w
u
n
p
a
v
e
d
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
.
Ro
a
d
i
s
n
a
r
r
o
w
.
23
6
t
h
S
t
S
W
-
N
e
x
t
t
o
s
c
h
o
o
l
w
i
t
h
n
a
r
r
o
w
un
p
a
v
e
d
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
.
Ye
s
,
dr
a
i
n
a
g
e
.
23
4
t
h
S
t
S
W
-
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
s
o
u
t
h
s
i
d
e
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
.
94
t
h
A
v
e
W
-
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
w
e
s
t
s
i
d
e
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
.
23
6
t
h
S
t
S
W
-
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
s
o
u
t
h
s
i
d
e
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
(
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
wi
t
h
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
L
1
4
)
.
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
b
s
a
n
d
gu
t
t
e
r
s
.
$1
,
8
6
0
,
0
0
0
L2
M
a
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
D
r
M
a
i
n
S
t
2
0
0
t
h
S
t
S
W
2
,
7
0
0
U
n
p
a
v
e
d
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
o
n
b
o
t
h
s
i
d
e
s
w
i
t
h
so
m
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
f
o
r
n
e
w
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
we
s
t
s
i
d
e
.
No
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
we
s
t
s
i
d
e
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
.
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
b
s
a
n
d
gu
t
t
e
r
s
.
$5
4
0
,
0
0
0
L3
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
A
v
e
M
a
i
n
S
t
P
u
g
e
t
D
r
4
,
0
0
0
A sp
h
a
l
t
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
w
i
t
h
r
o
l
l
e
d
c
u
r
b
s
o
n
e
a
s
t
si
d
e
.
Ye
s
,
dr
a
i
n
a
g
e
.
Re
p
l
a
c
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
a
s
p
h
a
l
t
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
w
i
t
h
5
f
t
wi
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
e
a
s
t
s
i
d
e
o
f
st
r
e
e
t
.
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
b
s
a
n
d
gu
t
t
e
r
s
.
$1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
L4
M
e
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
Be
a
c
h
R
d
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
Dr
3,
8
0
0
N
a
r
r
o
w
u
n
p
a
v
e
d
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
w
i
t
h
s
o
m
e
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
n
o
r
t
h
s
i
d
e
Ye
s
,
d
i
t
c
h
.
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
no
r
t
h
s
i
d
e
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
t
o
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
.
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
b
s
a
n
d
gu
t
t
e
r
s
.
$7
6
0
,
0
0
0
L5
P
i
n
e
S
t
9
t
h
A
v
e
W
S
R
1
0
4
4
,
0
0
0
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
b
o
t
h
s
i
d
e
s
(
w
e
s
t
en
d
)
o
r
s
o
u
t
h
s
i
d
e
o
n
l
y
(
e
a
s
t
e
n
d
)
No
In
s
t
a
l
l
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
s
o
u
t
h
si
d
e
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
t
o
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
b
s
a
n
d
en
d)
o
r
s
o
u
th
s
id
e
o
n
l y
(ea
s
t e
n
d)
.s
id
e
o
f s
t re
e
tt
o
c
o
n
n
e
c
t e
x
i s ti
ng
s
id
ew
a
lk
s.
s
id
ew
a
lk
s
w
it
h
c
u
r
b s
a
n
d
gu
t
t
e
r
s
.
$8
0
0
,
0
0
0
Packet Page 315 of 487
ID
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
a
m
e
F
r
o
m
T
o
Le
n
g
t
h
(f
e
e
t
)
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
G ut
t
e
r
/
Dr
a
i
n
a
g
e
/
Di
t
c
h
P
h
o
t
o
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
T
y
p
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Co
s
t
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
L6
8
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
/
18
0
t
h
S
t
W
18
8
t
h
S
t
S
W
O
V
D
3
,
0
0
0
U
n
p
a
v
e
d
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
o
n
b
o
t
h
s
i
d
e
s
w
i
t
h
si
g
h
t
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
i
s
s
u
e
s
.
No
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
w
e
s
t
si
d
e
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
.
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
b
s
a
n
d
gu
t
t
e
r
s
.
$7
5
0
,
0
0
0
L7
8
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
2
1
2
n
d
S
t
S
W
2
0
6
t
h
S
t
S
W
2
,
0
0
0
U
n
p
a
v
e
d
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
o
n
b
o
t
h
s
i
d
e
s
w
i
t
h
va
r
i
o
u
s
w
i
d
t
h
s
.
Ye
s
,
dr
a
i
n
a
g
e
.
In
s
t
a
l
l
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
e
i
t
h
e
r
si
d
e
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
t
o
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
t
o
th
e
n
o
r
t
h
a
n
d
s
o
u
t
h
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
b
s
a
n
d
gu
t
t
e
r
s
.
$5
0
0
,
0
0
0
L8
2
3
8
t
h
S
t
S
W
1
0
4
t
h
A
v
e
W
1
0
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
1
,
4
0
0
U
n
p
a
v
e
d
a
s
p
h
a
l
t
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
o
n
b
o
t
h
s
i
d
e
s
wi
t
h
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
w
i
d
t
h
s
.
No
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
n
o
r
t
h
si
d
e
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
(
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
L
1
8
)
.
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
b
s
a
n
d
gu
t
t
e
r
s
.
$8
4
0
,
0
0
0
L9
2
3
8
t
h
S
t
S
W
H
w
y
9
9
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
W
2
,
6
0
0
I
n
t
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
n
t
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
o
n
o
n
e
s
i
d
e
,
w
i
t
h
un
p
a
v
e
d
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
o
n
o
n
e
s
i
d
e
Ye
s
,
d
i
t
c
h
on
s
o
u
t
h
si
d
e
In
s
t
a
l
l
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
o
n
n
o
r
t
h
si
d
e
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
.
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
b
s
a
n
d
gu
t
t
e
r
s
.
$6
5
0
,
0
0
0
L1
0
2
3
2
n
d
S
t
W
1
0
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
9
7
t
h
A
v
e
W
1
,
0
0
0
W
i
d
e
r
u
n
p
a
v
e
d
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
o
n
s
o
u
t
h
s
i
d
e
,
N
o
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
5
f
t
wi
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
,
p,
an
d
n
a
r
r
o
w
u
n
p
a
v
e
d
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
o
n
n
o
r
t
h
si
d
e
.
so
u
t
h
s
i
d
e
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
.
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
b
s
a
n
d
gu
t
t
e
r
s
.
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
Packet Page 316 of 487
ID
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
a
m
e
F
r
o
m
T
o
Le
n
g
t
h
(f
e
e
t
)
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
G ut
t
e
r
/
Dr
a
i
n
a
g
e
/
Di
t
c
h
P
h
o
t
o
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
T
y
p
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Co
s
t
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
L1
1
8
4
t
h
A
v
e
W
2
3
8
t
h
S
t
S
W
2
3
4
t
h
S
t
S
W
1
,
3
0
0
U
n
p
a
v
e
d
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
o
n
b
o
t
h
s
i
d
e
s
w
i
t
h
so
m
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
f
o
r
n
e
w
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
ea
s
t
s
i
d
e
o
n
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
e
n
d
.
No
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
e
a
s
t
si
d
e
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
t
o
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
t
o
th
e
s
o
u
t
h
.
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
b
s
a
n
d
gu
t
t
e
r
s
.
$2
6
0
,
0
0
0
L1
2
1
7
6
t
h
S
t
S
W
7
2
n
d
A
v
e
W
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
Dr
1,
4
0
0
U
n
p
a
v
e
d
,
u
n
s
t
r
i
p
e
d
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
o
n
b
o
t
h
si
d
e
s
w
i
t
h
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
w
i
d
t
h
s
.
N
o
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
to
w
a
r
d
e
a
s
t
e
n
d
.
Ye
s
,
dr
a
i
n
a
g
e
.
In
s
t
a
l
l
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
e
i
t
h
e
r
si
d
e
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
t
o
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
t
o
th
e
e
a
s
t
.
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
b
s
a
n
d
gu
t
t
e
r
s
.
$3
5
0
,
0
0
0
L1
3
1
8
8
t
h
S
t
S
W
9
2
n
d
A
v
e
W
8
8
t
h
A
v
e
W
1
,
0
0
0
U
n
p
a
v
e
d
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
o
n
b
o
t
h
s
i
d
e
s
w
i
t
h
va
r
i
o
u
s
w
i
d
t
h
s
.
Ye
s
,
d
i
t
c
h
on
n
o
r
t
h
si
d
e
.
In
s
t
a
l
l
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
s
o
u
t
h
si
d
e
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
t
o
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
t
o
th
e
e
a
s
t
.
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
b
s
a
n
d
gu
t
t
e
r
s
.
g
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
L1
4
1
8
4
t
h
S
t
S
W
/
An
d
o
v
e
r
S
t
18
4
t
h
S
t
S
W
/
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
Dr
/
A
n
d
o
v
e
r
St
3,
5
0
0
1
8
4
t
h
S
t
S
W
-
U
n
p
a
v
e
d
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
o
n
bo
t
h
s
i
d
e
s
w
i
t
h
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
w
i
d
t
h
s
.
S
o
m
e
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
n
o
r
t
h
s
i
d
e
o
f
1
8
4
t
h
S
t
be
t
w
e
e
n
8
5
t
h
P
l
W
a
n
d
8
4
t
h
S
t
W
.
An
d
o
v
e
r
S
t
-
N
a
r
r
o
w
,
u
n
s
t
r
i
p
e
d
,
u
n
p
a
v
e
d
sh
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
o
n
b
o
t
h
s
i
d
e
s
.
Ye
s
,
dr
a
i
n
a
g
e
.
18
4
t
h
S
t
S
W
-
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
n
o
r
t
h
s
i
d
e
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
.
An
d
o
v
e
r
S
t
-
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
e
i
t
h
e
r
s
i
d
e
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
.
A
d
d
e
d
g
e
li
n
e
s
o
n
b
o
t
h
s
i
d
e
s
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
.
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
b
s
a
n
d
gu
t
t
e
r
s
.
$8
7
5
,
0
0
0
L1
5
7
2
n
d
A
v
e
W
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
Dr
17
6
t
h
S
t
S
W
2
,
9
0
0
U
n
p
a
v
e
d
,
u
n
s
t
r
i
p
e
d
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
o
n
b
o
t
h
si
d
e
s
w
i
t
h
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
w
i
d
t
h
s
.
Ye
s
,
dr
a
i
n
a
g
e
on
w
e
s
t
si
d
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
ei
t
h
e
r
s
i
d
e
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
.
A
d
d
e
d
g
e
l
i
n
e
s
o
n
b
o
t
h
si
d
e
s
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
.
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
b
s
a
n
d
gu
t
t
e
r
s
.
$7
2
5
,
0
0
0
Packet Page 317 of 487
ID
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
a
m
e
F
r
o
m
T
o
Le
n
g
t
h
(f
e
e
t
)
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
G ut
t
e
r
/
Dr
a
i
n
a
g
e
/
Di
t
c
h
P
h
o
t
o
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
T
y
p
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Co
s
t
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
L1
6
2
3
6
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
S
R
1
0
4
E
a
s
t
o
f
8
4
t
h
Av
e
W
2,
1
0
0
U
n
p
a
v
e
d
a
n
d
a
s
p
h
a
l
t
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
o
n
b
o
t
h
si
d
e
s
w
i
t
h
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
w
i
d
t
h
s
.
Ye
s
,
dr
a
i
n
a
g
e
.
In
s
t
a
l
l
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
n
o
r
t
h
si
d
e
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
(
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
L
1
)
.
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
b
s
a
n
d
gu
t
t
e
r
s
.
$5
2
5
,
0
0
0
L1
7
9
2
n
d
A
v
e
W
1
8
9
t
h
P
l
S
W
1
8
6
t
h
P
l
S
W
1
,
0
0
0
U
n
p
a
v
e
d
,
u
n
s
t
r
i
p
e
d
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
o
n
b
o
t
h
si
d
e
s
w
i
t
h
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
w
i
d
t
h
s
.
Ye
s
,
d
i
t
c
h
on
e
a
s
t
si
d
e
.
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
ei
t
h
e
r
s
i
d
e
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
.
A
d
d
e
d
g
e
l
i
n
e
s
o
n
b
o
t
h
si
d
e
s
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
.
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
b
s
a
n
d
gu
t
t
e
r
s
.
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
L1
8
1
9
1
s
t
S
t
S
W
8
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
W
1
,
4
0
0
U
n
p
a
v
e
d
,
u
n
s
t
r
i
p
e
d
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
o
n
b
o
t
h
si
d
e
s
.
No
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
ei
t
h
e
r
s
i
d
e
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
.
A
d
d
e
d
g
e
l
i
n
e
s
o
n
b
o
t
h
si
d
e
s
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
.
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
b
s
a
n
d
gu
t
t
e
r
s
.
$2
8
0
,
0
0
0
L1
9
2
1
8
t
h
S
t
S
W
8
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
8
4
t
h
A
v
e
W
1
,
4
0
0
U
n
p
a
v
e
d
,
u
n
s
t
r
i
p
e
d
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
o
n
b
o
t
h
si
d
e
s
w
i
t
h
s
i
g
h
t
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
i
s
s
u
e
s
.
Ye
s
,
d
i
t
c
h
on
n
o
r
t
h
si
d
e
In
s
t
a
l
l
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
e
i
t
h
e
r
si
d
e
o
f
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
.
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
b
s
a
n
d
gu
t
t
e
r
s
.
$3
5
0
,
0
0
0
L2
0
1
9
2
n
d
S
t
S
W
8
8
t
h
A
v
e
W
8
4
t
h
A
v
e
W
1
,
3
0
0
U
n
p
a
v
e
d
a
n
d
a
s
p
h
a
l
t
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
m
i
x
w
i
t
h
id
l
k
f
d
l
t
b
t
Ye
s
,
d
i
t
c
h
.
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
o
r
r
e
a
l
i
g
n
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
id
l
k
i
t
h
i
d
f
t
t
t
t
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
id
l
k
i
t
h
b
d
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
f
r
o
m
n
e
w
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
,
b
u
t
sh
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
d
o
n
o
t
l
i
n
e
u
p
t
o
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
.
Ro
a
d
i
s
u
n
s
t
r
i
p
e
d
.
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
e
i
t
h
e
r
s
i
d
e
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
t
o
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
.
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
b
s
a
n
d
gu
t
t
e
r
s
.
$2
6
0
,
0
0
0
Packet Page 318 of 487
ID
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
a
m
e
F
r
o
m
T
o
Le
n
g
t
h
(f
e
e
t
)
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
G ut
t
e
r
/
Dr
a
i
n
a
g
e
/
Di
t
c
h
P
h
o
t
o
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
T
y
p
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Co
s
t
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
L2
1
1
0
4
t
h
A
v
e
W
/
Ro
b
i
n
H
o
o
d
D
r
23
8
t
h
S
t
S
W
1
0
6
t
h
A
v
e
W
2
,
2
0
0
A
s
p
h
a
l
t
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
o
n
w
e
s
t
s
i
d
e
,
a
n
d
na
r
r
o
w
u
n
p
a
v
e
d
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
o
n
e
a
s
t
s
i
d
e
.
No
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
w
e
s
t
si
d
e
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
t
o
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
t
o
th
e
p
a
r
k
(
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
L
7
)
.
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
b
s
a
n
d
gu
t
t
e
r
s
.
$4
4
0
,
0
0
0
L2
2
1
8
6
t
h
S
t
S
W
8
6
0
8
1
8
5
t
h
P
l
SW
Se
a
v
i
e
w
P
a
r
k
/
8
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
1,
7
0
0
U
n
p
a
v
e
d
,
u
n
s
t
r
i
p
e
d
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
o
n
b
o
t
h
si
d
e
s
w
i
t
h
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
w
i
d
t
h
s
.
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
no
r
t
h
s
i
d
e
i
n
f
r
o
n
t
o
f
S
e
a
v
i
e
w
p
a
r
k
o
n
t
h
e
ea
s
t
e
n
d
.
Ye
s
,
dr
a
i
n
a
g
e
.
In
s
t
a
l
l
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
n
o
r
t
h
si
d
e
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
t
o
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
t
o
th
e
w
e
s
t
a
n
d
e
a
s
t
.
A
d
d
e
d
g
e
l
i
n
e
s
o
n
b
o
t
h
si
d
e
s
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
.
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
b
s
a
n
d
gu
t
t
e
r
s
.
$4
2
5
,
0
0
0
L2
3
2
1
6
t
h
S
t
S
W
8
6
t
h
A
v
e
W
9
2
n
d
A
v
e
W
2
,
4
5
0
C
u
r
b
o
n
b
o
t
h
s
i
d
e
s
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
No
In
s
t
a
l
l
5
f
t
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
o
n
s
o
u
t
h
s
i
d
e
of
s
t
r
e
e
t
.
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
b
s
a
n
d
gu
t
t
e
r
s
.
$6
1
3
,
0
0
0
L2
4
9
2
n
d
A
v
e
W
B
o
w
d
o
i
n
W
a
y
2
2
0
t
h
S
t
S
W
2
,
2
5
0
U
n
m
a
r
k
e
d
a
n
d
u
n
p
a
v
e
d
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
.
N
o
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
5
f
t
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
o
n
e
i
t
h
e
r
s
i
d
e
o
f
st
r
e
e
t
.
5
f
t
w
i
d
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
w
i
t
h
c
u
r
b
s
a
n
d
gu
t
t
e
r
s
.
$5
6
3
,
0
0
0
Packet Page 319 of 487
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
Sh
o
r
t
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
S
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
t
r
i
x
Ped
estrian Safe
ty
RATI
NG =
WF x Pts
.
Connect
iv
ity-S
ervices
and F
acilities
RATI
NG =
WF x Pts
.
Connect
iv
ity-Lin
k
RATI
NG =
WF x Pts
.
Ac
tivit
y
RATI
NG =
WF x Pts
.
Comp
atib
ilit
y
RATI
NG =
WF x Pts
.
Enviro
nme
ntal
Impact
s
RATI
NG =
WF x
Pts
.
Pub
lic
Sup
por
t
RATI
NG =
WF x Pts
.
Dis
ta
n
ce
toSc
hool
RATI
NG =
WF X
Pts
Connect
iv
ity to t
ran
sit
routesa
nd facil
it
ie
s
RATI
NG =
WF x Pts
.
Ex
is
ting Infr
astructure
RATI
NG =
WF x Pts
.
Ra
n
k
i
n
g
ST
R
E
E
T
N
A
M
E
FR
O
M
TO
P
S
C
S
&
F
C
L
A
T
C
C
O
M
E
I
P
S
D S
CT
E I
Ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
T
O
T
A
L
P
R
I
O
R
I
T
Y
Pt
s
.
P
t
s
.
P
t
s
.
P
t
s
.
P
t
s
.
P
t
s
.
P
t
s
.
L
e
n
g
t
h
P
O
I
N
T
S
1
2n
d
A
v
.
Ma
i
n
S
t
.
J
a
m
e
s
S
t
.
31
5
3
1
2
3
9
3
9
3
3
3
3
3
6
1
1
2
2
3
3
10
0
'
63
1
2
D
a
y
t
o
n
S
t
.
7t
h
A
v
.
S
8t
h
A
v
.
S
31
5
3
1
2
2
6
3
9
3
3
3
3
3
6
3
3
3
3
3
3
25
0
'
63
1
3
Ma
p
l
e
S
t
.
We
s
t
o
f
6
t
h
A
v
.
S
8t
h
A
v
.
S
31
5
3
1
2
3
9
2
6
3
3
3
3
3
6
2
2
3
3
3
3
25
0
'
62
1
4
Wa
l
n
u
t
S
t
.
6t
h
A
v
.
S
7t
h
A
v
.
S
31
5
2
8
2
6
2
6
3
3
3
3
3
6
1
1
3
3
3
3
70
0
'
54
1
5
Wa
l
n
u
t
S
t
.
3r
d
A
v
.
S
4t
h
A
v
.
S
31
5
2
8
2
6
2
6
3
3
3
3
3
6
1
1
3
3
2
2
35
0
'
53
1
6
22
6
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
10
6
t
h
A
v
.
W
SR
-
1
0
4
31
5
2
8
2
6
2
6
2
2
3
3
3
6
1
1
2
2
1
1
70
0
'
50
1
7
18
9
t
h
P
l
.
S
W
80
t
h
A
v
.
W
78
t
h
A
v
.
W
21
0
3
1
2
2
6
2
6
3
3
3
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
70
0
'
45
2
8
8t
h
A
v
.
Wa
l
n
u
t
A
v
.
So
u
t
h
o
f
W
a
l
n
u
t
21
0
2
8
2
6
2
6
2
2
3
3
1
2
1
1
2
2
3
3
??
?
?
43
2
9
84
t
h
A
v
.
W
18
8
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
18
6
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
15
2
8
3
9
2
6
3
3
3
3
2
4
3
3
1
1
1
1
70
0
'
43
2
10
19
0
t
h
P
l
.
S
W
94
t
h
A
v
.
W
OV
D
31
5
2
8
2
6
1
3
2
2
3
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
80
0
'
42
2
Ra
n
k
i
n
g
ST
R
E
E
T
N
A
M
E
FR
O
M
TO
Packet Page 320 of 487
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
Wa
l
k
w
a
y
R
o
u
t
e
S
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
t
r
i
x
Wa
l
k
w
a
y
S
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
:
We
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
F
a
c
t
o
r
(W
F
)
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
S
a
f
e
t
y
(
P
S
)
5
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
-
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
a
n
d
F
a
c
il
i
t
i
e
s
(
C
S
&
F
)
4
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
-
L
i
n
k
(
C
L
)
3
Ac
t
i
v
i
t
y
(
A
T
C
)
3
Pu
b
l
i
c
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
(
P
S
)
2
Co
m
p at
i
b
i
l
i
t
y(
CO
M
)
1
Co
m
p
a
t
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
(
C
O
M
)
1
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
(
E
I
)
1
Di
s
t
a
n
c
e
f
r
o
m
S
c
h
o
o
l
(
D
S
)
1
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
t
o
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
r
o
u
t
e
s
a
n
d
f
a
c
il
i
t
i
e
s
(
C
T
)
1
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
I
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
(
E
I
)
1
P ede s trian Safety R ATING = WF x Pts.C onnectivit y -Serv i ce s a n d Facilitie s R ATING = WF x Pts.C onnectivit y -Link R ATING = WF x Pts.A c ti vity R ATING = WF x Pts.P ublic Supp o rt R ATING = WF x Pts.C ompatibili ty R ATING = WF x Pts.E nvironmental I mpacts R ATING = WF x Pts.D is t ance to Scho o l R ATING = WF X Pt s C onnectivit y to transi t r o utes a nd facilities R ATING = WF x Pts.E x i sting In fr a structur e R ATING = WF x Pts.P e R A C o R A C o R A A c R A P u R A C o R A E n R A D R A C o R A E x R A
Ra
n
k
i
n
g
St
r
e
e
t
N
a
m
e
Fr
o
m
T
o
P
S
C
S
&
F
C
L
A
T
C
P
S
C
O
M
E
I
D S
C T
E I
Ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
T
O
T
A
L
P
R
I
O
R
I
T
Y
Pt
s
.
P
t
s
.
P
t
s
.
P
t
s
.
P
t
s
.
P
t
s
.
P
t
s
.
P
t
s
.
P
t
s
.
P
t
s
.
L
e
n
g
t
h
P
O
I
N
T
S
1
23
6
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
/
2
3
4
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
SR-10
4
9
7
t
h
P
l
.
W
3
1
5
3
1
2
3
9
3
9
3
6
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
31
0
0
'
65
1
2
Ma
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
D
r
.
Ma
i
n
S
t
.
2
0
0
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
3
1
5
3
1
2
39
3
9
3
6
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
27
0
0
'
64
1
3
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
A
v
.
Pu
g
e
t
D
r
.
M
a
i
n
S
t
.
3
1
5
3
1
2
39
3
9
3
6
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
1
1
40
0
0
'
62
1
4
Me
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
B
e
a
c
h
R
d
OVD
7
6
t
h
A
v
.
W
3
1
5
3
1
2
3
9
3
9
3
6
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
38
0
0
'
60
1
5
Pi
n
e
S
t
.
9th A
v
.
W
S
R
1
0
4
3
1
5
3
1
2
3
9
3
9
2
4
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
40
0
0
'
59
1
6
80
t
h
A
v
.
W
/
1
8
0
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
18
8
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
O
V
D
3
1
5
3
1
2
39
2
6
2
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
2
2
3,
0
0
0
'
58
1
Ra
n
k
i
n
g
7
80
t
h
A
v
.
W
20
6
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
2
1
2
n
d
S
t
.
S
W
3
1
5
28
3
9
3
9
2
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
20
0
0
'
58
1
8
2
3
8
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
10
0
t
h
A
v
.
W
1
0
4
t
h
A
v
.
W
31
5
3
1
2
3
9
2
6
3
6
2
2
3
3
1
1
2
2
1
1
14
0
0
'
57
1
9
2
3
8
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
Hw
y
.
9
9
7
6
t
h
A
v
.
W
31
5
3
1
2
3
9
3
9
1
2
2
2
3
3
1
1
2
2
1
1
2,
6
0
0
'
56
1
10
2
3
2
n
d
S
t
.
W
10
0
t
h
A
v
.
W
9
7
t
h
A
v
.
W
21
0
3
1
2
2
6
3
9
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
10
0
0
'
54
2
11
8
4
t
h
A
v
.
W
23
8
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
2
3
4
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
31
5
3
1
2
1
3
3
9
2
4
2
2
3
3
1
1
3
3
2
2
13
0
0
'
54
2
12
1
7
6
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
72
n
d
A
v
.
W
O
V
D
21
0
3
1
2
3
9
2
6
2
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
2
2
14
0
0
'
53
2
Packet Page 321 of 487
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
Wa
l
k
w
a
y
R
o
u
t
e
S
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
t
r
i
x
Wa
l
k
w
a
y
S
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
:
We
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
F
a
c
t
o
r
(W
F
)
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
S
a
f
e
t
y
(
P
S
)
5
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
-
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
a
n
d
F
a
c
il
i
t
i
e
s
(
C
S
&
F
)
4
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
-
L
i
n
k
(
C
L
)
3
Ac
t
i
v
i
t
y
(
A
T
C
)
3
Pu
b
l
i
c
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
(
P
S
)
2
Co
m
p at
i
b
i
l
i
t
y(
CO
M
)
1
Co
m
p
a
t
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
(
C
O
M
)
1
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
(
E
I
)
1
Di
s
t
a
n
c
e
f
r
o
m
S
c
h
o
o
l
(
D
S
)
1
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
t
o
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
r
o
u
t
e
s
a
n
d
f
a
c
il
i
t
i
e
s
(
C
T
)
1
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
I
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
(
E
I
)
1
P ede s trian Safety R ATING = WF x Pts.C onnectivit y -Serv i ce s a n d Facilitie s R ATING = WF x Pts.C onnectivit y -Link R ATING = WF x Pts.A c ti vity R ATING = WF x Pts.P ublic Supp o rt R ATING = WF x Pts.C ompatibili ty R ATING = WF x Pts.E nvironmental I mpacts R ATING = WF x Pts.D is t ance to Scho o l R ATING = WF X Pt s C onnectivit y to transi t r o utes a nd facilities R ATING = WF x Pts.E x i sting In fr a structur e R ATING = WF x Pts.P e R A C o R A C o R A A c R A P u R A C o R A E n R A D R A C o R A E x R A
Ra
n
k
i
n
g
St
r
e
e
t
N
a
m
e
Fr
o
m
T
o
P
S
C
S
&
F
C
L
A
T
C
P
S
C
O
M
E
I
D S
C T
E I
Ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
T
O
T
A
L
P
R
I
O
R
I
T
Y
Pt
s
.
P
t
s
.
P
t
s
.
P
t
s
.
P
t
s
.
P
t
s
.
P
t
s
.
P
t
s
.
P
t
s
.
P
t
s
.
L
e
n
g
t
h
P
O
I
N
T
S
Ra
n
k
i
n
g
13
18
8
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
88
t
h
A
v
.
W
9
2
n
d
A
v
.
W
31
5
2
8
2
6
2
6
2
4
2
2
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
10
0
0
'
4
9
2
14
A
n
d
o
v
e
r
S
t
.
/
1
8
4
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
18
4
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
/
8
8
t
h
A
v
.
W
O
V
D
/
A
n
d
o
v
e
r
S
t
.
3
1
5
3
1
2
26
2
6
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
35
0
0
'
4
9
2
15
7
2
n
d
A
v
.
W
OV
D
1
7
6
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
2
1
0
3
1
2
26
2
6
2
4
2
2
2
2
1
1
3
3
1
1
29
0
0
'
4
7
2
16
2
3
6
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
SR-10
4
E
a
s
t
o
f
8
4
t
h
A
v
.
W
2
1
0
3
1
2
2
6
2
6
2
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
21
0
0
'
4
7
2
17
9
2
n
d
A
v
.
W
18
9
t
h
P
l
.
S
W
1
8
6
t
h
P
l
.
S
W
2
1
0
3
1
2
26
2
6
2
4
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
0
0
'
4
7
2
18
1
9
1
s
t
.
S
t
S
W
80th A
v
.
W
7
6
t
h
A
v
.
W
2
1
0
3
1
2
2
6
2
6
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
14
0
0
'
4
7
2
19
21
8
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
80th A
v
.
W
8
4
t
h
A
v
.
W
3
1
5
2
8
1
3
2
6
1
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
14
0
0
'
4
4
2
20
19
2
n
d
S
t
.
S
W
84th A
v
.
W
8
8
t
h
A
v
.
W
1
5
2
8
3
9
2
6
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
2
2
13
0
0
'
4
2
2
21
1
0
4
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
/
R
o
b
i
n
H
o
o
d
23
8
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
10
6
t
h
A
v
.
W
2
1
0
28
1
3
3
9
2
4
2
2
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
22
0
0
'
4
2
2
22
18
6
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
Se
a
v
i
e
w
P
a
r
k
8
6
0
8
1
8
5
t
h
P
l
S
W
15
2
8
2
6
2
6
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
17
0
0
'
3
7
2
23
21
6
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
86
t
h
A
v
.
W
92
n
d
A
v
.
W
15
2
8
1
3
2
6
0
0
1
1
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
2,
4
5
0
'
31
2
24
92
n
d
A
v
.
W
B
o
w
n
d
o
i
n
S
t
.
22
0
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
15
2
8
1
3
1
3
0
0
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2,
2
5
0
'
26
2
Packet Page 322 of 487
Implementation and Financial Plan
September 2009 7-3
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2008. Collision Data (1/1/2005 –
12/31/2007) within the City of Edmonds. Collected and compiled by the WSDOT
Collision Data and Analysis Branch.
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2009. Design Manual. Publication
Number M 22-01. Prepared by the Design Office, Engineering and Regional Operations
Division. January. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Publications/Manuals/M22-01.htm
Washington State Transportation Commission (WSTC). 1998. Transportation Commission List
of Highways of Statewide Significance. Passed by Resolution #584. December.
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/ppsc/hsp/HSSLIST.pdf
Packet Page 323 of 487
Packet Page 324 of 487
Packet Page 325 of 487
Packet Page 326 of 487
Packet Page 327 of 487
Packet Page 328 of 487
City of Edmonds Planning Division
Date:July 27, 2009
To:Rob English, City Engineer
From:Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Subject:Transportation Plan Update – Plan Consistency
This is a short note regarding consistency of the 2009 Transportation Plan update with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan.
Bertrand Hauss and the consultants for the project have done a good job of involving relevant
City agencies (including Planning) during the process of developing the plan update. This has
provided an ongoing process for checking consistency with the planning efforts lead by these
other agencies. For example, Planning’s involvement has focused on assuring that the underlying
assumptions and baseline data in the Transportation Plan reflect current land use and buildable
lands data. To the best of my knowledge, this cross-checking and incorporation of input from
other departments and plans has been done effectively.
In direct terms, the Transportation Plan update provides updated data and analysis based on
existing City plans (including current data on land use, buildable lands, parks, utilities, public
facilities, and economic development priorities). The Transportation Plan also anticipates some of
the work being done by the Planning Board and other City agencies on sustainability and transit-
oriented and non-motorized priorities. This is an important aspect of the Transportation Plan
update; it not only reflects current plans but also seeks to be consistent with emerging City plans
and priorities.
In technical terms, the Transportation Plan update appears to be solidly based on current
transportation and concurrency methods and techniques. The Plan provides a thorough analysis of
level-of-service and funding options, which should support clear decision-making during the
planning period.
MEMORANDUM
Packet Page 329 of 487
1
1/ Response to Lora Petso’s letter:
The response to each comment is provided in the same order it was provided in the letter:
a. General concern about the policy changes in the Plan
Overall, the updated Transportation Plan does not reflect a shift in the City’s transportation
policy direction. Staff worked with the Transportation Committee to update the
transportation policies, over the course of four committee meetings. In general, the
Committee’s review and update of the policies sought to (1) tighten the language so that it is
more specific, and also grammatically consistent; (2) remove redundancies; (3) reflect
programs or initiatives that the City has implemented since the last Plan update in 2002; and
(4) remove policies that are actually development standards, and are more appropriately
placed in the City’s development regulations, as codified in Edmonds Community
Development Code (ECDC) Title 9 (Streets and Sidewalks) and Title 18 (Public Works
Requirements).
For the fourth category listed above, it has been determined by staff that some of the
standards reflected in the 2002 Plan are not covered in ECDC, and that it will not be feasible
to amend the ECDC prior to adoption of the Comprehensive Plan amendments. In this case,
the policies that cover these areas have been put back into the Transportation Plan as a stop-
gap measure; but staff will move these standards into the ECDC as part of a comprehensive
review and update of the code.
In addition to the revisions listed above, the goals, objectives and policies were renumbered
so that they could be more easily cited (e.g. under the 2002 Plan, numbering of goals,
objectives, and policies restarted at “1” under each policy section, so there were numerous
policies with the same policy number. For the 2009 update, policies were renumbered
consecutively from section to section, so that each policy now has its own unique number).
Responses to specific policy concerns that have been raised are addressed in section (f)
below.
b. General concern about procedures for adopting Comprehensive Plan
Procedures set forth by staff for adopting the Transportation Plan are consistent with the
requirements of the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA). The Transportation
Plan serves as the transportation element of the City Comprehensive Plan. The GMA allows
cities to adopt amendments to their comprehensive plans once per year. Thus, the updated
Transportation Plan will be adopted toward the end of this year, at the same time as any other
2009 amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is requesting that the Council approve
(but not adopt) the Transportation Plan at this time, with intent to adopt as part of the overall
annual Comprehensive Plan updates. This is mainly because work on the Transportation
Plan, which began last year, is ahead of the other proposed amendments. Staff thought it
would ease the process for the community and Council to review the Transportation Plan
Packet Page 330 of 487
2
earlier (because it is ready for review, and includes a lot of information), and then be able to
focus on the other proposed amendments later.
However, if it is shown that anything in the other proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments
would affect the recommendations in the Transportation Plan, there will be time to make any
needed adjustments to the Transportation Plan prior to adoption.
Regarding change to level of service (LOS) standards, one reduction is reflected in the 2009
update, which is a change in the standard for SR 524 from LOS D to LOS E. This is a result
of feedback provided on July 2nd, 2009 by WSDOT after their review of the Public Review
Draft of the Transportation Plan. The additional public hearing (scheduled for September 1)
was requested by staff to allow sufficient public review of this change. Additional
information about LOS standards is provided below.
c. Concern about use of REET revenue to fund transportation projects
The Transportation Plan does not recommend any changes in the use of Real Estate Excise
Tax (REET) funds for transportation; but revenue projections do reflect REET as a source of
funding as it is reflected in current City policy. Under current City policy, the first $750,000
of REET revenue collected each year is dedicated to parks, and additional revenue collected
beyond that level goes to transportation. This has resulted in a wide variance in REET funds
that have gone to transportation over the years, from a considerable amount in real estate
‘boom’ years, to little or no funding in other years. The revenue projections in the 2009
update reflect a conservative level of future REET funding for transportation, based upon
typical levels that have been generated across the past 10 years or so.
d. Concern about establishment of a business license fee to fund transportation projects
The business license fee is not identified as a specific source of funding in the Final
Transportation Plan. It is mentioned as one of the options that are ‘out there’ but it is not an
option that the staff recommends pursuing at this time. In early drafts of the 2009 update,
calculation was provided to show what the order of magnitude could be for this type of fee.
However, the calculation was dropped from the final recommended Plan since it is not part of
staff’s recommended revenue source. It is still mentioned in the Plan as a theoretical revenue
source that is an option for the City to pursue in the future (along with other potential sources
such as Local Improvement Districts, joint agency funding, and additional grant funding).
e. Concern about Point Wells
To clarify, because the Point Wells site is under Snohomish County jurisdiction, it is the
County that has completed the initial analysis of the site, to support a programmatic EIS on
the proposed land use change. As discussed during the 8/4/09 City Council meeting, the
Point Wells analysis was not included in the City’s modeling because the proposed change in
land use designation at that site has not been adopted by Snohomish County. Reflection of
adopted land use plans in transportation analysis is consistent with GMA requirements. In
addition:
Packet Page 331 of 487
3
• The proposal before the County is a requested change in land use designation, not a
site proposal. The purpose of the programmatic EIS prepared by the County for the
Point Wells request was to help inform the County Council’s decision on whether to
approve or reject the proposed land use designation; and as such, the transportation
analysis assessed the high end of what could occur under the proposed change in
designation (which does identify potentially a high level of transportation impacts in
Edmonds, Woodway, and Shoreline). However, for the purpose of the City’s
Transportation Plan, which is to identify projects that the City desires to fund over the
next 16 years, it would be premature and highly speculative to try to ‘guess’ what will
occur at this site beyond the adopted land use.
• If the County approves a change in land use designation at the Point Wells site,
whatever development is specifically proposed at the site is still subject to the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) before any development can occur. As part of this
process, the County’s programmatic EIS indicates that a high level of coordination
with affected jurisdictions would need to occur – this would include identifying
impacts and appropriate mitigation for a specific site plan – with the developer
responsible for mitigating its share of transportation impacts. The City’s current
Transportation Plan would provide a solid basis to allow such coordination to occur,
because it shows what the City expects transportation conditions in Edmonds to be
without a change in land use at Point Wells. The Transportation Plan provides the
City with a baseline that will allow comparison of additional impacts of development
at this site, which in turn would clarify the share of mitigation within the City for
which the developer would be responsible.
However, we do recognize that the County’s Comprehensive Plan amendment process is
occurring concurrent to the City’s, and it is possible that a change in land use designation
could be adopted by the County by the end of this year. In this case, development at the Point
Wells site cannot occur right away for the reasons stated above, so the City will have time to
incorporate this change into its next Comprehensive Plan update, which is scheduled for
2011. This illustrates why comprehensive plans are continuously reviewed and potentially
updated every year, even though they are long-range planning documents.
f. Concern about specific policy changes
(1) Cul-de-sac policy
This policy was not dropped because anyone disagrees with it, but because it is a design
standard that more appropriately belongs in the City’s development code. This standard
distance came from the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP), a nationwide
institute providing standards for planning practice. Additionally many local jurisdictions are
currently using 600’ as their standard maximum cul-de-sac length. However, upon review by
staff from the Development Services Department, it has been determined that this standard is
not covered in the ECDC, so it has been added back into the Transportation Plan as a stop-
gap measure, as discussed in section (a) above.
Packet Page 332 of 487
4
(2) Street right-of-way requirements for new development
The comment references Policy 5.2 in the previous plan, but to clarify, the policy mentioned
is actually Policy 5.1. This policy is also numbered 5.1 in the update. Right-of-way
requirements for new development are specified in the Standards Details, which are codified
in the ECDC. Right-of-way requirements for specific development proposals are not dictated
by the Comprehensive Plan. Thus, the reference to the Transportation Element was removed
for consistency with city procedures and to eliminate confusion.
(3) Sidewalk location policies, and locations of proposed new sidewalks
The previous Policy 1.2 (“Sidewalks should be located in areas where there is sufficient
pedestrian traffic”) and Policy 1.3 (“Sidewalk design should be related to the function and
the anticipated amount of pedestrian traffic”) were replaced with numerous policies
(numbered 6.1 through 6.19) that are consistent with the spirit of the original policies, but
provide much more specific direction.
Sidewalk projects were identified and prioritized through an extensive process that was
conducted by the citizens’ Walkway Committee. The Walkway Committee consisted of 12
members who live in across the different geographical areas of the city, who walk the city
regularly. Table 4-1 in the Transportation Plan summarizes the prioritization criteria that
were established (which are a refinement of the criteria presented in the 2002 Plan). The
criteria place the highest emphasis on safety, connectivity, and level of pedestrian activity.
Appendix D of the Transportation Plan summarizes the scores for each of the projects on the
list.
Proposed sidewalk projects were presented at Open House #2 (on 3/5/09), and again in the
proposed priority order at Open House #3 (on 6/30/09). Some projects were added based
upon feedback received on the Public Review Draft Transportation Plan, prior to Open
House #3.
All potential projects were evaluated very thoroughly by the Walkway Committee members.
Regarding the priority of specific projects, N. Meadowdale Beach Road is one of the only
remaining collectors in the City without sidewalks. This addition would create a pedestrian
connection between 76th Avenue W (sidewalk currently under construction) and Olympic
View Drive (sidewalk recently added during Phase 1 of OVD project). Pine Street is also
included in the Walkway Plan and was ranked lower than the previous project because of
lower vehicle speeds and stop-controlled intersections. Olympic Avenue has an existing
walkway with rolled curb on the east side of this street. This stretch has high pedestrian
volume with access to Yost Park and Edmonds Elementary School to go along with high
vehicular activity. Additionally a roadway classification upgrade (from local to collector) is
recommended for Olympic Avenue.
(4) Sidewalk construction policies
Similar to the cul-de-sac policy, the sidewalk construction policies were initially dropped
from the Draft Transportation Plan because they are development requirements that more
appropriately belong in the City’s development code. However, upon review by staff from
the Development Services Department in June 2009, it was determined that these
Packet Page 333 of 487
5
requirements are not covered in the ECDC, so they were added back into the Transportation
Plan as a stop-gap measure, as discussed in section (a) above. These are included as Policy
7.1 through 7.4 in the updated Transportation Plan.
(5) Goal to establish level of service standards
The goal to “Establish appropriate levels of service for transportation facilities to adequately
serve existing and future developments” was removed because the LOS standards are
actually established under Policy 15.3, so it was considered redundant.
(6) LOS Policies
Transit policy:
The 2002 policy indicated that a maximum distance of ¼ mile access to transit is “desirable”,
but that ½ mile is “acceptable”. Since the City does not control where transit is provided, the
purpose of transit policies in the Transportation Plan is mainly to communicate the City’s
priorities to the agencies that provide transit service – for local bus service, this is
Community Transit. It was determined by the Transportation Committee that presenting
“desirable” verses “acceptable” distances to transit did not provide very strong direction
regarding the City’s priorities on access to transit – so the policy was revised to state only
that “A desirable maximum distance is ¼ mile.” (Policy 9.2 in the updated Plan).
LOS standards for roads:
The following information was provided at the August 4 City Council Meeting
City Local Streets
The purpose of the City’s concurrency standards is to maintain mobility on city streets, in
line with current levels of development. Since the primary function of local streets is to
provide access, and not serve a high level of mobility, the project team determined that it is
not appropriate to define a concurrency standard for local streets. In addition to concurrency
objectives being counter to the function of local streets, it is simply not practical for the City
to monitor LOS on all local streets (which make up about 76% of the streets in the City) for
the purpose of concurrency. For these two reasons, the LOS B standard that was defined for
local streets in the 2002 Plan was dropped. However, even though a standard was defined in
the 2002 Plan, no concurrency locations in that plan consisted of the intersection of two local
streets –so this decision does not affect the analyses or conclusions of either version of the
Plan.
Please note, also, that the addition of the Traffic Calming Program in the 2009 update does
address the potential for operational issues on local streets in a way that correctly lines up
with their purpose, and thus is much more effective than concurrency for monitoring and
addressing traffic operations on local streets. If local streets are experiencing traffic volumes
that are too high or speeds that are too fast, this program lays out the steps that the City will
take to address those issues. We feel that application of a Traffic Calming Program is
superior to concurrency in addressing traffic issues on local streets.
Packet Page 334 of 487
6
The concurrency standard of LOS C for collectors and LOS D for arterials is the same in the
2009 update as it was for the 2002 Plan.
State Highways
Any state highway not designated as Highway Statewide Significance (HSS) is automatically
considered as a Highway Regional Significance (HRS). Local jurisdictions may choose to
include them in their concurrency program. In Edmonds, SR 524 and SR 99 north of SR 104
are HRS. In the 2002 Plan, SR 524 was held to the City’s arterial standard of LOS D – and
no standard was applied to SR 99. In 2005, PSRC developed LOS standards for HRS
facilities, in collaboration with local jurisdictions within the region. As they were emerging,
the HRS standards were often treated as suggestions, with many local jurisdictions
maintaining their locally adopted standards on these facilities. However, in its review of the
June 2009 draft, WSDOT directed the City that the PSRC standards must be applied to HRS
facilities. Thus, the 2009 update applies the PSRC standard of LOS E to these facilities.
(7) TIP policy section dropped
The TIP section was dropped from the policies because the requirements are dictated by state
law, and the policy section was just a repeat of those requirements. In addition, the
2010-2015 TIP is included in the Implementation section of Chapter 6. However, to clarify
how the annual TIP process ties to the overall Transportation Plan, this information, which
was removed from the policies, will be added into the Implementation Section of Chapter 6.
(8) Disagreement with project priorities
Walkway project priorities – please see response (f.3) above.
Roadway project priorities – Table 3-17 summarizes the prioritization criteria that were
developed for roadway projects. The criteria place the strongest weight on safety and
compliance with concurrency, with additional weight given for projects with high grant
eligibility, high magnitude of improvement (e.g. improve a greater number of traffic
movements), and/or provide multimodal improvements.
With regard to the extension of 228th Street SW in Ballinger, it was added in the updated
Plan after being ranked as the #1 project in the SR 99 Study conducted by the City in 2006.
This project received the highest safety score and also ranks high because of grant eligibility
with the regional magnitude of the project. It would help reduce the intersection delay to
many intersections east of SR 99 along both SR 104 and 220th Street SW. It also adds
pedestrian connection and provides a safe direct access for Edmonds residents to the
Mountlake Terrace Transit Center from SR 99.
(9) Omission of inter-jurisdictional efforts on SR 99 and Point Wells development
This section specifies the inter-jurisdictional coordination needed by the City to implement
the projects and recommendations presented in the Transportation Plan. For the reasons
stated earlier, it is premature to incorporate potential future development at Point Wells into
transportation recommendations or into the implementation plan.
Packet Page 335 of 487
7
10) Road resurfacing projects
The resurfacing of road projects is explained in more detail on pages 3-52 and 3-53. The
selection of projects depends on the review of pavement survey conducted every 2 years as
part of the WSDOT Pavement Condition Survey. All principal arterials, minor arterials, and
collectors are assigned a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) from 0 to 100 based on the quality
of the pavement. Additionally, Public Works will respond each time a citizen concern is
received regarding pavement defects on a local street. The complaint will be assessed and
prioritized with regard to public safety. Those issues that are capable of resolve using city
forces are dealt with. Those that are too large are added to future overlay considerations. The
utility projects are also taken into account, whether a water, sewer, or storm project is
programmed in the near future. The final selection of projects is based on the proximity of
those different projects. The budget shortfall has limited the number of overlay projects over
the last couple of years. During the next overlay program, all roadway segments will be
considered based on pavement condition and proximity to the utility projects.
11) Future planned development included in model
The summary in Table 1-1 originally included projected development in the unincorporated
Esperance area that is surrounded by the incorporated City. The table has been corrected so
that it only includes projected development (residential and non-residential) within the city
limits, which does match up to the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan.
2/ Response to Roger Hertrich’s comments:
a. Questions the use of concurrency to classify streets, anticipating streets with a higher
level of service classification would receive the most money
The GMA requires that cities and counties each adopt a concurrency management system,
but leaves it to the local jurisdictions to determine what their concurrency requirements will
be. In the City’s adopted program, concurrency is not used to classify streets, but the street
functional classification does determine its concurrency requirements (defined in Policy 15.3
in the updated Plan). Under the city’s concurrency system, higher classified streets actually
have a lower standard than lower classified streets. However, it is often true that
improvements to higher classified streets are more costly than improvements to lower
classified streets. This is in part why the concurrency requirements are often lower on higher
classified streets. The other part of the reason is that drivers tend to accept higher levels of
congestion on higher classified streets.
b. Questions the high level improvement that is projected with a traffic signal installed at
various locations
For the stop-controlled intersection of 196th and 88th, the existing LOS is:
- northbound: LOS C
- southbound: LOS F
LOS F is projected in both directions by 2015.
Packet Page 336 of 487
8
In developing transportation improvements to address identified deficiencies, it is the goal to
identify the least expensive level of improvement needed to address the problem, while still
meeting overall mobility objectives. Since installation of a traffic signal is “all or nothing”
(as compared to a widening, which is typically proposed only in the direction of traffic
movements that are experiencing problems), it can end up adding more capacity than is
needed to meet concurrency, which is the expected case at 196th and 88th, and also at
Caspers and 9th. In each of these cases, no lower level of project improvement that would
allow all traffic movements (such as adding lanes in certain directions) was identified that
would solve the identified concurrency deficiency.
However, at 196th and 88th, an alternate project that allows right-turn only out of 88th has
been identified in the Plan as another option that would allow the intersection to meet
concurrency requirements. While this solution does restrict the mobility of some movements
by prohibiting northbound and southbound left turns / through movements, it is expected to
address the LOS deficiency with less additional capacity.
c. Concerns about proposed future signal at Main and 9th
The intersections of both Main and Walnut with 9th Avenue are operating at LOS E under
existing conditions, and are projected to operate at LOS F by 2015. Similar to the discussion
above, it is not the goal of concurrency to improve to anything higher than LOS D, but
installation of a traffic signal would add capacity to both intersections beyond that required to
meet concurrency.
The project team did evaluate a “non-traffic signal solution” at the intersections of 9th with
Main and Walnut. Under this solution, parking would be removed along the entire length of
9th Avenue between the northbound approach of Walnut and the southbound approach of
Main, and 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.
While it not common to see two lanes at stop-controlled approaches, it is not unheard of.
Because it would likely take drivers a little time to adjust to this configuration, staff initially
opted for the more conventional traffic signal solution. However, this solution will be added
to the Plan as an alternate improvement to address deficiencies at these two locations.
d. Recommend using safety as the basis for prioritizing projects
Safety is a strong consideration in prioritizing the City’s projects, as is specified in
Table 3-17. In fact, three of the top five projects listed in Table 3-18 are identified in the Plan
primarily as safety projects. However, safety is not the only consideration. The GMA
requires that jurisdictions identify and fund projects that are needed to maintain their adopted
concurrency programs (projects must be funded, or have funding identified, within 6 years of
the year that they are triggered). In many cases, concurrency projects would also improve
safety conditions at the locations where they are implemented.
Packet Page 337 of 487
9
e. Question about the traffic concerns / congestion issues to / from Ferry Terminal and
Sound Transit Station (not referenced in Plan)
The Edmonds Crossing Multimodal Facility is mentioned in Chapter 5 of the Plan and the
policy section. This project is still planned as a long-range project (in Washington State Ferry
plan) and addresses many safety improvements, such as a better separation between all the
different modes of transportation. Additionally, WSF recently chose the Kingston to
Edmonds route to participate in the reservation pilot program. The main purpose of this
program is to reduce ferry queuing with a reservation system. The pre-design study began in
July and an implementation date could be as early as 2011. If implemented, congestion along
SR-104 during ferry queuing peak hours would be significantly reduced. Traffic generated by
the existing ferry terminal was taken into account in the modeling and LOS analysis that was
completed for the Plan.
3/ Response to Al Rutledge’s comments:
a) Concerns about SR 99 @ 220th St. SW not being mentioned in plan
The intersection of SR 99 and 220th is addressed in the plan, and included in the 2016-2025
Transportation Improvement Plan. The proposed improvements consist of widening the
westbound right turn lane of 220th and the southbound left turn lane of SR 99. Since this
intersection is along a Highway of Regional Significance (HRS), the intersection was
analyzed against a concurrency standard of LOS E and therefore not meeting those by 2025
with LOS F.
b) Question about Edmonds Way @ 238th St. SW (during TIP Public Hearing)
This intersection is also identified in the plan, and included in the 2016-2025 Transportation
Improvement Plan. The existing LOS is F (see Figure 3-10). Since the intersection is along a
Highway of Statewide Significance, (HSS), the intersection isn’t subject to concurrency and
thus no City standard is defined. The improvement consists of installing a traffic signal
(along with meeting one of the traffic signal warrant per analysis and WSDOT approval) – or
the City would need to coordinate with WSDOT to determine an alternative solution to the
operational issues that have been identified.
4/ Response to Council President Wilson’s comment:
- Question about providing additional traffic signal warrant studies at 196th @ 88th
Staff has evaluated the accidents that have occurred at this location from 2008 (end previous
study) to the present. The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) states that a
traffic signal can be warranted (Warrant 7) at an intersection if: “5 or more reported crashes,
of types susceptible to correction by a traffic control signal, have occurred within a 12-
month period”. During that time period, only 4 accidents have been recorded at or near the
Packet Page 338 of 487
10
intersection and none are characterized as correctable by the installation of a traffic signal.
Therefore, the intersection currently doesn’t warrant a traffic signal based on the Crash
Experience Warrant. Since the existing LOS is F (below PSRC Standards as along SR 524),
the City will continue to monitor the intersection to explore if any other warrants may be met
(such as volume warrant). Additionally, an alternative was identified in the Plan by limiting
northbound and southbound movements to right turn only – analysis indicates that this would
address the LOS problem without installation of a signal.
If you have any additional questions prior to the upcoming Transportation Plan Public Hearing
(09/01/09), please address them to the City Engineer, Mr. Rob English at:
english@ci.edmonds.wa.us.
Packet Page 339 of 487
AM-2472 4.
Continued Public Hearing for Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:09/01/2009
Submitted By:Conni Curtis
Submitted For:Robert English Time:15 Minutes
Department:Engineering Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Continued public hearing for the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program
(2010-2015) and proposed resolution.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Council approve the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (2010-2015) and adopt the
proposed resolution.
Previous Council Action
On August 4, 2009, Council held a public hearing on the Six-Year Transportation Improvement
Program (2010-2015).
Narrative
On August 4, 2009, Council held a public hearing on the Six-Year Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP). The Comprehensive Transportation Plan was used to develop the Six-Year TIP.
Since the Comprehensive Transportation Plan public hearing was continued to the September 1st
Council meeting, it was determined that a second public hearing on the 2010-2015 TIP would be
held during the same meeting.
Narrative from August 4th Council Meeting:
The Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a transportation planning document
that identifies funded, partially funded, and unfunded projects that are planned or needed over the
next six calendar years. The TIP also identifies the expenditures and secured or reasonably
expected revenues for each of the projects included in the TIP.
RCW 35.77.010 and 36.81.121 require that each city update and adopt their TIP prior to adoption
of the budget. A copy of the adopted TIP will be submitted to the Puget Sound Regional Council
and Washington State Department of Transportation.
The Comprehensive Transportation Plan update prepared during 2008-09 was used to develop the
proposed 2010-2015 TIP. The TIP document includes a current project list with updated project
costs and funding from the Plan.
Due to a shortfall in transportation funding, the TIP includes new revenue from the Transportation
Packet Page 340 of 487
Benefit District (TBD) beginning in year 2013. The future TBD revenue is based on a $40
increase to the current $20 vehicle license fee authorized by the TBD earlier this year. Any
increase above the current $20 vehicle license fee would require voter approval. Staff
recommends the TBD begin a comprehensive investigation in 2010 to determine whether the TBD
revenue should be increased and a timeline for implementation, if an increase is pursued.
A number of unsecured State and Federal transportation grants have been programmed in the TIP.
Most transportation grants are competitive, and the success of how many grants are secured in the
future will depend on other transportation needs and funding requests in the region.
Staff recommends the Council approve the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program and
adopt the Resolution.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: 2010-2015 TIP
Link: 2009 TIP Resolution
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 Engineering Robert English 08/27/2009 12:07 PM APRV
2 Public Works Noel Miller 08/27/2009 12:18 PM APRV
3 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/27/2009 02:10 PM APRV
4 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/27/2009 02:33 PM APRV
5 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/27/2009 02:43 PM APRV
Form Started By: Conni
Curtis
Started On: 08/26/2009 10:11
AM
Final Approval Date: 08/27/2009
Packet Page 341 of 487
Packet Page 342 of 487
Packet Page 343 of 487
Packet Page 344 of 487
- 1 -
RESOLUTION NO. ______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, APPROVING A
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN (TIP), AND
DIRECTING FILING OF THE ADOPTED PROGRAM WITH
THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION.
WHEREAS, RCW 35.77.010 and 36.81.121 require that each city and town is
required to adopt a Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) and update it annually, prior to
adoption of the budget, and file a copy of such adopted program with the Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT); and,
WHEREAS, public hearings were held on the TIP on August 4 and September 1,
2009; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to adopt such a program stating its desire
and intent that the staff pursue additional forms of funding in order to accelerate street overlay/
improvements and walkway, sidewalk and bikeway improvements in the City if such funds can
be obtained; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds that the proposed amendment to the TIP is
consistent with the City’s adopted comprehensive plan, and specifically the Transportation
Element, Bikeway and Comprehensive Walkway Plan; now, therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Packet Page 345 of 487
- 2 -
Section 1. A Transportation Improvement Plan is hereby adopted pursuant to the
requirements of RCW 35.77.010 and 36.81.121 to be effective on September 1, 2009 and to
continue in full force and effect until amended. A copy of such Transportation Improvement
Plan for the years 2010 to 2015 is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference
as fully as if herein set forth.
Section 2. The City Clerk is hereby requested and directed to file a certified copy
of the Transportation Improvement Plan with the Washington State Department of
Transportation.
RESOLVED this ___ day of ________________, 2009.
APPROVED:
MAYOR, GARY HAAKENSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
RESOLUTION NO.
Packet Page 346 of 487
AM-2471 5.
Fire District 1 Presentation
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:09/01/2009
Submitted By:Linda Carl
Submitted For:Gary Haakenson Time:60 Minutes
Department:Mayor's Office Type:Information
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Presentation on the Fire District 1 contract offer.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Tonight the Mayor will make a presentation on the FD1 contract offer. The Council received a
notebook at last week's Council meeting containing all the attached information for their review
prior to tonight's presentation.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Interlocal Agreement
Link: Frequently Asked Questions
Link: Financial Information
Link: PowerPoint Presentation
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/26/2009 10:20 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/26/2009 10:28 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/26/2009 12:58 PM APRV
Form Started By: Linda
Carl
Started On: 08/26/2009 09:31
AM
Final Approval Date: 08/26/2009
Packet Page 347 of 487
Packet Page 348 of 487
Packet Page 349 of 487
Packet Page 350 of 487
Packet Page 351 of 487
Packet Page 352 of 487
Packet Page 353 of 487
Packet Page 354 of 487
Packet Page 355 of 487
Packet Page 356 of 487
Packet Page 357 of 487
Packet Page 358 of 487
Packet Page 359 of 487
Packet Page 360 of 487
Packet Page 361 of 487
Packet Page 362 of 487
Packet Page 363 of 487
Packet Page 364 of 487
Packet Page 365 of 487
Packet Page 366 of 487
Packet Page 367 of 487
Packet Page 368 of 487
Packet Page 369 of 487
Packet Page 370 of 487
Packet Page 371 of 487
Packet Page 372 of 487
Packet Page 373 of 487
Packet Page 374 of 487
Packet Page 375 of 487
Packet Page 376 of 487
Packet Page 377 of 487
Packet Page 378 of 487
Packet Page 379 of 487
Packet Page 380 of 487
Packet Page 381 of 487
Packet Page 382 of 487
Packet Page 383 of 487
Packet Page 384 of 487
Packet Page 385 of 487
Packet Page 386 of 487
Packet Page 387 of 487
Packet Page 388 of 487
Packet Page 389 of 487
Packet Page 390 of 487
Packet Page 391 of 487
Packet Page 392 of 487
Packet Page 393 of 487
Packet Page 394 of 487
Packet Page 395 of 487
Packet Page 396 of 487
Packet Page 397 of 487
Packet Page 398 of 487
Packet Page 399 of 487
Packet Page 400 of 487
Packet Page 401 of 487
Packet Page 402 of 487
Packet Page 403 of 487
Packet Page 404 of 487
Packet Page 405 of 487
Packet Page 406 of 487
Packet Page 407 of 487
Packet Page 408 of 487
Packet Page 409 of 487
Packet Page 410 of 487
Packet Page 411 of 487
Packet Page 412 of 487
Packet Page 413 of 487
Packet Page 414 of 487
Packet Page 415 of 487
Packet Page 416 of 487
Packet Page 417 of 487
Packet Page 418 of 487
Packet Page 419 of 487
Packet Page 420 of 487
Packet Page 421 of 487
Packet Page 422 of 487
Packet Page 423 of 487
Packet Page 424 of 487
Packet Page 425 of 487
Packet Page 426 of 487
Packet Page 427 of 487
Packet Page 428 of 487
Packet Page 429 of 487
Packet Page 430 of 487
Packet Page 431 of 487
Packet Page 432 of 487
Packet Page 433 of 487
Packet Page 434 of 487
Packet Page 435 of 487
Packet Page 436 of 487
Packet Page 437 of 487
Packet Page 438 of 487
Packet Page 439 of 487
Packet Page 440 of 487
Packet Page 441 of 487
Packet Page 442 of 487
Packet Page 443 of 487
Packet Page 444 of 487
Packet Page 445 of 487
Packet Page 446 of 487
Packet Page 447 of 487
Packet Page 448 of 487
Packet Page 449 of 487
Packet Page 450 of 487
Packet Page 451 of 487
Packet Page 452 of 487
Packet Page 453 of 487
AM-2474 6.
Discussion Regarding new Yacht Club Development
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:09/01/2009
Submitted By:Rob Chave
Submitted For:DJ Wilson Time:15 Minutes
Department:Planning Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Discussion regarding new Yacht Club development.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
N/A
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
Dick Potter will be presenting a request from the Yacht Club for Council to consider. The request
is for the Council to refer a proposal from the Yacht Club to amend the CW zone and the
Shoreline Master Program (part of the Comprehensive Plan) to the Planning Board for
consideration this year. Normally, an application for a comprehensive plan amendment is
considered in the year following a formal application; due to timing of its project, the Yacht Club
is requesting the city to consider its request during this year (2009) rather than waiting until 2010.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Exhibit 1: Yacht Club Presentation
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/27/2009 09:48 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/27/2009 10:18 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/27/2009 02:10 PM APRV
Form Started By: Rob
Chave
Started On: 08/26/2009 03:08
PM
Final Approval Date: 08/27/2009
Packet Page 454 of 487
September 1, 2009
Purpose
•Ask that the City Council direct the Planning
Board to:
–Consider applying a “Height Exemption” similar
to that currently included in the BD (Downtown
Business) zones to the CW (Commercial
Waterfront) zone
–To then to make a recommendation for Council
consideration.
–To include any action taken on this matter in the
2009 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Packet Page 455 of 487
The Issue
•Combination of high land values and development economics, demands
that every available cubic foot of space be used when creating anew
structure.
•A straight maximum height code limit makes for a very specific top
elevation which can not be penetrated.
•Maximizing usable floor space and accommodating desired ceiling heights
dictate buildings be designed as high as allowed and results in rows of flat
top buildings.
•Just as there are requirements for modulation in the Exterior Walls, there
needs to be some relief to straight line roof tops.
Packet Page 456 of 487
Excerpt From Edmonds Municipal Code
Chapter 16.43 (BD –Downtown Business)
Section 16.43.030 Site development standards
Subsection C. Building Height Regulations
•4. Height Exceptions. In addition to the height exceptions
listed in ECDC 21.40.030, the following architectural features
are allowed to extend above the height limits specified in
this chapter:
•a. A single decorative architectural element, such as a turret,
tower, or clock tower, may extend a maximum of five feet
above the specified height limit if it is designed as an integral
architectural feature of the roof and/or facade of the
building. The decorative architectural element shall not
cover more than five percent of the roof area of the building.
Packet Page 457 of 487
Packet Page 458 of 487
Packet Page 459 of 487
The area in question is the
Commercial Waterfront Zone
Not the “Safeway’ or “Skippers’” sites
Packet Page 460 of 487
Not Harbor Square
Not the “Edmonds Crossing” site
Packet Page 461 of 487
Not Point Edwards
The CW – Commercial Waterfront Zone
West of railroad tracks
South of ferry dock
North of Woodway city limits
Area = Approximately 39½ acres
Packet Page 462 of 487
1. Port of Edmonds owns 27.3 Acres or 69.1%
1. Port of Edmonds owns 27.3 Acres or 69.1%
2. City of Edmonds owns 10 .0 Acres or 25.3%
Public owned Property = 94.4% of CW Zone
Packet Page 463 of 487
Privately owned property:
3. Waterfront Park Building, 3 story office bldg, Est. 35’+ Tall
4. Ebb Tide Condominiums, 5 stories, Est. 60’ Tall
5. Edmonds Bay Building, 3 story office bldg, Est. 35’+ Tall
These properties = 4.9% of CW Zone
Privately owned property:
3. Waterfront Park Building, 3 story office bldg, Est. 35’+ Tall
4. Ebb Tide Condominiums, 5 stories, Est. 60’ Tall
5. Edmonds Bay Building, 3 story office bldg, Est. 35’+ Tall
These Properties = 4.9% of CW Zone
Packet Page 464 of 487
Other privately held properties:
6. Private Residence, .03 Acre, Approx 1,320 sf
7. Private Residence, .03 Acre, Approx 1,320 sf
8. Commercial & Apt Bldgs, .22 Acre, Approx 9.600 sf
Why Now?
Why Not at the Beginning of the Process?
•EYC’s goal is to have a new clubhouse.
•Meeting with City of Edmonds Development Services Staff
–Advised the EYC project was consistent with City goals
–Advised not to seek variance to height restrictions
•It took several years to work out an agreement with the Port of Edmonds
•Lease with Port has specific performance requirements
•EYC didn’t want anything controversial in design which would delay or lengthen
the permit process.
•EYC specifically directed Architects to work with‐in height regulations. Which
they did.
Packet Page 465 of 487
Why Now?
Why Not at the Beginning of the Process?
•Architectural Design Board Review
–The ADB recognized a slightly taller “Lighthouse” element could be a
signature feature for the City of Edmonds as well as for the Port and EYC
–They agreed that any attempt to make such a change during the permit
process would only serve to slow the process down.
–They advised that the permit process be continued just as EYC was doing;
however, they also suggested the club talk to the City Council about a zoning
amendment after the permit was issued.
•We are here to talk to the Council.
Necessary Code Revisions
•Zoning Code Amendment to the Commercial Waterfront Zone
•Amendment to Shoreline Master Program which is a part of
the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan
Packet Page 466 of 487
Planning Department Advises
•The process would require Staff Evaluations and at least one
Planning Board Hearing
•As well as a recommendation to the Council from the
Planning Board.
•If the City Council decided to approve a CPA, we would also
need an exception to include the action in the 2009 package
of amendments.
•The Planning Manager has said that it would take a lot of
work, but it could be done by year’s end.
•If approved by City Council, the Shoreline Amendment will
also need to be reviewed by State of Washington Department
of Ecology.
Economic Development
•During a recent presentation at a Port of Edmonds
Commission Meeting the Acting Director of the Economic
Development Department suggested two of the factors vital
to sustaining success in the Downtown Business Community
as:
–Maintaining a Small Town Character
–Improving the ability to attract visitors
Packet Page 467 of 487
Packet Page 468 of 487
Community Support
–Port of Edmonds Commission
–Edmonds Art Festival Board Members
–Letters to Edmonds Beacon Editor
–Architectural Design Board
–Citizens Walking Past the Project
Summary
•Code Amendments requested to be Considered by
the Planning Board:
–Amend CW (Commercial Waterfront) zone to
include signature features
–Amend Shoreline Master Program &
Comprehensive Plan to accommodate this
change
–Include the action as part of the 2009
Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Packet Page 469 of 487
Summary
•For many reasons:
–History
–Community Support
–Aesthetics
–Economic Development
–Precedence
Packet Page 470 of 487
It Just Makes Sense
Packet Page 471 of 487
AM-2475 8.
Creation of a New Mixed Use Zoning Classification for Firdale Village
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Date:09/01/2009
Submitted By:Rob Chave Time:30 Minutes
Department:Planning Type:Action
Review Committee:
Committee Action:
Information
Subject Title
Public hearing on the Planning Board recommendation to approve the creation of a new
mixed use zoning classification for Firdale Village to implement the Comprehensive Plan.
(File No. AMD-2008-10 / Applicant: Shapiro Architects)
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
(Final action on the proposal is not being requested at this time: there will be another public
hearing addressing refinements to the accompanying design guidelines for the new zone.)
Previous Council Action
A public hearing was held by the City Council on July 21, 2009. The City Council adopted
updated Comprehensive Plan guidance for the Firdale Village neighborhood center in 2006.
Narrative
This is a follow-up public hearing on a proposal by A. D. Shapiro Architects, representing the
owners of the Firdale commercial center, to create a new mixed use zoning classification to
implement the direction of the Comprehensive Plan for the Firdale Village neighborhood center.
The proponents have developed a zoning classification and design guidelines proposal that could
be applied to the Firdale Neighborhood Commercial area to implement the Comprehensive Plan.
The City approved a comprehensive plan amendment providing a new direction for the Firdale
Neighborhood Commercial area, but has not yet followed up with implementing zoning changes.
If approved, the proponents would have to follow up by making an application for a specific
rezone proposal to actually change the zoning of the property in order to set the stage for a future
project. The proposal adds a new zoning classification to Chapter 16.
As a proposed code amendment, this is a legislative proposal which is at the discretion of the
Council to approve, modify, or deny. The Planning Board recommended that the Council approve
the proposed code change. The proposal has been modified, in response to comments at the July
21st public hearing, and proposed changes to the zoning portion of the code are summarized in
Exhibit 1. Note that an additional hearing will be scheduled to consider further modifications to
the design guidelines accompanying the proposal, again to respond to comments and suggestions.
Please refer to the material from July 21, 2009, for the full background on this proposal.
Packet Page 472 of 487
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Exhibit 1: Updated draft zoning criteria
Link: Exhibit 2: Outline of zoning criteria changes
Link: Exhibit 3: City Council minutes
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/27/2009 04:49 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/28/2009 08:28 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/28/2009 08:38 AM APRV
Form Started By: Rob
Chave
Started On: 08/26/2009 03:20
PM
Final Approval Date: 08/28/2009
Packet Page 473 of 487
1
Firdale Village Site – Zoning Criteria
A.D. Shapiro Architects PS
Firdale Village
Mixed Use Zoning Criteria
August 26, 2009
16.100.000 Introduction
16.100.010 Purposes
16.100.020 Sub-Districts
16.100.030 Uses
16.100.040 Site Development Standards
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16.100.000 Introduction
General Intent and Project Vision
The design vision for Firdale Village is to create a vibrant neighborhood
village form of development that strikes a balance between commercial, retail
and residential uses and contributes to the vitality of the neighborhood and
area. The project is intended to support a variety of commercial and retail
uses along with multi-family residential in an environment that is accessible to
the pedestrian, visitor, tenant, motorist and public transit user.
16.100.010 Purposes
The Firdale Village Mixed-Use zone has the following specific purposes in
addition to the general purposes for business and commercial zones in
Chapter 16.40 ECDC.
A. To reserve and regulate areas for a ‘neighborhood center’ type of
mixed-use development that includes a mix of commercial and multi-
residential housing types, and a range of greater densities than are available in
the single family residential zone;
B. To promote a mix of residential, commercial and other uses in a
manner that is consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan, (ie: 25% of
heated floor area shall be “commercial” space).
C. To provide for those additional uses which complement and are
compatible with multiple residential uses.
Packet Page 474 of 487
2
Firdale Village Site – Zoning Criteria
A.D. Shapiro Architects PS
D. The Codes contained within this Chapter are to be used in conjunction
with the Firdale Village Design Standards in Chapter 22.100.000 ECDC.
16.100.020 Sub-Districts
See Figure B for location of Districts on the site.
A. District 1 – Commercial: The primarily commercial uses will be
located in this district, which is located closer to Firdale Avenue and oriented
to the street. The flexibility for each is written into the table, but not called
out in the “mini-description”.
B. District 2 – Commercial/Multi-Family Residential: Multi-family
residential uses will be located more towards sides and rear of the site, behind
the commercial uses, with possible commercial functions on the ground level.
16.100.030 Uses
A. Table 16.100.030-1
Permitted Uses
Dist 1
Com-
mercial
Dist 2
Multi-
Family
Residential Uses
Single-family dwelling X X
Multiple dwelling unit(s) A A
Housing for low-income elderly and senior housing A A
Commercial Uses
Retail stores or sales A A
Offices, (2nd floor or higher than retail space in the same building) A A
Service uses including professional service offices, health clinics A A
Retail uses include grocery stores, pharmacy/ drug stores and
bookstores. A E
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 X
Restaurants (excluding drive-through) A A
Packet Page 475 of 487
3
Firdale Village Site – Zoning Criteria
A.D. Shapiro Architects PS
Dist 1
Com
Dist 2
MF
Pubs, taverns or bars A X
Enclosed fabrication or assembly areas associated with and on the same
property as an art studio, art gallery, shoe repair, restaurant or food
service establishment that also provides an on-site retail outlet open to
the public A E
Automobile sales and service X X
Dry cleaning and laundry plants which use only nonflammable and non-
explosive cleaning agents C E
Printing, publishing and binding establishments C C
Community-oriented open air markets conducted as an outdoor
operation and licensed pursuant to provisions in the Edmonds City Code A A
Bus stop shelters A X
Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020 A E
Local public facilities subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050 C C
Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted use B B
Commuter parking lots in conjunction with a facility otherwise
permitted in this zone B B
Commercial parking lots A C
Wholesale uses X X
Hotels and motels A A
Amusement establishments C X
Auction businesses, excluding vehicle or livestock auctions X X
Drive-in businesses X X
Laboratories X X
Fabrication of light industrial products not otherwise listed as a
permitted use X X
Day-care centers C 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 E
Packet Page 476 of 487
4
Firdale Village Site – Zoning Criteria
A.D. Shapiro Architects PS
Dist 1
Com
Dist 2
MF
Retail stores larger than 12,000 GSF X X
Residential treatment facilities for alcoholics and drug abusers X X
Light Industrial X X
Outdoor storage, incidental to a permitted use D D
A = Permitted primary use
B = Permitted secondary use
C = Primary uses requiring a conditional use permit
D = Secondary uses requiring a conditional use permit
E = Permitted primary use on ground level floor only
X = Not permitted
16.100.040 Development Standards
A. Development Standards – General
Development Requirements can be summarized as follows:
See District Map figure B
B. Building Scale and Building Height
1. Intent: To provide a consistency of architectural scale for different
sections of the development:
The more commercial/retail area closer to Firdale Avenue shall be
lower in scale than the multi-family buildings oriented to the rear
of the site.
Building Height:
a. District 1: Commercial/Office/Retail:
One (1) – three (3) stories, (lowest floor to be 12’ flr. to flr.
min.), Minimum height: 20 feet; Maximum height 39 feet.
Commerical and Office are not permitted on the lowest floor of
the bulding.
b. District 2: Multi-family Residential:
Maximum -- 4 stories, with conditions. (See Note b.(1) below.
Maximum height: 48 feet base height, for four stories, with
possibility of an additional 4 feet, (to allow for variation in
rooflines, for a maximum bldg. height of 52’. Elev. Shaft
enclosures can exceed this height only to meet bldg code.
Guard railings on roof decks can exceed the maximum roof
height. – See Note b (2) below)
Packet Page 477 of 487
5
Firdale Village Site – Zoning Criteria
A.D. Shapiro Architects PS
(1) A fourth story will be allowed in District 2, for multi-
family uses, providing that the project is set up from the outset
to integrate green design methods and technologies throughout
the project. The project must achieve at least a 4-star level of
the Built Green of Washington program or a LEED gold
certification, or equivalent. See also ECDC Design Standards
22.100.090.
(2) Building height may extend four feet above the 48 foot
height limit if all portions of the building above the stated
height are modulated in design, or are designed as a hip, gable,
arch, shed or other similar forms. Vertical parapet walls are
not allowed to protrude above the 48 foot height limit unless
they are part of an approved modulated design. For examples
of permissible forms, see figures C1, C2, C3, C3, and C4.
(3) Ground floor residential in District 2 shall be higher
than the public sidewalk/way by a minimum of 3’, or accessed
through a residential courtyard to segregate it from the public
way.
3. Elevator shaft and/or /Stairway penthouse shafts may extend above
the maximum building height by 5 feet, only to comply with
building code criteria.
4. Mechanical equipment may extend above this base building height
a maximum of five feet (5’).
C. Parking Standards
1. Minimum Spaces Required
a. Retail/Commercial including office and restaurant uses:
Minimum: Provide one space for every 400 SF.
A certain portion of parking places designated for office space
must also be shared with multi-family residential uses, and are
easily accessible to multi-family residential units.
b. Multi-Family Uses:
Minimum: Provide 1.5 spaces per unit.
Additional parking for residential units would be provided in a
shared parking area for office/commercial and residential.
c. For Guest Parking, provide 1 space for every ten (10) units or
0.10 spaces for every unit as a minimum.
Packet Page 478 of 487
6
Firdale Village Site – Zoning Criteria
A.D. Shapiro Architects PS
2. For shared parking arrangements, a legal agreement describing
terms of the shared parking arrangement shall be required between
the property management companies/owners of the residential and
commercial uses describing the joint use of the parking areas, and
will require approval by the planning jurisdiction.
D. Site Setbacks/Buffers
See Diagram 16.100.040 D-1 below for illustration of
setbacks, buffers and related notes.
1. Minimum side setbacks are 15 feet.
2. The minimum setback on the northern boundary of the site
is 20 feet. This buffer includes protection of the existing evergreen
trees which will help to serve as a buffer between the development
and adjacent residential uses.
Note: Setback distances refer to areas above ground.
Underground structures can be within the above grade building
setback area as long as adequate soil depth is provided to support
the existence of tree and vegetation, with the exception of the north
property line which contain existing established fir trees.
3. Where the proposed development abuts a single-family residential
(RS) zoned property, in addition to complying with subsection (a)
of this footnote, the proposed development shall modulate the
design of any building facades facing the single-family
residentially (RS) zoned property. See Design Standards for
additional information.
4. SW Corner Setbacks: District 1 shall extend to street PL with no
setback, and setback from the west PL by 15’. District 2 shall be
setback on a per floor basis, with the second floor setback from the
street PL by 30’, and west PL by 35’. Third floor setback shall be
55’ from the street PL and 35’ from the west PL. All floors shall
be revert to minimum setback from the west PL of 15’ when 80’
from the street PL and greater.
E. Tree Retention and Buffer on North Boundary
See Diagram 16.100.040 ___________
The project site plan shall retain the existing stand of evergreen trees at
the north end of the site, to help serve as a buffer between the new
buildings and the residential parcels bordering the project. Reference
to survey by Group Four Surveyors, dated 03/05/08.
The buffer area (setback) on the north boundary of the site shall not be
less than 20’ feet in the area designated as buffer with trees, see figures
B, & D.
Packet Page 479 of 487
7
Firdale Village Site – Zoning Criteria
A.D. Shapiro Architects PS
F. Open Space
1. Design Intent: The project shall include a comprehensive open
space network that uses courtyard(s) and other open space
elements to connect the residential and commercial uses.
2. Open Space Requirements:
Minimum open space requirement for the development:
Shall be 20% of the site area. Roof top areas used for resident roof
decks, and “green roofs”, can be included in the open space
calculations.
The minimum open space requirement may include all developed
pedestrian areas including landscaped walkways, plazas,
courtyards and other passive open spaces in the commercial area.
The calculation may also include public open space for the
residential uses. The calculation shall not include parking areas,
driveways, or service areas.
G. Design Standards
For more descriptive information on Design Standards and guidelines,
please see ECDC Chapter 22.100.
Packet Page 480 of 487
21705 Highway 99, Suite 2 Lynnwood, WA 98036-7275 425.778.5400 FAX.778.3032
August 26, 2009
City of Edmonds
City Council Memo
Subject: Summary of Proposed Zone Language Revisions
Project: Firdale Village Zone Language & Design Guidelines Creation
Dear Council Members:
The attached zoning criteria have been revised for the Zoning Criteria only; the Design
Guidelines will follow in a subsequent meeting. These changes were discussed in consultations
with Council Members DJ Wilson, Ron Wambolt, Planning Director Rob Chave, owner
George Stapp, and architect Tony Shapiro. The following areas have been updated:
1. 16.100.030 Uses, (matrix)
a. Offices are located on the 2nd floor or higher than retail space in the same
building
b. Health Clinics are called out as permissible uses in both districts. This section
moved to first page of the matrix.
c. Hospitals, convalescent homes, and rest homes, and sanitariums are deleted as
permissible uses.
2. 16.100.040 Development Standards
a. Building height District 1: commercial/office has been eliminated from the
lowest floor.
b. Lowest level floor to floor to be 12’-0” minimum.
c. The phrase “or equivalent” has been added to the sustainable criteria for
building four stories.
d. Elevator shaft height is called out as 5’ above maximum building height, only
to comply with building code criteria.
e. Mechanical equipment is permitted to exceed the base roof height by 5’.
3. 16.100.040
a. Tree rent ion of existing trees specifically calls out the survey by Group 4,
dated March 3, 2008, for referring to the existing trees.
b. Open Space: reference to excluding the side yard setbacks from the
calculations for open space has been eliminated.
Packet Page 481 of 487
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 21, 2009
Page 13
if challenges destroyed a quorum of the Council, Councilmembers were returned to the quorum; challenges
could not be used to prevent the Council from making a decision.
It was the consensus of the Council to make Mr. Snyder’s memorandum regarding Appearance of Fairness
Doctrine and Prejudgmental Bias to Pending Rezone Application available to the public.
Councilmember Wambolt asked the difference between a site specific rezone and a spot rezone. Mr. Snyder
advised a rezone was an area-wide rezone. An example of an area-wide rezone was the neighborhood near
Stevens Hospital to change the zoning designation of dozens of parcels. He explained a spot rezone referred to
designating one piece of property differently than the surrounding zone. A site specific rezone is a request to
make a change to a specific property. The Comprehensive Plan designations are broad and several zoning
categories may fit within a Comprehensive Plan designation.
Mayor Haakenson asked whether he could say whatever he wanted. Mr. Snyder answered yes but depending on
what he said, he may need to step down as the chair of the meeting.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if Mayor Haakenson could break a tie. Mr. Snyder responded the Mayor was
unable to vote on any matter that required the passage of an ordinance. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether
a Councilmember could send Mr. Snyder potential phrases they were contemplating in a campaign to ensure
they were appropriate. Mr. Snyder answered no because he was paid by the City.
6. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE
CREATION OF A NEW MIXED USE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR FIRDALE VILLAGE TO
IMPLEMENT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. (FILE NO. AMD-2008-10 / APPLICANT: SHAPIRO
ARCHITECTS)
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this was an application by Shapiro Architects representing the owner of
the Firdale Village commercial property. They are seeking a new zoning classification in the Development
Code that would implement the Comprehensive Plan and apply to the Firdale commercial center that is
identified in the Comprehensive Plan. He clarified this was a legislative proposal for Council consideration.
The applicant received unanimous favorable support from the Planning Board.
Tony Shapiro, Shapiro Architects, commented this was an example of a spot zone because it was specific to
the Firdale Village site although the zoning language was general and would not be applied until the zone were
approved and created. Another approval process would be required to apply the zone to this site.
Mr. Shapiro displayed an aerial photograph identifying the approximate property lines of the site, explaining
development on the property was outdated, originally developed in the 1960s. He identified the two existing
access points, easements across the site to adjacent properties, and significant grade change from the southwest
to the northeast corner of the site. The goals of the property owner are to rezone the property in the most
general and flexible manner while establishing constraints on development that would provide the City and
neighbors assurance that new development would comply with Comprehensive Plan goals and have attributes
that were beneficial to an urban center. He displayed a wider view aerial photograph, identifying structures and
roadways in the surrounding area. He explained Firdale Village was located within a residential area with one
large apartment complex nearby and surrounded by single family housing.
Mr. Shapiro displayed a Comprehensive Plan map that identified the designation for the Firdale Village site and
the surrounding area. The site is currently zoned BN, an outdated zone that staff has expressed interest in
phasing out. The property owners decided to rewrite the zoning ordinance themselves because the City did not
have the budget or time to create an appropriate zone. They worked closely with planning staff in developing
the zone language, met twice with neighbors and met several times with the Planning Board, culminating in the
Planning Board’s unanimous support on April 22, 2009.
Packet Page 482 of 487
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 21, 2009
Page 14
Mr. Shapiro displayed and reviewed the existing language for the BN zone including primary and secondary
allowed uses. He pointed out secondary uses in the BN zone limit the property to one dwelling unit per lot. The
site has seven lots and creating a mixed use with seven units is not economically feasible. He reviewed the
Comprehensive Plan language for Firdale Village that refers to an attractive mix of uses that create a
“neighborhood village” pedestrian-oriented environment, commercial spaces oriented toward the street in order
to maximize visibility, parking behind or underneath structures, four stories in height, design that breaks up the
mass and bulk of buildings and a mix of uses of not less than one quarter commercial space. He advised this
proposal was more complex than a Master Plan that established exact development. The property owner plans
to offer the property to a developer who would implement the zoning language. The proposed language was
intended to be flexible enough to accommodate an assisted/extended care facility on the upper floors with
commercial on the lower floors or a general mixed use project. The intent was for the zoning language to be as
flexible as possible while giving assurance that it would be a positive development.
He envisioned a Neighborhood Village Design with mixed use building types, ground floor retail with
commercial office or residential above, retail uses closer to the primary street, parking below or behind the retail
building. Their proposed zoning criteria establish a commercial zone against Firdale Avenue with residential on
the back side of the property. In addition to the significant grade change from the northeast to the southwest
corners of the site, there are significant stands of fir trees on the north property line. He referred to a proposed
20-foot setback along the north property line to retain the trees. He displayed a sketch of the site, identifying the
trees inside and outside the 20-foot setback and the existing rockery on the north property line. He advised a
stormwater line and sanitary sewer line that run through the site would need to be relocated. The proposed
zoning criteria mandates below grade parking to achieve a high density build-out. He anticipated a maximum of
160 units on the site and 60,000 square feet of commercial space.
Mr. Shapiro displayed sketches illustrating trees as buffer between the project and residential, existing houses on
adjacent property, trees outside the setback subject to removal, and existing Firdale Village building proposed to
be removed. He displayed a sketch illustrating the location of the proposed zone districts, a commercial lower
height (39 feet) zone in District 1 and residential above commercial and higher heights in District 2. He
identified an area between the districts that could be either District 1 or District 2 to provide flexibility. He
displayed drawings illustrating the possible location of buildings via a massing study, cautioning they were for
discussion purposes only. He commented on access points to the site, advising no traffic analysis had been
conducted at this time.
In response to concern by the Planning Board regarding the proximity of the commercial building on the west
property line to the existing residence with a 15-foot setback, the height of the building was restricted to 2
stories at the rear toward the residence and stepping up to 4 stories at the front. He displayed several sketches
from the massing study illustrating the possible location and height of buildings. He briefly commented on
design standards for the site that address site design and planning, architectural design, pedestrian orientation,
outdoor spaces and amenities, vehicular access and parking, site landscaping and screening elements, signage,
site lighting, safety issues and sustainable design. He remarked the criteria requires 20% open space which he
acknowledged may be difficult to achieve.
Council President Wilson asked if traffic signals would be required. Mr. Shapiro stated they may be appropriate
at the intersection to the south where Firdale Avenue becomes 205th. Council President Wilson inquired about
the feasibility of open space if there were three access points to the site. Mr. Shapiro commented service access
would likely be at the western entrance and the mid-access point may be only for emergency access.
Council President Wilson expressed concern there many not be enough space on the site to incorporate all the
good things that are proposed. He referred to the definitions that indicate “will” and “shall” were directives and
“should” were nice-to-have items, pointing out there were few “shall” or “will” in the document compared to
“should” and “maybe” in the language. He understood the owner’s interest in maximum flexibility but as the
process moved forward he was interested in changing many of the “should” to “will” or “shall.” Mr. Shapiro
Packet Page 483 of 487
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 21, 2009
Page 15
noted there were many “shall” in the document including the 20% open space. Council President Wilson
commended the language that required the development to achieve at least a four star level of the Build Green
Washington program or LEED gold standard certification. Mr. Shapiro indicated they were open to discussion
of any components the Council wanted changed from “should” to “shall.”
Council President Wilson referred to the ultimate height limit in the residential district, 4 stories, 48 feet plus a
modulated roof of 4 feet, plus 5 feet for mechanical equipment and an additional 10 feet on top of the maximum.
Mr. Shapiro clarified 52 feet was the maximum building height. The additional 10 feet would be for an elevator
shaft. He suggested the language be changed to 10 feet above the base roof line.
Councilmember Orvis asked why the step-back adjacent to the residence on the west was not proposed adjacent
to the remainder of the single family residential development. Mr. Shapiro responded a 20-foot setback was
proposed in the other areas; an additional step-back would make the building uneconomical. He pointed out the
significant number of fir trees that would be retained along the north property line.
Councilmember Bernheim referred to the gold LEED standard certification and other green building incentives,
concluding the buildings would be constructed in a more sustainable manner. Mr. Shapiro agreed.
Councilmember Bernheim commented many of the massing diagrams illustrate a squarish building; he asked if
they would be interested in maximum floor area standards with a flexible height standard in lieu of strict height
limits and open space requirements. Mr. Shapiro responded the Comprehensive Plan restricts heights to 4
stories.
Councilmember Bernheim inquired about the impact of additional traffic from development. Mr. Shapiro
advised an in-depth traffic study had not been done because it would be difficult to assess the traffic impacts at
this point in the process. That would be addressed at the time a development proposal was made.
Councilmember Bernheim concluded there would be a huge impact on the roadway.
Councilmember Bernheim expressed support for lower parking standards and inquired what parking standards
were proposed. Mr. Shapiro answered retail was typically 5 stalls per 1000 square feet of retail; they proposed 1
space per 400 square feet of retail. Their residential parking ratio was 1.5 spaces per unit. They also envisioned
shared parking due to mixed use.
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained if the zone were approved, the applicant would need to apply for a
rezone. A traffic study, SEPA, etc. would occur at that point. He commented a floor area ratio approach was
appropriate for a flat site in close proximity to single family development; this proposal uses the buffer to soften
the impact on the surrounding residential and a floor area type approach such as step-backs in areas where the
tree buffer did not exist.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing, noting the Council received an
email from Roger Mithen, Edmonds, with several concerns regarding the project.
Lora Petso, Edmonds, requested the Council take advantage of Mr. Shapiro’s offer to do more work on the
proposal and urged the Council not to approve the zone tonight. The proposal did not comply with the
Comprehensive Plan which requires a minimum of ¼ commercial space; there was no requirement in the zoning
ordinance to implement that Comprehensive Plan goal. Without that requirement, it would be a multi family
residential zone with a 62-foot height limit rather than a mixed use development. She urged the Council not to
allow increased density until the failed intersection at 244th & Highway 99 was addressed. She recalled that
intersection was declared failed at least eight years ago. She recommended both districts be mixed use; under
the current proposal, District 2 has possible commercial on the ground floor. She pointed out 15 feet was not
enough setback between commercial and residential development for a 62-foot building. Rather than approve
an illegal spot zone, she urged the Council to update the Neighborhood Business Zone so that it could be applied
Packet Page 484 of 487
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 21, 2009
Page 16
to similar neighborhood business zones. She was opposed to reducing the parking ratios, advising many
residents would walk to the site in good weather but would drive in poor weather.
David Page, Edmonds, commented this project and the levy were defining moments for Edmonds. He favored
a compromise that would allow this project to proceed. He remarked the passage of the levy would illustrate
that Edmonds was moving toward a more cosmopolitan type of town rather than a village. He pointed out the
Planning Board, comprised of professionals, was in favor of this project.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, expressed concern the proposal did not indicate the total cost of the project. He
recognized the City recently increased their permit fees which would be applicable to this project.
Tamara Ancona, Shoreline, whose residence overlooks the site, stated the parking requirements for an assisted
living facility would be significantly less than typical residential because most of the residents did not drive.
David Thorpe, Edmonds, recalled a presentation in the past regarding a proposed project at 220th & Hwy. 99
that had not materialized. He expressed concern that having Mr. Shapiro represent the property owner was like
the fox guarding the hen house. He noted this highlighted the inability to collect revenue; there should be staff
and citizens involved in these proposals. He commented on limited public involvement in this process. He
pointed out there were several neighborhood centers that could be redeveloped, recalling staff meetings in the
past to discuss development at 5 Corners. He was opposed to a site specific rezone when there was zoning and
Comprehensive Plan designations in place. With regard to Mr. Shapiro’s interest in a flexible zoning
classification that allowed the developer more flexibility; he urged the City to ensure its interests were
considered. He acknowledged development needed to occur but favored having more City involvement.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed public participation portion of the public hearing.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to Ms. Petso’s reference to the failure of the 244th & Hwy. 99 intersection.
Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss answered it was a highway of statewide significance and the
intersection was under Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) jurisdiction and did not have
to meet the City’s level of service standards. The modeling performed for the 2009 Comprehensive
Transportation Plan identified the intersection as a LOS D which is not failed.
Councilmember Wambolt pointed out the project at 220th & Hwy. 99 had been put on hold due to the economy.
He referred to Mr. Thorpe’s comment about meetings held regarding development of 5 Corners, explaining the
City’s former Economic Development Director Jennifer Gerand held similar discussions for Firdale Village. He
referred to Ms. Petso’s reference to 62 foot building heights, clarifying the buildings are a maximum of 52 feet
with the ability to have a 10 foot elevator shaft.
Councilmember Wambolt asked if this was an illegal spot rezone. City Attorney Scott Snyder answered a spot
zone was not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan designation or those in the surrounding area. This
proposal was similar to the zone proposed on Sunset Avenue, a general application zone proposed for a specific
area. When reviewing the proposal he had two areas of concern including the definition of height which
although used in the Comprehensive Plan needed to be integrated into the zoning code. His other concern was a
decision of the Washington Court of Appeals Division 1, Property Rights Alliance v. Ron Sims, that struck down
the King County Native Growth Protection Areas because they were without a proper foundation and violated
RCW 82.02.020 as an illegal development fee. If the Council wanted to proceed, he suggested that portion of
the requirement be addressed via a development agreement that binds the developer to preserving the trees.
With regard to spot zoning, Mr. Chave explained this site was designated as a Neighborhood Center. The
reason there was a proposal from only one applicant was because the entire site was under one ownership. He
envisioned development zones would be developed for other neighborhood centers in the City. In those cases it
would likely be done by staff because there were multiple properties and property owners.
Packet Page 485 of 487
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 21, 2009
Page 17
Council President Wilson referred to Ms. Petso’s comment about ¼ commercial. Mr. Chave answered that was
a good catch; he recalled Mr. Shapiro had agreed to include that but it was inadvertenly overlooked.
With regard to parking, Mr. Chave explained the parking standards downtown were changed to a flat rate one
space per 500 square feet, rather than a per use standard. That ratio was appropriate for downtown due to the
amount of on-street parking. Development at Firdale Village may require a slightly higher standard although
there was an opportunity for shared parking due to the mixed use. He explained an agreement would need to be
reached regarding what parking was shared and what was reserved. With regard to whether there should be
mixed use in both districts, Mr. Chave explained the concept was a mixed use zone with different parts. The
applicant did not feel it was appropriate to have commercial inside the site particularly against the residential.
Council President Wilson inquired if a 15 foot setback was sufficient between the existing residential and this
project. Mr. Chave referred to the proposed step-back on the west where there was a 15-foot setback and no
trees which would result in essentially a 2-story, 25-foot height adjacent to the residence; elsewhere on the site
there was a 20-foot setback with trees to provide a buffer. Mr. Shapiro described the 30-foot setback at the
street before 3 stories can begin and two 25-foot zones, essentially 80 feet from the street edge before buildings
could be 4 stories. Mr. Shapiro pointed out the 20% open space requirement excluded the setbacks. He
anticipated commercial space would face all plaza areas.
Council President Wilson asked whether Mr. Shapiro would agree to a requirement for commercial on the first
floor throughout the entire development. Mr. Shapiro was reluctant to impose criteria, noting the northeast
corner of the site may be appropriate for four stories of housing. He assured a developer would not propose a
development with housing facing a public area. He reiterated the requirement for 20% of the buildable site to be
open space. He noted the open space was required to be an 8-foot minimum width. Council President Wilson
pointed out the 8-foot width was a “should” not a “shall.” He was in favor of tightening that requirement.
Council President Wilson referred to Mr. Shapiro’s reference to 60,000 square feet of commercial space. Mr.
Shapiro answered the exact amount was unknown but they were required to have 25% of the built area in
commercial space. Council President Wilson pointed out 60,000 square feet could amount to only 3-4
commercial spaces. He referred to permitted uses and the exclusion of buildings over 20,000 other than
drugstores, noting as an example Starbucks stores were 1,500 square feet. Mr. Shapiro envisioned multiple
different stores the size of Starbucks that would achieve the 25% minimum commercial space. .
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ONE HOUR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council President Wilson suggested the language be clear that the Council preferred small, neighborhood stores
versus three 20,000 square foot stores. He offered to identify where “should” in the language should be changed
to “shall.”
Councilmember Bernheim inquired whether a straight height limit could be imposed rather than allowing the
roof to extend 5 feet above the stated high limit. Mr. Shapiro commented a strict height limited architectural
options and would result in more mundane and less attractive buildings.
Councilmember Bernheim asked what Mr. Shapiro was asking from the Council. Mr. Shapiro responded he was
asking the Council to approve the zone with any modifications. Councilmember Bernheim asked the next step
once the zone was approved. Mr. Shapiro answered they would return to the Planning Board to ask that the
zone be applied to the Firdale Village site. Mr. Snyder explained this was the legislative act of creating the
zone. A site specific rezone would follow.
Councilmember Orvis asked whether the current BN zone allowed residential. Mr. Chave answered it allowed
only one dwelling unit per lot.
Packet Page 486 of 487
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 21, 2009
Page 18
Council President Wilson suggested scheduling further discussion on the August 17 or August 25 agenda. Mr.
Chave suggested staff prepare an ordinance that clarified the issues the Council identified and options for other
issues. Mr. Snyder cautioned the public hearing would need to be re-advertised if there were any substantive
changes; therefore September 1 may be a more appropriate date. Council President Wilson agreed a second
public hearing on September 1 would be appropriate. Mr. Snyder advised he would like an opportunity to work
with the applicant on a mechanism to require and make the rear setback to protect the trees enforceable.
Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess.
7. PRESENTATION ON THE 2009 COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss reviewed major milestones to date:
• Completion of the Draft Transportation Plan in June which was reviewed by the Planning Board,
agencies and community members
• Community involvement that included three open houses and meetings with the Transportation,
Walkway, Bicycle, and Parking Committees
• Presentation to the Planning Board including a public hearing on June 10 and a recommendation from
the Planning Board to forward the Plan to the City Council.
The purpose of the Transportation Plan was to guide development of multimodal transportation, identify
transportation infrastructure/services needed to support the City’s adopted land use plan and transportation goals
and policies. Elements of the Transportation Plan include Transportation Goals, Objectives and Policies; Street
System; Non-Motorized System; Transit and Transportation Demand Management; and Implementation and
Finance Plan.
He explained the Plan reflects the existing (2008) and projected (2025) population and employment and growth:
Existing 2025 Project Growth
Population ~40,000 44,880 >12%
Employment ~10,400 12,190 >17%
He noted the new travel demand forecasting model developed by the consultant reflects build-out of the City’s
adopted 2025 land use plan and provides a basis for updated impact fees. He described major differences from
the 2003 Transportation Plan:
• Future planning year 2025 instead of 2022
• Stronger emphasis on non-motorized transportation projects (25% of the plan cost rather than 5% in the
past)
• Edmonds Crossing Multimodal Project not included in City financial plan (no planned City
expenditures), still planned as a long range project
• Updated traffic impact fee ($1,071/trip, increased from $764/trip
• Adds Traffic Calming Program and ADA curb Ramp Transition Plan
Mr. Hauss explained the Street System element identifies capital projects that include concurrency projects,
safety projects and highways of statewide significance. With regard to concurrency, he explained state law
requires the transportation system be adequate to support planned land use as measured by adopted level of
service standards (LOS D). There are four existing concurrency deficiencies (LOS E or F). The modeling
indicates there will be 4 additional locations by 2015 and 3 additional locations by 2025. He explained safety
projects are identified by previous studies or accident data. Highways of statewide significance are intersections
on the local state highway system that are under WSDOT jurisdiction and are not subject to the City’s
concurrency standards. The Street System element also describes the Traffic Calming Program and
maintenance and preservation projects.
Packet Page 487 of 487